When we pick a leader of the most powerful country in the world, why is this a factor? Can you imagine picking a computer technician on that basis?
This year it's Sarah Palin (or if not a beer, at least the CILF). While not even her folksy charm is enough to rescue Republicans after the disaster of the last eight years, the need for a President who is likeable, as opposed to intelligent and capable, still dismays me.
Read more!
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Coming out the other side
Well, I heard I waslosing my job on April 4, and that led to a six-month depression. I'm back to work now, and hopefully coming out of it.
Meanwhile, my youngest is 90% potty-trained, Son2 has discovered dating, and CharityBrow took a job on the side. So, life goes on, no matter what.
One more thing: I want to add my voice to the chorus of derision that resulted from the selection of Palin over many more competent Republican women.
Read more!
Meanwhile, my youngest is 90% potty-trained, Son2 has discovered dating, and CharityBrow took a job on the side. So, life goes on, no matter what.
One more thing: I want to add my voice to the chorus of derision that resulted from the selection of Palin over many more competent Republican women.
Read more!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Ben Stein (sort of) helps the skeptics
The 83rd Skeptics Circle is off and running. Where the time go? Besides work, family reunion, etc.
Read more!
Read more!
Monday, March 17, 2008
The 82nd Skeptic's Circle is up, and Happy Jihad tries to convince us we are really religious. I'm not sure about that.
Read more!
Read more!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Good Ears
My hearing has never been good. It's been adequate to pass hearing tests, but I've always been a "volume up" kind of person. When I was a kid, people would ask me why I was yelling, and I often cant hear the difference between an A or an A-flat unless they are played consecutively.
Son#1 has very good hearing. So good that I wonder how much sleep he really gets sometimes. We have two dogs, and every now and then they need to be let out in the middle of the night. It wakes #1 just about every time. Last night I was downstairs listening to an interview, and he yells down to turn the noise down so he can sleep.
It used to be a problem when he was younger, and it sometimes still is. He has trouble dealing with #4 and #5 crying. He gets confused and overwhelmed, and the result is even more yelling, shaking of fists, etc. Sometimes he just walks out of the house to get away from it all. Other times, #2 will get all teen-age-moody, and while we're trying to get him to not take it out of others, #1 will hear the conversation from another room. #2's opinion is very important to #1, and it is difficult for #1 to understand that sometimes #2 just says things to be hurtful, not because he thinks they are true.
Still, I have to give him credit. #1 works very hard at being accepting. What he really wants is peace, love, and harmony, and he knows that means sometimes he has to overlook #5 throwing toys down the stairs, or at least letting Mom and Dad handle it instead of taking matters into his own hands. All part of the jouys of family, I guess.
Read more!
Son#1 has very good hearing. So good that I wonder how much sleep he really gets sometimes. We have two dogs, and every now and then they need to be let out in the middle of the night. It wakes #1 just about every time. Last night I was downstairs listening to an interview, and he yells down to turn the noise down so he can sleep.
It used to be a problem when he was younger, and it sometimes still is. He has trouble dealing with #4 and #5 crying. He gets confused and overwhelmed, and the result is even more yelling, shaking of fists, etc. Sometimes he just walks out of the house to get away from it all. Other times, #2 will get all teen-age-moody, and while we're trying to get him to not take it out of others, #1 will hear the conversation from another room. #2's opinion is very important to #1, and it is difficult for #1 to understand that sometimes #2 just says things to be hurtful, not because he thinks they are true.
Still, I have to give him credit. #1 works very hard at being accepting. What he really wants is peace, love, and harmony, and he knows that means sometimes he has to overlook #5 throwing toys down the stairs, or at least letting Mom and Dad handle it instead of taking matters into his own hands. All part of the jouys of family, I guess.
Read more!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What woo means to me
Sometime the pain caused by woo isn’t in the harm of the treatment itself, or even the delay a harmless woo can cause in seeking real medicine. Sometimes it’s in the guilt and self-torture that woo inflicts upon those who use medicine.
My wife (who has used the handle Charity Brow) sometimes has trouble with forgiveness, and that goes double for herself. Back in the days when we first learned about Son#1’s condition, my sister (who is extremely smart and generally very level-headed) had been sharing some of the anti-vaccination woo with me, and I bought into to it, at least somewhat, for a while. Naturally, while looking into Son#1’s condition, we came across the putative vaccination-autism link, and since we did have him vaccinated, Charity started blaming herself for his condition.
Naturally, as time passed and I looked deeper into the putative connection, I found that the connection was not real, that autism-spectrum disorders seem to have genetic links. I remembered that Son#1 was never normal in behavior, even as an infant. Of course, when they are three months old, every thinks that a baby entertaining itself, paying focused attention to things, not requiring attention or contact, etc., is a good thing. You never think that might mean he has a problem later on. Of course, I don’t know if there is a connection or not, I only have my anecdote that his symptoms where evidence that early, I don’t know if there any studies on the infancy behaviors of autism spectrum children. Still, between that and the science, it’s more than enough to convince me that there was no connection to the vaccines.
Charity knows in her brain that there is no connection. However, she stills feels guilty, still feels responsible, still can’t forgive herself. She stills cries about it, or gets angry with herself over it from time to time. I don’t need any more reason to despise the practitioners of woo than that. For me, it really is personal.
Read more!
My wife (who has used the handle Charity Brow) sometimes has trouble with forgiveness, and that goes double for herself. Back in the days when we first learned about Son#1’s condition, my sister (who is extremely smart and generally very level-headed) had been sharing some of the anti-vaccination woo with me, and I bought into to it, at least somewhat, for a while. Naturally, while looking into Son#1’s condition, we came across the putative vaccination-autism link, and since we did have him vaccinated, Charity started blaming herself for his condition.
Naturally, as time passed and I looked deeper into the putative connection, I found that the connection was not real, that autism-spectrum disorders seem to have genetic links. I remembered that Son#1 was never normal in behavior, even as an infant. Of course, when they are three months old, every thinks that a baby entertaining itself, paying focused attention to things, not requiring attention or contact, etc., is a good thing. You never think that might mean he has a problem later on. Of course, I don’t know if there is a connection or not, I only have my anecdote that his symptoms where evidence that early, I don’t know if there any studies on the infancy behaviors of autism spectrum children. Still, between that and the science, it’s more than enough to convince me that there was no connection to the vaccines.
Charity knows in her brain that there is no connection. However, she stills feels guilty, still feels responsible, still can’t forgive herself. She stills cries about it, or gets angry with herself over it from time to time. I don’t need any more reason to despise the practitioners of woo than that. For me, it really is personal.
Read more!
Friday, February 15, 2008
The 80th Skeptic's Circle
The 80th Skeptics Circle is off and running. Bug Girl left me a Valentine reminding me to proof-read more carefully. :)
Read more!
Read more!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Probability and the 15 Mechanisms (edit: now 17)
I'm expanding on a couple of different posts I made at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board, one of my favorite hang-outs. Basically, you see a lot of probability discussions in IDC literature. This is one more reason why they are nonsense. They generally looked at random mutation (that is, the replacement of one "letter" in the DNA with another letter) and natural selection.
There are at least 15 (now 17) different mechanisms involved in evolution:
Mechanisms that increase diversity in a population
Random replacement mutation in DNA
Gene duplication
Phase shift mutation (Edit: Frame shift mutation)
Gene flow from other species
Recombination
Symbiosis
Environmentally generated changes to DNA decoding
Protein changes (prions, etc.)
Mechanisms that alter allele proportions in a population
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Random genetic drift
Late addition: Kin selection
Mechanisms that operate at a level above populations
Speciation
Punctuated equilibrium
Extinction/competition/invasive species
Mass extinction events
Late addition: Parasitic/symbiotic relationships (note this is different from the symbiosis that occurs at the genetic/cellular level).
To do a probability calculation, you need to account not only for the probabilities of each of these mechanisms, but also for the independence of every possible subset of these mechanisms. that would be 32,768 (2^15) (131,072, 2^17 now) possible subsets, so any probability calculation would require you to factor in 32,768 different probabilities. The next IDC document I see that uses more than 10 factors will be the first.
Just one more way IDC falls short of even it's own goals.
Edited for spelling. I'm really much better at spelling long-hand than typing. Really.
Edit to add more to the list.
Read more!
There are at least 15 (now 17) different mechanisms involved in evolution:
Mechanisms that increase diversity in a population
Random replacement mutation in DNA
Gene duplication
Phase shift mutation (Edit: Frame shift mutation)
Gene flow from other species
Recombination
Symbiosis
Environmentally generated changes to DNA decoding
Protein changes (prions, etc.)
Mechanisms that alter allele proportions in a population
Natural selection
Sexual selection
Random genetic drift
Late addition: Kin selection
Mechanisms that operate at a level above populations
Speciation
Punctuated equilibrium
Extinction/competition/invasive species
Mass extinction events
Late addition: Parasitic/symbiotic relationships (note this is different from the symbiosis that occurs at the genetic/cellular level).
To do a probability calculation, you need to account not only for the probabilities of each of these mechanisms, but also for the independence of every possible subset of these mechanisms. that would be 32,768 (2^15) (131,072, 2^17 now) possible subsets, so any probability calculation would require you to factor in 32,768 different probabilities. The next IDC document I see that uses more than 10 factors will be the first.
Just one more way IDC falls short of even it's own goals.
Edited for spelling. I'm really much better at spelling long-hand than typing. Really.
Edit to add more to the list.
Read more!
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Clarification on ID versus IDC
This will be my first post promoted from the comments. I make a distinction between Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Creationism.
Intelligent Design is a legitimate philosophical position and world view. I see no problem with Paley's watch or Gonzalez's priviledged planet. They are not science, of course. There no test involved, just "that looks too good to be by chance". It's not my opinion (I am a naturalist), but I'm not aware that anyone has to share my opinion, and I don't claim I can prove naturalism beyond reasonable doubt.
Creationism is a view subject to scientific scrutiny. Either the world is 6,000 years old, or it is not, and you can form various tests and make predictions. Sure, it's been falsified in dozens, if not hundreds, of different ways, but it at least tries to put facts into play. Many leading Creationists are just plain dishonest, and others create highly fanciful scenarios in which their finding might be right, except for the half-dozen other predictions these scenarios make, so the view gets rejected. Of course, ultimately you can't disprove miracles, so you can't disprove the concept of some God making the workd 6,000 years ago (or last Thursday) with all the signs of apparent age. However, outside of varyng degrees of applying that scenario, their predictions fail. I used to be a Creationist, and I have respcet for many that I know.
Intelligent Design Creationism is a blend of the worst traits of the two. It's a claim to scientific rigor for a philosohical postion, a basic category error. You find the dishonesty of the practitioners prevalent in the postings of many of the leading proponents, especially those affiliated with the Discovery Institute. These supposed scientists do no science, complain about not being heard when they don't offer anything to hear, claim persecution where none can be shown, quote mine as badly as the worst Creationists, and oftentimes lack the dignity to admit the smallest of errors. As far I can tell, the primary focus of their movement is to sneak in their version of what science should be through general-public politics. I have no respect for such people, just pity for the public they dupe and fleece.
Read more!
Intelligent Design is a legitimate philosophical position and world view. I see no problem with Paley's watch or Gonzalez's priviledged planet. They are not science, of course. There no test involved, just "that looks too good to be by chance". It's not my opinion (I am a naturalist), but I'm not aware that anyone has to share my opinion, and I don't claim I can prove naturalism beyond reasonable doubt.
Creationism is a view subject to scientific scrutiny. Either the world is 6,000 years old, or it is not, and you can form various tests and make predictions. Sure, it's been falsified in dozens, if not hundreds, of different ways, but it at least tries to put facts into play. Many leading Creationists are just plain dishonest, and others create highly fanciful scenarios in which their finding might be right, except for the half-dozen other predictions these scenarios make, so the view gets rejected. Of course, ultimately you can't disprove miracles, so you can't disprove the concept of some God making the workd 6,000 years ago (or last Thursday) with all the signs of apparent age. However, outside of varyng degrees of applying that scenario, their predictions fail. I used to be a Creationist, and I have respcet for many that I know.
Intelligent Design Creationism is a blend of the worst traits of the two. It's a claim to scientific rigor for a philosohical postion, a basic category error. You find the dishonesty of the practitioners prevalent in the postings of many of the leading proponents, especially those affiliated with the Discovery Institute. These supposed scientists do no science, complain about not being heard when they don't offer anything to hear, claim persecution where none can be shown, quote mine as badly as the worst Creationists, and oftentimes lack the dignity to admit the smallest of errors. As far I can tell, the primary focus of their movement is to sneak in their version of what science should be through general-public politics. I have no respect for such people, just pity for the public they dupe and fleece.
Read more!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Probability, and a stupid error by me
In case anyone is reading this who doesn't know the background, I was engaged in a lengthy discussion concerning statistics and the types of inferences that were or were not valid from them. During this discussion, another person proposed a simple probability problem, and I made an error in evaluating the answer. I think we disputed on this in well over a hundred posts before I realized the mistake I made. It wasn’t the first time, and I have been on the correct side of such exchanges more often the wrong side, historically. That’s about all I expect.
Recently when referring back to this discussion, the other poster said I had made a specific kind of error. Since I had made a completely different error, I thought I should be correct about the type of oversight I had made. Rather than possibly do another hundred posts on probability in a message board actually devoted to the Utah Jazz (JazzFanz), I decided to bring that discussion over here.
The problem: your partner flips two coins in secret, and you choose one at random and it is heads. What is the probability the other one is heads?
My incorrect reasoning: there were four possible outcomes from the flip: TT, HT, TH, and HH. All four outcomes were equally likely. However, you know that TT did not occur. Therefore, among the three remaining possible flips, two of them would have tails, and one would have heads, so it is twice as likely the other coins is tails as heads. The probability is 1/3. Yes, it was stupid of me.
His (correct) reasoning: we have information only about one coin, and no information about the other. The probability is 1/2.
However, he seems to believe the problem was with my methodology, rather than the implementation of that methodology, so I want to be clear that the correct methodology is this: you have to adjust by the probability that heads would be shown for each type of flip. I did that for TT, by saying it was not possible, but I did not do so for the HT or TH groups. In each case, the odds of revealing heads at random (H) is 1/2, so you have to adjust for that in the calculation of the probabilities. Basically, you are twice as likely to get a head from a HH combination as from HT or TH. In terms of odds, it's [1/2 * P(HT) + 1/2 * P(TH)] : 1 * P(HH), or 1:1, making the probability 1/2.
If his method is easier, why did I use mine? Habit, I suppose. Looking at all the possibilities lets you answer a deeper range of questions than a mere comparison of knowledge method. For example, you can use it to evaluate the following question.
You get an offer to play a game. The rules are you flip two coins. You must reveal one coin, and it must be head if you have one. If the other player guesses the value of the second coin, he gets $1. For the game to be fair, how much should you get when he is wrong?
Edited to remove vertical bars and for clarification.
Read more!
Recently when referring back to this discussion, the other poster said I had made a specific kind of error. Since I had made a completely different error, I thought I should be correct about the type of oversight I had made. Rather than possibly do another hundred posts on probability in a message board actually devoted to the Utah Jazz (JazzFanz), I decided to bring that discussion over here.
The problem: your partner flips two coins in secret, and you choose one at random and it is heads. What is the probability the other one is heads?
My incorrect reasoning: there were four possible outcomes from the flip: TT, HT, TH, and HH. All four outcomes were equally likely. However, you know that TT did not occur. Therefore, among the three remaining possible flips, two of them would have tails, and one would have heads, so it is twice as likely the other coins is tails as heads. The probability is 1/3. Yes, it was stupid of me.
His (correct) reasoning: we have information only about one coin, and no information about the other. The probability is 1/2.
However, he seems to believe the problem was with my methodology, rather than the implementation of that methodology, so I want to be clear that the correct methodology is this: you have to adjust by the probability that heads would be shown for each type of flip. I did that for TT, by saying it was not possible, but I did not do so for the HT or TH groups. In each case, the odds of revealing heads at random (H) is 1/2, so you have to adjust for that in the calculation of the probabilities. Basically, you are twice as likely to get a head from a HH combination as from HT or TH. In terms of odds, it's [1/2 * P(HT) + 1/2 * P(TH)] : 1 * P(HH), or 1:1, making the probability 1/2.
If his method is easier, why did I use mine? Habit, I suppose. Looking at all the possibilities lets you answer a deeper range of questions than a mere comparison of knowledge method. For example, you can use it to evaluate the following question.
You get an offer to play a game. The rules are you flip two coins. You must reveal one coin, and it must be head if you have one. If the other player guesses the value of the second coin, he gets $1. For the game to be fair, how much should you get when he is wrong?
Edited to remove vertical bars and for clarification.
Read more!
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Mom's pants
You'd think that I'd have remembered from back when I was a teen, but no such luck. Yesterday my second son (14) wore a pair of his mother's pants. Not the first pair I gave him, mind you. I told him the first pair actually was his mother's pants, so of course he refused to wear them. I gave him another pair (only things clean) and told him they were his brother's, that was OK. Back when I was that age, it never would have been acceptable for me to wear Mom's pants, but you forget these things sometimes.
Of course, his older brother (15) has had occasion to wear Mom's pants from time to time too. He doesn't mind. Sometimes you keep busy reminding yourself of all the these he does mind, of the things he needs to keep his life in balance, you don't notice the things he accepts with a peep that would annoy any other youth. Amid keeping a ready supply of eggs and toast, making sure the french toast is not late, etc., you don't even realize that he doesn't care if he's wearing Mom's pants to school.
Read more!
Of course, his older brother (15) has had occasion to wear Mom's pants from time to time too. He doesn't mind. Sometimes you keep busy reminding yourself of all the these he does mind, of the things he needs to keep his life in balance, you don't notice the things he accepts with a peep that would annoy any other youth. Amid keeping a ready supply of eggs and toast, making sure the french toast is not late, etc., you don't even realize that he doesn't care if he's wearing Mom's pants to school.
Read more!
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Price is Right for science
I just saw a game called “Pathfinder” on The Price is Right. You move from square to square, trying to make educated guesses about the next digit in the price of a car, based upon what you know of the car. When you get it wrong, you try to get another chance to make a new guess. That’s not too different from what scientists seems to do, they try to make good guesses, advance a square, and their prediction turns out to be right or wrong. Being right is always better, but even being wrong just makes it easier to be right next time.
Now, compare that to Intelligent Design/Creationism. They already have decided the path, so they say the price of the car has to change to match the path they see. They keep going on to the same squares, over and over. Not much like science at all, it seems to me.
Read more!
Now, compare that to Intelligent Design/Creationism. They already have decided the path, so they say the price of the car has to change to match the path they see. They keep going on to the same squares, over and over. Not much like science at all, it seems to me.
Read more!
Friday, January 18, 2008
78th Skeptics' Circle
I have been remiss in not linking this earlier. The 78th Skeptics' circle has convened, including my very first post. I actually did feel honored.
http://skepticalsurfer.blogspot.com/2008/01/skeptics-circle-78-still-high-from.html
Read more!
http://skepticalsurfer.blogspot.com/2008/01/skeptics-circle-78-still-high-from.html
Read more!
Robert Fischer, In Memorium
Bobby Fischer has died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22724870/
When I was a kid, I studied his games, especially the match against Spassky. The US press give him the golden-boy treatment, of course. Those of us who played with passion admired him. Looking back, though, it is any different than admiring Allen Iverson or Russell Wallace today? Good players, but also cases of being less than they could have been.
He took himself from being a force to being irrelevant in 1975, and played on the fond memories and patriotism of our country to help fund a re-match in 1992 with Spassky, where the chess was decidedly not up to current GM play. Yet to the end, he apparently thought he was still a great player.
Rest in peace, Fischer.
Read more!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22724870/
When I was a kid, I studied his games, especially the match against Spassky. The US press give him the golden-boy treatment, of course. Those of us who played with passion admired him. Looking back, though, it is any different than admiring Allen Iverson or Russell Wallace today? Good players, but also cases of being less than they could have been.
He took himself from being a force to being irrelevant in 1975, and played on the fond memories and patriotism of our country to help fund a re-match in 1992 with Spassky, where the chess was decidedly not up to current GM play. Yet to the end, he apparently thought he was still a great player.
Rest in peace, Fischer.
Read more!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Beat the Nuggets!
I really dislike the Nuggets (Denver, not chicken). I haven't liked Carmelo Anthony ever since he whined about Kirilenko being inthe All-Star game. I'm not fond of George Karl. I have respect for Iverson as a player, but on a personal level he represents so many things about professional athletes that show they often simply don't appreciate how lucky tehy are or the responsibilities that should go with that much acclaim. I never liked Camby either, and Martin always seemed like a bully (although if the Jazz had signed him, he would have been *our* bully). I don't know the Jazz will, or even can, win in Denver tonight, but this is one game I would really like for them to win.
Edit to add: oops, tomorrow night. :(
Read more!
Edit to add: oops, tomorrow night. :(
Read more!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Morality is bigger than that
Lot’s of people discuss on whether there morality is subjective or objective. I’ve been thinking lately that the entire argument is both too dismissive and irrelevant.
Regardless of from where you think morality comes, it’s a complex social structure made up of many parts. Some of these parts are close to universal, others vary considerably by culture. I have never heard of a culture that approves of random killings, rape, or stealing from your fellow tribesmen. Whether the reason is the need for a stable society or some putative God laying this down, I have no problem conceding that a few of these precepts could be labeled as objective. At the same time, most issues that deal with sexuality, slavery, and the right to make war on people not well known to you have had varying expressions in a wide variety of seeming stable, healthy cultures. I see no reason to consider morals in these matters to be anything other than subjective. Any basis for morals perforce will be the product of arbitrarily chosen principles. Trying to force the whole concept of morality into one place or the other is unworthy of a topic rich in context and subtlety.
Also, in the final matter, it is of no consequence whether the morals of your culture are subjective or objective. If you believe they come from some putative supernatural revelation, you’re going to follow your source for the most part. If you see them coming from other principles, you’ll still be following those principles. Either way, when you violate the standards of your own morals, you’ll feel the guilt, and when you violate the standards of your culture, you’ll risk facing punishment. Whether they are subjective or objective makes little difference there.
Read more!
Regardless of from where you think morality comes, it’s a complex social structure made up of many parts. Some of these parts are close to universal, others vary considerably by culture. I have never heard of a culture that approves of random killings, rape, or stealing from your fellow tribesmen. Whether the reason is the need for a stable society or some putative God laying this down, I have no problem conceding that a few of these precepts could be labeled as objective. At the same time, most issues that deal with sexuality, slavery, and the right to make war on people not well known to you have had varying expressions in a wide variety of seeming stable, healthy cultures. I see no reason to consider morals in these matters to be anything other than subjective. Any basis for morals perforce will be the product of arbitrarily chosen principles. Trying to force the whole concept of morality into one place or the other is unworthy of a topic rich in context and subtlety.
Also, in the final matter, it is of no consequence whether the morals of your culture are subjective or objective. If you believe they come from some putative supernatural revelation, you’re going to follow your source for the most part. If you see them coming from other principles, you’ll still be following those principles. Either way, when you violate the standards of your own morals, you’ll feel the guilt, and when you violate the standards of your culture, you’ll risk facing punishment. Whether they are subjective or objective makes little difference there.
Read more!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Lucky
Lucky is how we felt from the time he was born. Our first child was healthy, happy, and very independent for a baby. He would amuse himself for a couple of hours, needing no attention at all except when he ate or needed a diaper change. He was so beautiful that, when he was eight, we had an agent come to us inside a grocery store and ask to represent him as a model.
Of course, that was not going to happen. He couldn't stand being touched by strangers, or having a constantly changing routine. His language skills were well below age level. When he got upset, he would bang things repeatedly. It was autism, exactly, certainly not Aspberger's nor Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. It's Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified, in the autism spectrum.
Still, we never had to buy him a bicycle helmet to keep him from damaging his head. He was a little sensitive to loud noises and to smells, but not overly so. We had a fairly normal life. We were lucky, compared to many.
Today he plays the trumpet in the high school concert band. He washes dishes on occasion, rakes the yard, and plays Yu-Gi-Oh! with his brother and his brothers friends. Of course, he has no friends of his own, and doesn't seem to particularly want any. He's quite content with Word Searches and SoDoKu (he needs some help with the three-star puzzles). He wants to have his own apartment when he grows up (although I think a group home is more likely). In many ways he's more reliable and helpful than many of the kids I grew up with. We still feel lucky to have him, every day (well, almost every day).
Read more!
Of course, that was not going to happen. He couldn't stand being touched by strangers, or having a constantly changing routine. His language skills were well below age level. When he got upset, he would bang things repeatedly. It was autism, exactly, certainly not Aspberger's nor Childhood Disintegrative Disorder. It's Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified, in the autism spectrum.
Still, we never had to buy him a bicycle helmet to keep him from damaging his head. He was a little sensitive to loud noises and to smells, but not overly so. We had a fairly normal life. We were lucky, compared to many.
Today he plays the trumpet in the high school concert band. He washes dishes on occasion, rakes the yard, and plays Yu-Gi-Oh! with his brother and his brothers friends. Of course, he has no friends of his own, and doesn't seem to particularly want any. He's quite content with Word Searches and SoDoKu (he needs some help with the three-star puzzles). He wants to have his own apartment when he grows up (although I think a group home is more likely). In many ways he's more reliable and helpful than many of the kids I grew up with. We still feel lucky to have him, every day (well, almost every day).
Read more!
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Logic: everywhere or nowhere?
I just finished digesting Dr. Victor Repperts article, "The Argument from Reason", over at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/victor_reppert/reason.html and was disappointed with one aspect in particular. Dr. Reppert describes how a formal system works in one paragraph, and them much later disregards the same properties when discussing a different formal system.
On the other hand, if I am playing chess, and I am missing a pawn, I can get a penny, a button, a half-eaten carrot, or just about anything else to play the role of a pawn. This is because unlike the frisbee[sic], the pawn's role is purely symbolic, determined by convention.
That seems clear, and I agree. Chess is one type of formal system, basically a instantiation of rules and procedures. Formal systems can be applied to a variety of objects with no change tot he structure of the system. They form a sort of model. Dr. Reppert seems to forget this in a later paragraph, though.
But principles like the laws of non-contradiction apply universally. Contradictions cannot be true in Phoenix, in Houston, in Antarctica, on Venus, in the Virgo cluster, in the furthest nebulae, or even in Southern California. From what particular experience could our knowledge of this have come?
Equally true would be, "But principles like the diagonal movement of bishops apply universally. Bishops cannot move orthogonally in Phoenix, in Houston, in Antarctica, on Venus, in the Virgo cluster, in the furthest nebulae, or even in Southern California. From what particular experience could our knowledge of this have come?" Of course, the obviously true answer would be that we set up the rules of chess the same everywhere, otherwise it's not chess. The same reasoning applies to logic. Any time you set up a system where you only accept two logical values (true or false) and only allow each statement to have one of those values, you get a formal system where the law of non-contradiction obtains. There is no experience this comes from, any more that there is an experience of a real-life bishop that never walks forward straightly. It's a feature that we built into the system, not one innate in the universe.
Read more!
On the other hand, if I am playing chess, and I am missing a pawn, I can get a penny, a button, a half-eaten carrot, or just about anything else to play the role of a pawn. This is because unlike the frisbee[sic], the pawn's role is purely symbolic, determined by convention.
That seems clear, and I agree. Chess is one type of formal system, basically a instantiation of rules and procedures. Formal systems can be applied to a variety of objects with no change tot he structure of the system. They form a sort of model. Dr. Reppert seems to forget this in a later paragraph, though.
But principles like the laws of non-contradiction apply universally. Contradictions cannot be true in Phoenix, in Houston, in Antarctica, on Venus, in the Virgo cluster, in the furthest nebulae, or even in Southern California. From what particular experience could our knowledge of this have come?
Equally true would be, "But principles like the diagonal movement of bishops apply universally. Bishops cannot move orthogonally in Phoenix, in Houston, in Antarctica, on Venus, in the Virgo cluster, in the furthest nebulae, or even in Southern California. From what particular experience could our knowledge of this have come?" Of course, the obviously true answer would be that we set up the rules of chess the same everywhere, otherwise it's not chess. The same reasoning applies to logic. Any time you set up a system where you only accept two logical values (true or false) and only allow each statement to have one of those values, you get a formal system where the law of non-contradiction obtains. There is no experience this comes from, any more that there is an experience of a real-life bishop that never walks forward straightly. It's a feature that we built into the system, not one innate in the universe.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
