For anyone interested in the issue of Obama's birth certificate, I found this post and comments on Ed Brayton's blog most illuminating and entertaining. The facade of legitimate concern for constitutional government as motivation for the accusations was revealed by one poster going by, sickeningly enough, John Adams:
"Obama is on the record saying that he was born in a hospital in Hawaii. The long form version would list the hospital and the doctors names that were present during the delivery. If it turns out that Obama's long form birth certificate says he was popped out at home, or in a taxi that is going to raise questions that will need to be asked of Obama as to why he would lie about that. That will require further investigation."
It would? Why? The issue is not "Did Obama lie about anything?". The issue is "Is Obama qualified to be president?". We've got a long history of liars as president (Clinton, Nixon), with mixed results. /snark But seriously, clearly the agenda is not protection of the constitution. The agenda is to take Obama down, whatever it takes. It's the same strategy that brought us the nonissues of Ayers, ACORN, and flag pins. They are just taking their strategy into extra innings. The problem is, they went into a hornets nest. The best retort was this one:
"Note the ['If']. It's the most important part of the entire sentence. As in 'If a starship enters Earth orbit from the Galactic Center and her commander produces a birth certificate saying Obama was born on a planet whose name can't be pronounced by humans, that is going to raise questions that will need to be asked of Obama as to why he would lie about that.'
Until the 'if' condition is proven true, the wackaloons have nothing to their name but a lot of empty 'what if' speculation, with ZERO evidentiary backup, which no decent court has time to deal with."
The problem that becomes readily evident in the referenced thread is that the wingnuts are not used to dealing with the scientifically inclined, who tend to ask annoying questions like "Where is your evidence for that?", to which, through over 300 responses, an answer never appears. They aren't used to that. In their little secluded corners of the internet, all that is required is assertion linked with suspicion. No need to be specific enough to, say, wager on the outcome. Stay vague, must have wiggle room. No need for internal consistency either. It doesn't matter if some aspects of your theory are contradictory, just keep repeating the assertions.
You see the gamut of conspiracy techniques, and seeing them run headlong into the buzzsaw of an audience with sharpened thinking skills, and an appreciation for evidence gave me no shortage of schadenfreude. Here are some selected responses for your enjoyment:
"I also love that the same people who used Obama's full name as a slur during the campaign now want us to believe that's not really his name. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to eBay to shop for a new irony meter!"
"What this means, in simple terms, is that Alan Keyes has gone right off the deep end and will be laughed out of court. I've started reading the brief and it appears Keyes is trying to argue standing by claiming California's Electoral College members have a constitutional duty to examine each candidate's "Original vault copy long form" birth certificate. It's a tactic that's guaranteed to fail by virtue of the fact no such verification has ever been required before. Either every Elector in every election since the adoption of the constitution has been derelict in his duty or Keyes is full of shit. Guess which one the court will choose."
"I think I know the wingnut's next line of criticism, 'Ok fine, there *was* a Barak Obama born in Honolulu, but how do we know this man's name is really Barak Obama *and* that he's the same Barak Obama as in the certificate?'"
"Just to summarize for those who have difficulty reading,
a) Obama's mother is a US citizen thus her son is too (no matter where he was born)
b) Obama born on US soil (HI) thus he is a US citizen
c) Even if b) is false, a) is true, thus he is a US citizen
d) Short form of birth certificate has always been sufficient to prove citizenship*
e) Birth announcement is further evidence of HI birth
f) HI authorities have confirmed details of birth
g) Relevant Federal authorities have confirmed details of Obama's birth
h) the burden of proof IS ON YOU, unless you can PROVE IT no amount of speculation changes anything
i) YOUR CANDIDATE LOST, GET OVER IT
j) IF (and such a probability is SO LOW as to be non-existent) Obama IS NOT a US citizen - all hail President BIDEN (at least, in your eyes, he's WHITE). -DJ
*None of the other [white] candidates has been set this high a level of burden of proof,
wonder what would raise the bar now? Hmmm, let me think...."
"The 'short form' birth certificate is a real birth certificate, and valid as legal proof of his place of birth.
The only ones who seem to have a problem with that are a handful of whackjobs who got their legal education at the Imperial Klan University of West Nutlick, GA.
The specific question was 'where was he born', and the answer, found on the 'short form' certificate, is 'Honolulu'. Whether he was born in a hospital, home, or taxi, and whether he was delivered by Dr. Feelgood or Dr. Frankenstein, has absolutely no bearing on his citizenship."
"of course they lied about his place of birth in the advertisement and on the short form birth certificate because their commie, race-mixing conspiracy to put a Muslim terrorist in the White House was already under way back in 1961."
"There is only a crisis in your paranoid little mind. You act as though this is a serious issue - rest assured that it isn't. Several paranoid loons, some of whom have filed in court, a case doth not make. I'm sorry, but a very, very few folks actually give a shit about this.
Show me the evidence that what you assert is true. Show me the evidence that the parties who actually certify anything, are being given a line of bullshit. Show me the evidence that Obama is hiding anything from the actual people who will certify this election. Until you can, until you can prove that something nefarious is going on, you don't have a leg to stand on."
"[wingnut]Obama's birth certificate can't be real, both them Hawaii state officials who say they seen it is just Japs and it's still part of the whole Pearl Harbor conspiracy, and the 14th amendment don't mean nothing cause it's right after that there 13th amendment that lets them uppity nigras vote, and I don't agree with that, so everything after it don't count, and it don't matter that Obama's mother was a US citizen cause she done give up her citizenship whin she done had sex with a black man in the first place.[/wingnut]"
"Well, it seems perfectly obvious to me...
In some sort of Manchurian Candidate sort of way, Barack's parents KNEW that he was destined to become President. So they had to overcome the mistake of allowing him to be born in Kenya by forcing the Hawaiian authorities to create a new American birth certificate for him.
In my humble opinion, they should have also had enough foresight to change his middle name too.
/tin foil hat mode"
"This Obama trip to see Grandma 'Toot' was put together with ABC and Good Morning America as a two-fold attempt to, 1) legitimize a Publicity stunt to gain sympathetic favor for Obama and, 2) provide a cover for Obama to solicit a legal story and affidavit from Grandma 'Toot' as to his claim of having been born in Hawaii.
'One of the things I want to make sure of is that I had a chance to sit down with her and talk to her,' Obama told Roberts on GMA. 'She's still alert and she's still got all her faculties. And I want to make sure that I don't miss that opportunity right now.' 'And then we're going to find out what chores I can do, because I'm sure there's been some stuff that's been left undone,' he said.
Yes, there was good reason that Obama needed to 'talk with her and find some chores that need to be done!' And it's very important that you the voter decipher his words 'she's still alert and she's got all her faculties.' He keeps repeating this mantra because that's an absolute requirement for a valid affidavit. And Grandma 'toot' was the only American relative left that could cover-up his birthplace."
"On a practical note, does anyone really think that it is remotely possible that a woman with limited financial resources, in her ninth month of pregnancy, is going to say to herself, 'Yes, I think it would be a fabulous idea to fly to a third world country where I don't know a soul and give birth!'??? And then, having had the child, would arrange for the newspaper in her hometown to announce the birth, but lie and pretend it happened in Hawaii? Then fly home, without anyone noticing that she had been gone, with a newborn in tow? Does this make any sense at all to anyone?"
"they're not just good citizens asking for evidence. They're scum who blatantly ignore evidence and facts and who will never, never, be satisfied with anything they receive, even if Obama were to give them everything--because their goal isn't the truth. Their goal is to overturn the election.
They are attacking American democracy, and they are attacking the rule of law. They, and you, are enemies of America. Fuck you. Go die. I'm an American, and you are my enemy because you want to destroy democracy and the rule of law just to get at Obama."
I'll end with my contribution to the mix, that all you conspiracy nuts think you predict everything, because you reinterpret everything to fit your misconceptions. Conspiracy theories are always nonfalsifiable, as you guys keep demonstrating.
Show some documentation that you've predicted anything over the last 10 years and then we'll talk. Or better yet, how about enlightening us on what's going to happen in the next ten years? Claiming you made a prediction after the fact sort of leaves off the "pre" part.
And indeed, it shows how these conspiracy nuts are not interested in good science, or good epistemology at all. And they sure as hell aren't interested in Democracy. Trying to change the outcome of an election with conspiracy theories is every bit as anti-Democracy as an armed coup, just with less balls.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Novak's Lame Case for God
Michael Novak has written a book intended to make the case of God to the godless. If Ken Blackwell's summary is indicative of the content, Mr. Novak will fail miserably. His book seems a simple rehash of the same old misrepresentations and flawed arguments that atheists have been swatting like flies for centuries:
"In the book, Mr. Novak discusses faith and compassionately engages, with great charity and respect, the new atheist movement. This is a movement led by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. From my readings of their work, the answers they give to metaphysical questions are frequently lacking and often consist only of mean-spirited insults hurled at the reportedly 92% of us who believe in God. Mr. Novak, however, sees the positive in the popularity of these anti-religion books, as they challenge believers to question and carefully exam their own faith."
Blackwell's tired first claim, that the New Atheists' (tm) arguments are merely mean spirited attacks, is refuted by Novak himself. Personal attacks are hardly the means by which one challenges believers to question their faith. Obviously there is a lot more to the atheists' writings than personal attacks, and Blackwell is just another apologist who refuses to deal logically with the arguments made. Instead, he charges into battle, ignorance flying high:
"Modern atheists, with their supposed adherence to the ideals of the Enlightenment and scientific inquiry, can be surprisingly irrational in their suggestion that all we see on earth, from simplest forms of life to the greatest products of human intellect, is out of total randomness and is therefore without meaning or purpose."
This is wrong in all respects. There is nothing irrational in noting the evidence, from fields as disparate as geology, astronomy, chemistry, and of course biology, that life began long ago on this planet in very simple forms, and gradually became, through descent with modification, the teaming life we enjoy today. Rejecting all of this because of the scribblings of ignorant desert tribesmen writing before we even knew the world wasn't flat - now that would be irrational.
Second, the history of life is not one of randomness, but of a cruelly absolute, discriminating environment killing what lacks the ability to survive and replicate itself. In Blackwell's world of total randomness, we'd expect six eyed dogs and children born with skin that isn't able to contain water. The man simply has no understanding of what "random" means in this context.
Finally, the notion that life as currently understood is without meaning and purpose is either trivially true, or blatantly untrue depending on what exactly Blackwell is getting at. It is no coincidence that people spouting this "meaningless" gibberish rarely explicitly explain what they mean. For if "purpose" and "meaning" mean "created with intent by someone", then obviously our lives are lacking. How is this negative? Would being created for the purpose of being a slave somehow be superior? Such an argument is a nonstarter, refuted completely by a simple "So what?" Perhaps this lack of length and complexity is why so many backers of this bilge categorize atheistic arguments as "frequently lacking". If so, they are taking away exactly the wrong message. If your entire argument can be refuted so succinctly, the problem is with you, not your critics.
Nonetheless, the final nail in this delusional coffin is provided by the facts of atheists' lives being full of purpose and meaning. I know it is unrealistic to expect pious people to actually note observable reality, but Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett's lives hardly consist of them sitting in the corner, sad, dark, and lacking in motivation. They certainly had the purpose of writing books. The simple fact is that none of the negative claims made about atheists stand up to even the slightest critical scrutiny. Blackwell is living in a fantasy world.
"Mr. Novak correctly understands, as did many of America's founders, that it is divine providence from which freedom and civilized society flow. And for any faults one may find with Christian regimes throughout history, they pale in comparison to the abhorrent atrocities of the dogmatically atheists regimes of China and the former Soviet Union. Without the guiding moral compass that faith provides, those regimes slaughtered millions. And modern society, without a Judeo-Christian ethics, would have little reason to oppose, for example, to the despicable eugenics movement as espoused by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger."
[Yawn] One wonders how many times this ridiculous argument must be shredded before people like Blackwell will stop repeating it. China and the Soviet Union were not atheistic regimes: they simply substituted the state, the party, Mao and Stalin as gods, to be obediently unquestioningly followed. The modern western European states are the closest things we have had to atheistic regimes, and their record of slaughter pales in comparison to that of the religious regimes of the Middle East, and recently, America. After all, the great conflict of our time involves, not atheists, but competing religious factions. But as usual, these inconvenient facts are ignored. Again, far be it for me to insist Blackwell check with reality before spouting off about what atheists do, but many of us have no difficulty opposing eugenics programs, or any of the traditional moral boogie men people like Blackwell like to toss at atheists. Novak and Blackwell are simply making shit up.
"Mr. Novak proclaims that those who claim to adhere to science and reason owe a great deal of gratitude to the Christian church, as it is the home of the scientific method. And great scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein were anything but atheists. In fact, Einstein once described atheists as "creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' cannot hear the music of the spheres." Mr. Novak poignantly states new atheists do not seem to accept that a vast majority of intelligent, highly-educated people are quite religious."
Bullshit. The evidence suggests that the more intelligent and highly educated people become, the less religious they become. Scientists are far more atheistic than is the general population, and it only takes a cursory view of the world to see the very strong correlation between religiosity and ignorance. Again, Novak and Blackwell are making shit up.
What about those scientists? Well, it is foolish to ever take opinions of people who lived hundreds of years ago as relevant to what is reasonable for a person living today to believe. Kepler lived 400 years ago, Newton 300 years ago. Sure they believed in God. Practically everyone alive then did. Newton also believed in alchemy, and that angels kept the planets in their orbits. One can only imagine what he thought of women's rights, slavery, and the possibility of man-made flight. It is beyond foolish to assume these people's opinions would be the same were they alive today. Einstein also had no sympathy for traditional religion, and did not believe in a personal god. Why, might you ask, don't people like Novak and Blackwell make references to more recent scientific geniuses when making this point? Because the atheistic makeup of modern scientists refutes their claim, so they dishonestly ignore the data.
Speaking of ignoring the data, Blackwell and Novak do so in the most blatant way, parroting the baseless claim that US citizens are not free to express their religious views in public:
"Influential English writer and Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton once opined that 'Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. But in practice, it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.' This is clearly the intention of the ACLU and other anti-religious campaigners, who file lawsuits at the mere mention of Christmas in our public schools or the sight of a courthouse daring to display the 10 Commandments."
What sort of delusional world are these people living in? The United States is a country where piety is de facto required to hold public office, where athletes regularly thank invisible beings for aiding their victories without rebuttal, and where a huge proportion of issues (abortion, stem-cell research, evolution science education, etc.) are filled with religious arguments and adherents. Of course, the important detail left out of Blackwell's summation is that it is the government that many of us fight hard to keep from making laws respecting religions. Privately, and in the public square, religious people have and exercise the same 1st amendment rights everyone else has. That some of them are under the erroneous impression that said right comes with an exemption from criticism does not change the facts.
It also does not change with the 1st amendment requirement that government action requires secular purposes. This protects us all, religious and nonreligious alike.
It is a pity people like Novak and Blackwell cannot understand this. Perhaps if they spent more time examining the real world, instead of making up shit in their head (commonly called "faith"), that would change.
"In the book, Mr. Novak discusses faith and compassionately engages, with great charity and respect, the new atheist movement. This is a movement led by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. From my readings of their work, the answers they give to metaphysical questions are frequently lacking and often consist only of mean-spirited insults hurled at the reportedly 92% of us who believe in God. Mr. Novak, however, sees the positive in the popularity of these anti-religion books, as they challenge believers to question and carefully exam their own faith."
Blackwell's tired first claim, that the New Atheists' (tm) arguments are merely mean spirited attacks, is refuted by Novak himself. Personal attacks are hardly the means by which one challenges believers to question their faith. Obviously there is a lot more to the atheists' writings than personal attacks, and Blackwell is just another apologist who refuses to deal logically with the arguments made. Instead, he charges into battle, ignorance flying high:
"Modern atheists, with their supposed adherence to the ideals of the Enlightenment and scientific inquiry, can be surprisingly irrational in their suggestion that all we see on earth, from simplest forms of life to the greatest products of human intellect, is out of total randomness and is therefore without meaning or purpose."
This is wrong in all respects. There is nothing irrational in noting the evidence, from fields as disparate as geology, astronomy, chemistry, and of course biology, that life began long ago on this planet in very simple forms, and gradually became, through descent with modification, the teaming life we enjoy today. Rejecting all of this because of the scribblings of ignorant desert tribesmen writing before we even knew the world wasn't flat - now that would be irrational.
Second, the history of life is not one of randomness, but of a cruelly absolute, discriminating environment killing what lacks the ability to survive and replicate itself. In Blackwell's world of total randomness, we'd expect six eyed dogs and children born with skin that isn't able to contain water. The man simply has no understanding of what "random" means in this context.
Finally, the notion that life as currently understood is without meaning and purpose is either trivially true, or blatantly untrue depending on what exactly Blackwell is getting at. It is no coincidence that people spouting this "meaningless" gibberish rarely explicitly explain what they mean. For if "purpose" and "meaning" mean "created with intent by someone", then obviously our lives are lacking. How is this negative? Would being created for the purpose of being a slave somehow be superior? Such an argument is a nonstarter, refuted completely by a simple "So what?" Perhaps this lack of length and complexity is why so many backers of this bilge categorize atheistic arguments as "frequently lacking". If so, they are taking away exactly the wrong message. If your entire argument can be refuted so succinctly, the problem is with you, not your critics.
Nonetheless, the final nail in this delusional coffin is provided by the facts of atheists' lives being full of purpose and meaning. I know it is unrealistic to expect pious people to actually note observable reality, but Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett's lives hardly consist of them sitting in the corner, sad, dark, and lacking in motivation. They certainly had the purpose of writing books. The simple fact is that none of the negative claims made about atheists stand up to even the slightest critical scrutiny. Blackwell is living in a fantasy world.
"Mr. Novak correctly understands, as did many of America's founders, that it is divine providence from which freedom and civilized society flow. And for any faults one may find with Christian regimes throughout history, they pale in comparison to the abhorrent atrocities of the dogmatically atheists regimes of China and the former Soviet Union. Without the guiding moral compass that faith provides, those regimes slaughtered millions. And modern society, without a Judeo-Christian ethics, would have little reason to oppose, for example, to the despicable eugenics movement as espoused by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger."
[Yawn] One wonders how many times this ridiculous argument must be shredded before people like Blackwell will stop repeating it. China and the Soviet Union were not atheistic regimes: they simply substituted the state, the party, Mao and Stalin as gods, to be obediently unquestioningly followed. The modern western European states are the closest things we have had to atheistic regimes, and their record of slaughter pales in comparison to that of the religious regimes of the Middle East, and recently, America. After all, the great conflict of our time involves, not atheists, but competing religious factions. But as usual, these inconvenient facts are ignored. Again, far be it for me to insist Blackwell check with reality before spouting off about what atheists do, but many of us have no difficulty opposing eugenics programs, or any of the traditional moral boogie men people like Blackwell like to toss at atheists. Novak and Blackwell are simply making shit up.
"Mr. Novak proclaims that those who claim to adhere to science and reason owe a great deal of gratitude to the Christian church, as it is the home of the scientific method. And great scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein were anything but atheists. In fact, Einstein once described atheists as "creatures who-in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' cannot hear the music of the spheres." Mr. Novak poignantly states new atheists do not seem to accept that a vast majority of intelligent, highly-educated people are quite religious."
Bullshit. The evidence suggests that the more intelligent and highly educated people become, the less religious they become. Scientists are far more atheistic than is the general population, and it only takes a cursory view of the world to see the very strong correlation between religiosity and ignorance. Again, Novak and Blackwell are making shit up.
What about those scientists? Well, it is foolish to ever take opinions of people who lived hundreds of years ago as relevant to what is reasonable for a person living today to believe. Kepler lived 400 years ago, Newton 300 years ago. Sure they believed in God. Practically everyone alive then did. Newton also believed in alchemy, and that angels kept the planets in their orbits. One can only imagine what he thought of women's rights, slavery, and the possibility of man-made flight. It is beyond foolish to assume these people's opinions would be the same were they alive today. Einstein also had no sympathy for traditional religion, and did not believe in a personal god. Why, might you ask, don't people like Novak and Blackwell make references to more recent scientific geniuses when making this point? Because the atheistic makeup of modern scientists refutes their claim, so they dishonestly ignore the data.
Speaking of ignoring the data, Blackwell and Novak do so in the most blatant way, parroting the baseless claim that US citizens are not free to express their religious views in public:
"Influential English writer and Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton once opined that 'Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. But in practice, it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.' This is clearly the intention of the ACLU and other anti-religious campaigners, who file lawsuits at the mere mention of Christmas in our public schools or the sight of a courthouse daring to display the 10 Commandments."
What sort of delusional world are these people living in? The United States is a country where piety is de facto required to hold public office, where athletes regularly thank invisible beings for aiding their victories without rebuttal, and where a huge proportion of issues (abortion, stem-cell research, evolution science education, etc.) are filled with religious arguments and adherents. Of course, the important detail left out of Blackwell's summation is that it is the government that many of us fight hard to keep from making laws respecting religions. Privately, and in the public square, religious people have and exercise the same 1st amendment rights everyone else has. That some of them are under the erroneous impression that said right comes with an exemption from criticism does not change the facts.
It also does not change with the 1st amendment requirement that government action requires secular purposes. This protects us all, religious and nonreligious alike.
It is a pity people like Novak and Blackwell cannot understand this. Perhaps if they spent more time examining the real world, instead of making up shit in their head (commonly called "faith"), that would change.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Einstein Proven Right...Again
Einstein proved right yet again.
It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.
A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.
According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.
The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?
The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.
In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.
By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.
But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.
"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.
"It has now been corroborated for the first time."
For those keen to know more: the computations involve "envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows."
Einstein is always a good counterargument to the claim that counter-establishment science can't get a fair hearing. All it takes is specifics. Show the math, make objective predictions. The problem with things like Intelligent Design and global warming denial isn't that they run counter to the scientific establishment. It's that they never present, as Einstein did, a fully developed theory complete with solid math.
It's taken more than a century, but Einstein's celebrated formula e=mc2 has finally been corroborated, thanks to a heroic computational effort by French, German and Hungarian physicists.
A brainpower consortium led by Laurent Lellouch of France's Centre for Theoretical Physics, using some of the world's mightiest supercomputers, have set down the calculations for estimating the mass of protons and neutrons, the particles at the nucleus of atoms.
According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.
The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?
The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.
In other words, energy and mass are equivalent, as Einstein proposed in his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905.
The e=mc2 formula shows that mass can be converted into energy, and energy can be converted into mass.
By showing how much energy would be released if a certain amount of mass were to be converted into energy, the equation has been used many times, most famously as the inspirational basis for building atomic weapons.
But resolving e=mc2 at the scale of sub-atomic particles -- in equations called quantum chromodynamics -- has been fiendishly difficult.
"Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.
"It has now been corroborated for the first time."
For those keen to know more: the computations involve "envisioning space and time as part of a four-dimensional crystal lattice, with discrete points spaced along columns and rows."
Einstein is always a good counterargument to the claim that counter-establishment science can't get a fair hearing. All it takes is specifics. Show the math, make objective predictions. The problem with things like Intelligent Design and global warming denial isn't that they run counter to the scientific establishment. It's that they never present, as Einstein did, a fully developed theory complete with solid math.
Begley on GOP Anti-Intellectualism
Sharon Begley writes in Newsweek about the deep anti-science hole the United States has to dig out of:
"The truly poisonous legacy of the past eight years is one that spread to much of society and will therefore be much harder to undo: the utter contempt with which those in power viewed inconvenient facts, empiricism and science in general.
Look at how Bush justified inaction on greenhouse gases. Not by arguing that cuts would have cost too much, a stance that would at least have been intellectually honest, albeit debatable. Instead he had political appointees eviscerate scientific reports on climate change, censor climatologists and exaggerate scientific uncertainties, with the result that tens of millions of Americans think that the existence and cause of global warming are matters of opinion. The same mind-set governed abstinence-only sex education. The administration could have argued that any curriculum other than one teaching "no sex before marriage" was immoral. Again, intellectually honest. But no: instead it manipulated "scientific" evaluations of the programs to make them seem more effective at preventing teen pregnancy. The justification for limiting embryonic-stem-cell research was even more insidious. The White House and its allies could have taken the morally sustainable position that 32-cell embryos are human beings and thus cannot be destroyed. Instead, they claimed, falsely, that adult and umbilical-cord stem cells can treat 72 diseases and conditions, no embryonic cells required.
It turned out that the Bush administration had about as much respect for scientific facts as it did for facts about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As one official explained to author and journalist Ron Suskind in 2002, the administration had nothing but disdain for what it called "the reality-based community," people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." That would be science. Instead, said the official, "we create our own reality." That translated to such things as filling federal health-advisory boards with doctors who claim, against all scientific evidence, that low levels of lead are not neurotoxic to children. The message that expertise and facts do not matter has had a poisonous effect on young people's desire to go into science, which has played no small part in America's losing its competitive edge in R&D.
It has also undermined public trust in the integrity of science. That gives Obama a steep hill to climb as he tries to seize opportunities that Bush wasted, whether it's to convince Americans that climate change is real and man-made, that embryonic stem cells offer avenues to cures that adult stem cells do not, or any of the other science-based issues he'll grapple with. But Obama has shown, through his policy positions and choice of advisers, a respect for the values of scientific inquiry, for experts and expertise, for reaching conclusions based on evidence and disinterested empiricism rather than wishful thinking. The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. We will soon have an administration that agrees, freeing science to make the contributions to the nation's health, energy security and prosperity that only it can."
"The truly poisonous legacy of the past eight years is one that spread to much of society and will therefore be much harder to undo: the utter contempt with which those in power viewed inconvenient facts, empiricism and science in general.
Look at how Bush justified inaction on greenhouse gases. Not by arguing that cuts would have cost too much, a stance that would at least have been intellectually honest, albeit debatable. Instead he had political appointees eviscerate scientific reports on climate change, censor climatologists and exaggerate scientific uncertainties, with the result that tens of millions of Americans think that the existence and cause of global warming are matters of opinion. The same mind-set governed abstinence-only sex education. The administration could have argued that any curriculum other than one teaching "no sex before marriage" was immoral. Again, intellectually honest. But no: instead it manipulated "scientific" evaluations of the programs to make them seem more effective at preventing teen pregnancy. The justification for limiting embryonic-stem-cell research was even more insidious. The White House and its allies could have taken the morally sustainable position that 32-cell embryos are human beings and thus cannot be destroyed. Instead, they claimed, falsely, that adult and umbilical-cord stem cells can treat 72 diseases and conditions, no embryonic cells required.
It turned out that the Bush administration had about as much respect for scientific facts as it did for facts about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As one official explained to author and journalist Ron Suskind in 2002, the administration had nothing but disdain for what it called "the reality-based community," people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." That would be science. Instead, said the official, "we create our own reality." That translated to such things as filling federal health-advisory boards with doctors who claim, against all scientific evidence, that low levels of lead are not neurotoxic to children. The message that expertise and facts do not matter has had a poisonous effect on young people's desire to go into science, which has played no small part in America's losing its competitive edge in R&D.
It has also undermined public trust in the integrity of science. That gives Obama a steep hill to climb as he tries to seize opportunities that Bush wasted, whether it's to convince Americans that climate change is real and man-made, that embryonic stem cells offer avenues to cures that adult stem cells do not, or any of the other science-based issues he'll grapple with. But Obama has shown, through his policy positions and choice of advisers, a respect for the values of scientific inquiry, for experts and expertise, for reaching conclusions based on evidence and disinterested empiricism rather than wishful thinking. The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts. We will soon have an administration that agrees, freeing science to make the contributions to the nation's health, energy security and prosperity that only it can."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Out of the Mouths of GOPers: What They Didn't Learn in 2008
Poor Carol Platt Liebau. She tried to take a sober look at why the GOP got hammered in 2008, and while her efforts still miss the boat (she lists the biased media, campaign finance reform, immigration, and maverickiness as the main causes), her efforts were Solomonlike compared to the avalanche of wingnuttery in the comments to her article, which I reproduce for your amusement:
"The biggest mistake for Republicans was having open primaries in many states, leading to the disastrous victory for John "Mr. Amnesty" McCain. Otherwise, Mitt Romney could have won and been a much more formidable opponent to Barack Obama.
McCain became the party's presidential nominee by landing numerous votes from Democrats, Independents and, most likely, illegal immigrants"
Of course, in typical GOP fashion, the data supporting this contention is nonexistent.
"John McCain still could have won but for the financial meltdown and bailout. He was leading in the polls just before the financial meltdown."
No he wasn't. He was leading until the Palin interviews surfaced, then he tanked. The meltdown came later.
"The democrats ran a crooked campaign full of lies. It's time 'WE THE PEOPLE' demand answers before Dec 15. Write to these Judges and demand the law suits for Obama Birth cert be honored."
"I have called members of congress and stated flat out that they should no longer speak with the NY Times, LA Times, WASH Post, networks, etc, etc. They should be considered operatives of the Left."
"It is time to shut down the Democratic Party's unethical workings. The crimes against our voting procedures and proud traditions of this country were shameful this election. I really do not believe OBAMA is the president because of all of the cheating that went on."
"Public schools, through progressive domination of curriculum development and teacher training, have become indoctrination machines for progressive politics. Until this is broken, America is not a Democratic nation, but increasingly a neo-Stalinist, Marxian nation."
Paranoia - 4, supporting facts - 0. These people need a basic history lesson on Stalin and Marx.
"The infestation of our country by the latinos is the #1, overriding reason why Republicans are doomed."
Nice to see some of the racist GOPers be honest about it.
"McCain was the wrong candidate ...he was not a true conservative and bragged about opposing his own Party ...only Sarah Palin kept his campaign from being a complete disaster and embarrassment"
Now there's the definition of delusional. Palin 2012! Please!
However, just when we could be forgiven for thinking all is lost, one commenter saved the day with some refreshingly realistic insight:
"How many more a** whuppins will it take? Or, to put it another way, how long will the GOP wander lost and forlorn in the wilderness? Judging by Liebau and many responses to her piece, it may yet take a while, perhaps decades...assuming the party will survive in such a decrepit state for that long(which is doubtful)...
The Goldwater/Reagan model of traditional conservatism, which espoused limited government, separation of church and state, and emphasis upon private initiative, has been hijacked by a fanatical band of social conservatives who are hellbent to ram their agenda onto the people of our Beloved Republic.
Goldwater never had any use for social conservatives, period. It was not for nothing that he is the father of true American conservatism. Reagan enraged social conservatives when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Court. He knew they would pitch a hissy fit, but did it anyway. This party has to come to grips with where it wants to go.
Increasingly, social conservatives are out of sych with a majority of Americans, who view them as intolerant and extreme. The party can choose to placate the ones who make the most noise, the social conservatives, or it can expand its vision, addressing the concerns of most Americans. The moment of truth has arrived. "
Indeed it has. Let's hope the GOP gets back to its conservative, intellectual roots, and says "thanks but no thanks" to the likes of Sarah "know nothing" Palin, Mitt "Freedom Requires Religion" Romney, and Mike "I didn't come from no monkey" Huckabee.
"The biggest mistake for Republicans was having open primaries in many states, leading to the disastrous victory for John "Mr. Amnesty" McCain. Otherwise, Mitt Romney could have won and been a much more formidable opponent to Barack Obama.
McCain became the party's presidential nominee by landing numerous votes from Democrats, Independents and, most likely, illegal immigrants"
Of course, in typical GOP fashion, the data supporting this contention is nonexistent.
"John McCain still could have won but for the financial meltdown and bailout. He was leading in the polls just before the financial meltdown."
No he wasn't. He was leading until the Palin interviews surfaced, then he tanked. The meltdown came later.
"The democrats ran a crooked campaign full of lies. It's time 'WE THE PEOPLE' demand answers before Dec 15. Write to these Judges and demand the law suits for Obama Birth cert be honored."
"I have called members of congress and stated flat out that they should no longer speak with the NY Times, LA Times, WASH Post, networks, etc, etc. They should be considered operatives of the Left."
"It is time to shut down the Democratic Party's unethical workings. The crimes against our voting procedures and proud traditions of this country were shameful this election. I really do not believe OBAMA is the president because of all of the cheating that went on."
"Public schools, through progressive domination of curriculum development and teacher training, have become indoctrination machines for progressive politics. Until this is broken, America is not a Democratic nation, but increasingly a neo-Stalinist, Marxian nation."
Paranoia - 4, supporting facts - 0. These people need a basic history lesson on Stalin and Marx.
"The infestation of our country by the latinos is the #1, overriding reason why Republicans are doomed."
Nice to see some of the racist GOPers be honest about it.
"McCain was the wrong candidate ...he was not a true conservative and bragged about opposing his own Party ...only Sarah Palin kept his campaign from being a complete disaster and embarrassment"
Now there's the definition of delusional. Palin 2012! Please!
However, just when we could be forgiven for thinking all is lost, one commenter saved the day with some refreshingly realistic insight:
"How many more a** whuppins will it take? Or, to put it another way, how long will the GOP wander lost and forlorn in the wilderness? Judging by Liebau and many responses to her piece, it may yet take a while, perhaps decades...assuming the party will survive in such a decrepit state for that long(which is doubtful)...
The Goldwater/Reagan model of traditional conservatism, which espoused limited government, separation of church and state, and emphasis upon private initiative, has been hijacked by a fanatical band of social conservatives who are hellbent to ram their agenda onto the people of our Beloved Republic.
Goldwater never had any use for social conservatives, period. It was not for nothing that he is the father of true American conservatism. Reagan enraged social conservatives when he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Court. He knew they would pitch a hissy fit, but did it anyway. This party has to come to grips with where it wants to go.
Increasingly, social conservatives are out of sych with a majority of Americans, who view them as intolerant and extreme. The party can choose to placate the ones who make the most noise, the social conservatives, or it can expand its vision, addressing the concerns of most Americans. The moment of truth has arrived. "
Indeed it has. Let's hope the GOP gets back to its conservative, intellectual roots, and says "thanks but no thanks" to the likes of Sarah "know nothing" Palin, Mitt "Freedom Requires Religion" Romney, and Mike "I didn't come from no monkey" Huckabee.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Which Came First? The Egg of Course
The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is one of those questions that reveals the religious bias many of us still carry with us into these issues. Only one with an ex-nihilo view of creation could consider the question a challenge. From an evolutionary perspective the answer is obvious: going backwards through the chicken lineage will eventually come to egg-laying creatures which aren't chickens. Martin Rundkvist explains:
"Biologically, a member of the chicken species could be defined by a list of alleles that must be present in its DNA if we're to call it a chicken. And somewhere, sometime, the first bird that fulfilled that definition hatched. It hatched out of an egg laid by a non-chicken. As an adult, the first chicken (being lonely) probably mated with a bird that did not quite fulfil our definition of chickenhood, and so the first chicken probably laid non-chicken eggs. Out of these eggs hatched birds that almost, but not quite, fulfilled our definition of chickenhood. In subsequent generations, chicken eggs became more and more common. Later, after the geologically instantaneous speciation period, birds fulfilling the chicken species-definition became common and so chicken eggs were reliably produced generation after generation."
"Biologically, a member of the chicken species could be defined by a list of alleles that must be present in its DNA if we're to call it a chicken. And somewhere, sometime, the first bird that fulfilled that definition hatched. It hatched out of an egg laid by a non-chicken. As an adult, the first chicken (being lonely) probably mated with a bird that did not quite fulfil our definition of chickenhood, and so the first chicken probably laid non-chicken eggs. Out of these eggs hatched birds that almost, but not quite, fulfilled our definition of chickenhood. In subsequent generations, chicken eggs became more and more common. Later, after the geologically instantaneous speciation period, birds fulfilling the chicken species-definition became common and so chicken eggs were reliably produced generation after generation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
