Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, October 21, 2013 4:50 pm

Without comment, other than to say that as good as my street contacting was 40 years ago in Brazil–Rio, Vitoria, and Joao Pessoa–I was no match for what these NYC missionaries did.

And that scripture at the end? It’s from The Book of Mormon:

And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and ahappy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are bblessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out cfaithful to the end they are received into dheaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it. (Mosiah 2:41)

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, October 21, 2013 12:15 pm

The Economist says there’s Trouble at the Lab. Nick Brown Smelled Bull. What’s going on here? Where’s the rational, reasoned thinking we are told is the hallmark of science?

According to The Economist,

This [that too many scientists use inappropriate statistically techniques] fits with another line of evidence suggesting that a lot of scientific research is poorly thought through, or executed, or both.

Nick Brown would surely agree. The BS he smelled involved applied positive psychology and

A butterfly graph, the calling card of chaos theory mathematics, purporting to show the tipping point upon which individuals and groups “flourish” or “languish.” Not a metaphor, no poetic allusion, but an exact ratio: 2.9013 positive to 1 negative emotions. Cultivate a “positivity ratio” of greater than 2.9-to-1 and sail smoothly through life; fall below it, and sink like a stone.

The theory was well credentialed. Now cited in academic journals over 350 times, it was first put forth in a 2005 paper by Barbara Fredrickson, a luminary of the positive psychology movement, and Marcial Losada, a Chilean management consultant, and published in the American Psychologist, the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the largest organization of psychologists in the U.S.

Brown, a 52-year old part-time master’s student at an obscure London university with a degree in computer science, would have none of that.

In what world could this be true? he wondered

So off he went. The story of his campaign against this particular piece of bad science is well worth the read.

Like Brown, I am not a scientist. I’m not even particularly well-schooled in the subject. But I follow it. I read my share of articles on the subject. I read a few blogs that deal with it. I even have friends who are scientists. Accomplished ones, in fact. Sadly I’ve also read my share of Facebook posts touting science as the Holy Grail and at the same time disparaging faith and religion. Well, these two articles should give pause to those who place their faith in science. For as The Economist says, quoting Dr. Bruce Alberts, editor of Science,

[S]cientists themselves . . . “need to develop a value system where simply moving on from one’s mistakes without publicly acknowledging them severely damages, rather than protects, a scientific reputation.” This will not be easy. But if science is to stay on its tracks, and be worthy of the trust so widely invested in it, it may be necessary.

Apparently the emperor isn’t the only one in need of some new clothes. Richard Dawkins, call your office.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, October 21, 2013 10:09 am

George Will (who, by the way, is speaking at BYU tomorrow) nails it in his October 18, 2013, column:

[Barack Obama] and some of his tea party adversaries share an impatience with Madisonian politics, which requires patience. The tea party’s reaffirmation of Madison’s limited-government project is valuable. Now, it must decide if it wants to practice politics.

Rauch hopes there will be “an intellectual effort to advance a principled, positive, patriotic case for compromise, especially on the right.” He warns that Republicans, by their obsessions with ideological purity and fiscal policy, “have veered in the direction of becoming a conservative interest group, when what the country needs is a conservative party .”

A party is concerned with power , understood as the ability to achieve intended effects. A bull in a china shop has consequences, but not power, because the bull cannot translate intelligent intentions into achievements. The tea party has a choice to make. It can patiently try to become the beating heart of a durable party, which understands this: In Madisonian politics, all progress is incremental. Or it can be a raging bull, and soon a mere memory, remembered only for having broken a lot of china. Conservatives who prefer politics over the futility of intransigence gestures in Madison’s compromise-forcing system will regret the promise the tea party forfeited, but will not regret that, after the forfeiture, it faded away. (Emphasis supplied)

(Wills’s visit reminds me of a couple of other media luminaries who stopped by to chat when I was at BYU, including to David Halberstam, in the Marriott Center, and Bob Woodward, in the Wilkinson Center Ballroom. I read Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest as a consequence of his visit.)