I took the shortened test that I posted about yesterday. You can read the full questionnaire here and a breakdown of the results here. I scored 13/15, which means 93% scored worse than, 3% scored better than, and (by process of elimination) 4% scored the same as me. I won't go into the questions I missed, because I don't want the two people who haven't taken it yet to gain an unfair advantage.
Still, even atheists are wondering and throwing ideas out as to why atheists did so well. I think many of them can apply to individuals, but I have another idea that has to do with the communication amongst atheists themselves.
While deconverting and often after deconversion atheists examine religious claims. However, we don't just examine, we often communicate what we found. We discuss it amongst ourselves, and this is often on the internet.
However, unlike the usual Bible study held in churches, these aren't restricted to what the "leader" wants you to read or discuss. We flip back and forth between topics. It can be subjects withint the religion in question that are contradictory, and quite often the similarities with other religions. While traveling from their original belief to atheism an atheist will often "experiment" with other religions, or at least investigate them. This gives many a broad range of knowledge in the differences and similarities between religions.
However, I think the main difference between atheists and believers is authority. There are some atheists who are more visible than others, but we have no leaders or authorities. Some are more respected, but if we disagree with them we won't hesitate to say so. It often happens on the post or during the discussion that they were having on the subject even. When was the last time you ever heard of a member of some congragation tell a pastor, preacher, or priest that there's another passage in their religious text that contradicts what the leader said?
In the atheosphere this leads to any discussion covering a broad range of knowledge, with everyone being able to contribute. We're encouraged to think for ourselves, examine what is being said, and contribute our thoughts to the discussion. However, if we disagree with what's being said we don't have to worry about being "excommunicated" from the group. As long as we have evidence to support what we said, and we're willing to change our minds if proven wrong, then no one has a problem with revolutionary thinking. It's how we grow, and, I think, one of our greatest strengths.
So I don't think atheists are more intelligent than the relgious, but I do think we're more open to exploration. Examining different religions doesn't challenge our faith, because we have none. Putting forth a different idea that contradicts the "leader" is encouraged if you find reason to believe they're wrong.
Atheism can be more than not believing in the existence of gods. To me, it's the sharing, discussion, and broadening of ideas. We don't depend on an "elite" to lead the discussion, we can all participate and put in our own ideas. Instead of only gaining what we have time to learn, we can share what we've learned with others and learn from them at the same time. If what is said is interesting to the individual they can do more research to add even more to the subject. It isn't restricted to the path the "leader" wants the discussion to take, but to the minds and discoveries of those involved.
Even in our everyday lives atheists listen to others beliefs. Sometimes, hopefully when circumstances dictate, we point out the inconsistencies or errors, but such beliefs also can create interest. We'll study what is said, not just from one source but from many. Looking for both the supporting and contradicting evidence. Even if the subject never arises with that person again, we still have that knowledge stored for later use and in many cases the subject will come up somewhere else. If it's among other atheists, we explain our research and what we found, pointing them to the relavent evidence.
For those steeped in organized religion it's the opposite. The "leader" will tell them what passages to read and explain to them what the passages mean, often ignoring the parts before and after the passage that can contradict the message. This goes for the sermon, as well as Bible study. There is no open exchange of ideas, and anything contradicting the lesson is either ignored, blown off, or outright discouraged.
Basically, it's not that any particular atheist is more intelligent than any particular religious person. It's just that the religious person only knows as much as their "leader", where an atheist draws upon the knowledge of other atheists, and everyone else he knows.
September 29, 2010
We've Got You Outnumbered
September 28, 2010
Show Me Your Divinity
Today the Pew Forum released a survey on religious knowledge, and it's got the atheist blogosphere buzzing. Both Hemant and PZ have done posts on it, and no atheists/agnostics are surprised at the findings. However, it's the tangent that interests me.
Some atheists are critical of the Gnu Atheists for criticizing religion without examining the latest arguments for the existence of God. It boils down to the courtier's reply. Larry Moran throws down the gauntlet and asks for the "very best 21st century, sophisticated (or not), arguments for the existence of God." I'm not expecting anything even remotely resembling an argument, let alone evidence, but I think Dr. Moran, Dr. Myers, and the others are doing it wrong. I think they're calling on the wrong people to provide the evidence. Why not tell God/YHWH/Jehovah/Allah/whatever itself that it needs to prove its existence.
Christian and other apologists are constantly resorting to philosophical, teleological, and scientific cherry-picking to support their claim that their deity of choice exists. However, considering the claim itself I think that's going about it all wrong. The fact that they are the ones who have to defend its existence seems to be evidence that it doesn't exist. It's almost... well, actually exactly like it's a figment of their imagination and they're trying to prove the existence of their invisible friend.
The solution is fairly simple; God needs to show itself. I'm sure Princess wouldn't mind, especially if it did the whole water into wine, and multiplying a loaf of bread and some fish (sticks) into enough to feed my family. That would be ample reason for me to believe that it's actually a deity, but with the caveat that it doesn't stop at Kroger on the way to my house. After eating, it can show me some miracles, we can have a little chat about which deity it actually is, the authenticity of the Bible/Koran/Torah/whatever religious text it authored, and then have an in-depth discussion on morality and ethics*.
Think of it like proving the existence of any creature. The first gorilla was described in 1847, but one wasn't observed in the Western world until 1861. The panda has a similar story. However, once they were shown to exist denying their existence was an exercise in stupidity. Granted, a deity has to go a little further, but the basis is the same. Show up, give me evidence of divinity, and then we'll chat a while. It's that simple. However, I feel the need to add some rules.
Showing up and knocking on my door for entrance won't cut it**. I would actually prefer that it suddenly appear out of thin air in my presence***. It should already know my address, where I am, and other details so it can pick the right time and place to appear. Be aware, doing so in the passenger seat while I'm on my way to work earns it extra points, unless it makes me wreck. Considering it's supposed to be omnipotent, it should know the best circumstances in which to make its dramatic entrance.
Also, the miracles needs to be actual miracles. It has to be something that actually requires divine intervention in order to happen. If it points to my daughters as evidence of a miracle I'm throwing it out on it's ass. Considering the deity's imnipotence, it would know what I would require to believe in it, so I won't go into details here. Although, having Sarah Palin come out as a gay atheist in support of socialized health care would be a decent start.
All the apologists can just stop trying, for all I care. I can understand attempting to defend your god's position, but when you have to defend the very existence of your deity then it becomes an exercise in futility. If God can't make an appearance it seems to me that it doesn't exist, or it's dead. Either way it's a lost cause. Perhaps it did exist at one time, but if it can't show itself to me now then even the concept of God is wrong.
So there you have it. What it would take for me to start believing in God, or any god. It actually wouldn't be that hard for a supernatural deity to make me believe in them. The difficult part would be it explaining to me why I should hold it in high regard.
* - Or any other subject which said deity wants to discuss.
** - If you knock (or break and enter) and tell me you think you're God, then prepare for a padded room.
*** - Major points for appearing as Charlize Theron.
September 24, 2010
Much Ado About Nothing: Ground Zero Mosque, Book Burning, and Bieber
This is the first of a series of posts I'm going to title "Much Ado About Nothing". They will cover, hopefully humorously, those non-issues that are just so ridiculous that I can't help but put in my thoughts on them. I hope to make people smile, chuckle, or laugh like I did when these thoughts occured to me.
Todays MANN covers the Ground Zero Mosque, book burning, and Justin Bieber. All are topics that would otherwise be relegated to the 'B' section of a local paper, except for people's propensity to over-inflate their egos.
The Ground Zero Mosque
Perhaps you've heard about the Proposed Not-Quite-a-Mosque Approximately Two Blocks from the Former Location of the World Trade Center. Yeah, I'm gonna call it Park51, because PNQaM~2BftFLotWTC is too long of an acronym. Anyway, it's apparently a big deal to a bunch of people. I'm not quite sure of the reason, but it seems to be... Aw hell, I won't even try to guess.
One thing talked about is the proximity of the mosque to Ground Zero. Unless you've lived under a rock for, or weren't born in, the last decade you'll understand some of the history. I have yet to hear if they decided on an actual area surrounding such an event that would make something acceptable. Perhaps they can turn it into a unit of measurement, like the Mark Twain. How about the "Mark Malefaction"? Crap, that would make it the acronym of "MM", which could be confusing. Let's make it the "Way Afar Hectares", then.
My view on Park51? I find it pointless, and calling it a community center is a bit misleading. Apparently, in order to be accepted you have to dress appropriately. I would think a community center would be accepting of outfits that fit with the legality of the locale. Other than that, I have no problem with it. I have as many issues with Park51 as I do with churches who spend a great deal of money on an overly loud sound system when that money could have been better used to help the needy.
Book Burning
In other news, a church down in Florida was going to hold a Burn a Koran Day. If people want to burn donated books, I'm not against it. However, as with Park51, I find it pointless for a couple of different reasons.
The main reason is the waste of burning the book. You can do what Jefferson did and go through the book, cutting out the parts that you find stupid, and turn it into something actually readable. Doing that is actually handy because you can then make a separate book of everything atrocious contained in it.
If there's no redeeming parts of the book, then burning it is even worse. All you're doing is replacing polution of the mind with polution of air. Try recycling, and hopefully the book will be reincarnated as something better.
Second is that in order for the burning of books to be legal, the books have to be purchased, or purchased and donated. In which case, the more people who buy the books the higher on the "best seller" list the book will become, even if no one is reading it. If enough people think a book should be burned, and mostly they haven't read the book either, it will push it up into the top ten, and then the rest of the nation will wonder why the book is so popular and start buying up copies that won't be burned. Next thing you know, an extremely bad book on sparkly vampires is on the best seller list, and no one quite understands why.
Okay, I jest, slightly, but do you have a better explanation for the Twilight phenomenon?
Justin Bieber
Speaking of Twilight*, have you heard about Justin Bieber? From what I understand, he's some famous guy who's friends with Usher. He also joked about dating Kim Kardashian, and she got death threats. It seems the best way to bring out the ire of the (pre-?)adolescent homo sapien female is to trash her romantic dreams that are based on a very loose grasp of reality.
Maybe a warning, like the "explicit lyrics" content one, should be put on Mr. Bieber's music.Warning: "Bieber Fever" may cause delusions in "fan"atics.
Unless you actually hang around them, entertainers aren't your "BFF", "BF", or GF". Even if you did meet them, the odds are that you would be disappointed in the reality as opposed to the fantasy that you've built up in your head. So when you hear about them dating someone, don't be angry. Do what everybody does when they have to deal with someone they once liked moving on. Sell all of those momentos in a yard sale.
Let's review...
1) The Ground Zero Mosque is pointless but it isn't on Ground Zero and it isn't actually a mosque.
2) Book burning is a waste. Please recycle instead.
3) That entertainer you are so in love with may not be the person you think they are.
There you have it, some of my thoughts on subjects of no concern. Hopefully, I've brought at least a smile to your face, but if I've made you think, even better. Until next time, this is the non-news.
* If you don't understand the segway, please Google Team Edward Team Jacob.
September 23, 2010
Calling All Moderate Christians
Whenever someone points to the stupidity, let alone ritual cannibalism, involved in communion you'll invariably hear a "moderate" claim that the majority consider it symbolic. When biblical literalism is criticized you have those who say that the majority consider the Bible symbolic. Criticize the WBH's stance on homosexuality and you'll hear that the majority of Christians are "live and let live".
In all of those cases, I call BULLSHIT. The easy way to get away with the claim is to say that you're the "silent" majority. It's impossible to verify what the majority believes if they don't ever talk, and judging by the woeful lack of criticism from within Christianity the majority must only speak while in a vacuum chamber.
If you ever hear someone say that most Christians don't believe that the eucharist is literally the body and blood of Christ, then they could be telling the truth. Why is that? Because if you don't believe that you literally "receive the very body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ" then you aren't Catholic. That doesn't necessarily mean you aren't Christian, but that isn't what's being criticized. The belief itself requires a degree of insanity that I find extremely troubling, let alone the disgust I feel at cannibalism. However, if you are a "moderate" Christian and sit idly by while the True™ Catholics spew vitriol and threats over a tasteless cracker, biscuit or whatever the hell it is, then you are useless.
If you consider the debate as to whether the eucharist is symbolic or not out of your league, what about formerly-Cardinal Ratzinger's stance on condoms and AIDS, homosexuals, etc.? Those directly impact actual people, and there's no question of it. The use of a condom helps prevent AIDS, and homosexuals are people, too. If you stay the "silent" majority through that then I have to wonder how "moderate" you truly are.
What about biblical literalism; why should the "moderate" Christian care about that? The answer is simple, and impacts a great many more than you would expect. Education. "It's just a theory" and "teach the controversy" have almost become a rallying cry for those who want to get Intelligent Design/Creationism taught alongside the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, and other valid scientific theories. The status of science in schools is already attrocious in the US, but if we allow religion to get a foothold into science then it will get much worse.
Plus, there's a big push to change the US Constitution to better mirror the Christian principles the country was founded on. If that happens then I doubt your "moderate" views will be allowed any more than my irreverance.
The stance of the Westboro Baptist Church, who I refuse to link to, is that homosexuals are the cause of everything bad. However, they take it to the extreme. They protest the funerals of servicemen. Why? I can only assume that they reason the acceptance of homosexuality is why our soliders are dieing. It may be another reason, but I know their main point is the US's so-called acceptance of homosexuality. When the WBC is criticized and lumped in with Christianity as a whole you get the moderates who say that the majority of Christians aren't that way.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If the majority were actually accepting of homosexuality then DADT and same-sex marriage wouldn't be an issue. In both cases politicians will bow to their constituents when it comes to such things. They'll listen to the majority of those who will put them back in office when it comes to reelection. Which apparently means that either the politicians aren't concerned with another term, or they aren't hearing from enough voters to dissuade them from fighting over something so stupid.
So I'm issuing a challenge to all moderate Christians. Stop confusing apathetic cowardice for "live and let live". If the majority of you don't like the way someone is being treated by any Christian denomination stand up and be heard. Tell them you think they're wrong, and do so in as public a manner as you feel comfortable. Whether it be on a blog, or going to a church and countering everything that the preacher says. Stop being the "silent" majority, because being silent makes you the "useless" majority.
September 15, 2010
The Math of Morality: Other Variables
This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the possibility of other variables in the equation.
I've already spoke of revisiting the 'P' variable, because something about it seems off. However, there is also the possibility of other variables needing to be added to the equation. There are also some unnecessary variables that some will want to add to the equation.
There are some variables that may need to be added to the equation. I've tried to account for those additional variables, but, at the moment, I can't think of what those variables would be. Of course, if I had already thought of them they would have been included. Regardless, the addition of those variable should not affect the internal consistency of the results.
This is partially due to me working on this for an extended period of time. I need to take a little bit to step back and do other things before coming back to this again. Hopefully, when I do revisit it I'll be able to clarify it a bit.
The main issue that I'm not going to worry about are the unnecessary variables. The primary ones being government, society, religion, and the individual. None of these are necessary for morality, and in actuallity seem informed by morality itself. The issue is the lack of internal consistency within them.
With government the morality is defined by enacted laws. As an example of inconsistency, the federal law requires that all drivers and children wear a safety restraint. The details of additional requirements and when violators can be fined varies, but the basics are applied through 49 states. However, helmets are a different story.
Helmet laws are left up to the state, and whether the rider has to wear one varies state by state. Some states require all riders to wear one, and other only riders below a certain age. The inconsistency is that they don't want you going through the windshield, but they don't mind if your head bounces (or worse) on asphalt.
The inconsistency of society involves moral zeitgeist. To give an example, how acceptable would interracial marriages or homosexuality have been fifty years ago? The moral result of an action should not change over time if it's consistent. I can see caution over not knowing what impact an action may have on a particular aspect, but if the result comes from a kneejerk reaction by society (most of the time it's a combination of superiority and the "ewww" factor) then it is morally inconsistent.
The inconsistency of religion involves the application. As an example, I'll use Christianity. I'm not picking on Christians, because I'm simply more familiar with it than others. Regardless, one of the Ten Commandments regards murder (or killing, depending on translation). It basically says that you shouldn't do it. Well, everyone, with the exception of psychopaths, would seem to agree with that concept. However, the application of it is inconsistent. That book that compiles the laws of Christianity, the Bible, says that you shouldn't murder people, but in Leviticus it tells you to. If you can change the result of an action if it's done against someone you don't like then your moral equation is inconsistent.
The individual inconsistency is more subtle. Much like religion people allow biases to creep in when their applying their moral math. From judging the moral result of others actions all of the way to their own moral actions are impacted by that persons biases.
For instance, if someone has a quality that you don't agree with you will often attribute a lower morality score to an action than if they agreed with you. You see every action as having an ulterior motive associated with that belief. This also applies when you start applying other experiences to a persons actions. If a person shows even slight similarities to previous experience, you will shift your moral result to better favor your expectations.
The shift can be even greater when it comes to performing or judging your own actions. Knowledge of someone who's ideals you don't agree with can result in a sort of confirmation bias to the morality of your actions. If you didn't know the people involved, and their beliefs compared to yours, then often your actions or judgement would be different.
I won't even pretend that what I'm attempting will be accepted by everyone, or even a significant number. Even if it does go somewhere there will be those who reject the idea. However, I would consider not attempting it to be immoral. After all, one of the aspects of morality involves and impact to knowledge.
The Math of Morality: Putting It All Together
This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the morality of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'M'.
We've already covered 'E', 'N', and 'P', but this one is where they all come together. 'M' is the result of compiling the previous variables in an equation so you get a result.
We've already coveredE = L * I * A ^a + k * i
N = N - s
andP = 1, or N sub-[X] +1
Now, let's look at those variables in more detail.
If you look at the ranges of variables for 'E', you will find a possible range of-26 <= E <= 26
-26 could be the cold blooded murder of someone by pulling the trigger yourself without checking to find out they were actually innocent of the wrong doing you thought they'd done. 26 could be pulling someone from a burning car and having the knowledge of first aid to keep them alive.
For 'N' the value is only limited by population. That makes the current range0 < N <= 6.7e+9
This could also be made to include animals, but that's a topic too deep for this post.
Lastly we come to 'P'. This one I've been thinking more about and will probably revisit to revise and refine. However, as it stands the range can be1 <= P <= N sub-[X]+1
Theoretically that's the range, but the details are much more complex. That's why I'll need to revisit this one in another post.
So 'E', 'N', and 'P' combine together to give the result 'M'. The conclusion I've reached is thatM = E * N * P
Of course, this will need some refinement, and, as time allows, I intend on doing so.
The main reason I started this is my observation that people used a "quick and dirty" mental calculation to assess the morality of an action. Whether it's their own or the action of another. The best analogy I've been able to come up with is throwing a ball. If someone observes a ball being thrown, even for a relatively short amount of time, they can make a pretty good guess as to where the ball will be at a later time. It's how we can catch a ball thrown to us. The same seems true of morality. People will observe an action and do a mental calculation to cast a moral judgement on that action.
However, the analogy doesn't stop there. When calculating where a ball will land with math, it takes a larger number of variables than just speed and vector. Air resistance, wind direction, gravity, spin on the ball... Several things can affect the location of the ball at a given point in time, but, except in extreme circumstances, those additional calculations are unnecessary (and damn near impossible to do before the ball reaches it's stopping point). With morality many people will observe an action for a finite amount of time, and then declare the morality of it using only a small number of factors for their determination. Many times, they would include factors that had nothing to do with the action in order to reach their result.
This interested me. If basic morality is so similar, regardless of individual circumstances, how does it become so different when the scenarios become more detailed? Those doing the study I referred to in the inagural post referred to it as moral grammar, and I think I understand why. Much like language, influences in your life drive your view of morality. Where you were born, who you associated most with, your profession, etc. Many details of your life influence how you speak. With moral grammar you have society, government, religion, family, friends, and even your own experience driving your view of morality. Both end up with different languages, dialects, and even differences in word usage muddying the end result.
That's my reason for starting this endeavor. Math is considered a universal language, so it seemed reasonable to think that perhaps an equation would be better suited to find morality than using grammar.
September 13, 2010
The Math of Morality: 'P' for Proximity
This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the proximity of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'P'.
'P' is the value that denotes whether the person(s) affected by the action would have been involved in the effect if they had taken no action themselves. This one could be considered obvious, but I'll explain it for the sake of clarity.
First let me say that it is wrong to pull someone into a situation against their consent. Whatever you were trying to accomplish is negated by your forcing them into the situation against their will. Any action is an individual choice, and unilaterally forcing someone into an action is wrong, regardless of how noble your reasons may feel.
Second is that even if a person has the ability to take the action, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a moral imperative that they do. Individual circumstances make such a decision a helluva lot more complicated than just personal sacrifice. Now, onto the details.
'P' is a multiplier. However, it's a multiplier that denotes a moral penalty for involving someone in an action that wouldn't have been affected if you had not done so. Also, the penalty must be greater than the reward you would have received if the person had been involved. As with many other variables, this one will require a detailed post of its own, but not here.P = 1, or N sub-[X] +1
'P' equals 1 if the person was involved in the situation whether you had taken the action or not, and 'P' equals 'N sub-[X] +1' if your action involved them in the situation. 'N sub-[X]' denotes the number who received the opposite effect from you involving the uninvolved in your action.
To give an example to clarify it more, the study I spoke of in the first paragraph of my opening post on this talks about two situations. One involves a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", and the other would involve putting someone into the situation against their will. With my 'P' multiple, there would be a moral penalty for the sacrifice with the "needs of many scenario" but still a positive result, but by including the one person in your action against their will you negate all of the positive result and end up with only the negative for including that person in your action against their will.
To break it down into "bite size" you can think of it this way. In the first case a group of people or one could have died, but you made a conscious decision to sacrifice the one. Since the group was six, this means the morality result would have been the same as if you saved five. However, in the second scenario six people would have died and one wouldn't have if you'd taken no action, so if you threw the one in danger onto the tracks you didn't save the six, you just killed the one.
I will explain this in further detail in my next post, but this, in essence, is how to define the value for 'P'. In my next post I'll put 'E', 'N', and 'P' together so you an see the equation as a whole, but it won't stop there. As I said, morality isn't as simple as the Pythagorean theorem.
The Math of Morality: 'N' for Number Affected
This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the number affected by a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'N'.
While this may seem straight forward, it, of course, isn't. Otherwise I wouldn't be doing a post on it. The number affected may seem to relate to the impact variable, but that variable only applies to the individual affected. To find the number affected you have to find out how many received the same effect.
The number affected is an interger. The number can be an individual, a group, a select population, or everyone on Earth. However, all of these numbers are quantifiable. It may be difficult to do so, but the numbers can be found. Even if 'N' is a percentage of a group, then you can find out the total number of the group and multiply by the perecentage to get 'N'.
'N' can even be an estimate, in certain circumstances. What if it will affect those not yet born? This could be projected with the caveat that the one calculating let it be known that it's an estimate. The best bet is to use the numbers available at the time that the equation is being done, though.
Another caveat is that the person performing the action is not included in the ones affected. In effectN = N - s
Of course, this only applies to the effect that the person performing the action received. You wouldn't subtract the person from 'N' if they did not receive the effect.
Now, this part of the equation is fairly simple, but I felt the need to describe it because it will become important later on. Numbers matter, and large numbers really make a difference. As you'll see when I combine it all together.
The Math of Morality: 'E' for Effect
This is a continuation and expansion of my post "The Math of Morality". If you haven't read it, I would suggest doing so before reading on. This post covers the effect of a morally measurable action, which I gave the variable 'E'.
The effect of a moraly measureable action is more subtle than right or wrong. Was the action positive, negative or neutral, did it require temporary or permanent influence, was it intentional or accidental, how much knowledge was involved in the action, what was the intensity of the effect, and what did the action affect? All of this impacts the degree of the effect. In the rest of this post I will break these down to give you a better understanding of what I mean.
Keep in mind that when I speak of effect, it doesn't necessarily mean what the actual effect was. As an example, I'll use murder. Attempted murder has a better outcome than murder, but the intended effect was still for someone to die. The only difference is the one who didn't actually accomplish the murder was unsuccessful. Now, on to what makes up the effect.
The first component is what I call the litmus test, similar to the one used to test pH in chemistry. I've given this component the variable 'l' in homage to it, even. The test I use are what I call the "4Hs of Morality". They are Heal, Help, Hinder, and Harm. If the action heals or helps then it's a positive one, if it harms or hinders it's negative, but if it does none then it's neutral. If the action is neutral then there's no need to continue examining it.
The secondary component is influence, which I've given the variable 'i'. How much influence did the person have on the effect the action caused? Pushing it along has a greater effect on where a ball goes than just starting it rolling, or even nudging it as it rolls by. However, regardless of how much influence you had you are still at least partially responsible for where the ball ends up.
The tertiary component is aim, which I've given the variable 'a'. Was the person's aim to cause the effect, or was it accidental? As with influence, even if their aim wasn't for the ball to end up where it did, they still hold a measure of responsibility for where it rests.
The quaternary component is knowledge, which I've given the variable 'k'. What level of knowledge did the person who performed the action have? The information a person uses to influence their action directly influences the result. If you're knowledge is completely wrong then it will subtract from it, no knowledge at all will not affect it, and in-depth or scholarly knowledge will add to it. Taking an action based on erroneous information is completely counter to understanding the subject.
The quinary component is intensity, which I've given the variable 'I'. Intensity can be a measure of time, monetary value, Was the duration of the effect measured in minutes, hours, days, months, years, or permenant? The intensity can also be measured in percentage. However, to really explain this one you need to know the last one.
That leads us to the senary component of aspect, which I've given the variable 'A'. This gives a value of the aspect of the person affected. It can range all of the way from character to well-being. There are a few levels in between, but hopefully you get the idea.
That's broken down the variables that make up the effect, but now we get to the hard part; Giving values to those variables so they can be used in an equation. Some are simple numbers, but others will be more akin to variables such as the coefficient of friction. This will make some difficult, but, as I've said, I've been thinking about this for a while. I've done quite a bit of work for you. Now, off we go again.
'l', the litmus test, is one of the easy ones. It starts the equation on its path of positive, neutral or negative. SoL = 1, 0, -1
In spite of my criteria, the 4Hs, this one only defines if the effect was positive or negative. A combination of other variables will move the result further from zero.
'i', influence, is a bit more difficult to find. If a person doesn't influence the entire process they may still influence it at one juncture, or even more than one. For this one I think of each juncture as 0.1, with the entire process being 1. So if a person influences an effect at one juncture the influence is 0.1, twice is 0.2, etc. until you reach continuous influence which is 1.0. So0 <= i <= 1
Yes, this may be oversimplifying, but I'm refining the equation as I go. I'm also a fan of base 10 units.
'a', aim, is easier. At least, in some ways. The person could have caused the effect accidentally, through negligence, or on purpose. Each would still leave the person responsible for the effect, but accidental is less than negligence is less than on purpose. Soa = 0, 1, 2
Accidental would have the value of 0 which as an exponent would adjust the base to 1, negligence would have a value of 1 which would leave the base as the same number, and purposeful would be 2 which would multiply the base by itself.
'k', knowledge, is another difficult value to quantify. Here you have to examine the reasoning used by the person when they performed the action. I think of this as a percentage, similar to influence, but with a slight but important difference. The range of knowledge is-1 <= k <= 1
Finding what the person said or wrote while they were 'supporting' the effect, or questioning them afterward, could provide a look into their knowledge. If you are unable to get detailed knowledge of the person's understanding, you may have to rely on assumptions in your examinations. Examine everything they said or wrote during the process of the action, and compare it to what is known. If everything they said was completley in error, or questioning them afterward showed all of the information concerning the action was erroneous, then you give them a 'k' value of -1 (-100%). However, if they have scholarly knowledge of the subject and examination of it shows no errors then their knowledge is 1 (100%). I'll go into this, and other values, further in other posts.
'I', intensity, is fairly easy to quantify. Did the action have a localized effect? Again, you can break this down into percentages.0 <= I <= 1
Intensity applies to the aspect, which I'll be describing in the next paragraph. What was the percentage of the aspect that was affected? Of course, this applies only to the subject of the action, and not other parts, which will become important as I'll describe later.
Last but not least is 'A', aspect. What aspect of the person was affected? In order to be quantifiable there have to be restrictions. As such, I've broken the aspect down into five parts.
This one will definitely have it's own, and extensive, post. Notice that emotion doesn't rank in the system, because I find it to have a value of 0. When I'm examining an action, I look more into the actual effects than the perceived ones. As such, a value has to be quantifiable, even if it's difficult to do so. Emotion is much like pain, because it depends on how much pain a person has experienced previously as to what answer you will get. However, we know that a broken arm causes more actual damage than a surface bruise.
I've just broken down all of the components, or at least all of those I have thought about, that influence the effect. Just so I have them all in one place they are Litmus test:
Now comes the fun part. How do all of these fit together in an equation to give a value to the effect? For that we have to look at how each value will affect the result. Granted, this will mean that the variables I've shown won't be included in the equation in the order of introduction, but I also told you that what you're reading is in "real time". Basically as I work it out in my head you're reading my conclusions. So off we go, again.L = 1, 0, -1
Influence: i = 0 <= i <= 1
Aim: a = 0, 1, 2
Knowledge: k = -1 <= k <= 1
Intensity: I = 0 <= I <= 1
Aspect: A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
The conclusion I've come to is the litmus test, impact, aspect and aim are directly related to each other. L * I * A ^a
Then the result gets adjusted slightly according to the person's knowledge and influence.L * I * A ^a + k * i
SoE = L * I * A ^a + k * i
That makes up the part of the equation that concerns the effect, 'E'. Next I'll be covering the variable 'N'. As with 'E', things are not as simple as they seem, so stay tuned.
September 9, 2010
The Math of Morality
Basic morality is simple. All those things that hurt others are wrong, and all of those things that help others is right. It's even been shown, in a relatively recent study, that almost everyone has the same basic morals. Those studying it refer to it as a "moral grammar", but it seems to me that it's an equation. There's a finite number of details involved that form the variables, and the end result is either positive (X), neutral (0), or negative (-X).
However, for each individual variables get added to the equation as they mature. A combination of governmental laws, religion, society, family, and friends add variables until the equation becomes different for each person. In many cases the end equation isn't even internally consistent, because some variables can override others.
I'll admit that I have a preference for math over grammar. Math is precise, and its language doesn't have problems with translation, dialect, and definition. Regardless of the individual characteristics of a person the Pythagorean theorem still has all of the same variables, and everyone will get the same result when calculating it correctly. When trying to get a result you don't have to change any of the variables to fit with what those around you understand. (Note: Yes I understand that explaining an equation would require language, but I'm referring to the equation itself.)
The reason I think math can better define morality than grammar is the issue of internal consistency. When I visit my parents my dialect shifts. It's subconscious, but I use words differently, in ways that those where I grew up better understand. However, regardless of whether I'm at work, at home, or where I grew up equations remain the same. I like consistency, especially for something as important as morality.
I've done quite a bit of thinking about this. Since I became an atheist I've become much more introspective. One of the criticisms of atheism is that it provides no moral objectivity, which is true. However, I've come to realize that atheism itself is amoral. Actions, not beliefs, define morality, and atheism is simply the belief that no deities exist. Recognizing that, I started breaking down actions to figure out what components of an action shift the result on my moral scale. Here is what I've come up with.
The primary component would be effect, which I've assigned the variable 'E'. This value would also range from a negative to positive number, and it would correspond to how limited or extensive the effect is.
The secondary component would be number affected, which I've assigned the variable 'N'. This value is simply a measure of how many received the effect.
The tertiary component would be proximity, which I've assigned the variable 'P'. This value denotes whether those affected could have receieved the same effect if you had taken no action. Did your action involve them in the effect, or would they possibly have received the effect if you had taken no action.
Finally, the result would be the action's morality. I've assigned this the variable of 'M'. The value of this component would range from a negative to positive number. Since 0 would be an amoral result, then the further from zero the value is the more immoral or moral the action would be.
There you have it. My basic equation for morality. Of course, it's more detailed than that, but I intend on going deeper into each variable/value in future posts. With each variable I'm going to build the equation until I reach the final post where I'll give examples of how it applies.
I also fully expect that some will be insulted at this idea; that math can be applied to right and wrong. I'm also half-vulcan. Morals are a phenomena of interest to me, and regardless of what I find it will make them no less important. Besides, a fair number of people are already subconsciously doing what I'm attempting to quantify. They're applying math to morality, just in a more vague way. Otherwise, why would they use the term "values"?
September 7, 2010
External vs. Internal Terrorism
The simple definition of terrorism is
the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercionBasically using fear as a tool for control. If you asked someone in the US for an example of terrorism I believe the most likely answer would be flying planes into buildings. If you asked for multiple examples then planes, suicide bombers, and car bombs would probably come up. All of those are terrorism, but there's a more subtle version of terrorism that most don't think about.
All of the examples above involve external terrorism, an act of terrorism exercised against those outside your group. While heinous and inexcusable, external terrorism is nevertheless very effective. After it's used every parked car, every other person in a shopping mall, and ever plane you're about to board becomes a source of fear. However, in order for external terrorism to be possible you have to first resort to internal terrorism.
Internal terrorism is the use of fear to control those inside your group. Instead of car bombs, airplane missiles, and human grenades you use the fear of "The Other" (an outside group). For those terrorist acts listed above fear of the US, also referred to by some as the Great Satan, was used to gain volunteers for the suicide missions necessary to carry out those acts. Mix an unhealthy level of fear, a massive dose of brainwashing, dilution of free will, and X number of virgins and you have an internal group who's willing to carry out those external acts of terrorism. Without internal terrorism it would be impossible to execute external terrorism.
Internal terrorism doesn't have to result in external terrorism, though. Instead of physical acts of violence against the other, internal terrorism can influence social acceptance. Using internal terrorism to these ends has to be more subtle, at least to those inside the group. Say allowing it will take away your rights, they're a threat to family/Christian values, make some other bullshit up, and the flock is influenced to deny a whole group of "The Other" the right to marry.
Another difference between the two is the tools used. External terrorism is fairly obvious. The use of bombs, whether conventional or makeshift, guns, knives, or any other weapon to instill fear in a group outside your own makes it external terrorism. The tools for internal terrorism are more subtle and numerous.
Fear of stereotypes
Giving your group all of the information won't incite fear as much as only telling them what you want them to hear. Those of us who've studied philosophy and morality term this "lying through ommission", but perhaps the internal terrorists think of it as "plausible deniability". Take something that has a grain of truth if you squint, turn your head sideways, and stick your fingers in your ears and tell it to your followers/fellow members as if it's a fact. Such as
[Some] Homosexuals [and heterosexuals] are child molesters.
Anyone not for [government proxy led] prayer in [public] schools is an atheist [, or supports the First Amendment].or
There was a study done that shows a corrolation between autism and vaccinations [, that was later shown to use falsified data].In those cases there's a hint of truth, but when the details are added then it's shown there's no reason to fear. Of course, the internal terrorists want fear, so they leave the important parts out. That leads us to the next one.
Fear of knowledge
Almost everyone has a comfort zone, and few are willing to explore any distance beyond it. That comfort zone encompasses those with the same beliefs and ideals, and lets everyone else remain a mystery. If they don't know any details about "The Other" then the internal terrorist can utilize that ignorance to instill fear. The internal terrorist can make up anything they want and be fairly confident that those inside of the group won't investigate, or even question, the claim.
Homosexuality is a choice.
Atheists don't believe in anything.or
Vaccines contain toxins.A little investigation, or even contemplation, would make an individual question these claims. Is heterosexuality a choice, too? Do theists only believe in God? Apples contain cyanogenic compounds, but the amount is low enough that an apple a day won't make you call Poison Control. That leads us to the next tool.
Fear of questioning
I'm referring to some people questioning the basis for their morals. It's much easier to have someone of authority tell you right from wrong than to take the time to examine it yourself. If they have a book that codifies the rules then that's even easier, because you can also read the passages they cite as reasoning. However, it takes mental effort to get off your psychological ass and examine the basis for those rules. Why should that particular authority person more moral than others, what basis is used for claiming that book is actually a source for morality, and what if you discover something that conflicts with what you previously knew? When you spend your life basing your views of moral and immoral actions on a source outside of you then if that source is brought into question all of your past moral decisions become a house of cards. Look at them too closely and the entire stack can come tumbling down, leaving you with having to start over from scratch. It's much easier to not question and continue on in self-inflicted ignorance/denial, than to risk finding out you're wrong.
Fear of leaders
Perhaps you're familiar with Thomas Paine's saying, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Humans are social/pack animals. As such we look for those with leadership skills. We tend to undervalue our own decision making abilities and overvalue those in authority. Inside of a group we usually either follow their lead if we agree with them, or stay out of their way if we don't. The reasons for active participation or apathy can usually be attributed to socialization. Even if you stay out of the way you'll still belong to the social group, just on an outer perimeter. That's better than being completely cut off. That brings us to...
Fear of being singled out
As I said, humans are social animals. We don't just like interaction with others, we actually crave it. The more we insert ourselves inside of a group, and depend on them for acceptance, the more difficult it is to bring ourselves into conflict with them. Can you imagine anyone standing up at a gathering of like-minded people and asking, "Why do you think this?" Especially if they've invested years of their lives in those beliefs. What reaction would the others have to the one asking the question?
Fear of being rejected
Outwardly questioning or criticizing the beliefs of a group can have drastic effects, especially if you're inside of it. A huge portion of your social circle will suddenly become off limits, and all of those relationships you've spent years developing will suddenly disappear. In some cases you'll no longer be able to partake of a tasteless wafer and fruit juice on Sundays, but in others it can cost you your job. It's a sort of blackmail that relies on us not being willing to be alone.
This is probably a partial list, but these are the major tools I could think of. All of them have one thing in common, using our own fears against us. However, they take the small fear of the unknown and escalate it into a phobia.
I'll admit that external terrorism isn't as immoral as internal terrorism, but both are still immoral. Spreading a rumor about someone isn't as bad as beating them up isn't as bad as killing them, but all of those actions are still immoral. As with anything immoral, I also feel the need to point it out and criticize it.
Don't follow blindly. If someone in authority uses fear as a means of making you take action, question their motives. Shrug off that cloak of comfort and expose yourself to something new. In the process you'll likely find out that there's no reason to fear, and the leader you look up to is just as fallible as you are... maybe even more. Don't be afraid to stand up to them, either. The only way they can utilize your fear is if you allow it.
Fear, either subtle or overt, is the weapon of the terrorist, and if we give into it they win.
September 2, 2010
Scientific Misunderstandings #1: How Far Away was that Lightning Strike?
Picture this:
[There's heavy rain outside, with periodic flashes of lightning followed in a few seconds by the low rumble of distant thunder. One particular flash occurs five seconds later there's another rumble of thunder]I've read a few things similar, and even been present a couple of times when it was actually said. The thing is, it's wrong.
Person #1: It's getting closer. That was five miles away.
Person #2: I know it's getting closer, but why do you think it was five miles away?
Person #1: [Smiles at Person #2 like they are passing on some important knowledge] The thunder came five seconds after the lightning.
As with anything like this, the truth is much more complicated than it appears. You can guess at how far away the lightning was by how long it took the thunder to reach your ears, but Person #1 in this story doesn't know what they're talking about. Either they don't know the distance of a mile, the speed of sound, or either.
In the case of a mile I've already covered that, so I'll make it simple. It's 5,280 feet. I won't hold that against them, since most people don't know it anyway.
The speed of sound is more complicated. It's used as a measurement of speed, called Mach, but in reality that speed actually varies. If you just want to know the answer don't expand the post, but this is where it gets interesting.
Sound is vibration. Something starts the molecules vibrating in a localized area, and those vibrations spread out from that localized area. If there's someone around, those vibrations reach our ears and our brains translate the vibrations into something we can comprehend. (Scientific philosophical note: when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, it does make a sound. There's just no brains around to translate the vibrations.)
To produce vibrations into the air something has to interact with the air molecules. In some cases, the object itself vibrates. Like a guitar string, or even your layrnx. However, in the case of lightning and explosions it's the rapid change in localized pressure that create the vibrations.
For details you can go here, but essentially the air around a bolt of lightning is really hot. So hot that we use the term super-heated. The approximate temperature is around fifty-four thousand degrees fahrenheit. Yes, you read that right. That fifty-four has three zeros that follow it. To give you a comparison, that's about six times hotter than the surface of the sun.
When you heat air up it expands. In this case, it expands really fast. That expansion of super-heated air transfers to the surrounding cooler air producing a shockwave that creates the vibrations your ears translate into sound.
Calculating the speed of sound is complicated... really complicated. Fortunately, all we're concerned with is the speed of sound through air, so it's much simpler. The equation basically breaks down to:
v = 331m/s + 0.6m/s/C * TSo the only variable you have to know is temperature, but why does temperature affect the speed of sound?
v = speed of sound
T = temperature in celsius
(Don't like metric? This website will show you USsom units.
The answer is that sound and temperature are related. Vibrations and heat are both forms of kinetic energy. Since the higher temperature means the molecules contain more heat they are able to vibrate faster, so they can transfer the sound vibrations more efficiently. As an example, from 0 degrees F to 70 degrees F the speed of sound increases by about 78 feet per second (53 mph). That may be nearly highway speeds, but when you take into account that the actual speed of sound at 70 degrees F is 1,129.5 feet per second (771 mph), that's slightly less than a 6% change. Not negligable, but not drastic either.
All right, if you're an aerodynamicist having an accurate speed of sound, which they refer to as Mach, can be very important. However, we're only trying to figure out how far away that lightning actually was.
So, we'll divide the speed of sound (1,129.5 fps @ 70 deg. F) by the number of feet in a mile (5,280), and we get a result of about 4.7. That's how many seconds it takes sound to travel a mile under these circumstances. You can round it to five which makes it easier to calculate, because then each second is two tenths (0.2) of a mile.
So, using our opening example, Person #1 thought the lightning was 5 miles away, but now you'll know it's less than a mile away. Not only are you now better educated than they are, but you also know to get somewhere safe. There's a storm almost on top of you, for crying out loud!
September 1, 2010
The Awesome Bad Universe
This past Sunday night, at 10 pm locally, Bad Universe finally aired. If you haven't heard about the show, or what it's about, let me fill you in on some of the backstory.
Phil Plait, the host of the show, is an astronomer. He's also the author of Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies, a blogger, and a debunker. I first discovered his original Bad Astronomy website several years ago, and have been a regular reader ever since. This past year, my wife bought me both of his books, and I devoured them in three days. I even stood an egg on it's end just after Christmas (read Bad Astronomy to get the reference).
So when I heard he was coming out with a TV show, Bad Universe, I was overjoyed. When I saw the previews, and the similarities to Mythbusters, it was like discovering that not only was Santa real, but you're his favorite nephew.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to watch it on Sunday night, but I have a DVR. As soon as I got my chores done on Monday, I sat down in front of the TV to watch BU. Well, the twins were having none of that, so I postponed it for when we put them to bed. Finally, we fixed Peep and Boo's nightcap and Princess and I sat down on the couch to be enterained by the Bad Astronomer while waiting for them to fall asleep.
I wasn't disappointed. The show is based on his last book, Death from the Skies. In the book he goes through various astronomical phenomena that could have a drastic effect on us Earthbound bipeds. One of those scenarios was a meteor/asteroid/comet impact. That was the topic for his first show.
It starts off with a cartoon style title sequence. For those who've read DftS, you'll recognize several of the scenes there. The art itself has the feel of dark but humorous, which I think could also accurately describe the show itself. I thought it was a great lead-in to the show, and even though I'd seen it before I still watched it to see the little details I missed.
The show itself deals with scientific subjects, but isn't heavy on science. I think of it as sneaky-science. You're entertained but you also learn something without actually realizing it. I won't go into any spoilers, but he does several experiments to show the effect of an Earth impactor, as well as the effects of different methods of NEO deflection. Including the one that just doesn't work.
There's more detail to the show, but I would recommend that you watch it to see it. I'm assuming (and hoping!!) that the show will actually air again, though. Even better would be more episodes. I'm a big fan of science shows (Wonders of the Solar System is one of my current faves), and the sneaky-science shows like Mythbusters. Having another one to look forward to watching won't bother me one bit.
Now, as I said, Princess watched it with me, so what was her take on it? Paraphrasing:"I enjoyed it, but he isn't as enthusiastic as Adam [Savage]." (Yes, my wife enjoys Mythbusters, too.)
I have to agree with her. Perhaps it was the hectic schedule, or even nerves, though. If I remember correctly, even Adam was more subdued during the first episodes of Mythbusters. However, now Adam's enthusiasm has become an integral and entertaining part of Mythbusters, and has only added to an already awesome show.
I can only hope that Phil gets his chance to show his personality more, and his enthusiasm (passion) for all things astronomical. In order to do that Discovery Channel needs to air more shows. I know I'd be sitting down to watch it.
