Vox Popoli

Science fetishists don’t understand the difference between evidence, explanation and fact:

This guy complains that scientists change their “story” according to what the facts are. He thinks this is a BAD thing. That clinging to a disproven hypothesis is some kind of virtue.

First, I did not say “the facts”, I said “the evidence”. Facts are only one kind of evidence. And with regards to the matter under discussion, the dynamic explanation nature of the relationship between Homo sapiens and Homo erectus and Homo habilus, there is plenty of evidence but very little in the way of verifiable facts to be considered, the entire discussion is largely based upon conjecture piled on top of guesswork. It is a story, not a study, it is a pensive little fiction written in lieu of observation and experiment.

The reason I scoff at the dynamic nature of this so-called “science” is not because I do not understand the way in which genuine science operates, but because in the case of this pseudo-scientific storytelling, whenever one plot line begins to appear less probable for whatever reason, it is quickly replaced by a new one which is immediately proclaimed as an unassailable scientific consensus which those not of the priesthood should unquestioningly accept.

Until, of course, the inevitable revision.

Surprisingly, Dr. PZ Myers demonstrates that he can’t read any better than the teenager quoted above:

There’s a problem in principle with his objection: yes, that’s what scientists are supposed to do. They’re supposed to follow the evidence where it leads, not cling to a story in spite of the evidence…. Day also complains that there are different versions of the theory of evolution, and cites this story as an example. He’s screwed up pretty thoroughly: while there are different mechanisms that play a role in evolution, this is an example of a historical detail, not something broadly related to theoretical concerns, and it does not call into question any mechanisms. In particular, scientists arguing about the precise relationships of species within a specific mammalian lineage does not mean there’s room for god-went-poof explanations.

Or, you know, they could refrain from cooking up cockamamie stories and trying to sell them to the public until they have a decent amount of supporting evidence that is likely to hold up for 10 minutes. But of course, that would cut into their chance to see their names in print and collect a bigger slice of science welfare.

PZ fails to note that I’m not citing this story as an example of the weakness of any of the various evolutionary theories – does he think I consider it to be Darwinian, neo-Darwinian or Punctuated Equilibrium? – and that I am perfectly aware that the scientific predilection for colorful story-telling is not, in and of itself, proof that all evolutionists operate in the same manner as the fabulists operating at the edges of evolutionary biology. Finally, as I stated from the start, my evolutionary skepticism is as entirely secular as my similar dubiousness about scientific socialism, feminism and the Iraqi occupation.

God doesn’t need my help defending Him from dynamic historical fiction.

These three statements sum up my inherent skepticism about evolution. Note that my doubts have nothing to do with my religious faith; in fact they preceded it by years.

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
– Richard Dawkins

“If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”
– David Pilbeam

“I have a hunch that we may come back to look back on the invention of the ESS [Evolutionary Stable Strategy] as one of the most important advances in evolutionary theory since Darwin.”
– Richard Dawkins

Now, there is a fair amount of evidence that I am neither ignorant nor stupid. Nor am I insane and I trust the reader will accept the postulate that my wickedness has no bearing on my opinion of any science. So, from my perspective, it’s immediately clear that the emperor has no clothes. Pilbeam expresses my feelings on the matter very well indeed, especially in light of the fact that the very important advance that Dawkins mentions is an unscientific load of ontological hogwash; on the same game theory basis, I could easily prove that elves have souls.

The biggest single problem that evolution proponents do not seem to be willing to admit in public is that a proposed explanation is not evidence. “It could have happened this way” is a hypothesis, not a proof. Their standards are so much lower than even relatively soft sciences such as economics and psychology that the “science” would be more accurately described as a philosophy. This may explain why philosophers such as Daniel C. Dennett feel perfectly comfortable writing books about this particular “science”.(1)

Nor is pointing to other sciences, as evolutionary biologists often do, a reasonable defense of the theory. They are demonstrably not making use of the same scientody; where are the evolutionary engineers? I fly an airplane in confidence because I trust in the ability of the aeronautical engineers to understand and make correct use of the scientific principles involved. But the evolutionary analogy is strapping yourself into a chair attached to a giant rubber band, with Richard Dawkins whispering into your ear that you just have to imagine the body of the plane, the wings, the engine and the pilot before being launched into the sky.

I’ll keep my feet on the metaphorical ground until I see a few evolved airplanes taking off and landing successfully.

(1) Note for evolutionary biologists: I am merely suggesting this as a possibility, I have not actually proved it to be the case.

Feminists are so incredibly myopic that they have no idea what role they play in creating the very men who hate them most. I was subjected to 16 years of feminist indoctrination; not only did it not take, but my extreme antipathy for feminists and contempt for equalitarianism is a direct result of that. The old patriarchs might have wished to keep women at home raising families, the new patriarchs who will rise out of the ashes of post-feminism will keep them in chains. They won’t even trust them to raise their children.

And with good cause, given mothers like this lunatic. It will be astonishing if her extreme feminist parenting doesn’t produce a serial killer:

I’ve had him read Dworkin, my site, and other places (namely OAG’s site) and I still can’t unseat this problem. He can recite feminist literature all day long, he can understand the tenets, the ideas behind it, how it links together but he will not allow this knowledge to stand in the way of his porn use….

I know that there will likely come a day where my son coerces a young woman into sex (rape) and there isn’t a damned thing I can do about it. I look into the eyes of my son and they still sparkle like they did when he was a baby, but he’s not a baby anymore, he’s growing into a man and that man will have trained himself to degrade women before he leaves my home.

Actually, Mommy Dearest, you’re the one who taught him that women were contemptible. And as one commenter noted, it would be no surprise at all if he went Norman Bates on you, especially considering your sharing with the world how “the way he treats his girlfriend, his sister, his grandmother, and myself make me hate myself for not pouring him down the sink at Planned Parenthood or grabbing a rusty coathanger and doing the job myself even if it killed me.”

You’d swear it has to be some sort of parody, except this woman’s blog did exist and was almost as insane the one time I read it last year.

UPDATE: Nonya1 says that it is a parody, but we can’t confirm it because “She had to make her blog private because she was being assaulted and verbally harassed and sent hate mail by people like yourselves, who hate feminists.”

I can totally understand that. After all, I had to make this blog private due to all the assaults and midnight ninja attacks, to say nothing of the hate mail sent to me by angry feminists threatening not to have sex with me.

Oh, wait a minute, I didn’t, because I’m not a frightened little woman who can’t take criticism.

Paul Craig Roberts is less than impressed with the president’s strategery:

This week the Russian and Chinese militaries are conducting a joint military exercise involving large numbers of troops and combat vehicles. The former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgkyzstan, and Kazakstan are participating. Other countries appear ready to join the military alliance.

This new potent military alliance is a real world response to neoconservative delusions about US hegemony. Neocons believe that the US is supreme in the world and can dictate its course. The neoconservative idiots have actually written papers, read by Russians and Chinese, about why the US must use its military superiority to assert hegemony over Russia and China.

I think this bodes well…. To any student of history, it’s always amazing to read how idiotic emperors and kings overstretched themselves. And then, one watches and marvels as modern politicians make exactly the same mistakes.

Man is not a rational animal.

This is simply beyond farce:

An Eagan man was sentenced Wednesday to 30 days in jail for ripping the head off his girlfriend’s parakeet.

So, according to the U.S. Justice system, it is one-seventh as bad to behead your girlfriend’s parakeet as it is to kill your sleeping husband by shooting him in the back.

All I can say is that when the first robot sex doll company goes public, make like Larry Kudlow and buy, buy, buy. I very much doubt that if the guy did it to his own parakeet, or even in a pet store, he’d be liable for more than a $10 fine. I mean, you can buy the little creatures wholesale for $5 online.

And if killing a little bird is a crime, it’s time we do something about those four-legged, furry mass murderering snakes with legs.

I had a long conversation with TIA’s publisher last night. I was pleased to be informed that he was very happy with the book and thought it exceeded his expectations. He also felt, despite being on their side, that I had been successful in making my case against the New Atheists. Survivors of the Great West Coast Invasion Debate of 2004 may be amused to know that he expressed surprise at the amount of supporting evidence provided.

There are some revisions that need to be made, of course, as I lost one appendix and one chapter was eliminated as unnecessary, although part of it was retained and added to a different chapter. A few of my jabs that were questionably near or below the belt line were also removed. (I think that if you’re going to accuse others of abusing their children, your own parenting is fair game, but obviously some will disagree.)

It’s really nice to work with a strong editor again. I haven’t had the benefit of that since my second novel and it really does make a difference if you can stand to set aside your pride in the interest of a better book. All in all, it’s less revision than I’d anticipated and so everything remains on track, if not ahead of schedule.

Women are fat and getting fatter:

Economic researchers from Florida State University and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston found the weight of the average woman rose by 20 pounds or 13.5 percent between 1976 and 2000…. In 1994 the average woman tipped the scales at 147 pounds but she wanted to weigh only 132 pounds — but less than a decade later the average woman weighed 153 pounds.

You’ve come a long way, baby, from an average of 133 pounds to 153. That’s just ridiculous.

Bring back the Patriarchy!

I am impressed. Amanda Marcotte makes a nearly flawless post on the housing market chicanery:

* First, mortgage lenders, in a bid to get their numbers and commissions up, start shopping out mortgages to customers who can’t quite reasonably afford the houses on their salaries.
* They often convince people to buy into these mortgages by making the payments small—at first. They do this by putting people into variable rate loans that start off at temptingly low rates, and once people sign on the dotted line, the rate jacks up incredibly high.
* Then the mortgage lenders sell the papers on these loans to investment banks, who use them to back up securities.
* Housing prices continue to rise.
* Hope that the bottom doesn’t fall out, because you know, there’s no such thing as dramatic crashes after a market’s been artificially inflated.

She left only the first step out, which was the Federal Reserve methodically slashing interest rates to historically low levels. It’s not just the ARMs that are the problem – although they are the first to fail – but also higher fixed rates preventing those who would like to sell their homes from being able to do so. Other than that omission, it’s a better analysis than you’ll find on Fox News or CNBC.

Perhaps we’ll make an Austrian out of her yet. Look into M3 if you really want to get a handle on why the USD is low and the stock market is high.

Dr. PZ Myers demonstrates the educational shortcomings of the professorial class:

I’ve often wondered what these “positive qualities” of belief might be. They’re always assumed to be there, so no one bothers to iterate them — but seriously, I see no virtue in unfounded faith in weird old superstitions.

1. Longevity: People with religious faith live seven years longer. I suppose this may not be seen as a benefit if you’re a fat, lonely atheist with a drug problem.
2. Psychological health: People with religious faith suffer less depression, are less likely to require medication for mental illness and are far less likely to kill themselves.
3. Evolutionary fitness: People with religious faith are more likely to marry, more likely to have children and have more children.
4. Happiness: People with religious faith are happier.
5. Health: People with religious faith are less likely to be obese. They also recover from surgery faster.
6. Sex: People with religious faith are more content with their sex lives.
7. Art: Religion inspires better, longer-lasting art than non-religious inspirations.
8. Good government: religious regimes are far less likely to murder large quantities of the citizenry than non-religious regimes, much less atheist regimes.

There’s more, such as the lower incidence of drug and alchohol dependency, but that should help PZ get started. With the exception of 7 and 8, there are plenty of scientific studies to back up all of these assertions. And there’s massive quantities of historical data supporting 8.

Now what, I ask, are the positive qualities of atheism that make up for being an unhappy, unmarried, chubby, short-lived alchoholic in therapy and contemplating suicide over a lackluster love life?