Comments on: I am a believer

By: Matthew Cromer

Matthew Cromer — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:16:01 +0000

The problem with any belief system is it becomes reified into dogma. And that is what the current institution of "science" has become. A set of unchallengeable axioms about what is true, no longer a method of inquiry.

By: Fly

Fly — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:42:03 +0000

?how about an Iq weighted democracy??

Maybe?but Noem Chompsky?s IQ is likely higher than mine. I wouldn?t want him making my political decisions.

Actually I believe we already have an IQ weighted democracy. IQ correlates with the wealth, power, and position that strongly influence US democratic practice. High IQ people are more persuasive at every level. Other factors such as wealth might be weighted even more, but IQ counts.

While I wouldn?t use IQ, I might weigh votes based on issue awareness. A voter should at least understand the question or have a minimal awareness of a candidate?s background. (Even this could be abused. Suppose I wanted increased funding for fusion research. The issue partly depends on the likely success of the project. The people best informed on this topic are also those most likely to benefit from increased funding.)

By: vic

vic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:48:59 +0000

sorry fellas, my typing/spelling are terrible!

By: vic

vic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 23:47:30 +0000

fly:

speaking a little toungue in cheek

how about an Iq weighted democracy?

By: Fly

Fly — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:48:49 +0000

Vic: ?too much democracy will ultimately always lead to the most crass forms of populism.?

In graduate school one math prof would have the class vote on whether propositions were true. Helped get the class involved. The final truth of the proposition was determined by mathematical proof and not the class result.

The math class shared the same worldview and agreed on a mathematical process to resolve mathematical questions. Other groups wouldn?t share that worldview and wouldn?t agree on a mathematical process to answer a question. If a dispute arose between groups a process that all accept is needed to resolve the dispute. In some places force is used to resolve disputes. Or authority granted by birth or position. Or wealth. My preference is democracy. Democracy doesn?t guarantee truth but it does help resolve conflict.

?too much democracy will ultimately always lead to the most crass forms of populism.?

Democracy can take many forms. I don?t like complex issues being reduced to sound bites that are mouthed by charismatic spokesmen in order to win a popular vote. Perhaps better methods will evolve as social network and communication technologies advance. If I trusted someone I might transfer my voting right to that person. Perhaps groups could organize around specific issues and solicit people?s votes concerning those issues. Intelligent people should be sufficiently persuasive to garner support for their beliefs.

By: vic

vic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:29:50 +0000

pconroy:

“What I’m commenting on is the phenomenon that many people in the US and elsewhere, at similar socio-economic status, age, success, wealth, etc. are not having any/many children – and what this may do to their psyche.”

Did anyone ever consider that modern western techonological society may actually be finally giving some people freedom from their dawkinian ” selfish gene”

By: vic

vic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:26:18 +0000

Fly:

i think you missed my point

postmodern relativism aside, there are SOME truths ( maybe more than just some) which while truths are not evident or self evident to many.

so should the truth or truthfullness of a proposition or argumant be detrmined by reason or by majority.

obviously, I have my bias on this ( obviously because I am right all the time), but i see an increasing trend towards majoritarian ( and perhaps idiotarian ) resolution of the truthfullness of argumants.

maybe i am a fucking fascist, but i see major problems doen the line if these trends continue.

too much democracy will ultimately always lead to the most crass forms of populism.

By: vic

vic — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:20:22 +0000

pconroy:

“I think the US should allow new mothers more time off, say 3 months minimum, and pay for it at say 75% of current salary”

soonds really good and right and pious and all that…. problem is – a salary is compensation for productive labor, so if someone takes three months off at 75 % salary, this money doesnt grow on trees. so who pays. to my mind it is very simple.. this is a zero sum game…if the prego is getting a free ride… someone is paying by uncompensated work.

so who should pay????

By: Fly

Fly — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:18:11 +0000

Pat: ?None of them happened to have panned out.?

Here is an article from last year that suggests there is evidence from Gulf Coast oil fields that Dr. Thomas Gold?s theory may have substance. (I don?t follow this topic so I don?t vouch for the source or the claims.)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

By: pconroy

pconroy — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:47:01 +0000

Karl,

I agree with you, but I’m neither young (42 yo) nor at the beginning of my career. When I referenced cousins in Ireland, I was referring to similarly aged people, who are research scientists, doctors, surgeons, veterinarians, writers, business managers and the like.

What I’m commenting on is the phenomenon that many people in the US and elsewhere, at similar socio-economic status, age, success, wealth, etc. are not having any/many children – and what this may do to their psyche.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:41:34 +0000

“The arguments for Pauling’s Vitamin C theory and Gold’s Deep Earth Gas Hypothesis and Duesberg’s No Virus AIDS Theory were all very suggestive at one time. None of them happened to have panned out. Many people wanted Vitamin C to cure the cancer. Many people wanted oil to be inexhaustible. Alas those theories didn’t work out. Many people wanted HIV to cause AIDS – that one seems to be supported by the evidence. Political groups advance hypotheses that they find attractive but in the long run evidence matters most.”
Agreed Pat, but, excuse me, did you see my comment above? It’s puzzling really, that so many of us purport to despise “authorities” telling us what to think, and yet when anyone does valid research not totally promoted by said authorities, they are relegated to the ranks of wacko, and even those who take them seriously are termed wacko. GNXP certainly know about this phenomenon.
Everybody knows politicians and their scribes, the journalists, lie in the line of work, and with good reason; and yet, question them, research for yourself–and you become a “wacko.” I dunno. It’s a strange, ironic world.

The most recent research does appear to vindicate Linus Pauling:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=12154

and http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi…di/ sardi43.html
one of the articles ends with:
“The NIH also offered no explanation why it has taken 35 years to confirm the work of Dr. Linus Pauling.”

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:29:05 +0000

I don't know if I agree with you pconroy. Those with more education often seem to wait until things are stable before having kids. However, it is the people with fewer economic opportunities that often have more kids. I wonder if this is because people with fewer opportunities are having kids to inject meaning in their lives.

Perhaps people with more opportunities have the luxury of planning and waiting with the expectation that things will get better while they pour energy into their career.

These thoughts just off the top of my head.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:51:49 +0000

Rag Time,

I was really addressing my comments to the readership of this blog, whom I presume are well educated, high IQ individuals - for it is this group that seems to have the fewest children in the US and elsewhere.

IMO directionless youth who have children, do so as a byproduct of unprotected sex, while under the infleunce of something or other.

I also think parenting skills should be taught to expectant parents, just like LaMaze Classes etc., where parents would be expected to pass an exam. I think a lot of parents are just clueless about what it means to be a good parent.

By: Rag Time

Rag Time — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:01:45 +0000

"I think though that a peoples's sense of place and purpose strongly infleunces their willingness to have children or not - all other things being equal."

But PConroy, there seem to be an awful lot of directionless youth out there, with no place or purpose, who are having lots of babies. (Are some other things not equal?). I think the reason for West has created a society that is not very conducive to raising children. It's too commercial and impersonal, not enough community cohesion and group pride - IMO perhaps the result of a little too much focus on money and the rat race. It's made things too difficult on adults to raise children. Or at least that is the impression of a lot of childless young people with whom I speak. They worry they will not be able to raise their children properly, or that their children will just bring them heartache, so why bother.

"IMO our only purpose here is to reproduce and care for some of our own kind, and we have been programmed by evolution to do that and find solace in it. To not do so, leads one away from nature and ultimately into a nihilistic abyss."

True more for women than for men. But for men also, just perhaps to a lesser degree. I don't understand women who don't want to have children, create families and communities. Seems like a natural role. Then again, that role is more easily played when there are ready ways to create cohesive communities, and young mothers are not stuck in a box all day with screaming kids.

I wonder what community life is like in Ireland.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:56:24 +0000

pat,

thanks for pointing that out about needham. i actually know about his marxism, and i generally cite him because though he’s a bit gung-ho, my reading of other authors on china does suggest that the general pattern is correct (ie; china had less of a technological ratchet effect than the west). but, i guess it is important to flesh out these background assumptions since many readers wouldn’t have known that.

By: pat

pat — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:40:10 +0000

To Scottm:

The aging wunderkind phenomenon you mention may be a good insight into Duesberg. Consider that other famous wunderkind, paleontologist Robert Bakker. When Alvarez Pere e Fils finally answered the big question in paleontogy - what killed the dinosaurs? - Bakker could not accept it. He still can't.

Duesberg like Bakker is just wrong. They were/are both brilliant scientists but they are both wrong. Time pasted them by.

Here in the SF Bay Area in the early days of AIDS there was a strong political impulse to find a cause for the "Gay Plague" that would exculpate male homosexuals. Gay apologists were desperate for a value neutral cause. They very much wanted a theory that diverted attention from their personal behavior. Robert Gallo provided just that theory at just the right time.

Duesberg was sceptical early on at least partly because the HIV theory was so convenient politically. I think scepticism at that time was a scientifically appropriate attitude.

Later it came out that Gallo was something of a crook and his associates were worse. Furthermore the virus was posited to act in a new and rather peculiar way. It was good that someone questioned all this.

However that was then, this is now. The arguments for Pauling's Vitamin C theory and Gold's Deep Earth Gas Hypothesis and Duesberg's No Virus AIDS Theory were all very suggestive at one time. None of them happened to have panned out. Many people wanted Vitamin C to cure the cancer. Many people wanted oil to be inexhaustible. Alas those theories didn't work out. Many people wanted HIV to cause AIDS - that one seems to be supported by the evidence. Political groups advance hypotheses that they find attractive but in the long run evidence matters most.

Currently there is another similar kind of controversial political theory - the MBH98 Hockey Stick theory of Global Warming. In this case there is a constituency for a theory that that proposes that Western Civilization is at fault. Al Gore, the IPCC and most Democrats want this theory to be right. We'll see.

To Razib:

There is a strong political bias in Needham. He was virulently anti-American and anti-Western. He admired the Chinese communists. He may be the ultimate authority on Chinese technology but his judgements are not to be trusted. When there is an unclear record of an invention or idea that appears to have emerged simultaneously in Europe and China, he always assumes that the origin was in China.

You are of course completly right about scientific culture being fragile and being Western. The record of Chinese innovation demonstrates that, but crediting China with too much is just a modern politically correct fashion. Consider for example the invention of firearms. Nothing could be clearer than that the Gunpowder Revolution swept from the West to the East. Yet pop culture and Needham insist that China invented gunpowder and firearms.

Many people gain an odd sort of comfort from the notion that China "invented" firearms (or the printing press or the crossbow or cast iron). China has a real record of accomplishment it doesn't need its reputation gilded by Needham writing to an audience of self loathing post-modern Western liberals.

I don't mean that you are part of that audience of course. But it bothers me when people cite Needham as if he were a disinterested ideologically neutral scholar. This is akin to not noticing the theology that is permeates Al Gore's writings.

By: pconroy

pconroy — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 07:47:33 +0000

Rag Time,

Glad you agree with me.

I think the US should allow new mothers more time off, say 3 months minimum, and pay for it at say 75% of current salary.

Also, better managed and supervised daycare, with infant/child developmental standards.

I think though that a peoples's sense of place and purpose strongly infleunces their willingness to have children or not - all other things being equal. When that sense is strong they have kids, when it weakens or becomes confused they don't. I know for example confidence in Ireland is running very high, and there is a mini baby boom there. All my cousins - who are professionals - have on average 3 to 4 kids each. This is very high for a developed society. At the other end of the scale is Germany and Japan who have lost their sense of purpose to some extent and just as their economies flounder, so too do their birth rates dwindle. The question is which comes first, moral or economic erosion?

I myself don't need any transcendental explanations of the universe or peoples purpose in it. To me it's obvious when I look in the eyes of my 2 year old daughter, and get that sense of being and oneness. This is the mystery of life, this is it.

IMO our only purpose here is to reproduce and care for some of our own kind, and we have been programmed by evolution to do that and find solace in it. To not do so, leads one away from nature and ultimately into a nihilistic abyss.

By: Rag Time

Rag Time — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:22:14 +0000

pc conroy is right about this:

"On a more mundane level, I would pay attention to creating and caring for offspring, as this I believe is the only way to feel truely part of the world, and part of the cycle of life. This is what gives you immortality, in a sense. I think that any culture that has strong, positive family values, is likely to succeed against others."

I think the West is failing in this regard, and no culture that fails to reproduce itself can reproduce itself. Of course, things could turn around, but only if all the smarties stop moving to the cities and not having babies.

By: Fly

Fly — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:02:58 +0000

Vic: ?some truths are by their very nature self evident..... to some, and unfortunately not evident at all to some,....what to do ??

My personal experience is that few people see the same the truths I see as self-evident. As long as I don?t push my truths on them and they don?t push their truths on me, I have no problem. There is room for many worldviews.

At times I am affected by the truths of others. Usually I have the right to state my own beliefs and attempt to gather support from others. If I can?t sway the group and I can?t abide by the group consensus I leave the group. At times I have to live with group decisions I find distasteful. While democracy (with minority rights) is imperfect, I know of no better way to make group decisions.

Some belief systems are intolerant and aggressive. (Western culture is aggressive in that it intrudes on other cultures, but is tolerant and does extend rights to other cultures.) In such cases I would fight to ensure that Western culture prevails. (I have no problem with Western culture co-opting the best from other cultures. I like Japanese anime and Chinese Kung Fu movies. Nor would I mind if the world community rejected the worst parts of US culture.)

With regard to Internet knowledge systems, I believe there is room for many belief systems. There might be a collection of knowledge nodes pushing creationism. Some religions might encourage their believers to only visit those sites. As long as people can freely choose, I wouldn?t have a problem with it. I want a competitive marketplace of ideas. I believe that in the long run science-based ideas will flourish in such a market. Especially if scientists and engineers and like-minded individuals keep creating tools that make science more effective.

I have many beliefs. Some are wrong. I believe it is usually best to allow others to be wrong as well.

By: vic

vic — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:43:13 +0000

fly

some truths are by their very nature self evident….. to some, and unfortunately not evident at all to some,….what to do ?