tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-367580912024-03-05T04:11:27.173-08:00Tabula FlexuosaMetaphilosophical RamblingsQuoth Ravenshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072225818414879059noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-60248565937912394982023-12-24T10:11:00.000-08:002023-12-24T10:18:09.493-08:00Assailing the Ineffable<p>God is often referred to as unknowable, infinite, omniscient and ineffable. Ineffable means to defy expression or description or too sacred to be uttered.<br /><br />Following a conversation <a href="http://adeistic.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/ineffable-excuses/">here</a>, led to my thinking more of the place of the <strong>ineffable</strong> in Christian apologetics.<br /><br />Arguments for the ineffable take the basic form: we cannot fully describe God because He is unknowable and infinite (and we are mere men), so God can neither be fully described nor disproven (on the basis of our inability to account fully for His Nature).<br /><br />"Clever", huh!<br /><br />What are the possibilities?<br /><br /></p><ul><li>There is a God. This God is an all-round impressive God: supernatural, infinite, and beyond description; so failure to describe this God is actually to describe a <em>property</em> of this God's existence, and hence is to support the notion that this God has actual existence (usually undefined). Because this God is ineffable, it is difficult to account for His mysterious behavior and purpose, though He typically seems utterly indifferent.<br /></li><li>There is a God. This God is definable: fickle, vain, demanding, cruel, vindictive, punitive, jealous, etc. (as depicted in the Bible). Because this God is fickle, it is difficult to predict His mysterious behavior and purpose, though He typically threatens to act like a Punitive Parent.</li></ul><p>Depending on the particular religious beliefs, One of the above Gods, and it's not always clear which One, has taken the trouble to interfere to some degree with the Universe and with Life on Earth. Could it be both of them rolled into one? "But they are so different!" you say.<br /><br />Examining just one Brand of Godhead: Whichever God was so interested in His Special Creation that He sent his Son, perhaps Himself, down to Earth via Immaculate Conception. He, Who can arrange any miracle that He chooses, arranged for the Crucifixion and Resurrection of His Son or Himself. Why go to all this trouble? He wanted to offer us Salvation in exchange for our worshipping Him and for behaving like good, obedient little children – or else we'd be punished for all eternity. How do we know this? His Son or He told someone who told someone who wrote it all down in differing versions. How else? Certainly not through non-circular evidence.</p><ul><li>There is no God. This absence of the supernatural leaves the purposeless universe at the mercy, and sometimes benevolence, of mostly measurable, testable, physical forces. These natural forces operate on the basis of a hierarchy of mechanisms that operate on different scales – from the subatomic to the cosmic. Some 10 billion years after a rapid expansion of spacetime, a planetoid formed within the arm of a galaxy at the edge of the universe. Within 500 million years of that planet's cooling, life had spontaneously appeared on the planet.</li></ul><p>Complexity emerged within those life forms, ultimately generating one species with a thirst for answers, but not necessarily for accurate explanations. For psychological reasons, this species <em>invented</em> the increasingly complex conceptualizatons of supernatural mechanisms to 'explain' inexplicable phenomena. One of these philosophical lineages led to the invention of the Christian God. </p><p>Eventually, some members of this species began to investigate and investigate and investigate how the world really works, and this knowledge led to doubt about the supernatural invention. Some members of this species were particularly emotional thinkers and chose to faithfully retain the old beliefs and promises, some rational thinkers looked at the evidence and decided that the supernatural only <em>appears</em> ineffable because God does not exist.</p><p>Thus the notion of an ineffable deity, which began its conceptual life as an attempted explanation for the inexplicable, ultimately served double duty as an excuse for theological inconsistencies in Christian apologetics.</p><p></p>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-54468693598299231182011-08-14T11:01:00.000-07:002007-08-15T08:06:35.852-07:00The Problem with PolemicsI think that the chief difference between those who practice a scientific approach to understanding of the natural world and those who practice a philosophical approach is illustrated in the progress of thinking from the ancient philosophers to modern science.<br /><br />The ancient philosophers believed that they could understand the world solely by thinking about a relatively few empirical observations. Although such approaches might be relevant to discussions of value-laden subjects such as ethics or esthetics, they were of limited value in understanding the physical world.<br /><br />By the 17th century, <a href="http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/bacon/essays.php">Sir Francis Bacon</a> was emphasizing the need for a more scientific approach to understanding the physical world.<br /><br /><span style="color:#666666;">"As a procedural starting point, at the dawn of a movement that would become modern science, Bacon rejected both the scholastic view that equated knowledge with conservation and the Renaissance reform that sought to recapture a long-lost perfection. Natural knowledge, he proclaimed, must be reconceptualized as a cumulative process of discovery, propelled by processing sensory data about the external world through the reasoning powers of the human brain."</span> [<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_5_108/ai_54830693">s</a>]<br /><br />The idea caught on and the scientific revolution ensured that scientific understanding replaced the metaphysics of the ancients, medievals, and the earliest scientists. In the scientific method, a set of observations leads to formulation of hypotheses that propose logical explanations for the empirical phenomena. Predictions are made on the basis of these hypotheses and are tested against further empirical and experimental data. If further data does not support the hypothesis, then a new hypothesis is formulated that better fits all available data. Ultimately, those hypotheses that withstand this possibility of falsification become accepted as theories. Thus, scientific theories are much more likely than are 'vernacular' theories to accurately exlain reality. Scientific knowledge, then, is a system of verified or verifiable empirical data logically interconnected by tested theories.<br /><br />Although the history of ideas is interesting, science discards disproven hypotheses and moves on, “historical” philosophy does not. By “historical philosophy", I refer to rhetoric, polemics, and apologetics, which are more concerned with the appearance of authority than with the truth value of content and which set out to argue a position by quoting those who have previously made a statement that follows the position taken by previous writers. This is quite different than the use of references to scientific articles, which point back to empirical or experimental evidence rather than to mere opinion.<br /><br />It is circular to attempt to prove a point solely by noting that some ancient philosopher had said something with which we agree, yet this is a standard apologetic ploy. This tactic would be equivalent to my claiming that sperm contain microscopic humans and calling up Lamarck’s beliefs to “prove” my point.<br /><br />In essence, the value of an idea depends upon its content and <em><strong>not</strong></em> upon how many illustrious, but mistaken thinkers have stated it. (To be fair to apologistic philosophers, I think that their intent is to discuss content even though their thinking is distorted by insistence on defending weak positions.) The strength of science, which is both misunderstood and attacked by its detractors, is that scientific knowledge is continuously scrutinized and refined by its qualified practitioners, whose work is measured according to accepted standards (peer review). Although professional (academic) philosophers do work within a logical system, philosophers work within areas that exclude the possibility of experimental verification. If the area under study <em>could</em> be experimentally tested, then that investigation should involve scientific method and would be <em>outside</em> the field of philosophy.<br /><br />Not only do many people fail to understand the content and nature of science, they mistakenly assume that any thought system – set of opinions – counts as valid philosophy. <a id="LAME" name="LAME"></a>In this Misinformation Explosion Age, people are increasingly unaware that lay opinion, particularly biased opinion, carries no real authority about the natural world <em>whenever</em> lay opinion runs counter to established scientific knowledge. Let's designate such people, <strong>La</strong>ypersons of the <strong>M</strong>isinformation <strong>E</strong>xplosion, or <a href="http://palimpseszt.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/lame-arguments/"><strong>LAME</strong>s</a>. Not only do LAMEs form illogical opinions on the basis of too little information, they form mistaken opinions on the basis of deliberate or ignorant misiformation pasted across the Internet. LAMEs are particularly credulous in the face of emotionally appealing rhetoric, and this is particularly apparent in relation to the ridiculous creation vs evolution debate, which really ought not to be a debate at all since only the scientific explanation is empirically supported.<br /><br />The problem, I think, lies not merely with polemics and apologetics as rhetorical devices to sell an argument, it lies also with the fact that those who argue such positions also 'think' in the same clumsy style. That is, rather than learning the techniques of critical thinking, they assimilate (and later quote) arguments that they have accepted purely because they <em>like</em> the argument or its conclusions. They often go so far as to admit, "I like what Joe Bloe says about this, [quote]."<br /><br />Such emotional, LAME thinkers are not so much concerned with whether or not the argument is logically based upon relevant evidence as they are distracted by the emotional appeal that the argument's conclusion provides. Such thinkers will uncritically accept any conclusion that fits their preconceived notions or biases without any concern or awareness of whether or not the conclusion represents reality.<br /><br />LAMEs are emotional thinkers who construct their view of the world, not from logical analysis of empirical evidence, but from a pastiche of favored conclusions: ignorant conclusion 1 + unfounded conclusion 2 → illogical conclusion 3.<br /><br />Typically, the arguments of LAMEs are packed to overflowing with false premises and <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html">fallacies of logic</a>. For example, further compounding the cognitive mistake of favoring misinformation with emotionally appealing conclusions, illogical conclusion 3 may be cited as proof of ignorant conclusion 1 and/or unfounded conclusion 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-49650686347238338382007-12-31T23:59:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.414-08:00Omnia in Ventor<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/misleading-quotes.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5068712324035193394" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_osP51C3atIY/RlevAObDKjI/AAAAAAAAA3c/bOCIpM6AbE4/s320/blue-mystery.jpg" border="0" /></a>Life is full of interesting discoveries, so this blog will be a <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html">repository</a> for sundry tidbits.<br /><br />Life is also replete with irritants, so this blog will be a release valve, which could evolve (hint, hint) to be deliberately noisome to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">creationists</a> and <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/bible-bumping.html">religious dogmatists</a>, not to mention <a href="http://regressives.blogspot.com/2005/07/regressive-conservative-party-of.html">Regressive Conservatives</a> and <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2006/10/trimming-bushes.html">Republicans</a>.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/misleading-quotes.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Latest Quiz</span></a> – the image at left has been color-altered – what does it depict?<br /><br />So, with tongue planted firmly in cheek . . .<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/12/etymology-of-mimble-wimble.html">The Etymology of Mimble Wimble</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/dastardly-stubborn-mean-iv-revised.html">Dastardly Stubborn Mean IV Revised</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-canadians-hate-americans.html">Do Canadians hate Americans?</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-americans-hate-canadians.html">Do Americans hate Canadians?</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2006/12/bathing-suit.html">The Bathing Suit</a><br /><br />With interest . . .<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/12/topical-oinkment.html">Topical Oinkment</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/karyoti.html">Karyoti</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/through-microscope-brightly.html">Through the Microscope Brightly</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/explore-virtual-caves.html">Explore Virtual Caves</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/galleria.html">Galleria</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-god-distrust.html">In God, Distrust</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/aboriginal-rock-art.html">Aboriginal Rock Art</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-products-of-blind-evolution.html">We, the Products of Blind Evolution</a><br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/bible-bumping.html"><img style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/200/rouen-monet-bt.jpg" border="0" /></a>It is with great irritation that we bring to you . . .<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-only-flourishes-amidst.html">Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">Myths Revered and Myths Exposed</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">un-designed intelligences</a> = <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2006/10/un-designed-intelligences.html"></a><a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/">intelligent</a> [<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html" snap_preview_added="spa">sick</a>] <a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/" snap_preview_added="spa">design</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-concepts-are-not-created-equal.html">All Concepts are NOT created Equal</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/07/black-sheep-are-sheep-too.html">Black Sheep are Sheep Too</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/silly-ideas.html">Silly Ideas</a><br />ɷ <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-speech-or-propaganda-of-hate.html">Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate? </a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/hate-tanks.html">hate tanks</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/06/should-one-call-ones-ex-dog.html">Should One Call One's Ex a Dog?</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/wedge-document.html">The Wedge Document</a><br /><br />With relief . . .<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/judge-jones-rules.html">Judge Jones Rules</a><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a></div><br /><br /><div align="center"></div><div align="left"><p>Roll-over images for a snap preview of <em>link destination</em> (snap is a cool widget/web search tool that I stumbled across on someone's website.)</p></div><div align="center">...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>...</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-89944976852593543892007-12-31T23:57:00.000-08:002007-07-02T19:07:03.085-07:00Topical Oinkment<div align="center"><span style="font-size:180%;color:#6633ff;">Click on the images!</span><br /><br /></div><p><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/karyoti.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center; CENTER: 0px auto 10px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/1600/bigfoot-bt.jpg" border="0" target="_blank" /></a> </p><br /><p><br /></p><p><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-canadians-hate-americans.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center; CENTER: 0px auto 10px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/200/yell-maple.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /></p><p align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/explore-virtual-caves.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center; CENTER: 0px auto 10px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/200/horse-mounted.jpg" border="0" /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/dastardly-stubborn-mean-iv-revised.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center; CENTER: 0px auto 10px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/200/framed-scream.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/through-microscope-brightly.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center; CENTER: 0px auto 10px" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/200/auto-da-fe-v.jpg" border="0" /><br /><br /></a><span style="color:#6633ff;">_________________</span></p><div align="left"><br /></div></a><br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/bible-bumping.html"><br /><br /><br /></a>I have played with posting 'dates' so as to set up this blog in subject areas – links to the latest mimble or wimble are next – the latest (a quiz) is <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/02/do-americans-hate-canadians.html#Jeopardy-10-23-07">HERE</a>. <div align="left"></div><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>...<br /><br /></div><div align="center"></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-12257344011473543062007-11-30T23:59:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.434-08:00All Concepts are NOT Created Equal<a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2005/12/gods-look-down.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056660794836424002" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglRF82mYcX93eml-EDa5HIBl2XjSR1rsVZBPOoQ3oNMpH_SDibI_9eFeUeQpMjzoHL2IkFYuwuVN5AlJZa2mxZY7K7ygRAFYsC9r8MH-Y2DxVmkyc-OTbNCTinSJg7HWMnnvKu/s200/GodsLookDown-bt.jpg" border="0" /></a>“Logical errors are, I think, of greater practical importance than many people believe; they enable their perpetrators to hold the comfortable position on every subject in turn. Any logically coherent body of doctrine is sure to be in part painful and contrary to current prejudices.”<br />___ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/russell.html">Bertrand Russell</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Touchstone-Book/dp/0671201581">History of Western Philosophy</a>, 1945<br /><br />Some debaters like to argue that all opinions have equal value. To put it bluntly, this is utter nonsense because some opinions diverge greatly from <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/reality-truth.html">truth</a>. I value <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/logic.html">logic</a>, so I find <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/silly-ideas.html">ridiculous ideas</a> particularly irritating. Similarly, an <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/argument-vs-explanation.html">argument</a> may follow the rules of logic yet be palpably ridiculous because it is based upon unfounded <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/argument-vs-explanation.htmlhttp://">premises</a>. In short, it is pure fantasy. I value <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/reality-truth.html">truth</a>, as applied to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/reality-truth.html">reality</a>, so I find phantasmagorical claptrap irritating unless it <em>admits</em>, as does fantasy or science fiction writing, to <em>being</em> fantasy.<br /><br />We are daily exposed to cherished beliefs that are without empirical support or logical validity. Religious dogma aside, we are daily exposed to ideas that are without empirical support or logical validity.<br /><br />The trick, obviously, is to discern the difference and to eschew conceptual detritus. There are some quite good websites that outline the principles of <a href="http://www.criticalthinking.org/">Critical Thinking</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">Creationists</a> seem to think that being critical of thinking equates to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/shedding-light.html">critical thinking</a>. Needless to say, as in so much else, they are irritatingly <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html#FoL">illogical</a> in their insistence that any of the various forms of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-evolution-many-creationisms.html">creationism</a> have <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/argument-vs-explanation.html">explanatory</a> merit concerning the origins of life, in particular human life. I'll have more to say on this topic elsewhere because <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-evolution-many-creationisms.html">creationism</a> in all its fanciful incarnations is a <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/pet-peeves.html">pet peeve</a>.<br /><br />Silly Ideas Index:<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/silly-ideas.html">Silly Ideas</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/anti-stupidity-quotes.html">Anti-Stupidity Quotes</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/behe-retreats.html">Behe Retreats</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/07/black-sheep-are-sheep-too.html">Black Sheep are Sheep Too</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/complexity-reductio.html">Complexity Reductio</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/error-filled-belief-systems.html">Error Filled Belief Systems</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-speech-or-propaganda-of-hate.html">Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate?</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-god-distrust.html">In God, Distrust</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/moral-absolutism.html">Moral Absolutism</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">Myths Revered and Myths Exposed</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/numbers-games.html">Numbers Games</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-evolution-many-creationisms.html">One Evolution, Many Creationisms</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/shun-spam.html">Out, Damned Spam!</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/pet-peeves.html">Pet Peeves</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">un-designed intelligences</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">YEC yack</a><br /><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-73820030571006539602007-11-30T17:09:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.461-08:00Silly Ideas<a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2006/06/macaroni-triad.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056660043217147186" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD55naSioVKXI_wA86d5v7TIYa0LpuDUp16qQvsVDzSdeLLdx-XzyFINppzKRhxZF8AhCG9jf_Z_pLF-7ldR7Ayv_CknW1ikBbvrnAicgchrsMeWJM2KDinPuNclj_51woz3u_/s200/Bottled.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong>Silly</strong> (euphemistically speaking) <strong>ideas</strong>, for the purposes of this blog, are either<br />● irritatingly illogical inaninities that are repeated <em>ad nauseam</em> by their devotees<br />● strongly held opinions about cause and effect that ignore or are <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">ignorant</a> of the facts and that run counter to widely <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">known</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">expert</a> opinion<br />● ideas that have proved deleterious to their holders or others<br /><br />● Many if not most ideas connected to an insistence on the 'existence' of one non-existent deity or another are illogical because they insist upon belief despite the lack of supportive empirical evidence when there <em>ought</em> to be empirical evidence. After all, if a purported deity actually created the universe, with or without interference in daily events, then there ought to be unequivocal evidence that links the physical with said deity – just as there is <strong>abundant</strong> evidence to link known physical laws with the origin of the universe and evolution.<br /><br />There is no evidence of a deity unless one chooses to label physical laws as being God and to designate scientists as being the true theologians. That is, it is illogical to insist that there is a Creator of the Physical Universe, Life, and Us in the absence of any unequivocal evidence of a single entity capable of creating these tangibles. This illogic includes most perniciously, of course, the various ridiculous forms adopted by insistence upon literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth.<br /><br />● Fantasies, such as the supposed existence of the 'soul' or an 'afterlife' that run counter to all that science reveals about the inextricable connection between a functioning assemblage of chemicals and operation of the brain. There is neither evidence for–nor logical grounds for–any claim that the 'soul' has existence outside current-conscious-thought.<br /><br />● Claims that 'God is Consciousness', such that some cosmic <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/thought.html">consciousness</a> directs all that transpires in the universe, or even merely here on Earth, are akin to nonsensical claims for brain-independent souls and an afterlife. Those who believe that the sole motive force is '<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/thought.html">thought</a>' have applied very little–or nothing–in the way of analytical thought to their illogical beliefs. The meaning of 'thought' inherent in such illogical <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/doublespeak.html">equivocation</a> must necessarily be so broad as to bear no resemblence to the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/thought.html">accepted meaning</a> of 'thought' or of 'consciousness'.<br /><br />● Insistence by Bible Thumpers on their holier-than-thou, unethical, absolute moral values that were supposedly dictated by their non-existent deity-of-choice. By unethical, I refer to those illogical attacks that harm others who do not fit into the rigid black and white box dictated by the thumpers' dogma-of-choice. While it is reasonable to decry as immoral any action that deliberately harms others, it is immoral to harm others by censuring activities that harm no-one.<br /><br />● Denial of the fact of global warming despite the agreement of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">experts</a> (earth and climate scientists) that rising levels of greenhouse gases (fact) attributable to our burning of fossil fuels (fact) have elevated average temperatures (fact) and increased frequency of extreme weather events (fact).<br /><br />That'll do for starters!<br /><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-concepts-are-not-created-equal.html">All Concepts are NOT created Equal</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/anti-stupidity-quotes.html">Anti-Stupidity Quotes</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/behe-retreats.html">Behe Retreats</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/07/black-sheep-are-sheep-too.html">Black Sheep are Sheep Too</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/complexity-reductio.html">Complexity Reductio</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-speech-or-propaganda-of-hate.html">Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate?</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/numbers-games.html">Numbers Games</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/pet-peeves.html">Pet Peeves</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/pseudoscience-chicanery.html">Pseudoscience Chicanery</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/shun-spam.html">Shun Spam</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/statistics-on-stupidity.html">Statistics on Stupidity</a><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-10559171690191384322007-11-30T09:48:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.482-08:00Black Sheep are Sheep Too<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/aginner-syndrome.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5066021545860774082" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_nYvQ83ndpB0EGGllBh8n7xl-a8XxKpZdZ2QKyHrA7ftZy48uefSS8DUwefnCOyU_jxhEFSTQUCBUM79LpyhNS2XTUJ9hXMjGUfXYQDd6J22TD2rPJxptBjmVpq-CLDoX8TK5/s320/bs-are-sheep-too.jpg" border="0" />Aginners</a> who hold ridiculous beliefs that run counter to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">received wisdom</a> often cite the fact that others agree with their opinion, claiming that those who concur with the fact-logic-based <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">knowledge</a> of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">experts</a> are easily-fooled sheep. In other words, <em>other</em> black sheep agree with their anti-expert prejudices.<br /><br />If one wishes to hold a correct position, one must practice <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/shedding-light.html">critical thinking</a>, which is <em><strong>not</strong></em> to say that one must be negative about any propositions originating with an expert.<br /><br />"Critical thinking involves assessing the authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments. This process requires careful, precise, persistent and objective analysis of any knowledge claim or belief to judge its validity and/or worth."<br /><br />It is folly to make the automatic assumption that those who are experts in empirical fields are necessarily, or even likely to be, <em>in</em>correct in their assertions. Value-based disciplines such as politics are obviously much more vulnerable to personal biases, so the opinions of experts in these fields may be more suspect. Nevertheless, few individuals have the time or luxury to assess all available information in a value-based area, and we <em>must</em> rely upon the expertise of those who <em>have</em> expended considerable time and thought.<br /><br />The more <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/05/ex-ducare.html">education</a> one receives, the more that one realizes how little one knows, and the more that one <em>must</em> rely upon received wisdom. Still, one must assess the level of expertise <em>and</em> level of bias of those who pass opinions. It is not wise to trust opinions posted on a website that has been set up for the express purpose of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">attacking</a> the opinions or positions of experts. (It could be argued that, in our disgruntlement, <em><a href="http://www2.blogger.com/profile/16301052019393937256">we</a></em> attack the opinions of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/hate-tanks.html">hate</a>-<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-speech-or-propaganda-of-hate.html">tankers</a>, <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">junk</a>-<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_mimble-wimble_archive.html">tankers</a>, and those who display <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_mimble-wimble_archive.html">cognitive disorders</a>. However, our criticisms are directed at <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html#FoL">illogic</a> and misinformation, certainly not at expertise.)<br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">Credible experts</a> possess the following attributes:<br />1. sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.<br />2. claims made are within area(s) of expertise.<br />3. adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.<br />4. not significantly biased by subjective motivations or prejudices.<br />5. expertise within a legitimate area or discipline (related to the subject matter).<br />6. the authority must be identified. <div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-71745229143409351832007-11-24T10:04:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.499-08:00Anti-Stupidity Quotes<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9QKD-n_zHvFG9cytGmMGEBD4q3nmceHFHExTomm7VI6UKDgJDRftEFzociUgX-AdbhsDGYCVqeWsLbbbcJ4X-zJRWAekx1PhHYWcn11sjH7dynEjgXMre1pAiaGLoaQ2fMvEL/s1600-h/YAC-TradFam.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5077114797539296578" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="The traditional YEC family adheres to anti-reality beliefs founded in illogic and ignorance." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9QKD-n_zHvFG9cytGmMGEBD4q3nmceHFHExTomm7VI6UKDgJDRftEFzociUgX-AdbhsDGYCVqeWsLbbbcJ4X-zJRWAekx1PhHYWcn11sjH7dynEjgXMre1pAiaGLoaQ2fMvEL/s320/YAC-TradFam.jpg" border="0" /></a>Some unfortunates are not intellectually gifted by virtue of genetic endowment or brain injury, through no fault of their own. These individuals lack the cognitive capacity to learn more than rudimentary knowledge or skills, yet they possess value simply by being humans.<br /><br />Other individuals have sufficient intellectual capacity to be capable of acquiring understanding, yet they chose not to comprehend <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">reality</a> because of emotional biases. I find such <em>willful</em> stupidity so uttely infuriating that I have decided to collect some quotes that accurately denigrate ignorance:<br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/god-of-gaps.html">God of the Gaps</a>:<br />"The history of science shows us that patching the gaps in our knowledge with miracles creates a path that leads only to perpetual ignorance."<br />~ Jerry Coyne, <em><a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic">The Great Mutator</a></em>, in <em><a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807">The New Republic</a></em><br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligence.html">Intelligent</a> <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html">[sick]</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">design theory</a>:<br />"As the philosopher Philip Kitcher shows in his superb new book, <em>Living With Darwin</em>, the theory of intelligent design is a mixture of "dead science" and non-science. That is, insofar as ID makes scientific claims (for example, that natural selection cannot produce complexity), those claims not only are wrong, but were proved wrong years ago. And ID is deeply unscientific in its assertion that certain aspects of evolution (mutation, in <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/behe-retreats.html">Behe's</a> case) required supernatural intervention. Behe's attacks on evolutionary theory are once again wrongheaded, but the intellectual situation grows far worse when we see what theory he offers in its place."<br />~ Jerry Coyne, <em><a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic">The Great Mutator</a></em>, in <em><a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807">The New Republic</a></em><br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">YECs</a>:<br />"There is no polite way to say this: people who resist scientific explanations for natural phenomena such as the age of the earth and the fact of evolution are guilty of childish thinking."<br />~ Sharon Begley in <a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/05/30/so-that-s-why-evolution-is-in-trouble.aspx"><em>So That's Why Evolution is in Trouble!</em></a><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-68645675951779914262007-11-23T19:23:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.513-08:00Behe Retreats<a href="http://www.ntskeptics.org/cartoons/behe-black-box.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5077249565023110482" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="Michael J. Behe, populariser of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo for credulous creationists." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhliadnW3PNG1uVAm5vSp0Fl6v9JkWmyP3GinAz4HlZDyNTKYr6JSeI16jeHYRJvR4Va4uEYg7khuFy5x8wDhouWC4SL23P4Vidqnq6SvRJNx013s7DFMLY80xLn4uTL8BATb8J/s200/MJBehe.jpg" border="0" /></a>Michael Behe's illogical arguments for <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligence.html">intelligent</a> <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html">[sick]</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">design theory</a> are such an embarrassment that Lehigh University has placed a <a href="http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm">disclaimer</a> on their Department of Biological Sciences website:<br /><br />"The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."<br /><br />One can only imagine that if Behe had not already had tenure when he began publishing religious pseudoscience, then the university would have sent him packing to knock on the doors of that infamous <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">junk tank</a>, the misnamed Discovery Institute.<br /><br />In The New Republic, Professor Jerry Coyne has published a good <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic">critique</a> of Behe's retreat from <strong>disproven</strong> "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/06/irreducible-illogic.html">irreducible complexity</a>" into attributing mutations to God's intervention. <a href="http://www.powells.com/review/2007_06_14"><em>The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism</em></a> is Behe's feeble attempt to conjure up creationist pseudoscience for credulous dummies.<br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-11232859473321884052007-11-22T19:40:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.527-08:00Complexity Reductio<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdNF6dXfraFcOKxTiA3vYppqD7KWw4OweLc5DWjwx4quV32Mpc1IRMGLk-u6sbVwxOKyE7c88otBEdsQpt6i2O8QVQ3dke4KhursOPMaAlCnoxg7rEkd-qnDO4dTHHehyRyTMI/s1600-h/porifera2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5077264700487861602" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="An Amphimedon sea-sponge of Phylum Porifera." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdNF6dXfraFcOKxTiA3vYppqD7KWw4OweLc5DWjwx4quV32Mpc1IRMGLk-u6sbVwxOKyE7c88otBEdsQpt6i2O8QVQ3dke4KhursOPMaAlCnoxg7rEkd-qnDO4dTHHehyRyTMI/s200/porifera2.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/behe-retreats.html">Behe's</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html#FoL">illogical</a> challenge to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html">biological evolution</a>, the so-called "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/06/irreducible-illogic.html">irreducible complexity</a>" that sells books to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">science</a>-<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-only-flourishes-amidst.html">ignorant</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">creationists</a>, has suffered yet another blow.<br /><br />"The latest discovery in evolution: DNA needed to make synapses, the sophisticated junctions between neurons, in none other than the lowly sea sponge. Considered among the most primitive and ancient of all animals, sea sponges have no nervous system (or internal organs of any kind, for that matter), notes Todd Oakley, assistant professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But, he adds, they “have most of the genetic components of synapses.”"[<a href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/06/06/irreducible-complexity-is-reducible-afterall.aspx">source</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000506">original</a> on PLoS ONE]<br /><br />No surprises here–after all, the most primitive nervous system is found in the Cnideria.<br /><br />[Jones] "found Behe's testimony wholly unconvincing, noting that irreducible complexity was not evidence against evolution, and that the biochemical systems touted by Behe were not irreducibly complex anyway. Behe's credibility was damaged also by his admission that ID's definition of science was so loose that it could encompass astrology, and by his fatal assertion that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."<br />~ Jerry Coyne, <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic">The Great Mutator</a>, in <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807">The New Republic</a><br /><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-53022560398457220692007-11-22T15:26:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.575-08:00Creationism only Flourishes Amidst Ignorance<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5069381095049509634" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbykbi8NEWAo5Frnq4L9YWhtEPHg4r17NgCC-xkGMr9UzxLtJ6Ycbazp4tTigpNYhB010JvMF__6G6rJ-vmDdo1YdFRJ87JEJGZIwgql4nz9QulQo3xkp2bx32vZl3c9l4UxV3/s320/instiutional-dunce-cap.jpg" border="0" /></a>I found the following example of ignorance amongst the comments on an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3211737&GMA=true">article</a> about the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">museum-of-delusion</a> constructed by oxymoronically labelled <em>Answers in Genesis.</em> Those who are so ignorant as to believe in creationism are not really interested in answers, but I want to vent!<br /><br />"To all of those evolutionists out there: Can you tell me ONE instance of an organism that proves that NEW information was ADDED to its DNA? NOT a LOSS of genetic info that leads to an environmental advantage, but an actual ADDITION of NEW information to the DNA?"<br /><br />First, there can be <strong>no</strong> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/proof.html">proof</a> outside special philosophical syllogisms and mathematics. Only the ignorant or emotionally-uncertain demand proof. However, there is abundant <strong>evidence</strong>, <em>throughout</em> organisms from prokaryotes to humans of the addition/alteration of segments of DNA. There is <em>so much</em> evidence that one could not list it all. See for yourself – running a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed">PubMed</a> search for "DNA evolution" yielded 53983 hits (5/27/07). Of course, not all of these scientific articles will directly address this creationist challenge, so I Googled "DNA evolution" and got 47,100,000 hits. Some of these will be websites set up by creationists as ignorant as the author of that stupid question, but many will provide an accurate answer.<br /><br />Creationist are correct in stating that DNA contains information, so <em><strong>any</strong></em> alteration of a DNA sequence, even if it is only a single nucleotide polymorphism (point mutation), comprises evidence of the addition of new information to DNA. To ask for "proof" of the addition of new information to DNA is beyond ridiculous. Any organism that develops a malignancy does so because of alterations in their DNA. Childrens' DNA is not identical to that of either parent because of an alteration in their DNA. The diversity of DNA, which is demonstrably <em>currently</em> continuing to evolve, is evidence of addition of information to DNA. No need to go on–there are billions of examples.<br /><br />"Answers in Genesis' website explains that this is the big obstacle for evolutionary belief. What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra genetic information required to change a one-celled creature into a multicelled organism, then other more "complex" organisms?"<br /><br />This, of course, is why <em>Answers in Genesis</em> is misnamed. (There are <strong>no</strong> accurate answers to questions in <em>Genesis</em>, which was, is, and always will be an allegorical creation myth. Nor are there any answers in AiG–merely delusions.)<br /><br />Again, science has documented abundant evidence regarding mechanisms, which include prokaryotic gene-swapping mechanisms (HGT), serial endosymbiotic transfers, and a variety of internal-mutation mechanisms (duplication, etc.). The very first soft-bodied multicellular organisms died without leaving any fossil trace around 1 billion years ago. It is utterly unreasonable to expect that this step in evolution can ever be exactly replicated. However, the molecular biological mechanisms of cellular <em>adhesion</em> that exist today were likely the same mechanisms that allowed the first co-operative assemblages of specialized cells (the colonial theory providing the likeliest explanation). Serial endosymbiotic transfers rendered this step possible, and the oxygen produced by the first prokaryotes to practice oxygenic photosynthesis both drove and enabled such assemblages.<br /><br />"Natural selection can’t explain it as natural selection involves getting rid of information."<br /><br />Natural selection operates to increase the frequency of favourable <em>alleles</em> and reduce unfavourable <em>alleles</em> in <em><strong>populations</strong></em>. The amount of information is much the same following selection for the organisms best equipped to survive and produce viable progeny within a particular environment. Only utterly unfavourable mutations will be removed, while neutral and favourable mutations will persist. Natural selection has <em><strong>never</strong></em> been regarded as a mechanism for the alteration of DNA itself.<br /><br />"A group of animals might become more adapted to the heat by the elimination of those which carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick or thin fur."<br /><br />Nor, as above, do any evolutionary biologists claim that natural selection, which can <em>only</em> operate on <em>already</em> existent alleles, is the mechanism for <em>producing</em> the genes.<br /><br />"As a Biological Sciences major in college . . . "<br /><br />Now this is truly very sad! This poser-of-stupid-questions is better educated than your average creationist, yet clearly does not comprehend even the basics of molecular or population genetics. This sort of ignorance is the reason that critics decry anti-science, deceptive-pseudoscience displays that merely entrench such ignorance.<br /><br />"I was also disappointed and angry to discover that several of the big "evidences" for evoution given to us in school were NOT true, and that these are still taught to students today as truth."<br /><br />Where did this person attend college? Presumably a small southern college and not one of the better universities. The above is a truly ridiculous statement. Evidence is evidence is evidence. Scientific theories are formulated on the <em>basis</em> of evidence, which translates to saying that scientific theories <em>begin</em> with the facts. The evidences for <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html">biological evolution</a> are FACTS. Whether or not a particular theory best explains the facts is a different question, and <em>this</em> is the entire point of the scientific method.<br /><br />"It is time students were taught all the facts about evolution, not just the ones that fit the THEORY best! I pray the AiG museum will open a lot of eyes to the deception carried on by the biologists promoting evolution."<br /><br />The voluminous <strong>facts</strong> about biological evolution are conveniently <strong>ignored</strong> by those who believe in creation, in biblical literacy, and in some non-existent necessary-connection between morality and religious dogmatism. The author of the ridiculous comment that I have quoted is clearly incapable of comprehending the facts. As to manipulating information to fit theories, the AiG museum is a transparent example of the sort of <strong>distortion</strong> of facts that is <em>necessary</em> in order to support an utterly ridiculous two- thousand-plus-year old theory (YEC). Although they do not admit this explicitly, creationist attacks on science implicitly indicate that they are aware that scientific facts disprove the claims in <em>Genesis–</em>proof may not be possible, but disproof <strong>is</strong> possible. <em>Genesis</em> IS <strong>disproven</strong>. Dinosaurs did not coexist with hominids, rather the dinosaurs predated hominids by 60 million years. No number of deceptive lie-orama displays will ever alter that <strong>fact</strong>.<br /><br />I'd further suggest to the author of the stupid-question that his or her inability to understand something does not render that thing invalid. It merely means that he or she really ought to obtain some education. Given that an <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3211737&GMA=true">ABC News poll</a> indicates that "60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days" (a fallacious <em><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/argumentum-ad-numeram.html">argumentum ad numeram</a></em> argument <em>for</em> creationism, incidentally), then it is clear that far too may Americans exhibit a lamentably low standard of science <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/05/ex-ducare.html">education</a>.<br /><br />More mutterings about the stupidity that is creationism:<br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">Myths Revered and Myths Exposed</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">un-designed intelligences</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/judge-jones-rules.html">Judge Jones Rules</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/wedge-document.html">The Wedge Document</a><br /><br />Elsewhere: <a href="http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847">Gallup Poll on Evolution</a>, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are ignorant of evolution : comment on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">Pharyngula</a> : <a id="a044894" href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/religionour_maelstrom_of_ignor.php">Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance</a>: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."<br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-45191225579545220562007-11-19T05:21:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.600-08:00Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVoaF3tmxWVmOIgFoPcq_iGmVWouwx0FsarEfbQDyZfiEB-8jkvM-J5m2y7c8UEEoUjudK9lyFDz2Ow18kc7k02DwTndPsTy-_xxbO9A-iKAa3EC6TGLapuKU5v59ZY-7Pcr-O/s1600-h/sour-gripes.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056842167010367010" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVoaF3tmxWVmOIgFoPcq_iGmVWouwx0FsarEfbQDyZfiEB-8jkvM-J5m2y7c8UEEoUjudK9lyFDz2Ow18kc7k02DwTndPsTy-_xxbO9A-iKAa3EC6TGLapuKU5v59ZY-7Pcr-O/s320/sour-gripes.jpg" border="0" /></a>I stumbled across this piece of nonsense quite by accident when I googled '"appeal to authority" "acceptable authority"':<br /><br />“The life span of gays is 20- plus years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals,” states Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank. “On average, in Norway and Denmark — where same-sex marriage is legal – married lesbians lived to age 56 and married gay men to age 52."[<a href="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/03/27/gays-die-sooner-implications-for-adoption/">s</a>]<br /><br />(Internet searches do generate some unexpected hits!)<br /><br />The statistics seemed highly improbable, so I read the article and researched the sources. I worry when I read "think tank" because those words typically signify something that only passes for thinking in the mind of the founder of the "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html"><strong>junk tank</strong></a>" or "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/hate-tanks.html"><strong>hate tank</strong></a>" in question (here, the FRI). Those who set up special-focus websites for the promulgation of prejudiced disinformation probably assume that labelling their organization as a "think tank" will lend an air of legitimacy. They probably do not care that they convince only those who are already equally biased.<br /><br /><strong>Beware</strong> of any 'scientist' who has set up an 'organization' that specifically aims to promote his particular prejudice and claims that his pet organization is intended for research. Legitimate scientific research is typically conducted in association with an established academic facility and is published in an appropriate, recognized peer-reviewed scientific journal. Clinical research might be conducted outside a university setting, but it is only legitimized by publication in a peer-reviewed clinical journal.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.familyresearchinst.org/">Family Research Institute</a> <em>(which solicits donations on its website),</em> <strong>"</strong>was founded in 1982 with one overriding mission: to generate empirical research on issues that threaten the traditional family, particularly homosexuality, AIDS, sexual social policy, and drug abuse. FRI believes that published scientific material has a profound impact, both in the United States and around the world.<strong>"</strong><br /><br /><em>This</em> reader of <em>that</em> "Mission Statement" very seriously doubts that the FRI has <em>any</em> interest in published scientific material–beyond deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation, that is. I feel that such doubt is reasonable in view of the the FRI's stated goals, and its printed questions such as "Can Anything Be Done to Stop Gay Rights?". The website's main page contained (as of April 23, '07) <strong><em>only</em></strong> comments on homosexuality. (By contrast, the main page ignores drug abuse, which legitimate sociological research implicates in considerably more harm.)<br /><br />On to the numbers: Are such figures accurate when the average lifespan in developed nations is increasing? If such purportedly shortened lifespan were attributable to AIDS, this could apply <em>only</em> to gay males because lesbians have the lowest HIV infection rate when compared to gay males, heterosexual males, or heterosexual females. Remember that HIV infection is <strong><em>not</em></strong> confined to gay males despite its having been labelled "the gay disease".<br /><br />On the topic of AIDS, which made it onto the FRI's attack list: AIDS killed an estimated 206,037 in America between 1995 and 2002. By contrast cancer claimed 557,271 in the US in 2002 alone. Amongst cancer deaths, 31% of cancers in men and 27% in women were attributable to cancer of the lung and bronchus, which are almost invariably secondary to cigarette smoking. Also in 2002, diabetes caused 73,249 deaths, and accidents took 106, 742. If Dr. Cameron is truly concerned about AIDs <em>per se</em>, he ought to be <em>much</em> more concerned about smoking, diabetes, or accident-prone behaviours.<br /><br />As to the "lifespan" numbers, Dr. Cameron appears to be attempting to monopolize on a combination of small national populations and the sample's very much smaller population of self-reported homosexuals (chosing legal marriage rather than cohabitation). Why else would an <em>American</em> be so interested in life expectancy in <em>Scandinavia</em>?<br /><br />Is this man claiming that making gay marriage legal leads to early mortality in Scandinavia? Is he concerned that those Scandinavian homosexuals who died quite young would have lived longer had they not legally married a same sex partner, but had chosen instead to stay single or to cohabit? Is he claiming that those same people, whatever their sexual preferences, would have lived an extra twenty years had they chosen heterosexual marriage? Is this man worried for the health of homosexuals? Is he merely concerned about the well-being of adopted children in Scandinavia? You'd be correct to guess that <em>this</em> is not his reason for stating those highly dubious statistics.<br /><br />To evaluate what is really at play behind Cameron's claims, let's look at the man. (This is <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/ad-hominem.html"><strong>legitimate</strong> <em><strong>ad hominem</strong></em></a> and not a fallacious <em>ad hominem</em>.) In 1982, <a href="http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html">Dr. Paul Cameron</a> co-founded the "Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality" in Lincoln, which pretentiously title organization later became–you guessed it–The Family Research Institute.<br /><br />By 1983, Dr. Paul Cameron of Nebraska (clue!) had been dropped from membership in the American Psychological Association for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.<br /><br />What kind of violation? Probably something related to American Sociological Association's 1985 resolution asserting that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism." The ASA noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."<a href="http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html#note7">7</a><br /><br />Cameron's work has also been repudiated for alleged misrepresentation of data by the <a href="http://www.cpa.ca/">Canadian Psychological Association</a>.<br /><br />It is theoretically possible that the violation of "Ethical Principles" committed by Dr. Cameron that elicited 'dis-memberment' by the American Psychological Association were different issues than those cited by the ASA, but if this is the case, then Dr. Cameron has been a very naughty fellow indeed.<br /><br />Whatever his reasons for anti-gay bigotry, it certainly appears that Dr. Cameron has made hate propaganda his life's mission.<br /><br />If Dr. Cameron were truly concerned that expected lifespan is a valid criterion on which to base decisions concerning prospective adoptive parents, then his time would have been better spent in campaigning against adoption by parents who smoke. After all, it is well established that smokers are statistically likely to die about 7 years younger than nonsmokers. Further, the adoptive children of smokers would be exposed to the known health risks of second hand smoke.<br /><br />However, <strong><em>since</em></strong> Dr. Cameron mentioned no other areas of concern regarding the health or longevity of adoptive parents, <em><strong>and</strong></em> since his mission statement proudly avows an anti-homosexual stance, <em><strong>and</strong></em> since the quoted statistics were for a completely separate nation, <strong><em>and</em></strong> since three professional agencies have criticised Dr. Cameron for biased misrepresentation of data, I believe that I was quite correct to view those improbable statistics with scepticism.<br /><br />The question of whether or not adoption should be equally accessible to gay couples as to heterosexual couples would prove an interesting subject for reasoned and informed debate. I think that the most important factors to be considered are those relating to the <em>child's</em> psychological well-being.<br /><br />My personal opinion is that there is no particular reason to believe that a gay couple would be necessarily be a worse choice than a heterosexual couple in terms of their potential to be good, loving, adoptive parents. However, potential adoptive parents currently seem to outnumber available babies. So, given that <em><strong>society</strong></em> remains prejudiced against homosexuals, to place babies in a household headed by a homosexual couple might place those infants at some avoidable risk of psychological discomfort concerning societal prejudices (once they are old enough to be concerned about societal attitudes). On the other hand, since older children are far less likely to be placed in <em>any</em> adoptive home, <em>those</em> children would probably be far better off being adopted by loving, gay parents than remaining in fostering or an orphanage.<br /><br />Regardless, biased misrepresentation of inaccurate and irrelevant figures should play no role in such a debate when all information on Dr. Cameron and his "hate tank" quite clearly indicate that he is highly prejudiced. Had Dr. Cameron provided <em>reliable</em> statistics that were <em>relevant</em> to the question, then his hateful agenda <em>per se</em> should not mitigate against his argument.<br /><br />My knee-jerk reaction to obvious hate propaganda is to adopt a view that is diametrically opposed to that of the bigot. This reaction does not persist long, and I prefer to return to assessing the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/argument-vs-explanation.html">argument</a> on its merits as dispassionately as possible. However, hate propaganda <em>does</em> pique my interest to look for more <em><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html#FoL">fallacies of logic</a></em> and <em>misrepresentations</em> in the diatribes spewed by bigots. This is how I came to be interested in the otherwise pointless ‘<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligence.html">intelligent</a> <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html">[sick]</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">design theory</a>’, and I just might eventually get around to some research on gay bashing.<br /><br /><br /><br /><p>The article that I stumbled across was <a title="Permanent Link to Gays Die Sooner: Implications for Adoption" href="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2007/03/27/gays-die-sooner-implications-for-adoption/" rel="bookmark">Gays Die Sooner: Implications for Adoption</a>, which was quoted on March 27, 2007 from <a href="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/306142602.html">Christian Newswire</a> on the <a href="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog">OrthodoxyToday.org Blog</a>, which stated that "Comments and Pings are both off."<br /><br /><br /></p><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-15335811302390463282007-11-19T03:08:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.614-08:00Furor over Stupidity<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdiYFi3s4GXTsdFMCdhFeXlz-CjGfU_ra-mJ_Xkv2tisSPm6eyvtEsclvZJ-jX8foFUU-Bt-UyG9LZz1LH6riOq2dmcW7JKhAm9FPM9TGa0KcYOgwJScOX7yj4xqRn-Sx2aMGn/s1600-h/Flatus.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5074155715396207842" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="Poster for Inherit the Wind -- America has not progressed very far since the Scopes Monkey Trial." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdiYFi3s4GXTsdFMCdhFeXlz-CjGfU_ra-mJ_Xkv2tisSPm6eyvtEsclvZJ-jX8foFUU-Bt-UyG9LZz1LH6riOq2dmcW7JKhAm9FPM9TGa0KcYOgwJScOX7yj4xqRn-Sx2aMGn/s320/Flatus.jpg" border="0" /></a>It's high time that scientists and the educated <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/furor-over-stupidity.html#furor">organize against</a> attempts by the dogmatically ignorant to undermine <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/05/ex-ducare.html">education</a> in America. <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">AiG's</a> deceptive <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">junk-tank</a> monument to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-only-flourishes-amidst.html">stupidity</a>, aka the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">Creation Museum</a>, has squandered $27 million in order to promote their LIES against scientific fact.<br /><br /><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">YECs</a> appear not to be a particularly bright group, so it seems unlikely that many budding geniuses are being misled into <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">ignorance</a>. However, this is <em>no</em> reason <em>not</em> to decry the damage done to average children by causing <em>deliberate confusion</em> about science and reality.<br /><br />The Founding Fathers were wise to separate Religion and the State, though not necessarily for prescient reasons. Whether or not they foresaw the likelihood that <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">organized</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">stupidity</a> would attempt to undermine education, the Constitution <em>should</em> be used to protect education from superstition and ignorance. The mere fact of "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html">scientists</a>'" having signed a document against Darwinism demonstrates the desecration of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">science</a>, <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/shedding-light.html">critical thinking</a>, and <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/10/logic.html">logic</a> wrought by religious dogmatists. Polls indicate that far too high a <a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/19012/gallup.htm">percentage</a> of Americans are so ignorant of the facts on which scientific theories are based that they hold a strict creationist view of origins.<br /><br />Modern <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_mimble-wimble_archive.html">politicians</a>, concerned more for their political ambitions than for truth, are all too aware of the vocal agitators who sway religious dogmatists on voting day, so they abrogate their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. To make matters worse, the most stupid president ever not-to-actually-be-elected resorts to claims of communication with God. It's intriguing to ponder how America came to be a nation that largely reviles <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">knowledge</a> while protecting organized stupidity. America has not come very far since 1925!<br /><br /><a id="furor" name="furor"></a>Statement of Concern<br />"We, the undersigned scientists at universities and colleges in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana, are concerned about scientifically inaccurate materials at the Answers in Genesis museum. Students who accept this material as scientifically valid are unlikely to succeed in science courses at the college level. These students will need remedial instruction in the nature of science, as well as in the specific areas of science misrepresented by Answers in Genesis."<br /><br />National Center for Science Education petition: <a href="http://www.sciohost.org/states">http://www.sciohost.org/states</a><br /><br />"One of the petitions, started by the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a <a href="http://travel.msn.com/Destinations_Washington,_D.C._United_States_35854_DATE_DESC_244_35854_4.aspx">Washington, D.C.</a>, group that focuses on church and state issues, says the museum is part of a "campaign by the religious right to inject creationist teachings into science education."'<br /><br />Campaign to Defend the Constitution: <a href="http://www.defconamerica.org/">http://www.defconamerica.org/</a><br /><br />Elsewhere: <a href="http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847">Gallup Poll on Evolution</a>, which reveals that the overwhelming majority of religious fundamentalists are <strong><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">ignorant</a></strong> of the <strong>fact</strong> of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html">biological evolution</a> : comment on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">Pharyngula</a> : <a id="a044894" href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/religionour_maelstrom_of_ignor.php">Religion—our maelstrom of ignorance</a>: "Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse."<br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-88268403675508445892007-11-17T10:08:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.628-08:00Numbers Games<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Xs3KsEJAC6DYNAB3XGt59z0vQSVTp6dNcvsQhYd1VG1oK_NtHnRZJiAv3JjlNdax6xOq8Y1KPrzW36x6KIZEMwXhekYPKUngbl512W2Cqskl4yW_YG1hQCA1wzzmaCcAoZE0/s1600-h/NumbersGame.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5065673120933853314" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Xs3KsEJAC6DYNAB3XGt59z0vQSVTp6dNcvsQhYd1VG1oK_NtHnRZJiAv3JjlNdax6xOq8Y1KPrzW36x6KIZEMwXhekYPKUngbl512W2Cqskl4yW_YG1hQCA1wzzmaCcAoZE0/s200/NumbersGame.jpg" border="0" /></a>Used correctly, <strong>statistics</strong> are an invaluable aid to correct reasoning.<br /><br />The discipline called 'statistics' is a mathematical science that establishes criteria and techniques for meaningful, mathematical evaluation of numerical data (descriptive statistics, inferential statistics). This discipline is not to be confused with the vernacular meaning of statistics, which merely refers to any collection of numbers connected to a topic.<br /><br />"Statistics can be made to prove anything - even the truth." ~Author Unknown<br /><br /><p align="center"></p><div align="center"></div><div align="center"></div><div align="center">"Statistics may be defined as "a body of methods for making wise decisions in the face of uncertainty."" ~W.A. Wallis </div><br /><p></p>As applied within the softer sciences, statistical methods provide the means by which to ascertain whether or not data have arisen purely by chance or whether they accurately reflect that which they are intended to measure. That is, inferential statistics provides confidence limits that indicate the probability that the data have <em>not</em> arisen purely by chance. <p><br /><p align="center">"The theory of probabilities is at bottom nothing but common sense reduced to calculus." ~Laplace, Théorie analytique des probabilités, 1820<br /><p></p>However, as for so many other areas that are abused by what passes as human reasoning, statistics can be manipulated and misinterpreted to serve the special prejudices of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-speech-or-propaganda-of-hate.html">hate</a>-<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/hate-tanks.html">tankers</a> and <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">junk</a>-<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">tankers</a>. The fact that numbers can be manipulated and misinterpreted does <strong>not</strong> mean that statistics always lie or even that statistics often lie. It is <em>people</em> who lie, and <em>people</em> who are mistaken either through simple ignorance or deliberate self-delusion.<br /><br /><div align="center">"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination." ~Andrew Lang<br /><p></p></div><div align="center">"Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases." ~Theodor Billroth <p><p>"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~Mark Twain, autobiography, 1904 (there is no actual record of this under Disraeli's authorship) </p></div><div align="center"></div><div align="left"><p>The oft-cited "<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html">Borel's Law</a>" is prime example of the sort of manipulative numbers games to which creationists resort in an attempt to discredit the enormously likely probability of biopoiesis. Here's an example of creationist nonsense: <p>"...Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10<sup>50</sup> have a zero probability of ever happening.... This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel...." <p>Rot and twaddle – <em>only</em> a zero probability is a zero probability.<br /><p>Whenever there are close to or more than 10<sup>50</sup> possibilities that the particular event will occur, then the event can<em>not</em> have zero probability. Even if there was a single chance for that event to occur, the event could occur, so its probability is not zero.<br /><p>Of course, since for whatever deluded reasons <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">creationists</a> choose to take Genesis literally, those who are already convinced that they are the product of special creation will be enamoured of such a ridiculous argument. No matter how stupid or unlikely an <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/thought.html">idea</a>, those who dogmatically cling to that idea for emotional reasons will be unmoved by reason, logic, facts, or legitimate statistics.<br /></p></div><p>The other form of illogic that attaches itself to numbers lies in two related but separate fallacies of logic – <em><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/argumentum-ad-numeram.html">argumentum ad numerum</a></em> and <em><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/argumentum-ad-numeram.html">argumentum ad populum</a></em>. </p><p>The <em>reverse</em> of these recognized fallacies is a form of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fallacy-fallacy.html">fallacio fallacy</a>, namely that just because a large number of credible authorities state something, this does not make the assertions of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">experts</a> well-founded. Such an assertion is a <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fallacious-appeal-to-authority.html">fallacious argument <em>against</em> authority</a>. The faulty reasoning runs, "I don't like this idea, therefore no matter how many <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">genuine authorities</a> say that such-and-such is true, because I don't want to believe it, all the authorities are incorrect." <div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div><br /><p></p><p></p><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-8640641586698202122007-11-17T08:20:00.000-08:002007-07-02T19:48:34.129-07:00Pet PeevesHere's a partial list of infuriating things that people do:<br />Obviously at the top of any such list come egregious crimes against humanity such as child abuse, child pornography, etcetera. In this category come those acts of deliberate harm to others that are committed out of selfishness combined with weakness. These are the acts that are universally despised by all except the perpetrators. Not much need for discussion about these, and most of us are fortunate enough to escape or avoid these.<br /><br />However, we more commonly encounter daily irritants like <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/shun-spam.html">spam</a>, pop-ups, and junk websites that arise out of human greed and an unwillingness to work for an honest living. I despise these scum because they all want something for nothing. The search engines rank those websites that are not to be trusted – be careful about clicking on any that are dubious <em>and</em> boycott businesses that you know to spam or to advertise on junk-sites. (For example, <em>never</em> click on Nizkor because those scum have made it impossible to close their junk window, as I discovered to my chagrin.)<br /><br />If we all boycotted spammers and invasive advertisers, the scum could not profit. Fight back – drive them out of business!<br /><br />I also find telemarketers and charities that phone to solicit contributions – junk mail is bad enough, but dashing for the phone when it's an unsolicited intrusion is infuriating. If I want to buy or contribute, I will do so, and there is no shortage of businesses willing to sell or charities willing to accept donations, so I have no difficulty finding them should I wish to. I have an effective policy on those who invade my privacy – I tell the person who is selling or soliciting that I make a point of <em><strong>never</strong></em> doing business with, or donating to, any business or agency that phones me and I stick to my word. Why should I reward any business or agency that invades my privacy? If they want to advertise, let them support television and printed magazines or newspapers by paying for their advertizing.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-1135901757843280362007-11-17T08:08:00.000-08:002007-07-02T19:49:48.627-07:00Out, Damned Spam!How best to avoid spam –<br />Don't trust just anyone with your email address – beware particularly of websites that offer a free widget or newsletter in exchange for your email address. If you must provide an address, equip yourself with a free email address such as you can obtain through yahoo or msn. That way, you can easily close the address if it attracts junk.<br /><br />It's impossible to completely avoid spam, so I set up my email browser to delete dubious 'senders' or even entire countries. (I don't have any buddies in China, for example, so I simply blocked <strong><em>all</em></strong> emails that come out of China and other such countries.)<br /><br />Domains seem to be a dime a dozen or are completely free, so lots of scum abuse free addresses provided by yahoo etcetera. You may not want to block all yahoo- or hotmail- senders, but some of the less popular freebie providers will not be a loss. If you get spam from greedyjerk-at-freetoscum.com, then it's better to block the entire at-freetoscum.com domain rather than just greedyjerk, who will have e-morphed to megascum-at-freetoscum.com by next week.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-19040834648623236662007-11-12T01:04:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.674-08:00Myths Revered and Myths Exposed<div><a href="http://www.heav.org/assets/images/convention2007/KEN-HAM.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5069088770985409266" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="Different Views of Dinosaurs – the Ham-headed-dinosaur, a genetically altered relic of ignorant thinking. " src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNQ5ioQEENmRUFYyP1MZw_HEAnBhEBrpyYeATayy2Vr_Nj8c-iG-WDvChU9xyyi-UOVSsw0WX6SGTzim-Mao-HaDaSH_pbvYJMCOmGWYkVipnn0oo2Prjs1Q6tVL96ReBqZOvb/s320/Ham-headed-dinosaur.jpg" border="0" /></a>Two very different museum exhibits have hit the news recently (5/26/07).<br /><br />First the bad news: "<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-05-26-creationmuseum_N.htm">Creation Museum juxtaposes dinosaurs, Noah's Ark</a>"<br />This monument to stupidity in Petersburg, Kentucky was erected under the direction of Ken Ham. He's the expatriate Queenslander who founded the oxymoronically-titled <em>Answers in Genesis </em>ministry. Ham's "non-profit" organization came up with $27 million to build a 60,000-square-foot museum devoted to biblical literacy and creation mythology.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUKYymOkMPIv3EszgYRpkd_sVUg_L2mKjpC3fp17yrpH9EnXT9QHbw04CBc6wD0dhHhwkzRNPhGvdRqBk9U6-Eqm98mcQps7fNNvtPl-a1bQoeIXsYBjktqEPD1ouitjT9CQKK/s1600-h/FictionLieSeeUm.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5075376370871534866" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUKYymOkMPIv3EszgYRpkd_sVUg_L2mKjpC3fp17yrpH9EnXT9QHbw04CBc6wD0dhHhwkzRNPhGvdRqBk9U6-Eqm98mcQps7fNNvtPl-a1bQoeIXsYBjktqEPD1ouitjT9CQKK/s200/FictionLieSeeUm.jpg" border="0" /></a>Says Ham, "The Bible doesn't talk about fossils, but it gives you a basis for understanding why there are fossils around the world."<br /><br />Understanding? Ham is not interested in understanding, Ham is interested in promoting nonsensical insistence that Genesis is not allegorical. Of course the Bible doesn't mention fossils – the ancient tribesmen of Israel who invented the Genesis-creation-myth knew nothing of fossils.<br /><br />"Christians across this nation see this place as a rallying point," Ham said. They "recognize that we live in a culture that no longer believes the Bible is true."<br /><br />Misleading! Only <em><a href="http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847">some</a></em> Christians are so deluded that they believe that the Bible is literal, though I suppose that religious dogmatists are spread across America. The museum is actually a rallying point <em>only</em> for those Christians who are so ignorant as to insist upon Special Creation. The only good news is Ham's admission that most of the "culture" no longer takes the Bible literally.<br /><br />Ham said the museum received three gifts topping $1 million, which only goes to demonstrate that the deluded may become rich. On the other hand, perhaps chimpanzees have funded this inanity in order to divorce themselves from the deluded amongst their cousins.<br /><br />Ham has filled the museum not with dioramas but with lie-oramas, displays that lie about paleontology. The dinosaurs disappeared some 65 million years ago, when the only evidence of mammalian ancestors comprised tiny insectivores. Hominids did not evolve until the Miocene.<br /><br />Why dinosaurs in such an exhibit? Children love dinosaurs, and if you wish to inculcate creation myths into another generation you must con the kiddies.<br /><br />To demonstrate that two can play at the game of deceptive imagery, I have created the Ham-headed-dinosaur to illustrate "<a href="http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/05/26/museum-medium.jpg">Different Views of Dinosaurs</a>".<br /><br />Some good news is that Ham's lie-oramas have excited well-deserved <a href="http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=new_creation_museum_mostly_illustrates_t&more=1&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;c=1&tb=1&pb=1">criticism</a> and that <a href="http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070526/NEWS01/705260345">protests</a> are planned.<br /><br />The other exhibit deals with the phenomenon of myth building in a realistic way:<br /><a href="http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=3efb0e74-2443-484c-b900-fc4e94e735bc&k=37742">Dragons and other mythic creatures featured in NYC museum exhibit</a><br /><br />"What's going on? Has one of the pre-eminent science museums in the world made a find that would show these creatures are real? No, no, the exhibit actually looks at how people have come up with all kinds of myths and stories to account for things they didn't understand.<br /><p></p>The exhibit shows how cultures around the world came up with such strange, mysterious creatures. Dragons, for instance, can be found both in the East and West, although they're considerably more benevolent in Chinese culture than they are in Europe. "<br /><p></p>That's more like it – display that consititutes an acknowledment that ignorance promoted fantasy.<br /><br /><p>More mutterings about the stupidity that is creationism:<br />ɷ <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-only-flourishes-amidst.html">Creationism only flourishes amidst Ignorance </a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/un-designed-intelligences.html">un-designed intelligences</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/judge-jones-rules.html">Judge Jones Rules</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/wedge-document.html">The Wedge Document</a><br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div><br /><br /><br /><p></p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-55885178771724317642007-11-09T05:35:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.690-08:00Pseudoscience Chicanery<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5075376370871534866" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="The Fiction Lie-See-Um or AiG's Creationist Museum presents falsehoods about natural history in order to promote ignorance of science in the US." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUKYymOkMPIv3EszgYRpkd_sVUg_L2mKjpC3fp17yrpH9EnXT9QHbw04CBc6wD0dhHhwkzRNPhGvdRqBk9U6-Eqm98mcQps7fNNvtPl-a1bQoeIXsYBjktqEPD1ouitjT9CQKK/s200/FictionLieSeeUm.jpg" border="0" /></a><strong>Pseudoscience</strong> masquerades as science, usually to promote some commercial scam or to promote religious beliefs for which there is not, nor ever will be, supportive evidence.<br /><br />The subject matter of pseudoscientific claims ranges from astrology and the occult to anti-science, religiously motivated falsehoods.<br /><br />By my definition, to lay claim to being legitimately within the sphere of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">scientific</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">knowledge</a>, the claim must:<br />A) For physical evidence that is <em>not</em> subject to experimental verification: exist as tangible evidence that is uncovered under controlled conditions and is interpreted in accordance with <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">current</a> knowledge – for example, a paleontological fossil, an anthropological artefact, an archeological find. That same fossil, artefact, or ruin cannot be considered to fall within the realm of science when it has been unearthed without any attention to its context, or experimental verification of its associations and age.<br /><br />B) For experimentally generated empirical data: the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">scientific method</a> can be applied to physical data that is experimentally testable, repeatable, and, ideally, <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html#fals-hy">falsifiable</a>. The experimental data must be logically interpreted in accordance with current knowledge.<br /><br />Talking or writing about science is <em>not</em> science. Criticizing or critiquing science is <em>not</em> science. Elaborating mumbo-jumbo about supposed medical treatments without clinical testing is <em>not</em> science. Concocting falsehoods designed to protect unjustified belief in disproved Special Creation is definitely <em>not</em> science.<br /><br />In order to <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/creationism-only-flourishes-amidst.html">ignorantly</a> support <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/fol-ly.html#FoL">illogical</a>, indoctrinated religious mythology, <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">creationists</a> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/denial.html">deny</a> scientific knowledge, attack a <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/straw-man-fallacy.html">straw man</a> version of science, and falsify science as lie-oramas in the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/11/myths-revered-and-myths-exposed.html">Fiction Lie-See-Um</a>, or tout <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/09/creationist-nonsense.html">Misleading Pseudoscience for Dummies</a> on <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/junk-tanks.html">junk tanks</a>. " Creationism has been discredited, however, by indisputable physical evidence – carbon dating, for example."[<a href="http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051028-4.htm">SW</a>]<br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div><br /><br />External : <a href="http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm">Science Week editorials</a> : <a href="http://scienceweek.com/editorials.htm#050123">Creationism vs. Sanity</a> : <a href="http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051028-4.htm">SCIENCE POLICY: ON THE TEACHING OF PSEUDOSCIENCE</a> :Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-25929338328632362862007-11-07T07:12:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.723-08:00Rigidity and Religiosity<a href="http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/griffith_intolerance_2.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5079080969142896034" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="Scene from D.W. Griffith's 1916 movie Intolerance. The film was intended as a sermon against the hideous effects of intolerance. Intolerance interweaves a contemporary melodrama about the hypocrisy of well-off do-gooders set in the United States, with three parallel stories of earlier times: Christ at Calvary, the razing of Babylon by Persians, and the persecution of the Huguenots in France." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8twCTfTUkKky1a-i9Xv_oxjoort0lvlVnPqdfBQlV-nKZ-zIZZKkiRRQHmScFA7tk4N4kdjd5SqRiL0NEl-bNQpBRZpJkLn2y86N7q0VgnKd9D78QwH5AO0Iz1MZsS2y1edLo/s200/Intolerance-DWG.jpg" border="0" /></a>In a 2002 study, researchers at the University of Nijmegen examined the relationship between moral attitudes and religiosity. Individual <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/05/ex-ducare.html">educational</a> attainment also affects moral attitudes, typically resulting in more liberal and tolerant attitudes. These results are nothing new because many studies have demonstrated moral rigidity in the religious and the less educated. <p><p>However, the researchers also observed variation in the moralism-religiosity relationship within different countries. They found that the correlation between individual religiosity and moral attitudes was stronger in the more religious countries compared to the more secularized countries. The liberalizing impact of education was stronger in more religiously heterogeneous countries compared to religiously homogeneous countries, and stronger in long-standing democracies compared to short- standing democracies. [<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SOR/is_2_63/ai_89078702">s</a>]<br /><br /><a href="http://www.artline.ro/admin/_files/newsannounce/Birth_of_a_Nation-728408.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5079081424409429426" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="A scene from D.W.Griffith's 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation, which glorified the KKK and white supremacy." src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG0Xh08i9h3mitchsmCjrRjashDG7ewTZ995JUkh96fB_0cwYVKI4VJzsRcwqbvZU0geSxOLJ2vwDXAz2astQCEgiPbUZdowyHiR8j55bRhgiGm8iG0u9fgGAN2xqcvc3zgeI3/s320/Intolerance-in-TBoN.jpg" border="0" /></a>When compared to other Western nations, including neighbouring Canada, religiosity and moral rigidity in the United States ranks alongside the developing nations. Contrary to its self-congratulatory hubris, the US has very little to brag about because its citizens display a level of ignorance that places it at the bottom of the Western intellectual totem pole.<br /><br />The image at top left is from David Wark Griffith's 1916 movie "Intolerance". In ironic contrast, the image at right is a scene from Griffith's 1915 movie "The Birth of a Nation", which epitomizes American intolerance toward blacks and glorifies the Ku Klux Klan. I doubt that Griffith ever saw the irony.<br /><br /><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-28812456430555577722007-11-05T11:17:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.737-08:00Error Filled Belief Systems<a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2006/06/my-what-big-beak-you-have.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056665042559079778" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhik1qo_mwHi3dTpa3piSHyEJF14Lhy0Z2Z55UWRMdtcfz0RpmE1YD6WYhyJ2zpwZJCrHtrZfYYF6duVXn3GS7Bi7jhecbQ1rcWk2MOfyhULZ_K6r0YrUZGvH4LiF7s4Lg1JPsc/s200/toucan.jpg" border="0" /></a>It is quite extraordinary to me that some people hold collections of unfounded beliefs while denying fact-based realities. I suppose that these alternative "thinkers" believe that it is better to hold as true that which they wish to believe, and as untrue any fact-distorted information that they choose, for whatever misguided reason, not to believe.<br /><br />Here are some ridiculous world-views that I have encountered in some illogical and personally unpleasant (for many reasons beyond ridiculous beliefs) individuals:<br /><br />B (for Bible Biased Bigot): God, also pretentiously called the "Intelligent [sick] Designer", dictated Absolute Moral Truths. All liberal and compassionate views, including tolerance of others' behaviors, and any behaviors that differ from the straight and narrow will lead to inevitable moral mayhem. B's knowledge of sociology ranks with B's level of empathy and compassion somewhere close to zero.<br /><br />W: Global warming is a myth. W's "reasoning" runs that because the planet has previously had ice ages, then global warming must be attributable only to normal fluctuations. Knowledge of the existence of prior ice ages is the sum total of W's knowledge of paleoclimates and climatology. W finds scientists dull because they say the same things as one another. (I think that the planet would be a very scary place if all scientists concocted ideas based on a personal need for variety!) W knows virtually nothing about medical science, but firmly believes that most disease is a creation of the mind. The Nazi holocaust, according to W, either did not happen or is greatly exaggerated (the latter being a concession to the horrifying film footage). W believes that Jews have exaggerated the holocaust because they suffer a persecution complex. It does not seem to have occurred to W that the Jews have indeed been scapegoated and persecuted repeatedly during European history. W doesn't believe in God (so far, so good) and so does not believe that Jesus was the son of God (fine, since a man cannot be the son of something that does not exist). However, W considers that Jesus the man is a myth and that Jesus never lived (apparently, the Gospels are utter lies rather than exaggerations). Does W the-fact-buster believe in anything? Yes, W believes in the sort of mythical creatures that exist only in fantasy novels .....<br /><br />There seems, as evidenced by these two, to be an association between truly silly or nasty belief systems and more generalized <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/dastardly-stubborn-mean-iv-revised.html">personality defects</a>. This makes some sense in view of the fact that our <strong>personalities</strong> are the outward manifestation of our general belief system, and further, that what we choose to believe, when we diverge from evidence-logic-based beliefs, will be greatly influenced by our temperament and general attitudes to the world and others.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-87654855143422067502007-11-04T10:17:00.000-08:002008-12-10T23:50:58.810-08:00Un-Designed Intelligences<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056740139204706562" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 20px 20px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_osP51C3atIY/Ri0mXWbBgQI/AAAAAAAAA1E/ue8AsLnIhtA/s320/fingered.jpg" border="0" /></a>In my opinion, the concept quoted below warrants lower case and reaction to the concept ought to evoke UPPER case refutations.<br /><br />"Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?"<br /><br />So far, so good. This is the whole point of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">scientific investigation</a> as embodied in numerous branches of empirical and experimental investigation. The trouble is that the writer is not really interested in learning where we come from, rather he or she is interested only in promulgating an older-than- two-thousand-years creation myth.<br /><br />Of course, the above quote would not have evoked mimbling if subsequent statements were not contradictory:<br />"We promote the scientific evidence of '<a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/">intelligent</a> [<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html">sick</a>] <a href="http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/">design</a>' because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality."<br /><br />There is <strong>no</strong> scientific evidence that points directly and incontrovertibly to the operation of an "<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligence.html">intelligence</a>" behind the evolution of <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html">biological complexity</a>. Creationists choose to <em>interpret</em> the physical evidence as sign of the operation of a deity, just as the creators of other creation myths have done.<br /><br />However, mainstream <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/science.html">science</a> involves not merely collection of data, it also demands that acceptable inferences be made from the data <em>toward</em> <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/11/appeal-to-false-authority.html#cred-ex">expert</a>-scrutinized scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws that reasonably explain physical mechanisms. Most creationists appear to be <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/ignorance-vs-knowledge.html">ignorant</a> of the content and the process of science. Merely discussing science, as I am here, does <strong>not</strong> constitute science.<br /><br /><a href="http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/">Science</a>, by definition, can only investigate the physical, and scientists can only speculate about the natural world in light of physical principles. The purpose of science is the elucidation of mechanisms that operate in the physical world, so legitimate science speculates neither on the supernatural nor on the existence or <em>non</em>existence of purported deities.<br /><br />This said, unbiased, scientific understanding objectively points <em>away</em> from the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer toward mechanisms that select <em>blindly</em> for inherently successful mechanisms. If this were <em>not</em> the case, Christian literalists would <em>not</em> attack scientific understanding of the origins of life and the <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/12/biological-evolution.html">evolution</a> of biological complexity, instead they would espouse mainstream science.<br /><br />Further, "neutrality" behooves a lack of bias, a lack of ulterior motive or hidden agenda. No matter what their duplicitious protestations may be, those who promote the concept of "intelligent" design <em>do</em> have an agenda that is unrelated to scientific objectivity – they wish to promote <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/">creationism</a> and their <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2005/09/wedge-document.html">right-wing social agenda</a> by pushing thinly disguised religion into the science classroom. It is a credit to many American parents, educators, and judges that the invidious inroads of ‘intelligent <a title="external link" href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/03/sick.html">[sick]</a> design' propagandists are being overthrown.<br /><br />It has been my unhappy observation that few people know more than a smattering of scientific facts and even fewer understand scientific principles. However, many reasonable thinking Christians are <em>not</em> so closed-minded as to deny the expertise of scientists in order to protect their emotional need for a belief in a deity. Recognition of biological evolution does not preclude personal religious belief. Religionists, however, exhibit not only different sectarian beliefs they also exhibit different degrees of obtuseness.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-31595798581050466922007-10-31T23:59:00.000-07:002008-12-10T23:50:58.821-08:00Galleria<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_osP51C3atIY/Ri0MgWbBgLI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/s7aokmSNsNw/s1600-h/WadiWadi.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5056711706521206962" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_osP51C3atIY/Ri0MgWbBgLI/AAAAAAAAA0Y/s7aokmSNsNw/s400/WadiWadi.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>From the right side of my brain . . . <a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2005/10/wadi-wadi.html">Wadi Wadi</a> (sounds like a town in <a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2006/09/gosse-bluff-impact-crater.html">Australia</a>, but isn't)</div><div> </div><div>Human brains are lateralized:</div><div>Left hemispheric functions include linear algorithmic processing and concrete mathematics, sense of present and past, and grammatical language functions.</div><div>The right hemisphere specializes in holistical algorithmic processing and abstract mathematics, perception of shapes/motions, sense of present and future, sense of intonation in language , and spatial perception.</div><div> </div><div>ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/aboriginal-rock-art.html">Aboriginal Rock Art</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/karyoti.html">Karyoti</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/through-microscope-brightly.html">Through the Microscope Brightly</a><br />ɷ <a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/10/explore-virtual-caves.html">Explore Virtual Caves</a></div><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-8508461004544966242007-10-02T11:51:00.000-07:002008-12-10T23:50:58.832-08:00Aboriginal Rock Art<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMVpSia6nVeGiMBa8sIkqYbEor7PUdpL41OEy8ecwBqgPsdYh8NtJ6odAySL1ooH7bOBX6g5DDP1PVmchl62Xa4sekDtWqhZ7TCgGJIoQJMM1tGDfNT2NqspbsyAk27dxxlvNL/s1600-h/Aboriginal_Art_Australia(3).jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5063826378979223538" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMVpSia6nVeGiMBa8sIkqYbEor7PUdpL41OEy8ecwBqgPsdYh8NtJ6odAySL1ooH7bOBX6g5DDP1PVmchl62Xa4sekDtWqhZ7TCgGJIoQJMM1tGDfNT2NqspbsyAk27dxxlvNL/s400/Aboriginal_Art_Australia(3).jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Aboriginal Rock Art, Anbangbang Rock Shelter, Kakadu National Park, Australia, courtesy of Thomas Schoch. For more on <a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2006/05/aboriginal-art.html">Aboriginal Art</a>.</div><div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-55941018196255786812007-10-01T00:10:00.000-07:002007-07-02T20:02:23.536-07:00Karyoti<a href="http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/400/bigfoot-bt.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />This animation is popping up all over. It makes the biology of cells both fascinating and aesthetic. Harvard University has sponsored this animation of the "<a href="http://www.xvivo.net/press/harvard_university.htm">Inner Life of the Cell</a>" (<a href="http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard.swf&width=640&height=520" target="_blank">HiRes</a>, <a href="http://aimediaserver.com/studiodaily/videoplayer/?src=harvard/harvard_low.swf&width=640&height=520" target="_blank">LoRes</a>), and a short version is available for viewing. The animation on YouTube is not nearly as high quality as that accessed by the link above.<br /><br />The Internet-released version has a music soundtrack, but lacks any commentary soundtrack. If you want an explanation of the action click on <a title="external link" href="http://biologyofcells.blogspot.com/2007/12/inner-life-of-cell.html">Inner Life of the Cell</a>.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36758091.post-52642500424531359322007-10-01T00:05:00.000-07:002007-07-02T20:04:02.572-07:00Through the Microscope Brightly<a href="http://galaria.blogspot.com/2006/10/biggles.html"><img style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4566/894/400/waves.ch.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />The image bears little resemblance to the original, but it was fun to play. The internet has several websites with excellent microscopy: <a href="http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/galleria/index.html">Molecular Expressions</a> and <a href="http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/techniques/fluorescence/fluorhome.html">Microscopy Resource Center</a> are both good.<div align="center"><a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html"><span style="font-size:180%;">Quo Vadis?</span></a><br />...<a href="http://mimble-wimble.blogspot.com/2007/05/quo-vadis.html#top">section index</a>... </div align="center">Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0