Paul Hellyer is at it again.
Regular readers of Skeptophilia may recall about a year ago when I wrote about the peculiarities of Canada's former defense minister (read the post here). And by "peculiarities," I don't mean curious and charming little eccentricities you might chuckle about in our northern neighbors, such as participating in pastimes like "curling." I mean blathering on about ideas that make me wonder if he should be medicated.
Last year, he went on record as saying that it is his belief that there is a "shadow US government" that has been in contact with aliens, and that this shadow government is selling out large parts of the world in exchange for alien super-technology. Myself, I'm not so sure this is a bad idea. I would happily cede (say) Iran and North Korea to the aliens, given that those countries' current governments seem determined to make things as big a mess as possible and it's hard to see how the aliens could do much worse, if in payment the aliens could give me a jet pack and a Star Trek-style transporter. It would be worth giving up a few countries just to see the looks on my students' and coworkers' faces as I flew into school wearing my jet pack, or (better yet) simply materialized in a shimmer of sparkles just as class was about to start.
Of course, the difficulty with all of this is that the shadow government, and in fact the aliens, don't seem to exist, a point that seems to be lost on the Honorable Mr. Hellyer. But that hasn't stopped him from taking center stage again, this time in an interview on MSNBC, to rail against physicist Stephen Hawking for "spreading misinformation."
We are, Hellyer said, on the verge of an intergalactic war. I guess since last year, the shadow government has pissed off the aliens to the point that they're ready simply to zoom in, beat the crap out of us, and take over. So what we should be doing is building defensive bases on the moon, because we could "see them better from there, and shoot the alien ships down if necessary."
Then, nearly in the same breath, he says that he's not really sure if the aliens are our enemies after all.
"There is no evidence that I have seen that has convinced me that they are in fact enemy," he told the interviewer, who was wearing an expression that seemed to say, "If this guy comes any closer to me, I'm getting right the hell out of here."
"What I would like to know is whether this classification of alien enemy still exists or it doesn't," Hellyer went on, "and if it exists what the evidence is on which the United States government bases its conclusion."
After all, he says, aliens have been visiting us for millennia, and have already contributed greatly to our scientific and technological knowledge. For example, the microchip and fiber optics, Hellyer says, originated on another planet. I don't know about that, but I think an extraterrestrial origin is clearly indicated for the phenomenon of "dubstep," which sounds to my ears like an electronic keyboard having sex with a dial-up modem, and was apparently meant to be appealing only to non-human intelligences.
Be that as it may, Hellyer has now set his sights on a fairly lofty target, and I don't mean a spaceship. He has now levied some pretty serious criticism at renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, for abusing his position as one of the world's most famous scientists to give us the wrong ideas regarding aliens.
Hawking, in an interview, was asked what he thought about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, and if he thought that aliens had visited the Earth. Hawking responded that he thought it entirely possible that there was alien life, but said that if UFOs were real, it was an indication of a technology so far ahead of ours that we could be at serious risk if they came here. We might, he said, be ants in relation to them, intelligence-wise -- meaning that the aliens might see no particular ethical problem with wiping us out.
Now Hawking, being a scientist, is someone for whom evidence is the ultimate arbiter of truth, and was clearly speaking in the hypothetical, what-if context, consistent with the way the question had been phrased. Hellyer, of course, didn't take it that way, because he thinks the aliens are already here, evidence be damned.
"I think he's indulging in some pretty scary talk there that I would have hoped would not come from someone with such an established stature," Hellyer said about Hawking. "I think it's really sad that a scientist of his repute would contribute to what I would consider more misinformation about a vast and very important subject."
Well, he really told you, Dr. Hawking. How dare you claim to have any insight into the workings of the universe, with your paltry little Ph.D. in physics. As compared to Hellyer, for crying out loud, who is the ex-Minister of Defense for Canada! Ha! Top that!
Well, okay, we probably should be listening to Stephen Hawking over Paul Hellyer, frankly, especially given that the Honorable Mr. Hellyer's skull seems to be filled with cobwebs and dead insects. Be that as it may -- if next week the aliens declare war on us, demanding their fiber optics cables back, don't say he didn't warn us.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Sally, meet Toby.
Last October, you may recall, I wrote about "England's favorite psychic," "Psychic Sally" Morgan, who had run afoul of some skeptics when she was seen allegedly receiving information about her subjects via an earpiece. (Read the post here.) Psychic Sally was incensed by the accusation, and sued the reporters who broke the story for defamation of character, asking for £150,000 in damages. This opens up the interesting question of how she would defend herself against the accusation of fraud without being required to demonstrate her "powers" under controlled conditions -- something she has been steadfastly unwilling to do.
But her troubles haven't ended. She's still out there, doggedly doing "readings," and was playing to a sold-out crowd in Edinburgh, Scotland on February 23. Among the people in the audience was one Drew McAdam, a reporter for the Edinburgh Evening News. And during the evening's performance, Psychic Sally said to the audience that she was picking up the presence a spirit, but then hesitated. It was a horrific death, she said, because the person had been killed in an explosion.
At this point, a woman stood up, and asked if it could be her son, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Psychic Sally said no, she didn't think it was him, and asked the audience, "Does anyone recognize the name Tobin?"
At this point, Drew McAdam's wife stood up, and said she did, and Psychic Sally said that yes, it was her! She was the focal point for this communique from the spirit world! So she, and her husband Drew, were invited up on stage, where Psychic Sally proceeded to tell her that she could see "Tobin" crouched over a bomb, trying to defuse it, and then it blew up and killed him, "throwing him through the air." Psychic Sally was devastated by witnessing the horrific event, and said, "Oh, darling, I'm sorry. What a way to die." Mrs. McAdam admitted to having been in love with a man named Toby who had died that way, and Psychic Sally comforted her saying that Toby was still here for her, and was sending her reassuring messages from the spirit world.
Pretty impressive, no?
Well, no, and here's why.
McAdam and his wife had set Psychic Sally up, starting some weeks earlier, when McAdam had sent emails to Psychic Sally's website containing the details of the "Toby" story. Then, before the show, he and his wife had put "love letters to Toby" in the drop box Psychic Sally has at the door at every show, placed there to collect materials she will then select from during the performance. Clearly while up on stage, perusing the contents of the box, she recognized the story, connecting the "love letters" with the earlier emails, and realized she had a wonderful starting point for a reading.
But still... couldn't Toby's spirit really have been there that night, comforting the grieving Mrs. McAdam?
Unfortunately for Psychic Sally, the answer is no -- because "Toby" is the fictional character Toby Wren, from the 1970s British science fiction series Doomwatch.
For her part, Mrs. McAdam said she hadn't been lying about her feelings. "I had totally fallen in love with (Toby) when I was a 13-year-old," she later told skeptic Simon Singh. "He was played by Robert Powell. I cried for days when Toby was blown up defusing a bomb on a pier."
Well, I don't know about you, but my reaction to all this is: BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA *falls off chair*
You have to wonder how Psychic Sally will deal with this new development. Apparently Singh tried to contact her with questions about the set-up, and (surprise!) Psychic Sally hasn't responded. (Read Singh's article on the incident here.) McAdam, for his part, said he never expected the prank to go as far as it did -- he was just "having a bit of a lark," trying to poke fun at psychics (McAdam himself is an amateur magician, but says that he is "as psychic as a teapot"). It was quite a shock when his wife got selected, but I think he would probably agree that the results were far more wonderful than anyone could have reasonably expected.
So, Psychic Sally's long night of the soul isn't over yet, but she's showing no signs of doing what most of us would do in her situation, which is to retire in shame and humiliation to an island off the coast of Greenland, never to be seen again. But as we've seen over and over, woo-woos are the least likely people in the world ever to give up, and will doggedly continue to defend what they're doing even when caught red-handed.
And about her psychically contacting the spirit of a deceased fictional character, I would just like to add that if Psychic Sally wouldn't mind doing me a favor, I'd love to have a chance to chat with Nick Andros from Stephen King's book The Stand. He was an awesome character. I cried when he died.
But her troubles haven't ended. She's still out there, doggedly doing "readings," and was playing to a sold-out crowd in Edinburgh, Scotland on February 23. Among the people in the audience was one Drew McAdam, a reporter for the Edinburgh Evening News. And during the evening's performance, Psychic Sally said to the audience that she was picking up the presence a spirit, but then hesitated. It was a horrific death, she said, because the person had been killed in an explosion.
At this point, a woman stood up, and asked if it could be her son, who was killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Psychic Sally said no, she didn't think it was him, and asked the audience, "Does anyone recognize the name Tobin?"
At this point, Drew McAdam's wife stood up, and said she did, and Psychic Sally said that yes, it was her! She was the focal point for this communique from the spirit world! So she, and her husband Drew, were invited up on stage, where Psychic Sally proceeded to tell her that she could see "Tobin" crouched over a bomb, trying to defuse it, and then it blew up and killed him, "throwing him through the air." Psychic Sally was devastated by witnessing the horrific event, and said, "Oh, darling, I'm sorry. What a way to die." Mrs. McAdam admitted to having been in love with a man named Toby who had died that way, and Psychic Sally comforted her saying that Toby was still here for her, and was sending her reassuring messages from the spirit world.
Pretty impressive, no?
Well, no, and here's why.
McAdam and his wife had set Psychic Sally up, starting some weeks earlier, when McAdam had sent emails to Psychic Sally's website containing the details of the "Toby" story. Then, before the show, he and his wife had put "love letters to Toby" in the drop box Psychic Sally has at the door at every show, placed there to collect materials she will then select from during the performance. Clearly while up on stage, perusing the contents of the box, she recognized the story, connecting the "love letters" with the earlier emails, and realized she had a wonderful starting point for a reading.
But still... couldn't Toby's spirit really have been there that night, comforting the grieving Mrs. McAdam?
Unfortunately for Psychic Sally, the answer is no -- because "Toby" is the fictional character Toby Wren, from the 1970s British science fiction series Doomwatch.
For her part, Mrs. McAdam said she hadn't been lying about her feelings. "I had totally fallen in love with (Toby) when I was a 13-year-old," she later told skeptic Simon Singh. "He was played by Robert Powell. I cried for days when Toby was blown up defusing a bomb on a pier."
Well, I don't know about you, but my reaction to all this is: BA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA *falls off chair*
You have to wonder how Psychic Sally will deal with this new development. Apparently Singh tried to contact her with questions about the set-up, and (surprise!) Psychic Sally hasn't responded. (Read Singh's article on the incident here.) McAdam, for his part, said he never expected the prank to go as far as it did -- he was just "having a bit of a lark," trying to poke fun at psychics (McAdam himself is an amateur magician, but says that he is "as psychic as a teapot"). It was quite a shock when his wife got selected, but I think he would probably agree that the results were far more wonderful than anyone could have reasonably expected.
So, Psychic Sally's long night of the soul isn't over yet, but she's showing no signs of doing what most of us would do in her situation, which is to retire in shame and humiliation to an island off the coast of Greenland, never to be seen again. But as we've seen over and over, woo-woos are the least likely people in the world ever to give up, and will doggedly continue to defend what they're doing even when caught red-handed.
And about her psychically contacting the spirit of a deceased fictional character, I would just like to add that if Psychic Sally wouldn't mind doing me a favor, I'd love to have a chance to chat with Nick Andros from Stephen King's book The Stand. He was an awesome character. I cried when he died.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Sheik, rattle & roll
So now, a senior Iranian cleric, one Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, is claiming that earthquakes are due to women behaving in a promiscuous fashion and wearing immodest clothing.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which consequently increases earthquakes," Sedighi is quoted as saying.
It is a constant source of wonderment to me that when prominent figures say these kinds of things, their audience does not erupt in guffaws. I realize that there is a slight disincentive to doing so in Iran, where guffawing at a cleric is probably punishable by beheading. But still, you have to wonder how human nature doesn't take over and force people to laugh. Perhaps the listeners survive the experience by biting chunks out of the insides of their cheeks, much in the fashion of an animal caught in a steel trap gnawing off its own paw.
Of course, honesty forces me to point out that it isn't only the Muslims that have leaders who seem to have a Hostess Ho-Ho where most people have a brain. We, for example, have Pat Robertson, who routinely claims that homosexuality and promiscuity cause hurricanes, and also that he can bench press a Volkswagen. And lest we think that it's only religious leaders who engage in such bizarre thinking, let us not forget Lyndon LaRouche, who provides perennial and much-needed comic relief to the political stage by (for example) claiming that our current leaders are being controlled remotely by super-intelligent aliens.
Now, come on. I may not always agree with him, but I can state with some confidence that Barack Obama is not being controlled by aliens. And given that the aliens are alleged to be super-intelligent, I doubt they're in charge of Rick Santorum, either. (I might be willing to believe it about Nancy Pelosi, however. Her smile definitely looks like the result of someone pressing a button that says, "Retract Lips And Expose Teeth.")
But I digress.
You have to question how people can make statements like Sedighi's. Don't these people have a glimmer of understanding of the concept of scientific induction? How hard is it to go through a thought process like the following:
1) Hypothesis: female promiscuity is responsible for earthquakes.
2) Fact: Teheran, one of the most earthquake-prone cities, is not known as a hotbed of immorality, largely because getting caught engaging in immoral behavior is likely to result in the public removal of critical body parts.
3) Fact: On the other hand, female promiscuity abounds in Palm Beach, especially during spring break.
4) Fact: Palm Beach has not been struck by an earthquake in recorded history.
5) Conclusion: The original hypothesis is incorrect.
You don't have to have a Ph.D. in geology to follow this line of reasoning. You do, however, have to be able to put together thoughts in some kind of logical fashion, which is apparently something Sedighi is incapable of doing. And the people sitting in the audience, who evidently responded by saying to themselves, "My god, he's right! I will cease my promiscuous behavior right now, in the interest of halting plate tectonics!" must not only have inadequate logical faculties, but also be willing to swallow anything someone says, as long as he has a long beard and white robes.
Either that, or they're missing large pieces from the insides of their cheeks.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which consequently increases earthquakes," Sedighi is quoted as saying.
It is a constant source of wonderment to me that when prominent figures say these kinds of things, their audience does not erupt in guffaws. I realize that there is a slight disincentive to doing so in Iran, where guffawing at a cleric is probably punishable by beheading. But still, you have to wonder how human nature doesn't take over and force people to laugh. Perhaps the listeners survive the experience by biting chunks out of the insides of their cheeks, much in the fashion of an animal caught in a steel trap gnawing off its own paw.
Of course, honesty forces me to point out that it isn't only the Muslims that have leaders who seem to have a Hostess Ho-Ho where most people have a brain. We, for example, have Pat Robertson, who routinely claims that homosexuality and promiscuity cause hurricanes, and also that he can bench press a Volkswagen. And lest we think that it's only religious leaders who engage in such bizarre thinking, let us not forget Lyndon LaRouche, who provides perennial and much-needed comic relief to the political stage by (for example) claiming that our current leaders are being controlled remotely by super-intelligent aliens.
Now, come on. I may not always agree with him, but I can state with some confidence that Barack Obama is not being controlled by aliens. And given that the aliens are alleged to be super-intelligent, I doubt they're in charge of Rick Santorum, either. (I might be willing to believe it about Nancy Pelosi, however. Her smile definitely looks like the result of someone pressing a button that says, "Retract Lips And Expose Teeth.")
But I digress.
You have to question how people can make statements like Sedighi's. Don't these people have a glimmer of understanding of the concept of scientific induction? How hard is it to go through a thought process like the following:
1) Hypothesis: female promiscuity is responsible for earthquakes.
2) Fact: Teheran, one of the most earthquake-prone cities, is not known as a hotbed of immorality, largely because getting caught engaging in immoral behavior is likely to result in the public removal of critical body parts.
3) Fact: On the other hand, female promiscuity abounds in Palm Beach, especially during spring break.
4) Fact: Palm Beach has not been struck by an earthquake in recorded history.
5) Conclusion: The original hypothesis is incorrect.
You don't have to have a Ph.D. in geology to follow this line of reasoning. You do, however, have to be able to put together thoughts in some kind of logical fashion, which is apparently something Sedighi is incapable of doing. And the people sitting in the audience, who evidently responded by saying to themselves, "My god, he's right! I will cease my promiscuous behavior right now, in the interest of halting plate tectonics!" must not only have inadequate logical faculties, but also be willing to swallow anything someone says, as long as he has a long beard and white robes.
Either that, or they're missing large pieces from the insides of their cheeks.
Monday, March 5, 2012
The lure of easy answers
I had a disheartening, but in retrospect rather interesting, exchange on Facebook yesterday morning.
First, let me state up front that I usually don't respond to political statements on social media. It's not that I don't value a good discussion; it's more that this is seldom what those turn out to be. So when people post about politics, I rarely even so much as click "Like" on the ones I agree with, and almost never object to the ones I disagree with.
Yesterday morning, however, I made an exception to my own unwritten rule, when a Facebook friend posted the following unattributed quote: "A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all."
And I responded, "No liberals have morals? None? Hmmm..."
He shot back, "Name one."
I responded, "Me. I'm a liberal, and I have morals."
"What morals do you have?" he asked.
I replied, "Be kind. Tell the truth. Don't take what doesn't belong to you. Don't be arrogant or conceited. Respect your elders. Take care of those less powerful than you are. Follow the law. Be loyal."
His response: "Those are all conservative morals! You sound like you're a conservative and won't admit it!"
At that point, I gave up, which I should have before I started, frankly.
One of the things I find the most discouraging, as a teacher and (in the larger sense) as a citizen, is how intellectually lazy a lot of people are. Always, always, always look for the easy answer, don't act as if life is complex, don't admit to gray areas. "Liberals are socialists who want to destroy America." "Conservatives are corporate shills who only care about the very rich." "Atheists are amoral." "The religious are gullible dupes." Of course, we've been well schooled in this by the media, haven't we? Look at Rush Limbaugh: "A woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception is a slut." Our hunger for easy answers has the effect of absolving us of the hard work of thinking, of having to make tough moral calls in a world that is messy, complicated, full of cross purposes and contradictory motives. How much easier it is simply to give up and believe a Rush Limbaugh or a Ted Rall.
Ceding your brain to someone else, however, comes at a cost. (And if you don't think that that's what this is, consider that Limbaugh himself calls his followers "Dittoheads.") First, you lose any opportunity for dialogue, because having labeled the opposing side as a bunch of morons (or anti-American, or amoral, or whatever), you stop listening to what they have to say. And I'm sorry; no one mainstream political party is entirely in the wrong, however convenient that would be for their opponents. Egomaniacs like Limbaugh might enjoy being surrounded by "Dittoheads," but for anyone interested in growing intellectually, the essence of learning is being challenged by those you disagree with.
Second, vilifying your opponents doesn't make you make good decisions. Party-line voters, who state with evident pride, "I would never vote for a Republican," are implying that party identification trumps everything else -- background, qualifications, moral values, stance on particular issues. Being a liberal, I have tended to vote Democrat, but I am under no illusion that being a Democrat makes you some kind of pinnacle of ethics. (Nor, I would like to point out to my Facebook friend, does being a Republican.)
It all comes down to refusing to succumb to the lure of easy answers. They may be appealing -- but they're seldom right. Those who fall for them are being sold a bill of goods by the media, who thrive on sound bites and pithy statements, who understand all too well that being outrageous and controversial sells better than deep, thoughtful analysis. They're perfectly happy to give their listeners what they want to hear, because they know they'll swallow it -- and end up hooked without even knowing it's happened.
First, let me state up front that I usually don't respond to political statements on social media. It's not that I don't value a good discussion; it's more that this is seldom what those turn out to be. So when people post about politics, I rarely even so much as click "Like" on the ones I agree with, and almost never object to the ones I disagree with.
Yesterday morning, however, I made an exception to my own unwritten rule, when a Facebook friend posted the following unattributed quote: "A man with good morals who falls short and becomes a hypocrite is still a far better man than a liberal who can never be called a hypocrite because he has no morals at all."
And I responded, "No liberals have morals? None? Hmmm..."
He shot back, "Name one."
I responded, "Me. I'm a liberal, and I have morals."
"What morals do you have?" he asked.
I replied, "Be kind. Tell the truth. Don't take what doesn't belong to you. Don't be arrogant or conceited. Respect your elders. Take care of those less powerful than you are. Follow the law. Be loyal."
His response: "Those are all conservative morals! You sound like you're a conservative and won't admit it!"
At that point, I gave up, which I should have before I started, frankly.
One of the things I find the most discouraging, as a teacher and (in the larger sense) as a citizen, is how intellectually lazy a lot of people are. Always, always, always look for the easy answer, don't act as if life is complex, don't admit to gray areas. "Liberals are socialists who want to destroy America." "Conservatives are corporate shills who only care about the very rich." "Atheists are amoral." "The religious are gullible dupes." Of course, we've been well schooled in this by the media, haven't we? Look at Rush Limbaugh: "A woman who supports insurance coverage for contraception is a slut." Our hunger for easy answers has the effect of absolving us of the hard work of thinking, of having to make tough moral calls in a world that is messy, complicated, full of cross purposes and contradictory motives. How much easier it is simply to give up and believe a Rush Limbaugh or a Ted Rall.
Ceding your brain to someone else, however, comes at a cost. (And if you don't think that that's what this is, consider that Limbaugh himself calls his followers "Dittoheads.") First, you lose any opportunity for dialogue, because having labeled the opposing side as a bunch of morons (or anti-American, or amoral, or whatever), you stop listening to what they have to say. And I'm sorry; no one mainstream political party is entirely in the wrong, however convenient that would be for their opponents. Egomaniacs like Limbaugh might enjoy being surrounded by "Dittoheads," but for anyone interested in growing intellectually, the essence of learning is being challenged by those you disagree with.
Second, vilifying your opponents doesn't make you make good decisions. Party-line voters, who state with evident pride, "I would never vote for a Republican," are implying that party identification trumps everything else -- background, qualifications, moral values, stance on particular issues. Being a liberal, I have tended to vote Democrat, but I am under no illusion that being a Democrat makes you some kind of pinnacle of ethics. (Nor, I would like to point out to my Facebook friend, does being a Republican.)
It all comes down to refusing to succumb to the lure of easy answers. They may be appealing -- but they're seldom right. Those who fall for them are being sold a bill of goods by the media, who thrive on sound bites and pithy statements, who understand all too well that being outrageous and controversial sells better than deep, thoughtful analysis. They're perfectly happy to give their listeners what they want to hear, because they know they'll swallow it -- and end up hooked without even knowing it's happened.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
It is a good day to die. Or to go to the opera. Your choice.
Hey, music lovers! There's a opera that is currently touring Europe, and just was performed this week in Rijeka, Croatia. Maybe it will soon come to a venue near you, which would be very cool, because...
...the entire opera is written, and performed, in Klingon. (Read about it here.)
It's called "U," which is a good thing, since if the title was actually a phrase in Klingon it would probably be slightly more difficult to pronounce. Klingon is a true language, invented by linguists hired by the people in charge of the Star Trek franchise; it has a real syntax, phonetic and morphological structure, and so on. So, despite the fact that it includes sounds similar to those made by a water buffalo being examined by a proctologist, it deserves recognition as one of the only complete synthetic languages (a distinction it shares with J. R. R. Tolkien's Elvish and only a handful of others).
And now, someone has written a Klingon opera.
The story apparently surrounds the life of Kahless the Unforgettable, a historical figure whom I had ironically enough forgotten about completely, even though I used to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation fairly regularly. Kahless, I was reminded by this week's news releases, was the first Klingon emperor, and the opera centers on his rise to the position of leader of the Klingon home world, and how he deals with the loss of the ones he loves, and ultimately, betrayal by his closest associates. So, basically, it's kind of Julius Caesar in Outer Space.
The people who are in charge of this production seem to be taking it pretty seriously. "The Klingons are known as passionate opera lovers but at the same time very little was known about Klingon opera here," said Floris Schonfeld, one of the opera's creators, who may need a refresher on the definition of the words "fictional alien species." "So as far as I was concerned, that was a very interesting challenge to try and make an authentic, or as authentic something out of that as possible."
I must add at this point that Schonfeld and his pals have also somehow convinced the owners of a powerful radio transmitter to send a press release in the direction of the star Arcturus, alleged to be the sun of the Klingon home world. The unfortunate part is that the radio signal will take 36 years to reach Arcturus, at which point I suspect the curtains will have closed on "U," so it's probably a fairly futile gesture.
I have to say that despite my poking fun at this Extraterrestrial Extravaganza, there's a part of me that thinks it is pretty awesome, and it's not because I'm some kind of closet Trekkie (which I'm not). It has to do with how awesome it is that the linguists hired by the original show have created a language that is complex and rich enough to actually write an opera in. C'mon, don't you think that's cool? You can even take college courses in Klingon. I'm not making this up. The University of Wisconsin, which has one of the most prestigious World Languages Department of any college in the world, has a 100-level course in Klingon. If you're more serious about your studies, you can attend the Klingon Language Institute, in Flourtown, Pennsylvania (motto: "qo’mey poSmoH Hol," which means "language opens worlds, or else crushes them into dust if they dare to resist"). There, you can achieve fluency, which will no doubt impress your friends, coworkers, and potential lovers ("I know that sounded like I was gargling with yogurt, but it actually means 'You are extremely hot' in Klingon!").
For some years, I have offered an independent study class at my high school in Intro to Linguistics, and the final project for this class is to create the rudiments of a synthetic language. I assign this project, in part, because it gets students to understand how complex language actually is; I've found that they learn more about English syntax by trying to create a synthetic one than they would from any number of English grammar classes. They are supposed to submit, as part of the project, a lexicon of at least a hundred words, and a passage from English that has been translated into their language -- my last group translated The Very Hungry Caterpillar, an accomplishment that was far harder than it sounds and of which they were, very rightly, proud.
It's always interesting to see what happens when the reins are loosed on human creativity. We might laugh about a Klingon opera (and better to laugh about it than directly at it -- when you laugh at Klingons, they tend to rip your arm off and beat you to death with it). But it really is pretty cool that such a thing could be written and performed.
I realize I am opening myself up to some serious ridicule here for saying that, but I don't care. So, to anyone who is going to give me grief about this, I say: "Hab SoSlI' Quch!" ("Your mother has a smooth forehead.")
...the entire opera is written, and performed, in Klingon. (Read about it here.)
It's called "U," which is a good thing, since if the title was actually a phrase in Klingon it would probably be slightly more difficult to pronounce. Klingon is a true language, invented by linguists hired by the people in charge of the Star Trek franchise; it has a real syntax, phonetic and morphological structure, and so on. So, despite the fact that it includes sounds similar to those made by a water buffalo being examined by a proctologist, it deserves recognition as one of the only complete synthetic languages (a distinction it shares with J. R. R. Tolkien's Elvish and only a handful of others).
And now, someone has written a Klingon opera.
The story apparently surrounds the life of Kahless the Unforgettable, a historical figure whom I had ironically enough forgotten about completely, even though I used to watch Star Trek: The Next Generation fairly regularly. Kahless, I was reminded by this week's news releases, was the first Klingon emperor, and the opera centers on his rise to the position of leader of the Klingon home world, and how he deals with the loss of the ones he loves, and ultimately, betrayal by his closest associates. So, basically, it's kind of Julius Caesar in Outer Space.
The people who are in charge of this production seem to be taking it pretty seriously. "The Klingons are known as passionate opera lovers but at the same time very little was known about Klingon opera here," said Floris Schonfeld, one of the opera's creators, who may need a refresher on the definition of the words "fictional alien species." "So as far as I was concerned, that was a very interesting challenge to try and make an authentic, or as authentic something out of that as possible."
I must add at this point that Schonfeld and his pals have also somehow convinced the owners of a powerful radio transmitter to send a press release in the direction of the star Arcturus, alleged to be the sun of the Klingon home world. The unfortunate part is that the radio signal will take 36 years to reach Arcturus, at which point I suspect the curtains will have closed on "U," so it's probably a fairly futile gesture.
I have to say that despite my poking fun at this Extraterrestrial Extravaganza, there's a part of me that thinks it is pretty awesome, and it's not because I'm some kind of closet Trekkie (which I'm not). It has to do with how awesome it is that the linguists hired by the original show have created a language that is complex and rich enough to actually write an opera in. C'mon, don't you think that's cool? You can even take college courses in Klingon. I'm not making this up. The University of Wisconsin, which has one of the most prestigious World Languages Department of any college in the world, has a 100-level course in Klingon. If you're more serious about your studies, you can attend the Klingon Language Institute, in Flourtown, Pennsylvania (motto: "qo’mey poSmoH Hol," which means "language opens worlds, or else crushes them into dust if they dare to resist"). There, you can achieve fluency, which will no doubt impress your friends, coworkers, and potential lovers ("I know that sounded like I was gargling with yogurt, but it actually means 'You are extremely hot' in Klingon!").
For some years, I have offered an independent study class at my high school in Intro to Linguistics, and the final project for this class is to create the rudiments of a synthetic language. I assign this project, in part, because it gets students to understand how complex language actually is; I've found that they learn more about English syntax by trying to create a synthetic one than they would from any number of English grammar classes. They are supposed to submit, as part of the project, a lexicon of at least a hundred words, and a passage from English that has been translated into their language -- my last group translated The Very Hungry Caterpillar, an accomplishment that was far harder than it sounds and of which they were, very rightly, proud.
It's always interesting to see what happens when the reins are loosed on human creativity. We might laugh about a Klingon opera (and better to laugh about it than directly at it -- when you laugh at Klingons, they tend to rip your arm off and beat you to death with it). But it really is pretty cool that such a thing could be written and performed.
I realize I am opening myself up to some serious ridicule here for saying that, but I don't care. So, to anyone who is going to give me grief about this, I say: "Hab SoSlI' Quch!" ("Your mother has a smooth forehead.")
Friday, March 2, 2012
Code red
So this morning I was going through some of my favorite woo-woo sites, looking for a topic for today's post, and on "Paranormal News" I found a link to a story about a Tennessee woman who had an alarming encounter.
According to a report filed with MUFON (the Mutual UFO Network), a woman from an unspecified town in Tennessee was out standing on her deck on February 29, and saw at the other end of the deck a dark figure. "When I turned my head to look, this human-shaped solid black, very dark black, being was standing on the other side of my deck. It was turned towards the field, leaning on the railings, and seemed to be looking into the field. I was speechless, but not scared."
Well, if she's telling the truth, all I can say is that I'm impressed already. If I was out on my deck and a solid black being suddenly appeared nearby, I would have pissed my pants.
It got worse, however, because then the thing turned to look at her. "When it turned its head to look at me, it began slowly moving backwards. The legs moved as if it were walking backwards, yet it was floating very slowly. Cat-like movements, like when a cat is stalking its prey?" Sort of like a Michael-Jackson-style moon walk, is what I picture, only Michael Jackson (1) is dead, and (2) stopped being black back in the mid-1980s, so I don't suppose it could have been him.
In any case, the thing disappeared around the corner of the house, but then, "... it peeked half its body back around and stared at me for a moment. When it left this time, also slow, it dragged its hand across the wood. The black hand is the last I saw of the being."
So, the woman went to look for it, and of course it was gone. She reports that now she's afraid to go outside, and said that she got the idea that the thing was trying to communicate, "I'm not going to hurt you today, but I could if I wanted to."
Anyhow, all of this just seemed like your usual uncorroborated close-encounter story, until I looked at the end of the article, where there was this bit that said that Tennessee is currently under a "UFO Alert Rating Level 5." And I thought, "They have UFO alert levels? Sort of like the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded alert system?" (Current level: Code Mauve - don't even think about traveling anywhere; in fact, it is recommended that you spend the entire day huddled behind the couch.)
So, I clicked on the link, and was brought here, to the National UFO Alert Page. It turns out that California, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Pennsylvania currently have the highest alert levels (Code 3), with California reporting the most UFOs in February (71 reports). New York, my home state, is at Code 4, with a paltry 18 reports. The National UFO Alert Page also lists UFO sightings by the shape of the spaceship (in February we had 168 spheres, 102 stars, 92 circles, 78 triangles, 75 "other," 74 discs, 73 "unknown," 59 ovals, 59 fireballs, 32 flashes, 26 squares, 25 cylinders, 21 cigars, 12 "Saturn-like," 12 boomerangs, 11 diamonds, 10 eggs, 10 bullets, 9 blimps, 7 chevrons, 7 teardrops, 6 cones, and 4 crosses), the distance the observer was from the spaceship, and whether a takeoff or landing was observed.
Well, I have a couple of reactions to all this, and the first one is, that's a crapload of spaceships. I had no idea that the Earth was being visited so much, and frankly, I wonder what the aliens find so interesting about it. I mean, I kind of like it here, being a native and all, but if the universe is as thickly populated as all that, you'd think there'd be more interesting places to visit.
Another thing is that I'm pretty impressed that they're approaching it all so scientifically. Even if these are still anecdotal accounts, with a complete lack of hard evidence, at least there's an effort to do some statistics and data collection, which seems to me to be a move in the right direction. I'm still not convinced I believe most of the UFO sightings out there, but "most" is not "all" -- and in this I can at least claim the backing of physicist Michio Kaku, who last year made the stunning pronouncement that after careful consideration, he was of the opinion that there was a handful of UFO sightings that were "convincing" and "needed scientific explanation." "When you look at the handful, the handful of cases that cannot be easily dismissed," Kaku said, "this is worthy of scientific investigation. Maybe there's nothing there. However, on the off chance that there is something there that could literally change the course of human history, so I say, let the investigation begin."
So, anyway, that's today's story. Jet-black alien encounters in Tennessee, the UFO Alert Rating System, and a statistical analysis of close encounters. As for me, I'm still hoping to see a UFO one day. It would be a thrilling moment if I actually saw an alien, me being a biologist and all, given the implications it would have regarding the origins of life and evolution on other planets. And I hope, that in the spirit of interstellar amity and cooperation, that the alien would refrain from laughing at me for pissing my pants when I saw him.
According to a report filed with MUFON (the Mutual UFO Network), a woman from an unspecified town in Tennessee was out standing on her deck on February 29, and saw at the other end of the deck a dark figure. "When I turned my head to look, this human-shaped solid black, very dark black, being was standing on the other side of my deck. It was turned towards the field, leaning on the railings, and seemed to be looking into the field. I was speechless, but not scared."
Well, if she's telling the truth, all I can say is that I'm impressed already. If I was out on my deck and a solid black being suddenly appeared nearby, I would have pissed my pants.
It got worse, however, because then the thing turned to look at her. "When it turned its head to look at me, it began slowly moving backwards. The legs moved as if it were walking backwards, yet it was floating very slowly. Cat-like movements, like when a cat is stalking its prey?" Sort of like a Michael-Jackson-style moon walk, is what I picture, only Michael Jackson (1) is dead, and (2) stopped being black back in the mid-1980s, so I don't suppose it could have been him.
In any case, the thing disappeared around the corner of the house, but then, "... it peeked half its body back around and stared at me for a moment. When it left this time, also slow, it dragged its hand across the wood. The black hand is the last I saw of the being."
So, the woman went to look for it, and of course it was gone. She reports that now she's afraid to go outside, and said that she got the idea that the thing was trying to communicate, "I'm not going to hurt you today, but I could if I wanted to."
Anyhow, all of this just seemed like your usual uncorroborated close-encounter story, until I looked at the end of the article, where there was this bit that said that Tennessee is currently under a "UFO Alert Rating Level 5." And I thought, "They have UFO alert levels? Sort of like the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded alert system?" (Current level: Code Mauve - don't even think about traveling anywhere; in fact, it is recommended that you spend the entire day huddled behind the couch.)
So, I clicked on the link, and was brought here, to the National UFO Alert Page. It turns out that California, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Texas, and Pennsylvania currently have the highest alert levels (Code 3), with California reporting the most UFOs in February (71 reports). New York, my home state, is at Code 4, with a paltry 18 reports. The National UFO Alert Page also lists UFO sightings by the shape of the spaceship (in February we had 168 spheres, 102 stars, 92 circles, 78 triangles, 75 "other," 74 discs, 73 "unknown," 59 ovals, 59 fireballs, 32 flashes, 26 squares, 25 cylinders, 21 cigars, 12 "Saturn-like," 12 boomerangs, 11 diamonds, 10 eggs, 10 bullets, 9 blimps, 7 chevrons, 7 teardrops, 6 cones, and 4 crosses), the distance the observer was from the spaceship, and whether a takeoff or landing was observed.
Well, I have a couple of reactions to all this, and the first one is, that's a crapload of spaceships. I had no idea that the Earth was being visited so much, and frankly, I wonder what the aliens find so interesting about it. I mean, I kind of like it here, being a native and all, but if the universe is as thickly populated as all that, you'd think there'd be more interesting places to visit.
Another thing is that I'm pretty impressed that they're approaching it all so scientifically. Even if these are still anecdotal accounts, with a complete lack of hard evidence, at least there's an effort to do some statistics and data collection, which seems to me to be a move in the right direction. I'm still not convinced I believe most of the UFO sightings out there, but "most" is not "all" -- and in this I can at least claim the backing of physicist Michio Kaku, who last year made the stunning pronouncement that after careful consideration, he was of the opinion that there was a handful of UFO sightings that were "convincing" and "needed scientific explanation." "When you look at the handful, the handful of cases that cannot be easily dismissed," Kaku said, "this is worthy of scientific investigation. Maybe there's nothing there. However, on the off chance that there is something there that could literally change the course of human history, so I say, let the investigation begin."
So, anyway, that's today's story. Jet-black alien encounters in Tennessee, the UFO Alert Rating System, and a statistical analysis of close encounters. As for me, I'm still hoping to see a UFO one day. It would be a thrilling moment if I actually saw an alien, me being a biologist and all, given the implications it would have regarding the origins of life and evolution on other planets. And I hope, that in the spirit of interstellar amity and cooperation, that the alien would refrain from laughing at me for pissing my pants when I saw him.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Translation bias
You've probably heard about it already, but a group of theological and political conservatives have come together to retranslate the bible and bring it more in line with conservative principles. (You can read more of the details here.)
The stated goal of this group is to comb the bible and remove "liberal bias." Any lines that make Jesus come across as a social activist, for example (e.g. the part about feeding the poor), are to be rewritten to eliminate what they perceive as contrary to the conservative agenda. Murder is to be punished, including a new clause to protect the unborn. The whole thing, in fact, is to be retooled so that conservative principles can be proven to have a scriptural basis.
My first thought was that this was some kind of hoax. I thought, "Can they really be engaging in so transparently circular an argument?" Tragically, it is not a hoax at all. They really believe that the bible's current popular translations have been twisted into a liberal framework, and that it is god's will that they undo the damage.
Of the many problems I see here, first and foremost is: are they really arrogant enough to believe that they, and only they, have enough of a window into the intent of the original writers of the bible manuscripts to be able to accurately portray those intents in English? I'm sure that some of the current translations of the bible have errors -- either denotative (using the wrong word entirely) or connotative (using a word that is literally correct but gives the wrong impression). How do they know that theirs is any better? They admit that many of the people on the committee are not language scholars; they are merely hired to "comb the bible for liberal bias" and to submit a "better translation." You'd think that they, of all people, would want to be exceedingly careful about doing that. Aren't they the ones who believe that it's the inerrant word of god?
Of course, the central problem with most of these folks is that they want to focus with wearying intensity on some parts of the bible (such as the prohibition against homosexuality) and completely ignore others (such as the prohibition against usury -- lending money at interest). Some of the more peculiar prohibitions in the Old Testament, such as the command never to eat pork, wear clothing made of two kinds of thread sewn together, or gather firewood on the sabbath (the last-mentioned was punishable by death), they argue away by saying that "Jesus made a new covenant" which superseded all of the old, picayune laws in the Old Testament -- except, apparently, the ones they want to keep.
Note that I'm not trying to criticize Christianity or Christians en masse. Despite my own beliefs, or lack thereof, I really don't particularly care what sort of beliefs you choose to have, as long as you don't force them on me. I'm writing more because I'm genuinely mystified by the thought process that's going on here. How could any honest scholar look at any book -- much less one (s)he revered as holy writ -- and simply decide to rewrite it to eliminate or alter parts of it that (s)he didn't like? If there was a rational argument going on, backed up by facts from the people who are the experts (i.e. people who have spent their life studying Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic) -- that I would understand, and in fact probably would never have thought even to comment upon. But to decide that the previous translators were biased simply because you don't like their translation is an act of tremendous spiritual pride. And even with my admittedly poor knowledge of the bible, I seem to remember that pride is considered to be one of the more serious sins.
Isn't there, in fact, something in there about how it "goeth before a fall?"
The stated goal of this group is to comb the bible and remove "liberal bias." Any lines that make Jesus come across as a social activist, for example (e.g. the part about feeding the poor), are to be rewritten to eliminate what they perceive as contrary to the conservative agenda. Murder is to be punished, including a new clause to protect the unborn. The whole thing, in fact, is to be retooled so that conservative principles can be proven to have a scriptural basis.
My first thought was that this was some kind of hoax. I thought, "Can they really be engaging in so transparently circular an argument?" Tragically, it is not a hoax at all. They really believe that the bible's current popular translations have been twisted into a liberal framework, and that it is god's will that they undo the damage.
Of the many problems I see here, first and foremost is: are they really arrogant enough to believe that they, and only they, have enough of a window into the intent of the original writers of the bible manuscripts to be able to accurately portray those intents in English? I'm sure that some of the current translations of the bible have errors -- either denotative (using the wrong word entirely) or connotative (using a word that is literally correct but gives the wrong impression). How do they know that theirs is any better? They admit that many of the people on the committee are not language scholars; they are merely hired to "comb the bible for liberal bias" and to submit a "better translation." You'd think that they, of all people, would want to be exceedingly careful about doing that. Aren't they the ones who believe that it's the inerrant word of god?
Of course, the central problem with most of these folks is that they want to focus with wearying intensity on some parts of the bible (such as the prohibition against homosexuality) and completely ignore others (such as the prohibition against usury -- lending money at interest). Some of the more peculiar prohibitions in the Old Testament, such as the command never to eat pork, wear clothing made of two kinds of thread sewn together, or gather firewood on the sabbath (the last-mentioned was punishable by death), they argue away by saying that "Jesus made a new covenant" which superseded all of the old, picayune laws in the Old Testament -- except, apparently, the ones they want to keep.
Note that I'm not trying to criticize Christianity or Christians en masse. Despite my own beliefs, or lack thereof, I really don't particularly care what sort of beliefs you choose to have, as long as you don't force them on me. I'm writing more because I'm genuinely mystified by the thought process that's going on here. How could any honest scholar look at any book -- much less one (s)he revered as holy writ -- and simply decide to rewrite it to eliminate or alter parts of it that (s)he didn't like? If there was a rational argument going on, backed up by facts from the people who are the experts (i.e. people who have spent their life studying Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic) -- that I would understand, and in fact probably would never have thought even to comment upon. But to decide that the previous translators were biased simply because you don't like their translation is an act of tremendous spiritual pride. And even with my admittedly poor knowledge of the bible, I seem to remember that pride is considered to be one of the more serious sins.
Isn't there, in fact, something in there about how it "goeth before a fall?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)