The anti-science promoted by the federal governement regarding marijuana

Your doctor can prescribe morphine, but not marijuana. That's how dangerous it supposedly is. The problem is that the government has consistently concocted bad science in order to villainize marijuana. This link will lead you to a short post by Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic. Embedded in that post is the following video featuring Irv Rosenfeld, a man who is one of the few persons in the U.S. who can legally use marijuana. He made an excellent presentation that left me perplexed: How did we ever get to this point where we are denying sick people a substance that can help them? And how is it that the U.S. is willing to arrest 800,000 people per year for using a harmless drug. Harmless, you might ask? Yes, watch the video starting at minute 7. I've never used marijuana or any other illegal drug. I don't plan to. I hate to see what Prohibition is doing to this country, though. It's time to end the craziness, but instead of acting sensibly, Obama is ramping up the war against marijuana? What is he on?

Continue ReadingThe anti-science promoted by the federal governement regarding marijuana

Excellence honed by self-criticism: the insights of Daniel Kahneman

"Think of, and look at, your work as though it were done by your enemy. If you look at it to admire it you are lost." - Samuel Butler "The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoevsky At Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis celebrates the distinguished career of Daniel Kahneman, whose most recent book, Thinking: Fast and Slow, comes to mind at least several times every day, ever since I started reading it (I've posted several times on the book already, and it is so filled with challenging and often counter-intuitive observations that I will likely mention it dozens more times. Here's one snippet from Lewis' article. The topic is the unrelenting intensity of Kahneman's self-criticism, a technique Kahneman employs to a borderline-sadistic extent, though it has admittedly served him well:

He was working on a book, he said. It would be both intellectual memoir and an attempt to teach people how to think. As he was the world’s leading authority on his subject, and a lot of people would pay hard cash to learn how to think, this sounded promising enough to me. He disagreed: he was certain his book would end in miserable failure. He wasn’t even sure that he should be writing a book, and it was probably just a vanity project for a washed-up old man, an unfinished task he would use to convince himself that he still had something to do, right up until the moment he died. Twenty minutes into meeting the world’s most distinguished living psychologist I found myself in the strange position of trying to buck up his spirits. But there was no point: his spirits did not want bucking up. Having spent maybe 15 minutes discussing just how bad his book was going to be, we moved on to a more depressing subject. He was working, equally unhappily, on a paper about human intuition—when people should trust their gut and when they should not—with a fellow scholar of human decision-making named Gary Klein. Klein, as it happened, was the leader of a school of thought that stressed the power of human intuition, and disagreed with the work of Kahneman and Tversky. Kahneman said that he did this as often as he could: seek out people who had attacked or criticized him and persuade them to collaborate with him. He not only tortured himself, in other words, but invited his enemies to help him to do it. “Most people after they win the Nobel Prize just want to go play golf,” said Eldar Shafir, a professor of psychology at Princeton and a disciple of Amos Tversky’s. “Danny’s busy trying to disprove his own theories that led to the prize. It’s beautiful, really.” . . .
Now, if you think the above is extreme, read on. If only I would be so determined to see my own thought-process like an outsider sees it, to this extent:
Then, after I left him, he sat down and reviewed his own work. The mere fact that he had abandoned it probably raised the likelihood that he would now embrace it: after all, finding merit in the thing would now prove him wrong, and he seemed to take pleasure in doing that. Sure enough, when he looked at his manuscript his feelings about it changed again. That’s when he did the thing that I find not just peculiar and unusual but possibly unique in the history of human literary suffering. He called a young psychologist he knew well and asked him to find four experts in the field of judgment and decision-making, and offer them $2,000 each to read his book and tell him if he should quit writing it. “I wanted to know, basically, whether it would destroy my reputation,” he says. He wanted his reviewers to remain anonymous, so they might trash his book without fear of retribution. The endlessly self-questioning author was now paying people to write nasty reviews of his work. The reviews came in, but they were glowing. “By this time it got so ridiculous to quit again,” he says, “I just finished it.”
I urge you to visit Lewis' fine article. More importantly, if you haven't done so yet, I urge you to invest the time to read Thinking, Fast and Slow.. Michael Lewis is spot on when he describes Kahneman's work and persona (I haven't met Kahneman, but his gentle manner and his stunning ability to get to the point and then to offer real-world applications, shine through, chapter after chapter. I've rarely read a book so bursting with useful ideas for understanding one's self and others, for learning to really understand those things we think we are certain about. And Kahneman's book is far more than this too--it is a book with ideas for helping you to avoid many types of cognitive traps that would cost you dearly. It is a book for all of those who are students of the human mind, even on their off-hours.

Continue ReadingExcellence honed by self-criticism: the insights of Daniel Kahneman

Federal judge strikes down NDAA indefinite detention

Federal judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York provided a tremendous, though rare, victory for those who believe in basic civil liberties, which have taken a massive beating in the context of the alleged "war on terror." Amy Goodman and her guests (Chris Hedges, a journalist who filed the suit challenging the NDAA along with six others, and Bruce Afran, the group’s attorney) offer insight into the ruling:

In a rare move, a federal judge has struck down part of a controversial law signed by President Obama that gave the government the power to indefinitely detain anyone it considers a terrorism suspect anywhere in the world without charge or trial — including U.S. citizens. Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District of New York ruled the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of U.S. citizens. . . . "This is another window into ... the steady assault against civil liberties," Hedges says. "What makes [the ruling] so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law."

Continue ReadingFederal judge strikes down NDAA indefinite detention

Cosmic toast

I was briefly enjoying the company of several friends yesterday when I decided to make a spontaneous toast. The reason for my spontaneity was this: it occurred to me that we were each extraordinary organisms in that we were each a modern day survivor of a long long line of ancestors. Each of of our ancestors somehow sidestepped numerous dangers (including predators), surviving long enough to launch the next generation. If one went back a few hundred years, the odds that any of the four of us would have been born, much less that we would be friends enjoying each others' company in the same room, were remote. If you went back thousands (or better yet) millions of years (when our ancestors of other species), the likelihood that any of us would ever exist today would be closer to zero than one could imagine. It would be so close to zero that the fact that any of us actually exists (much less all of us) is best conceived of as a statistical miracle. So there we were yesterday, all of us impossible-people sharing a place and a moment, as well as sharing stories and more than a few laughs. It seemed to be a good time to recognize that moment. My words were brief; I recognized the grotesque unlikelihood that the four of us would have ever shared a conversation in the same room. As I write tonight, it occurs to me that most amazing thing yesterday was that our journeys had been for more momentous that I suggested. Each of us traveled more miles to get to Earth than the human mind is able to comprehend, except through great effort, wild metaphors and clever thought experiments. The problem is that we came from different stars, and it gets even crazier than this. I should have included the words of Lawrence Krauss in my toast. I'm waiting to see whether anyone ever in my lifetime tells me any story of the origin of human animals, no matter how fantastic, no matter how detached from reality, no matter how dependent on supernatural beings, that is more spell-binding than the truth. The upshot is this: If you want to tell an amazing story, you only need to stick to the facts. If you want to make an incredibly memorable cosmic toast, there's no need to exaggerate or pretend. There's no need to express one's thoughts in vague poetry. And nowadays, thanks to the Internet, there is no need to invest much time to learn or understand these overwhelming and disorienting truths. A cosmic toast is the intersection of well-established facts with the courage to embrace these facts. May we all consider giving cosmic toasts more often, to keep each other humble . . . .

Continue ReadingCosmic toast

New new atheism

George Dvorsky refers to getting past the frustration, anger and name-calling as "post-Atheism":

I’m hoping to see atheists move past the religion bashing and start thinking about more substantive issues. This is what I mean when I say post-atheism. It’s time to set aside the angst and work more productively to help those who need it, while working to develop a world view and set of guidelines for living without God. It’s unfortunate and tragic that so many humanists have equated the movement with atheism, while completely forgetting their progressive roots.

Humanism is about the betterment of all humanity and the contemplation of what it is we wish to become. It’s about taking control of our own lives in the absence of divine intervention. And it’s about taking responsibility for ourselves and doing the right thing.

This is where our energies and attention needs to be focused. Not in ridiculous Facebook timeline posts that serve no one.

I wouldn't call it "post atheism," because the term atheism means that one doesn't believe in God, and that is still true of the people who aren't religious. But I do agree entirely that it's time for atheists to move on. I get it, that we have been subjected to bigotry, but it's time to move from our Malcolm X phase to our Martin Luther King phase. I discuss all of this in detail in my five-part series titled "Mending Fences." As for a good model to use for getting past the frustration and, instead, making the world a better place, I often refer to this declaration by Paul Kurtz as my starting point.

Continue ReadingNew new atheism