93 Responses to “Open Thread: Bad Animals”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
November 27th, 2010 at 1:03 am
Here is a little project I’ve been working on. I’d appreciate any questions or comments.
There is little doubt that the Nazi regime lead the German nation to a moral low that still seems incredible to most people. Not only did the Nazi’s institute a eugenics policy that led to the euthanization of citizens that it considered to be too unfit, either physically and mentally, to be of any value to society, but it also instituted a policy that led to a factory like extermination of an entire race of people, the Jews– on a scale that the world had never seen before.
Were the allies justified in invading Germany to remove the cancer of Nazi ideology? I think most people living today in the west will agree that they were. However, was also it legitimate to target non-combatant civilians? Whether or not it was, we did. For example, on February 14th and 15th 1945 the allied bombers were sent on an incendiary raid against the city of Dresden in Germany. Many scholars, however, do not believe that the bombing of Dresden, which was primarily a cultural center know for it’s beautiful architecture and art museums , had any real strategic or military value. In other words, the real purpose of bombing the city was to undermine civilian morale. The civilian casualty count was horrific. It is
estimated that about 25,000 died in the firestorms that engulfed the city as a result of using incendiary bombs. Furthermore, the incendiary bombs appear to have been included for no other reason than to maximize death and destruction. Were we any better here than the Nazi’s?
Of course, it also appears that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also chosen as targets for basically the same kind of reasons.
I am not trying to establish any type of moral equivalency here. As a matter of fact, I personally question whether the targeting civilian non-combatants in these particular circumstances was morally justified. However, my point is that there is nothing in principle that necessarily says that attacking and killing civilian non-combatants can never be morally justified. The bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still being debated today by scholars and laymen alike. Some people argue that the bombings can be morally justified, others do not. If killing non-combatant civilians can at least in principle be morally justified by humans, can it be morally justified by God? .
I think most people understand, at least intuitively, that as the transcendent creator and lawgiver, God has rights, privileges and authority that humans do not. For example, when the TV camera’s are turned on people protesting the death penalty outside of a prison we are more likely than not to see someone holding a placard reading: “YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PLAY GOD”
Now there is clearly an implication here. If we do not have the right to play God, does God? In other words, does God has the right to be God? Isn’t that, after all, what it really means to be God?
Let’s reflect, for a moment on our own mortality. Our mortality is something that none of us have any real control over. For example, you or I cannot guarantee to our friends and families that we will not be killed in a plane crash or die from cancer. A sovereign omnipotent being is the only kind of being that can control those kinds of things. From this Calvinists go on to conclude that from God’s perspective there is no such thing as an accident. While I have some differences with Calvinist theology, I’ll have to agree with them there.
The point is that it is God who has the final say over matters of life and death, not us. He is the one who chooses where, when and how each of us will die. To understand this is to understand life as it really is.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 27, 2010 @ 1:03 am
November 27th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
test,
Could someone help get my comment out of moderation?
Thanks
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 27, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
TP, the comment was stuck in the spam queue. Reason being the last part of the comment directed at the banning policy. I'd advise you to repost the otherwise productive comment without the last part.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Mike Gene toasts David Ussery (Comment 41491)
Mike demonstrates superior knowledge of evolutionary biology.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Hi Bradford,
So TT's Pantheon has decided it is ethical to use the spam filter to do more than just curtail spam by also having it automatically censor speech.
I would be interested in what Bilbo had to say about that. Did you even have a vote on it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 27, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Obviously the "speech" had too much spam in it. I am sure you have already run back to AtBC to post what has been spammed here, so you are hardly censored. And you even have your own blog.
We are guests here, Dave. When we abuse that privilege we face consequences. One of which is having our posts spammed. Another is having our comments sent to the memory hole and yet another is thread banning.
On another note- just how old/ young are you?
Comment by ID guy — November 27, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
We invaded Germany because the Germans were trying to take over the world and we didn't want that to happen. Did you see what they did to London and especially Stalingrad?
That begs the question about the existence of God.
Comment by ID guy — November 27, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
ID Guy,
I don't think JAD's offering an argument for God's existence here, but more like one way of thinking about things if you accept God's existence, particularly God in the more typical Christian sense.
And I think he's on to something, or at least he's coming close to a conclusion I came to years ago at this point. The sort of considerations John's having here pretty much scrubbed the PoE for me.
Comment by nullasalus — November 27, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 8:50 pm
John A. Designer, the bombing of Dresden was an immoral act. That should have been evident at that time. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not comparable. We do not know what would have been required to end the war if nukes were not used. Estimates at the time entailed the deaths of up to a million soldiers in an invasion of Japan itself. Perhaps the nukes shortened an otherwise much greater casualty list.
God programmed death into the laws of nature and DNA. He's allowed to play God since that is his natural role.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2010 @ 8:50 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Does the fact that the Germans targeted non-combatant men, women and children provide a moral justification for the allies targeting non-combatant German men, women and children?
Correct. For sake of argument I am assuming that a transcendent creator and moral law giver (God) does indeed exists. I am trying to compare what sort of things are morally justifiable for humans vs. such a transcendent God. If you don’t believe in that kind of God, you’ll at least have to assume his existence hypothetically to follow my argument (which I have yet to make.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 27, 2010 @ 9:21 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
Here are some things you addressed to me in the other thread…
Would it be reasonable of me to take these comments as insulting and accusations of dishonesty (i.e. "obvious bullshit")?
I request you look through your thread and try to find anything I said that was insulting, sarcastic or dishonest.
I wouldn't think of asking you to apologize but it would be nice if you at least acknowledged the POSSIBILITY I just might have been sincere in my comments.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 27, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
The rationale for targeting non-combatant civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to end the war sooner. If targeting non-combatant civilians in Dresden was done for the same reasons would that make it morally justifiable?
By the way, I am not really that interested in arguing whether targeting non-combatant civilians in these particular instances was morally justified. Rather I am more interested in whether these kind of choices could ever be justified, even if you believe that in the cases that I cited they were not.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 27, 2010 @ 9:51 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
TP,
We had multiple interactions in a thread that went on for quite a while in terms of exchanges. I didn't think everything you said was dishonest or some kind of futzy debating schtick – and specifically, no, I don't think you were lying about thinking you were running into "Darwinists" who don't regard Darwinism as anything more than a useful model, rather than a finding about 'objective reality'. But yeah, I think if you're running into them, there's (irony of ironies) a selection effect in play or you're making a serious mistake.
Sorry man, I've been around in the ID/Darwinist blogs for a while, as well as following the more popular books, etc, so talking about these darwinists who don't ascribe "objective reality" to Darwinism is like hearing about someone who saw a live panda. Tell me you've seen one, and I can buy that – maybe you went to a zoo or something. Maybe one escaped from transport and got into your trash – odd, but I can give you that. But tell me you keep seeing live pandas every day and they're quite common and now I have to start wondering "Does he work in a zoo? Does he think badgers are pandas?" because something ain't adding up.
As for demanding I produce what amounted to research papers that were explicitly asserting the existence of an objective reality – that was bullshit, so I'll be standing by that. As for sarcasm, are you kidding me? The "pantheon" stuff, the "I would thank you but you said not to thank you" stuff.. etc. And of course the whole bit towards the end with "Why are you obsessed with the personal beliefs of a long dead man?", as if this natural selection thing is some obscure relic of history with no contemporary interest.
Mind you, this is small stuff. I think you play ridiculous "debating trick" cards at times, but at least you're interesting and can actually have a conversation those times where you're not going all Don Quixote at the DI windmills or have decided you're in some kind of debate-duel. But I'm also on the blunt side, I won't pass up a good joke if the opportunity avails, and I'm an unapologetic blog iDespot in my threads. If I had the tech knowhow I wouldn't ban olegt from my threads, I'd just replace all his comments with links like this.
Comment by nullasalus — November 27, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
I think if it had been the case that Dresden somehow could have ended the war and avoided many more deaths than occurred at Dresden a case could be made. Wars entail the deaths of young men more than any other group although that is changing with time and technology. Very few who die in wars are causally connected to their origin. The aphorism about old men sending young ones to their death is accurate. So, is the civilian distinction useful? These questions require the wisdom of Solomon or someone greater than he.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
November 27th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Perhaps, and I'm not saying it was right, however, it might be informative to consider that Fuchida, the leader of the Pearl Harbor raid turned-chrisitan minister, had the opinion the Americans did the right thing for his country.
After the war, he met Paul Tibbets (the bomber commander who dropped the Hiroshima bomb), he introduced himself as the commander of the Pearl Harbor attack and told Paul his actions saved the lives of many Japanese.
I'm not saying the end necessarily justifies the means, but I found it informative that Fuchida did not view the US as totally villainous in their actions.
With respect to the US behavior, on balance they were very magnaniomous to their enemies.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 27, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 12:12 am
Here are a few principles that I think might be helpful for guiding our thinking and discussion on this topic. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Definitions:
It appears to me that according to the above that the bombings of, not only Dresden, but also of Hiroshima and Nagasaki violated the so called rules of war. This should be clear by just repeating the key sentences from the above reference:
“While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas.”
Are these so called rules of war arbitrary or based on some kind of underlying objective moral principle? If the latter is true, are there ever circumstances under which violating those principles might be justified?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 28, 2010 @ 12:12 am
November 28th, 2010 at 12:27 am
Hi Nullasalus,
Thank you for your comment. But I would like to respond to a few points…
In the other thread You wrote…
Granted, I thought you were talking about scientific papers but what caught my eye was that you put "truly random" in quotes. My request was no bullshit. I have been running around claiming there is no such thing as true randomness for quite a while now. I have yet to find anyone who is arguing the opposite. Yes, I would be very interested in any paper, scientific or not, that proposed randomness was "truly random".
No bullshit. Have you read such a paper? Anyone?
I suppose Guts could have meant to be sarcastic when he wrote…
"We have a whole new TT pantheon now and they are not complaining about him (yet)." link
"There is no doubt that this new pantheon, if they were at least not offended by Keiths behavior, would simply keep him around."link
But it didn't look so to me. I, therefore, adopted it as an appropriate label.
And finally, I very much think you were being arbitrary and somewhat cruel when you forbade me from thanking you. I honestly thought your thread had the potential for bringing out some interesting insights. Other people thanked you for it. I guess I could have just ignored your order and simply thanked you (as I did on this comment) but I intentionally wanted to make a point in hopes that you would resend your previous prohibition.
My comments are quite often manipulative and calculated for providing impact but I try to avoid employing sarcastic remarks. Do you consider it sarcasm when you actually mean to say what words actually say?
I also try to avoid insults.
So, am I allowed to say "Thank you", now?
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 12:27 am
November 28th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Indeed we were. For example, Saipan was the first island that U.S. Marines invaded that had a large Japanese civilian population. The Marines took special care to treat the civilian population very humanely
According to Wikipedia “a large number of Japanese civilians lived there—at least 25,000. The US erected a civilian prisoner encampment on 23 June that soon had more than 1,000 inmates. Electric lights at the camp were conspicuously left on overnight to attract other civilians with the promise of three warm meals and no risk of accidentally being shot in combat.”
However tragically, “Hirohito sent out an imperial order encouraging the civilians of Saipan to commit suicide… By the time the Marines advanced on the north tip of the island, from 8–12 July, most of the damage had been done. Over 20,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide in the last days of the battle to take the offered privileged place in the afterlife, some jumping from "Suicide Cliff" and "Banzai Cliff".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
If treating Japanese non-combatant civilians living on Saipan humanely was the morally right thing to do, how was targeting non-combatant civilians living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justified?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 28, 2010 @ 1:00 am
November 28th, 2010 at 1:07 am
TP,
Just google for "ontologically random". Maybe you're using some specific definition of "random" I don't get here, but I think the context I was using in that thread was common and clear. That someone could read up on quantum-related topics and never run into the claim that nature is at root random in a strong sense of the word baffles me. But again, maybe you're using some definition of random I'm not getting.
For the purposes of that thread, random as opposed to guided, intentional, etc. Again, it was pretty clear given the contrast to o+o.
I am cruel and arbitrary.
No, really?
I should mention at this point that I don't avoid sarcasm.
Once per thread when I'm thread admin, because quotas are also cruel and arbitrary. In open threads and others' threads, crank out the thank yous like some crazy japanese politeness-robot for all I care.
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2010 @ 1:07 am
November 28th, 2010 at 1:40 am
Hi Nullasalus,
I have, and I find things like…
"Rather, both deterministic and stochastic macroevolutionary explanations are consistent with either Laplacean determinism or indeterminism. Thus, the stochasticity of the models does not depend on the stochasticity of the underlying phenomena; the underlying phenomena could be ontologically random or Laplacean deterministic (Raup et al. 1973, Gould et al. 1977). The macroevolutionary senses of “deterministic” and “stochastic” will be discussed further below." link
Which is consistent with a focus of model verses data as opposed to being concerned about whether or not randomness is objectively real. This is the kind of thing I see in most scientific papers.
I really would like to see a paper which departs from this.
That is neither what I said nor what I implied. I said "…I very much think you were being arbitrary and somewhat cruel when you forbade me from thanking you." Condemn the sin, not the sinner.
It is less arbitrary since I could see some rational for it and you might even impose it on others. It is lot less cruel, if cruel at all. It all depends on how you respond if I accidently forget or don't notice I was commenting in one of your threads.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 1:40 am
November 28th, 2010 at 1:57 am
TP,
Hunt around – they exist, but I'm not as interested in the particular question you're seemingly dealing with. Notice the comment about indeterminism – yes this really is a position taken. Used to be unthinkable once upon a time, but hey.
You mistake a frank admission for passive-aggressive griping. I'm also despotic and somewhat petty.
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2010 @ 1:57 am
November 28th, 2010 at 10:12 am
There isn't any moarlity in war. The only "morality" is to end it.
Who keeps the Armies fed, clothed and armed? The civilians, so they are part of the war.
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 10:12 am
November 28th, 2010 at 11:12 am
nullasalus wrote:
The vast majority of hits is from Christian web sites where the discussants are totally outraged by the concept that certain things are unknowable in principle. An omniscient God must know everything, right? The answer to that is yes, within reason. There are some things even an omniscient God cannot know.
For instance, a wave can either have a well-defined wavelength or a well defined position, but not both. To have a well defined position, a wave must contain many crests and troughs and thus it would be impossible to pinpoint its position. Conversely, a well localized crest in a quiet sea has a poorly defined wavelength. Not even God can know both quantities at the same time. Let's call it the wave paradox.
This is a bit like the paradox of the stone: "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?" If so, then it seems that the being could cease to be omnipotent; if not, it seems that the being was not omnipotent to begin with. The way out of the stone paradox is to not think about things that are logically impossible.
The wave paradox can be resolved along the same lines. It is logically impossible to measure the wavelength and position of a wave accurately and simultaneously. It does not, and cannot possess both of these attributes.
Same with particles. A particle cannot possess simultaneously a well-defined coordinate and momentum because according to quantum mechanics, momentum of a particle is simply the inverse of its wavelength. This is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from. No one can know a particle's coordinate and momentum precisely, including an omnipotent God. It is logically impossible.
That's the nature of quantum indeterminacy. It does not reflect poorly on God's omniscience. Unfortunately, very few people understand the subject to realize that.
Comment by olegt — November 28, 2010 @ 11:12 am
November 28th, 2010 at 11:28 am
ID guy,
So you are okay the with the My Lai Massacre?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 28, 2010 @ 11:28 am
November 28th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Hey Olget
What does it mean for a being outside of time to know somthing "at the same time"?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Hi Oleg,
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was a good one.
Allow me to respond to Fifth Monarchy Man thusly…
Being outside time doesn't make the paradox go away.
Electrical Engineers review things "outside time" all the time with a device called an oscilliscope. It wouldn't make any sense to ask what is the wavelength of a electrical spike at time "T" even though the position (along a wire) can be known accurately.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 12:49 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
fifth monarchy man,
Time is irrelevant here. Replace "at the same time" with "for any given wave" and it still holds.
Comment by olegt — November 28, 2010 @ 1:07 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
I am not OK with war. And that is beacuse once we have war then all bets are off.
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Sez the finite being with a limited understanding.
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 1:47 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
I have a passing interest in miltary history. So when John A. Designer asked for input for his "little project", I thought I might have something to contribute. I know of someone else with even a better understanding of military history who has often commented on Telic Thoughts but the mere mention of his name was so negative that it overrode whatever positive input I had to offer about the Dresden bombing.
But as a consolation prize, I thought I would comment about one of many situations where being ethical (i.e. "following the rules") had very bad results.
Consider this in light of current events…
The UN army had pushed the North Koreans way past the 38th parallel to the Yalu River. This map illustrates how, within two months, the UN army had all but secured the entire Korean peninsula.
Had the Yalu River bridges been blown, it is reasonable to suggest today there would be no North Korea and no nuclear-capable, dictator regime.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Big oops, I forgot to provide the link
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
How does that even compare to Dresden? It isn't as if there were occupied Chinese cities on the bridges.
However both Korea and Vietnam are examples of what happens-clusterflops- when politicians run the war.
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 4:00 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Even puppy beaters can find redemption: Michael Vick out of the Dog House
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 28, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
No they do not. It is impossible for a being “in time” to review something outside time.
I could explain this further but I’m pretty sure it would be lost on you since you believe it’s possible for a square to be a circle.
Ok here is what you said with the substitution you recommended
Not even God can know both quantities [well-defined wavelength or a well defined position] “for any given wave“.
Why is this so? If we remove time from the equation I see nothing logically prohibitive in the knowledge of both of these quantities. The law of non contradiction simply demands that…….
It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect
What am I missing?
You are not saying that a wave is a specific point and a wavelength in the same respect at all times are you?
I’m not a physicist so allow me to put your dilemma in non physicist terms
I can know the entire plot of a movie as well as exactly what each frame “means” if I exist outside the movie even though each frame is dependant on all the others for it’s meaning.
I can see how a character in the movie would be constrained as to what he could know about the picture but the director not so much.
As far as I can tell It’s only the folks inside the picture who must deal with these sorts of constraints…. how am I wrong?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
fifth monarchy man,
The uncertainty principle not that hard to understand in application to ordinary waves.
A wave with an exactly known wavelength λ is a sinusoid with infinitely many crests and troughs. Such an object completely fills the entire space and thus has an undetermined location.
You can chop off a piece of the sine wave that contains a large number N of crests. This finite wave is no longer a pure sine wave. It can be represented as a superposition of pure (infinitely extended) sine waves with wavelengths ranging roughly from λ − λ/N to λ + λ/N. (This is known as the Fourier decomposition.) The position of this chopped wave is known with precision Nλ (the extent of the wave packet), whereas the wavelength uncertainty is λ/N. As N decreases, the former becomes better defined, whereas the latter less so.
Make sense?
Comment by olegt — November 28, 2010 @ 4:35 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Hi Fifth Monarch Man,
Please finish the context. It’s possible for a square to be a circle in an unconstrained geometry. Four, connected straight lines of equal length can be shown to be equidistant from a given point using an unusual reference frame.
Sorry, but I suspect it is you who is lacking in training.
Here is a link to a short explanation of Fourier Transforms
This is pre-graduate stuff for Electrical Engineers and is relevant to the discussion.
I would even want to guess the kind of math Oleg deals with at ease during his work.
As for your metaphysical proclimations…
Are you talking about my physical body or the intellect part that is in "the image and likeness of God"?
We can think outside our timeframe. We can simultaniously know of things in the past, present and future.
EDIT – I see Oleg already responded with a summary of "Fourier decomposition".
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Some time ago, (in the context of a debate between ID and Thomism) I mentioned that I had emailed Dr. Edward Feser about a distinction Aquinas made in viewing biological life (specifically Man) as "an artifact" rather than as "creation ex nihilo".
He did not have the time to respond to my email but, in the interest of furthering discussion on the issue, I decided to go ahead and post the email I sent him on my Yahoo blog (which I set up just for that purpose.)
I know Eric was quite interested at the time. I haven't seen him around lately though. I'm not sure if anyone here even remembers the debate, but if you do, well it's there. It is quite long and consists of three parts. (Scroll to the bottom of the page for Part 1.)
I'd welcome any comments (preferably here as I probably won't frequent that blog much.)
Here's an excerpt from the email where I'm recounting the conversation we'd had thus far on his blog:
Comment by Daniel Smith — November 28, 2010 @ 5:26 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
The unceratinty principle applies to finite beings with limited understanding.
However with respect to biology, and this is Dr Spetner's point, our uncertainty does not equal "random with respect to…", ie genetic errors/ mistakes may not be neither an error nor a mistake.
Perhaps we do have some common ground- would TP and olegt be open to removing all references to chance, mistakes, errors when discussing mutations and genetic changes in biology classrooms?
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
hey Olegt,
Thanks for taking the time on this one I'll check out the link.
Infinite in reference to what? It seems to me that infinity in our universe is meaningless to a being outside of our universe? It this some kind of Trans universal infinity.
What does the “entire space” mean to a being outside of space?
Why would an observer outside of space and time need to do this? He could simply view the entire wave could he not?
It seems to me that your whole premise is predicated on the finitude of the observer. Am I missing somthing?
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
fifth monarchy man,
I am talking about a mathematical description at this point. The limitations on the uncertainties of the position and wavelength of a wave are not of the physical, but of the mathematical sort. They are not about the "finitude of the observer," but about the logical impossibility of localizing a monochromatic wave.
Comment by olegt — November 28, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
I thought we were talking about knowledge.
Couldn’t an omniscient God simply know both quantities without having to concern himself with measurement or mathematical description? It's possible that God could have knowledge with out being able to communicate said knowledge to finite creatures.
In Fact that is just what we would expect from the God of the Bible. (Deu 29:29)
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 7:13 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
TP, Thanks for the comment and link, but that is not what I am really interested in discussing.
The main question that I am interested in is:
Is it ever morally justified to target and attack non-combatant civilians?
The so called rules of war apparently say no. Are there any exceptions to these rules?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 28, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
fifth monarchy man,
Again, the uncertainty principle in application to waves is not a statement about a lack of knowledge. It is a limitation of a logical sort. Wavelength and position of a wave represent mutually exclusive types of information. Making a wave finite in extent in order to localize it broadens its spectrum of wavelengths.
This is a mathematical restriction. It cannot be overcome by anyone, not even God. Just like it is impossible to come up with two numbers a and b such that a is both greater than and smaller than b.
Comment by olegt — November 28, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,
Please excuse my butting in, but I'm honestly trying to help here.
EDIT – I see Oleg commented just before I hit the send button. Again, please excuse this attempt. I hope it helps more than it hurts.
Does God know the last digit of PI?
Saying it is a mathematical concept doesn't mean it is unrelated to the real world,
The Pathagoreans got quite upset when they found out not all numbers are rational. It was a crisis of faith.
I think the name "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" is confusing to laymen. We are certain position and momentum information can not be known at the same time because both pieces of information CAN NOT AND DOES NOT EXIST at the same time.
If it makes you feel better to think God made this a universal law, you could look at it that way.
No "particle" can ever be at rest because if it was, both its position and momentum could be known.
That is why paired "particles" are being formed all the time. Of course, they mostly just recombine.
This is the reason I keep saying things like "there is no such thing as solid particles, everything is waves".
As disturbing as it is, one of the things these waves can exhibit is the property of mass; similar to exhibiting the property of electrical charge.
Matter is no more substantial than radiowaves.
You could think of a “particle” is a tight cluster of radiowaves.
At the quantum level, it appears observation causes the waves to either form up into a “particle” or remain a wave but never both.
If you asked God if it is a particle or wave, he could answer “yes”. If you asked which it was, he would answer, neither.
Joy put it as “God does not play dice. God plays a particularly mean game of billiards."
As in the other thread, this problem is "…as insoluble as is that of free will and predestination".
Or, as Oleg put it originally,"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"
Saying God works in mysterious ways or is somehow beyond logic may be great for Theology, but it doesn't get around the scientific paradox, at least not for a scientist like Oleg.
Or, as Oleg put it originally, "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"
Saying God works in mysterious ways or is somehow beyond logic may be great for Theology, but it doesn't help solve the scientific puzzle,
Obviously, Oleg can disagree with multiple things I have said. And I wouldn't be surprised if he does. He hasn't been timid about this in the past.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 28, 2010 @ 8:07 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
So the claim that “Not even God can know both quantities at the same time.” Was just misleading bluster? I’m sorry for taking you literally.
I have no problem with mathematical restrictions.
Claiming that God can’t divide by zero is not the same thing as saying that God can’t know the result of the equation 10/0.
The first statement is just another way of saying that God is logical. I would agree.
The second statement is really just nonsense but taking it at face value implies limitations in God.
The problem was I assumed that you were saying there actually were two quantities corresponding to wavelength and position in a given wave and that God somehow was not able access this information.
If what you really mean to say is that a wave does not have wavelength and position at the same time we have no argument.
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
fmm,
When you ask if God could "simply know both quantities", keep in mind that implicitly assumes there is a definite quantity there to know. That in turn gets into a question of what's "really happening" in quantum physics, to which the most popular answer has been shut up and calculate. (There are other answers, but that one is the most telling.)
Think of it this way: You have a magician who is able to pull a rabbit, a dove, or a snake out of an empty hat. Now, the hat is empty, but after he reaches in and pulls his hand out, he's got one of those three things. It's a mistake to insist that someone "really knows what's inside the hat before the magician reaches into it" when the hat, as a matter of fact, is empty. You'd be insisting on knowledge about a property that isn't in play. You can, perhaps, argue that someone knows what the magician will pull out of the hat – but that's a different question.
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Hey olegt,
Another reason why I originally objected to your comment is that my layman’s brain confounded the Heisenberg uncertainty principle with Gödel's incompleteness theorems. My only explanation for this is forgetfulness on my part.
sorry
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?:
Comment by ID guy — November 28, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
November 28th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
fmm,
It seems like this has been resolved for you, but one thing I'd suggest if ever you get interested again is noting the varieties of interepretations of quantum mechanics. It's in the interpretations where a lot of the discussion takes place, and a lot of the difference comes down to "Well, here is the math we're using. But what does this math mean"? And that question can quickly start spinning off into questions about physical reality, metaphysical issues, and so on.
I point this out only because when I first started reading up on QM, I ended up going through a lot of routines where I'd have someone tell me what was going on with certainty, only later to find out that no, things aren't quite as settled as they were saying. That's one reason why Mermin's reply to the question that's basically "Alright, here is the math we're using to describe these things. Now what does this math mean about reality?" was "Shut up and calculate."
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2010 @ 9:44 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 9:09 am
The simple answer is: no
Comment by kornbelt888 — November 29, 2010 @ 9:09 am
November 29th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Excellent article on antibiotic resistance:
Is Bacterial Resistance
to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
Here are the mutations involved in converting bugs to "superbugs":
Not exactly a glowing proof that Darwinism builds complexity. This actually an example of the "survival of the sickest"
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 29, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Hey all,
Since we are on the subject of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
I hope you don’t mind if ask a question to save future embarrassment.
One of the most common arguments given by Muslims and others against Christianity is that it is logically impossible for Jesus to be both fully God and fully man. They feel that the finite can not logically coexist with the infinite in any fashion.
I have in the past thought of using an analogy from QM to show how such a thing is possible. but now I'm not so sure.
I have always understood what little I knew of QM to say that before it was observed matter is both a finite particle and infinite wave at the same time.
I thought that this was what we learned from Schrödinger's cat and Wave–particle duality.
Am I justified in using this analogy or is it instead the case that a Wave is always first a wave and then a particle and never both.
thanks in advance and
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
fmm,
Are you sure that's an argument given by muslims? I ask because my familiarity with muslim philosophical thought is that their historically prominent idea of God is one who really does transcend logic, and who is capable of doing things like making square circles.
I think it may be fair to say that that's one possible interpretation of QM, it just isn't demanded by the experiments. So I think it's still valid in a qualified way.
Comment by nullasalus — November 29, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I've heard this argument myself from muslims many times. Here is a video by a famous Muslim apologist.
I agree that in general Islam has God transcending logic but it is also quick to claim that we only understand God by negation. There is no image of God in islamic thought.
Thus it's said that we only understand Infinite by saying it’s the negation of the finite and we only understand omnipresent by reflecting on what it means to be limited in space etc.
hope that helps
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2010 @ 8:27 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
fmm,
Fair enough. I guess it's a "throw anything you can" situation, as usual in these debates.
Comment by nullasalus — November 29, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
November 29th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
There are a few cases where civilian noncombatants were targeted but not because of anything they were directly guilty of as civilians
The first was the case of the sinking of a Norwegian ferry, the Hydro, during WWII which was carrying heavy water that the allies had learned the Nazi’s were using in their efforts to create an atomic bomb. In this case the Norwegian resistance that carried out the sabotage targeted Norwegian citizens who were completely innocent. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. 18 people died in the sinking, of which 14 were Norwegian citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Case #2 the bombing of Coventry. Coventry was a city in England that targeted several time by the Nazi‘s. Thousands of civilians died in these raids. There is a story that Winston Churchill knew about one of the raids a head time because of British code breaking abilities. However, he did not to evacuate the civilians because he was afraid it might tip off the Nazi’s that the British had broken the their codes. While most historians think that this story is apocryphal, if something like this did really happen, would Churchill have been morally justified in making that kind of decision?
Case #3 the US targeting civilian aircraft. This is not apocryphal. Immediately after the attacks of 9-11 US fighters were given orders to shoot down civilian airliners if they posed a threat. Bush said recently he was sickened after he learned about the downing of flight 93 over Pennsylvania, because he thought it had been shot down by one of our fighter following his orders. Of course, as it turned out that wasn’t true. I think this is a no-brainer. But there may be some people who think differently about it.
By the way, this is not about Bush ordering the water boarding of three known terrorists. I mention that only because I find it to be ironic. Deliberately shoot 40 of our own citizens out of the sky; that’s morally justified if it saves lives. Cause three terrorists to be temporarily uncomfortable to obtain life saving information and you’re moral monster. Go figure.
Are any of the cases I’ve cited above morally unjustified?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 29, 2010 @ 10:29 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 8:42 am
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
List of Hospital Ships sunk during WWI
Comment by ID guy — November 30, 2010 @ 8:42 am
November 30th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
FYI, a press release from NASA
HT – Richard Thughes @ AtBC.
Comment by Thought Provoker — November 30, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
From Wikipedia / Chuck Yeager:
Comment by chunkdz — November 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Something of a guidline would be to ask the civilians in Coventry at the time. I suspect many would have said, "if Churhill would have tipped off the Nazi's and cost us more British lives, then yes he would be justified, I would reluctantly be sacrificed, but I can't say that for my own children".
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 30, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
The issue of taking a friendly life was explored in passing at the end of this movie:
Flight of the Intruder.
The movie came to mind with John Designer's discussion.
One of my favorite moveis by the way. I worked briefly on Intruder support.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — November 30, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
ID guy’s post brings up something interesting. I noticed from the list of the of the hospital ships that were sunk that it was Germans sinking allied hospital ships (mainly British) and not vice-versa. In other words, the allies continued to adhere to the agreements they had signed before the war, and didn’t retaliate even though, in my opinion, they certainly were warranted in doing so.
The British were not so restrained in retaliating against civilian targets after the Germans, apparently accidentally, bombed a residential area near London at the beginning of World War II.
Salvadore brings up the issue of proportionality. Is it ever morally justified to target children, or in the case of the Coventry bombing, let them be killed to protect secret capabilities, like the code breaking capabilities that the British developed during WWII?
As far as I know not a lot of children, if any, were killed during the 9/11 attacks. However, if there had been a hijacked flight, loaded with school children, headed towards the US Capitol would that make a difference whether or not US fighter should shoot down that aircraft? Remember the children are going to be killed either way.
Then what about the number of people on a flight? What if it had been a fully loaded 747 that was headed for the Capitol? Does that change the situation any?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 30, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Here is an account of the British retaliatory raid after the Germans bombed London on August 24, 1940.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 30, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
November 30th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Some more time traveling
Comment by Guts — November 30, 2010 @ 8:00 pm
December 1st, 2010 at 10:21 am
God bless the Atheist Right Wing Economic think tanks, the descendents of Ayn Rand and the von Mises school of economics.
The Turnpike of Truth: http://www.zerohedge.com/
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 1, 2010 @ 10:21 am
December 1st, 2010 at 11:41 am
Another Turnpike of True:
http://www.shadowstats.com/
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 1, 2010 @ 11:41 am
December 1st, 2010 at 4:41 pm
John, there is a missing element in much of the exchanges- efficacy. I note that the same is often missing from political discussions. Morality can hinge on assumptions as to whether x works or, to put it another way, would this outcome result from that action. The specific I have in mind is the atom bombing of Japan. It seems clear that Truman thought the weapon would end the war without incurring an even greater amount of bloodshed resulting from a conventional invasion. He was right. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war. Dresden did not. Efficacy is relevant to moral judgments.
Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
December 1st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Building on the efficacy theme, efficacy should be relevant to our assessments of those who govern us. Does massive government spending deliver on its promises? That's an efficacy issue. Falling dominoes in Europe (the PIG nations) indicate that massive spending has not worked there. Yet that is the model followed by the American left which has ruled this nation for the last 2 years.
Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2010 @ 4:45 pm
December 1st, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Startling new archaeology discovery.
Comment by nullasalus — December 1, 2010 @ 10:59 pm
December 2nd, 2010 at 2:11 am
Bradford,
Yes you can think in terms of efficiency, which I think actually ties in with the idea proportionality. But in my thinking neither one of those things determines whether an attack on non-combatant civilians is morally justified. In my opinion, there has to be some kind of linkage with something that is either a threat or has some kind of direct strategic value with no way to separate the non-combatant civilians from the target. For example, on 9-11 the terrorists had commandeered civilian aircraft to be used as weapons. Whether they were guilty or not the passengers became inseparably linked to that “weapon system”. So whether there were a lot of passenger or few, or the planes were full of school children or little old ladies, it doesn’t matter, they are directly linked, through no fault of their own, to something that was a threat.
I don’t find that to be true with either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. In fact, I remember reading someplace that they were chosen as targets because they had little strategic value. In other words, because they had not been bombed previously their bombing would demonstrate the true destructive power of atomic weaponry. So, on those grounds alone I question the targeting decision. Again, if there is some kind of linkage to something that is either a threat, or has some direct strategic value, I think an attacker, if his cause is just (that of course is another matter) has moral justification in inflicting (or allowing) civilian casualties.
For a thought experiment suppose we (the US) had developed atomic weapons a few years earlier and had carried out a Doolittle style raid on Hiroshima and Nagasaki before Japan had been weakened by the war. Would you still argue that the attacks were morally justified?
I think I know what you are going to say. That it is the timing that is what is strategic. But my point is that if there is some direct linkage then the timing doesn’t matter. In other words, if the attack is morally justified then the timing shouldn’t be that significant.
Ironically, historically it is easier for me to think of examples where we had to, sacrifice our own non-combatant civilians because some kind of linkage. On the other hand, I don’t consider civilians working in a munitions factory to be a good example because if they are doing so voluntarily then they are in my view combatants. However, the Nazi’s forced Jewish prisoners to work for their war effort. In my view these were non-combatant civilians that were linked to a strategic target. Of course we had to sacrifice them because of that linkage.
However, I do have a hypothetical scenario where an atomic weapon is targeted at a predominantly civilian population and it’s use would be morally justified. But that will have to wait another day.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 2, 2010 @ 2:11 am
December 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 am
Reports are that the NASA discovery is going to be that a form of life capable of either using or surviving in arsenic has been discovered.
Calling some headlines in advance:
Pro-ID Sites: "Common Descent Falsified! NASA finding proves not all life on earth related!"
Pro-Evolution Sites: "Tremendous Power of Evolution Demonstrated! Natural Selection Enabled Arsenic-using Bacteria!" or "Life Less Special Than Thought! Arsenic-using Bacteria Indicate Life Springs Up Easily!"
Mainstream Sites: Scientists find slightly more revolting germs – no Vulcans, ET.
Comment by nullasalus — December 2, 2010 @ 5:37 am
December 2nd, 2010 at 8:55 am
nullasalus's brilliant prediction confirmed:
Comment by olegt — December 2, 2010 @ 8:55 am
December 2nd, 2010 at 3:01 pm
I just noticed that (I?) used the term efficiency in my response to Bradford rather than efficacy. I don’t know if I made that mistake or it was my overly active spell check that sometimes corrects my misspellings without prompting me. Sometime it corrects it to something I didn’t intend. For example, whenever I type nullasalus, which is not misspelled, it's just not in the dictionary, it automatically changes it to hullabaloos.
Whatever happened the word should be efficacy not efficiency.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 2, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 12:26 am
He's not mainstream media, but I liked how Lubos Motl summed up the arsenic thing:
Disgusting? Perverse? I love it. Motl comes across as if NASA just said they think the excess of methane in some remote planet's atmosphere can be explained by a hypothetical quasi-mammal called a "fecalpotamus".
Comment by nullasalus — December 3, 2010 @ 12:26 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:37 am
nullasalus,
Motl's comments are embarrassing. He is saying silly things like "Fine, arsenic's positive role is new, but why does it qualitatively change anything?" Well, try sticking E. coli in a medium with arsenate instead of phosphate. If a complete dying out of the colony does not make a qualitative difference then I don't know what will.
Comment by olegt — December 3, 2010 @ 8:37 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:44 am
Keep in mind I pulled Motl's comments from before the NASA press conference happened, and he was going off information that was speculative and somewhat off-base (he apparently thought the big reveal was 'something can eat arsenic and live' or something like that.) Check the comments in his post for his reactions after the press conference – they're a little more positive, since he's impressed at the news that arsenic was apparently being substituted in DNA. I'm surprised at his views on how common life is in the galaxy, though.
That said, I only quoted Motl because I thought that was funny. He comes across as honestly disgusted. If nothing else, the guy is a character.
Comment by nullasalus — December 3, 2010 @ 8:44 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:56 am
Motl can be snarky on the interwebz (in real life he is very tame), but why would anyone look up to a string theorist on matters biological? Here is stuff he said after watching the press conference:
The snark content is pretty high. So is the stupid content.
Comment by olegt — December 3, 2010 @ 8:56 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 9:14 am
Everyone's always more polite within swinging distance. I'm shocked it even has to be said anymore, yet it keeps coming up. "Man who is famously an asshole online very polite, meek in person." That couldn't have anything to do with him being a lot more open to a punch in the face now could it?
Who was? It was just funny to see him display such utter contempt for arsenic. That caught me offguard – he could be a PE teacher in Seattle for all I care, that just struck me as remarkable. Like coming across the whole "pythagoras and beans" story the first time around.
…
Let me ask you a straight up question, olegt: Can you give me an example of comedy you find funny? I mean this seriously. A standup comedian, a show, a movie, take your pick. I'd really like to know.
Comment by nullasalus — December 3, 2010 @ 9:14 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 am
Olegt:
What qualitative theoretical difference does the arsenic find have? Life adapts? Life evolves? Anything more profound than that?
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2010 @ 10:19 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:46 am
nullasalus,
For comedy, I go to Uncommon Descent. It's not as good as 30 Rock, but at least it's on all the time.
Comment by olegt — December 3, 2010 @ 10:46 am
December 3rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
I am sure you are their number 1 comedian.
Comment by ID guy — December 3, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
It appears as though Mr. T couldn't hang at Uncommon Descent.
Raise your hand if you pity the fool.
Me neither.
Comment by Jared Jammer — December 3, 2010 @ 5:52 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Joe and Jared,
Your compliments are certainly flattering, but the funniest guy at UD is its founder, Bill Dembski. I can't even approach the level of sublime foolishness he has demonstrated over the years.
Take the infamous episode with the flash animation The Judge Jones School of Law. To make a soundtrack out of farting noises and your own sped-up voice is plain silly. To publicize it on your nemesis's forum is downright idiotic. To take it down later and to beg your enemies to remove copies from their site is humiliating.
And that's just one episode. And did you hear the one about the explanatory filter, introduced with great fanfare, then acknowledged to be worthless, and then reinstated just to spite his enemies? I won't bother with links, I'm sure you remember all that.
Comment by olegt — December 3, 2010 @ 7:30 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 8:56 pm
So olegt takes his traveling comedy and BS show to UD and TT.
Where else do you spread your comedy and misrepresentations? Oh, that's right- you brew it all up over at the cesspool.
Did you hear the one where olegt doesn't understand information even when it is fed to him like he was a little breast-feeding baby?
How about the one in which olegt can only attack his opponents and their novel ideas because his position is an utter failure?
Or the one in which olegt spreads false accusations and nonsense as if they are fact?
You're a hoot olegt. Someday someone may give a hoot about what you say.
Comment by ID guy — December 3, 2010 @ 8:56 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
olegt wrote:
Indeed, physicist.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 3, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I've been reading a hard-to-find book lately, mostly as an adversarial source. It's more akin to The Secret than any Dawkins tripe, so it has more appeal to Sam Harris atheists than the usually rabid nihilistic atheists.
It mentions some "spooky" scientific observations in the same goofy vein that the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" does. Except it has specific stuff, and it's closer to actual mystery. For example, the flattid bug (bold emphasis added):
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 3, 2010 @ 10:53 pm
December 5th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Here's my choice for an explanation:
Comment by Daniel Smith — December 5, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
December 5th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I've posted some pessimitic views of the future, but here is a beautiful description of how the human condition has improved since 1810:
Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes – The Joy of Stats – BBC Four
So enjoy, for once I have something nice to say about the progress of humanity.
PS
Science and technology were important to this advance in the human condition.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — December 5, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
December 5th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Here is something else concerning the morality of attacking civilian populationa.
Two early critics of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, who, ironically, had urged President Roosevelt to actively pursue atom bomb research in a letter they co wrote in 1939.
In an interview with U.S. News and World Report, August 15, 1960,
Szilard made his views on the morality of using the bomb crystal clear.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — December 5, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
December 5th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
John, many armies are composed of drafted conscripts. That was the case in WWII. Most GIs, young Germans etc. probably would have opted to do something else with their time given a choice. From a moral standpoint how does the value of a 40 year old woman compare to that of an 18 year old male conscript? Those are the approximate ages of my grandmother and father during one year of the war. He was drafted and fought overseas. Like other adults on both sides of the Atlantic my grandmother favored the top of the executive branch of government who for good or bad was involved in the events leading to the deaths of millions. The bottom line is: Who is more culpable and does being a civilian really matter? Why?
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2010 @ 10:27 pm
December 6th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
Damn, scientists are naive as hell when it comes to warfare. Either that or Szilard and Einstein only gave a damn when it was white people being bombed into annihilation.
Leo Szilard was quoted as saying:
Suppose we weren't psychic and didn't know how many bombs Germany had developed.
Also suppose the Nazis were not stupid enough to send us a telegraph saying "Hello Americans! We have only two atomic bombs! Once we drop them on you, we will have none! After that, it will be a long time before we have any more. Auf Wiedersehen!"
Or suppose they had dropped one on Rochester and then told us they had many more bombs and for the Allies to surrender in 3 days or they would drop the next one on Manhattan.
No surrender occurs, and Manhattan and all its inhabitants go boom.
Then the Nazis telegraph to the Allied leaders a list of the next bombing targets. At the top of the sizable list are the three capital cities of the Big 3 Allied nations: Washington D.C., London, and Moscow. Accompanying the list are terms for surrender to be received 3 days from receipt.
They're bluffing, of course, but remember, we're not psychic and the Nazis are not stupid.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2010 @ 6:32 pm
December 6th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
…or think of how wonderful life would be when it's boiled down to a simple decision to goosestep for the Fuhrer or suck on some Zyklon B.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 6, 2010 @ 6:34 pm
December 25th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
frontloading
Has a frontloading mechanism been identified?
Add this new finding to the phenomena of noncoding ultra conserved DNA and it’s beginning to look like a whole cluster of tools are available for a designer to frontload innovation in a cell.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 25, 2010 @ 12:23 pm