Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Random Neural Firings

Thursday, November 29th, 2012

From my comments at The War on Guns:

The Constitution is We The People telling the government what it may do, and the Bill of Rights is We The People telling it what it must not do.

And the corollary of that is that the Constitution doesn’t belong to the Government, especially not the Supreme Court. It belongs to We The People, as a collar and leash belongs not to the dog, but to the master.

Whenever We feel Our dogs straining at the leash, it is up to Us to scold them, put them in their kennel, or in the worst case, tie a particularly unruly one to a tree within sight of the pack and shoot it.

If the Constitution guaranteed the RKBA, it wouldn’t be so baldly infringed.

The Constitution is nothing more than a line in the sand; it’s up to us to punish those who dare to cross it.


The Second Amendment does not make militia membership a prerequisite to gun ownership — quite the contrary. Owning a gun and being trained in its use automatically confers militia membership, and a well armed and well trained militia is deemed a necessary bulwark to liberty.


Technically, I am an agnostic. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in God because I feel I lack sufficient evidence; that is the skeptical stance.

Instead, I have faith because even in principle, I can not know, in the sense of possessing falsifiable, scientific facts, that God exists. I must accept Him on faith, and proceed as if I knew, as if the very equations of science proclaimed the mysteries of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.


Mohammed’s Error in creating his warrior cult was precisely that he tried to trade belief for fact, faith for knowing. He set down specific rules and claimed that those who do not follow his rules cannot be Muslims, and deserve slavery and death. In so doing, he killed and mummified Allah, and drove himself and his murderous followers insane, right down to the present day.


[update]

People who try to prove the existence of God through science, whether physics, or neurology, or psychology, or even evolution, are committing Mohammed’s Error, and his sin: they are trying to put God in a killing jar and pin His husk to a cork board with neat little labels. That way leads to judging others, rather than ourselves, and trying to bring God’s wrath on them on God’s behalf, and thence to hell on Earth.

I’m talking to you, Vox, not just the Gaia-ists and behaviorists.

[I've also made some small tweaks to previous sections of this post for grammar and clarity.]

Neither Wind Nor Rain

Monday, October 29th, 2012

I’m concerned that Sandy won’t be just a disaster for the upper Eastern seaboard.

So great is the density of the population, of industrial, financial, and governmental institutions, that it could well be a massive blow to the nation at large.

And here’s the thing: a decade ago, it would merely have been crippling.

But now, I fear, Obama has so weakened us, deprived us of so much flexibility, that we won’t be able to recover.

I expect not. We are strong, and large, and far more distributed now than, say, twenty years ago.

But the oldest parts of the nation may be put down for a long, long time.

“A Bucket of Air”

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

Update: Welcome, James Nicoll and readers!
Yes, it’s me, the dorky kid in the coat and newsboy cap.

Via leftist SF critic James Nicoll, Fritz Leiber’s (pronounced, contrary to my lifelong habit, “Lie-ber”) sparkling gem of Hope:

“So I asked myself then,” he said, “what’s the use of going on? What’s the use of dragging it out for a few years? Why prolong a doomed existence of hard work and cold and loneliness? The human race is done. The Earth is done. Why not give up, I asked myself—and all of a sudden I got the answer.”

Again I heard the noise, louder this time, a kind of uncertain, shuffling tread, coming closer. I couldn’t breathe.

“Life’s always been a business of working hard and fighting the cold,” Pa was saying. “The earth’s always been a lonely place, millions of miles from the next planet. And no matter how long the human race might have lived, the end would have come some night. Those things don’t matter. What matters is that life is good. It has a lovely texture, like some rich cloth or fur, or the petals of flowers—you’ve seen pictures of those, but I can’t describe how they feel—or the fire’s glow. It makes everything else worth while. And that’s as true for the last man as the first.”

And still the steps kept shuffling closer. It seemed to me that the inmost blanket trembled and bulged a little. Just as if they were burned into my imagination, I kept seeing those peering, frozen eyes.

“So right then and there,” Pa went on, and now I could tell that he heard the steps, too, and was talking loud so we maybe wouldn’t hear them, “right then and there I told myself that I was going on as if we had all eternity ahead of us. I’d have children and teach them all I could. I’d get them to read books. I’d plan for the future, try to enlarge and seal the Nest. I’d do what I could to keep everything beautiful and growing. I’d keep alive my feeling of wonder even at the cold and the dark and the distant stars.”

I first read this as a teen, and completely missed the import of this passage. Shame on me.

No longer, though. It resonates perfectly with Andrew Klavan’s rejection of Earth Day:

Sunday was Earth Day, and in honor of the occasion, I’d like to say that as far as I’m concerned the Earth can go to hell.

The Earth — for those of you who may have fallen behind on your reading — is a piece of rock trapped in a slow death spiral into a cauldron of exploding plasma which, for lack of a better word, we’ll call the sun. Because that’s its name. There is exactly one interesting or worthwhile thing about this hunk of doomed space debris, and that is: it happens to maintain the conditions necessary for supporting life. (The odds against this would be ridiculously impossible, by the way, if there were no God — so impossible that scientists have been forced to invent all kinds of silly multi-universe scenarios solely for the purpose of convincing themselves that there is no God. But that’s their problem, and neither here nor there.)

So the earth supports life. Whoopee. And there is exactly one interesting or worthwhile thing about life — only one — and that is the mind of man.

“Holy cannoli, Klavan on the Culture,” you may be saying to yourself, or even out loud — because, let’s face it, you’re kind of an odd person — I mean, just look at you. Anyway, “Holy cannoli or even moley,” you may be saying, “how can you say the mind of man is the only interesting or worthwhile thing about life? What about the beauty of the running gazelle? The nobility of the flying eagle? The awesome awesomeness of the spacious skies above the amber waves running to the purple mountains above the fruited plains? And how about those glazed donuts with the yellow creme inside? I love those!”

First of all, stop talking so much, this is my blog. And b, there is no beauty, no nobility, no awesome awesomeness — not even the taste of a glazed donut — outside the human mind. The science is not yet settled, but reality itself may be in part a production of the human mind as there are some aspects of the world that don’t seem to resolve themselves until we observe them. But in any case, the gazelle would be fleet for nothing, the eagle would be a winged eating machine, the skies and the waves and the mountains would be dreams without the dreamer if man were not here to know them.

So screw Earth Day. I would like to declare today — and every day — the Mind of Man Day. Celebrate that — nurture that — glorify that — and the earth, believe me, will take care of itself.

Carl Sagan said it beautifully:

We are a way for the universe to know itself.

Maxwell

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

By far, the simplest explanation of Maxwell’s equations I’ve ever read is attached to Irregular Web Comic.

Show ▼

Homeschooling Works Pretty Well, Actually

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Posted without comment:

[click for full size]

Via Sippican Cottage, where it is noted:

it costs 11 large a year per student to send a child to public school around here. Mail my wife 22 grand every year and see how much better she’ll do.

Conservatives Understand Liberals…

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

[This is here so I can find this stuff again.]

…But Liberals don’t get Conservatives.

Here’s a study in which Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, and Jonathan Haidt

investigated the moral stereotypes political liberals and conservatives have of themselves and each other. In reality, liberals endorse the individual-focused moral concerns of compassion and fairness more than conservatives do, and conservatives endorse the group-focused moral concerns of ingroup loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and physical/spiritual purity more than liberals do. 2,212 U.S. participants filled out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire with their own answers, or as a typical liberal or conservative would answer. Across the political spectrum, moral stereotypes about “typical” liberals and conservatives correctly reflected the direction of actual differences in foundation endorsement but exaggerated the magnitude of these differences. Contrary to common theories of stereotyping, the moral stereotypes were not simple underestimations of the political outgroup’s morality. Both liberals and conservatives
exaggerated the ideological extremity of moral concerns for the ingroup as well as the outgroup. Liberals were least accurate about both groups.

In my quick skim (I need to read this paper more closely) one issue this study does not seem to address is the difference between private and public morality, that is, what is the group justified in controlling individual behavior? I think that right now, liberals are willing to criminalize a far wider range of behaviors than conservatives are, and I believe the reason is that conservatives expect individuals to be responsible for themselves, while liberals expect individuals to have less self control. This is at odds, though, with the usual conservative portrayal of liberals as assuming the perfectibility of man, while conservatives regard themselves as being infected with original sin.

One of the authors, Jonathan Haidt, has wwritten a book exploring the question in more detail, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics.

Men Not Useless After All

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Well, no.

Women need men like men need women, as Roy F. Baumeister explains by way of answering the modern question, “Is There Anything Good About Men?”

When you think about it, the idea that one gender is all-around better than the other is not very plausible. Why would nature make one gender better than the other?

[There are] three main theories we’ve had about gender: Men are better, no difference, and women are better. What’s missing from that list? Different but equal.

Natural selection will preserve innate differences between men and women as long as the different traits are beneficial in different circumstances or for different tasks.

The tradeoff approach yields a radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.

Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.

We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

…[Men] outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.

Here’s his conclusion:

To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

The Whole Thing is not very tightly organized, I’m afraid. It’s a talk, not a paper, and it lacks references.

But read the Whole Think anyway. These are ideas that are almost completely ignored by the loudest voices in our culture. Those voices are not trying to improve the role of women; they’re trying to tear down the culture.

As it turns out, men and women both serve important roles, but in differing spheres of influence. Men serve the group, women the family.

It is insanely self-destructive for a culture to devalue either sphere.

Slings And Arrows of Science

Monday, December 20th, 2010

Oh, this is going up on blogs, bulletin boards, office doors, and hospital bed stands all over the world, damn betcha. This is one of the great classics.

At least, with p < 0.05 confidence

Transcript, because this is important:

Hat Guy: So, has this sickness opened you up to looking for answers beyond science?

Other Guy: …No, not really.

We’ve groped for comfort before the slings and arrows of fortune for millenia, and I begrudge nobody their sources of solace.

But science provides tools.

$100 Billion a year in scientific studies and medical R&D has bought us some pretty damn powerful slings and arrows of our own.

This world is amazing, and I’m going to live to experience more of it thanks to people who refused to gracefully accept the ineffability of reality.

I find my courage where I can, but I take my weapons from science.

Because they work, bitches.

May the Powers bless and keep you, Randall Munroe. That is something that desperately needs to be said and remembered.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Democracy

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

I have mentioned before Eliezer S. Yudkowsky’s mind-expanding Harry Potter fanfic, The Methods of Rationality.

I’ll note first of all that I recently tried to read Prisoner of Azkaban, and could not get past the first few pages.

Part of it was that I just completed rereading some of Terry Pratchett’s best work recently. Pratchett is not only one of the twentieth century’s best writers in any genre, but he understands myth, fantasy, and SF inside and out, so it’s not surprising that J.K. Rowling, who is essentially telling an extended joke for children, does not measure up.

But a good deal of my problem is that nearly every sentence that Rowling wrote referred to something that Yudkowsky had done much better. What is to Rowling a children’s joke is to Yudkowsky a tool for understanding how to think. Methods is nowhere near as well written as PTerry’s work, being more than a little preachy and educational, but Yudkowsky is far the better thinker.

Yudkowsky has just completed a long sequence set in the Azkaban Prison. Harry and his mentor, Quirinus Quirrell, instructor in defense against the Dark Arts, wanted to rescue…well, a prisoner from the magical prison of Azkaban. Harry is appalled at the, literally, soul-destroying punishment of Azkaban, which is not merely a place of incarceration, but deliberately causes extreme emotional distress in its inmates.

On his return, Harry awakes from an exhausted sleep:

Twelve terrible voids floating down a metal corridor, tarnishing the metal around them, light dimmed and temperature falling as the emptiness tried to suck all life out of the world -

Chalk-white skin, stretched just above the bone that had remained after fat and muscle faded -

A metal door -

A woman’s voice -

No, I didn’t mean it, please don’t die -

I can’t remember my children’s names any more -

Don’t go, don’t take it away, don’t don’t don’t -

“What was that place?” Harry said hoarsely, in a voice pushed out of his throat like water forced through a too-thin pipe, in the darkness it sounded almost as shattered as Bellatrix Black’s voice had been. “What was that place? That wasn’t a prison, that was HELL!”

“Hell?” said the calm voice of the Defense Professor. “You mean the Christian punishment fantasy? I suppose there is a similarity.”

“How -” Harry’s voice was blocking, there was something huge lodged in his throat. “How – how could they -” People had built that place, someone had made Azkaban, they’d made it on purpose, they’d done it deliberately, that woman, she’d had children, children she wouldn’t remember, some judge had decided for that to happen to her, someone had needed to drag her into that cell and lock its door while she screamed, someone fed her every day and walked away without letting her out -

“HOW COULD PEOPLE DO THAT?”

“Why shouldn’t they?” said the Defense Professor. A pale blue light lit the warehouse, then, showing a high, cavernous concrete ceiling, and a dusty concrete floor; and Professor Quirrell sitting some distance away from Harry, leaning his back against a painted wall; the pale blue light turned the walls to glacier surfaces, the dust on the floor to speckled snow, and the man himself had become an ice sculpture, shrouded in darkness where his black robes lay over him. “What use are the prisoners of Azkaban to them?”

Harry’s mouth opened in a croak. No words exited.

A faint smile twitched on the Defense Professor’s lips. “You know, Mr. Potter, if He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named had come to rule over magical Britain, and built such a place as Azkaban, he would have built it because he enjoyed seeing his enemies suffer. And if instead he began to find their suffering distasteful, why, he would order Azkaban torn down the next day. As for those who did make Azkaban, and those who do not tear it down, while preaching lofty sermons and imagining themselves not to be villains… well, Mr. Potter, I think if I had my choice of taking tea with them, or taking tea with You-Know-Who, I should find my sensibilities less offended by the Dark Lord.”

“I don’t understand,” Harry said, his voice was shaking, he’d read about the classic experiment on the psychology of prisons, the ordinary college students who had turned sadistic as soon as they were assigned the role of prison guards; only now he realized that the experiment hadn’t examined the right question, the one most important question, they hadn’t looked at the key people, not the prison guards but everyone else, “I really don’t understand, Professor Quirrell, how can people just stand by and let this happen, why is the country of magical Britain doing this -” Harry’s voice stopped.

The Defense Professor’s eyes appeared to be the same color as always, in the pale blue light, for that light was the same color as Quirinus Quirrell’s irises, those never-thawing chips of ice. “Welcome, Mr. Potter, to your first encounter with the realities of politics. What do the wretched creatures in Azkaban have to offer any faction? Who would benefit from aiding them? A politician who openly sided with them would associate themselves with criminals, with weakness, with distasteful things that people would rather not think about. Alternatively, the politician could demonstrate their might and cruelty by calling for longer sentences; to make a display of strength requires a victim to crush beneath you, after all. And the populace applauds, for it is their instinct to back the winner.” A coldly amused laugh. “You see, Mr. Potter, no one ever quite believes that they will go to Azkaban, so they see no harm in it for themselves. As for what they inflict on others… I suppose you were once told that people care about that sort of thing? It is a lie, Mr. Potter, people don’t care in the slightest, and if you had not led a vastly sheltered childhood you would have noticed that long ago. Console yourself with this: those now prisoner in Azkaban voted for the same Ministers of Magic who pledged to move their cells closer to the Dementors. I admit, Mr. Potter, that I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.”

Harry’s recently cohered self was threatening to shatter into fragments again, the words falling like hammerstrikes on his consciousness, driving him back, step by step, over the precipice where lurked some vast abyss; and he was trying to find something to save himself, some clever retort that would refute the words, but it did not come.

The Defense Professor watched Harry, the gaze reflecting more curiosity than command. “It is very simple, Mr. Potter, to understand how Azkaban was built, and how it continues to be. Men care for what they, themselves, expect to suffer or gain; and so long as they do not expect it to redound upon themselves, their cruelty and carelessness is without limit. All the other wizards of this country are no different within than he who sought to rule over them, You-Know-Who; they only lack his power and his… frankness.”

The boy’s hands were clenched into fists so tightly that the nails cut into his palm, if his fingers were white or his face was pale you couldn’t have seen that, for the dim blue light cast all into ice or shadow. “You once offered to support me if my ambition were to be the next Dark Lord. Is that why, Professor?”

The Defense Professor inclined his head, a thin smile on his lips. “Learn all that I have to teach you, Mr. Potter, and you will rule this country in time. Then you may tear down the prison that democracy made, if you find that Azkaban still offends your sensibilities. Like it or not, Mr. Potter, you have seen this day that your own will conflicts with the will of this country’s populace, and that you do not bow your head and submit to their decision when that occurs. So to them, whether or not they know it, and whether or not you acknowledge it, you are their next Dark Lord.”

And that bold is exactly, precisely, why folks such as tea-partiers, libertarians, Three-Percenters, and Billy Beck are so hated and reviled — despite the fact that they do not desire to be anyone’s Lord. It is enough that they will not bow to democracy, but insist on living to their own consciences, and demand only to be left alone.

Relatively Easy Climate Quote of the Day

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Watts Up With That, Again:

On the tropopause, which is often identified by a constant potential vorticity (PV) surface of 2-PV units, one can plot the potential temperature (?) to identify upper-level synoptic phenomena such as the jet stream, Rossby-wave breaking, anticyclones, and cut-off lows. From these so-called “dynamic-tropopause” maps, it is relatively easy to see what’s going on.

[My bold.]
….Uh…OK? I guess?

Extreme cold expected during the next week.

Ah. I see.

This is going to be very interesting.

Let me note something: There’s a specific prediction here, with a fairly narrow set of conditions. It will either turn out that way, or not. That’s the difference between science and fortune telling.