Tag: science

Throwing out the bait

John C. Wright explains why Sam Harris’s latest crusade is misplaced; empiricism is useless with regards answering non-empirical questions, thereby rendering the derivation of “ought” from “is’ impossible:

Here is my proof.

  1. Do you agree that the international scientific community has
    reduced all empirical entities to certain basic constants, namely mass,
    length, duration, temperature, current, candlepower, moles of substance,
    such that any empirical subject (such as the acceleration due to
    gravity of a cannonball or color defined as light-frequency) can be
    expressed in terms of these measurable quantities or some calculated
    derivation of these quantities?  (I do note that for subatomic
    particles, some additional fundamentals are needed, but these are also
    quantities, and not qualities, and therefore do not effect the
    argument.)
  2. A quality is a judgment concerning an imponderable entity, such as
    true or untrue, valid or invalid, comely or ugly. A quantity is a
    multitude of magnitudes, or in other words, a quantity can be measured
    against a standard or counted with numbers or both. Do you agree that no
    quality can be reduced to quantity by any means whatsoever?For example,
    do you agree that counting the number of vowels used to express a given
    sentence written in ink in Esperanto will not necessarily tell you
    whether the sentence is true or false, fairminded or slanderous,
    self-evident or self-contradictory, lovely poetry or ungainly prose?
    That also measuring with utmost care the jots over the small I’s and
    small J’s even to the extend of counting every ink molecule will not
    give you sufficient information to make these judgment?
  3. If all empirical statements can be reduced to measured fundamental
    quantities, and no statements about imponderables such as good and bad,
    valid and invalid, fair or foul can be reduced to measurable fundamental
    qualities, then they have no overlap whatsoever in topic or probative
    value, Ergo no imponderable can be proved or disproved by purely
    empirical statement, no matter how numerous or complex.

To head off an obvious objection, the quantities facts about the
molecules and atoms in a man’s brain have some sort of unknown relation
to his ability to make qualitative judgments. Drunkenness or drugs or a
blow to the head can, for example, impede the operations of memory and
judgment and other cognitive powers, or drive him mad, or kill a man
altogether. There is, however, not a single iota of evidence showing a
relation between the imponderable cognitive content and any quantitative
facts about brain molecules.

WRF3, you are now formally invited to do your thing.  But if you don’t mind an observation, this “Rolf Andreassen” at Mr. Wright’s site is presenting arguments that sound remarkably similar to those you have made here in the past.

This should be interesting.  “How much does a thought weigh?” has always struck me as being a question akin to “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” or “why does purple?”  But perhaps we shall be convinced otherwise.

Mailvox: time-preferences and civilization

JC is is wondering at the intrinsically anti-scientific bent of the SFWA:

I’m a white, Christian, American male of slightly above average
intelligence – but far from a super intelligence.  I’ve been ejoying
your writings since the WND days.  Since you left them, and I was forced
to discover and follow your Vox Popoli blog – my mind has been quite
blown away by the content.  I eagerly digest (or attempt to follow) the
economic posts, and love the cultural posts.  The science fiction
generally doesn’t interest me, but this latest uproar re: SWFA makes me
sick.  I just wanted to drop a note of thanks and support.  Between you
and Ann Barnhardt, I truly feel blessed to be able to see the examples
you set in steadfastly standing for Truth.
Thank you.
Now for a question.  I may have missed it, but your “h8ers” seem to
imply you’ve conferred a superior/inferior distinction to the various
human sub-species.  I don’t recall seeing anything of the sort, I
thought you just noted that they are provably different.   I
would personally assume that different groups should have nothing
approaching “equality” for quite a number of characteristics, in general
from a statistical perspective.  An overall ranking of
“superior/inferior” doesn’t seem like it would make any sense at all
unless we are discussing specific characteristics.  For instance, a
Jimmy the Greek foul in discussing fast twitch muscle fiber and athletic
performance, or perhaps predisposition to certain hereditary medical
conditions.  Or demonstrated contributions to advanced science.  
There’s nothing in my mind that would necessarily judge one of
God’s children as better/worse from an overall intrinsic value sense
simply by noting a particular subspecies (or intermingling thereof, such
as with my mixed heritage children), but it’s absurd to say we can’t
talk about relative comparisons of discrete characteristics.  I’ve
wandered a bit here, but I assure you I’m no rabbit or troll.  I guess
my question was about the conclusions drawn from the variations in
subspecies:  you never made any claims that the homo sapiens sapiens are
just dirty pieces of shit with no worth, as your critics seem to be
claiming, right?  I don’t know how you put up with these clowns without
having their insanity rub off on you just a little bit.

I have repeatedly stated that it is absolutely meaningless to claim general superiority or inferiority for any of the various human subspecies, (or, if you prefer, genetically distinct population groups), because it completely depends upon the specific metric involved.  Is a Great Dane superior to a Siberian Husky?  Is a bluebird superior to an eagle?  It all depends upon what the basis for comparison is.

Now, the reason that the SFWA pinkshirts are upset is because if one chooses the metric of “civilized”, by which I mean “the ability to participate in, maintain, and build a complex, technologically advanced civilization”, one can both observe and explain which subspecies are more and less capable of it than others, and therefore it is possible to claim that Group X is superior to Group Y on that particular basis.  As it happens, that particular ability is largely predicated on time-preferences, as longer time-preferences are required in order to a) practice self-discipline, and, b) build wealth, which are two of the primary prerequisites for maintaining and building civilizations.

One can even go so far as to say that the civilizational process, which I observe appears to take around 1,000 years on average, is largely the result of artificially selecting for individuals with longer time-preferences.  If a society regularly gets rid of its short-preferenced, hot-tempered predators and its non-savers, it will eventually find that it has built up considerable wealth as well as a population capable of cooperating and living together in relative peace.  And with cooperation and wealth, a society has the wherewithal to begin advancing technologically so long as it has entrepreneurs and elects to foster them rather than crush them in the interest of established parties.

Having shorter time preferences doesn’t make anyone “dirty pieces of shit with no worth”, any more than being physically shorter does, it simply makes them human beings with the same intrinsic human value as everyone else who happen to be less able to participate in, maintain, or build an advanced civilization.  The pure savage lives entirely in the moment and does not control his impulses. The entirely civilized individual is self-disciplined and is always capable of putting off for tomorrow, or next year, options that are available today.  This may explain why Christianity tends to be a civilizing force, as it reinforces longer time preferences by extending them beyond one’s lifetime, and why atheism, despite the higher-than-average intelligence of atheists, tends to be a barbarising force. Intelligence, while not entirely irrelevant, is somewhat of a red herring in this discussion.

The idea that there are meaningfully different time-preferences between genetically distinct population groups is a testable scientific hypothesis, although aside from some very small-scale studies on children, “the Stanford marshmallow experiment”, I am not aware of any studies that have been done in this regard.  In order for it to be useful, I would recommend a study with randomly selected adults, (corrected for income and debt), who would be offered a choice between receiving $200 in cash immediately and a check for a randomly selected amount between $250 and $1,000 in a randomly determined period of time ranging from three months to one year.  A second study would then test the ranges of the time preferences of the various population groups based on the information from the first study, and a third would test children to see if the range of their time preferences were consistent with the adult ranges.

Perhaps the hypothesis that pure homo sapiens sapiens have shorter time preferences than the various homo sapiens-homo neanderthalensis blends would hold up, or perhaps not.  But that is the primary purpose of science, to formulate and test hypotheses.  It is, I think, more than a little ironic that so many self-professed “science fiction” writers are not only horrified by a scientific perspective, but are openly and avowedly anti-science whenever science threatens to upend their cherished ideological beliefs.

Anyhow, it is because the entire concept of a racial supremacist is intrinsically nonsensical that I occasionally describe myself as an “Esquimaux supremacist”.  Having grown up in Minnesota, and having lived through more than a few bitterly cold Minnesota winters, I have a particular appreciation for the obvious and undeniable superiority of that noble people of the north.

PZ Myers, professional “biologist”

Now, before you read this, keep in mind that PZ Myers is actually employed to teach college students biology:

Keep in mind that Jemisin is black. Here’s Theodore Beale coming right out and saying that while she’s human, she’s not fully equal to a white man, himself (and please, his invocation of “genetic science” is reeking bullshit).

The amusing thing is that Myers not only didn’t understand what it meant when I pointed out that NK Jemisin and I are not equally homo sapiens sapiens, he also doesn’t have a clue about current genetic science.  In fact, most of the people who have taken offense at the statement that “genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens” have done nothing more than demonstrate they have not kept up with relatively recent developments in genetics by interpreting my words in a manner that is not only ignorant, but precisely backward.

You see, Africans are pure homo sapiens sapiens.  Non-Africans are not. NK Jemisin, being of African extraction, is almost surely more purely homo sapiens sapiens than I am.  Or, for that matter, than PZ Myers is. 

“Previous research has revealed that Neanderthal DNA can be found in the
genomes of everyone who isn’t of African extraction. But, as Pääbo said,
“The Denisovans had contributed DNA only to people in Papua New Guinea,
Fiji, Australia, and other places in Melanesia.” In other words, modern
humans entering Asia interbred with Denisovans. But the Denisovan DNA
didn’t wind up circulating to other areas of the world the way
Neanderthal DNA did.”

So, everyone who isn’t African possesses DNA from other homo species, including Homo neanderthalensis and what is either Homo denisova or Homo sapiens denisova.  This is why I often mock those who believe in both evolution by natural selection and human equality, because humanity is not only NOT all the same under our skin, we are not, according to current genetic science, even all entirely the same subspecies.  If we apply their idiot logic, then I was actually claiming that I am not fully equal to Jemisin rather than the other way around.

That’s not the only thing that the excitable and characteristically buffoonish Myers gets wrong.  I’m not annoyed at being called a racist, I’m not demanding any apologies for it, and I’m certainly not threatening any lawsuits over it.  For crying out loud, John Scalzi has been calling me a Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit for months and it doesn’t bother me in the slightest since I am none of those things.  I demanded an apology because NK Jemisin broke SFWA confidentiality rules by misreading part of my presidential campaign platform, then claimed that I am a “self-described
misogynist, racist, anti-Semite, and a few other flavors of asshole.”  However, I have never described myself as any of those four things.

I assume Myers would similarly object if Ms. Jemisin claimed PZ Myers is a self-described Catholic pedophile who teaches puppetry to kindergarteners.

Myers is also wrong about my having modified my original post in any way.  The incompetent philosopher is confusing a later post for the original one because he didn’t scroll down the page.  It’s still there in its entirety.  Everything it contains is factually true, utterly defensible, and I will note that not a single person who is throwing hissy fits about it has dared to take up my offer to debate them on any of its contents.  The abysmal scientific ignorance of a collegiate biology teacher concerning the subject may offer an indication of why those who are even less cognizant of the relevant genetic science and its implications are nervous about doing so.

It appears Myers also failed to read Jemisin’s speech.  She is the one who asserted that the “racist stand-your-ground laws” were passed against people like her.  I merely pointed out WHY those laws were passed; because people were being violently attacked by the aforementioned people and needed a legal right to self defense.

Myers doesn’t even attempt to address any of the factual statements I made or try to challenge their accuracy, he merely points-and-shrieks.  No wonder he has twice run away from debates with me; he’s not capable of rational dialectic.  As for not being embarrassed, why would I ever be embarrassed by being aware of history, capable of logic, and reasonably up-to-date on genetic science?  If the hysterical left is really going to abandon history, logic, and science in favor of its precious equality myths, it’s simply not going to be possible for anyone with a functioning brain to take it seriously much longer.

Forget the SFWA kerfluffle.  The real scandal is that a science illiterate like PZ Myers is employed to teach science to college students.

SF vs science

Shattersnipe would appear to favor a rhetorical approach to the seemingly indisputable observation that not all human population groups are equally civilized:

And there is white-hot anger, so fierce you become the eye within the
maelstrom of your own rage, calm as your pulse exceeds the beats of a
marathon runner, calm as your fingers grasp and clench, calm as you grip
your aggressor’s throat and squeeze.

This last I feel for Theodore Beale.

Recently, I blogged about sexism in the SFWA Bulletin.
I wrote that piece as a self-declared comic rant, the tone inspired by
anger at men who ultimately meant well, however offensive and outdated
their efforts at showing it. I received a lot of support for having done
so; but of course, there was a flipside. My anger, said some, was
unseemly and unprofessional. My arguments were poorly reasoned. I was
preaching to the choir. I was the gendered pejorative of choice. But the
thing is, I can shrug that off. I deal out enough criticism that I
expect to receive my share in return, and whatever form that pushback
takes, it very rarely shocks me. By the standards of women on the
internet, in fact, I’m pretty lucky. I’ve received a minimum of rape
threats, I rarely get called a cunt, and if some of my detractors are
uncivil, then I can usually dish it out in return. I was bullied,
harassed, attacked and assaulted enough at school for being forthright,
female and unfeminine that written threats just don’t chill me the way
they used to. (They still chill me, of course. And I didn’t suffer
nearly as much as others. Nonetheless, the comparison stands – and no,
this isn’t an invitation to try harder.)
The point being, I have privilege, and that
privilege protects me. I’m a middle-class, well-educated, straight white
ciswoman with a functional, middle-class white family, and however much
the misogyny gets to me at times, I can draw on that privilege – on
that firmly entrenched sense of self-worth and the emotional, social and
financial safety net which supports it – and fight back. I belong to
the second most privileged group of people on the planet, and whatever
abuse I still suffer regardless of that, I have the cultural status to
counter it and be heard. As an individual, therefore, I’m hard to
oppress. I have privilege. I have resilience. I have opinions.
And I have anger….
I feel poisoned even typing that. Sickened.
Trembling. I cannot even imagine how Jemisin feels. Nor am I attempting
to speak for her. She is, without a doubt, one of the most brilliant
women – one of the most brilliant people and writers, period – active in
SFF today, and my voice in this matter is not a replacement for hers.
I am speaking because it would be a crime against conscience not to.
I am speaking because a world where men like
Theodore Beale are left to speak unchallenged by the weariness of their
opponents is not a world I want to live in. I am speaking because my privilege affords me a chance to be heard.
And I am speaking because of the bodily
disgust, the rage and hatred and putrescence I feel for members of my
own race, both now and throughout history, who speak of savages and
lesser beings, of civilisation and the right to kill those outside or
perceived to be incapable of it; who speak, as Beale does, as though
people of colour are a genetically different, inferior species of human
when compared to his Aryan ancestors.
This is my Reconciliation.
The passion of it all just gives you shivers, doesn’t it?  It’s hard to decide what is the most amusing part of this hysterical “dabacle”.  It’s a little subtle, perhaps, but I think, in the end, my favorite part is where she declares the “bodily
disgust, the rage and hatred and putrescence” she feels for the idea that “people of colour” are “genetically different”.
What is so funny about this is that it all goes back to 2005, and a WND column when I pointed out that women don’t write much hard science fiction because they have little aptitude or inclination for science.  And now, eight years later, we see a spelling-challenged female SFWA writer who is frothing-at-the-mouth furious at the idea that Africans are a genetically distinct population group, a group that therefore must necessarily be either inferior or superior to other population groups.
In other words, she is a science fiction writer who is deeply and violently offended by science.  This should suffice to explain why science fiction has qualitatively declined over the years.

But we shouldn’t be too harsh on her.  After all, she does an excellent job of proving my original point in my response to Ms Jemisin, which is that there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.  This isn’t a challenge to my views, but rather, an exemplary underlining of them.

Belief in God is good for you

As I pointed out five years ago in TIA, the New Atheist attempt to
kick out the supposed crutch of religious faith is not only churlish, it is actively harmful to those individuals who happen to need a crutch in
order to walk through life.

A new study
suggests belief in God may significantly improve the outcome of those
receiving short-term treatment for psychiatric illness. Researchers
followed patients receiving care from a hospital-based behavioral health
program to investigate the relationship between patients’ level of
belief in God, expectations for treatment and actual treatment outcomes.

In
the study, published in the current issue of Journal of Affective
Disorders, researchers comment that people with a moderate to high level
of belief in a higher power do significantly better in short-term
psychiatric treatment than those without.

“Belief was
associated with not only improved psychological well-being, but
decreases in depression and intention to self-harm,” says David H.
Rosmarin, Ph.D., an instructor in the Department of Psychiatry at
Harvard Medical School….

Patients with “no” or only “slight” belief in God were twice as
likely not to respond to treatment as patients with higher levels of
belief. Investigators believe the study demonstrates that a belief in God is
associated with improved treatment outcomes in psychiatric care.

It’s
fascinating to see how some atheists believe that Templeton funding
renders a study intrinsically unscientific, while blithely citing
studies funded by Big Pharma to argue for the safety of
government-mandated chemical injections.  All the while ignoring the
disproportionate tendency of atheists to kill themselves and others.

I
suspect it won’t be long before there is additional scientific support
for my hypothesis that atheism is a consequence of a mild form of
autism.

Intelligence and reaction times

I tend to share Steve Sailer’s doubts about Michael Woodley et al’s paper on how reaction times are slower now than when Galton first measured them:

“It was an era of glorious scientific discovery. And the reason for the Victorians unprecedented success is simple – they were ‘substantially cleverer’ than us.  Researchers compared reaction times – a reliable indicator of general
intelligence – since the late 1800s to the present day and found our
fleetness of mind is diminishing. They claim our slowing reflexes suggest we are less smart than our
ancestors, with a loss of 1.23 IQ points per decade or 14 IQ points
since Victorian times. While an average man in 1889 had a reaction time of 183 milliseconds, this has slowed to 253ms in 2004. They found the same case with women, whose speed deteriorated from 188 to 261ms in the same period.” 

Back in the 1990s, I read up on Arthur Jensen’s research on his reaction
time experiments, and … I don’t know. It seemed very, very
complicated, even more complicated than reading Jensen on IQ.

How about me? I’m a reasonably intelligent person. Do I have good reaction times? In general, I’d say no.

I’m more than a bit dubious about this correlation between reaction time and intelligence myself.  While on the one hand, I am highly intelligent and have excellent reaction times – I’m a former NCAA D1 100m sprinter and can still outsprint most men 15 years younger –  on the other, I remember the sprinters against whom I ran.  Let’s just say many of them were not likely to be confused with rocket scientists.

Then again, I have no problem believing that the Victorian English were considerably brighter, on average, than the modern American.  A simple comparison of popular novels, then and now, should suffice to prove that.

The scientific consensus is clear

Of course, it also happens to be totally incorrect:

Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee, said he accepts the earth’s temperature is increasing but said “natural phases” may be to blame.  Such a suggestion sits at odds with the scientific consensus. One recent survey of 12,000 academic papers on climate change found 97 per cent agree human activities are causing the planet to warm.

I just like to get these things down before the scientists start whitewashing the record again.

So much for the “science” of global warming

Once more, it is seen that it is the skeptics who were correct and the “scientists” who had their arrogant, pointy heads up their asses:

The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed…. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

Who would have ever imagined that it was the giant flaming ball of nuclear fire in the sky, the one that provides the Earth with the vast majority of its heat, that is the controlling factor concerning global temperatures?  What an outlandish notion!

Keep in mind that the scientists who tell you evolution by natural selection is a fact are, in some cases, the very same people who told you global warming was a fact.  In both cases, what they are relying on is far from science.

The secret of the Moon water

It came from Earth:

The latest results come from studies on the most extraordinary samples hauled back from the moon, including green-tinged stone collected by Apollo 15 in 1971, and orange material gathered by Apollo 17 in 1972.

The surprise discovery of the green rock, by Commander Dave Scott and lunar module pilot Jim Irwin, sparked a lengthy debate among the astronauts about the boulder’s true colour while Nasa controllers listened in.

Scientists focused on tiny droplets of volcanic glass that were trapped in crystals inside the rocks. The crystals protected the droplets from the violence of eruption, and so preserved in them a snapshot of the moon’s ancient interior.

Researchers found evidence for water inside the glass droplets in earlier work but the latest study goes further, showing that the lunar water is chemically identical to that on ancient Earth.

So, now we know that the water in the Moon rocks came from Earth.  And we already knew that the Moon rocks came from Earth.  At what point is it going to become sufficiently obvious that the “Moon landings” were filmed on Earth?

What more is required, signed confessions from Stanley Kubrick and Neil Armstrong?

There is no scientific evidence that Man landed on the Moon, after all.  Since the scientific evidence points quite clearly to the various “lunar” objects having a terrestrial origin, then must we not, as good rational scientific materialists, conclude that Man never landed on the Moon?

Science vs Science(TED)

Apparently science is not science unless it is approved by TED’s board:

After due diligence, including a survey of published scientific research and recommendations from our Science Board and our community, we have decided that Graham Hancock’s and Rupert Sheldrake’s talks from TEDxWhitechapel should be removed from distribution on the TEDx YouTube channel.

We’re not censoring the talks. Instead we’re placing them here, where they can be framed to highlight both their provocative ideas and the factual problems with their arguments. See both talks after the jump.

All talks on the TEDxTalks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.

It is very difficult to try to consider the idea that most of the TED Talks are not pseudoscience with a straight face.  The entire purpose of the TED Talks is to make that which is not science look and feel like science for the benefit of the self-consciously mid-witted.  There is a reason the Ted Talks are eight-minute videos; it is a product targeted at people with short attention spans who are more inclined to watch television than read.

In the image on the left, Manolo the Shoe Blogger illustrates for whom these short, lightweight Talks are intended. TED Talks are really nothing more than video Cliff’s Notes. That is why the sort of people who specialize in dumbing things down for the wealthy, half-educated have to be very careful about what ideas they permit to be presented to their target audience.  They know perfectly well that their audience are the exact opposite of critical thinkers and therefore have a tendency to swallow everything presented to them as the pure truth of the sciencistic gospel.

The banned talk is below.  The fascinating thing is one of the reasons for the ban which is that Sheldrake “suggests that scientists reject the notion that animals have consciousness, despite the fact that it’s generally accepted that animals have some form of consciousness.” So, are we to understand that the scientific materialists now not only accept that consciousness exists, but regard it as the orthodox and enforceable scientific consensus?