Consensus and Heresy -- In an intriguing lecture at Caltech titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming”, Michael Crichton has some harsh words for the state of modern science:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
And this:
We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist.
The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press. The past president of the AAAS wondered aloud how Cambridge could have ever "published a book that so clearly could never have passed peer review." )But of course the manuscript did pass peer review by three earth scientists on both sides of the Atlantic, and all recommended publication.) But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?
The entire article is fascinating and worth examining in detail. (HT: Letters From Babylon)
Update: Rusty Lopez has more thoughts on the speech.
There is no tomorrow…at least not for Bill Moyers -- While I think former PBS journalist Bill Moyers is gullible middle-brow intellectual wannabe, I don't think he's stupid. I assume then that his latest screed against conservative Christians is an intentional falsehood meant to dupe those who never travel outside of Blue state circles. Moyers implies that everyone on the “religious right” believes in a pre-millennial dispensationalist theology (a claim that I know he can't be dumb enough to really believe) and then proceeds to claim that because these people believe in the “rapture” that they don’t care about issues such as the environment. This in itself would be outrageous but he goes a step further and tries to tie this belief “to the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress.”
The fact that President Bush is, like Moyers, a member of the United Methodist Church rather than a more dispensationalist friendly denomination seems to have been overlooked. In fact, it’s doubtful that you could find any dispensationalists working for the White House, much less in the Presidency. And while there may be a few in Congress, they certainly don’t subscribe to the ideas that are presented in Moyers’ straw man version of their beliefs. I realize that he is a washed-up hack but does Moyers really need to resort to such nonsense to get attention? (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
Know Your Evanglicals – MSM Version --Once again we find the media stealing the ideas of bloggers without giving due credit. Time magazine is the latest culprit, having ripped off my Know Your Evangelicals series by providing a photo-essay of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. Fortunately, they do a decent job on the article so for now I'm calling off my legal team.
The list includes the obvious (Rick Warren, James Dobson), the relatively obscure (Jay Sekulow, Stephen Strang), the solid but surprising choices (J.I. Packer, Mark Noll), and the downright confusing (Richard John Neuhaus is a brilliant Catholic priest but I’m not sure that just because he was a former Lutheran that he can be considered an “evangelical”). Like any list, the results can be hotly debated. But I give Time credited for their intriguing effort – even if they did steal the idea from me. (HT: djchuang.com)
[Note: Some people took my point a little seriously. I was only being facetious about Time stealing my idea from "Know Your Evangelicals." Just because they stole my idea for "Man of the Year" does not mean that they couldn't have thought of highlighting evangelicals without having read my blog first.]
Evangelicals and Israel -- Michael Russell has an extensive two-part series (here and here) that explores the question “Are Evangelicals Wrong About Israel?” While I’m a strong supporter of Israel, my position is not based on dispensationalist understanding of the role Israel plays in eschatology but on the need to support freedom loving liberal democracies in an area of the world that is subject to tyranny and religiously motivated violence.
Plumbing PZ’s Parable-- PZ Meyers has a “parable” that uses plumbing and a broken faucet to illustrate the absurdity of intelligent design arguments. As he notes in the comments section, the story is just a parable: “A simple story illustrating a lesson. Don’t overanalyze it, and don’t take it literally.” I don’t think there is much danger in anyone taking it literally. After all, since plumbing is the product of an “intelligent designer” the analogy isn't really fitting, is it?
The Tort Tax -- Davidson's Law asks "What would you do with $3,380/year?"
Nine Lives -- Anyone who survives nine bombings is either very, very lucky or very, very unlucky. Anyone who would willingly hang around such a Marine, however, is very clearly insane.
Prayers for Iraq -- Patrick O'Hannigan has a '70s-era cross-cultural prayer while The Great Separation has a more traditional invocation.
A Pro-life pro-choice position? -- I must confess that I paid little notice to Hillary Clinton’s softening stance on abortion. Shawn, a pro-life Democrat at Jonnie's Daily Diatribe, however, was paying attention and caught some interesting comments (“Clinton pointed out that the 7% of women who do not use contraception account for an incredible 53% of unintended pregnancies!!”). Shawn explains why this could be a positive development for both pro-life advocates and the Democratic Party.
22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
1
IN PZ's case we're not certain that particular faucet was well designed or intelligently manufactured[sic]. When you buy a Moen, it's supposed to be for life.
posted on 01.31.2005 7:15 AM2
And the point is that the advice biologists get from creationists like yourself, Johnson, Behe, etc. sounds just as stupid as telling us to fix a broken faucet with prayer.
posted on 01.31.2005 7:29 AM3
I must confess that I paid little notice to Hillary Clinton’s softening stance on abortion.
I don't understand why this has been spun as a shift in Clinton's stance. It's really not at all. I spose it could be that her rhetoric has softened (although I don't know what her previous rhetoric was like, and none of the articles or posts I saw did a compare/contrast), but the basic position is exactly what both Clintons have held for as long as they've been public figures: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
In the speech that people are going nutsy about, she's just emphasizing the last point of the triad.
This non-story highlights nicely how people's brains start going haywire when Ms. Clinton is the subject. If they were behaving rationally, they'd investigate whether the speech represents a substantive policy shift; instead, they assume she's a "feminazi" that probably eats babies, and then note that the speech diverges from their hallucinatory perception of her.
posted on 01.31.2005 7:57 AM4
The shift in emphasis is a positive development, though. I forgot to mention that in the previous comment.
posted on 01.31.2005 9:35 AM5
JPE,
"safe, legal, and rare" has always confused me. Why rare? If abortion is not morally suspect, then why would you hold that rarity is something to be sought? If it is morally suspect, why continue to support its legality and availablity and not push for alternatives?
6
I agree with jpe, for some reason the right goes nuts whenever the Clinton or especially Hillary is the subject.
It is perfectly valid to note, though, that most women who have abortions do not like the experience. What the pro-life community doesn't often acknowledge, though, is that adoption is not always the easy answer they depict it as. I know one women who went that route and while she does feel good that her child is being raised by a loving family having to go thru 9 months of pregnancy and then the guilt of giving her child up (starting with having to tell the nurse she didn't want to look at her child) was horrible. While there's probably some that can be done to make social services more friendly to adoption it is by no means natural or easy (I wonder if the pro-choice community will go the route of pro-lifers and try to invent a 'post-adoption syndrome').
I'm sure Joe would see increased use of contraception as a comprimise but wouldn't it be a better way to dramatically reduce the number of abortions?
posted on 01.31.2005 10:16 AM7
"safe, legal, and rare" has always confused me. Why rare? If abortion is not morally suspect, then why would you hold that rarity is something to be sought? If it is morally suspect, why continue to support its legality and availablity and not push for alternatives?
Most would agree drunkenness should be rare. But why rare? Why not make beer illegal as well? Should 'morally suspect' be the criteria for illegality?
posted on 01.31.2005 10:17 AM8
Concerning the $3,380 "Tort Tax" issue, is that what an average American family saves (a la Bush's highly misleading "average tax cut" numbers), or is it what a typical American family saves? When discussing such things, median is far more meaningful than mean, but nobody ever seems to discuss median figures.
posted on 01.31.2005 11:04 AM9
"I'm sure Joe would see increased use of contraception as a compromise but wouldn't it be a better way to dramatically reduce the number of abortions?"
Considering the hardening of the pro-life movement in regards to the use of any form of contraception other than abstinence, I would doubt that any compromise is even possible. It's because the "pro-life" movement has pigeon-holed itself as being primarily religious in nature, rather than being centered on a question of civil rights. Hence the "pro-life" movement is against condoms, even though they would save unborn lives from being lost. This is because of the religious baggage they carry requiring them to hold a negative opinion of sex outside of marriage. For them abstinence is the only option, even if it means the death of the unborn.
posted on 01.31.2005 11:15 AM10
Mark O:
Why rare? If abortion is not morally suspect, then why would you hold that rarity is something to be sought? If it is morally suspect, why continue to support its legality and availablity and not push for alternatives?Because life isn't that simple. Having abortions willy-nilly is morally suspect, but that doesn't make all abortions morally suspect. Just like all killing isn't morally suspect (e.g., some have no trouble at all with the idea of capital punishment, or killing in self defense, or death with dignity).
The attempt to paint with the extra-wide "all abortion is wrong" brush is equally silly as if a proponent were to say that "any abortion is okay."
In that regard, Sen. Clinton's stance is indeed the right one: abortions should be safe and legal, for those cases in which they are advisable or necessary; and we should be working to eliminate abortions, but not by attacking the supply (criminalization), but rather by attacking the demand (through education and prevention).
posted on 01.31.2005 11:17 AM11
I have a feeling the 'Tort Tax' is derived by summing up the total of all lawsuit costs (and settlements too????) and dividing them by all American families. This, of course, assumes that all lawsuits are trivial. In reality most lawsuits are serious to one degree or another.
I followed the links to this example:
Under the proposed settlement, the members of the "class" who properly submit claim forms will each get 2,500 rewards points (enough for a $25 gift card to selected retailers). And what about the plaintiffs' lawyers? The four of them will divvy up $1.4 million (they convinced the judge to let them bill this case at twice their usual rates). They'll also get 50 million American Express Rewards points — with a retail value of about $500,000 — that they can redeem for ocean cruises, flat-screen TVs, entertainment, fine dining and other luxury perks. By contrast, the cardholders these lawyers supposedly helped will be lucky to afford a new pair of jeans with each plaintiff's share of the giant settlement.
There's some good reforms to be done with class action suits but this isn't the problem. Each individual Amex member was probably ripped off for a minor amount. The problem is that if a big company rips you off it is quite expensive for you to sue them. Rather than granting a license to steal, class-action suits let a lawyer group together a 'class' of people and sue on their behalf. If Amex ripped $10 off of each cardholder they would make tens of millions. It's perfectly reasonable for the lawyer who recovers that to be paid a large sum. If you saved your boss $10 million or more wouldn't you expect a huge bonus?
posted on 01.31.2005 11:17 AM12
You HAVE to put a link to the startribune article by Bill Moyers. It's listed in Hugh Hewitt's site. The words hysteria and hysterical come to mind. Jesus (no pun), the boy has obviously lost his mind. I wish there was a way to directly respond to his article.
posted on 01.31.2005 1:55 PM13
Oh yeah, Hillary has always been moderate on abortion.
That's why she votes 100% with NARAL and Planned Parenthood, the high priestesses of the abortionist death cult.
Let's see:
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Recommended by EMILY's List of pro-choice women. (Apr 2001)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Hillary Clinton is pro-abortion and everyone knows it. She has softened her stance because the American people find abortion disgusting and she needs to obscure her stance in order to win the 2008 election. This is just typical Clinton politics: Figure out which way the wind is blowing and then pretend you've always felt that way.
Notice she made a bee-line for the Armed Services Committee. It's well-known how much the Clintons detested the military, yet all of the sudden we're suppose to think Hillary is a hawk?? She's also pro-death penalty now. Also, she's all of the sudden calling herself a "conservative evangelical christian".
So Hillary Clinton is now magically a pro-military, pro-death penalty, pro-life, conservative evangelical Christian?
If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...
posted on 01.31.2005 2:17 PM14
Hillary said she's a conservative evangelical Christian? Where? When? Perhaps Phil is telling us a lie?
posted on 01.31.2005 2:39 PM15
tgirsch,
So having abortions "willy-nilly" is bad, hmm. It seems our disagreement about abortion is how we define "willy-nilly". Pro-Lifers tend to have a smaller set of non-frivolous reasons for abortion (rape, incest, and life of mother) than Ms Clinton and yourself.
One might wonder why you don't wish to de-criminalize murder or perhaps in fact you do? After all, it seems you would prefer to attack the demand not the supply. Killing (murder) in self-defense is legal, as it's a non-willy-nilly type reason.
Boonton,
If you look at Prohibition and it's aftermath, most don't agree that drinking should be rare. Drunken driving should be rare, and in fact, it is criminalized.
16
I didn't say drinking Mark O, I said being drunk. I don't know anyone who feels being drunk is a good thing (even if you don't drive). Nonetheless, most people feel that while being drunk is morally questionable that alone does not merit making it or drinking illegal.
posted on 01.31.2005 2:47 PM17
What I'm getting at Mark O is that it is totally plausible for one to feel some things are morally wrong but should not be illegal.
posted on 01.31.2005 2:54 PM18
Booton,
Hillary said she's a conservative evangelical Christian? Where? When? Perhaps Phil is telling us a lie?
No, Phil is right. What Hillary said was:
"As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative, if you want to know the truth...
The "where" is in "Light the Lamp! -- The monthly newsletter of the Holy Flame Pentecostal Church of Little Rock, Ark" and the "when" appears to be sometime last fall.
posted on 01.31.2005 3:16 PM19
Joe:
Thanks for clarifying that not all - or even most - dispensationalists are callused regarding the environment and the temporal needs of people in the world. I am dispensational, as are a lot of my friends, and we do care. (I used to be an environmental reporter!)
As for Moyers: he's an unenlightened man. When someone in the dark tries to read the Bible, a lot of error and misunderstanding are destined to occur.
20
As usual, we have no references, only attacks against Moyers.
I challenge you to find one thing that is factually wrong with what Moyers wrote.
Just one.
posted on 01.31.2005 3:43 PM21
Hmmmm, I suppose this will quickly degenerate into an argument over the meaning of Christian conservative versus Phil's "pro-military, pro-death penalty, pro-life, conservative evangelical Christian?"
Here is what was published:
We welcome back to the area Senator Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), who has been spending so much time here in Little Rock lately that she's practically joined the church choir! "I'm here spending time at my husband's library," she told the Lamp when we caught up with her after a Sunday camp meeting, "and of course, I always take time to worship God in as evangelical a way as is feasible, given time and location constraints. As you know, I consider myself an evangelical Christian, really a Christian conservative, if you want to know the truth, so it's nice to be 'home' again in the South, which I really consider my quote-unquote home even though I live in New York most of the time. Well, Washington, D.C., most of the time, actually, but if I'm not there I'm in New York, of course, but always thinking about being here, in the South, my spiritual home, where I shared so many wonderful evangelical . . . moments and . . . events. Can you read that back to me?"
Since she mentions 'conservative' in the context of her personal religion I assume she means it in the religious sense (go to Church on Sunday, don't have sex before marriage etc.) rather than the political one. The newsletter does not seem to be one often devoted to political issues....
22
Boonton
I know you meant drunk, not drink, but how exactly might you draw the line, practically, legally, or morally? That's a tougher nut to crack (and to be honest a rhetorical question).
As for your larger point, I (and many other I imagine) would agree that there is no call to tie legislation to morality, drinking is a case in point and it's why only driving while drunk is what is illegal.
For abortion, that's where many people sneak in the concepts of privacy and public morality. That is to say, drunkeness while driving is illegal because it endangers others lives and property. Many abortion supporters contend that for abortion only the life of the mother is at risk, because the fetus has not achieved "personhood" yet. Which, if believed, brings us right back to the "why rare" question. tgirsh, tells us that it is bad for "willy-nilly" reasons, but "good" reasons exist for killing the unborn. One wonders what metric he uses to weigh those reasons against the life of a child (or fetal non-person!?).
posted on 01.31.2005 4:42 PM23
There goes my idea to start a "know your Orthodox" series. But if I do, I promise to give Joe complete and full credit for the idea.
posted on 01.31.2005 5:44 PM24
I remember reading that piece by Hillary quoted above... I might be mis-remembering, but I think it was in National Review's -satire- section? by Rob Long?
quick google, and...
http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/long200411160825.asp
c'mon, don't make yourselves look so gullible...
25
nikisknight,
Holy cow. Okay, I give up on the subtle sarcasm. Looking again I guess it may not be so completly absurd that Hillary would be giving an interview to " "Light the Lamp! -- The monthly newsletter of the Holy Flame Pentecostal Church of Little Rock, Ark." But the fact that I linked to that NRO article should have been the tip off. Particularly there at the end where he Long adds:
The "Light the Lamp!" staff would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Christ loves all of us equally, and that God's house is open to all, even to senators from New York, so whoever is muttering stuff and saying mean things while pretending to cough can just quit it right now.
I apologize to anyone who thought that link was meant to be taking seriously. After someone thought that I was serious about Time ripping off my ideas I should have realized that I need to paint with a broader brush next time I'm being ironic.
posted on 01.31.2005 7:01 PM26
Michael Crichton said that? Gosh, what did Stephen King have to say in response? Did Jeff Koons weigh in as well?
posted on 01.31.2005 7:09 PM27
I expected science to be, in Carl Sagan's memorable phrase, "a candle in a demon haunted world." And here, I am not so pleased with the impact of science. Rather than serving as a cleansing force, science has in some instances been seduced by the more ancient lures of politics and publicity. Some of the demons that haunt our world in recent years are invented by scientists. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
And so, in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and "skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or simply anti-environmental nut-cases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists are uncomfortable about how things are being done. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
In recent years, much has been said about the post-modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
We can take as an example the scientific reception accorded a Danish statistician, Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist...The scientific community responded in a way that can only be described as disgraceful. In professional literature, it was complained he had no standing because he was not an earth scientist. His publisher, Cambridge University Press, was attacked with cries that the editor should be fired, and that all right-thinking scientists should shun the press... But what are scientists doing attacking a press? Is this the new McCarthyism-coming from scientists?...Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts... It was a poor display, featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?...Further attacks since, have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal terms. He's a heretic. Aliens Cause Global Warming January 17 2003
28
I wouldn't rely on Michael Crichton for information regarding any scientific topic, global-warming or otherwise. Crichton's an irrational flake. Take a look at this page from Crichton's own web-site (
http://www.crichton-official.com/travels/travels_books.shtml):
No, I have not continued that interest very much, but I tend to drop a topic once I finish a book. I felt satisfied with what I had learned. My mind hasn't changed, in the years since.
Of all the things I wrote about, spoon bending seems to stick in the rationalist throat. It just bugs people. I don't know why.
I don't know why spoon-bending occurs. I have no explanation. I can't describe it any better than I did in the book. But I have no doubt that it occurs. More than seeing adults bend spoons (they might be using brute force to do it, although if you believe that I suggest you try, with your bare hands, to bend a decent-weight spoon from the tip of the bowl back to the handle. I think you'd need a vise.)
So Crichton actually thinks there might be something to spoon-bending! What a flake!!! Hint: it's nothing more than an illusionist's trick.
If you want *real* scientific information about global-warming, check out ipcc.ch (just mainstream climate-science, without the spoon-bending BS).
29
Bevets! Go, man, go!
he world isn't getting any warmer, industrialism and rainforest destruction would have happened even without humans, and those Jews made up all the Holocaust stuff! The gays are trying to seduce your children, creationism is science, and those damn aliens won't stop probing your anus!
Keep it up! I like evangelical Christians like you. You help prove my point.
posted on 01.31.2005 9:07 PM30
RE: Moyers' column...well said. It's not so much that Moyers was dead wrong on matters of fact (did he offer any relevant ones?) that he implied many things that aren't so. When he uses phrases like "fundamentalists may believe" I don't see anything other than mere supposition behind his argument.
posted on 01.31.2005 10:04 PM31
RE: Moyers' column...well said. It's not so much that Moyers was dead wrong on matters of fact (did he offer any relevant ones?) that he implied many things that aren't so. When he uses phrases like "fundamentalists may believe" I don't see anything other than mere supposition behind his argument.
posted on 01.31.2005 10:05 PM32
I apologize for duplicate posting above and humbly ask forgiveness for the annoyance.
posted on 01.31.2005 10:05 PM33
Mark O:
Pro-Lifers tend to have a smaller set of non-frivolous reasons for abortion (rape, incest, and life of mother) than Ms Clinton and yourself.Actually, many pro-Lifers won't even allow those exceptions. If they would, we would have a Constitutional late-term abortion ban already. They won't, so we don't. Now, of course, my definition of morally acceptable abortions would apall you. Any time in the first trimester is non-problematic, for any reason. Why? Because I don't buy into the whole "life begins at conception" rhetoric. And in any case, we're not talking about a life, we're talking about two lives. Especially at that early stage, the life of the woman trumps that of the embryo or fetus she is carrying. Don't agree? Fine. But plenty do agree with me, hence the disconnect.
In the grand scheme of things, what you'll find is that the vast majority of Americans support abortion in the first trimester, and the vast majority of them oppose it in the third (taking into account the aformentioned exceptions).
One might wonder why you don't wish to de-criminalize murder or perhaps in fact you do? After all, it seems you would prefer to attack the demand not the supply.Oh, poppycock. Spare me the bait-and-switch tactics please. "Morally suspect" isn't even close to the same thing as criminal (or, in your example, murder). That's a really big jump, and one you don't come close to justifying. If the cashier at McDonald's gives you 40¢ too much change and you decide to keep it rather than returning it, that's morally suspect. Conceding that some abortions are morally suspect isn't conceding that abortion is always (or even usually) wrong, never mind criminal.
For what it's worth, we don't criminalize murder to prevent murder; we criminalize it so that we can codify what punishments are appropriate when someone inevitably commits murder. That murder is a crime has already been settled.
That abortion is murder, or that it even is a crime, is far from settled. When you manage to convince the majority of Americans that abortion is indeed akin to murder (a hard sell, I have to tell you), then we'll talk. Until then, spare me the bait-and-switch tactics and false comparisons.
tgirsh, tells us that it is bad for "willy-nilly" reasons, but "good" reasons exist for killing the unborn. One wonders what metric he uses to weigh those reasons against the life of a child (or fetal non-person!?).I don't really use any metric, other than that of viability. If a fetus has reached a point in development where it has a good chance of surviving outside the womb, and it is otherwise perfectly healthy and poses no risk to the woman carrying it, then I would consider aborting such a fetus to be "morally suspect," yes. Shy of that point, any metric is between the woman and her conscience (and that of the father, assuming he's still around). posted on 01.31.2005 11:03 PM
34
tgirsch
Any time in the first trimester is non-problematic, for any reason. Why? Because I don't buy into the whole "life begins at conception" rhetoric. And in any case, we're not talking about a life, we're talking about two lives. Especially at that early stage, the life of the woman trumps that of the embryo or fetus she is carrying.
If a fetus has reached a point in development where it has a good chance of surviving outside the womb, and it is otherwise perfectly healthy and poses no risk to the woman carrying it, then I would consider aborting such a fetus to be "morally suspect," yes.
Why would any abortion for any reason be 'morally suspect'? What does it mean to be 'morally suspect'?
posted on 02.01.2005 6:06 AM35
Sen. Clinton's position on abortion hasn’t changed, in my view. It's still the one shared by most pro-choice women. It’s been caricatured and deliberately misrepresented for so long by (shrill) pro-life demagogues that it looks unfamiliar.
For what it’s worth, here’s my perspective. I won’t project it onto Sen. Clinton but my voting record would be similar to hers.
Few if any women like abortions, or can be said, without distortion, to be “Pro-Abortion.” Abortions aren’t good. They’re felt directly by most women to be awful, as research used by right-wing anti-abortion propagandists confirms.
Pro-lifers and pro-choice women agree that Abortion-Situations are bad. We don’t need a Patriarchic Lawgiver to tell us this, any more than we need a Divine Lawmaker to decree that it’s dreadful to allow your mother to drown. We all agree that Abortion-Situations are awful and ought not to happen.
Pro-lifers and pro-choice women should also agree, since it is true, that a necessary condition for an Abortion-Situation is an Undesired Pregnancy. Pregnancies themselves never lead to Abortion-Situations; the pregnancies have to be undesired.
Pro-lifers and pro-choice women disagree though about how to prevent Abortion-Situations. Both groups call for state-intervention. But they want the state to intervene in different ways.
Pro-lifers want the state to intervene by criminalizing women (and doctors) who participate in Abortion-Situations. Note that they don’t ask the state to criminalize men who help to create the Undesired Pregnancies that precede Abortion-Situations. On the pro-lifer model, when an Undesired Pregnancy happens, the pregnant woman is the sole locus of moral choice. She can choose whether to bear the child through the term of pregnancy or to abort the fetus.
Since the second option leads to an Abortion-Situation, which we all agree to be bad, pro-lifers believe that the state should use its policing, legislative and judicial powers to make sure that women don’t choose it. Pro-lifers argue that policing women’s bodies will allow the state to prevent Abortion-Situations and to punish women who are in them.
Pro-lifers rarely if ever question the morality of the other choice, the choice to bear the child. It is presumed moral even though the pregnancy is undesired (necessarily). And they hardly ever question the morality of using state power to force women who do not want to be pregnant to deliver a child. They justify the latter, usually, either by asserting that forcing a woman who does not want to be pregnant to have a child is less evil than allowing an abortion to happen (a line of argument that’s often accompanied by lauding the sanctity of some mythic Every Fetus) or by arguing that a pregnant woman who doesn’t wish to be pregnant should not have “gotten herself” pregnant in the first place.
Note the tension here. On the one hand, pro-lifers conceive of women as lacking sufficient ability to make moral choices. Because women aren’t morally responsible enough, the state patriarchy needs to police women’s bodies to make sure they don’t make “the wrong choice.” But at the same time, women are imagined, wrongly, to bear sole responsibility for getting pregnant. In this case, as opposed to the other, we’re imagined to be so incredibly capable of moral reasoning that men’s actions and choices are irrelevant. It’s our own fault if we “get ourselves” pregnant; somehow, according to the fictional republican narrative, men are faultless.
If pro-lifers imagine women to be sufficiently competent, morally, in one case, why do they imagine women to be incompetent moral decision-makers in the other? Though probably unconscious, this inconsistency is no coincidence. Through its internal paradox, the pro-life model permits men to abdicate all responsibility for Abortion-Situations while simultanteously shifting all the burden of shame, blame and punishment onto women.
Pregnancies can be Undesired Pregnancies for many reasons. In the US, thanks to continued application of conservative ideologies and elitist, Un-Christian republican economic policies, Undesired Pregnancies present women, particularly of the middle and lower under-classes, with a devil’s choice between abortion, destitution and lifelong subservience to men. The most impoverished group of persons in the US consists of children and single mothers. Single women and children are also the group in the US most likely to be denied access to competent health care. There is little social support in the US for people who spend their lives working to care for children or the severely disabled. The only institution of social support available to women outside of wage-employment (which, for many single women, is incompatible with child care responsibilities and fails to provide access to health care or a livable wage) is marriage.
But because marriage is offered to women at the same time that the state forecloses all other rational options, it isn’t an arrangement that many middle and lower under-class women can properly be said to enter freely. Also, because the republican state has denied them all other reasonable and moral options, it is also not an arrangement that most women are free to leave. This elimination of women's choices by state power disadvantages women as they bargain within marriages for family resources, for themselves and for their children. A person without options is in no position to bargain. Such a person can't appropriately be called ‘free’. A person who lords over someone who is not free can't appropriately be called 'moral'.
The pro-choice strategy recognizes that men too have a moral responsibility to reduce the number of Abortion-Situations. Both men and women, not women alone, occupy the locus of moral choice. This way, the sacrifices and risks of child-rearing are not heaped by men solely on women.
Pro-choice evangelicals (like Senator Clinton) want the state to intervene to reduce the number of Undesired Pregnancies, which precipitate Abortion-Situations, by expanding women's rational choices. By assuring women adequate access to health care, men and women can see to it that pregnant women don't abort pregnancies because they can't afford pre-natel, post-natel and pediatric healthcare. By providing women with adequate financial security, men and women can help to ensure that women don't abort pregnancies to avoid destitution or lifelong subservience. Further, as a welcome side-effect, since only equals can be true lifelong companions, pro-choice evangelicals can help reduce the number of divorces and salvage the institution of marriage.
Since we are morally obliged to eliminate abortions, we must also be morally obliged to provide women with access to health-care and financial security, if these are necessary to eliminate abortions.
There is no evidence that abortions will be eliminated by criminalizing the women who have them. There are two reasons, in fact, to think that the pro-lifer strategy is a deadend. First, criminalizing abortions didn't work in the past, but instead gave rise to further awfulness. Second, since being a criminal isn't clearly worse than being destitute or forever subservient, many women might still choose abortion over destitution or lifelong subservience. The pro-life strategy, though well-intentioned, fails to address the underlying cause of abortions, Undesired Pregnancies.
In contrast, there is evidence that the pro-choice approach will work. The overall number of abortions has been shown to decline as women's prosperity and security improves.
We are well justified, consequently, in believing that 1) we can eliminate Abortion-Situations by enabling women to make genuine choices, through the provision of adequate health and financial security for instance, and 2) we will not eliminate Abortion-Situations by criminalizing abortions.
We are therefore morally obliged to be pro-choice.
If you disagree, I trust you'll let me know where I've gone wrong.
Amy
36
Ah, I see you're seeing the parallels I've noted- the reality based community does science, and the delusion based community denigrates science.
I'm sure you know that it's really true that the vast, vast majority of scientists accepts the data on global warming.
Now, - hey Joe, you think statisticians are scientists but not engineers????- I think, as an communication systems engineer, I probably have at least as much if not more authority to speak on global warming than a statistician (in our training we do quite a bit of non-linear, dynamic systems) and I'm just wondering... if we hunt down the references on this, and we show you're blowing smoke again, are you going to 'fess up this time?
Or are you going to ignore it and change the topic like you did that piece on the Church of Darwin?
posted on 02.01.2005 7:45 AM37
PZ:And the point is that the advice biologists get from creationists like yourself, Johnson, Behe, etc. sounds just as stupid as telling us to fix a broken faucet with prayer.
broken faucet fixed with prayer only sounds stupid if you believe in physicalism. Which is tough to defend. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=supervenience&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search
I know, I'm addressing the analogy rather than the topic, but there is a direct correlation.
38
Actually global warming is the one problem that you'll find in The Skeptical Enviornmentalist where the author agrees there's substance to the claims. What isn't clear, however, is how bad global warming will be and how expensive it will be to slow or stop it. If its costs are not great but the expense of stopping it is then it makes sense to let it happen.
posted on 02.01.2005 8:17 AM39
If someone actually believes that the Rapture will take place soon (and studies show that a significant portion of American Christians do indeed believe exactly this), what is his motivation to any kind of conservation or long-term thinking?
It is as if someone who is 30 years old and dying of cancer were to invest to a retirement account. I simply do not see the motivation.
So what exactly is wrong in assuming that someone who believes that world is going to end soon is really not that interested in long-term thinking? This sounds like a very logical and commonsense assumption for Bill Moyers and everyone else to make.
Second, I also wonder if this denial of rapture theology and its implications is similar to the often-seen pseudo-denial of young earth creationism. I have noticed that like with all cults, certain subterfuge about the true in-group beliefs of Christianity is necessary in getting converts. For example, there are lots of Christians out there who claim to accept evolution when they are in presence of more reality-based people. But in a different situation these Christians will quickly reveal their true creationist and anti-evolutionist beliefs.
When the situation so necessitates, these Christians pretend that they believe in an old earth and accept at least microevolution. Then later, the same people suddenly start defending the young earth creationism and its believers. Either these people are extreme relativists or they are lying about their true beliefs. I don't really see any other possible explanations.
In this spirit, I wonder if we will soon see a posting by Joe where he takes the Rapture very seriously and does not consider those who believe in Rapture to be silly. In fact, my money actually bets that we'll see such a posting or comment within a month. It is interesting to see what happens.
posted on 02.01.2005 8:22 AM40
mumon: Now, - hey Joe, you think statisticians are scientists but not engineers????- I think, as an communication systems engineer, I probably have at least as much if not more authority to speak on global warming than a statistician (in our training we do quite a bit of non-linear, dynamic systems) and I'm just wondering...
You could do possibly do science, but generally admit it that engineers don't practice hypothesis, derive falsifiable theories, etc. Usually they just make stuff or or make stuff work. If you say they actually do make hypothesis etc in the process of making things work ("this link will remain up if the circuit receives keepalives every 8 seconds") then who isn't a scientist?
I'm sure you know that it's really true that the vast, vast majority of scientists accepts the data on global warming.
Do you have any stats? The-admittedly few-scientists I know do not believe global warming is threat it is made out to be. I would actually like to see some numbers.
posted on 02.01.2005 8:29 AM41
Mumon- "I'm sure you know that it's really true that the vast, vast majority of scientists accepts the data on global warming."
A hundred years ago didn't the vast majority of scientists accept the data on eugenics? And didn't the opposition to eugenics come from religious groups? "Argument from authority" doesn't work if your opponent has different ideas about authority than you do.
42
LOL!
Having read the Crichton piece, he falls out of the chute here...
This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated.
This actually is not true; what is of interest actually is the aggregate, which can be estimated through doing exactly what the SETI program is doing.
Ah, relying on a novelist for information about statistics...
Tell me, Mr. Carter, when are you going to rely on scientists to tell you what is and what is not science?
posted on 02.01.2005 9:02 AM43
Terry :
We don't know how many scientists were in favor or opposed eugenics, actually.
And didn't the opposition to eugenics come from religious groups?
Not from conservative religious groups such as those that supported the KKK or Father Coughlin.
"Argument from authority" doesn't work if your opponent has different ideas about authority than you do.
Science is not about "authority," it's about whether one's hypotheses correspond to reality. The reason scientists accept he global warming hypothesis is a) the data supports it, and b) the climatological models predict it.
The question I have to ask is: given the preponderance of data, why would one not accept this hypothesis? I have one, and only one answer: people don't want to accept the implications of that. Those implications include:
1. They've been part of a system that has been gluttonous in its use of natural resources.
2. They'd have to cut down on their standard of living.
3. They don't think that the experience they've had in life has been related to the heavy usage of natural resources, or
4. They don't think their experience they've had in life has been worth the expenditure of natural resources.
All of this is a kind of denial, and, in ways, a moral failing.
posted on 02.01.2005 9:09 AM44
"I think, as an communication systems engineer, I probably have at least as much if not more authority to speak on global warming than a statistician."
Sweet! I've always wanted to be an authority on global warming.
posted on 02.01.2005 9:27 AM45
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.
Here is the equation. Now, how do you know how many stars in the MW contain planets? Only now have we discovered some around other stars.
How do you know which are capable of supporting life? In a naturalistic worldview, would life on this planet necessarily represent the forms of life on other planets?
How in the world do you determine the fraction where life evolves? The same with the final two variables.
It looks like a garbage in, garbage out situation.
posted on 02.01.2005 9:49 AM46
Chris:
how do you know how many stars in the MW contain planets?...
We are becoming quite good at detecting planets. Given that this capability will only get better as technology advances (there's actually no theoretical reason against it) then it is a matter of sampling enough stars, and applying the Law of Large Numbers.
That's an easy one.
posted on 02.01.2005 10:30 AM47
Again Chris:
How do you know which are capable of supporting life?...
Same way; eventually. Again there's no fundamental technical barrier that prevents us from detecting planets capable of supporting life, and so sampling + the LLN will give the desired result.
In a naturalistic worldview, would life on this planet necessarily represent the forms of life on other planets?
I'd say give it the benefit of the doubt and say we can't detect any other kind of life but our kind of lives on earth. Then we have a lower bound for the number of planets supporting life... that is, at least as many planets support our kind of life as support life ...
How in the world do you determine the fraction where life evolves? The same with the final two variables.
I would submit that these would be more difficult, and I would subsume those last 2 variables together, and using SETI + LLN would then give the answer to both of those variables combined.
48
I don’t think there is much danger in anyone taking it literally. After all, since plumbing is the product of an “intelligent designer” the analogy isn't really fitting, is it?
Considering that all examples of intelligent design put forward by the IDers are examples of man's intelligent design it speaks volumes of IDs bankruptcy. Gee, what a shock, we find intelligent design when we find man.
How come the IDers don't...you know...do experiments? Oh, right they can't because their "theory" really isn't a theory with testable hypotheses.
posted on 02.01.2005 10:48 AM49
the equation is a starting point, however you correctly point out that nearly all of the terms are currently unknown.
At best we have a good handle on how many stars are in the Milky Way (with a generous margin of error). We are just on the cusp of detecting planets around other stars. The preliminary evidence appears to be that planets are quite common but we are no where near being able to take a reliable sample to make a statement like "30% of stars have planets" or "90% of stars have planets". There's no reason to think, though, that in the next few decades we won't be able to take statistically significant samples of stars and determine how many planets they have.
Our solar system may be able to clue us in on where life can exist. Once the thinking was that only a planet like earth can support life. Now we are finding that life can exist in super-extreme environments. Life on mars might be excused as a result of cross contamination but I'm not sure you could dismiss it if life is found on moons such as Europa or Titan. It might even be possible for life to exist in gas planets like Jupiter and Saturn. Our solar system might imply that life is pretty common on planets giving us a high number for the coefficient.
As for how much life evolves into something with intelligence? That's really an open question. Some think that evolution drives towards intelligence while others think it was just a lucky accident that is unlikely to be repeated if you could 'run the clock again'. While interstellar travel remains sci-fi it is possible to detect planets that look like earth. The massive amount of life on earth gives it a distinctive signature that could be detected with powerful telescopes.
Say we exclude the possibility of exotic types of life on planets like Jupiter, we could sample planets with powerful telescopes and see how many have earth like indications.
So say we get to the point where we can sample 1000 stars, find planets around 90%, find earth like planets around 50%. If you focus on those 50% you can at least see if they are broadcasting radio signals.
If these coefficients are not very close to zero then there's a good chance we could get a handle on many of them over the next 50 years or so. At the moment we just begun so of course we really have nothing more than slightly informed guesses to go on.
One interesting thing about Seti is that it is really just the beginning of a search. If some alien intelligence had a Seti program equilivant of ours going on a planet a few light years away they probably wouldn't detect earth! Seti can work if some alien life is purposefully beaming a beacon into space...something we are not doing & even then it would be hard to see them unless they were close by.
posted on 02.01.2005 11:06 AM50
Bevets:
Why would any abortion for any reason be 'morally suspect'?For the same reason some killings for some reasons are morally suspect.
What does it mean to be 'morally suspect'?You tell me. Since God never specifically addresses abortion, we're left to figure it out for ourselves. posted on 02.01.2005 11:19 AM
51
Joe - Scrolling through all of the mumon comments is getting very time consuming. Any way to confine him to his own apparently seldom visited blog?
posted on 02.01.2005 11:43 AM52
DK,
Scrolling through all of the mumon comments is getting very time consuming. Any way to confine him to his own apparently seldom visited blog?
I have a very liberal approach to commenters so even when they become a bit tedious I don't like to resort to an outright ban. Perhaps Mumon would do us the favor, though, of including his remarks in one comment instead of posting three or four in a row. That might make them easier to skip over.
53
Ditto on Joe's last comment. Mumon, please be considerate and try to trim things down and consolidate a bit. I recommend linking to Joe's article(s) from your own blog and discussing it there. I really don't want to waste my time while checking out Joe's site. Thanks.
posted on 02.01.2005 1:15 PM54
Mumon and Boonton, thanks for your responses. Now look at how Crichton responsonds.
The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science.
His SETI is not science statement seems to be correct. As you both has stated time and again, a hypothesis needs to be testable and SETI is not testable at this time or in the forseeable future. Remember the equation concerns all life, not just that which can communicate. Therefore, you need to have the ability to find life that cannot or will not communicate.
There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.
Based on his reasoning, I don't think he is a nutcase in this instance.
posted on 02.01.2005 1:19 PM55
The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we're clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be "informed guesses." If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It's simply prejudice.
Suppose we find that we can take a sample of 100 planets that have intelligent life on them. We can see how many of them choose to communicate versus not. From that you have the basis to make an 'informed guess'.
His SETI is not science statement seems to be correct. As you both has stated time and again, a hypothesis needs to be testable and SETI is not testable at this time or in the forseeable future. Remember the equation concerns all life, not just that which can communicate. Therefore, you need to have the ability to find life that cannot or will not communicate.
If we were unable to communicate (take Earth in 1800, before radio was invented), an intelligence on Mars could certainly tell Earth was inhabited by intelligent creatures if it had telescopes equal to what exist today. In principle, you could even sample worlds with intelligent life to make an inference as to which were not communicating.
Crichton is correct that the figures to enter into the equation today are just guesses but that's all. SETI isn't a religion by any normal meaning of the term.
Finally Drake's equation is a mathematical statement, not a hypothesis. If I state that humans are either male or female (let's exlude hermaphodites for now) then I can say that:
Total humans in US = Total females + Total males
This isn't a hypothesis, it is self-evidently true. Granted this equation is only valuable to me to the degree I can get accurate estimates of males and females.
You wouldn't test the Drake equation as a hypothesis but you would test hypothesises about its coefficients. For example, you could make a hypothesis that at least 80% of stars have planets then proceed to test that sample with statistical testing.
posted on 02.01.2005 2:14 PM56
From wikipedia:
This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake in the 1960s in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy with which we might come in contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors which determine the number of extraterrestrial civilizations.
Obviously, the equation was not being used as self-evidently true, but to show that extra-terrestrial life exists and we should be able to contact 'X' number. Crichton's point that this isn't science holds. If we had some reasonable sample of all of the variables, then we could reasonably extrapolate and come up with an answer. But we don't and aren't going to anytime soon.
SETI isn't a religion by any normal meaning of the term.
In terms of holding something to be true (there is intelligent life other than us in the galaxy) without any basis in fact, you could call it religion-like.
So, is SETI science or not?
57
Obviously, the equation was not being used as self-evidently true, but to show that extra-terrestrial life exists and we should be able to contact 'X' number. Crichton's point that this isn't science holds.
Who used the equation to show that extra-terrestrial life exists and we should be able to contact X? I've never seen anyone use the equation to do this. Rather I've seen the equation used as a framework for discussing SETI.
"In terms of holding something to be true (there is intelligent life other than us in the galaxy) without any basis in fact, you could call it religion-like.
So, is SETI science or not?"
Well there is a basis in fact. We see plenty of stars like our own and we see no particular reason for assuming they could not have planets...nor do we see any particular reason to assume any of Drake's coefficients are zero.
While I would feel fine with calling a lot of UFO type believers as followers of a proto-religion of some sort I just don't see it for SETI. AS far as I've known SETI is a rational way to test a hypothesis.
posted on 02.01.2005 4:19 PM58
"So, is SETI science or not?"
The search for evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence LIKE OURS can be conducted scientifically I suppose. We have beamed out information, as I recall, that is intended to be understood by beings with our intelligence so, if such beings exist, they might do the same.
But SETI is a waste of resources because the evidence that there is intelligent life out there beaming information to us is non-existant.
Also, SETI is hardly relevant to the question as to whether the search for OMNIPOTENT GODS is science. That is an easy question to answer. The answer is no.
Ploink Ploink would appreciate it if you'd stop asking such questions. At least, that's what my clams and linguine told me last night and you can't prove otherwise. Is investigating whether deities can speak through clams and linguine science?
posted on 02.01.2005 4:28 PM59
This is also a nice illustration of the limits of probability for IDers who assert that ambiogenesis is too unlikely to have happened.
All we know about Drake's coefficients is that they could be between 0 and 1. If any are 0 then we are alone. However! There's an infinite number between 0 and 1. Actually there's a finite number because if there's a finite number of planets around stars then there is not infinite gradiation between the coefficients.
Anyway, what's the probability of the coefficients being zero? Well say the smallest gradient between possible numbers is 1*10^-5 %. In that case the chance of a coeffint being exactly zero would be 1 out of 10^5 choices ranging from 0% to 100%. That's really tiny, perhaps we could take a page from ID critics and say there must be other intelligent life because the odds are so against a coefficient being zero!
But the coefficients are not a range of numbers, they are only one number. As large as it is, there's a finite number of worlds in the milky way and if you took a census of them all you would be able to derive the exact coefficients. To attempt to apply probabilities when we have nothing real to go on provides us with nothing.
Now suppose sampling allows us to say with 90% certainity that the Drake coefficients range from 0.30 to 0.40. Then the Drake equation becomes quite useful science for estimating how many intelligent civilizations we should be able to contact.
posted on 02.01.2005 4:32 PM60
"But SETI is a waste of resources because the evidence that there is intelligent life out there beaming information to us is non-existant."
SETI is the search for evidence, you can't say it doesn't exist if you don't look.
"Also, SETI is hardly relevant to the question as to whether the search for OMNIPOTENT GODS is science. That is an easy question to answer. The answer is no."
The search for physical evidence of an omnipotent God(s) is science. It has, so far, come back with no evidence that requires a god.
posted on 02.01.2005 4:36 PM61
Joe- I've missed much, but this is in response to my proior post
____
Holy cow. Okay, I give up on the subtle sarcasm
_____
My fault for not clicking on the bold Hillary Says in your post. Mostly I was replying to Boontown, though, as he was taking it seriously.
62
Thanks for the Boonton, I tend to agree that its science for the most part. However, the Drake equation is pretty worthless right now and will be for the forseable future.
Interesting take on probabilities, although I would think we would have a better idea of the conditions necessary to create life than most of the Drake variables. Don't want to start a debate, its just an observation.
posted on 02.01.2005 7:29 PM63
Boonton, slowly pull your head out ...
"SETI is the search for evidence, you can't say it doesn't exist if you don't look."
Oh, christ, you want to argue about what it means for evidence to exist now? If we had evidence that intelligence life existed, we wouldn't be searching for such evidence. Get it? Until we find the evidence, the EVIDENCE does not exist. I read your posts. You're smart enough to understand this. Stop playing the semantic games.
"The search for physical evidence of an omnipotent God(s) is science."
Puke. Okay Einstein, go ahead and wax poetic for the rubes.
"It has, so far, come back with no evidence that requires a god."
If you say so. I have no idea what evidence of omnipotent deities would look like, especially if the omnipotenet deities didn't want to be detected by scientists.
Did the deities tell you something that they haven't told the rest of us?
posted on 02.01.2005 9:46 PM64
Joe. I think it goes like this. Tell me if I'm wrong.
1. Biology and geology are wrong becuase they conflict with a faithful reading of Genesis.
2. Therefore all science is atheistic and suspect.
3. Therefore every critic of mainstream science is a credible ally.
posted on 02.01.2005 9:47 PM65
Joe. I think it goes like this. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Um, okay. You’re wrong. ; )
1. Biology and geology are wrong becuase they conflict with a faithful reading of Genesis.
I don’t think that they conflict.
2. Therefore all science is atheistic and suspect.
Not at all. Science was developed from a theistic worldview. A consistent atheist would have a hard time resolving the problem of how reality and nature are knowable.
3. Therefore every critic of mainstream science is a credible ally.
Not every one. Only those who appear to make a decent point.
66
Larry {insert additional favorite description here}:
you want to argue about what it means for evidence to exist now? If we had evidence that intelligence life existed, we wouldn't be searching for such evidence. Get it? Until we find the evidence, the EVIDENCE does not exist. I read your posts. You're smart enough to understand this. Stop playing the semantic games.
So, Larry, what you are saying is that because there is no evidence of intelligence life, there is not reason to search for it until some sort of evidence is discovered that it might exist? I think the SETI folks are going to say that:
1. It should exist because we exist.
2. Our galaxy alone is vast, so the odd are that other intelligent life exists.
Hence, SETI is science and a valid endeavor.
posted on 02.02.2005 6:56 AM67
Chris, you could take the Drake equation and modify it slightly. For example, take out all the coefficients dealing with intelligent life and you have an equation to tell you how many life bearing planets are in the galaxy. This is something we could do some serious work on over the next 20 or 30 years.
If you say so. I have no idea what evidence of omnipotent deities would look like, especially if the omnipotenet deities didn't want to be detected by scientists.
Did the deities tell you something that they haven't told the rest of us?
Here's an example: The Greeks might have thought the Ocean was ruled by an angry God prone to outbursts because of his unstable family life and this explains why the ocean may suddenly go from very calm to very stormy.
This was a scientific hypothesis. There's a mechanism for action and a way to make preductions (i.e. psychology). It could even be tested....try positive reinforcement (praising the Ocean God for his mercy) when the ocean is calm and try diffusing techniques (beg for forgiveness) when the ocean is angry.
If it turned out that this worked better than our current theories of ocean currents, weather and so on then science would indeed be finding physical evidence of an omnipotent god. If you read the history of science it is littered with attempts to verify the supernatural...whether it be gods, ghosts, souls and so on. It wasn't science who decided the evidence didn't point to these things, it was the evidence itself.
68
Lutz
"
So, Larry, what you are saying is that because there is no evidence of intelligence life, there is not reason to search for it until some sort of evidence is discovered that it might exist? I think the SETI folks are going to say that"
No Lutz, I am saying ... well, exactly what I said.
Searching for intelligent life like ours "out there" may be approached scientificallly.
But it's a waste of time and money that could be spent on other endeavors that are more likely to yield fruit.
Almost as big a waste of letting con artists conduct research on the efficacy of third party prayer on healing (the unsurprising conclusion: no measurable effect).
posted on 02.02.2005 11:58 AM70
Joe & Me:
Joe. I think it goes like this. Tell me if I'm wrong.
Um, okay. You’re wrong. ; )
1. Biology and geology are wrong because they conflict with a faithful reading of Genesis.
I don’t think that they conflict.
2. Therefore all science is atheistic and suspect.
Not at all. Science was developed from a theistic worldview. A consistent atheist would have a hard time resolving the problem of how reality and nature are knowable.Ain’t that the truth. It’d be enough to drive me to theism if I wasn't already there. God deliver us from rigour!
3. Therefore every critic of mainstream science is a credible ally.
Not every one. Only those who appear to make a decent point.OK, moving on to Crichton’s "decent point" about “scientific consensus” and “appeal to authority”...
Not Crichton, not me, and I suspect not even thee Joe are scientist enough to decide on global warming and/or appropriate responses to it.
So where does that leave us?
You can take Crichton’s line and dismiss what you and I don’t fully understand because of a disagreeable aspect of how its proponents behave. Or you can judge their warnings (by philosophically imperfect appeal to authority) as credible enough about something serious enough to attract the precautionary principle and at least take no-regrets measures.
You’re gambling with our childrens’ future, Joe, and I don’t appreciate it. I'd rather you defended life than go in to bat for just-maybe-not-heretics like Crichton & Lomberg.
posted on 02.02.2005 10:13 PM71
Not Crichton, not me, and I suspect not even thee Joe are scientist enough to decide on global warming and/or appropriate responses to it.
You can take Crichton’s line and dismiss what you and I don’t fully understand because of a disagreeable aspect of how its proponents behave.
How they behave impacts their results. If you are getting paid to look into global warming, you have a vested interest to find global warming. Its human nature that you will tend to find it where it isn't happening. When a belief in a certain scientific "fact" achieves enough momentum, it becomes very difficult for dissenting voices to make any headway. Remember, in the 70's we were faced with global cooling. Also, we were faced with large scale famines.
I think there is something to be said for separating the donors from the scientists and the data collection from the analysis.
You’re gambling with our childrens’ future, Joe, and I don’t appreciate it.
That's pretty dramatic and ridiculous.
posted on 02.03.2005 7:25 AM72
You’re gambling with our childrens’ future, Joe, and I don’t appreciate it. I'd rather you defended life than go in to bat for just-maybe-not-heretics like Crichton & Lomberg.
If you actually read what Lomberg had to say you'd know that the he feels global warming is a real potential danger with serious economic consquences.
How they behave impacts their results. If you are getting paid to look into global warming, you have a vested interest to find global warming. Its human nature that you will tend to find it where it isn't happening. When a belief in a certain scientific "fact" achieves enough momentum, it becomes very difficult for dissenting voices to make any headway. Remember, in the 70's we were faced with global cooling. Also, we were faced with large scale famines.
True Chris but there are also plenty of people who have a real financial interest in knowing the truth. Oil companies obviously would like global warming to not be a real problem. But what about insurance companies? They have to know the truth one way or the other. If they don't they will charge too little for premiums or they will end up charging too much and losing customers. Finally there is a huge market in being able to accurately predict the weather. No only agribusiness but also transportation and even a new industry in 'weather futures' means there's a giant financial interest in funding accurate research.
I only vaguely remember global cooling in the 70's but I do not recall it was ever as accepted as global warming is today.
posted on 02.03.2005 9:24 AM