Well, my brother Pastor Mike is at it again, peddling more palaver at his site. Now it seems he intends to set one and all straight about the "real" aims of evolution, and exactly why a preponderance of scientists support it. Let's take a look-see at some of his codswallop in terms of an exercise in critical thinking.
He begins his sermon with:
"The obvious reason that so many scientists endorse the theory of macroevolutionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case . But is that true , really ? Is it possible that there's a lot more to the story than meets the eye ? "
Now, first of all it is not a matter that scientists simply "believe" it. The nature of belief is faith in the absence of evidence, but scientists have tons of it to support evolution. In one of the most powerful ever demonstrations of the validity of evolution, Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy', showed that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans.
Those who wish to avail themselves of comprehensive evidence to show common descent - the keynote concept ot macro-evolution, can go to:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Of course, the problem in teaching evolution, is that most people who comment (like Pastro Mike) or even students - don't grasp it at the molecular or genetic level. Hence, they talk (or write) too much offal and gibberish.
In each of the molecular cases cited in the link material, the particular alteration results in subtle changes in the coding of information, or the transfer of information. These molecular changes therefore act as sources of genetic variation, and ultimately evolution if the change is reinforced by natural selection. And this makes it feasible to trace back species lineages using comparisons at the molecular level, viz. different segments of chromosomes for suspected related species. Thus evolution is observed, and it is fact - not merely "theory" (which most of the ignorant confuse with speculation!)
This also means that "creationism" cannot also be true. Creationism is a pabulum developed for naive minds - such that the elements are simplistic enough for them to grasp at a primitive level. But that doesn't make it "true".
Pastor Mike next quotes a contrarian, and in fact most of his "sermon" amounts to a quote-fest, with very little of his own input (so I will not repeat all of it):
Wayne Friar , Ph.D.,Resource Associate for Science and Origins , says this :
"Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community , especially evolutionary leaders today , hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews , these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life , especially humans.
Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator . If one starts with Darwinism , certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God . Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science . "
Of course, atheism doesn't "need" evolution at all to expose religious belief for the non-starter it is. Simple logic can suffice. I’ve often been asked how exactly one rationally arrives at a position of atheism – as opposed to say, agnosticism. The recurring questions set me to the task of identifying rationalist principles and then showing, if they were faithfully applied to most theistic claims, one would be led to a position of implicit atheism. This isn’t the outright “denial” of a God, but rather the simple withholding of belief in such to render the claim and underlying entity redundant.
I’d like to outline this approach here, in terms of four overriding principles:
i) Ockham’s Razor, which inheres at the heart of scientific hypothesizing. That is, given two competing hypotheses the one with the fewest ad hoc assumptions is closest to the truth.
ii) The probability test of philosopher David Hume- that reads: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
iii) The ignotum per ignotius test for logical fallacy. Ignotum per ignotius means “invoking the LESS well understood to explain the not well understood.”
iv)The fundamental principle for all exotic (or "obscurantist") claims: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”.
Let’s now apply these to a number of cases to see how they work. I will start with the claim for “soul”. Given two hypotheses – one which uses simple observations of consciousness (e.g. See Daniel Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Explained’) and one which posits “soul” in addition, which is to be preferred? Obviously, that which excludes “soul”, since it unnecessarily complicates the issue. In addition, invoking “soul” violates the ignotium per ignotius test. Indeed, religionists have not even offered an operational definition for “soul”, and until they do so there is small likelihood they can provide extraordinary evidence for it!
What about “God”? All the same aspects apply. Consider the question posed by the late astronomer Carl Sagan in the “Cosmos” episode, ‘The Edge of Forever’. He asks: “How did the universe begin?” He interjects, “Some will say ‘God made it’, but then WHO made God?” He argues that rather than inviting an “infinite regress” of cause, the simplest action was simply to leave “God” out of the causal nexus. Thereby we satisfy all the principles (i)- (iii).
Is Sagan justified? Consider that adding “God” into the mix doesn’t enhance cosmological data or predictions one iota. Nor does it refine the tensor equations. Clearly it amounts to a redundancy.
Lastly, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”.
Now let us apply the Hume test (ii). Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.
Thus, even the most basic atheism doesn't require evolution to "escape" implications reagrding a creator - because there aren't any! Neither Pastor Mike nor his cohort have demonstrated the most meager evidence that such a creator exists. Yes, it is true that now primitive creationsism has been replaced by the more sophisticated Intelligent Design (ID), but even that doesn't get the job done. It is more a non-answer. Or what we call a "Macguffin" in fictional writing.
ID’s claim of “irreducible complexity” or “intelligent design” is actually pseudo-science not genuine science. The central problem of ID, is that though its muddled adherents make multiple fusses about some particulars to do with evolution's evidence - they never come up with ID's presumed unique evidence to support its claimed "irreducible complexity". Any time they do, the real scientist can show a process whereby the same structure, organism can be better explained by a combination of natural selection, adaptation over time.
Ultimately, the problem for ID, when you strip away the scientific jargon and window dressing, is that its base premise comes down to the logical fallacy of: ignotum per ignotius (‘seeking to explain the not understood by the less well understood”). In this case, attempting to account for alleged "failures" of evolution or some claimed aspects not yet fully explained by to totally unknown constructs (e.g. ‘supernatural’ or unknown "designer") .This isn't science, it's hogwash, supernaturalist drivel disguised in the wardrobe of science. As Richard Dawkins points out the fallacy in all ID reasoning:
“This kind of default reasoning leaves completely open the possibility that, if the biological structure or organism is too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created.”
Until ID’s proponents establish a base of facts and evidence unique to itself – preferably in the context of publishing in established scientific journals – it will remain rank speculation. Along the lines of little green men surveying the Earth in flying saucers.In the end, “irreducible complexity” (which is the specious basis of ID) inevitably amounts to a cop-out argument from ignorance.
Because a structure (e.g. eardrum) or process (origin of life from inanimate matter) appears difficult from the inferior vantage point of the percipient, it’s automatically assumed that no scientific appeal can be made. No model, however remotely probable, can be offered. Thus “intelligent design” is latched on to as a “god of the gaps”.
But history shows how absurd such an approach is. For example, ball lightning used to be assumed to be a supernatural manifestation until its static electrical nature was exposed. Same thing with ‘St. Elmo’s fire’ appearing near the yard arms of ships. Diseases like plague were believed caused by "malefic influences" or even demons, until the microbial basis of pathogens was revealed by the use of microscopes.
All these and more disclose that a long record of scientific history exists to demonstrate the wisdom of the materialist- physicalist view. And why special, ad hoc causes, exceptions are to be dismissed as unfounded. This is what’s wrong with all “design” or “supernatural” appeals. They preemptively halt inquiry just as it’s beginning to get interesting.
Rather than following the lines of scientific thought, with the objects of scientific inquiry available, the “design” proponent wants to leap to his supernatural Macguffin which, by definition, can never be exposed to verification, falsification, or even the most general hypothesis test. We are simply asked to accept (on faith) this or that structure is "too complex" and had to issue from a (unspecified) "designer".
Though nouveau creationist advocates like Pastor Mike bandy about words like “design” and “designer” they are yet unable to state clearly what this entity is. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional “essence”? They can’t even specify their “designer” so why should we take it any more seriously than the tooth fairy or elves?
If the proponents of “irreducible complexity” want to be taken as more than religious preachers, let them explicate their designer. In what conditions (or not) does it operate? To have a genuine counter theory, one must provide a positive hypothesis and observational infrastructure – not merely attempt to negate the existing prevailing theory by myriad cheap potshots. That's a cop out. As Robert Shapiro has noted ( ‘Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth’, Bantam, 1986, p. 257):
“Anomalies, artifacts and deficiencies exist in every scientific field. A certain level is expected, as part of the normal practice of science. However, their existence doesn’t mean the entire field or theory is expendable. Nor can the collected anomalies support the Creationists main idea”
The creationist-ID finger-pointing about evolution's deficiencies would be analogous to me finding fault with umpteen aspects of Einstein's general relativity, and then somehow imagining that this recitation of negativity alone constitutes a genuine alternative theory. It doesn't, it only shows I have bones to pick with Einstein's theory. Ditto with the ID naysayers and their ilk in regard to evolution.
Pastor Mike's final bit of claptrap takes the cake:
"Scientists see the evidence for creation , and they see it clearly , but peer pressure, financial considerations , political correctness , and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so , the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself . "
As noted from the earlier discussion, there is NO evidence for creationism or ID, only assorted negative slams against evolution absent of proiducing unique evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. The "peer pressure" gambit is as lame as insisting Bigfoot witnesses are victimized by their poor eyesight. The only peer pressure on qualified professional scientists, indeed, is that they meet the stringent requirements and criteria for publication in the professional journalis. In other words, you can't just write anything based on hunches, you must provide substantive support for claims. This is something creationists like Pastor Mike will never learn.
The final bit of chutzpah to his screed is the assertion that it is rigorous scientific discipline that is responsible for "the illogical origins myth of modern society". However, the real truth is that it is the off the wall irrationality of the believers, and their dedicated obscurantists that is taking us pell-mell into a new dark age.
For a frightening look at what awaits, please read Morris Berman's book, "Dark Ages America".
Of course, to those like Pastor Mike, a New Dark Age would be welcome. After all, his site doesn't even allow powerful responses unless he first vets them to determine if they are consistent with his message. How good does it get? In a new Dark Age, Pastor Mike and his all his close-minded ilk will act as the ultimate gate-keepers for all information, to the extent of determining which books get published and which don't.
Can this really occur? Perhaps not. But the signs are not very hopeful.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Remarkable World of Special Functions
The world of mathematical special functions is as intriguing and interesting as any domain, say in physics, or the natural world. The trouble is that one usually doesn't appreciate these functions enough while taking Calculus or Linear Algebra or Differential Equations, and one must wait until a research focus brings them to prominence.
Let's take the case of the Bessel functions. In solar physics one very key equation (Helmholtz) for which the (axially symmetric- in cylindrical coordinates r, z, t) Bessel function solution is:
B_z (r) = B_o J_o(a r)
B_t(r)) = B_o J_1(ar)
t = theta
J_0(a r) is a Bessel function of the first kind, order zero and J1 (ar) is a Bessel function of the first kind, order unity. The Bessel functions are defined (cf. Menzel, 'Mathematical Physics', 1961, p. 204):
J_m(x) = (1/ 2^m m!) x^m [1 – x^2/ 2^2 1! (m + 1) + x^4/ 2^4 2! (m +1) (m + 2) -…
-(1)^j x^(2j) / 2^(2j) j! (m + 1) (m +2 )……(m + j) + …]
for m = 0 and m = 1 forms one gets:
J_o(x) = 1 - x^2/ 2^2 (1!)^2 + x^4/ 2^4 (2!)^2 - x^6/ 2^6 (3!)^2 + ......
J_1(x) = x/ 2 - x^3/ 2^3*1! 2! + x^5/ 2^5 *2!3! - x^7/ 2^7 *3!4! - .....
The equations in B_z, B_t, with the special Bessel functions at root, are critical in describing the respective magnetic fields for a magnetic tube.
For a cylindrical magnetic flux tube (such as a sunspot represents viewed in cross-section) the “twist” is defined:
T(r) = (L * B_t(r))/ (r * B_z (r))
Where L denotes the length of the sunspot-flux tube dipole. If the twist value exceeds 2(pi) then the magnetic configuration may be approaching instability and a solar flare.
Then there is the Gamma function (call it 'G') for which:
G(a) = (a - 1 )!
where 'a' is a positive integer.
Thus, for a = 3:
G(3) = (3 - 1)! = 2! = 2*1 = 2
One can also make use of a recursion formula:
G(a + 1) = a G(a)
For example: G(4) = G (3 + 1) = 3 G(3) = 3 (2) = 6
Check this from the earlier formula: G(a) = (a - 1)!
G(4) = (4 - 1)! = 3! = 3*2*1 = 6
Now, there is also the Beta function, call it B(u,v) which can be expressed in terms of the Gamma functions G(u), G(v)
Thus:
B(u,v) = G(u) G(v)/ G(u + v)
Consider the Beta function B(3, 4):
B(3, 4) = G(3) G(4)/ G(3 + 4) = (2) (6)/ G(7) = 12 / G(7)
where: G(7) = (7 - 1)! = 6! = 6*5*4*3*2*1 = 720
so B(3,4) = 12/ 720 = 1/60
Why all the fuss about Beta and Gamma functions here?
Well, if any readers happened to have caught the PBS series 'The Elegant Universe', they'd have seen string theorist Brian Greene scribbling the Euler equation for string theory on a blackboard:
B(p, q) = G (p) G(q)/ G(p + q)
and arriving at the specific string theory form:
Beta([1- alpha(s)][1 - alpha(t)] =
Gamma (1 - alpha(s)) Gamma (1 - alpha(t))/ Gamma(2 - alpha(s) - alpha(t))
Special functions can indeed be loads of fun and have wide applications. In a future foray I'll look at fractional Gamma functions.
Let's take the case of the Bessel functions. In solar physics one very key equation (Helmholtz) for which the (axially symmetric- in cylindrical coordinates r, z, t) Bessel function solution is:
B_z (r) = B_o J_o(a r)
B_t(r)) = B_o J_1(ar)
t = theta
J_0(a r) is a Bessel function of the first kind, order zero and J1 (ar) is a Bessel function of the first kind, order unity. The Bessel functions are defined (cf. Menzel, 'Mathematical Physics', 1961, p. 204):
J_m(x) = (1/ 2^m m!) x^m [1 – x^2/ 2^2 1! (m + 1) + x^4/ 2^4 2! (m +1) (m + 2) -…
-(1)^j x^(2j) / 2^(2j) j! (m + 1) (m +2 )……(m + j) + …]
for m = 0 and m = 1 forms one gets:
J_o(x) = 1 - x^2/ 2^2 (1!)^2 + x^4/ 2^4 (2!)^2 - x^6/ 2^6 (3!)^2 + ......
J_1(x) = x/ 2 - x^3/ 2^3*1! 2! + x^5/ 2^5 *2!3! - x^7/ 2^7 *3!4! - .....
The equations in B_z, B_t, with the special Bessel functions at root, are critical in describing the respective magnetic fields for a magnetic tube.
For a cylindrical magnetic flux tube (such as a sunspot represents viewed in cross-section) the “twist” is defined:
T(r) = (L * B_t(r))/ (r * B_z (r))
Where L denotes the length of the sunspot-flux tube dipole. If the twist value exceeds 2(pi) then the magnetic configuration may be approaching instability and a solar flare.
Then there is the Gamma function (call it 'G') for which:
G(a) = (a - 1 )!
where 'a' is a positive integer.
Thus, for a = 3:
G(3) = (3 - 1)! = 2! = 2*1 = 2
One can also make use of a recursion formula:
G(a + 1) = a G(a)
For example: G(4) = G (3 + 1) = 3 G(3) = 3 (2) = 6
Check this from the earlier formula: G(a) = (a - 1)!
G(4) = (4 - 1)! = 3! = 3*2*1 = 6
Now, there is also the Beta function, call it B(u,v) which can be expressed in terms of the Gamma functions G(u), G(v)
Thus:
B(u,v) = G(u) G(v)/ G(u + v)
Consider the Beta function B(3, 4):
B(3, 4) = G(3) G(4)/ G(3 + 4) = (2) (6)/ G(7) = 12 / G(7)
where: G(7) = (7 - 1)! = 6! = 6*5*4*3*2*1 = 720
so B(3,4) = 12/ 720 = 1/60
Why all the fuss about Beta and Gamma functions here?
Well, if any readers happened to have caught the PBS series 'The Elegant Universe', they'd have seen string theorist Brian Greene scribbling the Euler equation for string theory on a blackboard:
B(p, q) = G (p) G(q)/ G(p + q)
and arriving at the specific string theory form:
Beta([1- alpha(s)][1 - alpha(t)] =
Gamma (1 - alpha(s)) Gamma (1 - alpha(t))/ Gamma(2 - alpha(s) - alpha(t))
Special functions can indeed be loads of fun and have wide applications. In a future foray I'll look at fractional Gamma functions.
Monday, December 24, 2007
When Your Brother Turns into a Religious Loon
Fourteen years ago, my brother Mike ceased all contact with me after a family dispute. He insisted he would never write, or speak to me again. I didn't ask questions, or inquire why, I merely put it out of my mind. If he wanted nothing more to do with me, the feeling was mutual.
Three days ago, imagine my surprise when an envelope arrived with his name and address displayed prominently. Before opening the envelope I thought to myself: 'After fourteen years with no contact at all, what would he finally have to say to me, if anything?"
I opened it, and there was a Christmas card - with a full manger scene on the front (though everyone in the family knows I am an atheist) and with the words written inside by Mike's own hand: "May the Peace and Love of our Lord and SAVIOR. Jesus Christ, be with you!"
To me, if after 14 years this was his form of contact, he could as well have remained incommunicado. I mean, you don't say hoo, boo or hello to your brother in that long a time then you send a religious card when you know he's an atheist? That's like spitting in someone's beer.
Also inside was his business card which featured his web address for "Pastor Mike's" Net church. I went to his site and checked out various links wherein I saw a number of references to me painted as his "self-proclaimed atheist brother". Clearly, I was being expediently used as a stage prop for his site, to contrast his being "saved" and my being "under Satan's spell". At various other links he implored the faithful to pray for me lest Satan take me.
To take the wind out of his sails, I posted an atheist article I'd recently written about the God-Man myth - and its being plagiarized by Christians from earlier pagan sources- into his "Guest Book".
He then replied hours later, saying:
"I originally planned to delete my atheist brother's messages but decided to leave them so everyone can behold Satan's hold on him!"
Eventually, the article must have proven too Satanically powerful since he removed it as well as a more recent reply to his response. In addition, he password protected the guest book because - in his words :
" I WILL NOT allow my Lord's name to be blasphemed on this site !! , nor allow it to be used as a ' soap box ' for Satan and his demons of deception !!"
At which point I really did believe Mike to be certifiably insane. To reinforce this perception, he further added:
"Due to my atheist brother's spewing his anti - Christ rhetoric in the "Guest Book " section , I was forced to 'password protect ' it , as I REFUSE to give Satan (via this brother) , an opportunity to destroy and pollute any more souls with his 'venom' "
And to that was appended his extended "Open letter" to me recounting his "justified" reasons for locking me out of his site, even to the extent of disallowing a response to his off the wall "Open letter".
Following this segment of his missive:
"I also go by GOD'S LAW - NOT 'MANS LAW ' !! I realize that is a foreign concept to Non-Believers . I am the Lord's servant and messenger!"
I rendered a final response in an e-mail to him, which read in part:
"You're a putz, 'Pastor Mike, and always will be. You say one thing and do another, and I am not even sure you buy half the BS you've reeled out. "God's law" - "Man's law" - that's all diversion. Red herrings. At issue here is how true you are to yourself as opposed to being a pompous, posturing ass. My reading of this letter is you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You have to password protect everything in order to make sure Pastor Mike and his Thought Police encounter no "demonic words" to entrap wayward minds. Rather than provide people a chance to weigh and measure different world views and perceptions, you opt to censor.
Of course, whether Inquisitor or Witch hunter, this approach is always the fallback for the doctrinaire.
As for your “contact” via the Xmas card, it clearly had an ulterior purpose: to try to get us to your deluded “salvation”. You “ceased ignoring” us for that reason alone, not because you genuinely deigned in your heart of hearts to renew viable contact – but because it satisfied your subtext and agenda to exclusiveky renew it on YOUR terms! You wanted contact under the proviso it was understood by me that "God talk" would be included. In effect: "Hello again, and btw, take this spit in your eye, bro!"
As for "needing something" - yes I DO! I need you to remove ALL references about me from your site. Do that and we are squared away. I don't need or want to be a tool" to advance your religious pseudo-bullshit.
And also, don't bother to ever contact me again! I don't want to hear you again, or see anything from you again, ever. "
Hopefully, my religiously -blinded and reason-challenged brother will endorse that plea, and in the process make life easier for both of us. What a pity that one can choose one's friends but not one's family.
Three days ago, imagine my surprise when an envelope arrived with his name and address displayed prominently. Before opening the envelope I thought to myself: 'After fourteen years with no contact at all, what would he finally have to say to me, if anything?"
I opened it, and there was a Christmas card - with a full manger scene on the front (though everyone in the family knows I am an atheist) and with the words written inside by Mike's own hand: "May the Peace and Love of our Lord and SAVIOR. Jesus Christ, be with you!"
To me, if after 14 years this was his form of contact, he could as well have remained incommunicado. I mean, you don't say hoo, boo or hello to your brother in that long a time then you send a religious card when you know he's an atheist? That's like spitting in someone's beer.
Also inside was his business card which featured his web address for "Pastor Mike's" Net church. I went to his site and checked out various links wherein I saw a number of references to me painted as his "self-proclaimed atheist brother". Clearly, I was being expediently used as a stage prop for his site, to contrast his being "saved" and my being "under Satan's spell". At various other links he implored the faithful to pray for me lest Satan take me.
To take the wind out of his sails, I posted an atheist article I'd recently written about the God-Man myth - and its being plagiarized by Christians from earlier pagan sources- into his "Guest Book".
He then replied hours later, saying:
"I originally planned to delete my atheist brother's messages but decided to leave them so everyone can behold Satan's hold on him!"
Eventually, the article must have proven too Satanically powerful since he removed it as well as a more recent reply to his response. In addition, he password protected the guest book because - in his words :
" I WILL NOT allow my Lord's name to be blasphemed on this site !! , nor allow it to be used as a ' soap box ' for Satan and his demons of deception !!"
At which point I really did believe Mike to be certifiably insane. To reinforce this perception, he further added:
"Due to my atheist brother's spewing his anti - Christ rhetoric in the "Guest Book " section , I was forced to 'password protect ' it , as I REFUSE to give Satan (via this brother) , an opportunity to destroy and pollute any more souls with his 'venom' "
And to that was appended his extended "Open letter" to me recounting his "justified" reasons for locking me out of his site, even to the extent of disallowing a response to his off the wall "Open letter".
Following this segment of his missive:
"I also go by GOD'S LAW - NOT 'MANS LAW ' !! I realize that is a foreign concept to Non-Believers . I am the Lord's servant and messenger!"
I rendered a final response in an e-mail to him, which read in part:
"You're a putz, 'Pastor Mike, and always will be. You say one thing and do another, and I am not even sure you buy half the BS you've reeled out. "God's law" - "Man's law" - that's all diversion. Red herrings. At issue here is how true you are to yourself as opposed to being a pompous, posturing ass. My reading of this letter is you can dish it out, but you can't take it. You have to password protect everything in order to make sure Pastor Mike and his Thought Police encounter no "demonic words" to entrap wayward minds. Rather than provide people a chance to weigh and measure different world views and perceptions, you opt to censor.
Of course, whether Inquisitor or Witch hunter, this approach is always the fallback for the doctrinaire.
As for your “contact” via the Xmas card, it clearly had an ulterior purpose: to try to get us to your deluded “salvation”. You “ceased ignoring” us for that reason alone, not because you genuinely deigned in your heart of hearts to renew viable contact – but because it satisfied your subtext and agenda to exclusiveky renew it on YOUR terms! You wanted contact under the proviso it was understood by me that "God talk" would be included. In effect: "Hello again, and btw, take this spit in your eye, bro!"
As for "needing something" - yes I DO! I need you to remove ALL references about me from your site. Do that and we are squared away. I don't need or want to be a tool" to advance your religious pseudo-bullshit.
And also, don't bother to ever contact me again! I don't want to hear you again, or see anything from you again, ever. "
Hopefully, my religiously -blinded and reason-challenged brother will endorse that plea, and in the process make life easier for both of us. What a pity that one can choose one's friends but not one's family.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Fed needs to get tough
More and more the economic news is dominated by the sub-prime mess which now threatens to work its way into the fabric of the entire economy. The reason is that the products have been bought by so many institutions, and purchased in confidence. We now know that this confidence was based more on a fiction or mirage than anything else.
In The Financial Times yesterday there appeared one of the most stirring and scariest analyses ever: 'Out of the Shadows: How Banking's Hidden System Broke Down, by Gillian Tett and Paul J. Davies. It noted the "plethora of opaque institutions and vehicles" that have emerged this past deacde in American and European markets. The authors also noted how the esoteric products, namely SIVs (structured investment vehicles) and CDOs (collateralized dent obligations) have been create by a second tier, hidden "banking system" which has effectively taken the loans of banks and repackaged them as these obscure products.
Few people had a clue what these products embodied, but they were packaged as bonds and promptly given the highest bond ratings ("AAA") to ensure investor confidence. As the sub-prime mess has unfolded, we've seen all those bonds were overrated and probably not worth much more than the "junk bonds" of the Michael Millken era.
We now know that the toxic current of this unregulated junk effluent has permeated every nook and cranny of finance, and the other shoe is still waiting to drop. In an article some weeks ago, the FT estimated the liability cost will come to over $1.5 TRILLION when all the ledgers are finally tallied. The pain will be widespread and strike every kind of insitution, from pension plans to insurance companies - which was sold a bill of goods an invested in good faith in these parlous products.
What happened? It is the end and culmination of a process called securitization which actually began after the passage of the Bank Holding (De-regulation) Act of 1984, which sped the way to speculative excesses resulting in travesties such as the S&L scandal in the late '80s.
These included forming a new type of bond known as "collateralized mortgage oblgations" - which turned out to be the "daddy" of today's CDOs. These sprung up in the financial gardens like toxic weeds along with other entities, IOs (inverse only strips) and reverse floaters - promptly branded as "TOXIC WASTE" by the bond traders themselves (License To Steal: The Secret World of Wall Street Brokers and the Systematic Plundering of the American Investor, by T. Harper, page 211).
The CMOs represented the ideal way for mainline banks to dispose of risky mortgage loans they no longer wanted - and didn't wish to deal with. Why deal with such loans, which could always "come a cropper" with defaults on the loans and the bank losing - when one could dispatch them to a secondary entity on Wall Street that repackaged them into thousands of separate loans, and sold them as "bonds" - wherein the CMOs were bundled.
As the CMOs proliferated and no one saw any force or intent of regulation, the geniuses on "the Street" eventually came up with more aggressive concepts - esecially after 12 or so Greesnpan fed cuts made a ton of cheap money available soon after 2001.
Why package just ordinary loans as CMOs, when sub-prime loans could be packaged by the tens of millions into CDOs, or SIVs? The profits would be enormous! Of course, so would the risks, but as usual, Maul Street never took these into account.
The Fed now is caught in one hell of a crunch, between the proverbial rock and hard place. On the one hand it has to bear in mind the inflation risk, and on the other a recession.
My take from reading numerous financial articles is that the former now is much more a threat and in any case, some manner of recession is needed as "medicine". Better to take it now, than later when the pain will be a hundred times more.
The Fed's course is therefore clear: they have to cease from now pandering to the markets, especially the bond market (which continually factors in rate cuts into future bond issues as a method of extortion) and let them sink to the level that reflects the real value of the bogus instruments they circulated. Not to do so is to invite a second bubble on the back of the first, and delay, compound the pain.
This means NO MORE RATE CUTS! Indeed, I predict by early next year - possibly as soon as March - they will have to reinstitute rate increases. The crack money that fed the sub-prime mania has to be shut off. Yes, the withdrawal symptoms will be horrible - but this is the price that will have to be paid for the Street's recklessness, greed and "irrational exuberance" that makes the 1927 peddling of "investment trusts" piddling by comparison.
It is time to take the medicine, sooner rather than later.
In The Financial Times yesterday there appeared one of the most stirring and scariest analyses ever: 'Out of the Shadows: How Banking's Hidden System Broke Down, by Gillian Tett and Paul J. Davies. It noted the "plethora of opaque institutions and vehicles" that have emerged this past deacde in American and European markets. The authors also noted how the esoteric products, namely SIVs (structured investment vehicles) and CDOs (collateralized dent obligations) have been create by a second tier, hidden "banking system" which has effectively taken the loans of banks and repackaged them as these obscure products.
Few people had a clue what these products embodied, but they were packaged as bonds and promptly given the highest bond ratings ("AAA") to ensure investor confidence. As the sub-prime mess has unfolded, we've seen all those bonds were overrated and probably not worth much more than the "junk bonds" of the Michael Millken era.
We now know that the toxic current of this unregulated junk effluent has permeated every nook and cranny of finance, and the other shoe is still waiting to drop. In an article some weeks ago, the FT estimated the liability cost will come to over $1.5 TRILLION when all the ledgers are finally tallied. The pain will be widespread and strike every kind of insitution, from pension plans to insurance companies - which was sold a bill of goods an invested in good faith in these parlous products.
What happened? It is the end and culmination of a process called securitization which actually began after the passage of the Bank Holding (De-regulation) Act of 1984, which sped the way to speculative excesses resulting in travesties such as the S&L scandal in the late '80s.
These included forming a new type of bond known as "collateralized mortgage oblgations" - which turned out to be the "daddy" of today's CDOs. These sprung up in the financial gardens like toxic weeds along with other entities, IOs (inverse only strips) and reverse floaters - promptly branded as "TOXIC WASTE" by the bond traders themselves (License To Steal: The Secret World of Wall Street Brokers and the Systematic Plundering of the American Investor, by T. Harper, page 211).
The CMOs represented the ideal way for mainline banks to dispose of risky mortgage loans they no longer wanted - and didn't wish to deal with. Why deal with such loans, which could always "come a cropper" with defaults on the loans and the bank losing - when one could dispatch them to a secondary entity on Wall Street that repackaged them into thousands of separate loans, and sold them as "bonds" - wherein the CMOs were bundled.
As the CMOs proliferated and no one saw any force or intent of regulation, the geniuses on "the Street" eventually came up with more aggressive concepts - esecially after 12 or so Greesnpan fed cuts made a ton of cheap money available soon after 2001.
Why package just ordinary loans as CMOs, when sub-prime loans could be packaged by the tens of millions into CDOs, or SIVs? The profits would be enormous! Of course, so would the risks, but as usual, Maul Street never took these into account.
The Fed now is caught in one hell of a crunch, between the proverbial rock and hard place. On the one hand it has to bear in mind the inflation risk, and on the other a recession.
My take from reading numerous financial articles is that the former now is much more a threat and in any case, some manner of recession is needed as "medicine". Better to take it now, than later when the pain will be a hundred times more.
The Fed's course is therefore clear: they have to cease from now pandering to the markets, especially the bond market (which continually factors in rate cuts into future bond issues as a method of extortion) and let them sink to the level that reflects the real value of the bogus instruments they circulated. Not to do so is to invite a second bubble on the back of the first, and delay, compound the pain.
This means NO MORE RATE CUTS! Indeed, I predict by early next year - possibly as soon as March - they will have to reinstitute rate increases. The crack money that fed the sub-prime mania has to be shut off. Yes, the withdrawal symptoms will be horrible - but this is the price that will have to be paid for the Street's recklessness, greed and "irrational exuberance" that makes the 1927 peddling of "investment trusts" piddling by comparison.
It is time to take the medicine, sooner rather than later.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Astrology: Astronomy's Specious Sister
In a vain attempt to confer legitimacy on astrology, its proponents, purveyors and defenders often vigorously assert that astrology is astronomy’s older “sister” and paved the way for the latter, genuine science to emerge as what it is today. Maybe, but that doesn’t mean we retain the pseudo-science any more than we retain the use of hornets and wasps to remove toxins from wounds, as opposed to relying on current medicine!
Astrology buffs will also resort to listing names of the rich and famous who have relied (or currently rely) on horoscopes. After citing so many luminaries (including the late President Reagan and the British Royal Family), along with impressive anecdotal accounts of astrology-enriched lives, I am implored to be "realistic". "If such important people as these can embrace astrology, how can it possibly be wrong? How in the world can you possibly deny its validity?"
Actually, it's very easy, because it doesn't really work! Astrology is bogus, because its claims of success are based on false assumptions and outright errors. Any "good" fortune, or "bad" is largely a matter of the throw of the dice. There are no stars which control fortune, just as there are none which determine who is destined to be short, tall, beautiful or ugly. Astrology is based on star configurations two thousand years old, which no longer exist but are treated as if they do! You see, dear reader, there is this very slow process called precession. Anyone who has ever played with a toy gyroscope would have noticed how the axis made a large loop as the gyroscope wobbled.
The Earth acts the same way: like a giant, spinning top. It takes much longer, however, because it is vastly bigger than a toy gyroscope. The whole process for the Earth requires about 25,800 years to go through one complete cycle. Because the polar axis points at different areas of the sky over this time, it means that there is also a continual change in the position of the equinoxes. (These are the points in the sky where the Sun is located on the first day of Spring: March 20 or 21 for the Vernal Equinox, or the first day of autumn: September 22 or 23 for the Autumnal Equinox).
The Vernal Equinox is called the "first point of Aries" by astrologers, since it was originally in that sign two thousand years ago. The problem is that the Vernal Equinox no longer is located in Aries, but in the adjacent constellation/sign: Pisces! In the two thousand years since the Sun signs were devised, the Earth's axis has precessed out of the original alignment, and with it the equinoxes! This means that each of the other eleven so-called Sun signs used in horoscopes is out by the same amount: one entire Sun sign. For consistency, all present day birthdays need to be re-calibrated to the preceding sign. So if your birthday is July 6, like mine, you are no longer a Cancer but a Gemini! If it is October 4, you are no longer a Libra, but the sign just before, Virgo! And so on for each sign of the zodiac, displaced by a full 30 degrees. This means that the entire underpinning of zodiac signs, and their descriptions, is in error! All the personality and temperamental characteristics attributed to "Leo the Lion", for example, really belong to "Cancer the Crab"! This implies that no modern-day horoscope can possibly be correct!
None of the astrologers I've spoken with are overly concerned by this, though they should be for the sake of credibility. They usually say something to the effect that the "real" (original twelve signs) are "forever fixed" as they were two thousand years ago. They insist that my pre-occupation with signs being out of step is not a matter of genuine signs at all, but the constellations (star patterns) associated with them! In their incredible view, the zodiacal constellations are shifted by the Earth's precession, but not the fundamental signs! These signs will remain firmly anchored in the sky, immune to all Earth's motions, forever and ever!
This answer obscures more than it illuminates, and in any case is illogical. What if, for example, the horological school of astrology originated two thousand years later, in our modern era? All the "basic" or "fixed" signs would then be thirty degrees displaced! (Pisces instead of Aries, Gemini instead of Cancer, and so on). Similarly, if horological astrology had been developed two thousand years earlier than it actually was, the signs would be thirty degrees displaced the other way. (Taurus instead of Aries, Leo instead of Cancer, and so on.)
Even if one were generous enough to grant astrologers the benefit of the doubt, other serious problems arise. For example, Greek horological astrology is based on the entirely fallacious concept of a geocentric (Earth-centered) cosmos. In this view (of Ptolemy), the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun just another planet going round it! The very brightness of the Sun was like a kind of beacon which, when it appeared in a given sign at the time of birth, disclosed the nature of the person. With the Sun in Leo, one expected a "courageous and fearless" person; with the Sun in Cancer one expected a "reclusive and defensive" person; with the Sun in Taurus one expected a "stubborn or headstrong" person (like a bull). In each case, there is an analogy between the personality traits and the sign's "creature characteristics".
The trouble is that there is no objective basis for supposing any genuine correspondence. The reason is that the stars observed from Earth do not occur in any persistent patterns. Indeed, they are not even all the same distance away! They are purely random, temporary configurations, on to which astrologers have superimposed imaginary images: bull, lion, crab, fish or whatever. Even as I write these words, the stars which make up the zodiacal constellations are speeding in different directions. There really is no such thing as a fixed star, on scales of cosmic time anyway. In about one hundred thousand years, none of the star patterns seen today will even remotely resemble a "Lion", or "Archer" or "Bull" or anything else! I should point out (again) that this would not bother the typical astrologer. Unruffled, he or she would persist in referring to the "basic unchanging signs".
Cunning though they are, astrologers have a harder time justifying their symbolic use of the planets. For example, positive astrological forecasts are the norm when Venus is prominent in one's sign, since that planet is named after the goddess of love. From afar, it also looks like a brilliant jewel set among the other celestial bodies (by virtue of its extreme brightness, third after the Sun and Moon). The truth, astronomically speaking, is that Venus is a hellhole.
However, decades ago, telemetry from the Mariner 4 and Magellan probes, revealed Venus to have surface temperatures of over 750 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmosphere with plenty of sulphuric acid to go with it. If you wanted to locate a single place to call "hell" you couldn't do much better than Venus. The astrologers, however, are concerned exclusively with how it looks in the sky to us, from a tremendous distance. (Though I have at times thought of informing them that Venus' original name was Lucifer!)
Mars is another planet that astrologers invoke in their symbolism. Most often, they attribute a "maleficent influence" to Mars. Its presence is associated with undefined aggression, hostility or some kind of impending confrontation or war. (Naturally, as its color is blood red!) Some astrologers have insisted that those born with Mars in their Sun sign are destined to become warriors, or soldiers. All these associations follow from the color. In truth, the color is not from blood at all but a chemical comprising most of soil of the planet: iron oxide, or rust. As in random star patterns, there is no objective basis for presuming any analogy between human personalities and planets.
It is clear that astrology would collapse under its own weight if the outdated information on which it is based were simply updated, using modern astronomical findings. Astronomers especially wish that this would happen, and the sooner the better. The way they reason is like this: If all those billions of dollars now going into astrology 900-numbers, books and charts were to suddenly stop, it might start reaching some astronomer badly in need of research funding. Projects that are on the verge of being scuttled, for lack of budgetary allocations, could then be saved. The money would have gone towards the acquisition of genuine knowledge about the solar system and universe, instead of supporting bogus "insights" and personal forecasts.
In this regard, another aspect of astrology that has always puzzled me is the lack of any sophisticated instrumentation. For something like two thousand years astrologers have been using the same basic set of Sun signs and charts in arriving at their horoscopes. Because of a lack of instruments, they cannot detect if any new objects are in the zodiacal signs. Indeed, they appear totally oblivious to the prospect of any "hidden" objects there. True, astrologers are now using computers more and more, but these are not observational instruments.
Astrology buffs will also resort to listing names of the rich and famous who have relied (or currently rely) on horoscopes. After citing so many luminaries (including the late President Reagan and the British Royal Family), along with impressive anecdotal accounts of astrology-enriched lives, I am implored to be "realistic". "If such important people as these can embrace astrology, how can it possibly be wrong? How in the world can you possibly deny its validity?"
Actually, it's very easy, because it doesn't really work! Astrology is bogus, because its claims of success are based on false assumptions and outright errors. Any "good" fortune, or "bad" is largely a matter of the throw of the dice. There are no stars which control fortune, just as there are none which determine who is destined to be short, tall, beautiful or ugly. Astrology is based on star configurations two thousand years old, which no longer exist but are treated as if they do! You see, dear reader, there is this very slow process called precession. Anyone who has ever played with a toy gyroscope would have noticed how the axis made a large loop as the gyroscope wobbled.
The Earth acts the same way: like a giant, spinning top. It takes much longer, however, because it is vastly bigger than a toy gyroscope. The whole process for the Earth requires about 25,800 years to go through one complete cycle. Because the polar axis points at different areas of the sky over this time, it means that there is also a continual change in the position of the equinoxes. (These are the points in the sky where the Sun is located on the first day of Spring: March 20 or 21 for the Vernal Equinox, or the first day of autumn: September 22 or 23 for the Autumnal Equinox).
The Vernal Equinox is called the "first point of Aries" by astrologers, since it was originally in that sign two thousand years ago. The problem is that the Vernal Equinox no longer is located in Aries, but in the adjacent constellation/sign: Pisces! In the two thousand years since the Sun signs were devised, the Earth's axis has precessed out of the original alignment, and with it the equinoxes! This means that each of the other eleven so-called Sun signs used in horoscopes is out by the same amount: one entire Sun sign. For consistency, all present day birthdays need to be re-calibrated to the preceding sign. So if your birthday is July 6, like mine, you are no longer a Cancer but a Gemini! If it is October 4, you are no longer a Libra, but the sign just before, Virgo! And so on for each sign of the zodiac, displaced by a full 30 degrees. This means that the entire underpinning of zodiac signs, and their descriptions, is in error! All the personality and temperamental characteristics attributed to "Leo the Lion", for example, really belong to "Cancer the Crab"! This implies that no modern-day horoscope can possibly be correct!
None of the astrologers I've spoken with are overly concerned by this, though they should be for the sake of credibility. They usually say something to the effect that the "real" (original twelve signs) are "forever fixed" as they were two thousand years ago. They insist that my pre-occupation with signs being out of step is not a matter of genuine signs at all, but the constellations (star patterns) associated with them! In their incredible view, the zodiacal constellations are shifted by the Earth's precession, but not the fundamental signs! These signs will remain firmly anchored in the sky, immune to all Earth's motions, forever and ever!
This answer obscures more than it illuminates, and in any case is illogical. What if, for example, the horological school of astrology originated two thousand years later, in our modern era? All the "basic" or "fixed" signs would then be thirty degrees displaced! (Pisces instead of Aries, Gemini instead of Cancer, and so on). Similarly, if horological astrology had been developed two thousand years earlier than it actually was, the signs would be thirty degrees displaced the other way. (Taurus instead of Aries, Leo instead of Cancer, and so on.)
Even if one were generous enough to grant astrologers the benefit of the doubt, other serious problems arise. For example, Greek horological astrology is based on the entirely fallacious concept of a geocentric (Earth-centered) cosmos. In this view (of Ptolemy), the Earth was the center of the solar system and the Sun just another planet going round it! The very brightness of the Sun was like a kind of beacon which, when it appeared in a given sign at the time of birth, disclosed the nature of the person. With the Sun in Leo, one expected a "courageous and fearless" person; with the Sun in Cancer one expected a "reclusive and defensive" person; with the Sun in Taurus one expected a "stubborn or headstrong" person (like a bull). In each case, there is an analogy between the personality traits and the sign's "creature characteristics".
The trouble is that there is no objective basis for supposing any genuine correspondence. The reason is that the stars observed from Earth do not occur in any persistent patterns. Indeed, they are not even all the same distance away! They are purely random, temporary configurations, on to which astrologers have superimposed imaginary images: bull, lion, crab, fish or whatever. Even as I write these words, the stars which make up the zodiacal constellations are speeding in different directions. There really is no such thing as a fixed star, on scales of cosmic time anyway. In about one hundred thousand years, none of the star patterns seen today will even remotely resemble a "Lion", or "Archer" or "Bull" or anything else! I should point out (again) that this would not bother the typical astrologer. Unruffled, he or she would persist in referring to the "basic unchanging signs".
Cunning though they are, astrologers have a harder time justifying their symbolic use of the planets. For example, positive astrological forecasts are the norm when Venus is prominent in one's sign, since that planet is named after the goddess of love. From afar, it also looks like a brilliant jewel set among the other celestial bodies (by virtue of its extreme brightness, third after the Sun and Moon). The truth, astronomically speaking, is that Venus is a hellhole.
However, decades ago, telemetry from the Mariner 4 and Magellan probes, revealed Venus to have surface temperatures of over 750 degrees Fahrenheit and an atmosphere with plenty of sulphuric acid to go with it. If you wanted to locate a single place to call "hell" you couldn't do much better than Venus. The astrologers, however, are concerned exclusively with how it looks in the sky to us, from a tremendous distance. (Though I have at times thought of informing them that Venus' original name was Lucifer!)
Mars is another planet that astrologers invoke in their symbolism. Most often, they attribute a "maleficent influence" to Mars. Its presence is associated with undefined aggression, hostility or some kind of impending confrontation or war. (Naturally, as its color is blood red!) Some astrologers have insisted that those born with Mars in their Sun sign are destined to become warriors, or soldiers. All these associations follow from the color. In truth, the color is not from blood at all but a chemical comprising most of soil of the planet: iron oxide, or rust. As in random star patterns, there is no objective basis for presuming any analogy between human personalities and planets.
It is clear that astrology would collapse under its own weight if the outdated information on which it is based were simply updated, using modern astronomical findings. Astronomers especially wish that this would happen, and the sooner the better. The way they reason is like this: If all those billions of dollars now going into astrology 900-numbers, books and charts were to suddenly stop, it might start reaching some astronomer badly in need of research funding. Projects that are on the verge of being scuttled, for lack of budgetary allocations, could then be saved. The money would have gone towards the acquisition of genuine knowledge about the solar system and universe, instead of supporting bogus "insights" and personal forecasts.
In this regard, another aspect of astrology that has always puzzled me is the lack of any sophisticated instrumentation. For something like two thousand years astrologers have been using the same basic set of Sun signs and charts in arriving at their horoscopes. Because of a lack of instruments, they cannot detect if any new objects are in the zodiacal signs. Indeed, they appear totally oblivious to the prospect of any "hidden" objects there. True, astrologers are now using computers more and more, but these are not observational instruments.
Meanwhile, astronomers have fashioned ever more powerful and sophisticated instruments, many aboard satellites, to reveal a cosmos teeming with dazzling and diverse phenomena from exploding stars to colliding galaxies to black holes. The diversity of the objects discovered is directly related to the diversity of techniques and instruments available.
When asked about this, astrologers are notoriously silent, as if it really doesn't matter. In a memorable debate several years ago, I asked my astrologer counterpart whether astrology reckons the influences of all the colliding galaxies, black holes and x-ray pulsars which have been discovered in the constellations of the zodiac. She said that those objects "belong to astronomy" and: "In any case, the Sun, Moon and planets have far more powerful effects than distant exotic objects". At that point I could not resist referring her to a just-published article by two members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal (Kurtz, P. and Fraknoi, A.: 1988, “Belief in the Stars is not a Good Sign”, Skeptical Inquirer.),in which they cited calculations showing the obstetrician at a baby's birth exerts a much more powerful gravitational influence on the newborn than either Sun, Moon or other planet!
When asked about this, astrologers are notoriously silent, as if it really doesn't matter. In a memorable debate several years ago, I asked my astrologer counterpart whether astrology reckons the influences of all the colliding galaxies, black holes and x-ray pulsars which have been discovered in the constellations of the zodiac. She said that those objects "belong to astronomy" and: "In any case, the Sun, Moon and planets have far more powerful effects than distant exotic objects". At that point I could not resist referring her to a just-published article by two members of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Paranormal (Kurtz, P. and Fraknoi, A.: 1988, “Belief in the Stars is not a Good Sign”, Skeptical Inquirer.),in which they cited calculations showing the obstetrician at a baby's birth exerts a much more powerful gravitational influence on the newborn than either Sun, Moon or other planet!
"Oh, really?" was her initial response, "I don't think that’s the same as an astrological influence".
Astrological influence? It struck me then and there that she hadn't the foggiest notion of what a gravitational field or force was. She had no conceptual framework for credible (physical) influences that could act: a) between different celestial bodies, and b) between celestial bodies and human bodies. When one thinks about it, however, why should a particular "alignment" of the same planets have any more importance than another? To the astronomer, the difference in gravitational effect is negligible. (The total gravitational force arising from the specious "Jupiter Effect" alignment of planets in 1982 was calculated to produce a tide of only one millimeter on the Sun's surface!)
By contrast, alignments are of pivotal importance to astrologers and can make all the difference in one's fortunes. Certain alignments are "harmonious" and others are "inharmonious". But try to pin down an astrologer about the necessary and sufficient conditions for each. The only response is astrological double talk like "the negativity of a trine is enhanced when Mars is in opposition." What does this mean anyway? In a science like astronomy, precision is demanded by the language, and specific terms have very specific meanings. In astrology, evidently, anything goes!
Most astronomers, understandably, have neither the time nor the patience to peel away all the fictitious layers and pseudo-scientific language to expose astrology for what it is. I've always felt, as an educator, that the effort must nonetheless be made. If scientists are unable to offer an objective critique of astrology, how can they expect students to take them seriously when they insist it is a fraud? How can they expect the thousands of daily horoscope readers to pay more than passing attention to genuine science? How in the world can they expect those who dabble in other astrology-related pastimes, such as numerology or tarot card readings, to sit up and take notice? The answer is they can't if they choose to pretend that pseudo-science doesn't exist.
It would be too easy to ignore the plight of the millions of gullible souls who have been taken in by astrology. The unsympathetic attitude of most professionals is "they deserve what they get for buying into that garbage". But this misses the point, and can be deleterious to all science in the long run. The fact is that a former U.S. President consulted an astrologer, and many businesses and corporations unashamedly employ the services of astrologers to get a "competitive edge". People see this and start to think: "Hey, if these big shots are into it, there must be something to it after all!" Astronomers, like it or not, occupy the final fallback position in the effort to rescue society from this superstitious and pseudo-scientific scam.
Why should a professional astronomer care? Because each dollar diverted into astrology erodes the resource base he depends upon for ultimate support. Each dollar spent on an astrology book or chart is a dollar not spent on genuine knowledge, such as provided by astronomy. The net effect is a further retreat of our nation into backwardness and superstition at a time when it faces stiff competition from more educated foreign competitors. (Who are more likely to market astrology goods and services to us than import it themselves.)
Did I say superstition? Yes, because when the layers of arcane language are peeled away that is essentially what modern astrology is. If one is sufficiently persistent and pressures an astrologer long enough, the truth will emerge. The truth is that the astrological influences of which they write and speak are all psychic in nature. This is why certain alignments are "harmonious" while others are not. It is also why astrologers are not concerned about gravitational forces -they only recognize psychic "forces"!
Astrologers, by employing a clever scientific veneer, entice more folks into taking them seriously. People who would ridicule the idea of going to a psychic or fortune teller have no qualms about consulting an astrologer, since the astrologers' words are cleverly couched in scientific-sounding jargon. The "influence of a spirit" sounds downright medieval and superstitious, but not "The positive influence of the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in your ascendant third house is highly beneficial".
Why do reasonably intelligent people, many of them college-educated, buy into astrology? There are undoubtedly many cogent reasons. Consider the fact that uncertainty continues to plague many lives: corporate downsizing and wage stagnation continues (at least for middle and working class households), families are being fractured in the time-crunch of the two wage earner necessity, and children are not being parented as a result, with the attendant increases in drug abuse and teen pregnancy. The integrity of the family is thereby eroded and traditional religions no longer seem to have credible answers to these problems. Into this bleak landscape astrology appears with its pat answers and legitimate-sounding jargon, which renders it believable to many.
Most of the people attracted are not ignorant or foolish, or even gullible. In many cases, they are genuinely sincere in seeking meaning or focus in their hectic lives. Astrology not only confers meaning but uniqueness as well. This illusion of unique applicability is a powerful force fuelling the faith in modern astrology. I am always fond of recalling the case of the French psychologist who advertised himself as an astrologer back in the 70's. He received hundreds of requests for his services, in response to which he sent out a single, ambiguous horoscope. The noteworthy point is that over two hundred grateful admirers took the time and trouble to write and thank him for his "accuracy and perceptiveness".
The job for the astronomer, or any scientist, is to show how meaning in life can be restored without the need for astrology. This is not an easy task. Most astrologers offer a simplistic explanation for the troubled times around the globe: it is still the "Age of Pisces" (a sorrowful period), but it will give way to the "Age of Aquarius", when a new era of unparalleled peace and prosperity will be ushered in. With such knowledge in hand, the difficulty in confronting the future is minimized. Living life from day to day is made bearable, where formerly it was intolerable.
By contrast, science imposes a remorseless and stringent demand for objectivity. There is no place for any scheme that bestows meaning on human affairs by codifying celestial events. The scientific view insists it is supreme arrogance to suppose that the entire vast universe is arranged only as a key to understanding the events on a remote, dust-speck of a planet - or worse, the personality traits of one of its billions of temporary inhabitants. This outlook violently contradicts the astrological notion of cosmic objects existing only as a hidden code for interpreting human lives. (Of course, with the advent of Derridian postmodernism, even the objectivity of science has been questioned severely – but that mode of solipsism is a topic for another article!)
How can we recapture the imaginations of those attracted to astrology? One of the most effective techniques I've seen appeared in the first episode of the highly acclaimed video series The Astronomers. In it, the former monk and telescope maker John Dobson is seen traveling around national parks of Oregon and towns in California, setting up his telescopes for the public to view. He does this for free, and treats each passerby to a spectacular scene, whether lunar craters, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's rings or sunspots during the day. The people are, without exception, taken aback and in a state of awe. They are then ready to listen to some of the information which Dobson has to impart. In his own little way, he is undermining the advance of astrology and its cousins by showing the richness of the natural - rather than supernatural, universe.
Most astronomers would not be interested in this sort of approach. Based on my own experience, and the astronomers I've known, they are more inclined to reclusive research or observation. As a rule, they tend not to be extroverted and colorful showmen or carnie barkers with telescopes! The next best thing, however, would be to offer special astronomy courses at a nearby community college. Such courses could be given at night, for no credit, to mainly adult students. This would be an investment of barely an hour or two each week to lecture and answer questions, and the return would be enormous.
If each astronomer could find a way to rekindle people's latent curiosity about the real universe, there would be no need for that curiosity to be squandered in search of a bogus one. Astrology will then die naturally, and I very much doubt anyone will mourn its passing.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Abuse of Pluto
As much as democracy can be a boon in terms of advancing a common will (or at least majority will), it isn't a model for science to adopt. This was abundantly evident last year in the case of the demotion of Pluto from planetary status.
Worse, I surmised it was only a matter of time before various right wing sites and forums would use Pluto’s demotion as a basis to attack science. In particular, the argument goes: “If science had to backtrack on Pluto, taking away its planethood, why not on evolution and global warming as well? Shouldn’t all science be regarded as ‘tentative’?”
In fact, not.
For one thing the “consensus” achieved on Pluto was accomplished not through objective inquiry and scientific test, but rather a vote at a recent meeting of the International Astronomical Union. As a member of the American Astronomical Society, who totally disagreed with this process, it pains me to write this - but any time a scientific conclusion is reached by vote, it’s time to raise the red flag!
The modern consensus on evolution, meanwhile, was achieved by a body of empirical evidence, including from the fossil record, microbiology and genetics. For example, one of the most powerful lines of evidence has shown that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans. (Source: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')
Mathematical precision also consolidates scientific discovery in quantitative fields, making them less likely to be overturned. Particle physics is one such example, wherein the original three sub-atomic particles (proton, neutron, electron) have now become a veritable “zoo” numbering in the hundreds – including up, down, top and bottom quarks, W and Z bosons, electron, mu and tau neutrinos and many others too numerous to mention. This panoply of particles didn’t just manifest because the respective particle physicists intended to be “mean” to school children or regular mortals. It emerged out of more refined and detailed experiments that exposed each of the particles.
The same applies to the current consensus on global warming, only arrived at after years of computer analysis of ice cores, changing CO2 concentrations therein, satellite imagery disclosing retreat of polar ice and data from over 1300 temperature sensing bouys in the oceans.
In the end, the error of the planetary astronomers was to cave in to public pressure to avoid “complexity”, e.g. in adding numerous additional planets like Charon, Xena, Ceres etc. This, despite the fact the original IAU definition was perfectly rational in its criteria for a planet.
Alan Stern, executive director of the Space Science & Engineering Division of the Southwest Research Institute – and Principal Investigator for NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto- observed that the new planet definition was “sadly flawed, particularly due to the vagueness of the third condition”, e.g. clearing the neighborhood around its orbit – which might also disqualify Earth!)
He added: “A lot of people are going to ignore the (new) definition because it doesn’t make sense.” (Source: Eos, Vol. 87, 29 August, p. 350)
The tragedy of the Pluto vote is that it has not only set back planetary astronomy – showing the preponderance of ego over scientific inquiry – but also public confidence in science. In any case, this retrenchment of scientific position gives no aid or comfort to those who would eschew either evolution or global warming.
Worse, I surmised it was only a matter of time before various right wing sites and forums would use Pluto’s demotion as a basis to attack science. In particular, the argument goes: “If science had to backtrack on Pluto, taking away its planethood, why not on evolution and global warming as well? Shouldn’t all science be regarded as ‘tentative’?”
In fact, not.
For one thing the “consensus” achieved on Pluto was accomplished not through objective inquiry and scientific test, but rather a vote at a recent meeting of the International Astronomical Union. As a member of the American Astronomical Society, who totally disagreed with this process, it pains me to write this - but any time a scientific conclusion is reached by vote, it’s time to raise the red flag!
The modern consensus on evolution, meanwhile, was achieved by a body of empirical evidence, including from the fossil record, microbiology and genetics. For example, one of the most powerful lines of evidence has shown that the human chromosome designated '2' was the result of the telomeric fusion of the two ape chromosomes, 2p and 2q. The effect also saw the reduction from 24 chromosome pairs in apes, to 23 pairs in humans. (Source: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')
Mathematical precision also consolidates scientific discovery in quantitative fields, making them less likely to be overturned. Particle physics is one such example, wherein the original three sub-atomic particles (proton, neutron, electron) have now become a veritable “zoo” numbering in the hundreds – including up, down, top and bottom quarks, W and Z bosons, electron, mu and tau neutrinos and many others too numerous to mention. This panoply of particles didn’t just manifest because the respective particle physicists intended to be “mean” to school children or regular mortals. It emerged out of more refined and detailed experiments that exposed each of the particles.
The same applies to the current consensus on global warming, only arrived at after years of computer analysis of ice cores, changing CO2 concentrations therein, satellite imagery disclosing retreat of polar ice and data from over 1300 temperature sensing bouys in the oceans.
In the end, the error of the planetary astronomers was to cave in to public pressure to avoid “complexity”, e.g. in adding numerous additional planets like Charon, Xena, Ceres etc. This, despite the fact the original IAU definition was perfectly rational in its criteria for a planet.
Alan Stern, executive director of the Space Science & Engineering Division of the Southwest Research Institute – and Principal Investigator for NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto- observed that the new planet definition was “sadly flawed, particularly due to the vagueness of the third condition”, e.g. clearing the neighborhood around its orbit – which might also disqualify Earth!)
He added: “A lot of people are going to ignore the (new) definition because it doesn’t make sense.” (Source: Eos, Vol. 87, 29 August, p. 350)
The tragedy of the Pluto vote is that it has not only set back planetary astronomy – showing the preponderance of ego over scientific inquiry – but also public confidence in science. In any case, this retrenchment of scientific position gives no aid or comfort to those who would eschew either evolution or global warming.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Time to get real on global warming
As the Bali Climate Change Conference goes on, there is still far too much quibbling over whether anthropogenic global warming even exists. All of this back and forth is costing valuable time, and causing an incipient problem that might be at least partly corrected, to metastasize to a possibly ungovernable situation - perhaps even a "runaway Greenhouse effect" and transformation of Earth to another Venus within 1ka (one thousand years).
The inherent problem with most skeptics lies in their carelessly invoking “natural warming” cycles – which simply don’t hold up to investigative scrutiny – in terms of the magnitudes of energy input required for the level of warming observed the past century.
Solar physicist John Eddy, who made it is research specialty to study long-term solar variations connected to climate change, noted the period of 12th century warming in his book, ‘The New Solar Physics’, AAAS Selected Symposium, Westview Press, 1979, p. 17.
Eddy noted that this coincided with a period of higher solar activity (i.e. more sunspots) and possibly greater luminosity – on account of the fact that the irradiance is amplified around sunspots owing to redirection of convective heat flow. (Bear in mind the plasma in spots is at lower temperatures, by about 1500C, because of the powerful magnetic fields in them).
During solar cycle 20 – when I also conducted investigations on solar flares and their effects- the then Solar Max satellite used an active cavity radiometer (ACRIM) to measure temperature increases arising from higher activity – especially as generated by more convection at the periphery of large spots. The differential was something on the order of 0.1C at the Sun! Since the radiant energy must now transit 150 million kilometers, and its intensity falls off as the inverse square, one can see this would translate into negligible increases at Earth.
What about longer period increases in solar luminosity associated with its possibly being a variable star – as opposed to sporadic sunspot outbursts?
The maximal magnitude of inherent solar -induced climate variability was probably first highlighted by Sabatino Sofia et al in their paper Solar Constant: Constraints on Possible Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements, in Science, Vol. 204, 1306, 1979. Their estimate was a solar change in irradiance of roughly 0.1 % averaged over each solar cycle. (Irradiance is a measure of the energy per square meter received from the Sun).
Thus – if the solar irradiance effect at Earth (solar constant) is normally about 1360 watts/m^2, this would imply an increase of roughly 1.36 W/m^2.. The problem is that there is no observational evidence to support this in the warming period of the 12th century, or any time in the past century – when global warming spiked to serious levels. (Some like Sofia have argued that even if it had occurred, it would only engender a temp. increase contribution of perhaps one-fourth of one degree, or significantly less than what has been documented.
More recent space-based observations appear to show a variation in solar irradiance of at least 0.15% over the standard 11-year solar cycle. (E.g. Parker, E.N., Nature, Vol. 399, p. 416). However, even with this higher percentage ascribed to solar changes, the heating effect is nowhere near comparable to that induced from man-made global warming. (See, e.g. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764).
As the authors in the latter study point out, the heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions from 1861-1990 amounted to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.8 watts per square meter. The solar variability component detected over the same period amounted to 0.1 to 0.5 watts per square meter. Thus, even the MAXIMUM solar variability amounted to only a fraction (25%) of the MINIMUM power input from human-induced greenhouse warming!
Most serious climate researchers (such as Gunther Weller – who was at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks when I was there) already believe we're in the first stages of a positive feedback, non-linear effect that is leading right into the maw of the runaway greenhouse. Though most will not own up to it publicly for fear of raising alarm.
The basis has already been described by Sagan and others: Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more IR (infrared or heat energy) absorbed - enhancing global warming. At the same time global warming is accelerated in the oceans, and both El Nino and La Nina are ramped up in the unfolding panorama of global warming (cf. S. George Philander in Eos, March 31, 1998, ‘Who is El Nino?’) . In the meantime, we have new evidence that the melting permafrost (e.g. in Alaska) is releasing 25- 100 times more greenhouse gas as methane and CO2.
As more ice melts from the polar regions, positive feedback proceeds faster. The overall (mean) ocean temperature continues to rise - ultimately becoming too hot for any marine life- and reaching equilibrium temperature somewhere in the next 500 years. All ocean currents, circulation systems will, of course, cease. With atmospheric circulation soon following (as on Venus) , all solar energy going into heating the oceans until their specific heat capacity is reached.
Of course, long before this we will be in a state of emergency. When I was at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK I used to chat with some of the Atmospheric scientists there. Almost all agreed that what we may have on our hands will be many times worse than the Luis Alvarez' proposed extinction asteroid impact of 65 million years ago.
People - when they talk blithely and ignorantly of 'adjusting' simply have no idea of how bad it can get. Or that a 'runaway greenhouse' (such as converted Venus to a hellhole) is more than possible. Can they 'adjust' to global mean air temperatures of 60 C (yes, that's Celsius degrees)? I don't think so, especially as all the oceans will have boiled away!Yet, this is our inevitable fate if we don't get a handle on the problem RIGHT NOW. Before the 'runaway' sets in when CO2 starts to be 'out-gassed' from the oceans, and all the trillions of tonnes of carbonate rocks on the planet.
Long before that, of course, a host of exotic diseases will have spread across the world and wrought havoc - and all the fools clamoring for warm temperatures will wish otherwise with the first case of amoebic dysentery or dengue hemorrhaghic fever. Especially as we're already losing efficacy of anti-biotics from over-use(See, e.g. Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm, in Science, Vol. 274, 20 December, 1996, p. 2025.)
And I won't even go into the tech predictions of regularly fried power-grids because so many teeming millions are trying to keep cool.
The late Carl Sagan noted in a CNN interview (with Ted Turner) ca. 1989 (still have it on tape) that the limits for catastrophic climate change- we're talking species exterminating magnitude- are not as high as many think. In fact, he cited the tolerance increment of six degrees Celsius. When global mean temps. veer past that, watch out. Right now - from all data collected- we appear to be approaching a 2 degrees Celsius increase, possibly more, by 2100.
Even if we initiated massive emissions cutbacks today it may be inadequate, since the carbon dioxide deposition time (time for it to remain in the atmosphere and create problems) approaches 100 years, as Sagan (and others) have also noted. Thus, the climate change we're seeing NOW, is really traceable to the conditions of CO2 concentration from ca. 1903!!!Our CO2 inputs, will become recognized ca. 2103. And be added to the cumulative total at THAT time..
Now, while not everyone yet agrees we are in such an emergency – most climate scientists of any repute argue that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting any longer for “absolute proof” to arrive. We must act now to initiate credible policy changes (not merely exchanging "carbon credits") or face dire consequences – and have future generations curse us forever for our inertia and inaction.
The inherent problem with most skeptics lies in their carelessly invoking “natural warming” cycles – which simply don’t hold up to investigative scrutiny – in terms of the magnitudes of energy input required for the level of warming observed the past century.
Solar physicist John Eddy, who made it is research specialty to study long-term solar variations connected to climate change, noted the period of 12th century warming in his book, ‘The New Solar Physics’, AAAS Selected Symposium, Westview Press, 1979, p. 17.
Eddy noted that this coincided with a period of higher solar activity (i.e. more sunspots) and possibly greater luminosity – on account of the fact that the irradiance is amplified around sunspots owing to redirection of convective heat flow. (Bear in mind the plasma in spots is at lower temperatures, by about 1500C, because of the powerful magnetic fields in them).
During solar cycle 20 – when I also conducted investigations on solar flares and their effects- the then Solar Max satellite used an active cavity radiometer (ACRIM) to measure temperature increases arising from higher activity – especially as generated by more convection at the periphery of large spots. The differential was something on the order of 0.1C at the Sun! Since the radiant energy must now transit 150 million kilometers, and its intensity falls off as the inverse square, one can see this would translate into negligible increases at Earth.
What about longer period increases in solar luminosity associated with its possibly being a variable star – as opposed to sporadic sunspot outbursts?
The maximal magnitude of inherent solar -induced climate variability was probably first highlighted by Sabatino Sofia et al in their paper Solar Constant: Constraints on Possible Variations Derived from Solar Diameter Measurements, in Science, Vol. 204, 1306, 1979. Their estimate was a solar change in irradiance of roughly 0.1 % averaged over each solar cycle. (Irradiance is a measure of the energy per square meter received from the Sun).
Thus – if the solar irradiance effect at Earth (solar constant) is normally about 1360 watts/m^2, this would imply an increase of roughly 1.36 W/m^2.. The problem is that there is no observational evidence to support this in the warming period of the 12th century, or any time in the past century – when global warming spiked to serious levels. (Some like Sofia have argued that even if it had occurred, it would only engender a temp. increase contribution of perhaps one-fourth of one degree, or significantly less than what has been documented.
More recent space-based observations appear to show a variation in solar irradiance of at least 0.15% over the standard 11-year solar cycle. (E.g. Parker, E.N., Nature, Vol. 399, p. 416). However, even with this higher percentage ascribed to solar changes, the heating effect is nowhere near comparable to that induced from man-made global warming. (See, e.g. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764).
As the authors in the latter study point out, the heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions from 1861-1990 amounted to anywhere from 2.0 to 2.8 watts per square meter. The solar variability component detected over the same period amounted to 0.1 to 0.5 watts per square meter. Thus, even the MAXIMUM solar variability amounted to only a fraction (25%) of the MINIMUM power input from human-induced greenhouse warming!
Most serious climate researchers (such as Gunther Weller – who was at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks when I was there) already believe we're in the first stages of a positive feedback, non-linear effect that is leading right into the maw of the runaway greenhouse. Though most will not own up to it publicly for fear of raising alarm.
The basis has already been described by Sagan and others: Melting of ice caps (already occurring) results in diminished albedo (reflection of solar radiation back into space), and a darker Earth surface - with more IR (infrared or heat energy) absorbed - enhancing global warming. At the same time global warming is accelerated in the oceans, and both El Nino and La Nina are ramped up in the unfolding panorama of global warming (cf. S. George Philander in Eos, March 31, 1998, ‘Who is El Nino?’) . In the meantime, we have new evidence that the melting permafrost (e.g. in Alaska) is releasing 25- 100 times more greenhouse gas as methane and CO2.
As more ice melts from the polar regions, positive feedback proceeds faster. The overall (mean) ocean temperature continues to rise - ultimately becoming too hot for any marine life- and reaching equilibrium temperature somewhere in the next 500 years. All ocean currents, circulation systems will, of course, cease. With atmospheric circulation soon following (as on Venus) , all solar energy going into heating the oceans until their specific heat capacity is reached.
Of course, long before this we will be in a state of emergency. When I was at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK I used to chat with some of the Atmospheric scientists there. Almost all agreed that what we may have on our hands will be many times worse than the Luis Alvarez' proposed extinction asteroid impact of 65 million years ago.
People - when they talk blithely and ignorantly of 'adjusting' simply have no idea of how bad it can get. Or that a 'runaway greenhouse' (such as converted Venus to a hellhole) is more than possible. Can they 'adjust' to global mean air temperatures of 60 C (yes, that's Celsius degrees)? I don't think so, especially as all the oceans will have boiled away!Yet, this is our inevitable fate if we don't get a handle on the problem RIGHT NOW. Before the 'runaway' sets in when CO2 starts to be 'out-gassed' from the oceans, and all the trillions of tonnes of carbonate rocks on the planet.
Long before that, of course, a host of exotic diseases will have spread across the world and wrought havoc - and all the fools clamoring for warm temperatures will wish otherwise with the first case of amoebic dysentery or dengue hemorrhaghic fever. Especially as we're already losing efficacy of anti-biotics from over-use(See, e.g. Global Climate and Infectious Disease: The Cholera Paradigm, in Science, Vol. 274, 20 December, 1996, p. 2025.)
And I won't even go into the tech predictions of regularly fried power-grids because so many teeming millions are trying to keep cool.
The late Carl Sagan noted in a CNN interview (with Ted Turner) ca. 1989 (still have it on tape) that the limits for catastrophic climate change- we're talking species exterminating magnitude- are not as high as many think. In fact, he cited the tolerance increment of six degrees Celsius. When global mean temps. veer past that, watch out. Right now - from all data collected- we appear to be approaching a 2 degrees Celsius increase, possibly more, by 2100.
Even if we initiated massive emissions cutbacks today it may be inadequate, since the carbon dioxide deposition time (time for it to remain in the atmosphere and create problems) approaches 100 years, as Sagan (and others) have also noted. Thus, the climate change we're seeing NOW, is really traceable to the conditions of CO2 concentration from ca. 1903!!!Our CO2 inputs, will become recognized ca. 2103. And be added to the cumulative total at THAT time..
Now, while not everyone yet agrees we are in such an emergency – most climate scientists of any repute argue that we cannot afford the luxury of waiting any longer for “absolute proof” to arrive. We must act now to initiate credible policy changes (not merely exchanging "carbon credits") or face dire consequences – and have future generations curse us forever for our inertia and inaction.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)