Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Patriots
Waving flags and pointing guns does not make you a patriot, even if you do it with the image of an eagle or a cross somewhere nearby.
Don't Look Back Due To Fear
To believe is to look backwards in fear of the future. To think is to seek knowledge with delight in what's to come.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Missing Time And UFOs
"Missing time" that has been reported by some in relationship to UFOs is likely a form a common temporary amnesia, called Transient Global Amnesia (TGA). In this, people will suddenly stop recording what is going on and not be able to recall it later. It is rather common and real, which means that those who experience it will pass a lie detector test when asked if they don't remember a certain length of time that was "lost." The catch is that some people can't live with this hole and, therefore, fill it with something. That something is where UFOs (or other phenomenon) come in to the story.
No Default Religion
Religionists who attack science mistakenly believe (not think) that if a hole is found in a scientific position that it automatically reveals religion underneath.
What Difference Does A Dominant Eye Make?
We know that each eye is connected to the opposite hemisphere of the brain, with each of those hemispheres responsible for different types of thinking. When people have an over-dominant eye through which they read or otherwise receive visual information, does that have an effect on how that information is deciphered and interpreted?
Is Rationalizing Similar To A Type Of Brain Damage?
Brain damaged patients, especially those with right hemisphere damage, can often not determine if parts of their body are even theirs. When put in front of a mirror and asked to move a limb, they might say something like "What do you mean 'move it'? It's not even mine," rationalizing away the obvious contradiction.
This might also be the same thing that happens when anyone rationalizes away any irrefutable facts. Rationalization could be a type of mental defect, or a type of illogical response used by those with mental irrationalities of all forms.
This might also be the same thing that happens when anyone rationalizes away any irrefutable facts. Rationalization could be a type of mental defect, or a type of illogical response used by those with mental irrationalities of all forms.
"Off The Books" View Of Capitalism
When proponents of capitalism tout its success they often act as like a shady accountant who puts bad information “off the books.” In order to fully rate capitalism its effects on every country where there are ties needs to be included.
Pundits will generally only include figures from the U.S., for example, leaving out the information from the countries that supply goods at piss-poor wages and awful working conditions. If the information from those places were included, a more accurate--and less positive--picture becomes apparent. By keeping these other countries “off the books,” the proponents of unrestricted capitalism get to claim a false positive picture of the economic system.
Pundits will generally only include figures from the U.S., for example, leaving out the information from the countries that supply goods at piss-poor wages and awful working conditions. If the information from those places were included, a more accurate--and less positive--picture becomes apparent. By keeping these other countries “off the books,” the proponents of unrestricted capitalism get to claim a false positive picture of the economic system.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Military Cult
How diferent really is a member of a religious cult and a zealot member of the military?
Beliefs Bound To Fail
Every belief system is going to be contradictory, incomplete and full of holes because it is a belief system. Beliefs are positions accepted without verifiable facts, sometimes not even investigable ones. When new contradictory findings are discovered (and inevitably they are), the belief system crumbles. For people who have tied their self-identity to a belief system, it will still be defended in an attempt at self-preservation, even when the belief system fails. The entrenched believer is not a virtuous being. It is a sad state at self-preservation based on a falsehood.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Protect Our Self By Categorizing Others
In one way or another we tend to remove from our lives those we can't categorize. In everyday ways we simply do not associate with anyone we can't tag. On a societal scale, we put people away in institutions, jails, ghettos--whatever. If someone has a mental state (not defect) or physical difference that we can't accept, we remove them from our "field of vision" in order to keep our categories of humanity intact and unchallenged.
These things can include simple attributes or complex ones, it doesn't matter. To challenge our view of the world and the places and ways in which we divide it--which is an attack on our 'self'--is a challenge that is avoided because to take it on forthrightly would be a losing cause in maintaining our current 'self' and we can't often risk a loss so grand. It would be too devastating. It would be making one's life up until that point meaningless.
Everything we have learned and attached to our sensory input and the results of contemplating that input is who we are, largely. By attaching our 'selfs' to that 'result,' we therefore must protect it in order to protect our 'self.' Otherwise, it is very much like commuting suicide.
These things can include simple attributes or complex ones, it doesn't matter. To challenge our view of the world and the places and ways in which we divide it--which is an attack on our 'self'--is a challenge that is avoided because to take it on forthrightly would be a losing cause in maintaining our current 'self' and we can't often risk a loss so grand. It would be too devastating. It would be making one's life up until that point meaningless.
Everything we have learned and attached to our sensory input and the results of contemplating that input is who we are, largely. By attaching our 'selfs' to that 'result,' we therefore must protect it in order to protect our 'self.' Otherwise, it is very much like commuting suicide.
Friday, February 26, 2010
"Special" Rights
During Reconstruction after the end of the U.S. Civil War, President Andrew Johnson was presented with a civil rights bill giving blacks “the same rights of property and person” as whites. He vetoed this bill based partially on the idea it would give blacks extra rights not afforded to whites. From A Short History of Reconstruction by Eric Foner:
"Somehow, the president had decided that giving blacks full citizenship discriminated against whites--'the distinction of race and color is b the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.' Johnson even invoked the specter of racial intermarriage as the logical consequence of Congressional policy."
Fortunately, the Congress voted to override the veto. But Johnson’s mindset could easily be paralleled to those protesting equal rights for homosexuals. The similarities are striking.
"Somehow, the president had decided that giving blacks full citizenship discriminated against whites--'the distinction of race and color is b the bill made to operate in favor of the colored and against the white race.' Johnson even invoked the specter of racial intermarriage as the logical consequence of Congressional policy."
Fortunately, the Congress voted to override the veto. But Johnson’s mindset could easily be paralleled to those protesting equal rights for homosexuals. The similarities are striking.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Hearing Lyrics As An Instrument
When listening to music, how many of us hear the lyrics as simply another instrument, not really taking in the meaning of the words as language? If a person takes in the lyrics--even being able to sing along --but when the song's over not even know what meaning the words would produce if spoken directly, how would that condition be categorized? Is it a condition at all?
Giant Leaps Forward: Zero and Atheism
The mathematical concept of zero and atheism, two seemingly unrelated steps in the evolution of human knowledge, are interesting to ponder together in order to give a unique insight into both.
Before zero was realized as a valid concept in mathematics, the ability to make discoveries and interpret the universe was severely hampered and flawed. The use of zero was a major breakthrough in understanding. The concept of nothingness also eventually led from accepting there must be some sort of god(s) to the advent of atheism, a position of non-belief in the existence of any deities.
The concept of non-existence has ironically propelled humanity forward on multiple levels as two giant leaps forward for humankind.
Before zero was realized as a valid concept in mathematics, the ability to make discoveries and interpret the universe was severely hampered and flawed. The use of zero was a major breakthrough in understanding. The concept of nothingness also eventually led from accepting there must be some sort of god(s) to the advent of atheism, a position of non-belief in the existence of any deities.
The concept of non-existence has ironically propelled humanity forward on multiple levels as two giant leaps forward for humankind.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Giving Up A Belief Is Too Risky
Why is it that people will disagree with scientific evidence, even when there is near universal consensus among scientists on a given topic?
This basic question was looked at in a recent paper available through The Social Science Research Network. Although this paper, "Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus," did not look at religion specifically, its findings are likely closely related to religion, too.
Looking to verify what has been known as the “cultural cognition of risk,” the paper’s conclusions assert that “individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept as a result of a cultural availability effect that influences how readily they can recall instances of expert endorsement of those positions.”
In other words, a person is likely to accept assertions by those people who already agree with them, or are seen as culturally close in some fashion. If the majority of “experts” a person is exposed to espouses a certain position, they will tend to agree with it, even if those “experts” compose an extreme minority.
“If individuals more readily count someone as an expert when that person endorses a conclusion that fits their cultural predispositions, individuals of opposing cultural outlooks will over time form opposingly skewed impressions of what most experts believe. As a result, even when experts by and large agree, individuals of diverse world-views will disagree about the state of scientific consensus,” the report concludes.
This idea that people will more easily accept “expert” opinion that is already close to their own opinions is not new. But what is interesting is that this study looked specifically at positions considered risky--climate change, nuclear power and gun control. From a certain point of view, religious belief can also be seen in terms of risk--in an afterlife.
In some religions the risk is one of eternal punishment or banishment. In others it’s a reincarnation scenario where a person could return as a “lower” form of life, for example. If an expert opinion is interpreted as putting the religious believer at risk for a painful or otherwise less-than-ideal afterlife, the expert will more than likely be dismissed; the expert’s opinion is too risky to accept, given the believer’s cultural point of view.
This, of course, is likely the seed for the Pascal’s Wager argument, which basically asserts that the risk of not believing is too great, even if there is no god to believe in. If this study’s conclusions can be applied to religious beliefs--as seems likely--then we now have an wonderful scientific hint at what’s going on in keeping believers believing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to those beliefs.
This basic question was looked at in a recent paper available through The Social Science Research Network. Although this paper, "Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus," did not look at religion specifically, its findings are likely closely related to religion, too.
Looking to verify what has been known as the “cultural cognition of risk,” the paper’s conclusions assert that “individuals systematically overestimate the degree of scientific support for positions they are culturally predisposed to accept as a result of a cultural availability effect that influences how readily they can recall instances of expert endorsement of those positions.”
In other words, a person is likely to accept assertions by those people who already agree with them, or are seen as culturally close in some fashion. If the majority of “experts” a person is exposed to espouses a certain position, they will tend to agree with it, even if those “experts” compose an extreme minority.
“If individuals more readily count someone as an expert when that person endorses a conclusion that fits their cultural predispositions, individuals of opposing cultural outlooks will over time form opposingly skewed impressions of what most experts believe. As a result, even when experts by and large agree, individuals of diverse world-views will disagree about the state of scientific consensus,” the report concludes.
This idea that people will more easily accept “expert” opinion that is already close to their own opinions is not new. But what is interesting is that this study looked specifically at positions considered risky--climate change, nuclear power and gun control. From a certain point of view, religious belief can also be seen in terms of risk--in an afterlife.
In some religions the risk is one of eternal punishment or banishment. In others it’s a reincarnation scenario where a person could return as a “lower” form of life, for example. If an expert opinion is interpreted as putting the religious believer at risk for a painful or otherwise less-than-ideal afterlife, the expert will more than likely be dismissed; the expert’s opinion is too risky to accept, given the believer’s cultural point of view.
This, of course, is likely the seed for the Pascal’s Wager argument, which basically asserts that the risk of not believing is too great, even if there is no god to believe in. If this study’s conclusions can be applied to religious beliefs--as seems likely--then we now have an wonderful scientific hint at what’s going on in keeping believers believing, even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to those beliefs.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Sign Of A Dive
Why is it that an elaborately beautiful lighted sign for a reputable establishment can suddenly denote a sleezy dive when just one letter burns out?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Delusions And Collateral Damage
Like oil and water, believers in different gods and dogmas just don't mix. It's too bad that the rest of us have to be collaterally affected while their delusions create chaos.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Truth Tips The Scale
A tipping point will eventually be reached on all positions when pursuit of verifiable truth is not included within it; the position will eventually collapse when too many objections based on facts tip the scale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
