Bachelor of Science in pseudoscience

It just recently has been brought to my attention that one can earn a Bachelor of Science in Homeopathy. Bachelor of Science as in Bachelor of Science in Physics for example. That idea never even occurred to me.

Lets have a look. Homeopathy is an alternative medicine. The groundwork was laid by a German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). He proposed treatment in the form of substances that, if given to a healthy human, mimic the effects of the disease one wants to cure. If you put it in context its not that weird of an assumption. Sometimes it can be beneficial to introduce a causal agent in order to desensitize the immune system (Allergies). Going from there, not knowing what we know today, it is not so far fetched to propose his way of treatment.

It did come with a side effect though. Substances that cause disease like symptoms tend to be toxic. Hahnemann addressed this by diluting the substance with water, ethanol or milk sugar. At first he used a dilution factor of 1:10 or 1:100. He later theorized that through this (ritualized) process the previously hidden spirit of the medicine would surface. Which is what allowed him to extend the dilution process further, until such time that the original substance can no longer be scientifically verified as present.

Obviously Hahnemann’s assumption doesn’t hold up to today’s scientific standard. And contradicts quite a few things we know about our world. Homeopathy is pseudoscience. Reaping the benefit of trust in science while on the other hand being contradictory to those very principles. Homeopathy operates by invoking the placebo effect.

I tend not to repeat what Richard Dawkins babbles but he was right when he said: Alternative medicine that works becomes part of medicine.

Does Homeopathy have a place at universities? Probably not, but as Bachelor of Arts pretty much everything with enough supporters can become part of academia. So i guess this is where it belongs. Study it if you must, believe in it if you will, even practice it if you ensure that no actual treatment is forgone in favor of the placebo. But labeling homeopathy as science is ridiculous. It’s an official Bachelor of Science in pseudoscience.

One coin

It was the time…

… of rebirth.

… everything changed.

 

The time…

… we took back what is ours.

… we lost everything.

 

The time…

… of light.

… the world burned.

 

The time…

… we gained our freedom.

… of despair.

 

The time…

… of new beginnings.

… it all ended.

 

The time…

… of revolution.

… of terror.

 

 

 

 

 

Fire

Ouch.

Bad.

Warm.

Safety.

Please.

Superstition.

God.

 

Sunrise. A king. Eaten by crows.

Why ridicule?

Is ridiculing religion a viable option in discussion or is it unproductive, rude, a form of bullying?

Thomas Jefferson said “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…” With unintelligible propositions = a statement or assertion that can not be understood and expresses a judgement, opinion or a concept that can be true or false.

Imagine an unintelligible proposition. It has loads of definitions, certain properties that try and describe it. But due to its unintelligible nature none of these are satisfying. Our example proposition looks like this.

 It is a (simplified) visual representation of a proposition. Inside the object is every property it holds. Those can range from character attributes to abilities and so forth. According to Jefferson reason can not act upon it since it is not distinct. Reason is “the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgement logically.” The unintelligible can not be understood, therefore reason can not be used on it.  But ridicule can be used. Its a dismissive statement often accompanied by dark humor. To the recipient it can be a grave insult. Now image three statements that ridicule our unintelligible position. Each one aimed at a different attribute.

The ridiculed parts are cut off, rendering it more distinct. Imagine more and more ridicule. At some point there might be nothing left. Allowing for a distinction between propositions that reason can and can’t act upon. In the end destroying propositions that are unintelligible. Obviously in the real world this is a gradual process or even one that will never finish. With the proposition changing all the time. Growing, expanding, receding. Even with different forms in every persons mind who has encountered it. A particular ridicule might work on one person, while failing for the next. Some might never encounter specific ridicule, others will face an abundance.

There also is a moral component to ridicule. It might hurt the feelings of very nice people who happen to hold an unintelligible proposition. Who hold it as a virtue, sometimes it might be at the core of how they define themselves. A source of strength, happiness, a security blanket. What justification can there be?

• The proposition can spread. Due to its indistinct nature its attributes vary from person to person. What might be a great asset for one, can have undesired effects on another.
• The propositions most common attributes can change. Gradual or abrupt change can occur without self motivated interference by a person and turn an admirable proposition into a harmful one.
• A charismatic speaker can try and use the indistinctness to exploit. Define it in a way that allows him to use it for personal advantage.
• A person holding an unintelligible as a source of strength or happiness. Will, once its gone, realize that inherent potential was realized, rather then given to a weak or unhappy individual.
• Unintelligible propositions can have major implications as to how one should behave. This can range from a positive code of morals to a negative one. Even the ultimate sacrifice by militantly defending ones position is a possible outcome of this.
• Unintelligible propositions can interact. A person can encounter another who holds a conflicting unintelligible. Since there is no reasonable way to solve the conflict, very disadvantageous consequences can occur.
• On the social catalyst unintelligible proposition. It is true that it can be advantageous. Humans are social creatures. But any number of similarities between individuals can be catalysts. Even the rejection of unintelligible propositions acts as such.
• People employing unintelligible proposition often have a tendency to try and convince others of their position, to make it more acceptable to themselves. Sometimes violently so. Or the proposition can produce the obligation to convert.
• Commonly held unintelligible propositions give cover to people holding compatible but essentially harmful ones.

I could go on, but think i covered enough.

Ridiculing an unintelligible is not the same as ridiculing or insulting the person itself.  Often ridicule can go hand in hand with insult. Not just by interpretation of the recipient. These person related insults have no place in an already heated environment. But ridicule can essentially take any form, without insulting the person itself. In my opinion it can be very dark and still be justified.

When people holding unintelligible propositions can discern that great atrocities directly in relation with the proposition are being committed, they should be able to deal with the crassest ridicule. When schools are targeted by suicide bombers and representatives systematically rape and abuse children only to escape justice, they can tolerate almost anything when it comes to the proposition. Ridicule does not nearly compare.

Reason and the intangible

On how the religious actively undermine their position. Before an idea can be acted upon by reason it must be distinct. Or any statement that comes without prove can be dismissed without it.

I had stunning success in arguing abortion with pro choice folks from around the world. But most of the time, another problem arises. A red herring. And it swims along in the form of some Christian asserting their claim on morality by introducing God. Of how God commands this and that. Often supplemented with some bible quote. And easily as often accompanied by some form of insult.

It is my opinion that without the Christian community hijacking the pro life side, abortion would be illegal now. It is due to the divinely ridiculous nature of their arguments that many people will just tune out. I do. When some religious person comes along and tells me of how something should be because his God commands it. My brain converts these bullshit arguments into white noise. I have to make a conscious effort to listen, understand and to not simply start laughing. At the very best their argument is intuition based. Which at least is somewhat better then bible based, but still not good enough.

I feel…. White noise. God commands… White noise. The bible states…. White noise. At the very least they should understand that for someone dismissing religion, religion based reasoning does not hold any value. Their position as of today is supported by scientific discovery. But because their brains spill out all this white noise they cant figure out how to make a convincing case. Eternally trapped in an indestructible bubble of ultimate truth.

Sorry for the rant. I feel better now 😉

We have the same evidence…

I couldn’t sit through the whole debate but in what i saw, there was one interesting point made by Ken Ham. He said he uses the same evidence to form a conclusion as evolutionists do, only he comes to a different interpretation. I find that a very peculiar statement.

Obviously, this even is true. But it is evidence of something else as well. It shows that when it comes to constructs which encompasses such a long period of time the human mind has problems grasping them. Ham will go on and support this point through video messages from various scientists, who are all creationists but are still successful. Laying a claim to non exclusivity of religion and science. And he does a good job at it. An individual can be religious and a scientists. But individuals can hold any number of conflicting views.

George Orwell coined the term doublethink. Meaning “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic…”

I don’t want to say Ham is deceiving with intent. I think his position is born out of something he holds so very dear, it leads him to rationalize these conflicting positions. In the words of Leon Festinger “Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one”. A very important distinction. It is perfectly possible for an individual to construct such an intricate web of logic that it allows to merge conflicting positions and release cognitive dissonance. Ham and other creationist scientists are evidence of that. Look at how much evolutionary concepts have already been incorporated into creationism.  Does this mean they can’t be good scientists? No. Ham and his examples are evidence of that too. They can still acknowledge natural laws and act based upon them. They can still construct remarkable machinery. They can still make great contributions. But it does mean that when it comes to interpreting evidence they might be guilty of confirmation bias. Any conclusion they reach must be handled with care since religion has such profound implications about the world.

Ham, by saying we have the same evidence only different conclusions, essentially states two things. Either one of us is guilty of confirmation bias or the evidence is inconclusive.

Trouble with confirmation bias is how any of us might be guilty of it. And we probably at some point in our live have been. One could easily say that Nye is guilty of confirmation bias and Ham is not. I do lack the intimate knowledge of evolution to confirm it as most likely true, but i can say it is a better explanation then the world being created 6000 years ago. During the process of which, the creator plants evidence to make it look older. I can say it is more likely to have been a gradual process of development, then everything being popped into existence in roughly the same state it is today. I can take a look at the stunning majority of scientists supporting evolution over creationism. And i think this more strongly suggests confirmation bias on Ham’s part, then on Nye’s or inconclusive evidence.

It is only possible to confirm ones bias through criticism. The exchange of ideas and especially the attack on our ideas by other people is so very important because of that.

Go Atheism!

A question about Nye vs Ham

It seems to me, given the topic “is creation a viable model of origin in today’s modern scientific era”. With creation meaning biblical creation as in the book of genesis. The debate should only last about five minutes.

Biologically speaking we all go back to Adam and Eve, according to the book of genesis. From the point onward when their children have to reproduce, they would do so by inbreeding. A populace derived from this would not have survived to the present day. Therefore it is not a viable model of origin. Did Nye try this argument and if so, what did Ham say?

Also on another note, does evolution not suffer the same problem? “All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago.” Is it, that the lack of genetic complexity rendered the effects of inbreeding negligible? Also could sufficient genetic variation somehow occur before reproduction through the exchange of DNA? Would it be possible for a living entity to posses more then one option at reproduction?

The evolution of religion

It is my opinion, that religion is a byproduct of evolution, that when a species becomes sufficiently intelligent the creation of religion is a logical and necessary step.

First we need to take a look at evolution itself. Evolution is the change of hereditary traits, within the populace of a species, from generation to generation. These traits are a result of our genetic coding. Through mutation these traits are effected. New traits can emerge, old ones disappear, or existing ones change. These mutations are then “judged” by natural selection in terms of reproductive viability. Meaning that disadvantageous mutations don’t pass their genes on as much. Due to this process traits can become more and less frequent. Advantageous traits are such, that increase the likelihood of survival and therefore the chance of reproduction. Note that evolution can also happen because of genetic drift. But its not strictly relevant to this argument.

Now imagine some earth class planet. Its pretty similar to ours. An abundance of water, mild climate, prime conditions for life. On one of the continents lives a little cave dwelling creature. Its not a complex being. It’s not self aware, has a tiny brain and a rudimentary nervous system. But its well adapted to its environment. It has limbs to climb and reach places that are otherwise unattainable. Big eyes, that process the little visual information there is and reproduces like crazy when properly fed. Its hearing is well developed, since it lives in the dark. It employs a social pattern that resembles a flock. Its one happy little critter. But then catastrophe hits. Tremors shake the ground and the continent is split in two. While one part of the continent retains its relative position, the other is sent adrift. This also divides the populace of our cave dweller. One will remain in the environment it has adapted to, the other will face profound challenges.

Over the course of a couple thousand years the newly created continent drifts farther and farther away. Due to this it undergoes a climate change. It gets gradually colder and the availability of food sources diminishes. Our creature is forced to leave the caves. Many fall pray to the new environment, but some survive. Enough to keep the species going. Over time it has increased in median body mass to outgrow the smaller predators, has improved its ability to climb by gradually developing the ability to grab and its brain has gotten bigger. It is now able to spot patterns. Not complex ones of course, but simple ones. It realizes that a ruffling of leaves and grass or the breaking of twigs indicates danger.

Skip ahead a long time again. Pattern recognition has become linked with emotional responses. When an indicator for danger is given, adrenalin is produced. Our creature is afraid, a very effective defense mechanism. And it has gained the ability to communicate these emotions. It has not developed speech but it can produce different sounds that other members of its species interpret. The social structure has become more complex. There is a hierarchy and social obligations begin to enter the picture. Through social interaction our creature has gained the ability to distinguish individual members of its species. By now its genes have changed to such extend that it could no longer reproduce with its “cousins” on the other continent. It has become a new species.

Make a time-jump again.  The social structure has ultimately led our creature to become self aware. It can now, on a conscious level, determine if it is angry, afraid, satisfied and so on. It can recognize itself in a reflection. By now it has become so big, that it is only threatened by the biggest and most dangerous predators. Mental capacity is increasing continuously and with it comes an ability to recognize more complex patterns. This ability has also led the creature to sometimes spot patterns that are not actually there. This is because its pattern spotting ability has proven such a vital tool for survival, that it tries to find patterns everywhere. It is more prudent for its survival to spot a pattern where none exists, then failing to spot a pattern where one exists. That’s called a false positive. The positive aspects of the ability (by far) outweigh some falsely spotted patterns. It is through this ability and self awareness that the creature becomes capable of superstitious behavior. It will sometimes connect some action it has taken to an outside effect, it didn’t cause. Superstitious behavior is even present in the common pigeon. The creatures ability to utter sounds has increased as well, though still a long way from speech by our standards. It has begun to walk in a fashion that allow it to use tools and weapons. Begun to bend its surroundings to its will. And while it has not learned to create fire it has recognized how fire can be controlled and kept alive. Providing heat, protection and the availability of food that can only be consumed when cooked. It has also learned to understand how other members of its species feel and why they perform certain actions. As a result the social structure is becoming more complex. Climbing higher in hierarchy is very advantageous in terms of reproduction. It follows that traits allowing for such behavior are also favored by natural selection.

Skip ahead again. Teamwork is incorporated into hunting. Our creature is now able to take down even the biggest of animals. Providing it with plenty of food and other resources, for example fur and bones. It also starts to attribute person like qualities to objects of great interest like fire. Failing to understand the combustion process but still recognizing how fire needs to be “fed”. This is another false positive. It is more advantageous, in evolutionary terms, to recognize something as person like, then failing to recognize a person like entity. Speech begins to develop. Terms for food, water, weapons, fire and other common objects emerge. Eventually concepts will be described, like hunt or cook. Our creatures start to try and please objects they have attributed person like qualities to. They are now capable of worship and will (at some point) start to perform rituals based in superstitious behavior. These will be taught to their children, their childrens children.

The foundation for religion is born. When mental capacity increases further, the idea of an invisible person like entity that controls unexplained phenomena, like wind or the weather, takes form. God is created. Eventually a full fledged religion will assert itself.

If we assume that both the pattern seeking quality and the ability to understand someone else as a person are ingredients in the evolution of intelligent life as we know it today. it follows that religion is a necessary byproduct.

Today we are no longer dependent on false positives as a survival factor. We have the ability to understand and test the world around us. Determine why things are the way they are without resorting to an invisible person like entity. Overcoming religion is the next big step in the evolution of the human species.