Salman Rushdie. Earth to Leftists....

[tvashtarkatena]

Do you really believe (presume) you have a more knowledgeable and observant view of Islam and Islamic culture than someone who was raised in a muslim family and lived his adolescence in Pakistan? What wisdom you possess...

 

How dare Josef Conrad presume to have a more knowledgeable and observant view of the English language than one who was raised speaking it?

 

How dare my sister in law, an adult convert, presume to have a more knowledgeable and observant view of Catholicism than me, who was raised in it?

 

How dare those 20 something upstarts presume to have more knowledgeable and observant view of quantum mechanics than the Great Einstein?

 

 

 

 

The human being is the ultimate configurable device.

[tvashtarkatena]

Carl - I could think of no more effective means to discredit Von Hayek than for Sach's to embrace his ideas. Most scientists, like most doctors, are economically illiterate, yet presume otherwise, so it's no surprise that he chose to publish this essay in SciAm as opposed to "The American Economic Review."

 

Nothing captivates an audience more than two strutting, budding prototitans of academia locked, guano a guano, in a peer review cockfight.

[tvashtarkatena]

Linus Pauling and Vitamin C. Einstein and quantum uncertainty.

 

Both had a stature in their own fields that far exceeds Sach's stature amongst professional economists, and both doggedly championed an idea or two within their disciplines that failed to convince their peers.

 

 

Better stop knocking the few climatologists who dispute global warming if you're going to go this route, and start chugging down the multi-gram megadoses of C while you are at it.

 

These few climatologists have little or no stature in their field and are doggedly championing ideas (through research funded primarily by energy companies) that have failed to convince their peers.

 

Give Sport an 'A' for analogies.

[tvashtarkatena]

you should dedicate yourself to finding out how trade barriers, price controls, and subsidies, etc. contributed to the global power of Britain, then to the emergent U.S., and now the rise of China. Then how said policies prompted unprecedented economic growth, since unmatched, in S. Korea and the other "Asian tigers".

...and unprecedented environmental devastation. Globalization and 'the pricing mechanism', while attractive in their simplicity and ruthless efficiency, have a single criterion for success: profits. They lack criteria for environmental quality, sustainability, quality of life (money isn't everything everywhere). In addition, industries in an unrestrained environment rarely pay the 'full market value' for the public resources they use or pollute. Finally, these mechanisms assume an unlimited supply of cheap energy.

 

I'd love to find a silver bullet as much as the next guy, but I'm not holding my breath.

[mattp]

WTF are you talking about, Jay?

 

Mr. Rushdie’s little rant that you quoted above was really quite simple: (1) a peace agreement in Palestine will not appease the terrorists because that is not what they want so those who suggest that promoting such a peace in the name of reducing terrorism are wrong to think it might promote such a result (though he admits the terrorists use the Palestine occupation an effective recruiting tool), and (2) “the left” is some kind of identifiable block that naively and narrowly believes that Islamic Fundamentalists are overwhelmingly concerned with occupation and their promotion of terrorism is undertaken in a quest for freedom from Western hegemony and nothing else. (You can quibble with my choice of words here, but I think that is a fairly succinct restatement of his argument).

 

Clearly, you posted this excerpt as a jab, knowing that many here would disagree with both points. Then you accused those who disagree with either statement as “missing the point” and being bizarrely conceited, while arguing that he was not commenting in any way on terrorism but on “the lens through which we view it?”

 

It it bizarre or conceited to think a peace accord between Israel and Palestine might as a byproduct reduce that issue as an effective tool for the recruitment of suicide bombers, or to suggest that he's not the end-all expert and “the left” does not consist of a body of people who all believe terrorists are freedom fighters?

 

Yes, there have been a couple of responses suggesting Mr. Rushdie has "lost it," but c'mon -- isn't any narrowly focussed statement that suggests the terrorists just want to kill us and we should not consider how our own actions in the world may impact their thinking, or a suggestion that "the left" holds just a single simple view on the motivation behind terrorism, just as naive, bizarre, and conceited as any argument you are reading here?

 

Your rhetorical stance here is bizarre for sure.

[Mr_Phil]

The typical intellectual need be neither: he neither posesses a special knowledge of anything in particular, nor need he even be particularly intelligent ...

 

Thank god for that.

[ClimbingPanther]

Kind of like the creationists presuming that technical disagreements about the particulars of evolution amongst scientists vindicate their contention that it never occured.

 

Just another off-topic perspective on this, that's all

This scientific ignorance you speak of is not necessarily what "vindicates" creationism to all those who believe it.

 

The creationist perspective doesn't seek to invalidate science, it just provides an alternate explanation -- that the world was created with the appearance of age, just as the first man would have been created as an adult, not a baby. A logical analysis based on present-day human experience would indicate that the first man, even one second after his creation, would appear to us to be 20,30,40? years old, and therefore he must actually BE that old. Since this incongruity of appearance and reality holds for man, why not for the whole universe?

 

No rational person, creationist or not, will claim that the universe actually appears to only be 10K years old. That is very clear [how many light years away are the farthest galaxies *that we can SEE*???!!!]. However, the creationist will argue that God did not feel the need to cause the universe to conform to future man's retro-analysis of how it all happened. After all, what would a brand new universe look like, anyway?

 

So don't mistake a creationist for being ignorant or willfully in denial about science. Science is, by definition (Wiki):

"Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical study and independent verification. Science typically, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority."

 

The take home point is that "science" by definition is empirical and verifiable, while both evolution and creation are historical speculations based on contemporary observations. Maybe evolution does accurately describe history, but it is not repeatable and never will be [neither is creation repeatable], given the time frame of the experiment, so I don't believe it is accurately labeled as "science." Whatever experiments and observations are made today, yes, definitely, it's science and therefore unassailable. The great strength of science and the very reason it has progressed so far is because of its rejection of supernatural explanations for observable phenomena. However, history is not observable.

 

Cheers!

[foraker]

However, history is not observable.

 

Every time you look up in the night sky and see a star or a galaxy thousands/millions/billions of light years away, you're observing history.

[ClimbingPanther]

I will just assume you didn't read my whole post...

[lI1|1!]

neither is creation repeatable

 

this would seem to be a meaningless statement; since God could (i presume) repeat creation if He wanted to, but was also the only entity capable of doing it the first time.

[foraker]

I did, I just thought numerous passages in it were silly.

[tvashtarkatena]

Kind of like the creationists presuming that technical disagreements about the particulars of evolution amongst scientists vindicate their contention that it never occured.

 

The creationist perspective doesn't seek to invalidate science, it just provides an alternate explanation -- that the world was created with the appearance of age....

 

....the creationist will argue that God did not feel the need to cause the universe to conform to future man's retro-analysis of how it all happened.

 

So don't mistake a creationist for being ignorant or willfully in denial about science. Science is, by definition (Wiki):

"Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the scientific method, a process for developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena based on empirical study and independent verification. Science typically, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority."

 

....while both evolution and creation are historical speculations based on contemporary observations. Maybe evolution does accurately describe history, but it is not repeatable and never will be [neither is creation repeatable], given the time frame of the experiment, so I don't believe it is accurately labeled as "science." Whatever experiments and observations are made today, yes, definitely, it's science and therefore unassailable. The great strength of science and the very reason it has progressed so far is because of its rejection of supernatural explanations for observable phenomena. However, history is not observable.

 

You incorrectly claim that evolution is neither observable nor repeatable, given the time scales involved. You are apparently unaware that the evolutionary time scale for viruses, bacteria, and even lizards (anolis) is measured in periods ranging from mere days for the former up to several years for the latter. Evolution makes predictions, and these predictions have been verified (i.e., the evolutionary mechanism in action) through many experiments involving creatures such as the ones I've just mentioned.

 

Second, by your own cited definition of science, the discipline rejects supernatural explanations and arguments from authority, both of which accurately describe creationism. Evolution (science) and creationism (religion) are therefore at odds.

 

Creationism is not a alternative 'theory', as some of its proponents argue, because it is not science. It is not science because it cannot provide a way to make predictions which are testable, verifiable, and repeatable, as you yourself stated.

 

Finally, the concept of God-as-elaborate-practical-joker is every bit as much as an anthropomorphism as is God with a big white beard in a flowing robe sitting on a cloud. It is a human creation that employs human attributes to construct an elaborate ruse for human observers. It flies in the face of the Christian doctrine of God being purposeful. Why the hoax? To test our faith? To provide a big, fun puzzle for us to solve? To give us something to spray about? Why not just cut the pretense and make it obvious that the universe was created in seven days or whatever? What's there to hide?

 

Finally, the very existence of an all powerful God produces some interesting paradoxes.

 

If you define the universe as including everything that exists, then God cannot, by definition, exist outside the universe. Either he (or she or it) made himself when he made the universe or he was the universe before he made the rest of the universe.

 

A second paradox arises. If you believe every process in the universe is ultimately knowable by humans, then the workings of God are ultimately knowable, testable, and that makes God just another scientific phenomeno in the universe. If you do not believe the opening statement of this paragraph, the next question is: why not? One possible reason is that God exists outside the universe, but this violates our definition of same. If God manipulates the physical universe, why would the processes by which he does so not be eventually knowable by humans?

[JayB]

Hey - look. Tash and I are on the same page.

 

CP - I am glad that you are trying to reconcile science with your faith in some fashion, and I am glad that you had the nads required to share your perspective in a forum where the odds that they'll get a hostile reception are quite high.

 

I've had this converstation a gazillion times before, and I can find some common ground with folks for whom God is some kind of remote first principle that exists outside the physical universe. At this point, IMO, you can eliminate this principal and end up with the same universe - but if someone's wiling to invest this much thought in the nature of whatever almighty they worship then I've never felt the need to push things further.

 

With regards to evolution as historical speculation, all I can say for the moment is that this is just not correct - and while I don't have the time to explain why this is so - I would think that you would have to concede that if the supreme being which you believe in is both omniscient and omnipotent , it would be well within his powers to create the universe through the big bang, and man through evolution.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've had this converstation a gazillion times before, and I can find some common ground with folks for whom God is some kind of remote first principle that exists outside the physical universe. At this point, IMO, you can eliminate this principal and end up with the same universe -but if someone's wiling to invest this much thought in the nature of whatever almighty they worship then I've never felt the need to push things further.

 

I don't think anyone's trying to collect converts here, but no matter how many times this conversation occurs, there's usually enough fresh material presented to one or both sides to make it worthwhile.

[Mr_Phil]

I was created with a little bang.

[ClimbingPanther]

No, I'm not unaware that evolution happens and that it's been observed and repeated I guess I should be more precise with my words and claim that even though some evolution can be observed (and is therefore science), our own historical journey from molecular soup to highly sophisticated organism cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and is not, strictly speaking, science. I will never claim something we can repeat (the examples of evolution you mention) is either false or of supernatural origin. Now of course, the person who does not allow for God to exist or create anything will rightly see the proven mechanism of evolution and use it to explain the unobservable past. There is no other way to explain it without divine intervention. Belief in God just offers another explanation; not as you pointed out a scientific theory, more of an untestable hypothesis.

 

I did read my definition entirely and deliberately left it intact, because I'm not trying to hide creation's intellectual problems. Using the supernatural to explain something which can be repeated in a laboratory over and over is obvious foolishness. Using it to explain something we didn't and can't directly observe is, at the very least, not on the same level of foolishness.

 

Speaking of intellectual problems, I like the one you mention about why, if God created everything 10K or whatever years ago, did he create things like stars gazillions of miles away yet with their light already hitting earth? Just to trick us in to unbelief? Frankly, I don't know.

 

Your paradoxes, though good for thought, don't hold if God is a spirit (which is what Jesus taught). Besides, the second "if" isn't even true. We can't know everything there is to know about the physical universe, thank you Herr Heisenberg (lost anyone? google "heisenberg uncertainty"), not that it has much bearing on this discussion though [the "science can't do this" line is a very dangerous sentence, especially for a scientist to utter, but this principle seems to be holding up over time]. What are the mechanics and his role in the physical world today? Who knows.

 

JayB, thanks for the sentiment, and I also appreciate you both being civil and willing to engage peaceably. I find that "hostile receptions" generally sprout from hostile initial remarks, and if the least I can do is play my part in a level-headed discussion, then I've contributed something.

 

Agreed, it certainly must be within God's power to create the world we see today by whatever means and with whatever amount of time he saw fit. He certainly could have used a "Big Bang" to bring the universe into existence. Now it's your turn to tell me how to do it without God I know, I'm being facetious, especially as a scientist, I don't believe it's wise to discount something before you prove it false. OK, signing off for the day.

[Crux]

CP, Gotta disagree that the most essential aspect of science is that its findings are *verifiable*. On the contrary, what makes science stand out is that its findings are falsifiable. Find one fossilized bone that's been buried for millennia in a stratum where it does not belong according to Evolution, and you have proven Evolution is false. No such procedure can be applied to Creationism; thus it is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.

 

Garret Hardin told a good story along this line. If I remember correctly, it goes like this: An astrologer told Augustine (circa 400 AD) that astrology is a science; with astrology an astrologist can determine accurately and precisely a person's future. So Augustine set out to prove the astrologer wrong. Augustine conducted an experiment by observing the birth of two boys, one born to royalty and the other born to peasants, but both born at the same time. According to the "science" of astrology, both boys would grow to live the same future as determined by the time of their birth beneath the stars. As it turned out, the boy born to a royal family lived to be a wealthy businessman and the boy born to peasants lived a life of poverty. When Augustine presented the findings of his somewhat time-consuming experiment, the astrologer immediately dismissed the experimental outcome as inconclusive because the boys surely were not born at exactly the same time. Augustine then pointed out that meant that astrology could never be proven false because two persons are never born at precisely, exactly the same time.

 

Augustine had demonstrated that astrology was immune to falsification, but this was of no more concern to the astrologer than it is to the modern day creationist. The astrologer remained unimpressed by the singularly defining characteristic of scientific fact and theory: All that is scientific is necessarily falsifiable.

 

 

Ironic it may be that Augustine, long since considered a saint by Catholics, might be morally challenged today by the modern findings of science -- especially Evolution. At the same time, it might have been by the persuasion of minds like his that the Church survived its own periods of reformation.

 

To come full circle within the scope of this thread, the reformation of Christianity may have been its saving grace as its humanity rose from the dark ages and thenceforth. In contrast, Islam was apparently spared a reformation of its own and, as a consequence, too often now blunders forward with the medieval intolerance that Rushdie implores the world to now recognize.

[tvashtarkatena]

I guess I should be more precise with my words and claim that even though some evolution can be observed (and is therefore science), our own historical journey from molecular soup to highly sophisticated organism cannot be repeated in a laboratory, and is not, strictly speaking, science..... Now of course, the person who does not allow for God to exist or create anything will rightly see the proven mechanism of evolution and use it to explain the unobservable past.

 

The past is observable. All organisms have a readable genetic code that reveals their evolutionary story. We have DNA samples from many prehistoric animals, and from one of our precursors, the neanderthals. It is not necessary to directly observe the past by time travel to unravel this code and how it changes over time through evolution, just as it is not necessary to speak directly with a dead philosopher to understand his written ideas.

... Using the supernatural to explain something which can be repeated in a laboratory over and over is obvious foolishness. Using it to explain something we didn't and can't directly observe is, at the very least, not on the same level of foolishness.

Your definition of 'laboratory' is a bit too narrow. The world, even the universe, is also a laboratory. Cosmologists cannot recreate the Big Bang, but we know quite a bit about it from testing our observations of the universe against our theories. Their lab is a bit larger than most, that's all.

 

Your paradoxes, though good for thought, don't hold if God is a spirit

Spirits presumably do things. How do they do these things? Why can't we know how they do what they do? How do we know we can't know? Do we have to be dead first?(I'm starting to sound like Rummy again). In most religions, spirits interact with humans. If we can communicate, then why can't we find out how they function? If we can find out how they function, then why can't they be just another phenomenon in our universe which can be studied using the scientific method?

We can't know everything there is to know about the physical universe, thank you Herr Heisenberg

 

This, I believe, is a misuse of the HUP. We cannot know the exact position of an electron, just as we cannot know what it feels like to travel faster than light, because that information exists only in our imaginations, but then again, so does Santa Claus. It is not part of our observable universe. It is possible that we can know everything knowable about electrons, light, and our observable universe. (I should have used the term 'observable universe' previously. We cannot know anything about the unobservable universe that lies further away than light could have traveled since its creation.)

[olyclimber]

i smell another lawyer on the site...

[ashw_justin]

like any hate crime it is directed at some members of an out-group who can be somehow be defined as non-human. it's primary participants are young males whose behavior is strongly influenced by testerone; it is an emotional outlet for confused young males who are otherwise well behaved and conform to societal expectations. like most forms of aberrant or self destructive behavior it is an exaggeration of normal tendencies.

 

This is key. We've made a huge mistake in allowing primitive aggression to hide behind religion. We played right into their hands by even letting the slightest bit of religion come into the picture. Repeat after me: they are terrorists, not religious fundamentalists. They don't even deserve to be called the latter, yet we give them exactly what they want by giving it to them. You stupid fucks gave them a BILLION allies the minute you labeled them as Muslims/Islamists. You're playing their game by their rules. Don't you people have children?

 

ps. how the hell did creationism take over this thread?

[tvashtarkatena]

i smell another lawyer on the site...

May I suggest certain cheeses to recalibrate your olfactory

intuition?

[tvashtarkatena]

You stupid fucks gave them a BILLION allies the minute you labeled them as Muslims/Islamists. You're playing their game by their rules.

 

Oh my god, you're right. I fell right into their trap. I am such an asshole.

 

Senior Gonzalez, take me to Cuba.

[Mr_Phil]

I am such an asshole.

[tivoli_mike]

CP, Gotta disagree that the most essential aspect of science is that its findings are *verifiable*. On the contrary, what makes science stand out is that its findings are falsifiable. Find one fossilized bone that's been buried for millennia in a stratum where it does not belong according to Evolution, and you have proven Evolution is false. No such procedure can be applied to Creationism; thus it is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.

 

Garret Hardin told a good story along this line. If I remember correctly, it goes like this: An astrologer told Augustine (circa 400 AD) that astrology is a science; with astrology an astrologist can determine accurately and precisely a person's future. So Augustine set out to prove the astrologer wrong. Augustine conducted an experiment by observing the birth of two boys, one born to royalty and the other born to peasants, but both born at the same time. According to the "science" of astrology, both boys would grow to live the same future as determined by the time of their birth beneath the stars. As it turned out, the boy born to a royal family lived to be a wealthy businessman and the boy born to peasants lived a life of poverty. When Augustine presented the findings of his somewhat time-consuming experiment, the astrologer immediately dismissed the experimental outcome as inconclusive because the boys surely were not born at exactly the same time. Augustine then pointed out that meant that astrology could never be proven false because two persons are never born at precisely, exactly the same time.

 

Augustine had demonstrated that astrology was immune to falsification, but this was of no more concern to the astrologer than it is to the modern day creationist. The astrologer remained unimpressed by the singularly defining characteristic of scientific fact and theory: All that is scientific is necessarily falsifiable.

 

 

Ironic it may be that Augustine, long since considered a saint by Catholics, might be morally challenged today by the modern findings of science -- especially Evolution. At the same time, it might have been by the persuasion of minds like his that the Church survived its own periods of reformation.

 

To come full circle within the scope of this thread, the reformation of Christianity may have been its saving grace as its humanity rose from the dark ages and thenceforth. In contrast, Islam was apparently spared a reformation of its own and, as a consequence, too often now blunders forward with the medieval intolerance that Rushdie implores the world to now recognize.

 

Methinks I need to reread "City of God"

[Dechristo]

Do you really believe (presume) you have a more knowledgeable and observant view of Islam and Islamic culture than someone who was raised in a muslim family and lived his adolescence in Pakistan? What wisdom you possess...

 

How dare Josef Conrad presume to have a more knowledgeable and observant view of the English language than one who was raised speaking it?

 

How dare my sister in law, an adult convert, presume to have a more knowledgeable and observant view of Catholicism than me, who was raised in it?

 

How dare those 20 something upstarts presume to have more knowledgeable and observant view of quantum mechanics than the Great Einstein?

 

 

 

 

The human being is the ultimate configurable device.

 

Just thought I'd preserve this response for posterior posterity should a few more neurons form synapses in the responder.