RSS
Cultural appropriation must be one of the stupidest concepts to come out of the critical race theory milieu. Back in the day you could just admit that a particular juxtaposition of motifs was dissonant (e.g., I think mixing Arctic and Indian ones might be) or disrespectful (e.g., putting a picture of Jesus on a toilet). Now it requires an NPR think-piece. Despite its jargon, it does strike me that a lot of the long-form discussion veers into the sort of kvetching over intellectual property rights which I find quite annoying and overdone.
A friend of mine was freaking out about Pandas recently. As most of you may know I’m going to be transitioning from Perl to Python, so I was really curious when he mentioned that moving to Pandas also obviated the need for R. So I just got a copy of Python for Data Analysis: Data Wrangling with Pandas, NumPy, and IPython. Figured it would be a good complement to Data Science from Scratch: First Principles with Python.
Since I don’t like to spend time on useless things, I’ve been following the primary race very superficially (sometimes to the extent of asking my labmate every few days what’s going on). But I’d say go long on Rubio. Those following closely freak out too much over debates.
Was talking with a friend recently about the lack of emphasis in biological journals on methods, even though in the long run methods are often more impactful than singular empirical results. Would recommend all readers peruse Ancient Admixture in Human History, with a focus on methods. The paper is now open access.
Admixture into and within sub-Saharan Africa, a pre-print worth reading. That being said, I always have a hard time digesting fineSTRUCTURE work. It seems that a lot of stuff is coming out on Africa right now. If so, then it is important to actually know something about the history and geography of the continent. John Reader’s Africa: A Biography of the Continent is the best I’ve run into in that vein. Though The Fortunes of Africa looks interesting, I haven’t read it.
The 13th Bay Area Population Genomics Meeting is going to be held at UC Berkeley on February 13th, next Saturday. As usual, thanks to Dmitri Petrov for starting this, and Fernando Racimo for taking the lead this time around, and the CCB and AncestryDNA for hosting and sponsoring. I plan to be there….
If you live in California, the The California Weather Blog is a must bookmark/subscribe. When I was a wee lad I used to be a weather nerd. I can’t imagine what it would be like growing up today….
Sick and Tired of ‘God Bless America’: ‘The population of nonreligious Americans — including atheists, agnostics and those who call themselves “nothing in particular” — stands at an all-time high this election year.’ This is arguably wrong. During the early American republic with restricted suffrage a large proportion of the eligible electorate may have been freethinkers, at least judging by the fact that the first six presidents would not be considered orthodox Christians by modern evangelical Protestants. The first president who was probably an orthodox Christian while in office, Andrew Jackson, was an ardent church-state separationist:
“I could not do otherwise without transcending the limits prescribed by the Constitution for the President and without feeling that I might in some degree disturb the security which religion nowadays enjoys in this country in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.” — letter to the Synod of the Reformed Church of North America, 12 June 1832, explaining his refusal of their request that he proclaim a “day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer.”
Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature:
There is a growing movement to encourage reproducibility and transparency practices in the scientific community, including public access to raw data and protocols, the conduct of replication studies, systematic integration of evidence in systematic reviews, and the documentation of funding and potential conflicts of interest. In this survey, we assessed the current status of reproducibility and transparency addressing these indicators in a random sample of 441 biomedical journal articles published in 2000–2014. Only one study provided a full protocol and none made all raw data directly available. Replication studies were rare (n = 4), and only 16 studies had their data included in a subsequent systematic review or meta-analysis. The majority of studies did not mention anything about funding or conflicts of interest. The percentage of articles with no statement of conflict decreased substantially between 2000 and 2014 (94.4% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2014); the percentage of articles reporting statements of conflicts (0% in 2000, 15.4% in 2014) or no conflicts (5.6% in 2000, 50.0% in 2014) increased. Articles published in journals in the clinical medicine category versus other fields were almost twice as likely to not include any information on funding and to have private funding. This study provides baseline data to compare future progress in improving these indicators in the scientific literature.
Related: What this scathing exchange between top scientists reveals about what nutritionists actually know.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
I have a funny story about how Patterson’s 2012 paper came to be written. I reviewed one of their many papers for Nature and at the end of the review made a complaint about how all their methods were buried in the supplements and ended with “Viva Genetics!”. Needless to say, I ended up reviewing that too.
Im sorry that you find fineSTRUCTURE papers are hard to digest. I have one theory about this which is that the heatmaps, while being the most informative way of viewing the data, require system two. I think painting palettes are better and base my talks around them but noone has really published with those yet (and its not offered by the GUI). Anyway, your feedback on why you find it hard would be very gratefully received.
Here is a brief discussion of painting palettes I know you’ve seen but I think its most informative for the POBI analysis..
http://paintmychromosomes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/painting-palettes.html
Daniel
Thanks for the hat tip to “Ancient Admixture in Human History” which
was deliberately written as a methods paper (though it does have some
interesting results). But methods papers are hard to get published. This
one was first submitted to PLoS Genetics and rejected without review.
http://paintmychromosomes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/painting-palettes.htmlDanielReplies: @Razib Khan
50×50 heatmaps are impossible for me to grokk quickly. with other papers i look at figures, the read results. with finestructure i do the reverse.
was deliberately written as a methods paper (though it does have some
interesting results). But methods papers are hard to get published. This
one was first submitted to PLoS Genetics and rejected without review.Replies: @daniel falush
Hi Nick, I think its an exaggeration to say methods papers are hard to get published, it is just a matter of choosing an appropriate venue.. PLoS Genetics has had a funny and I think not very healthy prejudice against them. I dont know what is the situation now.
Yes, I agree with this. Structure barplots are system 1 (i.e. automatically processed) because we have the built in machinery for judging relative heights. heatmaps are system 2, at least in the way they need to be interpreted in this context because the colour scale needs to be translated into a magnitude. This problem is why Admixture ends up in the main text and fineSTRUCTURE ends up in the supplement (e.g. of the india paper) although in fact the reverse would be far more informative… The palettes are a way of showing fineSTRUCTURE results in a barplot but its necessarily population by population. I should really write up the pobi results in that form, either as an expository paper or blogpost . the pobi paper forwent heatmaps completely…
I cant imagine anything being easier for data manipulation than R. How do you feel python is superior? What factors should cause one to switch?
Interesting interview with the VATech engineer who blew the whistle on the lead in the water in Flint MI. The theme is on the corruption of academic science due largely to the structure of its incentives. If funding is required to do analyses, I don’t see how this can be avoided, and it is difficult for me to imagine that non-academic science is in any better shape with regard to situations like this. Comments?
First off, I do not believe lead pipes are even the direct cause of the issue. Lead pipes have existed from Roman times and work fine IF A coating exists, The switch from lake Huron to Flint River without adding required phosphates caused the oxides to dissolve too rapidly. Lead pipes last forever. Some Roman lead aqueducts are still in service. They present no immediate health risk. They are dangerous only in the hands of utter morons.
Next, 5 microgram/DL vs. 10 microgram/DL. Because there is no minimum safe level, EPA has been cutting this level continuously. But if you go 1980, more than 25% of the population has elevated levels of lead above 5 microgram/DL. I am not saying that we need to get back to high levels, but where uncertainty exists, we gain nothing by setting lower levels.
I believe Flint made a mistake; they have attempted to recover by adding phosphate. This man is confusing science and engineering practice, and overreacting. This is affine opportunity for science. Let us monitor those individuals who have blood lead content > 10 microgram/dl (may be 4000 of them) over the next ten years. I bet those people would be no worse for the wear in the next 10 years.
Since Flint switched back to Lake Huron supply, the lead poisoning stopped and all that good will/public relations gestures are pointless. Some people are entertaining fantasies of replacing Flint's 20,000 lead pipes that connect homes to the cast iron mains under the streets. Flint lines are buried under the frost line, between five to seven feet deep. There are no records so it is difficult to locate where they are buried. Rebuilding Flint's water distribution infrastructure is impossible.
That being the situation, the issue to be decided is (a) how much resources should the normative community channel to Flint-like settlements, and (b) how to channel those resources in a manner that will work.
Making interviews about how scientists fail people are nonsense; they are just for this professor to get his ten minutes. This is an engineering and risk analysis problem.
I am a devout Roman Catholic, and am also “an ardent church-state separationist.” But that’s largely to protect the Church from the State, not the other way around. The State tends to corrupt a lot of things that are beyond its basic missions (e.g. protecting the borders and maintaining domestic tranquility).
That’s a rather contorted way of ascribing “freethinking” atheistic view to those early American leaders. Furthermore, whatever their private beliefs, I think the writings of several Founding Fathers make clear that they considered Christianity a vital part of salutary populace and polity. In any case, there is a rather large zone between theocracy and atheism.
don't mind-read me again.
if i thought they were atheists, i would have said so. i wasn't being contorted, i was trying to succinctly describe the reality. none of them were atheists, and atheism was a very rare view in those days as you know (we have plenty of correspondence from jefferson and adams and their heterodoxy re: christianity is clear, not their atheism). that being said, it seems likely that none of the first six were professing athanasian christians during the presidency (some explicitly so, as the adamses), to varying degrees of certitude (jefferson and adams are easier to infer than washington for obvious reasons). is that clear enough in my meaning, and do you take objection to what i state above?
In any case, there is a rather large zone between theocracy and atheism.
are you addressing me? i made neither a reference to theocracy or atheism in that post. as you may know, i am rather direct about what i attempt to say, and avoid sly implications when possible. atheism and theocracy are clear and distinct things, and neither are relevant to the early republic (aside from scurrilous charges of atheism which are of only minor today in any case in the life of jefferson).Replies: @Twinkie
You use ggplot, right? Have you tried the port of ggplot to pandas?
S: pandas is an implementation of data frames in python to encourage people to port their libraries to R. Most people use R for the libraries and hate the language, but you sound different. At the very least, switching to python gives you access to all the non-statistical libraries for it.
I have been using R almost daily for about 4 or 5 years now so its basically English to me at this point. But I have messed around with python and find it to be pretty easy to work with, I just haven't had much of a need to do any event based or object oriented programming so I havent used it much. I guess if it has data analysis libraries that R doesnt have perhaps it would be worth my time to start using it more...
When someone in the west borrows from a non-western culture, it’s cultural appropriation. When someone non-western borrows from the west, it’s cultural imperialism (by the west).
To Twinkie:
Of course we also need the state to protect children from pedophiles masking as moral leaders in the church
The rates of such abuses are higher in other institutions of trust in our society (or among males in general), but I don't see you making an issue of those.
newLISP (a LISP 1.5 interpreter) can easily call any and all of the vast number of C libraries and integrates Java graphics for 2D output.
http://www.newlisp.org
S: pandas is an implementation of data frames in python to encourage people to port their libraries to R. Most people use R for the libraries and hate the language, but you sound different. At the very least, switching to python gives you access to all the non-statistical libraries for it.Replies: @S, @Razib Khan
Thanks, Douglas.
I have been using R almost daily for about 4 or 5 years now so its basically English to me at this point. But I have messed around with python and find it to be pretty easy to work with, I just haven’t had much of a need to do any event based or object oriented programming so I havent used it much. I guess if it has data analysis libraries that R doesnt have perhaps it would be worth my time to start using it more…
That’s a rather contorted way of ascribing “freethinking” atheistic view to those early American leaders.
don’t mind-read me again.
if i thought they were atheists, i would have said so. i wasn’t being contorted, i was trying to succinctly describe the reality. none of them were atheists, and atheism was a very rare view in those days as you know (we have plenty of correspondence from jefferson and adams and their heterodoxy re: christianity is clear, not their atheism). that being said, it seems likely that none of the first six were professing athanasian christians during the presidency (some explicitly so, as the adamses), to varying degrees of certitude (jefferson and adams are easier to infer than washington for obvious reasons). is that clear enough in my meaning, and do you take objection to what i state above?
In any case, there is a rather large zone between theocracy and atheism.
are you addressing me? i made neither a reference to theocracy or atheism in that post. as you may know, i am rather direct about what i attempt to say, and avoid sly implications when possible. atheism and theocracy are clear and distinct things, and neither are relevant to the early republic (aside from scurrilous charges of atheism which are of only minor today in any case in the life of jefferson).
It seems to me that, by the flow of your writing and not by "mind-reading," you are implying that the early presidents were "freethinkers," i.e. those of atheistic (or agnostic) tendencies even if they publicly professed Christianity (my own very specific words were "ascribing 'freethinking' atheistic view" rather than explicitly atheists). If that is not what you intended, why bring up those presidents as an evidence for the first sentence/premise?
I know you are the God-King of this blog and all, but if you would like your readers to carefully parse your words when they are less than perfectly clear, I would suggest you at least reciprocate the same courtesy to your readers and commenters who have taken you very seriously and have been nothing but polite.That's a reasonable view, as far as I am concerned. I merely object to classifying Christianity of the 18th Century through the prism of "modern evangelical Protestants" in order to lend evidence that by this narrowest of classifications somehow the proportion of "nonreligious Americans" was high in the former times.
S: pandas is an implementation of data frames in python to encourage people to port their libraries to R. Most people use R for the libraries and hate the language, but you sound different. At the very least, switching to python gives you access to all the non-statistical libraries for it.Replies: @S, @Razib Khan
not tried port. will do so.
Of course we also need the state to protect children from pedophiles masking as moral leaders in the churchReplies: @Anonymous, @Twinkie
What the movie Spotlight. It was the state, to include police and the courts, which failed in the abuse scandal. In the case of Boston, which exposed the problem nationwide, it was the press– The Boston Globe— which did its job. But even they failed to see the problem when victim Phil Saviano came to them with lots of evidence. I think faithful Catholics, more than anyone else, want to see abusive priests routed out and meet justice in this world. I think retired special agent and devout Catholic, Leon Podles, who is arguably the foremost expert on the priest abuse scandal, said it best, “I am no prophet, but I detect the hand of Providence in all this to purify a church which had grown corrupt. It was a unique moment: the internet had begun to make information available, but had not yet destroyed newspapers. Newspapers still had the resources to conduct such a massive investigation. The editor of the Globe was an outsider, who was willing to upset the apple cart.” http://www.podles.org/dialogue/page/2
One of the strongest reformist voices among the Princes of the Church has been Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna (and Count of Schönborn): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Sch%C3%B6nbornI happen to be a fan of his pastoral counseling to other priests that they ought to be "neither rigorist nor lax."
the early American republic with restricted suffrage a large proportion of the eligible electorate may have been freethinkers
This could be a good argument for restricted suffrage.
This could be a good argument for restricted suffrage.Replies: @Razib Khan
it’s complicated though. americans around 1800 were highly unchurched because of distance from churches etc. on frontier. though that doesn’t necessarily correlate with belief of course. it seems a lot changed after the second great awakening, though even in the early 1900s u had unitarian presidents (taft) without much comment.
The Second Great Awakening is also the time period in which the really distinctive uniquely American religious beliefs and practices of the American South emerged. This period was one of ethnogenesis.Replies: @Razib Khan
Could part of this required religious genuflection in politicians be explained by the drive to have conformity of thought? We have a concomitant increasing concentration of power in the political realm with the religious, fraternal, educational and volunteer community spheres waning in importance and power. The only way to “protect” one’s religious values will be to capture the political ground because your religious authority has diminishing authority and ability.
OMG! I had not known that. I cannot imagine today’s UUies being happy with that’s being widely known: how embarrassing (for them). Puts them almost on a par with the Friends (Nixon).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun#Slavery
two things to note
1) until the mid-20th century unitarianism was self-consciously christian, albeit not trinitarian (today a minority of unitarian universalists are christian, especially in the northeast)
2) the correlations between religion and politics were not the same in the past as they are today. much of it arose in the 1970s. e.g., another unitarian from the first half of the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_StoddardReplies: @ohwilleke
john c calhoun was unitarian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun#Slavery
two things to note
1) until the mid-20th century unitarianism was self-consciously christian, albeit not trinitarian (today a minority of unitarian universalists are christian, especially in the northeast)
2) the correlations between religion and politics were not the same in the past as they are today. much of it arose in the 1970s. e.g., another unitarian from the first half of the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_Stoddard
I was sorting through stuff after my dad’s death last weekend, including genealogy data, old photos, slide rules, an embossing professional engineer’s seal, cuff links, ties and tie-tacks, and . . . a DNA test that he had done whose results he had never shared with the kids (not out of secrecy, he just never got around to it, and it contained no real surprises).
He was an early adopter of a lot of technologies (he had a portable computer back when they had 3.5″ screens and 5.25″ floppy disks and weighed 30 pounds), and we had a basement full of new fangled gismos from the last several decades that never caught on commercially after they were introduced.
Personal genomics was no exception. He was on of the first to have his done when the option became available. His test reported results from only about 25-50 loci, some from Y-DNA loci without any other autosomal DNA data, and some from mtDNA. Only the mtDNA data was haplotyped (with no subtypes) and the mtDNA data was accompanied by a chart that you could now find in Wikipedia. The data would have been helpful in a forensic exam if someone wanted to determine if a body or DNA sample was his (particularly because he and his sons have a rather uncommon Y-DNA haplogroup for ancestrally European men). And, the mtDNA data is particularly precious because that can’t be inferred from the genes of his children and it would be hard to find an alternative person to test to determine it. But it is really stunning how much more comprehensive the 23andme reports that I got for my family a few years ago for considerable fewer $$ than he paid, simply because the technology was more mature when we did ours relative to when he did his.
Another indication of how much higher volume the current process is than the one he used was, is the way that the reports were written for him. Each individuals Y-DNA and mtDNA locus result was written in by hand in pen with the overall page containing each set of results personally (not mimeo-graphically) signed by the company president.
The Second Great Awakening definitely had a huge impact. Before it, the Southeast was the least religious (not only in terms of affiliation but also in terms of levels of religious practice and to a great extent religious belief) before it, and has at all times since been the most religious region in the nation.
The Second Great Awakening is also the time period in which the really distinctive uniquely American religious beliefs and practices of the American South emerged. This period was one of ethnogenesis.
The Second Great Awakening is also the time period in which the really distinctive uniquely American religious beliefs and practices of the American South emerged. This period was one of ethnogenesis.Replies: @Razib Khan
yep. most americans would be surprised at the rapturous support that the french revolutionaries had in the south, compared to the cool attitudes in new england. the south of the early republic was a relative hotbed of radicalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun#Slavery
two things to note
1) until the mid-20th century unitarianism was self-consciously christian, albeit not trinitarian (today a minority of unitarian universalists are christian, especially in the northeast)
2) the correlations between religion and politics were not the same in the past as they are today. much of it arose in the 1970s. e.g., another unitarian from the first half of the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lothrop_StoddardReplies: @ohwilleke
The correlations between religion and politics were not the same, but the correlation between geography and politics, with a few exceptions that prove the rule, have been remarkably stable right back to the earliest days of the Republic.
It also bears noting that in much of New England, Unitarianism was not just common, it was the formally established church with church finances paid for via the government and clergy hired by elected town officials, in much the way that it is in Germany and some Northern European countries until recently. I don’t recall precisely when the disestablishment took place, sometime in the early 1800s IIRC, and it took place after splinter congregations had overwhelmingly more congregants despite the lack of establishment economic support.
Unitarians and Universalists merged only in 1967, IIRC. Universalism was originally a working class faith common in poor neighborhoods of Boston that emerged in the early 1800s and the vicinity filling a similar demographic/social class niche to storefront Pentecostal churches today. Unitarianism, in contrast, was non-conforming English rooted Christian denomination (Isaac Newton, for example, devoted almost as much of his time to Unitarian theology as to calculus and physics – with the balance of his time devoted to alchemy), that went on to become the establishment church of New England sometime after Puritanism had abated and before all churches were disestablished.
Betting markets are better predictors of political outcome than the supposed pundit/experts because they work the same way evolution works. It is survival of the fittest, sharp bettors make multi thousand dollar bets while the square bettor quickly goes broke with a series of much smaller bets. The sharpest bettors are then employed by the bookmakers. You could go a step further and call the bookmakers the carnivores and the gamblers are the preyed upon herbivores. Gambling is for suckers but following betting markets as regards to election outcomes is a valuable tool. I follow the odds and don’t waste my time listening to the so called experts. It is simply more accurate and vastly more time efficient.
re: established churches. you are talking about the prominence of unitarianism in early 19th century congregationalism. so it wasn’t the unitarian church that was established, but the congregationalism church, which had within it unitarianism as a faction, in some cases being dominant (i think in mass. it was in some cases, but not in connet.).
re Nutrition, I recently found this article about nutrition science and alcohol: Drinking doesn’t make you fat by Tony Edwards.
Edwards mainly identifies studies that have failed to show a relationship btw/ alcohol consumption and weight; in many cases the relationship is reversed. He questions the effectiveness of using calories (heat) to measure the potential for weight gain for highly combustible alcohol, which is by far the largest sources of calories in booze. Nonetheless he theorizes that beer belly is caused by malt sugar in beer, as it is known to produce excess glucose. OTOH, the malt sugar is mostly consumed by yeast, which converts it into alcohol and CO2. Because alcoholic drinks are mostly water, conventional methods of measuring this factor are not available.
Probably should be a Superbowl-day comment, but I’ve been looking for a way to nudge my craft beer choices in a direction that helps keep by BMI normal, and the science seems dodgy for this exercise. My preliminary opinion is look for low carbs, though depending on beer style, this might counterintuitively lead to some higher calorie/alcohol beers if the yeast is more efficient.
A bit overwrought. The professor is confusing science and day to day monitoring. Monitoring is done by techs.
First off, I do not believe lead pipes are even the direct cause of the issue. Lead pipes have existed from Roman times and work fine IF A coating exists, The switch from lake Huron to Flint River without adding required phosphates caused the oxides to dissolve too rapidly. Lead pipes last forever. Some Roman lead aqueducts are still in service. They present no immediate health risk. They are dangerous only in the hands of utter morons.
Next, 5 microgram/DL vs. 10 microgram/DL. Because there is no minimum safe level, EPA has been cutting this level continuously. But if you go 1980, more than 25% of the population has elevated levels of lead above 5 microgram/DL. I am not saying that we need to get back to high levels, but where uncertainty exists, we gain nothing by setting lower levels.
I believe Flint made a mistake; they have attempted to recover by adding phosphate. This man is confusing science and engineering practice, and overreacting. This is affine opportunity for science. Let us monitor those individuals who have blood lead content > 10 microgram/dl (may be 4000 of them) over the next ten years. I bet those people would be no worse for the wear in the next 10 years.
Since Flint switched back to Lake Huron supply, the lead poisoning stopped and all that good will/public relations gestures are pointless. Some people are entertaining fantasies of replacing Flint’s 20,000 lead pipes that connect homes to the cast iron mains under the streets. Flint lines are buried under the frost line, between five to seven feet deep. There are no records so it is difficult to locate where they are buried. Rebuilding Flint’s water distribution infrastructure is impossible.
That being the situation, the issue to be decided is (a) how much resources should the normative community channel to Flint-like settlements, and (b) how to channel those resources in a manner that will work.
Making interviews about how scientists fail people are nonsense; they are just for this professor to get his ten minutes. This is an engineering and risk analysis problem.
don't mind-read me again.
if i thought they were atheists, i would have said so. i wasn't being contorted, i was trying to succinctly describe the reality. none of them were atheists, and atheism was a very rare view in those days as you know (we have plenty of correspondence from jefferson and adams and their heterodoxy re: christianity is clear, not their atheism). that being said, it seems likely that none of the first six were professing athanasian christians during the presidency (some explicitly so, as the adamses), to varying degrees of certitude (jefferson and adams are easier to infer than washington for obvious reasons). is that clear enough in my meaning, and do you take objection to what i state above?
In any case, there is a rather large zone between theocracy and atheism.
are you addressing me? i made neither a reference to theocracy or atheism in that post. as you may know, i am rather direct about what i attempt to say, and avoid sly implications when possible. atheism and theocracy are clear and distinct things, and neither are relevant to the early republic (aside from scurrilous charges of atheism which are of only minor today in any case in the life of jefferson).Replies: @Twinkie
Mr. Khan, this is what you wrote:
You seem to be saying: 1) The claim that the fraction of nonreligious Americans is at its highest today is “arguably wrong. 2) Because early Americans had “a large proportion of the eligible electorate” who were “freethinkers.” And 3) The evidence for this (“at least judging by the fact…”) was that the first six presidents were not “orthodox Christians by modern evangelical Protestants.”
It seems to me that, by the flow of your writing and not by “mind-reading,” you are implying that the early presidents were “freethinkers,” i.e. those of atheistic (or agnostic) tendencies even if they publicly professed Christianity (my own very specific words were “ascribing ‘freethinking’ atheistic view” rather than explicitly atheists). If that is not what you intended, why bring up those presidents as an evidence for the first sentence/premise?
I know you are the God-King of this blog and all, but if you would like your readers to carefully parse your words when they are less than perfectly clear, I would suggest you at least reciprocate the same courtesy to your readers and commenters who have taken you very seriously and have been nothing but polite.
That’s a reasonable view, as far as I am concerned. I merely object to classifying Christianity of the 18th Century through the prism of “modern evangelical Protestants” in order to lend evidence that by this narrowest of classifications somehow the proportion of “nonreligious Americans” was high in the former times.
It seems to me that, by the flow of your writing and not by “mind-reading,” you are implying that the early presidents were “freethinkers,” i.e. those of atheistic (or agnostic) tendencies
that is not what free-thinkers means! especially at that point in our nation’s history when theological heterodoxy was common, but atheism rare.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freethinker?s=t
arguably free thinkers tend to reject revealed religion in this context, but that’s about it. as someone who used to move in “freethought” circles i can tell you that a minority of self-identified freethinkers continue to be theists and deists, though they tend to adhere to either rational or mystical ideas about god, rather than rooted in institutional/revealed religion.
I merely object to classifying Christianity of the 18th Century through the prism of “modern evangelical Protestants” in order to lend evidence that by this narrowest of classifications somehow the proportion of “nonreligious Americans” was high in the former times.
the first six presidents may all have rejected the nicene creed (adams was unitarian, so of course, and jefferson’s private sympathies with that sect were clear in correspondence, though he became more orthodox in the decade before his death). would you define them as christians if so? (i would, because all of them would have identified as such, but i’m not a christian)
america was certainly founded as a nation of christians in belief and culture. but it’s “churching” in a fashion we understand it today, which tends to be seen through the low church protestant prism (even for catholics!) occurred mostly during the 19th century. see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TBA0YG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 at the time of the founding the american elite did lean toward a theologically thin form of christianity would i think would be defined as culturally christian today, where more personal avowals of faith have become the norm (since jimmy carter).
Hence statements such as below from Washington:Or this statement from Adams to Jefferson in a letter:And other similar sentiments from Adams:And from his son, John Quincy Adams:So I don't think it necessarily follows that the personal religious practices of the first six presidents are indicative of the population or even the electorate of America at large at the time. After all, even among the delegates to the constitutional convention, an overwhelming majority was made of self-professed Christians (largely Protestant) even if the most famous handful among them had "suspect" attachment to Christianity personally.
Absolutely. Faithful Catholics have been among the most vociferously critical of the way the clerical hierarchy handled these scandals, especially during intra-Catholic discussions. For non-Catholics, this is not always obvious, because such Catholics carefully have avoided lending ammunition to politically-motivated anti-Catholic attacks in the media (in public) that have co-opted these scandals for their own purposes. And non-Catholics also should keep in mind that the Church, per the Catholic doctrine, is the entire body of believers, not simply the clerical hierarchy.
One of the strongest reformist voices among the Princes of the Church has been Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna (and Count of Schönborn): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Sch%C3%B6nborn
I happen to be a fan of his pastoral counseling to other priests that they ought to be “neither rigorist nor lax.”
Of course we also need the state to protect children from pedophiles masking as moral leaders in the churchReplies: @Anonymous, @Twinkie
Not just the state, but all people of conscience ought to protect children from pedophiles, not just those “masking as moral leaders in the church.”
The rates of such abuses are higher in other institutions of trust in our society (or among males in general), but I don’t see you making an issue of those.
Any thoughts
http://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2016-02-uncovering-cardiovascular-disease-genetics.html
*IF* so, no, *I* would not. But I don’t think the evidence is concrete on that score. Several of them seem to have been (perhaps intentionally) vague.
To me, this captures the crux of the matter. My suspicion is that at least some, perhaps many, American elites of that time, as were the aristocrats of European states of the same period, encouraged the vigorous exercise of Christian religion and morality for the masses (“middle class religious values”) because they perceived their great salutary effects on the polity at large, but excepted themselves from this “personal avowal” on the grounds of their elite status – all the while serving as exemplars of Christian rituals for the non-elites. To be blunt about it, some of them may have pretended to be Christians even if they might not have been in their hearts (but one can only speculate about their hearts; their published words are plain).
Hence statements such as below from Washington:
Or this statement from Adams to Jefferson in a letter:
And other similar sentiments from Adams:
And from his son, John Quincy Adams:
So I don’t think it necessarily follows that the personal religious practices of the first six presidents are indicative of the population or even the electorate of America at large at the time. After all, even among the delegates to the constitutional convention, an overwhelming majority was made of self-professed Christians (largely Protestant) even if the most famous handful among them had “suspect” attachment to Christianity personally.
My suspicion is that at least some, perhaps many, American elites of that time, as were the aristocrats of European states of the same
you don’t need to suspect. this was a common and relatively open view among many enlightenment philosophs who were suspicious of populist ‘enthusiasms.’
So I don’t think it necessarily follows that the personal religious practices of the first six presidents are indicative of the population or even the electorate of America at large at the time.
i have no idea what you’re getting on about. i was pretty explicit in decoupling the elite beliefs, which are obvious from correspondence, and the mass lack of church affiliation, which is distinct from beliefs (which we don’t know that much about, though rodney stark would have you believe that americans were heathens or something…i’m skeptical). you’re making connections about things which i never stated or intended!!! (of course you elided over your confusion on what i implied by ‘freethinker’) though i do think the initial property qualifications were such that the electorate in the early years was less susceptible to populist enthusiasms, including on issues such as religion and race, which became more prominent later in american history, starting with the age of jackson.
in any case, the historical consensus is generally that the second great awakening did result in a revolution in the mores and institutional strength of christianity, in both the north and the south.
finally, i’m not going to engage in dueling passage quoting with you. the admeses were not christians by your reckoning, as they were not nicene by public affiliation (the younger adams admitted private attractions to trinitarianism). jefferson and madison seem to not have personally been trinitarian during their presidencies (jefferson became more orthodox before his death so one can debate hiss deathbed state), despite some affiliation with the episcopal church to various degrees. washington and monroe are less certain overall. i’m hoping this doesn’t elicit a response addressing a point which i didn’t make in the first place because you perceive some implied ellipse nested within these sentences.
1. The idea that the fraction of nonreligious Americans ("atheists, agnostics," etc.) is at the highest in history is wrong.
2. The fraction of nonreligious Americans may have been higher during the early American republic due to restricted suffrage (notwithstanding your later dictionary clarification of "freethinkers").
3. The evidence for item 2 is that the religious views of the first six presidents may not have been consistent with those of "modern evangelical Protestants" (later exemplified as the adherence "Trinitarian" doctrine).
The two areas of my confusion are a) you seem to be equating "nonreligious" in item 1 with "freethinkers" in item 2 when your definition of freethinkers of that particular time and place (more theistic than that definition would warrant today) seem to be incompatible with "nonreligious" and b) using the first six presidents as representative of American elites in general of that time might be inaccurate. Wikipedia cites Franklin Lambert's study regarding some of the Founding Father thusly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion):
ranklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders."Dueling passage quoting" would merely serve to confirm the notion that some of the early American leaders had vague or contradictory notions of Christianity/religion, on which point I think we are in agreement.Would you, please, for my edification your understanding of "some affiliation"? I think I know what you are saying, but would like a more explicit explanation.I do not think that is in doubt. I certainly agree.
On a personal note, I spent much of my early adulthood as a deist, so I am not wholly ignorant of "freethinking."Replies: @Razib Khan, @PD Shaw
A certain fuzzy agnosticism was always the comfortable thing about American Episcopalianism that attracted elites and social climbers. A great Bible and hymnbook along with vicars that soft-pedaled on the fire and brimstone in their sermons.
I did not refer to “enlightenment philosophs” who were “relatively open,” but rather to European aristocrats whose private religious beliefs and behaviors might not have been consistent with their public pronouncements and adherence to the Christian rituals and moral strictures of their time and place – the parade, to quote Ford Madox Ford.
Much of what you write in the comments regarding the religious views and practices of the early American leaders strikes me as nuanced and eminently reasonable. But my “confusion” as such stems from the puzzlement I have over the sentences of yours from the original post above, to wit:
Again, this is what I inferred from your passage:
1. The idea that the fraction of nonreligious Americans (“atheists, agnostics,” etc.) is at the highest in history is wrong.
2. The fraction of nonreligious Americans may have been higher during the early American republic due to restricted suffrage (notwithstanding your later dictionary clarification of “freethinkers”).
3. The evidence for item 2 is that the religious views of the first six presidents may not have been consistent with those of “modern evangelical Protestants” (later exemplified as the adherence “Trinitarian” doctrine).
The two areas of my confusion are a) you seem to be equating “nonreligious” in item 1 with “freethinkers” in item 2 when your definition of freethinkers of that particular time and place (more theistic than that definition would warrant today) seem to be incompatible with “nonreligious” and b) using the first six presidents as representative of American elites in general of that time might be inaccurate. Wikipedia cites Franklin Lambert’s study regarding some of the Founding Father thusly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion):
ranklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders.
“Dueling passage quoting” would merely serve to confirm the notion that some of the early American leaders had vague or contradictory notions of Christianity/religion, on which point I think we are in agreement.
Would you, please, for my edification your understanding of “some affiliation”? I think I know what you are saying, but would like a more explicit explanation.
I do not think that is in doubt. I certainly agree.
On a personal note, I spent much of my early adulthood as a deist, so I am not wholly ignorant of “freethinking.”
that was the church at which they were present in services if they went, and it was the church of their family, and in jefferson's case the church he seems to have "gone home" too. i.e, their customary religion.
in regards to the overall thread i'm so deep in the semantic tangles that i'm inclined to just drop this. my major point is that i think jacoby has a whiggish/monotonic view of secularity in american life which is not empirically unchallengeable. our era is not that special.... (the main difference might be overall religious pluralism+dethronement of protestant xtianity from the cultural high ground)Replies: @Twinkie
1. The FFs were much more likely to have an identifiable religious affiliation than the mass of people, many of whom would be identified as having no particular religious affiliation;
2. This should not be surprising if we focus on who the FFs were: they were "sent men." They were full participants in their communities, who were assessed as the best people to represent them. In this sense "elites" is not a good word for cross-national comparison, as they did not have titles of nobility that gave them a degree of independence from their community. They were a civic-minded, socially outward class who would not have been selected if they held values too outside the norm of their community.
3. The Anglican focus on ritual, community, and the great religious compromise at the heart of the book of prayer permitted a broad range of personal beliefs. The bottom-up nature of Congregationalism meant that one could vote with his feat to a more pleasing lecture, and there was no hierarchy to enforce standards. Overall, Calvinism with its focus on an all-powerful, omniscient, distant God foretold the strains of unitarianism and deism that emerged.
1. The idea that the fraction of nonreligious Americans ("atheists, agnostics," etc.) is at the highest in history is wrong.
2. The fraction of nonreligious Americans may have been higher during the early American republic due to restricted suffrage (notwithstanding your later dictionary clarification of "freethinkers").
3. The evidence for item 2 is that the religious views of the first six presidents may not have been consistent with those of "modern evangelical Protestants" (later exemplified as the adherence "Trinitarian" doctrine).
The two areas of my confusion are a) you seem to be equating "nonreligious" in item 1 with "freethinkers" in item 2 when your definition of freethinkers of that particular time and place (more theistic than that definition would warrant today) seem to be incompatible with "nonreligious" and b) using the first six presidents as representative of American elites in general of that time might be inaccurate. Wikipedia cites Franklin Lambert's study regarding some of the Founding Father thusly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion):
ranklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders."Dueling passage quoting" would merely serve to confirm the notion that some of the early American leaders had vague or contradictory notions of Christianity/religion, on which point I think we are in agreement.Would you, please, for my edification your understanding of "some affiliation"? I think I know what you are saying, but would like a more explicit explanation.I do not think that is in doubt. I certainly agree.
On a personal note, I spent much of my early adulthood as a deist, so I am not wholly ignorant of "freethinking."Replies: @Razib Khan, @PD Shaw
Would you, please, for my edification your understanding of “some affiliation”? I think I know what you are saying, but would like a more explicit explanation.
that was the church at which they were present in services if they went, and it was the church of their family, and in jefferson’s case the church he seems to have “gone home” too. i.e, their customary religion.
in regards to the overall thread i’m so deep in the semantic tangles that i’m inclined to just drop this. my major point is that i think jacoby has a whiggish/monotonic view of secularity in american life which is not empirically unchallengeable. our era is not that special…. (the main difference might be overall religious pluralism+dethronement of protestant xtianity from the cultural high ground)
On a more humorous note, if you have not seen it yet, perhaps you might enjoy the theological conversation in the New York City Irish comedy "She's the One":Of course, you have to see/hear it with the delivery of actor John Mahoney get the full effect.Replies: @Razib Khan, @iffen
that was the church at which they were present in services if they went, and it was the church of their family, and in jefferson's case the church he seems to have "gone home" too. i.e, their customary religion.
in regards to the overall thread i'm so deep in the semantic tangles that i'm inclined to just drop this. my major point is that i think jacoby has a whiggish/monotonic view of secularity in american life which is not empirically unchallengeable. our era is not that special.... (the main difference might be overall religious pluralism+dethronement of protestant xtianity from the cultural high ground)Replies: @Twinkie
Indeed! : )
When Charles Murray speaks of higher church attendance rate in the putative Belmont in contrast to Fishtown today, I don’t think he necessarily means that the elite denizens of Belmont are those of religious “populist enthusiasm.” Some of them may be simply adhering to the norms of family and community tradition and morality, without necessarily harboring a fervent belief in Trinitarianism. In other words, in the strictest sense, they may not be Christians, but are of Christian culture.
Another difference I see today is that overt hostility to Christianity is not only tolerated but actively encouraged in some quarters (recall the booing of reference to God at the last Democratic convention). One could hardly imagine today that someone such as Thomas Paine would be ostracized as he was in his time (and upon his death).
On a more humorous note, if you have not seen it yet, perhaps you might enjoy the theological conversation in the New York City Irish comedy “She’s the One”:
Of course, you have to see/hear it with the delivery of actor John Mahoney get the full effect.
cross-cultural and general social science tends to support two countervailing trends of religion/religiosity: the middle-to-upper classes are often more entangled with and affiliated with institutional religion (i.e., they have "confession" in a german sense). second, the bottom half of society is less likely to be attached to traditional formal religion, but are often the source of enthusiasms, and may have less sophisticated and literalistic beliefs when they do. for a while america bucked this trend, which is common in much of europe, but finally it seems that the religious adherence of the lower classes in the USA is fading like in europe (where socialism and trade unionism were institutional substitutes).
Another difference I see today is that overt hostility to Christianity is not only tolerated but actively encouraged in some quarters (recall the booing of reference to God at the last Democratic convention). One could hardly imagine today that someone such as Thomas Paine would be ostracized as he was in his time (and upon his death).
yep, we're polarized.Replies: @Twinkie
This seems easy enough to do if one is Catholic or Episcopalian. Over the last few years I have contemplated "faking" my Evangelical faith and going back into the fold so as to lessen the gulf between me and my peeps, but I worry that they might come up with a different flavor of Kool-Aid to drink and then where would I be.Replies: @Twinkie
On a more humorous note, if you have not seen it yet, perhaps you might enjoy the theological conversation in the New York City Irish comedy "She's the One":Of course, you have to see/hear it with the delivery of actor John Mahoney get the full effect.Replies: @Razib Khan, @iffen
When Charles Murray speaks of higher church attendance rate in the putative Belmont in contrast to Fishtown today, I don’t think he necessarily means that the elite denizens of Belmont are those of religious “populist enthusiasm.”
cross-cultural and general social science tends to support two countervailing trends of religion/religiosity: the middle-to-upper classes are often more entangled with and affiliated with institutional religion (i.e., they have “confession” in a german sense). second, the bottom half of society is less likely to be attached to traditional formal religion, but are often the source of enthusiasms, and may have less sophisticated and literalistic beliefs when they do. for a while america bucked this trend, which is common in much of europe, but finally it seems that the religious adherence of the lower classes in the USA is fading like in europe (where socialism and trade unionism were institutional substitutes).
Another difference I see today is that overt hostility to Christianity is not only tolerated but actively encouraged in some quarters (recall the booing of reference to God at the last Democratic convention). One could hardly imagine today that someone such as Thomas Paine would be ostracized as he was in his time (and upon his death).
yep, we’re polarized.
Pew 2007 – 2014
Evangelical -.9%
Mainline -3.4%
Catholic – 3.1%
If these trends continue he may have to revise.
On a more humorous note, if you have not seen it yet, perhaps you might enjoy the theological conversation in the New York City Irish comedy "She's the One":Of course, you have to see/hear it with the delivery of actor John Mahoney get the full effect.Replies: @Razib Khan, @iffen
Mr. Fitzpatrick: That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop being a good Catholic.
This seems easy enough to do if one is Catholic or Episcopalian. Over the last few years I have contemplated “faking” my Evangelical faith and going back into the fold so as to lessen the gulf between me and my peeps, but I worry that they might come up with a different flavor of Kool-Aid to drink and then where would I be.
We Catholics are a patient lot. We'll wait for ya. Many do return to the Mothership as they age and have children. And if we don't get you to come back, we'll get your children or grandchildren to come back. Long game.Replies: @iffen
cross-cultural and general social science tends to support two countervailing trends of religion/religiosity: the middle-to-upper classes are often more entangled with and affiliated with institutional religion (i.e., they have "confession" in a german sense). second, the bottom half of society is less likely to be attached to traditional formal religion, but are often the source of enthusiasms, and may have less sophisticated and literalistic beliefs when they do. for a while america bucked this trend, which is common in much of europe, but finally it seems that the religious adherence of the lower classes in the USA is fading like in europe (where socialism and trade unionism were institutional substitutes).
Another difference I see today is that overt hostility to Christianity is not only tolerated but actively encouraged in some quarters (recall the booing of reference to God at the last Democratic convention). One could hardly imagine today that someone such as Thomas Paine would be ostracized as he was in his time (and upon his death).
yep, we're polarized.Replies: @Twinkie
Yes, excellently put. I agree.
But in Western Europe, I do not think the elites are “entangled with and affiliated with institutional religion” as you put. It appears to me that religious adherence all across the socio-economic spectrum has faded there, in a way it has not with the upper middle class in the United States.
Evangelical -.9%
Mainline -3.4%
Catholic - 3.1%
If these trends continue he may have to revise.Replies: @Twinkie
I am skeptical that increased use of Latin increases the rigor or devotion of Catholics. If that was true then just have everything in Latin and hit the jackpot. It is more likely that it just increases the differential patina of being a Catholic.
This seems easy enough to do if one is Catholic or Episcopalian. Over the last few years I have contemplated "faking" my Evangelical faith and going back into the fold so as to lessen the gulf between me and my peeps, but I worry that they might come up with a different flavor of Kool-Aid to drink and then where would I be.Replies: @Twinkie
Unlike, say, Mormons or other, er, more strenuous cults, the Catholic Church does not ostracize those who have “fallen away,” but indeed encourages them to attend Mass anyway (without taking Communion) and participate in the communal life of the parish.
We Catholics are a patient lot. We’ll wait for ya. Many do return to the Mothership as they age and have children. And if we don’t get you to come back, we’ll get your children or grandchildren to come back. Long game.
Most Evangelicals today no longer practice withdrawal of fellowship. In any case it was never the equivalent of withdrawal of Communion, unless I am completely wrong about the implications for the individual of denial of Communion.
Recently there was a discussion about speakers of speakers of South Arabian languages, which I missed.
https://www.unz.com/gnxp/im-skeptical-indigenous-arabs-are-basal-eurasians/#comment-1307975
The interesting fact I found, is that some South Arabian Bedouins do not considered Arabs by their neighbors! And we don’t speak about Yemenite Jews here.
[1]
Does it mean that they are indigenous subjugated population, not unlike Helots [2] in Sparta or more commonly Pelasgians in Greece?
It even more confusing as Southerns Arabs considered “Pure” Arabs, unlike Adnanite Northern Arabs.
“Jibbali” means the language of highlanders, so they probably considered indigenous by their Arab neighbors, yet not Arabs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shehri_language
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots
I am aware of what the figures mean. My point was that if you lose over 3% of your group every 7 years, in a few years it won’t matter about the attendance rate. All ten of your members could attend to religious duties 24/7 and it would be of no consequence. In the larger sense it is just another indicator of the greater conforming nature of the upper classes. It doesn’t make the case that religion is “more” important to them. Although if we divvy up the norms and behaviors, most would likely put religion in the very important category which is not the same as saying the individual “values” it above other norms and behaviors.
I am skeptical that increased use of Latin increases the rigor or devotion of Catholics. If that was true then just have everything in Latin and hit the jackpot. It is more likely that it just increases the differential patina of being a Catholic.
We Catholics are a patient lot. We'll wait for ya. Many do return to the Mothership as they age and have children. And if we don't get you to come back, we'll get your children or grandchildren to come back. Long game.Replies: @iffen
We differ over the degree of difficulty involved in being a Catholic, Mainline Protestant or Evangelical. IMO, faith derived from reason is much easier that faith derived from faith.
Most Evangelicals today no longer practice withdrawal of fellowship. In any case it was never the equivalent of withdrawal of Communion, unless I am completely wrong about the implications for the individual of denial of Communion.
1. The idea that the fraction of nonreligious Americans ("atheists, agnostics," etc.) is at the highest in history is wrong.
2. The fraction of nonreligious Americans may have been higher during the early American republic due to restricted suffrage (notwithstanding your later dictionary clarification of "freethinkers").
3. The evidence for item 2 is that the religious views of the first six presidents may not have been consistent with those of "modern evangelical Protestants" (later exemplified as the adherence "Trinitarian" doctrine).
The two areas of my confusion are a) you seem to be equating "nonreligious" in item 1 with "freethinkers" in item 2 when your definition of freethinkers of that particular time and place (more theistic than that definition would warrant today) seem to be incompatible with "nonreligious" and b) using the first six presidents as representative of American elites in general of that time might be inaccurate. Wikipedia cites Franklin Lambert's study regarding some of the Founding Father thusly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion):
ranklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders."Dueling passage quoting" would merely serve to confirm the notion that some of the early American leaders had vague or contradictory notions of Christianity/religion, on which point I think we are in agreement.Would you, please, for my edification your understanding of "some affiliation"? I think I know what you are saying, but would like a more explicit explanation.I do not think that is in doubt. I certainly agree.
On a personal note, I spent much of my early adulthood as a deist, so I am not wholly ignorant of "freethinking."Replies: @Razib Khan, @PD Shaw
I’m not sure how that religious tally addresses this issue. The larger list of Founding Fathers, including those who attended the later Constitutional Conventions is about 200 people, and bout 95% of them belonged to either one of three denominations: Anglican/Episcopalian; Congregational; or Presbyterian. The first two were established churches in some of the colonies, and the last was primarily the affiliation of backcountry Scots-Irish. Here’s what I think that means:
1. The FFs were much more likely to have an identifiable religious affiliation than the mass of people, many of whom would be identified as having no particular religious affiliation;
2. This should not be surprising if we focus on who the FFs were: they were “sent men.” They were full participants in their communities, who were assessed as the best people to represent them. In this sense “elites” is not a good word for cross-national comparison, as they did not have titles of nobility that gave them a degree of independence from their community. They were a civic-minded, socially outward class who would not have been selected if they held values too outside the norm of their community.
3. The Anglican focus on ritual, community, and the great religious compromise at the heart of the book of prayer permitted a broad range of personal beliefs. The bottom-up nature of Congregationalism meant that one could vote with his feat to a more pleasing lecture, and there was no hierarchy to enforce standards. Overall, Calvinism with its focus on an all-powerful, omniscient, distant God foretold the strains of unitarianism and deism that emerged.
The situation in education research is similar to the one in nutrition research. Long-term randomized controlled trials are difficult and expensive and almost never done. Experts know a lot less than they say they do.
But two important differences. Education has a lot more ideology; thus foolishness like, “Full inclusion works” (because it’s democratic and inclusive and nice, unlike–yuck!–tracking). Since people buy their own food, they can decide what (if any) nutritional advice to accept. But most schools are provided “free” by governments, and they are run under the educational equivalent of the dietary guidelines. So it’s hard to get away from the experts’ notions, mistaken or otherwise.