| Monday
I am somewhat weary
of the Intelligent Design discussion, because I find the whole subject
irrelevant to the major problems that face US education. As to the truth of
falsity of the purely mechanical, random selection hypothesis, most of the
discussion I have seen hasn't been very relevant.
What concerns me is the vehemence with
which opponents of ID argue for exclusion of any mention of ID from any
school district anywhere. People who pretend to be conservative or
libertarian and opposed to central direction of people's lives by experts
seem to have no problem whatever with central control of school curricula if
that's what it takes to keep the Intelligent Design hypothesis out of every
school in the land.
As far as I can see, if every school
district in the land that wanted to put Intelligent Design as an alternative
to the Dawkins theory that an undifferentiated cloud of gas would inevitably
into creatures that write Dante's Inferno, perform Swan Lake, devise both
the Newtonian and Relativistic theories, and write Darwin's Origin of
Species, there might be as many as a hundred who would actually do that. One
may speculate as to the practical effect this might have; I suspect it
wouldn't have much effect at all. Most students in today's schools have no
training in or love of science and its tools of logic and mathematics, and
whether they believe in Dawkinsism or Intelligent Design won't matter a hill
of beans in their or anyone else's lives. Actually, there might be a
positive benefit: the discussion might get them thinking about the subject.
Meanwhile, the central control of
curriculum has been remarkably successful in keeping any alternative to
Human Caused Global Warming out of the classroom, and suppressing any
teaching of Global Warming Denial; and that, I submit, does have real
consequences, not only for the students but for every one of you. I
don't know of any effects on the economy that inevitably result from having
beliefs in Intelligent Design as opposed to Dawkinsism; but I know of many
disastrous economic effects that inevitably result from belief in the Al
Gore inconvenient truth hypothesis. Alternatives to Goreism are pretty well
restricted from the classroom.
Why suppress Global Warming Denial?
Because there is this enormous consensus that Global Warming is TRUE, and
anyone who is a Global Warming Denier is either an idiot or in the pay of
oil companies and probably ought to be jailed; just as there is this
enormous consensus that Intelligent Design is TRIVIALLY FALSE, and anyone
who believes in it is either an idiot or in the pay of some sinister forces
and probably ought to be jailed. The principle that anything against the
consensus must be excluded from every classroom in the land is so important
that central control of curricula must trump local control.
And that, to me, is the importance of
the Intelligent Design debates.
==
Regarding Aaron Clausen's remarks
RE:
Jerry,
In Friday’s mail, June 6, Aaron Clausen states
“There's nothing in evolutionary or abiogenesis theory that forbids
religious beliefs”
Perhaps so, but I do wish to point out that in
practice there seem to be many (the vast majority?) that insist that belief
in evolutionary theory demands atheism. I present as evidence “Science and
Creationism” edited by Ashley Montague. It includes essays by many who I am
sure are authorities in their fields, but, alas, the general tone is one of
bitter sarcasm and *extreme* hatred of Christianity. For example, one
essayist holds up Satan as the true hero of Genesis chapter 3. Needless to
say, statements such as this do not help bring clarity to an issue.
I am not in the creationist camp, but I find it
difficult not to believe that these scientists’ true colors have come out,
whatever lip service they may give to the neutrality of science in matters
of faith in other venues. It would be very helpful in framing the debate if
both sides could read C.S. Lewis; an author you and I both appreciate.
Mike Cheek
==
IC and ID and all that Stuff
I was disappointed that Aaron Clausen was disappointed
because you did not want to use the coercive power of the state to suppress
scientific dissent. Seems to me the last time the Scientific Consensus went
to the courts for vindication was in 1633 and things did not work out at all
well. Sometimes all a consensus means is that the vast majority of
scientists was educated in a Kuhnian paradigm and clings to it as normative.
Thus, one can say that Behe is wrong to claim that his
conclusion (ID) follows from his premise (IC), but this is not the same as
showing the premise to be wrong. After all, he also concludes ID from the
Big Bang, but few people reject BB because they reject ID. (There are
exceptions, remarkably enough, who point to the Pope's ready acceptance of
BB and the fact that it was first developed by a Catholic priest as
"evidence" that the theory must be wrong. Scientists, forsooth.) Franklin
Harold, a biochemist with no sympathy for Behe's metaphysical conclusions,
wrote: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of
intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must
concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the
evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful
speculations."
Behe may well be right that the Malthusian struggle
for existence by the organisms does not adequately explain the irreducible
complexity of some microbiological mechanisms. After all, Newton's laws of
motion did not explain everything about motion in extreme cases. There is
room in there for another theory or two. Behe believes that Darwin's natural
selection theory explains much of evolution. (Kimura's neutral selection may
explain more.) But he also mentioned Shapiro's information-theoretic
approach as a possible alternative explanation for irreducible complexity.
It is one thing to claim that Behe "self-destructed"
at the Dover trial -- it is psychologically telling that the link is
entitled "ICsilly" -- quite another to read the transcript of his testimony.
There, one learns that Behe is not fluent in philosophy (few scientists are)
but that he was being taken to task for "a personal definition of science"
employed by the likes of Poincare, Mach, and the Positivists. What one
really learns from the transcript is that a lawyer can usually make
mincemeat of a scientist on the stand. Oddly enough, everyone who has
referenced that testimony has used the exact same phrasing:
"self-destructed." As if they were all proof-texting the same quote.
I believe Behe is wrong regarding his conclusions from
a purely theological perspective. Western Theologians say that God does not
design like a craftsman, tweaking this or that physical constant, but in the
manner that thought is creative. At least, so said a Prof. Ratzinger. In
particular, in the Latin West, it was supposed that God had endowed matter
with natures having the capacity to act on their own without a divine
maintenance tech. Even in the Bible it reads that God commanded the earth to
bring forth living things, and it was the earth that did so. There is no
need to invoke "theokinetics." To quote Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn, "I
hope all the readers ... would join me in strenuously objecting if God is
ever invoked in the course of normal scientific explanation!" This strain of
thought in Western Christendom goes back at least as far as Augustine and
was re-echoed by William of Conches, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and
many others like Georges Lemaitre. Essentially, evidence of God's existence
does not lie in exceptions to natural laws but in the very existence of
natural laws. For the same reason, one cannot find evidence of Frank Whittle
in the dimensions of this or that component of a jet engine. The existence
of Whittle is not an engineering problem. John Cardinal Newman once wrote
that he did not believe in God because of design, but he believed in design
because of God.
Michael Flynn
Note that there are two debates here: the question
of ID itself, and the policy question of who should control the curriculum.
While they are related, they are separate questions. Incidentally, I often
hear the question "Would you allow the Flat Earth Society to present its
alternate view in school?" My answer would be, actually it was when I
was in school, although I doubt that the presenter believed in it. I recall
it was one of my first experiences at discussion of theories and evidence; I
believe it was in geography class in St. Anne's. My other answer is that I
don't seek to control the curriculum of any school but my local schools, and
if some district were determined to allow the Flat Earth Society some time
to present its alternate view I would be astonished, but I certainly
wouldn't spend any energy suppressing them.
==========
An interesting sidelight on
the consensus debate:
Free Energy & Established Science
Your recent commentary on BlackLight technologies
highlights a minor one of the many technologies which card-carrying
physicists shake their head at in disdain. There is a tremendous amount of
research being done and significant results being achieved by
non-professionals who challenge traditional physics. Zero-point energy is a
reality today but the powers that be have severely suppressed it to maintain
the status quo. The powers-that-be are the government (several branches of
it), private monopolies, and foreign governments, all of whom have a strong
interest in maintaining the energy situation as it now exists. The scale of
this suppression is astounding, the history of it, horrendous.
The internet is coming to the rescue and vast
dissemination of these emerging technologies will no longer be able to be
suppressed.
James Davis
It is certainly true that if anyone can build a
working model from the theories it should be easy enough to draw an audience
to examine it. As Bob Forward said years ago
in the matter of the Dean Drive, we do not need more elegant theories on
reactionless drives; we need a data point at odds with the existing
theories. If someone can show a device that gives off more energy than comes
in, and sustains that (i.e. it's not just a battery) I do not think it will
be suppressed. For that matter, don't we all, including the oil companies,
wish the Pogue Carburetor actually had worked and been bought and suppressed
by Big Oil? Ah, well.
========
Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is
over, report admits.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/
health-and-wellbeing/health-news/threat-
of-world-aids-pandemic-among-heterosexuals
-is-over-report-admits-842478.html >
- Roland Dobbins
Did it ever exist? In any event, the threat worked:
AIDS got plenty of research funding, even though it never quite had enough
to run an experimentum crucis on the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.
I have not followed this enough to have a valid
opinion any longer, so please do not start an argument about whether HIV
causes AIDS; I made the point years ago that there were people with very
solid credentials who questioned the hypothesis, an experimentum crucis
would be cheap, and before we poured everything we have into work that
assumed the truth of the hypothesis, it would be prudent -- and justified by
Bayesian analysis -- to invest a small amount of the funding in that
experimentum crucis.
In any event, the threat of an epidemic of AIDS
among the general, as opposed to high risk, population was never serious,
except that it accomplished its purpose of obtaining research funds.
==========
Letter From England
Last week, the realisation hit me of the similarity
between Hillary Clinton and Gordon Brown--the same brains, the same sense of
being entitled, the same stubbornness, the same inability to recognise early
when something isn't working, the same panic dance once they do realise
something isn't working, the same tone-deafness, the same hubris. So when I
post something absurd about where Brown and the UK Government are headed,
think of it as an option that might still be taken if we're not careful
about whom we elect.
This week's stories (the tinyurl links are provided to
work around problems with long links):
UK Government continues push for 42-day detention
without trial:
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7441455.stm>
< http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/07/
terrorism.civilliberties> < http://tinyurl.com/4n29hd>
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/06/terrorism.houseofcommons
> < http://tinyurl.com/3wl273>
There is a real risk that local authorities will apply
the new rules to things like littering and dog fouling:
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/northamptonshire/7414382.stm>
<http://tinyurl.com/3obh76
>
Private education in the UK is becoming more popular:
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7440022.stm>
< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/07/do0701.xml
> < http://tinyurl.com/3fd32x>
The UK 'public schools' have figured out the criteria
used by the old universities to break ties in selecting students, and make
sure their graduates have them. That's what people are paying for.
Mugabe is turning Zimbabwe into another Burma:
< http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/zimbabwe>
< http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/vote-mugabe-or-starve-ndash-the-latest-ploy-from-a-regime-clinging-on-to-power-842097.html
> < http://tinyurl.com/3q7hb4>
Church of England comes out in opposition to New
Labour policies:
< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4083979.ece>
<http://tinyurl.com/3ltvxg
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4083506.ece>
<http://tinyurl.com/5fudx5
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4083601.ece>
<http://tinyurl.com/4v865e
>
NHS surplus triggers row:
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7440519.stm>
--
Harry Erwin, PhD, Program Leader, MSc Information
Systems Security, University of Sunderland.
< http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw>
Weblog at: < http://scat-he-g4.sunderland.ac.uk/~harryerw/blog/index.php>
==========
The Air Force as a seperate service
Report on the crash of a B-2 on Guam.
http://ap.google.com/article/
ALeqM5gwMpLqX99V5mO6nPrBSI2xCKYGLgD9148F8G0
One aircraft. One point four billion dollars.
I understand that most heavily used strategic bomber
today is the B-52, loitering with a load of smart weapons while waiting for
the infantry to call for death from above.
Try as they might, the services just can't replace Ma
Deuce and the Buffs (what a name for a group! With special guest, the
Warthogs!).
Steve Chu
=========
News Flash!
Neolithic age men fought over women too, according to
a study that provides the most ancient evidence of the lengths men will go
to in the hunt for partners.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
uknews/2066554/Neolithic-men-were-prepared
-to-fight-for-their-women.html
Gollies
==========
Military shoots down missile in test off Hawaii
Doctor P,
I saw that speech where Obama promised to cancel
"unproven missile defense systems" if elected. Interesting: those missile
defense systems are now so "unproven" that even the Japanese are shooting
down missiles. With our technology.
Will we someday, perhaps soon, be asking the Japanese
Navy to defend our West Coast cities from North Korean missiles? If Obama is
president, seems possible.
History, as usual, has a sense of humor.
"In December, a Japanese naval vessel equipped with
the Aegis ballistic missile defense system shot down a missile target off
Hawaii. Japan became the first U.S. ally to intercept a missile from a ship
at sea in that test."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/
ap_on_re_us/missile_defense_test
Petronius
=========
Subject: DoD-oh....
The linked article about Officer Rot was indeed worth
reading. The discussion of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in the
comments section left me wondering. I guess I have a only a superficial
knowledge of what he tried to achieve in changing the military, consisting
of what I read in the papers (or somewhat less than what I read in them,
since I didn't put much credence in the journalistic hate speech that
monopolized some media sources.) The coverage left the impression he was
trying to revamp the military to handle assignments like Iraq and
Afghanistan. And maybe that's even true, in a superficial way, but the devil
is in the details. I wonder if someone who really understand could concisely
explain what he was trying to do (good or bad)?
--Mike Glyer
I could, but it would not be a simple job.
The problem is that Secretary of Defense is an
anomaly job: most of those who hold it may have theories but little
experience. Ideally it ought to be held by a military intellectual with
practical experience: i.e. by someone like von Moltke. The US system makes
it nearly impossible for that to happen.
What is needed is a political appointee with
interest in the subject who is willing to surround himself with advisors
from the military: both those representing the current leadership and some
mavericks.
USAF in particular is impossible to govern as it
stands. It has too many jobs: to actually operate the deterrent system; to
operate the military air transport system; to support the field army against
enemy ground troops; to achieve air supremacy and keep it; to protect the
field army against enemy air activity (admittedly this is not needed if true
air supremacy has been achieved); and to design and procure future systems
that will do the job.
The last job in the list is about as large as the
others put together.
I discuss much of this in my
Megamissi0ns Lecture to the Air War
College, but that lecture was mostly devoted to space power. I should
probably do a more general discussion.
At one time the first mission above was handled by
General Curtis Lemay and the Strategic Air Command. Lemay was a splendid
commander of an operational force in being. He was useless in planning and
procuring a future force. Fortunately, at the same time that Lemay was
building SAC, General Bernard Schriever was building USAF Systems
Command. The result was a force that was instrumental in preventing World
War III (nuclear, in Europe; expanding to Central War) while aiding in
winning the Cold War.
Alas, but SAC and Systems Command are gone.
I can't say that Rumsfeld wanted to restore either,
because I don't think he understood either. He did believe that there were
vital missions the Air Force could not or would not perform, and like anyone
who pays attention he understood that the expensive new toys the current Air
Force wants will not do those missions: the F22 is not a ground support
airplane and never will be, and the Air Force insistence on stuff like that
earns it contempt from the ground troops it is in theory supposed to help.
As I said, I could spend a lot of time on this.
Douglas Feith in his book (reviewed in the June column that should be up
tonight) talks about Rumsfeld and what he wanted. Feith is a lawyer policy
wonk and sees the problems in terms of policy papers and general wonkery;
apparently Rumsfeld did also.
If Rumsfeld had had Feith's job, and the Air Force
had two forceful personalities like Schriever and Lemay argue their cases,
things might be better, assuming there was also someone in the Army commands
who could argue the Army's case.
Ah well.
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Monday |
