Galileo and Enlightenment

I’m a little late with this, but February 15th marked the 441st birthday of Galileo Galilee, scientist, philosopher, mathematician, professor, musician and painter. (Wouldn’t it be nice if history ascribed that many descriptors to your name.) While there is no particular significance to this specific anniversary of his birth, I did come across a passage at UniverseToday.com that I found somewhat profound:

There can be no doubt that Galileo's [telescope] marked a major departure toward the way we now view the world. For before Galileo's era the heavens and the Earth were not in accord. The bulk of the thinking going on prior to Galileo was scholastic in nature. Truth depended on the words of the ancients - words which carried greater weight of authority than natural law and behavior. It was the era of faith - not science - that Galileo was born into. But his observations built a bridge between Terrum et Coelum. Earth and sky became part of a single natural order. The telescope could demonstrate to anyone with an open mind that there was more to all things than could be conceived of by the great minds of the past. Nature had begun to instruct the hearts and minds of humanity...

That bit about natural law and behavior turning the tables on the past and becoming the final arbiter of truth was the beginning of (or at least a positive push towards) the enlightenment of our current civilization. Unfortunately, we still have quite a ways to go.

If only more people understood that the empirical observation of nature is our best known means to finding truth. Far too many still submit their beliefs to the power of authority, whether it be to political leaders, religious leaders or a New Age guru peddling the latest and most fashionable snake oil. This conflict perhaps is most clearly evident in the cultural divide between fundamentalist believers (of any religion) and those moderate believers and non-believers who are more empirically minded.

I never understood why this was so. If fundamentalist believers accept that God (insert deity of choice) created the Universe then why wouldn’t it follow that the highest “truth” be evident from the observation of that creation? Galileo observed (as could anyone else who looked through his telescope) what he believed was God’s creation and found it supporting the then controversial Copernican theory. Yet he found himself in a struggle with the Catholic Church who felt such views challenged the Christian view of the Universe. Interestingly, there was no real biblical support for such a view, but the Church had previously adopted the Aristotelian view of the world and over time it became dogma. This dogma which at bottom was based on pure speculation was to trump a truth that anyone could see plainly with their own eyes.

The lesson here extends beyond the battle between science and traditionally held religious beliefs, but also into politics and society where too often plain to see data observed in the real world is brushed aside in favor of an argument from authority.

Hence, many Conservatives accept without question or critical analysis the logically flawed assertions of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as gospel, while many Liberals latch on to any conspiratorial theory espoused by the Michael Moore’s of the world. The often complex truth gets lost in the resulting shouting of slogans and the endless repetition of dumbed-down talking points. The danger here, aside from potentially drawing inaccurate conclusions that have potentially world altering ramifications, is that over time the public is conditioned to simply accept the assertions of their chosen set of authority figures as inerrant fact. Critical analysis and objective observation of the evidence once again takes a back seat to faith in the word of authority.

When we as a species can fix that problem, we will truly be enlightened and nature can begin again to “instruct the hearts and minds of humanity”.

Sir Winston, He Isn't

Following this story over the last week or so has left me so exhausted with the state of punditry and ideological rhetoric that I feel its useless not only to write this post, but to even continue with the blog. Wait, that’s how I feel every time I surf the blogosphere. I guess it’s too soon to quit, so here goes…

It seems a local University of Colorado professor has found himself the subject of national attention. If you are not familiar with the controversy – and in a sense I’d be happy if you were not – here is the back story:

Three years ago, Ward Churchill, a little known professor and Native American activist with fringe views, penned an essay shortly after 911. The essay is typical of the conspiratorial views of the extreme Left in which America is characterized as a genocidal empire, whose capitalistic, world dominating imperialism (along with all of Western Civilization) is responsible for all the evil in the world. This essay, (hopefully) not widely read, was forgotten to history until Mr. Churchill was invited to speak at Hamilton College, where upon a group of students and faculty protested the invitation. This protest caught the eye of one Bill O’Reilly who brought the national spotlight on Churchill and his writings.

The most controversial passage in the essay, entitled “Some People Push Back” is this one:

They [the terrorists] did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians." As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

Now I admit I cringe when I hear the Bush Administration grossly simplify the dynamics of terrorism when they say things like “they hate us because they we are free”. I also acknowledge that a full understanding of the 911 attacks must include consideration as to the ramifications of American foreign policy (particularly with respect to Israel) and how grievances real or perceived, intentional or otherwise, predictable or not, play in the minds of ideological zealots willing to resort to terrorism. But, Ward Churchill’s point of view is too extreme, factually unsupported and philosophically repugnant. [For an example of a reasonable and sane counterpoint to the simplistic view offered up by Bush and Conservatives read the New Yorker's Mark Danner ]

Churchill basically accuses all the victims of 911 of “collective guilt” (he later backpedaled and said he only meant the “technocrats” and not the coffee servers and janitorial staff) because they are part of the capitalistic and self-indulgent society that left the terrorists no alternative other than to attack. Here we see the logic that produced the worst sins of the 20th century. The mass murders of the "guilty" perpetrated by the Nazis, the Stalinists, the Khmer Rouge and others in the name of ideology. Churchill doesn’t even consider that most “capitalists” would have opposed economic sanctions because it’s bad for business. Presumably he is also “guilty” for being employed by a University whose Engineering and Science departments no doubt contribute to the U.S. military and whose Business schools still teach about and endorse (I hope) free market economies.

Originally I was going to deconstruct Churchill’s politics, but that has been done just about everywhere (just Google “Ward Churchill”) and far better than I could do. For example, read this essay by a left leaning professor. And in a way it’s a waste of time, because there will always be fringe thinkers out there both on the Left and on the Right. These people are not worth thinking about and are better left ignored so the rest of us can discourse rationally. That brings me to the interesting part of this story.

The story behind the story (and how often do we see this) is that almost nobody would have even heard about Ward Churchill if it were not for the outrage expressed by certain right leaning media outlets – in this case precipitated by Bill O’Reilly. Not to be outdone in the ideology department, Mr. O’Reilly has called for Mr. Churchill to be tried for “Treason and Sedition”. Now Ward Churchill may be an extremist espousing radical and unpopular views, but there is that little matter of free speech and the First Amendment.

Needless to say the Right has capitalized on this controversy as alleged proof of their often repeated claim that Academia is rife with liberal bias and blatant un-patriotic leftism. (Even George Will got into the act.) While there may be some evidence to that effect, such assertions are overstated and over applied. Meanwhile in their zeal to use Ward Churchill as the poster boy to overturn what they see as the liberal University system, Conservatives apparently missed the irony that they have turned a nobody into the latest cause celebre.

One of the more frustrating aspects to a controversy like this is how quickly it evolves into partisan and ideological baiting. Both sides of the cultural divide should be able to say; "Wow, this Churchill guy is a wing-nut, let us move on." But the enemy of my enemy must be my friend and so it was disappointing to see a few on the Left (at least initially) try to defend Churchill. When that became impossible (thankfully) the Left began to accuse Conservatives of intentionally elevating this story in order to characterize all liberals as un-patriotic and anti-American. For their part Conservatives were happy to oblige. Note to pundits: Disagreeing with an author's overall view does not imply disagreement with every point. Agreement on some points of an arguement does not imply agreement with an author's overall view.

The University of Colorado is now investigating Ward Churchill’s academic background amidst calls that he be fired. He is a tenured professor and is standing behind his right to pose a dissenting view. Many at CU are reluctantly supporting Churchill on those grounds.

As a matter of principle, I believe Churchill should not be fired for what he writes or says – he does have that right. Firing a professor for espousing dissenting views would set a terrible (and scary) precedent. However, as a representative of an institute of higher learning he also has a responsibility to be academically rigorous, which he apparently has not (In fact according to those who have recently been digging up his past work, Churchill has been quite fraudulent at times). Also as it turns out he lied about his Native American ancestry. This fact delights the Conservatives to no end, because it is alleged that his Native American ancestry helped him get tenure in the first place for reasons of “ethnic diversity” even though he does not have a PhD or any other notable credentials.

At any rate, this controversy has moved past Ward Churchill and is now focused on the liberal bias (real or alleged) in Academia and the limits of Free Speech and tenure. For more discussion on this read here and here and here.

Maybe all those happy go-lucky people that make up the vast majority of Americans and who know nothing of these kinds of debates are far better off…. (P.S. - I knew I wasn't going to be able to keep this short)

Forget 6 Mexapixels, that's chump change...

This sounds very similar to a story I read about a while ago, but this guy is much more active with his amazing resolution camera than the other guy if indeed they are different people. But still, this camera is incredible. Be sure to look at the pictures as they show the resolution capabilities.

Check out the Wired article here...

Or better yet, go straight to the Gigapixel site...

SUVs Targeted Again

There is a new commercial campaign aiming to remind young drivers that SUVs are more difficult to handle than cars and thus more dangerous. The commercial stars a CGI creation called "esuvee" that looks like one of those Star Wars creatures ridden by the Sand People. All in all, the commercial looks pretty lame and I can't imagine it making a dent (no pun intended) in the driving habits of young testosterone laden males. But I digress...

Although this commercial differs because it is safety/driving related, it does remind me of how much I want to comment about the anti-SUV backlash. This is a meme which has become pervasive. SUV driving is routinely associated with social and environmentally irresponsibility. Not too mention the assertions by Arianna Huffington and the like that driving SUVs supports terrorism. I will now deconstruct this meme in four parts:

First let's address the exaggerated notion that SUVs are responsible for depleting a large share of oil resources. But some facts: Personal Transportation only accounts for about 34 percent of all petroleum use and about 13 percent of all energy use. The other two-thirds petroleum use is industry (plastics, fibers, heating, etc.) and commercial transportation (planes, trains, ships, etc.). All told, only 6 percent of total U.S. petroleum use can be attributed to SUV driving. Cars and other light trucks (pickups, vans) utilize 16 percent of total U.S. petroleum by comparison. Obviously, there are more cars than SUVs, but still; if you factor in the actual average mileage difference (using CAFE numbers) then even if all those SUVs were traded in for cars, the savings in petroleum use would only amount to about 1.5 percent (and less than 1 percent of all energy use). Statistically significant, but hardly the death knell of our environment and democracy. Also note that similar attacks on pickup trucks, large sedans, performance cars and older cars are much rarer, even though those classes of vehicles have equivalent fuel economy numbers as SUVs. [Note: all numbers derived from this Cato institute article.]

Secondly, let's discuss usage. All things being equal, SUVs do consume more energy resources and produce more pollutants than smaller cars. However, it is unfair to single out driving SUVs as irresponsible when one can make similar value judgments about other activities that affect energy usage. For example: Are people who drive to the movie theater less moral than those who watch Pay Per View? In America, we are free to make consumer choices; these choices drive our economy and ultimately our quality of life. Other things are consumer choices as well. Why not vilify those who have long commutes to work? Shouldn't these people in the interest of the environment and national security be morally compelled to move? In a country where liberty is sacred, what makes one person's neighborhood choice more important than another's vehicle choice? I could argue that a high percentage of SUV's are owned by families with young children who tend to stay home on weekend nights, while young adults in cars drive all over town bar hopping. Who is more responsible by the logic of the anti-SUV activists in this admittedly contrived scenario? Brown baggers vs. those who go out to lunch? Long distance (across town) couples? Vacation takers? Boaters vs. non-boaters? Poor people driving older cars? If blame is to be assigned, let's be fair and target everyone. It is disingenuous to do otherwise.

Thirdly, if the real problem is limiting dependence on foreign oil, then let's simply reduce the amount that we buy. That would raise the price of gasoline drastically, to about the level paid in Europe and elsewhere. The result is that the market would simply respond appropriately. People would buy more fuel efficient vehicles by economic choice, not by coercion. That the beauty of free markets. Problem solved. Those who chose to afford the higher cost of operating SUVs would still buy them. Such a market would also compel auto manufacturers to invest more in developing highly fuel efficient vehicles. As long as gasoline remains relatively cheap the incentive to do so is not as great. Getting the government to include SUVs in its car class CAFE standards would also solve much of the problem (though perhaps introducing others). At bottom this is a political issue, not an ethical one.

Finally, the argument that buying gasoline makes one responsible for the illegal actions of someone else many, many transactions removed from that perfectly legal and necessary purchase is specious at best. I do not have the time and space to peform a full philosophical critique, but it's obvious that we all use energy in countless way, so that would make us all guilty (though again, that line of reasoning is highly faulty). I do not see a constructive purpose in assigning degrees of guilt. We could all increase the frequency at which we walk or ride bikes, so why pick on the SUV? It is not fair or justified. If SUVs never existed I believe that terrorists would be just as well financed as they are today. Those financiers who share their ideology would simply dig a few imperceptible percentage points deeper into their family fortunes, which have been amassing for over half a century.

We all should be conscious about our environmental footprint, one should not go out and buy a gas guzzler for the hell of it. But consumer decisions are complex and SUV bashing is a simplistic and misguided meme too readily adopted by those putting ideology ahead of sound reasoning. The good news is that Hybrid technology is finding its way into SUVs, so maybe this somewhat artificial vilification will fade.

[Disclaimer: I own a V6 Toyota 4Runner. Hey, but I frequently carpool with my wife to work and I subscribe to Netflix -- so its a wash :) ]

Super Bowl Anti-Hype

I'm tired of the Super Bowl hype and have been for over a decade. This year I didn't watch any sports related shows or any part of the pre-game, but still the game was unsatisfying.

Here is the problem: All the hype distracts from the game and I think it shows in how sloppy the game can be played. Rare are well contested football battles worthy of the two best teams in the league.

I think the two week delay, while great for giving the teams and their injured players a rest, creates a lack of continuity -- especially when coupled with all the interviews and the overall media circus atmosphere surrounding the build up to the game.

Add to that extra long commercial breaks, extra long halftime shows and the game looses much of its "football-ness". To me its almost as if the actual game becomes secondary; something less than the entire spectacle of Super Bowl parties and million dollar commercials.

Here are my suggestions

• Play the game the week after the championship games (or if two weeks later, then get rid of the media circus, i.e. Media day, NFL experience, etc.)
  
• Get rid of the long commercial breaks (yeah, that will happen) so the game has some flow.
  
• Ditch the halftime show. Its supposed to be about the world championship of football, not some pop-singer floozies.
  
• Hold a lottery where real fans of the two teams get access to at least 80% of the tickets. There is nothing worse than a stadium full of corporate execs, rich and famous people who couldn't name anyone other than the QBs on the team for killing the "football-ness" atmosphere.
  
• How about a cold weather Super Bowl site every so often? Think of all those legendary moments of old championship games "on the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field" -- classic battles the way football was meant to be played. As it stands now, we will only get those moments in the conference title round.

Just my 2 cents.

Posting Guidelines

I wanted to post some guidelines in an effort to set expectations for posting and commenting:

Civil Discourse
Being that his blog was created in response to the level of irrational and inflammatory discourse in the world today, posts and comments here should endeavor to maintain a high level of civility. It should be obvious that this includes a prohibition on gratuitous and/or egregious profanity.

Beware of Polemics
As such we should strive to remove as much polemic language from posts and comments as is possible. Since the idea is to promote reason and rational discourse, let the argument and evidence speak for itself. By way of example here are a few sentences that I revised from an early post regarding SUVs:

“Not too mention the ridiculous assertions by the Arianna Huffington types that driving SUVs supports terrorism”

Who is more moral by the flawed logic of the anti-SUV activists in this admittedly contrived scenario?

Notice that how the strikethrough words added an inflammatory and unnecessary tone. This is a very gray area, but in general try refraining from “loading” a sentence or paragraph with accusatory bias rather than straight argumentative reasoning.

Minimize Generalizations
Back your assertions with evidence and specific examples. For instance refrain from making statements such as “Republicans are greedy” or “Democrats have no values”. Such generalizations are baseless and serve little purpose in constructing a non-ideological argument. If you want to point out the shortcomings of a particular group, then provide specific examples of specific behaviors. If you make a generalization, then acknowledge it as such.

Additionally, if you cite specific facts and/or statistics, please provide a reference. The easiest method is by way of an HTML link.

No Personal Attacks
Personal attacks on posters and commenters will not be tolerated. Respond to the argument and line of reasoning at hand. Beware of the “Ad Hominen” fallacy. Which is: Person A makes a statement; There is something objectionable about Person A; therefore the statement is false. For example:

"You claim that marriage is good for the well being of children -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children – so how can you say that marriage is in the best interest of children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

Use Blockquotes for Copied Passages
In blogging, it is common to copy passages from other sources. When doing so, it is customary to use HTLM blockquotes to indent the referred passage. The Blogger.com editor allows you to do this by using the “ symbol on its Post editor. However, be careful as it seemingly gets confused – making it difficult to return to normal indentation when you want it to. If you don’t know how to edit the raw HTML, I recommend writing and saving your post using another editor so that you can start over if the block quoting gets in a undesirable state. And please cite your blockquoted passage.

Non-compliant Posts and Comments
The team members reserve the right to remove any post or comment that is violation of the spirit of guidelines thus set forth. Please be advised that this is a purely subjective decision not subject for debate. The team also reserves the right to permanently ban abusers from posting and/or commenting.

Finally, for fun here is a link to list of common logical fallacies likely to be encountered in public discourse today. Hopefully we will rise above:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Happy Posting…

Inaugural Post

After years of thinking about creating my own website publication of editorials and essays, I have finally decided to actually proceed with the endeavor in the form of this blog. Joining me in this task as members of the blog team are several friends and email buddies with whom I have exchanged many such thoughts in the past.

Will I (we) actually keep this endeavor going? To be honest, I am not sure. Writing in general is time consuming and blogging in particular can be very demanding. And yet, I feel I need this outlet as I am often frustrated that the rational, non-partisan and nuanced viewpoint is not expressed very often.

So be it. The time for excuses is past. Lets just see what happens.

On a related note (not to be pessimistic) I see that Andrew Sullivan, conservative writer for the New Republic and longtime blogger is giving his blog up:

"Much as I would like to do everything, I've been unable to give the blog my full attention and make any progress on a book (and I'm two years behind). It's not so much the time as the mindset. The ability to keep on top of almost everything on a daily and hourly basis just isn't compatible with the time and space to mull over some difficult issues in a leisurely and deliberate manner. Others might be able to do it. But I've tried and failed."

Prompting this from Virginia Postrel's (former Reason editor) blog, The Dynamist:

Current-affairs blogging of the Sullivan/Instapundit/name your favorite type is inherently quick, dirty, and disposable. It may add to the public discourse, but it doesn't tend to deepen the blogger's own thinking. That, plus sheer laziness, is why this blog has never promised more than a few posts a week, and why I've given up my think-magazine-editor instincts to voice an opinion on everything.

With respect to wanting "to voice an opinion on everything" I have the same problem. Unfortunately, unlike Sullivan and Prostrel, I'm not a great writer and hence really lazy. Therefore most of my opinions just stew inside or are expressed only to friends.

Anyway, let the blogging begin.........