Trollopolis

Evolution is not The Great Chain of Being

2011-02-17T10:35:00.000-08:00

I've been hearing a recurrence of the argument that the idea of evolution leads to genocide over the past few months. There are two core ideas that need to be substantiated in order for the eugenics argument to work: understanding selective breeding and that the human race needs to be pushed into a more perfect state. Neither of these derive from evolution. Selective breeding predates evolution and the notion of pushing humankind towards a more perfect state more likely derives from a Christian idea: The Great Chain of Being.

That evolution verifies selective breeding is not a surprise, but humans have understood breeding for thousands of years without knowing about evolution. People have been selecting crops, studding out prize stallions, and even breeding slaves for generations before The Theory of Evolution arrived on the scene. It isn't an extraordinary claim to suggest that people understood killing every red-head born means eventually there won't be any more red hair.

I find it amazing that the second notion of moving humankind towards perfection gets ascribed to evolution. I suppose it comes from the dispersal of phrases like, "survival of the fittest", which gets translated to "the closest to perfection". The phrase really ought to be recast into "survival of the not completely unfit", but I suppose that is not catchy. This is all rather interesting because evolution doesn't make any such claims about perfect beings, fittest beings, or any other sort of hierarchy. However, The Great Chain of Being is quite at home with these notions of species hierarchy. The Chain is an idea dreamed up by medieval christians which give a natural order of God, Angels, Humans, Animals, Plants, and finally Minerals.

We've had these ideas about selective breeding and a divine hierarchical order in nature floating around in our collective conscious for generations. Evolution has formally been around for roughly 150 years. It verifies selective breeding, but denies the Great Chain. Clearly, not only does evolution not support these reasons for genocide, but it destroys one of the base pillar of the perfect human. There isn't a perfect people. There isn't anything to strive towards in terms of a perfect people.

Batman Apologetics #2: Batman Beyond

2010-09-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

A common "discrepancy" that batman deniers like to point to is the Batman Beyond chronicles. The usual argument goes something like,

If all of the batman chronicles are things that actually happened then what about Batman Beyond? How can we be talking about things that actually happened that haven't happened yet? It's just plain nonsense!

-Richard D.

Well, this pseudo-anonymous denier (whose name rhymes with "Hawkins") has forgotten one important aspect about our universe: time travel. In fact, this is clearly outlined in the Batman Beyond chronicles. During Batman's confrontation with Chronos we not only learn of the possibility of time travel, but in fact the existence of a working time-machine. It is all laid out in the chronicles, but since deniers never bother to read what they criticize, this clear and undeniable fact often escapes them.

In fact, we know that Batman visited the old west while pursuing Chronos, which gives a first point of contact for information to bleed through from the future. Granted, this doesn't explain how later entries into the chronicle made it back through time. However, we have sufficient facts at our disposal to draw a conclusion.

We know that time travel is possible from the chronicles, and we know that Batman went back in time at least once. We also know that Bruce Wayne, McGinnis's predecessor, is a crafty bastard who does whatever it takes. So upon Batman's discovery of time travel, he likely decided to make use of time-travel to ensure Batman's defeat of his many enemies. So it is likely that Wayne sent a copy of the chronicles back in time in order to be able to make use of them in his time. It is even likely that he received copies of the chronicles when he was younger, spurring him to send them at a later date to avoid a paradox.

The whole "DBAD" debacle

2010-09-23T07:07:00.000-07:00

So, over at Action Skeptics there is an ongoing discussion about the DBAD position. Mostly it's one pro-DBAD commenter and the rest of the locals at Action Skeptics. Out of the conversation I've gotten the impression that one key premise of the DBAD position is that rhetoric is the purpose of rational discussion. Or, at least they like to talk about rational discussion in terms of rhetoric. This is a problem since using rhetoric implies that you are trying to persuade someone to your way of thinking, and that doesn't really jive with concept of rational discussion.

Now I think we have to be careful, since rational arguments can be used in rhetoric oriented discussion. However, a rational discussion is not necessarily rhetoric oriented. Point in fact, I don't always or even usually engage in rational discussion to push someone else into my way of thinking. Usually, I engage to refine, test, and review my position, if I even have one, on a particular topic. Naturally, there is some advantage to discussing topics with people who have contrary viewpoints as they have the potential to bring the best arguments against my position. However, once someone starts reusing the same debunked arguments, the same reused canards, and repeats the same fallacies over and over, then the purpose for the use of invectives and insults becomes quite clear: it states,

What you have said and continue to say is incorrect, as has been stated concisely and completely. You are no longer contributing to the discussion in a useful manner, therefore you are a total shitbag asshole. Please come back when you have something relevant to add.

I suppose I could write this caveat every time I insult someone, but I'm not going to and I don't see any reason that I ought to do this.

The other, implicit half of the DBAD premise that I find shaky is this notion that "being a dick" in and of itself makes people stop listening to you. I have no doubt that it turns off proponents of DBAD, but no evidence other than "it's obvious" and "everybody knows it" has been offered for the general case.

At this point I would point out (as has been done many many times before) that "being a dick" is not synonymous with the ad hominem fallacy. I am on board with the notion that a statement like "You are a fuck therefore your position is wrong" is irrational. This is not on grounds of dickitude, but because it is an ad hom fallacy. I am specifically talking about "being a dick" in addition to making rational well-supported arguments.

In this case I can think of several active blogging skeptics and quite a number of meat-space skeptics who are not turned off by such behavior even when the "dickishness" is directed at them. They respond just fine to people who are assholes provided those people produce rational arguments. So, there is a counter-example to the general premise straight away leaving both extremes (i.e. everyone and no one be turned off by "dickisness") demonstratively false. So where does the middle ground lie?

The DBAD position seems to be that most people are turned off by dickishness and that no one is turned off by someone who is overly polite. This presents two problems. First, as I said above, there hasn't been any evidence presented that this is true. Second, is that politeness is subjective. Some people get offended if you don't spell god with a capital "G". Others might get offended if you don't refer to them as "sir" or if you don't show them respect they think they deserve. An anti-war activist may never respect a military man for being a soldier because they don't respect the job. A capitalist businessman may never respect a Marxist scholar. Should we all bend to give people every piece of respect they feel they ought to have out a disingenuous sense of "being nice"?

This is one of those points where I really don't have a solid position. I think that everyone needs to find a level on which they are comfortable on giving polite response. To use an analogy, one could always donate more to charity, but where would that leave you? The DBAD position seems to be that there ought to be a some minimal level of "charitable donation" which translates to a vague non-criteria of politeness. What makes it a non-criteria is the only way to know if you are complying is to have a DBAD proponent check it. To paraphrase the Judge from the 2LiveCrew obscenity case,' when I have the words written down in front of me I can hear the obscenities, but when I close my eyes and listen: it's just noise'. The whole criteria seems to be "I know it when I read it", which pretty much makes it a non-criteria.

At the end of the day even if we assume that "being a dick" needs some sort of justification, I still find the DBAD position, that a vague politeness pseudo-criteria must necessarily be followed, untenable. Not all discourse is rhetoric, and even if it was there is only anecdotal evidence to support their premise that "being a dick" makes people ignore you (or worse agree with you for the wrong reasons).

A mathematical refutation to the Ontological argument

2010-09-19T10:24:00.000-07:00

For those who do know what the Ontological argument is, brush up on it here. The TL;DR version is: God is the superlative of Awesome, it is more Awesome to be than not to be, therefore God be's.

Unfortunately for Anselm, it is pretty easy to show that an object having the superlative of a quality might not exist. The classic example is: what is the greatest rational number that is strictly less than 2? The answer is, of course, that there isn't one.

Proof: Suppose n exists in the rational numbers such that n is the biggest rational number that is strictly less than 2. Now consider (n+2)/2. Then, this number is rational, strictly bigger than n,and strictly less than 2. But this is a contradiction since we chose the biggest number strictly less than 2. Therefore no such n exists.

QED

Pretty straight forward right? We have falsified the premise that having a collection of objects with a quality implies the existence of an object with a superlative of said quality. Therefore, the Ontological argument does not follow, or is, more aptly, full of shit.

Better Living through 4chan #1: Memes are Checkable Refutations

2010-09-16T05:17:00.000-07:00

Some arguments are easier to refute through example rather than the process of argumentation. That is ,if we parallel the P-NP dichotomy, some arguments are easier to prove directly and some are easier to check. Take the cosmological argument, usually the first time anyone hears it takes a few minutes for it to be broken down, digested, and rejected. Even then, this is usually an intuitive notion of why it is wrong instead of a well laid out argument. Constructing a well-thought out argument takes a bit of time just to sort through the conflation and equivocation. However, take a look at this image via 4chan:

It speaks directly to the heart of the matter. Once you get that this is essentially the thrust of the cosmological argument then the contradiction and special pleading inherent in statement is readily apparent.

Batman Apologetics #1: Gotham City

2010-09-10T10:48:00.000-07:00

A flawed position that Batman deniers like to take up is the premise that Gotham City is a fictional city, that it doesn't exist. This of course is pure nonsense, and barely needs refuting for anyone who has read the biographical accounts of Bruce Wayne's life. But, just to be clear and set the record straight Gotham City does exist, only we call it New York City. There is plenty of direct evidence to this effect mostly arising from comparisons of the biographic archive to historical records.

The salient parallels are in the name itself. Gotham specifically refers to two places one in England and the other a neighborhood of New York. It is pretty clear from the language of the biographies that Bruce Wayne is American, so England is out. Not only that, but careful study of the imagery shows that people drive on the right-hand side of the road, so England is once again out of the picture so to speak. We had two viable options for which city Gotham city is and the analysis of the language patterns used and the cultural driving norms depicted clearly show that Gotham is New York City.

This comparison is just child's stuff that any casual reader can do. The real evidence comes from biographer Alan Moore, who recorded many of Gotham's historical events in his extensive research while writing his scholarly work Swamp Thing. He documents Gotham City's founding and its role in the revolutionary war: all of which directly parallel New York City. Some may claim coincidence, but it's a clear pattern matching other well regarded historical documents. Others claim that Moore falsified his research, and wrote a parallel history based on New York's. This is quite a heavy criticism, and there is no evidence that Moore is guilty of ever falsifying data. It is funny how supposed Batman deniers demand evidence, but are completely unwilling to provide evidence to support their ad hominem attacks against Moore.

From all this it is clear that Gotham City not only exist, but is in actuality New York City. The evidence continues to pile up against the deniers, but have faith. Batman is out there and protecting all our lives. It doesn't matter if deniers say he isn't real: he protects them just the same, cause that's the kind of superhero he is.

Dear Muscians and Singers Everywhere

2008-11-20T10:26:00.000-08:00

Please stop writing songs about how awesome music is.

We get it; you're muscians, and you're pro-music.

TKD Wipeout

2008-11-13T06:11:00.000-08:00

I've just started getting back into martial arts training. I've decided to expand my MA cultural horizons past the Bujinkan and am currently delving into TKD. I started on Tuesday at the Boilermaker TKD club. The atmosphere there was really great. People there were happy to accommodate a complete stranger (okay I did email ahead and ask to check out the club), and were enthusiastic about their training. It was a great first experience overall.

Despite it being my first day, and having near zero TKD experience, I ended participating in all of the reindeer games including the final exercise, flying jump kicks. Yes, We actually did flying jump kicks my first day in class. I performed okay. The flying jump kick is not terribly difficult if you understand how a sidekick works and how to jump. This is where I get an incredibly bad idea.

The point of a flying jump kick is to knock a rider off a horse. That's what it's for, but during practice we are kicking waist high into a pad. This is obviously not rider level even if they are mounted on a pony. I, in a moment of shear brilliance, decided to try for a lot of height on my next kick. So, I set when I jump, which is when you use your arms to add height. I jumped high enough that my kick clipped the very top of the pad, and spilled over. Of course, once my foot cleared the top of the pad there was no way I was going to get it back. The wipe out was pretty spectacular. I fell probably 4 feet in an awkward, sloppy breakfall onto a lovely hardwood floor. The rest of the club was momentarily concerned, but once they saw that I was okay they immediately broke into the "waiter dropping a rack of dishes" clap. It was like a mini rite of passage into the club, my first epic wipe out.

As a side note, the international organization for TKD is WTF, which is just hilarious.

Japanese (wa) superior language (desu) (ka)

2008-11-12T10:55:00.000-08:00

*caveat: I am a japanese student, not an expert*

Well no, not exactly. I feel that one particular grammatical struture is less prone to the equivocation that occurs when sophists try to demonstrate that fictional constructs are existant, like god. The stucture is the first learned and arguably the simplest strucutre in japanese.

A (wa) B (desu) *note I am using the romanized japanese

This translates to "A is a B". So, Apple (wa) fruit (desu) is "apple is a fruit". Now this isn't strictly limited to inclusive categories, but some context comes into play. The reverse, (sono) Fruit (wa) apple (desu) would be "that fruit is an apple" rather than "fruit is an apple".

All of this is relatively straight forward, but what is intersting is that this structure cannot be used to indicate location. "the apple is in the fridge" does not use this structure. Instead, the verb arimasu is used for existance. Why is this relevent? In english we genearlly use "to be" as a verb for classification and for one of existance, while in japanese the concept of "belonging to a category" and "existing" are grammatically seperate. Thus, the translation for apple (wa) fruit (desu) might better be translated as "apples belongs to the category of fruit" or "apples are classified as fruit".

I find this distinction to be useful in expressing a phrase like "god is unknowable" would be less prone to equivocation in japnaese. Due to the dual use of "to be", the english sentance leaves open the interpreation that "god exists as unknowable" rather than the interpreation "god belongs to the category of unknowable". The first interpreation suggests that god exists as a thing that is unknowable, while the second (hopefully) assigns the word to the category of unknowable.

Hiro Nakamura is a Rube

2008-10-14T08:47:00.000-07:00

Why does anyone like this guy? His inane aspirations to be a questing comic book hero have led him to be the most easily manipulated man in history. Seriously, Hiro will believe anything. If I ever met Hiro, this is how the conversation would go.

Me: Hiro! thank goodness you're here! The world is in great danger!

Hiro: Really?!

Me: Yes, you must save it!

Hiro: How do I do that?! I want to save za world!

Me: The only way it can be saved is if you bring me a cheese sandwich!

Hiro: Huh?!

Me: Trust me, it’s difficult to explain, and I know it makes no sense, but in order to save the world you must bring me a cheese sandwich, preferably one with bacon!

Hiro: OK! I will save za world! *Hiro runs off to fetch me a cheese sandwich with bacon*

Hiro is dumber than a dog that chases a ball you pretend to throw. He’ll do anything so long as you add “trust me, it will save the world”. He is the kid in school that fell for “if your hand is bigger than your face then you have cancer”, twice. He is the kid at scout camp that spent all week looking for a left-handed smoke shifter or a skyhook.

Ando probably killed him in the future because he kept bollocking everything up. On that note, writers, please give Ando lighting powers. That way, Ando can be the super hero and Hiro can be properly relegated to being the bungling side kick. His only job will be to chauffer Ando around so he can fry the shit out of people.

Office Cold Reading: Picking your dog by astrological sign

2008-08-22T13:43:00.000-07:00

Another treat from forwarded emails at the office. How to pick your dog via your astrological sign!

Aries
The American Staffordshire Terrier (Amstaff for short) is a confident dog that makes a very loyal and devoted companion for the Ram. They have a rep for being slightly aggressive - something you can relate to! - but your dedication to training them correctly will make all the difference in their demeanor. Amstaffs are very trusting and amiable but can be stubborn at times; however, if you assert yourself like a true Aries can, they'll be your compliant companions.

Taurus
Your ideal dog companion is the German Shepherd. This loyal and very intelligent breed is obedient and learns quickly, making them extremely easy to train; they also have a regal air about them that you admire. Some German Shepherds can be quite aloof and serious, like a lot of Taureans, but they are also known for being highly effective watchdogs, which helps put your security-conscious mind at ease.

Gemini
The quick and agile Border Collie fits your personality perfectly. Highly intelligent and trainable, the Border Collie has lots of stamina and determination. They're also eager to please and very quick to learn, which makes them easily trainable and adaptable to your ever-changing world. Border Collies need a high level of mental and physical stimulation, just like you do, which is why they make a great companion for on-the-go Gemini.

Cancer
The Labrador Retriever is your ideal dog, not only for its sweet-natured, loving, and loyal ways but also because they are wonderful family pets. Labs are extremely friendly and sociable with a mild manner and laid-back attitude, and because they love to join in a wide range of activities and have lots of love and affection to shower upon their family, they're the perfect companion to the family-centric Crab.

Leo
Grand in stature, the loyal and honorable Bullmastiff is your type of dog. This dog is huge, so you are sure to turn heads wherever you go, giving you both the attention you crave. But beyond their superficial appeal, they also have a great amount of loyalty and devotion and are cheerful, confident, and attentive pets - all characteristics that would make any Leo dog owner swell with pride.

Virgo
The noble-looking Weimaraner is perfect for the Virgo with discerning taste. Weimaraners are very strong-minded and independent dogs, and because they have boundless energy, they can really benefit from the punctual walks that most Virgo natives are willing to give them. Sticking to a precise schedule also helps keep these dogs away from destructive behaviors they are sometimes prone to; once they know that they can depend on you, you will be able to depend on them to reach their full potential.

Libra
Affectionate, gentle, and sweet, the Whippet is a charming dog with a peaceful demeanor. Whippets do like to run around and play, but they are also happy enjoying the creature comforts of home; this adaptability makes them more comfortable with your indecisiveness than other breeds may be. These dogs love the attention of their owners, enjoy interactive play, and will be sure to appreciate your creativity when it comes to finding activities you can enjoy together.

Scorpio
Perhaps, as a strong and powerful Scorpio, you don't picture yourself with any of the toy breeds, especially a Chihuahua, but you may be surprised to find that they are quite a good fit with the Scorpio personality. These little dogs are curious, full of confidence for their size, and they are very loyal to their families, demonstrating quite a jealous streak if another pet or person is getting more attention than they are. Sound familiar?

Sagittarius
You need a dog that will roll with the waves, one who is as happy at home as they are on a road trip with you, and that dog is a Golden Retriever. This breed is popular for many reasons, among them being their social personalities and real passion for life. If you're up for doing it, so are they! Just make sure to enroll them in doggie daycare or get them a human or canine companion if you are gone a lot and can't take them with you as these pups do not like to be left alone.

Capricorn
The Pug is tenacious and devoted but also has a cheerful way about him, much like the typical Capricorn. These dogs do not need a lot of grooming or maintenance and can get along fairly well without a big yard in which to frolic, which allows you to be a responsible dog owner and still keep your hectic work schedule. Although Pugs can be quite willful at times, they will respond well to your methodical training methods.

Aquarius
OK, so you aren't the most likely of all the Sun Signs to own a dog, but those of you who crave a dog to call your own will want to consider the gracious Rhodesian Ridgeback. This is a breed of intelligence, which you can appreciate, and is also very independent and willing to follow the road less traveled with you. Just keep in mind that they have very intense sight and sound triggers, so they will wander off if something stirs their curiosity

Pisces
Faithful, affectionate, and maybe just a little lazy, the Saint Bernard is a huge dog with a huge heart - in other words, your perfect pooch. Saint Bernards are typically very calm, quiet, patient, docile, and loyal, traits with which Fish can identify. These dogs do need the companionship of their owners and are not suited to people with hectic, busy schedules, but compassionate Pisces is more willing than any other sign to accommodate the Saint Bernard's needs.

Quotes from my mother

2008-08-01T06:38:00.000-07:00

Credulous Asshat: "Do you think a fetus has a soul?"

My Mother: "I know full grown people that don't have souls."

Martial Ineptitude: Weight Lifting

2008-07-30T12:35:00.000-07:00

The Bujinkan* is pretty diverse organization, but as it is a coherent unit there are certain themes that run through the teaching practices. Some of these themes are constructive abstracts that provide tools for learning the art, while others are sloppy constructs that have lost whatever original meaning they possessed and spawn practices that are detrimental to ones martial development. One such practice is the perpetuation of the myth that weight lifting is bad for taijutsu**.

The paraphrased explanation goes something like, ‘It’s good that you don’t lift weights, because lifting weights causes tension in the body and loss of flexibility. Tension will keep you from using your bodies’ natural strength to its full effectiveness.’ That’s it, that’s the whole explanation, and one that I’ve heard multiple times from shihan***.

Now there is a term in there that does deserve some scrutiny as it is specific Bujinkan jargon, tension. Tension is a vague abstract that used as a sort of boogie man for Bujinkan students, and if you attend a class you will hear the instructor invoking relaxation as an anathema to tension. It is the Bujinkan equivalent of the dreaded lurgy.

But what is tension exactly? How is it explained? My take on tension is that tension exists when one is contracting a muscle one didn’t mean to contract, or rather having the habit of contracting the wrong muscles at the wrong time. Not a bad concept, perhaps a bit over-generalized, but it can give a student an idea of where the problem lies and where to pay attention when practicing. Unfortunately, this is not how tension is portrayed. Tension is generally taught as contracting any muscles at all. Some instructors are so into the idea of removing tension that they claim a person can stand without using any muscle tension at all; relying solely on the strength of their tendons to support their weight.

This ‘tension as not contracting muscles’ concept seems to be the culprit behind discouraging weight training. The reasoning once the premise is accepted is pretty straight forward:

1. contracting muscles is bad in principle
2. weight lifting is the practice of contracting muscles
3. weight lifting is bad in principle

While it is true that loss of flexibility can occur due to weight training; it is also true that your car can break down if you don’t your oil. Point being that loss of flexibility can be readily avoided by stretching and moderating how much bulk you choose to gain. In fact, I am probably more flexible since I have started weight training, owing to stretching more often.

What can weight training do for taijutsu? It can reduce tension or at least tension as I define it. Lifting weights, despite seeming a simple exercise, takes a fair amount of concentration and knowledge. It requires that the lifter pay attention and develop good muscular contraction habits in supporting and actuating a load. It requires the lifter to pay attention to balance and skeletal alignment (two other, more positive themes prevalent in the Bujinkan). Assuming the lifter stretches, it will likely indirectly increase flexibility as well.

*The Bujinkan is an organization of samurai and ninja schools head by Masaaki Hatsumi in Noda City, Japan.

**Taijutsu is the specific name of the unarmed combat practiced by the Bujinkan.

***Shihan is a title used to describe members of the Bujinkan that are ranked at or above 10th degree black belt.

Cold Reading by Dessert

2008-07-29T06:17:00.000-07:00

This is a copy of an email that has been going around my workplace. It's an interesting exercise in coldreading.

*****

Now don't cheat on this one, go with the first dessert you choose! If all of the eight desserts listed below were sitting in front of you, which would you choose (sorry, you can only pick one)! Trust me...this is very accurate. Pick your dessert, and then look tosee what psychiatrists think about you. After taking this dessert personality test, send this e-mail on to others, but when you do, be sure to put your choice of dessert in the subject box above. ALSO, SEND IT TO THE PERSON WHO SENT IT TO YOU.DON'T FORGET TO CHANGE YOUR DESSERT CHOICE IN THESUBJECT BOX BEFORE YOU FORWARD IT.

Here are your choices:
1. Angel Food Cake
2. Brownies
3. Lemon Meringue Pie
4. Vanilla Cake With Chocolate Icing
5. Strawberry Short Cake
6. Chocolate Cake With Chocolate Icing
7. Ice Cream
8. Carrot Cake

No, you can't change your mind once you scroll down ,so think carefully what your choice will be. OK - Now that you've made your choice, this is whatthe researchers say about you... SCROLL DOWN---No Cheating!

1. ANGEL FOOD CAKE -- Sweet, loving, cuddly. You love all warm and fuzzy items. A little nutty at times. Sometimes you need an ice cream cone at the end of the day. Others perceive you as being child-like and immature at times.

2. BROWNIES -- You are adventurous, love new ideas, and are a champion of underdogs and a slayer of dragons. When tempers flare up you whip out your saber. You are always the oddball with a uniquesense of humor and direction. You tend to be very loyal.

3. LEMON MERINGUE -- Smooth, sexy, & articulate with your hands, you are an excellent caregiver and a good teacher. But don't try to walk and chew gum at the same time. A bit of a diva at times, you set your own style because you do your own thing. You shine when it comes to helping others and have many friends.

4. VANILLA CAKE WITH CHOCOLATE ICING -- Fun-loving, sassy, humorous, very grounded in life; very decisive and full of motivation. Everyone enjoys being around you, but you are a practical joker. Others should be cautious in making you mad. However, you are a friend for life.

5. STRAWBERRY SHORTCAKE -- Romantic, warm, loving. You care about other people, can be counted on in apinch and expect the same in return. Intuitively keen. You can be very emotional at times, but a true person in every way. You like to do things for yourself and help others learn about themselves.

6. CHOCOLATE CAKE WITH CHOCOLATE ICING -- Sexy; always ready to give and receive. Very creative , adventurous, ambitious, and passionate. You can appear to have a cold exterior but are warm on the inside. Not afraid to take chances. Will not settle for anything average in life. Love to laugh.

7. ICE CREAM -- You like sports, whether it bebaseball, football, basketball, or soccer. If you could, you would like to participate, but you enjoy watching sports. You don't like to give up the remote control. You tend to be self-centered and high maintenance.

8. CARROT CAKE -- You are a very fun loving person ,who likes to laugh. You are fun to be with. People like to hang out with you. You are a very warmhearted person and a little quirky at times. You have many loyal friends. You were meant to lead and teach others. A wonderful role model.

*****

All of the choices have enough diverse aspects to apply to a wide range of people, and they certainly contain things that people would like to be true.

Mapping the Rhetorical Landscape: Pascal's Wager

2008-07-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

Pascal’s Wager, we’ve all heard it, considered it and refuted it. Despite the solid debunking Pascal’s argument has received, it still continues it continues to be brought up again and again by theist apologists. I have seen a recent rash of PW pop up in the last week over the intrawebs and meatspace. In fact, a friend of mine just had her mother pull it on her, and even after (what I assume) was a lengthy explanation her mother still thought it was a good argument for believing in God. Some would say that this sort of behavior is born out of a stubbornness or idiocy in refusing to see how blatantly full of shit PW is, and to some extent I agree. However, I feel that the issue goes deeper than just theists refusing to admit their argument sucks. I think there is a rift between theists and atheists in the rhetorical landscape on which the grounds for this argument are made. The exformation of theists and atheists is not congruent.

Let's look at skeptics first. When I hear PW come up I loosely translate it to "what if this shit I made up is true?" The part I focus on is the "shit I made up", meaning that a fictional hypothetical situation is being discussed. I might as well be discussing questions about the consequences of Batman beating up Superman. Having such discussions can be entertaining, but any conclusions derived, like the premises, are entirely fictional. The atheists exformation clearly places the premises (and therefore the conclusions) of the argument in the fictional section of the rhetorical landscape.

Theist exformation is entirely different. God exists in reality, for the theist, as assuredly as the sun rises in the east every morning and sets in the west every evening. They operate off the implicit notion that God is a very real part of the world. PW is not so much about arguing whether God does or does not exist, but damage control for atheists who live in world where God is determined to exist. I would liken a theist approach to PW as to a parent lecturing a child as to why you should treat a skinned knee. The argument would go something like this:

' You skinned your knee, and there is a chance that it will get infected if you do nothing. If you don't clean it with alcohol and put a bandage on, then it may get infected. It might not get infected if you do nothing, but why take the chance? Therefore the only reasonable course of action is to clean the knee with alcohol and put a bandage on it.'

In this analogy the atheist argument would be akin to arguing that perhaps the bacteria would be good bacteria that made you superstrong or that bacteria might not even exist. God is as real to the theist worldview as germs (in some cases even more real), so notions about other gods, no gods, or even a God who doesn't send heathens to burn in hell seems as ridiculous as suggesting a bacteria that would give someone superpowers.

I've Been to the Moutain Top

2008-07-01T17:33:00.000-07:00

Ontological Proof of God: It's just a tautology.

2008-06-25T08:46:00.000-07:00

The God Delusion was not my first encounter with the ontological argument for God, but it was the most thorough explanation. Yet, Dawkins never gets to the point of precisely why it is a bunk argument. The problem has since been on my mental back-burner for a few months now, and I came up with a few reasoning's similar to Skatje's reasoning. Most recently (thanks oddly to LOLcats) it occurred to me why the argument is bunk: it is proof by tautology.

Now before we get into specifics we should re-look at what at tautology, as we skeptics tend to jump the gun on what it actually is. Skepdic (so much as I could find) refers only to a tautology of logic, which is a statement that cannot be false. This is true, but it is also incomplete. If we look at Merriam and Webster or Wikipedia we see that a tautology is also a rhetorical device that essentially says the same thing twice. One might give the example of ATM machine, but I prefer to go with a LOLcat.

The ontological argument in a nutshell is:

God is perfect
It is more perfect to exist than to not exist.
Therefore God exists

This is tautological because it by defining the word ‘perfect’ as including existence we can re-write the statement as follows.

God is perfect --> God exists plus some other stuff.

So in essence what the ontological ‘argument’ says is:

God exists plus some other stuff.
Therefore God exists.

It asserts the same thing twice and no ‘proof’ ever actually occurs.

At this point the following objection might be raised. It isn’t a tautology; it is a syllogism. Are you saying syllogisms are tautologies? The subtle distinction between tautology and syllogism in this case is where the ontological argument makes all of its bank, but the ontological argument is not a syllogism.

The distinguishing feature between a syllogism and a tautology is the premises. Any premise in a syllogism may be rejected, rendering it false, which prevents it from being properly classified as a logical tautology. The syllogistic structure could be considered tautological in the rhetorical sense, as it ends up saying the same thing twice. However, it is more the point of a syllogism that stating the premises is the same as stating the conclusion rather than the mechanism by which it functions. So what about the ontological argument?

For sure, the ontological argument has the aesthetic structure of a syllogism, but that is where the similarity ends. The ‘premises’ are not really premises at all. The statements are drawn from the internal definitions of the words. When the ontological argument refers to ‘God’ it refers to a being that is perfect. When the ontological argument refers to ‘perfect’ it refers to having the quality of existence. These statements are not allowed to be rejected in the ‘proof’ as they are intrinsic to the definitions, thus giving the argument the property of always being true, a logical tautology.

I’ll admit, the ontological argument is clever. It works off the idea that if something is dumped into a logical looking structure, then it is somehow imbued with truth, which of course is nonsense. All the syllogistic structure does is to say if I say that ‘x’ -> ‘y’ and ‘y’ -> ‘z’ then I can say ‘x’ -> ‘z’ and still be making the same point and maintain the same truth value of the original statements, whatever it may be.

The world's 'first Christian church'

2008-06-12T06:16:00.000-07:00

There has been a few articles floating around in the news about the unearthing of 'the first Christian church' by Real Sciency Archaeologists (tm). In particular, found by one Abdel-Qader al-Housan, head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies. Oddly, I wasn't able to find much except in reference to this 'discovery'.

Anyways, here are the basic claims that are being made.
1. A cave was found under the current oldest know church, St.George's Church which was supposedly built around 230 AD.
2. This cave was an ancient christian place of hiding/worship for 70 disciples of Jesus Christ who were hiding from the Romans around 33-70 AD.

Actually evidence from the site used to support these claims.

1. Pottery (found in the cave I imagine) dating to the 3rd through 7th century.
2. A mosaic in St. George's Church referring to 70 worshipers who were apparently well regarded by God.

So, one of these pieces of evidence isn't actually from the site, but from a building that was actually built after the site in question, and the second piece of evidence suggests that St. George's Church was actually built much later than 230 AD. Granted, I don't have access to all of the site data, but based on these pieces of 'evidence' I find the claims made laughable. It is always amazing to me that people who consider themselves credible scientists are capable of making such outlandish and unsupported statements.

Revamping the Blog

2008-05-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

I was unsure of the direction to take my blog when I first began writing. To get started I naturally copied the style from several blogs that I enjoyed reading, but I am ready to move on.

I've archived all my old posts as drafts, so they won't be accessible on the blog. My reason behind this is one of self-classification. My older posts are of a style and topic tha I want to get away from, so I feel a necessity in removing their content from the whole blog project. Unfortuantly, I wasn't able to save the comments in the archiving process, so I apologize to anyone whose comments I have since deleted.