David Kirkpatrick

May 31, 2009

Tragedy in the culture wars

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 1:39 pm

Maybe I should have titled this one, “Theocrat uses church for murder.” Of course that would be misleading because we don’t the philosophy of this particular murderer. We do know the philosophy of many public figures who speak of abortion and abortion-performing doctors in militant terms.

Dr. George Tiller’s blood is on the hands of many. Hopefully the one who pulled the trigger is caught and fully punished. I’m going out on a limb and guessing eventually we’ll find out he “did it for god.”

From the link:

George Tiller, a Wichita doctor who was one of the few doctors in the nation to perform late-term abortions, was shot to death on Sunday as he attended church, city officials in Wichita said.

Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.

He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.

The shooting occurred at around 10 a.m. (Central time) at Reformation Lutheran Church on the city’s East Side, Dr. Tiller’s regular church.

Update: You can follow the real time reactions at Twittervia the #tiller hashtag. There’s news and condolences, but then there’s a lot of great, and sickening, examples of the mindset of christianists and theocrats. Truly sick people and enemies of the United States. Religious terrorism anyone?

The perpetrator of this murder and all who encouraged this act explicitly or implicitly are nothing more than domestic terrorists. Looks like the battle against religious terrorism has a renewed front and a slightly different flavor in terms of the “good book” used to justify the terrorist acts.

Take any opinion on abortion and abortionists you like, but Dr. Tiller was a certified medical doctor practicing medicine the United States and performing legal medical procedures. He died for simply doing his job and providing a legal service (late-term abortions) few other doctors dare offer, often because of fear of being murdered. That is the definition of terrorism.

December 7, 2008

Nanotech culture war?

My previous blog post was on the religious fearing nanotechnology.  Here’s a press release on the subject with a little different slant.

If this becomes another one of those stem cell researchers v. theocrat-type battles I’m going to become ready to ship all those fools to their own little island where they can build big churches and pray all day. Meh.

The release:

Nanotechnology ‘culture war’ possible, says Yale study

IMAGE: Nanowire lasers are one new development of nanotechnology.

Click here for more information. 

New Haven, Conn, — Rather than infer that nanotechnology is safe, members of the public who learn about this novel science tend to become sharply polarized along cultural lines, according to a study conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School in collaboration with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The report is published online in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

These findings have important implications for garnering support of the new technology, say the researchers.

The experiment involved a diverse sample of 1,500 Americans, the vast majority of whom were unfamiliar with nanotechnology, a relatively new science that involves the manipulation of particles the size of atoms and that has numerous commercial applications. When shown balanced information about the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, study participants became highly divided on its safety compared to a group not shown such information.

The determining factor in how people responded was their cultural values, according to Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor at Yale Law School and lead author of the study. “People who had more individualistic, pro-commerce values, tended to infer that nanotechnology is safe,” said Kahan, “while people who are more worried about economic inequality read the same information as implying that nanotechnology is likely to be dangerous.”

According to Kahan, this pattern is consistent with studies examining how people’s cultural values influence their perceptions of environmental and technological risks generally. “In sum, when they learned about a new technology, people formed reactions to it that matched their views of risks like climate change and nuclear waste disposal,” he said.

The study also found that people who have pro-commerce cultural values are more likely to know about nanotechnology than others. “Not surprisingly, people who like technology and believe it isn’t bad for the environment tend to learn about new technologies before other people do,” said Kahan. “While various opinion polls suggest that familiarity with nanotechnology leads people to believe it is safe, they have been confusing cause with effect.”

According to Kahan and other experts, the findings of the experiment highlight the need for public education strategies that consider citizens’ predispositions. “There is still plenty of time to develop risk-communication strategies that make it possible for persons of diverse values to understand the best evidence scientists develop on nanotechnology’s risks,” added Kahan. “The only mistake would be to assume that such strategies aren’t necessary.”

“The message matters,” said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. “How information about nanotechnology is presented to the vast majority of the public who still know little about it can either make or break this technology. Scientists, the government, and industry generally take a simplistic, ‘just the facts’ approach to communicating with the public about a new technology. But, this research shows that diverse audiences and groups react to the same information very differently.”

 

###

 

The study was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

The Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School is an interdisciplinary team of scholars from Yale University, the University of Washington, George Washington University, the University of Colorado, and Decision Research. The project studies how people’s values affect their views on various societal risks, including climate change, gun ownership, and nanotechnology, among others. For more information, visit www.culturalcognition.net.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is an initiative launched by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts in 2005. It is dedicated to helping business, government and the public anticipate and manage possible health and environmental implications of nanotechnology. For more information about the project, log on to www.nanotechproject.org.

About nanotechnology: Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, see, manipulate and manufacture things usually on a scale between 1 and 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter; a human hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. In 2007, the global market for goods incorporating nanotechnology totaled $147 billion. Lux Research projects that figure will grow to $3.1 trillion by 2015.

Citation: Nature Nanotechnology(Advance Online Publication December 7, 2008)
doi: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341

Dan Kahan http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/DKahan.htm