August 26, 2010
Category: Miscellaneous
With classes set to start on Monday I am not in the mood for heavy fare. So how about some entertainment blogging!
Like all sensible people I am a big fan of the James Bond movies. That none of them, let's face it, are actually all that good, does not affect my inability to change the channel when I notice that one is on. I used to feel strongly that Roger Moore was the best Bond, but that is partly because, given my age, he was the first Bond I encountered. Lately I have moved on to a more ecumenical approach that recognized the strengths and weaknesses of all the Bonds (including Timothy Dalton, who I think is a bit underrated.) Forced to choose, I would have to say the best Bond was David Niven from the original Casino Royale. The best Bond villain? Woody Allen as Dr. Noah, of course.
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:32 PM • 28 Comments
August 25, 2010
Category: Miscellaneous
P. Z. Myers had heart surgery yesterday, to implant a few stents. It was all very worrisome, but since he is already back to yelling at HuffPo it seems that things will work out OK.
Best wishes for a speedy recovery, P. Z.
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 8:23 PM • 5 Comments
August 23, 2010
Category: Mathematics
We begin with a joke. What's a logarithm? It's a birth control method for lumberjacks. Hahahahaha! Believe it or not, one of my high school math teachers taught me that.
Actually, logarithms are a computational tool for turning products into sums. They are defined as follows.
\[
\log_a b=x \textrm{ if and only if } a^x=b.
\]
The thing on the left is read, “Log to the base a of b.” It can be thought of as the power to which a must be raised to obtain b
Two simple examples are
\[
\log_2 32 =5 \phantom{xxx} \textrm{and} \phantom{xxx} \log_7 49=2.
\]
What do we mean when we say that logarithms turn products into sums?
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:13 PM • 13 Comments
August 22, 2010
Category: Politics • Religion
For the past few days I have been intending to do a big post about the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque,” in which I would gather up and comment on what various other people had said. Alas, I have not had time for that. So let me instead just do a quick post.
I have no problem whatsoever with the proposed cultural center (it's not a mosque for heaven's sake, though it would not change my opinion if it was). They have an absolute right to build it, and if they decide to exercise that right it will be a complete non-story as far as I am concerned. Of course, as an anti-religion kind of guy I do not especially like it when any building is used for a religious purpose, but that is neither here nor there. Frankly, as a rebuke to all the hateful rhetoric I have been hearing on the news channels recently, I'm at the point of hoping they built it thirty stories tall.
The notion that somehow there is a radius around Ground Zero that is now a Muslim-free zone is obscene and bigoted. This isn't even an issue of freedom of religion. It's about being innocent until proven guilty. There have been attempts by the right to demonize the fellow behind the project, but as far as I can tell it is all just a standard Fox News smear job.
Meanwhile, the standard political story of our time -- Republicans are evil, Democrats are cowards, people are clueless -- has played out to grim perfection on this issue. There have been a few bright spots. Al Franken proved once more that he's the best Senator in the body. It took some courage for President Obama to weigh in on the project at all, though he did undo some of the impact by backpeddaling the next day. But those are the exceptions.
You know what? Now that I think about it I hope they build it fifty stories tall.
For a characteristically intelligent take on this, consult Keith Olberman's Special Comment.
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:51 PM • 51 Comments
August 17, 2010
Category: Religion
And speaking of evidence for God, here's Matt Rossano putting forth an interesting idea:
Now this may seem too whimsical to be taken seriously, but the important point is this: however one envisions convincing scientific evidence of God, let's suppose we've got it. Let's further suppose that this god is pretty much the god we all expected to find -- not Aristotle's reclusive thought-contemplating-itself god or Plato's disappointingly limited Demiurge, but the “golden rule,” Ten Commandments kind of god with whom we are all pretty familiar. This God is now on the same footing as gravity, evolution, and the germ theory of disease. He is an accepted scientific fact. Now what?
Well nothing major -- only the end of both atheism and Christianity.
Now, as I recall, Paley and his fellow natural theologians thought they had precisely such evidence. Somehow they overlooked that their arguments represented the end of Christianity. Let's see what Rossano has in mind.
The part about it being the end of atheism seems clear enough. But how does it imply the end of Christianity:
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 5:56 PM • 57 Comments
August 16, 2010
Category: Religion
Monday Math is off this week. School starts in just two more weeks, and I have been making a last push to have as much of my books done as I can before it does. Cuts into my blogging time, alas.
Which is a shame, since there is plenty of fodder. For example, Peter Enns has a new essay up over at Huff Po. It's title is “Atheists Are Believers, Too” I suspect that everyone reading this could reconstruct Enns' argument from that title alone.. Still, let's consider the specifics.
Things start off well with this:
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:45 PM • 46 Comments
August 12, 2010
Category: Mathematics
That's the Big Monty Hall Book for those unfamiliar with the local slang. The review appeared in the May issue of The American Statistician, not freely available online, alas. The author was Michael Sherman of Texas A & M University. Here's the opening:
Jason Rosenhouse states on the last page of his book that he encountered much “incredulity” at writing a “whole book” on the “Monty Hall problem.” I confess that I was one of the incredulous upon picking up this book. After reading it, however, I have quite a different view.
And just what is this new view of which he speaks?
Rosenhouse is both entertaining and precise in his writing. He carefully makes the point that conditional probability is difficult to intuitively process, often because what is being conditioned on is not clear. The book is both informative and an entertaining journey for both those schooled in probability and those with little background in probability
Score! That last line is especially gratifying, since there were times when I was writing that I worried about having done exactly the opposite. That is, a book that was too technical for people not schooled in probability but not technical enough for those who were.
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 4:20 PM • 6 Comments
August 9, 2010
Category: Mathematics
In this week's edition of Monday Math we look at what I regard as one of the prettiest equations in number theory. Here it is:
\[
\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} = \prod_p \left( \frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p^s}}\right)
\]
Doesn't it just make your heart go pitter-pat?
You are probably familiar with the big sigma notation for sums. The big pi indicates an infinite product. In this case the product is indexed over the primes. In other words, the product contains one factor for each prime.
There is something very counter-intuitive in this equation, which is a large part of why I find it so pretty. It turns out, though, that it's really just a consequence of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Permit me to explain...
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 12:04 AM • 8 Comments
August 8, 2010
Category: Legal issues
By now you have no doubt heard that a federal judge in California has struck down Proposition Eight, a voter referendum that outlawed gay marriage. Go here for a quick summary of the basic facts.
I have not had a chance yet to read the entire decision, and I do not intend to attempt a legal analysis of its merits. I am very happy about it, of course, as should anyone who cares about basic justice and the rights of homosexuals. There were two things that struck me, however, upon hearing the news of the judge's decision.
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:35 PM • 14 Comments
August 4, 2010
Category: Religion
The second good post comes from Frank Schaeffer, making an argument that usually gets you dismissed as a village atheist. Here's the set-up:
There is a verse in Timothy that says that all Scripture is for our edification. This verse, not the many Bible stories of the many killings “ordained by God,” is the scariest verse in the Bible.
In Timothy (3:16) we read; “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”
The “all Scripture” being spoken of is the Old Testament. The New Testament was just being written at the time. And these days, of course, for conservative Christians, the word “Scripture” covers “their” part of the Bible too.
How scary is this verse? Well, take every vile verse reeking of barbarity in the Bible and append the “All scripture is...” ending to it.
In this unsettling thought experiment for instance take St. Paul's New Testament “advice” to women: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12) Then add, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” End of discussion! Be Silent!
Read on »
Posted by Jason Rosenhouse at 6:33 PM • 41 Comments
