I confess I have no grasp whatsoever of advanced physics. I understand Newton's work, simple mechanics, just fine. But quantum mechanics, string theory, super symmetry... these are inconceivable to me. This lack of knowledge leads me to question an assertion I've seen made several times.
I'm told that the leading theories predict as many as ten or eleven dimensions in our universe. Remarks about these multiple dimensions are frequently followed by the caveat that these dimensions do not mean there are supernatural forces dwelling there and influencing our lives. My question is, how do you know that?
I've been an atheist most of my life. But even I have to wonder what the presence of multiple dimensions means to us. How can anybody say with certainty that we aren't a three-dimensional Sims game on some four-dimensional schoolkid's laptop? There are still unsolved mysteries about our own dimensions. How can we possibly know anything about other dimensions which we can't even examine? Does matter exist in these other dimensions? Don't give me that "not as we know it" cop-out. If "stuff" is in these higher dimensions then how can we say that this "stuff" can't form into intelligent life? And wouldn't intelligent life in a higher dimension almost by definition be a god to us? Much like we are gods to pixels on a screen.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Thoughts on alien life
Science fiction movies and television shows often portray aliens as remarkably humanoid. This is obviously a matter of convenience since most of the actors available to portray aliens are themselves typically humanoid. But it's become somewhat common for people to critique these shows for a perceived lack of imagination in the design of the aliens. The objection is that aliens would look completely different, dare I say "alien". But is this really the case? Would aliens really look so terribly different from us?
I want to be clear that I am specifically talking about intelligent aliens. We know from our own animal kingdom that life can take on a huge variety of bizarre forms. So there's every reason to think alien creatures would be every bit as diverse and bizarre as what we see here.
But intelligent life is another story all together. There have been many millions of species on this planet since life began. Yet, as far as we know, only one has evolved into intelligent life. Why is that? Convergent evolution clearly demonstrates that unrelated species can independently evolve similar traits. Insects, birds, and bats, for example, all independently evolved flight because flight offered some survival advantage. Intelligence has undoubtedly given us a tremendous survival advantage. So why are we the only species to have it?
I submit that physiology plays a role in the answer to that question. One of the keys to advancing intelligence is the use of tools. This requires a degree of dexterity not seen in many species. Right off the bat, we are limited to creatures that are accustomed to grappling things. This means mainly arboreal or other climbing creatures. Appendages suited for gripping limbs or ledges will be equally suited for gripping sticks, rocks, and more advanced tools. Whereas hooves, wings, and paws are poorly suited for tool use. So horses, falcons, and tigers are unlikely to begin using spears.
A tree or cliff dwelling creature that for some reason decides to begin living on flat ground will also find itself with spare limbs. Forelimbs once essential for gripping the next branch or crag would now be free to carry any number of tools or supplies while leaving the hind limbs free to move the creature about the landscape. This is important since a tool is of little use if you have to set it down every time you move.
Some may argue that tentacles could also allow tool use. But I think this is unlikely. Tentacles have never evolved on land. This is probably due to some physiological limit of the mechanism. So while tentacles are undoubtedly useful and dextrous in their environment, it is their environment that is the problem. Advanced technology, and the intelligent life that co-dependently evolves with it, cannot arise in an aquatic world. You can't smelt ore, harness fire, or build electronics underwater. An aquatic species might possibly advance a ways. But it would be limited to stone age technology. That may or may not be sufficient to qualify as intelligent. But it is certainly not sufficient to communicate with spacefaring species.
Even an amphibious species would be rather unlikely to gain intelligence. Use of fire is a fundamental first step on the road to intelligence. An amphibious species is highly unlikely to develop an affinity for fire. Their need to stay moist is directly at odds with fire's tendency to dry things out. Amphibious creatures don't tend to live in areas where it gets cold enough to require fire for warmth since such cold would make it difficult to maintain the moisture of an amphibian's skin. Without fire a species is again limited to the stone age.
So it seems logically that any intelligent species would have to be terrestrial in origin. But there are still deductions we can make to further define the characteristics of an intelligent species. There must be a minimum size to any intelligent creature. It takes a certain amount of brain capacity to be intelligent. This means there must be a minimum size body to support that minimum size brain. But it is entirely unclear just how large a species must be before the brain reaches the critical mass for sentience. Sentient mice are certainly out of the question. Sentient dogs? Who knows?
There is probably even be an upper limit to the size of an intelligent species. Beyond a certain size, what tools can a species build? Dinosaurs could never have woven cloth much less developed microchips. They could never have ground lenses to make telescopes to examine the stars. Just how big can a species get before the fine details of technology escape its grasp?
Certainly there is room for a great deal of diversity. Species could have more senses, fewer senses, different numbers of sensory organs, more limbs, any number of variations. But I really don't see any logical support for the idea that intelligent aliens would look vastly different from us. There are real limits on the growth of intelligence. Limits that apparently exclude all but one species out of millions. If there were a broad range of traits that allowed for intelligence to flourish then we would surely see more intelligent species on Earth. Since we don't see a wide variety of intelligent life here on Earth there's no reason to suspect we'd see a wide range of intelligent life elsewhere. So there's no reason for writers to create truly bizarre creatures for their shows.
I want to be clear that I am specifically talking about intelligent aliens. We know from our own animal kingdom that life can take on a huge variety of bizarre forms. So there's every reason to think alien creatures would be every bit as diverse and bizarre as what we see here.
But intelligent life is another story all together. There have been many millions of species on this planet since life began. Yet, as far as we know, only one has evolved into intelligent life. Why is that? Convergent evolution clearly demonstrates that unrelated species can independently evolve similar traits. Insects, birds, and bats, for example, all independently evolved flight because flight offered some survival advantage. Intelligence has undoubtedly given us a tremendous survival advantage. So why are we the only species to have it?
I submit that physiology plays a role in the answer to that question. One of the keys to advancing intelligence is the use of tools. This requires a degree of dexterity not seen in many species. Right off the bat, we are limited to creatures that are accustomed to grappling things. This means mainly arboreal or other climbing creatures. Appendages suited for gripping limbs or ledges will be equally suited for gripping sticks, rocks, and more advanced tools. Whereas hooves, wings, and paws are poorly suited for tool use. So horses, falcons, and tigers are unlikely to begin using spears.
A tree or cliff dwelling creature that for some reason decides to begin living on flat ground will also find itself with spare limbs. Forelimbs once essential for gripping the next branch or crag would now be free to carry any number of tools or supplies while leaving the hind limbs free to move the creature about the landscape. This is important since a tool is of little use if you have to set it down every time you move.
Some may argue that tentacles could also allow tool use. But I think this is unlikely. Tentacles have never evolved on land. This is probably due to some physiological limit of the mechanism. So while tentacles are undoubtedly useful and dextrous in their environment, it is their environment that is the problem. Advanced technology, and the intelligent life that co-dependently evolves with it, cannot arise in an aquatic world. You can't smelt ore, harness fire, or build electronics underwater. An aquatic species might possibly advance a ways. But it would be limited to stone age technology. That may or may not be sufficient to qualify as intelligent. But it is certainly not sufficient to communicate with spacefaring species.
Even an amphibious species would be rather unlikely to gain intelligence. Use of fire is a fundamental first step on the road to intelligence. An amphibious species is highly unlikely to develop an affinity for fire. Their need to stay moist is directly at odds with fire's tendency to dry things out. Amphibious creatures don't tend to live in areas where it gets cold enough to require fire for warmth since such cold would make it difficult to maintain the moisture of an amphibian's skin. Without fire a species is again limited to the stone age.
So it seems logically that any intelligent species would have to be terrestrial in origin. But there are still deductions we can make to further define the characteristics of an intelligent species. There must be a minimum size to any intelligent creature. It takes a certain amount of brain capacity to be intelligent. This means there must be a minimum size body to support that minimum size brain. But it is entirely unclear just how large a species must be before the brain reaches the critical mass for sentience. Sentient mice are certainly out of the question. Sentient dogs? Who knows?
There is probably even be an upper limit to the size of an intelligent species. Beyond a certain size, what tools can a species build? Dinosaurs could never have woven cloth much less developed microchips. They could never have ground lenses to make telescopes to examine the stars. Just how big can a species get before the fine details of technology escape its grasp?
Certainly there is room for a great deal of diversity. Species could have more senses, fewer senses, different numbers of sensory organs, more limbs, any number of variations. But I really don't see any logical support for the idea that intelligent aliens would look vastly different from us. There are real limits on the growth of intelligence. Limits that apparently exclude all but one species out of millions. If there were a broad range of traits that allowed for intelligence to flourish then we would surely see more intelligent species on Earth. Since we don't see a wide variety of intelligent life here on Earth there's no reason to suspect we'd see a wide range of intelligent life elsewhere. So there's no reason for writers to create truly bizarre creatures for their shows.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Beyond misogyny
I don't think "misogyny" is a sufficiently all-encompassing term. I would like to propose a new term to add to our repertoire of epithets, "gynophobia".
I propose this term because there is a group of humans who don't necessarily "hate" women as the "mis-" in "misogyny" implies. Rather, this group tends to view women as something to be avoided or shunned. This group is primarily made up of "feminists" who do everything they can to disavow their femininity. They are afraid, ergo "phobic", of everything pertaining to women, ergo "gyno-".
Compare the modern "feminist" to the only woman I can think of who truly represents what a feminist should be, Mae West. Mae West celebrated her femininity. She did everything she could to accentuate her sexuality. But she also stood on equal ground with the men who surrounded her. She reveled in her promiscuity, even if that promiscuity was exaggerated. She was strong-willed, independent, subservient to no-one. There was no doubt she considered herself the equal of any man. And she attained that status without disavowing her femininity in the slightest.
The only modern example of true feminism I can think of is fictional, the character "Ripley" from the "Aliens" movie franchise. She didn't flaunt her sexuality the way Mae West did. But she did embrace her nurturing "motherhood" side with both the stray child "Newt" and later with the hybrid creature she had to kill. And she embraced that nurturing aspect while still being equal to, even superior to, the men around her.
Gynophobia is just as destructive as misogyny. Gyno- and andro- represent the yin and yang of humanity. We've had thousands of years of dominance of the andro-. Where has that left us? We need women to elevate the gyno-, to celebrate it and restore the balance society is lacking.
I propose this term because there is a group of humans who don't necessarily "hate" women as the "mis-" in "misogyny" implies. Rather, this group tends to view women as something to be avoided or shunned. This group is primarily made up of "feminists" who do everything they can to disavow their femininity. They are afraid, ergo "phobic", of everything pertaining to women, ergo "gyno-".
Compare the modern "feminist" to the only woman I can think of who truly represents what a feminist should be, Mae West. Mae West celebrated her femininity. She did everything she could to accentuate her sexuality. But she also stood on equal ground with the men who surrounded her. She reveled in her promiscuity, even if that promiscuity was exaggerated. She was strong-willed, independent, subservient to no-one. There was no doubt she considered herself the equal of any man. And she attained that status without disavowing her femininity in the slightest.
The only modern example of true feminism I can think of is fictional, the character "Ripley" from the "Aliens" movie franchise. She didn't flaunt her sexuality the way Mae West did. But she did embrace her nurturing "motherhood" side with both the stray child "Newt" and later with the hybrid creature she had to kill. And she embraced that nurturing aspect while still being equal to, even superior to, the men around her.
Gynophobia is just as destructive as misogyny. Gyno- and andro- represent the yin and yang of humanity. We've had thousands of years of dominance of the andro-. Where has that left us? We need women to elevate the gyno-, to celebrate it and restore the balance society is lacking.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Meet the new god...
Other atheists keep telling me that religion is nothing more than belief in some supernatural force. It's belief in something we can't see, can't measure, but that still manages to control our lives. Alright. For the sake of argument, let's go with that idea. That means that "string theory" is a religion.
If you don't already know, string theory is all about a force that exists in higher dimensions than our own. Strings are the source of everything we see, but we cannot measure them or test them in any way. So strings are god.
If you don't already know, string theory is all about a force that exists in higher dimensions than our own. Strings are the source of everything we see, but we cannot measure them or test them in any way. So strings are god.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Absolute morality?
I just finished a debate on morality with a moral realist. For those who don't know, moral realists are certain that there are absolute moral laws very much like there are absolute laws of physics. My own view is that morality is a human construct and mostly subject to the whims of individuals and society. That makes me a moral relativist. What scared me about the debate, and gave me reason to distrust realists, is the stance the bloke had on the idea of competing moralities.
My opponent made the comment that there is only one right way to look at any given question. Reasonable enough, yes? He went on to say that people who do not believe this one right way are delusional or self-deceptive. What? So now if you argue with the Right Way you aren't defending an alternate stance, you are mentally ill. He continued by saying that there is no requirement for external, objective proof of which way is the right way. So the Righteous can make up whatever moral law they want and they don't have to provide rational support for their law.
Taken together, these views account for all the evil that has ever been wrought on humanity. Stalin, for example, was convinced that those who did not believe in his moral crusade to help the proletariat were just misguided. He established "re-education" camps to help these delusional folks find their way back to the moral path.
This sort of absolutism is dangerous. This is what allows people to justify all manner of atrocities. Such absolutists are convinced they, and they alone, hold the key to human salvation.
If you want to claim your way is the One True Path you had better bring some evidence. Newton didn't just claim, "my theory of gravity is the right one!" He backed his claim with testable facts. Today, nobody questions the veracity of his claims. Because everybody can see he was right. If you want everybody to see you are right you better bring the hard facts so that people find it impossible to dispute your claims. Just saying, "because I said so" will not fly.
My opponent made the comment that there is only one right way to look at any given question. Reasonable enough, yes? He went on to say that people who do not believe this one right way are delusional or self-deceptive. What? So now if you argue with the Right Way you aren't defending an alternate stance, you are mentally ill. He continued by saying that there is no requirement for external, objective proof of which way is the right way. So the Righteous can make up whatever moral law they want and they don't have to provide rational support for their law.
Taken together, these views account for all the evil that has ever been wrought on humanity. Stalin, for example, was convinced that those who did not believe in his moral crusade to help the proletariat were just misguided. He established "re-education" camps to help these delusional folks find their way back to the moral path.
This sort of absolutism is dangerous. This is what allows people to justify all manner of atrocities. Such absolutists are convinced they, and they alone, hold the key to human salvation.
If you want to claim your way is the One True Path you had better bring some evidence. Newton didn't just claim, "my theory of gravity is the right one!" He backed his claim with testable facts. Today, nobody questions the veracity of his claims. Because everybody can see he was right. If you want everybody to see you are right you better bring the hard facts so that people find it impossible to dispute your claims. Just saying, "because I said so" will not fly.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Beating a dead horse (yet another assault on the climate change hoax)
I watched the movie, "Pandora's Promise" the other day. I admit it gave me a sense of smug satisfaction to see a bunch of environmentalists finally realize that nuclear power is the most ecological power possible. For the most part, the movie was informative and entertaining. They actually showed the numbers supporting the benefits of nuclear. And I learned there have been people living cancer-free in Chernobyl since about a year after the catastrophe that was supposed to render half of Europe permanently uninhabitable. I was absolutely amazed by that.
But, being environmentalists, they couldn't make it through an entire film without banging the war drum for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Which I once found only mildly annoying. Now that the Cult of Gaia has become the official doctrine of the land, however, I can no longer stand the ignorance of these people.
First of all, they went on about CO2 emissions. It has been a documented, proven scientific fact for some two decades now that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by a matter of centuries. So CO2 emissions cannot be part of the problem. A cause must precede an effect. On top of that, CO2 is hardly a toxin. CO2 is critical to plant life. More CO2 means more plants. Just ask any gardener or even aquarist who uses supplemental CO2 to improve plant growth. So when I hear any Gaian complain about CO2 levels I know they are ignorant of even the most basic science. This makes it impossible to take them seriously afterwards.
Secondly, and this is the one that really makes me want to paint my face and head to war, they insist on saying that anybody who disagrees with them is a "denier". The use of this word, and the tone that accompanies it, pretty much amounts to calling people "heretics". And that's exactly the sort of ad hominem attack you expect from people who cannot support their position with data.
The one Gaian went so far as to say that those who "deny" ACC simply cherry-pick data to support their position. This is at least a rational accusation. But it's also demonstrably false. And here are some globally-recognized facts that are not subject to cherry-picking but which definitely support my assertion that ACC is a hoax being perpetrated in the name of social engineering;
1) CO2 emissions, the great boogeyman of the Cult of Gaia, do not cause climate change. So why are CO2 emissions at the center of virtually every ACC debate? They are a non-issue
2) Human contributions to the known and suspected greenhouse gasses amount to less than half a percent of the total levels. So even if humans ceased to exist there would still be more than 99.5% of the greenhouse levels Gaians so vociferously preach about.
3) The Milankovitch Theory. This is the big one. While the average person on the street may not know this, the Earth has been cycling between cold and warm spells for a very, very long time. This current warm spell started some 18,000 years ago-- long before the Hummer or even coal power. And Milutin Milankovitch calculated the cause of this cycle roughly a century ago. In the early 1900s, Mr. Milankovitch calculated that the Earth would go through glacial periods on a roughly 100,000 year cycle. And every bit of evidence we've discovered since then have supported his calculations. Variations in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of the Earth's axis combine to create variations in the amount of heat our planet absorbs from the sun. This is known science. It's been accepted fact for a century. So how is it cherry-picking to say that this effect is doing now what is has done the last several glacial cycles?
What the Gaians are doing is simple social engineering. They know the average person is too busy worrying about what Lady Gaga is wearing to be bothered to read anything remotely scientific. They count on your ignorance to make you gullible and easily manipulated. They are doing exactly what the Aztecs (or was it the Mayans?) once did. The Aztec/Mayan priests understood solar eclipses. They had records of them and calendars to predict them. But they knew the average peasant was ignorant of eclipses. So the Aztecs/Mayans would display their "power" by holding ceremonies when the sun was due to be "eaten". Just as the world went dark and all seemed lost, the priests would perform a sacrifice-- lo and behold! The sun was reborn and so was the peasants' faith in the power of the priests. It was all smoke and mirrors.
And so it is with the Gaians. They know the Milankovitch theory is proven fact. They know CO2 is not an issue. But they also know that you can be made to believe there is a problem. And they know that by making you believe there is a problem they can then manipulate you into following them down whatever primrose path they choose to take you down.
To any Gaians who happen across this post and wish to challenge me, your task is simple. You believe humans are causing more warming than would naturally occur. So all you have to do is demonstrate what warming would occur right now without any human involvement. It really should be a simple task. Just compare this interglacial warm spell with the last seven or eight the Earth has experienced. See what the normal variation is between those seven or eight interglacial warm spells. Then compare this current interglacial warm spell to those previous ones to see if there is any statistically significant difference between this one, with evil humans present, and the previous ones. That should have been the first step in all this, see if there really is an athropogenic component to this current warming trend.
But I want to issue a further challenge to the Gaians as well as give other Freethinkers something to ponder. In the Jurassic age, arguably the high-point of the dinosaurs, there was no polar ice and probably little snow except at the highest elevations. So why is the reduction of polar ice now something to fear? The dinosaurs lived in a tropical paradise. Can you prove we wouldn't have that again if the icecaps melted entirely? Are you even familiar with how the hydrologic cycle works? You do realize that ice at the poles is water that could be sustaining life elsewhere on the planet, right? If the icecaps melted we would have increased rainfall globally. Combined with the increased CO2 levels we would have increased plant growth. Can you prove that a warmer Earth than we have now would not result in expanded tropics? Can you prove that life would not flourish if the Earth continued warming like it flourished millions of years ago, before the ice ages began? Because my belief is that the best thing we could do for humanity, and all lif on the planet, is to deliberately melt the Antarctic ice. That would reduce solar reflectivity, allow the Earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and free up precious water for all creatures to drink. My way gives us longer growing seasons, more CO2, and more rainfall. How does this in any way seem wrong? Can you Gaians prove your way is better than mine? Would you really prefer another glacial age to another Jurassic age?
If you Gaians want to accuse me of cherry-picking data you have to prove the Milankovitch Theory is wrong. Or you have to prove that this interglacial warm spell is going to be significantly hotter or last significantly longer than history would predict. And that this longer/warmer warm spell is inherently a bad thing. Those are fundamental facts, not trivial bits of data. So put up or shut up.
But, being environmentalists, they couldn't make it through an entire film without banging the war drum for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Which I once found only mildly annoying. Now that the Cult of Gaia has become the official doctrine of the land, however, I can no longer stand the ignorance of these people.
First of all, they went on about CO2 emissions. It has been a documented, proven scientific fact for some two decades now that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by a matter of centuries. So CO2 emissions cannot be part of the problem. A cause must precede an effect. On top of that, CO2 is hardly a toxin. CO2 is critical to plant life. More CO2 means more plants. Just ask any gardener or even aquarist who uses supplemental CO2 to improve plant growth. So when I hear any Gaian complain about CO2 levels I know they are ignorant of even the most basic science. This makes it impossible to take them seriously afterwards.
Secondly, and this is the one that really makes me want to paint my face and head to war, they insist on saying that anybody who disagrees with them is a "denier". The use of this word, and the tone that accompanies it, pretty much amounts to calling people "heretics". And that's exactly the sort of ad hominem attack you expect from people who cannot support their position with data.
The one Gaian went so far as to say that those who "deny" ACC simply cherry-pick data to support their position. This is at least a rational accusation. But it's also demonstrably false. And here are some globally-recognized facts that are not subject to cherry-picking but which definitely support my assertion that ACC is a hoax being perpetrated in the name of social engineering;
1) CO2 emissions, the great boogeyman of the Cult of Gaia, do not cause climate change. So why are CO2 emissions at the center of virtually every ACC debate? They are a non-issue
2) Human contributions to the known and suspected greenhouse gasses amount to less than half a percent of the total levels. So even if humans ceased to exist there would still be more than 99.5% of the greenhouse levels Gaians so vociferously preach about.
3) The Milankovitch Theory. This is the big one. While the average person on the street may not know this, the Earth has been cycling between cold and warm spells for a very, very long time. This current warm spell started some 18,000 years ago-- long before the Hummer or even coal power. And Milutin Milankovitch calculated the cause of this cycle roughly a century ago. In the early 1900s, Mr. Milankovitch calculated that the Earth would go through glacial periods on a roughly 100,000 year cycle. And every bit of evidence we've discovered since then have supported his calculations. Variations in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of the Earth's axis combine to create variations in the amount of heat our planet absorbs from the sun. This is known science. It's been accepted fact for a century. So how is it cherry-picking to say that this effect is doing now what is has done the last several glacial cycles?
What the Gaians are doing is simple social engineering. They know the average person is too busy worrying about what Lady Gaga is wearing to be bothered to read anything remotely scientific. They count on your ignorance to make you gullible and easily manipulated. They are doing exactly what the Aztecs (or was it the Mayans?) once did. The Aztec/Mayan priests understood solar eclipses. They had records of them and calendars to predict them. But they knew the average peasant was ignorant of eclipses. So the Aztecs/Mayans would display their "power" by holding ceremonies when the sun was due to be "eaten". Just as the world went dark and all seemed lost, the priests would perform a sacrifice-- lo and behold! The sun was reborn and so was the peasants' faith in the power of the priests. It was all smoke and mirrors.
And so it is with the Gaians. They know the Milankovitch theory is proven fact. They know CO2 is not an issue. But they also know that you can be made to believe there is a problem. And they know that by making you believe there is a problem they can then manipulate you into following them down whatever primrose path they choose to take you down.
To any Gaians who happen across this post and wish to challenge me, your task is simple. You believe humans are causing more warming than would naturally occur. So all you have to do is demonstrate what warming would occur right now without any human involvement. It really should be a simple task. Just compare this interglacial warm spell with the last seven or eight the Earth has experienced. See what the normal variation is between those seven or eight interglacial warm spells. Then compare this current interglacial warm spell to those previous ones to see if there is any statistically significant difference between this one, with evil humans present, and the previous ones. That should have been the first step in all this, see if there really is an athropogenic component to this current warming trend.
But I want to issue a further challenge to the Gaians as well as give other Freethinkers something to ponder. In the Jurassic age, arguably the high-point of the dinosaurs, there was no polar ice and probably little snow except at the highest elevations. So why is the reduction of polar ice now something to fear? The dinosaurs lived in a tropical paradise. Can you prove we wouldn't have that again if the icecaps melted entirely? Are you even familiar with how the hydrologic cycle works? You do realize that ice at the poles is water that could be sustaining life elsewhere on the planet, right? If the icecaps melted we would have increased rainfall globally. Combined with the increased CO2 levels we would have increased plant growth. Can you prove that a warmer Earth than we have now would not result in expanded tropics? Can you prove that life would not flourish if the Earth continued warming like it flourished millions of years ago, before the ice ages began? Because my belief is that the best thing we could do for humanity, and all lif on the planet, is to deliberately melt the Antarctic ice. That would reduce solar reflectivity, allow the Earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and free up precious water for all creatures to drink. My way gives us longer growing seasons, more CO2, and more rainfall. How does this in any way seem wrong? Can you Gaians prove your way is better than mine? Would you really prefer another glacial age to another Jurassic age?
If you Gaians want to accuse me of cherry-picking data you have to prove the Milankovitch Theory is wrong. Or you have to prove that this interglacial warm spell is going to be significantly hotter or last significantly longer than history would predict. And that this longer/warmer warm spell is inherently a bad thing. Those are fundamental facts, not trivial bits of data. So put up or shut up.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Immanuel Kant and the paradox of truth
I don't understand the long-running debate over Kant's "murderer paradox". I can understand Kant's position that the truth is the foundation of reason and human civilization. I happen to agree that lying is an abhorrent practice. However, I can't comprehend how Kant believes that lying to a murderer in order to protect the would-be victim falls into the realm of immorality.
I know I'm not the first to point this out, not even close to it. But a murderer is operating outside the realm of morality. You can't step outside the realm of morality and still expect to be protected by the rules of morality. So there is no obligation to treat the murderer with the same moral behavior you would use towards other humans.
If Kant were right, if it were immoral to treat a criminal immorally, then all forms of punishment we regularly use against criminals would be wrong. Nobody argues that it's wrong to lock criminals in cages. So why would anybody argue that it's wrong to lie to criminals?
I know I'm not the first to point this out, not even close to it. But a murderer is operating outside the realm of morality. You can't step outside the realm of morality and still expect to be protected by the rules of morality. So there is no obligation to treat the murderer with the same moral behavior you would use towards other humans.
If Kant were right, if it were immoral to treat a criminal immorally, then all forms of punishment we regularly use against criminals would be wrong. Nobody argues that it's wrong to lock criminals in cages. So why would anybody argue that it's wrong to lie to criminals?
Saturday, July 19, 2014
A new sub-species of fallacy identified by science
Most folks are familiar with the "is-ought" fallacy. For those who aren't, it is the fallacy of saying that because something "is" it therefor "ought" to be. Here's an extreme case to demonstrate why is is a fallacy; pedophilia exists, it "is" a real thing in our world. Following the "is-ought" fallacy we can then conclude that pedophilia "ought" to exist.
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Unbelievably believable
I just learned about a study on how people think. It wasn't about the mechanics of thinking, but rather they were looking at how people reacted to thinking without any outside distractions. What they learned both amazed and disgusted me.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
The movie that wasn't there
I just finished watching "The God Who Wasn't There" on Netflix. I was hoping for an in-depth look at the historical evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence of Jesus. What I got instead was pathetic christophobia.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)