Monday, January 31, 2005
The article that promises to drive a stake into the heart of the hockey-stick model is about to be published. The bottom line can be seen in this graph (available here):
"MBH98" (the light line) is the infamous hockey-stick depiction of Earth's temperature trend. "Recalculated" (the dark line) is the correct depiction.
As I have written before -- here, here, and here, for instance -- there's evidence that global warming has little to do with human activity and a lot to do with extraterrestrial events.
(Thanks to FuturePundit for the tip.)
Sunday, January 30, 2005
The universe is out of control, in a runaway acceleration. Eventually all intelligent life will face the final doom—the big freeze. An advanced civilisation must embark on the ultimate journey: fleeing to a parallel universe....But why would we want to recreate civilization if it wouldn't include "us"? Why not use all that technological know-how to build a humongous space heater to fend off the impending chill? (Space heater...get it?)
But since the big freeze is probably billions to trillions of years away, there is time for [an advanced] civilisation to plot the only strategy consistent with the laws of physics: leaving this universe. To do this, an advanced civilisation will first have to discover the laws of quantum gravity, which may or may not turn out to be string theory. These laws will be crucial in calculating several unknown factors, such as the stability of wormholes connecting us to a parallel universe, and how we will know what these parallel worlds will look like. Before leaping into the unknown, we have to know what is on the other side. But how do we make the leap? Here are some of the ways.
Find a naturally occurring wormhole....
Send a probe through a black hole....
Create negative energy....
Create a baby universe ....
Build a laser implosion machine....
Send a nanobot to recreate civilisation
If the wormholes created in the previous steps are too small, too unstable, or the radiation effects too intense, then perhaps we could send only atom-sized particles through a wormhole. In this case, this civilisation may embark upon the ultimate solution: passing an atomic-sized "seed" through the wormhole capable of regenerating the civilisation on the other side. This process is commonly found in nature. The seed of an oak tree, for example, is compact, rugged and designed to survive a long journey and live off the land. It also contains all the genetic information needed to regenerate the tree.
An advanced civilisation might want to send enough information through the wormhole to create a "nanobot," a self-replicating atomic-sized machine, built with nanotechnology. It would be able to travel at near the speed of light because it would be only the size of a molecule. It would land on a barren moon, and then use the raw materials to create a chemical factory which could create millions of copies of itself. A horde of these robots would then travel to other moons in other solar systems and create new chemical factories. This whole process would be repeated over and over again, making millions upon millions of copies of the original robot. Starting from a single robot, there will be a sphere of trillions of such robot probes expanding at near the speed of light, colonising the entire galaxy....
Next, these robot probes would create huge biotechnology laboratories. The DNA sequences of the probes' creators would have been carefully recorded, and the robots would have been designed to inject this information into incubators, which would then clone the entire species. An advanced civilisation may also code the personalities and memories of its inhabitants and inject this into the clones, enabling the entire race to be reincarnated.
Although seemingly fantastic, this scenario is consistent with the known laws of physics and biology, and is within the capabilities of a Type III civilisation. There is nothing in the rules of science to prevent the regeneration of an advanced civilisation from the molecular level. For a dying civilisation trapped in a freezing universe, this may be the last hope.
There's only one proper way to end this post:
Fire and Ice
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-- Robert Frost
Before we throw a party to celebrate that great accomplishment, let's look behind the numbers.
Monetary measures of GDP exclude a lot of things that might be captured in the term "quality of life"; for example:
[F]ailing to account for the output produced within households may lead to misleading comparisons of economy-wide production, as conventionally measured. The female labor force participation rate in the United States has grown enormously since the early part of the 20th century. To the extent that the entry of women into paid employment has reduced the effort women devote to household production, the long-term trend in output, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), may exaggerate the true growth in national output. [Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), Designing Nonmarket Accounts for the United States: Interim Report (2003), p. 9 in HTML version]The "effort that women devote to household production" involves a lot more than shopping, cooking, cleaning, and all of the other activities usually associated with the term "housewife." Not the least among those activities is the raising of children. Child-rearing (a quaint but still meaningful phrase) includes more than feeding, bathing, and toilet training. Parents -- and especially mothers -- impart lessons about civility -- lessons that are neglected when children are left on their own to disport with friends, watch TV, and imbibe the nihilistic lyrics that pervade popular music.
Yet, the apparently robust growth of real GDP per capita between owes much to the huge increase in the proportion of women seeking work outside the home. The labor-force participation rate for women of "working age" (14 and older in 1900, 16 and older in 2000) grew from 19 percent in 1900 to 60 percent in 2000, while the rate for men dropped only slightly, from 80 percent to 75 percent. Who knows how much damage society has suffered -- and will yet suffer -- because of the exodus into the workforce of women with children at home? These figures suggest the extent of that exodus in the latter half of the twentieth century:
Because estimates of GDP don't capture the value of child-rearing and other aspects of "household production" by stay-at-home mothers, the best way to put 1900 and 2000 on the same footing is to estimate GDP for 2000 at the labor-force participation rates of 1900. The picture then looks quite different: real GDP per capita of $4,300 in 1900, real GDP per capita of $25,300 in 2000 (a reduction of 28 percent), and an annualized growth rate of 1.8 percent, rather than 2.1 percent.
The adjusted rate of growth in GDP per capita still overstates the expansion of prosperity in the twentieth century because it includes government spending, which is demonstrably counterproductive. A further adjustment for the cost of government -- which grew at an annualized rate of 7.5 during the century (excluding social transfer payments) -- yields these estimates: real GDP per capita of $3,900 in 1900, real GDP per capita of $19,800 in 2000, and an annualized growth rate of 1.6 percent. (In Part V of "Practical Libertarianism for Americans," I will estimate how much greater growth we would have enjoyed in the absence of government intervention.)
The twentieth century was a time of great material progress. And we know that there would have been significantly greater progress had the hand of government not been laid so heavily on the economy. But what we don't know is the immeasurable price we have paid -- and will pay -- for the exodus of mothers from the home. We can only name that price: greater incivility, mistrust, fear, property loss, injury, and death.
Most "liberal" programs have unintended negative consequences. The "liberal" effort to encourage mothers to work outside the home has vastly negative consequences. Unintended? Perhaps. But I doubt that many "liberals" would change their agenda, even if they were confronted with the consequences.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Frightening, especially because it might be picked up as a "liberal" cause in the United States.
What is the rationale of objection to a comprehensive national DNA database?....
There remains the concern about possible abuse, that the police might in future use the data not merely for detection but for personality profiling – especially since one of the purposes already sanctioned by law is crime prevention. I think this concern is real. A number of states – and there are indications that England and Wales may join them – have begun to allow the indefinite detention of sexual offenders on the basis of predicted behaviour.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Bakan contends that the corporation is created by law to function much like a psychopathic personality whose destructive behavior, if left unchecked, leads to scandal and ruin.Bakan would be on the right track if, instead, he were to make these claims:
In the most revolutionary assessment of the corporation as a legal and economic institution since Peter Drucker's early works, Bakan backs his premise with the following claims:The corporation's legally defined mandate is to pursue relentlessly and without exception its own economic self-interest, regardless of the harmful consequences it might cause to others -- a concept endorsed by no less a luminary than the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.Despite the structural failings found in the corporation, Bakan believes change is possible and outlines a far-reaching program of concrete, pragmatic, and realistic reforms through legal regulation and democratic control.
The corporation's unbridled self-interest victimizes individuals, society, and, when it goes awry, even shareholders and can cause corporations to self-destruct, as recent Wall Street scandals reveal.
While corporate social responsibility in some instances does much good, it is often merely a token gesture, serving to mask the corporation's true character.
Governments have abdicated much of their control over the corporation, despite its flawed character, by freeing it from legal constraints through deregulation and by granting it ever greater authority over society through privatization.
The politician's license -- granted by the "living" Constitution -- is to pursue relentlessly and without exception his power to control our peaceful pursuit of happiness, regardless of the harmful consequences it might cause -- a concept endorsed by no less than three dozen Congresses, a dozen presidents, and dozens of Supreme Court justices.(Thanks to Verity at Southern Appeal for the tip.)
The politician's unbridled self-interest victimizes individuals, society, and, when it goes awry, even the purported beneficiaries of his insatiable thirst for control.
While the acts of government in some instances are necessary to the security of life, liberty, and property, most politicians -- especially those of the left -- do not even pretend that the scope of government power should be restricted to those necessary functions.
Elected officials and judges, sworn to uphold the Constitution, have violated their oaths of office innumerable times, by freeing government from its constitutional constraints and by granting it almost dictatorial authority over society through legislation, regulation, and adjudication.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
What's truly eerie is that the same former boss also scored 10 out of 10 on my test of (poor) management skills:
Are you a CEO or senior manager in a corporate bureaucracy? Want to know how you stack up against your peers? Select your personal management traits from the following list, then tally your score and check it against the scale at the end of the list.
1. Flaunt the privileges of rank: Spend on frills and perks even as you're down-sizing.
2. Flout the rules you expect others to obey.
3. Put off hard decisions as long as possible so that rumors can grow wildly on the grapevine.
4. Pepper your staff with meaningless projects and pointless questions -- hire consultants to give you the "straight scoop."
5. Hire outsiders for senior management positions and create make-work jobs for your cronies.
6. Keep your door open to whiners and let them second-guess your managers' decisions.
7. Promise vision but deliver pap.
8. Talk teamwork but don't let anyone in on your game plan -- keep 'em all guessing.
9. Talk empowerment but micro-manage.
10. Keep your board in the dark, except when you turn on the rosy spotlights.
Score of 0: You lie to yourself all the time; see a psychiatrist.
Score of 1-3: You sleep a lot during the day; see a physician.
Score of 4-6: You're a normal boss, which isn't necessarily good news.
Score of 7-9: You could give Donald Trump a run for his money.
Score of 10: So you're the model for Dilbert's pointy-haired boss!
Saturday, January 22, 2005
This important and timely book delivers a startling analysis of the clash of faith and reason in today's world. Harris offers a vivid historical tour of mankind's willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when those beliefs are used to justify harmful behavior and sometimes heinous crimes. He asserts that in the shadow of weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer tolerate views that pit one true god against another. Most controversially, he argues that we cannot afford moderate lip service to religion—an accommodation that only blinds us to the real perils of fundamentalism. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris also draws on new evidence from neuroscience and insights from philosophy to explore spirituality as a biological, brain-based need. He calls on us to invoke that need in taking a secular humanistic approach to solving the problems of this world.And so, we are to substitute secular humanism for religion. (Or else?) In order to defend liberty we must deprive you of it -- if you are religious, that is. A reading of Lehmann's review reveals the underlying flaw of Harris's hysterical anti-religionism. It seems that Harris, wittingly or stupidly, has adopted the following syllogism:
1. Heinous acts are committed.Why not this, instead?
2. Some of those heinous acts are committed in the name of religion.
3. Therefore, all religion is evil.
1. Heinous acts are committed.Harris, on the evidence of Lehmann's review, strikes me as a knuckle-dragging, atheist ignoramus. And he has plenty of company at sites like The Panda's Thumb. There's Matt Young, for instance. Young is an atheist whose revealed attitude of superiority to religionists had already caught my attention. Now he's back, with more "profound" thoughts about religion (mentioned here and posted here). Young quotes an earlier essay of his, in which he wrote this:
2. Some of those heinous acts are committed in the name of irreligious philosophies (e.g., Nazism, fascism, and communism).
3. Therefore, all irreligious philosophies are evil. (That includes secular humanism.)
The philosopher Antony Flew, now an emeritus professor at Reading University, recounts a parable about two people who chance upon a clearing in the forest. Both flowers and weeds grow in the clearing. One of the people, the Believer, says that some gardener must be tending the plot, whereas the Skeptic disagrees. They set up camp and watch, but no gardener appears. The Believer suggests that the gardener is invisible, so they patrol with bloodhounds, then set up an electric fence, but there is still no evidence of a gardener.Mitchell is right, because Flew's parable is incomplete. Flew fails to suggest the possibility that the instruments being used to detect the invisible gardener are inadequate (or irrelevant) to the task.
The Believer insists, however, that there must be a gardener, even if that gardener is invisible, silent, odorless, and impervious to electric shocks. The Skeptic asks how that differs from an imaginary gardener or no gardener at all. Flew uses his parable as a jumping-off point to discuss whether religion is falsifiable. Specifically, referring to the problems of evil and suffering, he asks what would have to happen to falsify a belief in God or in God’s love. Flew’s question is rhetorical; he clearly implies that nothing will falsify a firm religious belief. An Oxford philosopher, Basil Mitchell, agrees or, more accurately, admits that nothing can count decisively against the belief of the true believer; by definition, the believer is committed to a belief in God and is not a detached observer. That is, to Mitchell, the concept of falsifiability is not appropriately applied to a religious belief, whereas, to Flew, religion’s lack of falsifiability evidently counts against it.
Another Oxford philosopher, R. M. Hare, responded to Flew with a parable of his own: A lunatic (Hare’s word) believes that the dons want to kill him. A friend believes otherwise and tries to convince the lunatic by introducing him to the dons and showing him that they are friendly, gentle people and mean him no harm. The lunatic responds that the dons are duplicitous and are really plotting against him, all the while pretending to be friendly.And just what is that more-convincing evidence? Is it that the "are friendly, gentle people and mean...no harm"? How is that any more convincing than the lunatic's assertion that "the dons are duplicitous and are really plotting against him, all the while pretending to be friendly." A truly detached observer, given no more information, would necessarily adopt the agnostic position that the lunatic's blik is indeed a blik: a belief that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Young seems incapable of logic when he discusses religion, even by inference.
Hare calls the lunatic’s belief a blik. This is a term that Hare has coined to describe a belief that is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Hare notes that the friend also has a blik: The friend’s blik is that the dons are not planning to kill the lunatic. Hare considers this belief a blik just as much as the lunatic’s belief is a blik. That is, the friend does not have no blik at all, but rather has the blik that the dons are harmless. Precisely like the lunatic, the friend cannot prove his blik, because the lunatic can always find an ad hoc hypothesis to refute the friend’s arguments.
Hare’s article was influential, but it seems to me that it contains within it the seeds of its own destruction. First, the issue is not whether a sane person can convince a lunatic that the lunatic’s blik is wrong; he cannot. The issue is, rather, what arguments could both the friend and the lunatic use to convince a detached observer which one is right. In this case, it is clear that the detached observer would rule in favor of the friend, not the lunatic, because the friend would present more-convincing evidence.
But Young plunges on:
Later in the debate, Hare notes his own blik that the steering column of his car will not fail when he goes for a drive. This blik gives him confidence, without which he might be paralyzed into inaction. Hare’s confidence might be based on a blik, but I have no such blik. Whenever I drive my car, I am perfectly aware that the steering column might fail. I am equally aware, however, that the vast majority of steering columns do not fail during normal use, so I drive my car in the uncertain knowledge that the steering column will probably not fail. This belief is not a blik; it is a statistical statement based on evidence, which I see all around me, that other cars have sound steering columns. Not all firmly held beliefs are bliks.Young is right to criticize Hare for giving a bad example of a blik, in the case of the steering column. But Young then resorts to a false syllogism, which goes like this:
Hare’s position is that a religious belief need not be defended because it is a blik and can neither be proved nor disproved. Hare himself, however, distinguishes between bliks that are right and bliks that are wrong. Indeed, he seems to intend his lunatic to be analogous to the religious believer who supports his belief with ad hoc hypotheses. The issue, then, is not whether people have bliks but rather whether their bliks are right or wrong. How do we decide whether bliks are right or wrong? We look for evidence. Far from refuting Flew’s argument, Hare has strengthened it.
1. Humans have many firmly held beliefs.Here's the correct syllogism:
2. Some firmly held beliefs are not bliks.
3. Therefore, there are no bliks; every assertion can be verified or falsified.
1. Humans have many firmly held beliefs.In sum, Young persists in his (unreasonable) belief that religious belief* is falsifiable. He fails to see the incompleteness of Flew's parable about the gardener; he posits a (falsely) detached observer in the case of the lunatic; and he adopts a false syllogism about unfalsifiable beliefs.
2. Some firmly held beliefs are not bliks.
3. Therefore, some firmly held beliefs may be bliks; not every assertion can be verified or falsified.
Atheism is, at bottom, simply a dogmatic position. It is a form of religion, in which the believer hews to the unfalsifiable belief that there is no God.
In case you're wondering, I take the only scientifically valid position on the question whether there is a God: agnosticism. See here and here.
* Oddly, Young seems to be a practicing Jew who is also an atheist.
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Writing from the ivory tower for the like-minded readers of The Nation ("And Justice for All"), Bérubé waxes enthusiastic about the benefits of affirmative action, which -- to his mind -- "is a matter of distributive justice." Bérubé, in other words, subscribes to "the doctrine that a decision is just or right if all parties receive what they need or deserve." Who should decide what we need or deserve? Why, unqualified academics like Bérubé, of course. Fie on economic freedom! Fie on academic excellence! If Bérubé and his ilk think that a certain class of people deserve special treatment, regardless of their qualifications as workers or students, far be it from the mere consumers of the goods and services of those present and future workers to object. Let consumers eat inferior cake....
Click here to read the full post.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
This is a brief excerpt of Part III of a nine-part work in progress. I welcome constructive criticisms and suggestions. Please send an e-mail to: libertycorner-at-sbcglobal-dot-net .
This is where I where I enter a debate that splits libertarianism into two camps: fundamentalists and consequentialists. Fundamentalists (or "natural right") libertarians say that humans inherently possess the right of liberty. Consequentialists say that humans ought to enjoy liberty because, through liberty, humans are happier and more prosperous than they would be in its absence. In spite of this rather fundamental split, all libertarians agree that it is better to live in liberty than not....
I would like to be able to say, with fundamentalist libertarians, that liberty is an innate human right -- and the only innate right. But that would be nothing more than an assertion, however cleverly I might clothe it in the language of philosophy.
I would like to be able to say that liberty is a paramount human instinct, honed through eons of human existence and experience. But we are surrounded by too much evidence to the contrary, both in recorded and natural history. The social and intellectual evolution of humankind has led us to a mixed bag of rights, acquired politically through cooperation and conflict resolution, often predating the creation of governments and the empowerment of states. The notion that we ought to enjoy the negative right of liberty is there among our instincts, of course, but it is at war with the positive right of privilege -- the notion that we are "owed something" beyond what we earn (through voluntary exchange) for the use of our land, labor, or capital. Liberty is also at war with our instincts for control, aggression, and instant gratification.
I do not mean that the social and intellectual evolution of humankind is right -- merely that it is what it is. Libertarians must accept this and learn to work with the grain of humanity, rather than against it. There is no profit in simply asserting the inherent wrongness of laws and government actions that undermine liberty. Nor is there much profit in arguing the unconstitutionality of illiberal laws and government actions; it is obvious that appeals to the Constitution will be of little avail unless and until we have a Supreme Court that abides wholeheartedly by the Constitution.
There can be much profit in demonstrating, logically and factually, how illiberal laws and government actions make people worse off -- often the same people who are supposed to benefit from those laws -- and in offering superior alternatives. In other words, consequentialist libertarianism can make real gains for liberty by appealing successfully to self-interest. But self-interest must be seduced by reason (Part IV) and bribed by the promise of greater rewards (Part V).
Click here for the full text of Part III.
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Imagine that 100 randomly selected humans are locked in a large room without food or water. During a panicky struggle to break down the door, 50 of the humans are trampled to death. The other 50 humans then agree to cooperate in an effort to escape. Because that cooperative effort doesn't quickly succeed, however, it breaks down in acrimony; cliques develop and fights break out. Before long, there are only a few dozen humans left, and they have split into three camps.
One camp (the scientists) believes that it can find a way to escape the room, given adequate observation and analysis. The second camp (the stoics) believes that there’s no way out and prepares for death by calmly meditating. The third camp (the pragmatists) is agnostic about escape, but isn’t ready to die, so its members begin to kill and eat the stoics.
As they are being killed by the pragmatists, the stoics console themselves by saying that death is inevitable.
What happens next? After eating the stoics, do the pragmatists turn on the scientists and eat them as well? Or do the pragmatists keep (some of) the scientists alive, in case the scientists can find a way out of the room?
If the pragmatists eat all the scientists, the pragmatists will then begin to eat each other. The last pragmatist to die (of starvation) will say that he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt.
If the pragmatists spare the scientists (or some of them), and the scientists don’t find a way out of the room, the pragmatists will begin to finish off the scientists, then each other. The last pragmatist to die (of starvation) will say that he did the best he could with the hand he was dealt. The last scientist to die of cannibalism will say that death was only one possible outcome -- an outcome that seems inevitable only in retrospect.
If the pragmatists spare the scientists (or some of them), and the scientists find a way out of the room, the pragmatists will claim that their decision not to kill all the scientists made escape possible. The surviving scientists will say that escape was only one possible outcome -- an outcome that seems inevitable only in retrospect.
And the surviving scientists will say this about the stoics: If they had survived they would have claimed that survival was inevitable.
Happiness requires a judicious blend of stoicism, action, and reason:
- Stoicism makes it possible to accept that over which we have no control. But unblinking stoicism can lead to premature acceptance of a bad outcome.
- Action is essential to progress, but it must be harnessed to reason. Action for action's sake is indulgence.
- Reason is essential to progress, but it must be harnessed to action. Pure reason wields no more power than pure stoicism.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
NOTES ON THE STATE OF LIBERTY IN AMERICAN LAW
As noted in Part II, I am using "liberty" to encompass the full spectrum of liberty rights, which the Founders captured in the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This fragmentary addendum is a provocative gloss on that evocative phrase....
The great forest of American law -- which imperfectly sheltered life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness until the 1930s -- has since been laid waste in the pursuit of various Devils, among them: self-defense (at home and abroad), personal responsibility (the main antidote of poverty, illiteracy, and crime), lower-class vices (smoking), (white) racism, (male) sexism, "offensive" (non-leftish) speech, "excessive" political spending and speech (especially by non-incumbents), all forms of pollution (except those necessary to finance a yuppie's lifestyle and to propel his SUV), and life's uncertainties in general. Now we are in the open, practically defenseless against the biggest Devil of all -- the state -- which dictates how much of life, liberty, and happiness we may enjoy....
Click here for the full text of the addendum to Part II.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
I've categorized the States as follows:
- "Locked" -- States that Bush won (or lost) by 20 or more percentage points. There are 85 "locked" electoral votes (EVs) for Red and 50 for Blue.
- "Firm" -- States that Bush won (or lost) by more than 10 and less than 20 percentage points. There are 157 "locked" and "firm" EVs for Red and 168 for Blue.
- "Leaning" -- States that Bush won (or lost) by more than 5 but less than 10 percentage points. There are 222 "locked," "firm," and "leaning" EVs for Red and 183 for Blue.
- "Swing" -- States that Bush won (or lost) both times by less than 5 percentage points (excluding the "tossup" States, discussed at next bullet). The swing States that went for Bush both times control 52 EVs. The swing States that went against Bush both times control 65 EVs.
- "Tossup" -- The three States that switched sides between 2000 and 2004, which among them control only 16 EVs. The two States that went for Bush in 2004 (Iowa and New Mexico) control 12 EVs.
The next presidential election could be decided in the swing and tossup States, which split almost evenly in 2004, giving 64 EVs to Bush and 69 to Kerry. Election 2008 would go to the Democrat candidate if he or she could pick up 18 EVs in the swing-tossup States, everything else being the same. The three tossup States (Iowa, New Mexico, New Hampshire) plus a small Red swing State (e.g., Nevada) would do the trick.
But the leaning States aren't out of play in a close election. And, there, Democrats have far more to gain than Republicans, with 65 Red EVs up for grabs, as against only 15 Blue EVs.
Barring exceptionally good or bad news for the country between now and November 2008, the outcome in the tossup, swing, and leaning States probably would hinge on the candidates' personalities and such bread-and-butter issues as the trend in unemployment and the perceived success or failure of Bush's economic reforms. And so, the election of 2008 could well come to down the personalities.
Hint to Democrats: Go with Barack Obama (not Hillary).
Hint to Republicans: Counter with ? (not Newt).
Friday, January 07, 2005
This is a brief excerpt of Part II of a nine-part work in progress. I welcome constructive criticisms and suggestions. Please send an e-mail to: libertycorner-at-sbcglobal-dot-net .
American law -- that is, the Constitution of the United States, the constitutions of the 50 States, statutory law, and case law -- effectively recognizes two fundamental types of right: liberty and its opposite, which I will call privilege. Liberty and privilege are implemented through procedural rights (e.g., a qualified right to vote, a qualified right to Social Security benefits). There is much confusion about "freedom" -- which sometimes means "liberty" and often means more than that -- so, I prefer "freedom of action." The concatenation of rights and "freedoms" in America has evolved through the influence of politics on government, under the aegis of the state.
In this part of "Practical Libertarianism for Americans" I explain what I mean by the italicized words and phrases of the preceding paragraph.
Click here for the full text of Part II.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
I am an avid reader of novels and watcher of movies (forms of entertainment that appeal to emotion). The fruits of science enable the production and distribution of novels and movies, but the people, places, and events depicted therein are (or can be) wholly fictitious. Others -- who may or may not read novels or watch movies -- find solace, guidance, and (in their view) salvation in religious faith: a belief in God and adherence to the precepts of a religion that is based on the existence of God.
In sum, science neither provides nor explains everything of value to humans.
Consider these three categories of knowledge (which long pre-date their use by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld): known knowns, know unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Here's how that trichotomy might be applied to a specific aspect of scientific knowledge, namely, Earth's rotation about the Sun:
1. Known knowns -- Earth rotates about the Sun, in accordance with Einstein's theory of general relativity.
2. Known unknowns -- Earth, Sun, and the space between them comprise myriad quantum phenomena (e.g., matter and its interactions of matter in, on, and above the Earth and Sun; the transmission of light from Sun to Earth). We don't know whether and how quantum phenomena influence Earth's rotation about the Sun; that is, whether Einsteinian gravity is a partial explanation of a more complete theory of gravity that has been dubbed quantum gravity.
3. Unknown unknowns -- Other things might influence Earth's rotation about the Sun, but we don't know what those other things are, if there are any.
For the sake of argument, suppose that scientists were as certain about the origin of the universe in the Big Bang as they are about the fact of Earth's rotation about the Sun. Then, I would write:
1. Known knowns -- The universe was created in the Big Bang, and the universe -- in the large -- has since been "unfolding" in accordance with Einsteinian relativity.
2. Known unknowns -- The Big Bang can be thought of as a meta-quantum event, but we don't know if that event was a manifestation of quantum gravity. (Nor do we know how quantum gravity might be implicated in the subsequent unfolding of the universe.)
3. Unknown unknowns -- Other things might have caused the Big Bang, but we don't know if there were such things or what those other things were -- or are.
Thus -- to a scientist qua scientist -- God and Creation are unknown unknowns because, as unfalsifiable hypotheses, they lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Any scientist who pronounces, one way or the other, on the existence of God and the reality of Creation has -- for the moment, at least -- ceased to be scientist.
Monday, January 03, 2005
REVISED AGAIN, 01/25/05 - 6:00 P.M.
Do atheists suppose that they are somehow more "scientific" than Theists or Deists? I began to wonder about that after reading a post by Matt Young at The Panda's Thumb about philosopher Anthony Flew's "conversion" to Deism. Young is the author of No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe, about which the publisher says,
Rejecting belief without evidence, a scientist searches the scientific, theological, and philosophical literature for a sign from God -- and finds him to be an allegory.It seems that Young is a scientist and an atheist. Which leads me back to Anthony Flew's "conversion" to Deism, which is noteworthy because, according to Richard Carrier ("Anthony Flew Considers God...Sort Of" at The Secular Web),
...Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of "Contemporary Atheists" at About.com. So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy....
Carrier goes on to say this:
The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian -- he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure....
In an update, Carrier adds that he asked Flew
what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which [Flew] responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.
Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists -- such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." Indeed, he remains adamant that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by experience...." *
Thus, in spite of his "conversion" to Deism, Flew takes up what seems to be a standard line of atheism: A belief in God or Creation is unscientific because a belief in God or Creation is an unfalsifiable hypothesis; that is, one can simply assert that there is a God and that there was a Creation, without fear of contradiction by physical evidence.
That leads me to ask whether atheism is any more scientific than a belief in God or a Creation.
Consider these statements:A. I believe that there is a God; that is, an omniscient, omnipotent being who created the universe, and who remains involved in the events of the universe, including the lives of humans. (Theism)
B. I believe that there is some kind of force or intelligence created the universe, but that force or intelligence has since had no involvement in the universe. (Deism)
C. I believe that there is no God, force, or intelligence of the kind posited in A or B. (Strong atheism)
D.1. I choose not to believe in a God, force, or intelligence of the kind posited in A or B, even though His or its existence cannot be proved or disproved. (Weak atheism)
D.2. I choose to believe in a God, force, or intelligence of the kind posited in A or B, even though His or its existence cannot be proved or disproved. (Weak theism or deism)
E. I take no position on the existence of a God, force, or intelligence of the kind posited in A or B because His or its existence can never be proved or disproved. (Agnosticism)
If A and B cannot be disproved (falsified) by empirical evidence -- as atheists insist -- then C cannot be proved empirically, because the disproof of A or B would imply the proof of C. Similarly, if C were a falsifiable hypothesis, then the disproof of C would imply the proof of A or B (depending on the exact form of the disproof).
Both versions of D acknowledge the unfalsifiability of A, B, and C. But both versions of D then take a leap of faith, as it were, to reject or embrace the idea of a God. That is, each draws a conclusion that cannot be supported empirically. The statements of disbelief and belief in D.1 and D.2, respectively, are therefore on the same empirical footing as A, B, and C.
The scientific virtue of statement E (agnosticism) is that it does not pretend to assert a truth, as do A, B, and C. Nor does it make a leap of faith, as do both versions of D. Statement E addresses the issue of falsifiability head on and comes to a scientifically valid conclusion. Therefore, agnosticism is the only scientifically honest position to hold in opposition to a belief in God or a Creation.
I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. [Emphasis added.]As I say in another post:
Thus -- to a scientist qua scientist -- God and Creation are unknown unknowns because, as unfalsifiable hypotheses, they lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Any scientist who pronounces, one way or the other, on the existence of God and the reality of Creation has -- for the moment, at least -- ceased to be scientist.
* Carrier's account is consistent with Flew's statements in “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: An Exclusive Interview with Former British Atheist Professor Antony Flew,” Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005, in press, but available here.
Saturday, January 01, 2005
The Establishment Clause says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." That provision, with many other parts of the Bill of Rights, became binding on the States by "incorporation" under this provision of the Fourteenth Amendment:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.So far, so good. But Dorf then goes on to argue the the courts should test the School Board's mandate by asking
whether intelligent design is, in fact, a scientific theory at all. It should do so, not because of any general obligation on the part of schools to teach science correctly, but simply because if intelligent design is not science, then the inference is almost inescapable that the state is impermissibly acting for the purpose of fostering a religious viewpoint.Think of the fine mess we'd be in if the courts were to rule against the teaching of intelligent design not because it amounts to an establishment of religion but because it's unscientific. That would open the door to all sorts of judicial mischief. The precedent could -- and would -- be pulled out of context and used in limitless ways to justify government interference in matters where government has no right to interfere.
It's bad enough that government is in the business of funding science -- though I can accept such funding where it actually aids our defense effort. But, aside from that, government has no business deciding for the rest of us what's scientific or unscientific. When it gets into that business, you had better be ready for a rerun of the genetic policies of the Third Reich.
This is a brief excerpt of Part I of a nine-part work in progress. I welcome constructive criticisms and suggestions. Please send an e-mail to: libertycorner-at-sbcglobal-dot-net .
This essay is an explanation and examination of libertarianism by a libertarian who comes to his "faith" from experience, rather than from the precincts of philosophy or law. Die-hard libertarians will find nothing new here but my particular interpretation of libertarianism. I am writing for neophyte libertarians and curious non-libertarians who seek a practical guide to the origins, principles, and policy implications of libertarianism.
My focus is on American libertarianism because the Constitution of the United States of America holds the promise of liberty. Building on that promise, Americans can strive to perfect liberty in the United States. But the rest of the world isn't bound by our Constitution, and it is foolish to think that the rest of the world prizes America's liberty....
As you read what follows, please keep these points in mind:
- Equality before the law is a noble ideal, as long as the law serves everyone's liberty.
- Liberty is indivisible; to restrict economic liberty is to restrict social and political liberty.
- Prosperity is a concomitant of liberty, not its enemy.
- Prosperity isn't a zero-sum game. Absent corporate welfare and protective regulation (both of which are anti-libertarian), the wealthy get that way not by robbing others but by providing jobs, products, and services for them.
- Liberty comes from the people -- or the liberty-minded among them -- not from the state. Yet, the state -- properly governed by the people's representatives -- can serve as a bulwark of liberty.
- The American state's first and foremost obligation is to protect the lives and liberty of American citizens; the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Click here for the full text of Part I.