I have been reading GK Chesterton. He advocates trying to see Christianity fresh as if you were someone who had never heard it before. I would be very confused if I did so.
The passion of the Christ is the central theme of Christianity. According to Christians this is the central act of the world and central to the message of Christianity. Some questions I would have. Q represents my fresh view. A my understanding.
Why did Christ need to die?
A: To save us from death.
B: But, God gave us life before. Why does he need to die to give us life again?
A: Because he is going to give us a better type of life: eternal life. In giving us that God takes something that is finite and makes it infinite. To balance that celestial checkbook something finite
A: To save us from sin, of which we are all guilty.
Q: What can God do about our guilt?
A: God can forgive us; we are then cleansed from sin.
Q: How can God be the one whose forgiveness we need if we hurt somebody else?
A: I don’t know. It just works. I know from my experience as well as others. Perhaps God can do this while we can’t because we are his, he made us.
Q: What is sin, and why do we need to be saved?
A: Sin is living contrary to the purposes for which God created us: namely to be happy together (unity) [this is why God is three]. Sin therefore is anything that separates us from God and with our fellow being. Separation refers not just to location but also desires, hopes etc. God as our creator knows these things better than we do. Ultimately it is only through his authority that we can hope to be more unified.
Q: Why does God need to be involved? Can’t I just change what I am doing?
A: No. You broke the order which makes it possible for people to live together. As an outlaw you are an enemy. How can they know you aren’t just lying in order to take advantage of them again? A trusted third party has to accept liability for you so you can be re-integrated into society. [this is another reason why god is three]
Q: Why didn’t Christs life create paradise here, why is this world still fallen? Also, why didn’t he do this sooner?
A: It was His plan from the beginning that we live in a fallen world, where because of imperfections we can have real choice. His kingdom is not of this world. Ultimately the choice is to reign in our own solitary hell, or be subjects in his kingdom.
To a certain extent I think that this is a true story that God is telling the world (as a character in it) so we can understand love.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Politicizing Science
I was recently reading an article in which the author references the “War on Science”
He advocates not only correcting this situation but radically altering the structure of the system to ensure it can never happen again. His proposal is that scientists should devote a lot of effort to re-educating the public to hold correct views, so that funding will remain constant and steady. Read it here.
This is a bad idea because it puts into place a feedback loop between scientists and politicians that is likely to corrupt both. Scientists would then need to convince the public that their science is the most important. Politicians would use this public opinion to get elected and then vote funds for the scientist allies. The scientists now are incentivized to overdramatize their findings and suppress ones that contradict that image. This already occurs somewhat as they fight for grants but the added politicization would merely exacerbate the problem.
As this relationship stabilized something akin to a state church would have formed. The government supports the church which has the task of teaching the public the ‘truth’. Curiously ‘the truth’ never condemns the rulers. If scientists worked “to win over the hearts and minds of the American public” it would be similar to the state church just substitute Science for ‘the truth’. I capitalize to distinguish the word as synonym for ‘the truth’ with its meaning as a system of inquiry and comparing hypothesis against repeatable experiments (preferable) and observational data. Historically Science has progressed amid is controversy and disagreement. Bad theories were generally replaced by newer better ones. Scientists doubling as politicians would be under a lot of pressure to conform to ‘consensus’ or risk funding cuts and marginalization. That is bad science.
As an example let us suppose an advocate of String Theory (Which has cool multiple curled up dimensions. I think it is a load of rubbish because it hasn’t made any successful predictions and if observed data contradicts this theory one merely has fiddle with its parameters and it is again in agreement.) Now suppose as part of our scientific re-education a supporter of string theory goes on Oprah. He is charming and good at describing his theory. Everyone then sees just how cool string theory is. A politician adopts extra funding for string theory as one of his planks and is elected. University departments now only want to hire people who want to work in string theory (the believers) because that’s where the grants are. If you doubt it is hard to find a job and you end up with either a less prestigious post or go work for industry. In any case your voice in the community is much decreased or nil. Rinse and repeat. Soon we have uniform consensus that String Theory is the word without actually having to refute pesky counterarguments. Dissenters are attacked by their fellow scientists and politicians because it is profitable for both that the feedback loop remain undisturbed.
The danger to the scientific community is real. There are numerous historical examples of vibrant scientific communities progressing and then ossifying while going through the same motions as their predecessors but merely cycling through the same old tired theories. Consider the early Greeks. Consider the flowering of Arab science. Contrast that with their later stagnation and ossification. Consider the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Maya, on and on.
We have a more or less functioning scientific community today. We must be careful politicizing it lest it not always be so.
He advocates not only correcting this situation but radically altering the structure of the system to ensure it can never happen again. His proposal is that scientists should devote a lot of effort to re-educating the public to hold correct views, so that funding will remain constant and steady. Read it here.
This is a bad idea because it puts into place a feedback loop between scientists and politicians that is likely to corrupt both. Scientists would then need to convince the public that their science is the most important. Politicians would use this public opinion to get elected and then vote funds for the scientist allies. The scientists now are incentivized to overdramatize their findings and suppress ones that contradict that image. This already occurs somewhat as they fight for grants but the added politicization would merely exacerbate the problem.
As this relationship stabilized something akin to a state church would have formed. The government supports the church which has the task of teaching the public the ‘truth’. Curiously ‘the truth’ never condemns the rulers. If scientists worked “to win over the hearts and minds of the American public” it would be similar to the state church just substitute Science for ‘the truth’. I capitalize to distinguish the word as synonym for ‘the truth’ with its meaning as a system of inquiry and comparing hypothesis against repeatable experiments (preferable) and observational data. Historically Science has progressed amid is controversy and disagreement. Bad theories were generally replaced by newer better ones. Scientists doubling as politicians would be under a lot of pressure to conform to ‘consensus’ or risk funding cuts and marginalization. That is bad science.
As an example let us suppose an advocate of String Theory (Which has cool multiple curled up dimensions. I think it is a load of rubbish because it hasn’t made any successful predictions and if observed data contradicts this theory one merely has fiddle with its parameters and it is again in agreement.) Now suppose as part of our scientific re-education a supporter of string theory goes on Oprah. He is charming and good at describing his theory. Everyone then sees just how cool string theory is. A politician adopts extra funding for string theory as one of his planks and is elected. University departments now only want to hire people who want to work in string theory (the believers) because that’s where the grants are. If you doubt it is hard to find a job and you end up with either a less prestigious post or go work for industry. In any case your voice in the community is much decreased or nil. Rinse and repeat. Soon we have uniform consensus that String Theory is the word without actually having to refute pesky counterarguments. Dissenters are attacked by their fellow scientists and politicians because it is profitable for both that the feedback loop remain undisturbed.
The danger to the scientific community is real. There are numerous historical examples of vibrant scientific communities progressing and then ossifying while going through the same motions as their predecessors but merely cycling through the same old tired theories. Consider the early Greeks. Consider the flowering of Arab science. Contrast that with their later stagnation and ossification. Consider the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Maya, on and on.
We have a more or less functioning scientific community today. We must be careful politicizing it lest it not always be so.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Truth and Argument Part 1: The Private Sphere
I recently read a biography of John Adams. One thing I noticed was that Mr. Adams loved to argue and was convinced that argument was the best method of finding and convincing others of the truth. Of the founding fathers he was the most admirable to me because he had integrity, intelligence and many positions that seem reasonable even today.And argument is indeed a great tool for finding truth – if we are the arguer. Argument forces us to clarify and state our positions. In doing so we can realize that they are not as solid as previously thought. Additionally argument exposes us to new information and new points of view. By incorporating these into our world view – or ultimately rejecting them as false our understanding increases.
Since argument is inherently a social activity we must consider the other people involved before using it for discovery. People deceive for a variety of reasons and we may be arguing with a deceiver or a deceived. For that reason argument should be avoided with individuals with greater knowledge or experience in that particular area except as part a complete program of learning and gaining knowledge in that area. The advantages of arguing yourself are that it makes you able to discern when people are ‘cheating’ in an argument. Straw man and ad hominem arguments are some examples of this.
Another thing to consider is that some arguments may be inherently more persuasive by their very nature independent of how true it is. For example our minds are drawn to compelling narratives. Our minds also like simplicity. A simple compelling narrative is difficult for us to resist. For a detailed exploration read this book about a theory of progressive history. (Oftentimes the truth is simpler yet the application is more complex and difficult such as epicycles versus elliptical orbits. Jungle of epicycles -> one simple equation, a new math and a need to account for all planetary bodies)
Those things that we want to be true comprise another category of intrinsically more persuasive arguments. Some of these are: arguments that make us seem more important; arguments that help us to be/feel part of an in-group; arguments that make us seem smarter; or excuse us from onerous duties that we would rather avoid. This fact is the basis of most advertising but is applicable to any discussion.
In short argument is a good method of learning truth. You have to know its limitations and pitfalls. And you have to consider that argument doesn’t create truth it is a secondhand source – and builds on it I suppose. Roughly this corresponds to verbal intelligence versus our ability to observe and create theories about our observations. Obviously these two need to be used together.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Truth and Argument Part 2: The Public Sphere
Truth and Argument Part 2: The Public Sphere.
The idea that argument is the best method of finding and convincing others of the truth is the basis of our public institutions. In the legal system a lawyer is nothing else if not a professional arguer. In politics a political campaign hosts debates and the campaigns in general could are an extended argument to determine who and what should be in our government.
I have heard general public discussion over what is right, what is wrong and over policy referred to as ‘the conversation’. This is broader than any issue, specific political campaign or court decision. It is almost universally accepted that this generally leads, over time, to the correct policy and viewpoint i.e. the consensus is correct and tends to become more correct over time. It troubles this basic premise is mostly unexamined.
But first let us consider an important aspect of debate that often determines who/what wins the debate. That is the medium in which the debate is conducted. Newspapers, radio and TV each were in their successive turn the dominant medium of the conversation. Men such as FDR, Kennedy and Reagan had enormous political power and influence because they had mastered the common medium of their time to a much greater degree than their opponents.
The medium of TV requires that one look good in front of the camera, manipulate images for public consumption, and that one has catchy sound bites that can be replayed when the news summarizes arguments for its viewers. If your argument cannot be reduced into a simple and powerful phrase, than it cannot become the ‘truth’ of the public sphere. In the newspaper age, however, more complex arguments were required.
An example of this is the effect that television media had on public perceptions of war. Casualties had to reach huge proportions in the newspaper age before protests would become widespread such as in Civil War New York. The public was only mildly concerned with casualties in World War I or in the Philippines adventure. Contrast that with the widespread protests at the fairly light number of casualties in Vietnam. The difference was TV. TV made it easier to follow the news, and presented death, blood and suffering in your living room. See the different versions of ‘truth’ that the conversation produced when the medium was changed. Which POV then is more correct?
Some arguments, by their very nature are more persuasive than others for reasons discussed in part 1. Arguments that are more persuasive will be propagated. If the argument also persuades to pass itself on (i.e. viral) propagation accelerates. These arguments then can be successful even in a community of interested, smart, truth seeking individuals regardless of their verity. Then add people who are manipulating public opinions as self appointed crusades and you can see that the consensus is likely to be skewed away from the truth in those directions. Caveat Auditor!
What effect does the medium of the internet have on the conversation?
The idea that argument is the best method of finding and convincing others of the truth is the basis of our public institutions. In the legal system a lawyer is nothing else if not a professional arguer. In politics a political campaign hosts debates and the campaigns in general could are an extended argument to determine who and what should be in our government.
I have heard general public discussion over what is right, what is wrong and over policy referred to as ‘the conversation’. This is broader than any issue, specific political campaign or court decision. It is almost universally accepted that this generally leads, over time, to the correct policy and viewpoint i.e. the consensus is correct and tends to become more correct over time. It troubles this basic premise is mostly unexamined.
But first let us consider an important aspect of debate that often determines who/what wins the debate. That is the medium in which the debate is conducted. Newspapers, radio and TV each were in their successive turn the dominant medium of the conversation. Men such as FDR, Kennedy and Reagan had enormous political power and influence because they had mastered the common medium of their time to a much greater degree than their opponents.
The medium of TV requires that one look good in front of the camera, manipulate images for public consumption, and that one has catchy sound bites that can be replayed when the news summarizes arguments for its viewers. If your argument cannot be reduced into a simple and powerful phrase, than it cannot become the ‘truth’ of the public sphere. In the newspaper age, however, more complex arguments were required.
An example of this is the effect that television media had on public perceptions of war. Casualties had to reach huge proportions in the newspaper age before protests would become widespread such as in Civil War New York. The public was only mildly concerned with casualties in World War I or in the Philippines adventure. Contrast that with the widespread protests at the fairly light number of casualties in Vietnam. The difference was TV. TV made it easier to follow the news, and presented death, blood and suffering in your living room. See the different versions of ‘truth’ that the conversation produced when the medium was changed. Which POV then is more correct?
Some arguments, by their very nature are more persuasive than others for reasons discussed in part 1. Arguments that are more persuasive will be propagated. If the argument also persuades to pass itself on (i.e. viral) propagation accelerates. These arguments then can be successful even in a community of interested, smart, truth seeking individuals regardless of their verity. Then add people who are manipulating public opinions as self appointed crusades and you can see that the consensus is likely to be skewed away from the truth in those directions. Caveat Auditor!
What effect does the medium of the internet have on the conversation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
