Let us not deceive ourselves -- nature is a cruel unforgiving horrible place, where death is the basis of evolution and suffering is the motivator.
Animals in nature as God is said to have created it live horrible lives filled with hunger and instinctual drives and constant frustration and fear and disease and biting insects and ultimately die violently.
Only science has lifted us from all this, and only somewhat, and there are those who would stifle science.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Saturday, January 16, 2016
A bit more on cause and effect
I can see an assertion that effect can't exist without cause, but all kinds of things happen without effect, so cause can sit there and try and try and not achieve anything.
Is homophobia a real phobia
Somehow the reaction of bigots to gays does not seem to me to reach the level of a "phobia." Phobias are irrational and visceral and involve genuine fear. I have a form of claustrophobia where when I'm in a crowded room, all my thinking gets centered on what to do if there is a fire or some sort of terrorist attack. Rationally I know it is utterly ridiculous, but it is there anyway.
Or the paranoia I experience when I'm high on grass (and why I don't use it except where I am at home and feel safe), such as fantasizing people sneaking up behind me with a knife ready to kill. It's funny because even when I'm high like that I know it is all absurd as absurd can be.
What is bigotry, is different. The person doesn't fear the target of the bigotry, he or she hates, for irrational reasons to be sure, even evil reasons, but it is not fear as I generally experience a phobia. They also are just too stupid to see the absurdity of the hatred.
I watch the behavior of the homophobes on a discussion board. They evince genuine hate. Their objective is to insult and degrade and of course make themselves separate and better (although one cannot escape the suspicion that they hate because they themselves have similar desires they don't want to admit). Nowadays, of course, most boards quickly put a stop to such things, so we don't see it quite as much as we use to.
Or the paranoia I experience when I'm high on grass (and why I don't use it except where I am at home and feel safe), such as fantasizing people sneaking up behind me with a knife ready to kill. It's funny because even when I'm high like that I know it is all absurd as absurd can be.
What is bigotry, is different. The person doesn't fear the target of the bigotry, he or she hates, for irrational reasons to be sure, even evil reasons, but it is not fear as I generally experience a phobia. They also are just too stupid to see the absurdity of the hatred.
I watch the behavior of the homophobes on a discussion board. They evince genuine hate. Their objective is to insult and degrade and of course make themselves separate and better (although one cannot escape the suspicion that they hate because they themselves have similar desires they don't want to admit). Nowadays, of course, most boards quickly put a stop to such things, so we don't see it quite as much as we use to.
Judging people
I don't judge people, at least that is what I tell myself.
As you can imagine, having lived so long in SE Asia, I am heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy (although not so much by the religion). We each have to make our way in this world and deal with the consequences of what we do as best we can, and people who do evil things are not our problem, but their own problem.
Now of course we must be wise in dealing with people, and that means discerning low-lives and so on and protecting ourselves, but it does not mean judging them. It is a subtle difference of meaning that English doesn't have, as far as I can think of.
As you can imagine, having lived so long in SE Asia, I am heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy (although not so much by the religion). We each have to make our way in this world and deal with the consequences of what we do as best we can, and people who do evil things are not our problem, but their own problem.
Now of course we must be wise in dealing with people, and that means discerning low-lives and so on and protecting ourselves, but it does not mean judging them. It is a subtle difference of meaning that English doesn't have, as far as I can think of.
Mormons
I remember the Mormon Elders where I grew up in Western Colorado. They thought I was arrogant and said as much behind my back, as I knew a lot of what they told me was history was bunk. The very idea of Jews having a civilization in North America in and around the first century.
One place where I got arrogant was when I did a little independent and found the Book of Mormons prophesy that the Civil War would originate in South Carolina was written after the fact. When pointed out to me I had been impressed, although it wasn't much of a coincidence, since South Carolina was the most likely place. When I realized I'd been fed a bald-faced lie, I did indeed get hostile (arrogant is how they rationalized it).
Of course the reaction was to get me on my knees for prayer, so the Holy Spirit could come, not to sit and reason about it. People like this sort of thing and buy into it, partly because they are gullible and partly because they like the idea of God giving them special attention. God would have known that my objections were well founded and genuine, so the threats that ensued (actually Mormons don't threaten people with perdition but are more subtle about it and give us a kind of paradise, but not one for the ambitious who want to become [a] God themselves).
The main point is that claiming God's Spirit or faith or something like that when confronted with truth is a cop-out of the most cowardly sort, and this is basically all they did.
Of course the reaction was to get me on my knees for prayer, so the Holy Spirit could come, not to sit and reason about it. People like this sort of thing and buy into it, partly because they are gullible and partly because they like the idea of God giving them special attention. God would have known that my objections were well founded and genuine, so the threats that ensued (actually Mormons don't threaten people with perdition but are more subtle about it and give us a kind of paradise, but not one for the ambitious who want to become [a] God themselves).
The main point is that claiming God's Spirit or faith or something like that when confronted with truth is a cop-out of the most cowardly sort, and this is basically all they did.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Summary of Vietnam - American war
One can argue all sorts of ways about the American War (as it is called in Vietnam).
The regime in the South was no more democratic than in the North, corrupt and determined to force Roman Catholicism on a Buddhist population. Hence Monk immolations and so on. To most Vietnamese in the South the Communists looked to be an improvement.
Then in come the Americans with their save-the-world, our-system-is-what-everyone-needs attitudes, not appreciated but seen by calculating leaders as someone they can use if they say the right things.
Well once in Saigon the Americans soon realized what a nest of iniquity the Southern government was, and arranged a coup to put more amenable and respectable and honest and less Catholic people in power. This was probably a good thing, but it made it clear that now America was the real ruler, not Vietnamese. Hence patriots who wanted a free Vietnam had to go with the North.
America might have "won" the war anyway, except it began to be too expensive, both in money and in body bags, and hence lost popular support. This is a major weakness of republican governments -- the people as a mass never have the backbone to stick with this sort of commitment as long as is necessary.
So the Democrats made political hay and Nixon, also being both smart and corrupt, decided to cut losses and get out of it, by cowardly stabbing the government they had put in place right square in the back.
So within months everyone knew what was going to happen and looked to their own safety and affairs, and the Americans had the helicopters on the embassy roof.
There ensued about ten to twenty years of serious deprivation, especially in the South, and horrible mis-government, following a Maoist mentality. Ho would have been removed if he hadn't died conveniently, and "New Thinking" ensued. The symbols and rhetoric of the old regime were kept, but put in abeyance, under old Marxist jargon that the country is not yet ready for Communism, nor even socialism, but needs to let individuals do their own businesses and allow foreign companies in and actually make a profit.
The first thing that happened, once farmers were allowed to sell their own product to whom they wanted at the best price they could get, was that agricultural production exploded and the street markets in HCMC (Ho Chi Minh City -- not actually a renaming of Saigon -- Saigon still exists, but the corporate city government is for a larger area -- the city and its suburbs) suddenly exploded with a huge abundance and variety of all sorts of food.
This was not unpopular.
There remain unfortunate aspects of the old regime, especially the corruption and arbitrary power of police and other law enforcement agencies, but things are getting better.
The regime in the South was no more democratic than in the North, corrupt and determined to force Roman Catholicism on a Buddhist population. Hence Monk immolations and so on. To most Vietnamese in the South the Communists looked to be an improvement.
Then in come the Americans with their save-the-world, our-system-is-what-everyone-needs attitudes, not appreciated but seen by calculating leaders as someone they can use if they say the right things.
Well once in Saigon the Americans soon realized what a nest of iniquity the Southern government was, and arranged a coup to put more amenable and respectable and honest and less Catholic people in power. This was probably a good thing, but it made it clear that now America was the real ruler, not Vietnamese. Hence patriots who wanted a free Vietnam had to go with the North.
America might have "won" the war anyway, except it began to be too expensive, both in money and in body bags, and hence lost popular support. This is a major weakness of republican governments -- the people as a mass never have the backbone to stick with this sort of commitment as long as is necessary.
So the Democrats made political hay and Nixon, also being both smart and corrupt, decided to cut losses and get out of it, by cowardly stabbing the government they had put in place right square in the back.
So within months everyone knew what was going to happen and looked to their own safety and affairs, and the Americans had the helicopters on the embassy roof.
There ensued about ten to twenty years of serious deprivation, especially in the South, and horrible mis-government, following a Maoist mentality. Ho would have been removed if he hadn't died conveniently, and "New Thinking" ensued. The symbols and rhetoric of the old regime were kept, but put in abeyance, under old Marxist jargon that the country is not yet ready for Communism, nor even socialism, but needs to let individuals do their own businesses and allow foreign companies in and actually make a profit.
The first thing that happened, once farmers were allowed to sell their own product to whom they wanted at the best price they could get, was that agricultural production exploded and the street markets in HCMC (Ho Chi Minh City -- not actually a renaming of Saigon -- Saigon still exists, but the corporate city government is for a larger area -- the city and its suburbs) suddenly exploded with a huge abundance and variety of all sorts of food.
This was not unpopular.
There remain unfortunate aspects of the old regime, especially the corruption and arbitrary power of police and other law enforcement agencies, but things are getting better.
Childhood religious indoctrination
Some believers seem to use the hostility and rudeness of some atheists as a reason for believing in God. That does not follow.
Something I would suggest you think about -- the atheist usually had a religious upbringing of some sort, which means they got the usual childhood indoctrination. Religions know that they will disappear if they can't indoctrinate children before the children learn critical thinking skills.
Well then these people figure out that what they were indoctrinated with as children is false. It takes a long time and indoctrinated beliefs are not like intellectual opinions -- they have an emotional hold on you and doubting them causes fear and guilt. Indeed most religious memes uses both of these emotions far more than they use rationality.
The person eventually resolves this and, not unexpectedly, develops a hate for what was "done to them" and the agony the religious caused them. I have to say I admire those who have the intellectual strength to make such a break far more than those who also go through the experience but end up "returning" to the fold and being rewarded with empty joy and meaningless peace.
Something I would suggest you think about -- the atheist usually had a religious upbringing of some sort, which means they got the usual childhood indoctrination. Religions know that they will disappear if they can't indoctrinate children before the children learn critical thinking skills.
Well then these people figure out that what they were indoctrinated with as children is false. It takes a long time and indoctrinated beliefs are not like intellectual opinions -- they have an emotional hold on you and doubting them causes fear and guilt. Indeed most religious memes uses both of these emotions far more than they use rationality.
The person eventually resolves this and, not unexpectedly, develops a hate for what was "done to them" and the agony the religious caused them. I have to say I admire those who have the intellectual strength to make such a break far more than those who also go through the experience but end up "returning" to the fold and being rewarded with empty joy and meaningless peace.
Well I just don't think democracy is the best. It has a certain legitimacy that can't be denied, and it had the benefit that if things get really bad the people don't have to carry out a revolution but can vote the bastards out. The trouble is when things get that bad usually the country is no longer a democracy (i.e., Zimbabwe).
Drawing from Plato and Lenin (and ignoring Marx and Stalin and Mao and Ho), modern Communists in China and Vietnam put a strict five year limit on top office, and the party does select people at all levels. They choose from among people they have known and worked with for years.
Party membership more and more is being offered to college graduates rather than children of political hacks, and ideology is still a factor (you have to pass examinations showing that at least you know Communist theory) but is not really what it use to be.
Of course decisions made in closed meetings are subject to corruption, and you can be sure it takes a lot of money to rise to the top. A couple of years ago there was in Vietnam a little noticed (in the West) disciplining of the Prime Minister about this sort of thing, and he cleaned up his act. The Chinese are being more public about it and purging and seriously punishing the worst offenders. This gives me hope.
No government will ever be perfect, and the advantages of a certain form of government over another are given too much credit. Geography, history, culture, religion, luck are probably every bit as important as to who prospers and who doesn't.
Drawing from Plato and Lenin (and ignoring Marx and Stalin and Mao and Ho), modern Communists in China and Vietnam put a strict five year limit on top office, and the party does select people at all levels. They choose from among people they have known and worked with for years.
Party membership more and more is being offered to college graduates rather than children of political hacks, and ideology is still a factor (you have to pass examinations showing that at least you know Communist theory) but is not really what it use to be.
Of course decisions made in closed meetings are subject to corruption, and you can be sure it takes a lot of money to rise to the top. A couple of years ago there was in Vietnam a little noticed (in the West) disciplining of the Prime Minister about this sort of thing, and he cleaned up his act. The Chinese are being more public about it and purging and seriously punishing the worst offenders. This gives me hope.
No government will ever be perfect, and the advantages of a certain form of government over another are given too much credit. Geography, history, culture, religion, luck are probably every bit as important as to who prospers and who doesn't.
False but useful scientific theory
One can still construct a theory that works and makes good predictions where the earth is the center and the sun goes around it. Of course that theory doesn't work if one introduces gravitational effects, but if one just sticks to mathematical description and is willing to get complicated enough, it can be done.
The problem I would have with that would not so much be its complications, but its ignoring knowledge for other areas. It has to limit itself to just one realm of data. Still, it could predict eclipses and locations and so on.
Classical physics has to try to ignore Michelson-Morley and Lagrange transformations, etc., for macroscopic phenomena and ignore radiation and tunneling effects, etg., for microscopic radiation (I dislike "microscopic" -- the usual word -- it should be "sub-microscopic" or atomic or something like that). Still classical physics is closer to the intuitive way we see things, and so seems to be where everyone begins any education on either relativity or quantum matters. It seems weird that we must begin to teach what is right by first teaching what is not.
At any rate this is fun. Exploring the nature of knowledge is something we can all do, or at least think we can do.
The problem I would have with that would not so much be its complications, but its ignoring knowledge for other areas. It has to limit itself to just one realm of data. Still, it could predict eclipses and locations and so on.
Classical physics has to try to ignore Michelson-Morley and Lagrange transformations, etc., for macroscopic phenomena and ignore radiation and tunneling effects, etg., for microscopic radiation (I dislike "microscopic" -- the usual word -- it should be "sub-microscopic" or atomic or something like that). Still classical physics is closer to the intuitive way we see things, and so seems to be where everyone begins any education on either relativity or quantum matters. It seems weird that we must begin to teach what is right by first teaching what is not.
At any rate this is fun. Exploring the nature of knowledge is something we can all do, or at least think we can do.
Global warming straw man
I am persuaded Global Warming is happening and is a serious danger for the same reason I am persuaded the plate tectonics is accurate, or relativity or quantum or evolutionary theory. Basically while I know the general story I am not an expert. I do however know what science is about and know that the scientific consensus may be wrong, but then only on the edges.
Putting me and the majority of scientists in the category of doom sayers and fear mongers is to create a straw man. I think mankind will survive; I think society much like it is, will survive. It is just that we appear to be creating a rough time (a really rough time) unnecessarily. Making refugees out of millions of people just to keep existing energy industries in place, when other approaches could be done, seems inhumane, stupid and immoral.
In fact as time passes I become more and more optimistic. I saw an item yesterday where solar and wind energy installations continue to accelerate in spite of the drop in oil and natural gas and coal prices. Is it becoming competitive regardless? I would like to see intelligent subsidies on these things, but what I have seen so far along these lines has been boondoggle-ish, so in such matters the devil is in the details.
Putting me and the majority of scientists in the category of doom sayers and fear mongers is to create a straw man. I think mankind will survive; I think society much like it is, will survive. It is just that we appear to be creating a rough time (a really rough time) unnecessarily. Making refugees out of millions of people just to keep existing energy industries in place, when other approaches could be done, seems inhumane, stupid and immoral.
In fact as time passes I become more and more optimistic. I saw an item yesterday where solar and wind energy installations continue to accelerate in spite of the drop in oil and natural gas and coal prices. Is it becoming competitive regardless? I would like to see intelligent subsidies on these things, but what I have seen so far along these lines has been boondoggle-ish, so in such matters the devil is in the details.
Gay sex education and bullying
Bullying should be addressed as buylling, and the sexuality of the victim should be irrelevant.
Where did you get the idea that I said education about gays will make thing worse? I see nothing wrong with education if it fits in the curriculum and is age appropriate. I just don't see that this should be a thing people form parades and shout about. It is also not necessary at least in High School to get into detail about sex practices.
Yes, kids do know about sex, and they find what teachers try to explain stilted and old news and funny. This sort of thing does no good whatsoever. If you are going to teach about it, teach them something that they don't already know.
Bigotry needs addressing, but in the general context of all forms of bigotry. Singling out bigotry against gays just provides an excuse to engage in it. I am of the pretty firm opinion that there exists a bigotry spectrum in human personalities, and there is an extreme of liberal people and an extreme of natural bigots, who automatically "hate" anything that isn't them. I just don't expect education to have much effect. For example, I've seen lots of internal bigotry among gays (those who hate drag queens, standard racists, misogynists, and so on). They should know better, having experienced the effect of bigotry themselves, and most gays learn the appropriate lesson, but some don't and no amount of arguing with them has any effect.
Where did you get the idea that I said education about gays will make thing worse? I see nothing wrong with education if it fits in the curriculum and is age appropriate. I just don't see that this should be a thing people form parades and shout about. It is also not necessary at least in High School to get into detail about sex practices.
Yes, kids do know about sex, and they find what teachers try to explain stilted and old news and funny. This sort of thing does no good whatsoever. If you are going to teach about it, teach them something that they don't already know.
Bigotry needs addressing, but in the general context of all forms of bigotry. Singling out bigotry against gays just provides an excuse to engage in it. I am of the pretty firm opinion that there exists a bigotry spectrum in human personalities, and there is an extreme of liberal people and an extreme of natural bigots, who automatically "hate" anything that isn't them. I just don't expect education to have much effect. For example, I've seen lots of internal bigotry among gays (those who hate drag queens, standard racists, misogynists, and so on). They should know better, having experienced the effect of bigotry themselves, and most gays learn the appropriate lesson, but some don't and no amount of arguing with them has any effect.
Vietnamese and Chinese Communist legitimacy
I don't know about Cuba, but it seems pretty bad, and North Korea is of course a sick perverted society dependent entirely on force to stay in power, but the other two surviving "Communist" societies are not really Communist except that the parties use ideology as a source of legitimacy. Their real legitimacy, however, is not Communist talking points but economic progress, and both societies are doing extremely well. There are ups and downs but believe me the vast majority of the population is happy with things as they are.
Both governments however do have tigers by the tail and I would predict someday the parties there will suffer the consequences. If your legitimacy is based on the ability to deliver material improvement, all economies suffer ups and downs, and more and more the world is getting linked so the world economy suffers ups and downs. A political system that has a different source of legitimacy (where for example the States is "legitimate" because the people elect the officials -- in a huge, largely fraudulent, farce), an economic downturn or some other disaster is not as big a threat.
Both governments however do have tigers by the tail and I would predict someday the parties there will suffer the consequences. If your legitimacy is based on the ability to deliver material improvement, all economies suffer ups and downs, and more and more the world is getting linked so the world economy suffers ups and downs. A political system that has a different source of legitimacy (where for example the States is "legitimate" because the people elect the officials -- in a huge, largely fraudulent, farce), an economic downturn or some other disaster is not as big a threat.
Black markets, corruption, competition
No market is ever completely free, and probably that is a good thing, as of course what you end up with if the government is not watching are strong-arm tactics and fraud and cooperative customer gouging (where everyone in a given business agrees on prices). Competition is necessary for real free markets, and competition has to be enforced by government. Individuals will do everything they can to avoid having to compete.
Here in Cambodia one learns to bargain and one learns to grease the wheels. They are two skills that take time to absorb. Non-negotiated prices is what everyone claims but as you are about the leave the store suddenly the attitude changes. The magic to getting a good price for things is to leave the shopkeeper with his or her face intact.
Minor government officials would die if they didn't get bribes, but one has to be able to see when and where to do it, and face is again the important thing -- the extra money is a "reward", not a bribe. Much the same applies to people coming out to repair things or do work -- there of course it is a "tip," and this practice is found everywhere, and people don't even see it as bribery.
Whenever the government tries to impose price controls, such as in Vietnam where the prices of precious metals and currencies are controlled and it is illegal to exchange VND (their currency) into something else, you have a sort of black market, except because of a steady flow of bribes that work their way to the top, is rarely enforced (but don't try to do it yourself unless you are in the network).
This sort of black market is essential in such a legal frame because otherwise of course one would not be able to get foreign currency needed to pay for the imports you need to keep your factory going.
When a government leader sees a black market, in Vietnam they try to profit from it, in Cambodia nowadays they tend more to crack down on it. Both approaches are harmful. It is better to look at what has caused the black market to develop and change the laws so that it dies on its own. Laws against gambling and hooch and prostitution, as well as price controls or government monopolies on something all produce black markets and a wise government will understand this and see that it is best to step out of the way as much as possible.
Of course some black markets can't be handled that way -- such as medical quacks or fencing operations. Here the police need to be paid enough to keep them honest.
Here in Cambodia one learns to bargain and one learns to grease the wheels. They are two skills that take time to absorb. Non-negotiated prices is what everyone claims but as you are about the leave the store suddenly the attitude changes. The magic to getting a good price for things is to leave the shopkeeper with his or her face intact.
Minor government officials would die if they didn't get bribes, but one has to be able to see when and where to do it, and face is again the important thing -- the extra money is a "reward", not a bribe. Much the same applies to people coming out to repair things or do work -- there of course it is a "tip," and this practice is found everywhere, and people don't even see it as bribery.
Whenever the government tries to impose price controls, such as in Vietnam where the prices of precious metals and currencies are controlled and it is illegal to exchange VND (their currency) into something else, you have a sort of black market, except because of a steady flow of bribes that work their way to the top, is rarely enforced (but don't try to do it yourself unless you are in the network).
This sort of black market is essential in such a legal frame because otherwise of course one would not be able to get foreign currency needed to pay for the imports you need to keep your factory going.
When a government leader sees a black market, in Vietnam they try to profit from it, in Cambodia nowadays they tend more to crack down on it. Both approaches are harmful. It is better to look at what has caused the black market to develop and change the laws so that it dies on its own. Laws against gambling and hooch and prostitution, as well as price controls or government monopolies on something all produce black markets and a wise government will understand this and see that it is best to step out of the way as much as possible.
Of course some black markets can't be handled that way -- such as medical quacks or fencing operations. Here the police need to be paid enough to keep them honest.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Scientific certainty
Sometimes things come to be so supported by evidence coming from all over the place that it is essentially proved. The laws of conservation, the second law of thermodynamics, the inverse square relationship of gravity, that evolution has occurred, and so on.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
Thinking for oneself and skepticism
The ability to think for oneself includes the willingness to accept the authority of people better informed and who have spent their lives studying a subject.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
Inner compass or conscience in ethical decisions
Now that is an interesting discussion I would enjoy. I don't know about our inner compass, more often referred to as our conscience.
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Still, it seems magic. How does the movement of my finger muscle tell the key what to do, and which interrupt to send, and so on. We speak of forces and so on, but they seem arbitrary, just things that always happen so we expect them to happen and would be sorely upset if (and when) they don't.
If you think about what is going on at the nuclear level when I touch a key, you have all these electrons whizzing about the atoms near the surface of the key, generating a wall of negative electric charge, that repels the wall of similar electric charge on my fingers. It is not causation at all, but just the fact that the odds are overwhelming that the electrons will be there -- they might have gone elsewhere and my finger penetrate into the key and not do the work intended. This doesn't happen because it is hugely unlikely, not because there is real cause. There is no incantation I can do either.
So what we see as deterministic causation is actually an application of one of the laws of probability -- the one called "the law of large numbers." Causation not real but just an illusion emerging from the fact that in our macro world things are often overwhelmingly likely??
Of course the electrons doing their repulsion thing to each other can be seen as a sort of caused thing too, and we can talk about it in terms of forces, but what causes two electrons to always repel each other with a certain force?
Obviously I'm out of my depth here. I'm drowning. Help!