Okay, now I understand why Fox news does what it does. You know, throw inflammatory accusations from the mouths of its talking-heads. Because it works.
WANT TO DEFEAT A PROPOSED PUBLIC POLICY? JUST LABEL SUPPORTERS AS “EXTREME”
Researchers at Ohio State University conducted a number of clever experiments and discovered a link between hyperbolic language and the rejection of the public policy positions.
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to “radical feminist” supporters.
Relatively speaking, we can see why those PBS intellectuals fail to make a dent in public policy.
Me, I find some forms of political rhetoric to border on linguistic terrorism. The aim is to frighten voters into behaving as they wouldn’t otherwise. And so we hear about the evil “radical feminist,” “socialist,” “environmental extremist” position on the other side of our . . . more neutral, friendlier side.
Why does FOX news use politically inflammatory terms? Not because they are factual, but because they work. Politically speaking. No, they don’t actually inform and educate. In fact, they do the opposite. The question is, what do you want from your news?
On another front . . .
Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior, UGA researchers find
Previously I’ve seen a few studies that found a lack of efficacy for abstinence-only programs. And one that went the other way. Here’s a link for another one, with a good quantity of data behind it, and some amount of controlling for extraneous variables, that also generated a “doesn’t work,” conclusion.
An interesting clip from the news release:
Along with teen pregnancy rates and sex education methods, Hall and Stanger-Hall looked at the influence of socioeconomic status, education level, access to Medicaid waivers and ethnicity of each state’s teen population.
Even when accounting for these factors, which could potentially impact teen pregnancy rates, the significant relationship between sex education methods and teen pregnancy remained: the more strongly abstinence education is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rates.
Hmm.
As I’ve argued before, even it these programs did work, I wouldn’t be for them. Why?
I’d opt for sex-ed programs that include not-only abstinence information. For I believe in providing education for education’s sake, with an eye out to pragmatic concerns, sure, but not limited by them. My values include honoring the freedom of all individuals and families to select their own path in a full range of alternatives.
It has been known for decades that meditation and other relaxation techniques can lower stress. Which is good for “body and mind.” (As if they were two separate things — some might say that mind is what a body does, with a crucial role played by the brain.) A new study has confirmed meditation’s efficacy in perhaps a novel subject pool and/or setting.
In, Transcendental Meditation effective antidote to record stress levels in school students, I learned,
A new study published in the Journal of Instructional Psychology found the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique significantly decreased psychological distress in public school students. The study, conducted with at-risk minority secondary school students, showed a 36 percent reduction in overall psychological distress. Significant decreases were also found in trait anxiety and depressive symptoms. [emphasis added]
While I don’t doubt the study finding — I’m a fan of meditation myself — I do have a question, a compliment, and a criticism.
The question: How was psychological distress measured? This is an important bit of information.
The compliment: The foot of the news release contained a list of “Study Facts,” including such things as number of subjects, subject ethnicity, etc. I wish all press releases for science findings included such a handy list. But why wasn’t the means of measuring improvement included?
The criticism: The title to the news release, the name of the program (Transcendental Meditation Quiet Time), and the multiple mentions of TM (a coincidently trademarked term and supposed unique technique) imply that there is something special about this type of meditation as it pertains to stress relief. There isn’t. An analogous study would claim that Tylenol effectively decreases pain. That write-up would be all about the benefits of not acetaminophen, which is the generic term and active ingredient of Tylenol, but rather of Tylenol. I imagine the makers of Tylenol would love it. Free marketing!
Tylenol is to acetaminophen as Transcendental Meditation is to meditation (or focused/intentional relaxation?). Better science pares down variables to their most basic element(s).
Me, I practice, um, call it Extraordinary Ordinary Meditation. EOM.
This science news headline got my head a-spinning:
More than 20 percent of atheist scientists are spiritual
Why the spinning? A couple of things.
First, when I read “more than” I expect a big number. Twenty percent of some population — that doesn’t impress me. At least not when considering the variables involved.
Second, and more importantly, was the proximity of the word “spiritual” to “scientist.” But before you jump to the conclusion that this struck me as somehow wrong because I am a biased, new atheist, allow me to explain. To me, spiritual means something to do with spirits, something to do with unseen and un-detectable forces. Which is un-scientific. So excuse me for being consistent, if you have problem with it.
What, exactly, was the finding? What data generated the summarizing proclamation? In brief, it is this–
Through in-depth interviews with 275 natural and social scientists at elite universities, the Rice researchers found that 72 of the scientists said they have a spirituality that is consistent with science, although they are not formally religious.
Oh lord. And I don’t mean that in a spiritual sense. (You really have to be careful with the language you use!) “In-depth” interviews…. Well, that’s reassuring (not). Much better than superficial interviews.
More seriously now, it seems the researchers found that a minority of scientists (why wasn’t the press release worded that way?) considered their work to be consistent not with religion, but with a type of spirituality.
So spirituality has types (tricky variable alert!). My guess is that if you were to ask the average Christian about their type of spirituality, and the average “spiritual” scientist about his/her type, you would discover that these two types are two separate things. So the alleged compatibility of science and spirituality is a heck of a lot more complicated than new-age apologists would have us think.
Consider this following paragraph:
Ecklund and Long noted that the spiritual scientists saw boundaries between themselves and their nonspiritual colleagues because their spirituality facilitated engagement with the world around them. Such engagement, according to the spiritual scientists, generated a different approach to research and teaching: While nonspiritual colleagues might focus on their own research at the expense of student interaction, spiritual scientists’ sense of spiritualty provides nonnegotiable reasons for making sure that they help struggling students succeed. [emphasis added]
Um. Is the above reflective of spirituality? Or is it more of a humanistic phenomenon? I’d vote for the second, for in being more student-focused, the emphasis is on other human beings, those in relative need. The focus is not on an unseen force or being. Which would have truly made it more quintessentially “spiritual.” At least if you aren’t playing fast and loose with language.
But maybe I’m moving the semantic goalposts in a direction advantageous to my own position. I don’t think so, but it is a possibility.
Imagine you live in Florida and are at a midwinter neighborhood cookout. (That you can have a mid-winter cookout is arguable the best thing about my state.) You overhear a new resident, Charlie, disagree with another man. Charlie says, “You are incorrect. It is possible to grow apple trees here in the Sunshine State. In fact, I’ve got one fruiting in my backyard.”
This surprises you, because you had heard on good authority that apple trees won’t grow in Florida. Not really. And if they did, they certainly wouldn’t fruit in December, as orange trees do.
You are curious. You ask Charlie if you can see his tree. He says, “Sure, it’s across the road and through the side gate.” You follow him. When in his backyard he points and says, “Aren’t those apples beautiful?!”
“Those are oranges,” you say. “And that’s an orange tree.”
A bit irritated by your seeming quibbling with words, your new neighbor tells you to call it what you want. But he calls it an apple tree.
What can you do about a person like that? Maybe nothing more than shrugging your shoulders. As I shrug my shoulders when contemplating those who proudly refer to themselves as agnostics.
Okay, I admit it. People who label themselves as “agnostic” bug me. Why? In part due to their philosophically-holier-than-thou attitude. But it also bugs me because agnostics know what that fancy agnostic word means. They tend to be educated.
Is it a mere quibble or a more serious case of anti-equivocation to ask a person if, by “god” they mean Yahweh, the god who gave laws to Moses? Is it then quibbling to conclude that a non-affirmative answer means the person does not believe in the god of the Jews?
Does asking if, by using the word “god,” the person means the god who sent his son Jesus into the world to be crucified and resurrected to pay for mankind’s sins, make you a theological hair-splitter?
Would responding, “Then you do not believe in the god of the Christians,” make you a person who can’t see the forest for the trees?
Would it be a form of religious incorrectness to further press the issue and inquire whether the person meant by “god” a deity who sent Mohammed to be his final, true prophet?
To conclude that the person does not believe in the Muslim god and that billions of people around the globe use the word differently than he or she does … would make you what? A semantic nit-picker?
It is no small matter to ask people to clarify not only what god they believe in, but also what god they claim is either unknown to them or unknowable. In fact, this is an essential issue, one that when glossed over legitimizes a whole slew of bogus suppositions and concepts.
I think evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins perfectly sums up the atheist position with these words: “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
By refusing to define “god” — in any way deserving to be called a definition — we put a huge hurdle in front of the possibility of going that last god further.
Some may argue that their idea of god is by nature indefinable. To them I say, “Then stick a sock in it already, for either you are committing blasphemy-by-default or talking complete nonsense, or both.”
Many other people may define the god they are unsure whether or not they believe in as “a great mystery.” But what is meant by “great”? Does the person simply mean “big”? Mystery is basically a dramatic way of referring to something unknown. Which could also be called ignorance. Is your god simply a state of tantalizing ignorance?
Here’s a mundane mystery to solve: How did that pile of dog stuff get on the living room carpet, considering the dogs were in the yard all day? That is a mystery. But few people would classify this type of mystery as a religious experience. What type of ignorance belongs in the class of “special mystery” that is used as a bogus synonym for “god”?
Some times it can be difficult to go that one last god, seeing all edges of it have been so thoroughly buffed that only a faint shimmering je ne sais quoi remains.
As I see it, the agnostic has the best of both worlds. He or she can claim to be sophisticated enough to not believe in the existence of well-defined deities such as the Navajo “Black Body,” god of fire. They can also claim to be not so close-minded as to be able to offer a definite answer to the presumably weighty question, “Do you believe God exists — you know God God?”
Call me close-minded. I believe all of humanity’s gods are equally mythical.
Presented with a coherent definition of a god and even remotely compelling evidence, I’d change my tune. But for now, I have no belief in a god. And I can’t help but feel that those who answer the question in the affirmative, or believe the question is unanswerable, have slapped a fancy yet misleading name onto a steaming pile of fully hypothetical poo.
Recent Comments