#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
This one is a solo job, and as I intimated before, should serve as sufficient evidence explaining why I don’t aspire to radio stardom. Henceforth, I’m going to go to an every other week schedule, which should give me enough time to offload some of the production work to the Ilk who volunteered and actually schedule interviews before the last minute. But there still might be some useful things to consider here in the fifth podcast.
Recommended Reading:
I’m sure all the TENS enthusiasts won’t be at all reluctant to abandon their little theory now:
Theory predicts that it should be impossible for any species to survive in such circumstances. According to Muller’s Ratchet, a law devised by Hermann Joseph Muller, an American biologist, without the genetic reshuffling of sexual reproduction, an asexual population will accumulate mutations which over many generations should spell its doom.
The Amazon molly defies that analysis. After devising mathematical models which describe the evolutionary process, researchers at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh calculated that the fish, which has a life cycle of a year, should have died out 50,000 years ago.
One thing that is annoying about evolutionists is the way that many of them declare they would be happy to abandon it if it were falsified. But every time a genuine falsification is produced, the theory is promptly respun sans substantive modification in such a manner as to dance around the previous falsification. Does anyone truly believe that a single TENS believer would abandon the faith if Haldane’s proverbial rabbit fossils in the Precambrian were found? There are many different reasons that the Molly fish may not, in fact, falsify the theory. But is there a single evolutionary adherent who will disavow it in the absence of those reasons? I doubt it… because it is first and foremost a matter of faith, not science.
Dr Myers, meanwhile, points out that evolution only requires 30 generations. So, now we’ve got a good falsification model for testing a hypothesis based on the theory. Given the reproductive cycles of rats, we can have conclusive proof or falsification of evolutionary theory within five years by seeing if we can turn rats into cud-chewing herbivores or not.
Evolution created something new, and it did it quickly (about 30 generations), and the appearance was documented. It’s still just a lizard, but we expected nothing else — and it’s now a lizard with novel adaptations for herbivory.
I look forward to the innovative excuses offered for why we can’t actually test the model’s predictions….
MVO has a question:
My wife and I homeschool a 14-year-old. He wants to be a video game designer. The lot falls to me to teach him programming. I’m marginally proficient in html with a little java script. I program cnc machinery as part of my job. What is the natural progression of programming languages I should introduce him to?
Flash then Java then C++? I don’t know, not being a programmer myself. It’s probably worth noting that there are fewer professional game designers than NFL players, but good programmers seldom find it hard to find a job.
The Texas kidnapping outrage grows ever more surreal:
CPS spokesman Darrell Azar said it doesn’t matter if the original call turns out to be a hoax. “What matters is what we found there. We found a number of children as young as 13 who were being married and were giving birth to children and who were sexually abused and the judge agreed,” Azar said…. In a sign of continuing chaos surrounding the case, DFPS on Monday revised the number of children in protective custody from 416 to 437.
Translation: We can’t count the number of children properly, but we guarantee the rest of the evidence we obtained as the result of a fraudulent, anonymous telephone call is rock solid.
I’d be surprised if a single criminal charge was filed as a result of this outrage except possibly against the original phone caller… although the CPS agents and the judge certainly should be put on trial for kidnapping, among other things.
Brussels eliminates England on St. George’s Day:
The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries. The “Manche” region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales.
The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany. A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the “Channel Sea”…. German ministers claimed that the plan was about “underlying the goal of a united Europe” to “permanently overcome old borders” at a time when the “Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum”.
In the course of history, there are few things more common than a smaller political entity being swallowed up and its identity subsumed by a larger one. What happened to Burgundy and Castille and Athens is happening to England today, the only difference is that the English people don’t fully realize it yet. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for them already, or it will be once the European ConstitutionLisbon Treaty comes into effect.
Again, I repeat the statement I first made in 2003. Hillary Clinton will be the next president. Those who point out that she can’t win because she can’t get enough delegates don’t understand that the entire purpose of the superdelegates is to shut down the democratic primary process:
With neither candidate able to get the 2,025 delegates needed to win the party’s nomination, tonight’s win in Pennsylvania will bolster Clinton’s argument to superdelegates — the 795 Democratic party officials and members of Congress who may ultimately decide the nomination.
The fact that Obama has more delegates is totally irrelevant. He can’t get enough to win, so the matter goes to the superdelegates. They are not about to put their bets and connections to central power on such an obvious loser in November. Winning 95 percent of the black vote isn’t going to make up for getting slaughtered by whites and Hispanics, who simply will not support an elitist African supremacist with a gift for both oratory and untimely gaffes. Obama was supposed to give Hillary a run for her money and make her look electable; now that he has accomplished that and even some Republicans see her as the least of three evils, her accession to the Cherry Blossom Throne is all but guaranteed.
In case you still haven’t grasped The Narrative, they’ll even spell it out for you: Hillary Clinton has her Rocky Balboa moment in Pennsylvania.
Happy LeninEarth Day!
Any time a reporter uses expressions like “indisputably” and “vast majority” you should be nervous, of course, but after you’re done being nervous, you should ask to see the Greenpeace or Environmental Defense Fund press release they cribbed the assertion from. As for me, one of the virtues of age is that I can readily remember other times, not that long ago, when “the vast majority of scientists” assured us with equal conviction that we were “indisputably” on the brink of a new ice age, or that we would “indisputably” run out of oil by the year 1985, or that the Great Plains were about to become a vast desert with consequent global famines, or that by the year 2000 we would have a world population of over 20 billion souls all fighting tooth and claw for what little food and water remained, or my personal favorite, that we were “indisputably” about to run out of mineable copper, which would result in the complete collapse of all industrial economies based on electricity and electronics.
If you don’t understand the connection between Vladimir Lenin and Earth Day, try to see if you can come up with an expansion of central state power NOT supported by the so-called environmentalists. Scratch a green deeply enough and you’ll almost invariably find that they’re red on the inside. This is, of course, ironic considering what the Russian and Chinese Communists managed to do to the environment.
If you want to protect the environment, buy land and leave it alone. That’s about all you can reasonably do. But don’t think that having the government buy it for you is a reasonable substitute, as that’s about the most effective way to guarantee that it will be pillaged without mercy by the best-connected interest.
Apparently I’m to be on Sirius Satellite’s Mike Church show at 11:30 EST, in case you’re interested.
An inconvenient Lenin Day interview:
Lopez: What Denier fact could be characterized as most inconvenient for Al Gore?
Solomon: The claim that there is a consensus on climate change. This claim is based on the media’s often repeated claim that the 2000 to 2500 scientists associated with the UN’s panel endorsed the U.N.’s report. In fact, as the Secretariat of the UN panel told me, those 2500 scientists are merely reviewers of some of the hundreds of input studies that went into the mix. They endorsed nothing. There is no consensus and there never has been.
Lopez: But still, the U.N.’s work was peer reviewed, even if some of the peer reviewers disagreed.
Solomon: No, the science in the U.N. reports was not peer reviewed, as it is usually understood. As some of my deniers point out in proper scientific peer reviews the identities of the peer reviewers are kept secret, so that they can be free to make critical comments about the science without fear of recrimination. In the U.N.’s peer review, the reviewers must identify themselves to the scientists they are critiquing, discouraging many from expressing themselves frankly. It gets worse than that, though.
In a normal peer-review process, the critiques from the reviewers are public. If a scientist decides to reject a critique, he must justify his refusal. In the U.N. peer-review process, the system is turned on its head. The scientists don’t need to explain themselves. They can ignore the criticisms and no one will be able to assess if the criticism was rejected for a valid reason. The U.N.’s version of peer review does not meet the standard of professional science.
Now, I’m skeptical enough about the utility of peer review, which in many cases is little more than editing. But this fake peer review of the UN’s process makes the claims of an overwhelming “scientific consensus” in favor of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis even more laughable.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Just how bad would the ongoing global recession be if the Kyoto Treaty had actually been globally implemented as the greens were demanding?
Jerry Pournelle considers the near-phobic reaction to intelligent design and points out a few uncomfortable historical truths about relying on the wisdom of the scientific experts. I note that I raised a similar point in TIA regarding the total absurdity of worrying about science education in a school system that can’t produce graduates that are both numerate and literate.
As to teaching “intelligent design” in schools, it doesn’t happen often. The real question is who shall decide? Local school boards, or experts? And be very careful how you answer, because there are a number of propositions of far greater practical import, such as IQ, and phonics vs. “whole word” methods of teaching children to read English, and such like that have been imposed from above by the experts on the grounds that local bumpkins shouldn’t have control since we, the experts, know what the right answers are; and we don’t want public money wasted on teaching nonsense like phonics, and having children learn the addition and multiplication tables when every expert knows that The New Math, or Fuzzy Math, is a far, far better way to teach arithmetic… And that it is far more important to have diversity in history textbooks than to have very much about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Etc….
What I don’t understand is the passion on suppressing intelligent design in the name of science. Some readers are convinced that the end of the Republic is at hand if one school district, anywhere, decides to mandate intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution. Given that the entire state of California forbade the teaching of English as a phonetic language for more than a dozen years, and still has very few teachers who understand how to teach that, which is the greater danger?
A molecular biologist writes in response:
“PLEASE don’t use my name or affiliation here on this topic—I learned long ago that I do not have a right to my own opinion in science! At least on this subject.
I very much appreciated your comments regarding the Intelligent Design – Aggressive Atheist battle royale. Your comments were nuanced and careful. This is not a new subject, and people like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris seem to feel that their own insights are fresh. Ah…not so much. But then, they aggressively dislike religion, so theological debates over the past thousand years are not part of their worldview!
Most of all—and this is something that both the IDers and AAs miss—you show humility about what you do not know. In fact, you show it regarding what humans *can* know.
The ID/fundamentalists only posit a Creator who acts in ways that make sense to people, with human motivations (and yes, some folks like Hoyle—RIP, a great man—did not fit into this category). I’m back with Greg Benford about that: “The thing about aliens is, they’re alien.” The same thing holds true for deities. We *cannot* understand the universe from quanta to quasars, genes to galaxies. At least not now.
The AAs fit the same mold. I know better than Dawkins about the limitations of evolutionary thought on a molecular level (he is not a molecular biologist, as I am). Yet his pride shows in every syllable. The Greeks had a word for this: hubris.
None of this is new, and you have a great deal to contend with at present. All I am saying is that both “sides” miss the point: we should be humble about ourselves and our place in the universe. We cannot *know* if a Creator exists. We can only *believe* if one exists, or does not. And we should definitely be humble about our own tools to probe the universe—they are sparse and primitive.
The Fundamentalists who say the most ignorant things about evolution are wrong on their side. And Dawkins and Myers and their ilk, who dare to call people of faith “stupid” (while their own atheism requires as much faith as any snake handling fundamentalist), revolt me…. All that being said, no scientist dares write what I just did above without serious consequences.”
The thing that most people don’t realize about Dawkins and Myers – to say nothing of their ilk, who are no match for the Dread Ilk, by whom they are significantly outgunned in most literal sense – is that the two men simply aren’t particularly intelligent. Seriously, the odds are very, very slim that either of them have an IQ deviating more than 2SD from the norm and both are demonstrably historical ignoramuses. By the time we finish with Thucydides here, I think I can safely promise that every single participant will know more history in far greater detail than PZ does, and while Dawkins had the benefit of a better and broader education, he clearly hasn’t done any significant reading in history since he left Hogwarts. They are both nearly flawless specimens of the overspecialized academic who is almost entirely useless outside his chosen field, which is why they embarrass themselves so reliably whenever they attempt to sally forth outside it. Face it, if you can’t figure out that the Dicky-D rap is a harsh slam on scientific arrogance, you’re simply not that bright.
The combination of moderate intelligence with a lack of a broad knowledge base means they have no ability to argue convincingly on matters outside biology; they can do little more than preach to the godless choir and thump the pulpit while loudly shouting how stupid everyone who doesn’t agree with them is. Their expressed distaste for debate and discourse isn’t born of a genuine contempt for their critics, but rather, a perfectly legitimate fear of their own intellectual shortcomings being unmasked. Consider this: despite being a mere opinion columnist, I have always been completely willing to engage in direct critical discourse with those I attack, even on intellectual ground of their choosing. PZ, on the other hand, has attacked me numerous times in the past, but has never once offered anything more substantive than baseless ad hominem attacks and meaningless insults. He’d much rather complain about his inability to sneak uninvited into a movie than defend any of his numerous theses about religion, politics, the perils facing science, or anything else.
Scientistry can’t reasonably be described as a religion proper, but it has certainly made a cult of itself in recent years. And like most cults, its adherents shriek like butchered pigs when their mindless assumptions are violated by questions.