Pharyngula

"Just look on the birght side of life..."

whistling...

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 8, 2008 11:39 AM

Dman Dyslexia strkies agani. That should be bright

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 8, 2008 11:42 AM

Winners over the years have included Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Alexander Solzhenitzyn, the Reverend Dr Billy Graham, and Charles Colson, the Watergate-burglar-turned-minister.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 8, 2008 11:45 AM

llewelly @3: "It wasn't entirely a fruitless and pointless endeavor. Thanks in part to Templeton, we have many studies of intercessory prayer showing that it has no effect on medical outcomes. I claim that's worth knowing."

I completely agree with you, and Dennett by extension: Rigorously testing religious-based claims is likely the best way to "break the spell" in short order.

Even if it does mean some people get money they really don't deserve in the short term, the long term effects of testing, and therefore discrediting (if I can project the 100% success rate of the past into the future), supernatural beliefs cannot be overvalued.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 8, 2008 12:03 PM

Yeah, it wasn't his intention, but he called a lot of theist bluffs. A lot of theist scientists have failed to fit their imaginary friends into their day job. Theologians have been forced to define terms and come up with models. And, of course, a lot of greedy types emerged looking to earn some quick money.

Posted by: Steve Jeffers | July 8, 2008 12:11 PM

I've also heard that his son and successor is not such a nice fellow, and leans more towards evangelical Christianity than to spiritual nebulosity.

He had already yielded the day-to-day leadership of the foundation to his son John Jr., a pediatric surgeon who quit his practice in 1995 to become the organization's president. An evangelical Christian, "Jack" is the chairman of Let Freedom Ring Inc., a neo-conservative think tank which raises funds for various conservative causes.
http://www.letfreedomring.net/
(caution, stupid music, apparently now for sale by owner)
Another one of his projects is
http://weneedafence.com/
He has reportedly contributed to both presidential campaigns of George Bush, whose relations with the scientific community are arguably the worst of any president in history.

So, son will indeed be worse than father. After seeing Eric Hovind, son of Kent, and various other cases, I hope this is not some kind of trend.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Sir John Templeton's passing is heartbreaking for his family and friends - those that knew him best. It is evident that you never had the opportunity to meet him. If you had met him in person, I think you would have a different opinion and would not treat the announcement of his passing so carelessly. John Templeton was an amazing human being. He was generous, thrifty, wise, and hardworking. He also loved everyone regardless of their thoughts, beliefs, political affiliations, or philanthropic endeavors. Today the world has lost a very special person. His family, friends,and foundation will miss him greatly. His contributions to the world were great, and he lived a good and honorable life.

Respectfully,

Lauren Templeton

Posted by: Lauren Templeton | July 8, 2008 12:21 PM

Lauren Templeton,

No one here is disagreeing with you.

It's just the nature of this blog to give but a brief nod to his stellar character, then spend the rest of our efforts debating the past and potential future effects of the Templeton Foundation on science, education, and the ongoing culture wars.

Again, no offense was intended to the man himself, and I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say you have our collective condolences.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 8, 2008 12:28 PM

Lauren Templeton, it is true that neither PZ nor the majority of commenters here have met Sir John Templeton, and that is the reason that news of his death is treated here in the manner you describe as careless. I am sorry for your loss, but the statement "today the world has lost a very special person" is as true today as it has been every day since the evolution of complex social behaviour and the concept of loss in primates, and it is true today because of the loss of thousands of others as well as Sir John Templeton.

However, he was a figure of some import and significance beyond the impressions he left upon those who knew him personally, and as such, what will follow here will be a discussion of that import and significance. If you feel that such a discussion lacks the reverence you obviously felt for the man, I respectfully encourage you to read no further.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 8, 2008 12:40 PM

John Templeton was a giant in the investment business. Unlike most others in that business he was grateful for his success and used his money to benefit mankind in ways that others do not. Regardless of your personal beliefs (or not)in God, the very vast of people in the world have an interest in religious beliefs. Trying to bring science and religion together, if only for intelectual curiousity, is a valid concept. It is certainly no less valid than "theories" about "dinosaurs" or "neanderthals" It's still is an advancement in human existance and understanding.

Posted by: Islandcreek | July 8, 2008 12:47 PM

Jason Failes wrote:

Even if it does mean some people get money they really don't deserve in the short term, the long term effects of testing, and therefore discrediting (if I can project the 100% success rate of the past into the future), supernatural beliefs cannot be overvalued.

Glen Davidson wrote:

His foundation also put the IDiots in a bad light by offering money for ID research, with few or no proposals coming in for the grants (there's some dispute, since it seems that some purported proposals were made--but these probably had nothing to do with positive evidence for their nonsense).

Posted by: Wicked Lad | July 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Good riddance to a tax-dodging creep.

Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Wicked Lad @ 22: "I'm an ignorant lay person, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you use a 95% confidence level, don't you expect 5% bogus outcomes?"

That may be true (I work in educational media and haven't actually done primary research in a number of years), but that is where study replication comes in.

The 100% does not refer to confidence level in a particular study, but rather the overall unbroken pattern of replacing supernatural explanations with natural explanations in any case where the supernatural explanation under consideration is the least bit testable or falsifiable (unlike, say, God, who has been hiding in an invisible corner for some time now)...

...but I do look forward to what our resident statisticians have to say about this.

Posted by: Jason Failes | July 8, 2008 1:05 PM

B. Dewhirst:

You're a friggin' Wobbly? Did you just step out of a steam-powered time machine?

Posted by: Colugo | July 8, 2008 1:13 PM

I'm sorry to learn that. Do you have any links regarding those purported proposals? From time to time I've bolstered my anti-ID arguments with the assertion that "those proposals never came in.".

Apparently it's more complex than I thought. I believe that it was the grant to Henry Schaefer that caused my own caveat, but in one of the following quotes they make it quite clear that he is no IDist.

However, there also was no specific call for ID proposals, apparently. Harper seems to have said that they were allowed, no blackballing, and no proposals for actual ID research (though I believe that the DI claimed Schaefer or some other grant recipient for a counter-example) came in. I'll just let the quotes say the rest:

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

Being focused on the research of the ID community, ResearchID.org was naturally curious about insinuations of Harper and the New York Times that the JTF does not fund ID research. Our investigator asked Charles Harper about these claims in the New York Times article, particularly where the article makes ID researchers look unresponsive to JTF requests for research proposals.

In response to an inquiry about whether the JTF put out a call to ID scholars for grant requests, Harper specifically stated that, "No such request [for proposals] was made. There never was a call-for-proposals to the ID community. All I said [to the reporter] is that, like anybody else, ID people could apply and proposals submitted would be reviewed on their merits. No blackballing."[5] Harper also stated, "The incorrect narrative that was implied (and that percolates through the cybersphere) was that: (a) Templeton used to be pro-ID and wanted proposals to support ID research; and (b) that later these desired research proposals never arrived; and (c) that therefore the JTF became disenchanted with ID. This is completely false. It is a creation of media narrative manufacture."[6]

In short, Charles Harper explicitly denies that there ever was any call for research proposals made to ID scholars and disavows the accuracy of the entire New York Times' narrative describing the JTF's disillusion with ID. As documented below, Harper opposes ID, so clearly he has no motive to protect intelligent design. In light of Harper's entirely different account, the veracity of the New York Times' article on the ID research community's interaction with the JTF is called into grave doubt.

www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Media_Misreports_Intelligent_Design_Research_and_the_John_Templeton_Foundation

In response to errors and misrepresentations stated in the February 28, 2007 ResearchID.com blog post: 1. The John Templeton Foundation has never made a call-for-proposals to the ID Community. 2. The Henry Schaefer grant was from the Origins of Biological Complexity program. Schaefer is a world's leading chemist, and his research has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. 3. Bill Dembski's grant was not for the book 'No Free Lunch.' Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book. From our FAQ... Does the Foundation support I.D.? No. We do not support the political movement known as "Intelligent Design". This is for three reasons 1) we do not believe the science underpinning the "Intelligent Design" movement is sound, 2) we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge, and 3) the Foundation is a non-political entity and does not engage in, or support, political movements. It is important to note that in the past we have given grants to scientists who have gone on to identify themselves as members of the Intelligent Design community. We understand that this could be misconstrued by some to suggest that we implicitly support the Intelligent Design movement, but, as outlined above, this was not our intention at the time nor is it today. -- Templeton Foundation[65]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation#The_.22Intelligent_Design.22_controversy

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 8, 2008 1:15 PM

@22

That concern is only with studies with large variability or small sample sizes where the p-value for the statistical test ends up at 0.05. Studies with large sample sizes or low variability will provide much greater confidence such that very few studies will provide false positives.

Posted by: Sam | July 8, 2008 1:31 PM

I believe that it was the grant to Henry Schaefer that caused my own caveat, but in one of the following quotes they make it quite clear that he is no IDist.

Rather, that the research has nothing to do with ID. If it's the same person, he's actually a Discovery Institute fellow-CSC, strong circumstantial evidence that he's IDist.

The fact that a DI fellow received a Templeton Foundation grant presumably led some to claim (or at least imply) that it did make some ID grants. But as noted, Templeton states that the grant has nothing to do with ID.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 8, 2008 1:36 PM

Speaking of Wobblies (which is admittedly one of my favorite things to do), I highly recommend this film - An Injury to One - to anyone who hasn't yet seen it:

http://frif.com/new2003/inj.html

Posted by: SC | July 8, 2008 1:44 PM

I meant to say if his son doesn't work out as successor. Didn't mean to leave a non-sequitur.

Posted by: Chris Rosendin | July 8, 2008 1:58 PM

fossilised Jesuses

And another great band name was born.

Posted by: SC | July 8, 2008 2:00 PM

...of course a four-piece Christian skinhead band.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 8, 2008 2:08 PM

"Distasteful at the best of times, but to say that in the presence of a bereaved family member is really fucking low."

I'd hear his reasons and arguments before making any high-horse moral judgements like that.

I disagree. B.Dewhirst's comment, made with the full knowledge that a bereaved family member was reading, cannot be interpreted as anything other than deliberate rudeness. If we knew B's "reasons and arguments," you might conclude that Sir John deserves nothing but rudeness, and I might even agree... but there's no reason to believe his great niece deserves a gratuitous emotional poke in the eye.

I have no problem with taking the fight to our philosophical adversaries with vigor and without shame... but there's no good reason to treat Laura Templeton as our enemy. And even if there were, it would keep 'til tomorrow.

I don't know enough about Sir John's business or about British tax law to evaluate the charge, but if by "tax cheat" what B.Dewhirst means is that Sir John took (legal) advantage of a tax system B thinks is unjust, then his anger is more properly directed at the people who wrote the law.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 8, 2008 2:11 PM

Um... he did a bit more than that folks... he left the country and moved his assets to avoid paying taxes.

He renounced his US citizenship in 1960 and moved to the Bahamas, a tax haven.

I did not write my initial post with the full knowledge his extended family was already reading it.

He hid his assets from taxation after benefiting from American infrastructure, deliberately blurred the line between science and religion, and promoted religion as a necessary component of a moral life.

As I am American atheist leftist scientist, that is enough for me.

Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 8, 2008 2:19 PM

The fact that he avoided paying any kind of taxes on his earnings for the last 48 years is a matter of public record, Glen, as is the fact that he used that money to undermine science and promote religion.

This is the time and place, while major media outlets try to whitewash his history with bromides about how much money he gave to religious charities.

Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 8, 2008 2:25 PM

Ah, that's better (facts, or at least purported facts), Dewhirst, and I can see that if you didn't know who was (likely) reading you might not understand the reactions of several of us.

I hope it'll be allowed to rest for now.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 8, 2008 2:26 PM

Time and place, dammit. Even if he deserved (deserves) criticism, one should choose the right place and time for it. This might be the right place, but clearly it's not the right time, or the right audience.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 8, 2008 2:33 PM

Generally speaking, Wicked Lad, a statistical test with an α of 0.05 or level of significance of 5% implies that out of twenty tests, on average, we can expect that one test will be falsely positive, i.e. a difference will be detected when none exists in actuality.

Further, statistics are usually given with some measure of error, known as a confidence interval. For example, if a survey concludes that 35% of Americans enjoy ham sandwiches, plus or minus 4.3% with a confidence level of 95%, we could say we are 95% confident that the true percentage of Americans who enjoy ham sandwiches falls between 30.7% and 39.3%. Technically, it means that, were the study conducted the exact same way with the exact same population but a different sample each time, the true parameter would fall within the 95% confidence interval of the statistic measured 19 times out of twenty.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 8, 2008 2:41 PM

I have got to get off my butt and study that subject. It's essential for critical evaluation of scientific claims and results.

For that purpose, Wicked Lad, a general introduction to statistics type of course will do fine.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | July 8, 2008 2:46 PM

Generally speaking, Wicked Lad, a statistical test with an α of 0.05 or level of significance of 5% implies that out of twenty tests, on average, we can expect that one test will be falsely positive, i.e. a difference will be detected when none exists in actuality.

Careful; that's the case only if in all 20 cases the null hypothesis is true. Knowing α doesn't tell us how many of n positive results we can expect to be false.

Posted by: MartinM | July 8, 2008 2:55 PM

B.Dewhirst

let me try to explain again, I refuse to inject any kind of morality into this, it's useless. First, we have an ultra-capitalistic system which completely favours capital gains over labour, then we have all these little tax heavens that completely escape the control of the productive economies. So when someone who is very rich takes advantage of it, like most of them, why make a moral judgement and condemn him as evil, especially when the one making the judgement has never been in that situation, and would have probably done the same ?
We need to realize how useless all of this is, it is actually in the very rich's advantage to blur the discussion and inject some misplaced morality into it. Because let's not forget that we live in a world where most poor people envy and admire the rich. We need to skip all of this irrationality and focus on defining a system which can distribute wealth in a more equitable way, which is exactly the opposite of what we have today. We need to adapt to a no growth world.

Posted by: negentropyeater | July 8, 2008 3:09 PM

John Templeton was an innovator, and he prospered. Good for him. I've never heard that he harmed anyone, so I don't understand the hostility on this thread. As far as I know, Templeton was honest and honorable, and no one in his industry had any criticism of him. If the tax climate is better in the Bahamas, perhaps the US (and UK) should reconsider the way they treat successful people. What Templeton did with his fortune was legal, so it's no one's business but his.

If his niece is still reading, you have my condolences. I always thought he was a fine man.

Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 8, 2008 3:15 PM

Glen D (@47):

Time and place, dammit.

You place this after a quote from me in a way that suggests argument. Just to be clear, I agree with your position, and was trying to say much the same thing myself.

(I suspect you knew that; I wanted to make sure everyone else did, too.)

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 8, 2008 3:17 PM

PatrickHenry:

His organization has personally caused me harm in my profession, as I was forced to choose between a principled stance against continuing membership in an organization which would further my career and ignoring the efforts done to blur the distinction between science and religion.

He has also done me harm by increasing my tax burden by exploiting his superior wealth, and by undermining public intellectuals I respect.

He has harmed many more by promoting religion at a time when it is a fuel for so many conflicts, and for directing his money into boondongle religious research when it could have been curing malaria.

If I may anticipate one objection to this argument... we do not share a common conception of the right to property. (Possessions are another matter.)

Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 8, 2008 3:26 PM

I refuse to inject any kind of morality into this [..] We need to skip all of this irrationality and focus on defining a system which can distribute wealth in a more equitable way

How is "we need to...distribute wealth in a more equitable way" not a moral judgement?

And even if tax shelters and offshore havens are legal, I don't think that makes using them moral. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think that using them, and abandoning US citizenship for purely monetary gain (after profiting handsomely from the country) is petty and small-minded.

Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2008 3:32 PM

Colugo @ 69:

The Templeton Foundation, acting in accords with its mission as established by its namesake, has taken out a number of two-page advertisements in the American Scientist magazine, the journal of the Sigma Xi graduate research honors society. These ads are designed to look like magazine content, and their content suggests the magazine supports an apologist position with respect to the science/religion divide.

Clarification wrt your snark: I'm a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist, and I'm self-supported.

Posted by: B.Dewhirst | July 8, 2008 3:46 PM

Tulse, saying that a more equitable system is better is not necessarily a moral judgment. One can I think quite easily come to the conclusion that when there is too much of a gap between rich and poor in a country that ends up (eventually) hurting both the rich and the poor, even outside the obvious cases of revolutions.

I.e. it is not in the interest of rich people in the US to squeeze out every last bit of money from the poor people living here and delegate them to poverty since that could well result in a much dumber and unmotivated workforce incapable of competing abroad. Which would end up hurting the rich people as well eventually. Which one could argue is exactly what's been happening, except that at least some of the rich people have financially moved out of the US, like this fellow apparently.

Infact outside of the us/european countries, the only massively successful former third-world countries are the far east asian ones who had far less income disparity then latin america let's say, much better public education/healthcare, etc. And in the end this benefited rich people in those countries as well. Of course there is a balance to be maintained, since communism doesn't work either.

Although to be fair, the original post you quoted did mostly frame it as a moral question or so it seems to me.

Posted by: Coriolis | July 8, 2008 4:00 PM

My condolences to the family of Sir Templeton, but would we have the same compunctions about offending the Phelps family, or Ham's family?

As far as "pissing on Sir John's casket in full view of his family" is concerned, in this case, Sir John's family member chose to come here. If one were to be offended by two dudes screwing, it would be wise for one to avoid going to a bath-house.

That being said, Templeton seemed to have been a decent fellow, with a sound investment strategy, and a willingness to invest in developing countries. I would venture to say that his overall impact has been fairly positive, but his "trust fund kid" of a son could be just as bad for society as Richard Mellon Scaife.

Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 8, 2008 4:05 PM

I'm a libertarian socialist, not a Marxist, and I'm self-supported. B. Dewhirst

No good expecting Colugo to make fine distinctions like that I'm afraid.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 8, 2008 4:18 PM

I've attended a number of conferences devoted to discu