After reading up on the news regarding Arizonas "turn the gay away" bill, which may become a law soon, I decided to take a break from the other articles I'm working on to write this quick op-ed piece. You can read up on the story here from CNN, here from the Arizona Daily Star, and the actual bill from AZ can be found here. (I had to do a good deal of searching to find the bill itself since no news outlets seemed to actually reference it.)
Long story short, lines 8-11 and 19-21 give business owners immunity if they refuse service to anyone (not just gays) if servicing an individual strains the business owners religious beliefs. If you're an old-school Mormon, you could refuse to serve black people. If you're a Muslim, you can refuse service to non-Muslims.
Suppose there are business owners who enforce this should it become law, which there almost certainly will be. How exactly do you determine if someone does or does not fit your criteria? Unless we begin to go German and force people to wear certain things designating their lifestyle or beliefs, it is up to the discernment of the business owner whether or not a customer fits the criteria to be serviced.
The thing that really gets me is that the government is saying who a business can and cannot serve. There is a major difference between regulating products to ensure they are safe and regulating the relationship between a business and its customers. I have major sympathies for the Libertarian party and, with that attitude, believe a business owner should be allowed to do business with whoever they decide. You as an individual have a right to do business with whoever you choose, except in the case of legal action such as a lawsuit, subpoena, etc.
When it comes to freedom of speech, freedom of religions, right to bear arms, etc., anything should be allowed so long as it does not harm another persons right to do so. However, if you are providing goods or a service then why should anyone have the right to tell you who you can and cannot serve?
Do I support arbitrarily discriminating against people? No, not at all. But I do support the right for a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason just as much as I support the right for customers to not buy from a business they do not wish to buy from. When it comes right down to it, the business is losing a customer. I'm sure anyone can see how that is going to hurt them, so let them do it to themselves and keep the government out of it.
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Dissecting the Nye-Ham Debate
I'm going to state right away that there will be no quotes, no references, and no second-hand accounts of the debate. Here is a video of the entire debate. It is 2.5 hours long so sit down with your significant other and watch it. You will either bond or be divided over how you react. Either way your life will be better off and you won't be subjected to merely the portions of the video I wish you to be subjected to. Secondly, this debate was sort of boring, bordering on the line of dumb. Both sides made fundamental mistakes in their own defense as well as in understanding the opposition. This essay is to correct what was wrong, from the extreme category errors to the definitional differences. Thirdly, for as great of an entertainer as Bill Nye is you would think he would be better at getting his points across. Lastly, while I deny Ken Ham's worldview, I am thoroughly inclined to his line of thinking and rationality. In the end though, I really don't care much about which of these people is right. Does what I believe about this make a difference to what my next meal will be? No, so whatever.
Science and evolution DO have multiple meanings.
Li'l Wayne and Leonardo DaVinci are both artists. When I talk about how great DaVinci was at art, I must mean that Li'l Wayne does the same thing. Why else would I call them both artists?
Reiterating Ham's point, there is a difference between experimental science which we are capable of replicating time and time again in certain conditions and historical science, or the study of how what is in the present came to be from the past. Li'l Wayne is able to cause chemical burns, precisely cut though rocks, and create temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. (He can also do this with things other than his voice.) DaVinci looks at what Li'l Wayne is doing in the present and says, "The outcome of Wayne's experiments result in certain markers left behind. With enough educated guesses, I could give a probable explanation of how all of this stuff around me came to be!"
In a similar light, there are two kinds of evolution; micro-evolution, which virtually no one anywhere will deny, and macro-evolution, which is both much more difficult to convince people of and much more difficult to support. Micro-evolution can be observed over several generations; breeding certain animals, plants, etc. together will result in offspring with desirable attributes from each parent. In a matter of days it is possible to create hundreds of iterations of different bacteria using micro-evolution techniques to create a breed with desired attributes. Macro-evolution, to my knowledge, has never been observed in the world except through theories regarding the fossil record. There is no lizard-keeper who has started with two lizards and managed to produce a bird over the generations.
This is a clear and simple definitional error when people use the term "science" or the term "evolution" with one sense in mind. And we don't just have Li'l Wayne and DaVinci; there are Slipknots, Picassos, Emily Dickinsons, Tolkiens, Springsteins, etc. The only way to prevent confusion in debates is to be clear about what you are actually debating. Not all white people are the same; not all religious people are the same; not all Koreans are the same. Know what you're debating and stay within that realm or else any constructive progress you try to make will fail.
This is not a debate on religion.
While it is true that the YEC viewpoint arose from fundamental Christians, Christianity is not part of this debate. This entire debate is based on the physical explanations explained in the Bible. The existence and nature of God are not the things being debated; the life of Christ is not being debated; what is morally right and wrong is not being debated; who is saved and damned is not being debated.
The question at the center of the debate should have been, "What merit does Young-Earth Creationism have in regards to modern observations regarding the age of the universe?" Except for pagans and Scientologists, no one is going to look at rocks and say, "this is all that is wrong with religion!" If you want an understanding of the debate on whether or not God exists at all, see this complicated page. If you want to inflate the Nye-Ham debate to include the existence of God, then please get off my blog and never speak to me in public because I will rip you apart unflinchingly.
YEC and macro-evolution are only theories.
No matter how strongly either case was made in this debate, neither party can say that their view is fundamentally correct beyond any and all doubt. Both theories are the result of inductive reasoning and are subject to future evidence. Imagine two people building huts with materials from the same section of forest. Each will claim that their hut is more fireproof than the others and they will debate for days on end, showing how the others hut can't stand up to the flame. Neither hut will stand once a tsunami or tornado hits, though.
As is the problem with all theories there is no absolute right or wrong. The one theorizing may believe they are right, or that another is wrong, but their theory is only as strong as the evidence they have to support their claim. At any time new evidence could arise that confirms or denies even the most carefully constructed theory. Until we create a time machine to go back and observe things happening first-hand, the debate over the history of our universe will never truly end.
When you talk about logic...
About halfway through the video I got sick of hearing, from both Nye and Ham, that their side was more reasonable. Yes, it is reasonable to believe God created the universe; yes, it is reasonable to believe scientific studies of the past are likely to be true. Virtually anything can be reasonable, so here are two instances when reason takes you into a pit of despair with no way out.
As I already outlined in a previous entry, there was this guy named Xeno who constructed a series of paradoxes to screw with academics to this day. Here is one example of his line of reasoning; you want to get from point 0 to point 1. At some time you have to pass .5 to get from 0 to 1. To get to .5 you have to pass .25, and to pass .25 you have to pass .125, and so on. Eventually you get to the point where you realize it is impossible for you to move because you will always have to pass the halfway point between your intended destination and the halfway point to that first halfway point. Long story short, logic just prevented anyone from ever moving.
The second example, and one I feel is much more compelling, is the Gettier problem. Please just read the two cases in his article because I don't feel like summarizing a paper that hardly even counts as a brochure. Assuming you just read the article and started reading again, Gettier used common-sense logic to show how it is possible to have justification for your beliefs, and have unknowingly false information, yet still have a correct conclusion. Echoing the sentiments of David Hume, if something like this can happen with minor states of affairs, how likely is it that our understanding of the big things is dead wrong? Logic doesn't seem so logical anymore.
Bill Nye REALLY wants more scientists to help the economy.
I'm sorry, but by my count he made this point at least 8 times over the course of the debate, nearly as many times as he challenged someone to find an out-of-place fossil in the archaeological record. We get it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No one is going to say, "we don't have a need for more scientists." Additionally, as I started out with this paper, being a scientist doesn't mean believing the universe is 4.7 billion years old. Being a scientist means inventing, hypothesizing, observing, creating, etc. Christians, muslims, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, and ginger kids can all participate in the same science fairs without debating how old the universe is.
That's about all I have for you. While I may come off as somewhat cynical, it is only because I have come across and been involved in this type of debate countless times. Debating is a good thing and, if done correctly, enhances all parties involved. Just make sure you remember it is a matter of idea vs. idea, not group vs. group.
Steve
Science and evolution DO have multiple meanings.
Li'l Wayne and Leonardo DaVinci are both artists. When I talk about how great DaVinci was at art, I must mean that Li'l Wayne does the same thing. Why else would I call them both artists?
Reiterating Ham's point, there is a difference between experimental science which we are capable of replicating time and time again in certain conditions and historical science, or the study of how what is in the present came to be from the past. Li'l Wayne is able to cause chemical burns, precisely cut though rocks, and create temperatures approaching 0 degrees Kelvin. (He can also do this with things other than his voice.) DaVinci looks at what Li'l Wayne is doing in the present and says, "The outcome of Wayne's experiments result in certain markers left behind. With enough educated guesses, I could give a probable explanation of how all of this stuff around me came to be!"
In a similar light, there are two kinds of evolution; micro-evolution, which virtually no one anywhere will deny, and macro-evolution, which is both much more difficult to convince people of and much more difficult to support. Micro-evolution can be observed over several generations; breeding certain animals, plants, etc. together will result in offspring with desirable attributes from each parent. In a matter of days it is possible to create hundreds of iterations of different bacteria using micro-evolution techniques to create a breed with desired attributes. Macro-evolution, to my knowledge, has never been observed in the world except through theories regarding the fossil record. There is no lizard-keeper who has started with two lizards and managed to produce a bird over the generations.
This is a clear and simple definitional error when people use the term "science" or the term "evolution" with one sense in mind. And we don't just have Li'l Wayne and DaVinci; there are Slipknots, Picassos, Emily Dickinsons, Tolkiens, Springsteins, etc. The only way to prevent confusion in debates is to be clear about what you are actually debating. Not all white people are the same; not all religious people are the same; not all Koreans are the same. Know what you're debating and stay within that realm or else any constructive progress you try to make will fail.
This is not a debate on religion.
While it is true that the YEC viewpoint arose from fundamental Christians, Christianity is not part of this debate. This entire debate is based on the physical explanations explained in the Bible. The existence and nature of God are not the things being debated; the life of Christ is not being debated; what is morally right and wrong is not being debated; who is saved and damned is not being debated.
The question at the center of the debate should have been, "What merit does Young-Earth Creationism have in regards to modern observations regarding the age of the universe?" Except for pagans and Scientologists, no one is going to look at rocks and say, "this is all that is wrong with religion!" If you want an understanding of the debate on whether or not God exists at all, see this complicated page. If you want to inflate the Nye-Ham debate to include the existence of God, then please get off my blog and never speak to me in public because I will rip you apart unflinchingly.
YEC and macro-evolution are only theories.
No matter how strongly either case was made in this debate, neither party can say that their view is fundamentally correct beyond any and all doubt. Both theories are the result of inductive reasoning and are subject to future evidence. Imagine two people building huts with materials from the same section of forest. Each will claim that their hut is more fireproof than the others and they will debate for days on end, showing how the others hut can't stand up to the flame. Neither hut will stand once a tsunami or tornado hits, though.
As is the problem with all theories there is no absolute right or wrong. The one theorizing may believe they are right, or that another is wrong, but their theory is only as strong as the evidence they have to support their claim. At any time new evidence could arise that confirms or denies even the most carefully constructed theory. Until we create a time machine to go back and observe things happening first-hand, the debate over the history of our universe will never truly end.
When you talk about logic...
About halfway through the video I got sick of hearing, from both Nye and Ham, that their side was more reasonable. Yes, it is reasonable to believe God created the universe; yes, it is reasonable to believe scientific studies of the past are likely to be true. Virtually anything can be reasonable, so here are two instances when reason takes you into a pit of despair with no way out.
As I already outlined in a previous entry, there was this guy named Xeno who constructed a series of paradoxes to screw with academics to this day. Here is one example of his line of reasoning; you want to get from point 0 to point 1. At some time you have to pass .5 to get from 0 to 1. To get to .5 you have to pass .25, and to pass .25 you have to pass .125, and so on. Eventually you get to the point where you realize it is impossible for you to move because you will always have to pass the halfway point between your intended destination and the halfway point to that first halfway point. Long story short, logic just prevented anyone from ever moving.
The second example, and one I feel is much more compelling, is the Gettier problem. Please just read the two cases in his article because I don't feel like summarizing a paper that hardly even counts as a brochure. Assuming you just read the article and started reading again, Gettier used common-sense logic to show how it is possible to have justification for your beliefs, and have unknowingly false information, yet still have a correct conclusion. Echoing the sentiments of David Hume, if something like this can happen with minor states of affairs, how likely is it that our understanding of the big things is dead wrong? Logic doesn't seem so logical anymore.
Bill Nye REALLY wants more scientists to help the economy.
I'm sorry, but by my count he made this point at least 8 times over the course of the debate, nearly as many times as he challenged someone to find an out-of-place fossil in the archaeological record. We get it, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. No one is going to say, "we don't have a need for more scientists." Additionally, as I started out with this paper, being a scientist doesn't mean believing the universe is 4.7 billion years old. Being a scientist means inventing, hypothesizing, observing, creating, etc. Christians, muslims, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, and ginger kids can all participate in the same science fairs without debating how old the universe is.
That's about all I have for you. While I may come off as somewhat cynical, it is only because I have come across and been involved in this type of debate countless times. Debating is a good thing and, if done correctly, enhances all parties involved. Just make sure you remember it is a matter of idea vs. idea, not group vs. group.
Steve
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Ethics: Divine Command Theory
This is either the best or worst moral theory anyone can hold. Maybe both. Also, I've dared myself to complete this entry (accurately, I might add) before my laptop battery dies, which is currently at 80%.
Divine command theory rests on the premise of following the laws of God (or whatever omnipotent/ ethereal/ divine being you care to think of) purely on account of the knowledge that they are that being. Essentially it is following your boss because of they are your boss, regardless of what they tell you to do. This runs into certain paradoxes such as being told to increase production while laying people off, or being told not to murder while committing mass genocide.
Divine command theory's greatest strength is its simplicity. "Do what God tells you to do," or put another way, "good things are what God decides is good." No ifs, ands, or buts. (After that sentence, I don't care about apostrophes anymore. They can all die.) Let this stranger into my house? Sure, God! Procreate with my spouse? You Go(d)t it! Burn the heathen at the stake? Golly Je(sus)willakers! Absotootly! Maybe the sarcasm was laid on a little too strongly here... Anyways, so long as there is a standard for interpreting whatever God desires, DCT is wicked awesome. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, whatever Islam has going on, they all have some binding statements that are understood to be doctrine, i.e. exact instructions from God about living.
This is all well and good for those with boundless, unwavering faith in whatever. However, there was a witty old man named Euthyphro who posed a difficult question to these people a few thousand years ago; Is A) x good because the gods (he was Greek) command it, or B) do the gods command it because x is good?
If you choose A then the gods arbitrarily decide what is good and what is bad. In an instant the gods could command cutting open orphans to harvest their organs a good thing, or they could command the use of crystal meth to be a bad thing. It is the same logic you use to decide where you will eat lunch in a large city, except with morals and they're all immortal.
If you choose B, it means there is an objective reason for x being good outside of the commands of the gods. This limits the gods to being like Navi from Ocarina of Time, always pointing out things that are clearly evident to anyone with more than 3 total cells in their body. It takes the "divine command" out of "divine command theory," and not too many people are keen on having faith in just the word "theory," not even logical positivists.
Long story short, go with utilitarianism, pragmatism, nihilism, Kantian universalism, or pretty much anything other than DCT if you enjoy your social life.
12% battery remaining. w00t!
Steve
Divine command theory rests on the premise of following the laws of God (or whatever omnipotent/ ethereal/ divine being you care to think of) purely on account of the knowledge that they are that being. Essentially it is following your boss because of they are your boss, regardless of what they tell you to do. This runs into certain paradoxes such as being told to increase production while laying people off, or being told not to murder while committing mass genocide.
Divine command theory's greatest strength is its simplicity. "Do what God tells you to do," or put another way, "good things are what God decides is good." No ifs, ands, or buts. (After that sentence, I don't care about apostrophes anymore. They can all die.) Let this stranger into my house? Sure, God! Procreate with my spouse? You Go(d)t it! Burn the heathen at the stake? Golly Je(sus)willakers! Absotootly! Maybe the sarcasm was laid on a little too strongly here... Anyways, so long as there is a standard for interpreting whatever God desires, DCT is wicked awesome. The Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, whatever Islam has going on, they all have some binding statements that are understood to be doctrine, i.e. exact instructions from God about living.
This is all well and good for those with boundless, unwavering faith in whatever. However, there was a witty old man named Euthyphro who posed a difficult question to these people a few thousand years ago; Is A) x good because the gods (he was Greek) command it, or B) do the gods command it because x is good?
If you choose A then the gods arbitrarily decide what is good and what is bad. In an instant the gods could command cutting open orphans to harvest their organs a good thing, or they could command the use of crystal meth to be a bad thing. It is the same logic you use to decide where you will eat lunch in a large city, except with morals and they're all immortal.
If you choose B, it means there is an objective reason for x being good outside of the commands of the gods. This limits the gods to being like Navi from Ocarina of Time, always pointing out things that are clearly evident to anyone with more than 3 total cells in their body. It takes the "divine command" out of "divine command theory," and not too many people are keen on having faith in just the word "theory," not even logical positivists.
Long story short, go with utilitarianism, pragmatism, nihilism, Kantian universalism, or pretty much anything other than DCT if you enjoy your social life.
12% battery remaining. w00t!
Steve
Friday, January 3, 2014
Infinite Things: 1/infinity
This originally started out as a paper on Zeno's paradoxes but the more I researched the problem of infinite regression, supertasks, and fundamental mathematiics (its been a while, ok?) the more fallacies I discovered. This first entry in the "Infinite Things" series will be devoted to the concept of infinite regression, i.e. 1/infinity, which is at the root of each of Zeno's paradoxes.
It Isn't Zero Dammit
1/infinity does not equal zero. Going on the record for this one because as much as I hate math, it should be done right. If infinity is to be treated as an unending series of numbers, or the highest of all possible numbers, it must still be treated as a number. Therefore, 1/infinity does not equal zero but a number really, really, really, REALLY close to zero. The answer I most approved of was "undefined" since infinity itself isn't exactly a true number to speak of. Why, you may ask? Ok, Zeno.
If we walk a line to get from point A to point B, we must get to 1/2 AB, then get to 1/4 AB, then to 1/8 AB, etc. Essentially, we will never get to point B because we always have to go halfway from where we are measuring from to point B, and that distance can always be cut in half "infinitely." Now, I actually read up on this because I didn't want to post a "GUYS! I SOLVED IT!" entry only to read about how wrong I am a few hours later. It actually led me to this entry on supertasks, which started this whole train of thought. (Thank you Chihara, whoever you are.)
This line dividing business makes a lot of paradoxical sense when you start with the whole numbers, i.e. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8... they're fractions, whatever. BUT! let's start at the other end. Say you get allllll the way to 1/infinity and decide to turn around. Well, doubling 1/infinity gets you... oh, look at that. You get 1/infinity again. Doubling it again gets you... 1/infinity. Yet again. Cynicism aside, this poses a very real problem for the argument. We started out taking real numbers and hypothesizing them into an infinite number, but you can't really do that. You can divide a number by half or double a number as many times as you like; it will never truly reach infinity. It will get small, but no matter how small it gets it will still be a numerical value. The same concept can be applied to matter; cutting a cake in half 100000000000 times still leaves you with a very small piece of cake.
Whoever that douche was in one of the forums I checked before writing this article who said, "for all practical purposes, 1/infinity equals zero," you can't math and you shouldn't math. There are certainly problems in the Arabic mathematical base-10 system that cause problems when applying it to our universe (where else would Zeno get his paradoxes from?), but "pretty much equals" isn't math; it's guessing. I could "pretty much" stop at a red light, and I'll use your logic when the police officer asks me how the car crash happened.
There Was Only One Section in This Post
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS EMPTY SPACE
Its Like It Goes On Forever
When Do You Use "Its" and "It's"?
This cleared things up.
Screw You, BD
Steve
It Isn't Zero Dammit
1/infinity does not equal zero. Going on the record for this one because as much as I hate math, it should be done right. If infinity is to be treated as an unending series of numbers, or the highest of all possible numbers, it must still be treated as a number. Therefore, 1/infinity does not equal zero but a number really, really, really, REALLY close to zero. The answer I most approved of was "undefined" since infinity itself isn't exactly a true number to speak of. Why, you may ask? Ok, Zeno.
If we walk a line to get from point A to point B, we must get to 1/2 AB, then get to 1/4 AB, then to 1/8 AB, etc. Essentially, we will never get to point B because we always have to go halfway from where we are measuring from to point B, and that distance can always be cut in half "infinitely." Now, I actually read up on this because I didn't want to post a "GUYS! I SOLVED IT!" entry only to read about how wrong I am a few hours later. It actually led me to this entry on supertasks, which started this whole train of thought. (Thank you Chihara, whoever you are.)
This line dividing business makes a lot of paradoxical sense when you start with the whole numbers, i.e. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8... they're fractions, whatever. BUT! let's start at the other end. Say you get allllll the way to 1/infinity and decide to turn around. Well, doubling 1/infinity gets you... oh, look at that. You get 1/infinity again. Doubling it again gets you... 1/infinity. Yet again. Cynicism aside, this poses a very real problem for the argument. We started out taking real numbers and hypothesizing them into an infinite number, but you can't really do that. You can divide a number by half or double a number as many times as you like; it will never truly reach infinity. It will get small, but no matter how small it gets it will still be a numerical value. The same concept can be applied to matter; cutting a cake in half 100000000000 times still leaves you with a very small piece of cake.
Whoever that douche was in one of the forums I checked before writing this article who said, "for all practical purposes, 1/infinity equals zero," you can't math and you shouldn't math. There are certainly problems in the Arabic mathematical base-10 system that cause problems when applying it to our universe (where else would Zeno get his paradoxes from?), but "pretty much equals" isn't math; it's guessing. I could "pretty much" stop at a red light, and I'll use your logic when the police officer asks me how the car crash happened.
There Was Only One Section in This Post
LOOK AT ALL OF THIS EMPTY SPACE
Its Like It Goes On Forever
When Do You Use "Its" and "It's"?
This cleared things up.
Screw You, BD
Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)