From page 3 of the first (1891) edition of Charles Darwin’s The Descent of Man:

It has often and confidently been asserted, that man’s origin can never be known: but ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.

Commentary: This is not “scientism”, as anti-rationalists are likely to claim. Darwin is not saying that science will solve everything, but that most claims that specific problems are beyond science are rooted in ignorance. Darwin, of course, was writing before the age of Gödel, Turing, and other explorers of the limits of rationality. Today we can confidently assert that certain problems are not within the power of science and logic to resolve. But Darwin’s claim still stands. When I see people lamenting “scientism” and demanding that science acknowledge its limits, they are almost never working from a position of informed knowledge about the Halting Problem, the Incompleteness Theorem, or a robust understanding of quantum uncertainty. In virtually every case, they are not really arguing about the limits of science, but digging up reasons to explain why their personal beliefs should not be modified according to what science really can tell us about the world.

The Washington Post ran this story by Peter Carlson about the process of selecting New Yorker cartoons. It’s not especially revealing from the point of view of the editorial decisions — a New Yorker cartoon has to be witty more than funny and any evidence of cojones is a serious drawback, as if anyone who knows the New Yorker wasn’t already aware of it. What makes the story is the way that the New Yorker’s stable of cartoonists deals with constant, constant, constant heart-churning rejection.

Diffee started drawing cartoons in the late ’90s, when he was living in Boston and failing to make it as an artist or a stand-up comic. His first cartoon won a contest sponsored by the New Yorker, and Mankoff encouraged him to submit more. For a year, Diffee submitted 15 cartoons a week, every week.

“I sold four,” he says.

That’s four out of about 700.

The next year he did a little better. He sold eight.

Read it, Ye Writers, and weep.

Ape Lad’s Flickr page includes this neat gallery of HTTP error images. Error 400 is particularly good.

Today is Talking Squid’s first birthday. To celebrate, we have an ocean of squiddy brilliance.

The very briny squidsquid.com has everything you need to know about squid. You can even test your squid quotient to find out just how much cephalopod you have in you. And we’re not talking calamari.

You don’t want to mess with this 450-kg kraken.

Squid toys, squid ties, squids vs. cats. A whole word of squidness.

Vonda McIntyre is doing her own bit for speculative squid everywhere.

PZ Myers’ Pharyngula blog has regular cephalopod updates, as well as being the best science blog out there.

Poulpe Pulps has hundreds of vintage pulp covers featuring Our Friend the Octopus. Why no squid? What’s with the speciesism here?

Although not really a squid, the Great Chthulhu is busy riding Kanaloa’s wake. How very nouveau divin. Still, credit where it’s due; he makes a nice plush toy.

And finally, although he’s not even remotely squiddy, a great big Happy Birthday to Terry Dowling as well.

For those who are unfamiliar with the Australian comedy scene, Flacco defies description. I’m not even going to try. Suffice to say that he is the brainchild of Paul Livingstone, and he takes comedy beyond the crazed thoughts of Stephen Wright, well beyond the Pythonesque, and into the downright weird and paralogical. But every now and then he becomes almost comprehensible. And on the ABC Science Show, he had this to say:

Obviously there is intelligent design at work here. For what are the chances of being born on a planet with just the right amount of gravity? Intelligent design. Your finger fits perfectly into your nose. Intelligent design. Is a cow an accident? The naked mole rat, maybe, but every designer has their off days.

The full transcript is wonderful. Thanks to Forbzy for the link.

Houzan Mahmoud is a feminist from Kurdistan Iraq now living in London. She has campaigned against the oppression of women that would follow the imposition of Sharia law, and has accordingly received a death threat from the jihadist group Ansar al-Islam. “With the permission of Great God, we will kill you either in Iraq or in London by the middle of March, because you are campaigning against Islam. You should be sent to God for punishment.”

The website Indymedia UK has the story plus contact details for those who would like to offer letters of support, but I found myself somewhat at a loss for words. What does one say to help someone who has received a death threat?

After some thought, I decided to model a letter loosely on the condolence letter, or to be more accurate, the sympathy note. Here is what I wrote:

Dear Ms Mahmoud,

I was deeply saddened to hear via Indymedia UK of the death threats you have received. Nobody deserves this, but it is especially detestable that these threats have been directed at you for the offense of trying to improve the lives of Iraqi women.

I will be posting a blog entry tonight in your support. It is not very much, I know, but I hope at least to let you know that you are in people’s thoughts.

Best wishes,
Chris Lawson

I encourage readers to write their own versions. Amnesty International reports that it gives great hope to those in political distress to know that others are writing letters of support, even if the letters are destined to be ignored by their persecutors.

Email Houzan Mahmoud at houzan73@yahoo.co.uk

The rise of activist atheism: an explanation

Around the web and the media, a lot of opinionists have noted with varying degrees of alarm the rise of activist atheism. Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion is a huge international bestseller. A number of books sympathetic to Dawkins have also found success: Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation, Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell are the most prominent. Most of the opinionists have not ventured to explain why this brand of atheism is on the rise, at least in public perception, and the only argument I have seen offered is that it is a reaction to the rise of religiosity around the world, but especially in the US. While true, that answer only works on the most superficial level, treating people and ideologies as corks in a swimming pool reacting to nothing but currents and pressures. The actual answer is very simple, but you won’t have heard it because many opinionists just don’t want to accept it let alone give voice to it.

Let me start by explaining something very important: I am not particularly motivated to convert people to atheism. In fact, I wouldn’t be all that bothered if I was the only atheist on the planet. It would annoy me in the same way that I am annoyed that the world’s best-selling science fiction writer is Michael Crichton. That is, I would like everyone to share my opinion of religion in much the same way that I would like everyone to go out and buy books by Howard Waldrop and Terry Dowling instead of Mr Crichton. What I am passionate about is not atheism but secular humanism and Enlightenment values.

(more…)