New Word: peud

OK, new word. You know that accursed and annoying ubiquitous blogging technique where a provocative or inflammatory word or phrase is crossed out, but still visible, and then followed by a more benign word or phrase, but of course the edgy insinuation is still stuck in your brain like the nauseating stench unpleasant aroma of dog poo in your nose long after you've scraped it off the bottom of your shoe? I propose we call these pre-emptive up-dates, or "peuds" (to rhyme with feuds) for short. You heard it here first.

Meanwhile, back at the 13.7 blog...

...Professor Kauffman continues his march to the sea (where fish are, no doubt, right now engaged in employing their swim bladders as exaptations to be turned into hummingbird beaks). There are many things about his posts that rub me the wrong way, really rub me the wrong way, but a big one is the incomplete and hence misleading logical construct used to formulate his "no law" assertions.

Since he is, apparently, an accomplished scientist, I am forced to conclude that he is intentionally misleading his nonscientist readers. The crux of his deception is an incompletely formulated syllogism (paraphrasing): - since the natural laws we understand and accept tell us there is, in principle, no way to deterministically predict future events, there is "no law [sic]". Leaving aside for now the inspired creationist jiu-jitsu technique of enlisting scientific principles and findings as their own enemies, it is crucial to recognize the unstated initial proposition in this syllogism: "If we admit as natural law only those principles that make deterministic temporal predictions, and - since the natural laws ..." That is the only proposition that can lead off his logical construct to arrive at a valid "no law" conclusion. But that initial proposition is, not, not even remotely, the general scientific understanding of what we admit as natural law.

C'mon, Stu!!! You know as well as anyone that when Peebles "predicted" the cosmic microwave background it wasn't a temporal prediction that two guys named Penzias and Wilson would be cleaning pigeon droppings out of their radio telescope 40 miles away in a few months! It was a "phenomenal" prediction: under appropriate conditions, a very specific and precisely circumscribed phenomenon would be apparent. THAT's what scientists nearly always mean when they use the term "predict" and phenomenal prediction is nearly always the form of scientific law.

Professor Kauffman's conspicuous finessing of this initial proposition looks to those sufficiently versed in this science "magic" thing, as nothing more than sleight of hand employed to fool the rubes nonscientists. Reading his entries, I just can't shake the sense that instead of using his role in the 13.7 blog in an appropriate dialogue with nonscientists, he's intent on scoring cheap shots against Steven Weinberg, located conveniently off camera blog, and advancing a pet economic model, by deliberately misleading - browbeating, really - some blog readers to a gross and fundamental misunderstanding of the general structure of science.

And finally there's this: be very, very wary of scientists and others who are eager to (mis)apply some natural or physical law to address what are fundamentally social issues. This is, for instance, what gave us the marvels of eugenics, and boy-oh-boy do I viscerally distrust the general thrust of a scientist invoking the principles of quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity in support of an economic paradigm. There is simply no mechanism, none, that would allow an understanding of the worldlines of events in the special theory of relativity or the superposition of quantum mechanical eigenfunctions to credibly inform an economic paradigm. If you resort to having these principles undergirding your economic model, to quote lolcats, "ur doin it rong". If Kauffman-economics grows legs, trust me, move your investment portfolio to mattress manufacturers. Or if Hank Paulson becomes CEO of Sealy-Posturepedic, maybe straight to mattresses.

Deconstructing the Liberty Belle

I wonder, I wonder … ? Could it be that NPR has a policy of letting willful stupidity speak for, and thereby hang itself? It’s an innovative and radical notion. And probably one that won’t work given the apparent willful stupidity of great swathes of the nation. After all, calling willful stupidity stupid falls on the stupidly deaf ears of the willfully stupid.

Now, remember that kerfuffle at NPR over the Mark Fiore “Learn to Speak Tea-Bag” cartoon a while back? They caught some heat over it, and as a supposedly unbiased national media outlet reporting in a time of intense political passions, it was definitely a very edgy thing to publish. But most of the group the cartoon was poking fun at couldn’t have been more deserving.

Well, quick on the heels of that dustup, NPR did a report on a charming piece of work who calls herself the “Liberty Belle”. Because of its timing, and at first glance, one might easily have taken the piece as a conciliatory gesture to those it had insulted.

But take a look at this Liberty Belle quote from the piece:

"I tried to boil down in essence what makes me so angry about it," Carender says. "And it was this idea that he and other people decide what the needs are in society. They get to decide. But in order to fund those things, they have to take from some people in order to give to the other people."

So here is Liberty Belles’s “boiled down” political manifesto: let us never again submit to evaluating the quality of ideas themselves; let us, instead, simply demand that our elected officials be free of ideas; freedom, after all, means never having to think; come my friends and let us declare freedom, sweet freedom from the tyranny of ideas!

Sweet Jeebus, that explains so much, including, the until now, mysterious (to me) appeal of Sarah Palin, she of the infamously and perfectly sanitized of any semblance of ideas, empty political rhetoric.

So look: we know NPR has limited time to report on Liberty Belle – they have to pick and choose what parts of her story they will publish. Could it be that NPR cleverly slipped this report, this cartoon more laughable and more disparaging, than Fiore’s, under the radar of the Tea Party movement, relying on 6th grade reading comprehension levels to defuse the otherwise inevitable invective from those it so clearly lampooned? So it might appear based on a comparison of the comments garnered on the two pieces.

And that report was quickly followed by an odd little piece on Andrew Breitbart, raising his profile to NPR listeners just as Breitbart’s albatross was so clearly settling in for an unpleasant, and one can only hope, long stay: a minion with an extended resume of right-wing and racist associations, ugly and possibly illegal political tricks, and, ultimately, a federal felony charge.

Unfortunately, my experience with those possessed of willful stupidity, and its apparently inexhaustible current supply, leaves me pessimisstic that such an approach will have any effect. Still, it provides some comic relief as gotterdammerung ensues. Thanks, NPR, for the few smiles you can provide as the flames consume us.