Well there is a time for all good things to end. This blog has been a great experience. However, I have gotten an opportunity to blog with a group of Christian sociologists. It is a good match for me and so I have agreed to join them. I will start blogging in July on the first and third Saturdays of the month. I hope you will join me there.
You may wonder if I am going to keep my name "trouble-maker." The answer is no. It was the right name for this solitary blog. But I will be working with other scholars and they may see such a label and non-professional. So I guess I have to grow up a little. But make no mistake about it, I will still be causing some trouble. My willingness to question what others do not want to talk about will remain.
So this will be my final sign-off for this blog. I will leave it up for the time being. But you can follow me at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/ if you want to keep up with my work. It has been a pleasure blogging on my own and now I look forward to joining this team.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker (for the last time)
Monday, June 25, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Science and Politics - A Bad Mix
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/06/gay_parents_are_they_really_no_different_.html
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I am a scientist. But this is why many people, myself included, are skeptical about science. For years we have been hearing that same-sex parents are no different than other parents. This has been the rallying cry for same-sex adoption. Yet as pointed out in this link it was very flawed research that generated such findings. No matter. It was the PC finding that was wanted and so forget the flaws.
Then Dr. Regnerus uses a superior sampling technique (I will save you from boredom from going into the details why this technique is superior to the nonprobability samples used before) and finds that may a difference. You would have thought the world was coming to an end. Check out the type of comments that are left for the article. These are not scientific comments. they are political comments masquerading as scientific comments. If they were truly scientific comments then we would also see the commentators talk about the bigger flaws in previous work.
Let me assure you that there are limitations to Regnerus's work. Here is the dirty little secret. There are limitations to all scientific work. He explains that much of these limitations are unavoidable. But the previously done work has even greater limitations and people were hailing that work as proof that sexual orientation does not matter. So I have to ask myself why these limitations matter now? Am I just being cynical in believing that those limitations matter now because Regnerus's study does not fit with the political theme many scholars want? Color me cynical.
I point this up not merely because of this particular question. Anytime scientists tackle a politically potent topic we are wise to ask about the biases of the work. It is unfortunate but the treatment of Regnerus work in comparison to the inferior previous work illustrates that bias. I have documented elements of this bias in my work as well. I want science to be a dispassionate search for truth. But I keep running into too much evidence that it is not.
Ultimately this is why we have global warming skeptics. This is why evolution is challenged. This is why a variety of scientific issues are just another battle in the culture war. And until we evaluate all research by identical criteria this is the fate of scientific efforts on controversial issues.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, May 18, 2012
An Innocent Man
Well we finally done it. We finally killed an innocent man. Check this out.
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
For years proponents of the death penalty argued that it had not been proven that an innocent person had been put to death in modern times. From now on they can not say this. This poor fellow was on parole. Last time I checked that was not a penalty punishable by death.
There is a saying that it is better than 10 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person is punished. Well that is not the exact saying but you get what I mean. I hate that saying. It implies that we can never punish someone because there is the slightest possibility that an innocent person may be punished. Do you want to live in a society where we put NO ONE in jail. I don't. There are despicable people who need to be behind bars. It is not as much as I have a desire to punish them but I want myself and my family to be safe.
But behind bars and dead are two different things. If we find out someone is innocent 20 years after the fact then that is sad. But at least we can give that person the rest of their life back. If we kill them then, well you see where that gets us in the story above. So I hate the original saying. But I do support this saying. Better 10 guilty people get to live rather than 1 innocent person be put to death. Let me do it one better. Better 100,000 guilty people get to live behind bars for the rest of their life then 1 innocent person be put to death. What is unreasonable about that?
The saddest thing about the death penalty is that there is no real need for it. Our prisons are practically escape proof. It costs more money to put someone to death, after all of the appeals and such, than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. So the death penalty does not save us money. And in a society where there is still class and race advantages we know that the death penalty can not be fairly applied. Oh yeah. And we now know that we have killed an innocent man.
I fully support life without parole. For some that may be a worse punishment than the death penalty. And we can make sure that tragedies such as this one can never happen again. Until we have God's wisdom and can guarantee that such tragedies will never not occur that should be the standard of a society humble enough to know that mistakes can be made.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html
For years proponents of the death penalty argued that it had not been proven that an innocent person had been put to death in modern times. From now on they can not say this. This poor fellow was on parole. Last time I checked that was not a penalty punishable by death.
There is a saying that it is better than 10 guilty people go free rather than 1 innocent person is punished. Well that is not the exact saying but you get what I mean. I hate that saying. It implies that we can never punish someone because there is the slightest possibility that an innocent person may be punished. Do you want to live in a society where we put NO ONE in jail. I don't. There are despicable people who need to be behind bars. It is not as much as I have a desire to punish them but I want myself and my family to be safe.
But behind bars and dead are two different things. If we find out someone is innocent 20 years after the fact then that is sad. But at least we can give that person the rest of their life back. If we kill them then, well you see where that gets us in the story above. So I hate the original saying. But I do support this saying. Better 10 guilty people get to live rather than 1 innocent person be put to death. Let me do it one better. Better 100,000 guilty people get to live behind bars for the rest of their life then 1 innocent person be put to death. What is unreasonable about that?
The saddest thing about the death penalty is that there is no real need for it. Our prisons are practically escape proof. It costs more money to put someone to death, after all of the appeals and such, than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. So the death penalty does not save us money. And in a society where there is still class and race advantages we know that the death penalty can not be fairly applied. Oh yeah. And we now know that we have killed an innocent man.
I fully support life without parole. For some that may be a worse punishment than the death penalty. And we can make sure that tragedies such as this one can never happen again. Until we have God's wisdom and can guarantee that such tragedies will never not occur that should be the standard of a society humble enough to know that mistakes can be made.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
A Sad Day
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/the-most-persuasive-case-for-eliminating-black-studies-just-read-the-dissertations/46346
Naomi Riley was recently fired. She was fired as a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education for the blog posted above. More than 6000 academic wrote in to complain and to ask for her to be fired. They got their wish. This is a sad day in academia.
I have my own critiques of Black Studies programs. Some of them may overlap with Ms. Riley's critiques but many of them do not. But this is not the place to explore my concerns about such programs. I am sad because academics, the people who are suppose to deal with diverse ideas, decided that Ms. Riley's ideas was too painful and she had to be fired. It hurts me to hear academics cheer her firing. What are they afraid of? If her ideas are too weak then destroy them in the arena of ideas. Seeking to have someone fired because of their ideas is an unscholarly thing for a scholar to do.
I am nearly a free speech absolutist. But I have done research indicating that many academics are not as open-minded as they may believe themselves to be. They seek to shut down the speech they disagree with. They are hesitant to hire those with ideas that radically depart from their own. This episode reinforces my fears that social pressures and political desires drive much of academia then real thirst for knowledge and intellectual curiosity.
This year we will have a presidential election. We will be subject to a great deal of spin from both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have viewpoints to push and are not really interested in finding the best solution, just the solution that makes them seem right and the other party seem wrong. That is politics and I guess that is the way it is to be in politics. In science we are suppose to be open to alternate ideas. We are suppose to investigate them even if we think them unwise at first. But we are not that way. If you do not conform to what we want to hear then we will seek your firing and if we can not do that then we will marginalize you in ways so that we do not have to debate you.
This reinforces my skepticism of things such as global warming. Once I see there is a political agenda attached to a scientific theory I begin to wonder if dissenters to that theory have been given a fair opportunity to present their view. Or have we merely fired them and shut them out of the conversation. Incidents like this reinforce the reasons why some people treat science just like they treat members of the opposition political party. And we academics who seek to get those fired who we disagree with have no one to blame but ourselves. This is a sad day for academia.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Naomi Riley was recently fired. She was fired as a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education for the blog posted above. More than 6000 academic wrote in to complain and to ask for her to be fired. They got their wish. This is a sad day in academia.
I have my own critiques of Black Studies programs. Some of them may overlap with Ms. Riley's critiques but many of them do not. But this is not the place to explore my concerns about such programs. I am sad because academics, the people who are suppose to deal with diverse ideas, decided that Ms. Riley's ideas was too painful and she had to be fired. It hurts me to hear academics cheer her firing. What are they afraid of? If her ideas are too weak then destroy them in the arena of ideas. Seeking to have someone fired because of their ideas is an unscholarly thing for a scholar to do.
I am nearly a free speech absolutist. But I have done research indicating that many academics are not as open-minded as they may believe themselves to be. They seek to shut down the speech they disagree with. They are hesitant to hire those with ideas that radically depart from their own. This episode reinforces my fears that social pressures and political desires drive much of academia then real thirst for knowledge and intellectual curiosity.
This year we will have a presidential election. We will be subject to a great deal of spin from both Republicans and Democrats. Both parties have viewpoints to push and are not really interested in finding the best solution, just the solution that makes them seem right and the other party seem wrong. That is politics and I guess that is the way it is to be in politics. In science we are suppose to be open to alternate ideas. We are suppose to investigate them even if we think them unwise at first. But we are not that way. If you do not conform to what we want to hear then we will seek your firing and if we can not do that then we will marginalize you in ways so that we do not have to debate you.
This reinforces my skepticism of things such as global warming. Once I see there is a political agenda attached to a scientific theory I begin to wonder if dissenters to that theory have been given a fair opportunity to present their view. Or have we merely fired them and shut them out of the conversation. Incidents like this reinforce the reasons why some people treat science just like they treat members of the opposition political party. And we academics who seek to get those fired who we disagree with have no one to blame but ourselves. This is a sad day for academia.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Vanderbilt = Bob Jones
http://www.christianpost.com/news/legal-expert-religious-clubs-have-no-case-against-vanderbilts-nondiscrimination-policy-68542/
I read this article and I am not surprised at the conclusion of the legal expert. Vanderbilt has decided that student organizations can not use religious beliefs to select their leaders. This means that Christian organizations can not disallow an atheist from a leadership position. Essentially, Vanderbilt wants to hide behind some corrupt notion of multiculturalism to squash religious expression.
I know that many religious organizations want to find legal ways to reverse the decisions of the Vanderbilt administration. I used to agree with them. But I realize that as a private institution they have the right to be bigots. So now I merely think that we should expose the Christianophobic desires of the Vanderbilt administration.
We should concede Vanderbilts' legal right. Years ago Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating. They were wrong. But they had the legal right to do that. They are a private university and were free to practice racial bigotry. Likewise Vanderbilt is free to practice religious bigotry. Let them be stigmatized like Bob Jones University has been. That should be the price that Vanderbilt pays.
With this concession of Vanderbilt's rights I hope that progressives realize that this opens the door for other private educational institutions. When a Christian university passes rules that does not allow for an organization supporting homosexuals then I would expect the same individuals who turned their back on Christian organizations at Vanderbilt to acknowledge the rights of these Christian universities. To not do so would be hypocritical. And if they complain about these Christian universities then those complaints should fall on deaf ears. Only if you defend organizations that you disagree with do you have legitimacy to defend the organizations you do agree with.
So Vanderbilt, you are Bob Jones. Do not like that comparison? Too bad. If you act like a bigot then you should be seen as a bigot. You are a private institution and you have the legal right to crush religious expression. We have a right to see you for what you truly are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I read this article and I am not surprised at the conclusion of the legal expert. Vanderbilt has decided that student organizations can not use religious beliefs to select their leaders. This means that Christian organizations can not disallow an atheist from a leadership position. Essentially, Vanderbilt wants to hide behind some corrupt notion of multiculturalism to squash religious expression.
I know that many religious organizations want to find legal ways to reverse the decisions of the Vanderbilt administration. I used to agree with them. But I realize that as a private institution they have the right to be bigots. So now I merely think that we should expose the Christianophobic desires of the Vanderbilt administration.
We should concede Vanderbilts' legal right. Years ago Bob Jones University prohibited interracial dating. They were wrong. But they had the legal right to do that. They are a private university and were free to practice racial bigotry. Likewise Vanderbilt is free to practice religious bigotry. Let them be stigmatized like Bob Jones University has been. That should be the price that Vanderbilt pays.
With this concession of Vanderbilt's rights I hope that progressives realize that this opens the door for other private educational institutions. When a Christian university passes rules that does not allow for an organization supporting homosexuals then I would expect the same individuals who turned their back on Christian organizations at Vanderbilt to acknowledge the rights of these Christian universities. To not do so would be hypocritical. And if they complain about these Christian universities then those complaints should fall on deaf ears. Only if you defend organizations that you disagree with do you have legitimacy to defend the organizations you do agree with.
So Vanderbilt, you are Bob Jones. Do not like that comparison? Too bad. If you act like a bigot then you should be seen as a bigot. You are a private institution and you have the legal right to crush religious expression. We have a right to see you for what you truly are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Internet Alterations
Recently I have completed collecting data on atheists. I have been curious about this group and this was an opportunity for me to satisfy that curiosity. I found it very interesting research and perhaps one day I will share some of the findings on this blog.
But this entry is not about the atheists. We collected data with an online survey where the respondent remained anonymous and another study where we used a face to face interview. What I found interesting is different ways the atheists reacted to us depending on how we collected our data. The answers from the online survey were quite derogatory towards religion in general and Christianity in particular. For example, one of the respondents wrote about Christians that we should “feed them to the lions.” The atheists we interviewed did not show much respect for religion but their comments were less caustic. They had opportunities to make derogatory comments but passed on those opportunities.
Why did they make more negative comments online than in person? Well it does not take an academic to figure that out. When we are writing the answer to a question to some unknown person we can be more hostile than when we are answering questions face to face, even though we may not know that person either. We were careful to not reveal our religious preferences when we did our interviews so for all the respondents knew we did not believe in the supernatural any more than they did. But it is still harder to be rude when you have to speak words to another person rather than write about killing religious out-groups.
Once again this is not about atheists. It is about the new ways we communicate with each other online. More and more the way we talk to each other is similar to the open ended questions that our atheists answered and not face to face as we did in our interviews. It may be that people are more honest when they can remain anonymous and online. But clearly they can also be more hostile and less respectful to others. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the comments section of a controversial online article. Depending on the topic you are likely to see examples of racism, anti-Christian bigotry, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, derogatory comments and insults of all types. People have a freedom to dehumanize and denigrate individuals when communicating in these discussion lists and you can see some really nasty stuff.
We have a polarized society and it is not surprising to see such hostile comments. But is this a reflection of the polarization in our society or has our online culture contributed to a new rude culture that we now live in? I tend to think that the latter is likely the case although I do not yet have any solid evidence that this is the case. If I am right then our internet culture is not only a tool for us but it is changing us and we may not like what we are changing into. Perhaps being online merely allows us to express our human nature which may have a natural tendency to denigrate those we disagree with. Regardless, we would be wise to continue to monitor our online culture and be aware of how it may change us or reveal who we really are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But this entry is not about the atheists. We collected data with an online survey where the respondent remained anonymous and another study where we used a face to face interview. What I found interesting is different ways the atheists reacted to us depending on how we collected our data. The answers from the online survey were quite derogatory towards religion in general and Christianity in particular. For example, one of the respondents wrote about Christians that we should “feed them to the lions.” The atheists we interviewed did not show much respect for religion but their comments were less caustic. They had opportunities to make derogatory comments but passed on those opportunities.
Why did they make more negative comments online than in person? Well it does not take an academic to figure that out. When we are writing the answer to a question to some unknown person we can be more hostile than when we are answering questions face to face, even though we may not know that person either. We were careful to not reveal our religious preferences when we did our interviews so for all the respondents knew we did not believe in the supernatural any more than they did. But it is still harder to be rude when you have to speak words to another person rather than write about killing religious out-groups.
Once again this is not about atheists. It is about the new ways we communicate with each other online. More and more the way we talk to each other is similar to the open ended questions that our atheists answered and not face to face as we did in our interviews. It may be that people are more honest when they can remain anonymous and online. But clearly they can also be more hostile and less respectful to others. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the comments section of a controversial online article. Depending on the topic you are likely to see examples of racism, anti-Christian bigotry, Islamophobia, Anti-Semitism, derogatory comments and insults of all types. People have a freedom to dehumanize and denigrate individuals when communicating in these discussion lists and you can see some really nasty stuff.
We have a polarized society and it is not surprising to see such hostile comments. But is this a reflection of the polarization in our society or has our online culture contributed to a new rude culture that we now live in? I tend to think that the latter is likely the case although I do not yet have any solid evidence that this is the case. If I am right then our internet culture is not only a tool for us but it is changing us and we may not like what we are changing into. Perhaps being online merely allows us to express our human nature which may have a natural tendency to denigrate those we disagree with. Regardless, we would be wise to continue to monitor our online culture and be aware of how it may change us or reveal who we really are.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, March 23, 2012
Bullying
I have a confession to make. When I was a young kid I was the victim of bullying. I was pretty small kid and could be pushed around. I also lacked confidence and kids tend to like to pick on those who lack confidence. It does not seem very masculine to admit that you were pushed around as a child. I guess that is why I do not talk that much about it.
Perhaps that is why I found it interesting all of the recent movement for the end of bullying. I can relate to the effects bullying can have on a kid. If there is a reasonable way we can cut down on bullying then by all means we should look at it. Is it possible that trouble-maker and Lady Gaga can agree on something?
Well not so much. It seems that all the activity against bullying is concentrated on one motivation for bullying. That is the bullying due to sexual preference. In other words it is about bullying people because of a perception or reality that they are homosexual. All of this activity would not have mattered one bit when I was a kid since that was not the reason for my torment. It seems that the new bully activists do not really care about what kids go through unless it is because of their sexual preference.
But the problem is deeper than that. Such anti-bullying activity could actually support more bullying. We could be creating an atmosphere that those who are deemed not accepting enough of homosexuality could find themselves the targets of different types of bullying. It may not be from other kids as much as it is from authorities. They may target those who are not PC enough on issues of sexual preference and differentially punish those who are deemed guilty of bullying homosexuals.
Think I am exaggerating? Take the case of Dharun Ravi. That is the Rutgers student who was found guilty for using a webcam on his roommate having sex with another man. His roommate killed himself due to this embarrassment. Ravi may get as much as ten years of prison for his crime and is likely to be deported. Was this stupid? Yes. Does he deserve to be punished? Absolutely. I am thinking suspension from college for a semester or so seems like an appropriate punishment. But ten years!!!! We all know of stupid and insensitive college pranks that should be punished. Fortunately most of us have not done such pranks against homosexuals. I believe that if Ravi had done his thoughtless prank with a heterosexual roommate he would have gotten a more appropriate punishment. The authorities have stepped in and upped the punishment greatly which sends a signal on who can and who cannot be bullied.
We really do need an anti-bullying movement in our society. A true anti-bullying movement would address bullying no matter what the motivation for the bullying. It would not classify some victims as more worthy of protection than others. We should not trade one form of bullying for another. Doing so will not decrease bullying but merely change its target. Ironically it is possible that the anti-bullying movement’s focus on sexual preference may have the net effect of increasing bullying in the United States.
I know what it is like to be the bottom kid on the totem pole. The fact that it was not because of my sexual preference did not make it more pleasant for me. Finding out why kids bullying each other and learning how to discourage bullying is a laudable goal. Let’s make it a benefit for all kids who are bullied and not merely for those who are bullied for politically correct reasons.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Perhaps that is why I found it interesting all of the recent movement for the end of bullying. I can relate to the effects bullying can have on a kid. If there is a reasonable way we can cut down on bullying then by all means we should look at it. Is it possible that trouble-maker and Lady Gaga can agree on something?
Well not so much. It seems that all the activity against bullying is concentrated on one motivation for bullying. That is the bullying due to sexual preference. In other words it is about bullying people because of a perception or reality that they are homosexual. All of this activity would not have mattered one bit when I was a kid since that was not the reason for my torment. It seems that the new bully activists do not really care about what kids go through unless it is because of their sexual preference.
But the problem is deeper than that. Such anti-bullying activity could actually support more bullying. We could be creating an atmosphere that those who are deemed not accepting enough of homosexuality could find themselves the targets of different types of bullying. It may not be from other kids as much as it is from authorities. They may target those who are not PC enough on issues of sexual preference and differentially punish those who are deemed guilty of bullying homosexuals.
Think I am exaggerating? Take the case of Dharun Ravi. That is the Rutgers student who was found guilty for using a webcam on his roommate having sex with another man. His roommate killed himself due to this embarrassment. Ravi may get as much as ten years of prison for his crime and is likely to be deported. Was this stupid? Yes. Does he deserve to be punished? Absolutely. I am thinking suspension from college for a semester or so seems like an appropriate punishment. But ten years!!!! We all know of stupid and insensitive college pranks that should be punished. Fortunately most of us have not done such pranks against homosexuals. I believe that if Ravi had done his thoughtless prank with a heterosexual roommate he would have gotten a more appropriate punishment. The authorities have stepped in and upped the punishment greatly which sends a signal on who can and who cannot be bullied.
We really do need an anti-bullying movement in our society. A true anti-bullying movement would address bullying no matter what the motivation for the bullying. It would not classify some victims as more worthy of protection than others. We should not trade one form of bullying for another. Doing so will not decrease bullying but merely change its target. Ironically it is possible that the anti-bullying movement’s focus on sexual preference may have the net effect of increasing bullying in the United States.
I know what it is like to be the bottom kid on the totem pole. The fact that it was not because of my sexual preference did not make it more pleasant for me. Finding out why kids bullying each other and learning how to discourage bullying is a laudable goal. Let’s make it a benefit for all kids who are bullied and not merely for those who are bullied for politically correct reasons.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)