MARTIN GARDNER (1914-2010)

The prolific Scientific American columnist, founder of CSICOP, and savant of a thousand interests has died.

I lack the wisdom to sum up such an interesting life, especially for someone that I only knew in print. I can only remark that I have often found Gardner's playfulness, skepticism and curious views on the possibility of religious belief to be endlessly intriguing, even inspirational in ways that I find difficult to express in words.

Skeptics will rightly emphasize Gardner's role in debunking pseudo-scientific claims and the catholicity of his pursuits. They will join Doug Hofstadter in proclaiming his passing a real loss:

"This is really a sad day. Not so much sad that Martin died, since we all knew it had to come pretty soon, but sad because his spirit was so important to so many of us, and because he had such a profound influence on so many of us. He is totally unreproducible—he was sui generis—and what's so strange is that so few people today are really aware of what a giant he was in so many fields—to name some of them: the propagation of truly deep and beautiful mathematical ideas (not just "mathematical games," far from it!); the intense battling of pseudoscience and related ideas; the invention of superb magic tricks; the love for beautiful poetry; the fascination with profound philosophical ideas (Newcomb's paradox, free will, etcetera etcetera); the elusive border between nonsense and sense; the idea of intellectual hoaxes done in order to make serious points (for example, one time, at my instigation, he wrote a scathing review of his own book The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener in The New York Review of Books, and the idea was to talk about the ideas seriously even though he was attacking the ideas that he himself believed in); and on and on and on and on. Martin Gardner was so profoundly influential on so many top-notch thinkers in so many disciplines—just a remarkable human being—and at the same time he was so unbelievably modest and unassuming. Totally. So it is a very sad day to think that such a person is gone, and that so many of us owe him so much, and that so few people—even extremely intelligent, well-informed people—realize who he was or have even ever heard of him. Very strange. But I guess that when you are a total non–self-trumpeter like Martin, that's what you want and that's what you get. And so perhaps it's all for the best that he remains sort of hidden behind the scenes, known only to a special set of people."

I wish I could say that I was one of that special set, but probably not. I'm just a high school science teacher, on the periphery of that realm occupied by truly great thinkers, engaged but ultimately lacking in deep mathematical or logical insight. In fact, my interest in Gardner is in part based simply upon his atypical views on religion, hardly the sort of thing that would endear him to the class of professional skeptics I often interact with and probably something that quite of few of them regard as an embarrassing inconsistency.

You see, the author of so many 'Mathematical Games' described himself as a philosophical theist, rejecting much conventional religion while remaining fascinated by the nature of religious belief.

It is an interesting fact that Gardner was held in high regard by many non-believers and skeptics, but remained something of a believer himself. This is...ironic. Perhaps, in the minds of those inclined to fill their gaps with God, Gardner has now become, in Doug Hofstadter's phrase, a 'Metamagical Thema' of his own.

Well, as I said, I'm hardly the sort of eminence whose opinion counts where such an individual is concerned. More consideration of Gardner's legacy is here, and well worth reading.

IT'S HEAVY!

ffffff

Hevisaurus!







Hevisaurus!

A CUSTOM-MADE NEWS

Want some evidence that there is something fundamentally awry in the mainstream media? Looking for something to bolster your conspiratorial mindset, prone to magical thinking? Well, look no farther. Today, Monkey Trials will indulge that guilty pleasure.

Here's a news article from the Associated Press regarding President Obama's speech to Michigan graduates, of which I watched a goodly portion of live. It contains a passage on a speech by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the same neck of the woods, as follows:

"Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation."

The same passage is quoted verbatim in other sites that picked up the AP story (by Pete Yost and Mark S. Smith), such as Yahoo! News, Newser or Salon.

But what do I find, pray, when I check out the same story at FOX News? The individual author's names are not shown, and the feature is credited blandly to 'Associated Press.' Much of the article has been cleverly recast. The above paragraph mentioning Palin has been chopped into two separate paragraphs embedded in different parts of the article, and there is a subtle attempt to recast the President as acting on partisan impulse. Compare! I have taken the liberty of italicizing key points of difference in the text.

Original AP story by Yost and Smith:

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite "extreme elements" to violence.

The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics that have engulfed his young presidency. after long clashes over health care, taxes and the role of government.

Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies being imposed on average Americans.

FOX News version:

President Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as "inherently bad" and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, "government is us."

Obama used his commencement speech at the University of Michigan to respond to foes who portray government as oppressive and tyrannical -- and to warn that overheated language can signal extremists that "perhaps violence is ... justifiable."

Just 45 miles from the immense Michigan Stadium, capacity 106,201, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, told an anti-tax gathering Obama's policies are "big government" recipes that are "intrusive" in the lives of average Americans.

Original AP story:

Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the inauguration. The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed 80,000 tickets — before they ran out.

FOX News:

(does not appear...!)

Original AP story, following comments of the President's discussing the historical debate on the role of government:

But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' — that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation," he said.

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

FOX News, on the other hand, placed an edited version of the above passage following a sentence describing the views of Gov. Palin:

Obama urged both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' -- that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise...

(above italicized phrase omitted)

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

To me, when comparing the original with the edited version, the clear purpose of the latter was to remove the context of the President's remarks. They wanted to downplay the size of the President's audience, and the enthusiasm with which his remarks were received. They wanted to recast his commentary on the angry politics of our time as a largely partisan speech, aimed at Tea Party supporters and Sarah Palin.

In other words, they wanted a story that more closely melded with the narrative of FOX News, which trolls ceaselessly back-and-forth in search of controversy. Well, I actually watched the speech, and I can tell you that it was not in any meaningful sense critical of the President's foes, nor did he take any particular aim at conservatives. It was a commentary on the nature of political discourse in our country, fully aware of the rough-and-tumble nature of politics and the history of our republic. It was not in any way a shot across the bows toward conservatives, much less Sarah Palin. The cleverly-edited FOX News version would not persuade anyone who actually watched the speech that anything sinister was at work.