It's Science!

I like when things like this happen.  Maybe each side thinks the other is dead wrong (and maybe one actually is), but at least they're talking.  Here is a more powerful example of this phenomenon.

Science can't explain everything, but that's part of the fun.

I just don't see the point of this.  But maybe it's because my least favorite part of religion growing up was going to church so much, so being an atheist for me would primarily be about freeing up my Sundays.  But reading the article, though I saw parts about community, it seems as though they're looking for the point too.

Here's a rebuttal to the student-oriented learning method that's gaining some steam.

I have noticed a shift in both my usage of Netflix and what I can find on Netflix. It's good and bad.

I hate this.  SO MUCH.

Dan Snyder is a bad man.  Sure, he's not the chief antagonist in this story, but 1) he started it out of some mixture of greed and immature petulance, and 2) he didn't take "no" for an answer when he clearly should have.

It's always bizarre to see friends in the newspaper.  It's good that it's not a mugshot, I guess.

I don't know how open-minded you'll be about this article, but at minimum, it's a nice career retrospective about the Boss.

John Boehner... wins?

Responses:

1. This reminds me of the "more guns, less crime" thesis.  Perhaps it doesn't prove that drinking during pregnancy is good, but it makes justifying a hard and fast rule against any drinking during pregnancy quite difficult.  And yes, it's definitely correlation.

2. I saw this as well.  I only skimmed the article because I would prefer to read the book before coming to conclusions, but I'm not terribly interested in reading this book because 1) I would prefer to discuss it with people after reading, and I'm not in a book club, and 2) barring that, I suspect that this book won't be discussed quite as much (it'll be like a one-hit wonder's second single: talked about initially but soon forgotten).

4. That makes a lot of sense.

5. That was the Stuff You Should Know crew.

8. I'll watch when I get home.  You will too. :)

R2R:

4. This goes to the Duck Dynasty question.  The First Amendment applies to the government only, but there is an idea of free speech that is broader than governmental action - one that forms the basis for civic republicanism and self-government.  Maybe the Vikings had the right to terminate Chris Kluwe, and maybe A&E had the right to suspend the Duck Dynasty guy,* but is it a good thing for society when we respond to unwelcome speech with calls to silence, financially punish, or otherwise ostracize the unwelcome speaker?

*As a note, many states, including Louisiana, have laws forbidding employers from terminating their employees on the basis of speech exercised outside the workplace that the employer may find offensive.  There is a separate question of whether this violates the First Amendment rights of the employer, but as it stands, these laws are on the books.  So in certain situations, at minimum there may be a relevant statutory right of free speech that applies against non-governmental entities.

6. I disagree.  Malcolm Gladwell is actually a journalist.  He is a filter, and he's weaving interesting (in his view) scientific studies or historical anecdotes into a compelling narrative.  To the extent that TED Talks are designed to entertain, then there's no difference, but I always thought that the primary goal was to get top thinkers in the same room to push ideas forward.

7. I didn't peg you for a Neil Young fan.

R2R2R:

1. It starts Monday.

2. There's a free description of Taranto's article here.

B