davidould.net

Another fascinating article, this time from instant fundas.

The pitch drop experiment began in 1927 when Professor Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, set out to demonstrate to his students that some substances that appear to be solid are in fact very high viscous fluids. He used tar pitch, a derivative of coal once used to waterproof boats, in an experiment to prove his point. At room temperature, pitch appears to be solid and can even shatter if hit with a hammer, but despite its look and feel, pitch can also flow at room temperature, albeit extremely slowly.

 

For his experiment, Parnell melted some pitch into a glass funnel with a sealed stem and allowed it to cool for three years. In 1930 he cut the sealed stem, hung the funnel over a beaker, and waited. It took eight year before the first drop fell into the beaker and another nine years before the second drop hit. Parnell didn’t live to see the third drop fall in 1954, as he passed away in September 1948. By then, the experiment was stored away in a cupboard of the physics department.

 

The Pitch Drop Experiment with its current custodian, John Mainstone in a picture taken in 1990.

 

The pitch-drop experiment might have fallen into obscurity had it not been for John Mainstone, who joined the University of Queensland physics department in 1961. One day a colleague said, “I’ve got something weird in this cupboard here” and presented Mainstone with the funnel, beaker and pitch, all housed under a bell jar. Mainstone asked the department head to display it for the school’s science and engineering students, but he was told that nobody wanted to see it. Finally, around 1975, Mainstone persuaded the department to publicly display the experiment in a cabinet in the foyer of the department building.

The experiment that carries on beyond death. Sometimes you just don't have the time to see what something is really like. The current life expectancy of the Australian man is 79 years. They wouldn't outlast the pitchdrop experiment. They might not even really get to see the effects. Life, and life that is short, is a lot like that - it obscures us from seeing the reality of things. And, of course, often death itself is the reality.

This week I've been working on Luke 12, the Parable of the Rich Fool. Jesus speaks of the idiocy of not realising there is more to this life than 79 short years. And in the middle he does so in a really clever way. The Rich Fool is speaking...

Luke 12:19 And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”

It's an obvious allusion to this...

Eccl. 8:14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. ¹⁵ So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

Qoheleth, the speaker of Ecclesiastes, is working through the conundrum of life. It doesn't seem to make sense - no one gets what they deserve. If that's reality then the only sane option is to live it up now. Enjoy life - eat and drink and be glad. And, of course, store it up to stop if from going.

But as Ecclesiastes progresses we realise that there's more to life. Or, more accurately, more to life than life.

11:9 You who are young, be happy while you are young, and let your heart give you joy in the days of your youth.
Follow the ways of your heart and whatever your eyes see, but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.

The judgement of God puts everything into perspective. What seemed arbitrary and unfair will be measured and held to account. The 85 year experiment does have a demonstrable conclusion. You may die but you willsee the pitch drop, just not in the way that you thought. Which is, of course, Jesus' point,

Luke 12:20 “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

Assessing this life based on only this life is nuts. You simply can't live long enough to see the pitch drop because death will get you first. And then it's too late. Besides, the results of the experiment are already in - so why act like you don't know what will happen?

OMGosh this is so awesome but 30 years too late (although I'm not sure I really cared about Tolkein when I was 7almost8). Forevergeek has the details,

We’re salivating with each new reveal that comes along from LEGO for its upcoming Lord of the Rings toy line. We’ve seen several character posters, but today we’ve got your first look at the killer minifigures for the entire Fellowship and several baddies, including Orcs, Uruk-Hai, Gollum, and Nazgul.

Right, enough talk - here they are.

Fascinating little snippet from Wired Science.

The fundamental origin of our dearest beliefs is a centuries-old philosophical question: Do they reflect, as Kant claimed, deep and pure principles? Or, per Jeremy Bentham, are they elegantly rationalized cost-benefit analyses?

 

Neuroscientist Greg Berns of Emory University put this question to the test in a brain scanner. He found that when people refused to accept cash for stating beliefs opposite to their own, it wasn't simply because the cash wasn't enough. Reward-calculating parts of their brains weren't even part of the equation; instead, activity occurred in rule-processing, right-or-wrong systems. Principle was truly principled.

 

Image: BenFrantzDale/Flickr

 

Citation: "The price of your soul: neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values." By Gregory S. Berns, Emily Bell, C. Monica Capra, Michael J. Prietula, Sara Moore, Brittany Anderson, Jeremy Ginges and Scott Atran. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Vol. 367 No. 1589, March 5, 2012.

Of course it doesn't solve the question. Sure, according to Kant some things just are - the noumenal truths. But if they're hard wired is that because we're created by God that way? Or is it how we've evolved? Or, (can. open. worms all over floor) both!

Either way, interesting stuff.

I wrote previously about the campaign to have the ridiculous "gay panic" defence removed in Queensland. Fr Paul Kelly is reporting that the Qld. Government have agreed to tighten up the law in this regard. A great result! Thanks to all who signed the petition and much kudos to Paul for getting it running.

picture: Queensland Parliament Building in Brisbane

It's raining cats and dogs here. So obviously time for this...

Brilliant stuff. Watch this:

Now read this:

John King of CNN wilted under Newt's bombast, but that is not the point. The point is whether or not he needed to wilt. King tried ineffectively to defend himself against Newt's attack by saying that it was another network that had done the interview, and it was one of those things that was "out there" with people "talking about it," gotta ask, journalistic duty, etc. Newt, in bellicose mode, wasn't having any and said to him, on the contrary, "your network decided to lead off with this question, and it was Disgraceful, Appalling, Reprehensible," or whatever words of high dudgeon he used. "How dare you bring moral indignation into a presidential debate! I'll show you moral indignation." The audience was at first agape, and then it roared to its feet. Is he not whacking a liberal? What's not to like?

 

Despicable is not serial adultery. Despicable is asking about it.

I don't think we have seen the like since Woodrow Wilson was a blastocyte. Obama is certainly arrogant, working that little tiptilted-nose-attitude thing of his, but his hubris is an arugula salad kind of pride. Newt works day and night in the great kitchen like a master confectioner of conceit, with one of those thirty gallon stainless steel mixing bowls, making tray after tray of the peanut brittle of brag.
I don't think I could watch an Obama/Newt debate without constantly looking around for the little car that the 13 clowns were going to tumble out of. This is the circus, isn't it?

We are dealing with a high vulgarian, living well above the tree line. We are dealing with an ego of field rank, looking around for Wellington. We are looking at a flyblown reputation, masquerading as something else -- but we should remember that shiny is not the same thing as clean. This is a merchant of buncombe, with everything in his shop priced to move.

As if. But the whole thing fascinates me. My conservative friends in the States are daily bemoaning the lack of a real choice - a fiscal and social conservative who isn't a loon or a serial adulterer.

• Romney - a centrist moderate if ever there was one. The Republican hierarchy might like him but the footsoldiers aren't convinced.
• Gingrich - a man that cheated on and dumped not one, but two wives. I mean, seriously?
• Ron Paul - more a libertarian than a republican. Most think he's in for entertainment value.

Which leaves one guy. Santorum. I'd be voting for him. Yes, he's a Roman Catholic but he makes no bones about it, unlike Romney who fudges the big questions (oh, how good would it be for an interviewer who knew his stuff to press him on Mormon doctrine).

And when he talks "family values" you know he means it. There's a glaring hypocrisy in Gingrich's scathing attacks on Bill Clinton while he, himself, was conducting an extra-marital affair. I don't know how you get past that in terms of establishing integrity - not once, but twice.

What also strikes me is the question of who really is the conservative front-runner. Consider these comments from Santorum at today's CNN debate,

Change.org has a new petition, relating to Queensland's so-called "gay panic" law. Here's the preamble to the petition, written by its proponent, Fr Paul Kelly (a Roman Catholic priest in Queensland):

A loophole in Queensland law allows people accused of murder to defend themselves in court by claiming “gay panic” -- that is, if someone who they think is gay “comes onto” them, the sheer panic they feel is partial justification for murder.

 

This law belongs in the dark ages --affirmed by the High Court in the notorious Green case in 1997, when a man responded to “gentle touching” by brutally murdering his victim.
The killer’s argument was this: “Yeah, I killed him, but he did worse to me.”

 

Just over two years ago, a man was murdered in my church’s grounds, and his killers used this same “gay panic” defence. They were eventually acquitted of murder. I’m utterly appalled that a law that so revoltingly and openly discriminates against gay people is still tolerated in a modern society. Laws like the “gay panic” defence are a crucial part of legitimising and reinforcing a culture of hate which means that 73% of gay and lesbian Queenslanders are subjected to verbal abuse or physical violence for their sexuality.

While almost all other state governments have abolished similar laws, and refuse to admit evidence of non-violent homosexual advances in murder trials, nothing has changed here. Queensland is now one of the last states upholding the idea that a person can be panicked enough by gay and lesbian people to justify murder.  In addition, the mere introduction of this evidence pollutes jury deliberations.  That’s why I am calling on the Queensland parliament and LNP leader Campbell Newman to eliminate this law as a partial defence for murder, and forbid non-violent homosexual advance being treated as evidence in any murder trial. This situation cannot go on.

The page then goes on to link to a number of newspaper articles which are actually pretty light on details as to the exact precedent set and what the current legislation is. Paul does explain a little more on his own church's website:

TAKING A STAND:  Our parish community witnessed a tragic death of a man who was beaten to death in the church grounds so we have a special connection to this issue. We are asking the Queensland Government and ministers to commit to eradicating a Partial defence in criminal law that a
victim had made a homosexual proposition to the offender, thus somehow mitigating against violent bashing that leads to death.  The catholic church teaches: men and women with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must be treated “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (Excerpted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2358.) The existence of homophobia is rather confirmed by the fact that some people might immediately jump to the conclusion that because a topic involves the word “homosexual” that the church would be opposed to the topic. But if the topic is “everyone deserves freedom from hatred,
violence and the threat of being killed, including homosexuals” then the church certainly would agree with that statement. We are not fundamentalists, we are disciples of Christ. If you wish to add your support to this, there is a Petition set up on line and also in written form. To sign the Petition, see me after Mass.    Fr Paul

...

for a full exposition on the Catholic Church’s teachings on human sexuality, which I and the St Mary’s Catholic parish fully support, please see this handy link.  It also speaks of homosexuality in the full context of the church’s teachings. Sincerely, Fr Paul.

Let me try and summarise the situation:

1. There is a legislated defence of "provocation" in QLD (and, no doubt, similar in other States)
2. There is a precedent (ie not legislated but established in criminal court) that a homosexual advance may be considered "provocation"
3. Thus the petition seeks a legislated removal of a homosexual advance as any defence of provocation, overturning the established precedent
4. Similar clarifications have been legislated for in other States.

As they say in this part of the globe, "good on yer, Paul". Here is exactly the right way for us to be approaching this issue. Paul is, by his own clear statement, fully supportive of the orthodox conservative position on human sexuality and yet he also is rightly convinced that this in no way excuses, let alone condones, any violence towards homosexual people. And so he's set up this petition and I'm delighted to endorse it.

And now some additional thoughts (come one, what else were you expecting?!)...

Here, if ever there was, is an example of a moderately correct usage of that so badly defined term, homophobia. Stricly speaking, "homophobia" ought to be defined as "the fear of something that is the same" but, of course, it is now very often used as a bully-word to portray anyone who is morally opposed to homosexual activity as, somehow, bigotted and irrational. That is, of course, a shameful way to go about debating an issue but is increasingly popular amongst our "tolerant" conversation partners who would far more rapidly demonise their opponents than have to engage in a proper discussion.

I wonder what they would have made of Jesus? Jesus would have been a real problem for them - utterly uncompromising on sin wherever He saw it and yet gracious and accepting of all those who recognised their sin and responded in repentance and faith. Indeed, it was often His gentleness towards them in the first place that prompted their repentance. Yet for many of the gay advocacy lobby He would have been a "homophobe" for firmly endorsing "traditional" sexual ethics. Of course, these are the same people who will (with a delicious irony) chant the mantra (long misattributed to Voltaire - although possibly a distillation of his thought),

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

They don't mean it, of course. They disapprove of what we say and then heap vitriol upon us and try to silence us. It's just a way of sounding virtuous.

But, here in the "gay panic" defence we actually have a clear case (or as clear as that muddled term can be expressed) or "homophobia"- someone arguing that their response to a homosexual advance, their fear of it and anger in response, was a mitigating factor. It is a shameful argument to use and if we, as a culture, truly value the freedom and protection of our people then it must be dealt with. You don't have to be a flaming liberal to agree. After all, look at me and Fr Paul - hardly tie-dye wearing hippies.

This is the "homophobia" that we ought to be standing against and I'm delighted to do that now. And so should you.

Someone tell me if there's a better Michael Jackson homage than this