I was just walking through the lobby and there was Daniel Dennett arriving. No one else around, just Dennett.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Reception thingy last night. I met Melody Hensley and Simon Davis, and Lauren Becker, and Ron Lindsay, and Jessica Ahlquist, and Russell Blackford and Jenny Blackford, and Stephen Law, and then after we’d been turfed out of the ballroom or whatever it is, Paul Fidalgo arrived after a delayed flight. All fun. Also Tom Flynn and Debbie Goddard, but I didn’t meet them, because I already had.

It’s slow work, typing on a tiny keyboard – I keep making typos because the keys are in unfamiliar places.

I will continue to be quite brief and boring for a few days. But I promise I’m being fascinating in real life!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So this little notebook laptop I got for emergencies and travel turns out to be deathly afraid of the internet; it either freezes in panic or faints dead away whenever I ask it to do anything. Therefore I have to proceed with caution, so posting will be mostly link-free for a few days.

I see where Rush Limbaugh called a college student who testified to Congress about the need for insurance to cover contraception a “slut” and a “prostitute.” I think it’s bad that he did that.

I don’t think much of Hemant Mehta’s post yesterday on how Chris Stedman is just misunderstood, but Rieux (in comments there) and Crommunist (on a post at his place) have said good things about that.

The sun will soon be setting here in Florida.

Orlando is very flat. The view from here is of flatness all around with a few tallish buildings visible on the edge of the frame, spaced widely apart (like, two due north, one northwest, none due west, etc – it looks quite random). It’s interesting. I’m not accustomed to flat. Where I live is very lumpy.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ok that’s a little better. The bar emptied out some so I have an armchair pulled up to a table, and there’s less noise of chatter.

The trip itself was interesting, I must say. I’ve never flown Seattle to Houston before, and it’s all mountains for a long long time. Very cool.

Also very puzzling in spots – weirdly geometrical in appearance in what appears to be mountainous wilderness – straight lines where straight lines make no sense. They don’t seem to be roads, because of the wilderness thing.

One item in particular has me absolutely stumped, and kind of fascinated – a set of rectangles abutting each other, like squares on a quilt. About six. Like farms, in farm country, but not in farm country and WAY too big to be farms – and above all, what separated them from each other was snow/no snow. Now I ask you – even if they were huge ranches of a rectangular form – how could one ranch be bare of snow while adjacent ones are not?!

Very weird. I’ll probably never know what they are.

Then in Texas (I think) – lots and lots of circles. Anybody know what those are? They look agricultural, but the sizes vary a lot, and anyway why circles? They’re certainly not in wilderness though, so they’re not mystifying the way the quilt is.

I saw some fantastic meanders (in rivers, you know) – twist twist twist – like a hairpin road. Also some thrillingly BIG rivers.

I’m a huge window geek.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Now I’m at a different airport, the one in Orlando. Unfortunately my room is on the wrong side to get the airport Wifi, so I’m sitting in an armchair in the lobby when I would much prefer to be sitting at the desk in my room. Ho hum.

Anyway I’m here. I’ve seen Tom Flynn and said hello, and he says Stephen Law is around somewhere, and that’s all I know so far.

I want to join in the quarrel with Hemant Mehta, but I have to catch up with it first.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

So here I am at the airport. I got nothin to say except that I’m at the airport.

I’m at SeaTac’s fancy sitting-area place, which faces a giant window – from the table where I am it’s acres of grey sky with a little scrim of airplanes and runways at the bottom. Quite nice.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Lawrence Krauss says a necessary thing. He starts from a campaign argle-bargle by Rick Santorum saying that higher education is bad because it kills faith.

Mr. Santorum views this apparent facet of higher education as a danger, and his proposed solution is simple-less higher education and more faith.

As a faculty member at an institution of higher education, and as a scientist, however, I question the basic premise that loss of faith is a bad thing. If it is true that those who are more educated have a greater tendency to question their religious faith, shouldn’t we consider that this might be telling us more about religious faith than about how harmful getting a college degree can be?

Yes, we should. (more…)

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I’m off to Orlando in a couple of hours, to help with (or get in the way of, as the case may be) Moving Secularism Forward. I may do a pointless post from the airport, saying I am now at the airport.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Opinionista has a fantastic post, reminiscent of Greta Christina’s reasons atheists are angry: “Over It” – The rant of an angry, Agnostic, British, Indo-Pakistani woman of Muslim heritage.

I am over the complete ignorance by Muslims and non Muslims (particularly UK politicians and media) alike of the fact that “Muslim communities” contain non religious, spiritual people like me, as well as Atheist people and Agnostic people.

…

I am over UK politicians thinking that they will find out what I want by speaking to only bearded self appointed “community leaders”, headscarf donning women (defined only by their modesty or “Muslimness”) or the Sayeeda Warsis of the world who are homophobic, misogynistic and anti-equality. I am not defined by the faith I was born into, nor am I represented by demagogues who wish to win support for their incompetent party leader.

I am over being told that my views are Islamophobic, particularly when I come from a Muslim family, have  a Muslim name and am profiled at the airport every time I fly because of it, regardless of the fact that I’m Agnostic.

I am over being told that my views are offensive. I’m offended by my community’s homophobia, misogyny and racism. This doesn’t mean that I have the right to start burning effigies or chanting “death to ______” or blowing stuff up. Yet people like ME are the ones being called “militant” secularists. When’s the last time a secularist blew stuff up? Secularists do not stunt critique by bursting into Mosques and telling DIY Imams to “be quiet because you’re offending me”. Even if we desperately wish that they would stop spewing their hate.

Read the whole thing!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Several of you replied to Julian’s claims about atheists’ deafness to religion by pointing out that most atheists were raised theist by theists so we’re not deaf at all, we’re familiar with the music. It’s a good point, but at the same time – I’m not sure it’s always true. I’m not sure that being raised theist is enough to make one not deaf to religion.

I was nominally raised as a theist, sort of, but it never took. I think I probably am deaf to religion in the sense that Julian had in mind - I think that’s what “it never took” means. I should add that I’m glad to be that kind of deaf, but still – I think Julian is probably right that people like me don’t “get” whatever it is that real believers do get.

I never really believed any of it. I can’t remember the faintest trace of feelings of love for or trust in “God.” Nothing. All sorts of tv cowboys and characters in novels were far more real to me than “God” ever was. This means that I don’t know what it’s like to really believe it. I probably can’t even properly imagine it, because the awareness that I don’t believe it gets in the way, like a filter.

If I’m right about that, though, it could be argued that what Julian is really talking about is credulity. I know, his point was that there’s more to religion than what-is-believed and that it’s the “more” that we’re deaf to – but I don’t think that works. I think if you don’t have the requisite credulity about god then the “more” doesn’t hook you in that way – that intense, felt way whose opposite is deafness.

That looks as if I’m paying myself a compliment for not having credulity, but I’m not, really. It may have been sheer shallowness that saved me. I just preferred the tv cowboys. I’m serious about that: my childhood was made up of pretending to be either tv heroes or characters from for instance The Secret Garden; fantasy all the way.

I did at least know it was fantasy though.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A historian named Timothy Messer-Kruse has been doing research on the Haymarket riot and trial of 1886 for the past ten years. He was prompted by a student question about the orthodox version of the trial, which was that the prosecution did not offer evidence connecting any of the defendants with the bombing.

 One of my students raised her hand: “If the trial went on for six weeks and no evidence was presented, what did they talk about all those days?” I’ve been working to answer her question ever since.

I have not resolved all the mysteries that surround the bombing, but I have dug deeply enough to be sure that the claim that the trial was bereft of evidence is flatly wrong. One hundred and eighteen witnesses were called to testify, many of them unindicted co-conspirators who detailed secret meetings where plans to attack police stations were mapped out, coded messages were placed in radical newspapers, and bombs were assembled in one of the defendants’ rooms.

So “no evidence” turns out to mean the testimony of 118 witnesses. I’m reminded of theists like Nick Peters who claim that Dawkins simply makes assertions about theism, without defending them, when in fact there’s a whole thick book that defends them.

One day Messer-Kruse read the Wikipedia entry on Haymarket and found it repeating the orthodox version, so he made a correction.

I removed the line about there being “no evidence” and provided a full explanation in Wikipedia’s behind-the-scenes editing log. Within minutes my changes were reversed. The explanation: “You must provide reliable sources for your assertions to make changes along these lines to the article.”

That was curious, as I had cited the documents that proved my point, including verbatim testimony from the trial published online by the Library of Congress. I also noted one of my own peer-reviewed articles. One of the people who had assumed the role of keeper of this bit of history for Wikipedia quoted the Web site’s “undue weight” policy, which states that “articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.” He then scolded me. “You should not delete information supported by the majority of sources to replace it with a minority view.”

There is something fascinating about that. I do get the reason – there are always going to be more cranks and monomaniacs wanting to publish their “original research” than there are genuine historians and people who know how to do original research, so Wikipedia errs on the side of caution - but it does mean that mistaken conventional wisdom trumps accurate new research.

The “undue weight” policy posed a problem. Scholars have been publishing the same ideas about the Haymarket case for more than a century. The last published bibliography of titles on the subject has 1,530 entries.

“Explain to me, then, how a ‘minority’ source with facts on its side would ever appear against a wrong ‘majority’ one?” I asked the Wiki-gatekeeper. He responded, “You’re more than welcome to discuss reliable sources here, that’s what the talk page is for. However, you might want to have a quick look at Wikipedia’s civility policy.”

I tried to edit the page again. Within 10 seconds I was informed that my citations to the primary documents were insufficient, as Wikipedia requires its contributors to rely on secondary sources, or, as my critic informed me, “published books.” Another editor cheerfully tutored me in what this means: “Wikipedia is not ‘truth,’ Wikipedia is ‘verifiability’ of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that.”

Again, you can understand the reasoning – not everyone knows how to use primary sources, and academic secondary sources have been peer-reviewed. The result however is that what you get at Wikipedia is the existing conventional wisdom, and not the new research that corrects or expands it. We knew that, but the example is interesting.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)