The Dead End of Epistemological Skepticism

When I first read Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," I enjoyed the book immensely. It is chock full of interesting information about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, though it focuses mainly on the dogma of the Catholic Church. My basic problem with the book, however, was a quality that I had noted before in Richard Dawkins, and many other modern so-called defenders of reason: epistemological skepticism. 

The skeptic begins his criticism of religion with the premise that we must start with a tabula rasa plane of ideas, and that the religionist must demonstrate through logic that there is reason to believe in God. On the surface, this sounds reasonable. After all, what is science if not the process of postulating hypotheses and setting out to prove or disprove them. On this view, the religionist should be required to offer evidence in support of his claim before being taken seriously, right? So what's the problem?

The problem is in the starting point--the Skeptic takes his skepticism as a given, but is unable to support why one should start with skepticism, nor why reason is the method that we should use to discover truth. Further still, underlying phenomenon that the skeptic takes issue with in the religionist is not fundamentally the religionists's mystic fantasies--it is the religionist's sense of certainty. The religionist's sense of certainty does not come from any kind of rational process--it is based on Faith; or in real-world terms, their own conviction that an "I Wish" is better than an "It Is." The modern Skeptic's view of certainty is that "absolute certainty" is impossible to achieve about anything, but as we acquire evidence, we can move asymptotically closer and closer to "the real truth." This opens the Skeptic to the argument that their confidence in reason is itself an article of faith; thus reason fails, and faith is really all we have to go on.

As Henry Petroski puts it in his book, "To Engineer is Human":

 A scientific hypothesis is tested by comparing its conclusions with the reality of the world as it is. Yet, no matter how many examples of agreement one may collect, they do not prove the truth of the hypothesis, for it may be argued that one has not tested it in the single case where the theory may fail to agree with reality. On the other hand, just one instance of disagreement between the hypothesis and reality is sufficient to make the hypothesis incontrovertibly false. That honeybees always build their hives with hexagonal cells is a hypothesis that has accumulated so much verification that it is hardly called a hypthesis anymore. It is assumed to be a fact. But let some apiarist discover his bees making octagonal cells, and not only would the hypothesis that bees always use the hexagon be forever smashed, but there would also be quite a bit of excitement among the world of honeybee experts. That the sun rises each morning may also be considered a hypothesis, and our experience that indeed this happens day in and day out serves to confirm--but not prove--the hypothesis. Yet all it would take would be a single "morning" without a sunrise to make the contention that the sun rises every morning categorically false. While it may be behond our comprehension that this could ever be the case, it nevertheless remains true that our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is basically a matter of faith rather than of rigorously established fact.

At this point, the debate ceases to be about reason vs. faith, and becomes one about what kind of world you'd rather live in--one in which nothing is knowable, morality is unjustifiable, and man in merely a mite of dust in the cosmos, or one in which the Truth is revealed, morality is the province of a Just and Loving God, and man is the centerpiece of the universal table.

Since reason has been discredited as just another form of faith, and since the only choice is which "I Wish" you're going to treat as an "It Is," which one do you find more attractive?

As Em and I were listening to Hitchens' book in the car, I pointed out how a competent religionist could completely discredit Hitchens' approach by attacking him through his Skepticism. That's exactly what happened.

On November 1, 2007, I found a Fark headline linking to an oped by Dinesh D'Souza attacking Hitchens on exactly this point. From "What Atheists Can't Refute"

 

This atheist attack is based on the Fallacy of the Enlightenment. It was pointed out by the great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who erected a sturdy intellectual bulwark against atheism that hasn't been breached since. His defense relies on the only framework that today's atheist proselytizers say is valid: reason.

The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know: reality itself. This view says we can find out more and more until eventually there is nothing more to discover.

In his 1781 Critique of Pure Reason, Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. Kant showed that human knowledge is constrained not merely by the unlimited magnitude of reality but also by a limited sensory apparatus of perception.

Consider a tape recorder. It captures only one mode of reality, sound. Thus all aspects of reality that cannot be captured in sound are beyond its reach. The same, Kant would argue, is true of human beings. The only way we apprehend empirical reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that this five-mode instrument is sufficient?

Moreover, the reality we apprehend is not reality in itself. It is merely our experience or "take" on it. Kant's startling claim is that we have no basis for assuming that a material perception of reality ever resembles reality itself. When we equate experience and reality, we are making an unjustified leap.

...

Ours is a world of appearances only, in which we see things in a limited and distorted way - "through a glass, darkly," as the apostle Paul writes in I Corinthians. The spiritual reality constitutes the only permanent reality there is. Christianity teaches that while reason can point to the existence of this higher domain, it cannot on its own fully comprehend that domain.

Thus, when Mr. Hitchens and other atheists routinely dismiss religious claims on the grounds that "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence," they are making what philosophers like to call a category mistake. We learn from Kant that within the domain of experience, human reason is sovereign, but it is in no way unreasonable to believe things on faith that simply cannot be adjudicated by reason.

[emphasis added]

You should really read the whole thing. You need to be able to defeat this argument in order to properly defend reason.

On November 5th, 2007 I found out from the Principles in Practice blog that there had actually been a debate between Hitchens and D'Souza. You can watch the debate on www.youtube.com -- the first part starts here. You should really watch the whole thing in its entirety. D'Souza completely dominates the debate. Every time Hitchens attempts to argue reason vs. faith, D'Souza argues that reason is faith, and redirects the debate toward which side you'd rather have in control. When D'Souza pointed out that more deaths have occurred under atheist regimes (Soviet Union, China) than Christian ones, Hitchens attempted to argue (correctly!) that allegiance to Communist propaganda is itself a form of religion. He was unable to make his case effectively because he was never really able to frame the debate in reason vs. faith terms.

If reason is going to win out over mysticism in our culture, what is needed is for scientists and leading intellectuals to drop epistemological skepticism, and embrace an objective foundation of reason. Nothing less will do.

 

Good Citizen

The University of Delaware apparently has a mandatory program on how to be a Good Citizen. This article is well worth reading.

More on Public Education

I found this article on one person's take on public schools.

I also ordered Kaffir Boy after reading about how it had been banned in a public school. I didn't get very far (less than one page!) into the book when I had to do a little research on apartheid in South Africa. What do you think I found? That South Africa, by way of the Bantu Education Act, used the public school system as a tool of oppression.

Of special note: "The National Party now had the power to employ and train teachers as they saw fit. Black teachers salaries in 1953 were extremely low and resulted in a dramatic drop of trainee teachers. The policy of Bantu (African) education was aimed to direct black or non-white youth to the unskilled labor market, to ensure white control and prosperity."

This is reminiscent of the laws in the Old South that forbade teaching blacks to read and write.

So, if you're following this, a government school banning a book led me to read the book about a government that used the school to oppress its citizens, which in turn reminded me of how the government in this country used its control of education to keep some of its own citizens under the thumb of oppression.

Go look at this

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjA0MzEzZWU3MGM1ZjZmZTAxNjg0ZTQyNTcyMWU4ZjQ=

Farm subsidies....
In Manhattan...

Follow up on public schools

It seems that schools are more interested in policing haircuts than in educating students.

The cost of free schools

Read this article.
Pay attention to this line:
"In 2005, DCPS spent $118 million to send 2,283 special-ed students to private facilities."

Let's see: 118,000,000 / 2283 = $51,686.38 per student, per year.

According to Steven Greenhut by way of the Washington Post, the school district spends on average "$12,979 per pupil each year."

Actually, you would do well to read the entirety of the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901415.html

That school district has 11,000+ employees, and they teach 55,000 students. That's one employee for every 5 students. When class sizes are approximately 1 teacher to 30+ students, that equates a lot of overhead.

Even the administrators themselves are frustrated by the amount of overhead:

Walking down the hallway recently, Vega stopped and commented: "Hear that
singing? Coming from the gym?" said Vega as a lone voice echoed down the
hallway. "That's my literacy coach." The coach "was given to me" by the central
office, Vega said, adding that the coach does not work with students, and, in
Vega's view, doesn't contribute much to the school. "That person is totally
useless. . . . That $80,000 is something I could have used for my
students."
The coach, Cheryl Mabry, said she has been with the schools for 34
years and has been trained to help teachers work with students who are
struggling to read and write. She said she was sent by the central office to
Powell because, like most D.C. public schools, it did not meet academic
targets.
"As far as what I'm doing, I think I'm making an impact," Mabry
said, but she does not expect to be back next year. "Ms. Vega has other ideas. I
don't think I fit into her plans."

The principal charged with running the school is not allowed to make staffing decisions--which means she has the responsibility of running the school even after being deprived of the most basic authoritative power she should have to do it.

The headline of this article says it all: "Pittsburgh schools drop 'public' from name to boost image"

Charter schools are subject to the same oversight and testing standards that public schools are, and are engaging in the same cheating tactics that public schools are. If government money is involved, you are going to see these same kinds of problems regardless of who administrates the school system.

Part of the problem is the contradictory goals that people have for the school system. Many regard the purpose of public schools to "socialize" the young--which is a euphamism for "make Good Citizens" out of students. For others, Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic are of paramount importance. For still others, it's important to teach "Intelligent Design," so as to preserve a place for religion in public schools. For still others, the purpose of schools is to provide students with the experience of "diversity." For still others, it's purpose is to provide children with a sense of self-esteem. In the founding day sof public schools in Massachussets, it's purpose was to undermine Catholicism by retraining the children of Irish Catholic immigrants as Protestants. In dictatorships, it is often noted that the first thing the dictator does is sieze control of the newspapers; it is not often observed that the second thing he does is sieze control of the schools.

I will do another post later about why this drive toward indoctrination is inherent in the nature of public schools. This post should give you a bit to think about now.

All the best...

More Absurdity from the Drug War

http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_229223032.html

Just look at the destruction the drug war has wrought in this man's life. When is this culture going to wake up and end the drug war? Jeez, you can't even get decent cold medicine any more.

Hat tip: www.fark.com

Still Chewing on Public Schools

In my view, the two core issues related to education are content and method: What is taught, and How. This is true when looking at the issue of education through a purely functional lens.



When considering education from a political perspective, there is only one issue for me: am I forced to pay for it (through taxes)? If the answer is yes, then I'm against it. If the answer is no, then I'm for it. That is all--issues of content and method are irrelevant.



In the current culture, the two primary concerns seem to be access and quality, where quality is defined differently by different people. The Progressives (most of the bureaucrats and education faculty) tend to define quality in terms of how well the students are prepared for social and political life; or to use a differnet term, how well the students are "socialized." The rest (mostly parents, election-hungry politicians) tend to define quality in terms of how well students are prepared for work life, usually measured in terms of standardized tests. Neither group seriously challenges whether public school should exist at all. Neither group seriously considers the role of force in education.



Access is nearly a non-issue, since education is not only provided to everyone free of charge, but is also compulsory. However, even though the issue of Access is practically non-controversial, it is still of primary concern to most people. If you don't believe me, simply suggest that we should do away with government controlled schools entirely, and see what kind of reaction you get. Why do people regard Access as such an important value? Because they believe in a right to education. "Everyone has a right to an education."



No they don't--not if they can't pay for it. I certainly agree that you need an education--but needs qua needs do not translate into rights. It is this belief in a right to education (similar to the quasi-Marxist belief in a right to a job) that makes the issue of dismantling the public schools so testy. It's also interesting to note that this "right" is forced on everyone.



Another issue at contest in the realm of education is control over content and pedagogy. In state-run institutions, parents and children have only the amount of control that is granted to them by the state. The teachers usually fight for control as well, on the premise that their expertise in the field entitles them to some decision-making rights. Whether, in a particular district, the parents or teachers have more or less control, it is by permission of the state that they have any at all. The State Giveth, and the State Taketh Away.



Parents and teachers also battle with each other for control over content. Evangelical Christian parents want Creationism taught in schools alongside or instead of evolution. Other parents want a total separation of church and state. Some parents want the Pledge of Allegiance and/or the Ten Commandments taught to school-children. Others want "Under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments to be removed altogether. Still others think that requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance smells too much of blind nationalism and would rather see individuals take such a pledge as adults, after they have understood the meaning and context of the Pledge.



Note that control in either of the above contexts means "control of the power of the State," which means force. Each person desires to impose their own vision of how schools should be run, and what should be taught on everyone else--and no one sees anything wrong with this.

Chewing An Idea

I've been reading Market Education, which is an excellent book on the history of public education as an institution, and as an idea throughout history. One of the charges that the author levies (and supports) is that the purpose of public schools is not, and indeed has never been, the education of its students. The purpose is to indoctrinate them with the approved State Ideology. Indeed, the history of government schools has been one conflict after another between parents that want to teach their children knowledge and values that will prepare them for leading a happy and productive life vs. the government bereaucrats that see it as their duty to mold the children in their charge into "Good Citizens."

Whether it's converting the children of Irish Catholic Immigrants to Protestantism in the 1840's, or training children in the dogma of Environmentalism in current era, the conflicts have remained the same in their essentials. Whether it's illegal to teach Evolution in science class (as it was in the early 20th Century), or illegal to teach Creationism in sciense class (as it is now), it remains that groups are fighting to use political power to get their particular world view presented to other people's children through the power of the State.

I'm starting to see the issue of public schools in the same light that many in this country already see the issue of the separation of Church and State. The State should not endorse a particular religion, nor should any religious organization wield state power. The individual administrators may themselves adhere to a religion in a personal sense, but not as an agent of State authority. Should the line between church and state be breached, the effect would be a State Religion. Whether this religion is an official State Religion codified into a dogma, or an unofficial hodge-podge of randomly selected ideas doesn't matter. The State simply should not be in the business of approving ideas.

But if the State is going to pay for the education of the nation's children, then it must take an interest in the quality of the education is pay's for. Whether the schools are administered by the State or payed for by vouchers doesn't matter; the State has an obligation to ensure that its money is being spent wisely. This necessarily means that the State must set standards for both the content and method of educational systems. This means that the State must take on the role of approver of ideas.

Who decides what content and methodoligcal approaches should be used in the public school? Castro, in Cuba; whichever political faction happens to have control of the local, State, or National education bereaucracy in the U.S..

Conservatives and Libertarians often advocate vouchers to allow private schools to "compete" with public schools on the premise that "competition" will make public schools better. This is a bastardization of the concept of economic competition, and will only result in the government extending its power over any private schools that accept the vouchers, and destroying any private schools that are left. This will happen, not from any particular malice or conspiracy on the part of government bereaucrats, but as a natural consequence of government money in the realm of education. Further, the next time conservatives get a grip on the education system, they'll drop vouchers and implement their own version of the State Ideology just as they have done in the past; and don't think that they're not trying.

I'm beginning to think that the issue of public education is the single most important domestic issue that this country is facing. I'm struck by how the existence of public schools is so throughly non-controversial in our culture. I'm struck by how many students coming out of public schools, and even colleges without basic critical thinking skills. I'm struck by how difficult it is for people I talk to even imagine an alternative the public school system, or any other politically correct idea. The very concept of political correctness demonstrate what I was talking about earlier--an implied State Ideology; not currently enforced as a matter of law, but certainly taught as a matter of law.

I've got more reading and thinking to do. Thanks for reading.

Global Warming: The Miracle Disaster

Is there anything it can't do?
Now it's responsible for the fighting in Darfur. Oh that Mother Nature--she's sure a bitch!

To summarize: there was less rain, which obviously is the result of man-made Global Warming since there's never been a such a thing as a draught before, so the black farmers closed in their land to prevent over-grazing from arab herders. "For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,'' he [UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon] said.

I love that--"Fighting broke out." Just like that--like it's the next logical step in the chain or reasoning. Why? No answer. Why couldn't the people there find other ways to resolve their differences? No answer. This is the quality of thinking in people who supposedly are our World Leaders.

Check out this guy...

... playing "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on the ukelele--pretty impressive.

You Must Read This

First: Read this.

Look at how free individuals and a famous "greedy corporate giant" are working to provide health-care services to people that otherwise could not afford it. My company has an on-site nurse practitioner: because her salary is less than the cost of insurance-covered doctor visits.

Now take special note of this:
"Because health care is largely regulated and licensed at the state level, some states are more friendly than others at having non-physicians deliver care. California requires that clinics be a medical corporation owned by a physician. In Arizona, each site must be licensed, but in most other states, a single license will serve multiple clinics. Illinois is considering legislation to limit the number of nurses a doctor could supervise to two and restrict the clinics' right to advertise."

Are you hearing this? The government is limiting the flexibility of the market to respond to consumer needs. Aren't we hearing from every corner today how we must be protected from greedy profiteers, and only the government can be trusted to provide us with the care we need? This is the same government led by the same politicians that block every market attempt actually provide the services people need; the same politicians that excoriate the people that are actually working to provide those services in the name of convincing you to put them in charge of your medical care. It's analagous to the mafioso that wants you to pay him for "protection" from "anything bad that might happen."

Gaaaahhhh!

Changing my Mind

I had a recent post on school vouchers in which I discussed the tendency of people (including myself) to shy away from making changes to our political system because said changes would create new problems (read, new opportunities for government intervention). I said that the creation of new problems should be approached as pressure to continue the migration to its logical conclusion (e.g., the problems created by home-schooling and a voucher system should be used as pressure to further dismantle the public education system). At this level, my opinion has not changed.

However, a couple of current events, and a lecture by C. Bradley Thompson have changed my mind on supporting the initiative for school vouchers. In Brad Thompson's lecture on the separation of school and state, he made a (what I believe to be) critical distinction between reformers and abolitionists. To paraphrase, in the 1830's, abolitionists did not begin their quest to abolish slavery by arguing for a shorter workday and better meals for the slaves. No--they argued consistently and on principle that slavery as an institution should be abolished.

Bringing this argument to todays context--my interest is not in school vouchers, but in the replacement of the public education system by a fully private system. I would advocate school vouchers as a migratory means to that end, but otherwise I'm not interested. Further, when considering that the primary advocates of school vouchers are conservatives that want to send their kids to religious schools, and that they do not share my ultimate goal of dismantling the public education system, I cannot ally myself with them on this issue.

I will go a step further and say that conservatives do not actually want school vouchers--but school vouchers represent a pragmatic way for them to use state funds to pay for religious-based schooling for their kids. If conservatives had their way, they would institute religion into the public school system, and it would be the Left that would be clamoring for school vouchers against conservative opposition.

I would usually avoid comparing people to the Nazi's, but I can't resist linking you to a story from Germany. Apparently, a girl their was being home-schooled by her parents, which is illegal in Germany. The girl was diagnosed by a state psychiatrist as having "school phobia" and taken from her family and institutionalized. Home-schooling was banned during Hitler's reign of power.

Quote:
In 1937, the dictator said, "The Youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing."

The modern ruling on the law reads much the same way:
"Not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education," the court said. "The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education. "The (German) Federal Constitutional Court stressed the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society," the ruling said. " (emphasis added)

In other words, the purpose of public education in Germany is to indoctrinate children is to indoctrinate the students of the country with a common set of philosophical ideas and to "socialize" the child into society. I would imagine that the "separate philosophical convictions" referred to are in fact Nazi- or other forms of racism. I cannot plumb the depths of irony that a law passed by Hitler to ensure that all children were educated as Nazis would now be used to curt-tail the same freedom of thought, and ensure that all children were educated as multi-culturalists.

The parents in this case are Christians that are upset at the sex-education in public schools, and don’t want their children exposed to it. I personally would be in favor of sex education for my children (if I had any), but at an appropriate age and with an appropriate level of detail. I wouldn’t want my 6 year old exposed to this, however. These parents are reformers, not abolitionists. I wish them all the best on getting their daughter back, but I am not in any sense a political ally of theirs.

Now imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Imagine that it was the conservatives that had a grip on the public education system. Imagine that creationism was being taught in science class, and that sex was never mentioned in school at all, except that god hates fags. Imagine all the Leftists clammering for vouchers so that their kids could be taught evolution and multi-culturalism. Can anyone seriously believe that conservatives would be in favor of school vouchers then? I can’t. School vouchers are a pragmatic way for them to get what they want (religious education at state expense) in the current political climate. If they could ask for and get what they really wanted, it would be mandatory religious education at state expense in order to “avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions.”

Lest anyone think that Democrats are any less guilty of trying to legislate ideas, read this article. The FCC is trying to reign in violence on tv shows, even on cable networks. The Federal government has tried to regulate violence before by forcing manufacturers to include “V” chips in television sets, “But many parents don't use V-chip blocking” It’s Democrat Jay Rockefeller that is drafting legislation based on the FCC’s findings.

The article goes on to state that “A key obstacle to any such law has been crafting a definition for violence that could survive a court review.” (emphasis added) What’s the problem? Oh yeah, that pesky First Amendment, and that pesky absolutist, extremist, clear language: “Congress shall make no law…” So much for the pretend-defenders of the First Amendment.


In summary, I could support school vouchers if it was an idea put forth as a migratory first-step toward the privatization of the educational system. However, it is really being put forth as a way to religiously school children at state expense until the conservatives manage to get control of the public education system and change it to suit their wishes. I advocate the principle that school and state should be separate; conservatives do not, therefore we have nothing in common on this issue.

I am an abolitionist on the issue of public education, not a reformer. I will not ally myself with reformers.

Security

So I went to Carowinds this weekend with B., A., Em, and Em's father. We had a good time, but it was kind of annoying getting into the Park. There was a row of metal detectors before the security gate, and B. had his Swiss-Army knife taken to storage. Now, I ask you--who feels safer because B. didn't have his pocket knife?

Em summed up our general feeling with a single quip: "Freedom has a price: and that price is less freedom!"

Israel Must Fight for its Right to Exist

My friend Dan wrote this and gave me permission to repost it here.

Israel Must Respond to Militant Islam with Overwhelming Force

On July 12, 2006, Lebanese fighters perpetrated an act of war against Israel when they fired rockets into Israeli territory and kidnapped two IDF soldiers. In the face of such a brazen and unprovoked attack, it is a government's moral responsibility to do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of its citizens. Israel was well within its right to respond militarily and demand the return of its soldiers.

Arabs throughout the Middle East greatly feared the Israeli response. Hezbollah was widely criticized for awakening the sleeping Zionist giant. At first, the Israeli government threatened to respond with overwhelming force. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the Lebanese action "an act of war," and promised a " very painful and far-reaching response." The head of Israel's Northern Command Udi Adam said, "this affair is between Israel and the state of Lebanon. Where to attack? Once it is inside Lebanon, everything is legitimate -- not just southern Lebanon, not just the line of Hezbollah posts." As rockets began to streak across the border onto Israel towns, Israeli army radio declared that the army would "totally destroy any village from which missiles are fired toward Israel."

Israel was challenged to follow through on its promises. Hezbollah guerillas embedded themselves in the civilian population, fired rockets from populated areas, and disguised themselves as civilians. In several reported cases, Islamists blocked village exits to prevent residents from leaving combat zones, maximizing civilian death. International pressure began to mount against Israel. On July 20, after a report claimed that 60 civilians were killed in a single attack, Israel agreed to halt air strikes for 48 hours. The United States began to push Israel towards a fast resolution.

Thereafter, even as Hezbollah fired hundreds of rockets across the border, Israeli forces were careful not to inflict significant damage on non-combatants. This hampered Israel's ability to fight the war effectively. The army never followed through on its promise to "totally destroy" villages from which rockets were fired.Israel finally agreed to a cease fire on August 14, even though it had not accomplished its two stated objectives for victory: recovering the kidnapped soldiers, and ejecting Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah was widely regarded as the winner of the conflict. On September 22, thousands of supporters gathered in Beirut to hear Hezbollah leader Nasrallah openly declare his country's "divine and strategic victory" against Israel.

This outcome was worse than if Israel had done nothing, because now supporters of militant Islam have rallied around the victorious Hezbollah. Civilians in Lebanon still must fear the strong arm of militant Islam, but no longer fear the harsh reprisal of Israel. Moderate Lebanese have no incentive to oppose Hezbollah; to do so would mean certain death. Al Queda, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations around the globe now see that the tactic of holding ones own civilian population hostage is effective.

When the United States faced a similar threat during WWII, we achieved victory by convincing the people of Japan that we would destroy their entire country if necessary to defend our own. We settled for nothing less than unconditional surrender. When Japan would not yield, we unleashed a devastating attack on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though less widely publicized, similar tactics were used against Nazi Germany. Today, US actions in WWII are often criticized, but witness the long term results of this ruthless approach. It is widely conceded that dropping the atomic bomb on Japan saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American lives.

Israel should learn from this example. Islamic Terrorists cannot be reasoned with, and they will not stop until Israel is completely destroyed. Israel must recognize that the only way to stop an enemy aggressor is to respond with overwhelming force. If they are not willing to do so, then Muslims around the world are right: Israel has forfeited its right to exist.

--Dan Edge

I agree completely.
--Chris McKenzie

Ayn Rand Sighting

There was a scene in the last episode of "Lost" ("Par Avion") in which one of the characters was reading "The Fountainhead" on the beach.

It made me happy.

Follow Up

Trey Givens was kind enough to respond to my last post on Environmentalism and Epistemology.

With regard to this quotation from my post:
Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.
Trey writes:
I'm a person with only a nominal amount of information about environmental science and what I know about things that affect the weather doesn't exclude the environmentalists' claims from being plausible given the evidence offered.
What challenges their claim is the fact that the evidence they've offered has so frequently turned out to be false or misapplied to the question, but it is not the case that they don't attempt to offer some relevant information to the question.
This is very much unlike religionists' claims about the supernatural, which by its nature is beyond consideration, examination, and even definition.


I agree with Trey that within the context of his knowledge, religion is more obviously irrational than environmentalism. Trey has explicit knowledge of the Primacy of Existence, and so the mere fact that something is considered to be "supernatural" is enough of a reason for Trey to dismiss the claim. However, although the PoE is axiomatic, and axioms are by definition self-evident, explicit integrated knowledge of the PoE is not automatic. So, for many people, that something is supernatural is not reason enough unto itself to dismiss a claim. I don't think that most people have a clear idea even of what is meant by "supernatural." Many, I believe, simply think of it as "as of yet unexplained phenomena," which carries with it the implication that explanations are plausible. Such people would not say that God's existence is impossible, but neither would they characterize God as "the Magic Man in the Sky," the way that I do.

Trey further writes:
Certainly the environmentalists do want us to resort to faith when it comes to their claims, but they've at least been sneaky enough to obscure this fact by offering up facts and figures about this and that.

Religionists are doing exactly the same thing for the same reason. Their "intelligent design" theory is a pseudo-scientific veneer applied to supernaturalism. However irrational the theory, to the mind that thinks of "supernatural" as meaning simply "as of yet unexplained phenomena," there is nothing in intelligent design that is inherently contradictory. The reason that it is so clearly ridiculous to Trey and me is because we grasp the PoE.

So I contextually agree with Trey. If we are talking about how ridiculous one or the other will seem to somone on the surface, I think these rules apply:
In a layperson's context, neither environmentalism nor religion is necessarily be obviously invalid.
In Trey's context, since he grasp's the PoE, religion is obviously irrational, but environmentalism is not since it has the veneer of science.
In my context, since I grasp the PoE and have discovered that environmentalism isn't backed up by any science, both environmentalism and religion are equally ridiculous to me.

Epistemologically speaking, however, judged on their own merits, religion and environmentalism share the same underlying error in that neither is cognitively related to reality. That's what I meant when I said that one is not more ridiculous than the other.

The 300

There have been several reviews of the 300 already.

* * * SPOILERS * * *

There's a pretty great one here.

Favorite quote: "Hyper-epic" may accurately characterize the style in which this already exhilarating Frank Miller story was realized on film. From the studio logos to the end credits, every frame of "300" pulsates and flexes as if it were heaving an enormous weight from one shot to the next. The music and sound effects are pushed completely to the forefront, making every pluck of a string, every beat of a drum, every footstep and even every breath carry the dramatic impact of most other films' entire audio tracks. Every shot is picturesque. Every close-up is extreme. Every man is muscle-bound and sculpted. Every woman is elegant and beautiful (even the terribly scarred ones). Every monster is hideous and sickening. Every blow is fatal. Every moment is a moment. Not one second is wasted.

The online muse gushes about it here.

Diana Hsieh discusses its shortcomings here.

Cox & Forkum utilizes it in a wonderful cartoon here. They also link to a nice true history of the battle of Thermpylae, as well as to a History Channel documentary on the subject.

Trey Givens gives his thoughts here.

My take? Basically I agree with everyone here. I think the movie was masterfully executed, wonderfully exciting and dramatic, and not-quite up to par intellectually. I liked the intellectual values that the film tried to uphold, but I don't think those elements were integrated into the rest of the film very well.

My only disagreement is with Diana. She writes: "Leonidas was supposed to be uncompromising. He wasn't swayed by the appeals of Xerxes (and the deformed Ephialtes) to be reasonable by submitting to Persian rule. Yet he compromised from the very start, not just by submitting to the mystical demands of the Ephors, but then by circumventing their demands without directly challenging them. The fact that he did so begrudgingly, as a necessity of Spartan political life, shows him to be open to compromise in the name of necessity. So why not compromise with the Persians too? Just because, I guess."

The way I read it, Leonidas did not think that he could fight Xerxes to defend Sparta (and its way of life) and destroy that way of life at the same time. I didn't read his action as being a compromise, but rather as finding a way to uphold the principles for which he is fighting. Now, one may legitimately criticize the principle's for which he fought (duty, militarism), but in his own context, I think Leonidas stayed true to his ideals.

I wanna' see it again!

Environmentalism and Epistemology

Trey Givens has a good thread happening on Environmentalism. The most interesting aspect of the discussion for me is the relationship between environmentalism and religion.

Religion, it is noted, begins with claims of the supernatural, and with exhortations of faith. As such, its claims are wholly outside of reality, and can be dismissed out of hand. Everyone in the discussion seems agreed on this point. However, the status of environmentalism is not so clear. "Deep Greens," as they are being called (a term I like and shall keep), use concepts with which we are familiar to make false or unsubstantiated claims. Aren't they on the surface "better" than religionists, since some part of their claims is within reality?

In Trey's words: "I pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between the global climate and the supernatural, one exists and one does not."

I think we should be careful of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here. One could re-structure Trey's argument to say that "Religionists claims are analytically false, but environmentalists claims are synthetically false," meaning that religionists' claims are essentially non-logical and self-contradiction, but environmentalists' claims require further study.

Environmentalists' claims do not require further study. Once it has been demonstrated that the environmentalist is making claims in an evidentiary vacuum, that is enough of a reason to dismiss the claims. The environmentalists' claims have no cognitive status. They are not "possible," "probable," "certain," "true," or most importantly: "false." If their claims are not backed up by evidence, then their claims have no cognitive content, and therefore bear no relationship to reality.

The fact they the environmentalists' nominally use words that we recognize and have no inherent contradictory status is in-essential and irrelevant. It does not make them any closer to reason than the religionist, nor any more honest. To the extent that their claims are arbitrary, they deserve no consideration.

Now, for the person that has no knowledge of environmentalism, it is proper that they should take the claims seriously enough when they first hear them to ask "why?" "How do we know that Global Warming is happening, and that man is causing it?" But as soon as it becomes apparent that no answer is offered for those questions (other than "the UN said," or "the debate is over"), then it is apparent that environmentalists are another flavor of religionists, and should be treated as such.

Finally, it is not the case that religion is "more obviously false" than environmentalism. The Primacy of Existence is implicit in every concept, but explicit knowledge of the PoE is conceptually advanced. Once you have knowledge of the PoE, it is easy to dismiss religion (or the supernatural of any variety). The non-cognitive status for the arbitrary is a corollary of the PoE once you recognize that the purpose of reason is to identify reality. Environmentalism violates the PoE the same way that religion does, by asking you to suspend reason and grant cognitive status to arbitrary claims.

School Vouchers

When I first heard about the idea of school vouchers, I was all for it. Then I thought about it some more, and decided that the gov't would use the existence of vouchers as another mechanism to encroach the first amendment. Loathe though I am to say it, Hilary Clinton summarizes that fear quite well in this video:



Still, I think I'm going to have to come down on the side of being for it. I think that there's something wrong with the approach of viewing migratory deregulation as a danger source for the further erosion of rights. The fact is, our rights are being eroded all around us. I think we're better served by advocating controversial acts of deregulation despite the fact that they open new ground for worrying if for no other reason than that we can give the subject of rights the spotlight. Yes, school vouchers does raise first amendment issues--we need to keep rights in the forefront of the American consciousness as much as possible. Our answer to Hilary's question: "Who decides who gets the money?" is "no one." As a first step toward privatizing the educational system in this country, we should offer school vouchers for parents to send their children to any school they want.

Media Center

So I purchased a Dell E521 system (Vista Home Premium) with a dual tv-tuner to server as a Home Theater PC (HTPC). The first thing that I noticed was that it had no tv out. Hmmm. It appears that whoever designed the tuner card didn't think anyone would want to output the signal to a television. Go figure.

So, a trip to Best Buy and $150 later and I'm back with an NVidia GeForce 7600 GS PCIe card installed and ready to go. I connect to my HDTV and--beautiful... for about two hours that is. Then the video card locked up and I had to reboot--and again every 1 to 2 hours after that.

Much googling and a perusal and even a service request from the NVidia website turned up no helpful information. So, back to Best Buy. Except they didn't have any non-NVidia cards for less than $250 which was a quite a jump in price. So, get a refund.

Circuit City now. Found a card--ATI Radeon X1300 Pro 256Mb PCIe card for $129. Get it home--get it installed--and... eeewwwwwww. My Live TV picture is grainy and just generally shoddy. Check the DVD playback--that's all good. Hmmm... Email to ATI customer support--response in 12 hours. Hmm, guess I know who I'll be buying from next time.


I tried the TV output to a regular monitor, and it still sucked. Then I replaced the video card with another NVidia geforce card from my gaming machine-same sucky picture. Then I remove the video card entirely and just use the onboard VGA port to output to my monitor--same sucky picture. I knew that the picture wasn't that bad with the first card, so I figured that something must have gotten lost in translation when I removed the first video card and replaced it with the second.

Game plan--restore system back to Day 1 using the built-in Restore Point technology in Windows. Set up the Media Center software to talk to my satellite box again and... beautiful!

So the moral of the story is, when everything is fine on your system, and BEFORE you install any new hardware, make sure you create a restore point--otherwise you'll be spending an evening reinstalling updates like me.

More Smoking Hysteria

Thanks to the Detective for linking to this great analysis of second-hand smoke hysteria. It dovetails nicely with the studies I've found that basically say the same thing. (http://www.fumento.com/disease/smoking.html, another study). Okay, so technically the first link is an article, and the second is the study. You know what I mean--jeez--grammar nazis!

Joke of the Day

So today's "Joke of the Day" was kind of stupid:

Q. What's the difference between a boy and a girl?
A. A boy is 8 times more likely to be convicted of murder.

The "joke" isn't even funny, but it does serve as a nice spring-board to analyze some things in our culture. Despite the fact that it's true, in the context of today's culture, this joke is a smear on men. Don't believe me? Imagine if the question had been re-written thus: "What's the difference between a black man and a white man?" See the problem? The second version would be considered to be ipso facto racist. The fact that black men are more likely to be convicted of murder would be explained away as being the result of poverty, white oppression, and a slew of other explanations that all serve the same function: to deflect blame away from the individuals actually committing murder. The knee-jerk reaction is to look for explanations of the criminal behavior when it is committed on the part of a minority--and it's even better if the "explanation" lays the blame at the feet of one of the usual suspects: caucasians, males, big business, or the military-industrial complex. The question of other possible non-racist explanations the phenomenon isn't even taken into account.

The Left has so dominated the culture with political correctness that in many circles, even University level academic circles, it is near impossible to be understood to have an intellectual disagreement with the politically correct norm. Failure to subscribe wholesale to the politically correct explanations of why more blacks are in prison or women tend to make less money is immediately labelled racist or sexist. Those labels are warrant enough to dismiss the position of the heretic outright.

For instance, at a recently scheduled debate between Yaron Brook and Carl Braun of the Minutemen, a leftist student group planned a protest which effectively caused the debate to be cancelled due to "security concerns." ("Security Concerns", is the new cover-all term that is used to describe our country's lack of willingness to defend its citizens rights to free speech.) First--what were they going to protest? A debate? Why do you protest a debate? If you believe that one of the debaters is intellectually mistaken, then a debate is the best thing that could of happened. If you believe in open borders (as this student group apparently does), then the best thing that could happen would be if Yaron Brook--an intellectual giant compared to many of the leaders he's debated--solidly trounced the representative of the opposing view in an intellectual cage match in a public forum. If you have any respect at all for ideas--

ahh, there's the rub. The protesters web page exhorts the student body to "Say No to the Hate." See--they can't conceive of a set of intellectual reasons for wanting to stem the flow of immigrants into the US, so any contrary position must be racist. The anti-intellectuality of their protest is further demonstrated by their instructions: "Bring banners, noisemakers, bullhorns, whatever--all are welcome!" They not only don't want to hear what the man has to say (which is their right), but they want to violate the rights of others to hear what the man has to say. They want to use a physical attack (excess noise) to destroy an intellectual discourse.

Further still, "hate," like "security concerns," occupies a curious place in our political culture--it is the adjective used to justify the abrogation of free speech. So the action and the justification are delivered together. The Minutemen's "message of hate" (i.e., contrary position on immigration) must be silenced (by force or otherwise) because it is "hate."

Some of the students did understand the importance of ideas. In a letter to the protesters the organizer of the debate wrote:

Although I understand your passion about this issue--indeed, L.O.G.I.C.'s official position and motivation for hosting this debate is to promote free immigration and open borders--I would advise you to conduct yourselves with respect. Do not misunderstand--L.O.G.I.C. disagrees vehemently with Mr. Braun's position, but the purpose of inviting him to UCLA was not to give his ideas sanction. On the contrary, the purpose is to flesh out the concerns that many people have about immigration as thoroughly as possible, and for our speaker, Dr. Yaron Brook, to show why Mr. Braun is wrong. Our strategy of pitting our position against the strongest opposition can only yield success if the debate is uninterrupted. By disrupting the event--either inside or outside the venue--you will compromise the validity of our position in the minds of observers. You will make the pro-immigration side seem like nothing but a bunch of hooligans. This is unacceptable and intolerable. Be advised--we have police security at the event, and if you cause a disruption, you will be subject to arrest. That having been said, the best that you can do to support free immigration and to show your opposition to Mr. Braun is to respectfully sit in the audience and clap loudly for Dr. Brook. (Booing and jeering when Mr. Braun speaks is not acceptable either.) I hope that you will attend and remain respectful. I don’t want to see my event--and my pro-immigration cause--be compromised by any sort of disruptions.

Of course, it's almost better when the opposition doesn't speak (the organizing student group was L.O.G.I.C.:

Hey white boy. Your club name logic stands for Liberty, objectivity,GREED, individiuality andCAPITALISM????? OK heres the problem. Your club thinks capitalism and greed is best for the Raza? Dude thats how we got where we are in the first place. In case you havn't heard 99% of the Raza believe in collectivism, socialism and communism and anarchism. You think all I want is a good job and a big house for myself? Youre wrong. I want it all for my people!! And Im not sharing nothing with the white invaders. Sooner or later you'll all have to get back on your boats and go back to wherever names like yours got thought up. And take your capitalism with you. we dont need it, you guys are the ones who thought it up to keep the raza down.

So, given all of this hyper-sensitivity, how is it that a joke like the one above could make it onto my google homepage? Because it's okay to bash whites, men, and (big-) businessmen. No one blinks an eye at that. On almost all sitcoms involving a married couple today, the wife is the "smart" one. (That there should be a "smart one', or conversely a "stupid one" in a married couple is itself great fodder for another post.) I don't know who to credit with saying "Men are not just defective women," but the quotation captures exactly the quality of some of the messages my culture sends to me and other men. You won't see me out marching in the streets about it though. I believe in the power of ideas--so as long as the tattered remnants of the 1st Amendment still hold sway in this country, I will rationally argue my position to any willing listener or reader.

Thank you.