Mad, you say?

In honor of the day, I present to you an image from a few weeks ago, while I was trying to get decent photographs of a tiny thread-legged assassin bug, Stenolemus lanipes. I thought the pattern on the abdomen could be considered appropriate.

Though I admit, now that The Girlfriend’s Younger Sprog pointed out the ‘horns’ to me, which I’d missed at first, I now can’t help seeing this as proof that Don Martin exists. If you don’t get that reference, I can only conclude that you were denied a proper, enriched education.

Yes, I have better images of the bug. Gimme a break – it was 8mm long overall (which means what you see here is 4mm) and had this thing against holding still. Hell, most people would have ignored it as a bit of fluff or lint. I even collected a few other insects to try and tempt it into eating in front of the camera, but no dice. Or even mince.

Anyway, if that isn’t good enough for your Halloween, below is a more distinctive one, courtesy of the camera flash.

Sleep well.


Don’t ask

I’m pretty hard on philosophy, but I’m even harder on pseudophilosophy, the practice of asking questions that aren’t even comprehended or, much worse, are asked for the sake of asking. Unfortunately, quite a few people still seem to fall for this, and we have been treated to countless instances – blogs, articles, books, etc. – where someone has taken the bait; in several recent cases, it’s the burning, super-important, fundamental question of, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Short answer: There’s both. Longer answers tend to revolve around the nature of energy and the gravitational properties of space, usually indicating that ‘nothing,’ as a state, is impossible to achieve. Both of these can, and should, be followed up with this question in return: “What’s your point?” Asking “why?” isn’t really meaningful in any way unless you actually know what the answer can do for you. Notice that there isn’t one-tenth as much effort put into questions like, “Why gravity?” or “Why quantum behavior?”, which are actually far more interesting, and meaningful. But seeking information isn’t the goal – in most of these cases, the ‘something or nothing’ question is actually being posed in a theological framework, presuming that it leads to the existence of a deity. There should be nothing by nature (so we are expected to believe,) thus having something means that it was created somehow. But theology assumes a deity as a default answer anyway, so no surprise there. If you want to have some fun, simply rephrase the question as, “Why is there a god rather than nothing?”, which is no less profound. This takes the answer that they were hoping to establish – that something must be causing everything – and asks what then caused god? Watch how quickly their views on causation reverse. Or how quickly they run away.

Anyone honestly asking the question of nothing or something, however, starts to consider what the question even means. While we ask similar chestnuts very often regarding our existence as human beings (usually believing we’re somehow different from every other living thing on the planet,) we never stand at the edge of a stream and ask, “Why is there this rock rather than a bush?” We’re perfectly happy with the existence of rocks being explained by simple physics and the semi-random nature of erosion. We don’t look at a particular point in the sky and wonder why there are no birds right there. These are no less deep than the ‘nothing or something’ question, but we tend to think that questions of our existence deliver special profundity. Savor for a moment the thought that the average person who finds meaning in their own special existence isn’t bright enough to recognize a question born only from their own ego…

We are a species driven by curiosity, and it’s very likely that this is what fueled our evolution into the tool-using, communicating, space-exploring people that we are. Curiosity produces answers and understanding and knowledge, so it’s a good trait to have. But there is a difference between honestly seeking understanding, and attempting to justify one’s pre-existing conclusions. In the face of extraordinary achievements from the structured curiosity that we call science, the god hypothesis fails to have any relevancy or application, and those who are far too insecure to cope with this must then struggle to find something that science cannot do for us, believing that this opens the door for their god (and by extension their own special privilege.) When they think they’ve found a way to justify their belief, the ‘questions’ stop dead, demonstrating that they never really wanted answers, just validation. While science has yet to provide us firm answers to questions such as gravity and quantum dynamics, such questions are about properties, not the all-encompassing topic of existence (that has its own name provided by philosophers, since this is what they live for: “ontology”) – so such questions aren’t useful in the attempt to leverage faith. As with ‘meaning,’ and even ‘love’ and ‘morality,’ they’re trying to find the value that religion imparts to the human condition – always ignoring the myriad times when it fails to, often pathetically. One must wonder why the quest for meaning goes on when we’ve had religion for several thousand years, while the love and morality displayed during religious wars represent fish already impaled on the arrow, no need for barrels…

Mind you, I’m not disparaging the efforts made by those that have answered the “something over nothing” question, as if it was being asked with honesty – they’ve produced some great explanations about our understanding of physics and the conditions of the universe, and may even have reached a few of those querists who thought they’d produced a stumper. However, I suspect the majority of those asking this burning question never actually wait around for an answer, and simply congratulate themselves for their self-indulgent perspicacity – this is a pattern that’s all too easy to find. For my part, I can only go on to the next question in line, which is, “Why is there ignorance rather than intelligence?” and wait patiently for that to be explained.

Take heart!

I’m sorry, this really does amount to (I feel terribly uncouth even breathing the word) a tweet, and I hereby promise not to make a habit of it. But it occurred to me this morning how much America is the land of opportunity. No matter how feeble your understanding of biology or science, or even if you’re an incredible asshole, you can still go on to become a Republican politician!

Other countries have such lofty standards for their office-holders, like possessing a high-school education or having a bare minimum of social skills and decorum, but not here! We must be the envy of the world…

Testify!

Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and one of the bloggers at Cosmic Variance, gave a talk at The Amaz!ng Meeting 2012 in July, regarding the nature of scientific unknowns and how this translates to our confidence in physical reality. The video of his talk is now available online, and I’m embedding it here, because it’s a damn good one. Atheists and secular humanists don’t have priests, but there are a few people who are solidly inspirational anyway, and Carroll is one of them.

By doing this, I know, I just dragged the page loading times down into the gutter, since YouTube’s thumbnail server sucks royally, but again, it’s worth it. Carroll is remarkably good at distilling things down into very efficient dialogue, and while little of the content is new to any serious skeptic, the approach may well be, and fosters the ability to communicate a different perspective, always a valuable tool. I also have to give him credit for suddenly making it clear to me what Feynman Diagrams illustrate…

He planted a couple of other ideas that will appear in at least one forthcoming blog post, as well, specifically an expansion of the whole ‘meaning‘ question. And the ‘universe is made of stories’ concept deserves some examination too. Wouldn’t it be great if even one television program could elicit this kind of contemplation?

I will also admit to some jealousy that he has more titles is his list of favorite blog posts, I think, than I have throughout this site…

Intolerance will not be tolerated!

Walkabout podcast – Intolerance will not be tolerated!

Among a collection of concepts that are poorly understood and almost completely mismanaged in our current culture sits intolerance. Ask anyone if intolerance is good or bad, and I bet you’ll garner ‘bad’ as an answer the majority of the time. This is an indication that too many people respond to cultural reactions and not at all to what the word even means. It’s like asking if restrictions are good or bad. But the thinking person will ask, “Intolerance of what?”

Let me get this out of the way right from the start: intolerance is not only not bad, but it is something that we should be using routinely as a crucial part of our society. We should have a distinct intolerance towards such things as child abuse, racial and sexual discrimination, violence, and so on. “Ah, well, sure, when you put it that way, but you know, I meant something else by ‘intolerance’…”

No. There is no secondary meaning of the word. Intolerance is a modifier; it must apply to a particular subject, and it is the subject that qualifies whether or not the attitude can be considered good or bad. But let’s be real; that’s going to be pretty hard for people to cope with, since there will be arguments of opinion over the subjects, and someone will end up making a list of what it is okay to be intolerant of. Instead, what should be applied is not the attitude of intolerance itself, but why. What exactly are the criteria that leads to the conclusion of something being not allowable in our society?

That’s where we need to be putting our emphasis, and directing our attention. When it comes down to it, determining such criteria puts us on the road to a distinct moral structure. Why are we intolerant of sexual discrimination? Well, because it puts half of our population at a disadvantage, without any specific reason or benefit. Okay, that wasn’t hard – we weighed the good and the bad points, so there’s a great start.

In fact, the only things that really need to be added to this are firm definitions of ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ Both of these really only need to be defined in terms of benefit or harm to others, since that’s what society is. If I have to rely on other people around me, and they have to rely on me, then the single most important aspect is that we are actively cooperative, and inclined to remain so. That’s all. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ only need revolve around what affects this simple dynamic.

Did you want your old moldy scripture to be considered good? Too bad – so do lots of other people, and their scripture contradicts yours, so the only way for that to work is to arbitrarily decide which one to follow and ignore the rest. That’s been done before (read a history book) – it doesn’t work. Those who have their own scripture that doesn’t agree with yours now have no reason to cooperate with you, or any reason to have you around. Eventually, what results is ‘moral’ law by strength and numbers – not exactly a useful guideline, nor a particularly lasting culture. Especially when the standard of a self-interested morality means that dividing lines can be drawn eternally. Not just splinters of christianity like protestantism, catholicism, mormons, jehovahs; or judaism like hasidic and reformed; or islam like sunni and shia; all three of these major religions are splinters of the same abrahamic origins. Yeah, building society, one wall at a time…

And that’s the difference between a society and a personal ideology. Society must maintain a certain common agreement in goals, while personal ideology really shouldn’t extend beyond one’s own mind. Yes, I can say that comfortably and confidently, because I have eyes and can see what works. Do we have roads, hospitals, grocery stores, an electric grid, and similar infrastructure because of holy books? No, we have them because we deem them necessary. Humans have basic needs, and regardless of how anyone prefers to argue that these came about, they remain the same. Morality can only be functional if it revolves around this commonality.

This is where those that discuss the objectivity or subjectivity of morality lose the thread. There are no refined definitions that need to be hashed out, no rules that need apply to every imagined situation, and especially, no reason to give philosophers any air time at all. Who benefits, and who doesn’t? That’s all that needs to be considered.

And thus, we get back to intolerance. Many people seem to think they deserve special consideration, respect for their viewpoint – and more often than not, this would require less respect for someone else without that viewpoint. Why? Because someone is repeating the beliefs of their parents? Yeah, fantastic contribution. We need to be completely comfortable with calling this utter bullshit. Respect is earned only by benefit, and morality does not work with selectivity or privilege. Nor does personal choice have the faintest connection to social structure, so we need to recognize when this card is played. We are immersed in a culture of false equivalency, where far too many people believe that every opinion deserves to be both heard and respected; this is not only untrue, it makes no sense. Someone should always have to defend why anyone else should give a rat’s ass. And we shouldn’t have the slightest inclination to tolerate anything less.

Because, when it comes down to it, being tolerant of special privilege or status or selfish opinion, in the face of how negatively this may affect others, basically shits on others. Too many people seem to confuse their ability to have an opinion with some right to be free from criticism of it; such a thing would deny someone else’s right to have an opinion, at least if it’s in contradiction, so obviously there’s a flaw in this reasoning. Without open disagreement, we cannot find better options, make improvements, or even progress at all. The very concept of better relies on finding fault in the first place.

The second part of this, however, is to communicate it effectively. Again, it’s not the intolerance that is the key function, but the underlying criteria. It may take a lot more effort to explain why racial bigotry is a pointless pursuit and indicative of insecurity, but without it, all that appears to be visible is competing opinions or prejudice. Note that bigotry itself is defined as obstinate and/or intolerant devotion to one’s prejudice, and we tend to believe that prejudice is always bad. But this isn’t true; one can be prejudiced against products from a particular manufacturer, or even a style of music. It’s an integral part of our decision-making process, and pretty much defines making choices – we may be prejudiced for very good reasons. It’s the reasons that count, and what must be prominent in any discussion. Plus, such discussions cannot resemble emotional reactions (or at least, not solely emotional) – the goal is to demonstrate a raised bar in the discussion, and perhaps even that it can be a discussion after all.

Now, note that I did not say that one must always be nice when doing this – that’s a mistake far too many people make. The whole point of both sarcasm and a less-than-polite tone is to communicate the amount of disagreement or disrespect one might have for something. Respect only that which is respectable, and if something lies very far from that, trash it with enough enthusiasm to emphasize this distance. And always feel free to bounce arrogance back with topspin.

It remains important, however, to adequately define the goals, and maintain those as the focus. Intolerance in most cases should be applied to a concept or view, not the individual holding that view. Perhaps a majority of people seem to think that others who disagree are The Enemy, which is pretty disturbing, but prevalent nonetheless. Circumventing this takes both a considered approach and the constant awareness of the tendency; the delicate balance between finding a standpoint to be ludicrous, but having no personal grudges, can be tricky. Still, making that effort is important, and a significant factor in how others will view your own argument. Bear in mind that intolerance does not have to be angry, or emotional at all. One can be firm and unyielding, or even openly derogatory, without emotional involvement, or overflowing into a judgment against a person.

Intolerance is a valuable tool in building an improved society, and unworthy of any kneejerk negative reaction. Use it as effectively as possible, and don’t fall for the appeals from those who think disagreement is unfair.

Not quite


Yes, being a northern hemispheran, autumn is encroaching here, which means the availability of subjects is waning rapidly and I’m going to be grumpy and irritable for a few months (not helped at all by sinuses that react badly to the conditions.) Yet, there are still some last holdouts defying the season, like an aster flower that abruptly came into bloom under the dog fennel that’s been my go-to for insect images lately.

Unfortunately, I misjudged the depth-of-field in the brief moment that I had this framing opportunity, and thus have to point out that the blob in the background is a skipper butterfly also taking advantage of this late bloomer – it just isn’t being communicated without my hint, is it? Ah well…

I have more stuff coming up, including at least another podcast, but right now there’s a cat sleeping on my microphone. And that’s a euphemism that you’re free to run with…

Whoops

I don’t use RSS feeds, thus I’m not familiar with how they display mistakes. So if anyone got a notification of a new post that doesn’t exist, that’s my bad – I inadvertently published an upcoming one when I meant to just save the draft. I try to space these out to rotate subject matter and length, but this one is too much like the last, so I want to get some other stuff in between.

If it messed up anything or confused anyone, I apologize. Have a handful of juvenile opossum, on me.

Oh, I don’t know… satan?!

Many years ago when I worked for a humane society, I attended a major training seminar for animal cruelty investigation, and one of the topics within was the tricky subject of animal sacrifice. There, I first learned of santeria, an offshoot of christianity practiced by mostly Cuban and Haitian immigrants to this country and, disturbingly, protected by law as ‘legitimate’ religious rituals. But the presenter also brought up satanism as a special case, because it deserved its own tact in handling. Not because it is a protected religion in the US, but because it doesn’t actually exist – not as a very large percentage of the population thinks, anyway. The one registered church of satan, founded by Anton La Vey, does not practice animal sacrifice or cruelty in any form, and in fact considers belief in supernatural beings and influence as “insane.” The special handling that is necessary is because damn near everyone thinks that satanism takes place, and when coming across, for instance, a beheaded chicken or tortured black cat, far too many people are quick to assume that this means some kind of black mass has occurred.

The parallel to this is, despite the countless reports of ‘satanic activity’ provided by police departments across the country, an extensive FBI investigation revealed that effectively none of them could be considered any kind of organized satanic ritual. Bluntly, satanism doesn’t exist. Neo Nazis and white supremacists, survivalist enclaves and slavery rings and even organ trafficking, yes – but not satanism. I won’t blame you if you think this sounds hard to believe.

Part of the reason for that, however, is the amount of effort the various churches put into the idea. According to them, satan is a very real being, constantly plotting the downfall and damnation of every living being on earth – why, is not too clear. But if you have a being that is perfectly good, then you must have a perfectly evil one too, otherwise nothing makes sense, right? We continue to believe that such things always boil down to opposing absolutes, despite the fact that this has never been demonstrated in any human experience. And of course, someone or something must be to blame for not only the nasty occurrences in the world, but the nasty behavior too. I admit to having a problem here, because I can barely even stay on my topic without running into the countless ways in which this crashes into absurdity. Remember that, right from the very beginning, god made humans who immediately did something bad. Blame it on the serpent or blame it on human nature, they both come down to god wanting it to happen. Or, not being the creator, or not being omniscient; choose all three if you like, it doesn’t get any more lucid no matter what.

As a species, we have a remarkably inept approach to evidence. Despite the daily reminder of how often people lie, we seem to have this propensity for believing whatever someone tells us, especially if they’re someone we ‘trust,’ or someone in a position of authority, or even if they just sound sincere. This can, and frequently does, countermand direct physical evidence, and even the lack thereof. Everyone knows that there are satanic rituals, always hiding just one rumor away, like the girlfriend that your buddy had while at summer camp, who no one ever met. You’d think, in our age when celebrity pregnancies are big news (I guess they’re considered a special accomplishment,) that ritual sacrifices and possessions would be covered a bit more if they occurred as often as anyone claims. But, that would require thinking.

Therein lies the problem. It’s really easy to throw blame onto an imaginary being that ‘personifies’ an abstract absolute. So we have god getting credit for any happy coincidence or even recovery from illness (funny how he started taking a much more active hand right along with our medical advances,) and satan getting the blame for any kind of bad behavior, especially if it’s something as horrifying and loathsome as disagreeing with any particular religious standpoint. There is a notable percentage of religious folk that believe that atheism=satanism, ignoring the fact that atheism denies the entire pantheon of supernatural beings. But for them, it’s very simple (and has to be): anything anti-god is by nature satanic. Don’t get me wrong, most religious people can count above two, all the way up to ten in most cases, but even when doing so, it often only occurs between two hands.

You might feel sorry for anyone who suffers from such a feeble ability to think, except that they’re allowed out on the streets. Some churches, of course, encourage such attitudes wholeheartedly, since anything more thoughtful than kneejerk reactions starts to make scripture look inane. There are two interesting things at work here, and by ‘interesting things’ I mean ‘blatant manipulations.’ The first is the oft-used ‘wolf-at-the-door’ concept, convincing people that there is something frightening that will happen if they let their guard down for even a second. This can convince them of much worse consequences than could ever be supported rationally; think about the McCarthyism attitudes of the 1950s here in the US. The second, closely related, is the skewed perspectives that are introduced with very powerful enemies. When there is an idea of ultimate evil, behavior that is merely anti-social, invasive, abusive, or just plain stupid is small potatoes in comparison. If this seems farfetched, remember it the next time TSA is groping your genitalia because suicide-bombers are so likely to target a flight from Atlanta to Des Moines. Fear changes the standards that people will allow.

Given such simple criteria for ‘good’ and ‘bad,’ it becomes extremely easy for the weak minded to automatically classify anything that disagrees with them as satanic influence. Since god is pure good, the obviously anti-social, counter-intuitive, or outright vicious actions that they are encouraged to enact through their religion aren’t really bad; how could they be? They’re just unfathomable by us mere mortals; the ends (god’s secret but assuredly good plans) justify the means. You’d think a perfect being wouldn’t have any difficulties making such things crystal clear, but there you go – some things are even out of god’s reach.

You have to admit, it’s a nice racket for any authority figure. “Look, doing anything else outside of following me blindly is evil!” What’s absolutely amazing is, practically no one has any difficulty seeing this as blatant manipulation – when it’s practiced by other religions. But to apply it to themselves, they first have to entertain the idea that they might be wrong, and could have been for a long time. If this seems like a minor thing to get past, you’ve never argued politics, or heard someone defend their dipshit boyfriend/girlfriend, or watched any sporting events at all. We often consider it stubbornness, but most of it comes down to simply the fear of being wrong – or even, being seen as wrong.

A small side note: very few people have ever considered that, if satan did exist, this is exactly the kind of trait that he would exploit in order to have people do his bidding. All you have to do is convince someone that they’re right, and they’ll do anything at all. Anyone who doubts this has never learned from history and never pays attention to world news.

But there is potentially another aspect which may be at work, and it can apply well outside of religion. I’ve remarked before about the tendencies for people to think in terms of absolutes and black or white decisions, and above I mentioned that the ‘wolf at the door’ attitude is commonly employed. The combination of these seems capable of producing the concept of a sworn enemy, a classification that allows for immediate dismissal, or at the very least, an uncritical bias against any argument or action from those so categorized. We see this constantly between creationists and ‘Darwinists,’ UFO proponents and debunkers, and in this country, Liberals and Conservatives (it applies far more often in this manner than between Democrats and Republicans, even while they’re ostensibly interchangeable,) or even between Southerners and Everyone Else. But even without such clear partisan lines, there’s also those who demonize non-organic foods, big corporations, “tree-huggers,” foreign auto manufacturers, and so on. And it’s not difficult at all to find multiple demons being associated or combined, for convenience’s sake it would seem.

Once such a category is determined (or even created,) it can then be considered the source of much woe, far bigger in scope or more pervasive in its manifestation than can be supported by mere evidence. I remarked earlier about the feminism fad, which has produced numerous activists who seem to find it the root of all evil – several decent blogs have been shifted in their nature towards dealing with this demon rather obsessively. At this point, I really haven’t come up with any good idea about what causes someone to select their ‘sworn enemy,’ but there is an unmistakeable tendency towards such things becoming a pet cause. My own speculation lies along the lines of someone seeing themselves as the hero (a stronger term than is warranted, perhaps, but effective in describing the mindset,) or the magnifying power of personal experience with some ill effect, something that I can attest to myself* and which bears more than a little statistical support.

Too frequently, this has several effects. The first is the hypersensitivity to everything that can be classified as that personal demon, often forcing a fit where one is questionable. This is followed by the exaggeration of the negative impacts, perhaps in a bid to justify the activism in the first place. And most importantly, there is the insistence and repetition of the problems this must cause to society; if everyone is talking about the loss of jobs to illegal aliens, then it must certainly be true – otherwise why would we keep hearing about it? But as the history of repressed memory hypnosis, childhood satanic abuse, and facilitated communication shows us, we can keep hearing about them even when they have nothing of any value whatsoever (see above about celebrity pregnancies.)

This handicap in thinking also devalues the search for good answers. When a recent study found a distinct bias in payscale between male and female undergrads, it becomes easy fodder for the feminism crusade, ignoring that it was demonstrated by both male and female supervisors. Another set of studies seemed to show the same kind of behavior, but found that the bias was more than sexual. When someone has a pet demon, the only thing that matters is what keeps that demon alive, but the underlying causes of such behavior deserve closer attention and more thought than that. Misdiagnosing the illness isn’t likely to lead to effective treatment.

The belief in satan has a further effect, in that behavior attributed to such influence falls outside of human control, obviating any action from mere mortals and, most especially, freeing the devout from any dealings. They don’t have to listen to any arguments, answer any questions, or put any thought into the situation in the slightest – a rational response is unwarranted when the only ‘good’ response is abject avoidance. Difficult situations, such as childhood sexual abuse within the family, no longer ever require contemplation, much less understanding or addressing; go with god and it’s all taken care of, and if that doesn’t seem to be working, pray harder.

While it would be nice if the world were simple, that desire doesn’t make it happen. Simple decisions are for simple minds; we should take more pride in using our brains and avoiding the practice of pigeon-holing. More importantly, with the eradication of demons we find ourselves dealing only with people, which places the prospect of finding solutions and correcting behavior within the realm of human endeavor.

* You see what I did there

1 274 275 276 277 278 318