Sunday, April 23, 2017
Science! is unfortunately a recurrent theme on this blog. I wonder if any of the Science Marchers are open to discussion of IQ heritability, or the reproducibility crisis, or Mann's hockey-stick?
Science seems increasingly less about collecting data and going where observation and inductive inquiry lead you, and more about constructing non-falsifiable hypotheses to support pre-ordained conclusions. "Climate Change" and "Nurture, not Nature" are good examples of hortatory, non-falsifiable hypotheses, because the variables and data sets are so large you can always string enough stuff together to support the Cathedral's pronouncements.
You think they're joking.
As noted Scientist Robert Reich Pee Aitch Dee reminds us, there's Good Science and there's Bad Science. Cosmological and biological evolution are Good Science, because they contradict the Biblical literary narrative of Creation espoused by Christian nutjobs. Observing that biological evolution means homo sapiens evolved to fit different environmental and social niches is Bad Science, because it implies that not all men are created equal.
Even venerable old academics like Darwin's Dangerous Clan
run afoul of Good Science. Hopefully this Internet dialogue published by David Haig's Edge stays up for posterity.
One of the Edge participants, Daniel Dennett, apparently offends Good Science for his rather prosaic observation that Consciousness appears to occur along a spectrum of neural complexity. I find this controversy odd because when I was growing up, Dennett would have been the anti-Establishment rebel quoting Charles Darwin and Sartre, versus the Baptist preacher lecturing his congregation that Man is not an Ape. Now, Dennett is the stodgy Darwinist who sings Christmas carols and says natural selection molded brain structures to an apex point of Conscious Man, while Australian academic David Chalmers is the fundamentalist preacher handing out Chick tracts and denouncing Dennett's soulless materialism. Dennett looks at increasingly complex brains and behaviors and concludes consciousness exists along a spectrum. In opposition, Chalmers talks about "feelings" (no kidding) and "pan-proto-psychism" ("It's out there, man!") and Dennett, frustratingly, finds himself wrestling Jell-o. Guess which one gets invited to TED talks.
Why is Dennett's hypothesis so controversial? Chalmers argues for a Mind-Brain dichotomy which is not observable (and hence, non-falsifiable). But even non-scientists observe that as human brains degenerate, consciousness ebbs. Nevertheless, the Mind-Brain dichotomy must be maintained because, among other topics, it "explains" trans-genderism. After all, nobody has yet found a "female" brain in a male body so, by transcendent leap, we conclude that Caitlyn Jenner's Mind got metaphysically trapped in Bruce's Body, through all those years when he was winning the decathlon and siring six children by three women. Likewise, if mentation is proficient to the extent of an individual's neural structure, then Education is a private good with diminishing marginal utility.
Chalmers' discomfiture appears rooted in the Cathedral's dictate of Equality, to which even Science must bend the knee: humans are bound by an over-riding psychic unity; all humans are equally educable; hierarchy has no basis in reality.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
And finally, real food.
Lamb after 47 days pic.twitter.com/JW7FzETLqA— NassimNicholasTaleb (@nntaleb) April 16, 2017
If Taleb comes across as too harsh, here's St. John Chrysostom to explain it all.
Blessed Pascha to all.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
"Thou shalt not be Hitler!"
CNN even follows that phrasing: "First rule of politics: never compare anything to Hitler"
This new rule is going to be pretty hard to follow, given how often I've heard "literally Hitler!" over the past year.
Anglospheric Loki has an interesting take on this:
To reiterate, the first and greatest commandment of the new Anti-Religion is, "Thou shalt not be Hitler!" But since education is increasingly about things other than actual history and critical thinking, we know less and less about the real Adolf Hitler: who he was, where he came from, what he actually did, and his historical and social context. No less an educated man of the world than the President's press secretary is as in the dark about literally Hitler! as anybody. So when he says not even Hitler used chemical weapons (and he didn't, no more than our legal gas chambers constituted use of chemical weapons), the High Priests of the Anti-Religion can roll out their "Don't-Be-Hitler" standard and conduct an Auto da Fe.
Sean Spicer is obviously about as not-Hitler as you can be, an amiable WASP in a bureaucratic job with a wife and two kids and probably many Jewish acquaintances. But then he tosses out a remark that implies Bashar Assad is worse than Hitler, which is impossible because as we all know, Hitler is the Absolute Zero of Evil. There can be no worse Evil than the Hitler we all must not-Be. To imply otherwise is literally Hitler!