Barely four years ago, Air Force Academy cadets who were Wiccans, pagans, nature worshippers or atheists had to endure a humiliating ordeal known as "Heathen's Run" - forced to run a gauntlet between bible-toting believers who smashed them upside the head and shoulders with their good books.
Now, thanks to Mikey Weinstein's interventions, all that has changed, and Constitutional protections have arrived for these minorities.
As reported in today's Colorado Springs Gazette (p. A3), an outside worship area has now been set aside for Wiccans, Druids, pagans, and other naturalists....while atheists are permitted to have their own freethought meetings.
Marking the area is a double circle of stones atop a hill on the AFA campus, designated for the group. As pagans know, the circular format of the stones is intended to convey the essential unity between Man and nature. As noted by Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longerier, quoted in the Gazette:
"Being with nature and connecting with it is kind of the whole point."
Indeed, and for Wiccans - long miscast as "Witches" or "warlocks" this holds equally true. The problem is that all these groups have been marginalized in a nation that gives way too much front stage area to fundamentalist Christians, who actually hold the real exceptional beliefs.
One of the AFA's chaplains, Lt. Col. William Ziegler, reminded local journalists that designation of the worship space is part of the Academy's ongoing efforts to foster religious tolerance. This was also the motivating force behind Mr. Weinstein's efforts, on learning that his son - a Jew- had also been subjected to the Heathen's Run. As he pointed out when organizing the move to take back the AFA from the fundie domination, no military should be ruled by a group of religious zealots. If it is, then the nation's military becomes no different from a Christian Taliban - out to enforce their values above those the military must defend in the Constitution.
As the AFA Chaplain also observed:
"It's about our committment as airmen to protect freedom and defend freedom. To me, this is a freedom thing".
Kudos must also go to AFA Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, who has said his institution has made religious tolerance "a priority".
In most Earth-centered nature religions - as Cadet Longrier notes, it is the Goddess that is worhipped. (In some cases, multiple goddesses are worshipped, each representing a natural domain of our world).
Longrier and his fellows are also smart enough to cede that their goddesses are not believed to be actual beings, but rather "personifications of natural events that our human ancestors wanted to put a face on".
Interestingly, there also remains an ongoing effort in the Catholic Church to re-direct focus from a patriarchal, authoritarian male deity to a less uptight female one. The reasoning here is that a female deity would be more sympathetic to human needs, and suffering- more resonant with the theme of love, as opposed to punishment. The male image is too much like a white corporate CEO or dictator who has lost his moorings. At least - that was the reasoning a nun offered to me once. While some uptight Xtians may complain, they often overlook evidence that Jesus himself may have been a hermaphrodite, as a number of religious scholars have speculated- including Elaine Pagels.
Maybe one day, humans will mature enough to be rid of all gods - or goddesses. In the meantime, until that day arrives, tolerance must be allotted to all, especially since no human brain is capable of knowing for certain which god-concept may be the right one. All are relative, especially if none even represent an actual entity.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Exploring issues of causality
It is a remarkable fact that in many debates, religious as well as political, issues of cause and causality arise yet the debaters have little conception of what these terms mean. In this blog I want to explore issues of causality and how they can best be argued and assessed.
Much general confusion inheres in conflating efficient causality and regular conditionality – which is what “necessary and sufficient conditions” are really all about. (cf. Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, pp. 33-34, 1979). The other part of the problem resides in extrapolating conditions peculiar to general traits for scientific laws into human domains.
I want to focus on the first of these for now.
The criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions was actually invoked originally by Galileo to replace the concept of efficient cause (ibid., p. 33). In this regard, it was recognized from early on that "efficient causation" was often too limited or narrow a concept to be practical or workable. As for “necessary and sufficient conditions” - they are really a statement of regular conditionality that exposes no real criteria for causal efficacy.
Nonetheless, in many venues they are about the best we can hope for in approaching a feasible discussion of causes. For example, Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c,d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.
Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.
Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument incorporating the most basic affiliation with cause or causation.
Given this, let's explore further the concept of conditionalness or conditionality. The goal is to see if or how we can drive n-s conditions toward a firmer basis, say of causal efficacy. Generally four characteristics are assigned for efficient causality: conditionalness, existential succession, uniqueness and constancy. The first, conditionalness is a generic trait of scientific law.
Thus, for example, applying conditionalness to the occurrence of large solar flares, I know I must include such factors as: steepness of the magnetic gradient in the active region, rate of proper motion of sunspots in the active region, magnetic class of said spots, magnetic flux, and helicity of the magnetic field. Each of the above allows a degree of determinacy in the prediction, once I make the measurements.
For example, the magnetic gradient: grad B = [+B_n - (-B_n)] / x
where the numerator denotes the difference in the normal components of the magnetic field (between opposite polarities of the active region) as measured by vector magnetograph and the denominator the scale separation between them. If I calculate grad B = 0.1 Gauss/km, then I know a flare is 96% probable within 24 hrs. In the case of existential succession, in the physical case of the solar flare I know that when the magnetic gradient spikes or steepens to 0.1 Gauss/km a flare is imminent to 96% probability – in 24 hrs.
Unlike conditionalness, the attribute of uniqueness (or high level determinacy such that a one-to-one onto mapping occurs between C(cause) and E (effect)) is absent from certain kinds of law – such as statistical regularities peculiar to statistical mechanics (e.g. the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function) or the empirical- statistical correlations that show how sunspot morphology is related to the frequency of certain classes of flares.
It is also absent from those quantum phenomena (including the spontaneous inception of the cosmos) which are governed by quantum logic, not binary classical logic. This is why it is futile to get into arguments with people who merely use classical either-or logic and haven't been exposed to quantum logic. See also my previous blog on this issue:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html
One example I gave therein was in a claimant who asserted: "No primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.
But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? No, since we saw the binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H, the Hilbert space. But they are not in such correspondence with classical operators that one might assign to classical causality conditions!
Anyway, we move on. Uniqueness is a characteristic, but not an exclusive trait of causation. When one avers “uniqueness of causation” one really means “the rigidity of causation” as opposed to say plasticity which would be associated with human processes, influences, choices and outcomes. For example, plasticity was at work in the 2000 presidential election, embedded in the (disjunctive) plurality of proximate causes of why Al Gore lost Florida to Bush, and hence the presidency in the electoral vote count (though he did win the popular vote across the U.S. by 500,000). . Among these causes: i) 200,000 Dem voters bailed and voted Repub (bear in mind in the final count Bush only won by 537 votes), ii) Nader garnered nearly 50,000 votes - and they were claimed "taken from Dems" - though this has never been proven, and iii) more than 58,000 African -Americans were disenfranchised as documented by Greg Palast in the first chapter of his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
The distinguishing aspect of plasticity in causality is that a given outcome (say the potential election of Gore in 2000) could be attained by a whole range of alternative means. (E.g. Gore could have won in 2000 if Nader had not run, OR if Gore had fought hard enough for the purged votes to be reinstated, OR if he had fought for the 3,100+ butterfly ballot votes to be reinstated in Palm Beach County, OR if he had demanded all the votes in every county be counted- which the Miami Herald later showed would have won it for him). Note that the key aspect here is that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.
If only “necessary and sufficient conditions” are to be regarded as antecedents in a casual connection then a simple causation is implied (which lies at the heart of regular conditionality):
If C, then (and only then) E
Again, this is justifiably applied in the context of totally deterministic – and “rigidly causal” examples such as occur in the scientific realm (Newton’s 2nd law: F= ma) but NOT human dynamics or processes. For the latter, the imposition of linear causal chains to describe events and outcomes is defective ontologically since it crafts an artificial line of development in a whole stream of causes (e.g. disjunctive plurality of causes).
As Bunge observes (p. 132) this amounts to a fabrication that may prove useful in terms of description or conveying complex information, say about the 2000 election, but it falls way short in arriving at the efficient causation we seek. The gist of all the preceding is that it is facile, naïve and utterly preposterous to over-extrapolate the“necessary and sufficient conditions” to human affairs and events. That will remain the case until such time the human agents and actors are at least as predictable as the particle of a gas are, say, in terms of their velocities in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
The Problem of employing False Conditionality- Hence False Causation:
While the whole preceding section may appear to be a rarefied discussion, it actually has significant practical application: namely in ferreting out false causation arguments. Most of these, in fact, mistake a false conditionality for an efficient causation. Some examples from the past are really extreme, but I will point out just one - the classic used by mathematician Leonhard Euler on the French atheist Denis Diderot (who also, alas was innumerate).
Anyway, the story goes like this: on being informed of a new "proof for God's existence" Diderot expressed a desire to hear it, from Euler. Euler then walked toward him and announced (without cracking even a slight grin):
"Sir, (a + b)^n/ n = x, hence God exists! Reply!"
The poor Diderot, lost in any abstract math, was so stunned - the story goes- that he nearly lost his mind and senses and had to leave Paris.
However, had he even basic training in logic and the nuances of causation, he could have easily peered calmly at Euler, and informed him: "Sir, the so-called proof is nothing but nonsense that has nothing to do with the entity you are trying to prove. You have merely given a mathematical equation, nothing more - and hence, a false conditionalness which you mistake for efficient causation!"
Of course, any number of other examples can be substituted for Euler's false conditionality. For example, "God is two-dimensional in time" - proves efficient causation. Or "God is the uncaused cause", when in fact all that's being done is to insert a noun which hasn't even been vetted for the bare necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.
The point is that most such arguments fall because while they invoke some form of efficient causation, they don't use or deliver it. They deliver a fraud masquerading as it, which we recognize as a false conditionalness. Worse, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause! (Of course, one may eschew such a system - but then he loses the ability to argue from or about "cause"!) This is directly from application of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems.
In this case the set of causal elements in the axiomatic system, call the set: Z ={C1, C2, C3,........Cn) has ONE element which is uncaused. It matters not whether it is C1 or any other. The point is, the proof of its existence can't be rendered from within the axiomatic system that uses the set Z for a causal argument. Thus, one will inevitably find at least one contradiction, and this contradiction means the system is incomplete, so the set must be also.
Look at it this way: say Z = C1 is equivalent to saying C1 is "the first cause of all Z". But if: Z = C1 were provable-in-the-system, we have a contradiction: for if it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "Z= C1 is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C1 is an element from a presumed CAUSAL set. So, Z = C1 is unprovable-in-the-system is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a "meta-set" such that Z' = Z + k', the uncaused element- with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.
This shows why - before one interjects false conditionality- he or she had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!
Much general confusion inheres in conflating efficient causality and regular conditionality – which is what “necessary and sufficient conditions” are really all about. (cf. Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, pp. 33-34, 1979). The other part of the problem resides in extrapolating conditions peculiar to general traits for scientific laws into human domains.
I want to focus on the first of these for now.
The criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions was actually invoked originally by Galileo to replace the concept of efficient cause (ibid., p. 33). In this regard, it was recognized from early on that "efficient causation" was often too limited or narrow a concept to be practical or workable. As for “necessary and sufficient conditions” - they are really a statement of regular conditionality that exposes no real criteria for causal efficacy.
Nonetheless, in many venues they are about the best we can hope for in approaching a feasible discussion of causes. For example, Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c,d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.
Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.
Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument incorporating the most basic affiliation with cause or causation.
Given this, let's explore further the concept of conditionalness or conditionality. The goal is to see if or how we can drive n-s conditions toward a firmer basis, say of causal efficacy. Generally four characteristics are assigned for efficient causality: conditionalness, existential succession, uniqueness and constancy. The first, conditionalness is a generic trait of scientific law.
Thus, for example, applying conditionalness to the occurrence of large solar flares, I know I must include such factors as: steepness of the magnetic gradient in the active region, rate of proper motion of sunspots in the active region, magnetic class of said spots, magnetic flux, and helicity of the magnetic field. Each of the above allows a degree of determinacy in the prediction, once I make the measurements.
For example, the magnetic gradient: grad B = [+B_n - (-B_n)] / x
where the numerator denotes the difference in the normal components of the magnetic field (between opposite polarities of the active region) as measured by vector magnetograph and the denominator the scale separation between them. If I calculate grad B = 0.1 Gauss/km, then I know a flare is 96% probable within 24 hrs. In the case of existential succession, in the physical case of the solar flare I know that when the magnetic gradient spikes or steepens to 0.1 Gauss/km a flare is imminent to 96% probability – in 24 hrs.
Unlike conditionalness, the attribute of uniqueness (or high level determinacy such that a one-to-one onto mapping occurs between C(cause) and E (effect)) is absent from certain kinds of law – such as statistical regularities peculiar to statistical mechanics (e.g. the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function) or the empirical- statistical correlations that show how sunspot morphology is related to the frequency of certain classes of flares.
It is also absent from those quantum phenomena (including the spontaneous inception of the cosmos) which are governed by quantum logic, not binary classical logic. This is why it is futile to get into arguments with people who merely use classical either-or logic and haven't been exposed to quantum logic. See also my previous blog on this issue:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html
One example I gave therein was in a claimant who asserted: "No primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.
But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? No, since we saw the binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H, the Hilbert space. But they are not in such correspondence with classical operators that one might assign to classical causality conditions!
Anyway, we move on. Uniqueness is a characteristic, but not an exclusive trait of causation. When one avers “uniqueness of causation” one really means “the rigidity of causation” as opposed to say plasticity which would be associated with human processes, influences, choices and outcomes. For example, plasticity was at work in the 2000 presidential election, embedded in the (disjunctive) plurality of proximate causes of why Al Gore lost Florida to Bush, and hence the presidency in the electoral vote count (though he did win the popular vote across the U.S. by 500,000). . Among these causes: i) 200,000 Dem voters bailed and voted Repub (bear in mind in the final count Bush only won by 537 votes), ii) Nader garnered nearly 50,000 votes - and they were claimed "taken from Dems" - though this has never been proven, and iii) more than 58,000 African -Americans were disenfranchised as documented by Greg Palast in the first chapter of his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.
The distinguishing aspect of plasticity in causality is that a given outcome (say the potential election of Gore in 2000) could be attained by a whole range of alternative means. (E.g. Gore could have won in 2000 if Nader had not run, OR if Gore had fought hard enough for the purged votes to be reinstated, OR if he had fought for the 3,100+ butterfly ballot votes to be reinstated in Palm Beach County, OR if he had demanded all the votes in every county be counted- which the Miami Herald later showed would have won it for him). Note that the key aspect here is that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.
If only “necessary and sufficient conditions” are to be regarded as antecedents in a casual connection then a simple causation is implied (which lies at the heart of regular conditionality):
If C, then (and only then) E
Again, this is justifiably applied in the context of totally deterministic – and “rigidly causal” examples such as occur in the scientific realm (Newton’s 2nd law: F= ma) but NOT human dynamics or processes. For the latter, the imposition of linear causal chains to describe events and outcomes is defective ontologically since it crafts an artificial line of development in a whole stream of causes (e.g. disjunctive plurality of causes).
As Bunge observes (p. 132) this amounts to a fabrication that may prove useful in terms of description or conveying complex information, say about the 2000 election, but it falls way short in arriving at the efficient causation we seek. The gist of all the preceding is that it is facile, naïve and utterly preposterous to over-extrapolate the“necessary and sufficient conditions” to human affairs and events. That will remain the case until such time the human agents and actors are at least as predictable as the particle of a gas are, say, in terms of their velocities in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.
The Problem of employing False Conditionality- Hence False Causation:
While the whole preceding section may appear to be a rarefied discussion, it actually has significant practical application: namely in ferreting out false causation arguments. Most of these, in fact, mistake a false conditionality for an efficient causation. Some examples from the past are really extreme, but I will point out just one - the classic used by mathematician Leonhard Euler on the French atheist Denis Diderot (who also, alas was innumerate).
Anyway, the story goes like this: on being informed of a new "proof for God's existence" Diderot expressed a desire to hear it, from Euler. Euler then walked toward him and announced (without cracking even a slight grin):
"Sir, (a + b)^n/ n = x, hence God exists! Reply!"
The poor Diderot, lost in any abstract math, was so stunned - the story goes- that he nearly lost his mind and senses and had to leave Paris.
However, had he even basic training in logic and the nuances of causation, he could have easily peered calmly at Euler, and informed him: "Sir, the so-called proof is nothing but nonsense that has nothing to do with the entity you are trying to prove. You have merely given a mathematical equation, nothing more - and hence, a false conditionalness which you mistake for efficient causation!"
Of course, any number of other examples can be substituted for Euler's false conditionality. For example, "God is two-dimensional in time" - proves efficient causation. Or "God is the uncaused cause", when in fact all that's being done is to insert a noun which hasn't even been vetted for the bare necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.
The point is that most such arguments fall because while they invoke some form of efficient causation, they don't use or deliver it. They deliver a fraud masquerading as it, which we recognize as a false conditionalness. Worse, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause! (Of course, one may eschew such a system - but then he loses the ability to argue from or about "cause"!) This is directly from application of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems.
In this case the set of causal elements in the axiomatic system, call the set: Z ={C1, C2, C3,........Cn) has ONE element which is uncaused. It matters not whether it is C1 or any other. The point is, the proof of its existence can't be rendered from within the axiomatic system that uses the set Z for a causal argument. Thus, one will inevitably find at least one contradiction, and this contradiction means the system is incomplete, so the set must be also.
Look at it this way: say Z = C1 is equivalent to saying C1 is "the first cause of all Z". But if: Z = C1 were provable-in-the-system, we have a contradiction: for if it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "Z= C1 is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C1 is an element from a presumed CAUSAL set. So, Z = C1 is unprovable-in-the-system is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a "meta-set" such that Z' = Z + k', the uncaused element- with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.
This shows why - before one interjects false conditionality- he or she had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!
NO! To floating money market share values!
In The Financial Times of January 28 ('Markets & Investing' section, page 23) - about a third of the way down the page - there appeared a nondescript four column story under the header: 'Curbs on Money Market Funds'. As readers may be well aware, at the apex of the credit meltdown and banking crisis there was a veritable flood of investors toward safety, after seeing their investments in equities cratered. The first destination was money market funds, which are also the safest instruments available for most people with IRA or 401k holdings.
As risk enhanced, a sizeable proportion of these people then attempted to pull their cash out of money markets - leading to a near literal run on them, and causing at least one to "break the buck". For those who may not be aware, all money market funds trade at $1 share prices. The aim of all major fund companies (e.g. T. Rowe Price) is to maintain this parity. A fall below that means investors in the money market are losing money. (For example, in the case of the fund that "broke the buck" - the share price went down nearly two cents to 0.98. Thus, say for a person that may have held $100,000 there, the holdings subsequent were $98,000 - marking a $2,000 loss in what is purported to be an ultra-safe investment).
Why would people place most funds there? Mainly because within 5 years (or less) of retiring they don't want to risk their life savings (mainly tied up in their 401ks) in the equity -stock casino. The market meltdown of 2008, with so many losing up to 40% of their nest eggs, showed the wisdom of the conservative approach. Interestingly, the usual stock hawks in MONEY magazine, in a number of issues in the wake of the meltdown, for once concurred that saving money over time was preferable to trying to make up for not doing so by gambling in the stock market. Hoping to strike one big Bull Market run and high P-E ratio upswing and earn a return equal to all the hundreds of thousands that they ought to have saved in the first place.
Thus, those electing money market choices (which disdain also bond funds - since they can be littered with "toxic waste" - like collateralized mortgage obligations, IOS strips and inverse floaters) expect to preserve their principal and not lose it. Those who suffered the breaking of the buck, lost. Not a lot, but enough to savage confidence.
Now, according to the FT article, the SEC voted to require money market funds (which currently hold $3.24 trillion in assets) to disclose fluctuations around their standard share price of $1.00. This is further to be done on a monthly basis, with a 60-day lag. Implicit here is the demand to disclose what can be called the "shadow net asset value as manifested in any fluctuating share prices. The whole idea is to inform money market investors of any volatility in their holdings, which may not always be apparent to them from the Prospectus.
This is a good idea, make no mistake. Investors, especially conservative oldsters in money markets (where the bulk of their 401k money inheres) deserve to see any threats before their bucks are actually broken. So, kudos to the SEC on that!
Not so appealing is what the FT article also pointed out:
"The SEC is also to evaluate the merits of requiring a floating net asset value for money market funds rather than the stable $1 mark. Such action would involve substantial changes to the money market fund industry."
But WHY do that? This introduces the very element of phantom or variable asset value (that exists in stock holdings) to now intrude into the "safe" money sphere. It also markedly lets money market fund companies and managers off the hook, since if the share value is permitted to float, there will simply not be the same committment to adhere to the $1 value at all. Why not let it drop 5 cents, 10 cents? "It's heading south! Hell, let it! The SEC says we can do some floats!"
The victim is the money market fund holder- especially since money market funds are about the only safe (e.g. relatively fixed income) option afforded in most IRAs and 401ks. So, if floating share prices is now allowed, the money market investor may lose as much (theoretically) as if he were invested in certan "balanced" mutual funds, or index funds. Now sure, the float could also go upward, rewarding the investor, but once any variable share value emerges then we have speculation and propensity for market timing.
Obviously, money market investors will attempt to play it so they cash out at the highest floated share price, not the lowest. This then introduces the same sort of gamesmanship that occurs in the Wall Street stock casino. Even if money market fund managers and owners prohibit cashout until one actually needs to do RMDs (to satisfy the IRS age 70 1/2 requirement) - the losers will be those who have to withdraw when the floats are lowest value.
It is much fairer to ALL money market investors to keep the $1 share price as the standard, and thereby not turn the immense money market sphere into another speculation domain - to the detriment of all cautious savers- who may need all the money they can muster to live off a lifetime income stream via annuities. They chose not to speculate in the stock market, and they shouldn't now be compelled to do so in money markets. SEC, take note!
As risk enhanced, a sizeable proportion of these people then attempted to pull their cash out of money markets - leading to a near literal run on them, and causing at least one to "break the buck". For those who may not be aware, all money market funds trade at $1 share prices. The aim of all major fund companies (e.g. T. Rowe Price) is to maintain this parity. A fall below that means investors in the money market are losing money. (For example, in the case of the fund that "broke the buck" - the share price went down nearly two cents to 0.98. Thus, say for a person that may have held $100,000 there, the holdings subsequent were $98,000 - marking a $2,000 loss in what is purported to be an ultra-safe investment).
Why would people place most funds there? Mainly because within 5 years (or less) of retiring they don't want to risk their life savings (mainly tied up in their 401ks) in the equity -stock casino. The market meltdown of 2008, with so many losing up to 40% of their nest eggs, showed the wisdom of the conservative approach. Interestingly, the usual stock hawks in MONEY magazine, in a number of issues in the wake of the meltdown, for once concurred that saving money over time was preferable to trying to make up for not doing so by gambling in the stock market. Hoping to strike one big Bull Market run and high P-E ratio upswing and earn a return equal to all the hundreds of thousands that they ought to have saved in the first place.
Thus, those electing money market choices (which disdain also bond funds - since they can be littered with "toxic waste" - like collateralized mortgage obligations, IOS strips and inverse floaters) expect to preserve their principal and not lose it. Those who suffered the breaking of the buck, lost. Not a lot, but enough to savage confidence.
Now, according to the FT article, the SEC voted to require money market funds (which currently hold $3.24 trillion in assets) to disclose fluctuations around their standard share price of $1.00. This is further to be done on a monthly basis, with a 60-day lag. Implicit here is the demand to disclose what can be called the "shadow net asset value as manifested in any fluctuating share prices. The whole idea is to inform money market investors of any volatility in their holdings, which may not always be apparent to them from the Prospectus.
This is a good idea, make no mistake. Investors, especially conservative oldsters in money markets (where the bulk of their 401k money inheres) deserve to see any threats before their bucks are actually broken. So, kudos to the SEC on that!
Not so appealing is what the FT article also pointed out:
"The SEC is also to evaluate the merits of requiring a floating net asset value for money market funds rather than the stable $1 mark. Such action would involve substantial changes to the money market fund industry."
But WHY do that? This introduces the very element of phantom or variable asset value (that exists in stock holdings) to now intrude into the "safe" money sphere. It also markedly lets money market fund companies and managers off the hook, since if the share value is permitted to float, there will simply not be the same committment to adhere to the $1 value at all. Why not let it drop 5 cents, 10 cents? "It's heading south! Hell, let it! The SEC says we can do some floats!"
The victim is the money market fund holder- especially since money market funds are about the only safe (e.g. relatively fixed income) option afforded in most IRAs and 401ks. So, if floating share prices is now allowed, the money market investor may lose as much (theoretically) as if he were invested in certan "balanced" mutual funds, or index funds. Now sure, the float could also go upward, rewarding the investor, but once any variable share value emerges then we have speculation and propensity for market timing.
Obviously, money market investors will attempt to play it so they cash out at the highest floated share price, not the lowest. This then introduces the same sort of gamesmanship that occurs in the Wall Street stock casino. Even if money market fund managers and owners prohibit cashout until one actually needs to do RMDs (to satisfy the IRS age 70 1/2 requirement) - the losers will be those who have to withdraw when the floats are lowest value.
It is much fairer to ALL money market investors to keep the $1 share price as the standard, and thereby not turn the immense money market sphere into another speculation domain - to the detriment of all cautious savers- who may need all the money they can muster to live off a lifetime income stream via annuities. They chose not to speculate in the stock market, and they shouldn't now be compelled to do so in money markets. SEC, take note!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Boundless Ignorance of Certain Evangelicals
Fig. 1 (above) depicts how stars form from hot gas under the influence of gravity.
Reading some of the material put forth by fundies and evangelicals can either make one laugh or cry. Often the sentiments expressed are so bereft of even the faintest semblance of reason – and end up with such vast inanity and illogic- that one is led to bust a gut howling with laughter. As when they assert the Earth can be no older than 6,000 years despite measurements using the radioactive isotope delta C 13 (Carbon 13) showing the existence of primitive methanotrophs on Earth 3.85 BILLION years ago. (H.D. Holland, in Science, Vol. 275 – January, 1997, p. 38).
At other times, one is almost provoked to cry over the vast ignorance and boundless stupidity in evidence, that even the most elementary scientific facts are discarded like troublesome weeds and not given a thought.
Now, since not all evangelicals are of one mold – for example many now accept global warming, as many also accept the Earth is much older than a few thousand years – it makes no sense to criticize them in a generic way. This sort of approach allows the real offenders and their ilk to escape notice and attention.
Thus, when I criticize the claims made, it will be based on those from a particular person, my brother “Pastor Mike”, who seems to want to wage an endless battle though I sought to make peace and even offered conditions.
In his latest blog entry (‘More Evolution Stupidity’) the sheer volume of red herrings, strawmen, non sequiturs, ignotum per ignotius volations, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and others (scientific ignorance) is so vast it makes the mind reel and head spin. Simply to recount each violation or howler and rebut it might take the better part of a week, so I will focus on the major ones. Let's take his issues one by one, as he writes them:
1. Let me elaborate on the alleged "Big Bang " theory . I mean , if people are really stupid enough to believe this hogwash , I've got some good Florida Everglades swamp land I'll sell 'em real cheap ! (I'll even throw in "Big Foot" , heh,heh,heh ) . Now , my friends , try to think of ANY explosion that has produced order .
This is so rife with declarative nonsense it boggles the mind. First, here’s a throwaway trivia question for physics nerds: Who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978, and for what discovery?
If you answered Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, for their (1965) discovery of the 2.7 K microwave background radiation, you get an A! And what is the 2.7K radiation? It is none other than the RELIC radiation from the Big Bang. (Thus, evidence for the Big Bang). In other words, by extrapolating backwards one can use that temperature to retrace steps in thermal time to when the universe was hottest and most dense. (This is actually done in the excellent book, ‘The First Three Minutes’ by physicist Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Physics prize winner himself).
What one ends up with is a superhot and superdense photon gas at nearly 10 trillion degrees. But wait, PM asserts that this “explosion” allegedly produced “order”! HOW SO?
Using the basic expression for entropy: S = k (log g), one can ascertain that the entropy in the hot radiation era just after the Big Bang (within seconds) was on the order of 4 x 10^8 J/K assuming a temperature of about 10^13K and a photon density of ~ 4 x 10^21 /m^3 (per cubic meter).
If one computed the entropy now for the current era, it is ~ 4 x 10^4 J/K. Thus, Mike’s claim of “increased order” is specious, as we can see the level of entropy (disorder) was nearly 10,000 times greater right after the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not initially generate order but DISORDER.
What happened, is that as the initial temperatures cooled down, MATTER (nuclear particles) could at last begin to form from the radiation background. At some point later, we guess 300,000 years, this matter decoupled from the radiation and could then form separate material systems – starting with the atoms, which comprised the first material gases, then stars – which were shaped from the gases under the influence of gravitational forces. (See Fig. 1 for a brief overview of how this occurs for a star's formation.)
Thus, Mike has it exactly ass backwards. But in his impetuosity he continues:
2. Here is an intersting experiment : Empty your garage of every piece of metal , wood , paint , rubber , and plastic . MAKE SURE THERE IS NOTHING THERE . NOTHING ! Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves . If it doesn't appear , leave it for twenty years . If that doesn't work , try it for 100 years . Then try leaving it for 10,000 years .
This is, of course, a stupid “experiment” and no one with any brains or common sense would try it. Of course, the entire basis is wrong because evolution doesn’t assert that life appears or emerges from non –life, especially ARTIFACTS already made by someone! Again, Mike demonstrates that he has not distinguished, or is unable to – the theory of Noogenesis from evolution! (And this is about the fifth time I have corrected him on this!)
3. What the evolutionists attribute to a Big Bang , where the universe simply "exploded" into existence , is actually the work of God who merely SPOKE and the universe came into being
Really, and what word(s) did he speak, Mike? Was it English words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, Chinese? Were you there to get the translation? Were your bible authors there to get it? Then HOW do they know? Moreover, how do you know? Also, who caused “God”? Where did he, she or it come from? As mathematician John Paulos has observed in his terrific little book, ‘Irreligion’ (p 4):
“So have we found God? Is he the Big Bowler, the first Cause or the Big Banger? Of course not! The argument doesn’t even come close! One gaping hole is the assumption that either everything has a cause, OR there’s something that doesn’t. The “first cause” argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God must too, and there is no “first cause”. And if something doesn’t have a cause it may as well have been the physical universe as God or a tortoise”
One more thing, the Big Bang is not technically an “explosion” (though that's the way it’s most often described to non-physicists – in order to reference something they can relate to). Technically it’s more a rapid expansion – which we still observe today in the expansion of the universe, verified using the spectrographic red shifts of galaxy clusters and quasars.
4. Ask an evolutionist who believes in the Big Bang , "Where did space from the universe come from ? Where did the initial material come from ? What sparked the explosion ? " In order to have an explosion , there must be something to explode , and there must be a catalyst to cause the explosion . You cannot create SOMETHING out of NOTHING !
Well, Mike has numerous misconceptions and errors in this one paragraph –nearly five I can count, so let’s go through the major ones and hope at least this time he will LEARN them before publishing his next codswallop. First, evolution is a separate theory from the Big Bang. True, most evolutionists accept the Big Bang, but the Big Bang is not critical to accepting evolution, nor is it part of the theory of evolution. It is rather the Big Bang Theory. For example, before the discovery of the microwave background radiation in 1965, the steady state theory was the one(proposed by Gold and Hoyle), not the Big Bang. But there were still evolutionists, even though the Big Bang theory had not yet arrived!
Second, asking where “space” came from is ignorant, since the Big Bang incepted space-time, not just space. The expansion of the universe is thus an expansion of space as well as time. Figure 2 shows this clearly. In addition, Einstein’s special theory of relativity shows one cannot willy-nilly divorce space from time but must use space-time, especially for cosmic events. As for the “initial material” as I noted in (1) it arrived after the hot radiation cooled by actual material particles now being able to form.
Now, though I did say the Big Bang is not technically an “explosion” I just have to take the pastor up on his claim that you can’t just have an explosion or “create something from nothing”. I guess here he has forgotten his general science lessons that one can have something called “spontaneous combustion” . For example the element sodium is an example of a pyrophoric material which can undergo a kind of spontaneous (and potentially very violent) explosion when exposed to oxygen, water, or moisture in the air. No one needs to light a match and no one needs a “catalyst” (i.e. merely having Na in the presence of excess moisture can cause the explosion). Another example: compost piles and unprocessed cotton may self-ignite because of heat produced by bacterial fermentation. No specific "catalyst" is required, meaning an external agent.
At other times, one is almost provoked to cry over the vast ignorance and boundless stupidity in evidence, that even the most elementary scientific facts are discarded like troublesome weeds and not given a thought.
Now, since not all evangelicals are of one mold – for example many now accept global warming, as many also accept the Earth is much older than a few thousand years – it makes no sense to criticize them in a generic way. This sort of approach allows the real offenders and their ilk to escape notice and attention.
Thus, when I criticize the claims made, it will be based on those from a particular person, my brother “Pastor Mike”, who seems to want to wage an endless battle though I sought to make peace and even offered conditions.
In his latest blog entry (‘More Evolution Stupidity’) the sheer volume of red herrings, strawmen, non sequiturs, ignotum per ignotius volations, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and others (scientific ignorance) is so vast it makes the mind reel and head spin. Simply to recount each violation or howler and rebut it might take the better part of a week, so I will focus on the major ones. Let's take his issues one by one, as he writes them:
1. Let me elaborate on the alleged "Big Bang " theory . I mean , if people are really stupid enough to believe this hogwash , I've got some good Florida Everglades swamp land I'll sell 'em real cheap ! (I'll even throw in "Big Foot" , heh,heh,heh ) . Now , my friends , try to think of ANY explosion that has produced order .
This is so rife with declarative nonsense it boggles the mind. First, here’s a throwaway trivia question for physics nerds: Who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978, and for what discovery?
If you answered Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, for their (1965) discovery of the 2.7 K microwave background radiation, you get an A! And what is the 2.7K radiation? It is none other than the RELIC radiation from the Big Bang. (Thus, evidence for the Big Bang). In other words, by extrapolating backwards one can use that temperature to retrace steps in thermal time to when the universe was hottest and most dense. (This is actually done in the excellent book, ‘The First Three Minutes’ by physicist Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Physics prize winner himself).
What one ends up with is a superhot and superdense photon gas at nearly 10 trillion degrees. But wait, PM asserts that this “explosion” allegedly produced “order”! HOW SO?
Using the basic expression for entropy: S = k (log g), one can ascertain that the entropy in the hot radiation era just after the Big Bang (within seconds) was on the order of 4 x 10^8 J/K assuming a temperature of about 10^13K and a photon density of ~ 4 x 10^21 /m^3 (per cubic meter).
If one computed the entropy now for the current era, it is ~ 4 x 10^4 J/K. Thus, Mike’s claim of “increased order” is specious, as we can see the level of entropy (disorder) was nearly 10,000 times greater right after the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang did not initially generate order but DISORDER.
What happened, is that as the initial temperatures cooled down, MATTER (nuclear particles) could at last begin to form from the radiation background. At some point later, we guess 300,000 years, this matter decoupled from the radiation and could then form separate material systems – starting with the atoms, which comprised the first material gases, then stars – which were shaped from the gases under the influence of gravitational forces. (See Fig. 1 for a brief overview of how this occurs for a star's formation.)
Thus, Mike has it exactly ass backwards. But in his impetuosity he continues:
2. Here is an intersting experiment : Empty your garage of every piece of metal , wood , paint , rubber , and plastic . MAKE SURE THERE IS NOTHING THERE . NOTHING ! Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves . If it doesn't appear , leave it for twenty years . If that doesn't work , try it for 100 years . Then try leaving it for 10,000 years .
This is, of course, a stupid “experiment” and no one with any brains or common sense would try it. Of course, the entire basis is wrong because evolution doesn’t assert that life appears or emerges from non –life, especially ARTIFACTS already made by someone! Again, Mike demonstrates that he has not distinguished, or is unable to – the theory of Noogenesis from evolution! (And this is about the fifth time I have corrected him on this!)
3. What the evolutionists attribute to a Big Bang , where the universe simply "exploded" into existence , is actually the work of God who merely SPOKE and the universe came into being
Really, and what word(s) did he speak, Mike? Was it English words, Hebrew, Aramaic, Sanskrit, Chinese? Were you there to get the translation? Were your bible authors there to get it? Then HOW do they know? Moreover, how do you know? Also, who caused “God”? Where did he, she or it come from? As mathematician John Paulos has observed in his terrific little book, ‘Irreligion’ (p 4):
“So have we found God? Is he the Big Bowler, the first Cause or the Big Banger? Of course not! The argument doesn’t even come close! One gaping hole is the assumption that either everything has a cause, OR there’s something that doesn’t. The “first cause” argument collapses into this hole whichever tack we take. If everything has a cause, then God must too, and there is no “first cause”. And if something doesn’t have a cause it may as well have been the physical universe as God or a tortoise”
One more thing, the Big Bang is not technically an “explosion” (though that's the way it’s most often described to non-physicists – in order to reference something they can relate to). Technically it’s more a rapid expansion – which we still observe today in the expansion of the universe, verified using the spectrographic red shifts of galaxy clusters and quasars.
4. Ask an evolutionist who believes in the Big Bang , "Where did space from the universe come from ? Where did the initial material come from ? What sparked the explosion ? " In order to have an explosion , there must be something to explode , and there must be a catalyst to cause the explosion . You cannot create SOMETHING out of NOTHING !
Well, Mike has numerous misconceptions and errors in this one paragraph –nearly five I can count, so let’s go through the major ones and hope at least this time he will LEARN them before publishing his next codswallop. First, evolution is a separate theory from the Big Bang. True, most evolutionists accept the Big Bang, but the Big Bang is not critical to accepting evolution, nor is it part of the theory of evolution. It is rather the Big Bang Theory. For example, before the discovery of the microwave background radiation in 1965, the steady state theory was the one(proposed by Gold and Hoyle), not the Big Bang. But there were still evolutionists, even though the Big Bang theory had not yet arrived!
Second, asking where “space” came from is ignorant, since the Big Bang incepted space-time, not just space. The expansion of the universe is thus an expansion of space as well as time. Figure 2 shows this clearly. In addition, Einstein’s special theory of relativity shows one cannot willy-nilly divorce space from time but must use space-time, especially for cosmic events. As for the “initial material” as I noted in (1) it arrived after the hot radiation cooled by actual material particles now being able to form.
Now, though I did say the Big Bang is not technically an “explosion” I just have to take the pastor up on his claim that you can’t just have an explosion or “create something from nothing”. I guess here he has forgotten his general science lessons that one can have something called “spontaneous combustion” . For example the element sodium is an example of a pyrophoric material which can undergo a kind of spontaneous (and potentially very violent) explosion when exposed to oxygen, water, or moisture in the air. No one needs to light a match and no one needs a “catalyst” (i.e. merely having Na in the presence of excess moisture can cause the explosion). Another example: compost piles and unprocessed cotton may self-ignite because of heat produced by bacterial fermentation. No specific "catalyst" is required, meaning an external agent.
In the same way, unstable dark energy was in existence in a conformal quantum space –time before the actual universe existed. When the energy density reached a critical threshold – probably via the action of the surrounding volume on the dark energy (which acts as a kind of repulsive gravity), it incepted the universe.
As for not creating something from nothing, the pastor has clearly never heard of pair production, wherein a gamma ray (photon) for example, can instantly materialize into an electron and positron. Here, a brief fluctuation in time dt, is sufficient to precipitate a fluctuation in energy dE, which may be sufficient to produce the particles.
According to the energy-time Uncertainty Principle:
dE dt > h/ 2 pi
where h is the Planck constant (6.62 x 10^-34 J-s). Thus, all one needs is an appropriate energy of a size:
dE ~ h dt/ 2 pi
5. Each creature brings forth after its own kind . That's NO THEORY ; that's a FACT ! Why then should we believe that man came from another species ?
Well, because humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome- c protein sequence. In the absence of common (evolutionary) descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10^93). In addition, the cytochrome –c protein sequence (a critical marker) in Man and the chimp differs by 10 amino acids from that in ALL other mammals. This is remarkable and discloses that Chimp and man are literally cousins on the evolutionary tree – apart from all other mammals. The chance of THIS occurring is less than 10^-29.
As for not creating something from nothing, the pastor has clearly never heard of pair production, wherein a gamma ray (photon) for example, can instantly materialize into an electron and positron. Here, a brief fluctuation in time dt, is sufficient to precipitate a fluctuation in energy dE, which may be sufficient to produce the particles.
According to the energy-time Uncertainty Principle:
dE dt > h/ 2 pi
where h is the Planck constant (6.62 x 10^-34 J-s). Thus, all one needs is an appropriate energy of a size:
dE ~ h dt/ 2 pi
5. Each creature brings forth after its own kind . That's NO THEORY ; that's a FACT ! Why then should we believe that man came from another species ?
Well, because humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome- c protein sequence. In the absence of common (evolutionary) descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10^-93 (1 out of 10^93). In addition, the cytochrome –c protein sequence (a critical marker) in Man and the chimp differs by 10 amino acids from that in ALL other mammals. This is remarkable and discloses that Chimp and man are literally cousins on the evolutionary tree – apart from all other mammals. The chance of THIS occurring is less than 10^-29.
On another note, it is clear Mike has never read or learned a thing about cloning. For example, we can now theoretically use somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning to obtain a lion from a lamb (e.g. get the lamb to give birth to a cloned lion via somatic lion cells) if all the technical details are attended to. This alone destroys his simplistic claim that "like brings forth like".
It is clear from this, as I noted before, that Mike never ever processes new information that might help him tailor and elevate his arguments to make them more in synch with the actual science, and more sophisticated. Instead, he simply regurgitates the same worn out canards and errors over and over hoping no one will notice or point them out. But some of us do.
It is clear from this, as I noted before, that Mike never ever processes new information that might help him tailor and elevate his arguments to make them more in synch with the actual science, and more sophisticated. Instead, he simply regurgitates the same worn out canards and errors over and over hoping no one will notice or point them out. But some of us do.
On that note, we will leave the Pastor to his own devices for now, and hope his blog doesn't clog up from excess bunkum and bilge.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Darwin "mental disease" gambit
It is a curious fact, not diluted by the frequency - that when anti-evolutionists are pinned against the wall they will often resort to either sheer fabrication, or......in the case of one histrionic and unnamed "pastor" - red herrings. With Charles Darwin's ascent to the pinnacle of biological science this ought not be surprising.
In the past it was based on the canard that "Darwin converted on his deathbed" - when no such thing occurred as pointed out by Daniel Dennett in his Darwin's Dangerous Idea. But give the religious cranks an 'A' for effort in trying to peddle this hogswill far an wide.
Since that didn't pan out too well for them, and since they're still unable (educationally) to address or confront the most basic arguments for evolution (or even pass an elementary test!) their other tactic has been to try to show Darwin had some mental disease....usually given the name "agoraphobia". Since this generically refers to a "fear of open spaces" - most psych gurus and purveyors of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM)-IV, have elected to go with a more esoteric sub-form named 'Social Agoraphobia' . This is to attempt to explain Darwin's apparent reclusive tendencies from about 1850.
Escaping all these pseudo-intellects and geniuses - if they had done their homework on Darwin's history- would be a much more prosaic explanation: that he simply grew weary of the incessant, bombastic attacks on his person and his theory, both in public (churches, meeting halls) and in the press. His strategy then was simply to retire from the constant attacks and let his good friend - Julian Huxley - handle the combat.
This is admittedly difficult to grasp for anyone who has not endured prolonged bouts of verbal or other combat, especially when living in a society hostile to one's views, theories. I briefly experienced it when I first came out as an Atheist in Barbados - in terms of engaging a number of Christians in debate in the island's two main papers. (The Barbados Nation, and The Barbados Advocate).
Eventually, there came a point - by late 1990, when the counter-onslaught was almost ceaseless and occurring on the radio waves as well as print media. Since no human, however gifted or aggressive, could singlehandedly take on more than 330 people at once (counting all the radio calls, letters to the editor, op-eds etc.) over months, I opted to simply withdraw. I ceased any writing, nor did I enagage in any public debates. This didn't change until late May, 1991 - when I finally agreed to debate a Christian colleague at Harrison College, with the topic: "Demons: Fact or Fiction". Of course, as many students queried subsequently attested - I "demolished the dude".
Fair enough, but did my self-enforced exile make me "mentally ill"? No, of course not! It simply made me see that public disclosure and defense of one's views in a religiosity-obsessed culture was not only enervating, but unproductive. I submit the same dynamic applied to Darwin, and no "mental illness" entered into it, no matter how many cited dime store therps insist otherwise. Let us also bear in mind that there were NO Diagnostic & Statistics Manuals to define mental illnesses back then - so all this is by way of retrospectives: taking Darwin's behavior as historically documented and THEN examining it in the template of the DSM and making inferences.
But in no way is this science. And the correlations such as may be found bear no more gravitas or attention, than say the correlation between the frequency of human flatulence and the outgassing of carbon dioxide by ferrite rocks on the planet Mars.
First, Darwin's Origin of Species (published in 1859) was itself a "defensive work". For years while he was writing it, preparing drafts, Darwin had to listen and endure the endless wails, whining and yapping of his critics. As author Carl Zimmer points out (Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, 2001, p. 48):
"Origin of Species is a deeply defensive book, written by a man who had quitely listened for years to other scientists scoff at evolution, and had imagined them scoffing at him as well. He addressed their objections one by one."
Second, as the publication of the book and its circulation grew, the reviews began to take their toll. Nearly all were negative, and all extracted an emotional toll on Darwin. For example, The Quarterly Review excoriated Origin and Darwin and asserted his theory "contradicted the revealed relation of the creation to its Creator " and "was inconsistent with the fullness of his Glory".
Then there were all the times Darwin went to his Anglican church only to be greeted by people doing imitations of apes from the balconies. While he also had to endure sermons attesting to the fact no one's grandma had yet been proven to have come from an ape.
The most devastating effects of all issued from a book review by Richard Owens in The Edinburgh Review that was "stunning in its animosity" (op. cit. , p. 50).The review led to a prolonged public pitched battle between Owens and Julian Huxley that finally erupted in the annual British Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting at Oxford, on June 28, 1860. Owens, the BAAS president, and feeling proud as a peacock strutting - proclaimed to the assembly in his talk that the human brain was "distinct from apes".
Feeling smug, he left the floor to Huxley, who announced he'd just received a letter from a Scottish anatomist who had dissected a fresh chimpanzee brain and discovered it looked remarkably like a human brain, including the hippocampus minor. Owens was floored and humiliated. He also had no way to defend himself.
This paved the way for years of infighting and rancor. Darwin, his work already out there in the public domain - wanted no part of it, and didn't want to be pressed into service - especially in having to contradict then Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. (Who was trying to forge a creationist "theory" based on mixing Owens' ruminations with those of William Paley - the genius who first opined : "because a watch must have a watchmaker the universe must also have a maker". )
Of course, this was over 140 years before dark energy was discovered! (Which agent plays a role in the spontaenous inception of the cosmos).
So, Darwin simply chose the path of least resistance, which modern day dime store psychotherapists have misconstrued as a "disease".
But let's cut these people some slack and grant that Darwin MAY have had an actual disease. Does it make a dime's worth of difference? No, it does not, because in any case Origin is a manifestly clear and coherent book which first defined and laid out the warp and woof of natural selection.
If the latter day would-be nutcrackers and their lackeys want to destroy the theory of evolution, they'll have to take it head on, and disprove all its main contentions and principles - not depend on Darwin having suffered some obscure "mental affliction" - which their febrile brains believe is sufficient to make evolution a moot point.
Not quite, and not by a long shot!
In the past it was based on the canard that "Darwin converted on his deathbed" - when no such thing occurred as pointed out by Daniel Dennett in his Darwin's Dangerous Idea. But give the religious cranks an 'A' for effort in trying to peddle this hogswill far an wide.
Since that didn't pan out too well for them, and since they're still unable (educationally) to address or confront the most basic arguments for evolution (or even pass an elementary test!) their other tactic has been to try to show Darwin had some mental disease....usually given the name "agoraphobia". Since this generically refers to a "fear of open spaces" - most psych gurus and purveyors of the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM)-IV, have elected to go with a more esoteric sub-form named 'Social Agoraphobia' . This is to attempt to explain Darwin's apparent reclusive tendencies from about 1850.
Escaping all these pseudo-intellects and geniuses - if they had done their homework on Darwin's history- would be a much more prosaic explanation: that he simply grew weary of the incessant, bombastic attacks on his person and his theory, both in public (churches, meeting halls) and in the press. His strategy then was simply to retire from the constant attacks and let his good friend - Julian Huxley - handle the combat.
This is admittedly difficult to grasp for anyone who has not endured prolonged bouts of verbal or other combat, especially when living in a society hostile to one's views, theories. I briefly experienced it when I first came out as an Atheist in Barbados - in terms of engaging a number of Christians in debate in the island's two main papers. (The Barbados Nation, and The Barbados Advocate).
Eventually, there came a point - by late 1990, when the counter-onslaught was almost ceaseless and occurring on the radio waves as well as print media. Since no human, however gifted or aggressive, could singlehandedly take on more than 330 people at once (counting all the radio calls, letters to the editor, op-eds etc.) over months, I opted to simply withdraw. I ceased any writing, nor did I enagage in any public debates. This didn't change until late May, 1991 - when I finally agreed to debate a Christian colleague at Harrison College, with the topic: "Demons: Fact or Fiction". Of course, as many students queried subsequently attested - I "demolished the dude".
Fair enough, but did my self-enforced exile make me "mentally ill"? No, of course not! It simply made me see that public disclosure and defense of one's views in a religiosity-obsessed culture was not only enervating, but unproductive. I submit the same dynamic applied to Darwin, and no "mental illness" entered into it, no matter how many cited dime store therps insist otherwise. Let us also bear in mind that there were NO Diagnostic & Statistics Manuals to define mental illnesses back then - so all this is by way of retrospectives: taking Darwin's behavior as historically documented and THEN examining it in the template of the DSM and making inferences.
But in no way is this science. And the correlations such as may be found bear no more gravitas or attention, than say the correlation between the frequency of human flatulence and the outgassing of carbon dioxide by ferrite rocks on the planet Mars.
First, Darwin's Origin of Species (published in 1859) was itself a "defensive work". For years while he was writing it, preparing drafts, Darwin had to listen and endure the endless wails, whining and yapping of his critics. As author Carl Zimmer points out (Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, 2001, p. 48):
"Origin of Species is a deeply defensive book, written by a man who had quitely listened for years to other scientists scoff at evolution, and had imagined them scoffing at him as well. He addressed their objections one by one."
Second, as the publication of the book and its circulation grew, the reviews began to take their toll. Nearly all were negative, and all extracted an emotional toll on Darwin. For example, The Quarterly Review excoriated Origin and Darwin and asserted his theory "contradicted the revealed relation of the creation to its Creator " and "was inconsistent with the fullness of his Glory".
Then there were all the times Darwin went to his Anglican church only to be greeted by people doing imitations of apes from the balconies. While he also had to endure sermons attesting to the fact no one's grandma had yet been proven to have come from an ape.
The most devastating effects of all issued from a book review by Richard Owens in The Edinburgh Review that was "stunning in its animosity" (op. cit. , p. 50).The review led to a prolonged public pitched battle between Owens and Julian Huxley that finally erupted in the annual British Association for the Advancement of Science Meeting at Oxford, on June 28, 1860. Owens, the BAAS president, and feeling proud as a peacock strutting - proclaimed to the assembly in his talk that the human brain was "distinct from apes".
Feeling smug, he left the floor to Huxley, who announced he'd just received a letter from a Scottish anatomist who had dissected a fresh chimpanzee brain and discovered it looked remarkably like a human brain, including the hippocampus minor. Owens was floored and humiliated. He also had no way to defend himself.
This paved the way for years of infighting and rancor. Darwin, his work already out there in the public domain - wanted no part of it, and didn't want to be pressed into service - especially in having to contradict then Bishop Samuel Wilberforce. (Who was trying to forge a creationist "theory" based on mixing Owens' ruminations with those of William Paley - the genius who first opined : "because a watch must have a watchmaker the universe must also have a maker". )
Of course, this was over 140 years before dark energy was discovered! (Which agent plays a role in the spontaenous inception of the cosmos).
So, Darwin simply chose the path of least resistance, which modern day dime store psychotherapists have misconstrued as a "disease".
But let's cut these people some slack and grant that Darwin MAY have had an actual disease. Does it make a dime's worth of difference? No, it does not, because in any case Origin is a manifestly clear and coherent book which first defined and laid out the warp and woof of natural selection.
If the latter day would-be nutcrackers and their lackeys want to destroy the theory of evolution, they'll have to take it head on, and disprove all its main contentions and principles - not depend on Darwin having suffered some obscure "mental affliction" - which their febrile brains believe is sufficient to make evolution a moot point.
Not quite, and not by a long shot!
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Personal, The Particular: and the Uselessness of Innominate Criticism
My brother, Pastor Mike, is exercised and incensed that I have been “personally attacking” him on this blog. It seems that the tack I ought to have taken is just to have invoked some generic or innominate believer and refer or show his attacks on atheism and evolution to be “dumb”, without using his name. Never mind the "believer" in question is actually assigning a "Satanic" alliance or pact with those of my group (atheists). (And once again, it matters not that "Satan" is fictional, since it is the undercurrent of degraded thought to which one objects!)
Sorry, doesn’t work like that. Whether a racist, or religious hate monger – hate feeds off itself when the haters- attackers can hide their identities so as not to be exposed to just counter-attacks in turn. In this way, racial hate as well as religious hate are allowed to prosper. So are their hate websites.
Mike claims he doesn’t “hate” me but his whole vicious blog belies him. As one visits it (which I have because he won’t even email me in regular communications) one beholds hate piece after hate piece against atheists....not to mention attacks on Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other Christians (such as Catholics). Indeed, small side insets howl the words “Send Atheism to HELL!”
What am I, an ATHEIST, supposed to think when I read this? The only thing is that: ‘Is this what my brother really thinks of me, that I ought to be sent to Hell?” (Since obviously one can’t send the system of unbelief to Hell, it must always be a person- since Hell is putatively designed that way – or so his bible tells him)
After our father’s death I believed my brothers and I could all come together and at least have some form of connection as brothers ought to – even though our mother and sister still seem a million miles apart, in their own world. We did briefly, but it didn’t last long before Mike (aka Pastor Mike) re-intensified his hate speech against all religious forms that don’t think the way he does, as well as atheism. But when he attacks atheists and atheism he attacks ME!
I have tried my best to ameliorate the situation but whenever I look, there’s a new attack, trying to depict evolutionists or atheists as immoral reprobates out to undermine children and nation, or “Satanic” inspired, or (in his latest blog) that Satan is our pal. Sorry, bro, this don’t wash. Your hate precedes any claims that you don’t exhibit any. When you hate in the generic (against a whole group) you hate in the personal.
I will make you a deal – you remove all the attacks against atheists and atheism and I will remove from my blog all attacks against you and your fundyism.
I am ready to make peace, IF you are. I am also ready to reinstate true brotherly communications (like we had when I went to Florida in July for Dad's funeral and immediately after)
But if you want perpetual war(between our blogs), we can have that too. Your choice. I can't believe that your religion could be be so distorted, perverse and absolutist that it has to feed on hatred....of other religious groups, and atheists...as opposed to tolerance. I can't believe you could put this "religion" above relationships with kith and kin.
But maybe you can, and that false belief system is more important to you than family.
Sorry, doesn’t work like that. Whether a racist, or religious hate monger – hate feeds off itself when the haters- attackers can hide their identities so as not to be exposed to just counter-attacks in turn. In this way, racial hate as well as religious hate are allowed to prosper. So are their hate websites.
Mike claims he doesn’t “hate” me but his whole vicious blog belies him. As one visits it (which I have because he won’t even email me in regular communications) one beholds hate piece after hate piece against atheists....not to mention attacks on Mormons, Jews, Muslims and other Christians (such as Catholics). Indeed, small side insets howl the words “Send Atheism to HELL!”
What am I, an ATHEIST, supposed to think when I read this? The only thing is that: ‘Is this what my brother really thinks of me, that I ought to be sent to Hell?” (Since obviously one can’t send the system of unbelief to Hell, it must always be a person- since Hell is putatively designed that way – or so his bible tells him)
After our father’s death I believed my brothers and I could all come together and at least have some form of connection as brothers ought to – even though our mother and sister still seem a million miles apart, in their own world. We did briefly, but it didn’t last long before Mike (aka Pastor Mike) re-intensified his hate speech against all religious forms that don’t think the way he does, as well as atheism. But when he attacks atheists and atheism he attacks ME!
I have tried my best to ameliorate the situation but whenever I look, there’s a new attack, trying to depict evolutionists or atheists as immoral reprobates out to undermine children and nation, or “Satanic” inspired, or (in his latest blog) that Satan is our pal. Sorry, bro, this don’t wash. Your hate precedes any claims that you don’t exhibit any. When you hate in the generic (against a whole group) you hate in the personal.
I will make you a deal – you remove all the attacks against atheists and atheism and I will remove from my blog all attacks against you and your fundyism.
I am ready to make peace, IF you are. I am also ready to reinstate true brotherly communications (like we had when I went to Florida in July for Dad's funeral and immediately after)
But if you want perpetual war(between our blogs), we can have that too. Your choice. I can't believe that your religion could be be so distorted, perverse and absolutist that it has to feed on hatred....of other religious groups, and atheists...as opposed to tolerance. I can't believe you could put this "religion" above relationships with kith and kin.
But maybe you can, and that false belief system is more important to you than family.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Dumb and Dumber II : Lack of ET Radio Signals Disproves Evolution?
Trying to keep track of Pastor Mike’s avalanche of imbecilic claims and uninformed rants is almost like trying to drink water from a fire hose. The flood of inanities, non-sequiturs, fundamental ignorance and plain stupidity – is plain mind boggling. The last time I beheld such a deluge of dopiness was more than 24 years ago in Fairbanks, Alaska – when a moron named Duane Gish regaled his audience about whose grandma was an ape and whose wasn’t.
Let’s even leave aside the source(-s) of his erroneous citations about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which he claims “chaos” must ensue, and there can be no advanced or more ordered species from evolution because of it. Of course, he doesn’t grok that: 1) he’s misused the 2nd law, and 2) evolution doesn’t say it is inevitable that species advance to higher orders – only that the most successful adapt and survive. But then, Pastor Mike has never been one to be impeded by any fine points or details. Details!? They’re to be ignored!
In the case of the Second law of thermodynamics, as I pointed out before, it only applies to a CLOSED system. In such a closed system (by which I mean isolated - with impermeable walls so as no heat transfer is possible) there is a tendency for entropy or the state of disorder to increase.
This does NOT apply to any open systems, by which I mean at least partially permeable – or open to the two-way transfer of heat. For example a copper box or container with an open aperture at the top would be open to the heat energy from a radiator kept 3 cm in suspension above it.
The Earth, as any one can see – is an open system, not closed. If Earth were a closed system, no sunlight would be able to reach its surface and interact with plants (in photo-synthesis) for example. Yet we know solar energy DOES interact in the presence of chlorophyll in green plants- such that carbon dioxide combines with water and incoming solar energy to give oxygen, and food (glucose) for the plant.
Thus, the Earth’s organic ecology cannot just “wind down” and run to chaos or high entropy because solar input prevents it. Yet Mike, who’s never taken a physics or even basic biology course in his life (or if he did, recalls nothing) thinks he knows better – or that the morons he quotes know better than thousands of professional scientists who make research their living. And also publish it in peer-reviewed journals, as opposed to religious or think tank tracts.
But this farcical nonsense pales besides one of his latest claims – that the theory of evolution is disproven by the absence of alien radio signals.
Where or how he conjures up this nonsense is difficult to see, but I suppose he’s basing it on an alternative theory I gave to the one that life originated from non-life on Earth. In that alternative (panspermia) life was seeded on the primitive Earth via meteoroids from space – and these bore primitive cells or organisms.
Now, what do radio signals have to do with this? The answer is nothing! Radio signals would be presumed to come from an advanced alien civilization with the equipment to send them. All I laid claim for in panspermia is that PRIMITIVE one celled organisms (e.g. like paramecia or amoeba) could hitch- hike on one or more wayward meteoroids and land on Earth. Hence, the level or threshold for life being set is a trillion times less than what Mike thinks is needed. Hence, the absence of radio signals now (or billions of years ago) proves nothing in terms of panspermia, and hence the starting point for evolution on Earth.
But let’s say that at least radio signals would prove that advanced life also inhabits other worlds, though the absence wouldn't "disprove" evolution occurred there, as I will later show.
Let me explain. The first radio signals of any strength probably left Earth for outer space around 1939. These signals are constrained to travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), no faster. The closest likely candidate for a sun-like star (which means it can support Earth -like planets) is Zeta Reticuli, a G2(V) star similar to the Sun, but with 93% of its mass. It is 39 light years distant. Now – if the earliest radio waves left Earth in 1939, and somehow got to Zeta Reticuli with enough strength – they’d have arrived sometime in 1978.
Even if the Zeta Reticulans (assuming they exist) replied instantly to the first radio waves, it would take 39 more years for the signal to reach Earth. That is:
1978 + 39 = 2017
In other words, even if the radio signals were intercepted by the closest likely candidate system we’d have to wait at least SEVEN more years for them to get to Earth! Thus, we easily disprove Mikey’s contention that there are absolutely no radio signals coming – since clearly in this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Of course, there are thousands more sun- like systems but these extend to hundreds of light years distant. If no advanced life is in the Zeta Reticuli system there may still be such life in the outer systems- but again – the time delay is longer, because the distances are greater.
In fact – given these enormous distances, the odds are that no radio signals from aliens will be received in our lifetimes –though they may well be in our grandchildren’s lifetimes. Let’s also bear in mind that any aliens may require time to decipher what the messages are saying, in order to relay a sensible response.
Even if no radio signals arrived at all, it still wouldn’t disprove evolution. For one thing, evolution could easily occur on over a million worlds, but not to the advanced stage of a civilization capable of space flight or communications. Such worlds then would feature many organisms and animals – but none of which could marshal resources to communicate or build space craft . A perfect example on Earth is the dolphin (mammal- not fish!), which has at least an equal intelligence – based on numerous tests- to humans. It just doesn’t have the appendages or digits for tool making, to construct space scraft, computers, or radio transmitters!
Again, we must bear in mind- unlike Mike in his impetuosity- that evolution doesn’t state that ALL organisms advance to an ever higher and more organized stage! It says rather that the most adaptative organisms survive best. One of the best examples on Earth is the cockroach- which has been around over 150 million years. Its adaptative capabilities will likely keep it around on Earth long after humans are extinct.
A pity that because Mike can’t process or assimilate the simplest physics or biology he is stuck forever in the mindset of a knowledge Luddite. We can therefore look forward to even more stupendous displays of incomprehension and confusion in his future screeds- which at least must be keeping his followers suitably entertained.
Let’s even leave aside the source(-s) of his erroneous citations about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which he claims “chaos” must ensue, and there can be no advanced or more ordered species from evolution because of it. Of course, he doesn’t grok that: 1) he’s misused the 2nd law, and 2) evolution doesn’t say it is inevitable that species advance to higher orders – only that the most successful adapt and survive. But then, Pastor Mike has never been one to be impeded by any fine points or details. Details!? They’re to be ignored!
In the case of the Second law of thermodynamics, as I pointed out before, it only applies to a CLOSED system. In such a closed system (by which I mean isolated - with impermeable walls so as no heat transfer is possible) there is a tendency for entropy or the state of disorder to increase.
This does NOT apply to any open systems, by which I mean at least partially permeable – or open to the two-way transfer of heat. For example a copper box or container with an open aperture at the top would be open to the heat energy from a radiator kept 3 cm in suspension above it.
The Earth, as any one can see – is an open system, not closed. If Earth were a closed system, no sunlight would be able to reach its surface and interact with plants (in photo-synthesis) for example. Yet we know solar energy DOES interact in the presence of chlorophyll in green plants- such that carbon dioxide combines with water and incoming solar energy to give oxygen, and food (glucose) for the plant.
Thus, the Earth’s organic ecology cannot just “wind down” and run to chaos or high entropy because solar input prevents it. Yet Mike, who’s never taken a physics or even basic biology course in his life (or if he did, recalls nothing) thinks he knows better – or that the morons he quotes know better than thousands of professional scientists who make research their living. And also publish it in peer-reviewed journals, as opposed to religious or think tank tracts.
But this farcical nonsense pales besides one of his latest claims – that the theory of evolution is disproven by the absence of alien radio signals.
Where or how he conjures up this nonsense is difficult to see, but I suppose he’s basing it on an alternative theory I gave to the one that life originated from non-life on Earth. In that alternative (panspermia) life was seeded on the primitive Earth via meteoroids from space – and these bore primitive cells or organisms.
Now, what do radio signals have to do with this? The answer is nothing! Radio signals would be presumed to come from an advanced alien civilization with the equipment to send them. All I laid claim for in panspermia is that PRIMITIVE one celled organisms (e.g. like paramecia or amoeba) could hitch- hike on one or more wayward meteoroids and land on Earth. Hence, the level or threshold for life being set is a trillion times less than what Mike thinks is needed. Hence, the absence of radio signals now (or billions of years ago) proves nothing in terms of panspermia, and hence the starting point for evolution on Earth.
But let’s say that at least radio signals would prove that advanced life also inhabits other worlds, though the absence wouldn't "disprove" evolution occurred there, as I will later show.
Let me explain. The first radio signals of any strength probably left Earth for outer space around 1939. These signals are constrained to travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), no faster. The closest likely candidate for a sun-like star (which means it can support Earth -like planets) is Zeta Reticuli, a G2(V) star similar to the Sun, but with 93% of its mass. It is 39 light years distant. Now – if the earliest radio waves left Earth in 1939, and somehow got to Zeta Reticuli with enough strength – they’d have arrived sometime in 1978.
Even if the Zeta Reticulans (assuming they exist) replied instantly to the first radio waves, it would take 39 more years for the signal to reach Earth. That is:
1978 + 39 = 2017
In other words, even if the radio signals were intercepted by the closest likely candidate system we’d have to wait at least SEVEN more years for them to get to Earth! Thus, we easily disprove Mikey’s contention that there are absolutely no radio signals coming – since clearly in this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Of course, there are thousands more sun- like systems but these extend to hundreds of light years distant. If no advanced life is in the Zeta Reticuli system there may still be such life in the outer systems- but again – the time delay is longer, because the distances are greater.
In fact – given these enormous distances, the odds are that no radio signals from aliens will be received in our lifetimes –though they may well be in our grandchildren’s lifetimes. Let’s also bear in mind that any aliens may require time to decipher what the messages are saying, in order to relay a sensible response.
Even if no radio signals arrived at all, it still wouldn’t disprove evolution. For one thing, evolution could easily occur on over a million worlds, but not to the advanced stage of a civilization capable of space flight or communications. Such worlds then would feature many organisms and animals – but none of which could marshal resources to communicate or build space craft . A perfect example on Earth is the dolphin (mammal- not fish!), which has at least an equal intelligence – based on numerous tests- to humans. It just doesn’t have the appendages or digits for tool making, to construct space scraft, computers, or radio transmitters!
Again, we must bear in mind- unlike Mike in his impetuosity- that evolution doesn’t state that ALL organisms advance to an ever higher and more organized stage! It says rather that the most adaptative organisms survive best. One of the best examples on Earth is the cockroach- which has been around over 150 million years. Its adaptative capabilities will likely keep it around on Earth long after humans are extinct.
A pity that because Mike can’t process or assimilate the simplest physics or biology he is stuck forever in the mindset of a knowledge Luddite. We can therefore look forward to even more stupendous displays of incomprehension and confusion in his future screeds- which at least must be keeping his followers suitably entertained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)