Saturday, September 29, 2007
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
This is a very long video (almost 2 hours) but quite worthwhile for anyone interested in understanding why intelligent design creationism is bad science. Especially interesting to me were the bits where Miller discusses evidence against irreducible complexity.
Miller is a Roman Catholic biology professor at Brown University, and he believes that faith and science are compatible. I disagree with him on this one point, but not in a strict sense. Miller's beliefs certainly don't make him any less a scientist.
Unrest in Myanmar - latimes.com
Unrest in Myanmar - latimes.com Click the link for images of the junta's crackdown on civil disobedience.
Given that my readers have ready access to news and information, I'm sure you know about the current events, or can easily find out. I don't know what to add, other than I am saddened and outraged. This is what happens when too much power rests with the few and corrupt.
The Buddhist monks are highly respected in the area as moral authorities, and they evidently take the responsibility seriously enough to risk their lives. I admire their courage.
Given that my readers have ready access to news and information, I'm sure you know about the current events, or can easily find out. I don't know what to add, other than I am saddened and outraged. This is what happens when too much power rests with the few and corrupt.The Buddhist monks are highly respected in the area as moral authorities, and they evidently take the responsibility seriously enough to risk their lives. I admire their courage.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit
The title was too good to resist:
Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit
Abstract:
"Other currencies???" You mean chimps trade food for SEX???
The full version of the article is highly recommended. Many other professional scientific articles are freely available from PLoS ONE.
Notice that, in the chimpanzee version of the age-old story, the male chimp gives the fruit to the female, in open defiance of tradition.
Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit
Abstract:
The sharing of wild plant foods is infrequent in chimpanzees, but in chimpanzee communities that engage in hunting, meat is frequently used as a ‘social tool’ for nurturing alliances and social bonds. Here we report the only recorded example of regular sharing of plant foods by unrelated, non-provisioned wild chimpanzees, and the contexts in which these sharing behaviours occur. From direct observations, adult chimpanzees at Bossou (Republic of Guinea, West Africa) very rarely transferred wild plant foods. In contrast, they shared cultivated plant foods much more frequently (58 out of 59 food sharing events). Sharing primarily consists of adult males allowing reproductively cycling females to take food that they possess. We propose that hypotheses focussing on ‘food-for-sex and -grooming’ and ‘showing-off’ strategies plausibly account for observed sharing behaviours. A changing human-dominated landscape presents chimpanzees with fresh challenges, and our observations suggest that crop-raiding provides adult male chimpanzees at Bossou with highly desirable food commodities that may be traded for other currencies.Citation: Hockings KJ, Humle T, Anderson JR, Biro D, Sousa C, et al. (2007) Chimpanzees Share Forbidden Fruit. PLoS ONE 2(9): e886 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000886
"Other currencies???" You mean chimps trade food for SEX???
The full version of the article is highly recommended. Many other professional scientific articles are freely available from PLoS ONE.
Notice that, in the chimpanzee version of the age-old story, the male chimp gives the fruit to the female, in open defiance of tradition.
Blog update: time to hang up the old header.
Since I've been blogging again recently I decided to update my profile. My old profile was more of a blog description anyway, and since I was getting tired of the old header, I moved the description from the profile and put it in the blog header.
The old header read:
The old header read:
Welcome. Rejoice at the discovery of this website, for your eyes do not deceive you. Truly I say unto you, the universe is One, dynamic, and flowing with creative beinghood. Do not deny what you know to be true. Prepare your deepest self for the life-journey that is snaaaaaaaaaars.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Elegant Snaarsiverse
I bought Brian Greene's best-selling popular science novel, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" today.
Hopefully, I'll have something both philosophical and irrelevant to say about string theory after reading the book. But first off, let me say that string theory is really a fool's quest, and here's why:
String theory is touted as the explain-everything model that will reconcile general relativity with quantum theory. For those who are unfamiliar, quantum mechanics is about the smallest things we know about in physics, and general relativity is about medium- and large-sized objects (like bugs, apples, cars, planets, and stars) on up to the ungeblievagly engormous things (like black holes and galaxies.) The theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, taken together, explain just about everything observable about the physical universe, but they are mutually exclusive - they can't both be right.
String theory posits the existence of zero-point, one-dimensional structures called "strings," which vibrate through precisely eleven dimensions, and from which emerge matter and the forces familiar to modern physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
String theory, so far (to my admittedly meager knowledge), doesn't predict anything that is observable - but it does seem to be able to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If I were a professional philosopher of science, I might characterize string theory as a reductionist theory, meaning that it attempts to explain all phenomena by appealing to one, or a very few, fundamental phenomena, forces, particles, or kinds of things (the last phrase being deliberately vague.)
Anyway, let's cut to the chase, shall we? The truth is, string theory is bullshit when - huh, obviously - the universe is composed not of strings, but - DUH - little bitty snaarsisms, quivering their way through the universal ovoid, imbuing space itself with hyper-optional potentiality.
I can teach you all the Way of the snaars, by which you too can know the truth of these things.
Hopefully, I'll have something both philosophical and irrelevant to say about string theory after reading the book. But first off, let me say that string theory is really a fool's quest, and here's why:
String theory is touted as the explain-everything model that will reconcile general relativity with quantum theory. For those who are unfamiliar, quantum mechanics is about the smallest things we know about in physics, and general relativity is about medium- and large-sized objects (like bugs, apples, cars, planets, and stars) on up to the ungeblievagly engormous things (like black holes and galaxies.) The theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, taken together, explain just about everything observable about the physical universe, but they are mutually exclusive - they can't both be right.
String theory posits the existence of zero-point, one-dimensional structures called "strings," which vibrate through precisely eleven dimensions, and from which emerge matter and the forces familiar to modern physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
String theory, so far (to my admittedly meager knowledge), doesn't predict anything that is observable - but it does seem to be able to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If I were a professional philosopher of science, I might characterize string theory as a reductionist theory, meaning that it attempts to explain all phenomena by appealing to one, or a very few, fundamental phenomena, forces, particles, or kinds of things (the last phrase being deliberately vague.)
Anyway, let's cut to the chase, shall we? The truth is, string theory is bullshit when - huh, obviously - the universe is composed not of strings, but - DUH - little bitty snaarsisms, quivering their way through the universal ovoid, imbuing space itself with hyper-optional potentiality.
I can teach you all the Way of the snaars, by which you too can know the truth of these things.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Good v. Evil: Narcissism v. Snaarsissism
Narcissism (from "Abstract Concepts"):
... yadayadayada, something something.
In a world in which live such people, now more than ever is needed the snaars.
Narcissism is a set of character traits concerned with self-admiration, self-centeredness and self-regard...in Narcissistic Personality Disorder ... the patient overestimates his abilities and has an excessive need for admiration and affirmation ...
Some sources suggest that narcissistic personality disorder may be an infantile, defensive personality structure ...
... may be a maladaptive defense of the ... emotional splitting, resultant cognitive distortions, and negative/hostile worldview ...
... yadayadayada, something something.
In a world in which live such people, now more than ever is needed the snaars.
Creation/Evolution controversy explained
It's SO simple, really. Ken Ham, the protuberant creationist apologist, has a neatly packaged Answer-In-Genesis to the question of why Evolutionists "refuse" to believe.
Be you creationist or evolutionist, you may be surprised to find out that the controversy is not about the actual evidence for or against your position. No, we can never look to the evidence to decide the matter. The key, you see, is in the interpretation of the evidence, which is naturally based on our presuppositions (or axioms, which, Mr. Ham explains, are the same thing.)
One interpretation might seem to fit the evidence better, warns Ken, if we have not grasped the notion that what are at issue are the presuppositions which underlie.
You see, it's like this: no one really "knows" if we were created or evolved. Because no one was there to witness how we came to be. Because "We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present."
If there was a witness, then someone was already living. So, being alive, they can't have witnessed the creation of life. Therefore, no one witnessed the creation of life.
No one, that is, except God (good thing HE's not alive, right?)!
Until we have a time machine, we'll never know how it really happened.
Luckily, our Christian brethren actually do have a time machine, in the form of the Bible. Hooray!
If we will only presuppose (and what right-thinker wouldn't?) that the Bible is the revealed Word of our Lord, then all the evidence will fall naturally into place. What a relief!
Ken Ham says he's glad he learned this distinction between facts and presuppositions, because then he was able to inoculate his students against the factual interpretations of other (evolutionist) teachers. Then the shoe was on the other foot for a change!
Despite God's every effort to be fair and give us all an even shake, however, some folks just won't believe, for their own indiscoverable, spiritually corrupt and immoral reasons. As long as they remain obstinate, nothing can prevent them from forming their own radicallly dangerous scientific interpretations of the evidence.
Be you creationist or evolutionist, you may be surprised to find out that the controversy is not about the actual evidence for or against your position. No, we can never look to the evidence to decide the matter. The key, you see, is in the interpretation of the evidence, which is naturally based on our presuppositions (or axioms, which, Mr. Ham explains, are the same thing.)
One interpretation might seem to fit the evidence better, warns Ken, if we have not grasped the notion that what are at issue are the presuppositions which underlie.
You see, it's like this: no one really "knows" if we were created or evolved. Because no one was there to witness how we came to be. Because "We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present."
If there was a witness, then someone was already living. So, being alive, they can't have witnessed the creation of life. Therefore, no one witnessed the creation of life.
No one, that is, except God (good thing HE's not alive, right?)!
Until we have a time machine, we'll never know how it really happened.
Luckily, our Christian brethren actually do have a time machine, in the form of the Bible. Hooray!
If we will only presuppose (and what right-thinker wouldn't?) that the Bible is the revealed Word of our Lord, then all the evidence will fall naturally into place. What a relief!
Ken Ham says he's glad he learned this distinction between facts and presuppositions, because then he was able to inoculate his students against the factual interpretations of other (evolutionist) teachers. Then the shoe was on the other foot for a change!
Despite God's every effort to be fair and give us all an even shake, however, some folks just won't believe, for their own indiscoverable, spiritually corrupt and immoral reasons. As long as they remain obstinate, nothing can prevent them from forming their own radicallly dangerous scientific interpretations of the evidence.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Snaars Times
Here's a brief update for my online friends. Sorry I haven't been in touch the last few months. I've been working two jobs. When I am home I spend a lot of time with the snaars spouse and snaars kids.
It's hard to believe Saadia turned one year old last month - but it's true. Simcha is in kindergarten and Havilah is in the second grade. They are, each of them, fantastic kids. Every day there's something I want to write about. They provide me with enough material that I could write a full-length post every day, if I had the time and energy.
Yesterday Havilah told me she loves science, but she doesn't like math, and she wants to be a figure skater when she grows up. Lately, her favorite game to play as a family has been "20 questions."
Today I watched from our apartment balcony as Simcha nervously crossed the street all by herself on her way to the neighborhood playground. While Simcha participates in "20 questions," she much prefers "I spy with my little eye," which is basically the same, only easier.
Saadia has a glowing personality, and is working hard at breaking in tooth number eight and tooth number nine. While I was comfortably seated on the balcony watching Havilah and Simcha in the playground across the street, Saadia discovered the unique and satisfying sound an orange makes when it is dropped from the third story to the concrete below.
I would like to draw your attention to the new scarlet letter "A" in the sidebar. This is the official symbol of Richard Dawkins's atheist OUT Campaign. Since I came out as an atheist about two years ago, and because this very website was instrumental in that regard, I felt it was appropriate to add the A here.
This blog's address has been added to the OUT Campaign's blogroll, but it took some doing. Initially, the OUT Campaign's site administrator thought that my site had been hacked by Christians! I thought: "Oh my, that administrator didn't take much time to read it, did he?" I supposed that my spiritualized theme had caused confusion! In fact, there was a typo in my submission. The administrator was looking at snaars.blogpot.com. (Blogpot, you see?)
Anyway, it's all fixed now. I plan to peruse some of the other sites on the blogroll, maybe make some more friends.
Perhaps I'll provide some details on my employment situation next time.
It's hard to believe Saadia turned one year old last month - but it's true. Simcha is in kindergarten and Havilah is in the second grade. They are, each of them, fantastic kids. Every day there's something I want to write about. They provide me with enough material that I could write a full-length post every day, if I had the time and energy.
Yesterday Havilah told me she loves science, but she doesn't like math, and she wants to be a figure skater when she grows up. Lately, her favorite game to play as a family has been "20 questions."
Today I watched from our apartment balcony as Simcha nervously crossed the street all by herself on her way to the neighborhood playground. While Simcha participates in "20 questions," she much prefers "I spy with my little eye," which is basically the same, only easier.
Saadia has a glowing personality, and is working hard at breaking in tooth number eight and tooth number nine. While I was comfortably seated on the balcony watching Havilah and Simcha in the playground across the street, Saadia discovered the unique and satisfying sound an orange makes when it is dropped from the third story to the concrete below.
I would like to draw your attention to the new scarlet letter "A" in the sidebar. This is the official symbol of Richard Dawkins's atheist OUT Campaign. Since I came out as an atheist about two years ago, and because this very website was instrumental in that regard, I felt it was appropriate to add the A here.
This blog's address has been added to the OUT Campaign's blogroll, but it took some doing. Initially, the OUT Campaign's site administrator thought that my site had been hacked by Christians! I thought: "Oh my, that administrator didn't take much time to read it, did he?" I supposed that my spiritualized theme had caused confusion! In fact, there was a typo in my submission. The administrator was looking at snaars.blogpot.com. (Blogpot, you see?)
Anyway, it's all fixed now. I plan to peruse some of the other sites on the blogroll, maybe make some more friends.
Perhaps I'll provide some details on my employment situation next time.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
A Millenialissistic Visitation
Having withheld my snaarsissistic blessings for what I have calculated precisely to be just the right amount of time, I hereby deign and design to impart and bestow grandiose words of opportune importunity.
No longer will I the silence, endured by so many and long, and so fortunately, be the purveyor of **.
It's been months since I've written anything substantive. That's because, in my incalculable wisdom, I find that long, drawn-out expectancy makes the precipitously forthcoming reward all the sweeter. The snaars must be doled out carefully and cautiously, like honey, from the crock of enlightenment. The secrets must not be dispensed with all at once, lest the unready uninitiates misuse or disabuse others of the gifts and get a stomachache from all that honey-sugar.
Okay, here's today's bit of wisdom. Ahem. Here goes (get ready now):
There! Now don't we all feel better? See y'all again soon!
** Better a language abused than disused, that's what I always say. When I'm not obstinately close-mouthed, that is.
** Excepting inasmuch as such activities distend to the overall benefit of Snaars, or of His condition, and that of the Universal Sentientosity generally, and humanity most very especially. Or if you really feel like it. But even if you are going to do something that I would do, consult your inner snaars first. Ask your physician before performing snaarslike feats.
No longer will I the silence, endured by so many and long, and so fortunately, be the purveyor of **.
It's been months since I've written anything substantive. That's because, in my incalculable wisdom, I find that long, drawn-out expectancy makes the precipitously forthcoming reward all the sweeter. The snaars must be doled out carefully and cautiously, like honey, from the crock of enlightenment. The secrets must not be dispensed with all at once, lest the unready uninitiates misuse or disabuse others of the gifts and get a stomachache from all that honey-sugar.
Okay, here's today's bit of wisdom. Ahem. Here goes (get ready now):
Do not do any thing that I would not do**.
There! Now don't we all feel better? See y'all again soon!
** Better a language abused than disused, that's what I always say. When I'm not obstinately close-mouthed, that is.
** Excepting inasmuch as such activities distend to the overall benefit of Snaars, or of His condition, and that of the Universal Sentientosity generally, and humanity most very especially. Or if you really feel like it. But even if you are going to do something that I would do, consult your inner snaars first. Ask your physician before performing snaarslike feats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
