Author: VD

Here’s something I’ve been thinking about which is probably better suited to some of my critics like Pharyngula and Orac. And I’m not attempting to lay some sort of ambush or anything, I’m merely considering a question that revolves around something that is generally of far more interest to them than to me.

The first question is: What is the best definition of science? To me, the OED definition is: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. — ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.”

This seems perfectly workable to me, but I’ve noticed that people often bring up a second definition revolving around the concept of falsifiability. But can Popper’s concept of falsifiability really be taken very seriously as a dividing point between science and not-science? It seems somewhat flawed to me. Let me begin with postulating that while the language of the gods is not proper science, whereas the color of swans is.

The classic example of a falsifiable proposition is “all swans are white”. The fact that one could prove this proposition to be wrong by observing a black swan therefore makes it falsifiable and therefore a matter of science.

However, is not the proposition “all gods speak Aramaic” equally falsifiable, given that the theoretical observation of a Greek-speaking god would falsify the proposition and therefore make divine linguistics a legitimate matter of science?

The obvious response is to say, “well, we can’t observe gods”, but the same inability to observe was also true of any number of things for which we today have instruments capable of performing observations. For example, stating “all light from 7.5 x 1014 – 3 x 1017 Hz is purple” would have been an equally non-falsifiable proposition and therefore not science prior to Man’s ability to detect and measure ultraviolet.

So, it would seem to me that either one would have to admit that such things were not properly considered to be scientific matters until the point at which observation became possible, or that divine linguistics actually is a legitimate field of science.

Now, Popper presumably would describe this as “naive falsification” and put swans in the category approved by sophisticated methodological falsification and divine linguistics in the one not approved by it. But by this point, falsifiability has become a fairly haphazard definition which verges on tautology, defining science as whatever scientists believe science to be at the moment.

Anyhow, I have to assume I’m missing something here in this particular contemplation of the wheel, so I’d welcome any comments correcting my thinking here or, better yet, a more precise and universally acceptable definition of science.

Yet another reason:

My latest book, American Vertigo, is an account of a journey I took through the US. I wrote it because I thought that for a European intellectual there was nothing more important than to understand what was happening in America, to go and tell the Americans what was wrong with their society.

This is the sort of “intellectual” whose ass I’d like to kick, then explain to him that the ass-kicking was actually a metaphorical piece of performance art intended to raise consciousness about the suppression of the French language by the global English hegemony and that anyone who is not honored to have played a vital role in such an important, revolutionary speaking of truth to power must be a complete Philistine.

Of course, he isn’t actually wrong. There is nothing more important than for a French intellectual than to take a vacation in America, albeit because there isn’t anything of any significance whatsoever that actually requires the participation of French intellectuals. Regardless, few things give me more pleasure than being handed the opportunity to go through the following exchange:

French guy pontificating: “Americans, of course, only speak English. Did you know that only one in ten billion Americans even have a passport?”

VD: “Actually I speak Italian. And German.”

French guy: “Really? But you don’t speak French?”

VD: “Why on Earth would I want to do that? Hey look! A snail!”

The evidence very strongly suggests that Rick Warren, like Ted Haggard, is a model example of the wolf in sheep’s clothing that the Apostle Paul warned against. If you have any ties to Saddleback or a church that follows a Purpose-Driven program, I’d recommend severing them.

From Joseph Farah’s column today:

It was in the context of our debate over Warren’s characterization of Syria as a “moderate” country that provides religious freedom to Christians that I suggested the media’s favorite mega-pastor should have sought counsel from someone like me – a Christian journalist of Syrian and Lebanese heritage who has covered and analyzed the Middle East for the last 25 years.

Warren explained, somewhat condescendingly, that he had counseled with the National Security Council and the White House, as well as the State Department, before his little pilgrimage to Damascus.

”In fact,” Warren added, ”as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and Oxford Analytica, I might know as much about the Middle East as you.”

I hadn’t asked about the CFR. I didn’t use thumbscrews to pry this information out of him. He volunteered this bombshell in a written communication.

But there’s something deeply disturbing I have learned about Warren: He generally tells people what they want to hear. And evidently he didn’t realize how alienating news of his membership in the CFR would be to many in his own flock.

So what did he do?

He and his staff have revised history – or their story, anyway.

Now, according to an e-mail from John Mogush, his assistant at Saddleback, his boss was just confused.

“Pastor Rick is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations,” he wrote one concerned constituent. “He was asked to become a member, but declined. If you can tell me where it was written, we will respond to them.”

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the organized Evangelical Church is almost as bad, in it’s own way, as the Episcopalian Church.

For some, it is time to decide to where your loyalties lie, with a particular organization or Jesus Christ.

I think it’s time for Americans to begin sitting down for the national anthem. Perhaps while holding aloft two middle fingers as a remembrance of the “don’t tread on me” motto of the time when Americans really were free:

John Gilmore’s splendid isolation began July 4, 2002, when, with defiance aforethought, he strolled to the Southwest Airlines counter at Oakland Airport and presented his ticket.

The gate agent asked for his ID.

Gilmore asked her why.

It is the law, she said.

Gilmore asked to see the law.

Nobody could produce a copy. To date, nobody has. The regulation that mandates ID at airports is “Sensitive Security Information.” The law, as it turns out, is unavailable for inspection.

I suspect that law can probably be found in the bathroom with the “Beware of the Leopard” sign, along with bypass construction plans the North American Union agreement and the list of fraternities on double-secret probation.

BAJ draws an intriguing analogy:

People argue against the existence of God by claiming that a belief in God is not logical. Atheists attempt to dismiss God by claiming that God exists only in the mind.

Consider that numbers exist only within the mind. But can numbers be dismissed? Without numbers – the thought ephemera that allows us to make measurements (among other things) – people can’t produce anything tangible. Belief in the existence of numbers has allowed humans to do the jobs of building things, flying to the Moon and creating new console games.

Given the importance of the acceptance of the the fiction of numbers, I wonder: does it matter if God exists only within the mind? Without God – the unassailable bastion of righteousness demanding moral behavior (among other things) – civilization would never have been established. Belief in the existence of God has inspired humans to do the jobs of creating laws, establishing rights and treating decently those who might be called useless.

I had a similar utilitarian notion about the concept of “money”, but considering the way fictional money has been used to impose servitude on so many people, I thought I’d probably be shooting myself in the foot with that particular analogy.

BAJ’s argument appears to be rather less self-damaging from that perspective, any mathmeticians here who might like to take a crack at it? I imagine Derbyshire would have something to say about it.

David Frum explains the train of thought behind a presidential speech:

a) Tyranny leads to resentment.

b) Resentment breeds ideologies that excuse murder.

c) Murderers will seek the deadliest weapons they can find.

d) Those weapons can threaten the American homeland.

e) Therefore: American security requires the US to help defeat tyranny and promote freedom in other lands.

(a) and (b) are true. However, the chain breaks down at (c), as this is demonstrably untrue. Murderers almost never seek the deadliest weapons they can find, but rather, make use of those which come most easily to hand. A fifty-caliber Desert Eagle is far deadlier than a cheap 9mm or bare hands, but more people are murdered by 9mm and bare hands than by large caliber weaponry.

Since (c) is false, the chain is broken, (d) and (e) are therefore false and need not be considered.

It’s not surprising that the administration is incapable of basic logic, but it’s interesting to see one of its crudely constructed arguments laid out so clearly by a former participant in the process.

…to pay the bills, anyway. This study purports to offer some scientific explanation for why so many women claim that they just want to meet a nice guy while simultaneously throwing themselves at every biker, rocker wannabee or all-around jerk who happens to cross their path:

Overwhelmingly, participants said those with more masculine features were likely to be risky and competitive and also more apt to fight, challenge bosses, cheat on spouses and put less effort into parenting. Those with more feminine faces were seen as good parents and husbands, hard workers and emotionally supportive mates.

Despite all the negative attributes, when asked who they would choose for a short-term relationship, women still selected the more masculine looking men.

It’s not exactly surprising. Of course, men do precisely the same thing when they pursue spunky, high-maintenance pain-in-the-posteriors instead of submissive nice girls who want children and a family life. The main difference is that most of these men don’t want to get married or settle down, while all of the women lamenting the nonexistence of nice guys in their lives claim to.

I have little sympathy for any guy dumb enough to date, let alone marry, any woman who can reasonably be described as “spunky”. If you enjoy constant fighting over really petty things, hey, go for it.

By the same token, no sane girl should ever waste her time with guys who are “exciting”. Such men will usually provide far more excitement than any reasonable woman seeks in her life. But if you don’t mind finding out that he’s got four other girls on a string, hey, go for it.

In case some of the slower readers need it spelled out for them… you can’t draw some sort of bright line between “short-term” and “long-term” relationships, since the short-term always turns into the long-term over time.

Interesting games yesterday. The Colts got through, but Manning was typically underwhelming as is his wont in the postseason. Three interceptions after only throwing nine in the previous sixteen games doesn’t bode well for a matchup with the Ravens. The Colts defense did a nice job of containing Larry Johnson, although Herm Edwards and the Chiefs offensive coordinator were equally important in keeping Kansas City from getting anywhere on offense.

Not the greatest game, I told the WB that it was game over after the Chiefs came away with no points from Ty Law’s first interception return. Harrison may have caused that INT, but he did a great job getting back to keep Law out of the end zone, foreshadowing Babineaux’s amazing play on Romo. Both plays were great lessons on how crucial it is to keep playing, especially given the way Gramatica could have given Romo the step he needed if he’d only slowed Babineaux down a half-second.

And speaking of the NFC game, I’ve never been a big Mike Holmgren fan, but I thought the Walrus outcoached the Tuna last night. I liked his decision to go for the touchdown instead of kicking the field goal, that safety that resulted from the failed TD shot wasn’t mere luck, it was a reasonable possibility given the fact that he was handing the ball over to what is essentially a rookie quarterback on the one yard line in the fourth quarter of a playoff game. That was a better play than taking the field goal and hoping for a defensive stop with Dallas starting from the 35.

Drew Bledsoe even called that safety before it happened in his live blog of the game.

Parcells, in my opinion, made a serious mistake in going for the field goal, although not because Romo happened to botch the hold. Even though Dallas had successfully drawn all of Seattle’s timeouts, handing the ball over to Hasselbeck with 1:30 and hoping that his underwhelming secondary is going to keep the Seattle offense from driving the forty yards they’d need for the game winner was simply not a good probability play.

I’ve noticed that NFL coaches, even the good ones, often lack the ability to go for the kill after they’ve put themselves in a position to take it. Seattle was definitely the better team last night, and without the good fortune of the first playoff kick return in Dallas history, the Cowboys aren’t even in the game at the end. If you get that last shot, you have to take it!

Going for it on fourth-and-goal to force Seattle to go 65 yards to score a TD in 90 seconds instead of 40 for an FG is worth the risk, especially since a two-point conversion has them likely playing for OT and not the win. I suspect Parcells went with the field goal because Marion Barber has a surprisingly horrible record on third- and fourth-and one, two of twenty-two if I heard correctly last night.

Steverino pounded his chest:

Deny it if you wish but, socioeconomics does, in fact, play a role. With regard to the “bitch” comment, you would not make it out of the gates. I eat whimps like you for snacks.

Vox replied:

Excellent. It’s put up or shut up time, Steverino. Either show the data correlating the increased incidence of rape with low income levels or admit that you’re nothing but talk. Don’t forget to control for party identification….

I did today’s post in sixty-nine minutes, but I’ll be generous and give you 24 hours.

We’ll be eagerly waiting.

26 hours later… Steverino? Little Steve? (Places hand to ear, hearing nothing but the cold January wind.) Oh, Steve-o… where are you? I’m right here, with the gates behind me….

Ah, well. Not exactly a surprise.