On Steve Jobs again

PZ has a post about Steve Jobs and woo. In it he summarizes the conclusions everyone on the side of science has been giving. However, he does make one error:

So the final result is that real science kept him alive and healthy as long as possible, and that an early flirtation with ‘alternative’ medicine might have contributed somewhat to lowering the odds of survival, but that what killed him is cancer. And cancer is a bastard.

No, there is no “might” about it. There is a direct correlation between when one treats cancer and how long one is likely to survive. By looking at ‘alternatives’, Jobs’ odds of survival lowered. Think about Huntington’s Disease. It’s a neurodegenerative disease which is passed on genetically. In the average situation where this disease is involved in a family, one parent has a single defective gene whereas the other parent is fine. Any child those two people have has a 50% chance of getting the disease. Those are the odds. Period. Even if the child gets tested and is found to not have the disease, the odds of contracting it will still always be 50% (as just described).

When we talk about the odds of this or the stats on that, we are not referring to a single individual. Even if Jobs’ time of survival remained the same – or even, against all the evidence, it increased because of the woo – his odds were absolutely decreased. Odds refer to the numbers we have on either a sample or population. The only way a person can change his odds is by doing something which has statistical significance. Jobs’, for instance, did just that by engaging in woo instead of treating his cancer.

PZ’s statement is no better than when Bill O’Reilly cited a single poll about atheists and then claimed a trend was evidenced.

Thought of the day

Horror movies are invariably bad.

What about monkey Jesus?

Why this offends me

PZ currently has a series of posts going where people write about why they are atheists. If anything, it serves to debunk his claim that atheists ought to be holding up a bunch of particular progressive views: people have their non-belief for a wide variety of reasons, not due to a certain set of normative views. Attempts to place everyone under the banner of atheism, as if that’s a coherent thing to do, just won’t work. For the nth time, atheism is 100% descriptive.

I’ve only read two of these posts and maybe skimmed another one or two. I don’t care that much about why Joe Schmo is an atheist. (It’s no better than Joe the Plumber from 2008.) But one of the two I’ve read caught my attention:

Simple. I read the bible. At 11. After reading through Norse, Roman, Egyptian and Greek mythology. I recognized they were the same. My mother was ecstatic, My father not so much. Oh, and I am African American. My mother was an atheist, and so are my children…they also came there with some guidance, but of their own volition.

Gwen
California

I liked this from the get-go because of its punctuated pace. But then I got to the irrelevant part about Gwen being black. Who cares? I understand that atheism amongst blacks in America is lower than it is amongst whites, but it really isn’t important to the issue. A valid question, however, is why I have said in the title of this post that this offends me.

I remember in the first or second grade being given an assignment to write a paragraph. I chose to write about my dog. I can no longer recall the details of everything I said, but I distinctly remember writing the sentence, “He is a boy.” It was out of place and did not pertain to the topic sentence, so when the teacher asked people if they could identify possible changes that needed to be made, a few students pointed it out. The teacher agreed and I learned something.

And that brings me to why Gwen’s irrelevant line offends me: It’s bad writing. She’s black? Fine. Create a blog post expressing experiences had while living as a black atheist. It would be an interesting topic. But to randomly mention it is just an attempt to get PZ’s attention. Everyone knows he’s going to go out of his way to promote a member of a minority group if he can. There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with that, but he obviously did not pick Gwen’s piece because it was the cream of the crop. At best I can grant that this is effective rhetoric – it got her posted, after all – but it is not quality writing.

I have written at other times about my concern for language. (I especially liked a South Park episode that distinguished between the gendered sense of the word “fag” and the looser, more generalized use of the term.) I’m not pretending that I’m the perfect writer – I bet I have at least one non-typo error somewhere in this post – but I do have a genuine interest in how people use words. Language has an impact on us every single day. There are even comprehensive philosophies which use it as their cornerstones. It matters. It is the most common, most important way in which we communicate with each other over the course of our lives. Let’s not abuse and misuse it.

Female football player has to sit out game

Or her team wouldn’t even get to play:

Why? It wasn’t due to injury. Rather, [Mina] Johnson decided not to play in the [junior high] game after the opposition threatened to forfeit if Johnson was allowed to play. Apparently, Northeast had a problem with its boys playing football against a girl.

I fail to see a good reason for this. Is it because Johnson is at more risk of injury than the boys? I would say she can handle herself:

As the Tidewater News reported, Johnson recorded four sacks in a recent game against Rocky Mount, and was gaining a reputation in the league as a standout junior varsity player.

Or maybe Northeast knows she’s good, so they wanted an edge in the game? I don’t see how that would matter:

So instead of making a fuss about the whole situation, Johnson sat on the sidelines for her team’s 60-0 victory.

There is no good reason for the school to forfeit simply because a girl is playing. If she can compete at the level of the boys, she should be allowed to do so.

I’ve written in the past about my thoughts on women and sports. I’m not about to sit and watch the WNBA, a league where it’s a big deal if someone dunks the ball – I want to watch the best of the best, and when it comes to sports, even the most stubborn feminist knows men dominate there – but that doesn’t mean women should be denied basic opportunities.

Now compounding the issue, another school may threaten to forfeit:

Northeast isn’t the only upcoming opponent considering a forfeit if Johnson doesn’t sit out. Raleigh (N.C.) Word of God Christian Academy is also reportedly considering a forfeit as well; the two schools are scheduled to play a game on Oct. 27.

The official reason for Word of God as well as Northeast is that they have the same athletic association which forbids girls and boys crossing into each others sports. Of course, each school could do the right thing and ignore the rule, or if they want to play by the book, they could seek an exception or review to the rule. But neither has bothered. I’m willing to bet the religious school is more happy about the division than anyone, but it’s horseshit no matter who does it. Let Mina Johnson play.

God is a moral relativist

Since every Christian loves to apologize for their god’s evil acts, God gets a pass for his Old Testament wrath. No one dares stand up and say, “What God did was wrong. We should admonish bad acts regardless of who commits them.” Aside from implying that morality does not come from God, such a statement would show imperfection in God. So rather than admit the obvious truth, Christians do some mental gymnastics so that their claims about God will stand up despite his contradictory actions.

And where does that leave Christians and their god? It leaves them wallowing in moral relativity. They have to argue that what God did in the ancient past was somehow not evil, and the way they accomplish this is to say that his actions and commands were particular to a time and place. If that isn’t moral relativism, I don’t know what is.

Let’s take Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as an example:

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. [NIV]

I am struggling with how I want to word my objection. Instinctively, I want to express that it is obviously wrong to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, but that does not adequately reflect how messed up this passage really is. The idea here is that it is the rapist, not the victim, who is being punished. He must marry her. What’s more, he is stuck with her for the rest of his life. The poor fella.

But all that aside, the way Christians overwhelmingly choose to get around this problem is to say it was a different time and place. I agree, and we need to have some perspective when we go to judge past cultures, but this isn’t about the particular culture. God told people that the punishment for rape is a fine and marriage. Even if I grant that at least he said rape is wrong (even if the punishment is inadequate), he still said marriage was an appropriate solution. I don’t care what the time or place is, that is wrong. It is wrong because it robs autonomy from the perfectly innocent woman. (It can be said it robs autonomy from the rapist as well, despite his guilt and everyone’s desire to not care about his rights.)

If we say forced marriages, especially one’s of a rapist-victim nature, are wrong today, it is because they have always been wrong. Christians don’t get to play on both sides of the fence, first claiming their god is an objective source of morality, and then second turning around and excusing him on the grounds of moral relativism.

NBA takes a time-out

Most people believe the NBA has canceled the first two weeks of the season. That simply isn’t true. They’ve merely decided 44 time-outs per game isn’t enough, so they’ve extended the time-out rules to include the start of the season.

Thought of the day

Anyone who doubts that religion is a huge dividing force need only look to Nigeria to correct their error in thinking.

Going up

Some time ago I wrote about weight lifting. In that post, there was an exercise I couldn’t find. Eventually I figured it out. Of course, that didn’t mean I could find a video of it. Not even an image. So for that reason, I have uploaded a picture of my grandfather performing the feat in December of 1950:

"GOING UP - Bob Hawkins, Augusta, one of the most talented young weightlifters in New England, shows good form on a one-arm cleave and jerk of a 152 pound lift. Hawkins and other leading Maine lifters will compete in a Knights of Columbus sponsored, Maine AAU sanctioned, meet here January 6 at City Hall." Dec 1950

Just to emphasize, that’s 152 pounds. I don’t know what my grandfather’s weight was at the time, but I would estimate not over 170, and I think I’m high-balling it a bit. In short, what he did was damn impressive.

Push up bras for small breasts, you say?

I’ve been offered a potentially very lucrative deal:

Hi,

I would like to know if you are interested in purchasing the domain name bestpushupbraforsmallbreasts.com (View Domain). Based on your contact information I see that you own forthesakeofscience.com, correct?

bestpushupbraforsmallbreasts.com can provide an SEO boost in this market, sending new leads and new traffic to your existing site. Redirecting an exact match keyword domain is more cost effective than paying for CPC advertising (advertisers are paying $1.62 per click for these exact keywords). This domain can help improve, secure, and protect your web branding identity while bringing in relevant keyword searches that you would not have received otherwise.

The price for this domain is just $175. I am reaching out to other related businesses in the next few days, and this domain will go to the first company who replies.

Thank you,
John

If this domain is not of interest, simply reply to this email with your industry category and keywords and I can respond with available domains.

1040 Hosbrook Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45236

I suppose breasts and bras bear a correlation that requires quantitative measurements, so I can see the connection to science. And I’m always looking to boost my cred with feminists, so what better way than to become a peddler of spammy bra links that strongly implies there’s something wrong with small breasts?