Some of my friends have been claiming things. I made this website for them really. These claims range from the supernatural to the extraterrestrial, they include government conspiracies, diet, and medicinal advice. They include positions on politics, and science; on which news sources are best, and which can't be trusted. These are people I like and care for. They believe these things, and want me to believe them too.
I think they are wrong. Not just a little bit, but as wrong as you can be. Could they be right? Sure. Are they? Nope. Pretty sure they aren't. It may seem confrontational to say that, which is what I want. I want to confront the beliefs my friends hold that I disagree with. They think they're right and I think that I'm right, so where does that leave us?
The most important thing about my view point is that it is evidence based. And with that comes the responsibility of changing beliefs to match the evidence. I tried to sum this up into the following statement:
If you don't know what it would take to change your mind; then you don't know why you believe it. If you don't know why you believe it, then you have abandoned the rational. To quote Plato quoting Socrates (probably) "The unexamined life is not worth living"
With that in mind I will now take to examining the beliefs put toward me by my friends and what it would take for me to accept those things. I will then examine their evidence and adjust my beliefs accordingly. I will ask them to do the same, if I find their worldview lacking and present a deconstruction or alternative.
I have already begun the work here in my series On the Nature of Discourse and Argument. And I would like to think of that as supplemental to the conversations I wish to have, they are the tools that I will use to support my specific ideas.
The importance of specifics cannot be stressed enough. Too often I have found myself in conversation where when I challenge any single idea or single part of an idea, I am told that that part doesn't matter or they personally don't believe that part. I will do my best to break ideas down into the premises which are necessary and the conclusions that are deductive or highly likely if inductive. This is where I start.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Re: Arguments for the existance of god
Here is a collection and my responses to various arguments for deism or theism. Often we are asked to not only disprove or refute the ideas being presented but are held to the requirement of offering some replacement explanation. While I enjoy the challenge of coming up with a rational consistent worldview based on the facts at hand, this simply misses the point. Atheism is by definition a null hypothesis, this means it is the assertion that the idea put forward is not true. It need only demonstrate that sufficient evidence has not been presented to accept the arguments and their conclusions or that the arguments are fallacies. That is what I seek to do here. My own ideas about origin and purpose will have to wait, though they will likely be touched upon.
The Main Premises:
None of the claims are very good. You cannot move from one claim to another via deduction or induction. The claims are both independent (they do not reference each other) yet interdependent in the way they are thought to provide proof. The claims all assume a definition (or definitions) of god without giving reasons for those definitions or explicitly stating them.
The Specific Arguments:
Please note that I am ignoring and young earth anti evolution arguments; they are not the point of this post nor as interesting philosophically as the ones I am choosing to discuss. I would happily cover that subject in another post at some point, or possibly just direct people to other sources (more likely).
Cosmological- The Prime Mover
What happened before time? Where was space before the big bang? These questions and those like them cannot be answered with our current understanding of physics. They may not have a sensible answer. There is a point before which we can say or see nothing. I think it is safe to say "we don't know" and if you want to say "ah well I know..." and wink knowingly at Jesus or Thor, over the shoulders of ALL OF PHYSICS, then you are going to have to show your work. The main argument is There is no thing which is un-caused, this assertion seems to make sense until you realize that it A) begs the question and B) relates to things in time and space rather than time and space itself. Can the term "cause" have any meaning outside of the idea of time?
Teleological- the argument from design. Paley's watch. Darwin starts our path here, after that we can begin to view another method. I wont bother referencing poor design, or cruel or petty (there might be gods that fit that) IMPORTANT an over-arching order is not the same as god.
The second part is the anthropic principle in reverse; Here is often employed even more physics references and a misunderstanding of certain probabilities. Of course the anthropic principle suggests the first proper answer to this idea. If you want to talk about probabilities I will need you to show the numbers you are using as well as how you came by them and the equations.
Ontological - (not ornithological but there is a joke there somehow I'm sure) Anslem's conception as I have heard it stated is a non sequitur. "Imagine the most perfect being. It would be more perfect if it existed. Therefore it exists"
There also seems to be an inherent Platonism, with god as the ideal ideal, which I question on more basic grounds. This is often tied to an assertion that Math and Logic exceed the physical universe (and therefore precede it?) to which; for now one can only say "incompleteness theorem"
From Morality - This is typically stated that without god there is no basis for morality. The emphasis is on god as an idea and not a specific deity. This argument is fallacious for a few reasons. 1 it is an Appeal to Authority 2 it posits that god is the source of morality which is part of the definition given (circular reasoning) 3 Basically the argument from evil in reverse without specific conception of god. (the argument from evil is only to rule out a specific type of god -loving, all knowing and all powerful)
From Faith - not really a relevant argument from evidence please stop it.
From Scripture - (revelation) Well this is the leap from theism to religion.It relies on specific texts to be true. These are not as spurious as the from faith argument but are beyond the scope of this essay and will be addressed separately.
From History - This is always a specific idea to support a specific religion. I plan to look specifically at the resurrection claims about Jesus as most of my sources are Christian apologists. Any links to other historical claims are welcome)
My sources for the original pro arguments against which I argue.
Hitchens Vs Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Hitches Vs Turek
http://vimeo.com/1904911
Hitchens Vs Boteach (actually doesn't believe in evolution) Mainly failing at the math and argument from incredulity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ
Hitchens Vs Mcgrath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U1b7Xgyq-Y
Hitchens Vs D'Souza (some interesting ideas couched in logical fallacies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8
Additional Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Mentions Historical Resurrection (does not give actual sources they must be acquired)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI&feature=related
The Main Premises:
None of the claims are very good. You cannot move from one claim to another via deduction or induction. The claims are both independent (they do not reference each other) yet interdependent in the way they are thought to provide proof. The claims all assume a definition (or definitions) of god without giving reasons for those definitions or explicitly stating them.
The Specific Arguments:
Please note that I am ignoring and young earth anti evolution arguments; they are not the point of this post nor as interesting philosophically as the ones I am choosing to discuss. I would happily cover that subject in another post at some point, or possibly just direct people to other sources (more likely).
Cosmological- The Prime Mover
What happened before time? Where was space before the big bang? These questions and those like them cannot be answered with our current understanding of physics. They may not have a sensible answer. There is a point before which we can say or see nothing. I think it is safe to say "we don't know" and if you want to say "ah well I know..." and wink knowingly at Jesus or Thor, over the shoulders of ALL OF PHYSICS, then you are going to have to show your work. The main argument is There is no thing which is un-caused, this assertion seems to make sense until you realize that it A) begs the question and B) relates to things in time and space rather than time and space itself. Can the term "cause" have any meaning outside of the idea of time?
Teleological- the argument from design. Paley's watch. Darwin starts our path here, after that we can begin to view another method. I wont bother referencing poor design, or cruel or petty (there might be gods that fit that) IMPORTANT an over-arching order is not the same as god.
The second part is the anthropic principle in reverse; Here is often employed even more physics references and a misunderstanding of certain probabilities. Of course the anthropic principle suggests the first proper answer to this idea. If you want to talk about probabilities I will need you to show the numbers you are using as well as how you came by them and the equations.
Ontological - (not ornithological but there is a joke there somehow I'm sure) Anslem's conception as I have heard it stated is a non sequitur. "Imagine the most perfect being. It would be more perfect if it existed. Therefore it exists"
There also seems to be an inherent Platonism, with god as the ideal ideal, which I question on more basic grounds. This is often tied to an assertion that Math and Logic exceed the physical universe (and therefore precede it?) to which; for now one can only say "incompleteness theorem"
From Morality - This is typically stated that without god there is no basis for morality. The emphasis is on god as an idea and not a specific deity. This argument is fallacious for a few reasons. 1 it is an Appeal to Authority 2 it posits that god is the source of morality which is part of the definition given (circular reasoning) 3 Basically the argument from evil in reverse without specific conception of god. (the argument from evil is only to rule out a specific type of god -loving, all knowing and all powerful)
From Faith - not really a relevant argument from evidence please stop it.
From Scripture - (revelation) Well this is the leap from theism to religion.It relies on specific texts to be true. These are not as spurious as the from faith argument but are beyond the scope of this essay and will be addressed separately.
From History - This is always a specific idea to support a specific religion. I plan to look specifically at the resurrection claims about Jesus as most of my sources are Christian apologists. Any links to other historical claims are welcome)
My sources for the original pro arguments against which I argue.
Hitchens Vs Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
Hitches Vs Turek
http://vimeo.com/1904911
Hitchens Vs Boteach (actually doesn't believe in evolution) Mainly failing at the math and argument from incredulity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ
Hitchens Vs Mcgrath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U1b7Xgyq-Y
Hitchens Vs D'Souza (some interesting ideas couched in logical fallacies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8
Additional Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Mentions Historical Resurrection (does not give actual sources they must be acquired)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI&feature=related
Monday, January 30, 2012
On the Theory of Natural Selection and Common Descent pt 1 The Premises.
To the best of my understanding. I am doing this as an attempt to articulate the ideas and see where my knowledge base needs improvement. The premises, will be followed by the argument and then possibly some examples/thought experiments. If you feel that anything is missing, unstated, or unclear; please comment so I may clarify.
The Premises:
Creatures Reproduce
Creatures Die
Some traits breed true (inheritance)
Children are not exactly like their parents (variation)
Children are somewhat like their parents (inheritance)
If a creature dies before it can reproduce it wont have children
Not all creatures of the same "type" are identical (variation)
If none of a type of creature successfully breeds, we call this extinction.
If one variation of a "type" of creature is more successful (in breeding) than another variation then more of the next generation will resemble it.
Existing generations are replaced by their offspring (survival) or not at all (extinction).
The Premises:
Creatures Reproduce
Creatures Die
Some traits breed true (inheritance)
Children are not exactly like their parents (variation)
Children are somewhat like their parents (inheritance)
If a creature dies before it can reproduce it wont have children
Not all creatures of the same "type" are identical (variation)
If none of a type of creature successfully breeds, we call this extinction.
If one variation of a "type" of creature is more successful (in breeding) than another variation then more of the next generation will resemble it.
Existing generations are replaced by their offspring (survival) or not at all (extinction).
Saturday, January 21, 2012
SOPA PIPA response.
Here is the first response that I got on the bill from any of the people I emailed. It reads like a form letter, but that's OK. I made a form letter and sent it to them. I expect that I will receive a few similar ones.
|
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA PIPA Letters
I decided to write a form letter that you can use to write the President, your Senators and Congressperson. Please also use it to write the Presidential Candidates that are currently running for the Republican Nomination if you are so inclined. Please make sure to use their names and replace my signature name with your own. If you find it odd to call yourself a copyright holder, please keep in mind if you took a picture, or video you own the copyright to that; It is automatic.
Wikipedia gave us a nice link to look up the name and contact information of our Congressional Representative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip= and here is the best way to email the President http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
#1
Dear Mr. President,
There are currently two Bills H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA and S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA in the House and Senate respectively. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against these Bills and Veto them if necessary.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#2 There are two senators and you will need two of these.
Dear Senator ___________
There is currently a Bill in the Senate S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against this Bill and Vote against it and its counterpart in the House of Representatives H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#3 For your Congressperson in the House of Representatives (you only get one)
Dear Representative ___________
There is currently a Bill in the House H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against this Bill and Vote against it and its counterpart in the Senate S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#4 This one is for the Republican Candidates running for the 2012 nomination
Dear Mr ____________
There are currently two Bills H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA and S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA in the House and Senate respectively. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against these Bills in your bid for the White House.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
Wikipedia gave us a nice link to look up the name and contact information of our Congressional Representative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CongressLookup?zip= and here is the best way to email the President http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
#1
Dear Mr. President,
There are currently two Bills H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA and S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA in the House and Senate respectively. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against these Bills and Veto them if necessary.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#2 There are two senators and you will need two of these.
Dear Senator ___________
There is currently a Bill in the Senate S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against this Bill and Vote against it and its counterpart in the House of Representatives H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#3 For your Congressperson in the House of Representatives (you only get one)
Dear Representative ___________
There is currently a Bill in the House H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against this Bill and Vote against it and its counterpart in the Senate S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
#4 This one is for the Republican Candidates running for the 2012 nomination
Dear Mr ____________
There are currently two Bills H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act commonly called SOPA and S. 968 Protect IP Act commonly called PIPA in the House and Senate respectively. As a citizen and copyright holder I urge you to speak out against these Bills in your bid for the White House.
Sincerely,
Philip Aitken
Friday, December 16, 2011
Christopher Hitchens.
Christopher Hitchens has died. I was saddened by this news. He has been one of my favorite thinkers on the subject of religion and discourse. I was sad that I would never get to meet him. And then he told me that I would. Not in some vague way of some supposed afterlife, but right here and now. His works are at my disposal to learn from or fail to do so as I choose.
Monday, December 12, 2011
On Literacy: Part 1
One of the indicators used for determining the health of an education system is literacy rates. But what does Literacy (as it relates to educational value) really mean?
Literacy is typically thought of as having the ability to read and write. So much so that all dictionaries I checked claim that to be the case. However there is a broader definition gaining popular use which is "competence in a given field." And of course we have different degrees of the normal use of literacy, such as the idea of reading on an adult level versus reading (or writing) in a less competent manner. But I would like to explore the other idea, the one of competence. The one that allows us to discuss being scientifically literate, or media literate. To be well versed in something is to have received regular exposure to it, thus we can say that Madam Curie was well versed in radiation, but by then it was too late. Puns aside, I would like to say that having a regular exposure to an idea is not enough to have a true understanding, to be as it were, literate. Literacy is both reading and writing and these are separate yet related skills. Both however assume understanding.
For example, when asked the shape of the earth and how we know it. Round vs flat. An illiterate answer would be that you learned that in school (appeal to authority). Literate answers might mention ships on the horizon, lunar eclipses, time differences, photos from space, etc. This is not to say that the illiterate answer could not be correct, just that the method of knowing would be flawed and not allow the person to pursue knowing and differentiate between wheat and dross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly one-third of American adults don't know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the Sun, according to the National Science Board.
Literacy is typically thought of as having the ability to read and write. So much so that all dictionaries I checked claim that to be the case. However there is a broader definition gaining popular use which is "competence in a given field." And of course we have different degrees of the normal use of literacy, such as the idea of reading on an adult level versus reading (or writing) in a less competent manner. But I would like to explore the other idea, the one of competence. The one that allows us to discuss being scientifically literate, or media literate. To be well versed in something is to have received regular exposure to it, thus we can say that Madam Curie was well versed in radiation, but by then it was too late. Puns aside, I would like to say that having a regular exposure to an idea is not enough to have a true understanding, to be as it were, literate. Literacy is both reading and writing and these are separate yet related skills. Both however assume understanding.
We could possibly use this as the definition:
The idea of being able to understand the information as well as sort relevant and irrelevant information.
For example, when asked the shape of the earth and how we know it. Round vs flat. An illiterate answer would be that you learned that in school (appeal to authority). Literate answers might mention ships on the horizon, lunar eclipses, time differences, photos from space, etc. This is not to say that the illiterate answer could not be correct, just that the method of knowing would be flawed and not allow the person to pursue knowing and differentiate between wheat and dross.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.physorg.com/news204569793.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literacy, the mere act of reading and writing, while transformative is not enough. Critical thinking is required. Because many things are read and written spoken and heard. There are many ways of thinking, some good some bad. But interestingly you can become very skilled at either. You can become proficient at thinking poorly. This idea is difficult to understand and has to do with what can be termed cognitive blind spots. Think of them like the blind spot of your eye (which you can't see but can be demonstrated) but for your thinking. acknowledging that you have these blind spots will make you less prone to mistakes but this discussion belongs under a different post.
Critical thinking as a skill is a prerequisite. However Literacy also means competence in a given area. Once basic competence is addressed there is the issue of transferring and using skills to combine in new and exciting ways.
_______________________________________________________________
Subjects Where Literacy is Attainable? Is this stretching the concept too far? Am I just replacing the term competence with literacy?
Languages
Math
Science
Art
Music
Politics/current events
History
Law
Expression of the Human Body (such as dance, martial arts and other sports and athletic pursuits)
Philosophy
Technology
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2011/01/20/bullshit-detection-101-why-universities-need-to-teach-the-new-literacy/
http://www.charliebeckett.org/?p=3899
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/06/summer-solstice-and-science-literacy.html
"There is a gap between 'knowing' and 'defining'."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Literacy, the mere act of reading and writing, while transformative is not enough. Critical thinking is required. Because many things are read and written spoken and heard. There are many ways of thinking, some good some bad. But interestingly you can become very skilled at either. You can become proficient at thinking poorly. This idea is difficult to understand and has to do with what can be termed cognitive blind spots. Think of them like the blind spot of your eye (which you can't see but can be demonstrated) but for your thinking. acknowledging that you have these blind spots will make you less prone to mistakes but this discussion belongs under a different post.
Critical thinking as a skill is a prerequisite. However Literacy also means competence in a given area. Once basic competence is addressed there is the issue of transferring and using skills to combine in new and exciting ways.
_______________________________________________________________
Subjects Where Literacy is Attainable? Is this stretching the concept too far? Am I just replacing the term competence with literacy?
Languages
Math
Science
Art
Music
Politics/current events
History
Law
Expression of the Human Body (such as dance, martial arts and other sports and athletic pursuits)
Philosophy
Technology
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2011/01/20/bullshit-detection-101-why-universities-need-to-teach-the-new-literacy/
http://www.charliebeckett.org/?p=3899
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2011/06/summer-solstice-and-science-literacy.html
"There is a gap between 'knowing' and 'defining'."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)