tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88972334589301050982023-11-15T07:27:57.288-08:00In Bob We TrustAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-33177768659907008942014-08-09T12:46:00.004-07:002014-08-09T12:46:57.636-07:00An Explanation of my Ratings CriteriaWhen I review books or films or products, I tend not to award very many five-star ratings, causing a few people to inquire what my criteria are for rating things. Generally, I view the written review itself as explaining the reasoning behind each individual rating. However, I have decided that the meaning of the numerical values I assign could use some explanation, so the following are the basic criteria by which I make my ratings.<br />
<br />
<1: and="" br="" flawed="" generally="" is="" not="" product="" recommended.="" seriously="" this=""><br />For example: A book which receives a rating of 0 might be so poorly written that it can't be understood. A book which receives a rating of 0.5 would be recommended only if it is the only way to acquire some technical information the reader might want.</1:><br />
<br />
1: This product is seriously flawed and is not recommended for most audiences, but has sufficient redeeming quality to make it worthwhile for a tiny minority of audiences.<br />
<br />
For example: A book which receives a rating of 1 might find itself and the proper level of poor writing that it is (barely) readable, but so bad that it's low quality itself provides entertainment value. Alternatively, a book that is generally bad but has a particularly good chapter or an interesting thesis might warrant this rating.<br />
<br />
2: This product is flawed, but may appeal to some audiences.<br />
<br />
For example: Non-fiction books which are a pleasure to read but contain significant errors will likely receive a rating of 2. Novels might receive a rating of 2 if they have little literary merit but might still be enjoyable to certain readers. Note: a rating of 2 means a work is somewhat below average to average (bearing in mind the old chestnut that most of everything is crap). They're below average for my personal collection, but about average for the entire marketplace.<br />
<br />
3: This product is good, and is recommended.<br />
<br />
The products that receive a rating of 3 can be trusted to be mostly accurate, well constructed, and worth purchasing. There may be some flaws, but they do not detract from the overall experience of the product. Note that a rating of 3 does not indicate a work of "average" quality. While I tend to primarily rate better works (making my average ratings higher), I would consider a 3 to be a product well above average.<br />
<br />
4: This product is very good and is strongly recommended.<br />
<br />
These are considered to be among the best of the best products. Flaws are minimal.<br />
<br />
5: This product is near-perfect. Purchase it immediately.<br />
<br />
I reserve a rating of 5 for a very small number of products. It is generally safe to consider a rating of 4 to be highest marks because a 5 is reserved for those products one might call transcendent.<br />
<br />
Intermediate scores (eg., 3.5, 4.5) should be considered to fall within the broad category of the number preceding the decimal. For instance, a 4.5 is meant to be a product that is a bit better than a 4, but it is still considered to be in the "family" of 4-rated products. It is closer in meaning to a rating of 4 than it is to a rating of 5.<br />
<br />
Occasionally, a work might receive two different ratings. While I try to avoid this, it is necessary from time to time because a work has two distinct audiences who will find it to be of different value. When this happens, the ratings follow the same criteria as above, and the distinction of which rating is which will be made clear within the review.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-31518749400067775502014-08-04T04:29:00.001-07:002014-08-04T04:29:08.162-07:00A Review of Attack of the Theocrats by Sean Faircloth<div class="MsoNormal">
Sean Faircloth has been a fairly successful politician. He served five terms in the Maine
legislature with appointments to the judiciary and appropriations committees,
and served one term as Majority Whip.
He helped to spearhead the creation of a children’s museum, the Maine
Discovery Museum. He served as the
executive director of the Secular Coalition for America and is the director of
strategy and policy for the U.S. branch of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for
Reason and Science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A couple years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting
Faircloth at a private reception for leaders and noted supporters of the
secular community in Colorado preceding a public appearance at which he opened
for Richard Dawkins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Meeting both
of these gentlemen was a highlight of that year, and it was at that meeting
that I acquired a copy of Attack of the Theocrats: How the Religious Right
Harms Us All-And What We Can Do About It, Faircloth’s small book on the
intersection of religion and public policy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though I intended to read it immediately, I’m ashamed to
admit that other commitments served as a distraction, and my copy of this
marvelous book went unread on my bookcase until today, when I read it in a
single sitting.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you have not had the pleasure of hearing Sean Faircloth
speak, I suggest you should spend some time on YouTube listening to his
oratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I might humbly recommend
beginning with his short speech at the Reason Rally in 2012 which can be found
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn7t76mcPtg" target="_blank">here</a>,
though I suspect that if you do so, you might lose considerable hours clicking
through to his other speeches linked on that page.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In many ways, oratory is a lost talent, particularly amongst
the secular.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his 2011 TED Talk,
<a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0" target="_blank">Atheism 2.0</a>, Alain de
Botton spends a small portion of his time making the case for oratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I will not profess complete
agreement with his talk, I think he’s right about this point, at least to some
extent, and I think that’s a skill Sean Faircloth possesses that has been lacking
in much of the secular community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yes, Richard Dawkins is a brilliant speaker, as were Christopher
Hitchens and a handful of others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But it is a rare person indeed who, like Sean Faircloth, can make me
applaud while sitting on my couch at home watching a YouTube video.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is probably fortunate that Faircloth’s book does not
match on every page his skill at oratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Particularly because he tackles some very disturbing issues, I think the
experience of reading that book would be physically exhausting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, when his written words do
carry the same impact as his oratory, those are the passages that will command
one to stop reading and reflect upon the importance of the book’s subject.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, consider this passage
from the book’s third chapter on the harms caused by religious bias in law:<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" />
<!--[endif]--></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“So, where are the self-proclaimed ‘right-to-life’ groups
when it comes to Amiyah White dying alone in that van? Life is sacred, they
say. Where were they for fifteen-year-old Jessica Crank?<br />
<br />
“More importantly, where were we? Why aren’t all of us who care about basic
human rights organizing and calling Congress right now? Federal law should have
one standard for protecting children from abuse and neglect--not one standard
that applies to most of us but that allowed a chosen few to intentionally
ignore the desperate medical needs of their children, all in the name of
religion.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know about you, but to me, that passage packs a
punch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems to me, as
Faircloth brilliantly makes the case in his book, that lives are literally at
stake in the battle for the preservation of a secular republic in the United
States. While no one is suggesting that all people must devote their entire
lives to the elimination of faith-based exemptions in child-care laws, with
stakes such as these, it causes one to take account of whether or not one has
done enough in his or her life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think we all remember the scene in the classic film Schindler’s List in which a
sobbing Oskar Schindler remarks that despite having saved as many as eleven
hundred people, he could have done more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’m not saying that religious bias in law is as bad as the Holocaust (at
least not in the United States--not yet), and I’m not saying that all of us
should aspire to rise to the standard of Oskar Schindler.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But one cannot escape the feeling, when
reading Faircloth’s brief account of the torture and deaths caused by religious
exemptions to the law (yes, even in the United States), that one could have
done more.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That, in essence, is the book’s thesis: a theocratic
minority have seized disproportionate power in the United States, their
influence harms all of us, and we have not yet done enough about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Secular Americans,” writes Faircloth
in the Preface, “remain a sleeping giant, a huge demographic that has thus far
failed to flex its own muscle, much less galvanize the general population. We ignore
people suffering under religious privilege while shaking our fist at a
slapped-together manger with a plastic baby Jesus in the town square at
Christmas time. While symbols are meaningful and these particular symbols on
public grounds do violate Madison’s Constitution, Secular Americans must do
better to reach all Americans. We must explain the human story--the human harm
and the outright abuse of our tax dollars that result from religious
privileging in law.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The book’s format is straight forward and simple.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Richard Dawkins’ Introduction,
Faircloth’s Preface, and the first chapter outline the thesis (essentially as I
have stated it above, though obviously with significantly more detail).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The second chapter provides a brief history of the founding
of the United States, particularly dismissing the ludicrous notion proffered by
even high-ranking members of the United States Congress that the country was
founded on particular Christian ideals (when in reality the United States was
founded by a collection of Enlightenment thinkers including atheists,
agnostics, deists, and yes, even Christians, who were devoted above all else to
principles of secular government).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The third chapter, and hardest to read, provides an overview
of the specific religious exemptions, exceptions, and biases in the law and the
harm they do both to American society as a whole and to unfortunate individuals
such as “a [child whose] untreated tumor results in the amputation of a limb,
because the parent believes that the child was being punished for sin that could
only be cured through prayer.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fourth and fifth chapters mark a difference between
religious morality and secular morality and a difference between religious
hucksterism and secular innovation, respectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though important discussions in their own right, and in many
cases with consequences even more far-reaching than the matters discussed in
the previous chapters, these provide a welcome breath of fresh air after having
read the third chapter’s laundry-list of abuses ranging from unjust tax laws to
the murder of small children.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The sixth chapter is arguably the most enjoyable to
read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In those pages, Faircloth
names names.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Specifically, he
names the fifty legislators who he feels have most heinously bastardized the First
Amendment and most egregiously supported an anti-secular agenda while in
office.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course it includes
names such as Michele Bachmann, but many readers might be surprised at other
inclusions, such as both Ron Paul and Rand Paul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though both of these politicians express libertarian ideals
in some of their speech and writing, Faircloth points out specific examples in
which both of them have expressed decidedly anti-libertarian ideas when it
comes to religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While true
libertarianism includes secularism as one of its most basic tenets, both of the
Pauls have made statements such as “The U.S. Constitution established a
Republic rooted in Biblical law” (Rand) and “The notion of a separation between
church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the
writings of our Founding Fathers” (Ron).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, both have supported decidedly religious and anti-libertarian
proposals, despite their fame and respect from some of the more vocal
libertarian corners of the United States (and particularly certain parts of the
Internet).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However enjoyable this chapter is, it remains the book’s
weakest chapter for the simple reason that it will be outdated much faster than
the rest of the book will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I
would love to envision an America in which as soon as the American people
regain their sense and kick these fifty out of office in shame, all of the
theocratic leanings in the corridors of power will have been expunged, this is
not likely to be the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Individuals will come and go, but though these individual battles may be
won or lost, the war at large will be fought over a longer time and on a
grander stage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faircloth’s book is
right to publicly name the worst offenders, but readers in five or ten years
might find that some of the problems Faircloth discusses remain, but the
individuals may have changed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
gives the sixth chapter a decidedly shorter span of relevance than the rest of
the book.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The seventh chapter is directly related to the sixth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the sixth is a listing of the
worst (though by no means only) offenders, the seventh is a listing of the
openly nonreligious members of Congress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It contains only one name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Though Faircloth later alludes to twenty-five members of American high
political office who have privately and confidentially expressed their nonreligious
status, they have not done so publicly, rendering this the shortest chapter of
the book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, while there
is only one member of Congress who is openly nonreligious, there are others
who, while still professing religious belief, recognize that inclusive
secularism is a superior form of government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These people are to be commended, though Faircloth rightly
points out that one nonreligious Congressman and a handful of religious
secularists in high political office are not enough.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The eighth, ninth, and tenth chapters are a charge for all
secular-minded people, regardless of individual religious belief or lack
thereof, to spend a little more time and energy working toward repairing the
secular republic of the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These are amongst my favorite chapters because it is here that Faircloth
becomes unabashedly optimistic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While much of the book presents a depressing view of the state of
affairs in the United States, these chapters offer a hopeful outlook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are no touchy-feeling
affirmations to be found here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No,
I suspect Faircloth’s decades of experience in law and politics have given him
a much more pragmatic view of the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It will take a lot of hard work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But then, the most worthy things always do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However much work it might take, Faircloth’s optimism for a
secular future is infectious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These chapters will make you want to set the book down, get up out of your
seat, and go DO something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
fact, it is a testament to Faircloth’s skill as an author that such
interruptions are likely to be few.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You will want to keep reading, and THEN you will want to get up and do
something.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My favorite part of the book, however, is not any of the
substantive chapters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the
brief afterword.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this more personal
part of the book, Faircloth discusses an end-of-year tradition he has of
remarking upon the lives of famous or noteworthy people who have died in the
previous year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It may sound a
macabre sort of tradition, but it is anything but, for it provides the
background for a discussion of very important ideas of life, death, and
legacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To the religious, it is
easy to let this life pass by because there is a belief in an afterlife.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However to the nonreligious, this life
is all we have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faircloth’s words eloquently
express my own ideas about the meaning of life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our lives have great meaning, and it is meaning we can
decide for ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The meaning
of our lives is to do enough good work to be remembered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faircloth notes the far-reaching and
long lasting impacts of scientists who developed life-saving technologies and
judges whose opinions have shaped life for millions of people after their
deaths.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we have only one life
in which to get things done, and only one lifetime for which to be remembered,
we better make it count.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think
this book provides a strong argument for one of the many worthy causes toward
which we should dedicate some of our sadly so-limited time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The book is not without faults, some of which are necessary
to a book of this type.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In any
book about current events, there is bound to be some percentage of the
information which is outdated by the time it reaches the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Attack of the Theocrats is no
exception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For one simple example,
the book mentions the Defense of Marriage Act, of which a significant portion
was eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the time since the book’s publication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, already several members of
the “Fundamentalist Fifty” have left their offices (though it is worth noting
that many remain in office).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While not a fault, it is also worth pointing out that this
is not a work of serious legal scholarship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a work of persuasion whose goal is to light a fire
beneath the reader and spark a new secular rival in the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would personally have liked some
greater detail in the book’s several examples of harm done by religious bias in
the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it can be argued
(probably correctly) that providing the level of scholarly detail that a reader
such as myself might want would defeat the purpose of this book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would make it lengthy, arcane, and
would probably limit its appeal to a status of “preaching to the converted.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As it stands, the book remains slightly
weak on scholarly argumentation but immensely strong on persuasion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is probably true that this is
exactly what is required right now.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is an important book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is brief and easily readable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout its 150-or-so pages of text, Faircloth alternates
between a light conversational tone and the sort of passionate tone you may
have experienced if you watched the video to which I provided a link above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While it’s certain that such a small
book will not make you an expert on First Amendment law, it is probable that it
will introduce some readers to the breadth of the problem, and encourage many
others to take more action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
myself?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not yet sure exactly
what I’m going to do, but I can guarantee that I’ve been convinced that I ought
to do more than I have.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4.5/5.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Attack of the Theocrats may be purchased from Amazon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Theocrats-Religious-Right-All/dp/0984493255/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-1&qid=1407150965" target="_blank">here</a>,
or from your favorite bookshop.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-45831850353024265982014-08-03T20:51:00.003-07:002014-08-03T20:51:34.362-07:00A Review of Math on Trial by Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez<div class="MsoNormal">
In my previous essay, I pontificated on the importance of
mathematics and suggested several possible underlying deficiencies in
mathematics education that has led to a general public (particularly in
America, though it remains true throughout the world) which is woefully
unprepared to engage with the mathematical challenges we all face in our day to
day lives.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Today, I return to this topic in the form of a review of
Math on Trial: How Numbers get Used and Abused in the Courtroom by Leila
Schneps and Coralie Colmez, a mother-daughter team of mathematicians and
members of the Bayes and the Law Research Consortium, an international
organization of mathematicians dedicated to the construction of a set of
criteria for the proper use of probabilities in courts of law in order to avoid
miscarriages of justice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their
book is certainly related to that quest, as it is essentially a catalogue of
miscarriages of justice committed in the name of mathematics by people who
failed to understand the nuance of the mathematics they were erroneously using.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Each of the book’s ten chapters presents a different case
study intended to help the reader explore some mathematical error which has
affected legal proceedings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
cases range from the historic to the current and cover both criminal trials and
civil affairs.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Students of mathematics who read this book will find little
mathematical knowledge they do not already possess.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, many of the mathematical lessons are so simple
(mathematicians might say elementary or obvious) as noting that it is improper
to multiply non-independent probabilities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, that exact error comes up in the book’s first
chapter, in which Sally Clark was accused (and later convicted) of murdering
her two children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her defense was
simple: the children, tragically, were victims of cot death, not of
murder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was no medical
evidence to the contrary, but a pediatrician, Roy Meadow, calculated that the
odds of a single family experiencing two cot deaths was 1 in 73 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus it was argued that Sally Clark’s
probability of innocence was 1 in 73 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, as the book points out, this is a gross misuse of
statistics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He obtained the figure
by squaring the odds (about 1 in 8500) of cot death under similar
circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It seems
reasonable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We know that to
determine the odds of two separate events, we multiply the probabilities
together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The odds of one cot
death are 1 in 8500, so the odds of two are (1/8500)^2, or just under 1 in 73
million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This elementary error,
however, assumes the probabilities are independent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, a family who suffers one cot death is in fact
more likely to suffer another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This could be due to environmental or genetic influences, but certainly
does not point to murder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Similarly, even if the calculation of the probability were correct, its
interpretation was incorrect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
value of 1 in 73 million was not the probability of innocence, but a
calculation of the number of people for whom those conditions would be true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They got the math wrong, and Sally
Clark spent several years in prison, wrongfully accused of the worst crime,
before the mistake was corrected.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However obvious the mathematical lessons might be to
students of mathematics, the lessons on law will likely be eye-opening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I suspect there are many mathematicians
who remain unaware of how large a problem institutional misunderstanding of
mathematics has become in the judicial system, and Schneps and Colmez provide a
succinct primer.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Similarly, students of law (or those generally interested in
criminal trials) may be very well aware of the cases mentioned in the
book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I suspect even most members
of the general public are at least peripherally aware of cases such as the Amanda
Knox murder trial or the Alfred Dreyfus affair of the 1890s (if you’ve
forgotten the name of the latter, your memory might be jogged by recalling the
famous open letter published in a French newspaper in 1898 by Emile Zola
entitled “J’Accuse…!”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However,
these people who maintain a knowledge of the law might not be expected to have
great depth of understanding in mathematics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For both groups of people, as well as for those who would
seek to expand their knowledge of both fields of inquiry simultaneously, this
book is highly recommended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
its depth of analysis in both mathematics and law is minimal (no reader will
ever become an expert on the basis of this short book’s treatments), it
provides an important introductory text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It would behoove members of the legal profession in particular to heed
its warnings about misuse of mathematics in the courtroom, because lives really
do hang in the balance.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the book’s concluding chapter, the authors mention the
argument by Lawrence Tribe (in his article, “Trial by Mathematics: Precision
and Ritual in the Legal Process”) that mathematical argumentation actually does
not belong in trials at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However sympathetic they seem to his argument (which essentially hinges
on the notion that juries are ill-equipped to handle mathematical arguments and
should instead be expected to employ a more heuristic approach to determining
guilt), they correctly point out that the advent of DNA forensics has rendered
this argument moot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Probabilistic
arguments will and must now appear before juries if DNA is to remain in use as
a forensic tool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since dispensing
with DNA seems neither likely nor a good idea, we will continue to use
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, it is
argued, a greater mathematical literacy amongst both legal professionals and
the general public (from which juries are selected) is necessary, as is the
development (as is the Bayes and the Law Research Consortium’s goal) of a set
of criteria for the allowable use of probabilistic arguments in trials.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I, for one, find the latter to be a worthy goal indeed, but
do not at all feel sympathetic to Tribe’s argument in the first place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I remain of a mind that mathematics in
the courtroom is not only necessitated by the advent of more advanced forensic
techniques, but should be generally encouraged as providing one more set of
tools for the determination of truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Tribe certainly is correct in his argument that this presents unique
challenges, but I believe these are challenges we must face head-on with
greater access to high-quality education in mathematics and the statistical
sciences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would not serve
justice to ignore an entire branch of evidence simply because it is thought too
confusing for jurors.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course it is true that many jurors will lack the
mathematical background to properly evaluate some of these arguments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the same can be said of any
particular branch of expert testimony.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Jurors are expected to become educated--in a relatively short time--on
matters of fingerprint identification, handwriting analysis, genetics, psychology,
and any number of complex disciplines whose experts may be qualified to speak
with authority on the evidence in any particular trial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Greater education amongst the public in
any number of fields is to be desired, but the more important and more
immediate solution is immensely greater education within the legal profession
so that prosecutors and defense attorneys can confidently analyze each others’
arguments and know which experts to call when the edges of their own mathematical
abilities are probed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It becomes
the duty of these attorneys and their expert witnesses to educate the jury.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Still, despite some minor disagreements, the book holds
great value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Students of
mathematics should read it to better understand their field’s application, and
students of law should be required to read it to better understand how their
colleagues have made devastating (if often subtle) mathematical errors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And of course, members of the general
public should read it simply to remain informed about world events and the
precarious nature of human liberty when courts of law fail to understand their
own evidence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Some readers will find certain errors, inconsistencies, or
disagreements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The errors are
unfortunate but fail to impact the overall message of the book and so might be
forgiven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Readers may also
disagree with the authors’ interpretation of some events, especially since
legal analysis is minimal throughout the book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is to be expected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I do not necessarily disagree with the authors on any
particular point, even if I disagreed with their interpretation of all ten case
studies, the important points of mathematical error within those cases would
remain unchanged, and so the book’s value would remain unaltered.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4/5.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The book is available for purchase through Amazon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Math-Trial-Numbers-Abused-Courtroom/dp/0465032923/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top" target="_blank">here</a>,
or at your favorite bookstore.</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-66419439816133851892014-07-14T22:13:00.002-07:002014-10-11T12:47:30.459-07:00On the Importance of Mathematics<div class="MsoNormal">
I came to mathematics relatively late in life, as such
things go. Generally, when someone
is passionate about something, they get “bit by the bug” early. In that, I’m rather unconventional in
that many of my passions came to me much later than they did to my
colleagues. I’m a magician who,
though I did have a magic kit as a child, never became serious about the art
until I began to realize its deep connections with psychology. While I was always interested in
science, I didn’t actually choose to go to university to pursue it until much
later than most people make those decisions (indeed, I didn’t even go to
university at all right out of high school, instead choosing to take several
years off to pursue other things).
And when it comes to mathematics, most people likewise get bit by the
bug early. They learn a little
trick for computing some arithmetic operation more quickly, and they develop a
lifelong passion. Not so for me. I left high school barely knowing any
algebra at all. But now I’m
pursuing a degree in mathematics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why do I point this out?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s to set the stage for a discussion that, while nothing
new, is perhaps more relevant than ever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s because what we’re talking about today is math education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I’m talking about today is not
about how to improve math education, though I will touch on some of those
issues toward the end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s simply
a defense of math education as something worth the effort to improve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m afraid this is the discussion we
need to have first, because it has become common for people not only to
unfairly dislike mathematics, but to actually believe they have no use for it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Every mathematics teacher in the world is familiar with the
dreaded question: “When am I ever going to use this?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is annoying enough, I’m sure, because it means the
students are questioning the very validity of the subject the teacher is
spending her time and energy trying to bring to their attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But while it may be annoying coming
from inexperienced students, it’s hard to blame those students because it is
indicative of a much larger societal devaluation of mathematics, particularly
in the United States (though I’m sure such attitudes are common to varying
degrees throughout much of the world).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Evidence of this trend against mathematics can be found in
that great new repository of society’s attitudes: the Facebook meme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve seen all of these come across my
newsfeed at one time or another, and have found independent sources of the
images so I can share them here.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://sahzu.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/the-jig-is-up/" target="_blank">Here</a> is an entire blog post devoted to the idea that as an adult, its author has
never used long division, fractions, or algebra.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The page is broken up with embedded images, many of which
I’ve seen before, like this one:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://sahzu.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/7e87aa895a1d4eef4c57f4f1b069317e1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://sahzu.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/7e87aa895a1d4eef4c57f4f1b069317e1.jpg" height="242" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Similar sentiments are commonplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider <a href="http://www.rohitbhargava.com/2013/12/15-ways-to-make-social-media-more-effective.html" target="_blank">this</a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>one from an
author who claims that “As a marketer and communicator, I’ve never had much use
for sophisticated math,” but that he found value in taking algebra only in that
it taught him the “life lesson” of “being forced to do something uninteresting
simply because someone in authority told me I had to do it.” (Nevermind the
fact that algebra hardly qualifies as “sophisticated math,” as evidenced by the
fact that universities consider everything up to and including Calculus to be
lower-level mathematics courses.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are other examples: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/c0/64/1fc0640936abba2c9c90c24b8b59e61f.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/c0/64/1fc0640936abba2c9c90c24b8b59e61f.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p> </o:p>(<a href="http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/1f/c0/64/1fc0640936abba2c9c90c24b8b59e61f.jpg" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/internet-memes-only-math-teachers-use-this.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/internet-memes-only-math-teachers-use-this.jpg" height="247" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
(<a href="http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/internet-memes-only-math-teachers-use-this.jpg" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://global3.memecdn.com/algebra_o_210377.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://global3.memecdn.com/algebra_o_210377.jpg" height="254" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
(<a href="http://global3.memecdn.com/algebra_o_210377.jpg" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/ecards-auto-227063.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/ecards-auto-227063.png" height="188" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p> </o:p>(<a href="http://img0.joyreactor.com/pics/post/ecards-auto-227063.png" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/1240616_658877967479856_1570664242_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/1240616_658877967479856_1570664242_n.jpg" width="276" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
(<a href="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/q71/1240616_658877967479856_1570664242_n.jpg" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I_e3f1ed_2599188.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I_e3f1ed_2599188.png" height="240" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
(<a href="http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I_e3f1ed_2599188.png" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRjtfIdMqRgdAsIdZl3fnwJkzBJD775uYaYAs6zS2lKS6o5oLn" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRjtfIdMqRgdAsIdZl3fnwJkzBJD775uYaYAs6zS2lKS6o5oLn" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<o:p> </o:p>(<a href="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRjtfIdMqRgdAsIdZl3fnwJkzBJD775uYaYAs6zS2lKS6o5oLn" target="_blank">Source</a>)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me make something absolutely clear at this point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s probably true that everyone is
good at something, and everyone is bad at something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not about some people being better at mathematics
than other people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it’s
not at all necessary that everyone should be a mathematician.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s curious, isn’t it, that
mathematics is (as far as I’m aware) the only field that is so commonly hated
that people actually take pride in their ignorance of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one would take such pride in illiteracy
as they do in innumeracy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are many things of which I am ignorant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, I speak only one
language.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though I hope soon to
rectify this situation, it is the truth at the moment, but you don’t see me
going around pridefully remarking that I have never needed to know Spanish or
French.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also don’t know how to
knit, but I don’t spend any time trying to convince people that being a
non-knitter is such a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only mathematics is widely regarded as such a hated subject in school
and such a difficult field of study that people actually make snide remarks
about their inability to perform mathematical operations, while trying to
convince people that their ignorance is justified, because the entire field is
useless (unless you happen to be a scientist or engineer--this being the
limited concession offered by most of the anti-mathematical crowd).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that I’ve set the stage by showing you the attitude
mathematics educators are up against, I want to spend some time talking about
why these people are wrong, and perhaps to help you to understand why
mathematics is not only useful (yes, even to you), but fun, rewarding, and
profitable.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let’s begin by looking at why it’s patently false that all
of these people don’t use mathematics in their day to day lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should first clarify that I am, in
fact, talking about mathematics as distinguished from arithmetic (a small
subset of mathematics).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the duration
of this paper, arithmetic refers to basic operations: addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, exponents, roots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While it is absolutely important as part of a complete
education that someone should learn how these arithmetic operations work and
how to do them by hand (yes, that does include long division), this is, I would
argue, the least important application of any sort of mathematics in daily
life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s also the only
application most people think of, which is why we hear arguments like “I don’t
need to learn math because I can balance my checkbook with a calculator.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that’s very true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because calculators are now ubiquitous,
it’s significantly less important to be adept at arithmetic than it once
was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Arithmetic education’s
importance these days has more to do with understanding how the operations work
and knowing when to apply them than being able to recite multiplication tables
from memory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics, however,
which we can broadly (and not quite accurately, but it’s good enough for our
purposes here) describe as anything you learn in a math course beginning with
algebra, is another matter entirely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is the sort of mathematics that people think they do not use in day
to day life, and yet it is precisely the sort of thinking we all must do every
day.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To be sure, most people probably never see a problem like
this: 3x^2+2x-3=0 (the solutions, by the way, are x=-1 and x=2/3).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s very true, and that’s what
people are thinking of when they say they never use algebra.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that isn’t all algebra is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is algebra, yes, but it’s the very
formalized algebra you learn in school.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s important to learn how to do algebra formally because when you’ve
developed that knowledge and ability, you’re able to incorporate algebraic
concepts into your life.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s a very brief (and certainly partial) list of some
day-to-day applications in which one must use mathematics:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Cooking</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mortgages</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Accountancy</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Tax returns</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Calculating gratuities</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Managing your car (fuel economy, distance traveled, etc.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Making purchases</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Depending on one’s profession, there are plenty of others,
ranging from the very basic to the very advanced.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another application recently came up when a family member
was shopping for a television.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They knew the diagonal measurement and aspect ratio of the television
but not its vertical and horizontal dimensions and needed to determine whether
it would fit where they wanted to put it before making a purchase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a matter of simple geometry or
trigonometry (trig makes it easier if you happen to know trig, but the
Pythagorean Theorem and a bit of algebra will do the job, too) to figure that
problem out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I managed to provide
the correct answer in a couple of minutes, ensuring that the purchase would
work out for this person.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mathematics is everywhere, and everyone can use it in direct
applications.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But that’s not why it’s important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s just a quick couple of examples to prove the lie that
people don’t regularly use algebra in day to day life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The real importance of mathematics is
that it’s a formalized way of analyzing information about the world around
us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As in my example with the
television, we can use numbers to solve problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics is abstract, but its value is that we use that
abstraction to tell us something about the concrete.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Algebra is an Arabic word which, roughly translated, means
“to reassemble from broken parts.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Algebra is about manipulating variables to learn something about some
unknown.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not necessarily
about “solving for x,” though that’s an easy symbolic way to solve
problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider a simple
example.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Story problem: Jim and Jon have five apples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jon has three.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How many does Jim have?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Algebra: 3+x=5</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In either case, we use some basic algebra, move a couple of
numbers around, and we can determine that x=2, so Jim has two apples.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’ve ever done a problem like that (and yes you
have--we all do problems like that every day), you’ve done algebra.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You may not have written it
symbolically, and that’s fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You’ve still done the math.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Of course, the value of doing things symbolically is that problems
become very complex, even in “real world” examples, so it’s useful to
understand a shorthand so that you can write everything out and make sure you
solve it correctly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our ancestors
did not have such systems, and their problem-solving abilities were limited by
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do have such systems, so
it’s pointless to ignore the tools we have.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Solving the problem symbolically is certainly no more
difficult than doing it using a more “intuitive” method, as anyone would do in
one’s head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s exactly the same
operation!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The symbolic method
just gives us a tool to solve more complicated problems than those we can do
mentally.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mathematics is also not just a set of operations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are plenty of people who will
seldom (if ever) need to solve a quadratic equation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does that mean it has no utility for those people? Certainly
not!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics is a method of
formalized problem solving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Learning mathematics, even if you never use it (which you do, though I
will actually argue here that the direct applications are less important than
the mental training), trains your mind to be able to tackle more and more
difficult problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even problems
that have nothing to do with mathematics directly can benefit from mathematical
thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, when I
play chess, I tend not to mathematically analyze each move in the game (though
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that I do calculate some types of
positions by “brute force” mathematical operations).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m not counting pawns and performing complex operations in
order to determine the best move.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But I am problem-solving, and those analytical skills are not something
we’re born with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are
developed over a lifetime of education, and mathematics is the discipline which
most directly builds our analytical abilities.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suggesting that mathematics is an unimportant part of a
standard education is clearly wrong, and for similar reasons to the suggestion
that art is an unimportant part of a standard education. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would argue that mathematics is of
higher value in the limited sense that it is of greater utility in every (and
yes, I do mean EVERY) profession, but let’s not worry about ranking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s just consider that the very
people who seem to take pride in their failure to understand mathematics are
often the first in line to defend the teaching of art and music in the public
schools.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are right to do so,
but if they object to mathematics because of a misguided view that they never
use it, I think it’s a fair question to ask them when was the last time they
used their knowledge of Leonardo da Vinci in their day to day life?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would guess that they probably have
never used that knowledge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
yet, no one would dare to suggest that a study of Leonardo is anything less
than essential for a complete education.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For the more economically-minded readers, it’s also worth
pointing out that mathematics is a great opportunity for profit. The most
obvious way is simply that those with a degree in mathematics are among the
most employed (and highest paid) of college graduates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A teacher once told me that a greater
proportion of math majors are admitted to medical school, for instance, than
pre-med majors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same professor
also told me of an acquaintance he once knew who specialized in consulting for
government and industry on the mathematical optimization of their systems, a
service for which he was easily able to command fees in excess of $10,000 per
hour.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While these types of
financial incentives may apply more to those who actually spend their lives
studying mathematics (you don’t get $10,000 per hour just by knowing how to do
basic calculus), there is also a more general argument that any skill one
possesses adds a certain value to one’s marketability to employers, and I would
suggest that mathematics, with its universal applicability in any field or
profession, is arguably one of the greatest (if not the greatest) adder of
value to one’s resume.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The more
math you know, in other words, the better your job prospects will be.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Just as much as our culture is defined by our art, our
cinema, our literature, it is also defined by mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This has always been true, but it is
perhaps truer today than ever before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405387630&sr=8-1&keywords=demon-haunted+world" target="_blank">The Demon-Haunted World</a>,
Carl Sagan famously wrote, “We’ve arranged a global civilization in which the
most crucial elements--transportation, communications, and all other
industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment;
and even the key democratic institution of voting, profoundly depend on science
and technology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have also
arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This
is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but
sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to
blow up in our faces.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He might as
well have been writing about mathematics as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In many ways, he was, because I have long contended that a
significant (perhaps not the most significant, but surely a significant) reason
for this cultural ignorance of science and technology is the widespread
understanding that science and technology are dependent upon mathematics, and
people are afraid of mathematics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let us imagine, then, that you have no desire to extract
yourself from the well of ignorance, that you don’t mind falling behind as
mathematically literate people change the world, that you still don’t believe
you use mathematics in your daily life (though you bloody-well DO), and that
you’re perfectly happy to divorce your consciousness from an important part of
your culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why should the
person I have just described still care about mathematics?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us move away from the daily toil
and look at some of the other applications of mathematics which arise, not
every day, but still in every lifetime.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We can begin this discussion by thinking about the legal
profession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematical literacy
amongst lawyers (and hence, judges) is famously low.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of my colleagues share my hypothesis that a large part
of the reason the market is beyond saturated with more lawyers than we as a
society know what to do with is that there is a perception that a law degree is
the most prestigious and highest-yielding graduate program one can undertake
which does not require significant amounts of mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People, desiring a post-graduate
education but still afraid of mathematics or insecure because of their
ignorance thereof, flock to the law schools in an attempt to do the best they
can do without ever having to crack open a calculus book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yet, this is precisely the opposite
of the way things should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
legal profession is failing to properly utilize one of its greatest tools, with
the result that trials are presented before juries in which statistical
analyses play a determining factor, and none of the players involved (the
judge, the jury, or the lawyers on either side) realize that the mathematics
has been perverted, misunderstood, and gotten wrong.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have been reading a remarkable book lately entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Math-Trial-Numbers-Abused-Courtroom/dp/0465032923/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405387655&sr=8-1&keywords=math+on+trial" target="_blank">Math on Trial</a>,
which is a compendium of cases in which the lawyers presenting criminal trials
have gotten their statistics wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It includes such novice mistakes as multiplying non-independent
probabilities to create the illusion of guilt where happenstance may be a more
likely explanation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course we
need mathematics in the courtroom, but mathematics only works if the players
involved know enough mathematics to actually do it correctly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise, they might as well just
bring in a kindergartener to write numbers on the whiteboard at random for all
the good it will do in the pursuit of justice.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Why do I spend precious paragraphs talking about the legal
profession when I know very well that a small minority of my readers are lawyers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because it isn’t just the lawyers who
get it wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So do the
juries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any one of you can--and
probably will--be called to serve on a jury (why you shouldn’t try to get out
of that duty is a topic for another essay).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think it’s safe to say that, if impaneled on a jury, every
one of you would want to get things right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>None of you want to let the guilty go free and you certainly
don’t want to wrongfully imprison the innocent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is also a fair chance, if the trial is of any
importance at all, that statistical analysis will play some role in the
evidence you’re presented when you’re sitting in that jury box.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if not statistical evidence, then
perhaps some other branch of mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The case in question may hinge completely on the geometry of the crime
scene or the physics of the objects involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However it might manifest itself, there will likely be some
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So when you’re
sitting in that jury box, do you believe the prosecutor when he tells you the
odds that the defendant is guilty?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He could be mistaken; he could be lying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s strong precedent for both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lawyers often get their mathematics wrong, and certainly
prosecutorial misconduct is, unfortunately, not unheard of in the pursuit of
winning the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you can’t
trust him, do you trust the defense attorney to be able to adequately explain
to you why he’s wrong?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if
they both make mathematical arguments, how are you to determine whose
mathematics is correct?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order
to serve justice in such a situation, you must be mathematically literate
enough, if not to check their calculations, at least to ask the right
questions.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Okay, so maybe you’re not worried about jury duty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps you’re content to assume that
the other jurors know enough mathematics that you can rely on them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(This is obviously not the case, as
most of the jurors are likely to be thinking exactly the same thoughts, but
let’s imagine for a moment.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
can you be a fully functional citizen and protect your own interests without at
least a rudimentary understanding of mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider one of my blog posts of the past, in which I
explain <a href="http://trustinbob.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-pyramid-schemes-work.html" target="_blank">how pyramid schemes work</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mathematics there is
relatively simple (especially in the simplified form in which I presented
it).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most people can understand
that math, but it serves as an example of which I speak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you did not understand the math, you
might be inclined to think the scheme was a good idea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, if you don’t understand the
math, you might be inclined to think more subtle schemes are good ideas.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The mathematically illiterate are ill-equipped to handle the
challenges of the world, particularly in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may be the victims of fraud, they
may misunderstand science, they may fall victim to predatory practices within
the economic system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are not
prepared to conduct business or vote as educated actors, but instead must rely
on the often biased (whether intentionally or otherwise) information provided
to them by outside sources.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one
knows everything, so of course it’s not reasonable to expect all people to be
able to do all types of mathematics, but I think it is very reasonable to
expect people to have a sufficient understanding of mathematics to a) solve the
mathematical problems that occur in their lives, b) recognize mathematical
problems with sufficient sophistication that they can seek their answers from
the correct sources, and c) know well enough when basic errors in mathematics
have resulted in erroneous conclusions in that information they’ve been
provided.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Journalists certainly have failed in their duties to remain
mathematically literate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Examples
abound of newspapers publishing shoddy statistics or even simple arithmetic
errors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps you’ve seen
political polling data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you
believe it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, do you know
enough math to understand how those numbers work?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And it’s not just about practical uses either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics is the language of the
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the language of
nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It amazes me how many
people can claim to be lovers of nature, but fail to see the mathematical
beauty it holds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consider the
spiral of a nautilus shell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is a deep mathematical principle at work in that simple geometric pattern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The motion of every object can be
expressed mathematically, from the gentle floating of a dandelion seed drifting
on a gust of wind to the motion of the entire Earth around the Sun or the
entire solar system about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics is everything, and it can
be used to reveal the hidden patterns of everything we ever see or do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even the relatively mundane is the result
of mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The advertisements
you see online are determined by algorithms designed to match advertisements
specifically to you based on data profiles of people who visit websites similar
to the ones you visit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether you
like that or not, it’s mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And it is understanding of mathematics that allows one to form an
informed opinion about such matters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’m certainly not saying that everyone should be able to write an
algorithm capable of effectively targeting advertising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I am saying that everyone ought at
least to have some idea of the mathematics behind that process.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
No less a person than Abraham Lincoln refused to continue
his legal education until he had read, understood, and mastered Euclid's Elements (this text on geometry is arguably one of the greatest products the
human mind has ever produced).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Lincoln had no intention to become a mathematician, but he recognized
within mathematical thinking the foundation of an agile mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sixteenth President of the United
States of America would not complete law school until he mastered Euclid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think about that when you consider
whether mathematics has relevance in non-mathematical fields.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So mathematics is important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why, then, are so many people afraid of it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why do people think they’re bad at
it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why have they allowed
themselves to persist in the delusion that they have never had need of it in
the “real world,” despite mathematics’ deep connections to literally everything
in the real world?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think it comes down to a number of relatively simple
factors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first is arguably the
most insidious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Issac Asmiov knew
a thing or two about a thing or two.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He wrote over 500 books and is a very rare person indeed, having been
published in nine of the ten major categories of the Dewey Decimal System.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it is with deference to his great
mind that we note his famous observation: “There is a cult of ignorance in the
United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism
has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural
life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is
just as good as your knowledge.’”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I think he nailed it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
think people feel justified in their ignorance--and indeed, even proud of it to
some extent--precisely because of the bizarre idea Asimov described.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My personal feeling is that this dangerous attitude stems
from a fundamental misreading of the Declaration of Independence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thomas Jefferson did write that “all
men are created equal,” but surely he could not have meant that everyone should
achieve equal results in life despite varying degrees of effort, but that is
the view that we collectively seem to have taken.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We live in a culture where children’s sporting events no
longer have winners and losers but all children are given a ribbon for
participating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re to value
self-esteem above introspection and hard work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, we have come to believe that “all men are created
equal” means, beyond equal protection of the law, that all men’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ideas</i> are created equal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is clearly an unjustifiable
position to take, but evidence of its pervasiveness in our culture is
overwhelming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A simple look at
commentary on Facebook (authored in reply to my postings and those of my
acquaintances) provides clear examples: “it’s just my <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">opinion</i>, and it’s as valid as yours,” or “we’re all entitled to our
opinions,” or “let’s just <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">agree to
disagree</i>.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These phrases
signal an end of the intellectual debate and a surrender to anti-intellectualism
because they confuse facts for opinions and assume that all of these “opinions”
are of equal merit.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Once we as a people decided that we were collectively going
to buy into this deadly lie, it was not a great stretch for many of us to come
to the conclusion that mathematical illiteracy is just as good as mathematical
literacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, I have
recently seen it argued that belief in astrology is just as valid as belief in
astronomy and that creationism and evolution should be given equal time in
public school science classes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
seem to have decided that mathematics is only for some people, and that the
pride due to those who have spent their time developing a true mastery of
advanced mathematics is also due to those who have no mathematical ability at
all.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The second and, I think, far more important factor is the
way mathematics is taught.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t
believe there is a country in the world whose educational system quite gets
mathematics right, but I think our educational system in the United States gets
it more wrong than most in the industrialized world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the above is, I think, the reason people feel pride
rather than shame in their ignorance, I think educational failure is the reason
for that ignorance in the first place, and I think that failure is a composition
of several factors.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1) Peer influences poison the well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has been allowed to become common
knowledge that mathematics is an intellectually difficult field of study, and
should be limited to the “nerds.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I will write elsewhere about why nerdiness is indeed something to be
proud of, but for many students, this culture stereotype creates a major
problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It convinces the student
that, unless he or she is one of the “nerdy” crowd, he or she will struggle
with mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Self-fulfilling
prophecies are common in the study of psychology, and this is no
exception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Guinan once said in
Star Trek: The Next Generation (4.1; The Best of Both Worlds, Part 2), “When a
man is convinced he’s going to die tomorrow, he’ll probably find a way to make
it happen.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, if you’re
convinced that you’re going to struggle or fail at mathematics, you probably
will unconsciously sabotage yourself to the point that you do so.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2) Mathematical opportunities are limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>American primary and secondary schools
are relatively limited in their mathematical options.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Students in elementary and middle school learn arithmetic
and pre-algebra.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In high school,
they take Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, and then (depending on the school)
some other math course(s), probably in the following sequence: Trigonometry,
maybe Pre-Calculus, then Calculus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Never are they exposed to any other branch of mathematics such as
probability and statistics, number theory, or game theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even at university, many of those fields
of mathematics remain entirely unknown to students who do not major in
mathematics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, I’m not saying that everyone should master all of
these. Not at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do think that
statistics should be added to the mandatory sequence, at least to the extent
that students learn the basics of interpreting statistical information so they
can be informed consumers of information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But do I think they need to study game theory? No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the other hand, do I think students
should <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hear about</i> game theory and
number theory and many others? Absolutely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think part of the reason people think they dislike
mathematics is because by the time they get through all the arithmetic (which
is, quite frankly, the most boring part of mathematics), they’ve decided that
mathematics isn’t for them, and they never realize the beauty of the more
advanced disciplines.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a short but powerful TED talk, Arthur Benjamin <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_s_formula_for_changing_math_education#t-12276" target="_blank">argues</a> (go and watch that video now--it’s worth it) that calculus is the wrong summit
of mathematical education for most students, and suggests teaching statistics
before calculus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given the limited
time and resources of the high school math department, I’m not sure if I would
go quite as far as he does, because those students who do wish to study science
or engineering have a significant leg up if they learn calculus while in high
school (certainly, I would have saved a fair amount of time and money if I had
entered university with a more complete math education).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But on the other hand, Benjamin is
absolutely correct that statistics is a more important discipline in
mathematics for the majority of students (every single person would benefit
greatly from an understanding of probabilities and statistics), and it is
beyond doubt that our educational system does a great disservice to our
children by not at least offering statistics as an alternative for students who
prefer not to take the “calculus track.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And even those who do want or need to take calculus (which really is a
lot of fun) would benefit greatly from some greater exposure to statistics.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
While discussing the issue with my girlfriend, she suggested
that Trigonometry is a longer course than it needs to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our schools devote an entire year to
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>She suggested as an
alternative that students should take a semester of Statistics and a semester
of Trigonometry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would amend
that slightly to say that every student should, after completing Algebra 2,
take a semester of Statistics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then, those students who wish to move on to Calculus should take
Trigonometry for the second semester of that year, while the others should
continue with a course devoted to just exploring the big picture of
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In such a course,
they needn’t develop the skills to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do </i>advanced
mathematics, but would be exposed to both the history of mathematics and the
beauty underlying some of the current areas of mathematical research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This leaves even the non-scientist and
non-mathematician with an education in mathematics comparable to the education
in the arts that non-artists receive.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because the educational opportunities in mathematics are
narrowly tailored to a particular type of student with particular needs and
expectations, mathematical education has failed to reach the rest of the
students who might very well have been more interested in mathematics if they
knew there were other disciplines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Yes, you do need calculus to actually <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do</i> a lot of those other types of math, but at least students would
feel less ignorant and less proud of that ignorance if they knew what work was
being done.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3) Many people had bad teachers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not to put teachers down by any stretch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, though, the bad teachers
who are currently working have more opportunity to do harm in mathematics than
in many other fields, because our culture has already begun to turn students
off to mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When such a
student encounters a bad teacher, they often just give up, instead of pushing
through and waiting for a good teacher, as they might be inclined to do in a
subject of which they’re more forgiving because they already have a passion for
it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What do I mean by bad teachers in this context?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean those who, instead of working to
help their students understand, make their students feel inadequate for not
understanding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I do think
there is shame in life-long mathematical illiteracy, there is never shame in
ignorance when the ignorant person has a legitimate desire to learn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I use the word “ignorance” here in is
true sense, referring to a lack of knowledge, not to belittle the people in
question. All of us are ignorant of something, so there’s no shame in ignorance
if we are willing to correct those deficiencies.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have worked with students who have had teachers bluntly
call them “stupid” for not understanding something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s enough to make anyone not go back to their
lectures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So those bad teachers
truly are to blame for at least some of the mathematical illiteracy in the
world.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4) Teacher selection and training is inadequate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Separate from the bad teachers
mentioned above, there are many who are simply unqualified to teach
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Teaching mathematics
requires knowledge of two fields: mathematics, and education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s true of any field.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You need to know your subject, and you
also need to know how to teach it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Many teachers in the high schools and lower did not study
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They studied
education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s more--many of
them were the very same students who disliked and feared mathematics a
generation earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They get
through their education degree with as little math as possible, and end up
teaching elementary mathematics simply because that’s where there was a
teaching job available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can
anyone teach a subject about which they are not passionate and
knowledgeable?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yet, that is
exactly what is expected of far too many teachers.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
On the other extreme, there are those few who did study
mathematics, but many of them don’t understand how to teach mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They never struggled with mathematics
(because most people with math degrees never had a hard time with the subject),
and so they are ill-equipped to understand the struggles their students have with
the subject.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need a community
of mathematics teachers who understand both mathematics and education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are some of them out there, but
we need a concentrated effort to create more of them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5) Mathematics is cumulative but math education is age-based.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mathematics, as much as any and more
than most fields, builds upon itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You cannot master fractions until you master multiplication and
division; you cannot master algebra until you master fractions; you cannot
master logarithms until you understand exponents; you cannot master calculus
until you master algebra.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each new
course in mathematics assumes the previous courses as prerequisite
knowledge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s nothing wrong
with that--indeed, that’s the way it must be (though I have some crazy ideas
about tinkering with the order things are taught, this is not the essay to go
into that).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So where’s the
problem?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem is that, with the rare exceptions of students
who are <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exceptionally </i>good or bad,
most students will progress through their education based on age rather than
ability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us imagine a typical
young student.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his first math
course, he gets 90% on his final exam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He’s labeled an “A” student and passed along to the next course.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But there’s still 10% of the
information he’s missing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That
might not seem like much, but that next course will build upon everything he’s
previously learned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He struggles
to catch up with that extra 10%, and in this course, he gets 80% on his final
because he lost time catching up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the next course, he gets 70%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Then 60%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sooner or later,
he convinces himself that he’s just bad at mathematics and doesn’t like
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s not really that
case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If education were based on
mastery instead of based on pushing children through according to their age, he
would have eventually gotten that initial 10% he missed, and the entire problem
would have been averted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quality
teachers would be free to deviate from the standard curriculum and teach
students at their own pace, passing them along to the next course when they
demonstrate mastery rather than at the end of each year.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This requires a compete rethinking of how our educational
system is structured, so I hold out limited hope for the immediate future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it remains true that these
cumulative failures are part of what convinces people that they are bad at
mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would contend that,
putting aside those who have legitimate mental disabilities, no one is just
“bad at math.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some will take to
it more quickly than others for a variety of mysterious reasons psychologists
might struggle to understand, but anyone can learn it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is only through failures in
education that people come to believe that math is just not for them.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6) Informal education is limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can bemoan the rates of illiteracy and scientific
illiteracy right along with that of mathematical illiteracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, I think the problem is worse
in mathematics, and I think that part of the reason is because there are not
many opportunities to gain informal education in mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just as with any field, you could
actively seek out that education at a library or bookstore (though even then,
you’ll struggle to find books that simultaneously provide a depth of
understanding and an ease of comprehension befitting the autodidactic student.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Public television (and some network television) is full of
programs for children trying to help them understand science or teach them to
read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>LeVar Burton recently raised
millions of dollars to bring back Reading Rainbow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For adults, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s reboot of Carl Sagan’s
Cosmos was a great television series teaching about science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Where are the equivalents for
mathematics?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The closest I have
been able to find are the little segments about counting in Sesame Street.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While admirable, that just isn’t
enough.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
People often use the word “infotainment” as a derogatory
phrase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s meant to convey
displeasure at the state of media, often news media, placing more emphasis on
keeping people entertained than keeping them informed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there is no reason education
should not be entertaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
desperately need more high-quality entertaining books, websites, television
programs, etc., capable of keeping audiences engaged long enough that they will
learn some good information while reading or watching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Though we need more of them in all
disciplines, in mathematics, these programs are virtually nonexistent.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
7) There is a fundamental disconnect between the student and
the mathematician.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yexc19j3TjE" target="_blank">video</a> on the YouTube channel Numberphile compares this disconnect to art in this way:
the way we teach mathematics is akin to teaching someone how to paint a fence
and calling it art education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
hadn’t thought of it in those terms before, but of course that’s absolutely
correct!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The average mathematics
student learns a series of operations to perform in order to solve the type of
math problem that shows up in textbooks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While they’re doing so (even moreso if they’re engaged and paying
attention), they’re developing the analytical tools I mentioned earlier, but on
the surface, they’re solving “cookie-cutter” problems which do bear little
resemblance to the real world applications of what they’re learning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Never do they gain an understanding of the history of mathematics as art students would learn about the
great masters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This leaves
students not only exhausted by the work they’ve been frustrated about (for the
reasons I’ve discussed), but absolutely unaware of the kind of work that real
mathematicians are doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Students
should be taught mathematics in a way that gets them excited about mathematics,
rather than in a way that leaves them afraid of it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
8) Cultural stereotypes limit student performance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I mentioned earlier, someone who
feels doomed to fail at mathematics will probably do so, for purely
psychological reasons that have nothing whatever to do with their actual
ability to perform mathematical operations or to reason mathematically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is an added cultural stereotype
which I think adds to this problem, and which is worth pointing out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Namely, it seems to be a popular belief
in the United States that natural ability determines success in mathematics;
that some people “naturally” are better analytical thinkers while others are
better at, say, emotions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Psychologists have not fully unlocked the secrets of why some people
perform better than others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
there may be some genetic elements, it is almost certain that environmental influences
and hard work make a greater difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In many Asian cultures which routinely outperform the United States in
tests of students’ mathematical abilities, the success of those students is
attributed to hard work and discipline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the United States, success is often attributed to “talent.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’m not going to sit here and tell you there is no such
thing as natural talent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I
will say is that this cultural view that only a relative few who are
“mathematically gifted” can succeed in mathematics is false.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I firmly believe that anyone, with hard
work, can become an expert mathematician if they so desire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It means putting aside our culture of
instant gratification and putting in the time it takes to master these skills,
but it is achievable for everyone except those with the severest of mental
disabilities.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So why do I care?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why do I take the time to write an essay of this length to tell people a) that mathematics is
important and b) that mathematics is within the reach of everyone?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, there are a number of
reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, the reasons I
mentioned above hold true, that mathematics is important in day-to-day life for
more people than seem willing to admit it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that may be viewed as personal for those people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, when mathematical illiteracy
affects the way juries rule, the way the news is reported, and the way people
vote, it affects all of us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
don’t think I hyperbolize when I suggest that our survival depends on greater
levels of mathematical literacy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
But there’s also a more personal reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I find mathematics beautiful,
interesting, and fun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s the
language of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With
mathematics, we can understand our world, we can understand each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can unlock the secrets of nature if
only we speak their language, and that language is mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Speaking of science, which is also a
passion of mine, Carl Sagan said “When you’re in love, you want to tell the
world.”</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-29344039284931845912014-07-08T00:12:00.000-07:002014-07-08T00:28:18.230-07:00In Defense of Replication Studies<div class="MsoNormal">
There’s been a recent fluttering of activity on the Internet
about a paper written by Harvard social psychologist Jason Mitchell, the full
text of which can be read here:
http://wjh.harvard.edu/~jmitchel/writing/failed_science.htm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The crux of the issue seems to be that
Dr. Mitchell apparently sees little value in replication studies or in the
publication of negative results, a noted and alarming inverse of the current
trend among reputable scientists to decry the lack of those very types of
publications in most major journals for reasons I will discuss briefly (though
by no means completely) in this response.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr. Mitchell received his B.A. and M.S. from Yale and his
Ph.D. from Harvard, and is now a professor of psychology at Harvard where he is
the principal investigator at the University’s Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience Lab (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/people.html).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say this to point out that Dr.
Mitchell’s credentials appear impeccable, at least on paper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He’s a professor at one of the world’s
most prestigious universities (though the merit of such prestige in education
is often called into question, that is a discussion for another day), and
appears to have a consistent flow of publications in the scientific literature,
much of which, though I am completely unfamiliar with his work beyond this
single paper in question, appears to be of significant interest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having established those credentials,
the duty now falls upon my shoulders to convince you that despite an apparently
productive career in social science, Dr. Mitchell appears never to have
received even the most rudimentary education on the basics of the scientific
method, either through oversight on the parts of his instructors or, more
likely, inattention on Dr. Mitchell’s part during those key lectures.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It is strongly recommended that you either read Dr.
Mitchell’s paper, “On the emptiness of failed replications” in its entirety
before returning to this document or that you read it alongside this discussion
so that his argument can be made to you in his own words.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would not wish to be accused of
misrepresenting his argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nevertheless, I will proceed through the article point-by-point,
providing significant commentary along the way and quoting the source material,
though sparingly, so as to provide direct refutations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dr. Mitchell’s article begins with a bullet-pointed listing
of six postulates, each one of which is dead wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will attempt my exploration of the faults in Dr.
Mitchell’s paper by examining each of these points in turn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bulk of the paper is simply Dr.
Mitchell’s supporting arguments and evidence (such as they are) for these six
points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, the bulk of the
paper, though not often directly quoted here, will be addressed under the
headings of the six claims.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1) “<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Recent
hand-wringing over failed replications in social psychology is largely
pointless, because unsuccessful experiments have no meaningful scientific
value.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Several years ago, I
had a chance encounter on the Internet with a gentleman who was pursuing his
doctorate in applied physics, specializing in acoustics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We became acquainted through commentary
on my girlfriend’s page on a social media website during a discussion of
evolutionary science and creationist dogma, during which debate this gentleman
revealed that, despite his scientific training, he was a young earth
creationist and that, further, he believed physics supported his position.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amongst his misunderstandings were
claims that because the Sun is burning up, it should be getting smaller, and a
belief that Einstein’s theory of special relativity suggests that as an object
approaches the speed of light, it loses mass (when in reality, objects
approaching light-speed approach infinite mass).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mention this frustrating conversation because until now,
it was the greatest misunderstanding of science I have ever heard from someone
claiming any degree of professional training in the sciences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell has the dubious honor of
having surpassed that creationist’s achievement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This creationist, at least, made a show of doing real
science and claiming the evidence supported his argments (however misguided
those claims were).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell’s
approach to science, if I dare call it an approach to science, appears to
suggest that any study failing to confirm the experimenter’s hypothesis is useless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">For those of you who
aren’t already either rolling off your chair in fits of uncontrollable laughter
at Dr. Mitchell’s expense or banging your head against your desk in frustration
for much the same reason, I will pause for a moment to explain the
ludicrousness of Dr. Mitchell’s position (and offer the promise of further
hilarity to follow).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">To begin with, the
“hand-wringing” as Dr. Mitchell dismissively refers to a growing collective
concern amongst scientists, is very well-deserved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you follow the scientific world, you may have heard of
something called “publication bias.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The idea is that journals tend to like to publish positive results of
exciting experiments because those grab headlines and help sell the publication
to professional readers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s
nothing particularly evil about this on its face, except when you realize that
replication is a key part of the scientific process for reasons we’ll discuss
in greater depth later on (but it basically comes down to being sure that a
published result wasn’t just a phantom due to random chance or experimenter
error), and that these replication studies (being the “un-sexy” sort of work
that just sets out to question or to establish the credibility of previously
published work) find extremely limited venues for their publication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When they are published, and there is
certainly no guarantee they will be, it is often in obscure journals that fail
to reach even a sizeable fraction of the readership of the original paper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The result of this, concern over which
is dismissed by Dr. Mitchell as “pointless” and “hand-wringing,” is that erroneous
papers which reach publication (yes, despite all the best efforts, erroneous
information does get published either due to oversight or, rarer, deliberate
misrepresentation of research in order to get published) may wait a
considerably long time before they are corrected--if, indeed, they are ever
corrected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means there is a
distinct possibility (nay: probability) that some indeterminate amount of the
information accepted into the body of scientific knowledge is wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">None of this is
intended to cast doubt upon science as a method of knowing. Indeed, the
scientific method, when properly applied, is specifically designed to avoid
just this sort of situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
problem we currently face with the issue of publication bias in the sciences is
not a problem with the science, but with the politics that have come to
dominate within the halls of academia, and to which science unfortunately often
takes a backseat in the minds of the administrators who perpetuate the
problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This, however, is not
intended to be a referendum on politics in academia, but a discussion of the
flaws with Dr. Mitchell’s little paper, so I will refrain from heading down the
rabbit hole (some might call it a black hole) of academic politics.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Even if replication
studies were not of any importance, however--even if Dr. Mitchell’s apparent
assumption that original research is always flawless were completely and
undeniably true--there would still be much to find fault with in just this
first bullet point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He claims that
“unsuccessful experiments have no meaningful scientific value.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a bit of an ambiguity in that
statement, and the Principle of Charity would compel me to address the best
possible interpretation of his claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I will do so, though I will then explore the more troubling
interpretation because I actually believe the more troubling interpretation to
be the interpretation Dr. Mitchell originally intended.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">The ambiguity has to
do with the phrase “unsuccessful experiments.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By that does Dr. Mitchell mean an experiment which has been
compromised by error?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or does he
mean an experiment which yields negative results?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Let us examine the
former.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he does indeed mean to
discuss experiments which have gone wrong, and yielded inaccurate information
due to some experimental error (or even chance fluctuations), then he is
arguably correct (though barely so) in suggesting that these experiments have
no meaningful scientific value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The problem, however, is that by conflating this statement with a
condemnation of replication studies, he betrays an assumption that original
research is always performed with greater accuracy than replication
studies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be sure, this is
sometimes the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am by no
means suggesting that a replication study is of greater merit than its
predecessor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I am saying, and
what I believe any competent scientist would say, is that when two studies show
up with contradictory results, it indicates that at least <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">one of them</i> contains some kind of error.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is then for the scientific community to conduct further
examination (whether that is a closer reexamination of the data or a completely
new experiment) in order to determine which.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly it is of scientific value to determine which of
two contradictory studies is invalid, even if that means we then determine that
this particular study <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is </i>completely
invalid and without value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless
we assume the infallibility of original research, these negative replication
studies do provide scientific value because they help us to determine which of
the original studies need to be reexamined.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, even completely failed experiments often lead
scientists to explore new, previously unconsidered hypotheses, so there is
indirect scientific value in that way as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">I do not, however,
suspect that this is what Dr. Mitchell intended to say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, it is my assumption, based on
phrasing later in the article equating the term “scientific failure” with “an
experiment [that] is expected to yield certain results, and yet… fails to do so,”
that Dr. Mitchell means an “unsuccessful experiment” to refer to any experiment
which fails to support the researcher’s hypothesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a much more troubling interpretation of his words,
however, for two primary reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
The first, and arguably less important (though it is of particular importance to me personally as a student of not only the practice but the philosophy of science) problem with this statement is that it equates the negative result with a failure. Yes, we all become attached to our pet hypotheses, but a negative experiment, if viewed through the proper lens of pure scientific inquiry, is not a failure. It is a monumental success, for it has shown that the experimenter’s assumptions had been incorrect. There is something else at work. There is something new to learn. Issac Asimov famously said that “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka’ but ‘That's funny....’” What he meant by that is that true scientific discovery stems not from experiments that confirm what we already suspect to be true, but from those that show us there is something entirely unexpected, just waiting to be discovered. Science would be a sorry practice indeed if we all just went around trying desperately to prove ourselves right without the slightest consideration that there might be more to the universe that we suspected. And so it is the negative experimental result which often leads us in those unexpected but fruitful paths upon which the most profound discoveries are made. Surely Dr. Mitchell is familiar with this philosophical approach to pure scientific inquiry, but his paper gives no indication of it.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Of greater significance is the fact that, putting philosophy aside, his statement is just plain wrong. Negative results are of great “meaningful scientific value.” Science is as much about figuring out what isn’t so as it is about figuring out what is. Indeed, the very essence of the scientific method, apparently taught more thoroughly to fifth-grade science fair competitors than to Harvard researchers, is the practice of formulating testable hypotheses and then attempting to falsify them in order to determine the likelihood of their accuracy. The hypothesis that is not falsified may be tentatively accepted as true (though subject, much to Dr. Mitchell’s apparent displeasure, to further testing and review), while the hypothesis that is falsified is discarded so the scientist may move on to more fruitful pastures. This is the most basic principle of scientific research, and to have to explain it in a paper in response to a credentialed professor at a prestigious center of learning is troublesome to say the least. Negative experimental results indicate falsified hypotheses. Yes, false negatives can occur, so it is worth replicating even negative results, but that certainly doesn’t mean they’re of no scientific value.<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Perhaps Dr. Mitchell or someone of his opinion would counter by saying something along the lines of, “Well, that’s all very good, but it’s not important to publish the negative findings. Falsified results may direct a researcher away from a point of inquiry, but are of no value to the larger community in and of themselves.” Obviously this is not so. Knowing of work that has not been supported is valuable to the scientific community at large for precisely the same reason it is important to the individual researcher: it helps us to direct further research. Even putting aside scientific curiosity and a drive to understand the world as much as we possibly can, there is a very good economic reason to desire greater publication of negative results. Grant money is notoriously hard to come by. Even Dr. Mitchell makes a nod toward this fact when he writes, “Science is a tough place to make a living. Our experiments fail much of the time, and even the best scientists meet with a steady drum of rejections from journals, grant panels, and search committees.” This is all very true, and having it spelled out in Dr. Mitchell’s own essay saves me the trouble of having to make exactly the same point in opposition to his thesis. Science is, as Dr. Mitchell says, a tough business. It is very difficult to get grant money. The more involved the work, the more difficult it is to fund. This is Economics 101. So why, oh why, should we want to endlessly reinvent the wheel? Replication studies are essential to avoid both false positives and false negatives, but they are specifically designed as replications. Imagine if Scientist A falsifies his hypothesis after ten years of hard work and then, either by choice or because publications shy away from such things, his work is not published. Later, Scientist B stumbles upon a similar (or identical) hypothesis. She then applies for and receives a grant to look into it. She spends her six-figures of grand money and ten years of her life, and finds an identical result. Had Scientist A published his findings, she might never have made the investment.<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Make no mistake, if
Scientist B wishes to conduct the study as a replication study, she is
well-advised to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Replication
is essential.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s very possible
that Scientist A made some mistake in his original experiment, and Scientist B
might be able to correct that mistake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, such replications become meaningless when negative results are
never published.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This view that
negative results are of no scientific value dooms generations of scientists to
endlessly follow the same dead-end trails.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It slows scientific progress, costs millions of dollars of
grant money which could be better spent elsewhere, and wastes the productive
time of countless scientists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let’s not pretend we have an overabundance of qualified scientists,
either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every man-hour is
precious, especially in a world where so much of the general population is far
more content to spend their lives watching television than working in a
laboratory.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">I will close this discussion
of Dr. Mitchell’s first bullet-point (oh yes, we still have five more of his
inane bullet-points, plus several points from the main body of the article to
get through before we draw this discussion to an end) with a personal story.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some years back, I was asked to
participate as a judge for a local private school’s science fair, a duty I was
happy to perform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While wandering
from presentation to presentation with my fellow judges, I noticed something of
a trend amongst the entries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Namely, most were very traditional (one might be tempted to say clichéd)
science fair projects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not
less than one would expect from a school limited to kindergarten through eighth
grade, so I did not judge particularly harshly, but I did make a mental note
that for many of the students, the science fair was about producing a flashy
display.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was a remote
controlled robot or two, several volcanoes, and many presentations along those
lines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The quality of display was
occasionally impressive, but there was very little science actually being
done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then I happened across one
of the last entries of the day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
was from a student whose family had recently immigrated from Mexico.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His English, though far more impressive
than my Spanish would be given a similar amount of time to study, was extremely
limited, and his family had very little money with which to purchase supplies,
but he wanted to enter the science fair nonetheless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unable to afford flashy props, he did a simple
experiment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He filled basketballs
to various levels of air pressure to determine which was the most bouncy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He hypothesized that the fullest ball
would be the bounciest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To test
this, he filled one ball to regulation pressure, overfilled one, and
underfilled another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He found,
contrary to his hypothesis, that the medium-filled ball was actually the
bounciest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Granted, this was not a
rigorously controlled scientific experiment that would be worthy of publication
in even the most lenient of journals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, this student was the only one of the many entries to actually
do real science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He conducted a
proper experiment, achieved a result that did not support his hypothesis, and
wrote up his display (with his teacher’s help to get his English right) to tell
us all about what he had found.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
do not recall the results of the science fair once all the judges’ scores were
compiled, but he received my highest marks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he had taken Dr. Mitchell’s postulate that “failed”
experiments are of no scientific value to heart, that would never have taken
place.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">2) “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Because experiments can be undermined by a
vast number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any failed
replication will always be that the replicator bungled something along the
way. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Unless direct
replications are conducted by flawless experimenters, nothing interesting can
be learned from them.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Upon reading this
statement, I withheld some hope that clarification would be forthcoming in the
body of the text; clarification that might serve to negate the glaring
oversight in Dr. Mitchell’s claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Indeed, further clarification was provided, but instead of negating his
error, Dr. Mitchell doubled down on his mistake.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Lest I get ahead of
myself as I explore this idea (albeit in much briefer terms than the previous
point), allow me to bludgeon you, dear reader, with the obvious: Dr. Mitchell
fails to account for the fact that the replicator may be a more skilled
experimenter than the scientist who produced the original finding.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Dr. Mitchell is
correct about one thing in this analysis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is clearly possible that the replicator might have “bungled something
along the way.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As humans, we err.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is undeniable and hardly worth
pointing out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Except, it seems
that Dr. Mitchell struggles not only with the philosophical side of science,
but also with the self-evident traits of humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly, this is a forgivable oversight, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is, after all, only a scientist
working in a discipline dedicated to understanding the traits of humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I digress.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">The problem is that
the statement can easily be reversed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Let me give it a try: “Because experiments can be undermined by a vast
number of practical mistakes, the likeliest explanation for any positive
experimental result will always be that the researcher bungled something along
the way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless original research
is conducted by flawless experimenters, nothing interesting can ever be learned
from it.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that sounds to you
like absolute garbage, you are absolutely correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell’s great failure is in assuming inerrancy on the
part of original researchers and incompetence on the part of replicators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In reality, replicators and original
researchers are often the very same people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a reputable scientist, it should be part of every
researcher’s job to do both original research and replication studies as the
need arises for either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
would be nothing wrong with specializing in one or the other, but a
well-balanced approach to research by doing some of both is probably the best
way to advance not only the collective scientific knowledge but one’s personal
knowledge of one’s own discipline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Putting aside the old bugaboo of academic politics, I would think the
best way to advance the goal, not necessarily of career advancement but of
scientific advancement, would be to do a bit of both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevermind all that, though.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s assume for the moment that we have entered into a
fantasy world where scientists are allowed to do either original research or
replications but not both.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is
there some magical force that bestows competence disproportionately upon one
rather than the other?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course
not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There will be incompetents
and geniuses on both sides, and the average will always be average.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Dr. Mitchell is
correct that experimental error is a problem that needs to be addressed in any
replication study and though he seems to forget that the same is true of
original research, he is correct to suggest that examining replications for
experimental error is a worth-while pursuit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">What Dr. Mitchell
seems not to understand is that replication is not an argument that an
experiment is somehow better the second time it is performed or when done in a
different laboratory than in the first case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point of replication is that, just as he argues that
there can be mistakes in replication experiments, there are mistakes or unknown
factors in original research, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Replication is essential to determine the robustness of a finding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If ten studies show a finding to be
valid and a new study fails to replicate it, we still examine all eleven,
though we do so with the assumption that the fault might likely lie in the new
study.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if only two
studies have been done, we must examine both very carefully to determine which
is more likely correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is
the further possibility that all of the studies, even with their conflicting
results, can be valid, and that there is just some small change in experimental
conditions that renders the studies different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This could lead to entirely new discoveries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">I will illustrate
with this example (note: these studies are fictitious and not based on any real
data of any kind).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us imagine
that Scientist X from the University of Timbuktu conducts an experiment and
finds that when given 12-volt electric shocks, people perform better at chess
than a control group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then,
Scientist Y from the University of Nantucket conducts a replication trial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The experiment is performed in exactly
the same conditions, but Scientist Y finds no such effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What could be happening? Scientist Z
from the University of Neverland reads both papers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He writes letters to both scientists to make sure the
experiments were identical, and reexamines the raw data from both experiments
to determine which of the studies was wrong, but he finds no experimental error
on either side, no problems with data entry, certainly no fraud, and nothing at
all to indicate which study was correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Can you solve this little problem?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Certainly it would seem that Dr. Mitchell would immediately assume that
Scientist X is correct and Scientist Y has made some undetectable mistake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, perhaps the real solution is
that they are both correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There
is no flaw in the University of Timbuktu study, but it is incomplete.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It fails to account for the fact that,
in Nantucket, they rather enjoy electric shocks due to some previously
undiscovered environmental factor, so they are immune to the effects of the
experimental manipulation in the study by Scientist X.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course it’s a stupid example, but I
think it vividly illustrates the point that Dr. Mitchell, for all his laudable
attempts to avoid experimental error reaching the literature, has ignored the
possibility that replication studies can bring new insights in addition to oversight.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">If an original study
is superior to the replication study that finds different results, it should be
very easy for the original researchers to defend their work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They could point out the flaws in the
replication, or they could conduct further research or call for independent
research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any of these approaches
could vindicate the original study and show the replication to be
incorrect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of taking this
proper approach, Dr. Mitchell suggests that we should ignore replication
entirely because sometimes a replicator might get it wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He forgets that in science, truth is
determined not by who published first but by who has the best evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of his anticipated problems with
replication are easily dismissed simply by providing the evidence that shows
the original study correct.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">3) “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Three standard rejoinders to this critique
are considered and rejected. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Despite claims to the contrary, failed replications do not provide
meaningful information if they closely follow original methodology; they do not
necessarily identify effects that may be too small or flimsy to be worth
studying; and they cannot contribute to a cumulative understanding of
scientific phenomena.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Moreso than the
other five points, this one relies heavily on the body of the essay to
understand its meaning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The basic
idea is that Dr. Mitchell is considering three responses to his critique.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I’m sure that these responses are
real ones, I question his selection because they were not the first three that
came to my mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Could Dr.
Mitchell be attempting to subtly erect a straw man?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the very least, he seems not to be arguing against the
best form of his opponents’ arguments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nevertheless, these three points are worth examining.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The first point is
one which I must, unfortunately, rely upon quoting in its entirety, so that you
may fully appreciate the ineptitude of the argument: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">There are three standard rejoinders to these points. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">The first is to argue that because the
replicator is closely copying the method set out in an earlier experiment, the
original description must in some way be insufficient or otherwise
defective. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">After all,
the argument goes, if someone cannot reproduce your results when following your
recipe, something must be wrong with either the original method or in the
findings it generated. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">This is a barren defense. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I
have a particular cookbook that I love, and even though I follow
the recipes as closely as I can, the food somehow never quite looks as good as
it does in the photos. Does this mean that the recipes are deficient,
perhaps even that the authors have misrepresented the quality of their
food? <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>Or could it be that
there is more to great cooking than simply following a recipe? <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>I do wish the authors would specify
how many millimeters constitutes a “thinly” sliced onion, or the maximum torque
allowed when “fluffing” rice, or even just the acceptable range in degrees
Fahrenheit for “medium” heat. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>They
don’t, because they assume that I share tacit knowledge of certain culinary
conventions and techniques; they also do not tell me that the onion needs to be
peeled and that the chicken should be plucked free of feathers before
browning. <span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>If I do not
possess this tacit know-how</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">—</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">perhaps because I am globally incompetent, or am relatively new to
cooking, or even just new to cooking Middle Eastern food specifically</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">—</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">then naturally, my outcomes will differ from
theirs.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">Likewise, there is more to being a successful experimenter than merely
following what’s printed in a method section. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">Experimenters develop a sense, honed over
many years, of how to use a method successfully. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">Much of this knowledge is implicit. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">Collecting meaningful neuroimaging data, for
example, requires that participants remain near-motionless during scanning, and
thus in my lab, we go through great lengths to encourage participants to keep
still. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">We whine about
how we will have spent a lot of money for nothing if they move, we plead with
them not to sneeze or cough or wiggle their foot while in the scanner, and we
deliver frequent pep talks and reminders throughout the session. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">These experimental events, and countless more
like them, go unreported in our method section for the simple fact that they
are</span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">part of the shared,
tacit know-how of competent researchers in my field; we also fail to report
that the experimenters wore clothes and refrained from smoking throughout the
session. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">Someone
without full possession of such know-how</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">—</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">perhaps because he is globally incompetent, or new to science, or even
just new to neuroimaging specifically</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">—</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">could well be expected to bungle</span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">one or more of these important, yet unstated, experimental
details. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">And because
there are many more ways to do an experiment badly than to do one well,
recipe-following will commonly result in failure to replicate</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Of course, the
myriad problems with Dr. Mitchell’s analogy should not require great lengths to
expose.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The first problem is
the same problem encountered above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dr. Mitchell assumes that all providers of original research are, as if
by some divine right, more competent practitioners than providers of
replication studies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
simply not so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be
clearly stated that cooking and science are two entirely different practices
and that any analogy is bound to be imperfect (cooking is, after all, much more
of an art than a science).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, in the interest of proceeding along established terms, allow me
to offer a better analogy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr.
Mitchell compared replication studies to his amateur attempts to reproduce
recipes from his favorite cookbook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I fancy myself a rather good cook, but I can sympathize--my food doesn’t
always come out looking as good as the photo in the cookbook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do I think that this means the authors
misrepresented their recipes?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell is right
to think not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As an amateur, he is
not expected to cook as well as the professionals who wrote his cookbook.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if Chef Gordon Ramsay or Chef
Wolfgang Puck (or whoever your favorite chef might be) attempted to recreate
the recipes, following them precisely, combining the detailed descriptions with
the established knowledge of culinary practices that Dr. Mitchell points out
are generally understood but not explicitly stated and the food still came out
significantly worse than the photograph would indicate, then I might begin to
suspect that the cookbook has some flaw.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Dr. Mitchell assumes in his argument that he is the one trying to
recreate the recipe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reality
of replication is that it could just as easily be Chef Ramsay.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">None of this is to
say that science should be judged based on the fame or credentials of the
scientist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, scientific
questions must be determined based on the evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is the height of both arrogance and short-sightedness
to assume that anyone who would bother to replicate a study must be new to
science and thus less worthy of attention than the author of the original
paper.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Replication is
essential precisely because (amongst other reasons), people who are new to a
particular discipline conduct original research as well, and their mistakes
could lead to erroneous papers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">However, there is
another claim within this section worthy of attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the idea that some of the “real
work” (to borrow a phrase from the magicians) is not explicitly published.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is both truth and falsehood to
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is certainly true that
the most mundane details of experimental practice are not explicitly stated in
every paper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, if there is
a practice which is not expected to be common knowledge, it should be
explicitly stated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell
explains that subjects must remain near-motionless during neuroimaging scans,
and alludes to techniques used in his lab to make sure this is the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It needn’t be stated, because anyone
doing such a scan will already know, that the subject needs to remain
motionless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, specific
actions taken to ensure this motionless state should be noted, either in the
paper reporting original research, or in a separate paper established
experimental methodology which can be cited when that methodology is used in
such research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not suspect
this to be the case with the methods detailed in Dr. Mitchell’s footnote (in
which he lists several such techniques which are never mentioned explicitly in
the methods section of his papers), but it is an ever-present possibility an
experimental result could be affected by such conditions the experimenter finds
unimportant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If such notes make a
paper too long for publication, they should be published elsewhere (perhaps on
the same website that would be better used for experimental methodological tips
than mindless ramblings about how useless replication is), so that both
potential replicators and the merely interested can fully understand the
experimental procedure in place during any experiment upon which they will base
a scientific belief.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Dr.
Mitchell’s case, it is common knowledge and needn’t be stated that the subject
must remain still.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The phrasing
used to achieve this, while apparently innocent enough, can vary from laboratory
to laboratory and should probably be noted somewhere so that no errors are
made.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similarly, though Dr.
Mitchell’s cookbook probably doesn’t say so, I’m sure there is a publication
somewhere that would gladly specify that important detail that a bird must be
plucked of feathers prior to cooking.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The second argument
is that a phenomenon which has a small effect size or is difficult to replicate
might nonetheless be real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>True.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But how does one
determine that? Through further studies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The studies should be replicated both using the same and with new
techniques to tease out the reality of the situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one has ever suggested that a failed replication
necessarily means an unreal phenomenon in every case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It means an attempt at replication has failed, nothing more
and nothing less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The implications
of that failure are a subject both for discussion and for further experimental
investigation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell’s
examples fall short because in the very same paragraph where he decries
replication because it might have “killed” fields of inquiry we now know to be
important, he makes reference to further study validating the original
findings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would seem that Dr.
Mitchell only objects to replication when it falsifies original research, and
frankly, that’s just bad science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">It’s also worth
noting that if there is flimsy evidence, it would be unwise to believe a
claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That doesn’t mean it’s
wrong, but the scientific method is based upon skeptical inquiry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should have been skeptical about
those findings Dr. Mitchell uses as his examples because evidence was flimsy in
the early days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It wasn’t until
new methods were found to investigate these phenomena (as Dr. Mitchell points
out) that the original studies were vindicated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So the time to believe them is now that the evidence is
in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The time to believe them was
not early on when they were little more than promising hypotheses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it is not our side that is trying
to shut down inquiry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is Dr.
Mitchell’s side (if indeed there are more than one lone misguided soul who
ascribe to his view) that would seek to stifle inquiry by tacitly accepting
original research without even the consideration of its replicability.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Replicability is not the only factor
that makes a theory robust, but it is certainly an important factor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The final counterargument
that Dr. Mitchell attempts to address is, I think, one of the stronger
points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I mentioned earlier
when I explained publication bias, there is an asymmetry between positive and
negative results, even in studies of the very same phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell claims that science
requires an asymmetry between positive and negative results, harking back to
that old chestnut that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He claims that no matter how many
papers might be published claiming that swans are only white, it only took one
study to prove that there can be black ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is all very true, but a better analogy would be
Sasquatch (or Bigfoot or Yeti, depending upon your region).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would Dr. Mitchell seriously suggest
that if one person publishes a photograph of a Sasquatch that we should
immediately ignore any paper which argues to the contrary?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly it is true that there <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">could</i> be such a being, but it, like
everything else in science, should be treated with the same skepticism that is
necessary for science to work. We believe in claims when there is sufficient
robustness of evidence to outweigh the skeptical counterarguments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one is saying that we should believe
scientific claims based entirely upon the number of papers suggesting one
position or the other (although certainly that is an important factor to bear
in mind when formulating opinions).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But it is certainly important to read those papers that show a published
effect might not really exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If
the evidence in one paper is stronger than the other, believe that one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the evidence in one is not clearly
stronger than the other, we need a new experiment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we can’t possibly begin to even consider all of this
until replication has been attempted and either succeeded or failed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Dr. Mitchell then
offers this nugget of wisdom: “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">After
all, the argument goes, if an effect has been reported twice, but hundreds of
other studies have failed to obtain it, isn’t it important to publicize that
fact?</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> No, it isn’t.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Actually, that’s exactly the kind of
information the scientific community needs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We needn’t know the numbers of studies on one side or the
other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We need to know the quality
of research on both sides, and we can only do that when all of that research is
published.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s quite possible
there could be two great positive studies and hundreds of other studies all of
which were conducted by idiots or baboons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s more likely that either two researchers made a mistake,
or that there is some other factor causing the difference.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the latter is the case, it’s
important to have all of the information on the table, so we can attempt to
isolate that other factor.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">4) “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Replication efforts appear to reflect strong
prior expectations that published findings are not reliable, and as such, do
not constitute scientific output.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Well, I didn’t
realize that a scientist’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intentions</i>
were how we judged whether or not paper constituted scientific output.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I thought scientific claims’ validity
was judged based on the strength of the evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Silly me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The basis of this
argument is that, if a belief in the hypothesis can result in a bias in favor
of positive results, then if the replicator believes the result to be invalid,
this can result in a bias toward negative results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These biases are real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And it is possible that many replicators are
interested only in falsifying results that disagree with their preconceptions,
though Dr. Mitchell seems to have an abnormally low view of scientists when he
assumes that this is almost universally the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the main two reasons to replicate a study are either
to detect possible errors if one thinks the study was in error or to offer
further independent support if one thinks the original work was valid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the scientific process is
specifically designed to minimize the impacts of these biases.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Once again, I must
allow Dr. Mitchell’s own words to condemn him: “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">But consider how the replication project inverts this procedure</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">—</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">instead of trying to locate the sources of
experimental failure, the replicators and other skeptics are busy trying to
locate the sources of experimental</span> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">success</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">It is hard to imagine how this makes any sense unless one has a strong
prior expectation that the effect does not, in fact, obtain. When an experiment
fails, one will work hard to figure out why if she has strong expectations that
it should succeed. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">When
an experiment succeeds, one will work hard to figure out why to the extent that
she has strong expectations that it should fail. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">In other words, scientists try to explain
their failures when they have prior expectations of observing a phenomenon, and
try to explain away their successes when they have prior expectations of that
phenomenon’s nonoccurrence.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;">It is perfectly
valid to explore either causes of positive or negative results (I refuse to
consider this in terms of experimental success or failure for reasons detailed
above).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point of the
experiment is to isolate cause and effect, so if there is another possible
cause for an effect (whether that effect is a positive or a negative result),
it is within the proper purview of the scientist to try to find it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Mitchell seems to think that the
point of science is to offer proof of one’s predetermined conclusions, but this
is not the case at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While
supporting a pet hypothesis or falsifying a rival hypothesis may be the initial
motivation to embark upon a study, any reputable scientist places truth above personal
preference and seeks the best explanation for a given phenomenon.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
I am reminded of a story once told by Richard Dawkins (who is actually a proper scientist, in the real sense of the word). Dawkins writes: “I have previously told the story of a respected elder statesman of the Zoology Department at Oxford when I was an undergraduate. For years he had passionately believed, and taught, that the Golgi Apparatus (a microscopic feature of the interior of cells) was not real: an artifact, an illusion. Every Monday afternoon it was the custom for the whole department to listen to a research talk by a visiting lecturer. One Monday, the visitor was an American cell biologist who presented completely convincing evidence that the Golgi Apparatus was real. At the end of the lecture, the old man strode to the front of the hall, shook the American by the hand and said--with passion--"My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years." We clapped our hands red. No fundamentalist would ever say that. In practice, not all scientists would. But all scientists pay lip service to it as an ideal--unlike, say, politicians who would probably condemn it as flip-flopping. The memory of the incident I have described still brings a lump to my throat.” (This quote is taken from http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Secular-Philosophies/Why-I-Am-Hostile-Toward-Religion.aspx?p=2).<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Unfortunately, Dr.
Mitchell has shown Professor Dawkins wrong on one small point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i> scientists even bother to pay lip-service to the scientific
ideal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Real scientists have no
interest in explaining away results they dislike, whether positive or
negative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They may be initially
skeptical, and they certainly demand evidence, and they may even embark upon a
replication study in order to further examine that evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But once that evidence is in, if it
conflicts with their views, they must admit they had been wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">5) “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">The field of social psychology can be
improved, but not by the publication of negative findings. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Experimenters should be encouraged to
restrict their "degrees of freedom," for example, by specifying
designs in advance.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Actually, putting
aside a few phrases, Dr. Mitchell is to be commended for this small section of
his essay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the reasons already
discussed and for the reasons I will discuss in the continuance of this
conversation below, he’s dead wrong about his opposition to the publication of
negative findings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, except
for suggesting that this is not the way to improve the field of social
psychology, the suggestions he does make are quite reasonable ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I won’t rehash everything he said in
that section here, but it boils down to increased standards for published
research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On that point, we can
all agree.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">There is a phrase
that bothers me a bit, though, and I want to address it: “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">All scientists are motivated to find positive
results, and social psychologists are no exception.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is true, of course, but I think it is problematic and
that Dr. Mitchell would have us completely ignore the problem behind it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists are motivated to find
positive results partly because they like to confirm their pet hypotheses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, this is small motivation indeed when one realizes
that most people become scientists because they want to understand the
world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If that means rejecting a
pet hypothesis, most scientists (as Richard Dawkins points out) at the very
least pay lip-service to the ideal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For me, rejecting a pet hypothesis may be unpleasant for a day or two,
but that emotion soon gives way to the much more profound emotion when I
realize that having done so, I have eliminated a false belief and may now
substitute a true one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think
most scientists understand and agree with that desire to follow the evidence
wherever it leads and to always seek to discover the truth.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">So why, then, are
scientists so motivated to find positive results?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Precisely because there is such a bias against publishing
negative results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In academia, if
you don’t publish research, your career is doomed to be a short one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if you find negative results, you
often find yourself with work that can’t find a market in which to publish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevermind that this research might be
the result of five years’ work involving dozens of collaborators and research
assistants--if it’s negative, it doesn’t get published.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">of
course</i> there’s a bias toward finding positive results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it’s not necessarily a
philosophical bias.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, there
are lots of us (I know--I’ve spoken to them) who actually like negative results
because they show us there is more to be learned (“My dear fellow, I wish to
thank you…”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if we’re trying
to meet publication requirements for career advancement, negative results are
politically (not scientifically) undesirable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">6) “Whether they
mean to or not, authors and editors of failed replications are publicly
impugning the scientific integrity of their colleagues. </span> <span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Targets of failed replications are
justifiably upset, particularly given the inadequate basis for replicators’
extraordinary claims.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Whether he means to
or not, I think Dr. Mitchell is revealing his true motivation for writing this
article here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has conflated
replication studies with accusations of deliberate misrepresentation of data!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A replication study, even if it is
negative, does not impugn anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Nor is a replication study an attempted pissing contest between the
replicator and the author of the original research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it is possible to perform a replication study while
maintaining the greatest of respect for the original author or while having no
opinion of him or her at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Failed replication does not, need not, and should not be considered an
insult to the integrity of the original author unless there is very good reason
to suspect deliberate fraud.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Let us imagine a
failed replication has been published. What are some possible reasons for this
eventuality?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">a) The original
research is valid, and the replicator made a mistake.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">b) The original
research is valid, and the replication study failed due to chance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">c) The original
research is valid, and the replicator falsified his findings<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">d) The original
research is invalid; the original author made a mistake<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">e) The original
research is invalid; the original author falsified his findings<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">f) The original
research is invalid; the original finding was due to chance<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">g) The original
research is valid but incomplete; there are other factors at work<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">In only one of those
situations is the original author’s integrity challenged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In only one other is his competence
even slightly called into question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It may be uncomfortable to have your work questioned, but that’s just
part of science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It shouldn’t be
taken as an attack unless it is coupled with a direct accusation of
impropriety.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those accusations
should not be taken lightly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They
should be taken seriously but false accusations should also be met with strict
consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science is an
honorable profession, and fraud is rare but intolerable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>False accusations of fraud are similarly
rare but also intolerable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
not what replication is about, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Replication is simply about determining whether original findings hold
up.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">By convention, we
consider a finding to be statistically significant at a p-level of less than
0.05.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means we accept a 5%
chance of a false positive due simply to statistical chance (not considering
experimental error).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That means
that, all else being equal, as much as 5% of what gets published could be
wrong, just based on accepted standards for publication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We could restrict our p-levels to less
than 0.01 if we wanted to, but that still leaves us with 1% of all published
research possibly being wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Replication, if nothing else, is about minimizing those probabilities by
re-running the experiments to see if the same results happen again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even if we put aside all possibility of
experimental error, misrepresentation, or incomplete understanding of
contributory factors, we must replicate research in order to weed out
statistical anomalies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Restricting
p-levels to prohibitively low probabilities won’t do, either, because the more
restrictive our statistical tests, the more likely we are to reject findings
that are actually real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
just as bad.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So what do we do?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We replicate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Dr. Mitchell himself
points out, “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">On the occasions
that our work does succeed, we expect others to criticize it mercilessly, in
public and often in our presence.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No doubt, it can be quite uncomfortable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science is hard work, and it’s a tough business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone thinks you’re wrong, they
have no problem saying so, and they expect the same of you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s the way it should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s no ill will about it--it’s just
a matter of subjecting all claims to the strictest of scrutiny.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who has ever so much as
presented a poster understands the feeling of coming under fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who has defended a thesis knows
it better than the rest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we
think someone is wrong, we say so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When we aren’t sure, we test it, and then we say what the results
were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s very little coddling
or hand-holding in this field, and there needn’t be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists are adults, and as such should be able to take
professional criticism for what it is and avoid taking it personally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Replication studies are one more type
of potential criticism (though they can also support the original research, as
Dr. Mitchell regularly forgets).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">He concludes his
essay with the following line: “One senses either a profound naiveté or a
chilling mean-spiritedness at work, neither of which will improve social
psychology.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”<br />
<br />
It seems that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exactly</i> one senses such
things at work here and that one is called Dr. Jason Mitchell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rest of the scientific community
seems to understand that replication is not a mean-spirited personal attack,
but just part of the job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr.
Mitchell’s complaints seem, though I admittedly speak only of a general impression
and not from any sort of evidence here, to be the whiny complaints of someone
whose pet theory has been called into question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of calling replicators (who, need I remind you, are
just other scientists, just like anyone else, and most often also producers of
their own original research) “mean-spirited,” the mature scientist realizes
that replication is an essential component of the scientific process and that
we neglect it at our peril.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">This essay prompted
science journalist Ben Lillie to take to Twitter with this comment (quoted in:
http://io9.com/if-you-love-science-this-will-make-you-lose-your-sh-t-1601429885?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
): “Do you get points in social psychology for publicly declaring you have no
idea how science works?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think
that sums up the quality of Dr. Mitchell’s essay quite nicely, though I object
to the association of Dr. Mitchell with the rest of the field of social
psychology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The social and
behavioral sciences have struggled long and hard to achieve strict scientific
standards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ill-informed tirades
like Dr. Mitchell’s contribute to a popular misconception that these fields are
not “true” sciences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are and
they should be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is unfortunate
that many of their practitioners seem to disagree, but let us not besmirch the
image of entire fields based on the “contributions” of a few of their members
who prefer not to follow the rules of science.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Throughout this
response, harsh though I may have been (though I assure you, my commentary is
no more biting than what is generally expected of any controversial statement
among scientists), I have striven to avoid making any sort of personal attack
or commentary about Dr. Mitchell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I don’t know him personally, so it would be improper to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have attempted to restrict my
commentary to his arguments themselves and to his apparent lack of
understanding of the scientific process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, since he chose to close his article by calling scientists who
conduct replication studies “naïve” and “mean-spirited,” I feel no guilt at
closing my response by pointing out one additional quotation buried in Dr.
Mitchell’s essay: “</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">I was mainly
educated in Catholic schools….”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 13.0pt;">Yeah, we can
tell.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which might explain why Dr.
Mitchell prefers to treat social psychology as a religion rather than a
science.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing>
<w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>18 pt</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>
<w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:DontAutofitConstrainedTables/>
<w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="276">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-78322173542304882712013-06-03T13:43:00.006-07:002013-06-03T13:43:58.114-07:00Denver Comic Con 2013Con report time!<br />
<br />
Friday<br />
<br />
On Friday, registration was to begin at 1:00pm, with the Exhibit Hall opening and panels beginning at 3:00pm. Since we had pre-registered, we figured on getting there only a little early, getting inside at about 3:00 and heading right to the Celebrity Summit to check on autograph schedules. It didn't quite happen that way. We arrived at a little before 2:00pm. When we got there, all lines had converged into one massive line, which when we entered it, had wrapped all the way around the Colorado Convention Center. Shortly after we got in line, it began to double back on itself and wrap around again in the opposite direction. As the line actually began to move at about 3:00, the end of the line kept passing us as we were moving forward (meaning it was growing significantly faster than it was moving into the building). We got inside and got our badges at about 4:30 or so.<br />
<br />
When we got in, though, we had a great time. That afternoon, we attended a discussion on violence in the media, which was an interesting talk (and I largely agreed with what the gentleman had to say).<br />
<br />
I got an autograph from Jim Steranko, who was quite entertaining. He told many stories of his work for Marvel comics and his days as an escape artist when he was younger.<br />
<br />
We then went over to meet Colin Baker, the Sixth Doctor, who was wonderful. As we reached the front of the line, a person with a VIP pass came through the VIP line and so went ahead of us (which I'll discuss more later). No problem. The Doctor then called us forward, addressing us as "commoners." I got him to autograph my DVD of Revelation of the Daleks.<br />
<br />
We spent a little bit of time wandering the floor, and then called it a day.<br />
<br />
Saturday<br />
<br />
The Exhibit Hall was to open at 10:00am, the same time panels would start beginning. Doors were to open at 9:00. We arrived at about 8:30 or so, and there were separate lines forming outside for those who had badges already and those who did not. There was also some type of major race happening across from the Convention Center, so it was a rather noisy morning. They got the doors open a couple minutes late (but reasonably close to on time). The line progressed a little slower than it might have because people were receiving wrist bands as they entered. Only the first x-number of people in would receive the band which guaranteed admission to George Takei's talk later in the day. We got wristbands.<br />
<br />
We then lined up at the bottom of the escalators to wait for entry to the Exhibit Hall, which was to be our first stop. I am told that this line exceeded the capacity of the lobby (per fire codes) and that they had to block the line outside until 10:00 when everyone could filter in to the Exhibit Hall.<br />
<br />
When we got upstairs, our first stop was George Takei's table. He's a wonderful person, and took a couple minutes to talk to everyone who came through his line. He signed my copy of his book, <i>Oh, Myyy!</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
We then got into Wil Wheaton's line. Unfortunately, herein was one of the problems. At some point, the organizers had decided that the regular line would not progress at all until ALL VIPs were through the line. Because VIPs can keep coming (and did keep coming), the line did not progress. After about an hour or so with barely any movement through the line, we realized that if we stayed in line, we would miss George Takei's talk. So we left.<br />
<br />
On the way out, I stopped at Kevin J. Anderson's table. He was perfectly happy to sign the book I had brought with me, and I also purchased one more for him to sign. (A tip: most people are happy to sign your books, but I think it's good form, if you ask someone for a favor, to make a purchase at their table.)<br />
<br />
We then stopped by Jon Bogdanove's table. He was doing some original art for some people, so it took a few minutes to move through his short line, but he happily signed my copy of Death of Superman. And once again, I made a purchase--in this case, a limited edition book of unfinished art, in which he had drawn and original sketch of Superman.<br />
<br />
George Takei's discussion was fantastic. He spent a little bit of time talking about science fiction and how Star Trek has inspired so many people. He then took questions. For the first, someone asked him to say his catch phrase, which he did. But he also managed to turn that into a thoughtful answer. He explained both how "oh my" became his catch phrase, and why he is glad that it did.<br />
<br />
When we got back upstairs, Wil Wheaton's table had gotten so busy that they'd closed his line so they could clear it out in time for him to go do his panel discussion, so we went over to Peter Mayhew's table instead, and got an autographed 8x10.<br />
<br />
After Wil Wheaton's line cleared out and he left, we camped out at the front of the line. By the time he returned, the line was full again. And once again, they let the VIPs go first, so even though we were at the front of the line, we still waited about twenty minutes before a volunteer arrived and directed the lines to alternate.<br />
<br />
Wil, however, was great. I asked him to sign my copy of Just A Geek. It also turns out my girlfriend is very probably related (however distantly) to Wil Wheaton. That side of her family is from Michigan, and Wil said that all he knows about the Wheaton clan is that they came over from Scotland in the 1600s, and eventually settled in the Great Lakes area. We have an invitation to e-mail him if we're able to discover any new information.<br />
<br />
By the time we got through his line, Felicia Day's line was full, so we spent the last couple of hours just wandering the artist and dealer areas.<br />
<br />
On the way out, I stopped by William Shatner's table to ask what his schedule would be on Sunday (the only day he was to appear). They said he'd sign from 10-12 and 2-4, but that the tickets would need to be purchased in advance. Good thing I stopped--that part of the process was not well-advertised. So I bought my ticket and went on my way.<br />
<br />
After the con, we went with some friends over to the nearby hotel were some of the guests and staff were staying. While there, I noticed Phil Plait wandering around the lobby. We went over and said hi and that we enjoyed his work. It turns out, he'd come down for Comic Con just for the one day, but had been turned away, as the part of the Convention Center the Con had had exceeded capacity per the fire marshals. When we were invited to provide notes on what worked and what didn't to be sent back to the organizers, I included "don't turn away Phil Plait."<br />
<br />
Sunday<br />
<br />
We arrived at 8:00. The line was long. Doors were supposed to open at 9:00, but because of the issue they'd had the day before, they decided to hold them until 9:45. However, we were able to get wristbands to get into William Shatner's talk.<br />
<br />
As soon as we were in, we went up to the Exhibit Hall and got in line for Shatner's table. Because I had my ticket, it went very smoothly. They were still finishing up the VIPs who had tickets to get in 30 minutes early when we arrived, but our line was quite short. It took less than an hour to get through his line. He kindly autographed my book and we went on our way. The organizers did a very good job of keeping that line moving quickly.<br />
<br />
Dee Bradley Baker had been kind enough to offer everyone with a weekend pass a free autographed 8x10, so our next stop was his table. His line was relatively short and moved pretty fast. Many of his photos were of characters for whom he's provided the voice acting. He impressed in that he addressed the fans in the voice of whichever character they'd selected.<br />
<br />
It was then getting to be that we didn't have enough time for another line, so we wandered the hall for a bit, and then went downstairs to Shatner's talk. Shatner is awesome. He wanted to talk about how puppies see the world anew and are filled with awe and that science fiction can help us do the same thing. He began this story by explaining that a few years ago, he'd had to have his dog castrated.<br />
<br />
We deliberately sat in the back for Shatner's talk so that when he finished, we could immediately dash out of the room and get back upstairs, as Felicia Day was beginning to sign autographs again at the same time. We did so. When we got there, the line was already almost full, but we were able to get in. It took a while, but I was able to get my autographed 8x10 from Felicia Day.<br />
<br />
When we got to the front, Felicia became rather animated about my girlfriend's costume. She explained that she loves velvet and remarked that she just wanted to roll in Diana's costume. I'm quite sure she didn't intend it to sound nearly as dirty as it does. She also petted Diana's head (or more specifically, the cloth covering said head).<br />
<br />
And then we just wandered around a bit, watched the people in costumes, and eventually called it a day.<br />
<br />
Overall, despite some organizational hiccups, it was a great con. I got everything autographed that I'd intended to, and had a blast.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-61293726988330913992013-05-14T22:01:00.000-07:002013-05-14T22:01:00.086-07:00Response to a Facebook Discussion re: GMOs<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<!--StartFragment-->
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, let’s see what we have to cover today--the legal status
of biotech, genetically modified organisms, transhumanism, human genetics, and
agriculture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I should be able to
tackle that in one blog post, right?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Okay, background first.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m writing this in response to a threaded discussion on
Facebook, which I will provide for you so that you know the context of my
thoughts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since I haven’t asked
permission to repost any of this, I will replace names with initials (I don’t
want to be a dick and put people’s names on my corner of cyperspace without
asking first).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s the conversation:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RMB: This is something TRULY disturbing… I hope the Supreme
Court -- for once -- weighs in on the side of PEOPLE rather than CORPORATIONS…
In short, a corporation has claimed that it can PATENT a HUMAN GENE.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Watch the video and be chilled to your
soul imagining what happens if this claim is upheld.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
(Links to <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/an-awful-corporation-does-something-so-cartoonishly-creepy-that-we-have-to-make-a-dr-evil-reference-4?g=2&c=upw1">http://www.upworthy.com/an-awful-corporation-does-something-so-cartoonishly-creepy-that-we-have-to-make-a-dr-evil-reference-4?g=2&c=upw1</a>
)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
LS: This is old news, [RMB].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The transhumanist movement is already well underway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mansanto [sic] and the other elitist
corporations are already changing our DNA through GMO crops, especially
corn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check out <a href="http://www.2045.com/">www.2045.com</a> for the global agenda to turn us
all into robots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not a
joke.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is anybody awake out there?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
RMB: [LS] -- You understand that GMO crops CAN’T change
HUMAN DNA, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps Robert
Lewis or [MP] might want to weigh in on the GMO thing -- they both have strong
feelings on the matter, they are both scientists, and neither is what I would
call a corporate apologist -- not by a LONG shot.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Well, indeed I do want to weigh in on this, because there
are a lot of things that need to be said here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The science can get a little complicated, and so can the
legalities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The good news is, in
order to be sufficiently informed to make educated decisions, the general
public doesn’t need to fully grasp the fiddly details of the science; the
issues can be distilled for the non-scientist without dumbing them down, which
is what I’m going to try to do here.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, let me tackle some personal issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I AM a transhumanist, at least in
philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have some questions
about practicality, but I think pursuing certain human modifications is
definitely worthwhile.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this
post, I will try to explain why I’m a transhumanist and why I think you should
be too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I say this now not to
reveal a bias, but so that you know what perspective I’m coming from as you
read.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I will certainly explain
myself fully, to demonstrate that my position is solid, and not just the result
of some political ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do
support GMOs (and plenty of other areas of biotech research as well).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, if you read on, I’ll explain why
GMOs are not only much safer than many people think but also a necessary part
of agriculture in the coming decades.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And finally, in response to RMB’s comment, it is true, I certainly am
not a corporate apologist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither
am I anti-corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am a
capitalist, and I think corporations do plenty of good things, but I’m also not
afraid to call them out when they get up to shenanigans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which is to say, while I support the
work of plenty of corporations, I do not have any sort of pro- or
anti-corporate bias.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I judge
issues on their merits rather than on the size of the corporations involved.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, let’s start with patenting genes, since that’s what
started this whole thing off (and also because it’s the part of this I have the
least to say about).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First of all,
I’m not overly <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>familiar with the
particular legal battle referenced here, so you’ll have to forgive me for
offering only some generalized thoughts instead of an in depth commentary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It sounds very much like the sort of
thing I’d like to read more about, but as I haven’t yet done so, I don’t want
to pretend to offer expertise on something about which I’m not qualified to do
so.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
My general position on the matter is that intellectual
property law has done a poor job of keeping pace with expanding technologies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Patent law, as with the rest of the
body of intellectual property law, is meant to protect and encourage the
efforts of creators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it comes
to biotech, I think it is perfectly reasonable to issue patents to individuals
or to corporations who have synthesized new genes, certainly.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The difficulty comes when it’s a matter not of actually
synthesizing a new gene, but simply describing one that evolved naturally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly it seems perfectly reasonable
to offer some protections to the individuals who are responsible for particular
discoveries, even if they don’t create the genes, but it also seems somewhat
unreasonable to grant a patent for something that exists naturally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I tend to be of the opinion that the
best (far from perfect, but the best I can think of) method is to grant patents
for the specific applications of the discoveries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One should get a patent for the method of isolating a
gene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One should get a patent for
any biotech that uses the gene as a component.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One should get a patent for any direct medical applications
of the isolation of the gene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
one should not get a patent for the gene itself unless it is the product of a
new synthesis in the laboratory.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know the history of Myriad Genetics or this legal
battle beyond the one video that I linked to above, so I don’t know if that’s
an accurate portrayal of the reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Assuming it is, I think I’m in agreement that this is an abuse of the
law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The BRCA genes are present in
every human genome, and mutations of those genes have been implicated in
increased risk for breast cancer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I think Myriad Genetics should be perfectly entitled to patent all of
their techniques for testing these genes, but not the genes themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So I agree with the original post
(though I don’t find it quite as “chilling”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I would like to add to that, however, is that I would
hope the Supreme Court wouldn’t err too far on either side.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, we absolutely need them to protect
people (in this case, by vacating a patent that probably should not have been
granted).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we also need them to
protect corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the
corporation, after all, that has the resources necessary to actually do much of
this research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’ll likely be a
biotech company of some sort that finally cracks the cancer puzzle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So we don’t want to loosen the
REASONABLE protections that corporations enjoy for work produced in their
laboratories.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here’s the gray area that I don’t quite know how to
handle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Say there is a unique
mutation on someone’s genome that has some medical application.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It evolved naturally, as mutations do,
but is not present in all humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s only been isolated in one person.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists are capable of isolating and amplifying this
gene, and perhaps then inserting it into another genome in order to develop the
treatment of some disease.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is
all stuff we can do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, who owns
that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is the patient who developed
the mutation assumed to have ownership of this mutation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can see arguments in favor of that,
but at the expense of the medical researchers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What about the doctors who found it and want to use it for
medical research?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That might
provide the greatest social good, but at the expense of the individual.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can one claim complete ownership of
one’s genetic information?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t
know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When it’s part of one’s
body, sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when it’s been
extracted (with consent) during a medical procedure and is then sequenced by
someone else, who (if anyone) can claim ownership?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s an economic incentive to want to assign ownership in
such cases, but there’s a practical difficulty about it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I don’t know the answer to those questions, so I’m open to
other people’s thoughts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
something I intend to do more reading on, because I think it’s an important
issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s more, it’s of
critical importance that when we finally do get around to updating laws to keep
pace with technology, we need to get it right.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this issue, there are no less rewards at stake than the
individual right to oneself and the future of biomedical research.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If anyone reading out there has some insight in regards to
how to find an appropriate balance between these competing interests, both of
which are worthy of legal protection, please join the conversation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m curious what everyone has to say
about the matter.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now let’s talk about GMOs for a while.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>GMOs, or genetically modified
organisms, are organisms that have been modified specifically through the
modern techniques of biotechnology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s actually a really interesting field, and I encourage all of you to
read up on some of the techniques scientists can use in the laboratory to move
genetic information around in a specific and targeted manner.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I won’t go into the specifics here,
however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not really necessary
to understand exactly HOW genes can be modified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s sufficient to know that they can be.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before I tell you why I think GMOs are both desirable and
necessary, let’s have a look at some of the concerns people have about these organisms,
specifically when marketed as food crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are several concerns, some valid and some not, and they generally
fall into a few broad categories: safety for human consumption, environmental
safety, and political and economic consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we go along, you’ll see that I freely admit there are
some legitimate concerns--however, we simply do a basic risk-benefit analysis
and find that it’s easy to compensate for what few valid concerns there are.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, let’s talk about the safety of these food crops for
human consumption.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The simple fact
of the matter is, there’s no evidence that there is any more danger from these
crops than any others.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ll start with the assertion that GMO crops can change
human DNA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As RMB pointed out,
this isn’t really possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>DNA is
just a molecule, and the DNA sequence of a human is determined before birth,
and doesn’t change based on what one eats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, it is true that mutations do occur throughout life, but
because the “blueprint” of the human is laid out at the time of conception, all
of these changes are localized.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>They don’t really change “your” DNA--they are mutation in specific
somatic cells.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every cell has a
sophisticated DNA repair mechanism (or actually a series of mechanisms) that do
a good job of correcting these mutations as they occur, but a few always slip
through.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Almost all of these are
benign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On occasion, they can lead
to cancers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those are the only
kinds of things that cause changes in an individual’s DNA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now, how does this relate to GMOs?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The simple answer is, it doesn’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cancer isn’t fully understood, though
we do know of certain substances that are carcinogenic (that doesn’t mean they
“cause cancer,” as cancer isn’t a single thing--instead, it means they increase
the likelihood of mutation in the somatic cells).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there were any danger to DNA from eating GMOs, it would
be of this variety (not some nebulous “changing” of DNA).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there’s no evidence (really:
none--not a shred) that GMOs are any more likely to cause such a mutation than
any other crop.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You must remember that DNA is a molecule.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a sequence of nucleotides, which
consist of nitrogenous bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine--A, T, C,
and G) attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any genetic modification does not change the chemical nature
of the gene (a gene being nothing more than a specific sequence of DNA).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What that means is that the DNA of GMOs
still consists of the very same nucleotides, just in a slightly altered
sequence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whenever you eat
something, you are consuming a large number of DNA molecules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re broken down in your digestive
tract, and the products of this process of digestion are used as the raw
materials for the construction of your own biomass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Slightly different ratios of one nucleotide to another does
nothing to increase or decrease potential toxicity of the food product.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, in order to build a body, you need more that just
DNA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In many ways, DNA is just the
recipe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It codes for specific
protein (proteins are sequences of amino acids) products that result in the
complex biochemistry that produces bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps it is these protein products that are
dangerous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, if there is to
be any danger from GMOs, it will not come from the DNA itself, but from the
protein products, just as the danger in any crop would come from the protein
products.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And that danger would
most likely be more of a general toxicity rather than carcinogenesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But here’s the thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Wild crops (those you would call
“natural”) have random mutations, just as all organisms do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s possible that these crops could
produce the toxic product.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>GMOs
are specifically engineered and tested to ensure that they do not produce toxic
products.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it possible that,
once deployed in the field, they could further mutate and eventually come to
produce undesired effects?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure,
but the same can be said of literally any other food crop, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mutations will happen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The probability of developing a toxin
are extremely remote, so it’s nothing to worry about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More importantly, GMOs have no more risk of this than any
other food product.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To further put the issue to rest, consider that GMOs, before
they’re approved for the market, are extremely well tested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re tested by the companies and
laboratories producing them (if you don’t trust these companies, consider that
there isn’t a very good business in producing products that are harmful to the
consumers).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re also tested by
independent scientists and regulatory bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No tests have ever been done that can demonstrate any added
risk in GMOs that is absent in other crops.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I know the phrase “genetically modified” is scary to a lot
of people (personally, I find these kinds of technological breakthroughs
exciting rather than scary), but the simple fact of the matter is, there is no
such thing as an organism that is not genetically modified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only difference is that in this
case, humans are selecting for and engineering desired traits, rather than
simply leaving everything to the evolutionary combination of chance and natural
selection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What’s more, humans
have been genetically modifying crops since the agricultural revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We selectively breed food crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We hybridize plants to produce desired
phenotypes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The simple truth of
the matter is, there is no food item that reaches anyone’s table that is not
the product of human engineering of the genome.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Safety of the food products is simply not a good reason to
oppose GMOs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are perfectly
safe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But what about the ecological concerns?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s where there may be some more
valid concerns, but I think I can briefly show you why it’s really nothing to
worry about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Basically, all of
these issues come down to unintended consequences not directly related to the
crops themselves.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
First, there is a risk that crops that have been engineered
to include pesticides could potentially damage non-target species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, if someone has
engineered a crop to keep a particular kind of insect away, it could be harmful
to other species of insects like butterflies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, there was some thought that particular GM crops were
harmful to Monarch Butterflies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, properly controlled studies have found that, in this case,
there is a negligible risk, and indeed that deployment of the GM crops has
coincided with an increase in the butterfly population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So that particular scare was
nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does that mean that
there’s no cause for concern here?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It just means that
scientists must be careful to consider potential ecological consequences when
developing crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, GM crops
may be better for insect species than non-GM crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well think
of it this way: farmers are going to do whatever they can to keep harmful
insects away from their crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Traditional methods include spraying pesticides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if a nontoxic deterrent is
engineered directly into a crop, it can be possible to keep the pests away
without actually causing harm to the insect populations.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The second type of unintended consequence is the creation of
new selective pressures that drive the evolution of other species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is probably the one and only
problem that needs to be addressed, and it does not apply only to GMOs either,
but to any exotic factor introduced into an ecosystem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are two basic types of this that
can occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First is a rise in
secondary pests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is possible
that a crop is resistant to a particular species of pest could suddenly (in the
absence of competition) become particularly attractive to a secondary pest
which is not targeted by the pesticide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Secondly, as has actually happened, herbicide resistance may promote the
evolution of other herbicide resistant species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea is that farmers plant herbicide resistant crops so
that they can spray for weeds without damaging their desired crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they over-spray, they risk creating
a new selective pressure that causes the emergence of weed species that are
also resistant to herbicides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both
of these are valid concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, both can be addressed by carefully monitoring ecological
consequences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Risk can also be
minimized simply by not over-spraying fields with herbicides (or by varying the
chemical composition of the herbicides to avoid having a single selective
pressure on the weed species).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then there’s the matter of the possibility of gene flow to
neighboring crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This does
happen, as plants interbreed, and can lead to the introduction of novel genetic
material into otherwise unaltered crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>However, I fail to see the problem here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First of all, genetically modified crops, as with most
crops, are fairly well contained, so while this can happen, it’s unlikely to be
a common problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore,
unless you have an irrational fear of GMOs, I fail to see why anyone
cares.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All it’s likely to do is
make the neighboring farm more productive.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If anyone else can come up with other objections or
concerns, I would be curious to hear them so that I can do some further
research and determine their validity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
With that, we turn our attention to political or economic
objections, of which I can think really only of two basic categories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First is the idea that GMOs are
economically harmful to “small” farmers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Second is a matter that has to do with intellectual property.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The matter that modified crops may be harmful to the farmers
of non-modified crops is, as far as I’ve been able to tell, largely unverified.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Probably the most famous of these
claims is the accusation that once Monsanto entered the Indian seed market,
hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide, allegedly due
to economic hardship caused by Monsanto.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First of all, while any suicide is tragic, economic hardship is the risk
of doing business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone
sells a superior product at a better price, there should be no special protections
for the competition.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, there’s good news: it’s a complete myth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Monsanto entered the Indian market in
2002.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Between 1997 and 2007, there
was a rise in suicide rates in India from about 100,000 to 120,000.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, despite this rise in suicide
rates (already hardly the “hundreds of thousands” claimed by GMO opponents),
suicide rates among farmers remained constant, at around 20,000 per year.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, farmers actually benefitted
from Monsanto’s entry into the Indian marketplace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Between 2002 and 2008, farmers’ yields increased by nearly
25%, with corresponding profit increases of about 50%.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, at least in India, it seems that transgenic crops have
been a boon for farmers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
that’s the way it generally is in other markets as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If transgenic crops were to be widely
deployed around the world, the only people whose business would suffer would be
those silly enough to resist technological advance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Monsanto, for just one example, does its primary business
selling products to farmers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s
not just corporate giants, but “Farmer Jim” who benefits from biotechnology,
because the farmers are able to buy seeds capable of producing higher yields
(and higher profits) at lower cost.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Intellectual property claims are the worst-sounding of the
lot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People claim that companies
like Monsanto have filed lawsuits to protect their patents against farmers
whose crops were accidentally contaminated by patent-protected crops.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, this has not happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of Monsanto’s 145 lawsuits against
farmers, 11 defendants alleged that Monsanto’s crops had accidentally
contaminated their fields, and that they were being wrongfully sued for
something over which they had no control.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In fact, Monsanto won all eleven cases, and this defense has never been
shown to have any validity at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Monsanto’s policy (as with every other biotech company I’m aware of) is
not to sue farmers unless the infringement was deliberate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a perfectly reasonable business
practice, as biotech companies have a right to protect their patents--otherwise
there would be no profit to motivate research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Incidental growing of patented crops does not land farmers
in legal trouble.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, here’s why GMOs are essential: we don’t have enough
food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Billions of people around
the world are hungry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Millions die
of starvation, many of them children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Genetically modified food crops are able to grow in locations other
crops would not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore,
genetic modification can allow for higher yields from the same amount of land.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Let me introduce you to Norman Borlaug--The Greatest Human
Being Who Ever Lived.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is one of
only seven people to have received a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, and the Congressional Gold Medal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He also received the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second highest
civilian honor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What did Dr.
Borlaug do to receive such honors, and to be known by many (including myself)
as the greatest human being in all of history?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat
strains, which he then spent his life introducting to Mexico, Pakistan, India,
and much of Asia and Africa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
was the result of this work?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is
generally estimated that his work saved a BILLION lives from starvation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A BILLION people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That’s what people who oppose genetic modification of food crops
advocate losing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And with the
human population expected to exceed 9 billion people by 2050, without a new
agricultural revolution, that number can only continue to increase.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don’t see several billion people willing
to die of starvation because of a few Westerners with more food than brains.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But the importance of biotechnology and GMOs is not limited
to prevention of doom and gloom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Imagine a world in which the entire world has a surplus of food.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine what we could produce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine the contribution to world
peace!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or if you prefer to think
small, think about the novel food items we could introduce to your local supermarket.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Selective breeding produced fruits and
vegetables we like to eat (the desert banana does not even remotely resemble
its wild ancestor, for instance)--imagine what we could bring to the dinner
table without having to spend so many generations of selective breeding that
amounts to little more than trial and error!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
What about opponents to GMOs?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They’re not harmless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As I already mentioned, if they are successful, they will cause a
holocaust of starvation in the developing world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But their effects are closer to home, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They cost farmers more money and labor
to produce the same yield of crops, which is harmful to local and global
economies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Near and dear to my
heart, though, is the effect on science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Anti-GMO activists have regularly destroyed crops, including those used
for research and not actually intended to be food crops.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Activists in India recently had a chilling effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They persuaded the powers-that-be to
ban a particular genetically modified food crop, even though all evidence is
that it’s perfectly safe and generally speaking a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that’s not the end of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While this only extended to particular
food crops, it had a chilling effect on Indian science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Researchers, who are perfectly within
their legal rights to conduct genetic experiments under Indian law, have found
that their funding has dried up as everyone is afraid of the politics now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I should not have to point out that
this is disastrous!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That all said, let’s go with a more dramatic change of
direction and talk about something completely different: transhumanism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Transhumanism is basically the perspective
that humans can and should be improved through technological advance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like any technology, the technologies
involved in transhumanism can be used for good or for evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hitlerian ideals of a master race, for
instance, could be considered transhumanist, but are not representative of the
transhumanist movement, of which I am a member.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To me, transhumanism is just the logical next step of a
rational humanist philosophy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am
first a humanist, and a transhumanist second.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that increasing technological capabilities can and
should be used to improve the human condition, both mentally and physically.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We all know Moore’s Law which has to do with the progression
of computer technology, and most of us are familiar with Ray Kurzweil’s related
Law of Accelerating Returns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
idea is that technology begets new technology at an increasing pace, such that
things that are science fiction today may be science fact in the near
future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Philosophically, I
agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Practically, I think much
of the transhumanist movement is overly optimistic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We probably will not see the singularity Kurzweil has been
waiting for within our lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
will probably not see radical life extension anytime soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But these are admirable goals to aim
for.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine a world in which people live much longer than they
do today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps a world in which
humans can achieve a sort of immortality by uploading their consciousness into
a computer system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine a world
in which humans are physically improved and can do tasks only machines can do
today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is transhumanism, and
it’s a good thing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It seems that LS fears that transhumanism will turn us into
the Borg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Admittedly, because
technology is amoral and can be used toward good or evil ends, we must be
vigilant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there is no
reason to assume the worst, especially when considering that the vast majority
of the transhumanist movement share my ideals and philosophy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now, I’m unfamiliar with the linked Project 2045, so I can’t
comment on that, except to say that at a quick glance, I fail to see what’s
wrong with it (except perhaps that they’re overly optimistic about their
timeline).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If anyone can tell me why they might object to
transhumanism, or even just ask me questions about it, I would be happy to have
that discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As it stands, I
don’t understand the objections, so I feel ill equipped to lay misconceptions
to rest.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now that I’ve laid out some of my thoughts, let us have
another look at that original post that I’m primarily responding to, with my
(brief) commentary interspersed:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“This is old news, [RMB].<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The transhumanist movement is already well underway.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If by “well underway,” you mean that there are a lot of
people thinking about it, then this is true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the fundamental goal for much of transhumanism is radical
life extension, which is not within our grasp.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As it stands, we have significantly extended average human
life expectancy, but if you think that’s the same thing, then you’re confusing
an increasing average for an increasing maximum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Humans just don’t live much beyond 100 years, and that
hasn’t changed throughout human history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We just don’t die prematurely as much anymore.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I also fail to see how this might be construed as a bad
thing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Mansanto [sic] and the other elitist corporations”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I get it--Monsanto is the “villain du jour” these days,
though I don’t quite understand why.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But I’d like to know what “elitist corporations” means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As RMB pointed out, I’m not a corporate
apologist, but neither am I anti-corporate, and I fail to see anything elitist
about biotech companies that can “do good by doing well” and significantly
improve the lives of millions or billions of people.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If by “elitist” you simply mean that they value education
above superstition, then I can’t speak for the corporations, but I would
personally wear the “elitist” badge with pride.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“…are already changing our DNA through GMO crops, especially
corn.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Nope.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I
explained above, this is untrue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And I’m especially uncertain what corn has to do with anything, as most
GMOs are rice or wheat strains engineered to grow in different climates or with
an increased yield.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other
improvements have been herbicide resistance or natural pesticides.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Check out <a href="http://www.2045.com/">www.2045.com</a>
for the global agenda to turn us all into robots.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Robots?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While I
personally welcome the merger of humanity with technology (consider the “smart”
prosthetics currently hitting the market and tell me that’s a bad thing), I
fail to see this as anyone’s goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Robots, by most definitions, are not human, and so humans cannot become
robots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one is trying to make
cornbots, so I really don’t know where you’re getting your information.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“This is not a joke.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you’re not joking, then I wish you were.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Is anybody awake out there?”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Clearly, SOME people are, but I obviously cannot speak for
everyone.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Because of the magnitude of what I’ve been talking about, I’ll
let the late, great Dr. Borlaug have the last word: “Some of the environmental
lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them
are elitists. They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They
do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or
Brussels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they lived just one month
amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be
crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged
that the fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.”</div>
<!--EndFragment-->
<br />
<!--EndFragment-->
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-16785799514083847952012-07-14T17:16:00.002-07:002012-07-14T17:16:19.038-07:00Examining the Louisiana Psychic Ruling<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I’m
not going to waste your time or mine with digging into legal precedent or
preparing a proper scholarly paper on this one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, we’re going to just briefly look at the facts of
the matter and then I’ll tell you what I think (and hence what you should
think) about all this.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
back-story in brief: The city of Alexandria, Louisiana passed an ordinance
banning fortunetelling, palm reading, astrology, and similar activities within
their city.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good for them--sticking
it to the frauds, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, in
2011, Rachel Adams, a fortune-teller who claims she accepts donations but does
not charge for her “services”--and we all know that’s just a ploy--sued after
receiving a summons for violating the ordinance which carries daily penalties
of up to $500.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>U.S.
Magistrate James Kirk (I really couldn’t make this shit up if I tried) wrote a
report and recommendation arguing that despite the city’s arguments that the
business of fortunetelling is a fraud, it is nonetheless free speech protected
under the First Amendment.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On
Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Dee D. Drell (really can’t make this shit up),
in agreement with Magistrate Kirk’s recommendation, declared the ordinance
unconstitutional.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This
is the matter on the table for discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You all know that I’m a very vocal supporter of free speech
and the First Amendment, and that I’m an extremely vocal opponent of
fortunetelling and the various other frauds committed under the guise of some
sort of supernatural power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s
what makes this one interesting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We’ve seen how the judge ruled on the matter, but was he right?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let
us first consider the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is it absolute?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But neither is it or should it be
lightly limited.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It extends to
actions beyond just speech and press, as it rightly should, to protect free
expression in general, as is exemplified in the Supreme Court decision Texas v.
Johnston, in which the Court ruled that flag burning is an act of free
expression protected by the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They were correct.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But
we also know it’s not absolute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are, of course, the old clichés that “your rights end where mine
begin” and “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Generally, they’re trotted out by
people who are trying to limit free speech beyond the actually reasonable
limitations that the clichés would provide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These reasonable limitations include, in the first case,
making false defamatory statements (and even that is sometimes protected, depending
upon circumstances--there’s a body of case law that I’m not even going to begin
to discuss), or in the second case, endangering life and limb or inciting a
riot by fraudulently claiming that there’s a fire when there is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is clear that speech that people
simply find annoying is protected, and that speech which actually damages
others is not.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>These
are common sense restrictions, and they’re generally reinforced by the courts
who seem to only occasionally break away from what one might consider a “sane”
interpretation of First Amendment law.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
other matter worthy of consideration is that of fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly fraud is illegal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is prosecuted in all fifty
states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I go downtown and pull
off a Pigeon Drop, I’m going to be prosecuted for that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theft by any other name is still
theft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And though we may have a
certain admiration for the cleverness with which these crimes are committed (as
opposed to simply mugging someone), we’re all in agreement that they are still
crimes and should be treated as such.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>So
where does that leave us with this case?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Does that mean the judge was right or wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a difficult question, but I lean to the side that says
he was wrong, but that answer is conditioned on several things.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First,
lying to someone--and don’t delude yourself into thinking psychics and
fortunetellers are doing anything different--is perfectly fine and protected as
long as it neither harms someone by defaming their character nor costs someone
money under false pretenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m a
magician--I lie to people all the time, and yeah, I get paid for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I don’t do so under false
pretenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They know they’re going
to be lied to, and that’s exactly what they’re paying for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They want a form of entertainment that
serves as an escape from the truths of reality, and that’s exactly what they buy
from me.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When
it comes to psychics, this is not necessarily the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sure, plenty of people with a
fortunetelling booth might just do it for the fun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps they even tell their customers that it’s for
entertainment purposes only (because we all know they’ll take that disclaimer
seriously) as many cities across America require.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the fact of the matter is, there is a large percentage
of the population who, for whatever reason, believe in psychics, and take it
very seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These people pay
out the wazoo, and all they get in return is a lie packaged up as supernatural
wisdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is fraud, plain and
simple.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There’s
a fine line to be drawn here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
instance, I absolutely loathe the newspaper horoscopes I see whenever I pick up
a print edition of one of my favorite publications.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But is that really fraud, in the way that the law sees
fraud?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one pays for that directly, and as
long as it does not individually defame anyone’s character, it’s perfectly
protected by the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We’ll just have to get people to be smarter about it in order to get rid
of those.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Is
it fraud if someone holds a Houdini séance on Halloween?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, probably not, depending upon
circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Generally, these
are theatrical productions that, whether or not they come right out and say so,
everyone understands to be nothing more than entertainment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s become something of a tradition,
and even skeptics participate.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What
about someone who claims to be the real deal, and sets up a shop somewhere, but
doesn’t charge for any services?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Little more of a gray area, but still legal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If no money changes hands, there’s no fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If they do charge for their services,
on the other hand, that IS fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That SHOULD be illegal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s not prosecuted nearly often enough (probably because politically
minded prosecutors don’t want to alienate the believing community), but there’s
no way around the simple truth that we should be prosecuting it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now,
here’s the gray area in which this case so uncomfortably resides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What if the psychic doesn’t technically
charge for her services, but accepts donations or sells books?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We all know what’s really going on
here, don’t we?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a clever way
around trade laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By not actually
charging for the service in question, they can argue that there’s no fraud, but
by accepting donations, they’re able to keep raking in the money because they
know damn well plenty of people will pay.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>So
do I agree with the judge?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Maybe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think that, in
this particular case, he might have been right, but I think he may have been
wrong to throw out the law entirely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If it is true that Adams never charged for her services, she’s probably
in the clear--though if there was any sort of coercion such as claiming the
spirits will only help if the victims pay, it’s another matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, a law on the books to
prosecute those who do charge should easily pass constitutional muster and
should be allowed to stand.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Make
no mistake: this is a difficult issue, and the answers aren’t always easy to
come by.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, we need stronger
legal protections against the frauds masquerading as psychics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But on the other hand, with First
Amendment considerations to contend with, I must make the recommendation that I
seem to always make about almost every issue: the real answer is
education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While legal protections
would be a great benefit, we’ll never actually get rid of the psychic menace
until we have a scientifically literate populace, well educated in methods of
critical thinking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When that day
arrives, we won’t need to split hairs over constitutional issues, as the
psychics will all just go out of business without any legal prodding.</div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-23002651779043755622012-07-14T16:11:00.001-07:002012-07-14T16:11:23.191-07:00On Ignorance and Idiocy<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Issac
Asmiov knew a thing or two about a thing or two.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We all know his work in science fiction, but in addition to
being one of the “Big Three” science fiction pioneers, he was an extremely well
educated man, a professor of biochemistry, textbook writer, essayist and
historian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The man authored or
edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His works appear in all ten major
categories of the Dewey Decimal System.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He once made an observation that will serve to introduce our topic of
discussion for today: “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding
its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion
that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
that single sentence, unfortunately, Asimov managed to sum up what being
American means to far too many people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We seem to have come to this conclusion that the freedom for which our
forefathers fought means the freedom to enjoy being wrong on any given matter
without suffering any of the ill effects typically associated with error.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now
don’t get me wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s
nothing wrong with ignorance per se.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We are all ignorant of something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There’s also no shame in making a mistake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The shame comes when one descends to a state of willful
ignorance or refusal to admit error and correct mistakes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Worse, there are many who actively seem
to take pride in their ignorance and mistakes.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let’s
look at some examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First up, I
recently watched a news story from an alternative source of news commentary I
frequently watch regarding California’s decision to ban the delicacy foie gras,
presumably in response to political pressure from animal rights groups.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without commenting on the reasoning
behind the ban itself (parenthetically, I will add that I oppose this insidious
legislation, but I’m not offering judgments on the intellectual capabilities of
anyone who disagrees with me--that’s a completely different issue), have a look
at the news piece I watched.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fZ5YLcWWs6A" width="560"></iframe></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
first thing you’ll notice is that I disagree with the hosts, but that’s not the
point here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The point is that both
hosts seem to take such pride in their inability to pronounce “foie gras.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you slip up and mispronounce it, I
would consider it slightly unprofessional (if you’re reading a news story, you
should check the pronunciation before filming), but forgivable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, there is no call to take such
pride in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These people have
allowed their political views that all rich people are evil (and believe me,
that attitude shows clearly in their programming on a regular basis) to
influence their work to the point that they are proud of their ignorance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, beyond being proud of never
having eaten foie gras, which may be defensible if you have animal rights
attitudes, they extend this idiocy to a pride in not even being able to
pronounce it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
role of media is to bring us information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I’m sorry, but I don’t feel I get good information when the hosts
demonstrate an ignorance of their topic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s fine not to know about foie gras--culinary arts are obviously not
the hosts’ forte.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the appropriate
action for a journalist to take when presenting a story on a topic he or she
knows nothing about is to consult an expert.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Young Turks, rather than engaging in mental
masturbation, might have brought a chef into the studio to comment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How else are we to trust that the
information they provide us regarding the treatment of the ducks is accurate
when they can’t even learn how to pronounce the words?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I’ll
treat you to another example, this one even more depressing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It involves two people I know
personally, and I will omit any identifying information to protect the ignorant
(not a concession I would generally make as I feel that people should be made
to feel ashamed when the demonstrate voluntary ignorance, but in this case, I
have personal reasons to avoid identifying who I’m talking about).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During a gathering, Person A remarked
on the absolute dangerous lunacy that is the modern anti-vaccination
movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Person B responded by
saying very much like “That’s a very double-sided issue and you sound ignorant
when you don’t consider both sides.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
addition to just proving ignorance of what the science says on the matter, this
person demonstrates a willingness to engage in a particular variety of
ignorance that can and will cost human lives, with particularly high risk for
children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, there is nothing
that smacks of greater stupidity than the ignorant calling the educated
ignorant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The simple fact of the
matter (which we may discuss in detail in another entry) is that vaccination is
a safe way to save lives, and that the anti-vaccination movement is an attempt
by the stupid to stroke their own egos at the expense of not only their lives,
but their children’s and their communities’ (herd immunity, after all, is a key
component of why we’ve managed to beat many of the diseases that are now making
a comeback as a direct result of the criminally negligent anti-vaccination
movement).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All you really need to
know is that the anti-vaccination movement was largely started by a doctor
(Andrew Wakefield) whose license has been revoked and whose 1998 paper linking
the MMR vaccine to autism is known to be a fraud and whose integrity is further
called into question by allegations that his research was motivated by
profiteering rather than science and by a woman whose only qualifications are
that she took off her clothes for Playboy magazine and managed to have a child
who she’s been willing to exploit on the international stage for a little
unearned attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve
complained before and will again that “parent” is not a qualification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All it takes to become a parent is
unprotected sex--that does not make one an expert on anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as much as I have respect for those
who take off their clothes for the enjoyment of the rest of us, that also does
not qualify one to speak on a matter of scientific importance.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>As
Person B said, it may be a “double sided” issue, but on one side is every credible
scientific study that’s been written on the topic--ever--and on the other side
is a porn star and a disgraced doctor who faked the results of his research.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Taking
sides when one is clearly right is not a problem, and that it is perceived as a
problem IS a major concern.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Matters of science are not subject to opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hell, I’m not even entirely convinced that matters of art
and entertainment are completely subjective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Regardless, when it comes to science, politics,
economics--really anything to which there is an objective “right answer,”
whether or not we yet know what that right answer is, we needn’t subject
ourselves to an “unbiased” discussion of “opinion.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because opinions can be wrong, and the goal of the scientist
as well as both the journalist and even just the average person considering the
information from home is to determine the actual truth, the appropriate course
is to argue passionately for what appears to be right, but to maintain
sufficient humility to listen if someone presents a contrary argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Allow reasoned argument (as opposed to emotionalism)
and fact (as opposed to opinion) to settle the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is a question on which there
is a right answer--and anti-vaccination is one of these as are evolution and
global warming, despite what the deniers may say--then presenting an “unbiased”
news piece in which “both sides” present their information is, itself, a biased
form of distributing information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is biased in favor of the WRONG side because it creates the illusion
that there is room for debate when there is not.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>People
have a tendency to read exactly the wrong sources of information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Conservatives and liberals both have a
habit of ignoring or misusing science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The conservatives rightly have a reputation for being anti-science, but
it’s time for all of us to realize that, though they’re wrong about different
issues, the liberals are just as scientifically misguided as their right-wing
counterparts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are plenty of
good sources of information capable of accurately distilling what the studies
actually say (myself included, I say with an appropriate level of humility) but
ultimately, if you’re reading your information from a political website, or any
traditional newspaper, you’re probably getting bad science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Go to the original study, or find a
source capable of distilling the information for you without losing the actual
meaning.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There’s
no shame if you don’t know a certain point of science (though there is massive
shame in America’s institutionalized ignorance of any science at all).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But when that topic comes up, the
honorable and proper course of action is to admit ignorance, and then do some
research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I don’t know--I’ll read
and get back to you,” and “I was wrong, and further evidence has changed my
mind” are two of the greatest statements one can make, so don’t think I’m being
cruel simply because some people know different things than I do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just don’t take pride in
ignorance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Strive to fill those
gaps in your knowledge, and you can still be smart no matter how ignorant you
are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Take pride in
ignorance--which includes an unwillingness to bow to new information--and no
matter how educated you are, you’re nothing but a fucking moron.</div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-11327842272653482322012-07-14T15:31:00.003-07:002012-07-14T15:31:54.150-07:00Traits of Gods<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Perhaps
the theists among you will be inclined to ignore anything a heathen such as
myself might have to say about the traits attributed to the gods worshipped by
all those various cults humans have invented over the last several thousand years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Still, I think this is worth paying
attention to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theists and atheists
alike have claimed scientific authority for their opposition positions on the
question of whether or not a god or many gods could exist, so closer
examination of this issue is warranted.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What
I intend to do here is to offer several definitions and traits of gods that
people actually believe in, and then discuss whether these gods may or may not
be compatible with a scientific understanding of the universe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let’s
begin.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God is love.</i>
I’ve heard it more times than I can count.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Theists will ask me if I believe in love, and if I answer in
the affirmative, they claim victory by defining their god as love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, let’s consider this a little
further.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First
of all, if you define god as “love,” you’ve already lost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love is an emotion, not a being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you want to call it god, you’re
welcome, but you lose any claims of the miraculous, any claims that this god
could exist as a real entity independent of the human mind, and all the stories
about this being that fill your cherished holy scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The god that people actually worship is
not “love.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You may argue that
this god has an infinite capacity for love, and that’s fine--we can then have a
discussion about whether or not such a being is real--but saying “god is love”
is linguistic trickery, and not even very good linguistic trickery.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This
also raises an interesting point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What is love, anyway?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well,
it’s an emotion, which means it is a product of the physical brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we call love has actually been
identified by psychologists as a series of emotions each governed by a set of
neurotransmitters (or brain chemicals) which evolved in such a way to make us
more likely to reproduce and raise viable offspring.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We pass through stages of lust, attraction, and
attachment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each of these are
produced by different neurotransmitters, and our conscious “minds” (whatever <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">that</i> word means!) perceive the whole
package as “falling in love.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>York
psychologist Professor Arthur Arun conducted an experiment in his research to
determine how people fall in love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He had his subjects complete three tasks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, find a complete stranger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, exchange intimate details about one another for a
period of approximately thirty minutes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Finally, stare at one another’s eyes for four minutes without
speaking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After completing these
tasks, many of Arun’s subjects felt deeply attracted and two were later
married.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>None
of this is to say that love is unimportant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just because we understand what is happening to cause us to
feel emotion does not make the emotion less important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We know that we evolved to feel these
emotions for specific reasons, and we also know that for similar reasons, we
find these emotions to be extremely important to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Love can be a great thing--just don’t assume it’s some sort
of mystical power, because it’s not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s neurochemistry, just like all other emotions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, every conscious thought or
feeling we have boils down to nothing more than neurochemistry, and I think
that’s just wonderful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I just
don’t think most people want to think of their god as nothing more than
testosterone and dopamine.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God is the
universe.</i> Again, if you want to define your god as the sum total of
everything in the universe, fine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the universe, contrary to what a bunch of new age buffoons want to
think, is not a conscious entity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The universe is the result of a series of processes occurring in
accordance with natural law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Again, that doesn’t make it less beautiful--quite the contrary!--but it
does mean it’s not the sort of god that people actually worship.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>When
Einstein famously make remarks to “god” in his writings (perhaps most famously
his declaration that “God does not throw dice,” in response to Heisenberg’s
indeterminacy principle), he does not refer to any spiritual or conscious
entity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God is simply Einstein’s
poetic way of referring to the sum total of natural law, or the order of the
universe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Bypassing
plenty of interesting (but ultimately useless) philosophy, we can say that yes,
the universe exists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that
certainly does not make it a god.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With
those two bits of linguistic elasticity out of the way, we can begin to discuss
the character traits that people ascribe to the gods they actually do
worship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The gods we discuss here
are the theistic gods, and the ones whose followers are demonstrating
considerable influence in public policy, so this is where the discussion gets
really important.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’m going to
separate these gods out so that each represents only a single character trait,
but simply note that most people assume their god to possess some combination
of several (if not all) of the following traits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I separate them simply for ease of discussion, and without
altering the relevance or accuracy of the arguments.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God created
life/the diversity of life.</i> These two related claims are separated by a
slash for a very important reason.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There is definitely a difference between creating life and being
responsible for biodiversity.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
second of these questions is the easiest to tackle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly a god who is responsible for biodiversity is
incompatible with known data.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
diversity of life is the product of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Natural selection, which is defined as descent with heredity
or nonrandom survival of replicators, drives the evolutionary process, creating
the diversity of species we enjoy on our planet, each adapted to different
circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you disagree
with this, then sorry but you’re just dead wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While all science is tentative by design, evolution is as
firmly established as anything else in science, and is such a powerful theory
that it has implications in fields as diverse as agriculture, industry, and
medicine.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
first question is a little more difficult, because the initial origin of the
first life (after which natural selection can handle the rest) is not fully
understood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, though we
don’t yet know the precise process, all evidence suggests that life is a result
simply of chemistry occurring without any guiding hand under the correct
circumstances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, it may turn
out to not even be that rare an occurrence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is considerable--though not yet anywhere near
conclusive--evidence of life (albeit microscopic) on other worlds.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There’s
still plenty of work to be done here, and we could certainly use some more good
biologists and chemists working on the problem to fill in what gaps still exist
in our knowledge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, divine
intervention isn’t the answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In
the case of biodiversity, divine intervention is directly contradicted by the
evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the case of
abiogenesis (or the origin of life from nonliving matter--not to be confused
with the discredited notion of spontaneous generation), though the data are not
as conclusive, current evidence suggests a process devoid of conscious design.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God created the
universe</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While we do not yet
have a complete picture of the formation of the universe, we now do know that
the formation of the universe is possible--without violating any physical
law--without the need to invoke a designer.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Thanks
to Einstein, we now understand that there is a mass-energy equivalency which
becomes key to our understanding of the formation of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If mass and energy are the same thing
(and they are), we need only to understand how we got to a state of having
energy rather than not having energy…or do we?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Actually, as it turns out, because there is also such a
thing as negative energy which precisely matches the total mass-energy of the
universe, the total mass-energy of the entire universe is exactly zero. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ll say it again because it’s a bit of
a mind-bender unless you’re well-read in physics: the total energy of the
universe is precisely zero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus,
the formation of the universe does NOT violate the conservation of mass-energy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Our
understanding of exactly how this all works out is a topic for another (much
longer) discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The important
point to remember here is that we now know that a godless universe does not
violate the laws of physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
has been an enormous leap forward in our understanding of our universe and, for
me, has proved to be the final nail in the coffin of belief in any sort of a
creator-god.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God fine-tuned the
universe for human life.</i> This one boggles my mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In addition to being mind-numbingly
self-centered and arrogant to assume that the entire universe (and you can
really have no conception of how big it really is) is designed with our pitiful
little species in mind, this claim seems self-evidently wrong.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For
one thing, it is clear that the universe predates humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That much is obvious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, it predates us by more than 14
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">billion</i> years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, then, the universe isn’t made
for us, but we are “made for” it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Humans, like all species, are evolved to be well-adapted to our habitat.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Let
us also consider that, to date, we have found exactly one planet capable of
sustaining our kind of life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Personally, I think it’s likely we’ll find life elsewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I even think it’s likely that
there’s plenty of intelligent life in the universe (though less certain that
we’ll ever be able to cross the distances necessary to find it).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, we know of only one place
habitable to humans.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On this
planet, even, most locations are not habitable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even our own planet is full of deep oceans, icy wastelands
and violent volcanoes, not to mention the biological threats to humanity that
come in the form of all the plants and animals that can kill us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The vast majority of the universe is
absolutely uninhabitable to any life at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even those places where life is possible, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">human</i> life is still impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly the universe is not fine-tuned
for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’re as well adapted to
it as we can be, but most of it is still completely hostile to us.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God performs
miracles.</i> There is no reliable evidence to substantiate any claim of the
miraculous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many have been
demonstrated to be frauds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the
rest, the evidence simply isn’t there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Considering how many people claim to experience the miraculous, however,
we should expect to see tons of such evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would not be all that difficult to substantiate.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Furthermore,
any god capable of suspending the laws of physics is incompatible with our
understanding of what these laws of physics are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A law is different from a theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While a theory is an explanatory framework of some series of
facts, a law does not do any explaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What it does is describe a relationship between two entities that always
occurs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, all science is
tentative, but a miracle is a direct violation of what our current
understanding says is inviolable.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
7) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God endows people
with immortal souls.</i> While this isn’t directly related to the question of
whether a god exists or not, it is peripherally related, and is important
enough an issue that it merits brief discussion.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
simple fact of the matter is, we know as thoroughly as we can know anything
that there’s no such thing as a soul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>At one time in history, the human character or mind was attributed to
this invisible entity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We now know
that everything that happens in the “mind” is the result of a physical process
in the brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Changes to the brain
result in changes to the mind or soul that would not occur if these processes
were not entirely controlled by neurochemistry.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Though
I would prefer otherwise to prevent misunderstanding, it’s still possible to
use the word “soul” in the way that we use “mind,” simply to describe these
emergent properties of the brain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But in this case, it’s just a bit of poetic license.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The god-granted immortal soul is just a
myth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the brain stops
functioning, so does the mind or soul.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
8) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God dictates
morality.</i> This one bothers me quite a lot, and on a number of different
levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea comes in both a
hard and a soft format.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the
former, the theist claims that one cannot be moral without god.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the latter, they claim simply that
god is responsible for endowing us with a moral sense, or that our codes of
morality are based on the scriptures.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
last of these is the first I’ll tackle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It is true that some people have taken moral codes from the
scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, it is untrue
that modern codes of morality are scripturally based.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is an evolution of morality and scriptures were one
step in that evolution, but we have moved on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the time the Bible was written (for just one example--the
same kinds of arguments apply to all scriptures), slavery was not considered an
immoral act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the Bible
contains specific instructions regarding how slave-owners could treat their
property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We would no longer
consider this moral.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Indeed,
as morality changes over time, we can infer that morality is a social
construct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Social constructs can
be easily identified by two criteria: that they change over time and vary by
culture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Morality is just such a
phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While humans have
evolved a moral sense which seems more or less innate (I won’t go into all the
data on this particular topic of heated debate), the specific moral
prescriptions both vary by culture and change over time.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Morality
is a trait shared by all peoples, regardless of religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly one does not need gods to be
moral.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, it has been argued
that secular morality is superior, particularly on two grounds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, it is considered to be more
moral to do the right thing for its own sake, rather than because it’s what an
external force (in this case, a god, though the same argument could be made of
legal systems or any force) commands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Second, secular morality does a better job of keeping up with the
changing moral zeitgeist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s not
the secularists, after all, who would deny marriage to homosexuals, ban
abortions, et cetera.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
9) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God communicates
through personal revelation.</i> The evidence of this is nonexistent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It might be strong evidence if
someone’s claimed revelation revealed information they could not otherwise have
known, but this has never happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Further, we can now explain many of the visions of god that people have
which would once have been considered indicative of reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we’ve learned more and more about
the functioning of the human brain, more and more of these communications from
the divine are now understood to be simple hallucinations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The brain is a funny thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s capable of comprehending the
universe, and can be fooled by the simplest illusion or imbalance.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
addition, there’s an added problem regarding the character of a god who would
communicate with only some people but not the rest of us, which brings us to
our tenth and final trait.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
10) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">God is
simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea of an all-good, all-knowing,
and all-powerful god is both internally logically inconsistent and inconsistent
with the evidence.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>First,
an internal inconsistency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For one to be omniscient, one must know the outcome of the
universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be omnipotent, one
must be able to change the outcome of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a paradox that doesn’t interest me very much as an
atheist, but for which the theist can have no answer.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now,
to omnipotence on its own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
problem here is that if there is an omnipotent being, the laws of physics
should not be stable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact of
the matter is, the laws of nature remain consistent and are never observably
violated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This should not be the
case if there’s an omnipotent being out there somewhere.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Omniscience
actually isn’t exactly impossible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It’s only impossible in the way it’s presented as a godly trait.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the universe is fundamentally
deterministic (and I go back and forth regarding whether I think it is or
not--I would say yes but quantum mechanics makes me question this), then it is
possible to imagine that a hyper-intelligent being could know the outcome of
the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such a being is far
removed from anything humans can imagine, and the source of knowledge would not
be supernatural but advanced mathematics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Practically speaking, there’s no such thing, but physics does allow for
at least some approximation of it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Omnibenevolence
is a real problem because we’re supposed to believe in a god that does only
good, and yet plenty of bad shit happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It goes back to that old chestnut: Is god willing to prevent evil but
not able?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then he’s not
omnipotent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is he able but not
willing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then he’s evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is he neither willing nor able? Then
why call him god?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is he both
willing and able?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then whence
cometh evil?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact of the
matter is, the world is a beautiful place and a horrible place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there were a loving god, it should
just be the former and not the latter.</div>
<!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-10624887486277360732012-04-20T17:18:00.002-07:002012-04-20T17:25:58.420-07:00Response to a Facebook DiscussionThose of you who haven't followed this discussion on Facebook are welcome to follow along, but it may or may not make sense, so you're dismissed if you wish to sit this one out. It is a response to a comments thread on Facebook, but it reached too long a length to want to actually post there, so I'm putting it here and linking it in that thread.<div><br /></div><div>Forgive in advance any errors in spelling or grammar. Since this is just a Facebook thing, I wrote it on the fly and didn't bother to proofread.<br /><div><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">Okay, this should be fun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I do have quite a bit that I’d like to say about various topics that have been brought up on both sides.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Some of these have already been addressed, but I may have an additional perspective to offer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Others have been addressed sufficiently that I’ll just let them go.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As Diana did, I intend to go more or less chronologically through the arguments that have been made so far. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I will attempt to maintain as much order in my thoughts as possible, but please be forgiving if this is a little disjointed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m writing it on the fly, and would rather spend time double-checking a few facts than trying to organize this into a proper paper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That said, let’s get right to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’ll start by going back to nearer the beginning of this discussion, and work our way through to the end (or at least the end as of when I started writing this, so here’s hoping further posts can wait until I’ve finished). </p> <p class="MsoNormal">To begin with, in reference to the cause (for want of a better word and with the understanding that “cause” is inaccurate) of the Big Bang, Jim argued thusly: “Either it [the matter] formed from something else--in which case there WAS time--or it just exited in a timeless limbo until it suddenly went bang…which implies some change in state, which implies time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What triggered the transition?” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Diana’s response of “don’t know,” is accurate on a personal and societal level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To the best of my knowledge, physics has not yet answered that question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But there are some ideas about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Superstring theory has some things to offer, as do a number of other hypotheses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What we do understand is that the universe, at the moment of the Big Bang, existed as a quantum state, which brings certain “weirdnesses” to the table, such as the particles that pop in and out of existence which Diana mentioned later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, as far as we can tell, not only spacetime, but also the very laws of physics were born in the Big Bang.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is indeed conceivable that whatever existed “before” the Big Bang--whatever that means--needn’t obey the laws of physics we observe today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly, we need not worry about causality absent time.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Chains of causality tend to end up in an infinite regress.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whenever one posits some cause for another event, one immediately raises the question of what caused that cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Christians and other theists like to posit an “unmoved mover” which they call their God as the prime cause, itself uncaused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, I’m sorry, our scientific understanding of the moment of the Big Bang may not (yet) be complete, but if they get to assume their god is uncaused, then why can’t we say the same thing about the Big Bang?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There’s no reason to assume that one is any different from the other in this regard, so wouldn’t it make more sense to stop our infinite regress with the known rather than add another step into something for which we’ve no evidence, when we’re still left with exactly the same conundrum at the end?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Jim then turns to another topic and offers “I don’t swallow whole the ‘billions and billions of years’ explanation that Evolutionists use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In both cases, I still want the details.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Diana took issue with the use of the word “evolutionists,” a thought which I share.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I think I may be able to offer a little more clarity on the billions of years matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since Jim mentioned evolution specifically, I assume we’re talking here about biological origins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Cosmic origins requires billions of years, too, in a different way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But when it comes to biological evolution, time really is the answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’ll discuss the process of natural selection a bit later, but for now, let’s just consider the time-scales we’re talking about here. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">We now know the age of the Earth within a certain reasonable margin of error to be about 4.55 billion years old, and that it took about a billion years for the first life to form.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So we have about 3.5 billion years to get from the origin of life (a topic I leave off for another time) to where we are today, with brains capable of bothering to ask such questions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The question, of course, is whether or not this is long enough for such incredible complexity to evolve by purely natural means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The answer?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A resounding “yes.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us take just one example--the eye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I choose this because it is a classic favorite of creationists, who like to assume that we simply don’t have enough time for the trial & error methods of evolution to have produced something so intricate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, image-forming eyes have evolved independently numerous times, operating on various principles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Calculations have been done to make extremely conservative estimates of how long this process of evolution through gradual steps would take to produce an eye--these conservative estimates are on the order of hundreds of thousands of years--orders of magnitude removed from the time available.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So yes, there is plenty of time for evolution to have worked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The other part of that equation (natural selection, namely) will have to wait for a moment, but I shall return to it soon. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">David then objects to evolution as an explanation for biodiversity because the second law of thermodynamics would prevent a climb “upward” on the hierarchy of complexity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jim counters by briefly explaining speciation, which I’ll come back to for a bit more detailed an explanation later, and Diana links to a source on the second law of thermodynamics (which I admittedly have not yet read) and adds that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which life is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For the moment, I’ll simply state that this is a true description of thermodynamics’ second law, and promise to return to this thought in a moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Again, I’m moving chronologically, and it seems that the real “meat” of this topic shows up in later paragraphs.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">David’s argument regarding causality seems to be missing some steps between “causality” and “god.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As I mentioned above, the god hypothesis really cannot help us to escape from an infinite regress, and I think the best place to stop any infinite regress is with the known.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, we can keep probing the limits of our knowledge, and we should, but unless we can come up with some sort of terminal limit, we can always ask what caused the cause.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Until we can know the ultimate answer to that question--and I personally feel our physics is getting damned close to that--we stop with what we know, rather than postulating an unknown agency with unknown characteristics who surely must also be subject to the same laws of causality (after all, allowing any breach of causality negates the necessity of putting forth an additional hypothesis in the first place).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As for the dependence between mass and time, special relativity, and such things indicating omnipresence, I’m afraid we’re approaching the limits of my knowledge of physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To the extent of my knowledge, I don’t think the conclusion follows from these premises--which is to say, I don’t see lightspeed travel as indicating anything resembling actual omnipresence but only an existence outside of the confines of time (whatever that is).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I further don’t think that David’s understanding of special relativity is correct, but I shall defer to someone with greater physics than I to address this point. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">This would also raise some other theological questions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If we grant David’s assertions (which I don’t, but will do for the purposes of argument), then what do we make of the warping of spacetime that occurs at high mass and high speed (perhaps even faster than light, though I won’t even begin to speculate whether there’s actually any real possibility of that)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Say we somehow manage to put a man--alive--into a black hole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Considering the sort of warping of time that occurs under such conditions, would we consider him a god?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think not, but if existence outside of the normal confines of time is our definition of a god, then I’m not sure what choice we would actually have. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">We then move on to whether or not random processes can lead to random results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I would say no--at least not unless there is a non-random element to the equation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If we’re talking about order in the universe, the argument holds no water at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The universe, obeying natural law, is precisely as ordered as it is, no more, no less.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s the product of very nonrandom interactions based upon physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Biology is a bit trickier, and yes, natural selection is the answer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Technically speaking, as Diana pointed out, we’re not talking about actual randomness, but we are talking about events that, for all intents and purposes, we might consider random.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can talk about the genetic mutation, which is a more or less random event, or we can talk about the shuffling of chromosomes during sexual reproduction, which produce gametes with a “random” orientation of one of about 8,380,000 possible combinations (in the case of humans--some have more, some have fewer).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In any case, though these slight changes may be random, they are then subject to natural selection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a generation, one doesn’t do much better than blind chance, but over the course of thousands or hundreds of thousands of generations, these changes accumulate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>With large sample size, random anomalies go out the window, so we can see this gradual accumulation of beneficial changes and weeding out of less desirable changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s the basic mechanism of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>David’s assertion that it is not verified in modern science is just wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My library is full of books that contain very detailed accounts of experiments that have done just that, as well as accounts applying that principle to observations in nature and making testable--and successfully tested--predictions regarding biological populations.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you want to see how this works, do a bit of web searching a find a good “Biomorphs” application.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Biomorphs are the brain-child of Richard Dawkins, who used them to illustrate how natural selection can work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Essentially they are computerized “organisms” with several “genes” controlling certain aspects of their appearance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They then “reproduce” with heredity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So you take your first population, select which one survives and then the computer breeds from that one, generating random mutations on the genes in its offspring--each mutation not accounting for more than, say, a 5% change on that gene.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You then select another survivor and breed from that one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You can breed for whatever characteristics you want.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Long legs, short legs, lots of squiggly lines, whatever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And though we’re employing artificial selection rather than natural selection, the proof of concept stands.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>From random mutations in various individuals within a population, it is possible, with selective pressure, to achieve a sort of ordered complexity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We can also look to selective breeding for an example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Take the humble banana.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is possible that you’ve eaten one today, but I’ll be willing to bet that if you did, it was not a wild banana (http://atheonomy.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/wild_banana.jpg).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Wild bananas are actually fairly disgusting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Their color is not as appealing as we’d like to think, their shape is not as nice as we’re used to, and they’re full of seeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, what we eat are dessert bananas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These have been selectively bred--evolved--to match the characteristics we want to find in a delicious snack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’ve done the same thing with virtually every food crop and domestic or farm animal we use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yapping little Chihuahuas and giant Great Danes can both trace their ancestry to wolves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Cows are virtually useless animals in the wild, have been modified by selective breeding to the point that I don’t believe they’d actually survive outside of captivity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These are all examples of evolution in action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re illustrations of the process of selection, or accumulation of small changes over time.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As for the modern day requirements that the strong should protect the weak contradicting natural selection, not at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are two ways to approach this problem, both equally valid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The first is to question whether or not there actually is a contradiction there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The second is to explain how an apparently contradictory behavior might have evolved by natural means.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Diana already made some good points, and I already mentioned The Selfish Gene, but I’ll elaborate on these points.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">First and foremost, evolution is a descriptive science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is not normative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can understand the mechanisms behind evolutionary change without espousing their moral proclamations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For instance, there are indeed times when ruggedly individualistic and ruthlessly competitive “warfare” might be selected for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In such circumstances, the “fittest” organism is the one that murders its companions in their sleep to avoid having to share resources, say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is possible that this may be naturally selected for (it’s actually much more subtle than that as I’ll explain in a moment, but run with me for a minute).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s also possible that humans, with our brains, can choose not to obey our genetic drives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Our genes “want” us to have sex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Our sex drives evolve because its in the genes’ interest to have us doing the dirty a lot for the purpose of replication.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The more we replicate the better a gene’s chance of survival.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But now, though we still have a sex drive, we can disconnect it from reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can use condoms, the pill, abortion, or any number of methods to prevent unwanted offspring from springing off, in direct conflict with the genetic drive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The same CAN be true with morality.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But let’s look a little more closely at how morality may have evolved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In my earlier post, I mentioned The Selfish Gene, a book which I still heartily recommend.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a terrific read, and you’ll find yourself with a wonderful new perspective on the process of how evolution occurs by the time you’re done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I intend now to elaborate on these thoughts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As I indicated, we can view genes as “selfish” in the sense that, though they have no conscious feeling, they “want” to reproduce themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In reality this is just the manifestation of natural processes, but we can anthropomorphize them here to help us to understand what we’re talking about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So the genes want to reproduce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How do they do that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They can’t just copy themselves directly and spread these copies far and wide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, instead they must code for building bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These individuals they construct will either be able to survive and reproduce or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The way natural selection works, basically, is that genes that code for better individuals reproduce more than genes that code for lesser individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So on the topic of morality, the question we need to ask is whether or not coding for moral behavior or moral tendencies is an evolutionarily advantageous strategy.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In order to gain a proper understanding of the intricacies of this line of thought, you’ll have to break into the fields not only of biology and, later, psychology, but also games theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’re not going to go into great detail here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you want the detail, again, turn to Dawkins for the answers, as I’m not about to copy down all the information contained in his 350-some-page book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But basically, the conclusion is that selfish genes, in many cases, code for decidedly NON-selfish behaviors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Various environments require various strategies, but one of the most common ones is reciprocal altruism, or behaving altruistically at the start, and then simply mirroring the behaviors of those with whom one interacts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they behave altruistically, too, then everyone’s getting along.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they betray, then so do you.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">These behaviors can evolve because sometimes it is advantageous to behave cooperatively, particularly to those with whom one is genetically related.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Trying to understand all the factors rapidly becomes extremely complex, and I don’t have the time to explain it here, but I think I’ve at least sufficiently made the case that natural selection doesn’t require amoral acts, but could require precisely the opposite.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the middle of this, Jim makes an interesting statement that I think warrants some attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He first concedes accumulated change over time until a population becomes classified as a new species, but then says, “As far as I know…evolution has yet to observe directly the change of one species into an entirely different one--say from a flowering plant into a cow, or even a spore-bearing plant into a gendered flowering plant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>My complaint with Evolution is it uses the ‘billions and billions of years’ argument to get from single-celled organisms that reproduce asexually, to gendered multi-cellular organisms.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, this is an interesting can of worms we’ve opened here, and I don’t have the time to explain all of the work that’s been done on the evolution of specific traits such as sexual reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But let’s briefly take this statement one point at a time, and see what we can do with it. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">First, it’s impossible for evolution to directly observe most speciation events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They simply take too long.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We may be talking about thousands of generations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even in organisms that reproduce fairly rapidly, this is a very long time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>On the other hand, we have actually be able to do so, in some limited cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While speciation means something somewhat different in asexually reproducing organisms, we have witnessed its equivalent in bacterial species, simply because they are among the few who can reproduce rapidly enough for us to have done so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I wouldn’t be surprised if similar work has been done with certain insects as well, but I’m unaware of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When you get to other things, you simply don’t have the time to reproduce that many generations before the observers--and their children and their grand children--are all long dead and the experiment is forgotten.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We also don’t get from flowering plants to cows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I assume that was offered sarcastically, because it’s completely opposite of how evolution actually works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We don’t just have a species that turns into something else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Any individual gives birth only to individuals of its own species--always.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is never a moment when a mother gives birth to a daughter of a different species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If this were to happen, I think we’d all be on the phone with the people at the Institute for Creation Research asking for their opinions about this strange new phenomenon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, what we must understand is that “species” is just a human-applied shorthand for classifying things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We like to put organisms into neat little boxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Most of the time, they fit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are some exceptions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But when we talk about evolution, we have to start tracing ancestral lineages, and what we find is that the further back we go, the more similar things become.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>First we blur the lines between species A and species B.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then, moving further back, we blur the lines between species AB and species C.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further back, we blur the lines between ABC and D.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It really is just as simple as accumulated change over time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the word “species” is the hang-up, then just drop it, because it doesn’t really matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s just a descriptive word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What’s really happening is that daughters are slightly different from mothers, are slightly different from grandmothers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Parents with multiple offspring find variation between their children. We’re all intimately familiar with this principle on a local scale on the order of about 100 years or less (the human lifetime).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, we just need to multiply EXACTLY the same process by a couple billion years, and evolution is the product.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As for the origin of sexual reproduction, that is a legitimately difficult question, and it’s one I’m not going to answer for two reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One, I don’t know the answer off the top of my head, and two, it would likely be an extremely complex answer that requires significant background in cellular biology or genetics to understand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But here are a few things I will say about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Mitosis, or cellular division, is at the root of asexual reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Meiosis, or a reduction-division (which you can think of as the opposite of fertilization if you wish), is at the root of sexual reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What we find is that meiosis would be selected for because it brings a lot of variation to the table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While mitosis must rely simply on the occasional mutation, or copying error of the genome, meiosis by its very nature shuffles chromosomes so that offspring have a different genetic composition than the parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This can rapidly increase the rate of change and variation within a population, so its obvious why this would be selected for--populations capable of adapting more rapidly to changing environments are more likely to survive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So the real question is simply: what is the precise sequence of events that lead to the origin of meiosis?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And that’s the answer I won’t be providing here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It would require more research than I have time to do at the moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I will say that it is meiosis that we must explain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>All the other functions of sex and gender can easily follow as a result of natural selection once we have a method of sexual reproduction.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The evolutionary origin of meiosis is a legitimately interesting question, but there’s nothing about it that would suggest anything other than an evolutionary origin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The physical structures involved are even the same as those involved in mitosis, from which meiosis fairly obviously evolved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are a few novel innovations in meiosis, sure, but they’re exactly the KIND of novel innovations one would expect in evolution. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Especially true for these innovations because there’s such strong selective value in them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">David then states that, “it still seems though that natural selection is not observed.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m wondering what you mean by this, David.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’ve already mentioned above how we can use artificial selection to mirror the effects of natural selection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In addition, we can observe the direct effects of natural selection in nature, so either you mean something by “not observed” that I’m unfamiliar with, or you’ve just not done your homework, because there are plenty of examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even just spending an hour at a library or museum ought to provide a large number of them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Regarding gradual change leaving species in vulnerable states, this is not really true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is true that all species are in vulnerable states just in the sense that as environments change, there will always be winners and there will always be losers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s just the way the world works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>An example that could drive this point home is climate change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The global warming we’re facing today if we don’t make some significant changes would not be good news for us--we would be the losers, likely unable to adapt to the changing environment fast enough. But some other critters would absolutely love it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are some bacteria, for instance, for whom a hotter, drier climate would be a major boon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So in that sense, such vulnerable states do exist.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In fact, that’s why meiosis is so important, as I mentioned above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are numerous organisms, mostly plants, that vary their reproductive patterns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In times of environmental stability, it makes sense to use mitosis to simply produce (mostly) identical copies of oneself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If one has a stable, working system adapted to the environment, rapid change is at best unnecessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, in times of environmental change--and believe you me, periods of relative global stability are rare--it makes more sense to have variation within the population so that the organism can adapt more rapidly, and in these times, these organisms do reproduce sexually. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">But the crux of the issue, I think, is your claim that, “a fish with half a leg or even one leg is not going to be a good mutation, thus the idea of punctuated equilibrium (only breaking physics periodically rather than gradually in my mind).” </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let us first divorce the two components of this statement, and promise to return to punctuated equilibrium after I’ve handled the first part.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s a common creationist argument to muse “what good would half an eye be?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And the standard response to that has been “One percent better than 49% of an eye, and 2% better than 48% of an eye,” and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But we’re not talking here about just taking 50% of the cells that make up an eye and saying that this is better than 49% of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, we’re talking about functionality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And in this case, the evolution of the eye is very well understood, and I’ll outline it VERY briefly.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We begin with a creature that is completely blind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No eyes, nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Can’t see anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But at some point in its evolution, a mutation occurs that produces a small patch of photosensitive pigments on its skin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This would be a most beneficial mutation indeed!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s hardly an eye, but it allows the creature to distinguish light from dark.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This would have benefits in predator avoidance, for instance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It would also allow the creature some rudimentary motion-detection ability, as shadows moving between the pigment and the light source would register as a change in luminosity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now we imagine another mutation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In this case, the photosensitive cells recess slightly into a small pit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This also is not a great change, but it also would have naturally selected benefits in that the creature would now be able to determine the direction from which the light is coming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Perhaps not with great resolution, but slightly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a pit, a light source will illuminate one side more than the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now the animal has an even greater advantage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And this process will continue with the pit becoming more and more recessed, allowing greater and greater resolution of the direction of the light source. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Eventually, the pit becomes so recessed that it becomes more of a hole with a small opening at the surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well this is essentially a pinhole camera!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course this is beneficial!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now the creature has the ability to discern actual IMAGES rather than just direction of light source.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They won’t be of great resolution, but it doesn’t matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Our animal can now see shapes, so perhaps it can distinguish predators from indifferent creatures in the environment. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">And then some mucous covers this pinhole, forming a rudimentary lens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Again, a small change, producing enough of a benefit that natural selection can act upon it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And gradually, this lens will get better and better until we get the advanced lenses we see today. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yes, this is a simplification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t have the time or inclination to write a formal scientific paper on the evolution of the eye--it’s been done.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is meant simply to illustrate that gradualism actually can account for the things we see in biology today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And as I indicated above, this process can take place on the order of hundreds of thousands of years--a period of time so slight that it may not even be noticeable in the fossil record!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Granted, you didn’t actually ask about the eye.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I simply chose it because it’s a relatively easy transition to visualize without a lot of training in biology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’ll now turn to the point you actually did raise, which is a fish forming legs. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The simple fact of the matter is, we don’t see a fish form half a leg, nor do we see one form one leg.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We do know that amphibians evolved from fish--all life comes from the sea, ultimately--so we know that they got legs at some point, but again, by a much more gradual process, with each step more beneficial than the last.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It begins with the so-called lobe finned fish and ray finned fish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These are fish, similar to the mudskippers we see alive today, who can, for want of a better word, “walk” a short distance out of water, generally across a muddy surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is beneficial because it allows a fish to leave one body of water and get to a different nearby body of water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This helps it to escape from predators who may not have the same mutations, as well as to hunt for a new food source in the other body of water.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It is easy to imagine how progressive gradual reshaping of fins can eventually develop into legs, but what of the fossil evidence in favor of this claim?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, there’s actually quite a lot of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you go to your local science museum, you can probably find several examples of the intermediates, but I’ll tell you about my favorite: Tiktaalik.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Tiktaalik is an extinct genus of lobe-finned fish from the late Devonain period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I won’t bother you with all of the details, but suffice it to say that it’s become a famous “fishibian” or “fishapod” (combination of the word fish with amphibian and tetrapod (four-limbed animal), respectively).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Evolutionary theory made a prediction that we should find a fossil in this time period that had certain characteristics of both fish and tetrapods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Tiktaalik was discovered a few years ago and it fulfils this prediction brilliantly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Like fish, tiktaalik has gills, scales, and fins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Like amphibians, it has tetrapod rib bones, tetrapod mobile neck, and tetrapod lungs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Its limb joints and bones look exactly like an intermediate between fish and tetrapods, with tetrapod wrist structure and radiating fishlike fins instead of toes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Furthermore, we find that it fits precisely in a sort of “gradient” of fossils that we’ve discovered so far.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, tiktaalik itself may or may not actually be the ancestor that we’re looking for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Evolutionary science does not work that way--the transitional fossils we discover simply demonstrate the evolution of traits, not necessarily individual species or lineages.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I hope that’s enough to get your curiosity going, because there’s a lot of really great work that’s been done on this stuff, and it’s worth reading.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think, aside from going to museums to see for yourself, a good place to start would be reading Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Dr. Donald Prothero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He’ll walk you right through many of these discoveries in much greater detail than I am doing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The point here is, there are gradual changes that can accumulate to produce, over the course of many generations, quite different species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sometimes we encounter difficult problems, but that’s not reason to suspect evolutionary theory is wrong--not after we’ve gathered so much evidence in favor of it--no, all the difficult problems are is an excuse to do more research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We should strive to solve them, not just assume that a deity did it, or that it’s impossible for evolution to have done so.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As for punctuated equilibrium, I think you’re misunderstanding what this actually means. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When biologists talk about punctuated equilibrium, we’re not suggesting that gradualism goes on its merry way and then a deity steps in and breaks physics to get us past the difficult bits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not even close.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Punctuated equilibrium is still a completely natural process, and still an evolutionary process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s simply a departure from purely relying on neo-Darwinian gradualism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are some noteworthy scientists who think it’s an accurate representation, some who do not. No one ever said there were no controversies left within evolutionary theory--only that evolution as a whole is no longer up for serious scientific debate, barring some new discovery that completely turns all of biology on its head.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>What punctuated equilibrium actually has to do with is the rate of evolutionary change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Basically, in the neo-Darwinian synthesis, we have species gradually changing in their morphology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In punctuated equilibrium, we have long periods of stasis, punctuated by rapid bursts of evolutionary activity during which the morphology changes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you imagine Darwin’s famous tree of life, you can think of gradualism as slow curving lines that gradually move farther apart from one another, and punctuated equilibrium as sharp ninety-degree turns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But both of these are still evolutionary processes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’re still talking about selective pressures and populations responding to changing environments. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I still hold more to gradualism than punctuated equilibrium, which I think has largely been oversold in pop science magazines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course punctuated equilibria are an important piece of our understanding, but I think it’s the icing in the gradualist cake rather than the other way around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I have reasons for thinking this that I won’t go into, but the overall point here is that punctuated equilibrium is not by any means a disproof of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is simply another hypothetical course evolution may have taken.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">You also mention that “simultaneous spontaneous evolution of both sexes is then improbable.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I don’t think that’s the question we should be asking.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think we should be asking “where did meiosis come from?” because once we answer that, I suspect we’ll have a very good model for the rest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Regardless, I see no reason to consider it particularly improbable, regardless of how complete or incomplete our understanding is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since the physical structures in meiosis so closely resemble those involved in mitosis, it actually seems like quite a likely development.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>You then wrote “His society is not like him in any way and there can be no altruism…”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is not so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You’re assuming that we have a sudden appearance of a new species completely different from its parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This does not occur.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Variation within even several generations is barely noticeable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You’re a little different from your parents and your children (if you have any) are different from you, just as theirs will be from them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’re talking about very small changes here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even in the rapid changes of punctuated equilibrium, we’re still talking about periods of hundreds of thousands of years, so this argument just does not hold water.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As for your statement that “we cannot be simultaneously self-centered and species centered, yet in the evolutionary picture of time it seems both are needed,” this is partially true and partially wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can look again at the gene-centered view of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course we must be self-centered in that we’re wired in such a way that preservation of our genes is of highest priority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But this is not the same thing, necessarily, as behaving selfishly, as I’ve described above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I believe that every one of us is, at least unconsciously, self-centered, but that very unselfish behaviors emerge as a result of this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The millionaire who gives anonymously to charity, for instance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A very unselfish behavior, so how is there any self-centered motivation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Simple--he does it because it makes him feel good to do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s as easy as that. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">We then return to thermodynamics, a topic Diana already addressed, but I want to restate her commentary in my own words because it is important and bears repeating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Thermodynamics is the study of transformations of energy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since heat is a convenient way of measuring this, thermodynamics has a lot to say about heat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, quite simply, that entropy, which David is defining as “disorder” but which is more accurately described as energy which is not available to do work, continually increases.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Essentially, heat is the most useless form of energy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Heat describes the random motion of particles, so this energy is unavailable to do work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In any reaction (a physicist will tell me if this is true, theoretically, of absolutely all reactions or if it is only true practically of any reaction worth considering), some of the energy will be lost as heat.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is the increase in entropy to which the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law refers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, this is very important, because this understanding of what entropy actually is makes it very clear, as is expressed in our understanding of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law, where it applies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a closed system, which is defined as a system in which no energy is gained or lost, entropy always increases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is also the possibility of an open system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is a system in which entropy needn’t increase, because NEW ENERGY can be supplied into the system, and all that useless heat can escape the system and go somewhere else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Earth is such an open system because it’s powered by the Sun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Sun is a giant fusion reactor that, if you step outside at noon on a summer day, you’ll realize is constantly blasting us with new energy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Sun is a giant entropy machine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, biochemical reactions responsible for the complexity of life do come at a cost of entropy, but that price is not paid here on Earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The entropy cost of these reactions is being paid by the Sun which constantly supplies new energy to the Earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, the Sun is generating lots of entropy which is part of the reason why it will one day “die,” several billion years in the future.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, because we’re constantly being bombarded by photons from the Sun, we needn’t worry about the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law of Thermodynamics applying to biological systems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The more interesting question to ask is, how does that energy get harvested?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And I won’t give the full answer, but the short answer is: photosynthesis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Photosynthetic bacteria and, later, plants, evolved a mechanism of using an enzyme to harvest an electron from water, use photons from sunlight to energize that electron, and, through a process far more complex than I have time to explain, use that energy to build organic molecules such as sugars which they can use as the energy storage for the organism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Other organisms incapable of photosynthesis are still dependent upon the process because we eat photosynthetic organisms, looking primarily for the glucose they used photosynthesis to produce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Our cells then break glucose down into its components, harvesting energy at every step.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>With this constant flow of energy from the Sun, whether an organism harvests it directly or indirectly, there’s no reason to suspect that there’s not enough energy to achieve biological complexity.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">There’s also a misunderstanding about evolution being fully random, which Diana also addressed, and I think I may have covered earlier as well, but I want to hit it again, very briefly, because it’s simply wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Evolution is not random.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let me go on a slight digression about randomness first, because though biology is my field of study, I also have a physics nerd somewhere inside my mind, and this can become a bit of a sticky point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If we put aside for a moment the uncertainties inherent to quantum mechanics, then it rapidly becomes clear that the universe, in accordance with physical law, must be fundamentally deterministic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Some people take issue when I say things like that, but there’s really no other way it could be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now, quantum uncertainty injects some doubt into that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Do quantum mechanical phenomena achieve actual randomness, or do we simply lack the mathematics to explain their behavior at the present time?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t even begin to know enough physics to speculate, but my own suspicion is the latter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I doubt if anything is truly random, but it remains possible that there could actually be random events.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For biological purposes, however, there are events that we don’t mind calling “random chance.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, physical law ultimately determines where Particle X lands, causing Mutation Y in Organism Z, but since there’s no way of actually predicting these interactions, we can call them random.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, in that sense of the word, chance does enter into evolution, but it is by far the less important piece of that puzzle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To begin with, while random mutation does occur and is fundamentally important to the biological diversity we witness every day, the most rapid developments in evolution these days are simply the result of shuffling the genetic deck during sexual reproduction (though indeed, there’s a “random” element to that as well).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So we take chance events, whether they’re mutations or shuffling of genetic information, to form a new organism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It won’t be very different from the parent(s), but there will be slight variation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is the process of natural selection (along with sexual selection, and artificial selection and a few other things, but natural selection is the big important one) acting upon these mutations over the course of thousands, millions, billions of years that produces complexity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Natural selection is by no means a random process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nor is it guided by an intelligence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, nothing more than the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So not only does the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law of Thermodynamics not have anything to say about evolution, but the most important part of the process is not even random to begin with!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Diana also already answered your question regarding who wrote the laws of physics, and I don’t have much to add to her answer, except to offer one additional thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The laws of physics are not like municipal laws written by some legislature which can be violated and enforced.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They are simply statements of things that always occur (they’re also not written in stone, as we could tomorrow make an observation counter to physical law, but for intents and purposes, they’re well-established enough that I don’t think we need to worry about it).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can write a law of gravity describing the mutual attraction between two objects and quantify that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There’s the law of gravity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it says nothing about why.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s where we need theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Theories are the explanatory frameworks or narratives that explain all of our myriad facts and laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Laws give us a mathematical framework based on observation on which to work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Facts are everywhere--they’re a dime a dozen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is theory that is the real meat of science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a national shame that our education does not address this (at least not until you get to university and perhaps sometimes not even then).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Someone recently said in response to another debate I’d been having that 5<sup>th</sup> Grade science books regularly make the erroneous statement that laws are facts that have been proved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I was aghast at this (if not particularly surprised, as I’ve read Feynman’s stories about the time when he reviewed public school textbooks)!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">As the great man himself said, the golden rule of science is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, there’s guesswork involved at the hypothesis formation stage, but then we test those hypotheses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they pass a lot of tests, they become theories and are accepted as tentatively right--at least until someone else disproves it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So what we should really be asking with regards to all of this stuff is: what agrees with the experiments?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And the answer, after hundreds of years of some of the most rigorous work humanity has ever done, is that both Big Bang cosmology and the theory of evolution are in perfect agreement with experimentation. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now let’s look at the age of the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jim rightly corrected you that the Solar System is not necessarily as old as the entire universe (and in fact we know that it is much younger), but I think some of the most important stuff here is your assertion that “current metrics for the 13.5 billion years proposed are not verified.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Unless you’re trying to demand absolute proof before you consider something “verified,” which is something every scientist knows is impossible and so should not ever wedge its way into such a discussion, then this is flat wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We know the age of the universe is about 14 billion years (within reasonable error margins) because we can take its expansion pattern and work backward to the Big Bang and the number we come up with is about 14 billion years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How do we know its expansion pattern, you ask?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because we can power up some big telescopes and see it for ourselves!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you want the maths that actually confirm this, I shall have to leave that for an astrophysicist to answer.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, the formation of the Solar System is a more recent thing, and again, I will defer to an astrophysicist for the full explanation, but basically, the Solar System began as a cloud of particles and gas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As this solar nebula collapses in upon itself due to gravity, a few important things happen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, a star forms at the center, but a spinning disc of matter is left over, and this disc eventually also collapses, forming the planets and moons and asteroids and what-have-you that make up the solar system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This occurred roughly 4.5 billion years ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The solar nebula that started the whole thing off was likely the debris left after the death of another star.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So no, the Earth isn’t as old as the Universe--not by a long shot.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The rest of your points along these lines depend upon things like a variable speed of light and the decay of the moon’s orbit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These are arguments I’ve heard before, and I think Diana handled them adequately, as I don’t actually know the physics well enough to make statements of my own.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">One thing I do want to hit briefly is your claim that the Sun’s radius was once bigger, a conclusion you reached apparently because it’s burning up and so losing mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If that is not the assumption you make, please elaborate further as I’m confused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What I can say is that the Sun’s radius was not larger once upon a time, and if I’m correct in my assumption of why you think that, then I believe it’s a misunderstanding of what gives the Sun its size and density.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s only slightly related to its mass, actually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While it’s true that it is constantly losing mass (it is shooting particles out into space all the time, after all), it is not the Sun’s mass that determines its radius, nor is it in any danger of “burning up” or “burning out” anytime soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Sun’s radius is actually the product of an interesting thing called “gravitational equilibrium.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Essentially, because the Sun does have mass, and a lot of it, the desire is for it to collapse in on itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But because fusion occurs at the Sun’s core, which heats up gas and causes an increase in gas pressure, this force of gravity is countered by the gas pressure, so the Sun remains mostly stable in size.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It isn’t burning like a candle and losing mass…it’s fusing atomic nuclei, and those are two very different things.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, at the end of its life when it becomes a red giant, it will experience a rather extreme gain in radius, but that’s a question of the future, not of the past, and we don’t have to worry about it for billions of years.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>I also want to add to Diana’s mention of the so-called “Goldilocks zone.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Her description of its size is accurate, and she rightly points out that all it really has to do with is the possibility of liquid water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In astrobiology, we’re always looking for the possibility of water because as far as we know, it’s one of the very few things required for life to evolve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That said, our biology is limited to Earth, so there’s no telling what other kinds of life there could be, some of which may not require water at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This possibility also makes the argument that Earth is somehow special a rather questionable one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even more intriguing is the possibility that there could be liquid water well outside of the Goldilocks zone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Jupiter’s moon Europa may have a vast ocean of liquid water beneath its icy surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How could this be?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, gravitational interactions may cause “tidal heating” which could be sufficient to melt the water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By all accounts, there’s no reason to think life is anything but diverse and common in the universe.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We then go back to thermodynamics, and I have very little to add that I’ve not already said above, except a comment on one line.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You said that you cite conservation of energy and claim the universe is a closed system, so that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law should apply to everything in the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think that’s where the fundamental mistake is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, with every reaction within the closed system of the universe, entropy increases…but that entropy increases for the entire system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because the Sun provides energy to Earth, all that entropy can be radiated into space as heat, and the Earth can actually decrease in entropy LOCALLY as long as the 2<sup>nd</sup> Law is satisfied that entropy increases in the Universe as a whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Richard Dawkins describes it as “like a ram pump, which uses the energy of a flowing river to pump a small quantity of the water uphill.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Diana explained correctly that micro- and macro-evolution are nonsense distinctions, but I’d like to elaborate a little further.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If one wishes to make such a distinction, one would describe microevolution as the changes that occur within a handful of generations and macroevolution as the larger changes that occur at the lines where we would distinguish species. But as I’ve already said, species is just a man-made concept that we biologists use to make our lives easier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nature doesn’t care where we draw these lines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And I think I can illustrate that point with some lovely little salamanders who live in California.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In the mountains surrounding California’s Central Valley there lives a genus of salamanders called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ensatina</i> whose habitat forms a horseshoe shape in the mountains around the Valley.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>On the Western end of the horseshoe, we find <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ensatina eschscholtzii</i>, one species of these salamanders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We find another species, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ensatina klauberi</i> on the Eastern end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Simple enough, but what complicates the issue is that if we start at the Western end and travel all the way around the horseshoe, we find no less than 19 <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Ensatina</i> populations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Again, simple enough, but here’s where it gets interesting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">E. eschscholtzii</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">E. klauberi</i> populations at the ends are geographically separated from one another and indeed, as scientists have found, are incapable of interbreeding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By most definitions, we’d call them different species.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe CAN interbreed with its immediate neighbors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This constitutes what we call a “ring species.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Essentially, the evolutionary intermediates in this case are not extinct but are alive and well in the California mountains!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This raises interesting questions regarding what a species is--because if the various intermediates that link humans and chimps to our common ancestor were still alive, would we consider ourselves distinct species?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Maybe, maybe not, and that’s the point--it’s a made-up word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It doesn’t really mean anything.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So micro- and macro-evolution actually describe the EXACT SAME<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s just a question of where one wants to draw the imaginary “species line,” and a question of the timescales involved.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you want, you can think of microevolution as occurring within a few generations and macroevolution occurring over the course of many thousands of generations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s why the terms don’t actually mean anything to biologists.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">You ask for an explanation--presumably you mean an explanation for life, the universe, and everything--that does not require the laws of physics to be ignored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I put to you that both Diana and I have provided significant portions of that explanation (the whole thing, of course, involves millions of volumes of scientific knowledge that won’t fit into this discussion).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I also put to you that postulating a deity who exists outside of the laws of physics is exactly the sort of argument you claim to be against!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or if, on the other hand, you claim that this deity exists WITHIN the laws of physics, then I believe science has already conclusively disproved your hypothesis.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">In your final paragraph before Diana’s response, you say that “If evolution were true, we have already had at least half that many generations of bacteria in the lab and haven’t seen anything new evolve.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I take issue with this statement on two levels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>First, you don’t define half of WHAT number of generations of bacteria.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you’re talking about half the total number of bacteria that have existed, I think you need to check your arithmetic as there have been about 3.5 billion years of the little guys, and we didn’t discover them until Antonie van Leeuwenhoek found them under his microscope in 1676.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Half of 3.5 billion is 1.75 billion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let’s go ahead and round up and say we’ve known about them for 400 years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Subtract 400 from 1.75 billion, and you’re off by a rather large factor, methinks.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">You are also mistaken when you say that evolution hasn’t been observed in the laboratory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It has, both in formal laboratories and in the laboratory of nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For just one example, consider antibiotics, that wonder of modern medicine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, bacteria have been evolving, you see.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We now are faced with such a massive threat from antibiotic resistant bacteria that the FDA is moving to regulate use of antibiotics in livestock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because if bacteria become immune to antibiotics, as they’ve been doing, we face a public health nightmare even greater than the one caused by the recent anti-vaccination movement responsible for who-knows-how-many deaths.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We could also look to HIV.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The virus that causes AIDS is terrifying because it evolves faster than we can develop drugs to combat it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>None of this would make any sense except in light of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, as the famous saying goes, nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>And as for your claim that physics is consistent with the Bible, Diana observed that it is not but offered no chapter and verse examples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I won’t spend a lot of time on such examples either, as this response is already lengthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, I will only offer 1 Chronicles 16:30: “The earth…shall be stable, that it be not moved.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Does this not contradict with our understanding of the physics of the Solar System?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Indeed, even putting aside the problems physics has with the concept of a deity in the first place, there’s plenty of bad science in the Bible, much of which is chronicled at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Finally, moving along to some things you said after Diana’s response.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“I know general theories of evolution started with extremely gradual mutations, yet the fossil record does not indicate this, and there isn’t time for those mutations to have developed the variety of life we currently see.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’ll start with the second point first, because it’s the easiest one to answer: We’ve got 3.5 BILLION years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Granted, it’s a difficult number to conceptualize, but give it a try.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How much more time do you want?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’ve already shown the evolution of the eye, as just one example, can take place in a couple hundred thousand years as a CONSERVATIVE estimate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Plus, species didn’t wait for one another to evolve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A fair amount of the complexity we see is the result of coevolution, which you can think of as a sort of evolutionary arms race.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A predator evolves some new trick, so its prey has to evolve some new defense, and so on and on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It really doesn’t take all that long, on the geological time scale.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Regarding the fossil record, I’ve mentioned one example, tiktaalik.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I could list thousands more if you want, but that would be a pointless exercise, I think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What’s more important is that fossilization is a relatively rare process.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It doesn’t show every species, not even close.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It takes conditions to be just right to get a fossil, so all we have are snapshots of evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But those snapshots do fall into place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We can’t see every step, but we can see certain lineages and the evolution of certain traits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Again, I will recommend Dr. Prothero’s book, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The second half of the book contains LOTS of examples of evolution in the fossil record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Plus, we also have other forms of evidence, from genetics, comparative anatomy, etc., in addition to fossils.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>You also hint at a belief in some conspiracy of scientists trying to restrict teachers ability to probe different ideas in education.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This simply isn’t so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Educational institutions do have some requirements, sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One of the basic ones is, you only teach what there’s evidence for.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is evidence for evolution (tons and tons of it, in fact), so it gets taught.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Creationism was taken full-stock from a Bronze Age mythology and there’s no evidence for it so it isn’t taught.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Holocaust happened, so we teach that instead of Holocaust denial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Gravity is real so we teach that instead of “intelligent falling.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There’s no conspiracy, there’s just a requirement that you have to bring some evidence to the table if you want to be taken seriously in scientific or educational circles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I must ask, though: have you perhaps been watching Ben Stein’s “documentary?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s the first place I heard such suggestions, and if that is where you’re getting your information, I have some resources that may be able to clear up some of these misconceptions, because frankly, Stein lied--a lot.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>You then mention personal experiences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I would have thought that as a physicist you would understand why scientists don’t like anecdotal evidence--it being so easy to fool our own senses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So I suppose I’m curious why you choose to go with…whatever those experiences may have been, rather than insist on scientific rigor before accepting religious claims.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Finally, I had intended to put a couple arguments of my own, just to see where it would take this discussion, but I’ve decided that I’ve gone on quite long enough, considering that most people probably wouldn’t write out this long a reply to a Facebook thread, so I’m going to hold those back, at least for now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What I will close with is this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>David, don’t take this as condescension as it is not intended that way--I’m simply curious-- but you keep alluding to the fact that your position as a physicist is a large part of why you hold the thoughts that you do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And yet, your opinions clash with much of what we understand to be true in physics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m wondering what your area of research in physics actually is, and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>if it does not bother you that most of your colleagues would find many of your claims to be false? </p> <p class="MsoNormal">All the best,</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Bob</p> <!--EndFragment--> </div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-89785172631923485472012-02-14T10:52:00.000-08:002012-02-14T11:17:58.252-08:00Reconsidering "Faitheism"Ah, faitheism...that's the idea that it requires as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian. Personally, I think it's obviously wrong, just on the surface, but apparently that's not true for a lot of people, because I keep hearing this "argument" over and over and over again.<div><br /></div><div>This will be a short post, because I don't have a lot of commentary to offer. I just want to set the record straight on this one issue. We can begin by defining some terms.</div><div><br /></div><div>I make no distinction between "faith" and "blind faith." In order for the word to have any meaning at all, it must be distinguished from knowledge or fact. Therefore, faith is defined as belief in a proposition without sufficient evidence to justify that belief. To myself, that defines it right out of any sort of validity as a valid way of knowing, and I don't believe faith is a valid way to arrive at any conclusion. However, Christians should not disagree with this definition, because their religion has as a fairly central dogma that faith--as I've defined it--is a virtue. "Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed." -John 20:29</div><div><br /></div><div>Atheism is not necessarily an active disbelief in a god or gods. Atheists do not, by necessity, claim any absolute knowledge regarding the existence of a deity. Indeed, many claim no knowledge at all. All that atheism requires is a lack of a belief. There is a distinction between active disbelief and passive disbelief. Atheism can include both, but only requires passive disbelief.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anti-theism, or strong atheism, is a distinction marked by precisely that movement into active disbelief. So while the atheist says "I don't believe in gods," the anti-theist says "I believe there are no gods." Understand the difference? Good.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, the burden of proof for any proposition lies upon the party making a positive claim. Theists make a positive claim that there is a deity. So the atheist doesn't have a burden of proof to claim there is no god. All the atheist needs to do is come to the conclusion that the theist has not met his burden of proof.</div><div><br /></div><div>We've all seen the "evidence" Christians like to produce for their claims. Anyone with even one neuron can tell they fail to meet their burden of proof. This is why their beliefs are faith-based. They believe in the absence of evidence. Because the atheist does not accept this blind faith-based form of arriving at "truth," and does not accept that the theist's burden of proof has been met, he does not accept their conclusions--he does not believe in gods.</div><div><br /></div><div>Because this sort of philosophy related to evidence and the burden of proof is so akin to the scientific method, we can treat them as essentially the same. We realize that in science, no claims are ever proved--they are only accepted to degrees of certainty. We also realize that things for which we currently have no evidence could possibly be true, and that if this is the case, there should be some evidence out there somewhere that would potentially justify these claims. But we do not accept the claims until that evidence comes in. So the scientific position and the atheist position are one and the same:</div><div><br /></div><div>1) We require evidence for our beliefs.</div><div>2) There is currently no evidence in favor of the existence of a deity.</div><div>3) Therefore, we TENTATIVELY reject theistic claims.</div><div><br /></div><div>The anti-theist goes farther than that, though. The anti-theist takes the position that "there is no god." Rather than passive disbelief, he engages in active disbelief--he actively believes there is no god. As this is a positive claim, he does have a burden of proof that needs to be met.</div><div><br /></div><div>Can that burden of proof be met? Sure, but that comes with qualifications. There is no such thing as absolute proof nor is there such a thing as absolute disproof. Science deals with degrees of certainty--often very strong degrees of certainty--but we never call it "proof." It is generally considered to be impossible to prove a negative, anyway. So how can the anti-theist meet his burden of proof? By using the scientific method.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's an old adage that says absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Meaning, just because there's no evidence for something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. Well, strictly that's true, but in practice, when we apply the scientific method to some question, we are narrowing down possibilities. We determine what experimental outcome would be true if our hypothesis is correct, and after running the experiment, we see if our hypothetical predictions have been fulfilled.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the case of gods, we can look at the existence of god as a hypothesis and come up with testable predictions. For instance, we might say, if a god exists, we should expect people who are prayed for to recover from disease more quickly than those who are not. Or we could come up with any number of other testable predictions. You'll note that since we cannot test for a supernatural being directly, we must test for the RESULTS of that being's existence. Do we come up with absolute proof? Never! But can the anti-theist meet a reasonable burden of proof for his position through this sort of thought and experimentation? We must all admit that this is at least possible. Whether or not the anti-theists actually HAVE met their burden of proof is a much larger topic, and one for another paper.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, theists require faith because they believe in these propositions without any evidence to justify their claims.</div><div><br /></div><div>Atheists do not require faith because they don't even make any claims at all! They just reject the theists' claims.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anti-theists also do not necessarily require faith, IF you grant that they meet a reasonable burden of proof for whatever claims they make.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is extremely easy to just make something up and then claim it require faith to deny, but that's not the way things are done. It doesn't require any faith to disbelieve claims that an invisible dragon lives in my garage, or that there are faeries at the bottom of the garden. Disbelief does not require faith. In some cases, it may require ignorance, as is the case with the Holocaust deniers (they are ignorant of history, but they don't have "faith" that the Holocaust never happened) or similar groups of crazies. But it does not require faith. Faith is the unique domain of the believers.</div><div><br /></div><div>Make sense now?</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-82814052396954264742012-02-13T15:59:00.000-08:002012-02-13T16:05:24.172-08:00Father of the Fucking Year<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"></span></p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote> Let’s talk about the latest wretched piece of human waste the Internet has somehow seen fit to turn into a hero.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m talking, of course, about one Mr. Tommy Jordan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the video linked below, which I highly recommend watching, Mr. Jordan demonstrates what he jokingly calls “parenting.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, he actually calls it “Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen,” the title of the horrid video you’re about to watch.<p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl1ujzRidmU&feature=player_embedded">Video</a></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In the video’s description box, he writes:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal">My daughter thought it would be funny/rebellious/cool to post on her Facebook wall just how upset she was and how unfair her life here is; how we work her too hard with chores, never pay her for chores, and just in general make her life difficult.</p><p class="MsoNormal">She chose to share this with the entire world on Facebook and block her parent’s [sic] from seeing it.<span> </span>Well, umm… she failed.<span> </span>As of the end of this video, she won’t have to worry anymore about posting inappropriate things on Facebook…</p><p class="MsoNormal">Maybe a few kids can take something away from this… If you’re so disrespectful to your parents and yourself as to post this kind of thing on Facebook, you’re deserving of some tough love.<span> </span>Today, my daughter is getting a dose of tough love.</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Well, isn’t that just fine and dandy?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Tough love!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yeah, that’s what we need, isn’t it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We need to show our kids who’s boss, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, Mr. Jordan’s idea of tough love was to take his daughter’s laptop computer outside and fire no less than EIGHT bullets into it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sorry, asshole, but I don’t care whether you’re of the “tough love is good” school of thought or not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s not “tough love.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s not love at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s hatred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s an act of violence, destruction of personal property, and a CRIME, whether or not the district attorney sees fit to actually file charges (and it seems at this point that this is unlikely to happen--though it fucking SHOULD).</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>As you see in the video, his daughter’s “offense” was to post a message on Facebook complaining about her parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You know what?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Kids do that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Taken at face value, had I read her post without knowing anything else, I would have suspected that she was probably wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I would have thought her life wasn’t as bad as she said it was, and that she was probably being unfair to her parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I also would have thought that, when one is a teenager, one is in a psychologically difficult place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One desires freedom and autonomy and laments the lack of control one has over one’s own life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a difficult time, and especially when you consider the hormonal changes that take place at such a time, it causes teens to sometimes become unduly angry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So I would have thought, just another day in the life of a teenager.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That’s what I would have thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But after witnessing her father’s reaction to this, that is not what I think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think this girl is held prisoner by abusive and overbearing parents who obviously have a strong propensity to violence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think she should count herself lucky that he didn’t turn the gun on her, because I think this man is likely unstable enough to do just such a thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Stupid and violence frequently go hand in hand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Tommy Jordan proved himself to be stupid and to have violent tendencies when he turned a gun on someone else’s personal property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He also proved himself to be ignorant enough to think his actions were justified by posting a video of himself doing this on the Internet for everyone to see.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I believe this girl should immediately seek legal assistance, because she’s not in a healthy place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I also am afraid that American society apparently is still so fundamentally barbaric that it would be a long-shot for her to ever see any kind of legal relief.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I believe Tommy Jordan’s fitness as a parent should be called into question by his use of a firearm to settle personal family disputes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, he didn’t harm any person, and yes, I’m very pro-gun in my politics, but a firearm should not be used in this context, and child protective services should investigate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But they won’t.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I believe the laptop, regardless of who actually paid for it (and I think I’m safe in assuming that Mr. Jordan did buy it for his daughter), belonged to the girl, not to the father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Gifting an item transfers ownership, so I believe Mr. Jordan is guilty of destroying personal property.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I further believe that regardless of the ownership of the laptop, it’s probably a safe assumption that the daughter had personal data on the computer--it was not, after all, a communal computer but her own personal one--and that he is guilty of destroying this less-tangible property as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I believe that the district attorney’s office should file charges for this crime as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But they won’t.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I believe that this sort of authoritarian parenting should be considered abusive and that he should be facing charges for mental and emotional abuse of a minor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But he will not.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I believe that Mr. Jordan is a disgusting piece of human garbage and that he should be ostracized by his community and that the effects of his actions should follow him for so long that he dies alone, unloved, and unemployable under a bridge somewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But instead, the community made a hero out of him.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>So let’s talk about that for a minute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>First of all, have a look at the video in question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As of this writing, it currently has been viewed 21,991,851 times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That is justifiable as it’s a very inflammatory video, so of course a lot of people are going to watch it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But what’s not justifiable, and what completely blows my mind, is that, of those views, 237,432 people have “liked” the video, and only 20,428 have “disliked” the video.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Then there are the comments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>On his <a href="http://www.facebook.com/tommyjordaniii/posts/299559803434210">original Facebook thread</a>, which he posted because he feels that since his daughter somehow “wronged” him on Facebook that he would retaliate there as well, here are a smattering of comments that have been posted.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Shannon Howard writes: “The negative feedback!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This guy is one guy who won’t let a kid talk shit to him and I applaud him!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This video was a dose of reality for a lt of [sic]”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Arielle Mahal writes: “lol great father I was that 16 years ago and I had to learn the hardway raised by a single mother. need more fathers like you in america! [sic]”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Laura Forsyth writes: “haha serves her right for getting caught!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>attention seeking twat of a daughter making a rookie mistake….. shoot her mobile phone too! [sic]”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Ed Seitzinger writes: “To all the less intelligent people that have watched the video and don’t understand and better yet think this man is an idiot [sic]. Most of you are the very kids this video is aimed at, so your reaction is predictable. Please review the video, he CLEARLY states that she has done something similar in the recent past. She was WARNED that further actions of a similar nature would have SERIOUS consequences. She made a choice and thought she would get away with it and that she would be smarter then [sic] her parents. I once read saying [sic] that fits this situation, ‘Trying to get something by dad, is like trying to get the sun by a rooster’. There are actions and consequences and like most if not all of the ‘ME Generation’ she believes she has the right to a computer, cell phone and everything else without doing anything for those items.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Patricia Edens writes: “Good job.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Wish more parents were like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You bought the laptop, you do what you want with it.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>A.m. Warnke writes: “Likely what we should have done with our sons [sic] computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Only differences being he worked for the money to buy his parts and built it, when we told him he could not have a computer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So we confiscated it and locked in [sic] his dad’s office at work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He has now broke [sic] into the office for the second time and has stolen it back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This has been going on for a year and I got a broken pinky out of trying to get him to do his school work one day. Ours just turned 16 on the 9 of this month. God bless, Hope they both learn from it.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Wow, “A.m. Warnke!”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You stole the computer your son paid for himself and then accused him of “stealing” it back?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Classy.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The point is, people seem to think this sort of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“parenting” is appropriate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Consider this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Contrary to what so many people seem to think, being a parent is not a qualification.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Anyone can become a parent, and since most people are stupid, most parents are stupid, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of licensing parents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The justification of licensing drivers is that a bad driver is a danger to the community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, bad parents are a danger to their children, as evidenced by Mr. Jordan, so perhaps there may be a state interest in somehow restricting who can parent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But that’s neither here nor there.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Let’s have a look at what authoritarian parenting actually manages to accomplish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>According to various studies:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Authoritarian parenting has a negative effect on a child’s performance in school</p><!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Authoritarian parenting predicts more, not less, child conduct problems</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Authoritarian parenting breeds resentment toward the parent</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Authoritarian parenting is often associated with fearful, timid behavior</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In other cases, authoritarian parenting is associated with increased aggressive behavior (in other words, authoritarian parenting seems to push the children to behavioral extremes rather than a healthy middle-ground)</p></blockquote> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>And not related to parenting alone, but in general, psychologists have identified some problems with use of punishment rather than positive or negative reinforcement to modify behavior in any context, including a parental one:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"></span></p><blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Punished behavior is merely suppressed, not forgotten</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Punishment teaches discrimination</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Punishment teaches fear</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Punishment (particularly physical punishment) increases aggressiveness</p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Here’s now it works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you’re interested in really getting into this stuff, go do some reading on psychological conditioning, but for now, let’s just have a look at what some of the above statements mean.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>That punishment teaches discrimination does not mean what some people first think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’re not talking about racial or sexual discrimination here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What this means, quite simply, is that because punished behavior may be suppressed but not forgotten, it causes one to simply become discriminating in when and where one carries out the punished behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the Jordan case, this seems clearly to have happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The daughter did something the father did not like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He punished (I think too much, but this one’s at least debatable).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So next time, the behavior didn’t stop--she simply took measures to keep him from finding out about it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Mr. Jordan’s methodology does absolutely nothing to actually mold his daughter’s behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, he simply conditions her to be more discriminating in where she conducts said behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you think she’s going to be more “respectful” to him now, you’ve got another thing coming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, now she is going to be far more resentful and her negative statements about her scumbag father will be increased--she’ll just be much more careful about where she says them.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Punishment teaches fear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That should be obvious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, the point of punishment, from a psychological perspective, is to condition an association between an unwanted behavior and an undesired consequence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In layman’s terms, basically, this means that the point of punishment is to associate fear of the consequence with the behavior so that the behavior is stopped.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, however, what it often does is to associate fear with the punishing agent rather than the punished behavior.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Mr. Jordan’s daughter is not likely to develop a conditioned fear of her behavior as a result of this punishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>She is likely to develop a fear of her father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Personally, I think this fear would be justified, but it is not likely to be what Mr. Jordan really desires, nor is a constant state of fearing one’s own parents, especially while too young to distance oneself from them, a healthy condition.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>And finally, punishment increases aggressiveness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is particularly true of physical punishment (such as spankings), but I think is also true of any form of punishment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are plenty of correlational studies demonstrating that aggressive delinquents and abusive parents came, themselves, from abusive families.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem here that I won’t go into, but it boils down to this: punishment models aggressive behavior as an acceptable form of problem resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>By reacting in a violent manner, Mr. Jordan is subconsciously teaching his daughter that a good old fashioned “heart-to-heart” is not the method to solve problems.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, he is teaching her that to deal with problems in the family, the best course of action is to shoot something.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Well, in the Jordan case, maybe that’s true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If he’d shot himself instead of the laptop, I suspect his daughter would find herself in a much healthier situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But then again, maybe I’m just being influenced by his model of aggressive behavior as an appropriate form of conflict resolution.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Bob</p> <p class="MsoNormal">PS-Is anyone else not at all surprised that this came from a guy in a cowboy hat who speaks with a twang?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He probably reads the Bible every night, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Some stereotypes really are true.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">PPS-I’m not advocating for permissive parenting, either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Do I think the daughter’s action warranted any punishment at all?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Probably not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For one thing, it wouldn’t even have been discovered if not for a breach of her personal privacy (akin to reading a private journal).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For another, it’s just typical teen angst.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The reaction should have been a simple “I don’t appreciate this, here’s why your life isn’t that bad, so don’t do it again,” and nothing more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, had the offense been greater, I would not object to more drastic action (though the limit remains EXTREMELY far short of anything involving a firearm).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Both permissive and authoritarian parenting styles have plenty of problems (authoritarian, I think, even worse, but that’s another discussion).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The key is “authoritative” parenting, a method in which there are still rules and they are still enforced, but the parents are more responsive to their children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In this case, the best answer really does lie in the middle ground.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">PPS-And I’m also not just blowing a lot of smoke up your ass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If one of my parents had ever done anything like that, I would have rained hellfire down upon them for years to come.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And not because I was some “delinquent.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No, I was a bookish, nerdy “A student” who preferred Chess to sports and classical music to heavy metal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I also was not--and am not--one who suffers fools or abuses lightly.</p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-70692820850388952252011-12-19T20:15:00.000-08:002011-12-19T20:16:20.861-08:00Why I Won’t Shut Up<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">Two thoughts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One recent and tragic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The other, something that’s been tumbling around in my mind for quite a while, and I only just realized I’ve never actually written a response to it on this page.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because it seems to tie in so well with the other thought, we’re going to handle them both at once.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Firstly, Christopher Hitchens, a personal hero of mine, whose talent for saying of religion exactly what I thought but in language by far surpassing anything I could come close to summoning on even my best of days, died a few days ago.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I should have blogged then, but instead, I did what I suspect The Hitch would have wanted his readers to do--I drank, I smoked, I ranted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s what that great man was known for. And yet, even drunk, he was so much more--more eloquent, more educated, more well-read, more human--than any of the rest of us are sober.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Many who knew him personally (which I did not), and most of his most devoted readers have suggested that the work by which he’d most like to be remembered is God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, his epic verbal broadside against the greatest tyrant of them all: the imaginary tyrant promoted by most of the world’s religions as a “loving father.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">He’s remembered fondly by outspoken atheists such as myself who appreciate having had someone of such credentials and such rare mental agility on our side, calling things not only as he saw them, but as they were (and are).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Most others either immediately take offense or simply retreat behind the vacuous façade of “thou shalt not offend,” and read only his book’s title, without bothering to delve deeply enough into the contents to realize that it is not hyperbolically intended, but is in fact an accurate and meaningful description of what religion is: a poison--a toxin, a parasite, a cancer rapidly eating away at the insides of human civilization, a disease desperately in need of a cure.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">For explanation of why we recognize religion to be a poison (I will NOT stoop to such noncommittal language as “why we believe religion is a poison,” as has been suggested to me in the past, by people who seem to value political correctness over accurately expressing the simple truth), I can only recommend three courses of action, as I won’t be going into great detail on that matter here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Firstly, by all means, each and every one of you should go and purchase a copy of The Hitch’s book, God is Not Great.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a wonderful read, reasonably inexpensive--in fact, during this holiday season, I’m sure it also makes for a wonderful gift (perhaps a stocking stuffer for that person in your life who keeps inviting you to their church even after you’ve said countless times that you have no interest…just saying)--and goes farther toward explaining the point behind its subtitle than I could ever hope to accomplish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(Parenthetically, I would suggest, in honor of Hitchens’ own thoughts on the matter, that if you go to Borders, you should steal a copy, but alas both Borders and Hichens are no more, so it seems hardly worth mentioning.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Secondly, read <a href="http://atheistoasis.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/nobody-makes-hitchenss-point-better-than-believers/">this</a> article by Ray Garton, a friend of mine whose remarks upon Hitchens’ death echo my own thoughts in much better form than I could have hoped to accomplish.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the article, he explores Christians’ reactions to the death of the great man, and explains how the believers themselves prove Hitchens’ point better than anyone else could hope to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And finally, stick around this blog for a while, as I’m sure you’ll be seeing plenty of examples of exactly what we’re talking about.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now, moving along from sad news to the infuriating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Go on the Internet for a while, and find any comments thread or message board in which people are arguing about religion, and you’re sure to hear something like this: “You militant atheists are just as bad as the evangelical Christians!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why can’t you just let people believe what they want to?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s phrased in various ways, but the argument, if one dares to call it that, remains the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These people seem to think that by comparing the rhetorical volume of atheists to the evangelicals, or by analyzing how in some cases both varieties of commentary can have a certain sharpness of teeth, that they are creating an equivalence between what appear to be warring factions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And, the “logic” goes, if there’s an equivalence, isn’t this just a case of the pot calling the kettle black?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">But they’re missing the point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As evidenced by the incredible volume (and I refer to volume both in the auditory sense and in the sense of measurement) of Christopher Hitchens’ work (and if you prefer, you could also look at Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, P.Z. Myers, or any number of other brilliant authors, orators, or commentators), the complaint we have against the evangelicals is not that they speak their mind, nor even that they do so loudly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The complaints we have against them are numerous and, I’m sure, somewhat varied from individual to individual, but it basically comes down to this: they’re WRONG!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not only are they mistaken, but they’re so willfully ignorant, corrupt, and downright stupid that one cannot take them seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And yet, as we so often, so loudly, and yes, sometimes even viciously complain, they are taken seriously.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They rake in BILLIONS of dollars, on which they pay no taxes, and all they do in return is, as Hitchens so succinctly put it, “poison everything.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I don’t care how loud you are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you believe something, say so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Say it loudly and proudly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Shout it from the rooftops (literally, if you so desire, and even that won’t bother me).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But if you’re wrong--if you’re stupid, if your statements are so misguided as to be laughable, if the implementation of your suggestions would cost humanity scientific progress, if you support an institution that systematically costs human lives, increases human suffering, or stands in the way of scientific progress--then I have no respect for you as an intellectual or as a human being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These people deserve ridicule, and for my part, that is what they shall receive, no matter how quietly they whisper their poison, nor how loudly I shout my response.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Religion is dangerous humbug--THAT’S my complaint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And I’m going to keep making that complaint until this blight is removed from human civilization.</p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-71759406281537113872011-11-17T01:57:00.000-08:002011-11-17T02:06:18.326-08:00Try Occupying the Real World<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This humbug has gone on quite long enough.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While many of my close friends and acquaintances have heard me rant about this matter in private, I have held my silence in public in the interest of preserving peace between myself and my various acquaintances who run the entire span of the political spectrum and, perhaps more importantly, in the interest of preserving what little amount of free time I have left in my increasingly busy schedule.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, there does come a time at which one may no longer in good conscience hold his silence, because the endless barrage of idiocy and misinformation threatens to drive him even more mad than he was at the beginning of the affair in question.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The matter of which I speak, of course, is the so-called “Occupy movement” that’s been spreading through America’s cities and university campuses like herpes through a whorehouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Frankly, it is astounding to me that any political activity that attracts a massive presence from the undeniably childish and laughable pseudo-organization “Anonymous” (as have the Occupy demonstrations) would do anything other than wither and die the quick and mostly painless death of complete irrelevance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, something strange has happened here, and I can’t rightly lay claim to knowledge of precisely what has allowed this mass growth on the face of humanity to continue growing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Still, they have grown, and they’ve grown so much that I now feel I must break my silence and waste a considerable portion of an already-too-busy evening responding to reports of recent events.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>To begin with, I am not making any political statement here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I no more love the radical liberals on the Occupy side than I do the moronic religious right on the Tea Party side.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I find some individual points within each camp to agree with and others to disagree with, and I make up my own mind on the issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It cannot be denied that various events have transpired that would require us to rethink certain economic policies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nor would I argue against the painfully obvious argument that there are plenty of legitimate grievances against various entities, both public and private, who share fault in the economic recession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I have my thoughts and opinions regarding what might be done to strengthen American economic policy to help rebuild the economy and to help prevent future failures on such a large scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is not the forum in which I intend to discuss these issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I am, in fact, not going to discuss the issues the Occupy movement is attempting to bring attention to except where it is absolutely necessary to make some point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The reason for this decision is that one can analyze the Occupy movement not only in terms of what they claim to be about, but also in terms of what they actually are, and I think the latter is, at the present time, by far more important.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>You will also have to forgive me for thinking somewhat locally on this matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Many of my points will apply to the Occupy movement as a whole, but I will be using the Occupy Denver group as my model.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I realize that each city’s group may have a very different character, but since this is the one with which I’m familiar, you’ll just have to consider my argument for what it’s worth if you try to apply it to the other groups.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>With that preface out of the way, let’s look at some things about the Occupy movement and see what we can discover.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>To begin with, let’s consider this meme that’s really taken root in the last couple of months: the “99% vs. the 1%” meme.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You know the one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>People write these cute little messages about how horrible their lives are and then say “I am the 99%.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The idea seems to be that one percent of the country holds all the wealth and power, and the other 99% are getting the shaft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us be abundantly clear about one thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, plenty of people have gotten a rotten deal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, plenty of people have legitimate grievances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, significant portions of the political and economic systems in this country<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>(and, indeed, the world) are broken and need reform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But can this movement really claim to speak for 99% of the population?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly not.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>For instance, let’s have a look at some information from a large collection of photos of people holding those silly little signs found at http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A sidebar on that webpage informs us: “We are the 99 percent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are getting kicked out of our homes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are forced to choose between groceries and rent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are denied quality medical care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are suffering from environmental pollution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We are the 99 percent.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Okay, point by point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The foreclosure rate in the United States is very high right now, and that’s one of the points that needs to be addressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the foreclosure rate isn’t more than about ten percent, and even at that, it cannot be blamed entirely upon external influences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Plenty of people are just too fucking stupid or lazy to pay their bills.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The result?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Foreclosure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Simple as that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Now, of course, there are many other people who have been the victims of foreclosure that truly was out of their control, and I feel for them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I really do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But they aren’t 99% of the population.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Similarly, there are people who choose between groceries and rent because of unfortunate circumstances, but there are also a lot of people who really bring that status upon themselves, either by not working hard enough, by wasting their money instead of applying it to the necessities, or my failing to use birth control and ending up with too many mouths to feed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, some people are victims of circumstance, and have legitimate grievances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But not all of the poor are victims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Some are a blight on society, and if it makes me unpopular to state the obvious then so be it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And once again, no where near 99% of the population struggles to decide which bills to pay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Too many do, sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the overwhelming majority of the population are able to find some way to live within their means.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Health care is a complicated issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly 99% are not denied quality health care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Most people do have health care.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the system is broken, it’s too expensive, and too many quacks fall through the cracks and are somehow allowed to practice voodoo and call it medicine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That definitely is a system that needs reform…but are they really going to try to claim that the “other 1%” is somehow at fault?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The healthcare problems we have are the product of governmental and corporate interests not being able to effectively keep up with the pace of society, not some conspiracy of rich folks to keep everyone else down.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Just to illustrate how silly they are, they gave me a truly precious gift in the next line: environmental pollution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s another complicated issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A lot of environmentalist claims are exaggerated at best, but there is also no longer any reasonable doubt that there are some very serious and legitimate environmental concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Chiefly, of course, global warming.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But here’s the thing…whatever environmental concerns there are have an impact on everybody.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is no environmental catastrophe, real or imagined, that only hurts the poorest 99% of a society and leaves the wealthiest 1% unharmed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is a monument to the attitude of these people that they feel every single problem our society has to face is a part of some conspiracy among the wealthy to hurt the unwealthy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It simply isn’t so, and it is extremely unproductive to go around spewing such nonsense.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>What about working long hours for little pay and no rights?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Absolute nonsense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Clearly the Occupy people aren’t working very long hours, because they’re managing to find the time to sleep in parks in protest, apparently, of how little time they have because they work so hard for little pay.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Here’s another one: The average net worth for the 99% percentile in 2007 (most recent figure I could easily find) was just over $19 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s a lot of money, sure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the average net worth of the next 9 percent?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Almost $2.5 million.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What this means, realistically speaking, is that there are a fuckload of people who are NOT in the wealthiest 1% of the country, but who ARE still millionaires.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You don’t get to claim that 99% of the country works long hours for little pay, when some of that very same 99% are fucking millionaires!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, there is wealth disparity in the United States.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s actually a good thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Is it higher than it should be?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Probably, but nevertheless, there is a spectrum of wealth, which is essential for a healthy economy, and just because some people are poor doesn’t mean fucking everyone is!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And what about no rights?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’d like to hear an example of a worker who doesn’t have rights.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Know who else would?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The government.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>See, there are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That doesn’t mean you can just show up, do fuck all and still get paid, though.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Employment is the voluntary and retractable sale of a portion of one’s rights (namely in the form of one’s available time and labor) for money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And if you don’t like the boss, you’re allowed to quit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, yes, the economy is bad, unemployment is high, and you don’t really want to quit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I get it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But you know what?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You balance things out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You don’t like your boss but you like your paycheck, so you decide which is more important.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>But let’s now look at this issue from another perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re claiming to speak for 99% of the population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In essence, they’re labeling people to set up “we” vs. “they.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, I’m not buying it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, labels are sometimes useful, and we ought to embrace some of our labels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But I don’t want to be considered a part of the same group as 99% of the population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Know why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, I’m not in the wealthiest 1%.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But every significant measure of a human being cannot be so easily summed up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m certainly not equal to 99% of the population in terms of intelligence, or taste.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I object to anyone claiming to speak to me simply because I fall on the same side as they do of an arbitrary line in the sand they’ve drawn for no reason other than political gain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I object to being considered equal to 99% of the population when, quite frankly, I consider myself superior to most of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And at least as passionately, I also object to people attempting to limit political discourse to something as trivial as short messages hand written on pieces of paper and held in front of a webcam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These issues are more complex, and if you’re going to take a firm stance on them, perhaps you should read a book first.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Now let us turn our attention to something I saw the people here in Denver doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I first encountered this on the Auraria campus, where the Occupy Auraria people have been every single day for the better part of a month, and I am told that they’ve been doing this at the larger Occupy Denver gatherings as well, though I haven’t witnessed that myself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What they do is this: They sit in a semi-circle with some individual, apparently of some higher status within the group, though I fail to understand their hierarchy, sitting in the center.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This individual reads a statement expressing some political philosophy or position on some economic matter, and the rest of the group repeats after him, verbatim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes indeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re fucking reciting fucking creeds!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m not talking about the chants you hear at protests all the time (“Two-four-six-eight, we just want to masturbate!”), but actual fucking creeds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they weren’t sitting under a big-ass sign that says “Occupy Auraria” and if I couldn’t hear the words spewing forth from their mouths, I would assume it was some kind of religious service.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In a way it is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Occupy movement is rapidly becoming more cult-like both in its attitudes and in its behaviors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the rest of us, this is not the way one conducts oneself if one’s goal is to make one’s political opinions known.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Find your way to have some intelligent discourse and I’ll listen to you, I’ll discuss things with you, debate what we disagree on, agree on what we agree on, and probably find some common ground.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Recite creeds, though, and I know two things about you without giving it any more thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>1) You have already made up your mind so thoroughly that any attempt to have a real discussion with you would be a wasted effort.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>2) I want to have nothing to do with you, either in this or in any other matter.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>We turn our attention next to another topic related to how they present themselves as more of a cult than an intellectual organization.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A few weeks back, the Association of Corporate Counsel had a conference here in Denver at the Convention Center, not far from where the Occupy people have been doing…whatever it is they’ve been doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Mind you, the ACC are the movers and shakers in the corporate world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These are the attorneys who tell the corporations they work for how to conduct their legal affairs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Though the organization itself has no real authority, one cannot doubt its power simply because its members advise and defend the decision makers in the corporate world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And aside from being a rather influential organization, one can safely assume that the ACC members have done their homework on precisely the sort of issues the Occupy people are trying to talk about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Agree or disagree, these guys know a thing or two.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>While they were in town at the same time as the Occupy movement, something very telling happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The ACC people invited the Occupy people into their conference to listen to one of their seminars and to have a dialog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One cannot doubt that this would be a significant victory for anyone seriously trying to enact some kind of social or economic change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The very people they’re protesting invited them in to have a discussion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s how changes get made--through diplomacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, the Occupy people said…no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not only did they fail to make their case, they failed to even show up and try.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They refused to speak to the people in a position to actually start doing something about their suggestions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, they continued marching in the streets and camping in the parks.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I would like to think that perhaps this was an isolated incident and that perhaps they simply felt unprepared to make a presentation in front of such a body on such short notice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While I would certainly have taken the opportunity and simply done my best given such an opportunity, I cannot say for certain that it wasn’t simply a matter of feeling that they wouldn’t be putting their best foot forward were they to speak to the ACC.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, this hypothesis (which I never truly believed, just for the record), was conclusively disproved by another recent event here in Denver.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Because the Occupy movement has achieved so much notoriety in the press, the Mayor of Denver decided it would not be prudent to ignore them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He figured, hey, let’s have a dialog with these people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>His only request was that Occupy Denver needed to elect a leadership to speak for the movement in front of City and State officials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A reasonable request.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Certainly these officials don’t have time to speak to each protester individually, so the appropriate thing to do is to elect a small group of delegates who will speak for the group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They don’t need to be “leaders” in the sense of managing the group’s affairs--things can still be decided democratically if that’s what the group wants--but it is essential that some person or some small group of people should be empowered to go to meetings with officials and speak for the group.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Instead of realizing this simple fact, however and electing a spokesperson, Occupy Denver did something rather strange.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So strange, in fact, that you won’t believe me if I tell you what they did, so I’ll let their press release speak for itself:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“We of Occupy Denver hereby elect and recognize Shelby the border collie dog as our leader until such time that Occupy Denver, rescind or replace said role.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As such, under auspices including, but not limited to, the facts that she can bleed, breed, and show emotion, there by proving she is more of a ‘person’ than a corporation, here by demand that Shelby not only be legally recognized by both State and Federal government as the leader of Occupy Denver, but also as a person.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“To similar call, should Shelby be granted such recognition, it is to our expectation that all pressing legal matters regarding the occupation that require a ‘leader’ or representative to speak on the behalf of the Occupation, that unless representation other than the Occupation’s leader be found adequate and/or accepted through the governing body of Occupy Denver, that U.S. law be followed as it concerns providing an adequate interpreter to accurately and provably convey the meaning and substance of Occupation related legal matters both to Shelby and from Shelby to her legal counsel and/or legal bodies handling such cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is to be understood that it is not the responsibility of Occupy Denver, nor Shelby, to find or provide interpreters for such task.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“Should such demands of the Occupation not be met, we of Occupy Denver demand that any and all rights and privileges granted to corporations under the rights afforded them through corporate ‘personhood’ be made illegal through State constitutional amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Further, should such an amendment be superseded by Federal law, that the governing bodies and persons of the State of Colorado, through political, economic, and all legal means available, pursue without haste, in earnest transparency, and to their fullest possibly capacity, entry into any and all legal contest necessary to both uphold and enforce the revocation of corporate ‘personhood.’”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Yes, you read it correctly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Within this sloppily worded document, the Occupy Denver people have actually elected a dog as their official representation to the City of Denver and the State of Colorado.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even if one puts aside the extreme humor of the people of this “movement” (as at this point I feel, along with Frank Miller, that they should not be considered a “movement” unless the word is immediately preceded by the word “bowel”) issuing demands--not requests, suggestions, or arguments, but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">demands</i>--to the duly elected representatives of the City of Denver and the State of Colorado…they elected a fucking dog!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’ll say it again: They elected a fucking dog!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A dog, for Christ’s sake!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A fucking dog!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Dog, dog, dog!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I cannot stress highly enough how asinine, myopic, ignorant, immature, vacuous, thoughtless, halfwitted, dimwitted, boneheaded, blockheaded, featherbrained, and downright fucking <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">stupid</i> this movement and all its constituents are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I admit I had a certain hesitation to lump <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">all</i> of them under the same banner, as there are some people with legitimate grievances really and honestly trying to achieve social change among their ranks, and I at first didn’t want to call them stupid along with all the rest of the human garbage, but then I remembered, THEY ELECTED A FUCKING DOG!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whatever your intentions, whatever your qualifications, if you do not immediately tender your resignation from the membership of any organization that does something so childish, I’m sorry, but you’re a fucking moron, and there’s no other way a rational human being can view the matter.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>So that’s how they try to achieve their goals: by denying invitations from the people in a position to do something, and by electing a dog instead of a delegate to speak to other people in a position to do something.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I get it, you don’t like the power structure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But the operative word of that phrase is “power.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Like them or not (and believe you me, no one is justified in hating the power structure as much as the Occupy people do, even though there are legitimate problems that need to be addressed), they’ve got the power, and you don’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So, in order to get to that point of change you want, you really have three options.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>1) You can go to school, study hard for several years until you’re able to earn yourself a position of power within the power structures you’re trying to change and thus conduct your change from within.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>2) You can run for public office, try to convince the electorate that your ideas are worthy, and once in office, conduct your change from within different halls of power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>3) You can attempt to persuade those already in power that you are correct, and try to conduct your change (albeit indirectly) from within.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Bottom line, morons camping in the park are not powerful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re pitiful, and they should thank their lucky stars when someone bothers to offer them an opportunity to step into the halls of power and plead their case.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Regarding this concept of “corporate personhood,” the Occupy people, as usual, recite gross oversimplifications of what is actually a very interesting legal question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protections to all “persons” under the jurisdiction of the United States, and that’s really the crux of the issue here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s not really a matter of whether we’re recognizing them as “people,” in the biological sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a question of whether, as a matter of law, one should recognize a corporation as a self-sufficient entity afforded protections under the constitution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And when we say “corporation,” we’re not necessarily talking about the giant corporations that it’s currently trendy to hate…in fact, in law, we’re not really talking about “corporate personhood” at all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’re talking about the doctrine of “legal personhood” or “artificial personhood.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s the same thing, but it’s misleading to use the word “corporate,” because other types of organizations also benefit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Basically, without this doctrine or something very likely, business would come to a grinding halt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m so glad you asked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Basically, creating a “legal person” out of a corporation is a convenient legal fiction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In essence, it is an extension of the rights of all those natural persons who make up the corporation into the collective whole.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What this means, in practical effect, is that a corporation can sue or be sued.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It can enter contracts as a single entity rather than as, in the case of large corporations, thousands of individual entities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It simplifies taxation and regulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It protects the rights of the shareholders.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>So what would happen if we completely scrap this idea?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A lot, actually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us imagine some hypothetical situations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us say that Corporation X, a large corporation doing great business in the manufacture of Widgets, has done harm to Person Y by stealing his idea for a new Widget.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Who does Person Y sue?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The CEO?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He’ll argue that one of his subordinates actually stole it and he never knew anything about the theft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The subordinates will pass the blame to the engineers, who’ll pass the blame back to the CEO, and nothing will ever be accomplished.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or, Person Y can simply sue Corporation X.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As an artificial person, Corporation X is capable of being sued, and so a jury can simply make Corporation X write a big check with lots of zeros to compensate Person Y for the injustice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If this were impossible, Person Y would either have to file suit against all of the thousands of people who make up Corporation X individually and clog the court system with needlessly complicated determinations of who actually deserves the blame, or simply give up the fight and cut his losses.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>What if the situation were flipped?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let us imagine that Person Z has just stolen some trade secrets from the innocent Corporation X and is trying to sell them to the highest bidder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What can Corporation X do to stop this or to receive compensation for the wrong that they have suffered?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, as an artificial person, Corporation X simply sues Person Z.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But if they were not afforded these rights, what would happen?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Presumably, every individual shareholder, each member of the Board of Directors, the CEO, and whichever employees may have been harmed, will all have to sue individually.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This one incident could end up producing literally hundreds or thousands of lawsuits.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>This matter also raises interesting First Amendment issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the Supreme Court held in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">NAACP v. Alabama</i> that freedom of association IS protected by the First Amendment as an essential component of freedom of speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Their reasoning is that in some cases one can engage in effective speech only by joining with others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It has been argued that affording the same rights to the collective that one would afford to the individuals in that collective is an essential part of freedom of association.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And so, we should consider corporations to have the same rights as the people who make up that corporation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Ironically, the Occupy people wish their movement, as a collective, to be considered a unit with such rights as free speech and free assembly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If one is to assume that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">this</i> collective has such rights, why are they hypocritically denying the same consideration to another form of collective?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Just because they don’t like the word “corporation?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sorry, but that’s just not going to fly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Maybe they ought to read a book or two before they speak any further.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>But neither is this a one-sided debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are legitimate concerns with legal personhood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>For instance, if we’re giving a corporation all the rights that a person has, we’re also giving them the right to contribute to political campaigns, which some have argued significantly skews the American political process by concentrating much of the political power that comes from fundraising (and only a buffoon fails to realize that fundraising is a significant factor in determining the results of elections) into the hands of a comparative few whose interests may not be in line with the people’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not an invalid point, but more easily addressed than scrapping the concept of legal personhood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Campaign finance reform is also a contentious issue, and it represents the debate between the preservation of the First Amendment on the one side against concerns about corruption and monopolization of the political process on the other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Campaign finance is outside the scope of this paper so I won’t touch it beyond simply saying that campaign finance reform is a way to mitigate the imbalance created when corporations might finance campaigns without “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” so to speak.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I will, however, simply point out that even today, it’s not as simple as a corporation writing a check for millions of dollars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These are complex issues, and they need to be addressed through tedious study, long periods of open debate, and eventual compromise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t know about you, but while I don’t doubt Shelby the dog’s character, I do severely question the judgment of anyone who suggests she is intellectually capable of solving these problems.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>The other argument to do with legal personhood has to do with what happens when a corporation commits a criminal offense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Civil offenses are actually simplified by the doctrine of legal personhood, by significantly reducing the number of litigants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, criminal cases may be complicated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Say a CEO orders an illegal act and the corporation’s employees carry out that act in the name of the corporation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If it’s something like murder, of course, we have no problem separating the corporation from the individuals within the corporation who are actually guilty, and we try them as individuals, leaving the corporation itself intact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But what if the corporation is thought guilty of a crime that cannot be pinned on a specific individual?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How can one jail a corporation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Indeed, that is a difficult question, but I think an answer presents itself rather readily, and it comes in three parts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>1) The acts that are committed by individuals within the corporation, whether at the insistence of the corporation or not, are tried as individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the act is sponsored by the corporation itself, the decision makers responsible for ordering that act can be tried as conspirators.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The corporation itself cannot be guilty of acts committed by individuals within the corporation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>2) However, if the act is a corporate act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A crime related somehow to a hostile takeover, say, then the corporation itself should be tried in criminal courts, represented by its CEO or Board of Directors, just as it is when it conducts itself legally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course, one cannot jail a corporation, but it’s very easy to fine a corporation, which would probably be the appropriate response to such matters anyway.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>3) Laws can be written in such a way that allow for legal personhood to continue, so that we may all continue to benefit from its conveniences and protections, but also in such a way that holds the decision makers responsible for corporate crimes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So if the CEO orders a crime to be committed by the corporation as a whole, in addition to fines levied against the corporation once it is found guilty, the CEO himself can be found guilty, perhaps as a conspirator.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I realize that was a bit of a long tangent, but I wanted to make the point not only that the Occupy people are probably wrong about legal personhood, but that they don’t bother to do their homework or to think things through very well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m certainly not an expert, but it’s not that hard to come up with some very basic research on these issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It took me all of a couple minutes, for instance, to discover that the concept of a legal person is not unique to corporate America (which I knew), or even the western world (which I suspected), but is found in some variant or other, in almost every legal system in the world.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>At this point, I want to take a moment to discuss the issue of police brutality, which has been raised in connection with the Occupy movement quite a lot recently, as they’ve been evicted from their tent cities in several locations in the past week or so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>As with the rest of this paper, I’m using Occupy Denver, rightly or wrongly, as a partial representative of the whole, so bear in mind that situations may be different in other locations.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Shortly after electing a dog as their representative to the city and state officials, they received a notice from Denver police:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“It is illegal to place any encumbrance on the public right of way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>An encumbrance is defined as ‘any article, vehical [sic] or thing whatsover’ which is on ‘any street, alley, sidewalk, parkway or other public way or place.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>D.R.M.C. 49-246 et. seq. The manager of Public works may order all encumbrances in the public right-of-way to be removed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The failure to remove items so ordered is a criminal offense; the maximum possible penalty for which is up to one year in the county jail and/or up to $999 fine.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“PLEASE REMOVE ALL PERSONAL ITEMS FROM THIS AREA.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“If personal items are not removed immediately, you may be subject to an order of removal at which time all items will be subject to removal by the Denver Police Department.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Yeah, it came right after the dog thing…maybe the city was a little pissed off and wanted to get back at the people who had just issued a rather grievous insult.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I wouldn’t be surprised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Fact is, though, the Occupy people were indeed breaking the law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They have a right to peaceably assemble, a right to free speech, but not a right to leave their shit all over the public parks and sidewalks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Despite Occupy supporters trying to make an equivalence between this and the First Amendment (a matter we’ll discuss in more detail later), it’s really not the same thing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>So anyway, back to point, the police issued the above warning, and the Occupy people--you guessed it--didn’t do a damn thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They stayed in the park, didn’t lift a finger to move anything.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And then, surprise, surprise, the police moved in on November 12 to forcibly remove the items in question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At this point, a few people left, but most of them just became confrontational with the police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While this was happening, someone from within the movement updated their website periodically.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m going to provide some highlights from those updates, and then we’ll learn what actually happened.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“UPDATE 5:01pm It looks like this raid is imminent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is the ‘largest police presence ever’ for one of the smallest gathering [sic] of protesters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It seems at minute [sic] they are going to bust in and take everything out.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Oh, balls!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Largest police presence ever?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Come on!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Since it’s in quotation marks, I’d like to know the source of that information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Got a link for me, Occupy people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The other thing they don’t say is that, though it’s true police were in riot gear as a precaution (one never knows what a mob of irrational protesters might do), the police were not conducting themselves in a traditional “raid” fashion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At about 4:30, they invited two of the protesters to speak with them at a command post.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, by 5:15, protesters had elected to block a major street, Broadway, instead of cooperating with police.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Furthermore, “bust in and take everything out” sounds excessively negative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, they had been warned that police would remove property they did not voluntarily remove.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, police also tagged every item that looked like personal property rather than garbage so that it could be reclaimed at a later date.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“UPDATE 5:44pm Protesters are chanting at police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Police continue to move.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Unsure if chemical weapons have been used yet.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Overdramatic much?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Whoever said anything about chemical weapons…if you’re “not sure” if they’ve been used, what that actually means is, there’s no evidence that they have, but that you just can’t help but to say something to make it sound like the police are being the villain here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Remember also that by this time, the protesters had already moved to block a major traffic artery, a fact they neglected to mention.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“UPDATE 6:27pm Police a [sic] chanting ‘MOOVE BACK’ [sic] while the protesters rebut with ‘PEACEFUL! PEACEFUL! PEACEFUL!’”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Perhaps true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>However, the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_19325299?obref=obinsite">Denver Post</a>, a more reliable source by any criteria, has a slightly different take.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>According to the Post, the protesters were chanting anti-police slogans including “You look stupid in your helmets and with your clubs….This is a peaceful assembly….” </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“UPDATE 6:45pm Pepper bullets and tear gas launched into crowd.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>WRONG!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>LIES!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>No tear gas was used during the entire incident.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t know about other forms of nonlethal weapons, but Occupy is the only organization reporting anything even remotely like that, so considering the source, I suspect not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Several arrests were made--and justifiably so, as several crimes (including assaulting the police officers and blocking traffic) were committed that evening, and I’m not just talking about all the garbage in the park, but we’ll get to that in a moment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>From here, we can abandon Occupy’s version of events and just talk about some of the things they did, but before we do, I want to give one last quote, from the update at 9:42: “Considering their warning, they seem very interested in squashing Occupy once and for all.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>Well, actually, I wish they would.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then I wouldn’t have to walk past a group of annoying protesters who’ve forgotten the art of bathing every time I walk across campus or downtown, or see them on the news, or read about them on the Internet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But that doesn’t seem to be the point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The point is, they’d turned a public park into something one step away from being a landfill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Also from the Denver Post article: “’This isn’t safe and, it’s not sanitary,’ Jackson said as he pointed to a pile of blankets and boxes with a stream of stale food and sticky liquid running underneath it.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Remember that image, by the way, as we’ll be coming back to it in a moment.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>I want to turn now to an account given by a good friend of mine who happened to be in Downtown Denver when this was all happening and witnessed a good deal of it with his own eyes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He posted these remarks in the comments field on the Occupy Denver website.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In response to claims by the Occupy people that this incident was a result of the fact that they’ve “scared” the government and an attempt to stop the movement, he writes:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“Last night, the only people I saw terrified were the innocent people trying to enjoy their Saturday nights while a group of screaming people walked down the street beating drums and pushing them aside.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“I saw people terrified to walk anywhere, because the protesters were leading a charge down 16<sup>th</sup> Street Mall [Note for non-Denver readers: the 16<sup>th</sup> Street Mall is a large pedestrian mall in the heart of downtown, full of retail, offices, as well as many popular night spots--the only non-pedestrian traffic allowed on the Mall are the city-provided free shuttles that run back and forth along the length of the Mall, and the carriages drawn by bicycle or horse, also to carry passengers along the Mall] yelling.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>“I saw multiple cars almost hit innocent people because the protesters blocked so many roads that people were just trying to drive and couldn’t get around.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count:1"> </span>In response to claims that it was police action, rather than protester action, that put the general public at risk, he writes:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Again, no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The police were following the protesters, not the other way around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If the protesters chose to stay away from densely populated places such as the 16<sup>th</sup> St. Mall and the Buell [a very large theatre, part of the Denver Performing Arts Complex], then the police wouldn’t have to put up those measures and block civilian traffic and put innocent people in harms way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Simply put, from what I observed and what happened, it was the PROTESTERS who put the general public in harms way, for no reason.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Already we can see that it was the protesters who were at fault rather than the police, but there’s another matter worthy of our attention related to their behavior on that evening.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At the time this was all happening, the Mayor of Denver was at the Starz Film Festival enjoying his Saturday night.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Not on official business--this was his personal time, and he was just trying to enjoy himself, but the protesters got the bright idea to try to find him, since the festival was not far from their location.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, by their own admission, they made their way into the parking garage at the Performing Arts Complex, and one can only assume that their intent with such an action was either to break in to the festival to get to the Mayor or to block the Mayor’s exit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">To that, I respond: you people had your chance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The mayor was willing to talk to you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>He just asked you to choose a spokesman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, you elected a dog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why in the world would you think he’d want to talk to you now?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Of course, as soon as this all happened, the conspiracy theorists immediately came out of the woodwork to claim that this is part of some nationally coordinated effort to suppress these protests in every major city.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I can almost sympathize.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I once went through a brief conspiracy theorist phase…when I was a child.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>To a child, perhaps, everything looks like a conspiracy, and I suppose that’s fitting, as the Occupy movement and all its supporters have been acting like children.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it’s time to grow up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course there’s no movement to suppress these protests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>At their best, they’re a pitiful annoyance to the people they’re protesting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Occupy is a mosquito.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When you see it biting you, you swat it, but no one gives a thought to organizing a massive effort to hunt down and kill that single mosquito.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is just their attempt to artificially inflate their own sense of importance in the world, when in reality, they’re about as insignificant as a pimple on someone’s ass.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">I’m going to be honest with you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I hate doing this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I hate coming to the defense of the police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I don’t like police.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And usually when something like this happens, I’m right there with the rest of them, decrying the evils of abuses of police authority.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Because usually, truth seems to come down on whatever side is opposed to the police in a given issue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There are countless abuses, countless cases of police brutality, not to mention the fact that the laws the police are sworn to uphold are convoluted, outdated, corrupted, and generally shitty in almost every way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But in this case, arguing that police are at fault just does not hold water.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Still, people defend them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One of their defenders, a YouTube user whose work I generally enjoy but who falls into the category of “fucking stupid” whenever it comes to something that has to do with Occupy Wall Street and its various offshoots, had <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijqjHo3_H8s&feature=feedu">this</a> to say:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“And how does the logic of the cops who cleared the protesters out of Zuccotti Park hold any water whatsoever?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They said ‘We gotta kick you out because this environment is too trashed, you know you guys were too messy, and now we gotta kick you out and have some cleaning crews come in to clean up.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How does that make sense?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>First of all, we’ve all seen footage of the protesters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I didn’t see any giant mountains of garbage, did you?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And even if there were, let’s give ‘em that, let’s say there are, I just haven’t seen them and you just haven’t seen them, but they were there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So what?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The protesters are not there to be housekeepers for fuckin’ Zuccotti Park.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re there to protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What’s the point of having First Amendment rights if you can always find some little bullshit reason to kick them out of wherever they’re protesting?”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">And so on and so on, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">ad nauseam</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I really don’t know how someone I regularly watch--and so you know it’s someone who usually has intelligent things to say, because I do not suffer fools--can be so fucking stupid.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">First of all, if you haven’t seen the mountains of garbage, it’s probably just because your news about this matter is filtered by the supporters of the Occupy movement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You asked where were the piles of garbage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>How about the one depicted in the photo accompanying <a href="http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/occupy-wall-street-protesters-to-block-efforts-to-clean-up-park/">this article</a> from October 13?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or the one attached to <a href="http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/11/nyc_sanitation.php">this article</a> , which also includes a quotation from a sanitation worker: “I pick up garbage [for a living], and these were some of the worst smells I’ve ever experienced.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Or if you don’t care for those, try <a href="http://www.ctpost.com/business/article/Court-order-allows-Occupy-Wall-St-protesters-back-2269647.php">this one</a>, which contains several photos.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And that’s just of New York.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Going back to Denver, remember that comment about the “pile of blankets and boxes with a stream of stale food and sticky liquid running underneath it?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These protesters are not clean people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re nasty, disgusting people who’ve chosen to live in a park over economic ideals they’re too stupid to understand anyway.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">And the second part of that defense, the “so what” part--are you kidding me?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You so hate this world just because of a few economic problems that you’re actually okay with the public spaces becoming landfills?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s not a “so what” moment, that’s a “why didn’t the police move in sooner” moment if there ever was one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the debris left behind were stale food, liquids, broken bottles, used hypodermic needles, everything you can imagine the scum of the earth bringing to the surface when they’re allowed to linger uninterrupted for the better part of two months.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The Occupy movement was no longer just a protest--it was a public health hazard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you actually believe that nothing needed to be done to clean that up, you’re either delusional or evil.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">What about the claim that they’re there to protest and not be housekeepers for the park?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Of course!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And the minute I hear of police telling them to clean up someone else’s trash, I’ll be right there with you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But they made that mess themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Littering is generally not considered much of a crime, illegal though it is…but on that scale, it could actually come to involuntary manslaughter if someone, say, accidentally steps on a used hypodermic needle while trying to walk through the park.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Protesting is protected by the First Amendment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Trashing the public grounds, becoming a public menace, and allowing oneself to be a public health hazard in a very real sense is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Anyone who can’t see the difference deserves no place at the grown-ups’ table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, the stupidity of that comment is further revealed by the fact that they’re being allowed to continue their protests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yeah, no one’s shutting them up…all they did was try to clean up a bit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Now here’s the painful irony of the whole situation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>One of the things the Occupy people are protesting is that the wealthy pay disproportionately low taxes, and so the costs of running the government have to be paid by the middle class and the poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Okay, there’s actually some truth to that, and that’s something worth protesting, though we’ll talk about that a bit more later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They also claim to speak for “the 99%,” even though we’ve already debunked that stupid idea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, who do you think had to foot the bill to clean up all their shit?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Taxpayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yeah, you and me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>These assholes went out there, accomplished absolutely nothing with their protests because they don’t have two brain cells to rub together among the lot of them, completely trashed the public grounds wherever they went, and now they expect our sympathy and support even though we’ve been forced to pay to clean up after them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And people wonder why I’m pissed off!</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">These people have no real interest in doing anything positive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They’re hippies, anarchists, hobos, drug addicts, and assorted other lowlifes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they really wanted to do something good, they could contribute to the economy instead of living in a park.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They could participate in intellectual discourse instead of shouting gibberish while living in a park.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Oh, dear!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I called them anarchists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Boo-fucking-hoo.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And yet, that’s what so many latch on to whenever someone criticizes these morons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>“They’re not anarchists, they want more regulation, that’s not anarchy.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Well double balls and bollocks!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>While they may espouse a belief in more regulation on the rare occasion they actually talk about things instead of just being idiots crying “why me” all the fucking time, they certainly don’t live up to their own ideals (which we’ll discuss shortly).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Destruction of public property is not in line with cries for more regulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, when the regulations we already have on the books were finally enforced, they all cried “police brutality,” so nevermind more regulations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Perhaps they actually do want more regulations--for everyone else, or for the people they don’t like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But they certainly behave like anarchists themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Regardless of what they may say, their actions indicate a belief that the rules are meant for everyone else, but they’re exempt, simply because they’re protesters (as if the word alone could give them special powers or credibility).</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Want more evidence, rather than simply reasoning our way to that point of view?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>You got it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Check out Occupy Denver’s <a href="http://occupydenver.org/call-for-solidarity-bail-support-for-occupydenver-protestors">own post</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Right up at the top, you’ll see a link, and if you read the label you might be a bit surprised: “via our comrades at Denver Anarchist Black Cross.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In this post, Occupy Denver, and the Denver Anarchist Black Cross.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I think the word you’re looking for is “befuddlement,” because that’s certainly the appropriate emotion to feel when faced with the realization that this movement still enjoys truly massive popular support even in the face of their own candid admission of ties to an anarchist organization (which seems like an oxymoron, but I’ve almost become numb to all the stupidity and contradictions we find in these movements).</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">I did promise to talk a little bit about what they’re actually trying to do, so I’ll attempt to do so, but I find it extremely difficult, as they’ve completely divorced themselves from any sort of intellectual leadership, which might have actually been able to lay down some specific goals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead, they seem to be protesting a sort of fuzzy marriage of corporation and state that they can’t really explain, and they seem to offer no real solutions to anything except for some fuzzy idea of “more regulation for everyone except us.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There also seems to be some fuzzy idea that capitalism is a bad thing.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Since they refuse to actually make specific points, I don’t have any specific points to respond to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is a very enlightening article <a href="http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-demands-new-deal">here</a> that can help us understand their perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Quoted in the article, one protester who goes by the name Ketchup (and some people <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">still</i> take them seriously) said, “If anyone is attempting to speak for OWS, that’s bullshit.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Right, because once someone speaking for the organization starts listing goals, it means some people might actually have to work to meet those goals, rather than live like hobos and beat drums all day.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">They get even more candid later in the same article: “Demands cannot reflect inevitable success.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Demands imply condition, and we will never stop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Demands cannot reflect the time scale that we are working with.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Translation: we’re pissed off about a few things, but we’re too stupid to actually solve any problems, so we’re going to engage in highly publicized mental masturbation and pretend we’re a legitimate political movement and see how long we can deceive the rest of the world--and perhaps ourselves--into thinking our shit is Shinola.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Also in the same article, we learn about a few more broad concepts many of them are talking about: “embracing open-source technology, ending all wars, eliminating ‘discrimination and prejudice,’ and reappropriating ‘our business structures and culture, putting people and our earth before profit.’”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">So even though we don’t, in fact, have anything even remotely resembling a proposal, we do have at least some idea of the vague concepts they’re protesting about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let’s discuss some of them, shall we?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Bear in mind that I’m going to go very briefly through these issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m not necessarily confident in my own ability to solve the problems, but at least I’m better than the Occupy people in that I’m trying to start a dialog about these issues so maybe some people more educated on the matter than I can help me expand my thinking.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Regarding the marriage between corporation and state, my thoughts are probably not too far from what the Occupy people think.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Remember, I did say there are plenty of legitimate grievances, and I don’t necessarily disagree with them on the issues--I just disagree with them as human beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I do think they probably overestimate the extent to which these two sectors influence one another or the impact it has on the rest of us, but maybe not by very much.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There certainly is plenty of corruption both in business and in government, and that needs to end.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Where I disagree with them is in where they’re directing their protest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They ought to be protesting in Washington, because it is the government that needs to address this issue, not the corporations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Hell, most corporations, even most big corporations, are relatively benign.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s only a few that cause problems, and protesting them isn’t going to change their minds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s only when politicians fear for their reelection that something will happen, so the Occupy people may have the right idea, but they’re running with it in the wrong direction.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Some of them are probably capitalists, but there definitely seems to be an anti-capitalist bent amongst the group.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Open-source technology, for instance, is not a bad thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, it’s a good thing--some of the time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it is vital that capitalism be allowed to maintain itself, because if one cannot profit from one’s inventions, one simply stops inventing. If something is shared publicly, the creator gets stiffed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s true of software, music, books, movies, machines, you name it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Capitalism works!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, our form of capitalism has had plenty of bumps in the road, and there are elements of our capitalism right now that are corrupt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But that does not mean that capitalism is bad.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">I recall a conversation with an Occupy buffoon who kept asking “if capitalism is so good, why is the third world so poor?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I had to repeatedly explain that it’s due to a number of factors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Climate, technology, politics, religion, but all in all, it comes down to an inability of the people to profit from their own labor, which is largely what actually does end up creating wealth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That’s capitalism, and to the extent that it’s lacking in the third world, that’s why they remain poor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But he just kept saying that “whenever the people try to improve their lot in life, the west pushes them back down.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Well, first of all, that’s a gross oversimplification, to the point that it’s basically a lie.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Yes, that has happened; but, no, the United States isn’t deliberately trying to keep the impoverished from improving their lives--quite the opposite in fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Second of all, even if that were completely true, it would not be an argument against capitalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It would be an argument against the first world pushing the third world down.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">What else…let’s see…ah, they want to end all wars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Finally, something we completely agree on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Let’s hear how they want to do it?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Hmm?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>*crickets* Yeah, that’s what I thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What I want to see are specific proposals to end specific wars, and proposals to begin improving international relations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And the best way to do that?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It goes right back to capitalism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Countries are less likely to go to war against each other when they have a strong mutual trade between them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Will it end all wars?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Fuck no!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it would at least be a start, and that’s a fuck of a lot more than the Occupy people ever came up with.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Similar arguments apply to the thought of getting rid of prejudice and discrimination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If you define exactly what you’re talking about, and come up with a proposal to address one small area at a time, or to gradually improve things, great.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But otherwise, you’re just blowing a bunch of sunshine up our collective ass, and I don’t like it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">What’s this idea of putting people and earth before profit all about, really?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Are we talking about not lying and cheating our way to the top?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then I agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Are we talking about socialism?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Then I don’t.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Plus, people and profits are not mutually exclusive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, in a healthy economy, either one benefits the other, and everyone’s life is improved through commerce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>A profitable company can pay its employees more (and in a healthy economy is forced to by the competition), and employees who earn more can spend more, making the companies even more profitable, and so on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a myth that no new wealth is created but that wealth is only transferred.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>New weath is created through labor and invention all the time, so in a healthy economy, it’s possible for everyone to profit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But for that to happen, people with sufficient drive must have the opportunity to do extraordinarily well at business.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If there’s no motivation in the form of making more money than the neighbors, then why would anyone work harder than the neighbors and create new wealth through innovation?</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">And regarding the need for more regulation, that’s partial nonsense, too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What we need isn’t more regulation, what we need is smarter regulation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s something neither the liberals nor the conservatives have figured out yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Basically, the liberals don’t get that the free market works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Left to its devices with only minimal regulations to prevent crimes such as fraud, the market actually does quite well without intervention, and in such times interventionism would only hurt the economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What the conservatives don’t get is that sometimes, temporary intervention is necessary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The liberals correctly realize that every once in a while, you need to put the train back on the tracks, but they don’t know when to stop meddling.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What we need are smarter regulations intended to prevent frauds, and to allow for very short term interventions when necessary, but that expire as soon as the market is once again healthy enough to manage itself.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">The problem is that there has been no intellectual leadership to lay anything down for these people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They all just sort of showed up and started protesting without understanding what it was really all about.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Now, let’s turn to the actual structure of Occupy Denver.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If nothing else, it’s worth a laugh or two.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">At the top of the hierarchy of course is the dog, but Shelby doesn’t seem to do very much, so here’s now it works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>They have absolutely no leadership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The people filling official roles at their General Assemblies are not elected or appointed--as far as I can tell they just sort of show up and fall into one role or another, none of which have any real power--they just conduct the meetings which are a sort of loose parody of parliamentary procedure constructed by someone who learned about parliamentary procedure from a bad television program.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The actual voting body is…whoever feels like showing up.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Instead of communicating verbally, they use hand signals (isn’t that cute?).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Here’s what their website has to say about the signals they use.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Hand raised: if you have something to say</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Chopping hands: point of clarification/answer - not a new idea, short sentences only</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Triangle hands: point of order - stay on topic, issue from outside</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Rolling hands: you have made your point, respectfully move on</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Spirit fingers: I like this!</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Downward spirit fingers: I disagree or do not like this</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“Peace fingers/vibes: respect each other, intense emotions casing [sic] problems”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">I’ll admit, it’s been a little while since I’ve read Robert’s Rules of Order, but I don’t remember “spirit fingers” ever appearing anywhere in parliamentary procedure.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">I would also remind the reader that while this movement has been mostly nonviolent for which I am grateful, occupation is a military concept.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This group isn’t as peace-loving as they claim to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Sure, they’re not using physical violence (at least not much, at least not yet), but they are modeled, even in name, upon military strategy, and by their own admission, they plan to be around for a very long time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>That scares me, because these aren’t rational people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead of people having an intellectual discussion, I see a mass of unwashed hippies with dreadlocks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Even if one were to agree with them, and on occasion I do, they certainly don’t present a face that any sane person would consider respectable.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Finally, on November 16, they issued a <a href="http://occupydenver.org/n17-day-of-action/">press release</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Near the end of their document, I found a passage that particularly spoke to me:</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“We call upon you who have been silent: Speak and be heard.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“We call upon you who have not stood up for what you believe in: Stand and be seen.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">“We call upon you who have yet to put your needs on paper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Write and be counted.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in">Challenge accepted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Suck it, bitches!</p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-83498400884519881992011-07-07T22:57:00.000-07:002011-07-07T23:23:11.692-07:00Go on--give us a trickI've been a magician for a while now. Amongst my friends, I'm the token magician (with the exception of those friends who are also in the business, of course, but I'm not speaking to them because they already know all about this stuff). Personally, I like it. I like being the guy who can do things other people can't do. It's not an ego thing, really, though I'm sure that's part of it. Mostly, I just like sharing things that people are unlikely to see anywhere else. I like the look of surprise when, say, the barista at my coffee shop sees her cell phone appear inside a rubber balloon. But I don't like to perform for close friends, and I especially don't like to perform for family.<div><br /></div><div>To a poor magician (read: that uncle who does a card trick at the family reunion) magic is 90% methodology and 10% presentation. To a good magician, it's exactly the opposite. Sure, there are some real knucklebusters out there, and magicians in your audience are guaranteed to be astounded when you pull one off. But they won't be surprised. All you've accomplished is an amazing feat of juggling--not magic. To a lay audience, methodology doesn't matter. All they're supposed to see is the effect. So, that begs the question: what is the effect? On the surface, one might think the effect is, say, "my card showed up in his wallet." And sure, that is the effect. But on another level (I would argue, the important level), that is only the skeleton of the effect. The real effect is the show the magician puts on when presenting this miracle. The effect could be "he predicted what card I would choose and put a copy in his wallet." The effect could be "he made the card invisibly travel from the deck to his wallet." It could be "he hypnotized me and made me think I chose a certain card." Upon the framework of a simple Card to Wallet, there are countless different "effects" the magician could choose to present. And that, I would argue, is where magic lives.</div><div><br /></div><div>Eugene Burger, one of my heroes in magic, and certainly one of magic's greatest thinkers and philosophers, describes magic as it is generally presented as a stunt. But that's not magic. Magic, when it's presented properly, is a true art. It points beyond itself to something else. It hardly matters what that something else is, but there is something to it. And so magic, at least the way I want to do magic, is all about presentation. It is about showmanship. And that's why I hate performing for friends and family.</div><div><br /></div><div>Friends and family know me better than any other audience, and so in their ears, no matter what presentation I hang on a magical effect, it will certainly ring false. My mother knows damn well I can't do the impossible. And on some level, so does any audience--they aren't stupid. But when you're on a stage or in front of strangers, there is a willingness to suspend disbelief that is simply not present when performing for close acquaintances. You can't step into another character, you can't put on a show, because if you do, they'll know that you're just acting.</div><div><br /></div><div>When I watch a movie, I know damn well that the actors are just actors. But because I don't know them personally, it is very easy for me to suspend disbelief. Mentally, for a period of about two hours, the actor really does become the character. But if I knew the actor personally, all I would be thinking about is how different the character is from the personality I know. I would see the performance, and not the art. Magic is no different.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are other reasons I don't like performing to friends and family.</div><div><br /></div><div>To me, magic is a business. It's what I do, at least in part, for a living. Sure, friends do work for each other from time to time, but I loathe the sense of entitlement that seems to come with knowing a magician. Try asking a friend who is an attorney for free services over lunch sometime. If you're in genuine need, a good friend will gladly help. Otherwise, he'll resent the feeling that you expect him to work for free. Likewise, if you're a friend or a friend of a friend and you've never seen me work, I'll be glad to show you something sometime. No problem. But beyond that, I'll dish out the freebies on my own schedule. And it's not that I don't like giving a performance for friends, either...but it's uncomfortable enough that I only like to do it when I'm really mentally prepared to do it.</div><div><br /></div><div>And then there's the element of what happens if something goes wrong. While on some level it's nice to have people to try things out on and give new material a test run before I go public, on another level, it's exactly the opposite of what I need in many cases. If I perform to strangers and it goes wrong, it feels like shit, but then I'll never see any of those people again. If I perform to a close friend and it all goes to shit...it's bound to be a bit awkward in the future.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's also an element of proper etiquette. When I'm performing to a stranger, they're generally expected to follow certain social norms. They're not, unless they've been drinking, very likely to be aggressive or pushy. When receiving a performance from a stranger, people don't heckle, unless they're given damned good reason to. When I perform for people I know, I can't always exploit these social norms. For instance, if I perform for a stranger, I know exactly what I need to do to make someone look away from the deck of cards at the moment of truth. There are numerous techniques I can use to accomplish this, and the methodology is not important here (nor will I reveal it anyway). Yet, just the other day, I was performing for my mother, and she was burning my hands like nothing I've ever seen. I think she feels like she's being helpful when she watches so closely and always points out if she sees a move. But that's hardly the point. I have people I work with (fellow magicians) to watch for moves. I also tape myself and watch for moves. If I'm giving a performance, I'm not looking for someone to try to catch me. I'm looking for the response I would get if I were performing for an average Joe Blow on the street. With friends and family, I will never get that same reaction.</div><div><br /></div><div>So if you've never seen me work, by all means ask me to do something some time. I'd love for all my friends to see something of mine at some point. If you introduce me to someone and want me to perform, that's cool too. Just give me notice so I can know what I'm going to do. Beyond that, try to respect that when I'm out with friends or family, I might want to just relax. Card tricks may seem easy, but they're hard work, and they're infinitely harder when I know the audience personally. So lay off a little bit, and I guarantee I'll have something to show you some day. After all, I am a showman--I always like to show off. I just like to do it on my own terms.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-57859655503485240882011-05-11T13:55:00.000-07:002011-05-13T13:24:36.877-07:00An open letter to Kool 105 radio<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">I have been a long-time listener of Kool 105, and so it was with great disappointment that I logged onto Facebook this afternoon to find these two messages:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Do you have a pet problem: Steve & Stephanie have a PET PSYCHIC on the show tomorrow, and if you’d like to talk with her---She needs a picture of your pet today!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>EMAIL A PICTURE OF YOUR PET-WITH THEIR NAME, YOUR NAME,PHONE NUMBER AND A SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM TO steve@kool105.com today!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We’ll contact you later today to line you up for tomorrow morning to talk with the PET PSYCHIC.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Followed shortly by:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“We have a few more spaces open to talk to our PET PSYCHIC tomorrow morning…I need you to email me a picture of your pet with, your contact info. And we’ll line you up with Patty the Pet Psychic….send photo of Dog, cat, snake, bird, spider to Steve@kool105.com right away.”</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a rational person, I find this reliance upon superstitious mythologies such as psychics (not to mention the silliness of pet psychics) horrifying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We live in a society whose very survival depends upon science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And yet, we have structured out society in such a way that scientists are not only generally misunderstood by the public at large, but people put their faith in anti-scientific nonsense like pet psychics.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I’ve been involved in the skeptical movement for many years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I am, of course, intimately familiar with the sorts of objections I am likely to receive to writing such a letter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>First, I’ll be accused of being closed-minded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But this is certainly not the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>We must all of us remain open minded, but there seems to be a danger that if we open our minds too far, our brains will drop out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>What I mean by this is that we must always be open to new and unusual ideas, but that we must demand a scientific high standard of evidence before we believe in any such claim.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In the case of pet psychics, that burden of proof hasn’t come even close to being met.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">And then of course, it is claimed that these things are just a bit of harmless fun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I cannot disagree more strongly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is a truly marvelous website at www.whatstheharm.net dedicated to cataloging precisely what kinds of harm this superstitious flim-flammery can cause to innocent people.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It is a very dangerous thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It costs people their money, their health, their emotional security, their rational minds, and in many cases, their lives.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>So far, What’s the Harm has identified: 368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured, and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And that’s just what their readers have reported to them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Surely there must be billions more people who suffer at the hands of charlatans.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Even in what would seem like a relatively benign incarnation of this belief system such as pet psychics, there is a very great and very real risk of emotional dependence upon charlatans, not to mention the thousands of dollars people can and will spend on such “services” after sadly becoming “addicted.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If nothing else, it is a risk being taken with no proven benefit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>In fact, there’s not even a hint of a benefit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Nevermind benefit--there’s not even a hint of a way this could be possible without violating the known laws of physics.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">These people are fakes, cheats, scoundrels, liars, and they need to be behind bars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Unfortunately, because the government seems all but completely unwilling to prosecute these cases of outright fraud, negligence, negligent homicide, practicing medicine without a license, and the list of potential charges goes on and on and on, we must rely upon the media to paint an accurate portrait of what’s really going on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>And yes, that even includes entertainment shows such as yours.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Instead of fulfilling your journalistic and decent human duty to protect people from fraud, you’ve invited a practitioner onto your program and solicited victims from the pool of your own listeners.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is a betrayal of your loyal fanbase, it is a betrayal of the scientific method, and it is a betrayal of common human morality.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Because, however, a radio show can be a great opportunity to provide a basic semi-scientific test of this psychic’s claims, I propose you do so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When the psychic is on your show, I suggest that she should be shown photographs of the pet (precisely the method she was going to take anyway), but instead of being told any information, she must first determine the pet’s name and what the problem its owner is having is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Surely the pet at least knows its name!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s the single most common sound it hears!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Why would she, a psychic for gods sakes, need to be told this simple piece of information?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>This is a great sort of informal test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It won’t make your psychic very happy, of course, because she’ll realize that you’ve discovered her to be a fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>But it will help to protect your listeners.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Furthermore, and perhaps even easier for you to do on air, is the Million Dollar Psychic Challenge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>James Randi and the James Randi Educational Foundation are currently offering no less than one MILLION dollars to any psychic who can demonstrate their abilities under scientific observing conditions which preclude the possibility of cheating.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>It’s a simple test, and the only protocols in place will not interfere in any legitimate phenomena--they will only prevent fraud.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The claimants even help to design their own tests.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If they succeed, they get a million bucks, and a public admission from Randi that he was wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Put this pet psychic on the spot: challenge her publicly, on your program, to take the test.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Surely she could use a million dollars.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If she says she doesn’t do it for the money, perhaps she could think of a charity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>I’m sure sick children, or a veterinary clinic (perhaps more her cup of tea) would love such a donation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>There is absolutely no excuse not to take Randi’s challenge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>If she can really do what she says she can do, it’s easy money.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>The only reason she could refuse is if she knows she’s a fraud and doesn’t want to be caught.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Do the right thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Defend science and reason on your show.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>Don’t promote dangerous superstition and fraud.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Bob Lewis</p> <!--EndFragment-->Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-67257307234562042812011-02-07T22:33:00.001-08:002011-02-07T22:34:47.448-08:00Ethics for Magicians and Mentalists<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">I'm a magician who dabbles from time to time in a bit of mental magic. There are others who specialize in one field or other. There are those who see the fields as one and the same, and others who see them as completely different. Personally, I see them as two branches of the same tree. They use similar methods, and both are related to performing the impossible. The difference isn't the substance, but the "flavor."</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">There are forums and clubs and groups of friends who gather, both online and in person, to discuss this art form. Generally, I steer clear of the topics related to pure mentalism, because that's not my specialty, and because I often find myself getting pissed off when I read about it (such as the time I saw Uri Geller on the cover of a magicians' trade journal). But this evening, I broke down and peeked at the mentalists board on a forum, and found a topic in which people were discussing Sylvia Browne (if you're unfamiliar with Sylvia Browne, I suggest you visit www.stopsylvia.com for more information--that site, maintained by Robert Lancaster, has an amazing wealth of information). Anyway, the point is, I was prompted to post a discussion of ethics for mentalists and magicians, because apparently, common human decency are in shorter supply in my profession than I had thought.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">I'll begin by trying to explain the difference between magicians and mentalists. A magician uses trickery, sleight of hand, psychology, and various other means of deception to accomplish the apparently impossible. Mentalists do exactly the same thing, but they specialize in apparently "mental" or "psychic" feats. Basically, mentalists are magicians whose effects are apparently accomplished with mental powers.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller, were they legitimate entertainers, would fall into the category of mentalists. Their apparently psychic feats seem to happen by mental power alone. But of course, they aren't really doing these things--it's all trickery.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">So, back to the forum topic. A guy mentioned Browne, and here are some samples of comments posted to the forums.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"></span></span></div><blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">While Browne is just a normal medium who earns a living like everyone else, I've always felt that the extent she takes it goes just a little bit far. Even among mediums there is a level of decency and more importantly caution that Browne doesn't seem to exhibit.</span></span></div><div></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Another responded:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">This may be the case, but she's out there doing it and making a living at it! That puts her on the top rung of the ladder. Who is to say what is the level of decency when it comes to this area?<br /><br />She is quite a PRO!</span></blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">And the same person later commented:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">You guys are just too funny. LOL<br /><br />No one twist arms to make people listen to her. Since you guys are talking about taking the high road when it comes to dealing with people, would one of you mediums (here) tell me where to buy/find the rule book for mediums and where it talks about the levels of decency and caution. You know, where it states that mediums must exhibited these trates. Anyone?<br /><br />So I guess the levels of decency and caution is really something that you guys thought up on your own. How nice of you to judge others with what you think is right.<br /><br />I could care less what other mediums do or their methods, but really would like to read this rule book that you guys must be getting your infomation from. I want my copy.</span></blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">To be fair, there were some level-headed responses as well, such as the gentleman who remarked:</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Who is to say? Anyone who finds her pronouncements to parents of missing children reprehensible. Anyone who thinks the parents of Shawn Hornbeck did not deserve to be lied to like Sylvia lied to them. Anyone who thinks her comments regarding Opal Jo Jennings were vile and disgusting.<br /><br />I am one of those people, and I have no qualms about saying Sylvia Browne is a predator who takes advantage of the grief of her victims to line her pockets and does not care what harm she brings to them.<br /><br />I take issue with a lot of mediums, but I will be more circumspect with most. Browne, however, is at the far end of the spectrum and deserves no respect, no circumspection, and no kind words.</span></blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Eventually, the conversation devolved into people referring to the Bible as the aforementioned "rule book," and I stopped reading at that point, as I suspect you probably already know what my thought are on </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">that</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"> kind of thing.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">But here's the thing, Sylvia Browne doesn't just earn a living like anyone else. What she does is fraud, and it's the worst sort of fraud I can imagine. She tramples the loving memories of the bereaved for a quick undeserved dollar. As Penn Jillette said about these psychics, they are in a very real sense, motherfuckers. Nor is Browne just making a living like anyone else in the sense that she charges something like $600 for a 30-minute "psychic reading," during which time she spends most of those few short minutes reading off the names of your guardian angels, rather than providing the "service" she's supposed to be.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">And then when she gets involved in missing persons cases or anything related to that, she sends investigators on a wild goose chase, diverting attention from the proper investigation which could actually save lives. Listening to people like Browne will at the very least rob you of your money, likely cause emotional distress, and quite possibly cost lives.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">When we get into this debate, though, we see people talking about the other mediums, such as ones on that forum. The fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as an honest "medium." There are honest mentalists, sure. They're legitimate entertainers and don't claim to be real psychics anymore than Hal Holbrook claims to be the real Mark Twain.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Yes, magicians and mentalists, even the honest ones, use deception. It's part of the game. But there's a big difference between lying to people from a stage as part of a show, and lying to people and claiming it's all real. It's what separates legitimate magicians from those scumbags who need to be behind bars.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">But, since people seem to want a rule-book, I thought I'd provide some thoughts on ethics for magicians. Whenever someone joins a magical society, the first thing he or she needs to do is swear an oath. Generally speaking, it's all about protecting secrets. "I swear on my honor I will not tell how it's done." That sort of thing. I think we need some additions to these oaths. Magicians need to start policing their own ranks, because there are a few motherfuckers out there who give us all a bad name.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">First, and most importantly: Thou shalt not claim real powers. Sure, by all means pretend to have powers while you're on stage. But don't start opening up psychic hotlines, or giving psychic readings to the bereaved on television programs, or pretending to assist police in finding missing children. If you do that sort of thing, you need to be behind bars.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">Secondly, in situations in which people are likely to think you might have real powers, I think it is only prudent to publicly disclaim said powers. It's not going to hurt your performance to begin a show by saying "I don't have real powers--it's all trickery--but I bet that we can still have a good time."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">We don't expect a magician who does a watch stealing routine to actually go out and steal watches. It's all part of the act. By the same token, I don't expect an entertainer with a psychic routine to pretend to be a real psychic. Anyone who steals watches is a thief and needs to be behind bars, and the same is true of anyone who claims psychic powers.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px; font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'times new roman';">It's not that difficult to tell the difference between legitimate entertainment and fraud. Magicians, mentalists--if you're claiming real powers, watch your backs. There are a lot of us who are sick of this shit, and we're not going to take it anymore. Everyone else, I urge you to not take it anymore either. If you're not mad as hell already, you better get there soon. Law enforcement--start putting the frauds behind bars. We need a purging of our industry, and it's time we start enforcing some very basic ethics. We need to stop tolerating the rampant fraud in this business. Anyone who even hints at having real powers should be immediately barred from magical societies, shunned by the community, and sent packing. Because the longer they're allowed to stay, the more people will begin to associate them with the rest of us, and that's the last thing anyone needs.</span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-11535041390942478612011-01-09T10:41:00.000-08:002011-01-09T11:52:33.944-08:00You Want To Bet?I was recently directed toward an article by a gentleman by the name of David Wong (author of the novel, "John Dies At the End," which has been sitting on my reading list for quite a while) entitled "10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On." Mr. Wong seems like an agreeable enough chap. His message basically boils down to "can't we all just get along," and that's a message worthy of hearing from time to time. But occasionally, no we can't, and there are some things I resent being told to agree with.<div><br /></div><div>So you can follow along with what I'm on about this time, you can read the original article <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>In his introduction, Wong begins by arguing that if you celebrate someone's death, you're pretty much a prick, and makes the case that just about all of us can agree on that one. Well, okay...he then talks about atheists celebrating the death of Jerry Falwell. Well...okay...actually celebrating his demise may be a bit of a dick move, and if so then I'm guilty as charged. But the fact of the matter is, Falwell had nothing but venomous bile to spew, and the world is better off without his hateful message clogging the minds of his followers (some of whom, no doubt, could easily be moved to commit actual acts of violence against homosexuals, abortion providers, atheists, pagans, or anyone else who doesn't fit into the neat little Christian box Falwell and his ilk want to force us all into). I don't so much celebrate his death as I do his being silenced. And I'll be perfectly clear, because there are still people like him around (**cough**patrobertson**cough**), I don't advocate violence, and I certainly wouldn't celebrate his death, say, at his funeral. He did have a family who, despite their obvious faults in not disowning that goon years ago, should be respected in their grief. But for pete's sake, don't tell me I can't be glad he can't shout his message anymore.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, on to his ten points (the introduction was just a little freebie).</div><div><br /></div><div>1. You can do terrible things in the name of either one.</div><div><br /></div><div>Okay, this is the point at which he tips his hand. This man is not an atheist. He's revealed a complete lack of understanding of what atheism actually is already, and he's only just begun to make his first point. Atheism is not a belief system. It's a lack of one. You can't do terrible things in the name of a LACK of a belief.</div><div><br /></div><div>The larger point he's trying to make, that both Christians and atheists can and have done terrible things is certainly valid. On the one hand you've got the Crusades, the troubles in Northern Ireland, Hitler, the 9/11 terrorists, those who would bomb abortion clinics, and their ilk. On the other side...well...Stalin. So yeah, both sides have some bad apples. We're agreed that both Christians and atheists are mostly good people and that there are murderous fucks in both camps. But the point is not quite that simple.</div><div><br /></div><div>We realize that a murderer who happens to be a Christian or a murderer who happens to be an atheist does not reflect on the entire belief system or lack thereof. The only question is whether or not the belief system (or lack thereof) actually leads someone to commit these acts. In the case of, say, the Crusades or the 9/11 attacks, it was a religious belief that caused these people to act as they did. One cannot say that about atheism, because it's impossible to do anything in the name of nothing. Atheism isn't even a thing at all. It shouldn't even be an -ism. It's just a lack of a belief in a god. And while you can kill in the name of a god, you can't kill in the name of no god. Can't be done.</div><div><br /></div><div>He also postulates that it's impossible to calculate whether the volume of violent events would go up or down if either side were to "win" (meaning one or the other side completely goes away). Of course, if we're talking about absolute certainty, he's correct. But we don't need absolute certainty. We can look at prison statistics and find that Christians overwhelmingly outnumber the atheists in the prison population (even accounting for their larger representation in the population at large). We can look at the history books. But most importantly, we can just sit down and use our heads. Let's imagine Christianity away for a minute. What changes? No more killing in the name of the Christian god. Now let's imagine atheism away. What changes? Well, we don't lose any potential motives for violence as we do in the previous case. Instead, we gain however many atheists there are as potential "murderers for Jesus." So yes, we do have a pretty damn good idea which way that turn of events would swing.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. Both sides really do believe what they're saying.</div><div><br /></div><div>Mostly, I'll give him this one. He seems to take the Christians to task at least as much as we atheists (for which I give him much credit), because they seem to think that we're all just lying about our lack of a belief out of some stubborn sense of rebellion. Nonsense, and he's right in calling it so. And I generally do assume that the Christians believe what they're saying to...up to a point.</div><div><br /></div><div>I do think that many simply parrot arguments they hear from the pulpit without actually bothering to think for themselves about what they really believe. It doesn't mean they don't really believe it, but it does mean they haven't thought about it. Generally speaking, I think if you put much thought to it, the god thing just sort of collapses under the weight of its own stupidity.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. In everyday life, you're not that different.</div><div><br /></div><div>He had me 100% (or at least 95%) until he actually started trying to explain it. Then he goes into talking about morality and thinking we live as if there were some magical skydaddy lawmaker deciding what is or is not justice. Bullshit! Biblical morality is barbaric and obscene. It's true, Christians and atheists have mostly the same morality, but it ain't from the Bible, it ain't from a God, and it sure as hell ain't Christian. We're mostly the same in everyday life because we're a product of the same culture(s). We share evolutionary and cultural history, and our morality comes from that. Not from a god.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. There are good people on both sides.</div><div><br /></div><div>Agreed. Just one thing to say. Atheists don't claim our own good people as being good because they're atheists. They're good people because they're good people and they happen to not believe in a god. Christians would do well to do the same. Martin Luther King, Jr. (mentioned in the article) was a great man. One of the best. And though he painted his speeches with a Christian brush, he was good because he was good, not because he was a Christian. Religious beliefs or lack thereof are largely incidental to whether or not someone is good. They only seem to play a role when some religious people (and I hasten to add that it's and extreme minority) kill in the name of some god.</div><div><br /></div><div>5. Your point of view is legitimately offensive to them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, I'll give it to him. People shouldn't be so damned easy to offend, but it is the case. He's very careful not to let this point intrude on the area of which side is factually correct, so it's pretty agreeable. Christians and atheists do piss each other off. And in day to day life, I think we can all do a lot better to get along. But there is definitely a place for ranting debate. Like in our books and blogs. This is a debate we need to have before the bombs start falling in another holy war.</div><div><br /></div><div>6. We tend to exaggerate about the other guy.</div><div><br /></div><div>Absolutely true. I do think the Christians tend to exaggerate more than the atheists do, which makes sense, since all the science and data are on our side--all they're left with is exaggeration. But yes, we all do exaggerate. I do it, too, but I attempt to make it clear in my own writings when I'm exaggerating, and when I'm using the more extreme examples of Christianity in order to make my point. I do realize that most Christians aren't as stupid as the Jerry Falwell types, but I tend to write more about that type because a) I want to make a point, so I use the extreme examples to illustrate what I'm talking about and b) I fear those types more than the average Christian you meet in day to day life.</div><div><br /></div><div>7. We tend to exaggerate about ourselves, too.</div><div><br /></div><div>Again, I agree. I think he takes his examples too far (I would think this was intentional, to further make his point, but I don't think, based on some of his other examples, that he's doing so). And again, I think the Christians are more guilty than the atheists. But whoever does it more or less, we all do exaggerate about ourselves and the other guy.</div><div><br /></div><div>8. Focusing on negative examples makes you stupid.</div><div><br /></div><div>Bullshit! Granted, it is asinine to focus on negative examples as if they were representative of everyone on the other side. But we're having a debate here. We're going to call the other side on their shit. It's part of the game. So yes, I'm going to talk about Fred Phelps. No, I'm not going to say all Christians are like that (that really would be stupid), but I will talk about him as one possible negative outcome of Christianity. And that's a fair point. I'd welcome Christians to come up with a negative outcome of atheism if they can find one, but so far they've been unable to do so.</div><div><br /></div><div>9. Both sides have brought good to the table.</div><div><br /></div><div>It depends. PEOPLE from both sides certainly have. But Christianity itself has never really done anything for us except "bad" things. Atheism, being nothing more than a lack of a belief, hasn't done anything good or bad. But Christians and atheists have both done lots of good, and some have done bad. Talk about people, you've got me on your side. Talk about beliefs, you're going to lose me.</div><div><br /></div><div>He does go on to lose me by talking about religion making humanity sacred and giving us morality and other nonsense. And it is nonsense. Religion hasn't done jack or shit for humanity. Just because religious people have, doesn't mean the religion gets the credit.</div><div><br /></div><div>10. You'll never harass the other side out of existence.</div><div><br /></div><div>I agree, as long as the point is phrased precisely this way. Being vile and harassing people isn't going to win the war. Yes, there's a place for it. Yes, it's important to point out how silly those Christians are from time to time. But the real place we need to have this war is in the debate halls. We need to have an open dialogue. When exposed to the light of reason and open debate, religion withers and dies. It can only fester under a cloud of ignorance.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wong's point is to lead by example. I agree with that too. We should all strive to be good people, to be rational people, and to make the most of our lives. Lead by example, debate the points, and try to be respectful rather than harassing. I do think that's one point we really can all get behind.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-7852983180644960002011-01-08T13:03:00.000-08:002011-01-09T10:35:08.151-08:00On Censorship<div>This week, the Internet's been all a-twitter about Huckleberry Finn. Under normal circumstances, I would be pleased to know that people are talking about a wonderful classic work of literature. This time...not so much. You see, what they're really screaming about isn't Huck Finn. It's censorship.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, what's this really all about? It's pretty simple. Racial issues play a major role in Huck Finn. By no means is it a work of racist literature, or the work of a racist author. Quite the opposite, in fact. But it takes place during a time when racism was the norm, and hence, the word "nigger" appears repeatedly throughout the text. And, same as it ever was, people who are not content to be offended on their own have taken it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of the rest of us and file complaints against the book in the schools. More and more, school districts have been giving in to the whiny little bitches and pulling it from their required reading lists, relegating it to the optional reading lists, or banning it outright from their libraries.</div><div><br /></div><div>Seeing this as an opportunity, publisher NewSouth Books plans to release an edited version of Huck Finn, in a single volume with Tom Sawyer, in which all instances of the word "nigger" are replaced with the word "slave." Sure, their intentions are honorable enough. They see that this word is causing schools to ban the book, so they've decided that it is better for students to have access to a censored version than no version at all. For myself, I see their point. It's definitely a valid one. But it is also one I very strongly disagree with.</div><div><br /></div><div>The simple fact of the matter is, I would much rather if people would go to bat for the book, instead of caving in to the small-minded morons who would see it banned because of the presence of a single word. Yes, yes, it's an offensive word to many people. But why should it be so? I've never understood this fear of words. Words are sequences of letters or sequences of sounds and nothing more. Yes, there are words that express offensive ideas (to some, "cocksucker" or "motherfucker"--to me, "faith," or "god"). But is it not the idea which is offensive, not the sequence of sounds we arbitrarily use to describe it? You can say "freaking" all you want, but if you don't mean anything different that when you say "fucking," all you're really doing is cowardly giving in to the myopic thought police. I'm not saying there's no place for "freaking," but I am asking you to think about the way you use your language.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Nigger" is an offensive word, because it reflects racism. Racism is a disgusting topic, but it is also a real topic, and Huck Finn deals with racial issues. The word only has power because people find it offensive, and the book is powerful because it makes use of that word, with all its baggage, to deliver its point to the reader. By replacing the "offensive" word with a "less offensive" one, we deprive the author of his intended meaning. Nevermind the point that "slave" is not only NOT less offensive, but also less accurate to the story.</div><div><br /></div><div>Getting back to the question no one seems willing to answer, though: is it better to have the censored version than no version at all if they're going to be banned from school libraries otherwise? My kneejerk reaction would be to say that yes, it would be better. But honestly, upon a bit of thought, I'm not so sure. Putting aside the truly proper course of action (which may involve taking legal action (or at the very least, sparking community outrage) against schools who remove the book from their libraries), we're still leaving these students with a half-assed (at best) literary education if we teach them that it's better to accept a censored version of a classic work when parts of that work are deemed offensive than to accept the work as it is, and to learn to intellectually explore the work, good and bad, and form one's own opinions. Is the point of literature (or one of the points of literature, anyway) not to spark an internal dialogue in the reader? To explore new ideas? To rethink old ideas? If we censor any work of literature, we're sending a message to these students that some ideas cannot be explored. Well, news flash folks! Racism exists. It existed more in the time period in which Huck Finn takes place, and it still exists today. Sweeping it under the rug and pretending everything's okay won't make it go away. It will only make it fester.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here's a little thought experiment. Let us imagine that some day, the word "raven" is deemed offensive to certain ornithological communities. What is a level-headed school board (or publisher) to do but to replace the word with the far less offensive "cuntpickle" in works of classic literature?</div><div><br /></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><div>The Cuntpickle</div><div>by Edgar Allan Poe</div><div>(Edited by Bob Lewis)</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Only this, and nothing more.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Nameless here for evermore.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">This it is, and nothing more,'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Darkness there, and nothing more.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Merely this and nothing more.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">'Tis the wind and nothing more!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">In there stepped a stately cuntpickle of the saintly days of yore.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Perched, and sat, and nothing more.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">With such name as `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But the cuntpickle, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Of "Never-nevermore."'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But the cuntpickle still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><i>She</i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">shall press, ah, nevermore!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Is there -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><i>is</i></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting -</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">`Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Quoth the cuntpickle, `Nevermore.'</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And the cuntpickle, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">Shall be lifted - nevermore!</span></div></blockquote><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;">I can already hear it coming--it's such a minor change, it doesn't really hurt the narrative. It's just much less offensive to some people. This is a good thing. It's better to have the edited version than no version at all. Well, I'm sorry, but unless you'd rather read The Cuntpickle than The Raven, leave Mark Twain the fuck alone! I'm sick of this censorship bullshit.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Times;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">I've been quiet for a while now. But now it's 2011. I'm back, and I'm ready to kick some ass. Let no idiot go unpunished and no rant go unranted. And the first ones against the wall are the myopic ignoramuses who think censorship is EVER acceptable.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-7083713621698882532010-07-03T01:44:00.000-07:002010-07-03T02:22:57.978-07:00The Big Problem Science Has With ReligionI've just been linked to a story I've seen before, entitled "the little problem science has with religion." Since it's been around the block a few times and its author is unknown, I'll take the liberty of posting it in its entirety here. I'll provide my thoughts and retorts throughout. Quoted text is taken exactly as it was presented, without any alterations to the text or format, except to break it up for my commentary.<div><br /></div><div>Note: Forgive the formatting errors in the quotations. I'll try to fix it when I have the time, but I wanted to get this online quickly.<br /><div><br /></div><div><blockquote></blockquote>[quote]</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Arial;font-size:14px;"><table class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; "><table class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="padding-top: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; "><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span>"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new<br />students to stand....[/quote]</span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">This immediately identifies the story as a fiction. Professors simply don't push antireligion in the classroom, and they certainly don't pick on students for their religious beliefs. That's the fastest way to be out of a job. But, even as a fiction, it could still be an interesting philosophical dialogue. Let's see where they go with this, shall we?</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><br /><span id="fullpost"><br /><br />[quote]"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"<br /><br />"Yes sir," the student says.<br /><br />"So you believe in God?"<br /><br />"Absolutely!"<br /><br />"Is God good?"<br /><br />"Sure! God's good."<br /><br />"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"<br /><br />"Yes."<br /><br />"Are you good or evil?"<br /><br />"The Bible says I'm evil."<br /><br />The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!"<br /><br />He considers for a moment, "Here's one for you.<br /><br />Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>it. Would you help him? Would you try?"<br /><br />"Yes sir, I would."<br /><br />"So you're good!"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">A reasonable, if a bit over-simplistic, observation. Helping the sick is, by any reasonable moral standard, a good action.<br /><br />[quote]"I wouldn't say that."<br /><br />"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."<br /><br />The student does not answer, so the professor continues.<br /><br />"He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>you answer that one?"<br /><br />The student remains silent.[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">The student remains silent for a reason. The professor's argument is valid. Sure, there have been a few apologetics offered to counter this problem before, but none have stood up. As the old saying goes...</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Is god willing to prevent suffering but not able? Then he's not omnipotent.</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Is he able, but not willing? Then he's not good.</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Is he neither willing nor able? Then why call him God?</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Is he both willing and able? Then why is there still suffering?<br /><br />[quote]"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "Let's start again,<br />young fella. Is God good?"<br /><br />"Er...yes," the student says.<br /><br />"Is Satan good?"<br /><br />The student doesn't hesitate on this one,<br /><br />"No."<br /><br />"Then where does Satan come from?"<br /><br />The student falters, "From God."<br /><br />"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>this world?"<br /><br />"Yes sir."<br /><br />"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"<br /><br />"Yes."<br /><br />"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>then God created evil, since evil exists and according to the principle that<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>our works define who we are, then God is evil."<br /><br />Again, the student has no answer.[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Technically, this is flawed logic on the professor's part. Presumably, God's creation of evil could have been a mistake, error of judgement or other faux pas. However, if one assumes that God is both omniscient and omnipotent, as Christian doctrine teaches, the thought that evil could be a mistake is out of the question.</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Even the Bible makes this point perfectly clear, in Isaiah 45:7: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">With this in mind, it's no wonder the student has no answer, as his own Bible goes against what he's been taught to believe.</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">[quote]"Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>things, do they exist in this world?"<br /><br />The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."<br /><br />"So who created them?"<br /><br />The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>"Who created them?"<br /><br />There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.<br /><br />"Tell me," he continues onto another student.<br /><br />"Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"<br /><br />The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."<br /><br />The old man stops pacing, "Science says you have five (5) senses you use to<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"<br /><br />"No sir. I've never seen Him."<br /><br />"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that<br />matter?"<br /><br />"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."<br /><br />"Yet you still believe in him?"<br /><br />"Yes."<br /><br />"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Here's where we run into a bit of a snag. Science is not limited to human perception. Science attempts to overcome the limits of human perception through experimentation, because we know our senses are flawed. You don't have to see something to know it's there. You do, however, require EVIDENCE. And evidence can take many different forms.<br /><br />[quote]"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."<br /><br />"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>with God. There is no evidence, only faith."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">This is true. There is no evidence, so science does have a problem with religion. That doesn't mean we need to be able to see God, but in order to be accepted by science, we need some sort of evidence. Faith, or belief without evidence, is the surrender of the mind.<br /><br />[quote]The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"<br />"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."<br /><br />"And is there such a thing as cold?"<br /><br />"Yes, son, there's cold too."<br /><br />"No sir, there isn't."<br /><br />The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> s</span></span>uddenly becomes very quiet.<br /><br />The student begins to explain . . . "You can have lots of heat, even more<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no<br />heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold.' We can hit up to 458<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after<br />that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>colder than the lowest-458 degrees." Everybody or object is susceptible to<br />study when it has or transmits energy and heat is what makes a body or<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 Fahrenheit) is the<br />total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in<br />thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>sir, just the absence of it."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">True. I suspect any professor would realize this, and only use the word "cold" colloquially, but the student is not mistaken.<br /><br />[quote]Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>like a hammer.<br /><br />"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"<br /><br />"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. What is night if it isn't<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>darkness?"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Surely a professor would see the trap by this point. That he'd walk into it again betrays the absurdity of the story.<br /><br />[quote]"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing<br />light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In<br />reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>darker, wouldn't you?"<br /><br />The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"<br /><br />"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>with and so your conclusion must also be flawed."<br /><br />The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time, "Flawed? Can you<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>explain how?"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">Yes, please explain. This is where the story gets interesting.</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost"><br />[quote]"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains . . "You<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "></span></span>measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought." It uses electricity<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one.<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>life, just the a bsence of it." Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>students that they evolved from a monkey?"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Oy vey! There's a lot to talk about here. Firstly, whether God is finite or infinite, measurable or not, there must be SOME evidence for his/her/its existence, or there's no reason to believe it. I don't care if you can measure every detail of what it is, where it came from, what it can do. I just want to see some evidence that it's actually there.</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">True, science has not completely cracked the problem of human consciousness, though there have been remarkable advances. The difference is clear, however--we know that we think from firsthand experience. We can measure brain activity, and begin to understand the processes. Not only do we have evidence of human consciousness, we are well on our way to understanding it through experimentation.</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Granted, death is not the opposite of life, in the same way that cold is not the opposite of heat. But this is irrelevant. If you're making claims of an afterlife, provide some evidence. Otherwise, what's the point?</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Finally, evolved from a monkey? I thought we'd dispatched that misconception years ago. Humans are great apes. We didn't evolve from any modern species, monkey or otherwise. We share a recent common ancestry with chimpanzees, a slightly more distant ancestry with other primates, more distant still with all mammals, and so on. All life on earth shares a common ancestry, but we did not "evolve from monkeys." This is a straw-man argument.<br /><br />[quote]"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>of course I do."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">A good answer. The professor should have schooled the student in basic middle-school biology, but I'll give him a pass in that he properly answered the question (avoiding the straw man) without derailing the conversation.</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">[quote] <span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "></span></span>"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"<br /><br />The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>the argument is going; a very good semester, indeed.[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Here is where things really fall apart. Firstly, everyone who has witnessed a birth has witnessed evolution first hand. Many scientists, particularly biologists, have witnessed speciation within the laboratory. But the point isn't witnessing it firsthand. The point is a preponderance of evidence. We have amongst other things, fossils and genetics, each of which provide massive evidence demonstrating the fact of evolution.<br /><br />[quote]"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">False. We have witnessed it in life and in the laboratory, and have massive evidence of its history. The very basics of evolution are middle-school level science. The basics of the scientific process are taught in grade school. This student has demonstrated an absolute lack of knowledge of both.<br /><br />[quote]The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>subsided.<br /><br />"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>give you an example of what I mean." The student looks around the room, "Is<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>class breaks out into laughter.<br /><br />"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears<br />to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical,<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all<br />due respect, sir."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">But of course they haven't SEEN it. But there's evidence of it. For instance, the knowledge that the brain controls nerve function in the body through experimentation. It then follows that, when witnessing nerve function, this serves as evidence of the presence of a brain. It's not a question of sight, for cryin' out loud, it's a question of EVIDENCE.</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost"><br />[quote]"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"<br /><br />Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers, "I<br />guess you'll have to take them on faith."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">No one who can attain the position of professor would be unable to conceive the arguments I've just presented, even if flustered by a snippy student. This is a ridiculous answer. Furthermore, a good professor doesn't expect his students to believe or trust his lectures, but to be prepared to learn from them, and challenge themselves intellectually with them. If legitimate flaws can be found, a good professor would be pleased with any student who could find them. Needless to say, the "flaws" this student points out are not legitimate.<br /><br />[quote]"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,"<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>the student continues, now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"<br /><br />Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in<br />the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>manifestations are nothing else but evil."<br /><br />To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like<br />darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no<br />light."[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span style=" ;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:100%;"><span><span id="fullpost">Well, I would have to take issue with believing in "evil" as a thing. It is simply a label we ascribe to certain actions we deem unworthy of our respect. Even with that in mind, the argument is a non sequitur, because while darkness is in fact the absence of light, "evil" however we may define it, is a proactive behavioral choice carried out by humans.<br /><br />[quote]The professor sat down.<br /><br />If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you<span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><span style="color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "> </span></span>finished, mail it to your friends and family.<br /><br />PS: The student was Albert Einstein.[/quote]</span></span></span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">Obviously nonsense. Albert Einstein was an atheist, as he repeatedly confirmed in his correspondence.</span></div><div class="EC_EC_EC_EC_MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 9pt; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'Times New Roman';">Bob</span></div></td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-37674848827157180632010-05-16T15:40:00.001-07:002010-05-16T15:46:57.237-07:00Lowest Common DenominatorIt occurs to me, after a bit of sleep and further reflection, that what I was really talking about last night was the lowest common denominator. It seems that all too many performers try to make their craft appeal to the lowest common denominator in any given audience, and I think that's wrong. I think that's why so few actually hit "art."<div><br /></div><div>Magician are too afraid to inject a bit of literature or philosophy into their act, for fear of alienating those in their audience who don't read, or may not "get it." Balloon artists content themselves to work for children, twisting cute little animals instead of balloon sculpture like those shown <a href="http://weburbanist.com/2008/10/05/the-weird-and-whimsical-balloon-sculptures-of-jason-hackenwerth/">here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>There's nothing wrong with working for children, and there's nothing wrong with wanting to be accessible to the masses. But consider aiming at a higher target. Don't be elitist, but a reference to Shakespeare during a magic trick will enhance the experience for those who do get it, and will simply be overlooked or forgotten by those who don't. You can aim high and create art without sacrificing audience appeal. I think that's a worthy mindset to consider.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-45515815677817948532010-05-15T23:30:00.000-07:002010-05-15T23:56:05.735-07:00Searching for ArtIt's after midnight once again and I'm sitting in a cold dark room with nothing but my computer, my thoughts, and a fresh pack of cigarettes to keep me company. A dangerous situation because it often leads me to start thinking about strange little bits of philosophy. In this case, I got to thinking about art. What is it that makes something artful?<div><br /></div><div>Traditionally, art was a term used to describe anything done with great skill or mastery. But during the Romantic period, this definition changed (I think for the better), and art began to be viewed as a human pursuit equal to but separate from religion and science. I would, of course, argue that religion should be disposed of and that art and science should take their places as the two leading instruments or expressions of human knowledge and experience, but that's neither here nor there. The important part is that art is created in order to provoke thought or emotion.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is separate and distinct from any number of skillful acts that I think do not deserve to be called "art." Eugene Burger, one of magic's leading philosophers, makes a distinction between "stunt" and "magic," in that, though a stunt may be impressive, it doesn't point to anything beyond itself. It simply is what it is. There's nothing wrong with stunts, but they are not art. Art should point beyond itself to something more profound.</div><div><br /></div><div>In an episode of the comedy show Family Guy, a teacher instructs his class to remember the proper performance hierarchy: legitimate theatre, musical theatre, stand-up, ventriloquism, magic, mime.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's an old prejudice, and is unfair to any number of performers. But why is it still so commonly held? Because the lower one falls on that hierarchy, the less likely one is to be working toward something artistic. Entertaining, sure. But art? Sadly, all too rare.</div><div><br /></div><div>Within the first few pages of the first volume of The Art of Astonishment, Paul Harris describes the reactions he received when he told people he was working on a book about magic. I can certainly relate to his experiences. One thought he was talking about children's magic. It's another old prejudice that says magic is only for children. Another insisted that he knew some card tricks. It was only when Harris, instead of using the word "magic," said that he was working on a book about the moment of astonishment, that he was able to generate what seemed to be legitimate interest in what he was doing.</div><div><br /></div><div>Roger Ebert, the noted film critic, recently wrote that video games can never be art. In that case, he was more wrong that the video game industry deserved, but is it really any surprise? It's somewhat understandable that an older man without gaming experience will lack understanding of the artful qualities of a video game, but it is also true that game designers could make more of an effort to truly create art, instead of just a fun game. Some do, and I admire them greatly.</div><div><br /></div><div>I was recently reading through the pages of a forum for magicians, looking to learn and share my limited knowledge as I was able, when I came across a section devoted to those who "table hop," or stroll at parties. I don't particularly like the term "table hopper," as it immediately conjures images of a performer, little better than a beggar, going from table to table soliciting tips, rather than attempting to create an artful and memorable performance. In all too many cases, the term seems to apply. For the few exceptions, it is useful only in that it (somewhat) accurately describes the performing venue. Within the pages of this forum, one finds many balloon twisters--performers who make balloon animals for children.</div><div><br /></div><div>A repeated topic of conversation is the poor treatment of these performers by parents who feel cheated when the performers have to "cut the line" in order to get home or to their next gig on time.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let me make myself clear. If you want to perform for children, more power to you. But in any consideration of "performance hierarchy," whatever your prejudice may be, can you think of anyone lower than a balloon twister? I can't, and I think that's a shame. Sure, they're not traditionally artistic, as painting can be. But why should these performers confine themselves to the hell of working for overprivileged children, instead of creating art? I've seen what a masterful balloon twister can create when not working for six-year-old yuppies-in-training, and it's quite impressive. Sometimes, it even reaches a level of--dare I say it?--art!</div><div><br /></div><div>Likewise, magic shouldn't be just for children, but should be used to create thoughtful or emotional experiences for audiences. All forms of performance art should be thought of first and foremost as ART.</div><div><br /></div><div>Am I a voice in the wilderness? Whatever your skill, whatever your talent, whatever your interests...stop wasting your time with meaningless stunts or simple unartistic creations for children. Start working on making your performance REAL ART. Then, and only then, will a wider variety of performance arts become readily acceptable.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've performed stunts. But I don't want to be a performing monkey anymore. I'm not going to do stunts. I'm going to create art. And I hope you will to.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-82184250911956962442010-04-24T22:19:00.000-07:002010-04-24T22:23:25.255-07:00When Words FailSometimes, even for a writer, words just aren't enough. They fail to express. They fall short of communicating emotions.<div><br /></div><div>And yet, what is one to do when words are all one has, and they still fail?</div><div><br /></div><div>Stephen King once said, "The most important things are the hardest things to say. They are the things you get ashamed of because words diminish your feelings--words shrink things that seem timeless when they are in your head to no more than living size when they are brought out."</div><div><br /></div><div>Nuff said.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897233458930105098.post-65907533972069407022010-04-23T15:10:00.000-07:002010-04-23T15:28:58.908-07:00Overprotective ParentsOkay, people. I get it, I really do. You love your children and want no harm to come to them. We live in a scary world, and there are countless bad things that can happen. I understand. But are there really predators around every corner? Nope. Will video games make your kids violent? No, double no, and a "hell no" to top it off.<div><br /></div><div>Here's the deal. It's the parents responsibility to ensure their kids safety. Sure, and by all means do so. But I'm reminded of one of my favorite Benjamin Franklin quotes: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." He was talking about political policy, of course, but it applies here as well. Children, especially once they reach a certain age, require the liberty to make mistakes and experience life. To deprive them of this experience in the interest of protecting them will not prevent harm, but will CAUSE it. Part of psychological development is learning how to make and deal with your own mistakes. Part of life is learning how to properly deal with society.</div><div><br /></div><div>What brought on this discussion? I was working at the bookstore the other day, and a woman came in with her son (I would guess perhaps age fourteen or so). He wanted a book on dinosaurs, so I showed them to the science section and offered a few suggestions. Of course I avoided the advanced scientific books, but I found a couple nice oversized "illustrated encyclopedia" type books that seemed to be precisely what they were looking for. I gave him a few to flip through and see how he'd enjoy them.</div><div><br /></div><div>The mother said, "I'm going to go look around. Can you stay here and look through those?"</div><div><br /></div><div>"Yes."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Okay, there are chairs right over there. You can sit down and have a look."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Okay."</div><div><br /></div><div>"Now don't wander off, and if anyone tries anything funky, you scream. And I don't mean scream like 'ehh,' but you really scream."</div><div><br /></div><div>This is not a six year old child we're talking about here, but an adolescent. An acquaintance of mine who I met at a magic theatre owned his own business, was involved in non-prophet work, and a decent stage performer by the time he was that age. Many lose their virginity earlier than that and though becoming sexually active at age fourteen may be a mistake (not a horrible mistake, but perhaps a mistake nonetheless), I can't help but wonder, what the fuck is wrong with this mother? The child is old enough to live a little, and unless he's severely mentally challenged (which is obviously not the case), he should be able to visit the bookstore without a lesson on how to scream "if anyone tries anything funky."</div><div><br /></div><div>Do you want to create a world full of people who don't know how to engage someone in conversation? A world full of people afraid to get on a plane for a business trip without someone to hold their hand the whole way? A world full of socially inept, mentally incapable buffoons? That's what you're contributing to if you're an overprotective parent. Get over yourself and let your kids live life the way it's meant to be lived, because guess what--there aren't predators around every corner, sitting on the toilet seat isn't going to give you a disease, and as long as you use protection, sex isn't evil.</div><div><br /></div><div>By all means, teach your children about the dangers that do exist. The world isn't always a pretty place. But sheltering them from life is not the answer. It will only leave them ill-prepared to face challenges later.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01953816707832195702noreply@blogger.com0