How the high school learning experience can set false expectations for college

Previous high school experience tells students...

• there's always a second chance
• someone will remind you of upcoming due dates
• the teacher can't give the whole class failing grades
• the student will be told exactly what's on the test
• very few tests are cumulative, so short term memory is usually sufficient (if your smart and pay attention, good grades are easy)
  
• paying adequate attention in class is usually good enough; outside studying is not required
• tests are relatively easy and fair
• tests are designed so that even the lower-achieving students can potentially pass
• there are many grades during the semester, so a few screw-ups are okay
• each question on the test will have been addressed many times, both in class and in the reading
• most of the required knowledge comes from class and one or two texts, not mostly from many different texts
• long, boring lectures are the exception
• teachers will work hard to make sure students understand what is being taught
• teachers know how to teach, most of the time
• teachers care about student progress, most of the time
• someone will help students identify which classes need to be taken and when
• someone other than the student is responsible for the student's learning
  

For these reasons, students fail to understand ...

• how difficult college can be
• how little oversight there is
• the implications of this lack of oversight
• the implications of their new personal freedom and the necessity for self-control and good habits
• the real nature of the problem (it's no longer an issue of how smart you are, but of how how much you practice good habits)
  

Technique more important than ability

Technique is often more important than skill. For example, many experiments show that ability to recall items is more related to the technique of chunking (grouping things into categories) than it is to an inherent memory capacity. Chess masters' ability to recall the placement of pieces on a chess board is far superior to that of novices IF the pieces are placed in meaningful "real game" patterns. The masters' ability is no better than the novices when the pieces are placed randomly, because the masters recall patterns rather than individual pieces (Chase and Simon, 1973). In addition, children who are taught techniques for accomplishing a given task can often outperform adults who don't know the techniques. Teaching people how to learn is, by extension, more important than their basic intelligence.

Intelligent Design not a scientific theory (response)

Read the previous post and excellent comment first, or you'll be lost.

First, thanks so much for your well-reasoned and thoughtful response.

>Anonymous wrote...
1) I don't think you understand what "testing" ID would involve and why it cannot be done. The issue is that a hypothetical designer could do anything: make anything look like anything. Thus there is no way to _disconfirm_ the idea since anything at all can confirm or disconfirm it. Theories are only testible when they are limited in scope, and ID by definition has no limits and those no distinguishing characteristics.

I agree that the basic question of whether or not there was/is an intelligent designer is not falsifiable (not testable) in the strict scientific sense (cf. Karl Popper). Macro evolution--all new species arise from prior species through descent with variation--is a potentially falsifiable theory. One would only have to show one case in which a new species arose without benefit of evolutionary change; how to actually prove such a thing occurred is problematic however. On the other hand, to falsify intelligent design one would have to show at least one instance in which something was not designed, but arose without a designer, and how can one do that if the designer's involvement in such a process isn't verifiable? All that to say, "I understand your point, and I agree if we are treating theory in the strict scientific sense." But that's a big if.

When scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, et al. talk about the theory of evolution they tend to lump the initial, unfalsifiable, non-scientific axiom in with the falsifiable scientific theory. To say it another way, it's sleight-of-mouth when they speak of the "theory of evolution," yet include the non-theoretical assumption of naturalism. Granted, that's not the fault of the Wired letter writer. He/she was correct in the strict sense, but the theory of evolution (as it's treated in the political controversy and in the Wired article to which the letter writer was referring) is not a theory in the strict sense because of the appended axiom of naturalism.

We should be comparing apples to apples. The real choice is not between the theory of evolution (falsifiable theory) and intelligent design (unfalsifiable axiom), it is between intelligent design (unfalsifiable axiom) and naturalism (unfalsifiable axiom). I'm using "naturalism" in the sense that everything is the result of natural processes, without reference to any supernatural intervention. Both are unfalsifiable, and therefore, unaddressable by scientific methods (again, using Karl Popper's clarifications).

Either initial assumption--ID or naturalism--would allow us to postulate and test the theory of evolution. I've heard people say that, "science is the process of finding out how God works in the natural world." The axiom is "God designs nature." When an evolutionary biologist says something to the effect that God had nothing to do with it, it is all the result of natural processes the axiom is "only nature, not God." So one could start with the assumption that God creates/designs nature and evolution is the natural process by which new species arise. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the initial axiom. BUT, that's not how people use the term "the theory of evolution." That's not how Gould or Dawkins or the Wired article--and by extension, the respondent--use the term.

The real issue for me is, how can we decide between those two axioms?

Anonymous wrote...
2) Speciation and evolutionary modification are very much testable. I think
you are laboring under the misunderstanding that tests on historical claims
can only be done by repeating history, but this is not the case. We test the
past by testing the evidence the past leaves behind: the direct implications
various events have for leaving behind this or that piece of evidence. All
science, in fact, works like this: all we EVER have is more or less evidence
supporting some claim via induction and inference.

I understand the difference between legal-historical proof and scientific proof. I must disagree with your statement that, "all science, in fact, works like this." Scientific proofs do not work like this. Legal-historical proofs work like this. And as I said previously, the value of science itself is not open to scientific testing, anymore than claims about an intelligent designer or naturalism. Based on your next sentence, you would appear to agree (?).

Anonymous wrote...
3) Science is indeed built on untestable assumptions. But these assumptions
are rather special: they are axiomatic, the very assumptions we ALL require
to act and function within the physical world. Merely by reading and
responding to my words, you concede those assumptions, as you do every time
you move and act in the physical world. So they are givens, not the sorts of
special additional claims that people make for their pet theories.

I suppose I've responded to much of this already. I agree that we all require such axioms and we tacitly concede them every time we act. The question is, which axiom is true (if either)?

In summary, I agree with you and the Wired respondent if you are talking about the theory of evolution in the strict sense WITHOUT the inclusion of naturalism as an explanatory cause. But if we include the explanatory axiom in the term "theory of evolution" (as is done in the national debate, in Dawkin's and Gould's and others' writings, and in what most people mean when they say "theory of evolution"), then they are not talking about a scientific theory at all. They are talking about a belief system more akin to religion, that is, it is based on faith in an initial, unprovable axiom. That being the case, what separates the naturalist scientist from the intelligent design scientist?

Intelligent Design not a scientific theory

Wired Magazine (Start, Atlas, issue 15.05) recently published an article, "May the best theory survive," about the "theory that life was created by a higher intelligence," also known as Intelligent Design theory. The letters to the editor in the following issue contained this reader response; "A scientific theory must be able to make predictions that can be tested by experiment. Intelligent design cannot do this, so it is not a scientific theory."

Several problems arise from such a stance. First, the theory of intelligent design can be tested. Second, testability has never stopped scientists from deriving theories, nor should it. Finally, science is itself built on fundamentally untestable assumptions.

The theory of intelligent design can certainly be tested. We could stand on a hilltop and cry out for such a designer to show himself. Many have done just such an experiment, but, sadly, the results have been mixed. We could hypothesize that if an item--say a Galapagos finch or a book about the origin of species--were created by an intelligent designer it would carry the hallmarks of such design, such as a structure of sufficient informational complexity as to make random processes extremely unlikely explanations for it's existence. If you cannot test the finch in such a manner, you cannot test the book. Not seeing the informational complexity inherent in a finch as evidence of intelligent design requires an a priori belief that there must be some other explanation. If we assumed that authors were a myth, we would similarly have to preclude authorship as a plausible method of accounting for the contents of The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin (or is it).

The mention of Darwin, that fairy tale character for the masses, leads nicely into the second point; namely, a lack of testability has never stymied theorizing by scientists. Darwin had no way of testing a theory of new species arising by evolutionary modification (although testing natural selection was easy enough). Modern scientists, for that matter, cannot test such a theory. They can only offer compelling evidence that new species do arise from other species, but how is that different from the intelligent design crowd? If you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent designer, the evolutionary explanation seems to be the only game in town. If you don't start with such an assumption, other explanations may seem more likely. But both start with an initial assumption. Which leads us to point number three.

Science itself is built on fundamentally untestable assumptions. Science hypothesizes and tests. It asks and answers. It experiments and discards. All of this is good. But one can only say it's good by drawing on untestable belief. How does one decide the value of a question or the value of its answer? For example, "Are we really better off as a species for having discovered CFCs, Mustard Gas, and the atomic bomb?" Yes or no, the answer must depend on values, and science cannot speak to values. The very fact that we consider science to be a valuable pursuit relies on a faith-based belief beyond the ken of the scientific method.

So the letter writer, it seems, was mistaken. Although he may not like the theory of intelligent design, it is, nevertheless, still a scientific theory. It is every bit as testable as more accepted scientific theories. In contrast, many scientific theories held with religious fervor by the faithful are not testable, at least not currently. Finally, science itself requires untestable assumptions to be considered as a worthwhile explanatory framework. It seems we all have our idols.

It's not the cup

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor. Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life. Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups (porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite) telling them to help themselves to the coffee.

When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases it is just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups . . . and then you began eyeing each other's cups.

Now consider this: Life is the coffee; the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, and the type of cup we have does not define, nor change, the quality of Life we live. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us."

God brews the coffee, not the cups. . . Enjoy your Coffee! "The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything. " Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. . . Leave the rest to God.

-from an email I was sent

Breathing Photo

Look around the picture and notice how it seems to bulge and breath.

clipped from haha.nu

Gorgeous Photo from Western California

clipped from www.outdoor-photos.com

Mission Statement

Mission statements take a million different forms and identify hundreds of different values and character traits from Ben Franklins frugality and cleanliness to Gandhi's refusal to fear any man to Bombeck's pursuit of less uptightness and more stop-and-smell-the-roses, to name a few famous examples. The efficiency gurus now in vogue would have us believe that such mission statements are a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

Most missions seem to emphasize values while ignoring morals or wisdom (not that I think the people listed above were guilty of such an oversight). To make this clear, imagine the mission statement of someone you most patently do NOT admire; a hated politico, a monsterous mad man from history's vast pantheon, even a fictional fiend from Hollywood or the Brothers Grimm. Could your archetype of ignobility write a mission statement with values like industriousness, creativity, health, and self-improvement? Probably. And such a set of goals and values would have only made them more effective at doing that for which you despise them.

Let us, then, pursue morals and wisdom, you may reply. I agree, but whose morals and what wisdom? How do we correctly identify the correct morals and obtain true wisdom. The followers of every charismatic killer in history have pursued morals and wisdom of a sort the rest of the world decries.

Warning sign I saw on the back of an 18 wheeler

Caution! Show Chickens.

I really saw this. What, exactly, are we to be cautious of?
"Look out! That one has a gun!"

This guy takes some great pictures...

See more of Adam Clutterbuck's photography here.

Redneck lottery winner

Apologies to my extended family.

The (Ontological ) Naturalist's Paradox

This is an expansion on one of my earlier posts...

An ontological naturalist is someone who believes that nature is all that there is. They may (but often don't) believe in God, ghosts, gods, etc., but if they do believe in these entities then they consider them a part of nature. They aren't truly supernatural (super=above, beyond; natural=nature, the cause and effect universe). Many scientists and most atheists would qualify as ontological naturalists.

The following is a logical syllogism that illustrates why being an ontological naturalist is an illogical stance.

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE logical thinking (and, by extension, this syllogism) has no more value than any other random occurrence.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.

In Response

This is in response to the post below. Read that one first or you'll be lost.

As I understand you there are three reasons you feel that this particular book is justified as a required reading for your AP European History students.

1. They are mature enough
2. Other teachers also require it
3. The objectionable material the book covers is both true and relevant

My reason for opposing the book as required reading is that some of the content is objectionable, and while I don't advocate banning the book I also don't think anyone should be made to consider such content in order to satisfy an educational requirement. If they do not object--and you indicated that neither your students, their parents, or the school authorities seem to do so--then I believe it to be permissable.

(I will note, however, that while it must be permissable--we live in a free society, after all--I do not think it beneficial. Thoughts, ideas, and imaginings have real consequences that affect us all, and in my opinion, the too-candid descriptions in this book could be particularly harmful. Admittedly, this point rests on my personal opinion, and is, therefore, of no more or less import than anyone elses.)

To address your first point, maturity is not an issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would object equally if you required this reading of my grandmother (or yours, for that matter). I object to anyone being required to read such things.

Secondly, whether or not other teachers use the book in similar ways may help justify the action in the arena of public opinion. It does not, however, have any more significance than that. It's the same problem I've always had with ethics. Just because everyone agrees on a wrong action doesn't make it a right action. Morality is independent of opinion (that's a whole different discussion, I know.)

Finally, your last and most important point; that the material is both true and relevant. This point makes the most sense to me. I can't say whether or not it's true, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it were, and I trust your judgment and scholarship on this more than my own. Your case for its relevance to your subject is also convincing, although I think that the subject could be handled with more delicacy without sacrificing its effectiveness. The question to me is whether or not the truth and relevance of the information to the subject justifies its being required reading.

To clarify this, I must explain my exact objection more clearly. First, thoughts have real consequences. Second, a thought can't be unthought. Finally, communicating the thought successfully to another causes the thought to become an irrevocable part of him or her.

As to my first assertion, thinking a thought has physical consequences. At the very minimum it subtly rewires our brain, strengthening or weakening synaptic connections. At the other extreme, a thought can be the initial step in changes to the entire world, for our benefit or harm. Atomic bombs and solar cells both began as thoughts in someones' minds. Without the thoughts, neither would exist, nor would the consequences.

Second, a thought, once introduced into the mind, can never be fully erased. Although the thought may be forgotten, for a time it influenced other thoughts and actions, and therefore changed the thinker, for better or worse.

Finally, once I've successfully communicated a thought to you, you've thought it. If I write "pink polar bear," its too late for you to decide you didn't want to think about a pink polar bear. The thought is yours now, whether you wanted it or not. And what if the thought is not as innocuous as a pink polar bear. What if it's a truly horrible thought that will change your life forever in ways you never wanted. Genie back in the bottle, Pandora's Box, etc.

This brings me back to your final point about the truth and relevance of the passages in this book being sufficient justification for it being required reading. I think the real disagreement boils down to just how damaging we imagine the thoughts raised by the book to be. You consider the pungent descriptions of the exact nature of the Church's sexual misconduct to be so beneficial to your students' understanding of history that it outweighs the consequences of introducing the thoughts in the first place. I disagree.

So we are at an impasse. How can either of us prove that our opinion is correct?

So far, so good?

What Crosses the Line?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A World Lit Only by Fire, by William Manchester

A World Lit Only by Fire : The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance - Portrait of an Age by William Manchester

A fascinating look at the Renaissance, dealing as much with what the world was like and how people thought as anything else. Goes into great detail on the failings of the Church during the time period. Although I find much of the book fascinating, the author does seem to take great delight in describing the details of the age's sexual excesses.

Eschew Obfuscation

"Eschew Obfuscation" is one of my all time favorite bumper stickers. How's that for laying myself bare. In one stroke I've admitted that I have a favorite bumper sticker and that it's a bumper sticker for the uber-geek. At any rate, for those of you who don't suffer from morbid dorkitis--"Eschew" means to avoid and "obfuscation" refers to the act of making something intentionally confusing so that it can't be understood. (Are you laughing or is that crickets I'm hearing?)

It brings to mind the sad tale of a man who died because, when he went to the emergency room complaining of chest pains, the doctor checked him out and told him he needed to take it very easy because he'd had a mild myocardial infarction (a heart attack). The doctor wanted to run more tests and left the room to order them. The man, thinking that "infarct-whatchamacallit" was some form of gas, and not wanting to pay for more tests when he could just take some Pepto-Bismol, walked out the door. In the busyness of the ER, no one contacted him to find out why he left. The next day he collapsed and died while climbing the stairs to his office.

On the other hand, I don't suppose yelling "conflagration!" in a crowded movie house would get you in much trouble.

Willpower Shapes Our Brain

The Mind and the Brain : Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey M. Schwartz, Sharon Begley

I was reading this book today which discusses how people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder can actually change the strength of their synaptic connections, thus changing their thought patterns, by replacing their unhealthy OCD thoughts with more helpful thoughts. For example, they might replace the thought of washing their hands yet again with thinking about gardening. Studied repetition of this practice eventually weakens the unhealthy thought patterns and they may disappear altogether. The author, a cognitive psychologist, attributes his insights into this area to the Buddhist/Yogic practice of "mindfulness;" a constant, fixed attention.

Really, the author's idea isn't anything new. It's a new application for ancient practices. Science, on a regular basis, seems to learn something "new" that's been around for thousands of years, but I digress.

Religions of all sorts practice forms of "thought stopping." I recall descriptions of the practice among various cults in a book on cult mind control. Cult members might be taught to recite certain sayings or prayers, or sing chants or spiritual songs whenever they feel doubtful or sacreligious thoughts creeping in.

Nevertheless, the author really grabbed my attention when he noted that the brain actually rewires itself in response to an act of will. By their own volition his patients decide what they will attend to, and by repeatedly exercising their will in this area, they change the physical structure of their brains.

Sounds a bit strange, perhaps, but it shouldn't. People change the structure of their bodies all the time by an act of will. You watch them doing it every time you go to a gym or a restaurant. It should come as no surprise that the brain responds in a similar fashion to the rest of our bodies.

Modern psychiatry and biology assert that many human behaviors and misbehaviors can be attributed to brain chemistry. "Behind every twisted thought, there's a twisted molecule," I believe the saying goes. But then we get into a chicken and egg conundrum. Did the molecule twist the thought or did the thought twist the molecule?

If you can trace homicidal, suicidal, homosexual, etc. etc. behaviors to chemical imbalances, some would imply that these behaviors relieve the sufferer from responsibility. Some would say that, especially as adults, our behavior is no longer open to change. We are who we are and there's nothing to be done since we are behaving as we are wired. This research says different.

"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

"Your mind is colored by the thoughts it feeds upon, for the mind is dyed by ideas and imaginings." --Marcus Aurelius

Still, willpower doesn't seem that easy to come by sometimes. I certainly know in my own life that unhelpful thoughts can be very difficult to shake, but it seems that continued trying is what's needed. Just like building bigger muscles. It takes consistent, focused effort.

"Set your mind on things above, not on things below."

"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Pre-Neandertal Humans Developed Social Skills Earlier Than Thought?

This article illustrates yet another example of anthropologists making huge inferences from almost-imaginary data, specifically with regards to Pre-Neandertals.

A jaw fragment found in France and attributed to Neandertal precursors apparently shows that hominids had begun taking care of those who couldn't take care of themselves 175,000 years in the past. This single jaw fragment pushes back the date for such behavior 125,000 years! (You can take a look at the actual published scientific article here).

Erik Trinkhaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Lous, had this to say according to the reference article,

This is the oldest example of someone surviving for some period of time without an effective set of choppers. There had to have been extensive preparation of food — a combination of cutting and cooking — before this person could eat. They had good cutting tools and controlled fire, but the absence of real hearths and tools that would have done more than dice the food suggests that this individual was being given softer food items by other members of the social group.

Although commonplace among later Neandertals and recent humans, such survival of toothless humans is unknown for earlier time periods.

Let's follow the logic from the article and the paper.

1. We've found a portion of a jaw from an individual who lived around 175,000 years ago.
   
2. It shows an achingly bad dental situation, one that would have made chewing solids unpleasant to say the least.
   
3. This dental hell existed for some time before the individual died, but we don't actually know how long.
   
4. We aren't sure if fire was used for cooking at this point in prehistory and it's very likely that individuals from this time period and location ate lots of meat.
   
5. That means this individual's meal-prep routine was extensive. Slice, dice, mash, and bash. Oh for an Osterizer.
   
6. Therefore, this individual had help.
   
7. Conclusion; hominids from as far back as 175,000 years ago took care of those who couldn't fend for themselves.

Can you find all the logical flaws in this chain of reason (and I use the term loosely)? It's not difficult. Here are some that I have identified...

1. Sampling bias; this is a huge conclusion to base on VERY slim evidence.
2. If your choice is chewing with extreme pain or starving, pain is much more palatable.
3. Was there nothing available for this individual to eat that didn't require processing? They might have preferred steak (wouldn't most of us), but slugs will do if you have no choice.
   
4. Why couldn't the individual do their own food processing? Bad teeth doesn't mean helpless.
   
5. Perhaps the individual slowly starved to death over a period of a few months due to this condition. It's not like their dentition went to hell on Tuesday and they died on Thursday.

My conclusion? This jaw tells us absolutely nothingabout pre-Neandertal social behavior. I have no problem imagining that such behavior occurred, but this jaw certainly isn't evidence for it. What it does tell us is just how far some scientists are welling to stretch things in order to make a big find.

What's Wrong With the World?

I've recently been communicating with some friends (see links to their blogs at right), and we've been commiserating about the world's woes; overpopulation, war and famine, environmental destruction, the fast approaching end of our fossil fuels, etc. Even the most pollyanna among us would have a hard time burying their heads deeply enough in the sand to tune out the cries of the poor and pitiful billions. The question isn't, "does the world need fixing," but "how can the world be fixed?"

It seems unlikely that humanity has the wisdom or the will to fix what ails it. The last 4,000 years, more or less, of recorded history detail many attempts at regaining the Garden. At best, these sometimes noble efforts have resulted in a few years peace or temporary sanctuary for a select few. At worst, they've been the first phase of pogroms killing millions--tens of millions. Hardly reassuring for those of us looking for a fix. If the wisest of us has not hit upon a workable solution in the last four millenia, what hope do we have?

How should we then live?

European/Christian Genocides in the New World

I don't in any way deny that many Europeans were guilty of the worst sort of genocidal excesses, nor that those who call themselves Christians were often leading the charge and handing out the rifles. What I always objected to was how the anthropology sub-culture I was a part of failed to see their own ethnocentrism in painting millions of individuals with such broad strokes. After all, it can't be denied that millions of Christians and/or Europeans also fought against those excesses and condemned them from the pulpit and the papers. Nor can it be denied that there were many Americans-of-less-recent-Asian-descent (indigenous peoples) who engaged in similar behaviors.


My question to my professors who were atheists or naturalists was always, "How can you say that anyone was right or wrong? Whether they be Aztecs or Aryans? How can one say that killing off, by bullet or blight, anyone for whom they didn't care was bad? A strict naturalist/evolutionist can only say that one survived and the other didn't. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no moral meter stick by which to measure such things. Morality must come from outside the system or it is still a part of the system and subject to the same random processes that allowed life in the first place, at least according to the naturalist's ideology/faith.


Undoubtedly, the Church, all over the world, has made a practice of building cathedrals and shrines on top of the temples and sacred sites of those they followed. In fact, I read a really interesting letter once from a cardinal (I believe) in Mexico back to the authorities in Rome complaining that their strategy had backfired on no less a site than the Cathedral of the Virgin of Guadalupe (I'm working from memory here, so cut me some slack on the details). Apparently the hill on which the Virgin appeared had been the holy hill of an Aztec goddess, and after the cathedral was built on that site, the priests were horrified to find their new converts praying to the Virgin and calling her by the name of the goddess. In fact, the pictures you see of the Virgen de Guadalupe, standing over the stars and crescent moon and dressed in black, are direct correlates to symbols used in the worship of the Aztec goddess.

Some claim that the Incas and other indigenous American civilizations didn't force religious ideology on their conquered peoples, only political. But how do we know, and what's the difference?

I'm not being a smartass. I'm really wondering. How do we know what the Inca's forced on their conquered peoples as far as religious ideas? Is there archaeological evidence (or even historical) that might answer that question? Besides, politics were based in religion, so wouldn't a change in political ideology imply a change in religious ideology? The only reason that the practice of taking the conquered peoples' gods captive, rather than wiping those populations out with warfare, seems more civil to us is because we don't believe in those gods. To us, they are stone statues and quaint caricatures of the natural forces, but to the conquered peoples they may have been worth more to them than their own lives.