Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 2

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  I discussed the first part of the post earlier, so now I'll move on.  As before, I will use "woke" in quotes when talking about how right-wingers use the term, and remove the quotes when using the term as I would.

Feser goes to list characteristics of his claimed "woke" mindset that are indicative of some psychological disorders (later identified as "depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders", still later referred to as "delusional paranoia", and compared to the full-blown schizophrenia of John Nash).  He has assembled quite a list of traits.  Amusingly, he succumbs to every item he accuses the "woke" of.

• emotional reasoning, or letting our feelings determine how we interpret reality rather than letting reality determine whether our feelings are the appropriate ones; -- Feser has a strong emotional reaction to depictions of homosexual or trans people, to the degree he can't stand having children exposed to the concepts, much less studying them
• catastrophizing, or focusing obsessively on the imagined worst possible outcome rather than on what the evidence shows are more likely outcomes; -- I really don't have to look further than identifying the mindset of "woke" people as "delusional paranoia", but I can do even better, such as when he refers to protestors as "tyrants" because they resist being tear-gassed, pull down statues dedicated for countering civil rights, feel free to protest vocally, and criticize people on the internet 
• overgeneralizing, or jumping to sweeping conclusions on the basis of one or a few incidents; I didn't find an example here, but neither did Feser describe "woke" people of suffering from this.
• dichotomous thinking, or seeing things in either-or terms when a more sober analysis would reveal more possibilities; Feser, when disagreeing with the existence of microaggressions, offers an either-or explanation when the reality is the effects combine (see part 1 for slightly more detail)
• mind reading, or jumping to conclusions about what other people are thinking; Feser's entire post is an exercise in mind-reading, and he misses the mark widely
• labeling, or slapping a simplistic description on some person or phenomenon that papers over its complexity; Feser's use of the term "woke"
• negative filtering and discounting positives, or looking only for confirming evidence for some pessimistic assumption while denying or downplaying confirming evidence that things are not in fact so bad; Feser's ignoring decades of research on racism is due to negative filtering
• blaming, or focusing on others as the sources of one’s negative feelings rather than taking responsibility for them oneself.  Feser projects his own negative feelings onto the "woke"

To paraphrase Feser, looking at the world through his ideas about "woke" leads him to be blind to oppression and injustice even where they do exist, to feel strongly aggrieved at the woke who point out this oppression and injustice, and then to treat the narrative of grievance that results as if it were confirming evidence of the unreality of the very real oppression and injustice.  It distorts his reality.

In the next paragraph, he refers to the confidence of the woke (not surprising given the decades of studies), but also refers to their supposed tendency to attack critics, apparently not realizing that Feser and his ilk are doing the attacking.  When you deny the reality of the trans existence or deny the daily, lived experience of another as some sort of delusion, that is an attack on a fundamental part of someone's identity, a part that they already suffer oppression from. 

Ironically, Feser opines:  Hence it would, for example, be unjust for a government to protect the lives, liberties, and property rights of citizens of one race while not doing the same for citizens of other races.  This would be a clear case of an unjust inequity.  Again, Feser ignores decades of studies that citizens of different races do not receive equitable protection of their life, liberty, and property.

Again, Feser opines:  What I am calling hyper-egalitarian is the tendency to suspect all inequalities of being per se unjust – for example, to suppose that if 10% of the population of a country is of a certain race yet less than 10% of the stockbrokers in that country are of that race, this amounts to a “racist” inequity that cannot be given an innocent explanation and must somehow be eliminated by governmental policy.  Feser does not present an alternative explanation, for example, that Hispanic people are over 12% of the population but less than 6% of stockbrokers.  With over 43,000 stockbrokers, The probability of this being due to random chance is effectively zero.  Feser needs to offer an explanation not rooted in racism to make his point effectively. 

To paraphrase Feser again, I am not saying that Feser is as insane as the John Nash.  Nor is Feser even as shrill as commentariat.  Like other forms of delusional paranoia, denial of oppression comes in degrees.  But if you think that views like Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory, etc. are so obviously wrong that no decent and well-informed person could possibly support them, and find it at least difficult calmly and rationally to engage with anyone who thinks otherwise, you in denial.  And precisely because you find it difficult calmly and rationally to entertain the possibility that you are part of the problem, your attitude is paradigmatically irrational.
Read more!

Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 1

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  Unsurprisingly, he made several mischaracterizations, of which I will address a few.

We can begin in the very first sentence:  A common talking point among the woke is the claim that “woke” is just a term of abuse that has no clear meaning.  The correction would be:  “Woke” is just a term of abuse among right-wing commentators that has no clear meaning, but refers to any policies/facts/lesson plans about minorities that they don't like.  Feser proves the latter to be true in his attempt to defend the former.

I will use "woke" in quotes when talking about how right-wingers use the term, and remove the quotes when using the term as I would, which would be something like:  recognition that there are many ways, some not obvious, that oppression can manifest itself.  

It would be unfair to not include his definition:  "Wokeness" is a paranoid delusional hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them where they do exist. By this definition, no straight, while, cis, etc., male (such as me) can be "woke" because, regardless of how much we agree that society is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., it favors me.  Feser would consider me pronoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke".  It's  a measure of Feser's privilege that he seems to think everyone who shares some common characteristics with him must agree with him.

Next, he gives  several examples of "wokeness", all of which are laughable. 

• Characterizing as racist “microaggressions” behaviors that in fact are either perfectly innocuous or at worst just ordinary rudeness; -- people exhibit much more "ordinary rudeness" to those they consider (perhaps subconsciously) of a lower social status, and in particular toward black people.  It's both day-to-day rudeness and racism working in tandem.
• condemning some economic outcome as a racist “inequity” despite there being no empirical evidence whatsoever that it is due to racism; -- to offer one example, racism dictates and has dictated where we live, with all the differences that creates in the ability to generate wealth through home ownership, environmental pollution, educational quality, availability of good food, etc.  where we live affects every facet of our life, hence, racism does by this facet alone.
• condemning as “transphobic” recognition of the commonsense and scientific fact that sex is binary; -- any time Feser can't justify a position, he calls it "common sense" as he does here, when the scientific fact is that there are multiple ways to specify sex, and any combination can be present in any individual; however, Feser seems confused by multi-factored analysis (as can be seen in his linear notion of causation, e.g., his hand-stick-stone argument for a first cause, when causes are more like lattices).
• condemning as “racist” the view that public policy should be color-blind and that racial discrimination is wrong whatever the race of the persons being discriminated against; -- Feser seems unaware that this claim is used by people who want to engage in de facto racism while maintaining de jure equality.
• condemning as “antigay” the view that it is not appropriate for grade schools to address matters of sexuality in the classroom without parental consent; -- matters of heterosexuality are discussed all the time in grade school classrooms, and Feser would eagerly join any protest if all depictions of heterosexual couples were banned, but he chooses not to be honest about others expecting equal treatment.

Feser does not adress address the scholarship behind these concepts.  By failing to do so, he renders his attacks on the people who know the scholaship irrelevant, and those who acknowledge the scholarly consensus are neither delusional nor paranoid.  Feser's definition of "wokeness" has no greater correspondence to reality than the definition of a jackalope; his definition of "wokeness" has no existence.

Feser nevertheless goes on to slur "wokeness" for a couple of paragraphs.  He touts two books, one his, one by two other conservatives, none of whom are trained in the study of sociology.  I guess when conservative lawyers pass for experts on evolution or climate change, this is right in line with the trust conservatives place in ignorance of the topic at hand.

I think this is a good stopping point.  In part 2, we'll see how Feser accuses the "woke" of several habits of poor thought, but succumbs to everyone one of them, a case of the pot accusing the table of being soot-stained.
Read more!

A response on the nature of science, denialism, and global warming

Lately, I have been engaging in discussions on a site called The DiploMad, which is a very right-wing site run by former employee of the US State Department. So, far, I haven't seen it touch much on science, but there was one recent exchange on that subject. Since the comment I am responding to is already very long, and my response will be even longer, I thought it best to create a new blog post for the purpose of responding.

First, for the sake of context, I will present the exchange up through the comment to which I am responding. I will edit what was two posted comments into one (they were obviously split for reasons of length), and put the pseudonym of the commentator (reader #1482) up front, but make no other textual changes, in the exchange block-quoted, and after that I will be fisking the last comment (by reader #1482). I am copying from this post.

LBascom February 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM
One little quibble sir; I think the "biggest political hoax in the history of the Republic" still remains the whole global warming scam.

Other than that, spot on.


DiploMad February 26, 2018 at 5:33 PM
I stand corrected, shame-faced and glancing downward at my sneakers . . . .


One Brow February 26, 2018 at 6:14 PM
Why is conservatism so closely connected with hating science and distrusting expertise?


dearieme February 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM
In the case of global warming it's more a case of hating a junk science scam. As for expertise, so much stuff passed off as expertise is mere fraud. As Galbraith (was it?) said, economic forecasting was invented to give astrology a good name.


reader #1482 February 26, 2018 at 8:00 PM
There's nothing here about hating science. I'm not going to speculate on distrust of expertise.

At the heart of it, the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. At this time, there is no scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis. Without falsifiability, it's hard to consider it a scientific pursuit. This is as opposed to atmospheric science in general, which scientifically studies features and phenomena of the earth's atmosphere.

What global warming *is*, is a mathematical pursuit, much like the statistics of baseball or election forecasting like that done at the fairly-decent 'Fivethirtyeight' blog (while they threw pielke under the bus for financial expediency, they also were one of the few to admit that they and other journalism outlets have a clear liberal bias). But there is no prospective experimental validation in global warming, it is purely statistical fitting.

Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that global warming isn't happening? No. Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that mankind has had anything other than 'at least non-zero' impact on the global temperature of the earth? I don't think so either. There's simply a *very* complex system, not much evidence, and no mechanism of experimenting in a controlled fashion. I can say with some certainty that at least 95% of atmospheric science researchers are honest and dedicated scientists, I met quite a few in graduate school. But the biggest 'science activists' in global warming aren't atmospheric science researchers.

I've watched this change... I was first introduced to the greenhouse effect in 1991 in Kittel's Thermal Physics as an undergrad... and remarkably, physics college texts even as recently as 2012 (last time I taught a physics course at a university) showed remarkably appropriately couched remarks considering the scientific side of the question. But little has actually changed in twenty years in regards to global warming. We still have one planet under study, and only an additional 20 years of data, much of it having been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted. While I can find reasoning behind said adjustments, it's a warning sign that these adjustments were made because the measurements did not match expectations. In *any* scientific field, when that happens, everything is extensively redone to verify new assumptions. But with very limited data sets (satellites are expensive), it's pretty catastrophic to have to go back and rework your experimental data after the fact.

But compare it to LLNL's NIF. Huge laser, best laser and plasma physicists in the world, hands down, and it's a dud. I assume everybody knows this? Well lay people might not, because there is a stream of announcements coming out of it regarding 'energy gain' and 'neutron yields'. But it's a dud because the intent was 'ignition', the 'I' in the name, which never happened. And this is from an experiment with a testable hypothesis.

Billions of dollars and thousands of world class scientists can be wrong about an experiment that was actually be performed. How much veracity should I put into pronouncements from far less qualified scientists with no hope of producing an experiment in the next two hundred years?

Global warming cannot be experimentally verified, therefore it requires belief based upon faith, rather than experimental verification. It is a religion. Former IPCC head Pachouri's remarks were apropos when he stated that global warming was his religion in his leaving remarks.

There is pretty much *no* other discipline near the hard sciences in which I have a conflict with popular opinion.

We just don't know, and no amount of hyperventilation and alarm about the possible consequences of making the wrong prediction will change that. We're not comfortable with not *knowing* everything, because humanity has had a fantastic streak in pushing back the borders of the unknown. It certainly must seem unconscionable that there could still be something in this world that defies rigorous scientific study, so the answer has been to redefine rigorous scientific study to fit the desired answer.

So, let's look at individual pieces of this argument, and the various distortions it makes.

At the heart of it, the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. At this time, there is no scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis.

Actually, global warming is a measurement. It is a difference in calculated temperatures between time A and time B. That makes it a fact. Now, there are different ways of averaging temperatures, and when you do that, you can get different numbers for the amount of change. However, any analysis that takes in the globe as whole finds an increase in global temperatures over the last 100+ years.

However, perhaps reader #1482 was referring to the notion that human activities have contributed global warming. That is a hypothesis, but far from being untestable, it is one that has been tested and retested. The tests consist of looking at the individual effects of different atmospheric particulates, and making predictions based them of both what will see in the future and what we have seen in the past.

Not to mention you can conduct small-scale tests that verify how much light is reflected, heat is retained, etc., in a laboratory environment, using a few liters of atmosphere. So, there are laboratory experiments that can be and have been done.

But there is no prospective experimental validation in global warming, it is purely statistical fitting.

The validation is in the predictive ability of future events.

Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that global warming isn't happening?

This question contains an oxymoron. I am not referring to the joking oxymorons like 'military intelligence', but rather a contradiction of basic definitions, such as 'married bachelor'. In this case, the oxymoron is "scientific certainty". Certainty is anathema to the scientific process. Everything in science can be questioned, and anything can be cast into doubt with the right kind of evidence. Science can be reliable, demonstrated, validated, and explanatory, but it is never certain (nor proven).

However, as I pointed out above, in this case it is not a question of science, but of measurement. It's like asking about the "scientific" status of the temperature in a room, or the height of a person. Measurements do come with their own form of uncertainty, but that is not from some scientific status.

We still have one planet under study, and only an additional 20 years of data, much of it having been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted.

I might ask how many years would be required (the "additional 20" means something like 150 years), but the truth has often been 'more than we have', regardless of the number of years. As for the count of planets, I can't see how information from any other planet would be relevant to making predictions on this planet. That would just be meaningless noise. It would be nice to see a standard prescribed for the number of years, but usually the people who take this position are not interested in setting standards, but denying the findings regardless.

Also, this description in "years" obscures the number of data points. Temperatures are measured several times a day; a year's data represents thousands of individual measurements. By contrast, warming is something better measured in decades. A year is both too large and too small.

Further, the raw data is the raw data; it does not change. Adjustments can be made to determine a better average, but that is not changing the data, it is changing the process.

But the biggest 'science activists' in global warming aren't atmospheric science researchers.

If reader #1482 here refers to politicians, I agree, but so what? If not, I wish he could be more specific about who he means and why he thinks said person is not qualified. For example, while James Hansen has a Ph. D. in physics instead of atmospheric sciences, his first position seems to have been studying atmospheric conditions for NASA. You would certainly learn enough to be an atmospheric science researcher in that position, regardless of the title of your doctorate. After all, science is not some heavily slotted field where anything you learn in one discipline is completely useless in another. Chemistry uses physics (and vice-versa), biology uses both, etc. In addition, a doctorate in the physics of, say, the interaction of gasses would have considerable overlap with atmospheric sciences. Sans name and credentials, this is an empty criticism.

While I can find reasoning behind said adjustments, it's a warning sign that these adjustments were made because the measurements did not match expectations. In *any* scientific field, when that happens, everything is extensively redone to verify new assumptions. But with very limited data sets (satellites are expensive), it's pretty catastrophic to have to go back and rework your experimental data after the fact.

All you need to do is see if the new model is predictive of the past observations. Of course, this can have it's own pitfalls. One of the common issues in statistics is the inclusion of too many variables for the size of the data sets, which improves the matching of past performance while adding no predictive accuracy, so you do have to be careful there.

Global warming cannot be experimentally verified, therefore it requires belief based upon faith, rather than experimental verification. It is a religion. ... There is pretty much *no* other discipline near the hard sciences in which I have a conflict with popular opinion.

I have already pointed out that warming is verifiable. I find this an interesting standard, though. I have to wonder about experimentally verified hypotheses in the not-"near the hard" ('soft' ?) sciences; are these considered reliable or not? Does reader #1482 have a conflict with them? If so, why a difference?

Is evolutionary theory not "near the hard" sciences? Geology? Sociology? Epidemiology? All of them have theories that are not directly testable (geology even more so than climatology). All of them have models that are constantly being re-evaluated and improved. Are they all based on faith?

But compare it to LLNL's NIF. Huge laser, ... it's a dud because the intent was 'ignition', the 'I' in the name, which never happened. And this is from an experiment with a testable hypothesis.

That means new models will be created, and there will be new hypotheses to test. If this happens in a "hard" science, and you generally accept the results of this hard science, why doubt the results of climatology?

Billions of dollars and thousands of world class scientists can be wrong about ... pronouncements from far less qualified scientists ...

Again, why only apply this to climatology? Also, this is rank snobbery. Further, it's not as if there is some great divide of opinion between whoever you consider to the a genuine atmospheric science researcher and whoever you consider to be a science activist.

We just don't know, and no amount of hyperventilation and alarm about the possible consequences of making the wrong prediction will change that. We're not comfortable with not *knowing* everything, because humanity has had a fantastic streak in pushing back the borders of the unknown.

We will never know everything. If epidemiologists took that position, there would be no new vaccines. If geologists took that position, there would be no Theory of Plate Tectonics. If physicists took that position, there would be no Theory of Relativity. All of these theories have real-world consequences, and we act on these theories because they provide the best explanations we have for how the world works. Climatology should not be different; especially not when there are many other benefits of reducing emissions, and the harms of reduction have been greatly exaggerated by denialists.

It certainly must seem unconscionable that there could still be something in this world that defies rigorous scientific study, so the answer has been to redefine rigorous scientific study to fit the desired answer.

This has nothing to do with climatology, since the climate is subject to rigorous scientific study.


Read more!

You can't tell a relativistic rest frame from measurements

So, after a year-and-a-half of no posts, and something like four years since my last post on relativity crankery, here we go again. Below the fold, I'm going to discuss whether seeing a smaller number on one clock versus another is an indication of which clock really moved in an LR interpretation. To do so, I'll use three scenarios, each with three clocks. The scenarios will be set up so that the clock which is "really at rest" changes between each scenario, but otherwise they will behave identically.



There are three clocks at rest on a planetoid, we will label them A1, B2, and C3. By whatever method you think applies, we'll say these three clocks ar all in the LR rest frame. They are close enough to synchronize without meaningful light-speed delay, and they do so. After synchronizing, they ignore each other, with A1 interacting with clocks B1 and C1, B2 interacting with clocks A2 and C2, and C3 interacting with clocks A3 and B3.


Scenario 1

From the viewpoint of A1, B1 passes by A1 (spacetime point S1) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C1 is traveling at .5c directly toward A1 along a path very close to B1 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B1 and C1 pass each other (spacetime point R1) and synchronize. B1 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S1 and R1, so click C1, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C1 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R1 and the point where it compares itself with A1 (spacetime point Q1), while A1 ticks off another 20. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds, A1 reads 40. Since B1 and C1 ticks at the same rate, B1 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.

From the viewpoint of B1, A1 passes by B1 (S1) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C1 is traveling at .8c directly toward B1 along a path very close to A1 in the same direction. A1 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C1 passes B1 (R1). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C1 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C1 passes A1, and they compare times (Q1). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C1 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A1 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A1 reads 40. B1 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.

From the viewpoint of C1, B1 passes by A1 (S1) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B1 is coming toward C1 at a speed of .8c, and both A1 and B1 set themselves to 0 at S1. A1 is traveling at .5c directly toward C1 along a path very close to B1 in the same direction. B1 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C1 (R1), and C1 then synchronizes to the B1's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A1 passes C1, and they compare times (Q1). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A1 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C1 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R1. Meanwhile, B1 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A1 reads 40. B1 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.


Scenario 2

From the viewpoint of A2, B2 passes by A2 (spacetime point S2) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C2 is traveling at .5c directly toward A2 along a path very close to B2 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B2 and C2 pass each other (spacetime point R2) and synchronize. B2 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S2 and R2, so click C2, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C2 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R2 and the point where it compares itself with A2 (spacetime point Q2), while A2 ticks off another 20. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds, A2 reads 40. Since B2 and C2 ticks at the same rate, B2 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.

From the viewpoint of B2, A2 passes by B2 (S2) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C2 is traveling at .8c directly toward B2 along a path very close to A2 in the same direction. A2 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C2 passes B2 (R2). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C2 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C2 passes A2, and they compare times (Q2). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C2 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A2 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A2 reads 40. B2 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.

From the viewpoint of C2, B2 passes by A2 (S2) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B2 is coming toward C2 at a speed of .8c, and both A2 and B2 set themselves to 0 at S2. A2 is traveling at .5c directly toward C2 along a path very close to B2 in the same direction. B2 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C2 (R2), and C2 then synchronizes to the B2's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A2 passes C2, and they compare times (Q2). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A2 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C2 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R2. Meanwhile, B2 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A2 reads 40. B2 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.


Scenario 3

From the viewpoint of A3, B3 passes by A3 (spacetime point S3) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C3 is traveling at .5c directly toward A3 along a path very close to B3 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B3 and C3 pass each other (spacetime point R3) and synchronize. B3 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S3 and R3, so click C3, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C3 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R3 and the point where it compares itself with A3 (spacetime point Q3), while A3 ticks off another 20. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds, A3 reads 40. Since B3 and C3 ticks at the same rate, B3 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

From the viewpoint of B3, A3 passes by B3 (S3) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C3 is traveling at .8c directly toward B3 along a path very close to A3 in the same direction. A3 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C3 passes B3 (R3). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C3 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C3 passes A3, and they compare times (Q3). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C3 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A3 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A3 reads 40. B3 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

From the viewpoint of C3, B3 passes by A3 (S3) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B3 is coming toward C3 at a speed of .8c, and both A3 and B3 set themselves to 0 at S3. A3 is traveling at .5c directly toward C3 along a path very close to B3 in the same direction. B3 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C3 (R3), and C3 then synchronizes to the B3's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A3 passes C3, and they compare times (Q3). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A3 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C3 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R3. Meanwhile, B3 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A3 reads 40. B3 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

Conclusion

In scenario 1, where A1 was at rest, A1 read 40 seconds while C1 read 34.64 at Q1. In scenario 2, where B2 was at rest, A2 read 40 seconds while C2 read 34.64 at Q2. In scenario 3, where C3 was at rest, A3 read 40 seconds while C3 read 34.64 at Q3. Among the three clocks, it doesn't matter which clock you think is at rest. They always read the same. This is how SR (and LR for that matter)works. To do comparisons, you always have to pick a single rest frame for your calculations, but SR allows you to choose any single inertial frame, by any standard or by a purely arbitrary choice.

LR insists that one particular frame is the correct frame, and different versions of LR choose different frames. Despite choosing frames differently, every version of LR works, because every version of LR is actually SR (a working theory) with a predetermined method for choosing a frame.



Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-01-07

Here, therefore, we treat not of ends which man actually makes to himself in accordance with the sensible impulses of his nature, but of objects of the free elective will under its own laws- objects which he ought to make his end. We may call the former technical (subjective), properly pragmatical, including the rules of prudence in the choice of its ends; but the latter we must call the moral (objective) doctrine of ends. This distinction is, however, superfluous here, since moral philosophy already by its very notion is clearly separated from the doctrine of physical nature (in the present instance, anthropology). The latter resting on empirical principles, whereas the moral doctrine of ends which treats of duties rests on principles given a priori in pure practical reason.

III. Of the Reason for conceiving an End which is also a Duty, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

There is no such thing as "pure practical reason", unless we include reasoning whose beginning is based in empirical knowledge. By itself, reasoning is manipulating hypotheses into conclusions. It offers no guarantee of the truth of these hypotheses, just the occasional ability to possibly discover that certain combination of hypotheses can't be true at the same time. Even that is not a reliable occurrence.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2014-12-24

To virtue = + a is opposed as its logical contradictory (contradictorie oppositum) the negative lack of virtue (moral weakness) = 0; but vice = - a is its contrary (contrarie s. realiter oppositum); and it is not merely a needless question but an offensive one to ask whether great crimes do not perhaps demand more strength of mind than great virtues. For by strength of mind we understand the strength of purpose of a man, as a being endowed with freedom, and consequently so far as he is master of himself (in his senses) and therefore in a healthy condition of mind. But great crimes are paroxysms, the very sight of which makes the man of healthy mind shudder. The question would therefore be something like this: whether a man in a fit of madness can have more physical strength than if he is in his senses; and we may admit this without on that account ascribing to him more strength of mind, if by mind we understand the vital principle of man in the free use of his powers. For since those crimes have their ground merely in the power of the inclinations that weaken reason, which does not prove strength of mind, this question would be nearly the same as the question whether a man in a fit of illness can show more strength than in a healthy condition; and this may be directly denied, since the want of health, which consists in the proper balance of all the bodily forces of the man, is a weakness in the system of these forces, by which system alone we can estimate absolute health.

Remark following Exposition of the Notion of an End which is also a Duty, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

I have seen three or four philosophers recommend this book as the best place to start a study of ethics. Than I read a passage like the one above and wonder why they speak so highly of it. Perhaps I am missing something. Actually, I'm sure I'm missing quite a bit, but in this case I meant some way of interpreting the passage that is not so contrary to the plain evidence of our knowledge. Even in Kant's time, there had been horrors committed by powerful men, men who clearly had a strong purpose, were as much endowed with the freedom to act as any other contemporary, and were masters of themselves in the pursuit of that purpose, fitting Kant's definition of having strength of mind. Yet, these men never shuddered when organizing, planning, and committing great crimes; they shrugged them off as unfortunate necessities or even delighted in their execution.
Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2014-12-17

Now that ethics is a doctrine of virtue (doctrina officiorum virtutis) follows from the definition of virtue given above compared with the obligation, the peculiarity of which has just been shown. There is in fact no other determination of the elective will, except that to an end, which in the very notion of it implies that I cannot even physically be forced to it by the elective will of others. Another may indeed force me to do something which is not my end (but only means to the end of another), but he cannot force me to make it my own end, and yet I can have no end except of my own making. The latter supposition would be a contradiction- an act of freedom which yet at the same time would not be free. But there is no contradiction in setting before one's self an end which is also a duty: for in this case I constrain myself, and this is quite consistent with freedom.

Exposition of the Conception of Ethics, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

As so often happens when a person declares that one of two conditions must exist, reality intrudes with situations that fit into neither category. Here, Kant seems to be saying that there are two reasons that we undertake an action, either to accomplish our own end, or by threat of coercion from another to accomplish their end. but he makes no allowance for a person to be able to install an end from the their own mind into the mind of another.

An obvious counterexample to the general statement is child-rearing. One of the primary goals of parenting is to instill the appropriate ends into your children, to teach them to esteem being virtuous. Perhaps Kant will discuss this in a later section of this book. I can certainly see a possible exception being offered, that children are too unformed to have free will, and the contradiction does not exist in the absence of free will.

Nonetheless, This answer does not satisfy, because we can see the same phenomenon in adults. In kidnapping victims we refer to it as Stockholm syndrome. People change their ends to reflect those of their captors, abusers, religious leaders, etc. Any detailed discussion of free will needs to account for such occurrences.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2014-12-03

If there exists on any subject a philosophy (that is, a system of rational knowledge based on concepts), then there must also be for this philosophy a system of pure rational concepts, independent of any condition of intuition, in other words, a metaphysic. It may be asked whether metaphysical elements are required also for every practical philosophy, which is the doctrine of duties, and therefore also for Ethics, in order to be able to present it as a true science (systematically), not merely as an aggregate of separate doctrines (fragmentarily). As regards pure jurisprudence, no one will question this requirement; for it concerns only what is formal in the elective will, which has to be limited in its external relations according to laws of freedom; without regarding any end which is the matter of this will. Here, therefore, deontology is a mere scientific doctrine (doctrina scientiae).

Preface, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

This is the first paragraph of the Preface of Kant's book. I would disagree that any system of pure rational concepts can be had independent of intuition, but that may be a bad translation to the word "intuition". Any formal system of purely rational concepts requires a set of beginning points, and to avoid circularity these points can not be chosen via this rational system. The only way to make such choices, in the hopes that they apply to the world, it via our intuition or via experimentation.

Also, the notion that there is scientific doctrine seems faulty. The whole point of science is to dispense with doctrine and find answers empirically. We may teach the results of previous explorations in a fashion similar to doctrine, but it is always done with a mindfulness that our knowledge is tentative and primitive; that reality continually wriggles out of our grasp.

Read more!

Quote of the week, 2014-10-08

But if human conceit was staggered for a moment by its kinship with the ape, it soon found a way to reassert itself, and that way is the "philosophy" of evolution. A process which led from the amoeba to man appeared to the philosophers to be obviously a progress--though whether the amoeba would agree with this opinion is not known.

Bertrand Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World, Lecture 1

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

Of course, we know that evolution does not teach there is a process from amoeba to men, but rather, that amoebas and men have a common ancestry of a population of single-celled animals that we might call (for the purposes of this discussion) early eukaryotes. I don't know if Russell was aware of this inaccuracy or not; he makes this sentence in the process of describing philosophical positions, not biology, and so moves on quickly to philosophies that supposedly use evolution as a basis (of which he is not fond).

Still, I agree that the early eukaryotes may not consider either lines of their descendants to have progressed.

Read more!

Quote of the week, 2014-10-01

Everyone knows that to read an author simply in order to refute him is not the way to understand him; and to read the book of Nature with a conviction that it is all an illusion is just as unlikely to lead to understanding.

Bertrand Russell, Our Knowledge of the External World, Lecture 2

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

I am far overdue to respond to some posts by TheOFloinn. I will try to keep this in mind in my responses.

Read more!

Knowledge, but little mastery

I've been doing a lot of reading of others, but haven't had much to say in a blog post lately. One of the things I've realized is that every blogger engages in a lot of repetition, making the same points over and over in response to new circumstances. So far, I haven't been motivated to do that. So, that's why I have not said much lately. However, I'm thinking about starting up again. I do have a point of view that I don't see expressed often, i.e., that formal knowledge (the understanding of the creation of argumentation forms and their use) is a distinct type of knowledge from either empirical knowledge (gained from experimentation and exploration in the natural world) or first principles (basic values and understandings that we hold without evidence).

While I'm still mulling that over, today's comic from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal hit another dimension of some things I've read.

One of the notions I've read is that science changed from understanding the natural, in an appreciation of Aristotle's four causes and an attempt to encourage them, to an attempt at mastery. In particular, that science has abandoned the notion of form (the proper shape of something, that the something always seeks to emulate) and purpose (the reason for something to exist, with a thing's goodness being tied up in how well exhibits/accomplishes this reason). Supposedly, this freed up science to be about mastery of the world and shaping it into want men wished it to be, as opposed to what it was supposed to be.

The problems with this view are numerous, and I have discussed some of them before. However, one I don't recall mentioning is that it diminishes the sense of wonder, awe, and helplessness we feel at our inability to master nature. We had to give up respecting made-up natures to appreciate actual nature. It was a good trade.
Read more!

Evolution without teleology

The OFloinn recently posted on the existence of teleological principles in evolutionary theory over on his blog. TheOFloinn is certainly a better writer than I am. He writes with style, but that doesn't really make up for the lack of understanding regarding the material, or the lack of imagination being applied, which I'll discuss below the fold. I won't cover everything I dislike in his post, but hit a few items of interest. Overall, his point is to support the notion of importing formal and final causes back into science, which Artistotelians always seem to find lacking in scientific theories.

One of the early footnotes set an interesting tone.

Oddly, Mendel's work and the support from his Order are seldom mentioned during debates about church-science relationships.

The odd part is why a priest doing science, as ascientist, or a church sponsoring research into an area they do not find objectionable, would be relevant to the church-science debate. I don't think anyone objects to religious people doing science, or even science being funded by religious organizations. The issue with church-science relationships come from churches discarding, adjusting, altering, ignoring, and/or contradicting the results of science in order to preserve their preferred notion of reality. For example, when abstinence-only education classes (or people working in AIDS ministries) teach that condoms don't protect against HIV because viruses are smaller than the natural holes in latex, or when scientific funding is cut from research because a legal procedure is not supposed to be encouraged, or when children go unvaccinated because some people don't believe in puncturing the skin, the actions of the church affect everyone, even non-church members. I could only wish that sponsoring a few experiments was the extent of church-science relationships.

Later, after a recap of the well-known problem of defining a species, a solution is offered:

Darwin's problem with "species" was due to his dislike of and lack of background in philosophy; for "species" is first of all a philosophical term. It is in fact an example of formal causation, which Darwin and other Moderns are taught to deny. The form is that in virtue of which a thing is what it is.

Whatever else a species is, within biology it is not in any way a philosophical term, but one of mating potential. The fuzziness of the boundary for species does not make the idea philosophical; it means you can not quantize the concept in simple steps, but must treat it as a continuum. The putative use of form would not improve our ability to determine a species. My form is different from my third son's form (for example, we have different eye colors resulting from different eye coloration processes), even though due to the commonality within our forms, we are both of the human species. Trying to redefine species as a concept of forms adds no clarity at all to the species problem, and in particular does not alter the continuum to a simple categorization. This is an example of using a "problem" (which is not really a problem, except to people who like simple categories) to promote a position, when the position acutally does nothing to solve the "problem". TheOFloinn presents a type of thinking where the usefulness of forms is presumed, therefore forms are declared useful; that type of thinking offers no genuine insight.

Things get even more amusing when discussing the notion of finality in physical systems. We see a two-part attempt at evidence for them, which I'll address separately.

There is telos in physical systems.
1. Systems move toward attractor basins, toward equilibrium manifolds; chemical reactions run to completion, then stop. The equilibrium state may be an orbit or a resonating reaction, but this is still a "finality" to the physical process. An inanimate system tends to minimize its potential function, even if it does not intend to do so.

There is a confusion here between the achieving of a final state and the entry into stochastically equivalent interactions. Really, the only true final state of matter is complete entropy, the primary form of which is the lack of a structured form, the lack of telos. Chemical reactions run to increased entropy, stopping when the entropy is maximized, the form is least effective, and any interpretation of final cause has little play. You might say the 'final cause' of matter is to shed anything that looks lie final cause.

2. The evolution of species is more teleological than a river "seeking" the lowest attainable gravitational potential. Living beings have an integrated wholeness and possess inner principles that inanimate bodies do not. A petunia is a bag of chemicals; but it is not only a bag of chemicals. For so long as it is alive, it does things that a bag of chemicals cannot do. This is why biology at one and the same time "is not a hard science" like physics and chemistry, and also "a much harder science" than physics and chemistry.

This is an attempt to appeal to our sense that living things are in some sense superior, but it fails upon close examination. A non-living bag of chemicals identical in composition to a petunia will be undergoing processes that no petunia undergoes, just as the reverse is true. Further, I'm not convinced that biology is any less a hard science, or harder, that the more esoteric branches of physics and chemistry. Since the rvery basics reactions of biology are just physics and chemistry, it's really a matter of direction, not difference in hardness.

TheOFloinn also seems to easily confuse metaphor with meaning.

The very terms of evolution are redolent with telos.

Natural selection.
Adaptation.
Struggle for existence.
Striving to reproduce.
Even when we dive down deep into the gene, we find teleological terms like "information" and genetic "code."

Natrual selection is ultimately a probabalistic term, referring to long-term tendencies to survive, not any sort of true selection process. Adaptation is the outcome of the long-term survival tendency within a changing environment. The struggle for existence and the striving to reproduce are also fundamentally stochastic events. Information, when stored in a linear medium such as a gene, is maximized by randomness. The genetic code is really just the chemical process where amino acids are inserted based on a particular sequence. There is no need to telos in interpreting these concepts, and no advantage offered by so doing.

It is often said that these terms are just metaphors; but metaphor is the business of literature, not of science. No one has yet successfully "cashed out" terms like adaptation for non-teleological expressions.

Actually, metaphor is a mental shorcut, whether in literature or in science. Scientists use them to abbreviate, illustrate, and categorize. TheOFloinn is kidding himself about there being no translation of the metaphors into non-teleological language; the translations are easily available on-line. They're also longer and more cumbersome to a mammal brain with an inherent bias to look for purpose.

The essence of the Scientific Revolution was a shift in scientific focus from the contemplation of the beauty of nature to the enslavement of nature to man's dominion over the universe. ... Insight into nature is seldom touted; only its practical spin-off.

He must read other scientists than I. There's no shortage of eloquence on the beauty in the study of stars, zebraish, or rock formations from the same blogger that dismiss final causes as irrelevant and unnecessary.

Edward Blyth, who described natural selection twenty years before Wallace and Darwin (but who did not call it by that name), proposed it as the engine that maintained the species type by de-selecting variants that were not up to snuff. ... Now it is easy to see that Blyth was correct.

Both correct and incorrect. Natural selection does not tend to maintain the species type nor to alter it. To the extent that is metaphorically does anything, it increases the percentage of the population that can take better advantage of the environment. This increase may narrow or broaden the differences in a population over generations.

In an article that I have long lost, these factors were summarized as follows:

The genetic factor: the tendency to variation resulting from constant small random mutations in the genetic code; i. e., a variety of differing individuals within a species capable of transmitting their differences
The epigenetic factor: the tendency of interbreeding population to reproduce itself in a stable manner and increase in numbers; i. e., the maintenance of type
The selective factor: natural selection by the environment which eliminates those variants which are less effective in reproducing their kind; i. e., the agent determining in which direction species-change will take place
The exploitative factor: the flexibility of living things by which they are able to occupy new niches in the changing environment; i. e., a feed-back mechanism which guides the selective process toward a new type which can exploit new environmental possibilities
Which the Aristotelians among you may recognize as

Material cause
Formal cause
Efficient cause
Final cause

Naturally, we see near the end plea to the four causes of Aristotle. As usual, in evolutionary terms, it turns out that the appeals to formal and final causes are not actual causes at all. There is no tendency to reproduce in a stable manner (unstable reproduction occurs regularly), rather the actions of chemicals. I actually have no problem with the idea of form as a description of the processes undergone, but it does not act beyond the inertia supplied by the underlying physics, and the physics is neutral on the maintenance of some "type". There is no guidance of the selective process, merely a stochastic effect that increases certain traits among members of populations, and a primate species that found the shortcut of interpreting events as if they had a purpose to be a handy survival technique, even when the purpose was non-existant.
Read more!

Strangers on a Train

Recently I was riding the Metro from downtown back across the river. Three ladies tried to get off at the East Riverfront station. but one of them had been sitting down, and couldn't get her walker organized and herself out of the seat in time to get through the door. They were at the back end of the train, so the driver was unaware of their situation. The door closed before they could leave the train, and naturally the ladies were very worried about getting back to their station. That's when the other passengers helped out -- sort of.

The ladies were not from the local area, and not used to riding the train. So, while the other passengers reassured them they could change directions at the 5th & Missouri station (the boarding area is conveniently in between the two directions there), they weren't sure how easily this could be done. I volunteered to escort the the ladies, and saw them safely back to East Riverfront. It was not a big deal, I had free time that day.

The reason I bring this up is to point out that I, and my fellow atheists, perform actions like this every day. We do it out of empathy, a desire to make the community a better place to live, a vision that the best world is run by people who help each other. People have always felt this way, since long before humans separated from the other apes.

One of the regular complaints I read is that atheists don't have some source for absolute morality to fall back on. While I usually engage that discussion by pointing out that there is no true, non-arbitrary source for morality (and there will be more on that in my next post), it's also worthwhile pointing out the opposite: humans don't need to taught morality by learning a set of rules or some arbitrarily imposed principles like natural law, they are taught morality by learning to see other humans as worthwhile and deserving of compassion, respect, and fair treatment. People who have an abundance of those qualities will behave morally, with or without an arbitrary set or rules/principles. People who lack those qualities will abuse and re-interpret any given rules/principles to behave immorally. Religious beliefs offer no advantage for moral behavior.
Read more!

The good and the bad, side-by-side

Within the past six weeks, I've been pleasantly surprised by three different websites that I usually disagree with. I have never shied away from vocally disagreeing with people, so the least I can do is extend a little credit from time to time.

Of course, each site has also said something jaw-droppingly stupid since then within the scope of my usual interests, so I'll take note of that, as well. I discuss the details below the fold.

At the beginning of the month, the Illinois Family Institute put together a surprisingly well-balanced take on the misnamed Ground Zero Mosque to kick the month off. Not only do they give, unequivocal support to the right of the Muslims to build the structure, they make a direct comparison to churches all over the country that are facing restrictions on building based on zoning codes. Sure, they forget to mention that some 60+ Muslims (not including the terrorists, of course) were killed on 9/11, but for the IFI, it's better than I ever expected to see. Of course, they have since followed it with the traditional confusion of being anti-bullying with pro-homosexual and some willful blindness to the funding priorities of Republicans in the midst of a rant where they somehow think there are no warnings in the media concerning promiscuous sex. Still, 1 out of 500 is better than 0 out of 500.

Just a couple of days prior to that, Martin Cothran of Vital Remnants showed unusually good judgment in his dismissal of Glenn Beck as a leader for the conservative movement, and more importantly to me, his confirmation of the fundamental personal credibility of Dr. King. There are rare occasions I think Cothran could be promoted from pure blog fodder to the "a little of both" category, that he might one day actually produce information that would be worth reading. Then, he drops a couple of truly stupid posts that arbitrarly criticize public pensions without examining overall total compensation at all and a little gem about Jerry Coyne pulling the last sentence out of context and portraying it as being about something else. With such poor investigative and reading skills, I see little chance of anything valuable coming from his site.

The earliest came from the keyboard of Dr. Feser, with a smack-down of the attempted rebranding of "suicide bomber" to "homicide bomber" by conservatives. While I disagree with his take on Dr. Vallicella (if not paranoid, Dr. Vallicella certainly seems pathologically fearful of Muslims, and his attempts to rationalize his fear bring me regular amusement), otherwise his post was clear and well-thought-out. Of course, that's not going to change his devotion to an outdated metaphysical system, such as exemplified in his incorrect generalizations on same-sex marriage or the grandiose claims regarding classical theism and it's importance today.

Even stopped clocks are right twice a day. Still, three such posts in less than month created quite a surprise for me.
Read more!

Overpopulation and the Illinois Family Institute

The Illinois Family Institute only occasionally talks about issues that intersect with the things I like to talk about on this blog. Their primary purpose is political, not social, by their own admission, and I don't really want to discuss politics that much in my blog posts. There are better sites for that. However, when they do discuss issues of science, you can rely on them to be wrong. So, when I saw a couple of videos that were filled to the brim with misleading information on overpopulation, I thought it was worth mentioning. I will discuss some of the facts on these videos, and how meaningful they are, below the fold.

Each video has its own justification page, so I’ll start there for The Making of a Myth.

Claim: Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor? Yep. Reality: There is a the usual quote mine that does not directly support the contention. Malthus did favor enacting conditions that would increase mortality, but nothing in the quote mine nor the link suggests killing off the poor.
Claim: Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases? Reality: Malthus says that if we stop curing diseases, we can marry at puberty and not starve. There was no recommendation offered.
Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s? Reality: while not hundreds of millions, in facts millions did die from famines in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly in undeveloped countries. Ehrlich seemed to underestimate the impact of the Green Revolution.
Claim: The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. Reality: Being founded the year after a specific book is published is not evidence the book is a cause. In fact, it’s much more likely the UNFPA’s originators were working independently from the same data.
Claim: Their complicit work with the infamous "one-child policy" ... led the United States to pull its funding. Reality: The UNPF (name changed in 1987) was funded by Congress in every year of its existence. In some years, Reagan and the Bushes chose to not send the funding of the US to the UNPF.
Claim: The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Reality: There are over 180 nations that fund the UNPF.
Claim: Every family on this planet could have a house, and a yard, and live together on a land mass the size of Texas Reality: By their own calculations, this living space is slightly less than 33 ft by 33 ft per person. This does not allow for farming, schools, hospitals, work places, streets, sidewalks, places of business, utilities, sewers, parks, etc. The claim is plainly false, we could not live together in such a fashion.
Claim: The population of the earth will peak in 30 years. Reality: Only under the low-fertility variant option.
Claim: While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used in this video. Reality: The database being used to assemble the data is from 2008. The Low, Medium, High, and Constant-fertility estimates (which are higher than High) have an identical historical record.

Then we can move on to 2.1 Kids: A Stable Population.
Claim: But even that is assuming that every woman has children, and that there are no effects from famine, war, or disease Reality: No, a rate of 2.1 children per woman who go on to reproduce already incorporates the effects of famine, war, disease, and the choice of some women not to have children.
Claim: If society does not replace itself every generation, human numbers begin to fall exponentially. Reality: The children of the fecund women will also tend to be fecund, and their numbers will increase while the offspring of other women will decrease, slowing the overall effect of the population decrease. This also leads to cultural change where discouragement of large families is no longer a feature of society.
Claim: Elderly people retiring begin to outnumber people entering the workplace. Reality: As fewer young people enter the workplace, elderly people tend to keep working for longer periods in their life. While anecdotes are not evidence, my father is 72 and plans to retire in 15 years or so, health permitting. I won’t be retiring before the age of 75, and will probably keep working after that.
Claim: many societies are facing a danger of extinction. Reality: None of them are.
Claim: When a population decreases in size, the number of potential mothers also decreases. We say that countries with very low birthrates--like Japan's 1.21 children per woman--are in demographic collapse because each new generation is little more than half the size of the one that preceded it. At this rate, it would take only four generations to reduce the size of population to 10 percent of its initial size. Reality: Based on having one hundred women born from every two hundred and seven live births (a number they use earlier), a replacement rate of 1.21 children per woman give a population of 11.67% of the original, not 10%.
To offset this decline and restore the population to its initial numbers, each woman would need to have 20 children! Hardly a tenable solution.
Reality: Offsetting a decline of four generations within one generation would be daunting (although 18 children will be enough to do the trick). However, having 4.25 children per woman replaces the population in only three generations, and 3.55 children will replace it in four.

While these so-called family groups are harping on the supposed myth of overpopulation, we are seeing fresh water shortages over many parts of the earth, caused by farming in the attempts to feed the burgeoning population. This will not be changed by a couple of cute videos.

However, some might wonder why these family groups worry so much about what will boil down to the choice of the individuals involved anyhow. Fortunately, you can always count on these groups to explain their motivations. In this case, it’s Muslims. I’m not kidding, they are worried about Muslims taking over Europe. For all their claims that population control advocacy has a racist history, their own real motivation is bigotry. This is not surprising.
Read more!

Pornagraphy correlations

Focus on the Family has released a new pornography "study", which I first saw mentioned in the Illinois Family Institute site. The document is really more a summary than a study, it involves a lot of claims and references to other documents, but incorporates no new research. It seems to me this is a massive conflation of correlation with causation, and in fact generally seems to have them reversed. The claimed results are below the fold. I replaced the bullets with numbers; the rest is quoted from the document directly.

KEY FINDINGS ON THE EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
THE FAMILY AND PORNOGRAPHY
1. Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.
2. Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.
3. Among couples affected by one spouse’s addiction, two-thirds experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse.
4. Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity.
5. Pornography viewing leads to a loss of interest in good family relations.
THE INDIVIDUAL AND PORNOGRAPHY
6. Pornography is addictive, and neuroscientists are beginning to map the biological substrate of this addiction.
7. Users tend to become desensitized to the type of pornorgraphy they use, become bored with it, and then seek more perverse forms of pornography.
8. Men who view pornography regularly have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity.
9. Prolonged consumption of pornography by men produces stronger notions of women as commodities or as “sex objects.”
10. Pornography engenders greater sexual permissiveness, which in turn leads to a greater risk of out-of-wedlock births and STDs. These, in turn, lead to still more weaknesses and debilities.
11. Child-sex offenders are more likely to view pornography regularly or to be involved in its distribution.
OTHER EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
12. Many adolescents who view pornography initially feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty, but these feelings quickly shift to unadulterated enjoyment with regular viewing.
13. The presence of sexually oriented businesses significantly harms the surrounding community, leading to increases in crime and decreases in property values.
14. The main defenses against pornography are close family life, a good marriage and good relations between parents and children, coupled with deliberate parental monitoring of Internet use. Traditionally, government has kept a tight lid on sexual traffic and businesses, but in matters of pornography that has waned almost completely, except where child pornography is concerned. Given the massive, deleterious individual, marital, family, and social effects of pornography, it is time for citizens, communities, and government to reconsider their laissez-faire approach.

Now, this observation is strictly anecdotal, but I'm guessing it has wide application: almost no heterosexual man would rather have his hand around his genital when he can have the genitals of an enthusiastic female around his genital. While that may seem like a surprising thing to the Focus on the Family, I am going to look at all these correlations under that particular interpretation. For the sake of this post, I will grant that the correlations involve really exist.

1. I would expect that a man who doesn't have a wife enthusiastically having sex with him will turn to pornography. If the wife is really that interested in her husband's sexual attention, she generally knows how to get it.
2. Men who don't get enough sex, or don't get enough satisfying sex, are much more likely to want divorces than those who are. Pornography does not fill in the gap satisfactorily for many men.
3. A wife losing interest in sex is a common reason to use pornography to release these desires.
4. Perhaps in some households, watching pornography is viewed this way. Many of the marriage traditions center around being your spouse being your property, at least sexually, and pornography would diminish that. On the other hand, if the spouse being "cheated" upon would act more aggressively to properly maintain their property, the need for such cheating would diminish.
5. Pornography acts as a substitute when good family relations are not available.
THE INDIVIDUAL AND PORNOGRAPHY
6. Sex itself is even more addictive, and pornography becomes a poor fix for sex.
7. This is true in the marital bedroom as well. The best solution is for the spouses to bet more creative with each other in the bedroom.
8. I would expect that men who have a higher tolerance for abnormal sexuality, including rape, sexual aggression, and sexual promiscuity, would avail themselves of such inclinations in pornography, and on a personal note I find it highly preferable, as opposed to such men trying to satisfy inclinations for rape and aggression with women.
9. Men who think of women as sex objects are certainly more likely to find an outlet for these feelings in actresses with whom they have no personal connection at all.
10. Sexual permissiveness would of course include a more permissive attitude to pornography.
11. I would much rather there were no pedophiles, but since they exist, I would also much rather they use pictures of children than actual children. No doubt the pedophiles who agree are active in making these picture available to themselves and others.
OTHER EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY
12. Adolescents are often sexually capable but without willing partners, so naturally they turn to pornography.
13. Sexually oriented businesses have trouble finding permits and room to operate in communities that see themselves as maintaining a respectable image, so they are forced to locate themselves in communities that are depressed, desperate, and otherwise more prone to the ills of society.
14. People who have good relationships and good marriages, which typically will mean spouses go out of their way to please each other, don't need pornography as much.

If you really want to study the effects of pornography, you need to find a population that does not partake of it to compare to. That's not an easy task. Until then, any results show be taken with a hefty dose of salt.
Read more!