Darwin v. God reprise

In my Darwin v. God post, I was getting at something like this:

Science has, at least since the Enlightenment (if not much longer), confined its ken to facts and descriptions of the natural world. In appealing to evolution to criticize a certain human practice (in this case, religion), Science has taken on a normative project. Instead of merely describing or investigating facts, and informing what we should believe, Science is here prescribing a way we should act.

However well Dawkins thinks he understand the facts concerning evolution and other things that might conflict with religious belief, he has taken a huge step out of his discipline by attempting to prescribe a way to act. This is why I accused Dennet of applying a double standard. Wouldn't he complain if (as sometimes happens) a religious authority attempted to explain to us what we should believe about the natural world? I should note that this criticism is aimed only at Dawkins in his capacity as a scientist. Dennet, as a philosopher, can talk about whatever he wants. (This is the two-edged sword of Philosophy: we are conversant in everything, experts in nothing.)

Now this might be an old-fashioned and too-limited view of how Science actually functions in society; but I think it is safe to say that Dawkins and co. are not subtly launching an assault on the idea that Science confines itself to facts. Far from it, as Dennet specifically mentions that he thinks the scientific method is the proper mode of inquiry when dealing with religion.

Anyway, this is just point one of my attack on Dawkins's project. The second point I made was that he probably got the facts wrong. I mean, it is likely that religion has played a largely beneficial role, even from a purely evolutionary standpoint, in human development.

I'm published!

Well, after much effort, I got a piece about Guantanamo detainees published in the Racine Journal Times! It's not the NYT, but a step in the right direction. Here is the link; who knows how long it will hold:

Is Guantanamo legal?

(But, as usual, God or fate has assured that my head doesn't get too big. They spelled my name wrong!)

Why Glasgow?

Some people have been asking why terrorists would try to strike Scotland, and if so, why not Edinburgh. Far from mysterious, their motives show them to be politically savvy, even it they are armatures with explosives.

Some people linked the attack in London to Salman Rushdie's. Prior to that attack, the London Times recorded the recent wave of anti-Rushdie sentiment here. But a far sounder motive can be found in Gordon Brown's appointment as Prime Minister on June 27, just two days before the London and Glasgow attempts. Brown, after all, was born in Glasgow and his constituents are Scots. An attack on his political base might force him to blink. Like Madrid in 2004, a series of attacks that, it is hard to dispute, led to the the Spanish departure from our Coalition, these attacks were intended to make the British reconsider their commitments. A move that, under Blair, could have even led to increased troop levels and at least hyped-up rhetoric, just might have the opposite effect under Brown. Brown's new foreign minister reportedly has a none-too-favorable outlook on Iraq.

We Americans should be wary of this. Our six years of terrorist-free living could be due simply to the fact that, under Bush, it makes no political sense to attack us. As the situation changes, either with a withdrawl from Iraq or a new administration, look out...

Korea gets overlooked again

Here is a piece I wrote about PyeongChang's now-unsuccessful attempt to host the 2014 Winter Olympics. On July 4, the IOC chose Sochi. So much for Korean unity...

When the International Olympic Committee delegates arrived in PyeongChang on Feb. 14, a fresh layer of snow was quietly blanketing the city, giving way to sunny skies for the duration of their visit. If the weather continues to be this accommodating, PyeongChang will make an ideal host for the 2014 Winter Olympics.

After losing its 2010 bid to Vancouver, PyeongChang (with a capital 'C' to more readily distinguish it from Pyongyang) is posed to make good on their second try. The IOC, impressed with PyeongChang's planning and vision, gave it the most favorable review of the three finalists, the others being Salzberg, Austria, and Sochi, Russia. The cities will make their final presentation, and the IOC will make its final decision, in Guatemala City on July 4.

A small town once know primarily for its market (featured in a novel, "When Buckwheat Flowers Blossom" by Lee Hyoseok), PyeongChang aspires to be the tourist hub of Gangwon Province, Korea's mountainous vacation destination. The Olympics would no doubt bring huge changes for this region, whose valleys are still speckled with little family farms. Along with a projected 7.9 trillion won boost to the Province's economy and 117,000 new jobs, a high-speed rail link to Seoul would ensure a steady stream of tourists long after the games had left.

Whether because of these changes or in spite of them, the PyeongChang public has come out firmly in support of the bid. When the IOC visited, huge crowds greeted them wherever they went--"easily double the size of the crowds four years ago" according to one reporter ( ATR, Feb. 15, 2007). Also, in a public opinion poll conducted by the IOC, 91 percent of PyeongChang residents supported the bid, a far stronger figure than the competitor cities.

The IOC's report, released on June 4, emphasized the convenience of the venues and PyeongChang's goal of using the Olympics to foster improved North/South relations. The venues are to be built around two zones: mountain and coastal. PyeongChang and the near-by Yongpyeong resort would host the mountain snow sports, the Opening and Closing Ceremonies, and the main Olympic Village. Ice events would be held on the coast in Gangneung just 25 minutes away. As Kim Jin-Sun, governor of Gangwon province, noted, "We are announcing the most compact venues concept in history of Winter Olympics," (quoted in People's Daily Online).

As for peninsular politics, the PyeongChang planning committee hopes to form a single Korean Team and to carry the Olympic torch across the entire peninsula. The two Koreas are now negotiating a untied team for the Beijing games in 2008, but the significance of hosting an Olympics together could be huge for the cause of unity on the peninsula. On the other hand, as PyongChang's slight name change highlights, having Kim Jong-Il at your doorstep can be a liability as well.

In 1988, when South Korea last hosted an Olympic games, the country was still isolated and, fresh off its first free elections, just emerging out of military dictatorship. The government issued directives on etiquette, as Beijing is doing now, like not spitting in the street, so as not to offend all the western guests. Much has changed in Korea since then. Many people, including Roh Moo-hyun, "think of the 1988 Olympics as an event which changed the very nature of Korea" ( Gangwon-do News). Perhaps 2014 will be another watershed moment for S. Korea, or for the entire peninsula.

Cultural Differences

I just insulted an old lady, in front of her daughter, in such a way that she will probably be fuming for an hour and may lose whatever remaining respect she had for foreigners, perhaps for the rest of her life.

What did I do? I answered her question without using a verb. In Korean, when you respond to someone older than you, you must use a polite verb form; using a simple verb without an honorific is too casual and considered rude. But I didn't even use a verb at all! That is the height of informality, the epitome of impoliteness. And it's true that many younger Koreans are not so concerned about these things any more, but she was old! And it's true that I am just a foreigner, but that, precisely, is the point. She will say, "Oh, just a foreigner, just a foreigner. They are all so rude." Or worse: "They are all so ignorant."

What happened? I was just perusing the fruit on offer at my local stand, and, since I'm short on cash, I was thinking, "What is the best deal; I'll look around until I find the cheapest thing." Just at that moment, she came up and asked politely, in Korean, "What do you want?" Now, you have to understand a few things here. First, Koreans salespeople always pester you incessantly, even when you are buying things you'd rather be left alone to ponder, like wine. Second, I had just been thinking about this phenomenon, annoyed with the fact that I would, in all likelihood, not be able to casually pick my produce. Third, while I know the Korean word for 'banana' (it is just 'banana'), I do not, or did not on a moments notice, know the polite form of 'I want'. So, I just said "banana" without any kind of please or anything.

Now, this might not seem so bad to you, and perhaps I am overreacting a little. But it certainly seemed rude to her. And just think, if every Westerner in Korea--or every non-Westerner in the U.S.--makes just one little culturally confused faux pas like that, as is probably unavoidable, the locals are left with scores of negative impressions. How can we, with all of our little differences, mix and still get along?