Hobby Horses Away

 https://youtu.be/dcAzzTIN0lc?si=Fi2TmWoU3icE0_PE

YouTube video which stimulated discussion between B. and me.  (Well, at least it got me riding one of my favorite hobby horses again.)

Me:  Although he expands it to Greek and Roman civilization while I was limiting it to Chinese and Indian civilization, here's a very interesting YouTube presentation which makes the point I've been making for 40 years.

(Why  civilizations fall from internal corruption.)

I especially concur with his point about the humanities. I remember in elementary school learning about getting on the bandwagon and other manipulative techniques. Even in the insanely paranoid anti-communist 50s, some of us were actually taught how to think critically...in elementary school.

...I'm watching this as I record to you. His point about the Mayans has been seriously questioned. Human caused ecological collapse is no longer considered to be, necessarily, a correct cause for their collapse.

B:  What are the conditions that enable anti-expert, anti-competent sentiment  at scale?

Me:  This is one really complicated situation about which I've given to which I have devoted a great deal of thought over the past few decades. Again, I trace the origin of it all to Ronald Reagan.  Naturally, he too had his roots, but I still think that we can point to that one man as the source of so many of today's miseries.

Reagan brought religion into politics in a way it had never been before. Up till then, all politicians gave it lip service and it was just a background to the campaign. Reagan was the first to make religion one of the critical elements of his administration, separating the good and holy from the other party.

He also did away with the Fairness Act, which kept news media from slanting toward one party or another but instead creation kept it simply reporting news. Up till then, there was at least the dream of reporters who investigated and whose purpose was to probe the actions of politicians rather than to get them elected. (Of course, this was after the age of yellow journalism.)

He also opened the airways to the highest bidder. Previously, once a year networks had to prove that they were serving the public interest and were providing public service in their programming. Much of what they presented was nonsense but at least they had to put on a good show.  After Reagan opened the airways, the highest bidder got what he wanted and the crazy nut cases who spread their wild conspiracy theories at two or three in the morning on a.m. radio suddenly were "journalists" on major networks.  

One of the ways in which networks formally proved that they were serving the public interest was their excellent and accurate news reporting. It took a loss. That seeming failure simply proved, or at least was offered as proof, that the network really cared about the public good and it was willing to lose money in order to provide accurate reporting. Today that sounds like a very lame and very bad joke.

Current news is very profitable entertainment and clickbait.  It is now so political that I am surprised they don't simply declare their party affiliation.

In other words, we need good leadership. The hope that what Reagan was doing would be overturned when a Democrat got back in office was quickly crushed by Bill Clinton's betrayal of everything the Democratic party  stood for, to be replaced by triangulation and neoliberalism.

Most people are not leader material. Traditionally, most of them were glad not to be. Today everybody is their own leader. They do their own research by rushing around biased media finding something that makes them feel good rather than think well. Then they rush around making themselves into their own private influencers and leaders by spreading the nonsense.

The conservatives at this time have two things right, but not in detail. The first is that our nation is in desperately bad trouble. What they don't understand is that the trouble afflicting our nation is them.

The second is that we need a good strong leader.  What they don't understand is that we need an honest, sincere, and intelligent leader who still understands what the term "public service" really means.

It would certainly also help if he was at least minimally honest.

We are here because the billionaires and the religious extremists formed an unholy alliance very similar to that of Ibn Saud and Ibn Wahhab.  That is, a religious dictatorship which supports the brutality and exploitation of the ruling class in return for creating the one and only official religion.

They want America to become at least a Christian version of Saudi Arabia, if not a Christian Iran. 

So far they're succeeding. 

In self-defense, let me conclude by pointing out that you did ask. I know you've heard much of this, if not all of it from me before, but, as I said 40 years ago,  I'm ringing a fire bell in the night and, as Peter Paul and Mary sang, I've got a bell and I've just gotta keep ringing it. 

God Save Our Wimpy God!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2iiZSgu5Uqw

Although there were only eight or nine people involved, I think it is reasonable to call them a mob. They came into an area that had been rented and in which they had no right to interfere. But they came to save the chapel for Jesus.

One of the leaders  (Napier) declared, "We didn't go  there out of hatred of these people. We went there because we wanted to make sure the House of the Lord wasn't being disrespected … there was about eight or nine of us… The people in the chapel said they were doing nothing wrong, and I asked if they were there to worship Jesus, and a few started raising the voices at me, so I told him just to get their stuff-that we weren't there to argue and I even help gather the things and pack them to their cars.

... if they want to do that stuff, they can do it in their own homes or buildings or wherever else, but it's not happening in Jesus house as long as I'm around to defend it…"

What was 'that stuff'? It was using the chapel as a retreat and safe space for members to meditate or pray according to their own individual desires and beliefs. Why were the crusading Christians in a panic and defending God from the horrible attack that God could not defend himself against? (It is funny how wimpy and weak their God is.  He can't do anything for himself and he requires mobs to do it for him yet somehow he's all powerful?) Someone had placed an ohm symbol in the chapel in case anyone wanted to meditate in the Buddhist fashion. Obviously Jesus would be totally destroyed by that. You know, kind of like a vampire and a cross.

I would certainly have felt threatened and would not have welcomed this interference in our rented property. It's a public venue but it was being rented by a private organization. This is the kind of fundamentalist activity you expect from the Taliban, but that's not surprising. These individuals are the Christian Taliban.

Also unsurprisingly,  the leader of the mob who is quoted above is an ex-con.

I remind everybody once again that I am not opposed to Christianity. I am a Christian.  But I'm tired of having to say to people that I'm not one of that kind of Christian. The world does not need a single one of that kind of Christian to be found anywhere on the face of the planet.

Logically Mythological

 I made a post in response to a report that a movie was based on a lie which did not seem to bother the makers of the movie. In fact, they have insisted the movie is nevertheless telling the truth about an individual even while misrepresenting details about the facts of that individual's life. I have expanded on the response I posted on Facebook in this post. 

Original post:  I am known to be fond of pointing out that the ancient Greeks generally accepted that there were two ways of knowing things, two epistemologies. One was logos, the logic upon which we base science today. The other was mythos, an emotional or spiritual reality which may not coincide with empirical facts; it might even be absolutely contrary to them, but it contains an inner truth.

Nevertheless, I really do get irritated at movies that are "documentaries" or "based on a true story". This is because they are usually absolute arrant nonsense. The phrases are too often just excuses to tell whatever lies are convenient or comfortable for the individual making a profit off of them. 

>...Montañez never actually invented the Flamin’ Hot Cheeto. Instead, he simply rose through the corporate ranks and created other snacks instead. 

... “We never set out to tell the history of the Cheeto,” she said. “We are telling Richard Montañez’s story, and we’re telling his truth.”<

This is not mythos. This is not telling a deeper or spiritual reality or truth. This is lying. 

Addenda:  

The definition of logos from the Collins dictionary:  "reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech"

The definition of mythos from the Collins dictionary: "the complex of attitudes, beliefs, etc. most characteristic of a particular group or society"

Please note that in general that mythos is related to an entire society not a particular individual. Thus, the falsehood contained in the movie "documentary" cited above and in other movies (such as the Autobiography of Malcolm X) can be argued to fit into mythos in that they affect the way a subdivision of American society perceives themselves, but they can also be argued to not be mythos but simple falsehoods because they specifically addressed the lives of specific individuals and make statements that are demonstratively not accurate.

Obviously, I stand with the second interpretation. 

It is interesting that mythos and logos can be in contradiction to each other, but can also be identical. My two favorite examples are American attitudes toward gun laws and American beliefs regarding George Washington. 

I have pointed out repeatedly that gun laws in America today are the loosest and least restrictive that they have ever been in the entire history of the United States. I will not repeat those arguments here since anyone who has followed my posts will already be familiar with them.  This reality is in direct contradiction to the common belief in which it is generally "known" that in  historical times, virtually everyone carried guns virtually everywhere so that they could frequently have gun fights right out in the open street. This is a mythos because while it may or may not affect specific individual, it is a cultural perception of truth that has a great import in the current American self image and legal activities.  (I will add that, much to the shock of the people to whom I have explained this, the gunfight at the OK Corral was about the Earps trying to disarm  the Clanton and the McLaury brothers in accordance with gun control laws that were enforced within the city.)

In other words, mythos and logos are in absolute and mutually exclusive contradiction to each other in this case. 

What about George Washington? While there are contradictions between the two epistemologies, there are also areas in which they are identical. I'd like to look at those in some depth.

#1. Washington praying while kneeling in the snow at Valley Forge.  

This is one of the most beloved images of Washington and has been painted, and praised, and cited endlessly. There is no evidence of that event actually happening.  It was first reported by the infamous Bishop Weems who wrote a book on the life of Washington intended to inspire children and was therefore full of nonsense and ridiculous stories like the cherry tree silliness we were all taught as children.  Conveniently, Weems didn't publish his book until after Washington was safely dead and couldn't criticize his inventions. 

One of the men claiming to have been the sole witness of this event did not live in Valley Forge and yet claimed that he just happened to be there in the middle of a very hard winter when travel in the best of times was difficult, that he rushed home to tell the wonderful story to his wife (whom he did not marry until years later)… You get the picture.

What we do know about Washington's religion is unclear. He was never outspoken about his beliefs. He did refer to Providence a great deal, but he didn't specify what he meant by Providence. He was a very private man in this regard. 

He was an Anglican until after the revolution when he stayed a member of the church which changed itself into the Episcopal Church, associations with England no longer being considered desirable.  He served his church, but often skipped services and absolutely refused to take communion much to the distress of his pastor. He was also on record as believing that religion was a good thing for binding a country together, but he never specified what religion or religions.   In other words, we have no idea what he actually believed.

Conclusion:   The mythos of this is absolutely critical to the concept of America as a Christian nation. That this is completely baseless as evidenced by statements made by founding fathers and early treaties is irrelevant. It remains a mythological truth for millions of Americans  desperate to believe that America was founded just for them and their particular religious sect.  In terms of logos the story is clearly false.

#2. Washington really didn't want to be president and while he could have been president for life, refused to serve a third term.

Here we have logos and mythos in complete agreement. Washington was tired. He had desperately striven to become commander-in-chief of the American forces during the Revolution but the war went on a lot longer than anticipated. He was weary.  He was old.  He wanted to retire and have a peaceful life at home.  However, the nation was in a terrible state. As always happens with revolutions, once the  thing has been won you have to decide what to do with your success.  Having Washington serve as the first president would solve many problems and give the nation a precious period of stability. Washington was almost universally beloved and he could provide what no one else could. He did his duty and ran for president.

And when he was finished with his first two terms, he was even more tired than ever and also older than ever. He really did want to go home. 

Conclusion: here mythos and logos happen to be identical. There's no contradiction contained in that. Remember that logos is simply empirical objective fact,  while mythos is the spiritual or emotional truths that a people or a nation or a society feel necessary to their understanding of themselves. 

Now I'm tired. I'm also older than I was when I began writing this. So although there is a lot more to say on the subject, for today I'm done with it. 

Final note: it is interesting how many "sole witnesses" to the event of Washington kneeling in the snow in Valley Forge are to be found.   Maybe Washington spent entire days and even weeks kneeling in the snow which might have caused some frostbite. Or, perhaps, all the witnesses didn't notice the crowd of them standing around because they were so focused on Washington.

What Problem?

 Quite a telling discussion, giving insight into the unwillingness to face, much less deal with, the extremism our nation is suffering from today. I haven't bothered to post the link to the article because my post quotes enough of it to make the point clear.

Me:  I don't even remember where in the Bible it says blessed are the murderers or the lynch mobs, but I assure you this Pastor firmly believes that he is a Christian. 

I disagree.

> Hate pastor says trans-supportive parents should be "shot in back of the head"

"We can string them up above a bridge so that the public can see the consequences of that kind of wickedness."<

D:  These hate pastors are apparently all over the country, some working in mega-churches.  According to Wikipedia-

Capital punishment in the Bible refers to instances in the Bible where death is called for as a punishment and also instances where it is proscribed or prohibited. A case against capital punishment can be made from John 8, where Jesus speaks words that can be construed as condemning the practice.[1] There are however many more Bible verses that command and condone capital punishment, and examples of it being carried out. Sins that were punishable by death include homicide, striking one's parents, kidnapping, cursing one's parents, witchcraft and divination, bestiality, worshiping other gods, violating the Sabbath, child sacrifice, adultery, incest, and male homosexual intercourse (there is no biblical legal punishment for lesbians).

Me :   Way back, about 10 years ago or so, I was speaking with the philosophy club out at the VVC and pointed out to them that the Christian Dominionists (started by Rushdoony) were very quiet about it but were heavily influencing the evangelical movement in America. They want to bring back the death penalty including for children who are defiant or "curse" their parents. 

Once again the rise of this extremism parallels the abandonment of organized religion by younger Americans. I refer to them as the anti-evangelicals. Instead of spreading the good word they drive people away from it.

L: And you believe what’s said on media ? There are writers  just dreaming up stuff to stir people up . Remember their medicine show only makes $ when folks watch .

Me: L it's not just on the media. I watched the preacher preach this message. He recorded it at his own church. He's proud of it.

I have watched quite a number of other "Christian" preachers say very similar things. Not reports. Their own broadcasts of themselves. 

I know there's a lot in the world you don't like. I don't like a lot of it either. But at least I can  face it and acknowledge it's real.

Holy Toenails, Batman

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/covid-mask-vaccination-mandates-aren-t-christian-persecution-ncna1278067

It seems that Christians (some of them even in the form of lawsuits) are protesting the requirement to wear masks “because God created us in His image, we are masking that image.”

As the article points out, this will only make sense, ‘When these conservative Christians start mandating nudity, then they might have a claim about not covering up what God has created.’

Maybe these people would accept masks if they were in the shape of fig leaves?

In one particularly interesting case:

> Last year, a Republican legislator in Ohio refused to wear a mask, arguing in a Facebook post that the U.S. was founded on “Judeo-Christian Principles” that include “we are all created in the image and likeness of God.”<

So now we know that God has a face. We are made in the image of God, we have faces, therefore He has a face. Basic logic.

This leads in inevitable conclusion that He has some other parts that I don’t think Christians are entirely comfortable with discussing. Especially when you think of those particular bits and pieces being part of God.

Also, does that mean men or women are created the image of God? Because (surprise Christians!) they are not exactly alike.  Trying to get a picture of God where He has all the appropriate parts to make both males and females and His image gets a bit disturbing.

(Just in case you’re not getting the picture completely, I’m referring to that which Brits often refer to as the “naughty bits”.  I just have a hard time thinking that Christians would be really upset to find out that God had, let’s say, toenails.  Though I suppose nasal hairs might also be a bit troubling in their own peculiar way.)

Through A Mirror Darkly

 Bobby has been sending me some interesting links to philosophers/scientists making very interesting points. This is my response to one of those links.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWo7-azGHic

Kaufman was very interesting; a bit dense and rushed, but interesting. While I was listening to him I experienced one of those gestalt breakthroughs. As you know, I’ve been puzzling for years and asking, why is it that, in the absence of clear and compelling evidence, highly intelligent individuals insist that they have no free will but they are merely robots composed of biochemical/biomechanical phenomena which were 100% predictable to be exactly what they are today and what they will be forever (or at least as long as the universe exists) at the moment of the big bang?

Since the evidence is unclear at this point (although they keep insisting the evidence absolutely proves that point, said evidence is woefully inadequate to draw a final conclusion) what would compel an otherwise intelligent, even powerful, human being to decide that he has no free will, has no choice, and is not only a machine but a totally unintelligent machine which only manages to delude itself into its belief system, that is, the concept that there is an individual standing there thinking and saying these things.

This is understandable position for a dangerous individual who is causing great harm to society. He could argue it’s not my fault. I can’t help myself. I have no ability to control anything. I don’t even really exist.*  Again, however, this seems a very strange position for a highly respected and influential  member of society to take.  This is all the more true when you look at the passion with which they defend this position. It is not, in their minds, sufficient to believe it themselves or even to share this belief with those who agree. No! They must evangelize. They must spread the good word that none of us actually exist, that we are not real,  that we have no free will and are completely subject to the unfeeling will of reductionist mathematical physics.

As I listened to this presentation, I was suddenly struck by that what should have been obvious from the very first time I asked myself the question. They are true believers. Evidence is not valued by them because evidence threatens the possibility that their true belief just might possibly not be correct.  This is not to say that that belief is necessarily wrong, although, obviously, I think it is.  Instead,  it explains why they are so determined to degrade their own status so as to present themselves as no more conscious or capable of free will than a rock rolling in a stream or a maple seed fluttering in the breeze.

You might ask, why then would intelligent people who are so capable of an unusually large measure of control in their lives be so determined to deny that they have any? What, exactly, is that explanation?  I believe, and this is the greatest insight that occurred to me while listening to this presentation, that this is because they are in fact identical down at the most basic emotional level with the creationists and science deniers.

They do not deny science, to be sure. Yet,  although they are excellent scientists, when it comes to this philosophic issue, they transform into true believers for whom evidence, science, and logic are mere enemies of their deep rooted faith.   Remember that young earth creationists also insist that science is on their side. If you simply Google young earth creationism you will quickly find a large number of articles and YouTube presentations declaring that coal seams prove Noah’s flood or that fossils and even science in general proves Noah’s flood.   It is absurd nonsense, but it is affirmed with the same passion with which of these highly skilled and normally very logical scientists who usually develop conclusions based firmly on the data now devote themselves to contorting the data to fit their preconception.  Again, exactly the way creations do.

The greatest insight which dawned on me today was that the reason for doing this is exactly the same as that of any true believer, including the creationists. It is the need for certainty. We live in a very uncertain, chaotic world. Even that which should be predictable if you know everything is subject to chaos theory wherein even the tiniest variation will make a radical change in the ultimate outcome.  Just as so many people turn to conspiracy theories and blind religious faith in order to gain some sense of sanity and order in our so disordered and unpredictable universe, these scientists are turning to reductionist particle physics in order to create a structure for our universe which, if not desirable, is at least predictable.  As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be.

Better an unpleasant certainty than the fear of the bleak, dark, and unknown forest, or, as we have all heard so many times, better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.

This has been an issue which has puzzled me so greatly and so deeply for so very long. Why did I suddenly realize it in the middle of Kaufman's talk? I don’t know. I don’t even remember exactly what he was saying at the moment I realized it. Of course, his talk was declaring that there are things greater than mere mathematical reductionism and utterly predictable classical physics, I was thinking about the topic thanks to his insights, but at what exact point I suddenly realized this, I cannot say. Now that I have realized it,  it seems so blatantly obvious I wonder how I could have  been so dimwitted as to not see it from the very beginning. I can only turn as a defense to the brilliant Thomas Huxley who, upon reading Darwin’s theory of natural selection, is purported to have declared “Why didn’t I think of that?”

Sometimes the most insightful and, in the case of Darwin, brilliant insights are blatantly obvious…after someone finally realizes them.

*This also fits with the opening of Sapolsky’s first lecture (which I also enjoyed very much.  I intend to watch the rest of his course).   As he spoke I was struck by the memory of an interesting article I read some years back.  One of the terrifying events of the past, now unfortunately all too common, was when a sniper took over a tower at, I believe, the University of Texas, and began randomly shooting people. As I recall, he was the individual that was the subject of this later article. The point is that an individual, whoever he was, was changing from a highly respected and healthy member of society into something very strange. He eventually did commit murders and I’m fairly certain he was the sniper. After his death it was discovered that he had written a request for an autopsy after his demise. He felt something was wrong with his brain. Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly, the autopsy revealed a large tumor which was interfering with his higher brain functions.

He knew that something was wrong with him. He didn’t know the cause but he could feel his sense of self fading away. He could feel the sense of free will fading away.  As you know, my own belief is that we do have free will but it is very much constrained by our biology and the uncaring laws of reductionist mathematical physics. That is bleak. That is indeed a dark and terrifying forest. However,  there is a light within that forest, and the light is our sense of self, our sense of free will, at our struggle to maintain those against the forces of a universe that doesn’t care about us in any way, manner, or form.

Let Us Prey For Guidance

As the Catholic Church is in turmoil and dissent over the issue of politicians who do not oppose abortion rights receiving communion (read Biden), they might consider looking back in history to find some interesting suggestions as to ways to resolve the issue.

 A few of these examples from history (and various unspecified Internet sites) that we could consider adopting today are listed below. 

Example one:  >On July 16, 1054, Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius was excommunicated, starting the “Great Schism” that created the two largest denominations in Christianity—the Roman 

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths.<

So how about an American Orthodox Church? The Pope would still be unhappy, but least the bishops would get their way. Although, thinking about it, Biden would probably stay Roman Catholic and continue as a communicant in the churches which remained loyal to Rome in our second Great Schism.   Still, the bishops could declare a moral victory.

Example two:  Henry VIII is not allowed to get a divorce because the Pope doesn’t think it’s moral. Henry declares a schism that establishes him as the head of the “real” church. Yes, technically, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church.  (The Archbishop of Canterbury is subordinate to her and is merely the chief cleric.)

This could work out really well for the Christian nationalists, if they declared Donald Trump the head of the new American Church. That sounds better than Anglican doesn’t it?

Example three:  Henry declares that Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, is being disrespectful to him angily wonders why no one will stop this “lowly cleric” from insulting their king? Angry at this lese majeste; a group of knights take action.Thomas is murdered in the cathedral!

Then the king is forced to perform an extremely humiliating pilgrimage to show his penance and regret.

The difficulty with with this one is, I can’t think of who would get murdered and why. Also, I don’t like murder. Not really a good solution for today.

Example four:  >Western Schism, also called Great Schism or Great Western Schism, in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the period from 1378 to 1417, when there were two, and later three, rival popes, each with his own following, his own Sacred College of Cardinals, and his own administrative offices.<

This is an interesting solution. However, we would have to find a third Pope.  Any suggestions?  How about volunteers?

Example five: > Luther became increasingly angry about the clergy selling 'indulgences' - promised remission from punishments for sin, either for someone still living or for one who had died and wasbelieved to be in purgatory. On 31 October 1517, he published his '95 Theses', attacking papal abuses and the sale of indulgences.<

No one is selling indulgences anymore (or any of the other practices Martin Luther decried so sharply).  Still, there is a big disagreement about who should or should not be allowed to receive communion. That might be sufficient justification for creating an entirely new branch of Christianity.

Since he was protesting the practices of the established Church, his new branch was called Protestant. The new branch today could be named… I’ve run dry here, I have no idea what could be called. Politicianism?

I could go on because the history of Christian belief and practice is very complex and involved. Nevertheless, I think that five examples are sufficient unto the day.  Dare I say, five suggestions?

Explosion? What Explosion?

 An idle thought on Father’s Day.

The Cambrian Explosion that actually wasn’t.

To this day Christian extremists describe the Cambrian Explosion as the sudden appearance of advanced animal life on the planet which can only be explained by God creating it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, many paleontologists are declining to call the event the Cambrian Explosion any longer. This is because it is clearly not an explosion. It was a diversification, a radiation of already existing life.  This is exactly the sort of thing that has happened time and time again throughout evolutionary history.

Scientists are merely human, so, for about a century, they refused to recognize any fossils from the preceding Ediacaran era.  After all, they said, we know there aren’t any. So first of all, we won’t look. Second, if somebody claims he found some, we will just ignore him (or her).

Now that we finally recognize their existence and have found fossil beds containing them, we know that there was even a bilaterian before the Cambrian.  (That’s an advanced form of life, including you and me, that wasn’t supposed to exist prior to the “explosion”.)

Even Darwin recognized the problem of advanced bilaterian and complex animal life suddenly popping into existence. Because he was an honest man and a really competent scientist, part of his revolutionary work included the careful and detailed listing of all the possible objections to his theory of natural selection. The most telling, he acknowledged, was the absence of fossils prior to the Cambrian. Fossils which we have now found.

The Christian extremists refer to this as “Darwins doubt”. This is nonsense. Darwin did not doubt his theory. He just recognized that this was a valid objection to his conclusions. It is sad that he did not live to know all that has been found since his time which confirms, again and again and again, that he was correct.

From the net:

> Roger Mason (born 4 May 1941) is an English geologist. He is known as the discoverer of Ediacaran fossils, although it was later found that a then 15-year-old schoolgirl named Tina Negus had discovered the first Charnia fossil a year before he did.<

Notice that in this rare case, Tina Negas actually gets sort of a secondary, footnote kind of recognition for her discovery. In most cases, she isn’t even mentioned.  Wonder why? The school boy who found it a year after she did is honored. She’s almost entirely forgotten, even though she discovered it a year earlier, in the same forest where he discovered it. Makes me wonder if it was exactly the same fossil!  Hmmmm…

An add-on from two days later:

To make it clear that Darwin had no “doubts” let us quote him. “Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited,… the world swarmed with living creatures.”  – Darwin, 1859.

A prediction which now has been proven to be completely true.