Recent Comments

Talk: Gever Tulley on 5 dangerous things for kids – January 6, 2009

I think in an over safety conscious world this is great. I teach risk assessment often to Fine Art students especially when I was in charge of a building and they are creating site specific artworks. I had an old building with lots of interesting nooks and crannies. However, the common mistake students made were basic common sense not thinking the implications through and the less access children have to make mistakes the less common sense they will have e.g. Yes if the artwork is strung across the corridor and head height it will be dangerous if need to exit in case of a fire, no you cannot remove the toilet seat and use toilet for your artwork much as you would love to, yes pour lots of balls out but make sure you contain them so don't become a danger.

My suggestions for your book from my childhood and teenage years
are:

Playing with Calcium Carbide and Water!
Chopping down a tree with an axe
Smashing down walls with a sledgehammer
Fruit picking climbing up 100 foot ladders
Glissading down steep grassy bank (OK Shallow wound and 5" scar but who cares)
Playing cricket near a barbed wire fence (Yes I caught the ball even though still have scars on front of thigh to prove it)
Playing mixed field hockey on Boxing Day (But at least the eye surgeon was on the sidelines to patch us up!)

Talk: Mark Bittman on what's wrong with what we eat – January 6, 2009

A bit stilted on Bittman's part. He just released a book of recipes and practical applications of this material. It would be interesting to see him now a year later and see if he's more natural or still has some of the Pollan-esque didactic urgency that's going on here.

Performance notes aside, I find myself reflecting on the idea that meat is the component of our diets that most increases disease. More meat, more disease. More meat, less nutrition. I've read Pollan and Robbins and I'm sure I've heard that idea before, but for some reason the way Bittman put it here really brings it home.

Talk: Dan Gilbert asks, Why are we happy? – January 6, 2009

Some thoughts:
- So, too many choices make us unhappy... haven't we all experienced this as consumers? Would you have buyer's remorse if there were only one model?
- If we want to improve marital satisfation, we should outlaw divorce!
- Reminding ourselves we have no choice (even if it's a lie), should help our mood.
- How does self-deception dovetail with this?
- I'd love to see Gilberg study chronically depressed people and their decisions/satisfaction vs. the general population. Is their happy-maker broken?

Talk: Dan Gilbert researches happiness – January 6, 2009

Interesting talk. Funny how we think of our future selves as someone else. Even when we know our actions of today are going to hurt our future selves, we selfishly think of that person as someone else and put "our" immediate needs first. How weird is that? I'd love Gilbert to research/comment on that.

Talk: Theo Jansen creates new creatures – January 6, 2009

Genius

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Oliver,

"If indeed we have any [free will]" - Oh great, open that can of worms! We haven't answered the first question yet and you want to throw that into the mix! LOL!

Okay, now to play the other side of the coin for a moment. Given either Occam's Razor or the Law of Parsimony, would not a Creator be the simplest explanation? Isn't that how any religion or creationist myth got started in the first place? Primitive man looked into the heavens (lower case) and thought that someone must have created all of it. Something exists (the universe, a Porsche, etc), so someone made it - things just don't come out of nowhere. Simple deductive reasoning. Where the Creator came from is a different question, one we'll have to ask Him when we see him.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Dexter

Good to have you back. And congratulations on your wedding (I presume your honeymoon was preceded by one).

I don't think naturalism diminishes humanity's value in the slightest. The fact that there exists consciousness that can contemplate themselves and the universe is far more amazing if you think that there was no designer. We're here because we were created by a higher power? Hardly surprising - of course he would be able to. We're here because of emergent phenomena in the natural order (by accident, if you will)? Incredible! Amazing! I want to learn how.

I'm interested to know why you think a correct guess of my number wouldn't benefit me. It would certainly compel me to change my mind about whether or not a higher power is communicating with you. At the very least, it would open my mind to an unseen force. If it's not your 'strong suit' and you lack faith in your ability to channel the creator, perhaps you could ask someone who doesn't. I would accept a correct answer from anyone you know.

And no, I wouldn't believe a raindrop. They move all the time - that's what they do. Anecdotal oddities like that do not - should not - convince me. What if this woman had asked God to move a table in the middle of the room, rather than a raindrop. Surely that would be far more compelling.



This is my main question: why should I ignore the fact that these experiments are never properly controlled? If they were - like my number - shouldn't it still work?

Once something is undeniably manifested to you, rejection of that fact would require questioning your sanity, or intentional self deception.

If I baked you a cake and came to your house to prove that I am who I say I am, you would have to question your sanity to deny that I exist. Would this violate your freedom of choice? Perhaps I should stay away.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Dexter,

If you'll excuse me butting into your conversation with Oliver, I'd like to comment on the raindrop test your friend did. It's an interesting thought, that God might respond more willingly to smaller requests such as moving a raindrop, although I'm not sure that has any foundation in any Biblical narrative. However, given a raindrop's tendency to move down (it's what they do, after all), it would have been most impressive if it had moved up. Don't get me wrong, I've done my own fleecing of God, with mixed results, but the ones that could or would have occurred on their own (if only in retrospect) are hard to attribute to cause and effect (prayer and answer).

Given the opportunity to call any outcome of a request an answered prayer, especially since "the answer could be 'no'", it's hard to argue for the power of prayer, no matter how many times I think I've seen it in action myself. Example: Given the same illness, you pray for your sick dog to get better, and it does. You pray for the cat to get better and it dies. Does this mean that God answered "no" to the cat or that the dog would have gotten better anyway? Maybe God just let the cat die because it was so independent that it didn't need Him? Sorry, couldn't resist...

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Brian

You and I are in agreement that nobody%u2019s free will (if indeed we have any) will be compromised if God would simply stop hiding when anyone points a camera at him. This is the whole point of my 20-digit number thing: it seems that whenever alternative explanations (wishful thinking, hallucination, placebo effect, sampling bias, etc.) are controlled, these so-called miracles stop happening. Why would that be? Is it because God doesn%u2019t like being tested? Is it because he doesn%u2019t want his existence proven beyond any doubt? Or is it simply because all these occurrences can be put down to the aforementioned alternative explanations?

Of course, Occam%u2019s razor compels me to favour the last one. The other two beg serious questions as to why proof would be such a bad thing. Free will is one reason given. In my opinion, that simply doesn%u2019t cut it. Euclid didn%u2019t compromise anybody%u2019s freedom of choice when he proved that there are infinitely many primes. And the God thing is much more important than that. How much bloodshed would be prevented if everybody knew for sure which God they should be worshipping? No Middle East conflict, no 9/11, no Crusades, the list goes on.

Talk: Kary Mullis on what scientists do – January 6, 2009

@ Francl, This is a La Nina year, which are typically colder years over many northern hemisphere areas. I expected a rebound this year, but it is way too soon to yell "the crops are saved!". The graph you refer to shows the downward trend and the loss of over 2 million square kilometers of sea ice during the trend since 2004. The bump in 08 is not difinitve proof of the end of the trend.
The North Pole is where polar bears live, not in the relatively stable Antarctica. Averageing those numbers in, may make you feel better, but it does not discount the huge loss of polar ice and the melting of 3000 year old glacier ice.
We are in the warm solar cycle, and warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but still the North Passage has not melted before. This is not typical weather, and don't be blind to tipping points.
We are smart enough to work our way out of this, but it does take work, study, understanding, and yes, WORK.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Larry,
As to the Anthropic Principle, "These balances are believed to occur only in a tiny fraction of possible universes -- so that this universe appears fine-tuned for life", I'd bet that in every one of those few, fine-tuned universes, the more advanced life forms are having this very same debate... Unless, of course, they've advanced [slightly] beyond our current state and no longer need religion.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Dexter,

You're right about quantum gravity theory -- but note that it has not been verified, although I think it might be verifiable in the future (once measurement capability can resolve certain minimum length scales). Btw, there is also a loop quantum gravity theory proposed.

But this also highlights how much we do not understand. And understanding it does not necessarily then point to the absence of a creator.

Brian, To your point about simplicity -- scientists do tend to use a principle called Ockham's razor, which states that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Dexter,
Agreed. But I would suggest that "intentional self deception" falls under "free will". It would, of course, eliminate one's option to choose whether or not you believe that God exists, but on the whole, I think free will would be in play. For example, let's say, for the sake of this discussion, that God does exist and the Bible is 100% true and accurate. Then the book of Genesis would indicate that Adam, even knowing God existed, still had the free will to choose to disobey Him. Unless I'm just being dense (it's 8:30AM as I write this) and the "Free Will" (capitalized) you mention refers to something grander than the "free will" I'm thinking of...?

Talk: Richard Dawkins on militant atheism – January 6, 2009

Oliver

OK change 'Trial & error' for a series of fortuitous mistakes, or whatever. Francois described the gospel in a 'tongue in cheek' manner, & I reciprocated.

Last time I checked the popular scientific view still held to the Big Bang theory and Darwinian Evolution, I find that hard to swallow; that's all I was saying. Your personal belief may well differ from the Big Bang scenario, but the discussion was about the supposed clash between 'science and religion'.

I listened to RD on utube proposing that the first cells may have arrived from space, but that just shifts the problem to another location. No-one can prove any theory about the past; it boils down to the most likely scenario given the hard facts available. If proof were available we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Talk: Richard Dawkins on militant atheism – January 6, 2009

@Q.Ford

I agree.

@ Francois

Again, were are restricted by the language we speak and I keep going back to your words not to reduce this to semantics but to illustrate that every point you seem to be making can be turned around and it applies to you.

I don't do this trying and prove you wrong but because I want to illustrate that there is no difference between believers and non-believers. I am sorry you resent my pointing out your zealousness but you indeed a zealous person about atheism.

In fact, you keep making ever smaller distinctions between your beliefs and those of the presenter. So why not just admit you do not agree with the presenter. My problem is not with non-believers but with atheism. As I think I have done a good job in illustrating that it is a belief system. If that label does not fit you then cast it off and stop defending a position that you less and less seem to relate to.

In the talk Dawkins equates atheists to other religious groups at 13:15.

@ Oliver

So no, I don't think science and religion can undergo a merger without one of them compromising some fundamental values.

I see the transferrence from a religious worldview to a naturalistic one

Science is in a very interesting period right now. All the former borders of the scientific disciplines are now blurring. Science as a whole is shifting more towards philosophy which a stone's throw from spirituality. There is a lot of evidence (in my opinion) of an omniscient and omnipotent God. I don't know where I draw the metaphorical line, I am still working on my God model.

In closing, everything in the universe is made of the same stuff. Stuff that is mostly empty space ("ex nihilo") . If you can't give the ancient Hebrews credit for knowing this so long ago and still think that religions all make positive truth claims about the way the world is - some of which is directly at odds with science. then you simply must be unwilling to see my point.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 5, 2009

Brian - You are correct, knowing if God exists would not negate Free Will, however it would violate your freedom of choice. Once something is undeniably manifested to you, rejection of that fact would require questioning your sanity, or intentional self deception.

Talk: Ken Robinson says schools kill creativity – January 5, 2009

Absolutely incredible!!
As a recent high school graduate and as the sibling of a "problem child", I completely agree with all of the points that Sir Robinson makes.
It's really sad that the BA or BS degree is like the new high school diploma. Upon entering college I never thought I'd need to get my Master's but now I am preparing myself to spend anywhere from 6-9 years earning degrees.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 5, 2009

Larry - forgive me for butting in, but the big bang theory has a new rival. In the October 2008 issue of Scientific American they discuss how quantum gravity theory predicts the universe will never die. The article goes on to explain how time may extend back before the bang, which was proceeded by a big crunch, and so on and so forth, from eternity to eternity, worlds and universes without end.

Also; on Sept. 16 UPI reported that U.S.led scientists say the sun might have traveled far from where it formed, contradicting a belief that stars generally remain static. University of Washington researchers used a supercomputer to create simulations that show, at least in galaxies similar to the Milky Way, stars such as the sun can migrate great distances.
If that%u2019s true, scientists say it might change the theory that there are parts of galaxies %u2014 so-called habitable zones %u2014 that are more conducive to supporting life than other areas.

Much of the current thinking about how we got here is dependent on the idea that things have been relatively stable - although "lumpy" - as the "bang" expanded. But again we see how challenging an argument's a priori assumptions sometimes shakes the probabilities up a bit...

Theme: Is There a God? – January 5, 2009

Oliver - My apologies for being a bit behind in my replies, I've been out of town the past couple of weeks on a long overdue vacation and abbreviated honeymoon.

Thank you for your explanations that you are antagonistic to ideas of God that don't explain things that need explaining better than conventional naturalism does and that corroborating evidences from objective observers would increase your likelihood of belief. There are actually several examples of that found in the personal journals of people associated with Joseph Smith, but it's always possible to question the objectivity and fallibility of others.

I am curious as to what it is that you find compelling about the naturalist view of things. It seems to me to vastly diminish humanity's value.

As to my response to your 20 digit challenge. There are two parts to it; First is my own lack of faith in myself being able to determine the number - second is that even if I did correctly determine it, I don't think it would actually be much to your benefit. In that regard I am admittedly quite negatively biased on the experiment. However I will relate a small story which might serve as a counter example. Many years ago I met a woman who was convinced that she had gotten an answer to a question to God. She said that one rainy day she was looking out the window and pondering intently to know if the Book of Mormon was scripture. She picked out a raindrop that was clinging to the window and asked God to move the raindrop if if was true. An instant later that exact raindrop moved. It wasn't a complex request - rather it was a very mild form of fleecing. (Judges 6:36-40) Those who are practiced with this sort of thing seem to be able to do it fairly well. (I admit that it is not my strong suit.)

Is there some reason why you need or prefer a naturalistic explanation for things rather than a theo-humanistic one, except that the mainstream alternative is irrational? Would you ever believe a raindrop?

Theme: New on TED.com – January 5, 2009

Kary Mullis' talk was engaging and disturbing. Does he have any explanation of why the mountain glaciers and polar regions are melting? Is it possible hotter hots and colder colds balance out as an average but still cause devastating weather patterns? Lester Brown's book Plan B 3.0 quotes scientists from NASA saying the earth has risen by .6 degrees Celsius since 1970. Who's scientists do we believe? Any scientists out there who are familiar with the work of both sets of scientists have anything to say about this? Thanks.