Uncategorized – Page 3

Skepticism or Ignorance

On one of the more academic message boards I follow, someone asked, “How do we know the First Temple (Solomon’s Temple) actually existed? Those who took the man’s question at face value gave proof texts from many different books in the Bible while admitting that there is no archeological evidence. There is no archeological evidence because one cannot/should not excavate under the Dome of the Rock. No matter, the skeptic was not convinced; he became belligerent.

His belligerence only confirms the status of this person – the man is ignorant. The stupidity of the question is easily explained by the course of Israelite history. Solomon’s Temple and his palace was a turning point in Israelite history but not because of a standing House of Worship dedicated to the One God. The excesses of slave labor and the territorial ceding of twenty-three towns and villages in the northwest corner of the country to the Kingdom of Tyre to pay for these buildings led to civil war and a split of United Kingdom into the minor kingdoms of Judah and Israel, kingdoms that never reunited. If the skeptic had studied the Biblical history of the First Temple just a little bit, then the question never would have been asked.

A cliché that has been tossed about for years, usually to encourage shy students, is “there is no such thing as a stupid question.” For a shy student who is afraid to ask, asking any question is a pedagogical success because the content of the question does not matter as much as the new interaction with the teacher. A first question becomes a starting point for teaching a student how to engage the material. However, the cliché is not always understood from a teacher’s point of view but is assumed as a broad statement of academic integrity, that is to say, any question is legitimate. Perhaps in perfect world but in our day the cliché is just a “feel good” sentiment that permits ignorant questions that suck time, effort and life out of a lesson or conversation. When questions and challenges stop the learning process, they are stupid questions. Belligerence on the part of questioner is one of the symptoms of destructive pedagogic behavior.

Skepticism, a philosophical tool of the Greeks, was developed to test the soundness of an argument and its assumptions. Skepticism uses questions as tool to test the soundness of an idea, like using your finger to thump a watermelon to test its ripeness. Like the cliché above, skepticism is great when used in this limited sense but as a broad tool used to challenge everything, skepticism is destructive and debilitating to the process of learning or decision making. Using skepticism as a broadside is meant to attack rather than create.

For anyone who has come prepared to a class and listened to another student who has not prepped ask an ignorant question that the first sentences of the assignment answered, the sense of dismay is powerful. Yet this is not the destructive skepticism that destroys a lesson but statement of pervasive ignorance. Correcting ignorance, no matter its source, can be used as a part of teaching. Pervasive skepticism is not redeemable.

How many times have teenagers exclaimed, “Why do we have to study this? I’m never going to use it.” This is not a teachable moment. If the student has exclaimed, “When am I ever going to use this?”, only then is the opening to teach available. Overindulgent Skepticism kills learning.

Then again, there are some people whose agenda is to do just that.

Galaxy

Does anyone really understand how expansive the term “galaxy” is? A new 1.5 billion pixel composite picture of 1/3 of Andromeda galaxy has been released. The picture is expandable, allowing the viewer to zoom in to extraordinary detail.

The view is breathtaking.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/

Star Wars for the Ignorant

The Star Wars pre-trailer trailer was released and a torrent of commentary and opinion was released through every media outlet available. Rampant speculation about a big budget action film is a great way to build anticipation for another episode of a movie franchise.

Imagine the thrill of this writer, http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/beale-star-wars/index.html?hpt=hp_t3, who got his essay/rant posted as a link on the front page of the CNN website. Of all the points of view, insights, speculations, and ruminations that are currently available, this writer makes it to CNN. Way to go, sir! A great coup!

Except the piece is factually incorrect.

The entire article pivots off of this sentence: “But here’s the thing: George Lucas’ creation, basically a blown-up Flash Gordon adventure with better special effects, has left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera/western filled with shootouts, territorial disputes, evil patriarchs and trusty mounts (like the Millennium Falcon)” I cannot speak for the writers of Flash Gordon who were writing in the twenties and the thirties but I am certain about the origins of George Lucas’s creation.

George Lucas was interested in being an excellent storyteller as much as an expert cinematographer. Joseph Campbell, a professor of world mythology and a clear, concise writer, was ascendant in the sixties and the seventies. His most provocative thesis was the existence of a universal set of plot lines, which he presented in his book “A Hero of a Thousand Faces”. Mr. Lucas read this text carefully and crafted the plot of the first three movies on Joseph Campbell’s scholarship and arguments. Bill Moyers discussed the Star Wars plot at length with Joseph Campbell on a PBS television presentation titled “The Power of Myth”. (Campbell has another book using the same title.)

Star Wars, especially the first movie, was extraordinarily sophisticated on many levels, which is why the movie was so successful across the globe. Before the groundbreaking special effects and use of science fiction conventions, the story was captivating by itself.

The writer of the CNN opinion piece was ignorant. The editorial staff at CNN is guilty of the same crime. More of the shame is that the origin of Star Wars is a compelling story. Joseph Campbell’s books are still worthwhile reads although some of his conclusions have been scaled by the next generation of scholarship. Star Wars was not an accidental success although many of the actors thought as much during filming; the movie was cinematic storytelling at its best.

New TV Trend or Old

The emerging trend on cable series is the killing off of the lead characters, a development that crosses a boundary of trust of previous generations of television shows. Harken back to the days of “Gunsmoke” and no matter what happened, the lead characters would return week after week. Even JR returned to “Dallas” because his death was only a dream in the next season. Some critics call it a betrayal of an unwritten agreement between the television industry and the viewer. A trust has been broken. Others call this dramatic turn a conscientious reflection back to the viewer of a more reality-based probability of circumstances. Writers and producers are killing off beloved fictional figures, ones with whom the viewers identified.

The story of the Maccabees is also a case of lead characters dying and the plot carrying on to a morally pleasing ending – when we tell the story to the children. The actual source material, Maccabees I and II, is far messier. The father, Mattathias, starts the rebellion by slaying the Jewish idolater. The plot shifts from there to his eldest son Judah taking command of the rebel force and only then are we told that Mattathias has died. Following the story we have already shifted our focus to Judah and we are not unduly upset at the death of his father.

Judah Maccabee prevails and liberates the Temple in Jerusalem. Hurray! They celebrate and rededicate the temple after which the children’s version of the story ends. However, the real story does not end. Judah dies a few months later by the betrayal of an allied army in battle. One by one, the other brothers are killed as well, one in battle and the rest by regicide. Sounds terrible, does it not?

Their sacrifice, their mistakes, failures and successes led to the founding of a more secure dynasty – the Hasmoneans. The unfolding consequences of the Maccabean saga were that the Temple ritual was solidified, a new class of teachers/officials called the Pharisees arose, and the process of selecting the books for the second part of the Bible began. History does not always fit into a plot for a children’s story but the reality is infinitely more interesting.

Maybe this year’s producers are not wrong after all.

Jewish Population by State

Here is an interactive map from Brandeis university of the Jews of the United States and their numbers. The numbers are surprising.

http://ajpp.brandeis.edu/

Sea water

This is one drop of sea water magnified 25x. One photograph explains the utter complexity of living world and the array of creatures is humbling. I only wish we were better stewards of this creation.

Deciphering food ads

Cheap food is usually advertized with lots of adjectives. The eggs are fluffy and syrup is sweet. Often the verbal cues will veer into the language of drugs such as “This sauce is addictive.”

Fancy foods or higher end restaurants do not use adjectives. They simply list the ingredients because the assumption is that the food is quality. There is no need to say fresh lettuce when the quality guarantees that all ingredients are fresh.

Expensive food is also not spoken of using drug metaphors. Ad copyists and food critics prefer sex metaphors for quality food. Think chocolate – good chocolate is sexy.

All of the above notes come from American linguists. The only insight I can offer is if you are in any establishment that refers to its food as “product” or “food product”, then leave as fast as you can. Eww.

Lazy Binary

In an interview on NPR, Charles Blow was discussing his recently published memoir that contains traumatic subject material. He dismissed a great deal of the commentary that has surrounded the subject matter, labeling it “lazy binary.” The binary refers to the digital world of “0’s” and “1’s” that excludes the use of any other terms. The literary practitioner of the lazy binary is guilty of ignoring shades and subtlety, but also of a logic fallacy of insisting that there are two equidistant views of a controversy that resides in the middle between them.

Subtlety is not convenient. In the tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) world of digital media, readers skim rather than read through the text. Subtlety requires paying attention and following an argument step by step as it moves from broad statement to specific points of explanation. Subtlety takes time and focus. Subtlety is the victim of sound bites and twitter. Most would agree that the world does not need more sound bites.

Subtlety has a long history of being ignored or denigrated but the logic fallacy is actually more pernicious. This insistence that there are two equally worthy opposing views on any given assumption is a favorite tool of partisans, ideologues, fanatics, and hell bent capitalists. In a given circumstance, there may only be one legitimate point of view but an opposing view is given equal billing because it seems fairer or reads better. Given a forum, a self-serving ideologue can do a lot of damage.

I feel like we are discussing elementary school. Subtlety does not exist because the young minds have not developed enough. The idea that a controversy may have more than one side is also an early academic grades lesson too. So is the corollary that not all sides are equal.

Why then do we have to constantly remind ourselves now of these early lessons? Lazy binary, indeed.

Honey is not so sweet anymore

The Honey lobby is lobbying Congress for stricter definitions of what is honey. According to an article published in The Atlantic, the regulations of what constitutes honey are so loose that the product on the shelves may not contain any pollen. What are consumers buying?

Some honey is corn syrup flavored as honey. Some is rice syrup, which is already the same color as honey. The more sophisticated faux honey is the product of bees force fed corn syrup. One cannot determine by price or by label the quality of honey that is for purchase in American stores.

Needless to say, the big honey labels in the United States are protesting against new definitions of honey and further regulations. Honey is just another example of highly-processed food stuffs in the American market. The lack of specific labeling allows faux food to be passed off as a legitimate food substance, in this case honey from bees. Corn syrup is inexpensive and honey prices are quite high.

Unless you know someone with beehives who is willing to share, the probability that you are consuming a partially faux honey product is remarkably high.

While the state of honey in the jar may be legal, there is a moral corruption here. While food processors have the right to produce processed foods, many of the products are clearly identified as highly processed by the list of ingredients. I also have the right not to purchase these processed foods. By hiding the content of honey, my rights are undermined – legal though the mechanism be. The very fact that companies have to hide ingredients, even lobbying regulatory agencies to make sure that ingredients remain hidden, should be a warning that these products are ultimately undesirable.

We are what we eat. Suddenly, that aphorism is a scary proposition.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/the-honey-lobby-is-demanding-that-the-government-defines-honey/380994/