…and this is a 
But the sentiment is worthy. There is a petition you can sign asking the British government to express some public remorse for what was done to Alan Turing. I'm sure you all know who he was, but just in case…
Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.
He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.
The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.
There's also an article on the petition, with an online poll.
Should there be an apology for computer pioneer Alan Turing over his conviction for homosexuality?
Yes 74%
No 26%
Technology
Politics
Comments
Posted by: CelticLC | August 17, 2009 8:35 PM
Making a formal recognition of an injustice, yes. An apology? Who are they going to apologise to exactly?
Posted by: Prof. Bleen | August 17, 2009 8:36 PM
As someone suggested in the comments, a posthumous knighthood would be more appropriate.
Posted by: Benjamin Nelson | August 17, 2009 8:36 PM
UK signatures only it seems. Alas.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 17, 2009 8:37 PM
Excellent. It is past time for an apology. Turing was unfortunate enough to be caught up in a mounting hysteria about high level homosexuals in the British establishment being compromised by the USSR because of their sexuality, and thus turned into spies.
Posted by: Greg Esres | August 17, 2009 8:37 PM
An apology seems rather meaningless coming from people who did not inflict the injury.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 17, 2009 8:50 PM
Of course an apology is meaningless to Turing. But a government apology for something an earlier incarnation of government once did has powerful moral force. It puts a line through a behavior that was once approved, and makes it clear to the present generation that this is no longer an acceptable way to treat a fellow citizen.
Here in New Zealand settlement of grievances between Maori and the Crown relating to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi have often been accompanied by an official apology. The public statement acknowledges the extent of the wrong and the mechanism of redress. Such apologies have a powerful moral force, and many of the tribes receiving them consider that part of the process to have been essential and healing. If you were a persecuted gay from Turing's era, wouldn't you consider an apology to him in the present to have some applicability to you also?
Posted by: Janet Holmes | August 17, 2009 8:55 PM
They should be apologizing to EVERYONE whose life was ruined by these laws and to the people of the world for depriving us all of the genius of Alan Turing and many others. They won't though, too many possible law suits. There must be lots of people still living who suffered for their sexuality.
And while it may seem pointless, it's just a gesture like all apologies, it makes a difference. I suppose Alan still has relatives living somewhere for whom it would mean something as well.
Posted by: Janet Holmes | August 17, 2009 8:57 PM
Oh and they don't do posthumous knighthoods or else Charles Darwin would have one!
Posted by: Ben | August 17, 2009 9:02 PM
It seems to me that an apology directed to Turing in particular implies that we regret his treatment not because it was fundamentally wrong to treat LGBT people in this way, but because we're sorry to have done it to such an accomplished person. Public recognition for his work, in the form of some sort posthumous award, would be more fitting. If there are to be apologies, they should be to everyone who suffered under those laws, not just the famous ones.
Posted by: Happy Kiwi | August 17, 2009 9:06 PM
True about the knighthoods, but governments do posthumous pardons, posthumous awards for bravery, posthumous military decorations. All have a powerful symbolic significance that has a lot more to do with those left behind than the one departed.
Posted by: Fil
|
August 17, 2009 9:11 PM
While I agree that an apology is useless to Turing, there are still people alive from his time who were also mistreated under the UK's homophobic legislation. An apology and, as some have suggested, something like a Turing Award would be a good thing, therefore.
The state where I live has only recently rescinded its archaic and disgusting anti-gay laws and indeed now is more progressive than most, by recognising gay and lesbian relationships under law. Although straight myself, I was part of the movement here to bring about that change, and as a result copped a fair amount of vitriol from the morons who are so afraid of gays. So I had a small taste of what it feels like to bear the brunt of homophobia and what Turing himself must have felt, poor man.
I signed already, btw. One of the few times I have been thankful for dual UK/Australian citizenship.
Posted by: Shadow Caster | August 17, 2009 9:14 PM
An apology would be meaningless unless you acknowledge that there is something beyond this life...
Posted by: Tassie Devil | August 17, 2009 9:15 PM
And of course, despite all the hysteria about homosexuals being a security risk during the cold war, the major UK disaster was the Profumo affair, in which heterosexuality played a significant role. They didn't chase down and chemically castrate straight men, though, did they?
Cyanide poisoning - what an absolutely horrific way to die.
Posted by: H.H. | August 17, 2009 9:19 PM
Ok, who wants to go first?Posted by: HarmlessEccentric | August 17, 2009 9:20 PM
I agree with Ben; the apology should be tendered to Turing, but it should clearly explain that the apology is extended also to the less-accomplished people whose lives were just as ruined by anti-gay policies.
Posted by: Tassie Devil | August 17, 2009 9:22 PM
Oh, hell, we've picked up another bigoted kook.
Enigma could have been a far more powerful film if they'd had the guts to show Turing honestly, instead of performing a hollywood castration on him.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 9:23 PM
I see marriage as a contract, if you want to steep it in terms as a covenant with God, Fine. It is still a contract. The laws do not protect equally for just cohabitation. Gay marriage does not affect me at all, but one can not ignore that the laws of the land do not protect a gay persons property rights. I am all for Gay marriage.
Posted by: Zen Druid | August 17, 2009 9:23 PM
#12, what you have done here is called "waffling". Just saying.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 17, 2009 9:24 PM
But we all know that Turing didn't commit suicide. He was assassinated by British intelligence after he discovered theorems which if contemplated properly could summon terrible Lovecraftian entities. Oh wait, you "The Atrocity Archives" by Charles Stross is not a work of history? Oh never mind them. Actually, even if The Atrocity Archives was real, the British would still owe him an apology.
Posted by: Daniel M | August 17, 2009 9:24 PM
I was on a long car trip with my very Mormon mother. Out of the blue, she said, "So you think it's okay for gay people to get married, do you?"
"Yeah," I said. "I think it'll be fine."
Mom said "What if your sons turned out gay? Then what would you say?"
"If they turned out gay, I'd say 'I love you, son, and I want you to be happy and be with someone you love.'"
She said "I think you've lost your mind."
"Oh, come on, Mom. What if I'd turned out gay? You might find it a little hard to understand, but you'd still love me, wouldn't you?"
And there was a long silence.
And she said simply, "Well... I don't know."
Now my mom's a good person who loves me a lot. (Of course, I am straight.) I don't know if she feels that way because of the Mormon church, or because she's from a slightly older generation. But whatever could make a person feel that way about their own child -- that is some bad fucking mojo right there.
So I want to apologise profusely to every gay person out there for everything that our society puts you through in life. I'm so sorry. Please forgive us all. Some of us are getting there.
Posted by: Hideki | August 17, 2009 9:25 PM
Hihi
It was only a few years ago he got a statue but aye, I think an apology at the very least is long over due...
Rather than a knighthood though, I'd prefer something more worthwhile, perhaps a scholarship set up in his name for the type of research he conducted!
If anyone hasn't seen the statue, you can view it here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Alan_Turing_Memorial_Closer.jpg
Posted by: waldteufel | August 17, 2009 9:25 PM
#12 -- blasphemy is a victimless crime. Newsflash: sky fairies don't exist.
*13 -- Your pointy-headed shadow is evident. Learn a little history, and recognize an apology as a symbolic act not for Turing, who unfortunately died because of christian "love", but for those now living who have to suffer the insanity and hatred that is at the heart of christianity.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 17, 2009 9:28 PM
Guardian of the Poll, it might help to either read what PZ wrote or to look up a bit about Turing. He was never in danger from the Nazis. He was mistreated by the British government. No need to hide him. Try to learn a bit before posting, mmmkay?
Posted by: weaves | August 17, 2009 9:28 PM
How appaling :C
Posted by: Alverant | August 17, 2009 9:29 PM
Guardian of the Poll, except sexuality isn't a choice. By your logic, god made Turing gay. Then why would god punish him for being gay? Your god must be a really sadistic asshole.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 9:29 PM
Under secularism such as nazism, death was the only answer.
How 'bout me HH?
What does Gott Mitt Uns mean?
--Adolf Hitler, 1933
Posted by: mdcurler | August 17, 2009 9:31 PM
As a total and complete computer and math geek, I first read about Alan Turing about 10 years ago. His heroics and pioneering efforts in computer science and mathematics is known by few. The Turing Award is given annually to the best computer scientests on this planet (a Nobel equivalent). If you read through the accomplishments of Turing recipients, you will quickly understand how and why these people are so brilliant and what they have contributed to all of our lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award
mdcurler
High School Math Teacher
Posted by: mclaren | August 17, 2009 9:32 PM
Alan Turning wasn't the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain, he was the greatest computer scientist period.
This kind of petition is nothing but a cheap way for cruel stupid societies full of unimaginative narrow-minded thugs to make themselves feel better about tormenting and brutalizing and savaging and torturing their best people.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 17, 2009 9:32 PM
Fil,
I agree with the sentiment, but the name's taken.
The Turing Award is the roughly Nobel-equivalent in computer science, awarded by the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery.
CS geeks, at least, appreciate that Turing was brilliant, even if a lot of them don't know about his persecution for his sexuality or his enormous importance to the war effort.
Posted by: Major Tom | August 17, 2009 9:33 PM
"I do not hate anyone for their personal sexual choice but do disagree with it being adopted into a covenent relationship that symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. That is blasphemy."
Apparently, only True Christians can use the word "marriage".
"I beleive that homosexuality is absolutely a sin before God, but would I have saved this man and hid him from the government if I had the chance? ABSOLUTELY!"
This sort of open-minded compassion is so cute. If only Turing had been kept properly hidden.....
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 9:34 PM
He's definitely up there, but I couldn't say that without reservations. von Neumann, Lovelace and Babbage have a legitimate shot at that title too.
Posted by: mdcurler | August 17, 2009 9:39 PM
Did I mention that Turing created computers for breaking the Nazi ENIGMA machine. Without that effort the war could have lasted years longer.
Simon Singh, yup, the guy being sued by the BCA, wrote an excellent book called "Code Breakers" where he dedicates a significant portion of the book to Turing. A really good read for mathies and computeries.
mdcurler
High School Math Teacher
Posted by: nixscripter | August 17, 2009 9:40 PM
At the risk of repeating an earlier post on a different subject, you can read all about Alan Turing (without castration off the pen) in an excellent biography called The Enigma by Andrew Hodges.
Posted by: Major Tom | August 17, 2009 9:45 PM
Hodges also has a website on Turing:
http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/index.html
Posted by: King Aardvark | August 17, 2009 9:47 PM
I've never understood the sick twistedness of castrating homosexuals. "We find their genital activities to be icky, so we'll mess their genitals up"? Is a mutilated asexual better than a homosexual? It can't be to prevent them from procreating, could it? In the case of older people like Turing, any breeding would likely have occured earlier in life already. Just sick, and they should definitely apologize to all those affected, not just Turing.
Posted by: Commissar Claw
|
August 17, 2009 9:49 PM
It takes a special kind of douchebag to conflate nazism with secularism in a post about Alan Turing who was an atheist and helped to defeat Nazi Germany.
Posted by: Fil
|
August 17, 2009 9:50 PM
@Paul #30
Damn, I thought as I wrote that that there was some award associated with Turing, but could not bring it to mind. Mmm, OK, name's taken for that, but that's not to say a scholarship or some such could not be named after him.
@#12
Marriage is just a word, but it sure seems to mean a lot to people. As I stated before, gay and lesbian couples here in Tasmania are now recognised under law and so have all the rights and protections that marriage provides (and probably also the same downers too, lol). However, they are not allowed as yet to "marry". Why ever not? Because a section of the community here think that marriage is a religious affair only. Well, it's not, it's also a secular arrangement and as such should be available to any couple that wants to be married. After all, I'm married to a woman and we never went near a church on our wedding day.
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | August 17, 2009 9:51 PM
What might be suitable would be a Turing prize, specifically intended for outstanding achievment in computer science to be given yearly to the top five or so applicants in the field under a certain age, say 25, similar to the Rhodes Scholarship. It should be a significant prize, sufficient to pay all the requirements for higher education or post doctoral work. It should carry with it a specific citation to an explicit admission on the part of the British Government that Mr. Turing was woefully wronged and mistreated by said government subsequent to having made a major if not pivotal contribution to the war effort.
We might expect to see this happen about the time we also see the Oscar Wilde award for outstanding achievment in the theater arts.
Despite the fact that none of these things will likely happen, we do have the Turing test, which is extremely helpful in winnowing out the trolls from the robots on blog comment threads.
Halt!
Posted by: Elli | August 17, 2009 9:51 PM
Joshua, I didn't read #12 as saying Nazi's were responsible for the death of Turing. More, Guardian of the Poll seemed to be saying that all secularists are Nazis. It would be a new and interesting argument if we hadn't heard it so often before. *sigh*
I suppose we ought to give Guardian the credit for seeming able to separate the religion from the person at least enough to not hate gay people for their sexuality. Shame about the failure to separate the legal contract of marriage from the church. I wonder if G realizes the full implications of that connection? I.e. you don't just get to exclude gays, you also have to exclude all non-christians.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 17, 2009 9:53 PM
Please don't respond to the banned troll, Guradian of the Polls.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer, OP | August 17, 2009 9:54 PM
Requesting an apology is bullshit. He has already been awarded Officer of the Order of the British Empire not to mention all the posthumous recognition.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 17, 2009 9:54 PM
"However, homosexuals still have the same basic freedoms as we all do both under the constitution and under the laws of God. "
You mean like getting married to whom they choose?
Posted by: Malachi Constant | August 17, 2009 9:57 PM
I think an apology accompanied by the acknowledgment that the discrimination against gay people in any way is something we should put behind us would be very powerful. Are there political reasons the Brits wouldn't do this? Do they have a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy over there, for example?
Also, PZ, please correct your article about kids being forced to take bible courses in Texas. Schools are forced to have bible classes (unless less than 15 students sign up), but they're not forced to take them.
It's unconstitutional in my opinion, and I hope to see it overturned, but at least get the facts straight.
Posted by: Major Tom | August 17, 2009 9:59 PM
Ref #37,
It takes a VERY special kind of douchebag to conflate nazism with secularism in a post about a non-existent god's opinion of the sexuality of Alan Turing who was an atheist and helped to defeat Nazi Germany.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 10:01 PM
These would be the same Nazis that went to war with "Gott mitt uns" on their belt buckles, right?
Or are you one of those Bizarro-Christians who insist that Lutherans aren't True Christians because of some doctrinal squabble?
Posted by: That Darn Satan! | August 17, 2009 10:05 PM
An official apology for something someone else did without my consent, would be undignified. They tried to get me to believe that taking on such a burden was a virtue back when I was a Catholic. Presumably most of the current UK government is different than that in Turing's day, isn't it? Maybe it isn't.
This is idealistic, but in a mad universe it's helpful to flail at standards and grab what one can: if we respect our laws and the processes by which we make and change them, then an apology for the legal past is not appropriate. We understand it to have been a stupid and brutal law now but it was the correctly legal at the time. Alan Turing should be honored for being an intellectual badass, accompanied by some reflection on how the world used to be and why we're better off now, but making an official apology for upholding the law strikes me as disrespectful to law.
(I'm not totally comfortable with these ideas, incidentally. I recently caught myself using a similar argument about Michael Vick: he broke the law, he went to prison as punishment, and now he's no longer an asshole. But Michael Vick SHOULD still be an asshole, and I welcome anyone who can explain why proper lawful procedure isn't good enough to absolve him. Or the UK government, for that matter)
Posted by: Fil
|
August 17, 2009 10:15 PM
@47
Well, Oscar Wilde broke the anti-gay laws and was destroyed by two years hard labour for it. Was that not a barbarous law and should we say it was right for England to uphold it in such a way?
It was perfectly legal here in Australia to take aboriginal children away from their parents, for instance, so that many never saw their families again. An entire generation was "stolen". For years our miserable Prime Minister Howard refused to apologise for it. He did not agree with "a black armband view of history" apparently. Then when the government changed, Kevin Rudd our new PM apologised in front of the nation at Parliament House. It was simply the most moving speech or event I have ever witnessed. It may not have reunited families, but it felt like a curse had been lifted from our nation.
So yes apologising for evil laws of the past is a good thing to do.
Posted by: Malachi Constant | August 17, 2009 10:19 PM
@47
Here's my counterargument:
What if the US Government had offered an official apology for slavery in the 1920's and had declared that treating black folks like animals was morally indefensible?
If the government had taken the stance that we were wrong and blacks should be treated exactly the same as any other race would it have had an effect?
The southern states were following the law, but it was a repugnant law. It had been repealed a long time ago, but the effects were still felt in the 20's.
Should we, like the Catholic Church, wait until something is undeniably obvious to those in our group that we were wrong, to admit it?
I sort of see your point about respecting law, but I see no value in hesitating to apologize for something (as a country) when it's clear that our ancestors did something that was clearly horrible in the past and declare that we won't do it in the future.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 17, 2009 10:21 PM
I think that the British government should recognize that Turing was unfairly treated, but they should also recognize that every other gay person was unfairly treated. Why should Turing get special treatment?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 10:26 PM
I had relatives shoved into NAZI concentration camps, which they did not walk out of. Do I expect an apology? No. What I expect is world opinion and governments to prevent similar occurences to other peoples in other countries, now and in the future.
Posted by: AVSN | August 17, 2009 10:33 PM
While I agree that Turing was a great man, an apology is going too far. It would not improve his place in history or the status of homosexuals in the UK (or anywhere) one byte. It was the law of the land then, and is outdated now, if not yet repealed should be. "Bluelaws" they were called. We still have some today, most of them used as a "letter of the law" over the "spirit of the law" bludgeon on inocent people. But apologize for the mores of the past, no.
Posted by: foxfire | August 17, 2009 10:37 PM
@ Intelligent Designer, #42
I would agree that an apology is BS as far as any personal satisfaction Turing might currently experience and I very much think this is a worthy endeavor. Here is why:
Turing has been acknowledged for the valuable technical contributions he gave to the world. He has not yet been honored for the horror he must have experienced, being born "different", raised in an ignorant society, and cast off by that society which apparently valued it's ignorance over it's survival.
Therefore, it is important that a perhaps wiser society offer such an apology to set a tone for the future. So it doesn't make the same mistake again. For example, "blowing-off" a particularly talented individual who would possibly make the difference between extant and extinct, as far as Homo sapiens goes.....
Posted by: Fil
|
August 17, 2009 10:38 PM
@49
I suppose the best way to handle the question of apologising for discriminatory or indeed evil laws is to do so when they are repealed in Parliament or Congress. It's just that there are some acts of previous generations that are on the public consciousness for whatever reason and in those circumstances an apology along with a commitment to do better is seen as appropriate by such a proportion of the community that it leads to one being made.
Turing is one example that may call for it as was the "stolen generation" for us.
Of course, for a country with a history as long as England's, that could mean an awful lot of saying sorry. ;-)
Posted by: Ema Nymton | August 17, 2009 10:39 PM
Wow, Guardian of the Poll, you really are a worthless sack of shit.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 17, 2009 10:40 PM
What a legend that guy was in Computer Science, absolute legend!
As for an apology, surely the gesture has more than personal meaning. It has a recognition of culpibility and highlights that problems like this in society did exist. Yes, it's meaningless to Turing now. But by doing so it has future meaning. Like the Catholic Church apologising to Galileo - 400 years too late but the gesture goes far beyond the personal in its significance.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | August 17, 2009 10:44 PM
mclaren @ #29:
I agree with Gruesome Rob: there are quite a few others that could deserve the title of 'greatest computer scientist in history'. To the list he provided, I'll add Alonzo Church and John McCarthy (creators of the lambda calculus and Lisp respectively).
Hideki @ #22:
Is Turing holding an apple? Is that disturbing to anyone else?
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 10:46 PM
I beleive that homosexuality is absolutely a sin before God, but would I have saved this man and hid him from the government if I had the chance? ABSOLUTELY!
something tells me if offered the choice between being "saved" by such as yourself, or taking the poison, Socrates still would have chosen the latter.
Posted by: mikecbraun | August 17, 2009 10:46 PM
Can we get an official apology from PZ for Guardian of the Poll and Sara?
Posted by: AVSN | August 17, 2009 10:48 PM
ah yes the great immortal last words of Socrates: "I drank what?"
Posted by: llewelly | August 17, 2009 10:52 PM
Some posters here have claimed "blasphemy is a victimless crime". They could not be more wrong. Blasphemy, in fact, is a public service of the highest order.
P.S. I know others have said it before - but Turing was not merely the greatest computer scientist of Britain. He was the greatest computer scientist of all.
Posted by: Alex | August 17, 2009 10:52 PM
There is already an award named after Turing, it's given by the Association for Computing Machinery to "an individual selected for contributions of a technical nature made to the computing community.".
Past winners include Edsger Dijkstra, Donald Knuth, John Backus, and Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie, together with many other esteemed members of the CS community.
Posted by: RobertDW | August 17, 2009 11:06 PM
While Alan Turing is dead, there are almost certainly people still alive who went through similar "treatment". These people deserve apologies and compensation.
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 17, 2009 11:09 PM
JeffFlyingV wrote:
> I see marriage as a contract, if you want to steep it in terms as a covenant with God, Fine. It is still a contract.
Then, let’s get the state out of *all* marriage contracts, completely, whether gay or heterosexual. (The liberal columnist, Michael Kinsley, among others, has made this suggestion.)
Let all marriage contracts be private contracts, as nearly all other contracts are. No one, gay or straight, would need the state's permission to sign a contract.
Incidentally, I’ve found a lot of fundies agreeable to this. Most of them honestly are willing to leave gays alone if the issue is simply and totally de-politicized.
Dave
Posted by: MadScientist | August 17, 2009 11:15 PM
What was done to Turing was criminal; just remember that there are still people out there who want to "cure the gay" etc and are quite happy to torture or murder the homosexuals. Just in the past few days self-proclaimed morals squads have been going around Bhagdad murdering homosexuals. It doesn't help any that many religions tell people that there's something wrong with them.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | August 17, 2009 11:17 PM
Greg Egan wrote a wonderful alternate history, Oracle. Turing is saved by a robot from the future :-)
Charles Petzold wrote The Annotated Turing, a mind-expanding explanation of Turing's famous paper on computing machines.
Posted by: nani | August 17, 2009 11:23 PM
holy shit. i'm a computer science major and i didn't know this. honestly, it's computer science and they don't seem to be a big history bunch, but still. i don't find it all that important that he's gay, but what was done to him because of it. i mean, i wonder what we've deprived ourselves of. the things he could've done, his own individual achievements.
official apologies used to seem weird to me, however, i can understand the beneficial symbolic impact it may have.
Posted by: TEBB | August 17, 2009 11:26 PM
It's over 90% yes now. Good job fellow A's!
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 17, 2009 11:27 PM
Elli, it is hard to interpret the comment about hiding Turing seemed to only make sense if Turing had been killed by the Nazis. I don't think Guardian seems to realize that Turing's life and death would have been more or less identical in a world run by Guardian.
Posted by: Defaithed | August 17, 2009 11:30 PM
To #12, the Christian homophobe: "I do not hate anyone for their personal sexual choice but do disagree with it being adopted into a covenent relationship that symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. That is blasphemy."
Very well, but I'm a little more curious about the relationship between Christ and his disciples. You know, Christ, the neat, slim, thirty-something single guy who never touched a woman. And his disciples, the twelve sweaty men he spent all his time with, and whose "feet" he "washed". *nudge, wink*
I'll bet they had some *fabulous* times together, knowwhatimean?
Posted by: mvXfer | August 17, 2009 11:34 PM
This poll makes me wonder what sort of things are happening today for which our grandchildren will feel inclined to apologize.
We still treat LGBT people like second-class citizens in the US, and the thing that disgusts me most about Turing's story is that the same sort of bigotry and ignorance that inspired his ill-treatment is tolerated in our culture. Just look at how Jerry Falwell was portrayed after his own death.
There's no use feeling outraged or guilty about Alan Turing... nothing can be done to atone for what was done to him. But let's not forget that the same wretched prejudice that broke him is still out there, even in our halls of power, and should be fought at every opportunity.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | August 17, 2009 11:34 PM
@13
Profumo was a big political scandal but doesn't seem to have involved any actual breach of security. Profumo lied to the Commons and was in a position to have been blackmailed but did not actually leak any sensitive information. The biggest actual breach of security was the Cambridge spy ring, who were gay. Although as they were idealogical traitors their sexuality was inconsequential.
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | August 17, 2009 11:35 PM
Drawing attention to past mistakes might prevent their repetition.
Optimistic, I know.
Government apologies usually strike me as a bit silly though. They rarely come from anyone who was involved in the matter.
I think something else might be appropriate. Some recognition of what was lost when he was driven to suicide by a state (or society) bent on criminalizing his sexuality. Such recognition could conceivably be more genuine than having some public official apologize for something they had nothing to do with.
Posted by: Claudia
|
August 18, 2009 12:07 AM
Benjamin Geiger @ #56:
Is Turing holding an apple? Is that disturbing to anyone else?
I suppose it could be, but as Turing's biographer puts it, "an apple, not only a reminder of his unfortunate end, but redolent of Newton, the founder of science-as-numbers, as well as being the fruit of the tree of knowledge, a symbol used in classical statuary to represent forbidden love, and, quite incidentally, the badge of a pioneering computer company."
If I were a sculptor and could pack so much relevant meaning into one symbol, I do believe I'd use it too.
Posted by: Dan W | August 18, 2009 12:08 AM
While I agree that the way the British Government treated Turing, solely because he was gay, was wrong, an apology just seems to me like a cheap political stunt. Who are they going to apologize to? Turing, who's been dead for decades? Maybe any living relatives of his, but anything else just seems too little, too late. It seems as pointless to me as the U.S. Government's apologies for slavery. Sure, it was wrong, but it doesn't change history.
Posted by: Monado | August 18, 2009 12:17 AM
So the people who need apologizing to are the ones who are still alive. And they should be compensated. Governments like to wait until everyone, or practically everyone, they've egregiously wronged is dead so they don't have to pay too much compensation. Now if there were a metalaw in their books that said they had to pay just as much to descendants or heirs--they'd probably never apologize.
And for the deceased there should be an official statement of guilt and regret.
And in the here and now, gays (or those mistake for gays) are being killed in Iraq by Shiite-led groups. So if there's any pressure you can get your government to bear, now's the time to prevent more irrational cruelty.
And here's another, in Iran, it's illegal to execute a virgin: so thousands of young women are raped before they are executed. Sanctions, anyone?
Posted by: Dan W | August 18, 2009 12:18 AM
Going completely off topic, is it just me, or do I keep missing deleted troll posts? Nearly every thread here that I read the comments on, I see replies to someone whose posts are clearly no longer there. I'm missing all the lulz to be had from pathetic troll comments! Damn. Bad timing, I guess.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 18, 2009 12:28 AM
Yes, an apology to Turing is worthless. It does nothing to alleviate the turmoil he suffered and the suicide he was driven to. But it could be a meaningful symbolic act if it is attached to action now. Eliminate any anti-LGBT legislation in the UK. Give asylum to LGBT people who are being persecuted and murdered in their homelands. Match a symbolic action with real action.
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | August 18, 2009 12:29 AM
Over an article about one of the transcendent British geniuses of our time is an advertisement by Manchester City Council offering help with "redudnancy".
Posted by: Funkopolis | August 18, 2009 12:30 AM
Since nobody's mentioned it yet, Derek Jacobi played Turing in a rather good BBC TV film called "Breaking The Code". Worth checking out.
Posted by: Bart | August 18, 2009 12:36 AM
If you like a fun overview of Alan Turnings contributions to code breaking, do read Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson. It's well worth the read,
Posted by: Fil
|
August 18, 2009 1:07 AM
@ Dan W
Yeah you appear to have missed a rather long post by some Christian dude who was trying to have it all ways but gay (or something). I think he was prepared to hide some gays under his couch if the bad men came, but they were not allowed to get married while they were down there. Maybe he was getting some points in for his PhD at his Bubba seminary too.
Posted by: Samantha | August 18, 2009 1:23 AM
I think if they're going to do a scholarship, what they should do is make it for someone who has done considerable volunteer work in something relating to anti-prejudice. That way they could announce it in a big apology to all the people who were hurt by the law, rather than just Turing. Having a computer-science related scholarship kind of relegates all the others to the background, especially if it's coupled with naming it after Turing.
I do rather like the idea of some kind of real action rather than just a "Yeah, we were kind of screwed up back then" apology.
Posted by: arrakis
|
August 18, 2009 1:34 AM
The irony is that the U.K. intelligence community was essentially compromised from the 1944 to the early 50s by Kim Philby, a heterosexual male. What happened to Alan Turing was inexcusable. But if a government is willing to admit fault and wrongdoing, I will accept it - it's better than nothing.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | August 18, 2009 1:57 AM
Hideki #21, Ben Geiger #56,
Yes. Oh, and also the fact it doesn't look anything like Alan Turing, who I can easily pick out in a photo lineup. Not even faintly familiar. Maybe the work of a po-mo artist who decided it didn't matter who sat for the portrait, because in a hundred years they'll point to it and say "Well, that's what he looks like now"? I don't think so.
Posted by: Defaithed | August 18, 2009 2:18 AM
As someone else mentioned: It sure would be nice if troll posts weren't deleted outright. It makes responses point to thin air, and specific references (like "to #12") are now directed at the wrong person!
PZ, if you have to delete troll posts, how about just deleting the post *body text*, so the post itself remains and numbering isn't all screwed up?
Posted by: bric | August 18, 2009 2:49 AM
#12 (the current one) of course there is life after death, it's called posterity.
On a related note, the Leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, has publicly apologized for Thatcher's attempt at putting down gays, popularly known as section 28
http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=1140
and he's damn right it was “offensive to gay people” - and I would have thought anybody else with a more or less modern world-view.
Posted by: bric | August 18, 2009 2:55 AM
(Almost) completely irrelevant, there is a very good short story called 'Turing's Apples' by Stephen Baxter; SF enthusiasts may notice it subtly references a classic Ray Bradbury novel . . .
Posted by: Roman | August 18, 2009 3:07 AM
Britain is a class society, so apologizing for Turing's mistreatment carries more weight than apologizing for the pain of anonymous gays, most of whom were lower class.
Posted by: ExOrganist | August 18, 2009 3:12 AM
A few people have commented that repealing the discriminatory laws might be better than a posthumous apology to Turing: the problem with this is that I don't think we've got any left to repeal in the UK.
To give a very brief overview, the law under which Alan Turing was prosecuted was mostly repealed in 1966, though the ages of consent were only equalised in the late 1990s, and the 2000s brought equality in other areas such as sexual offences (prior to this, the same sex act could be legal if the participants were straight and a crime if they were gay). We can serve in the military, are protected from discrimination in employment and in the provision of goods and services, and can register civil partnerships which carry most or all of the rights and privileges of civil marriage, only the name being different.
There is still a lot of homophobia about (anti-gay bullying in faith schools, which have religious exemptions from equality legislation, is a particular problem) but on the whole we're doing OK. Whether this positive trend will continue under future governments remains to be seen.
Posted by: Carolyn Dougherty | August 18, 2009 3:41 AM
I was just at Turing's memorial in Manchester last weekend and it's been obscenely vandalised--I wish there were somewhere on the petition to ask for it to be restored. Well I'll email the Manchester council now, while I'm thinking of it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 18, 2009 3:59 AM
-It can't be to prevent them from procreating, could it?-
It was to cure him, because they were good christians who knew what was best for you. And how could they be wrong.
Make no mistake, I blame the bible for this completely. COMPLETELY.
Still, I think it's a good idea. It sends out a good message, even if it's wimpy and beaurocratic.
Posted by: Drosera | August 18, 2009 4:40 AM
This is from a comment to that article:
This must be the most abysmally stupid remark I have read in a long time. Turing a failure who was just doing his job?
Like Newton was a failure who was just doing his job?
Posted by: bric | August 18, 2009 4:41 AM
#89 This is right in essence, but it wasn't quite so straightforward. The 1967 (not '66) Act didn't repeal the laws which made homosexual behaviour a criminal offence, it 'decriminalised' those offences - in other words the original Acts remained on the Statute Book, but in very specific circumstances (consenting adults (over 21) 'in private' (which was very closely defined)) they were held in suspense. And this was 10 years after the Royal Commission report which recommended change.
As it happens I was 21 in 1967, but I will confess to you all that I didn't wait for the law to catch up.
Posted by: Peter | August 18, 2009 5:12 AM
I recently visited the museum at Bletchley Park in Bedfordshire, England. It was at this site that Alan Turing and his colleagues worked as code breakers during WWII, and developed the world's first programmable electronic computers. As well as Alan Turing, another name worthy of appreciation is that of Tommy Flowers. He was the engineer who figured out how to actually build the machines using the valve technology of the time.
What is so sad is that due to British government secrecy, the achievements of this group of people was never revealed until decades after the war. The original machines were deliberately destroyed.
Even more sad is the state of the museum today. They desperately need money simply to maintain the museum, and to stop some of the original buildings from quite literally falling down. A replica of one of the original valve computers has been built. It works, and its performance is similar to a modern PC for the tasks it was designed for! But they need more money to extend this work.
If you would like to find out more, and maybe even help the museum, please try this link:
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/
There should certainly be formal recognition and appreciation of what Alan Turing, and his colleagues, achieved in WWII code breaking. It is estimated they helped shorten the war by at least 2 years, and saved countless allied lives, including American lives. Knowing the complacent British authorities, they might take some notice if Americans and other allies made a fuss about this.
One of the best ways to show appreciation may be to financially support this museum that actually shows practical examples of their work.
I do not work for this museum and speak only as a private citizen, but I'm sure all help to the museum, moral support included, will be gratefully appreciated.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 5:24 AM
Meh to the apology; it doesn't make much sense but at least it will raise Turing's profile a bit; it's a scandal that so many people don't know his story. If they really want to honour Turing an effort to preserve Bletchley Park as a museum would be a better start.
Posted by: Conan the Librarian | August 18, 2009 5:27 AM
Slightly OT - but I visisted Bletchley Park at the weekend and they have a truly impressive sculpture of Turing -
http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk/news/docview.rhtm/454075
A good bit more realistic than the one in Manchester.
Lots of other great stuff for geeks too.
His tragic story always makes me wonder - what if they had just left him alone...
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 5:40 AM
mdcurler@#32
IANA Historian but it always strikes me as weird that the usual description of ULTRA's impact was that it shortened the war. Without being able to read the Naval Enigma, Britain could have lost the Battle of the Atlantic, and with Germany controlling the Atlantic the Axis would surely have had a better chance of victory.Posted by: Walton | August 18, 2009 5:56 AM
I've signed the petition.
It's unfortunate that the British honours system doesn't allow for knighthoods, or any other civil honour, to be awarded posthumously. I do think he deserves an award of some description.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 18, 2009 6:04 AM
@Peter #94: What, no mention of the Polish mathematician who built the original "bombes" and broke the earlier civilian Enigma? His ideas and methods were still crucial even though other people had to work out far more complex schemes to break the wartime Enigma and the Naval version.
What gets me about the British codebreakers is they're too good at being secretive, even destroying much of their own history in an attempt to preserve old secrets. Our NSA can't help but keep information and make it public many decades later, but they still pulled off some amazing operations which were not only huge but so effectively kept secret that it makes UFO conspiracies start to sound plausible.
Posted by: Teddydeedodu | August 18, 2009 6:05 AM
Turing was a great loss to the AI cause. Considering his talent for thinking outside the box, what wonders he could have contributed to the issues currently boggling the AI community. What could have been his solution to the frame problem for instance? I would have liked to see him debate the likes of Chomsky, Minsky and Dennett.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 18, 2009 6:35 AM
...who the heck voted against this?! And there's a few sickening comments in that news article...
Yes, late apologies for retarded moves regarding past geniuses are in vogue. But that's how you show social progress, I guess.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 18, 2009 6:48 AM
As a Brit, I have always been ashamed of the treatment of Alan Turing and the entire homosexual community by the UK government of the era. Although it is true that the British government at the time was far from alone in this attitude, this in no way lessens the injustice and horror of homophobia legitimised by the State.
While an apology is of no use to Alan Turing himself, it has immense symbolic value to the contemporary Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual community. It also serves as an unambiguous statement that the current British government does not in any way condone bigotry directed against alternate sexualities. Such an apology is long overdue, and it is a travesty in and of itself that in the twenty first century it takes a petition to prick the conscience of the government into taking what should be the self evidently moral course in relation to this issue.
While it is difficult for any government to air its dirty linen in public, it is also necessary if the populous is to maintain any vestige of respect for the State. Even in modern Britain we still have severe problems with homophobia along with racism, sexism and countless other manifestations of bigotry. If the government wishes to possess the moral authority to combat this scourge, then it has to address the predjudiced attitude and actions of its predecessors.
Posted by: John
|
August 18, 2009 6:54 AM
I'm dead against this, and have voted accordingly.
What was dne to Turing was very wrong, but he is just one of the most high profile victims. It is as though we witnessed a massacre of innocent people, and then there was a campaign later for the government to apologise to the one who it turned out was a great biologist, but just to be a bit quiet about the rest.
I also think that you are on shaky ground getting people to apologise for what was pretty much sen to be "reasonable" treatment at the time. We all agree now (well, most of us) that it was completely wrong to treat homosexuals in such a shabby fashion, but it was pretty well in accordance with society's wishes at the time. This does not stop it being wrong, but it dos mean that the government was likely doing no more than enacting the will of the people, and so getting today's government to apologise seems a bit strange.
However, it is the first issue which is the important one for me. Turing was one of many people whose lives were ruined by society's treatment of them, and picking him out for special treatment now just seems wrong.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 18, 2009 6:58 AM
Sorry, in my last post that should read "prejudiced" not "predjudiced".
I must remember to type with greater accuracy and less haste.
Posted by: John
|
August 18, 2009 7:05 AM
Roman said
What the hell? What is that even supposed to mean, "a class society"? And what, in your little world is "lower class" in 2009?
We are no more stratified than other Western countries, and, in fact, I'd say that we have far fewer divisions based on parentage than you find in certain places in the US (In New york, how many times is your water glass filled by someone white, or the wine list explained to you by a hispanic?)
The idea that you can write off my entire nation with such a hackneyed, insulting, and simply wrong generalisation is asinine.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 18, 2009 7:21 AM
The usefulness of these kinds of government apologies is demonstrated by the existence of those who are outraged at the thought of them.
Posted by: Coryat | August 18, 2009 7:32 AM
Baby steps people, baby steps. The government apologising sends out a clear message (I think) that we are a modern secular state prepared to admit our mistakes. I also think that the government can take a symbolic stand against bigotry towards the LGBT community by this action. I signed it.
Posted by: AdamK | August 18, 2009 7:54 AM
Not discriminatory at all!
What's that expression you Brits like to use? "Bollocks"?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 9:05 AM
I think an apology would be worth something, if it recognised that Turing was just one of the many persecuted, and even more if coupled with a law recognizing same-sex marriages.
As it happens, I'll be at a conference next month where Jim Doran, Turing's "grand-student" (Doran's thesis advisor was Donald Michie, whose thesis advisor was Turing) is a keynote speaker.
Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 18, 2009 9:40 AM
"I do not hate anyone for their personal sexual choice but do disagree with it being adopted into a covenent [sic] relationship that symbolizes the relationship between Christ and the Church. That is blasphemy."
Then it follows that Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, Jews, Jains, Odinists, usw. ... should not be allowed to marry.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 18, 2009 9:47 AM
You're right of course that it ought to be called "civil marriage" in the statute, the same as for a straight couple. It's a stupid compromise with complete dickheads for it not to be.It's worth noting though that, while the law doesn't call civil partnerships "marriages", they are marriages. Gay couples announce their weddings and just about everyone calls them weddings. People say "wife" or "husband" as appropriate. A Conservative/em> MP married his boyfriend and the party leader sent congratulations to the grooms (using those words).
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | August 18, 2009 10:06 AM
That Darn Satan@46:
You're confusing "asshole," a term describing a person's character, with "legal status."
Michael Vick went to prison as punishment. He has paid the legal price for his crimes. Merely because he spent time in prison doesn't expiate his assholishness, nor is it proof that he's made fundamental changes in his thinking or character which would render him no longer an asshole. All it did was satisfy the law.
His legal status is not in question, and the Eagles broke no law in hiring him (beyond the law of good taste). But completion of his legally-mandated punishment is not what makes his bad character go away. Only good works can show that. He has to earn his moral absolution. (Incidentally, this is the kernel of the plot of Les Miserables and the years-long struggle between Javert and Valjean. Javert thinks Valjean's character can never be "good" because he broke a law, even if he served his time, and Valjean proves it can.)
For Vick to demonstrate that he's no longer an asshole (a morally bad person), I think it would have been more appropriate for pro football and its fans to shun him for a few years while he worked for animal-rights groups, maybe donated money and his face to anti-dogfighting efforts. That would show that his character had changed.
As this relates to Turing and the UK government, again, legal status and moral character aren't the same thing. In the case of Vick, the law is "just," but his character is bad. In the case of Turing, his character was good, and the law -- the UK government now realizes -- was "unjust," or bad.
It is a truism that sometimes "the law is a ass," and just because something was legal at one point didn't and doesn't make it right. That's what the petition is about -- not that the law at the time wasn't followed, but that looking back from a more enlightened time, we (the UK government) realize that it was a crappy law, and the institutional We are apologizing for its crappiness.
Posted by: Jeff Orchard | August 18, 2009 10:07 AM
I agree with the knighthood idea. The only reason someone is asking for the apology is because he did some amazing things... that's what warrants knighthood. The apology to Turing -- and Turing alone -- would be an insult to all the others that suffered the same gruesome fate.
Posted by: Ralph | August 18, 2009 10:13 AM
Of course they should apologize. It was a hideous thing to do, especially to a war hero (he did not fight, but his contribution was far more decisive than any possible deed of any single soldier).
Even more importantly -- and this is still pertinent today, in light of the machinations of the Bush/Blair coalition to make public privacy and arbitrary prosecution the order of the day -- ... we need to know how and why this happened.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 10:15 AM
The UK's laws on civil partnership are fine (even though it's not fashionable to say this). In practice people call civil partnerships marriages, and legally it is identical to marriage in every way apart from the word "marriage" (which is ridden with religious connotations anyway, and should be avoided by the law).
I don't see the sense in lumping Chomsky in with real workers in cognitive science like Turing, Dennett and Minsky. Apart from his early work in linguistics, all Chomsky has done is kick up sand (for instance by denying that the language faculty is an adaptation, or that language is used for communication). He is the most overrated cognitive scientist of all time (in fact I'm hesitant to even call him a cognitive scientist).Posted by: Greg | August 18, 2009 10:19 AM
I had only heard of Turing in relation to the AI test and the enigma code. I had no idea that he was persecuted and prosecuted for being gay (I didn't even know he was gay).
Perhaps better than an apology would be the government endowing some sort of scholarship or trust in his name.
Posted by: Tom Morris | August 18, 2009 10:30 AM
I agree with the utilitarian argument for these apologies. They firmly seal up the wrongdoings of the past, and give a useful tool to those who are fighting for change.
If the government apologises for X, and X is a historical antecedent of some current state Y, then those arguing to change the laws regarding Y, they can use the apology for X as a rhetorical tool in arguing for change regarding Y.
Is there any case in Britain at the moment for an apology either to Alan Turing, or to all the gay people who were subjected to anti-gay treatment (like the infamous electroshock therapies) by the law? Well, there's bridging civil partnerships over to marriage, and there's the new Equality Bill which extends protections for LGBT people. Who's against the new Equality Bill? The Mormons, of course. The rhetorical use would be quite simple: for the few homophobes left rattling around in their churches, by opposing gay rights, you aren't just opposing stereotypes of sex-obsessed "S&M leather daddies, dykes, trannies and flaming queens", you are opposing the rights of people who end up doing things like cracking wartime cryptography.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 10:33 AM
There's no denying Turing's genius, but I've run across some allegations that his sexuality may not have been 100% acceptable by western standards of 2009. F'rinstance, from Anthony Cave Brown's "C": The Secret Life of Sir Stewart Menzies, Spymaster to Winston Churchill:
Can anyone here shed more light on this one way or the other?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 10:37 AM
Hyperon @ # 115 - Chomsky denied "that language is used for communication"?!?
Quote and citation, please.
Posted by: Graeme Elliott | August 18, 2009 10:44 AM
I don't understand this clamour for posthumous (sp?) apologies. I agree Turing was treated appalingly, and that no-one should have to go through what he did, but how does an apology help? He's dead, as far as I'm aware he doesn't have any close relatives left, and the people who pushed these mysogenistic (sp?) policies are either dead or in retirement homes. Surely it makes more sense to use his story to show why it shouldn't happen again, and I agree that a named award or something similar would be the best way to remember this issue.
The main problem I have with these 'apologies' is that they are rarely sincere and are usually used to close an issue (particularly in Britain). This issue is not one that should be closed and forgotten...
Posted by: toth | August 18, 2009 10:53 AM
I voted "yes", but upon further consideration, I think those commenters here who are arguing for a "no" have the right idea. While it was sad and disgusting what the UK did to Turing, I don't think an apology can legitimately be offered by those who were not involved in the offense. So, while, the government could have (and should have) apologized back when it happened, the present day government is not actually who is responsible--those are probably long since out of office. It would be a good gesture, though, to posthumously dismiss the conviction for Turing and anyone else who fell victim to those hideous, bigoted laws.
Posted by: Tuomoh | August 18, 2009 11:00 AM
I think apology after happening is meaningless. It has only symbolic meaning. OK, it tells the message that "we don't do this anymore". But actually those who say apologies are not the same persons who made the crime in first place. And the person who suffered is dead too.
Bureucratic system playing as it is like a living person feels always strange to me. Even if it is a webshop, which send me birthday -commersials. "Congratz, you are getting older, so buy this coffeecup. We lowered price, and we can do this becouse we put in it's price extra in first hand." (If taxidriving firm send me "we care about you" -card I would laugh.)
And there is still people, who think that the procedure is - if not totally right - at least "in right way" in weeding the "destructive homosexuality". And those will never give any apologies. And they are just those people, who should think.
In japan they have seppukuritual. It is nonsensial, but it has right spirit. The bad -doer shows publicly that he is really sorry.
So instead of apologies, we can just say "This was nonsensial." And when christians do their "evolutionist=evil=nazism..." connections, they must first look their own nest. And only if it is totally spotless, they should go to their rally.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 18, 2009 11:48 AM
Somehow this thread made me think of -
EXTERIOR NIGHT: MIST SHROUDED NEW YORK TRAIN SIDING
Heavily armed thugs in leathers jump out of the train onto the tracks. They look up the train line.
Out of the swirling mist, a shadowy figure appears: It's ALAN TURING.
He slinks into shot, shotgun causally over his left shoulder. A leather eye-patch covers his left eye, below a livid mass of scar-tissue slices across his left cheek. A three-day growth covers his manly chin. A cigarette hangs from the right corner of his mouth.
With his right hand he takes a final drag of the cigarette before he flicks it into the night.
The THUG LEADER peers through the darkness at TURING's face, before spitting out a great gob of chewing tobacco at TURING's feet. TURING looks down at the gob, then back at the THUG LEADER with total contempt.
THUG LEADER: [slowly, suspiciously] Alan Turing! I thought you waz deid!
___________________________
Seriously, I was going to point out exactly what Fil posted @ #47.
Apologies* should be to all who suffered, and still suffer from homophobia, with Turing as one of the examples of this harm.
It won't bring Turing back to life, but it will acknowledge the hurt and suffering that all victims of homophobia (sanctioned by Government or not) went (and continue to go) through, it will put on record the British Government's commitment to equal rights for all, it's commitment to policing civil rights laws, and prosecuting those that break them to full extent allowed by those laws.
Just my $0.018 - DJ
*John Howard wouldn't apologise because he mistakenly believed that was an admission of guilt; Kevin Rudd did apologise because he recognised that an apology was expression of regret and reconciliation.
(Many more miles to go though...)
Posted by: bric | August 18, 2009 11:48 AM
#118 - A suspicion is just that; especially in that period 'sexual deviance' was regularly assumed to include just about anything the imagination could come up with. I'm sure the schoolboys would have been able to come up with a reasonable description of their molester, and had there been any evidence at all against Turing he would have been removed. If you read Andrew Hodges' admirable biography you will see that Turing was frank to the point of recklessness about his sexual tastes, and not at all the furtive paedophile this extract suggests. He appears to have been an exceptionally honest and honourable man; even his tragic end was brought about because he reported a burglary, and later admitted that the suspected burglar had been a sexual partner
Posted by: amphiox | August 18, 2009 11:53 AM
For all intents and purposes, the symbolism of such apologies is not to the wronged party necessarily. The apology in this case is really to the British people, for the evil done to Alan Turing by their government in their name, and the accompanying promise that such evil will not be perpetrated again in the future.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 12:36 PM
Yes, for instance: Really, Chomsky is a thoroughgoing crackpot. The only reason people take him seriously in cognitive science is because of the trendiness of his politics.Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 1:03 PM
Hyperon @ # 126: Hyperon @ # 115 - Chomsky denied "that language is used for communication"?!?
Yes, for instance:
Uh, please note the last phrase in my excerpt of your excerpt.
Quote mining - ur doin it rong!
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 1:08 PM
Really, Chomsky is a thoroughgoing crackpot. The only reason people take him seriously in cognitive science is because of the trendiness of his politics. - Hyperon
Come off it. Chomsky was a renowned theoretical linguist long before he started writing on politics. His role in the destruction of Skinnerian behaviorism, in establishing the existence of a specific, innate language faculty, and in defining the hierarchy of formal languages and grammars remain of great significance, whatever his errors. Moreover, it's certainly right that language is not only a system of communication, but is of fundamental importance in shaping thought, and greatly extending the reach of planned activity - as Luria and Vygotsky showed in the early 20th century.
BTW, when did Chomsky's trenchant opposition to American imperialism, let alone his anarchism, become "trendy" among more than a small part of a left that has itself been thoroughly marginalised for three decades? For example, most of the liberal left, including here, sees the invasion of Iraq as a crass error due to GWB's stupidity and neocon failure to understand Iraqi culture, rather than the bold (if risky) and highly successful imperialist stroke it is starting to look like.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 18, 2009 1:17 PM
Get real folks.
Turing was robbed by an underage prostitute and got in trouble when he went to the police about it.
He was a great thinker, but a very poor example of a holy martyr for gay rights.
Posted by: Walton | August 18, 2009 1:20 PM
Knockgoats,
I'm not part of the "liberal left" by any normal definition, but I would broadly agree with that assessment, though it's a little simplistic.
Erm, it looks like a "highly successful imperialist stroke" only to deranged neo-Marxists and conspiracy theorists. To the rest of us, it looks like what it was: namely, a massive cock-up by a few incompetent leaders who didn't think through the long-term strategic consequences. (Then-Secretary of State James Baker warned, as early as the first Gulf War, that removing Saddam would lead to chaos and to greatly increased influence for religious fundamentalists. It wasn't hard to predict, for anyone who had a clue about Middle Eastern history.)
Rumsfeld's naivete - remember "we don't do nation-building"? - was astounding. It's a good demonstration of the truth of the maxim "Those who will not learn history are destined to repeat it."
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 1:25 PM
Incompetence rewarded by serendipity or intentionally conceived?Posted by: Walton | August 18, 2009 1:27 PM
Even so, he was victimised by an unjust and unnecessary law; and due to the heavy-handedness of the authorities of the time, Britain was robbed of one of the finest minds it has ever produced.
I'm not a huge fan of posthumous "apologies" in general; they can never be anything more than a symbol. But I think Alan Turing's legacy deserves some kind of recognition.
And what we can do, in his memory, is campaign against the anti-gay laws which still persist in many corners of the world, including much of the former British Empire. India and Singapore, for instance, still have colonial-era penal codes which ban homosexual behaviour. Who knows how many potential Alan Turings in those countries are being victimised by such laws?
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 1:35 PM
No, it's not quote-mining. He has said essentially the same thing on a number of occasions (more quotes are given by Pinker and Jackendoff). He doesn't seem to understand what communication means in science. It refers to transmission of information in the sense pinned down by Shannon. In the scientific sense of communication, human language certainly communicates in abundance (with far greater effectiveness than "hair and dress"). Chomsky doesn't get this elementary point, presumably because he thinks like a historian or philosopher or some other non-scientist. In academia and intellectual circles in general, it's been extremely fashionable for several decades. It's the only reason Chomsky has such a cult following. There are many living scientists that have done work at least as impressive as his. Chomsky is seemingly the only one in the world with a license to continually advance demonstrably ludicrous ideas, being taken seriously time after tedious time.Posted by: Sara | August 18, 2009 1:39 PM
thats the stupidest thing i ever heard. NO they should not. the current government has nothing to do with this, this is PAST, why would you punish anyone or even pretend THEY did anything wrong when THEY have nothing to do with this (the government of britain).
stupid poll
Posted by: Emily | August 18, 2009 1:46 PM
Went one better and signed it.
Thank PZ
Anyone know if there's a similar campaign in Russia for Tchaikovsky?
Posted by: amphiox | August 18, 2009 2:02 PM
"the current government has nothing to do with this"
This is only true if the civilization of Britain collapsed, everyone died, a new population immigrated to the area, and the new government was set up from scratch.
Each generation inherits the accomplishments, good and bad, of its predecessors. And the moral and ethical framework created by generations past is the framework upon which the present generation is built. And how much of what any current generation does is done with explicit or implicit consideration of future generations. Indeed with regards to homosexuality, the majority of it is "think of the children" kind of reasoning.
Thus the current government has EVERYTHING to do with this, and if the wrong is not explicitly repudiated, then it is implicitly condoned.
When we apologize for the wrongs perpetrated by our ancestors, we are not apologizing for something we ourselves did, we are repudiating wrongs committed (in part or in whole) in our name, and acknowledging any unfair advantages these wrongs may have accrued to us over the intervening time. And it is a promise to our descendants that they will not ever have to apologize themselves for this wrong, for we will not commit this wrong in their name.
And to those who insist that such gestures are "meaningless" because they are "just" symbols, which are unimportant, you clearly move through different circles of humanity than I do, for which I envy you.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 2:02 PM
Hyperon @ # 133: He doesn't seem to understand what communication means in science.
Whoosh! go the goalposts! Y'know, the concepts of Shannon & Kolmogorov are not the primary concern of linguistics - which is, last I heard, considered a science.
Look, because you don't like &/or understand Chomsky's political analysis is no reason to shoot yourself in the foot while aiming at his scientific work. That work does indeed seem to being superceded (which is what usually happens to trailblazers), but half-informed sniping at it only undermines your overall credibility.
We're your friends, Hype, we're tryin' to help ya here...
Posted by: Owen | August 18, 2009 2:10 PM
He was a great thinker, but a very poor example of a holy martyr for gay rights.
What does holy have to do with anything? Who pronounced you the judge of all things good and holy?
Posted by: Joel Jacobson | August 18, 2009 2:11 PM
"...Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirt of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
--Adolf Hitler, 1933
Where is this quote from? Anyone know? I'd like to use it as an example, but I would like to cite the source.
Thanks.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 2:23 PM
Joel Jacobson @ # 139 - That Hitler quote comes from a national proclamation he made in Berlin on February 1, 1933, very soon after being sworn in as Chancellor.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 2:24 PM
So? It's very hard to find a sensible interpretation of "communication" in which Chomsky's idea could possibly be fruitful. It's also undoubtedly naive of Chomsky to assume that he could use the common speech sense of communication without confusing people. Either he seems to be ignorant of the sheer ubiquity in scientific discussions of the information-theoretic meaning of communication -- or he's intentionally trying to obscure himself. Neither would surprise me.Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 2:32 PM
Hyperon @ # 141: It's very hard to find a sensible interpretation of "communication" in which Chomsky's idea could possibly be fruitful.
Watch out for that word "sensible" - it'll get ya in almost as much trouble as demands for "common sense".
Have you noticed that you've completed a full circle and are now agreeing with what Chomsky said about language (as per your formulation of his words in #115)? Feeling dizzy yet?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 18, 2009 3:06 PM
Abdul (@129):
I don't know enough about Turing's biography to know whether your summary is accurate, but stipulating it, I'd ask this: In a society that told him with certainty that even the best possible, most "normal" imaginable expression of his indwelling sexuality was a crime (and, as it turned out in his case, a de facto capital offense), on what basis would he make fine disctinctions of legality and morality? Sure, prostitution is illegal (whether it should be is another conversation), but since any expression of his sexuality would be illegal anyway, why would he quibble over that? "Underage" is a bit more problematic, and I lack sufficient information to judge it (e.g., an older teen might have been legally "underaged" in 1940s Britain, and yet old enough to have been properly married in many societies throughout human history), but the principle remains: When your law and culture tell you with absolute certainty that any expression of your true self is wrong, there's precious little reason to make fine distinctions of wrongness. This is the great tragedy of arbitrary legal prohibitions of personal behavior: They inherently distance otherwise law-abiding people from the proper rules of society.
In general, I suspect much of the bad behavior attributed to people who've been socially marginalized due to their alternative sexuality (to the extent that such attribution isn't just perniciously false, that is) has far more to do with their social marginalization than with their alternative sexuality.
Or to put it another way, if you insist on treating nominally good people like outlaws, you can hardly be surprised if they sometimes act like outlaws. It seems to me the fix for that is obvious.
Posted by: Monado | August 18, 2009 4:32 PM
If the canonical threat to security came from people who would bend to threats to expose their sexuality, Turing was no security risk, since he was open and honest about his orientation. So the hounding and hormone therapy sprang from "sex is yucky" attitudes.
Posted by: bric | August 18, 2009 4:35 PM
Arnold Murray was 19 when Turing met him; whether he was 'under-aged' depends of course on the arbitrary limits the law sets: at present he would not be, in 1967 he would have been, and in 1954 there was no age at which gay sex was legal, so he might as well have been 91 as 19 for all the difference it made (the charge was gross indecency with a male person). Murray was not a prostitute, nor was he the burglar, as it turned out. Newspaper reports at the time emphasised Turing's lack of repentance (ie he was honest about his sexuality and refused to apologise for it) and what was perceived as a betrayal of his class; just like Wilde the fact that he consorted with a working class young man was just as shocking as the act itself. It seems he was lucky to keep his OBE, according to Andrew Hodges had it been sponsored by the War Office they would have demanded its return, fortunately it was the Foreign Office, which was not so petty.
Posted by: Monado | August 18, 2009 4:36 PM
Most people take a little pride from the accomplishments of their nation's history or culture, but when it comes to historical cruelties and failures of humanity or justice, they're quick to point out, "We weren't around then and the government's changed!"
So don't let me hear anyone claiming that "We invented democracy, fought off the enemy, lived through the Depression, invented the lightbulb or the automobile or modern industry" or any of that other crap.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 5:26 PM
I did nothing of the sort. It seems clear to me that the primary function of language has to be communication (as per either the common speech sense or the Shannon-Weaver sense). The only alternative would be that language evolved so people could talk to themselves. Not only does this seem unlikely, but Chomsky has never confirmed that this is his position. Not for the first time, he's muddled and obscure, and it seems impossible to believe his idea is worth bothering with.Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 5:32 PM
The idea that 19 is "underaged" is obviously ridiculous. In every society I know about it's been common practice for established men to have sex with 19-year-old women (and of course often younger). Replace a 19-year-old woman with a 19-year-old man and it's somehow a terrible a crime? Yeah right.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 5:39 PM
He doesn't seem to understand what communication means in science. It refers to transmission of information in the sense pinned down by Shannon. - Hyperon
WTF? Who died and made you Grand Definer of Meanings in Science?
In academia and intellectual circles in general, it's been extremely fashionable for several decades. It's the only reason Chomsky has such a cult following.
Wow! American academia and intellectual circles are full of anarchists??? SC will be thrilled!!!
It seems clear to me that the primary function of language has to be communication (as per either the common speech sense or the Shannon-Weaver sense). The only alternative would be that language evolved so people could talk to themselves.
Does it occur to you that things can evolve to serve multiple functions simultaneously?
Posted by: CJO | August 18, 2009 5:52 PM
The only alternative would be that language evolved so people could talk to themselves.
I don't think this is implausible. However, as you say, this isn't Chomsky's stated position (as far as I know), and I tend to agree with you that he's made known some frankly puzzling beliefs about evolution and language since he did his seminal work. But that seminal work essentially defined the questions and methods on which much of modern linguistics still depends. In a very real way, modern linguistics is post-Chomskyan linguistics, so I don't think you can disparage Chomsky's contribution based on some seemingly off-kilter views on the discipline he helped create, any more than Einstein's contributions should be gainsaid because of his difficulty with the implications of the quantum.
As for the idea that language evolved so we could "talk to ourselves," the thesis goes something like this:
1. the ability to perform complex serial cognitive and motor operations had to precede language per se, since the ability to express or parse a syntactical string depends on it.
2. Like other primates, our pre-linguistic ancestors almost certainly employed a native suite of gestures, postures, facial expressions, and vocalizations for communication with conspecifics.
3. The evolution of the abilities mentioned in 1. could have arisen largely independently of 2., such that our abilities of serial cognition, episodic memory, and enhanced volitional attention evolved as the precursors of the structures in the left parietal lobe that are now responsible for language production and processing. This would be the "talking to ourselves" stage, where proto-linguistic cognition was employed as a thought-ordering mechanism, aiding in serial tasks like tool-making and long-term planning, not for communication.
I guess the great leap is the wedding of these abilities to the ancestral communication scheme or the replacement of said scheme by another, based on serial cognition. But it's a possible means by which language evolved: by any measure an open question, still.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 6:03 PM
Nobody, but I'm not aware of another technical meaning of "communication". Neither are linguists Pinker and Jackendoff. If Chomsky were honestly striving to be understood by his readers, it seems strange that he would neglect to state exactly what he means by "communication". (Couldn't be anything to do with his being an unscientific and highly dishonest obscurantist, could it?) I never said that. But as you probably understand full well, the majority of Chomsky's political activism is centered around "Western imperialism", which I say has in some quarters been extremely fashionable to rail against for the last few decades. Yes, but Chomsky has not explored this in any way that's not confusing. Sometimes he has suggested that language is there because of its "beauty", presumably implying sexual selection was important. Sometimes, for instance in a paper he wrote with Hauser and Fitch, he suggests human language came with a few simple mutations. Very odd. I maintain that he wouldn't get away with this if so many smart people weren't biased in his favour over his "anti-imperialist" politics.Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 6:06 PM
Einstein illuminated quantum mechanics -- for instance, he was the principal author of the EPR thought experiment. Chomsky just seems to cause confusion and waste time.Of course though I agree that his seminal work was extremely important.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 6:11 PM
Erm, it looks like a "highly successful imperialist stroke" only to deranged neo-Marxists and conspiracy theorists. To the rest of us, it looks like what it was: namely, a massive cock-up by a few incompetent leaders who didn't think through the long-term strategic consequences. (Then-Secretary of State James Baker warned, as early as the first Gulf War, that removing Saddam would lead to chaos and to greatly increased influence for religious fundamentalists. It wasn't hard to predict, for anyone who had a clue about Middle Eastern history.) - Walton
Well Walton, you wouldn't know a neo-Marxist if one bit you in the leg, and after your slobbering over Viscount Monckton I don't know how you have the gall to talk of conspiracy theorists! But thanks for confirming my point - that most of the liberal left share the same delusions as right-wing sheep like you (which delusions are certainly not shared by the US foreign policy elite).
The US does now have effective control of the Iraqi economy - most notably the oil industry - and permanent military bases. (You surely don't believe the "troop withdrawal" is going to be complete, do you? Some will remain "to train the Iraqi armed forces", and the main bases will stay in US hands.) Since those - particularly the former - were precisely the aims of the invasion, that looks like a success to me. Of course it led to chaos and increased influence for religious fundamentalists. So what? Good excuse for keeping some troops there, good way to keep the puppet government dependent, good way to prevent effective independent states forming. You'll notice that those fundamentalists have not been able to attack the USA again at home in eight years after getting lucky on 9/11 - which shows just how much of a bogeyman to frighten the children they are. Yes, the costs were much higher than they expected - partly because they attacked before tying things up in Afghanistan, partly because they underestimated Iraqi resistance - but in the longer term, control of Iraqi oil and a military presence in Iraq are huge prizes; and it begins to look as though the financial crisis which the costs helped precipitate has been contained.
Incompetence rewarded by serendipity or intentionally conceived? E.V.
There certainly was incompetence - but the end result is pretty much what was conceived. Coincidence?
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 6:15 PM
I have trouble understanding what you're suggesting. To learn a language, you have to acquire it from others, and if learning words from others isn't "communication", I don't know what is.In all the Chomsky I've read, I haven't seen anything like a sober-minded scientific discussion of this and such immediately obvious objections.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 6:25 PM
Hyperon,
Nobody, but I'm not aware of another technical meaning of "communication".
It's generally used in psychology to mean conveying ideas and/or feelings - i.e., very close to its ordinary language meaning. Why shouldn't Chomsky be using it in this sense?
Couldn't be anything to do with his being an unscientific and highly dishonest obscurantist, could it?
Unscientific he often is. You have provided no evidence whatever that he is dishonest or deliberately obscure.
the majority of Chomsky's political activism is centered around "Western imperialism", which I say has in some quarters been extremely fashionable to rail against for the last few decades.
Very limited quarters in countries where much cognitive science is going on: as I've argued here and as he's long argued, the liberal left always interpret instances of US imperialist aggression as errors - despite the stunning success of US foreign policy in power-political terms. Moreover, those quarters where his political ideas are favoured have very little overlap with cognitive science - where he is treated with respect that his ideas about the evolution of language mostly do not merit, because of the earlier seminal contributions you recognise.
Posted by: CJO | August 18, 2009 6:34 PM
To learn a language, you have to acquire it from others
I suppose I'm suggesting that there must have been intermediate, proto-linguistic, for lack of a term, stages in the evolution of language. The boot-strapping adaptations needed may not have come from pressure to more effectively communicate.
if learning words from others isn't "communication", I don't know what is.
Well, we lean words from others during early childhood, and direct communication isn't really necessary for that. Just an environment of sufficient richness in linguistic behavior (meaning, you don't have to make an effort to communicate with a small child for them to lean to speak, you just need to speak where they can hear.) I don't suppose that really addresses your point, but, to me, you've just identified the problem, which is one that any theory of the evolution with language must overcome: "language" assumes a community of speakers, which could not have existed during the earliest evolution of the ability.
Posted by: CJO | August 18, 2009 6:38 PM
...any theory of the evolution
withof language...Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 7:00 PM
My two cents is that if you want a sober-minded discussion of any of this, you should stay right away from the lethal quagmire that is Chomsky's work on the evolution of language and the language faculty. I don't think that's much of a problem if you go with the traditional, counter-Chomsky view that the first languages were very simplistic languages, and language gradually got richer and richer. Chomsky's position is the polar opposite of this. He has the baffling idea that it's theoretically impossible for a language with the property of discrete infinity to have finitely many precursor languages.Posted by: serafina | August 18, 2009 7:00 PM
Interesting... I took (Canadian) college philosophy courses and learned all about Turing, but this is the first I've heard of his sexuality, let alone the treatment he received because of it. Is that progress?
Posted by: CJO | August 18, 2009 7:10 PM
the traditional, counter-Chomsky view that the first languages were very simplistic languages, and language gradually got richer and richer.
In a general sense this must be right, and I'm no more inclined than you are to embrace Chomsky's strange views on the subject, I'm just interested in the question of the origins of language.
But, this doesn't address my prior point, that pre-linguistic hominids almost certainly were happily employing a native scheme of communication that did not exhibit the discrete combinatorial features of all languages. So there's a threshold of "richness" that must be exceeded by a precursor system of discrete markers in order to outperform the old way as a system of communication. In my view there's still a problem.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 7:12 PM
It's important to realize that Chomsky is no Einstein. It should have been obvious to anyone who seriously thought about language that there has to be a "language faculty" in the brain. It should have been obvious that languages must have some sort of common structure, as we seem adapted for language like a glove for a hand. These are the main results of Chomsky's early work on linguistics. This is nowhere near as revolutionary, important, useful, counter-intuitive, or intellectually impressive, as Einstein's achievements.
Posted by: CJO | August 18, 2009 7:23 PM
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought they were. It was just an analogy: seminal contribution, legacy to whatever degree muddled by puzzling reaction to later developments in the field. Rarely will an analogy between esteemed persons and their work find two persons whose reputations are or should be on exactly a par, and I think you know what I meant in any case.
Posted by: Qwerty | August 18, 2009 7:32 PM
As I gay male who was kicked out of the US Navy in the 1970s for his homosexuality, I wonder how I'd feel if our government apologized for doing this to me and others solely because of our sexual orientation.
On the one hand I would be overjoyed as I am sure this would happen after Don't Ask-Don't Tell is abolished, but on the other hand, I want to scream, "WHAT TOOK YOU SO FUCKING LONG."
Yes, an apology to Alan Turing would be nice, but it would also be a bit late.
I do applaud the UK for having more sensible and equitable policies for their GLBT community than the US.
Posted by: Hyperon | August 18, 2009 7:35 PM
This is a great point. If I'm understanding you correctly, you mean that when there arises a mutant with the ability to perform some certain grammatical trick, the background language would be a language that lacks that grammatical trick.I suppose my answer would be that said trick is capable of being somehow self-taught given a background language of sufficient richness. My guess is that Chomsky might be impeding understanding even here by laying out the discussion in an overly-formal way, as if he's proving theorems in topology.
Posted by: Nentuaby | August 19, 2009 1:21 AM
Was "in Britain" a necessary qualifier?
Posted by: TomF | August 19, 2009 1:29 AM
An apology would be nice. Not just for Turing - that time was horrible for pretty much everyone even the slightest bit different.
However, Alan Turing is the SECOND greatest computer scientist ever known. The first is Babbage - by a mile. Total genius. He was, unfortunately, a complete shithead in person, and everybody hated him, even people that recognised his genius. His failure to revolutionise computing a century before anybody else is entirely his own pigheaded fault. Nevertheless - on the genius scale, he's above pretty much anybody whose work I've read.
Click my name for a mini-rant about how awesome Babbage was.
Posted by: SC, OM | August 19, 2009 1:37 AM
Please. Hyperon's sole purpose in his brief time here has been to attack those on the left. He's not interested in substantive discussion. Throw it all out there, Hyperon! Something'll stick!
By the way, you haven't responded to my reply to your attack, asshole:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/i_get_email_39.php
Posted by: Teddydeedodu | August 19, 2009 4:14 AM
Whoah!! I didnt even know I generated so much discussion just for mentioning Chomsky. Haha.
I think Hyperon is wrong however. It is thanks to Chomsky that Cognitive science bloomed from the restraints that Skinner's Behaviorism imposed on it. His argument that language was too infinitely flexible to be the byproduct of a conditioned response system nailed the coffin on the "Pavlov's Dog" approach to cognition. So yes, he definitely contributed a lot.
As far as his politics is concerned, what the motherfucking Christ has that got to do with it?? I admire Chomsky for his stance on a lot of things but I think he made a big doodoo when it came to that madman, Polpot.
But hell..again..what on earth has that got to do with his science?
I hope Hyperon is not one of those idiots who think Ayn Rand contributed a lot more to Cognitive Science than Chomsky!! Hahahaha. No seriously! I once saw a website that claimed this, by a libertarian Randroid, not surprisingly. Of course, that was back in the late 90s when greed was good and morons were only too willing to give their hard earned money to satisfy it. I wonder where the Randroids are nowadays?????
Posted by: joseph | August 19, 2009 6:28 AM
Of course an apology, to Turing, is useless. It is not Turing who is left and who is hurt; it is the rest of us, deprived of half the life of a rare genius (may all his cells be blessed in whatever new forms they arise.) An apology to the public for their deprivation, and possibly to the world, would not be out of order... possibly the commission of said apology into, say, a new play or book by some outstanding artist, meant to give the public an acute sense of what was lost, so that, hundreds of years from now, someone might read it, or see it, and shed a tear for Alan Turing, long scattered to the Earth. That is the only apology that might be worth anything; even with our many billions, after all, we do not have enough genius...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 19, 2009 10:16 AM
Hyperon @ # 147: ... it seems impossible to believe his idea is worth bothering with.
@ # 154: I have trouble understanding what you're suggesting.
There's a little box in the upper left corner of this blog. Please type into it "argument from personal incredulity [Enter]" and read some of the responses it finds.
Thank you.
Extra credit: a search, here or elsewhere, on "western imperialism, effects of". Feel free to skip finds with Chomsky allusions - he does tend to assume an audience with some prior knowledge, after all.
Thanks again!
Posted by: Dan | August 19, 2009 12:10 PM
"Men, Women Divided Over Sex Bill"
English was a minor, eh?
Posted by: Hyperon | August 19, 2009 1:33 PM
I'm not a libertarian, and I think Ayn Rand is a worthless pop-philosopher. I never for a second suggested anything different.I already explained why I think Chomsky's politics are relevant (you ignored this because you're playing dumb). Chomsky in my opinion is the author of so many utterly indefensible ideas in the field of cognitive science that I'm continually amazed people are taking him seriously. His early accomplishments were impressive, but no more impressive than for instance the accomplishments of Murray Gell-Mann. What happened in a recent thread when Gell-Mann was (unfairly) suspected to have endorsed a flaky work of pseudo-science? Half the thread's participants ripped into him, questioning his expertise in a field he's worked in for decades.
This treatment, I claim, is standard. People are afraid to extend this treatment to Chomsky for fear that if they do they won't be seen by their peers as "good lefties".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 19, 2009 8:54 PM
Hyperon @ # 172: People are afraid to extend this treatment to Chomsky for fear that if they do they won't be seen by their peers as "good lefties".
Yeah, that's exactly what happened with Linus Pauling and his Vitamin-C-cures-everything enthusiasms; and Joan Roughgarden's & Lynn Margulis's respective challenges to the evolutionary Modern Synthesis; and S.J. Gould's "NOMA" concept & expectations that punk eek would become the new center of evolutionary biology; and ...
Just a bunch of docile leftist sheep, us hordes of pointy-head intellectual minions!
PS: Why not start your new studies of WestImp 101 of Eric R. Wolf's Europe and the People without History?
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 19, 2009 9:46 PM
Hyperon wrote:
>>[Knockgoats]BTW, when did Chomsky's trenchant opposition to American imperialism, let alone his anarchism, become "trendy" among more than a small part of a left that has itself been thoroughly marginalised for three decades?
>[Hyperon] In academia and intellectual circles in general, it's been extremely fashionable for several decades.
Okay, Hyperon, I admit it: when I was a doctoral student at Stanford, I was part of a huge secret cell of anarchists!
Well.. to be honest, it wasn’t huge, and it wasn’t really secret (I wrote anarchist screeds that were published in the campus newspaper, for example), and it wasn’t really a cell. But we were indeed anarchists (Thoreau-style).
Seriously, I wish anarchism really were academically trendy, but it’s not.
What is academically trendy is mainstream, politically-correct, corporate liberalism a la Hillary or Obama.
Indeed, the academics tend to love the government, largely because they get a lot of money from it.
In case you haven’t heard, loving the government is, by definition, not what we anarchists do.
And, Knockgoats is also right about opposition to US imperialism: the academic world hates neocon-Bushian imperialism, but when it is carried out by good mainstream corporate liberals (Clinton in Somalia, now Barack in Iraq and Afghanistan), somehow things are a bit different.
Dave
Posted by: PhysicistDave | August 20, 2009 12:21 AM
Teddydeedodu wrote:
>I admire Chomsky for his stance on a lot of things but I think he made a big doodoo when it came to that madman, Polpot.
Indeed.
You also wrote:
> I wonder where the Randroids are nowadays?????
At the Ayn Rand Institute, based in LA (www.aynrand.org). The guiding spirit is a dude named Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s “designated intellectual heir,” who has (gasp!) a Ph.D. in philosophy.
Lenny is convinced that he has discovered that Einstein was wrong about relativity and that the Big Bang is nonsense – I mean, Lenny’s ideas are BIG. For some direct quotes from Lenny Peikoff, the new Einstein, see http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2955&st=20 .
Quite a loon.
One of my hobbies is following these guys’ shenanigans.
Lenny and a number of his pals have been making quite a few bizarre pronouncements about various aspects of math and science for a number of years.
I actually rather enjoyed Rand’s novels when I read them as a teen-ager, but I was never inclined to follow her as My Leader. Apparently, other folks have other inclinations, and their willingness to be followers has been transferred to Peikoff.
I tried telling some Randians that Peikoff’s claiming that he has proven Einstein wrong is likely to be met with disdain from intelligent people.
They were not pleased.
There are also various schismatic Randian groups that have split with the orthodox group.
Kinda like early Christianity.
Dave