You are here
News Feeds
Bill Maher’s New Rule: Guilt by Civilization
For some reason Bill Maher’s latest comedy/news video, “New Rules: Guilt by Civilization”, is age-restricted (it must be the photo of Bianca Censori in her see-through outfit) , but you can see it by clicking either here or on the “Watch on YouTube” line below.
The beginning is great, as Maher claims that the Democrats won’t win elections unless they stop doing land acknowledgments, which. as he shows, was made by , by Julianne Hough in a cringeworthy announcement that kicked off the Oscars this year (I had no idea!) He says, and I agree, “Either give the land back, or shut the fuck up.” He adds, with tongue in cheek, “If you want to thank a tribe for Hollywood, start with the Jews.”
Maher then moves on to New Zealand’s wokeness, noting the recent recognition of a mountain sacred to the Māori as a person having all the rights of a human. He takes down “the authority of the sacred victim” by simply asking, “Can we please get over this idea that ancient people weren’t just as full of shit—in fact, more full of shit—than humans today? It’s so simplistic—this idea of ‘guilt by civilization’—that the ancient and indigenous and not us was always better than us. It wasn’t.” He highlights some of the problems with ancient Māori civilization in a way that’s not going to go down well in New Zealand.
Maher points out all the advantages of modern, “civilized” life, like anesthetics, refrigeration, medicine, etc. and disses the “but-they-lived-in-harmony-with nature” trope. He admits that what the European invaders did to the Indians was “not good”, but also “not unusual” since Native American tribes were not only constantly warring with each other, but often enslaving each other.
His final touting of fairly steady progress since ancient times—progress both technological and moral—could have been taken from the pages of Steve Pinker’s books The Better Angels of our Nature or Enlightenment Now. Those books have received a lot of criticism, but it’s hard to deny the data they adduce. And if you want to reject their thesis of centuries long improvement in moral and bodily well-being—the same as Maher’s thesis here—ask yourself this: “Would you rather have lived your life in the 14th century–or now?” If you answer “now,” then you’d probably have already been dead years ago.
Caturday felid trifecta: Do cats recognize themselves in a mirror?: cat helps owner with ice-water therapy, “Flow” cat shows up at Oscars; and lagniaippe
Here’s a question that cat owners probably ask themselves. Certainly some cats go nuts when they see themselves in the mirror, but they could be thinking it’s just another cat and not their own reflection? Here, according to petMD, is how SCIENCE addresses the question. click to read:
The test scientists use for self-recognition is the famous “mirror test“, which has been criticized because it depends on a critical use of animal vision, and not all species are very visual. They have, for example, used odor in animals like dogs (e.g., do they recognize their own odor?) From the article:
Understanding that you are the person staring back at you in the mirror may seem obvious, but it’s a feat of mental gymnastics that you probably didn’t develop until you were 18 to 24 months old. Scientists have used the mirror-self recognition test (also called the MSR or mark test) to assess self-awareness in humans and animals for decades.
How the test is run varies slightly from study to study, but MSR tests work by exposing animals to mirrors. Once the animal is used to the mirrors’ presence, the researcher places a marker, like a sticker or a patch of dye, on a part of the animal’s body they can’t readily see (their face or neck, for example).
If the animal investigates the visible mark on their body while looking at themselves in the mirror, they are said to pass the MSR test. In other words, they saw something unusual on their body when they looked in the mirror and reacted in a way that showed understanding that their reflection was their own image.
Some animals, such as great apes, elephants, dolphins, and magpies, have passed the MSR test, but many others haven’t. While there haven’t been any rigorous mark tests involving cats, one recent study made use of YouTube videos and concluded that cats can’t recognize themselves in the mirror.
But what about moggies?
Understanding that you are the person staring back at you in the mirror may seem obvious, but it’s a feat of mental gymnastics that you probably didn’t develop until you were 18 to 24 months old. Scientists have used the mirror-self recognition test (also called the MSR or mark test) to assess self-awareness in humans and animals for decades.
How the test is run varies slightly from study to study, but MSR tests work by exposing animals to mirrors. Once the animal is used to the mirrors’ presence, the researcher places a marker, like a sticker or a patch of dye, on a part of the animal’s body they can’t readily see (their face or neck, for example).
If the animal investigates the visible mark on their body while looking at themselves in the mirror, they are said to pass the MSR test. In other words, they saw something unusual on their body when they looked in the mirror and reacted in a way that showed understanding that their reflection was their own image.
Some animals, such as great apes, elephants, dolphins, and magpies, have passed the MSR test, but many others haven’t. While there haven’t been any rigorous mark tests involving cats, one recent study made use of YouTube videos and concluded that cats can’t recognize themselves in the mirror.
If you look at the paper, the answer is clearly “we have no idea,” for they don’t even used the “mark test” on cats. Clearly there is an important question here begging for an answer, and that answer is not that hard to get, even if the test produces false negatives (e.g. when animal does recognize itself but the mark test fails). Cats are visual animals, though, so someone should slap some red sticky dots on cats’ heads and see what happens. The article even tells you how to do it at home!
The best thing about the MSR test is you can easily try it at home with your own cat. Here’s how:
- Place a large mirror on the floor where your cat likes to spend a lot of time.
- Let your cat get used to the mirror for at least a few days.
- Cut out two small squares of clear tape. Leave one clear and color the other so it will clearly stand out when placed on your cat’s fur.
- When you’re ready to perform the test, place the colored piece of tape on the bottom of your cat’s neck and the clear one nearby.
- Put your cat in front of the mirror and watch how they react.
- Cats who look at themselves in the mirror and quickly try to remove the colored piece of tape might be demonstrating self-awareness!
I’m not sure what the clear tape is for, though.
There are videos of cats seeing themselves in the mirror, but they say little about self-recognition:
When you watch videos of cats seeing themselves in the mirror, it’s obvious they know that something important is going on. The cats’ body language falls into two categories:
- Aggressive: The arched back, erect hair, and puffy tail flicking back and forth are all signs of agitation and aggression in cats. Often, cats show signs of aggression because they are scared and feel like they need to defend themselves.
- Curious: Some cats don’t appear agitated but are simply curious. Their eyes are open wide, and their ears are pricked forward.
You can see both aggression and curiosity in the linked video, which I’ve put below:
***************************
From that ever-informative magazine Newsweek, we learn that people are starting to dunk their faces into bowls of ice water or ice cubes, convinced that this will improve their skin. (I have no idea if there’s any data to support this, though the magazine found one doctor who said, “By constricting blood vessels, cold exposure reduces inflammation and redness, alleviating puffiness and restoring a refreshed look. Cold exposure is particularly helpful for those who have irritable skin through the constriction of blood vessels, alleviating swelling and flushes.”)
At any rate, a helpful cat helped its staff get through this painful procedure. Click on headline to read.
An excerpt:
For many, achieving flawless skin doesn’t happen overnight and often requires effort—whether through skincare products, facials, or even dunking your face in a bowl of ice-cold water, as this woman demonstrates.
Ice-cold therapy for facial skin can reduce puffiness and inflammation, and tighten pores; however, putting your face in the freezing water is the hard part. So, it’s no wonder Makayla Raezz (@makayla.raezz) is reluctant during her TikTok video, which has an astounding 17.7 million views.
Fortunately, she has a supportive kitten called Calypso who seems determined to help Raezz reap the benefits. She stands on her hind legs, places her front paws on her owner’s head, and simply pushes her face into the water.
The feline is referred to as her owner’s “personal cheerleader,” but not all TikTok users agree. Many were left wondering if the cat’s actions were playful or something more sinister. The debate in the comments continues to grow, with some users calling it “supportive” while others remain suspicious of the cat’s motives.
So far, the video has 2.8 million likes and over 7,000 comments, with many viewers assuming the worst.
“I think your cat want[s] you dead,” said one user, while others have written in the first person what they believe the cat would say if she could talk.
“Shhh shhh don’t fight it,” said one comment with over half a million likes, and another wrote: “This hurts me more than it hurts you.”
“Shhhhh just go into the light, girl!” said a third commenter and a fourth wrote: “Nah she was tryna take you out right there sis,” gathering over 20,000 likes.
Nonetheless, whatever the cat’s intentions were, her owner seemed happy that she helped her brace the cold. She even smirks at her kitten’s efforts, amused by the unexpected push. After all, it is beneficial.
Here’s the video under debate:
@makayla.raezz
****************************
The movie “Flow,” an animated film featuring a cat and some other creatures, like a capybara and a lemur, encountering a worldwide flood apocalypse, is superb, and I’ve been touting it for a while. Well, it just won the Oscar for the Best Animated Feature Film, and you should see it. Below is a video of the award, and notice the black cat to the left during the award and in the picture below. Note also that one awardee says that “we’re all in the same boat,” indicating one theme of the movie, which features no words or humans—only animal noises. The movie was made by a group that included Latvians, French, and Belgians.
Oh, here’s the trailer again:
*************************
Lagniappe: A statue memorializing a famous cat lady who lived on the Canary Islands of Spain:
h/t: Ginger K.
Readers’ wildlife photos
Today we have some front- and backyard photos of flowers taken by Rik Gern of Austin Texas. Rik’s notes are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.
Here are two more examples of plants from the front and back yard. They are both species of ground cover, and are common in Central Texas.
I sent you some pictures of Lawnflower, aka Straggler Daisy (Calyptocarpus vialis) a few years ago, but a new camera inspired new pictures. Lawnflower has antibacterial properties, grows just about anywhere, is comfortable underfoot, and mows easily. What’s not to like?
The next small plant is Common Chickweed (Stellaria media).The flower is so small that it’s easy to miss. Unlike Lawnflower, Common Chickweed is an introduced species. It is allegedly edible and has been used to treat conditions such as itchy skin.
Neither species is unusual, exotic, or eye catching, but both are examples of the common beauty that surrounds us if we open our eyes to it.
How Humans Can Reinvent Themselves to Live on Other Worlds
Let’s face it: Space is a hostile environment for humans. Even on Mars, settlers might have a hard time coping with potentially lethal levels of radiation, scarce resources and reduced gravity. In “Mickey 17” — a new sci-fi movie from Bong Joon Ho, the South Korean filmmaker who made his mark with “Parasite” — an expendable space traveler named Mickey (Robert Pattinson) is exposed over and over again to deadly risks. And every time he’s killed, the lab’s 3D printer just churns out another copy of Mickey.
Thousands join Stand Up for Science rallies across the US
Four ways cuts at NOAA will make weather forecasts less reliable
Stretching spider silk makes it stronger
Ozempic is increasingly being linked to vision loss. What’s the truth?
Security veins: Advanced biometric authentication through AI and infrared
Developing the inherent functionality of highly pure porous organic polymers
Researchers create gel that can self-heal like human skin
An aerosol test for airborne bird flu
GIFs helping footballers to sleep better
AI reveals new way to strengthen titanium alloys and speed up manufacturing
AI reveals new way to strengthen titanium alloys and speed up manufacturing
The difference between scholarship and political activism
You wouldn’t think that this difference would need to be discussed once again, but yes it does, because distinguishing between the two is one of the missions of new University of Chicago Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression, founded with a $100 million (!) gift of an anonymous donor. This forum hit the ground running, with a number of special events and discussions on free expression, usually related to how it works and should work on college campuses. Its first director, Tom Ginsburg, who teaches International Law and Political Science here, has buttressed his mission by publishing several articles in the most widely-read forum for higher academia, The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Ginsburg’s piece below, which you can access by clicking on the link, explains why scholarship and not political advocacy is what we want in University classrooms. Moreover, departments and units of the University should not be engaged in making “official” political pronouncements that chill speech (that is a violation of our Kalven Report, now endorsed by 30 universities besides ours.
I’ll give a few quotes below, which echo in more eloquent language positions I’ve held and advanced on this website. I’ve put the quotes under my own bold headings, but words from Ginsburg’s essay are indented:
Why you can’t just teach anything in the classroom (i.e., no complete “free speech” in class):
Academic freedom is centrally dependent on claims of professional expertise. Within a field, academics have freedom of teaching and research. (In the United States, at least, academics are also allowed broad extramural speech.) But academics can be punished for failure to observe disciplinary standards.\
In my own case, I cannot go into my constitutional-law course and instead teach the laws of physics or advertise the latest brand of detergent; the reason this is true is that no legal academic would in good faith recognize those speech acts as within the domain of constitutional law. While I cannot be fired for the way I teach constitutional law, I can be punished for failing to do the job for which I was hired.
This is why you can’t teach creationism (judged by the courts as “not science”) in a science class, even of the Discovery Institute would have it otherwise. The line between teaching and advocacy, however, can be thin—especially so when you’re teaching politics. It’s all too easy when teaching about the history of the Middle East, for example, to distort what happened to favor the message you want to impart (and of course history has divergent interpretations).
Why “studies’ courses are particularly susceptible to advocacy. (Ginsburg largely exempts black studies, which seems to have reached academic maturity). Not many science courses in college include ideological advocacy; this is found more often in secondary schools.American society, however, began to doubt such claims of neutrality with the crisis of the 1960s. Many of the academic disciplines created in that period were born under a political star and rejected claims of technocratic neutrality in favor of promoting perspectives that had theretofore been excluded. It is hardly surprising they saw their mission as integrating scholarship with a particular set of definitions of social change.
Unfortunately, these fields also became active agents of social construction and political mobilization, sometimes on an ethnic basis. Scholarly associations of these new interdisciplinary fields do not hide these goals. The Chicana- and Chicano-studies association begins its mission statement by saying it will “advance the interest and needs of the Chicana and Chicano community.” The Association for Asian American Studies mission statement includes as an objective “advocating and representing the interests and welfare of Asian American studies and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.”
Presumably scholars in these fields are evaluated not only by their scholarship but by their advocacy of particular interest groups. We can understand why histories of exclusion encouraged scholars to blur the lines between scholarship and advocacy, but doing so draws on the social capital of the scholarly enterprise for unabashedly political purposes. (Interestingly, Black studies may have done a better job of transforming into a stable scholarly interdiscipline.)
Among older disciplines, anthropology has led the way in insisting that cultural advocacy must be at the heart of scholarship. In a 1999 statement on human rights, the American Anthropological Association pronounced that it had “an ethical duty to protest” when any culture or society denies the right of people and peoples to the “full realization of their humanity.” But in 2020, it refined this commitment to include a cultural relativism, stating that “no one jurisdiction ought to impose its own interpretation of how to recognize and protect these rights on any other jurisdiction.” Reflecting on its own tainted history, the AAA leadership went on to demand “forms of research and engagement that contribute to decolonization and help redress histories of oppression and exploitation.”
When one’s scholarship is designed to include advocacy — what Tarunabh Khaitan has called “scholactivism” — risks are obvious. Advocates may reject or downplay inconvenient results, distorting academic debates. More deeply, they violate the “role morality” — the notion that some roles entail specific ethical commitments — of scholarship, which is the very basis for the social tolerance of academic freedom in the first place. While of course there is always a deep politics of scholarship, for example in the selection of topics for inquiry or methods for approaching them, these biases ought to be examined and minimized in genuine inquiry, not celebrated. This requires a humility about the limits of one’s own perspective.
Academic boycotts. The American Association of University Professors recently removed its opposition to boycotts, clearly so that scholars could boycott Israel. That was a cowardly and heinous move, which impedes academic freedom. Ginsburg says this:
The horrors of the Gaza war have provided a litmus test for whether disciplines are committed to genuine inquiry or instead to “scholactivism.” Several associations have debated or passed resolutions calling for a ceasefire. With the tacit support of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), several scholarly associations have signed on to a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. These include the Association for Asian American Studies, the African Literature Association, the Critical Ethnic Studies Association, the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association.
While the promoters of the boycott emphasize that it is not to be directed at individual scholars, it has in fact led to hundreds if not thousands of individual-level cancellations of scholarly engagements and collaborations. Such a collective boycott arguably undermines the academic freedom of scholars at both targeted and targeting institutions, who should be free to collaborate with whom they choose. Advocates of academic freedom should oppose this kind of boycott vigorously.
Institutional neutrality. The last part of the essay promotes the kind of institutional neutrality first adopted by the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report in 1967, and now held by about 30 schools. It is an essential part of Chicago’s promotion of free speech, because if a department or center
. . .We should, for example, call into question the general practice of scholarly associations making pronouncements by majority rule. The internal progress of science depends on tolerating dissidents and does not proceed by majority rule. Why should things be different when the discipline is speaking as a whole? A small step of self-correction would be to use collective statements only in extreme circumstances, perhaps only with super-majoritarian rather than majoritarian mechanisms.
. . . . In a prescient observation in 2001, Clark Kerr noted that there was a conflict between the traditional view of the university that flowed from the enlightenment, embodied in a vision of seeking truth and objectivity, and a postmodern vision in which all discourse is political, with university resources to be deployed in ways that were liberatory and not repressive. He thought the conflict might further deepen, and noted that “any further politicization of the university will, of course, alienate much of the public at large.”
As we stand at a moment of deep alienation, stepping back from the further politicization of scholarship is an existential step.
This essay originally appeared in Inquisitive.
The postmodern view is wrong, and it’s clearly opposed by Ginsburg. The Chicago Forum is clearly defending the Chicago Principles of Free Speech, but is also a forum for discussing and tweaking those principles. When, for example, do demonstrations on campus abrogate freedom of speech? When does teaching lapse into advocacy? We have continuing discussions about issues like this, and the Forum is also supports a unit on freedom of expression given to first-year students before they start classes. Actually, our faculty need it as much as do the students!
Does education help build a cognitive reserve to ward off dementia?
The exchange of letters to the tri-Societies continues; they largely concede our points
On March 2, 125 scientists and people affiliated with biology (from 18 countries) signed a letter to the presidents of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN), and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB) See my post about this here.
Our letter and signatures, resulting largely from the effort of Luana Maroja of Williams College, was written to object to the three societies’ previously published claim that biological sex in all species (not just humans) was some sort of multidimensional social construct that was, above all, NOT binary. Here’s one paragraph from their letter, dated February 5, 2025 and addressed to President Trump and “Members of the U.S. Congress.”
Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex. Accordingly, sex (and gendered expression) is not a binary trait. While some aspects of sex are bimodal, variation along the continuum of male to female is well documented in humans through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.
I can’t resist pointing out that the “lived identity” part has nothing to do with biological sex, but shows more than anything the ideological purposes of this letter.
Although these views were presented as a “scientific consensus”, the societies did not poll their members. Rather, I gather that they consulted their executive boards and decided that this was a good way to signal their virtue—even if involved distorting biology. Their “multidimensional, multivariate” concept of sex, which incorporates information from a number of disparate traits, is in sharp contrast with what most biologists see as the definition of sex: a binary trait in all animals and plants that is based solely on whether they have the reproductive apparatus to produce large versus small gametes. As Richard Dawkins has explained, the latter gamete-based “Universal Biological Definition” (UBD) of sex has the advantage that, yes, it’s universal (every plant and animal species has only two types of gametes), and it’s also explanatory, essential for understanding stuff like natural selection and sexual dimorphism. The multidimensional definition is neither universal nor explanatory.
The Tri-Societies “definition”—which isn’t really a definition—gives us no way to answer the two questions, “Well, how do you tell what sex a person/animal/plant really is?” and “How many sexes are there, then?” It’s a useless construct foisted on the public to show solidarity with those people who don’t identify with one of the two biological sexes. (I repeat again that it’s a description of nature, not a a prescription about how people should be treated.) But we felt that such a letter needed to be sent to show that by no means do all biologists agree on a multivariate definite of sex.
Our first letter (identical, but with only 23 signatures) was never answered, but this time we asked for a response and got one, signed by all three Presidents. I can’t reprint it because we didn’t ask for permission, but some of its gist is in the response below from Luana. I will say that they admitted that they think they’re in close agreement with us (I am not so sure!), that their letter wasn’t properly phrased, that some of our differences come from different semantic interpretations of words like “binary” and “continuum”(nope), and that they didn’t send the letter anyway because a federal judge changed the Executive Order on sex (this didn’t affect our criticisms). At any rate, the tri-Societies letter is on hold because the organizations are now concerned with more serious threats from the Trump Administration, like science funding.
While I can’t reveal all the points they made, I can say that I see this largely as a victory for reason, as although the letter is still up at the link (they really should remove it and inform the members of the Societies), it wasn’t ever sent and they admit that it has several deficiencies. However, since they do admit those deficiencies, they really should take the letter down because it misrepresents biological reality as well the views of many–perhaps most–evolutionists. (You can also find the letter archived here).
At any rate, the Societies’ letter was sent to all 125 signers, some of whom read this website and are able to comment on the response. In the meantime, yesterday Luana sent the letter below to the Societies (quoted with permission). Given that the Societies admit the letter was misleading and yet it’s still on the internet representing what is said to be a “scientific consensus” and not even giving a definition of biological sex, the proper thing to do would involve either taking it down or writing something newer based on a poll of the Societies’ members.
Luana’s letter:
Dear Dan, Jessica and Carol,
Thank you for your response. We are pleased to hear that the letter has not yet been sent . Is the letter going to be removed from the website and members notified of the change and any future changes?
I am unclear what you mean by “Subsequently a federal judge decided against the Executive Order we were commenting on, and the wording of that EO then changed, rendering our original letter moot.” I am not aware of such change – the EO is still in place (here). What are you referring to?
Furthermore, subsequent to the Executive Order 14168, the HHS has released a guidance (here) to the U.S. government, external partners, and the public to expand on the sex-based definitions. The HHS guidance changed the definition related to “producing gametes” (at conception) to sex “characterized by a reproductive system with the biological function of producing” eggs (ova) or sperm.
We hope we can indeed find common ground,
Best,
Luana
I end by saying that scientific societies need not be “institutionally neutral” when they are dealing with issues that affect the mission of the societies, as the definition of sex surely does. But what’s not okay is for the societies to distort “scientific consensus” in the interest of ideology. I have no idea if the Presidents of these societies really believe what they said (as Dawkins has pointed out, all three Presidents use a binary notion of sex in their own biological work), but something is deeply wrong when you use one notion of sex in your own science and yet deny that notion when you’re telling politicians what scientists “really believe.”
The Athena Lunar Lander Also Fell Over on its Side
The Athena Lunar Lander Also Fell Over on its Side
Rotating Black Holes are Packed with Energy. Here's How to Unlock It
Rotating Black Holes are Packed with Energy. Here's How to Unlock It
Pages
