Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Popper vs. evolution
My wife picked up a recent copy of the Skeptical Inquirer and one of the articles I took note of concerned Karl Popper’s criticism of evolution as a scientific theory and subsequent recantation.
To quote from the article:
...who once claimed that “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program” (Unended Quest, 1976). Popper famously retracted his comments once it was explained to him that there was quite a bit more to the theory than he had understood from a cursory examination of the subject: “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).
I don’t want to get into what somebody mocked as the “cretinism vs. evilution” debate - other than pointing out that creationists are likely to make a big deal out of Popper’s refutation of evolution, while conveniently ignoring his recantation and further failing to apply Popper’s demarcation criteria to creationism itself.
The demarcation problem itself is interesting to me - how do you tell good and bad science apart? And what about epistemology…
I’d like to track down Popper’s original refutation to confirm a suspicion. It strikes me as significant that Popper may have declared evolution as pseudo-science without proper research and without qualification. “Never… Always check your references.” Further, I wonder if there is a fundamental difference in outlook between scientists and philosophers. The former don’t hold a claim to truth and thus tend to be prudent and qualify a lot; my take on philosophers is that they are more assertive as far as truth is concerned.
Deism
My understanding of Deism is that a creator set the universe in motion, but doesn’t otherwise interfere with it. In other words, she set the starting conditions and left her work to its own devices.
From proof-of-existence perspective, I consider Deism as as close to unassailable as any religion or spiritual belief can come. It’s not the most parsimonous creation hypothesis, but by design it isn’t open to proof or disproof and it’s clearly consistent with the world as we know it.
I doubt Deism is palatable to other theists, though. A disinterested (or at least non-interfering) surpreme being might be a worse scenario to comtemplate than the god-belief being plain wrong.
Just as idle speculation, if the universe just is, the god of Deism could be stretched to be the universe itself. I wonder if there is a brand of spirituality that embraces this belief? I myself, of course, would leave it at “I’m happy to be around”.
Monday, September 27, 2004
religious inoculation?
We (intend to) raise our kids free of religion, i.e. neither anti-religious nor suggesting that religion has any merit. While that’s a difficult enough tight-rope to walk, sooner or later she will be exposed to believers; living in Texas it’s almost a foregone conclusion that these will be of the proselytizing kind.
Good (atheistic) friends of ours have joined their Unitarian Society to inoculate their kids. I’m not convinced that this is effective. All the local proselytizers care is that everybody subscribes to their specific brand of Christianity, claiming anything else is just a challenge. Our daughers will either be skeptical enough or they won’t.
The one thing I’m concerned about is that being an atheist in Texas could be a bit of a problem. Perhaps I’ll get a free ordination from Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic just to have claim to some “religion”.
I dunno. Comments, anyone?
Sunday, September 26, 2004
baby statistics
Circumferences…
our 2-month old: calves 7”; my wife’s wrists: 6”
our 2-month old: thighs 9”; my wrists: 8”
She’s got us beat.
Election Blues
As reported e.g. by BBC News (local copy), the recent regional elections in two (East) German states had a disturbing result. Far right and far left parties made major inroads, although the incumbent closer-to-center coalitions will remain in control.
It is not entirely unexpected that the former communist party, the PDS, will get a certain share of votes in certain East German states. The strong support for far-right parties, however, is perhaps more significant. It is arguable whether the elections reflect a protest vote or, actual shift in ideology, or both.
Even though West Germany spent enough money on the reconstruction of the former GDR to fund US regime change across all of the Middle East, unemployment persistently hovers at about 20% and it is no surprise that voters turn to extremist parties. In my opinion, East Germans have also been in denial about their role in the Third Reich; as far as the Communist regime was concerned, it was something that was the sole responsibility of West Germans. Consequently, it doesn’t come as a surprise that after the fall of the communist regime, far-right parties find more support in the East than in the West.
By and large, these elections are a red flag, but the time to panic isn’t until these results are repeated in a Western state.
flop-flip (v.)
flip-flop (v.)
To change one’s mind after being shown to be wrong.
I don’t know who to attribute this to, but I wish I’d thought of it first.
Friday, September 24, 2004
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
If you enjoyed the books, there’s now an enhanced online version of the old Infocom game.
Wanna crunch?
Is your computer on a lot? Wanna put any unused CPU cycles to work?
Consider crunching for a cure ... maybe it’ll pay off by finding something useful, maybe it won’t ... either way, it’s painless.
If you’re interested, check out:
http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/disco
Thursday, September 23, 2004
from Newsweek, without further comment
“We should celebrate our 10-year presence in the online universe with a cross-border language.”
Deutsche Welle network director Erik Bettermann, in Germany’s state-run radio station’s now offering online reports and audio clips in Klingon.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Lions and tigers and relativism, oh my
One can’t help noticing that relativism is highly unpopular amongst the more fervent believers. One problem is that they never provide their definition of relativism - do they refer to one of the many relativistic philosophies or simply moral relativism?
I’m curios about causes. There are complaints about the philosophy, mostly variations of “all things are relative” is an absolute, but it doesn’t seem to explain the hostility. My take is that relativism implicitely rejects the authority of the Church, and the Catholic Church in particular. Hence, the attacks on the philosophical basis of relativism amount to nothing more than a smokescreen similar to creationism - it’s the questioning of authority that gets them riled.
Any opinions on this? Am I stating the obvious, am I plain wrong, anything in between?
Atom
RSS 2.0
