Flinging Poo
by BradfordThe Varieties of Crackpot Experience is a gutless article carried by a mainstream publication and authored by someone who calls himself Sean (no last name). I ordinarily have no problem with pseudonyms or the use of first names only (if Sean is really his first name). Apparently it is. I'm told this is none other than Sean Carroll, a theoretician good at imagining non-existent Galilean metaphors. There are occasions for personal attacks and this Sean writes for a mainstream publication spouting mostly mainstream views. Is his career endangered by this? Hardly. Unless he believes the type of article linked to reflects badly on him. So what's wrong? Quoting:
Frank Tipler is a crackpot.
He can't resist this. The first sentence no less. Sean vs. Frank Tipler in the Discovery octagon. Sean's a brave man. Sean also writes:
At one point in his life, he did very good technical work in general relativity; he was the first to prove theorems that closed timelike curves could not be constructed in local regions of spacetime without either violating the weak energy condition or creating a singularity. But alas, since then he has pretty much gone off the deep end, and more recently has become known for arguments for Christianity based on fundamental physics.
Now we get to the justification for the personal insult. Tipler links physics to arguments for Christianity. 
Well, perhaps if he had merely used biology to argue for atheism we could appoint him to promote the public understanding of science in a major western nation. Or use that position to help promote the sale of books. Sean links to another post which cites the fact that Frank Tipler wrote a book titled The Physics of Christianity. He quotes from it and critiques the quotes. Fair enough. At Telic Thoughts we have critiqued ideas of Richard Dawkins and others and at times leveled severe criticism of ideas. We usually manage to focus on ideas rather than labeling scientists with records of distinguished accomplishments as crackpots. Sean quotes Tipler:
Science is not restricted merely to describing only what happens inside the material universe, any more than science is restricted to describing events below the orbit of the Moon, as claimed by the opponents of Galileo. Like Galileo, I am convinced that the only scientific approach is to assume that the laws of terrestrial physics hold everywhere and without exception – unless and until an experiment shows that these laws have a limited range of application.
Sean then aims this shot below the belt:
Compares self with Galileo! 40 points! There is really no indication that the person who wrote this was once writing perfectly sensible scientific papers.
Tipler is noting his agreement with a significant point once advanced by Galileo. This is citing an historical authority figure to support his own argument. He is not comparing himself to Galileo. Sean selectively separates Tipler quotes so this is reproduced in its entirety: Tipler:
As regards global warming, my view is essentially the same as yours: Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science.
A few comments on my own particular view of global warming:
(1) I am particularly annoyed by the claims that the "the debate is over," because this was exactly the claim originally made against the Copernican theory of the Solar System. Copernicus' opponents said the idea that the Earth was the third planet from the Sun was advanced by Aristrachus in 300 B.C. (true), and had been definitely refuted by 100 A.D. The debate is over! Sorry, it wasn't: the Earth IS the third planet.
(2) It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for himself. As we both know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience. NOW the global warmers claim that the Earth will enter a cooling period. In other words, whether the ice caps melt, or expand — whatever happens — the AGW theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.
(3) In contrast, the alternative theory, that the increase and decrease of the Earth's average temperature in the near term follows the sunspot number, agrees (roughly) with observation. And the observations were predicted before they occurred. This is good science.
(4) I emphasized in point (2) that the average person has to be able to check the observations. I emphasize this because I no longer trust "scientists" to report observations correctly. I think the data is adjusted to confirm, as far as possible, AGW. We've seen many recent cases where the data was cooked in climate studies. In one case, Hanson and company claimed that October 2008 was the warmest October on record. Watts looked at the data, and discovered that Hanson and company had used September's temperatures for Russia rather than October's. I'm not surprised to learn that September is hotter than October in the Northern hemisphere.
It snowed here in New Orleans last week and it was the second heaviest snowfall I've seen in the 25 years I've lived in New Orleans. According to the local newspaper, it was the earliest snow had fallen in New Orleans since records were kept, beginning in 1850. I myself have looked at the relative predictive power of Copernicus's theory and the then rival Ptolemaic theory. Copernicus was on the average twice as accurate, and the average person of the time could tell. Similarly, anybody today can check the number of sunspots. Or rather the lack of them. When I first starting teaching astronomy at Tulane in the early 1980's, I would show sunspots to my students by pointing a small $25 reflecting telescope at the Sun, and focusing the Sun's image on the wall of the classroom. Sunspots were obviously in the image on the wall. I can't do this experiment today, because there are no sunspots.
(5) Another shocking thing about the AGW theory is that it is generating a loss of true scientific knowledge. The great astronomer William Herschel, the discoverer of the planet Uranus, observed in the early 1800's that warm weather was correlated with sunspot number. Herschel noticed that warmer weather meant better crops, and thus fewer sunspots meant higher grain prices. The AGW people are trying to do a disappearing act on these observations. Some are trying to deny the existence of the Maunder Minimum.
(6) AGW supporters are also bringing back the Inquisition, where the power of the state is used to silence one's scientific opponents. The case of Bjorn Lomborg is illustrative. Lomborg is a tenured professor of mathematics in Denmark. Shortly after his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," was published by Cambridge University Press, Lomborg was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud for being critical of the "consensus" view on AGW and other environmental questions. Had the conviction been upheld, Lomborg would have been fired. Stillman Drake, the world's leading Galileo scholar, demonstrates in his book "Galileo: A Very Short Introduction" (Oxford University Press, 2001) that it was not theologians, but rather his fellow physicists (then called "natural philosophers"), who manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting Galileo. The "out-of-the-mainsteam" Galileo had the gall to prove the consensus view, the Aristotlean theory, wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo's fellow scientists first tried to refute him by argument from authority. They failed. Then these "scientists" tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, Galileo's fellow "scientists" called in the Inquisition to silence him.
I find it very disturbing that part of the Danish Inquisition's case against Lomborg was written by John Holdren, Obama's new science advisor. Holdren has recently written that people like Lomborg are "dangerous." I think it is people like Holdren who are dangerous, because they are willing to use state power to silence their scientific opponents.
(7) I agree with Dick Lindzen that the AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. There is a professor at Tulane, with a Ph.D in paleoclimatology, who is as skeptical as I am about AGW, but he'd never be considered for tenure at Tulane because of his professional opinion. No government contracts, no tenure.
(8) This is why I am astounded that people who should know better, like Newt Gingrich, advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science, and a more rapid advance of science, in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding for science. Einstein discovered relativity on his own time, while he was employed as a patent clerk. Where are the Einsteins of today? They would never be able to get a university job — Einstein's idea that time duration depended on the observer was very much opposed to the "consensus" view of the time. Einstein's idea that light was composed of particles (now called "photons") was also considered crazy by all physicists when he first published the idea. At least then he could publish the idea. Now a refereed journal would never even consider a paper written by a patent clerk, and all 1905 physics referees would agree that relativity and quantum mechanics were nonsense, definitely against the overwhelming consensus view. So journals would reject Einstein's papers if he were to write them today.
Science is an economic good like everything else, and it is very bad for production of high quality goods for the government to control the means of production. Why can't Newt Gingrich understand this? Milton Friedman understood it, and advocated cutting off government funding for science.
Here is another gem from Sean:
First, Frank Tipler is probably very “intelligent” by any of the standard measures of IQ and so forth.
He is probably very intelligent? We need to use the modifier probably for someone like Tipler? Was Newton probably intelligent? If you ever read Newton's bio you know he engaged in some unusual thinking toward the end of his life. Newton was intelligent. So is Tipler. Of course they are intelligent IDiots. There's also this:
Tipler isn’t completely crazy to want “average people” to be able to check claims for themselves.
Most of us know family members, neighbors, coworkers etc. with odd ideas. We don't generally label them crazy. Very few of us even get the opportunity to do so in a well known publication using the name Sean.
January 18th, 2009 at 2:32 am
If someone really wanted to, one could take the writings of Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Martin Rees, and quite a number of other otherwise respectable scientists and make them look like utter crackpots.
But it seems one has to tread into particular territories to go from 'eccentric' or 'espousing a minority viewpoint' to being openly derided as a crackpot. Maybe this is Discover Magazine's way of shaking off some of the supposed flack for naming Forrest Mims as one of the 50 best brains in science?
Comment by nullasalus — January 18, 2009 @ 2:32 am
January 18th, 2009 at 5:50 am
Anonymous? It's hardly a secret that the writer is Sean M. Carroll
The "Sean" at the bottom of the article links to …blogs. discovermagazine.com /cosmicvariance/authors/scarroll/
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 5:50 am
January 18th, 2009 at 10:15 am
But a highly entertaining crackpot! I thoroughly enjoyed "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle". The Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP); the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP); the Final Anthropic Principle (FAP), or as dubbed by Martin Gardner, the Completely Ridiculous Anthropic Principle (CRAP).
I believe that segues back to the thread topic.
Comment by Zachriel — January 18, 2009 @ 10:15 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Bradford,
Here is everything you wanted to know about Sean (but were afraid to ask).
And yes, his technical expertise notwithstanding, Tipler makes lots of silly assertions. You don't need to be a mathematical physicist to see that. Take his point on peer review and science funding:
You don't need to look hard to find counter examples. One is Forrest Mims, an amateur scientist with publications in peer-reviewed journals. Another is Garrett Lisi, a surfer-dude particle theorist who has recently made waves with his Exceptionally simple theory of everything.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 11:23 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Thanks for that. Yooz guys are talented at coming up with insulting labels so if Tipler is a has been what is Sean Carroll? A never was? A pompous A$$. Was Newton a crackpot too or are you ignorant of his latter day thoughts?
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 11:36 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Olegt:
Is there any reason he does not include his last name? I did click on the name Sean at the end of his garbage and was linked to a list of more refuse. Seriously Olegt, you just know that this type is not the kind to hurl insults when the object of them is standing in front of him. The net is a perfect locale for this sub-species. So is the swamp.
Did you first meet Sean among the reeds?
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 11:42 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:46 am
We can't have everyday simpletons verifying or falsifying scientific theories! This is SCIENCE! Science is done by SCIENTISTS!
Why, I bet some of these unwashed ignoramuses don't even have beards!
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 18, 2009 @ 11:46 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
While there was no formal peer review, Einstein's 1905 papers in Annalen der Physik were reviewed and approved by none other than the editor, Max Planck (even though Planck was initially unconvinced by Einstein's quantum theory of light).
Comment by Zachriel — January 18, 2009 @ 11:48 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I've amended the blog to give Sean proper credit for his imaginings. After all he is theoretical.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 11:50 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am
It's a blog for a magazine, not a peer article for a journal. In any case, you just have to click through. It's not a secret. Here's the direct link:
http://blogs.discovermagazine....
Comment by Zachriel — January 18, 2009 @ 11:52 am
January 18th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Sean describing Tipler:
Here's a question for you Olegt. If those are Tipler's contributions then what are Sean's contributions to his chosen field? I'm asking.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 11:57 am
January 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Olegt, true or false? I'm asking.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Noone has answered the question of whether or not Newton was a crackpot. (I'm asking) Also how do the judges think crackpots look from a historical perspective? Crackpotism does not seem to erase a historic appreciation of a record of contributions does it?
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Bradford:
You seem a bit cranky this morning. Might I suggest a visit to church to lift your spirits a bit?
About Newton: yes, he was a bit of a crackpot from time to time. A pompous ass too on occasion. Not to mention a homo. But that's OK. The old workaholic managed to combine all that with some brilliant scientific work. Just like Tipler manages to combine some very good work and top-notch crackpottery.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ah yes, he was unmarried. Or do you have scientific evidence of his preference leanings? Is this type of stuff innate crankiness among the denizens. You are like this all the time (and so is Sean) so it is not noteworthy when you express crankiness?
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Raevmo:
Do you have a snippet of his DNA? Do you know the right gene configuration to search for if you get a sample? After all the predisposition is genetic is it not? Just asking.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Why the Inquisition on the subject of Global Warming? I mean, I can understand why the in-crowd is terrified of ID/teleological evolution. It presents a direct challenge to metaphysical beliefs attached to the science for proselytization purposes, and Carroll positions himself prominently in the ranks of the See's functionary priesthood for that purpose. But I haven't been able to figure out what the whole GW and GW-denial thing is all about on that level.
I mean, the weather is either warming or it's not. If it were merely sunspot cycles, we'd be going through these arguments every 11 years, and there would be no dire predictions of either new ice ages or Earth-as-Venus (they never seem to make up their collective minds). And nobody in their right mind would be suggesting ridiculous and potentially suicidal "quick fixes" like nuclear detonations (in or out of volcanoes), torching the planet's forests, or any such drastic stupidity. The pendulum swings. Just sit tight and it'll go the other way (or not) depending on where in the 11-year cycle we are.
If that cycle has suddenly altered drastically, something quite else is going on and we might ought to try and figure out what it is. There is also the issue of our planet's current and increasing magnetic anomalies, the possibility that a pole flip may in reality happen much, much quicker than the good ol' steady-staters have long believed. Because let's face it – they have no idea, no one has ever observed such an event in the entirety of human history.
We can't do anything about the sun or the planet on those levels, but if we understood what was happening we could maybe adjust and survive. Compared to these sort of things, burning coal for electricity and gasoline in cars is pretty puny as a causal factor. Yes, we are fouling our nest and our dependence on these filthy fossil fuels is killing us and crippling our children because the air's not fit to breathe. We need to change our whole way of doing things because that is the right thing to do, even if it has nothing to do with global warming or magnetosphere disruptions. That's a battle to be fought against the established HUMAN corruption of profit at any cost and absolute control of the means to power. And it would still need to be fought even if the sun weren't steady and the planet couldn't make up its mind about cardinal directions.
So. To both 'sides' – heretics and Grand Inquisitors – how exactly do these planetary and solar issues impact the metaphysical Forever-War? And what 'truth' about what's really happening needs to be concealed at any and all costs from both directions?
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
OK, Techne just walked in so all you defenders of science can now devote the part of your brain, whose evolution was advanced by placing poo in its proper place, to more suitable pursuits. Carry on Sean.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Bradford:
Unmarried and living with a male "roommate" apparently. Not entirely conclusive evidence I suppose, but from the top of my head I can think of several religions based on flimsier evidence.
I'm not up to speed on the latest research regarding sexual preferences, but I don't think homosexuality has a very high heritability even if to some extent affected by genetic factors. It seems mostly the result of something going "wrong" during brain development.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Wrong? Are you a misanthropic hate-monger?
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 12:33 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Bradford wrote:
I am not a specialist in general relativity to know the significance of either Tipler's or Carroll's technical contributions. From where I sit, it appears that neither of them is a John Wheeler. But you don't want to rely on an ad hominem argument because that's generally a losing strategy. In this case, there are plenty of more accomplished scientists who are on Carroll's side.
This ARN page mentions negative reviews of The Physics of Immortality by cosmologist and philosopher of science George Ellis and by particle theorist, theologian, and Templeton Prize winner John Polkinghorne. Here's an excerpt from Polkinghorne's review:
In other words, Tipler's stuff is not only pseudoscience, it's also bad theology.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Olegt:
Whoa! (Reins in the stallion). The ad hom is flowing from Sean and quite superfluously I might add. You wrote:
That's all you have to say. No need for false metaphors and crazy talk.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Bradford,
Those were not my words, I just summarized what John Polkinghorne had said.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Also, Bradford, you don't seem to understand what constitutes an argumentum ad hominem and why it is a losing (as opposed to morally reprehensible) argument. Carroll criticized Tipler's arguments, noting at the same time that Tipler made important technical contributions to cosmology. That isn't an ad hominem.
You, on the other hand, raised questions about the writer's anonymity and later about his qualifications. That's what an argumentum ad hominem is. It's not a morally objectionable argument, it's just a bad one because, as I pointed out, there are other, better qualified people who agree with Carroll.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Olegt:
No. Sean did more than critique Tipler's arguments. If you notice I did not take issue with Sean's critiques. I did take issue with his name calling and his false attribution of a comparison to Galileo by Tipler.
I actually did not know Sean's identity until you and Raevmo pointed it out. I then amended that section of the blog entry. It's time for Sean to amend his Galileo nonsense.
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
BTW Olegt, I did not raise questions about Sean's qualifications. The question was directed at his contributions and the reason was two-fold. First, I really don't know what they are and since you wrote I was afraid to ask I decided to do just that. Secondly, it was Sean who cited Tipler's past contributions before he took the axe to him. I think it only fair that he compare his own record to Tipler as Sean is also on record as making accusations about comparisons. A quote of what I actually wrote:
Comment by Bradford — January 18, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Joy wrote:
Funny you should mention that. I seem to remember the tabloids back in 1975 and 1976 (33 years ago… 11 * 3) screaming about the impending ice age. I think the pop-sci crowd blamed the ozone layer being depleted by aerosol sprays, which is why deoderant aerosols went the way of the dodo and the roll-on ascended around that time.
Sure enough, a little time with Google brings up not just a tabloid, but a Time magazine article to that effect, right before the low temps bottomed out. Dig how adroitly it rebuffs doubters of this approaching catastrophe:
That's it, no quotes from dissenters or anything. However, if you had wanted evidence supporting the coming Planetary Deep Freeze, Time could provide unscrutinized testimony in copious quantities:
Ah yes, the old "rainforest burning and evil automobiles" explanation. Familar, yes?
If the globe is cooling, it's because we're (ok, Brazilians, but it's still Americans that are the problem because we're… well… so American) doing slash & burn agriculture and we're (Americans again – Asians ride bicycles & Europeans [the ones that work, anyway] transport themselves via unicorn farts) driving those horrible metal monsters to work every day.
If the globe is warming, it's because… of exactly the same thing.
I wonder why scientists would be less than honest? Let's look at the 1974 article again:
Ah yes. Job security. Great motivator, that. Now if I could only convince a large group of politicians that beer and topless bars need to be extensively researched…
Around 1987-88, at the next sunspot cycle, we were near the end of the Reagan administration. Considering how anti-Reagan most of the scientific community was (and is), they were probably too busy to look at sunspots while howling like monkeys about funds being cut for the several dozen boats and planes they cruised around in.
Circa 1999-2000, guess what we find? Al Gore, fresh off his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency, trying to stay in the limelight by latching onto another subject near and dear to his heart since the 1970s – mankind's detrimental effect on the environment (and how politicians and other hangers-on can make money from it).
Sure enough, Gore's Justice League of Science Friends finds – shockingly! – that things are warming up on Mother Earth. What a coincidence! It's not like it happens every, oh say, 11 years or anything.
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 18, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
olegt:
Yet you would surely admit that both are legitimate, fully credentialled scientists, and at least one of them has made contributions significant enough to gain recognition is his field. Doesn't it ever bother you to be carrying water for the Inquisition?
I am (again) wondering why it is so terribly tempting to use admittedly speculative treatises in the never-ending quest for character assassination of in-house ideological opponents. I haven't read Tipler's treatise, and I presume you haven't either. But I am not inclined to use a biased reviewer's biased review to judge either the speculations or the man. You are obviously willing to do so, and expect me to acquiesce to your secondhand character assassination. Weird.
I watched the movie The Fountain last night with my family, mostly because we could borrow it for free and it stars Hugh Jackman who *is* my all-time fave superhero Wolverine.
I found it confusing, pretentious, strangely disjointed and blatantly bizarre. Though the visuals were quite impressive. In the end I couldn't quite figure out if Aronofsky was attempting a Buddhist sales job or lampooning Buddhism as the terminally self-absorbed waste of time and life I've come to view it as. Jackman was – as always – well worth watching, though he looks ridiculous with no hair.
We spent an hour after it was over in lively discussion about whether it was a worthy film or just a navel-gazing waste of time. We three elders concluded it was mostly a waste of time, save my reservation on the possibility that Aronofsky intended it to be just that. Grandson thought it was absolutely brilliant, beautiful, and extremely deep. But what does he know? He's only 18 and loves Lady in the Water too, not just because it always gets him plenty of girl-attention at the video store.
So I went looking for reviews on the web after all this, and found that they were 3 to 1 on our "pretentious garbage" side, with just a small handful of reviews that sounded anything like "brilliant." Now, had we read the reviews beforehand, we might not have bothered. But if YOU wanted to watch the movie, why in the world would I want to keep you from doing that based on someone else's review of a movie I hadn't seen? That's bizarre. Though I might suggest that Little Buddha with Keanu Reeves would probably be more satisfying as a 'pro' angle navel-gazer if it were Buddhism you were interested in exploring.
More relevantly, why would ANYONE try to assassinate the character of the producer just because he made a pretentious movie about Buddhism's hopeless self-centricity? That would make no sense at all, whether one were invested in Buddhism or not. Though if character assassination were evident in those lousy reviews, I'd sure suspect the reviewer was personally invested in Buddhism and had a personal grudge against the way Aronofsky portrayed it.
…and that would make me want to see it more. Perhaps I'm just contrary that way, but if so there are an awful lot of people like me. Enough, in fact, to have earned more than $10 million in first release. Doesn't look to me like character assassination by bad review is all that effective a way to destroy someone else's talent and ideas in the real world or the world of artistic endeavor.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Bradford,
I don't see how that is relevant to the discussion, but if you're interested in Carroll's contributions to cosmology, visit his web site or look him up on Wikipedia.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Joy wrote:
Joy,
I am a bit more familiar with the writings of Frank Tipler than you are, so the premise of your argument falls apart. Furthermore, I am not engaging in character assassination, I am just pointing out that a lot of Tipler's arguments are not well thought out. And I am hardly alone: notable scientists, philosophers and theologians (see above) have canned his books.
Carroll's language may be harsh,
but that does not invalidate his point: Tipler's ideas are half-baked.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
angryoldfatman:
Yeah, us old folks (I could be "opinionatedoldskinnylady") do sometimes remember that these things come in waves, and that the sci-guys can never seem to make up their minds about any of it. Sort of leads to an attitude best expressed with a shrug of the shoulders. It's not that the science is useless, since actual knowledge gained can come in useful someday. It's just that at certain periods in the sociopolitical cycles that mirror natural cycles, there isn't all that much wealth to invest and better places to invest it. Often the sci-guys aren't nearly as important as they'd like us to believe they are.
Still, I am agin' this nest-fouling-for-profit crap, always have been. We can do better, and should do better. Heck, we could use some of the wealth we're wasting on these interminable and useless arguments to fund our switch to renewable and non-polluting energy sources, then they'd have nothing to argue about. They could just investigate the solar system's cycles and make useful predictions about how we survive and thrive in spite of them.
Because I'm old enough to actually remember what western PA looked like in the '50s and early '60s. It looked a whole lot like those grayscale old photos of London in the late 1800s, when they didn't need color photography because there were no colors to see. Everything – including trees and flowers and bright paint jobs on buildings and fences – were all just shades of gray because everything was covered with coal-dust and industrial grime. And people died young of "consumption," which wasn't all TB but included all the various deadly lung ailments that come along with fouling our nest with filth.
I was amazed when I moved to PA in the mid-'70s and discovered that there really were colors to be seen and more wildflowers per square mile than anywhere else in the world. Trees could be green in summer and brilliant in fall, bright paint would be brightly colored, etc., etc., etc. It's not all cleaned up, but a significant beginning was made when regulation hit the pollution markets despite complaints by polluters. I say keep it up, tighten those regs a whole lot more. Life is better in color than in black and white. At least, in my opinion.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 2:41 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Joy wrote:
I completely agree.
I know our detractors here (and elsewhere) like to paint me as anti-science simply because I am a theist, but I love science and use portions of the scientific method in my (former) work.
That's why it irks me to see folks who want science to replace things it was never meant to replace. Especially when they use government and huge corporations to do so.
Once again, I agree. The pollution you observed in Pennsylvania in the 50s and 60s is still present in poorer parts of America, not to speak of other less wealthy countries.
The town in which I was working last year suffered under pollution that I thought was no longer possible in America. The three large factories there discharge harmful chemicals into the river and belch thick dark particles into the air.
Then there are incidents like Bhopal and Minamata.
What allows this to continue is not a lack of science, but (in my opinion) a deadly combination of amorality and power in the people who own the companies doing these things, and in the politicians with one hand over their eyes and the other extended for palm-greasing.
While new technology would help a great deal, the biggest impetus for truly positive change (once again, in my opinion) would be to reinstill morality in our future businessmen and politicians, and balance power more evenly by providing better checks and balances between commerce and government AND science and government.
But what do I know? I don't even have a beard!
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 18, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
oleg:
In your opinion, and those with whom you share an oppositional ideology. Ho, hum. Nobody here cares that you disagree with Tipler's "ideas." Most halfway intelligent people would know without being told (repeatedly) that an attempt to poison the well – in an arena where those you are engaging are quite likely to agree with the "ideas" you don't like – is dumb.
Obviously, Carroll is as dumb as you're being. There is no point here worth making.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Bradford wrote:
Don't pay any attention to that. It's a programmed tactic, from a self-proclaimed automaton no less.
The programming is from this book. Money quote:
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 18, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Joy wrote:
If you were curious enough to know who John Polkinghorne is, you wouldn't make this silly assertion.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Joy:
According to the Movie Review Query Engine, out of 99 reviews the modal review gives a rating of 4 out of 5 to The Fountain, which is very good indeed. So good in fact that I decided that I shall watch it myself in the near future. Thanks for the tip.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Great, a gay conspiracy to hijack admirable historic figures. Especially outrageous when the historic figure was also a Christian because a true Christian cannot be a homo as we all know.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
angry:
Well, the GOOD part of that sort of pollution is you can see it, so you don't have to wonder what it's doing to your lungs. There is still a great deal of work to do on pollution that is essentially invisible, thus too easily denied.
Back in the early '80s I lived on the river in Jacksonville, Florida. Then there were still belching paper mills where there are now modern shipping ports. Their pollution was entirely obvious in the dusty, stinky orange fog that engulfed the area every morning and sometimes all day if the temperature inversions were just right. It had been like that for decades, killed lots of people – the area boasted ridiculous rates of lung disease and resulting deaths to young and old.
The paper mill PR folks of course regularly insisted there was no link between the orange fog that ate the paint off cars and houses and any possible risk to living lungs. But what finally killed them wasn't the orange fog. It was what they were dumping by the millions of gallons a day into the river that supported a thriving fishing and shrimping industry – for human consumption.
Greenpeace parked the Rainbow Warrior at the shipyard next door to the shrimp dock we were caretaking, getting it outfitted with sails for its fateful final voyage (the one that ended with the French version of the CIA blowing it up in NZ, killing a photographer). Anyway, they were planning on taking samples for analysis and asked us what they were looking for (we'd been turning diseased fish over to the JU labs for analysis for months). We told 'em where to sample and what to look for, and within another couple of months it was official. Dioxin. The plants were shut down and had to move to those "poorer parts of America," where dioxin in the water supply and stinky paint-eating orange fog are considered progressive.
Cyanide and arsenic in our streams and rivers, toxic waste, heavy metals and concentrated radioisotopes disguised as agricultural fertilizer in the heartland's once-fertile breadbasket, destructive monoculture crops and animals with promiscuous transgenes spreading everywhere, building our homes and offices with uranium tailings and coal fly-ash… it's like a race to see how fast we can destroy life on this planet for some kind of ultimate Darwin Award nobody will be around to receive. One step forward, two steps back.
I don't really mind that science wants to play a role in helping to mitigate these issues. They were darned useful for getting rid of those stinky paper mills, and should stay on King Coal's ass from now until it's certifiably dead too. I wish they'd get MORE involved in ag issues, because both Monsanto and the gub'ment seem hell-bent on wiping out the entire food supply. I just don't think grandiose lies and pretentions and delusions of imperialistic grandeur are the ways to do it. All that sort of thing will accomplish is to make the scientists – and the science that could have been so helpful – as bad as the bad guys. Eventually nobody will believe a word they have to say.
Personally, I think that if they'd spend less time Culture Warrior-ing and flinging monkey-poo, we might have a chance to get something done. But no, I do not expect I'll ever see such a hopeful development in my lifetime. I do hope they'll come around in my grandchildren's lifetimes, though. That's not too far in the future, now that my eldest grandchildren are old enough to vote.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Raevmo:
I ended up at rotten tomatoes, the media reviews. Still, even there Aronofsky gets a pass on most things because everybody generally agrees he's a real artist. You might like the movie if you can follow 3 plots at once (I am always loving Jackman even when he's bald) and as I said, the landscape is spectacular. I did read that Jackman never managed to figure out where Aronofsky was going with it, but that's not an issue for movie actors because there really isn't much acting involved in 10 second to 2 minute clips out of sequence (what is actually filmed on any given day).
Don't expect to come away with a favorable view of Buddhism, though. But perhaps that's what would draw you most to such a film. Be forewarned that it's a complete bummer on all levels. If you like movies about people dying young of dread diseases, you'll love it. Enjoy!
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Joy:
I don't care much for Buddhism, but I do enjoy speculations about immortality.
Sounds great. Thanks. My uTorrent says the movie arrives in 26 minutes, so I might just have some time to watch it tonight after grading some exams.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Or, repeatedly claimed how the Origin of species is a "consciousness raising" book, consciousness raising meaning leading one to atheism, as a notable evolander does in books and on the internet.
Comment by William Wallace — January 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Raevmo:
Hahahaha! Ah, well. They wouldn't keep making "Love Story" if young people dying of dread diseases weren't a sure-fire seller. I forgot to mention the part about the Spanish Inquisition. When you see it, you'll get the gist of where this movie fits into this thread… §;o)
oleg:
Um… nope. You neglect the fact that your opinion doesn't hold any weight with me on something like this, so you've no reason to expect it to. Nor do you have reason to expect me to be impressed with your appeal to authority to back up the opinion that doesn't mean sh*t to me. I need not be familiar with Tipler's "ideas" about how physics supports his theology to know that someone who believes physics supports anti-theology isn't the best person to listen to on that. Silly, Oleg.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Joy wrote:
Yes, Joy, ignorance is bliss.
Comment by olegt — January 18, 2009 @ 6:34 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
olegt:
Ignorance of what, Oleg? Your bias? Tipler's bias? The biases of people like Polkinghorne or Miller? Again, that's just silly. I know what I know, believe what I believe, and am entirely unconcerned about the fact that you disagree. You can't convert me to your belief system by any logically fallacious argument, by hissy fit or threats, or by insult.
This sort of tactic may work on your undergrads, Oleg. I cannot imagine why you believe it should work on me. In fact, I've posted to you several times in this very thread as to WHY you would be very silly to expect such a thing. Calling me ignorant doesn't save your fallacious premise. But I do notice that whenever you are called on things like this, ad hom is your standard fall-back position. Ho, hum.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Joy, why didn't you mention that Rachel Weisz is in The Fountain? That would have been sufficient reason to watch it.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Raevmo:
Ah, yes. She Of The Animé Eyes. She's beautiful as always, but being of a different sexual orientation than you, Jackman was my reason for watching!
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Joy:
I have to admit that Jackman is a good looking guy. But Weisz, aaaahhh, such a lovely Jewish girl. Almost as lovely as my soon-bride-to-be.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
P.S. to Raevmo:
I also read after-the-fact that the Mayan warriors in Aronofsky's film were actual real Mayans, whom they used on the Guatemalan set. The only one who spoke English was the High Priest in the pyramid who stabs Tomas. Quite cool, in the artsy-fartsy way of real artists making real artistic statements…
But hey. The real Fountain was in Florida, a place called Saint Augustine, and it wasn't Mayans. It was the Timucuan – six and a half foot tall bronzed and muscled natives who didn't wear clothes. Those short and smelly Portuguese sailors took one look and knew for a fact there had to be some genocide before they brought any women over… §;o)
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
So far in the movie, the Catholic Inquisition seems to be the blood-thirsty party. No surprise there. Off to bed now.
Comment by Raevmo — January 18, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
January 18th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
For those not quite following, the movie I introduced to illustrate a point is actually quite a significant artistic achievement even though it is hard to follow and tangles plots over a thousand years to make the point it aims to make.
It's pretty harsh on Buddhism, and more overtly harsh (as you may gather) on Christianity in its most notoriously barbaric form. There is the past where Jackman defies the Church in order to save his love and 'live forever' with her even though she's doomed, and the future where he's still obsessed with the darned tree that might have saved her. Which he ends up killing with his obsession. In the end the love he aims to save is himself, not her. He always left her. Had no time for her.
The quest is the subject, and the loss suffered is an excellent reason to give it up. Death as an 'enemy' to be defeated by hook or by crook, in all times, yet the battle itself steals time in lives where time is a more precious commodity than immortality. A focus on the wrong thing, but he gets it in the End of All Things, still alone.
The "waste of time" is, I figure, the point being made. And I do think Aronofsky made it very well by making us 'old guys' view the film as a waste of time (perhaps because by being old, we have come to know what is truly important – and it's not about living forever). That in itself is a worthy artistic/metaphysical statement.
Comment by Joy — January 18, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
January 19th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Raevmo wrote:
With all sincerity, congratulations!
Although I've got to wonder why you'd bother with such an archaic ritual when it's so restrictive to your sexual freedom. It's the woman's idea I'll bet.
But seriously, congratulations. May you both be happy with each other for the rest of your lives, and possibly afterward!
Comment by angryoldfatman — January 19, 2009 @ 10:28 am
January 19th, 2009 at 11:13 am
angry:
In the pursuit of happiness one can freely choose for monogamy.
Comment by Raevmo — January 19, 2009 @ 11:13 am