Monday, April 28, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Encounter with a Gadfly
Just got back from Louvain-la-Neuve, where a highly interesting series of lectures was given by Michael Ruse, a professor visiting from Florida State. He's been quite outspoken on the evolution-creationism debate, particularly as it's been shaped in the U.S., and he's also been quite critical of Daniel Dennett and Richard &^$#ing Dawkins. (Oops, did I say that out loud?) Knowing that, it's no surprise that his lectures were on Darwinism.
Let me just say up front that I found his position refreshing: while firmly convinced that Darwin was correct, he refrains from going the way of Dennett and Dawkins, regarding (and rightly so, in my opinion) their doctrine as another religiosity. Prof. Ruse has single-handedly made me interested in the Darwinian theory, simply by not being ham-fisted about it. Strongly convinced, true, but not in such a way that blindly swept away serious issues connected with it.
His final lecture was on Darwinism and Christianity. To be honest, I was fully expecting the "religion-must-go" shpiel that many Darwinian disciples like to bray. Prof. Ruse gave none of that, thankfully; instead (wonder of wonders!) he gave Christian thought a serious look before coming to his own conclusions. By distinguishing four questions, he put the matter into a clearer light:
1. Does the fact of evolution make Christianity impossible? Ruse says no.
2. Does the fact of evolution make Christianity unnecessary? Again, Ruse says no.
3. Does Darwinism make Christianity unnecessary? Yes, says Ruse.
4. Does Darwinism make Christianity impossible? No.
To this I would add another:
5. Does Darwinism make bad theology impossible? I'd say yes, to some extent, and I'd like to think Prof. Ruse would agree.
6. Does Darwinism make bad science impossible? Again I'd say yes, to some extent.
These are actually nothing more than restatements of important features of his lecture, I think.
Question #3 is especially interesting, because it connects with Yours Truly's #5 & 6: Prof. Ruse holds that Christianity is not needed for explanatory value, since Darwinian theory does that sufficiently well. I think good theology would abstain from trying to give scientific explanations, just as good science would abstain from trying to give theological explanations. They are different universes of discourse. Where those universes overlap, they must agree; if they didn't, we'd be forced to believe that incompatible truth-claims could stand side by side.
We'd have to say, for example, that one fellow could proclaim the world's creation in six 24-hour days while another fellow could hold that it took eons for the world to come into existence - and they would not be disagreeing!?
Obviously, that's impossible as long as scientists and theologians assert that they are after truth. So what I'm saying is this: if it's been pretty well established that the physical origin of the world happened way more than 6000 years ago and took more than six days, the literalist theologian will have to account for that in his/her own work. Not to do so is intellectually irresponsible.
Similarly, a biologist who argues that God does not exist because a benevolent Supreme Being would never allow suffering in the world - i.e. natural evil - is clearly ignorant of the theologians' work on this question.
This would seem to be obvious, but the fact that creationism is seriously considered as a scientific theory by some people only shows that they don't have a clear idea what a scientific theory is. Even if they're practicing scientists. Natural science has the natural world for its domain, and it seeks answers in the empirical domain; a transcendant God stands outside that domain, and therefore is not amenable to the procedures of physics or biology. So don't try to push Him in there under the banner of ID.
By the same token, the arrogance of some scientists to hold forth on matters theological is to overstep their own bounds - especially arrogant when they perceive no need to study religion at all. Just because God is not for empirical testing does not mean He is a delusion, only that He is not an object of natural science. (So put away the prayer experiments, please. Why should God play by your rules, or anyone's?) I wouldn't call ID a scientific theory, but so what? It in no way entails my becoming an atheist.
I believe the so-called debate last year between Kirk Cameron and the so-called "Rational Response Squad" encapsulates much of the controversy: nobody's listening to anybody, everybody's talking past each other, they're slinging the same tired words back and forth. This has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with power.
(I'd love to sound off about all the "debate" between Kirk & Co., but that's another post. Dear readers, both of you will have to wait.)
So what Prof. Ruse's position achieves is clarification of the fields of science and religion. Imagine that - some scientists and theologians could actually get back to doing what they do best, and not be at each other's throats.
"OK, so where do you get off considering yourself competent enough to pass judgment on science and religion?" I'm neither scientist nor theologian; I study philosophy, with metaphysics as a major interest. But I have a concern for definitions, among other things, and that is a matter common to everyone. The definition of a field of inquiry marks out what it treats; it does this by way of the questions it asks. So ballistics asks what are the characteristics of objects in motion; psychology has other questions to ask. (Let's not digress into the status of scientific explanations. No space for it here.)
Often questions do cross borders, providing fertile ground for new ideas or even new disciplines - take biochemistry, for example. So I'm not against interdisciplinary studies by any means; in fact it's at the borders where the really interesting work takes place. But asking questions that touch boundaries is one thing, drawing conclusions that cross boundaries is another, and drawing unwarranted conclusions in other fields yet another. I have no problem with the first, or even the second, but the third merely displays a failure to think things through. And when willfully done, it just reeks of disingenuousness.
If philosophy existed for no other reason, the role of intellectual gadfly would be enough to justify it. Socrates pissed off a lot of folks, and went to the tomb for it. Fortunately he did a lot more. Prof. Ruse has done that in a wonderfully constructive way, and then some; I hope there's more to come - preferably without hemlock or anything.
(Image unwittingly courtesy of http://images.google.be/imgres?imgurl=http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/Gadfly.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.carolmoore.net/4secretary/controversies.html&h=551&w=547&sz=11&hl=nl&start=1&um=1&tbnid=rqXqvqjbnCNx4M:&tbnh=133&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgadfly%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dnl%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)
Friday, April 18, 2008
one of their own said...
In line with the previous post, here is a passage that Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Dylan-Haynes, and all other members of the scientific community:
Spoken by a man who knew both the library and the lab.
Find a scientific man who proposes to get along without any metaphysics -- not by any means every man who holds the ordinary reasonings of metaphysicians in scorn -- and you have found one whose doctrines are thoroughly vitiated by the crude and uncriticized metaphysics with which they are packed. We must philosophize, said the great naturalist Aristotle -- if only to avoid philosophizing. Every man of us has a metaphysics, and has to have one; and it will influence his life greatly. Far better, then, that that metaphysics should be criticized and not be allowed to run loose. (Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers 1.129)
Spoken by a man who knew both the library and the lab.
This Island Internet
Both my dear readers are very busy, so they might have missed out on the news item about the beatdown by Florida teenage girls, which they videotaped and wanted to post on the Web. They might also have missed the discussion that has arisen around it. Apparently everybody involved in the case seems to be saying, "Don't blame me/my daughter, it was the others/the Internet."
And apparently Barry "Men in Black" Sonnenfeld fears the Internet is eroding society. It is so pervasive and hypnotic, he believes, that kids today have no sense of privacy, thus enabling totalitarianism. He might view the Florida incident as evidence of this.
Here's my response...
Point the first: Helen A.S. Popkin, voice of reason and sanity, makes a simple point: you cannot blame the Internet because teenagers sometimes do ridiculous, even horrible things. Teenagers can be like that. (So can adults.) It's not that hard to figure out. You know the old saw, "With freedom comes responsibility"? Well, if you agree with that, you agree with its attendant correlation: with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. This needs to be learned, and it needs to be taught.
Point the second: It does seem that the current generation is more media-savvy than any other. But they do have their limits, as Shakhti discovered recently, and the rest will have to figure it out too.
The take-home lesson here is, I think, that things ain't so simple as we'd like. People are different, they behave differently, which brings me to...
Point the third: Here's my sociological observation. Individuals do not act like groups of people; that's why we talk about mob psychology, as opposed to personal psychology. Seems to me we're forced to come to grips with this stuff called technology, and we have to do it again every day. This means each one of us must deal with it, and society as a whole must too. And these are distinct orders.
Time was when photography was (a) feared because it would put painters out of business or (b) loathed because it wasn't, couldn't be art. Something similar with movies vs. theater. Who would say that now? Why not? Because as a whole, we have learned what we can do with film - the fear and loathing came out of ignorance.
It took a lot of effort and bumbling, but we've learned. And are still learning (as demonstrated by innovative works and stinkers alike). That's what's happening now with computers. We're learning the ropes as we go, as can be seen by the double-edged Youtube and the Florida beating.
My basic point here is that the shifting of responsibility is so human and yet so maddening.
In some ways this is complicated by findings such as this, one where a person's decision-making can be determined prior to that person's awareness of the choice. Interestingly, John Dylan-Haynes (the leader of the study) seems to doubt the reality of free will: faced with an unsavory decision, "We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point....But I don't think it's plausible." (Quoted in Wired.com.) (I'd say the only real thing the experiment proves is there's a delay in awareness, not a rigid determinism. But that's another post.)
But it doesn't complicate everything. Let's assume the experiment is strictly speaking right and decisions can't be changed. Now imagine the following courtroom scene...
Now, Mr. Sonnenfeld, I'll be the first to admit being mesmerized by the WWW. Look, I've got a blog. But if I don't finish my dissertation, can I really say, "Stupid dumb Internet...kept me from doing my job"?
As for Mr. Dylan-Haynes's comment, I won't go into the hairy issue of free will. I'll only say that he doubts a certain conception of free will, and that is all he can legitimately say. More than that, and he would be committing the same error in philosophy as Richard Dawkins does in theology - namely, assuming that his interpretation of the problem is the only proper one. It is not.
So. Teach your children well, let them make their own mistakes, and hope for the best. Don't blame the Net just yet. But by all means, fear what people can do with it.
And apparently Barry "Men in Black" Sonnenfeld fears the Internet is eroding society. It is so pervasive and hypnotic, he believes, that kids today have no sense of privacy, thus enabling totalitarianism. He might view the Florida incident as evidence of this.
Here's my response...
Point the first: Helen A.S. Popkin, voice of reason and sanity, makes a simple point: you cannot blame the Internet because teenagers sometimes do ridiculous, even horrible things. Teenagers can be like that. (So can adults.) It's not that hard to figure out. You know the old saw, "With freedom comes responsibility"? Well, if you agree with that, you agree with its attendant correlation: with greater freedom comes greater responsibility. This needs to be learned, and it needs to be taught.
Point the second: It does seem that the current generation is more media-savvy than any other. But they do have their limits, as Shakhti discovered recently, and the rest will have to figure it out too.
The take-home lesson here is, I think, that things ain't so simple as we'd like. People are different, they behave differently, which brings me to...
Point the third: Here's my sociological observation. Individuals do not act like groups of people; that's why we talk about mob psychology, as opposed to personal psychology. Seems to me we're forced to come to grips with this stuff called technology, and we have to do it again every day. This means each one of us must deal with it, and society as a whole must too. And these are distinct orders.
Time was when photography was (a) feared because it would put painters out of business or (b) loathed because it wasn't, couldn't be art. Something similar with movies vs. theater. Who would say that now? Why not? Because as a whole, we have learned what we can do with film - the fear and loathing came out of ignorance.
It took a lot of effort and bumbling, but we've learned. And are still learning (as demonstrated by innovative works and stinkers alike). That's what's happening now with computers. We're learning the ropes as we go, as can be seen by the double-edged Youtube and the Florida beating.
My basic point here is that the shifting of responsibility is so human and yet so maddening.
In some ways this is complicated by findings such as this, one where a person's decision-making can be determined prior to that person's awareness of the choice. Interestingly, John Dylan-Haynes (the leader of the study) seems to doubt the reality of free will: faced with an unsavory decision, "We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point....But I don't think it's plausible." (Quoted in Wired.com.) (I'd say the only real thing the experiment proves is there's a delay in awareness, not a rigid determinism. But that's another post.)
But it doesn't complicate everything. Let's assume the experiment is strictly speaking right and decisions can't be changed. Now imagine the following courtroom scene...
Lawyer: Your Honor, my clients could not have been guilty of assault and battery. Sure, they talked about it for days. Sure, they intended to put their appalling act on display for the whole world to gawk at. But so much evidence shows that people do not have conscious control over the decisions they make! Therefore, they cannot be considered responsible for deciding to whup their classmate's ass.
Judge: Oh good, then I'm not responsible for giving them ten without parole. *slam!* Next!
Now, Mr. Sonnenfeld, I'll be the first to admit being mesmerized by the WWW. Look, I've got a blog. But if I don't finish my dissertation, can I really say, "Stupid dumb Internet...kept me from doing my job"?
As for Mr. Dylan-Haynes's comment, I won't go into the hairy issue of free will. I'll only say that he doubts a certain conception of free will, and that is all he can legitimately say. More than that, and he would be committing the same error in philosophy as Richard Dawkins does in theology - namely, assuming that his interpretation of the problem is the only proper one. It is not.
So. Teach your children well, let them make their own mistakes, and hope for the best. Don't blame the Net just yet. But by all means, fear what people can do with it.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Tag, the Reprise
The tag post has generated unparalleled response: a record 4 comments, the highest to date. Thanks to all of you who read, enjoyed, and talked back! I hope there are some similar good sports among you.
Now, some challenges (real or perceived) have been presented among those comments. A certain astute reader - I won't reveal her name, but it begins with Anna-Lys - asked that I dredge up proof of my musical prowess by posting a recording of the James Bond theme on the ukelele. My friend, I would if I could, but alar, and time. And at this point, I've got none of these.
Said astute reader also requested pictures of (a) the no-good, long-haired hippie freak in my past and (b) the ill-fated jeans of my Chuck Norris days. On this I can deliver somewhat promisingly.
s *sigh*, said proof calls for a uke, a recorde
People's Exhibit A: this was shot at Karaoke Night at my alma mater. My partner-in-crime and I were doing our rendition of "Welcome to the Jungle," TMC-style. Ecce Hippie.
(Photo courtesy of moi.)
People's Exhibit B: this is not exactly me, as you can tell by looking carefully. Nor is this the same kick. However, the subject's jeans have met a very similar fate:
It pains me, but it has to be said: I hope I never get that big. However, if a certain other astute reader decides to see just how much cottage cheese I can put away in one sitting, I could end up like this guy. Especially if I practice.
Honestly, I've never tested the limits of this craving, partly because I've feared that it has no end, and partly because I'm a cheapskate - have you seen the price of cottage cheese? If it's going to disappear so quickly, why spend the money?
And yet (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems RKR actually wants to see just how of the stuff Yours Truly can take. Well, if Paul Newman could eat 50 hard-boiled eggs in an hour, I might actually be game to try something similar. Just to see.
Only make it reasonable, otherwise you'll end up on mop detail for sure.
(*Thanks to the lovely and talented Ms. W, who introduced me to Failblog.)
ps - (For truth-seekers everywhere, BBC gives the scoop on the likelihood of Cool Hand Luke's feat in real life. Read this before dishing out the cottage cheese.)
Now, some challenges (real or perceived) have been presented among those comments. A certain astute reader - I won't reveal her name, but it begins with Anna-Lys - asked that I dredge up proof of my musical prowess by posting a recording of the James Bond theme on the ukelele. My friend, I would if I could, but alar, and time. And at this point, I've got none of these.
Said astute reader also requested pictures of (a) the no-good, long-haired hippie freak in my past and (b) the ill-fated jeans of my Chuck Norris days. On this I can deliver somewhat promisingly.
s *sigh*, said proof calls for a uke, a recorde
People's Exhibit A: this was shot at Karaoke Night at my alma mater. My partner-in-crime and I were doing our rendition of "Welcome to the Jungle," TMC-style. Ecce Hippie.
(Photo courtesy of moi.)People's Exhibit B: this is not exactly me, as you can tell by looking carefully. Nor is this the same kick. However, the subject's jeans have met a very similar fate:
It pains me, but it has to be said: I hope I never get that big. However, if a certain other astute reader decides to see just how much cottage cheese I can put away in one sitting, I could end up like this guy. Especially if I practice.
Honestly, I've never tested the limits of this craving, partly because I've feared that it has no end, and partly because I'm a cheapskate - have you seen the price of cottage cheese? If it's going to disappear so quickly, why spend the money?
And yet (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems RKR actually wants to see just how of the stuff Yours Truly can take. Well, if Paul Newman could eat 50 hard-boiled eggs in an hour, I might actually be game to try something similar. Just to see.
Only make it reasonable, otherwise you'll end up on mop detail for sure.
(*Thanks to the lovely and talented Ms. W, who introduced me to Failblog.)
ps - (For truth-seekers everywhere, BBC gives the scoop on the likelihood of Cool Hand Luke's feat in real life. Read this before dishing out the cottage cheese.)
Friday, April 11, 2008
Verily, I hath been tagged...
I don't know what I did to deserve this, but - I've been tagged. I'm it, so here we go (hey, this beats writing a dissertation, right?):
The rules:
*Post 10 random things about yourself
*Choose 5 people to tag and a reason you chose each person
*Leave them each a comment directing them to your blog so they know they are it
*You can’t tag the person who tagged you (you’ll have to make new friends)
*As a courtesy to the person who tagged you, please let them know when you have posted so they can have the sheer delight and extra work load of reading your answers)
Drum roll, please...
1. I was born in Eugene, Oregon. I know nothing about the damn Ducks.
2. Can you play the James Bond theme on a ukelele? I can. (Well, at least I could once.)
3. I practiced tae kwon do in high school.
4. Once when I was in high school, I met my mom on the street. As I was showing off a spinning kick, the crotch of my jeans ripped. Mom laughed so hard, I think she almost wet her pants.
5. No matter how much cottage cheese is in front of me, I will eat it. All.
6. I was once a no-good, long-haired hippie freak, and I have the pictures to prove it.
7. A favorite pastime when I was growing up: climbing buildings. Well, that's what us ninjas do.
8. I think my purpose in life can be summed up in two words: object lesson.
9. Case in point. Once when I was a kid, we went out for lunch. I ordered two eggs, any style - with a straight face - and I didn't get it.
10. Switched-on Bach is one of my all-time favorite albums.
Now for some victims. It's probably bad (N)etiquette to tag the already-tagged, and I don't know many bloggers...so that really does mean I have to make some new friends!
A. Matt, because I haven't talked to him since TKD, and it would be nice to hear how he's doing;
B. Anna-Lys, because she has such a lovely blog, and was foolish enough to comment on mine (glad you liked the post);
C. Elliot, because any blog posting its reading level can't be half-bad;
D. Sam, because he's traveling and I'm not (covet, covet, covet! verily, I covet thee);
E. Malin, because he's got a good eye for illustration - keep it up!
There, I've done the deed. Thanks for being good sports, and give it a try; it's not so bad, really.
The rules:
*Post 10 random things about yourself
*Choose 5 people to tag and a reason you chose each person
*Leave them each a comment directing them to your blog so they know they are it
*You can’t tag the person who tagged you (you’ll have to make new friends)
*As a courtesy to the person who tagged you, please let them know when you have posted so they can have the sheer delight and extra work load of reading your answers)
Drum roll, please...
1. I was born in Eugene, Oregon. I know nothing about the damn Ducks.
2. Can you play the James Bond theme on a ukelele? I can. (Well, at least I could once.)
3. I practiced tae kwon do in high school.
4. Once when I was in high school, I met my mom on the street. As I was showing off a spinning kick, the crotch of my jeans ripped. Mom laughed so hard, I think she almost wet her pants.
5. No matter how much cottage cheese is in front of me, I will eat it. All.
6. I was once a no-good, long-haired hippie freak, and I have the pictures to prove it.
7. A favorite pastime when I was growing up: climbing buildings. Well, that's what us ninjas do.
8. I think my purpose in life can be summed up in two words: object lesson.
9. Case in point. Once when I was a kid, we went out for lunch. I ordered two eggs, any style - with a straight face - and I didn't get it.
10. Switched-on Bach is one of my all-time favorite albums.
Now for some victims. It's probably bad (N)etiquette to tag the already-tagged, and I don't know many bloggers...so that really does mean I have to make some new friends!
A. Matt, because I haven't talked to him since TKD, and it would be nice to hear how he's doing;
B. Anna-Lys, because she has such a lovely blog, and was foolish enough to comment on mine (glad you liked the post);
C. Elliot, because any blog posting its reading level can't be half-bad;
D. Sam, because he's traveling and I'm not (covet, covet, covet! verily, I covet thee);
E. Malin, because he's got a good eye for illustration - keep it up!
There, I've done the deed. Thanks for being good sports, and give it a try; it's not so bad, really.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Interim post (between posts)
Busy now writing up a presentation for this Saturday. I know you're eagerly awaiting the next post, but unfortunately you're both going to have to wait. Next week, perhaps.
Meantime, enjoy the hypnotic grandeur that is Clows. You gotta love the groove.
Meantime, enjoy the hypnotic grandeur that is Clows. You gotta love the groove.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Great wait update - strike three, yerrrrrrrrrr out!
It is now April, and the egregious Encarta Misquotes quiz is still up. Just as I expected, to be frank.
Both of my devoted readers know of my righteous indignation, as well the the contrition which followed. (Just in case you missed it, click here. For the condensed version, click here.) The vitriol and the call to truce were both put half-jokingly, but there's a serious side to all this. It really galls me that such a gross error was not only put out by a major reference source, but that the same source refuses to acknowledge it, let alone correct it. This is outright hypocrisy, pure and simple.
That means only one thing: Encarta is too big for its britches. So the angry young post stays. 'Nuff said.
Both of my devoted readers know of my righteous indignation, as well the the contrition which followed. (Just in case you missed it, click here. For the condensed version, click here.) The vitriol and the call to truce were both put half-jokingly, but there's a serious side to all this. It really galls me that such a gross error was not only put out by a major reference source, but that the same source refuses to acknowledge it, let alone correct it. This is outright hypocrisy, pure and simple.
That means only one thing: Encarta is too big for its britches. So the angry young post stays. 'Nuff said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)