Category: Uncategorized

Godless and clueless

This science-related news is precisely why I find the constant atheist whining about nonexistent religious threats to science to be not only spurious, but downright nonsensical:

Berkeley High School is considering a controversial proposal to eliminate science labs and the five science teachers who teach them to free up more resources to help struggling students. The proposal to put the science-lab cuts on the table was approved recently by Berkeley High’s School Governance Council, a body of teachers, parents, and students who oversee a plan to change the structure of the high school to address Berkeley’s dismal racial achievement gap, where white students are doing far better than the state average while black and Latino students are doing worse.

The average atheist who considers himself to be a strong supporter of science is far more worried about warning stickers on evolution textbooks than he is about the elimination of all science labs and the science teachers who teach them at a major high school. I’ll be surprised if this news gets one-tenth the attention on Scienceblogs that the average evolution-related kerfluffle at a school board does. You may recall that the usual suspects weren’t the least bit concerned about the coming application of Title IX quotas to science either.

It’s apparent that it’s not so much science that the godless self-proclaimed devotees of “science” and “reason” support, but rather scienthology. And being ideologically unsophisticated, they can’t even imagine a threat to science coming from the Left because they wrongly believe science to be inherently progressive. This also demonstrates that their devotion to reason is as tenuous as their supposed dedication to science.

VPFL 2009 Championship

73 Alamo City Spartans
54 Judean Front

Congratulations to Clay, whose Alamo City Spartans continued the VPFL tradition of upsetting the regular season champions and claimed the 4th VPFL title.

As for the NFL, I do not understand the coaching decisions on the part of Caldwell and Childress. I thought the decision of the Colts to stupidly throw away their opportunity to go 16-0 was totally ridiculous and will contribute to their being upset in the playoffs. The Vikings are suffering from overly conservative play calling, a mysterious offensive line meltdown, and defensive injuries to Pat Williams, EJ Henderson, and Antoine Winfield; our star cornerback is clearly still a little off his game after returning from his six-week injury. They could certainly use that bye week, but it looks as if they probably threw that away too.

I’m not sure which was dumber, the predictable first-half playcalling – I called one third-down play-action rollout that the Bears defensive coordinator obviously expected as well – or Ben Leber’s continuous inability to understand the concept of containment. AD’s overtime fumble and Longwell’s blocked PAT both hurt, but neither would have mattered if Leber hadn’t made exactly the same mistake he made last week against Carolina and simply held his position to the ballcarrier’s left instead of attempting to dive in wildly and make the tackle before his four teammates who had the running back pinned to the front and right did. The result was that instead of a loss of two followed by a fourth-down punt, Leber gave Forte a first down that led directly to a field goal. But the worst decision was the one to kick the tying PAT with 20 seconds left instead of going for two. The Viking special teams had been terrible all night, the Bear defense was reeling, and it was a perfect time to put them away. It was a horrendous call by Childress and it reminded me of an equally bad decision by Denny Green to play for overtime against a heavily favored Dallas team. In both cases, the overtime result was the same. The Vikings lost.

Right now, Philadelphia and San Diego look like the teams of destiny. Of course, this probably means that they are the only two playoff teams we can be certain we will not see in the Super Bowl.

Mailvox: failed bank projections

LP asks a very good question about my five percent failed deposit figure:

I thought your book on the return of the great depression was great. But since the 545 banks in trouble represent 295 billion of assets (ratio of about 55-to-60%), compared to 140 failed banks with 139 billion of assets this year (ratio of about 1/1), would it not follow that the 545 banks have less assets and that the subsequent resultant asset loss would be less than your graph projections show? This I interpret to mean that 5% of the bank failures shown on the graph would represent closer to 3% of the 2010 asset value. This may mean that the 16.8 decline in commercial banks loans would drop closer to about 10%.

Also some of the stronger businesses may be able to transfer barrowing to other banks which may mitigate the credit affect. This may let the govt get away with one or two more stimulus packages in 2010 that would result in a worsening economy than we have now and preserve the total economic catastrophe until 2011. Or a different scenario, maybe the continued economic slump will snowball in 2010 as everyone will continue to curtail their spending when the last half of 2010 shows unemployment still rising with business activity declining. Is my basic reasoning correct?

For the record

“There is no eternal standard of right and wrong.”
– PZ Myers

I thought that was a quotation worth noting. Read the whole thing so you can appreciate the context; it is an object lesson in why biologists teaching community college students would do well to avoid attempting both logic and philosophy. Of course, the Fowl Atheist’s stated belief in the absence of any eternal standard of right and wrong and his implied belief in the absence of any objective standard of right and wrong doesn’t prevent him from constantly labeling various actions and individuals as being either right or wrong. I don’t think PZ is demonstrating hypocrisy here, however, so much as simple incoherence. One has to be aware of one’s inconsistency before one attempt to maintain a pretense, after all.

It is both hilarious and deeply ironic that someone whose ability to reason correctly is so demonstrably nonexistent should nevertheless see fit to declare: “We should build our morality on reason.” The thought is neither original nor tenable.

WND column

2010: The Year Ahead

While the Great Depression is considered to have begun with the great stock market crash of 1929, the first mention of the words “great depression” was in a speech given by Herbert Hoover in late 1931. The first specific and titular reference did not occur until 1934, when British economist Lionel Robbins published a book titled “The Great Depression.” This would neither be the first nor the last time economists influenced by the Austrian School would be the first to identify a major economic downturn in the making or to point out that the policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities were guaranteed to exacerbate it.

What then, are the prospects of enduring recovery? It is clear that they are not bright. It is quite probable, if there is no immediate outbreak of war on a large scale, that the next few months may see a substantial revival of business. If the exchanges are stabilised and the competition in depreciation ceases, there is a strong probability that the upward movement, which began in the summer of 1932, will continue. If the stabilisation were made permanent and some progress were made with the removal of the grosser obstacles to trade, it is not out of the question that a boom would develop. There are many things which might upset this development. The basis of recovery in the United States is gravely jeopardised by the policy of the Government.
– Lionel Robbins, “The Great Depression,” Page 195

UPDATE I – In the column, I neglected to specifically point out that if the present situation follows the historical precedent, public figures should first begin to recognize the existence of the Great Depression 2.0 two years after it began. This would indicate the fourth quarter of 2010.

UPDATE II – We are amused. Yesterday, I wrote this: “While some of the wiser economists are hedging their bets by stating that they expect growth to be “sluggish” with “downside risks,” there are no more expectations of market crashes, financial collapse or widespread economic contraction than there were at the beginning of 2008.” At the same time, Paul Krugman was anticipating his need to engage in the customary CYA of the mainstream economist: “Yeah, its a reasonably high chance [of economic contraction in the second half of 2010] – it’s less than 50/50 odds – but we have now a recovery that … is being driven by fiscal stimulus which is going to fade out in the 2nd half of next year….”

Reasonably high. Less than 50/50. Remember, that’s the finest that mainstream economics has to offer. Now, I don’t believe in feigning accuracy by assigning meaningless numbers that hint at nonexistent probability calculations, so I will simply say that 100 > 50/50. So speak up now, every doubter, anklebiter, and would-be critic. How many of you dare to publicly declare that all the mainstream economists are correct about the prospects for continued “economic recovery” in 2010 and that I am therefore wrong? Is anyone actually willing to go on the record and state that my rejection of the expert consensus is incorrect or not?

I’ll even provide some hard metrics and predict that by the end of 2010:

1. The BLS will report U-3 unemployment to be in excess of 11 percent. The actual number of unemployed workers will be much higher.
2. The BEA will report at least one quarter of negative GDP growth. The GDP figures for Q309 and Q409 will be revised downward. Again.
3. The Federal budget deficit for 2010 will exceed the projected $1.17 trillion.
4. More than 200 banks will be seized by the FDIC. Their deposits will represent more than two percent of all U.S. bank deposits.
5. Commercial bank loans and leases (TOTLL) will fall below $6.3 trillion.
6. All sectors credit market instruments excluding corporate equities and mutual fund shares liability, which is published in the Fed’s quarterly Z1 Flow of Funds Accounts, will fall below $52 trillion.
7. The national median existing-home price will not rise four percent from $172,600 to $179,500 as predicted by NAR’s lead economist Lawrence Yun. It will fall instead to a level I will attempt to estimate before the next NAR release.

These seven specific predictions are all directly contrary to what almost all mainstream economists are presently predicting for 2010; I am presently compiling a selection of economic predictions from all the usual suspects for future comparison.

Picture of a rally

I realize that many market analysts think Elliott Wave theory is akin to technical witchdoctery. But regardless of what you think of the theory, it is very hard to look at this image from Barry Ritzholtz without Waves 1 and 2 leaping out at you. As I’ve shown on the chart, the subdivisions are perfectly clear. Furthermore, the implications for the market happen to correlate almost perfectly with my current debt calculations for the economy.

VPFL Playoffs first round

52 Judean Front (10-4)
42 Bane Silvers (7-6-1)

102 Alamo City Spartans (10-4)
69 Mounds View Meerkats (8-6)

Ah well. Another year, another first-round exit. I can’t say I’m too surprised, but it’s a bit annoying to again lose while outscoring both teams in the other side of the bracket. And no one can argue that the Front and the Spartans have been the two teams to beat this year; the failure to get any serious production out of Clinton Portis, Greg Jennings, and Matt Forte really hurt me, as did the mid-season collapse of the New York Giants defense.

VP-AFL

116.70 AZ Hammeroids (8-6)
114.65 Lesbian Dorito Night (9-5)

122.65 The Thunder (8-6)
99.10 Brave Sir Robins (10-4)

Two big upsets in the Alumni league, as blog favorites Lesbian Dorito Night complete their late-season collapse and Brave Sir Robins end their season in classic Meerkats 08 manner. Here’s hoping that the Vikes don’t follow suit today; we need that first-round bye.

Slashdot and charity: the lack thereof

I found this Slashdot poll to be quite informative. Based on the comments I’ve read there over the years, I have observed that Slashdot tends to skew heavily secular and libertarian as well as moderately atheist. So, when the regular poll asked about the amount of charitable giving that had been done in 2009, I expected the results to be somewhat on the light side given that it is been well-established that the irreligious are statistically less willing to give to others than are the religious.

I did not, however, expect to discover that Slashdot readers would prove to be such a complete collection of miserly bastards. 36 percent gave nothing to anyone. Another 20 percent gave less than $50. Less than 10 percent gave more than $2,000 throughout the entire course of the year.

Now, perhaps Slashdot readers are very low income, or perhaps they’re mostly religious Republicans. But, based on what I’ve observed, I suspect that this financial narcissism on their part points to one of the primary reasons there will never be organized irreligion without the use of force. Churches, synagogues, and mosques could not survive were it not for the voluntary donations of those who attend them. This is also a conclusive destruction idea of the notion that a truly secular society will necessarily be an improvement on a religious one. It’s no wonder that atheists tend to lean so heavily left. Those who are aware of their own unwillingness to lift a finger to help others in society naturally wouldn’t dare to trust in the willingness of others to do so in the absence of government force.

Now, don’t think for a second that I’m being naive here, much less some sort of Saint Largesse. I readily admit it will probably do no material good to give money to the shaggy man with the slurred speech or the emaciated girl. The odds are high that they’re just going to go off and score their intoxicant of choice. And I downright refuse to give anything to professional mendicants like the bloody organ grinders and immigrants who annoy shoppers at the grocery store. (Note to the “needy” immigrant family I saw the other day – your daily take will surely increase if you a) actually learn how to play those “authentic” native pipes, and, b) tell your little boy to stop playing his Nintendo DS in public.) But the man whose birth we celebrated yesterday was very clear how we are to treat those he describes as “the least” and it behooves all of us, Christian and non-Christian alike, to act on faith when we are asked for help by those who are clearly in need of it.

Summa Elvetica on Kindle

At my request, Marcher Lord has graciously decided to price the Kindle edition of Summa Elvetica at only $1.99. On a related note, in working on the sequel, I’ve had to develop some of the things that were left out when I accelerated the pace towards the end. Originally, I’d intended there to be two or three chapters set in the Elven High City which would be largely devoted to telling more about the elves and delving further into the intellectual issues. So here’s the question: if I happen to write those chapters in the course of writing the new book, does it make any sense to add them to a revised edition of SE or not? And if you already own a copy of SE, would this be something you would appreciate or simply find annoying?

Fractured physics and the death of Darwin

I’ve been paying closer attention to the LHC experiment than I normally would because I’m very curious to see how stubbornly scientists will cling to theories should they be proven outmoded by the very experiments designed to support them:

ormer Harvard professor Shahriar Afshar said that failure to find the particle would bring current scientific theory tumbling down like a house of cards with nothing to replace it. The controversial physicist, whose Afshar experiment has already found a loophole in quantum theory, said that unless the scienitific community starts contemplating a “plan B”, failure could lead to “chaos and infighting”.

He said failure will undermine more than a hundred years of scientific theory and undermine some of the mainstays of sceintific thinking, the Standard Model, a general theory of how particles fit together to create matter.

I’ve also found it to be interesting how in physics – real science – there is very little, if any, of the defensive and irrational babbling often heard from true-believing TENS advocates about how a lack of an alternative theory somehow justifies the continued use of a theory already known to be intrinsically flawed. It is usually easier to show that a suggested answer is incorrect than it is to come up with a plausible alternative answer, and it should not be forgotten that through eliminating false pathways, negative results also represent scientific advancement.

As I have consistently suggested, TENS is not only a predictively useless model, but a scientifically flimsy one as well. In fact, it is looking increasingly likely that it will be abandoned by the scientific consensus during our lifetimes. Once I began studying the subject, it was immediately obvious to me that critics had been focusing on the less vulnerable parts of the theory from the start; it is the natural selection element that has even less reliable scientific evidence to support it than speciation or the concept of evolution itself.

Consider the results of some of the first methodical scientific research into the natural selection hypothesis:

The new research, carried out by Mark Pagel and colleagues at the University of Reading, in England, studied 101 groups of plant and animal species and analyzed the lengths of branches in the evolutionary trees of thousands of species within these groups. The lengths of the branches are a measure of the time elapsed between two species branching off.

The researchers then compared four models of speciation to determine which best accounted for the rate of speciation actually found. The Red Queen hypothesis, of species arising as a result of an accumulation of small changes, fitted only eight percent of the evolutionary trees. A model in which species arise from single rare events fitted eighty percent of the trees.

Dr Pagel said that the research shows speciation is the result of rare events in the environment, such as genetic mutations, a shift in climate, or a mountain range rising up. Over the long term new species are formed at a constant rate, rather than the variable rate Pagel’s team expected, but the constant rates are different for different groups of species.

The work suggests that natural selection may not be the cause of speciation, which Pagel said “really goes against the grain” for scientists who have a Darwinian view of evolution. The model that provided the best fit for the data is surprisingly incompatible with the idea that speciation is a result of many small small events,

Now, this research deals with the matter of natural selection’s time scale rather than its existence, but nevertheless underlines my point that the natural selection hypothesis has always been logic, not science. The fact that it is difficult and dangerous to paint grizzly bears pink in order to see if they breed less successfully doesn’t change the fact that no one has ever tested the widespread assumption of why polar bears are white. And while the jury is still out on both matters, the exposed cracks in the major theories naturally leads to a philosophical question: since the foundations of both modern physics and modern Darwinism appear to be wobbling, what is the basis for considering materialism to be rational given such demonstrably flawed understandings of what the material happens to be?