With tornadoes in Virginia destroying homes, and hurricane season right around the corner, it is worth preparing for the claims from the wacky right that natural disasters are the work of the gods. Invariably these claims come with the reasoning that Gawd must be punishing this group or that for their behavior.
It is worth noting something about this reasoning. Tornadoes strike right across the Bible belt, from Oklahoma to Virginia. Hurricanes run along the Baptist Southwest, or into highly Christian Mexico. Yet atheistic (relatively speaking) New England and Canada are spared these fates. It seems the people attributing motives to natural disasters have got it backwards. Whatever is responsible for them apparently dislikes evangelicals. Perhaps the gods are pissed off at having the wrong words put in their mouths all this time.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Morris, McGann, and the "What If's" on Iran, and Iraq
While recent polls show the economy ahead as the major issue, the Iraq war, and the candidates' plans to deal with it, will no doubt play a major roll in deciding the next President of the United States. Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have an interesting (and most intellectually impressive by Townhall standards) article on the potential problems the Democratic candidates will have dealing with the "what-ifs" of their plans to pull out of Iraq. M&M argue that the various possible scenarios have not been thought through by the Democrats, and this may not bode well for them in the election compared to McCain's simple position of "win in Iraq".
I must say it is a decent argument, even if you are like me and consider the status quo in Iraq to be far worse than they do. However, I would argue that M&M and the many Americans who hold a similar view have themselves not thought through the scenarios far enough, and make two mistakes. First, they stop short of showing exactly what negative results will result from the various hypotheticals they raise, similar to the way anti-porn activists argue, as if the possibility of harm was the same as actual harm. Second, they overestimate the certainty with which we can expect various scenarios to play out. This is, after all, politics. If it were possible to say "If A, then necessarily B, C, and D", we wouldn't find ourselves in our many economic and military messes. There are always multiple contingencies to consider, as well as unknowns.
"What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq?"
OK. What if? First of all, there are several steps M&M skip here. If Iran invades Iraq, they are hardly going to be greeted as liberators. There will still be Sunni fighting Shi'a, and Shi'a fighting Shi'a, as there is now. Iraq is not going to suddenly coalesce into the unified nation of "West Iran" just because we leave. They could get bogged down in a similar quagmire to what we are experiencing, or they could just aid one side in the Iraqi civil war, or have some internal problems we're unaware of that would make invading impossible, or a whole host of other possible outcomes. It is not reasonable to talk of this possibility as if it were anywhere near a certainty.
And what, exactly is the danger of this? How, exactly, would West Iran be more dangerous than Iraq? M&M answer:
And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory?
There are many flaws in this question. First, if "American absence" is all it takes for Al Qaeda to set up a base, they have plenty of options now. What real difference would one more make? Second, if the Iranians were super-keen on the idea of having an Al Qaeda base in their territory, they don't need to invade Iraq to have one. They could just invite Al Qaeda into Iran now, except for the third problem. As John McCain keeps forgetting, (haven't we learned our lesson about having a president who doesn't know who's who over there?) Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Iran's official religion is Shi'a. Do recall that the Sunni and the Shi'a are the ones doing most of the fighting in Iraq. So on this "what if" the answer is "it's highly unlikely, and even if it happens, it doesn't change much".
"And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam?"
This is the best "what if" of the bunch, for it is highly likely to happen, regardless of who wins the Iraqi prize, and it has unpleasant moral undertones. But on a pragmatic level, there doesn't seem to be much substance to it. America, sadly, has a history of this sort of thing. We pulled out of Viet Nam, we pulled out of Cambodia, we pulled out of Lebanon, we pull out of Iraq. And the next country we get into a similar situation with will trust us again. It would be cynical if it weren't true.
As for the deaths, we have to compare them to the deaths Iraq could expect if we don't leave, which is substantial. As grisly as the executions that first week might be, is that really so much worse than the annual deaths over a year due to our presence?
"And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher?"
Ok, but how long would it stay that way? And why are we so sure it will go up? After all, the mess we've made there disrupting what was a fairly stable culture hasn't exactly done wonders for the affordability of oil, so who says a newly stable Iraq, even under Iranian control, wouldn't produce lower oil prices? After all, it is still, in the end, a market, even in Iran. And no one, no one, wants to ask the question of whether higher oil prices, however painful in the short term, might actually be good for America in the long term. After all, the quickest way to independence from foreign oil is independence from oil itself, and what better motivation than $8/gallon gas. There really is no excuse for having a nation as advanced as ours dependent on oil from nations like Iran, and without solar and wind power being commonplace, if not universal. If $8/gallon gas gives us that, give me all you got. Next objection?
"And what if … The list goes on."
Um, OK, but I need more, a lot more. All I see so far are scare scenarios predicted with far more certainty than is justified by the very same people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators, or that the Iraq War would cost $30M, and well, that list goes on and on too.
And at an even more basic level, I think M&M grossly overestimate the intelligence of the average American voter. Let's recall we just spent a couple of excruciating hours watching the Democrats debate lapel pins, whether they each think the other can win, who loves America more, and who did or did not got shot at by snipers. And this election we will no doubt spend a ridiculous amount of time talking about gay marriage, creationism, and abortion. There really isn't much indication that the American public is interested in seeing an in depth analysis of any of the really important issues.
I must say it is a decent argument, even if you are like me and consider the status quo in Iraq to be far worse than they do. However, I would argue that M&M and the many Americans who hold a similar view have themselves not thought through the scenarios far enough, and make two mistakes. First, they stop short of showing exactly what negative results will result from the various hypotheticals they raise, similar to the way anti-porn activists argue, as if the possibility of harm was the same as actual harm. Second, they overestimate the certainty with which we can expect various scenarios to play out. This is, after all, politics. If it were possible to say "If A, then necessarily B, C, and D", we wouldn't find ourselves in our many economic and military messes. There are always multiple contingencies to consider, as well as unknowns.
"What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq?"
OK. What if? First of all, there are several steps M&M skip here. If Iran invades Iraq, they are hardly going to be greeted as liberators. There will still be Sunni fighting Shi'a, and Shi'a fighting Shi'a, as there is now. Iraq is not going to suddenly coalesce into the unified nation of "West Iran" just because we leave. They could get bogged down in a similar quagmire to what we are experiencing, or they could just aid one side in the Iraqi civil war, or have some internal problems we're unaware of that would make invading impossible, or a whole host of other possible outcomes. It is not reasonable to talk of this possibility as if it were anywhere near a certainty.
And what, exactly is the danger of this? How, exactly, would West Iran be more dangerous than Iraq? M&M answer:
And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory?
There are many flaws in this question. First, if "American absence" is all it takes for Al Qaeda to set up a base, they have plenty of options now. What real difference would one more make? Second, if the Iranians were super-keen on the idea of having an Al Qaeda base in their territory, they don't need to invade Iraq to have one. They could just invite Al Qaeda into Iran now, except for the third problem. As John McCain keeps forgetting, (haven't we learned our lesson about having a president who doesn't know who's who over there?) Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Iran's official religion is Shi'a. Do recall that the Sunni and the Shi'a are the ones doing most of the fighting in Iraq. So on this "what if" the answer is "it's highly unlikely, and even if it happens, it doesn't change much".
"And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam?"
This is the best "what if" of the bunch, for it is highly likely to happen, regardless of who wins the Iraqi prize, and it has unpleasant moral undertones. But on a pragmatic level, there doesn't seem to be much substance to it. America, sadly, has a history of this sort of thing. We pulled out of Viet Nam, we pulled out of Cambodia, we pulled out of Lebanon, we pull out of Iraq. And the next country we get into a similar situation with will trust us again. It would be cynical if it weren't true.
As for the deaths, we have to compare them to the deaths Iraq could expect if we don't leave, which is substantial. As grisly as the executions that first week might be, is that really so much worse than the annual deaths over a year due to our presence?
"And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher?"
Ok, but how long would it stay that way? And why are we so sure it will go up? After all, the mess we've made there disrupting what was a fairly stable culture hasn't exactly done wonders for the affordability of oil, so who says a newly stable Iraq, even under Iranian control, wouldn't produce lower oil prices? After all, it is still, in the end, a market, even in Iran. And no one, no one, wants to ask the question of whether higher oil prices, however painful in the short term, might actually be good for America in the long term. After all, the quickest way to independence from foreign oil is independence from oil itself, and what better motivation than $8/gallon gas. There really is no excuse for having a nation as advanced as ours dependent on oil from nations like Iran, and without solar and wind power being commonplace, if not universal. If $8/gallon gas gives us that, give me all you got. Next objection?
"And what if … The list goes on."
Um, OK, but I need more, a lot more. All I see so far are scare scenarios predicted with far more certainty than is justified by the very same people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators, or that the Iraq War would cost $30M, and well, that list goes on and on too.
And at an even more basic level, I think M&M grossly overestimate the intelligence of the average American voter. Let's recall we just spent a couple of excruciating hours watching the Democrats debate lapel pins, whether they each think the other can win, who loves America more, and who did or did not got shot at by snipers. And this election we will no doubt spend a ridiculous amount of time talking about gay marriage, creationism, and abortion. There really isn't much indication that the American public is interested in seeing an in depth analysis of any of the really important issues.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Universities Full of Nonsense?
One of the more idiotic comments made by Ben Stein in the Expelled kurfuffle (and wouldn't that be a contest), reflects a common opinion among the lower academic sphere of society. It is a very unscientific comment that contains an interesting bit of circular reasoning worth fleshing out:
"There are very few places where more nonsense is spoken than in universities. They are supposed to be the residual fortress of knowledge and sense, but they are fortresses of nonsense."
We've all variations of this: "Just cuz you went to college doesn't mean you're smart", "he's book smart but doesn't have any common sense", and so on. But notice the reasoning process that occurs here. Universities promote nonsense? OK, well when such a person is asked for an example of this nonsense, what do we get in reply? From Stein, apparently we'd get the notion that evolution is sound science and creationism/ID is pseudoscience. From others, it would be multiculturalism, or gay rights, or any number of issues.
The one thing they all lack however, is any factual basis for the proclamation of nonsense. It is not as if those "nonsense" positions violate some scientific law/theory, contain logical contradictions, or run contrary to some fact. Stein has no basis for proclaiming universities promoters of nonsense beyond the fact that they reach conclusions he doesn't care for.
It's a nice little circle of ignorance, dontcha think? The implicit assumption is that Stein can't be wrong. I believe the word for that is "faith". It always comes back to that, doesn't it?
"There are very few places where more nonsense is spoken than in universities. They are supposed to be the residual fortress of knowledge and sense, but they are fortresses of nonsense."
We've all variations of this: "Just cuz you went to college doesn't mean you're smart", "he's book smart but doesn't have any common sense", and so on. But notice the reasoning process that occurs here. Universities promote nonsense? OK, well when such a person is asked for an example of this nonsense, what do we get in reply? From Stein, apparently we'd get the notion that evolution is sound science and creationism/ID is pseudoscience. From others, it would be multiculturalism, or gay rights, or any number of issues.
The one thing they all lack however, is any factual basis for the proclamation of nonsense. It is not as if those "nonsense" positions violate some scientific law/theory, contain logical contradictions, or run contrary to some fact. Stein has no basis for proclaiming universities promoters of nonsense beyond the fact that they reach conclusions he doesn't care for.
It's a nice little circle of ignorance, dontcha think? The implicit assumption is that Stein can't be wrong. I believe the word for that is "faith". It always comes back to that, doesn't it?
Friday, May 2, 2008
Predictions of Short-Term Cooling, and the Complexity of Global Warming
In an article surely to be a favorite for crank quote-mining, scientists using retroactively tested models, predict a slight cooling of Europe and North America over the next decade caused by shifting ocean currents. This will temporarily mute the effect of global warming, but unfortunately, it will be a temporary respite.
To understand how this is possible, consider the climate of England and Newfoundland. They are at about the same latitude, and yet Newfoundland has much a colder climate. The reason is the gulf stream, which flows from the Gulf of Mexico across the Atlantic to England, bringing warm water into the otherwise cold North Sea. Change the flow of the gulf stream, and you get a colder England.
Of course the Global Warming denialists will jump all over this study as proof that AGW has been falsified. As one of the scientists put it:
"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year," Dr. Trenberth said. "It does not happen that way."
Indeed, it is interesting to note how often one sees a comment like "How can you predict weather 100 years from now if you can't even predict the weather tomorrow?" Such comments reveal a lack of understanding of the law of large numbers. To illustrate the point, consider the difficulty in predicting the next roll of the dice in contrast to predicting the total of 1,000 such rolls. While the roll of one die will vary from 1 - 6 with equal probability, the total of 1,000 rolls will come very close to the expected mean of 3,500.
Likewise with temperature. Of course there will always be variance in temperature, both temporally and geographically. Climate change refers to the total figures, not the short-term fluctuations. This is why one year's data means nothing, and why recent charges that global warming has stopped based on an unusually high 1998 and unusually low 2007 are fraudulent. Expect more such fraudulent claims if the predictions of these scientists come to pass.
To understand how this is possible, consider the climate of England and Newfoundland. They are at about the same latitude, and yet Newfoundland has much a colder climate. The reason is the gulf stream, which flows from the Gulf of Mexico across the Atlantic to England, bringing warm water into the otherwise cold North Sea. Change the flow of the gulf stream, and you get a colder England.
Of course the Global Warming denialists will jump all over this study as proof that AGW has been falsified. As one of the scientists put it:
"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year," Dr. Trenberth said. "It does not happen that way."
Indeed, it is interesting to note how often one sees a comment like "How can you predict weather 100 years from now if you can't even predict the weather tomorrow?" Such comments reveal a lack of understanding of the law of large numbers. To illustrate the point, consider the difficulty in predicting the next roll of the dice in contrast to predicting the total of 1,000 such rolls. While the roll of one die will vary from 1 - 6 with equal probability, the total of 1,000 rolls will come very close to the expected mean of 3,500.
Likewise with temperature. Of course there will always be variance in temperature, both temporally and geographically. Climate change refers to the total figures, not the short-term fluctuations. This is why one year's data means nothing, and why recent charges that global warming has stopped based on an unusually high 1998 and unusually low 2007 are fraudulent. Expect more such fraudulent claims if the predictions of these scientists come to pass.
Dembski's Predictions on the Impact of Expelled (starring God!)
On the day Expelled premiered, William Dembski wrote an article for The Baptist Press, which aside from the amusing predictions (inaccurate as always), also revealed once again how Intelligent Design is all about the religion, not the science. He isn't even subtle:
"Who likes it? People who think God may have had something to do with our being here and therefore find it reasonable that God may have left tangible evidence of His involvement in creation. Who hates it? A science, education and media elite who prefer that God had nothing to do with it and think that nature must do all its own creating."
Wow. For someone promoting a theory wherein we are not supposed to inquire into the nature of the designer, Dembski sure doesn't have any problem doing so. It's not some mysterious intelligence, or aliens. It's the Christian God, as we all knew all along.
I guess it should not surprise us too much that people who are so anti-science would have such a hard time understanding how the internet works. They seem to think they can say "science, science, science" to scientists and the press, but "God, God, God" to the faithful and no one will notice. Dembski's pat response to this criticism is to claim he is wearing his "theology hat" when he says things like "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". And were Dembski talking politics or theology, he could get away with this. But in science, that just isn't the way things work. You don't get to change your position depending on your audience in science. Your theory either says the designer is the Christian God, or it doesn't.
Worse yet, his statement is inaccurate on its own terms. People like Father Coyne, Francis Collins, and Ken Miller have no problem with God The Creator, and they have a lot of company. But like all cranks, the Expelled crew had to cherry pick the featured interviewees in the film to make it appear that the battle is between atheists and Christians, when it is really just a minority of Christians vs everyone else. Thus Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were in, and the group above was out. As one of the Expelled crew noted, having the Millers, Coyne's and Collins' of the world in there would have "confused" the message of the film.
There is the anti-science attitude of the IDers laid bare. Where a scientist sees contrary evidence requiring revision of his hypothesis, the IDer sees something that needs to be censored so as to not confuse the hypothesis. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dembski puts the nail in the ID-is-science coffin with this humdinger:
"Who's right? That's the wrong question."
The Hell it is Billy boy. That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. In science, who (or more accurately, "what") is right is ALWAYS the question. The fact that scientific theories undergo periodic revision only slightly alters the question to "who is rightest?" One does not get to go all postmodern simply because science does not yield perfect information as if from on high.
Dembski then dives headlong into the favorite red herring from IDers, conflating evolution and abiogenesis. But even then Dembski's lack of understanding of how science works betrays him:
"Take some organic chemicals, slow cook them, give enough time, and out pops life? This isn't a scientific theory. This is an article of speculative faith."
Nooooo, it is a speculative hypothesis based on the best available evidence, and one that will be discarded the minute a hypothesis with solid evidence comes along. Faith doesn't enter into it. But to Dembski's unscientific mind, one either has absolute truth, or anything goes. And here, of course, "anything" is ID, which by Dembski's bizarro reasoning somehow isn't practicing speculative faith when it asserts that the designer is Yahweh.
So really, in the end, as always, ID boils down to "I can't see how abiogenesis occurred, therefore God", which is what dooms Expelled. Creationism's cheap tux is wearing thin. But don't try to tell Dembski that. Like the doomsayers of old, no matter how many times his predictions of the collapse of the scientific world fail to transpire, he is undeterred in his zealotry:
"Expelled's impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater...The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of "Darwin's Wall," Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.
Oh yeah? I've got a bottle of single malt scotch that says when intellectual historians look back on the significant events of 2008, and you mention "Expelled" to them, their response will be: "What?".
"Who likes it? People who think God may have had something to do with our being here and therefore find it reasonable that God may have left tangible evidence of His involvement in creation. Who hates it? A science, education and media elite who prefer that God had nothing to do with it and think that nature must do all its own creating."
Wow. For someone promoting a theory wherein we are not supposed to inquire into the nature of the designer, Dembski sure doesn't have any problem doing so. It's not some mysterious intelligence, or aliens. It's the Christian God, as we all knew all along.
I guess it should not surprise us too much that people who are so anti-science would have such a hard time understanding how the internet works. They seem to think they can say "science, science, science" to scientists and the press, but "God, God, God" to the faithful and no one will notice. Dembski's pat response to this criticism is to claim he is wearing his "theology hat" when he says things like "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". And were Dembski talking politics or theology, he could get away with this. But in science, that just isn't the way things work. You don't get to change your position depending on your audience in science. Your theory either says the designer is the Christian God, or it doesn't.
Worse yet, his statement is inaccurate on its own terms. People like Father Coyne, Francis Collins, and Ken Miller have no problem with God The Creator, and they have a lot of company. But like all cranks, the Expelled crew had to cherry pick the featured interviewees in the film to make it appear that the battle is between atheists and Christians, when it is really just a minority of Christians vs everyone else. Thus Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were in, and the group above was out. As one of the Expelled crew noted, having the Millers, Coyne's and Collins' of the world in there would have "confused" the message of the film.
There is the anti-science attitude of the IDers laid bare. Where a scientist sees contrary evidence requiring revision of his hypothesis, the IDer sees something that needs to be censored so as to not confuse the hypothesis. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dembski puts the nail in the ID-is-science coffin with this humdinger:
"Who's right? That's the wrong question."
The Hell it is Billy boy. That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. In science, who (or more accurately, "what") is right is ALWAYS the question. The fact that scientific theories undergo periodic revision only slightly alters the question to "who is rightest?" One does not get to go all postmodern simply because science does not yield perfect information as if from on high.
Dembski then dives headlong into the favorite red herring from IDers, conflating evolution and abiogenesis. But even then Dembski's lack of understanding of how science works betrays him:
"Take some organic chemicals, slow cook them, give enough time, and out pops life? This isn't a scientific theory. This is an article of speculative faith."
Nooooo, it is a speculative hypothesis based on the best available evidence, and one that will be discarded the minute a hypothesis with solid evidence comes along. Faith doesn't enter into it. But to Dembski's unscientific mind, one either has absolute truth, or anything goes. And here, of course, "anything" is ID, which by Dembski's bizarro reasoning somehow isn't practicing speculative faith when it asserts that the designer is Yahweh.
So really, in the end, as always, ID boils down to "I can't see how abiogenesis occurred, therefore God", which is what dooms Expelled. Creationism's cheap tux is wearing thin. But don't try to tell Dembski that. Like the doomsayers of old, no matter how many times his predictions of the collapse of the scientific world fail to transpire, he is undeterred in his zealotry:
"Expelled's impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater...The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of "Darwin's Wall," Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.
Oh yeah? I've got a bottle of single malt scotch that says when intellectual historians look back on the significant events of 2008, and you mention "Expelled" to them, their response will be: "What?".
Gore, Ghandi, Dembski, and the Do as You Say Argument
“You must become the change you wish to see in the world”. So said Ghandi, and as activist admonitions go, it is sage advice. There is nothing like leading by example. The image of the crusader walking the walk is worth a thousand posturing speeches. However, it is important to note that this is, at its core, a pragmatic argument*. It is not one of moral imperative, or logical necessity. Thus, this argument by Bill Dembski:
"Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it."
…has no more validity than the arguments made by those who would dismiss global warming because of perceived failings in Al Gore’s personal life. There is no moral or logical argument that says one must behave now as if the rules were the way one wants them to be. If I am a basketball coach, and I believe the 3-point shot ought to be abolished, that puts no onus on me to not accept 3-points for those shots. Likewise, if Yoko Ono thinks society would be a lot better off if no one concerned themselves with possessions, that places no onus on her to have no concern for her possessions now. Such an argument ignores the prisoners' dilemma, and makes the reverse mistake of that at the root of the tragedy of the commons.
That is, an action that is advantageous for a group to do, might be highly disadvantageous for individuals to do, especially if others do not take that action. Disarmament is an extreme example. Humanity might be better off if we all disarm, but America is not going to be better off if only we disarm. Likewise, one might argue mankind would be better off living in communes rather than capitalist societies, while still recognizing the impracticality of attempting to live as if one lived on a commune while living in a capitalist society. This is essentially what Dembski is arguing Yoko must do to be consistent with her husband's song.
And lest the world forget, the ultimate in self-referential incoherence was the Expelled crew, who claim they are censored and expelled unfairly, did everything they could to censor criticism, and expelled a thanked star of their film from attending a free screening of it. I owe you all some irony-meters.
======
* I am concerning myself with this argument in and of itself. I am therefore assuming that one does not add on any other obligations, which then would, obviously, negate my assumption. For example, if you make your normative argument based on morals, then obviously that same argument would apply to you.
"Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it."
…has no more validity than the arguments made by those who would dismiss global warming because of perceived failings in Al Gore’s personal life. There is no moral or logical argument that says one must behave now as if the rules were the way one wants them to be. If I am a basketball coach, and I believe the 3-point shot ought to be abolished, that puts no onus on me to not accept 3-points for those shots. Likewise, if Yoko Ono thinks society would be a lot better off if no one concerned themselves with possessions, that places no onus on her to have no concern for her possessions now. Such an argument ignores the prisoners' dilemma, and makes the reverse mistake of that at the root of the tragedy of the commons.
That is, an action that is advantageous for a group to do, might be highly disadvantageous for individuals to do, especially if others do not take that action. Disarmament is an extreme example. Humanity might be better off if we all disarm, but America is not going to be better off if only we disarm. Likewise, one might argue mankind would be better off living in communes rather than capitalist societies, while still recognizing the impracticality of attempting to live as if one lived on a commune while living in a capitalist society. This is essentially what Dembski is arguing Yoko must do to be consistent with her husband's song.
And lest the world forget, the ultimate in self-referential incoherence was the Expelled crew, who claim they are censored and expelled unfairly, did everything they could to censor criticism, and expelled a thanked star of their film from attending a free screening of it. I owe you all some irony-meters.
======
* I am concerning myself with this argument in and of itself. I am therefore assuming that one does not add on any other obligations, which then would, obviously, negate my assumption. For example, if you make your normative argument based on morals, then obviously that same argument would apply to you.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
ID Gets It's Stage: The Oxford Conference
In an interesting twist to the ID saga, The Ian Ramsey Center at the University of Oxford is having a conference on Intelligent Design called God, Nature and Design:
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. It looks like an interesting mix of papers, both critical and supportive of ID. It will be interesting to see how the There are a few items of note. Of the 21 papers submitted so far, six titles contain either "God", "divine", or "moral". I guess the pretense that ID is not about religion has gone down the memory hole to sit next to "cdesign proponentsists", and "creation science".
It will also be very interesting to see how the defenders of ID withstand a critical audience. ID proponents tend to avoid doing battle on any playing field they can't control, thus the censorious policies of so many of their blogs and conferences. However, it would be disappointing if William Dembski's claim that the "vanguard" of the ID movement, ie it's brightest lights, were not invited. That would be both an intellectual, and public relations, nightmare. However, given Dembski's tenuous relationship with reality, I will refrain from judgement at this time until I hear back from the conference organizers.
I find it also notable that the conference appears, based on the submission summaries, to be one of philosophy, not science. So regardless of the outcome, ID still appears to be a nonscientific movement.
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. It looks like an interesting mix of papers, both critical and supportive of ID. It will be interesting to see how the There are a few items of note. Of the 21 papers submitted so far, six titles contain either "God", "divine", or "moral". I guess the pretense that ID is not about religion has gone down the memory hole to sit next to "cdesign proponentsists", and "creation science".
It will also be very interesting to see how the defenders of ID withstand a critical audience. ID proponents tend to avoid doing battle on any playing field they can't control, thus the censorious policies of so many of their blogs and conferences. However, it would be disappointing if William Dembski's claim that the "vanguard" of the ID movement, ie it's brightest lights, were not invited. That would be both an intellectual, and public relations, nightmare. However, given Dembski's tenuous relationship with reality, I will refrain from judgement at this time until I hear back from the conference organizers.
I find it also notable that the conference appears, based on the submission summaries, to be one of philosophy, not science. So regardless of the outcome, ID still appears to be a nonscientific movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
