This Fundie Blogger Needs to Look at Himself in the Mirror

Well, you can never expect too much intellectual heft from the fundies! Perhaps this is why they are often regarded as the bottom feeders of the intellectual totem pole. See e.g. Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 15, No. 2, 2009) on how hard core religious belief correlates with lower I.Q.  

Evidently, much of the I.Q. drop can be attributed to a deficit in  ACH thinking - or abstract, categorical and hypothetical  conceptualizing- which appears to be mostly missing from believers' brain tool kits. This sort of thinking figures prominently on many IQ tests (such as the Raven's and Wechsler Similarities tests). Such tests feature many questions which construct an abstract hypothetical from a particular category, then ask the person to predict the consequences, if any.

And so the fundie blogger who ripped into my niece with cancer as a "Satanic tool" has now fired back again, but insists I am the "moron" here, when he up to now, has not addressed the issue of belief relativism from four blogs ago! Instead he yammers at me for holding him to the moral absolutist standards which HE himself has demanded (from his Bible) , and which in earlier blogs he maintained can't be countermanded or contradicted!

But the tap dancing he produces is probably more than I've ever seen a fundie do before. Let's get a look at how he tries to squirm out of his own demands and principles, while tossing his 'good Book' under the proverbial bus..

He begins, referencing my blog on confusing belief and moral relativism:

"He claims that the Bible (which, to him is a "fairy tale" and "myth,"  but nonetheless he habitually quotes from it), cannot be taken literally. His reasoning? Well, besides listening too much to Satan, he doesn't understand the word "literal" in it's proper (biblical) context, as well as comprehending which parts are  figures of speech within its pages"

 

Well, evidently his I.Q. isn't even at room temperature magnitude, else he'd grasp that I quote the Bible to hold his own good Book up to his face - and then let him contradict himself, as he's predictably done.  The splitting of the content into "literal in its proper context" and "figures of speech" is also choice, as it discloses the guy isn't serious about the principle of biblical inerrancy and instead has a cafeteria outlook in which he picks and chooses which phrases he will treat literally and which "figuratively". But that doesn't wash! As we learned in Biblical Exegesis at Loyola University, if you adopt a "figurative" basis, i.e. regarding some passages as metaphors only - say like "it's raining cats and dogs" - then you aren't taking it literally!

Interestingly, he brings up the "cats and dogs" analogy:

"An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "its raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky (though I may have my doubts about this guy)"

Clever but not clever enough! For one thing no biblical verse contains that particular figure of speech, so it's immaterial to the issue of LITERAL BIBLICAL interpretation. BUT....Mr. Fundie DOES absolutely 100% believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale and remained in its stomach acid for THREE days and emerged alive! NO "figure of speech" there! He believes it word for word, absolutely! Oh, oh, .....but it's now in the correct "biblical context'. See what I mean about tap dancing!  Yet in the same blog he scribbles:

"When we Christians say we take the Bible literally, we do so because we not only can take it literally, but we must take the Bible literally!"


So what is it, Roscoe? Do YOU take the book (actually 66, written over 1,000 odd years) literally or not? Well, again he insists fundies MUST take it literally, but earlier he's back pedaled and insisted "only in certain contexts" and I am "a moron" for not seeing them. Errr.....if you can believe in a man being swallowed by a whale and living in its stomach acid for 3 days before coming out alive, I don't think you know what's to be taken literally and what isn't. In that case, I suggest you take a good long gaze into the mirror, as reflected in the image above (which he actually put on his blog to depict me.)

But let's cut to the chase to the specific moral absolutist biblical references I gave from his good book. Regarding the first, from Kings, he blabbers:

"Mr. Athiest then refers to 2 Kings 2:23:24, which tells us:

"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

  Mr. Athiest then writes:
"That means that any kid or kids that diss a religious elder, disrespects him, ought to be taken to the nearest wild animal lair (zoo?) and thrown to the grizzlies or whatever."

See what I mean about him abandoning his God-given common sense and replacing it with Satan's 'commentary'?"  

So, allow me to enlighten him . And I have explained this to him about a year or so ago,  but as always, when he finds himself in a proverbial checkmate, Satan smacks him with amnesia!  To understand the verse in context, we must realize that this group of boys were from Bethel, the religious center of idolatry in the Northern Kingdom, and they probably were warning Elisha not to speak against their immorality as Elisha had done. They were not merely "teasing" Elisha about his bald head, but showing severe disrespect for Elisha's message and God's power! They may also have mocked him because of their disbelief in the flaming chariot that had taken Elisha. When Elisha cursed them, he did not call out the bears himself! GOD sent them as a judgment for their callous unbelief!"

 
Oh, OH!! They weren't merely teasing but showing SEVERE DISRESPECT for his message and power! And lo and behold, it wasn't Elisha who gave the kill order, but GOD! Gimme an effin' break already! But again, the change in killer doesn't change the stance of moral absolutism. So the fundie must find some way out of the corner into which he's boxed himself with his bollocks. So he writes:


"These punks made fun of God's messenger and paid for it with their lives!"

Well, now it's all very clear! You make fun of "God's messenger" and you pay with your life! So, we must wonder then if he will follow this absolutist stance of his deity. Here's the key: Is a moral act good of its own or is it good because God ordains it? God ordained the Ten Commandments according to the fundies, after all, so they carry them out to a tee. But it seems when "God" murders mocking youths, the fundies are more inclined to back away: "HEY! It's God's doin' it ain't mine!"  Anyone smell incoherence here? Anyone smell bull shit?

He goes on to try to clarify the Kings interpretation for all of us 'dummies': He insists that:

" the  'little children' in the story "has been grossly misunderstood and misinterpreted. The Hebrew ne'arim qetanim can legitimately be translated "young lads." Solomon was called a "little child" when he took the throne (1 Kings 3:7), yet Solomon was an adult...a full grown MAN! The bottom line is, these were then no ordinary "innocent little kids" - but a band of full-grown rowdy teenage punks, who are to this day STILL burning in HELL!

Well at least he's cleared that up for us! Sheesh!

Our fable-brained fundie goes on to the next biblical reference:

"Our little lost atheist friend, then cites Deut. 21: 18-21:If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear"

Our atheist  friend, then opines:

:The next biblical , moral absolutist example from Deuteronomy, gives moral license for parents who get sass - say from a teen - to drag him to the edge of town and let the "elders" stone him to death. Say what?"

"Now, first off, the punishment of an incorrigible son seems severe on the surface, but an examination of the text reveals the severity of the young MAN's problem. You see, in OT times, the elders of the city were to hear the case at the city gate, which was the seat of town authority; public affairs were discussed there (22:15; 25:7). When the parents accused their son of being stubborn and rebellious, such a charge was almost proof in itself. The heart of a loving father and mother could not be brought to such a point unless their child's sin was a fact. But the guilt of the son was more than just disobedience. Our friend needs to note the text: "he is a glutton, and a drunkard."

This charge showed that the son was unmanageable and incorrigible. The punishment was stoning to death by the men of the town, not by the father and mother. The basis of such severe punishment was the idea that if a MAN would not obey his parents, he would not obey God, nor was he likely to obey civil authority. Punishing the incorrigible son was punishing crime in its embryonic form.

Our friend (if he were to have studied, like I had, in my formal biblical studies, Old Testament Survey-BBL 101), he would have learned that although this was an OT law, there is absolutely no biblical or archaeological evidence that this punishment was ever carried out! But the point was that disobedience and rebellion were not to be tolerated in the home or allowed to continue unchecked! Obviously (here comes God-given common sense again), these principles must never be used to justify or overlook abuse or harsh treatment of children!"

Woah! Talk about scurrying all over the place to find excuses! I can't count them all. Let's see: "the parents didn't kill the lad, the elders did" (But I never said the parents did it. I said they took the kid to the edge of town and the elders offed him!)  Wait! The son was really a "glutton" and "drunkard" so THAT was the reason to smite him down! Wait again! Though it was an Old Testament law "there's no evidence the punishment was actually carried out."   Holy shit! Does this mean this hyper-parsing character isn't really a biblical literalist, and he actually admits to EVIDENCE before accepting a passage inerrantly?

 Maybe, but he does try to clear it up one last time:

  "Our poor confused friend would also have learned that the OT consisted of three kinds of laws: civil (as was the case in Deut. 21:18-21); ceremonial (e.g., animal sacrifices in which the animal had to be spotless; the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal; and, the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided a temporary covering of sins. Another sacrifice called for on the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin); and the moral law, which we are to strive to obey today."  


Jeezus Peace, now I have seen the light! I failed to parse the difference between "civil, ceremonial and moral laws"!  Talk about bullshit and bollocks! No wonder James Allen Cheyne in his Skeptic magazine piece, noted the lack of ACH thinking and conceptualizing is the most critical deficit in low I.Q. scores for fundies, and may also account for what their brains are 10-20% smaller (in other research).   I am still prepared to say there's a more physical basis for fundagelical moron-hood and it's implicit in what I expatiated on in my earlier blog on religious absolutism: the OAA region of the brain co-opts neurological function and redirects it. Thus, beliefs become literally as important as life and death, so it's no surprise that to protect them the believers will go to extraordinary lengths to rationalize their crappola, as this guy has done here. 


 In the end, there are two things that emerge concerning our addle-pated fundie friend: 1) He really isn't a biblical literalist, since he can find any justification he wants to make exceptions (i.e. he can take Jonah being swallowed by a whale and living 3 days inside it literally, but not a son being stoned to death for being "incorrigible"), and 2) He really isn't a moral absolutist, since even he can find rationalizations for not doing what the cruel, inhuman barbarians did in the Old Testament, or what its vicious cartoon deity did in the name of ....whatever..  

What we can conclude from this, as George Carlin once aptly put it,  is that bull shit, especially of the religious kind, is the most powerful in human history.

College Students Mired in Paranormal Beliefs?

The Skeptical Inquirer issue from Jan./Feb. 2006 contains some astounding data based on surveys and statistical research into the prevalence of paranormal beliefs (e.g. astrology, ESP, haunted houses, demons and demonic possession, ghosts, clairvoyance and communication with the dead).

One of their perhaps not so surprising findings was that Americans lead the believer list along with residents of The Czech Republic and Bulgaria. For example, 54% of Americans were found to believe in psychics, 42% in haunted houses, and 41% in demonic possession and demons.These percentages are similar to those in the two aforementioned countries.


This defies comprehension in ordinary contexts, to the extent of inviting cognitive dissonance. In other words, how can arguably the most advanced technological nation on the planet, which only months ago succeeded in landing a sophisticated craft (Curiosity) on Mars, have so many citizens who also accept demon possession and that “demons” actually exist? It boggles the mind, but the authors of the article give some reasons, most of which are based on earlier data-findings.

Among the primary contributors to this dismal picture:

1) The media enables this baloney! All too often TV hosts or shows bring on a bandwagon of nuts, and never challenge them. You will see, for example, the authors of the ‘Left Behind’ series being interviewed but their stupid beliefs, e.g. in the “rapture” or “demons” or “the Antichrist” are never seriously challenged. In an earlier blog, recall I referenced Charles Pierce’s work on how the media enables religious crappola in general, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/12/idiocy-beyond-belief-charles-pierce.html


It can then be argued that the hyper-religiosity already pervasive in the country has sown the fertile soil for all manner of whacky beliefs across the paranormal spectrum. After all, if one can believe in clairvoyance or haunted houses it’s but a small step to believe in living demons or demonic possession.


2) Errors in human cognition. Many of these I’ve discussed before in terms of brain architecture and how certain brain regions (e.g. OAA) can distort reality and incept peculiar beliefs. It has been found in line with this that people often selectively confirm their supporting biases. (E.g. Moony, C: Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 27, No. 6, p. 35) For example, a fundie who already believes in the Armageddon nonsense, will see any attacks on Israel, or the rise of someone he doesn’t like (e.g. Obama) as confirming his ignorant beliefs. Add in assorted major earthquakes, storms etc. and ‘Voila!’ you have the “signs of the end times”! Never mind that 12-15 major earthquakes occur each year on our planet, and powerful storms are always possible – especially now with global warming ramping up.


3) Lower Intelligence, I.Q. scores. This factor can’t be discounted. Killeen and Wildman ( ‘Superstitiousness and Intelligence’ in Psychological Reports, 1974, Vol. 46, pp. 479-82) found that high school students with higher I.Q. score were less superstitious than students with lower I.Q. scores. They were less likely to believe in haunted houses, ghosts, demons and ESP. Meanwhile, Messer and Griggs (‘Teaching of Psychology’, 1989, Vol. 16, p. 187)found that as paranormal beliefs increased, grades decreased.


This brings us to higher education which one might expect would dampen down such tendencies by virtue of encouraging critical thinking, deeper analyses. However, the evidence is not inspiring. The Skeptical Inquirer piece notes Sweden’s Lund University had just appointed professorships in parapsychology, hypnology and clairvoyance. Meanwhile, Edinburgh University in Scotland and Utrecht University in The Netherlands already have established chairs in parapsychology.


What about the students? The article notes that a comprehensive 2001 survey revealed college educated young people are more likely to believe in haunted houses, witches, ghosts and clairvoyance than older Americans. On the good side, they were less likely to believe in demons or demonic possession than older ‘Muricans. But this is generally in line with another finding that belief in demonic possession, demons, ghosts, channelling and  (horological) astrology increases as educational level decreases.

In general then, the dumbest and least educated people will be more likely to believe the most far out nonsense. But, there is a spike in nonsensical belief for certain college –level Americans. By assessing for different “paranormal dimensions” , e.g. ESP, demons, channeling, clairvoyance, telepathy, spiritual healing, astrology, the survey researchers gauged degree of belief based on college year level. Their findings were interesting, in terms of the college year vs. percentage of believers:

Freshmen (23%)

Sophomores (26%)

Juniors (27%)

Seniors (31%)

Graduate students (34%)


A pertinent question is why does the percentage of believers increase as the college level increases. As the survey authors put it:

“Our results reveal a distinct pattern regarding educational level: As educational level increases, belief across all thirteen paranormal dimensions increases”.


The good news? The participants in the survey were decidedly more skeptical of certain areas, including: demons, demonic possession, ghosts, witches, clairvoyance, haunted houses and spiritual healing. This suggests that certain “paranormal” dimensions were not really considered paranormal by the college students, and this reverse skepticism increases as college level increased. This may well explain why the percentage of believers increases as educational level increases. For example, included among the paranormal dimensions were: that extraterrestrial beings have visited Earth, reincarnation, ESP and astrology. Arguably then, a preponderance of students may have been less convinced of the dubious nature of any of these than say, demons, demonic possession.

ET visitations might not be regarded as so preposterous in the context that advanced students may have considered that humans – a puny species if ever there was one- have managed to send craft (Voyager I, II) out of the solar system, so there may well have been other advanced beings who landed on our planet in the distant past. It is certainly more believable than demons!

Meanwhile, ESP may not be that difficult to accept given many students may already have been aware that Duke University actually sponsored experiments in this under J.B. Rhine. More than a few students may be also be familiar with the experiments of Dr. Robert G. Jahn showing how student participants could (telekinetically) disturb random number generators on computers, as published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. As for astrology, that has been on college campuses since the year dot. College kids since I’ve gone to school have exchanged their “Sun signs” and often used that as a basis to assess whether one is “compatible” or not. I am not saying astrology is “true” or acceptable, only that its very endurance in the college environment may have engendered its acceptance among disproportionate numbers of college students.


One saving grace in the findings was that those students enrolled as physical or biological science majors were numbered amongst the least likely to believe across all paranormal areas. Those enrolled in Education and Social Science featured the highest proportions of believers (29% and 31% respectively). Business Administration students were also close to science students in degree of skepticism, though their sample numbers were relatively small.

Perhaps in future, a more comprehensive survey- analysis might be carried out, eliminating "borderline" paranormal dimensions and sticking to the over the top beliefs  - like ghosts, haunted houses, channelling and demons-demon possession. We might then be able to extract much more signal from the noise!

Will Reeps Use Nate Silver's Health Stats to Try To Gut Medicare?

The ominous notes sounded yesterday, from Mitch McConnell and other Reeps, signals they are determined to carve out as much as they can from Medicare - either forcing the program to delay enrollment of seniors until 67, or imposing steep cuts and premium hikes.

After seeing all my recent copies of paid for Medicare bills, the very thought gives me nightmares as it should anyone approaching Medicare enrollment age.

No one certainly wants to go back to the pre-Medicare era, as depicted in the accompanying image- when oldsters had to sign away their homes, to get medical help or to depend on their grown children to co-sign loans or take 2nd mortgages.

Thus, it has to disturb many true liberals to know that just 4 days ago, Nate Silver- in a much-discussed post in The New York Times  “What Is Driving Growth in Government Spending?”   -  made a statistical case that can easily be appropriated and exploited by the Republican House and its Tea Party Cabal. After going through assorted healthcare numbers, Silver wrote:

"All of the major categories of government spending have been increasing relative to inflation. But essentially all of the increase in spending relative to economic growth, and the potential tax base, has come from entitlement programs, and about half of that has come from health care entitlements specifically.


The growth in health care expenditures, for better or worse, is not just a government problem: private spending on health care is increasing at broadly the same rates and is eating up a larger and larger share of economic activity. It’s an immensely complicated problem, but the arithmetic is simple: if we can’t slow the rate of growth in health care expenditures, we’ll either have to raise taxes, cut other government spending or continue to run huge deficits. Or we could hope to grow our way out of the problem, but health care expenditures may be impeding private-sector growth as well."

For sure, Silver in exclusively looking at the hard numbers is quite correct, and health care is driving inflation. It is also a no-brainer that as a country we have to get health care costs under control. But that doesn’t necessarily mean what diehard Tea Party folks or Paul Ryan types might think it means, i.e. massive spending cuts.  The reason is that to impose austerity-based medical spending cuts would be to treat the symptom, not the cause. We need to fix the cause.

If we instead are driven like lemmings to cut, then providing less health care only means people have to go elsewhere (or nowhere), which has terrible effects on the people — and ultimately on the economy.   How can sick people, impoverished people, be free people or contributors? They can't!

What is the solution? As I noted in an earlier blog, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-cant-colorado-follow-grand-junction.html

It is to adopt the same model used in Grand Junction, CO for the whole nation. To summarize: The template provides the basis for a standard set of costs-prices for all procedures, whether appendectomies, gall bladder removal, or open heart surgery. Thus, according to a standard cost set, each procedure will have its assigned, designated prices- say $11,000 for an appy, $35,000 for open heart surgery...whatever. No more charging one guy $60 grand and another $30 grand for the same surgery. Also no more charging $34,000 in Miami for a cardiac procedure, and only $14,000 in Fairbanks, AK. ALL procedures are set with the same prices!

The model was popularized in T.R. Reid's  PBS effort,  "U.S. Health Care: The Good News" . Reid traveled to three distinct U.S. municipalities - not Communist Cuba or anywhere "socialist" - where every person including the uninsured received medical care, and no one was turned away....not even Medicaid patients! The places included Seattle, and Evergreen, Washington, and Grand Junction, Colorado. In the last, Reid found an eminently rational model in which all patients are pooled together in one risk pool to lower the cost for all. All physicians in Grand Junction sign on to take any and all comers, no one indiscriminately turned away for whatever reason....whether Medicaid (low rates of pay, paperwork) or the uninsured. Any physician who doesn't agree is excluded from the Main physician network. He can go it alone and catch as catch can. Readers can watch its implementation as portrayed on PBS:


http://video.pbs.org/video/2198039605/

Note also, that instead of separating all medical procedures and costs they'd be unified as one single cost - say for a prostate cancer HDR treatment. Thus, instead of a medical center or hospital expensing multiple items for a prostate cancer procedure, e.g., from anesthesia ($4,124), to radiology services ($16,768), to recovery room ($2, 090), to operating room services ($14,994) with the bill totalling $42, 776  for all added up, we see just one bill for all integrated services directed at the ONE primary procedure..   In effect, perhaps a bill for $28,000 instead.

Is this do-able?  Of course! If Grand Junction and the other towns -cities Reid visited could do it, so could the nation! One more thing, we can also help lower medical drug costs by allowing the government to bargain for prescriptions like the VA. No, those of us no Medicare didn't fight in any bogus "wars" - but that should not matter. We are all citizens and as citizens we certainly deserve the same standards of care as anyone who by choice served in the military! To separate citizens out on the merits of 'military' service is a fool's errand.

The final goal: "Medicare for all", as opposed to a private insurance company based plan where people who may not be able to afford it have to cough up for private insurance policies. Then halfwits saying this is "universal healthcare'.  No it is not, it is a weak semblance of universal private insurance coverage paid by citizens themselves!

We can do it! If we can blow $1.2 trillion a year on useless miltary BS we can help our citizens toward their own domestic security!

A Look At Continued Fractions & Diophantine Equations

An area of ongoing interest, historical and otherwise, is that pertaining to Diophantine Equations, which includes the use of continued fractions (see image) and the Euclidean algorithm. The latter is especially useful for solving Diophantine equations, as well as generating continued fractions such as those shown.Continued fractions, for their part, are key aspects of a branch of higher arithmetic known as 'Diophantine analysis'.

A Diophantine equation "is an algebraic equation in one or more unknowns, with integer coefficients, for which integer solutions are sought", according to the authors of 'What is Mathematics?'.  They add that such an equation may "have no solutions, a finite number of solutions or an infinite number." As the simplest example of such an equation they give: ax + by = c.

Here, a, b and c denote integers and the equation needs to be solved for x and y, and ideally these solutions are integers, not fractions.  At this point, we have to cut to the Euclidean algorithm and how it's used.  A general theorem may be stated thus: If a is any integer, and b is any integer greater than zero, then we can always find an integer q such that:

a = b*q + r

where r is an integer satisfying the inequality:  0 < r < b

A general task is to find the “greatest common divisor” (gcd)  of a and b, called d(a,b). If d = (a,b)then positive or negative integers k and m can always be found such that:  d = ka + mb

This proceeds by successive divisions with remainders. As an example, consider the Euclidean algorithm for finding (a,b) = (61, 24). Here gcd or greatest common divisor is 1 and we find:


61 = 2*24 + 13

24 = 1*13 + 11

13 = 1*11 + 2

11 = 5*2 + 1

2 = 2*1 + 0

From the 1st equation we have: 13 = 61 - 2*24

From the end of the second result we get:


11 = 24 – 13 = 24 - 61 - 2*24 = -61 + 3*24

From the third:


2 = 13 – 11 = (61 – 2*24) – (-61 + 3*24) = 2*61 – 5*24


From the fourth:

1 = 11 – 5*2 = (-61 + 3*24) – 5(2*61 – 5*24) = -11.61 + 28*2

Apart from these operations, we can also use the Euclidean algorithm to compute continued fractions. Examples are shown in Fig. 1. Now, let’s look more closely at continued fractions. We see in Fig, 1 how 2/5 is converted into a continued fraction.

We look, for example,  at 169/70 and seek the continued fraction development:

169/70 = 2 + 29/70 = 2 + 1/70/29

 70/29 = 2 + 12/29 = 2 + 1/ (29/12)


29/12 = 2 + 5/18 = 2 + 1/ (12/5)


12/5 = 2 + 2/5 = 2 + 1/(5/2)

And: 5/2 = 2 ½ = 2 + ½


Thus 169/70 is developed as shown (Fig. 1) with result = 2.414

Let's now see how the preceding operations can be used to solve a Diophantine equation. In particular, we want to solve: 7x + 11y = 13   We proceed by working with 7 and 11, respectively, using the Euclidean algorithm.

Thus:   11 = 1*7 + 4  and 7 = 1*4 + 3  

We see remainder 4 for the first, so use the algorithm again, so: 4 = 1*3 + 1

 Then we can write: (7, 11) = 1  

Meanwhile, the remainder of 1 (after working on remainder 4) is dealt with, so:   1 = 4 - 3 = 4 - (7 - 4) = 2*4 - 7 = 2 (11 - 7) - 7 =  2*11 - 3*7

 Therefore:   7*(-3) + 11(2) = 1   and   7*(-39) + 11(26) = 13

 From the last equation we see that x = -39 and y = 26.

All other solutions can be expressed in terms of x and y -values with a remainder r (integer), so that:  
x = -39 + 11r  and y = 26 - 7r  

For example, let r = 1, then x = (-39) + 11 = - 28 is also a solution.  Similarly, let r = 1 and y = 26 -7(1) = 26 - 7 = 19 is also a solution.  

In summary then, the linear Diophantine equation of form ax + by = c has a solution in integers if and only if c is a multiple of (a, b). In this case, a particular solution may be found using the Euclidean algorithm.  


Problems for the Math Maven:

  1) Carry out the Euclidean algorithm for finding the greatest common divisor of (187, 77)

2) Reduce (245, 193) via the Euclidean Algortihm:

3) Using the Euclidean Algorithm show the continued fraction for:  (237/ 139)

4) Solve the Diophantine equation: 3x - 4y = 29

Good luck!

Fundie Confuses Belief Relativism with Moral Relativism

It appears that yesterday's blog on religious absolutism confused a fundagelical blogger to no end, since he ended up writing a veritable mini-dissertation on "moral relativism" when the issue was generic belief and whether an absolutist stance was justifiable. In other words, that a given human could cordon off his beliefs as being invested in absolute truth to the exclusion of all other contesting claims.

As I showed in the blog, this isn't possible since a specific brain region, the OAA (orientation association area) determines the belief system in each of us, to the extent that the brain ultimately plays the major role. Since each human brain is different, and the OAA will vary in cognitive function from brain to brain (Neuro-scientist Andrew Newberg distinguishes causality cognitive functions, from reductive and holistic cognitive functions, for example) then the beliefs we choose will reflect that biological brain disposition. Thus, an atheist, for example, will manifest a very high reductive cognitive function, in addition to very low dopamine levels, according to Newberg. A Fundie will typically display a very high causality cognitive function, overlaid by primitive fears issuing from the amygdala. Hence, he will make a causal link between that fear and the "God" he believes in.

Because many of these propensities are also experience-based, it means that beliefs are themselves relative. They can't be absolutely determined because the brain is not an absolute entity, or organ, say with infinite neural capacity. Indeed, even it's basic neural processing is defective.  To be specific, the brain forms some construct [C] which is derived from an original event [E] : {a, b, c, d, e} where the bracketed set denotes component subsets with likely differing time intervals t1, t2, t3, t4, and t5. Thus, the brain processing for outer events is always via the template:


[E] -> [C]


And [C] => {a(t1 +t), b(t2 + t), c(t3 + t), d(t4 + t), e(t5 + t)}

Where, say t = 1 sec, the consciousness ‘delay’ interval. This means that all our experiences, apperceptions are second hand only, not direct. There is inevitably a tiny time delay wherein we fabricate our subjective realities, including our beliefs. The particular bias of the OAA determines what these beliefs will ultimately be. They do not emerge already formed, constant or absolute, and hence must be relative only. However, this is not the same as MORAL relativism. Nor is the claim for belief relativism to be conflated with arguing for moral relativism.

To make this clearer still, the previous blog focused on religious systems. What is the central object for belief in all religious systems? It is none other than "God". But writing or saying the word is easier than defining it, hence the implicit relativism of belief. Because no two humans of different belief systems can concur on what the word means, then the quest is open ended. Citing Bible quotes to locate the identity or nature of "God" is also no use, since those ancient scripture writers were merely providing their own interpretations. Thus, it amounts to simply parroting of ancient constructs.

This is what led author James Byrne in his book, ‘GOD’, to write: 

"The idea of God as Being is the creation of the philosophical gaze, a result of the drive to objectification which is the hallmark of the history of metaphysics. It is the `God' which is argued about in theism and atheism, and which can only be a projection of humans"


In other words, a relative construct. Byrne thus endorses French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion’s ploy of only writing ‘God’ with a strikethrough, e.g. GOD. Thereby to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. In effect, as Byrne observes “to think GOD as unthinkable is to reject the idolatry of the God of onto-theology.”


If then the entity is so de-conceptualized, it can’t be debated. (Or perhaps more accurately, such a debate will always prove fruitless or futile since incomplete definitions and contradictions will always emerge – one reason why giving necessary and sufficient conditions for existence may be preferable).   But this simply brings us back full circle to the arguments made in the previous blog: that it is the OAA that directs specific belief toward the imaged object of belief ("God"), hence rendering all such brain-engendered objects RELATIVE. This was clearly too subtle a point for the Inquisition's torturers to grasp, nor would they have been the least bit interested.  No, they'd have just set to work ripping out intestines, genitals or tongues....only concerned that THEIR "God" had been rejected by witch, unbeliever or heretic!  Recall the quote I provided in highlighted ink at the end of the last blog. Referencing it,  the authors (Newberg and D’Aquili) go on to say (p. 163):

“The God Armstrong describes is the God of witch hunts, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, fundamentalist intolerances, and countless other forms of religious persecution- all carried out with the confident presumption of divine endorsement. The authority to commit such atrocities is rooted in the assumption, made by believers – that their God is the only God and their religion is the single, exclusive path to truth. As God’s chosen people they believe they have the right to oppose the ‘enemies’ of God….”

The error is made because these ardent believers fail to see the "God" they are so diligently worshipping is a product of their OAA brain propensities!

  In the same way, the point seems too subtle for our fundie blogger to grasp, since he launches into a long jeremiad against moral relativism and for moral absolutism.  But let's pursue that line of argument, noting first that the issue of moral philosophy and dialectic is subsidiary one to the central object of belief, for the analogous reason that one's moral position is subsidary to one's version of "God". In other words, it is generally one's adopted "God"  which determines one's moral position, level of moral authority, etc.  If one's "God" construct issuing from one's OAA is punitive, then so also will be one's morality.


So what about moral absolutism? Can it be defended as the fundie claims it can?  There is perhaps no better place to start than from the Fundie's own "good Book" which he literally believes, and obviously - if he does so- it is logical to expect he will adopt its absolutist morality literally as well. If he doesn't, then we can argue he doesn't know what he really believes, and we can call his central object of belief ("God") into question as well!

Consider these examples:

2 Kings 2, 23:24  (Concerning Elisha siccing "God's She Bears'" on little children) "And he went up from then unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him and said unto him: 'Go up, thou bald head, go up , thou bald head'. And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and teared up forty and two children of them"

You can find a satirical re-enactment of the Kings reference here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/bible_story_reenactments.php


Also, consider:

Deut. 21: 18-21: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and - though they chastise him he will not give heed to them, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the  place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of the city,'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones, so you shall purge the evil from your midst"

So, by the fundie's own absolutist morality, the first example would mean that any kid or kids that diss a religious elder, disrespects him, ought to be taken to the nearest wild animal lair (zoo?) and thrown to the grizzlies or whatever. The Fundie can argue all he wants that we "can't do that today", but if he does he contradicts his own edicts of biblical moral absolutism! Is the Bible then correct to present this, or was it wrong? Well, for sure any modern day religious moral absolutist emulators would be locked up with the key tossed away today, or maybe given a lethal injection! (Say for getting a pet grizzly and sending him after some kids who were calling him “baldy”.)

The next biblical , moral absolutist example from Deuteronomy, gives moral license for parents who get sass - say from a teen - to drag him to the edge of town and let the "elders" stone him to death. Say what? Can't do that in modern times, 'cause the cops will get you? Sorry, Bubba, then you punted! You have no absolutist morality if you're not willing to faithfully follow your own good Book!

Of course, this shows that the whole principle of moral absolutism is poppycock, because when presented by its most dogmatic form the believers themselves punt. They talk a good talk but refuse to walk the walk!  The danger of moral absolutism is also what led Jacob Bronowski to remark, when he visited the remains of the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz during the filming of the BBC's 'Ascent of Man':

"This was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave."

In other words, neither the Nazis dispatching 6 million Jews to the ovens, nor the Inquisitioners who disembowelled 1 million heretics, witches and 'unbelievers', paused for a moment to think they might not possess absolute moral knowledge. Oh no, they were sure they had, so they could exterminate those they believed inferior (because of their differing beliefs) any way they wished.

Nor can we allow cultural moral relativists to have their way. Just because wives who stray are permitted to be severely beaten (and sometimes killed) in Brazil doesn't mean we allow it in the U.S. Hence, neither moral relativism or absolutism is the answer vis-a-vis morality.  On the contrary , if our moral insight has actually evolved, and emanates from biological markers and other (community) links (see e.g.  http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/01/jen-ratio-and-goodness-maybe-we-should.html ) then a truly balanced moral viewpoint is possible, when forged in tandem with the brain's prefrontal cortex.

Author Michael Shermer has coined the term, "moral provisionalism" or what I call "ethical incrementalism". As Shermer notes ('The Science of Good and Evil' p. 168):


"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"


Let's look at a few illustrations:


1) Abortion:

According to ethical incrementalism abortion cannot be ethical in ALL circumstances for all conditions. Thus, since  fetal brain waves appear past 6 months, NO abortions should normally be allowed in the third trimester. The only (provisional) exceptions would be: a) the health of the mother (e.g. if she were to have the child she'd die), or b) case of incest or rape - wherein having the child would create extreme mental trauma for the victim. (By that I mean possible psychosis or severe depression, including attempted suicide).

2) War:

In the judicious application of ethical incrementalism, NO war would be permitted in the U.S.A. unless an actual DECLARATION of WAR by congress is made. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights, and impart moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures...finagled outside the parameters of congressional validation.


3) Teen sexual behavior:
In the domain of ethical incrementalism, teens are warned that actual intercourse outside of a stable permanent relationship is ethically, morally toxic. As a midway position, however, teens are allowed - as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elder suggested- to obtain sexual relief via self-stimulation. This balance would immediately stop the increasing rates of teen pregnancy, though likely not without the benefit of a good sex ed. course, which must also include removing the stigma attached (by teen culture) to masturbation.

These are just a few examples, and many more might be cited or found. The point is that there is a middle way, and ethically conscientious humans ought to seek to pursue it - as opposed to pretensions to either a facile absolutism or equally facile relativism. The problem black and white, binary thinking-believing fundies have is they are hoist on their own absolutist petards. If they disavow the applications of the moral dictates in 2 Kings 2, 23:24 or Deut. 21: 18-21 then they are hypocrites, pure and simple - preaching one thing on their blogs, and practicing another in real life!

In any case, in the future - if they are truly serious - they need to address the matter of BELIEF relativism as a function of the human brain and the OAA region. If that's too much for them to handle.....well, then it's best they just admit the "God" they worship is more a cartoon than a reality!

 

Brain Studies Show Religious Absolutism Can't Be Defended

In the image shown, from 'A History Of Torture Through The Ages',  designated torturers from the Holy Inquisition are fervently applying assorted torments to a witch (far left), a generic "non-believer" (center) and a heretic. Their reasoning is simple:

They are so emphatically certain of their own religious truths, that they cannot abide any expression of anything contrary.  Hence, the witch who professes belief in Magic must be disembowelled, the unbeliever must have molten silver poured over his body, and the heretic - professing "untruths" - must have his ears, tongue cut out.  Now, by comparison, we examine below the words of a modern Fundamentalist Christian, from his blog - who saw my earlier blog on my niece who has cancer and how her spiritual  support system is Eckanckar.

"Eckankar is just another Satan-led religion to lead many well-meaning, albeit 'blind' souls to hell. The main reason that people cling to these false religions is mainly due to the fact that they seldom - if ever - talk and teach their followers about hell. They'll call us true Christians "hateful," "intolerant," "insensitive," and worse. Why? Because we tell them the truth...GOD'S TRUTH! ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Gal 4:16). However, what they miss is its because we love them as God's creations that we tell them and speak of hell. We would be remiss in our obligations as Christians if we did not!"

What is the commonality between the examples? Obviously,  the primary difference is that in the case of the devout Inquisitors - who fervently wish to save the trio they're working on from Hell's fires via physical torment (to get them to change before they die)-  their victims perish. In the case of the fundie's target, she merely gets dispatched to Hell, no pain in the current life. (Fortunately, Hell is a myth, but such overt oral-written consignment typically wreaks mental havoc on the less secure.)

The commonality, however, is the sense of absolutism : the conviction or firm belief that what the attacker upholds as "truth" is the final, absolute truth and there can be NO alternative. Nor can any remote difference be accepted. Thus,  the heretic, witch or unbeliever must be taken apart piece by bloody piece, just as the Eckanckar devotee must be consigned to Hell fire. Absolutist belief allows no wiggle room! "God" or whatever the engrained brain embolism is, has spoken! Now, check again the fundie's further words on Eckanckar:

"It is clear from the outset that this (Eckanckar) is a “religion” created by Satan, the father of lies. But it differs from the many other false religions in its dangerous practices of giving an opening to demonic forces. Satan is "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"


We also see here the emergence of an adjunct belief, in each case. To the Inquisitors, steadying their firm hands to rip flesh, castrate, scald or disembowel there was the underlying conviction that witches, unbelievers and heretics were each driven or possessed by "Satan". To the fundie, the follower of Eckanckar is opening herself to "demonic forces" and hence can be used by "Satan".

Now, it is possible to coolly analyze each of the examples, based on recent brain research, using actual scans from positron emission tomography (PET) or single photon emission tomography (SPECT) .  The data, results provide a look inside the brains of the believers forcing their agendas and dogmas, pet credos on others. The advantage of PET and SPECT scans is that they show the effects of active, resident beliefs in real time on the brains of firm believers. Not merely a static image. We see where the brain activity lights up as it were, and where it becomes more muted.

Much of the work has been published in the 2002 book Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief,   by neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili. Their main findings have to do with the OAA (orientation association area)  brain region. The authors note that in normal circumstances:

The OAA helps create a distinct, accurate sense of our physical orientation to the world. To do its job well….depends on a constant stream of nerve impulses from each of the body’s senses. The OAA sorts and processes these impulses virtually simultaneously during every moment of our lives”

However, in abnormal situations, or when abnormally strong beliefs are held, the OAA can be distorted. For example, a fundy given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it has his OAA go into overdrive within minutes.  Neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, show electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements actually revealed that as the subjects focused on an image of Christ, both the left and right association regions were activated. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance) of the OAA of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”. As the authors put it :

“ It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus”

In other words, belief in Jesus (and by proxy, his offer of "salvation")  became a matter of life or death. Newberg and D’Aquili go on to note that as the process of "re-cerebralization" continues, all irrelevant neural inputs are stripped away until the only reality left is Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby takes over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”

This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion (including their "good books")  based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA- or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus on his specific belief,  which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region. (As shown by the PET SPECT scans lighting up)

In the mind of the professed believer, focused on Jesus as his “Savior”, there is no possibility of leaving that focus behind because his OAA brain areas are now exclusively dependent on it for him to survive. Take them away, say by surgically removing the right attention areas of the OAA, and the person will die. He’ll either commit suicide, unable to ground himself in any continuous or recognizable reality, or he will go mad.

In other words, on having their brains' OAA regions adversely stimulated to negate their beliefs (or so they thought) both the Inquisitors and the Fundie were constrained to act in order to eject the challenging meme. The Inquisitors did it via tortures, and the Fundie by mentally dispatching his target to "Hell" - a lurid fairytale confected originally by the Mithraists but later plagiarized in Christian scriptures. (Lauran Paine, in his book, ‘The Heirarchy of Hell’ , observes that the Christian copyists did add further refinements in terms of a number of further denizens of Hell, including: wights, imps and demons. Of course, this compounds the nonsense of it all by the fact of wholesale confabulation and addle-pated frivolity.)

A more recent take on this hyper-belief dynamic has been provided by Michael Shermer in his (2011) book, The Believing Brain, wherein he uses an impressive compilation of research - from neuroscience, to biochemistry to evolutionary psychology- to show that belief inevitably trumps reason. Also, that in many ways, the unchecked brains of believers are like those of drug addicts run amuck...say on meth, or crack. As Shermer puts it:

“Our believing brain dictates what we are seeing!"

Thus, if a person doesn't wish to believe any contradictions exist in his bible he won't see them. He will simply explain any or all objections away by whatever rationalizing arguments he can muster. As an extension of this tendency, according to Shermer, the brains of believers actively seek out any and all sources and information which confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Meanwhile, they actively avert their eyes (and brains)from any information or sources that appear to controvert those beliefs. In this way, they protect their self-running program loops, and auto-approving brain dynamic while keeping irritating skeptics at bay.

Thus, sowing countervailing evidence or presenting rational counter arguments to either Fundie or Inquisitor would have no effect, because in order to accept them, each believer would have to get off his respective belief 'crack pipe'. But if they did that, their very existence would be threatened, since their undermined OAA brain regions would then reduce them to vegetables or total zombies. In other words, to preserve their identities via the OAA brain regions, they need to retain those absolutist beliefs.

Of course, since the beliefs are based in brain dynamics, they aren't real, and all end up as relative. The tragedy is neither Inquisitors or Fundies seem aware of how their own brains have played them.  In the end, the heretic's beliefs are no better or worse than the Inquisitors' Catholic ones, nor are the Eckist's beliefs (say in reincarnation)  any worse than the Fundie's. Though I will say they likely are since the Eckist makes no condemnatory word or gesture toward the Fundie, like he does to her. She then understands  - unlike the Fundie- the fragility and relativity of beliefs. Of course, the Fundie will insist he got his truths from the "Bible" but as we know that invention has multiple belief defects of its own, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/conversation-about-spirituality-with.html

More to the point, the biblical writers' own OAA brain regions were culprits, or if you prefer, accomplices, in the manufacture of their imaginary confections, like a whale swallowing a man and retaining him alive for 3 days, or Joshua stopping the Sun with his horn. Hence, when the biblical believer alludes to his bible as the fount of truth it's like a leader allowing 2,000 -year old "inmates" to run the asylum--- of his brain!

Will the Fundie accept any of this? Not likely! It would mean having to remap his OAA region of the brain, and that would be impossible without....probably some deep brain surgery and neural rewiring! In her wonderful book, A History of God, Karen Armstrong writes:


"A personalized God can become a mere idol carved in our image. A projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We just assume then that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them."

It would be well for all the religious, biblical, Deity absolutists in our midst to process this, and learn the degree to which their own brains manufacture their gods as often cruel mirror images of their own  personalities! Listen to them for their "helpful" truth? We'd do better to run as fast and as far as we can!

---

People Need to Avoid Being Conned By Money-Wasting Insurance

In these still tight times, people are using every means possible to try and stretch their precious dollars - especially in an environment in which money is nearly free to banks, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke doesn't consider rising food, fuel or drug prescription costs as part of real inflation.

Still, it's amazing that even when people cut every corner imaginable in their budgets, they manage to get conned into purchasing insurance policies they don't need. I must confess that it's happened to me before and that's why now - before committing to anything that's going to extract regular deductions from my bank account, I look several times at it. Such was the case when two days ago I received a letter highlighted in red ink that:  You are responsible for your home’s water line protection!

The cost was thereby given as something like $12 a month, which of course, might be subject to regular rate increases.  In such a case, the letter assured me, if a water line ruptured near my home and my basement was flooded, the repairs would be covered. However, on reading our recent revised home insurance contract, I saw that such coverage was already included. It would have been a waste of money.

Nonetheless it's a new gambit to dredge up more moola. Evidently, water companies in particular have made an aggressive push to sell policies that cover the repair of the water line that runs from the street to your house. The odds are in your favor that you will never use this coverage, particularly if you live in a newer home. If you live an average suburban neighborhood and you do need to repair the water line, the distance to the street is short, the likelihood of a problem is low and repair costs are a few thousand dollars or less. The same goes for policies offered by other utility companies.

But water line repair insurance is merely one of a flock of bad or redundant insurance deals (I won't call them scams, only that they're unnecessary.).    Here are some others readers may wish to flag:

Flight insurance : This coverage is completely unnecessary. Despite media portrayal, airline accidents are relatively rare, and your life insurance policy should already provide coverage in the event of a catastrophe

Car Rental Damage Insurance: My wife got trapped into buying one of these when we were in San Francisco in September for my cancer treatment. The policy added something like $200 to our rental car costs for 5 days. Many auto insurance policies already cover rentals (as she learned later, for hers)  so there's no need to pay for this twice. You need to check your policy before you pay, and ignore all the scary "exceptions" the rental car agent is sure to toss up to instill fear to get you to buy.

Extended Warranties: Again, time and time again, we've been suckered into purchasing these, usually for DVD players or computers. Obviously, companies have made them available on a host of appliances and electronics, mainly to enhance profits. The sad truth for most of us?  They're rarely used, particularly on small items such as DVD players and radios. If you purchase a reputable, brand-name product, you can be fairly certain it will work as advertised and that the extended warranty is statistically likely to be unnecessary. If you spend $5,000 on a giant, flat-screen television, the policy is still unlikely to pay off, but might make you feel better. For everything else, forget it.

Private Mortgage Insurance: Fortunately, we learned about this one before purchasing our first home 12 years ago! I had already done loads of reearch and found this infamous private mortgage insurance (PMI) is well known to many homeowners because it increases the amount of their monthly mortgage payments. PMI is an insurance policy that protects the lender against loss when lending to a higher-risk borrower. The borrower pays for this insurance but derives no benefit, nada. I found that we could avoid it by paying 20% down on our home, and that's what we did!

Credit Card Insurance: I cannot tell you the number of times I've been bombarded by credit card companies to plump for this unnecessary insurance! In each case, by virtue of what I already knew, I flat refused. Purchasing coverage to pay your credit card bill in the event you cannot pay it is a waste of money. A far better idea is to avoid running up too high amounts in the first place. Also, nearly every major credit card has existing policies in place to cover lost or stolen cards, even if some rogue hacker runs up bills - such as what happened to me 4 yrs. ago when I made a purchase on a false front site (made to look exactly like a genuine business site), and someone tried to buy a ticket to Beijing!

Flood Insurance: We live in an arid region of an arid state known as Colorado. The precip the past six months where we live has been about 1.5". Yet we keep getting flood insurance offers! The truth? Unless you live in a flood plain or an area with a history of water problems, don't even bother buying flood insurance. If none of the homes in the area has ever been flooded, yours is unlikely to be the first.

Life Insurance for Children: Life insurance is designed to provide a safety net for your heirs/dependents. Because children don't have heirs to worry about and, statistically speaking, most kids will grow up safe and healthy, most parents should not purchase life insurance for their kids. Instead, use the money that you would have spent on life insurance to fund an education investment plan.

Mortgage Life Insurance:This insurance is supposed to pay off your house in the event of your death. Rather than add another policy - and another bill - to your list of insurance plans, it makes more sense to get a term-life policy instead. A good life insurance policy will provide enough money to pay off the mortgage and to cover other expenses as well. A better plan is to pay off your mortgage before you retire, counter to the advice of most finance gurus who insist you're better off not doing so and investing instead in the stock market. I don't think so!

Accidental-Death Insurance: I made the mistake of buying one of these 15 years ago. Then I later read the fine fine print that it could only be paid if I croaked at sea, i.e. if an ocean liner sunk, or if I was involved in a train wreck, i.e. when a train I was on crashed into another. Fortunately, I'd only paid $1 for the policy, so I guess the moral is "you get what you pay for". On the other hand, unless you're extraordinarily accident prone, any accident is unlikely. Major catastrophes such as car wrecks and fires are covered under other policies, as is any harm that comes to you while at work. Accidental-death policies are often fraught with stipulations that make them difficult to collect on, so skip the hassles and get life insurance instead.

Unemployment Insurance: This coverage makes minimum payments on your bills if you are out of work, which sounds like an attractive proposition. A better plan is to save enough money to compile an emergency fund, say three months' worth.

Cancer Insurance: Ironically, I received several offers for this before I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. In each case, I examined the literature and decided the insurance was redundant because what was offered was already covered under Medicare, Part B or Part F (supplemental insurance). I suppose, however, that if the Reepos ever get in and Paul Ryan's voucher plan for Medicare is ever put into place, one might find this useful.

As in the case of protecting yourself with passwords, forewarned is forearmed. Don't make the mistake of buying insurance you don't need and making a gamble with your hard earned money you may later regret!