“A photo provided by the Zoo Safari and Hollywoodpark Stukenbrock shows the zebra and horse crossbreed ‘Eclyse’ during its presentation to the public in Schloss Holte, Germany, on Wednesday, June 27, 2007. The father of ‘Eclyse’ is a horse from Italy, where the crossbreed filly was born in 2006, her mother is a zebra from the Safari park.” (Yahoo, via jwz’s blog.) ...
The Arizona Republic’s website has posted a search page for the 2006 salaries of faculty and staff at Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University. I took a quick look at UA and ASU’s philosophy departments, both of which have several professors making well over $100,000/year, and was struck at the oddness of some of the salaries–there are some excellent professors who have been teaching for a long time making less money than some who haven’t been around nearly as long, and an administrative assistant who makes more than most assistant and associate professors. UA has 28 people making over $300,000 (most at the medical school, whose salaries mostly come from non-state funds) and three making over $500,000–two of which are football and basketball coaches and one who is a professor of surgery at the medical school (only 17.4% of his salary is state-paid). Robert Shelton, president of UA, made $420,000. ASU has twelve people making over $300,000, and four making over $500,000–all of which are coaches for football and basketball. ASU president Michael Crow made $442,970. NAU has only one employee making over $200,000, which is NAU’s president John Haeger, who made $260,000. I suspect it’s still the case that professors at Arizona universities, on the average, make well above median salaries for Arizona’s major cities and occupations. Further, I suspect there may be quite a few ASU professors making six-figure salaries who are among Maricopa County’s 106,210 millionaire households. But they don’t compare to compensation for Arizona-based CEOs of publicly-traded companies, where the search engine options for salaries are “any amount,” “$1 million or more,” “$5 million or more,” and “$10 million or more.”
Barry Beyerstein, professor of psychology and member of the Brain Behavior Laboratory at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, a Fellow and member of the Committee of Skeptical Inquiry’s executive council, author of numerous skeptical articles and books, a contributing editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, member of the advisory board of the Drug Policy Foundation and advocate for decriminalization of drugs, brother of philosopher and skeptic Dale Beyerstein, and father of prominent blogger Lindsey Beyerstein, died on Tuesday at the age of 60. His daughter describes him as “among the most ethical people I have ever known” and “also one of the most fulfilled people I’ve had occasion to meet." I had the pleasure of meeting him on multiple occasions at CSICOP conferences and found him to be very friendly and generous with his time; he was the only member of the CSICOP executive council who took me seriously regarding an ethical issue I brought up regarding a prominent skeptic who regularly published in the Skeptical Inquirer. His death is a significant loss to skepticism and advocates for sensible drug policies. He is remembered on the front page of the CSI website. CSI Executive Director Barry Karr sent out the following: ...
Reed Esau, the originator of the celebrity atheists list, has put together a video introducing SkeptiCamp, an “un-conference” where all of the attendees provide the content, based on BarCamp. There will be a SkeptiCamp on August 3-4, 2007 in Denver, Colorado.
Fingerprint matching has been used as an investigative tool by law enforcement and as a key piece of evidence to convict criminals in courts for over a century, but its accuracy has not actually been scientifically tested until recently. It turns out that claims of its accuracy have been exaggerated, and fingerprint matching is often more art than science. In 2004, the FBI claimed that a fingerprint found on a bag at the sign of a terrorist bombing in Madrid, Spain on March 11 was a match to the left index finger of Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in Beaverton, Oregon who converted to Islam and married to a Muslim woman from Egypt. Despite the fact that Spanish police disagreed, claiming that there was no match to Mayfield, the FBI insisted they had a “one hundred percent identification” with fifteen separate points of agreement between the latent print from Spain and Mayfield’s fingerprint, validated by at least three FBI fingerprint examiners. Mayfield was arrested and detained on May 6, 2004. On May 20, Spanish police announced that they had matched the fingerprint to Ouhnane Daoud of Algeria, who–unlike Mayfield–had actually been in Spain. Mayfield was released and the FBI ended up apologizing. This case has resulted in scientific scrutiny of fingerprint evidence that has been long overdue. A decade ago, Tucson printer and publisher of the anarchist periodical The Match!, Fred Woodworth, published “A Printer Looks at Fingerprints," in which he pointed out pseudoscientific reasoning in fingerprint matching methodology as described in fingerprint textbooks. Subsequently, Simon Cole authored the book Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (2002, Harvard University Press), and has just authored an article on the subject in the July/August 2007 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, titled “The Fingerprint Controversy." In Cole’s Skeptical Inquirer article, he states that “The very first study containing accuracy data was finally published just recently, finding very high accuracy rates in a class of trainees on latent prints of unknown difficulty; but the study contains some methodological flaws (Haber and Haver 2006). Moreover, the authors again argue strongly against inferring accuracy rates from their own data (Wertheim, Langenburg, and Moenssens 2006)." No doubt scientific investigation will demonstrate that proper use of fingerprint analysis is a reliable method of identification, but more importantly, it will find its limits and weaknesses so that it does not continue to be pressed beyond its capabilities and result in false judgments of guilt in criminal cases. Unfortunately, law enforcement and prosecutors have a vested interest in the flexibility of techniques that can be used to produce the judgment they want, as demonstrated by the difficulty in getting police departments to modify their procedures of eyewitness identification of suspects to correct for well-known cognitive biases.
Bill Muehlenberg’s blog has a review of Robert Morey’s 21-year-old book, The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, which he applies to “atheist storm troopers such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.” Muehlenberg characterizes Dawkins and Harris as trying to “suppress all religious freedom, not unlike what was attempted in the former Soviet Union.” Muehlenberg offers nothing to support this accusation, but that’s not the point I’d like to respond to. In his review, he makes the following statement: He [Morey] even quotes from a famous atheist debating guide, in which every trick in the book is offered to fellow atheists as they attack theists. Published by Prometheus Books, the main atheist publisher, The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi teaches atheists how to deliberately use deception to refute theists. After reading Moray’s [sic] description of, and quotations from, the book, it occurred to me that all the atheists I have been debating must have well-worn copies of the book. It certainly explains why actually having a rational debate with an atheist is so difficult. All the dirty tricks, ruses, ploys and deception makes any debate with them a one-way affair.Muehlenberg has been deceived by Morey, and is deceiving others with this description. First, Nicholas Capaldi is not an atheist, he is a Catholic who teaches at Loyola University New Orleans and has written a number of religious publications from a Catholic perspective (though his central focus is on business ethics). Some of his publications include “From the Profane to the Sacred: Why We Need to Retrieve Christian Bioethics” and “A Catholic Perspective on Organ Sales” (both in Christian Bioethics). Second, The Art of Deception is not “a famous atheist debating guide.” The book’s content is fairly standard introductory material for a course in informal logic, logical fallacies, and critical thinking, and there is no focus on arguments for or against the existence of God. There are four examples of such arguments in the book (pp. 97-100, 120-121, and 142). The first set of pages includes a circular argument for God’s existence from the Bible’s say-so and a refutation of the argument from design from David Hume, the second gives the example of an appeal to ignorance to argue for the existence of God from an inability to disprove God’s existence, and the third is an example from Paul Tillich of arguing that your opponent really agrees with you, for example from the claim that a respect for logic is “a sign of ultimate concern and therefore a proof of God’s existence.” (Similar arguments are made regularly by presuppositionalists–that if you use logic you are presupposing the existence of God.) Note that three of these four arguments are deceptive arguments for the existence of God, not against, and the fourth is an example of a refutation of bad use of analogy to argue for the existence of God. There’s nothing in Capaldi’s book which even purports to teach atheists how to use deceptive arguments against theists. Finally, Capaldi’s book was not written with the intent to promote the use of deception. Rather, he wrote the book in a Machiavellian style in order to make it more entertaining. Capaldi’s explicitly stated purpose is to enable the reader to recognize and not fall for deceptive arguments from others. He writes in his introduction (pp. 13-14): … I have written this book from the point of view of one who wishes to deceive or mislead others. On the assumption that “it takes one to know one,” I have found that people are able to detect the misuse or abuse of logic if they are themselves the masters of the art of deception. I ask the reader to contemplate the prospect of a world in which everyone knew, really knew, how to use and thereby detect the misuse of logic. To exemplify this perspective, I wish to use an analogy with writings on politics. There are at least three great books which seek to describe political reality: Aristotle’s Politics, Hobbes’s Leviathan, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. Aristotle fails because he is so dull that he is often not read, while Hobbes’s perceptiveness is lost in the controversy over the theoretical context in which he embeds his insights. Machiavelli’s vivid account is the most popular and the most effective. I believe that more readers have learned about politics from reading Machiavelli than anyone else precisely because Machiavelli’s Prince is presented in a format of active manipulation rather than passive recognition. I hope that my presentation of informal logic will have the same kind of impact as Machiavelli. ...
The National Center for Science Education has posted a brief report on the Answers in Genesis schism, with links to the coverage by The Australian, the Lexington Herald-Leader, the Duae Quartunciae blog, and this blog. In their report, they mention that A piece by Lippard on the schism is to appear in a future issue of Reports of the NCSE; in it, Lippard concludes, “creationism continues to evolve in fascinating ways."I encourage you to join the NCSE. The NCSE has long been the major force combatting creationism in the United States, including playing a significant support role for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case decided last year, and it works on a budget that is tiny by comparison to those of Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Discovery Institute.
CNN’s Money website has a list of the top 500 zip codes for foreclosures. Here are the eleven Arizona entries on the list:PositionZip CodeCity StateDefault NoticesAuction NoticesBank RepossessionsTotal Foreclosure Filings140.85242Queen Creek AZ123040271183.85323Avondale AZ517865248270.85379Surprise AZ214563210324.85243Queen Creek AZ017225197355.85706Tucson AZ016918187395.85086Phoenix AZ012554179415.85239Maricopa AZ015520175423.85037Phoenix AZ113933173445.85338Goodyear AZ212441167452.85326Buckeye AZ112243166456.85335El Mirage AZ212439165
Today’s Arizona Republic features an article titled “Mormon tourists travel to key sites of their faith," about Mormons from Utah and Arizona who are traveling with companies like Book of Mormon Tours, L.D.S. Guided Tours, and Liahona Tours to sites in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras to be told that Mayan ruins are sites described in the Book of Mormon as belonging to the Nephites and the Jaredites. The different tours are not only contradicted by real archaeologists, but the tour companies contradict each other about what sites correspond to which locations in the Book of Mormon–a book by a con artist, plagiarized from the Bible, the Apocrypha, Josiah Priest’s The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (1825) and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (1823) (itself lifting from other books such as James Adair’s History of the American Indians (1775) and Elias Boudinot’s A Star in the West (1816)), which also drew from Adair), which themselves are works of pseudo-history. These tours are not so different in some respects from tours of some of the locations of alleged religious significance in the Middle East, where there are multiple claimed locations of the tomb of Jesus, the Garden of Gethsemane, and Noah’s Ark. The difference is that the sites being visited are sites of real significance regarding real historical people who have nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon. Fortunately, these tour operators are treated with dismissal even by the Mormon church, as the Republic article points out with a quote from John Clark of the church’s New World Archaeological Foundation at Brigham Young University: “I just see the tours as entertaining, and I try not to get upset that people are wasting their money doing foolish things." If he cares about the truth, why wouldn’t he get upset? Perhaps because encouraging his fellow Mormons to care about accuracy would be sure to lead to trouble if they ever carefully examined the historical foundations of their own religion, at least for any who were curious enough to look. But most aren’t, as the article’s quotation from one tour participant shows: But whether the archaeological evidence backs up the Book of Mormon is irrelevant, said tour participant Dawn Frenetti, 28, of Milpitas, Calif. Just seeing such sites is inspiring, she said. “It definitely helps me stay interested in learning more about the Book of Mormon,” she said. “But, as far as confirming my faith, my faith has always been there."If there were a religion based on the works of Mark Twain, a visit to Disneyland’s Tom Sawyer island would no doubt be considered a pilgrimage to a holy site. UPDATE (June 21, 2007): This Mormon response to plagiarism in the Book of Mormon is quite amusing, in that it completely fails to address the specific evidence of copying from the sources in question. It is no response at all to a plagiarism accusation to point out that there are also differences between the works! A more fair-minded LDS response also argues that the Book of Mormon is not entirely or mostly based on Ethan Smith’s book, but states that “My analysis of Persuitte’s parallels reveals that, with one exception, no single book in the Book of Mormon received more than 8.09% influence from View of the Hebrews (see chart 1).” But that is sufficient to refute Joseph Smith’s claim of translating golden plates that predated Ethan Smith’s book! ...