Regarding Jina Moore’s article “Reading the Wounds,” November/December 2008:
The torture debate in the U.S. has highlighted a key paradox in American ideology. We value human rights, but we also fear outside threats, enough that we’re willing to put the rights issue aside when we want to wring truth out of a suspected al Qaeda operative.
But what about the medical side of torture? Jina Moore’s fascinating article highlights how doctors are specializing in torture detection, and researching how torture affects the body and mind. Specifically, Moore profiles Rajeev Bais and Lars Beattie, two doctors at the Libertas Human Rights Clinic, in Queens, who provide medical affidavits for U.S. asylum-seekers who claim they were tortured in their home countries.
These affidavits hold a ton of weight with judges, and play a key role in determining whether or not asylum is granted. The reason is that Bais and Beattie can tell with relative certainty if an applicant is telling the truth about being tortured, first by interviewing and observing him, and then doing a physical exam to look for corroborating evidence—in effect, using the patient’s body to check out his story.
And there’s plenty of evidence to look for, such as scar tissue, ligament or muscle tears, popped ear drums, and poorly-healed bones. Some methods, like burning with cigarettes or brands, leave easily identifiable scars, while others are usually mark-free—falanga, a practice in which victims are beaten on the bottoms of their feet with rods, causes excruciating pain but leaves little to no permanent damage.
The dichotomy, as Moore notes, is interesting: Rather than the methodology of torture, which is to inflict pain on the body in order to wring truth from the mouth, these investigators use the body to corroborate the victim’s already-told story. This mix of psychology and forensic medicine can have gray areas, and Beattie admits he makes plenty of judgment calls.
Moral judgments aside, increased medical attention to torture has led to a necessary ramp-up in research—as well as investigative reporting. Dr. Steven Miles even searched through 35,000 pages of government documents outlining the role medical personnel played in military interrogations in Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, resulting in the book, Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror. Among his most alarming findings was that “more than two hundred military studies, by his count, [...] concluded the intelligence elicited by torture is usually faulty.”
Which leads to a different conversation entirely.
Comment from blogs.discovermagazine.com/realitybase
Regarding the article by Francis S. Collins, “On God: A New Theology of Celebration,” September/October 2007:
I do believe that the complexities of life that science has revealed, and the amazing order of it all, definitely does lend itself as something that was designed. Every design must have a designer. In this sense, science does a magnificent job with implicating a creator.
The tricky part comes when what science unravels yields inconsistencies with explanations for creation that are given in the Bible, thus causing confusion and even division. This is most problematic when certain Biblical accounts for creation and other supernatural events are taken literally, which many feel is the correct way to interpret them, understandably. If I were a Bible-believing Christian, I would hope that the book of Genesis is as accurate as the book of Revelation.
Comment from lauraswritings.blogspot.com
Peter Bebergal should be commended for his even-handed article (“Mystics Under the Microscope,” January/February 2009) on the reality of contemporary mystical experience.
What is curious is why the same reasonable questions raised about people whose mystical experience is occasioned by the ingestion of a chemical known to produce such experiences is not raised about the self-reports of people in the various religions who have had such experiences occasioned by fasting, isolation, austerities, or prayer.
The criteria described in the article are, if not universal, at least typically found in the reports of every major faith and equally in reports of users of a number of so-called “psycho-spiritual” plants.
What I’m afraid is the case is that those who are arguing against the validity of one and for the validity of the other seem to be theologians who lack such experience themselves and thus, from their viewpoint consider themselves objective. From the other point of view they seem like blind men arguing over the actuality of colors.
As long as they lack the opportunities to test their own conclusions, the arguments will continue. As William James said when discussing the disagreements between the “inborn rationalists and the inborn pragmatists,” he said that neither “would ever convert the other. We shall always look upon them as spectral and they on us as trashy.”
James Fadiman
Palo Alto, California
Thank you for Barbara King’s recent column (about whether scientists should disclose their religious beliefs when commenting on religion; “On God: Full Disclosure,” November/December 2008).
I don’t think scientists should stop sharing their beliefs or opinions about religion, and certainly becoming good listeners can better serve us all. But I doubt the “overpowering presence” of high-profile scientists and “their impact on public life” is nearly as significant as King suggests, though some publishers, booksellers, and readerships might disagree.
Comment from scienceandreligiontoday.blogspot.com
Regarding the recent article “On God: Full Disclosure,” by Barbara J. King, November/December 2008:
This was an interesting article wondering whether authors should have to disclose their views on the religion vs. science debate when they cover it and how that would effect the readership.
King cites the following statistics: “According to recent polls, 90 percent of American adults believe in God; 82 percent believe in heaven; 69 percent in hell. The devil is a fact to 68 percent of the population, while angels are slightly ahead at 77 percent.”
These statistics suggest that the average American will be unlikely to find a militant God-does-not-exist, science-is-superior attitude a welcoming gateway through which to learn a bit more about science and how science may help us better understand religion.
Comment from www.bookninja.com
Regarding the recent article “On God: Full Disclosure,” by Barbara J. King, November/December 2008:
Should science authors disclose religious views?
This is a very good question. If authors make their personal viewpoint known, and thereby their potential bias, will people with the opposing viewpoint buy their books?
It can of course be applied to both sides of the argument. Would a militant atheist want to read about Christianity from the perspective of a rabid evangelical? Or vice versa? Liberal vs. conservative, religious vs. anti-religious? Miller vs. Guinness?
Comment from www.bookninja.com
Regarding “An Inconvenient Satellite,” by Nick Street, September/October 2008:
Many would say that the $100 million DSCOVR climate satellite project was scrapped by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney because it was a project promoted by Al Gore. And I wouldn’t disagree.
But all that changed on February 25 when Congress passed Omnibus Appropriations Bill 1105, which states in tiny font on page 141:
“The bill provides $9,000,000 for NASA to refurbish and ensure flight and operational readiness of DSCOVR earth science instruments.”
If you’ve never heard of DSCOVR, you might remember the label “GoreSat” that was slapped on it by the Republican sound machine eight years ago. The Bush administration scrapped it very early in its mandate, and since then this fully completed $100 million climate observing spacecraft has literally sat in a box in Maryland.
Dr. Robert Park described DSCOVR as “the most important thing we could be doing in space right now.”
My friend, the well-known science writer Mitch Anderson, has been hammering away at NASA for more than two years to get to the bottom of why DSCOVR was scrapped. It’s actually a testament to new media in general, because while the mainstream press pretty much ignored this story, Mitch continued to drop new FOI [freedom of information] requests on NASA, gather research from insiders, and blog on what he uncovered.
The real reason that DSCOVR is getting ready to be launched is because it will answer some very important questions about the state of our earth and the science behind climate change, but I can’t help but think that Mitch the Blogger might have had something to do with finally getting this tin can up in the air.
Comment from www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia
| May/June 2009Letters — May/June 2009
| ||
|
