Eu-logy: speaking only well or nicely. Usually associated with a dead person.
The concept of eulogy is contradictory with the concept of truth. This site is dedicated to truth and its pursuit, so eulogy is not a part of that. Especially with regard to Edward "Ted" Kennedy.
Like many of my generation, when I think of Ted Kennedy I immediately think of Mary Jo Kopechne. If you are younger, you might not even have heard that Kennedy drove off a bridge, leaving Kopechne in the submerged car to die as he walked away. The raging moral and physical cowardice shown by Ted Kennedy in his lack of concern for the dying Kopechne has always cancelled out his bloated, bleating moral aggrandizement of his political programs.
He is actually not worth my time, except as an example of the moral dry rot of the self-righteous Left which is not just eulogizing Kennedy but attempting to transform him into a man-god. But I will point you to a website that explains more of this, including Kopechne's long death, asphyxiating (not drowning) while Kennedy walked off in search of an excuse.
Addendum:
More here from NRO.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Intelligent Design Takes a Hit
This article in Wired demonstrates the precise reason that I don’t endorse Intelligent Design. Apparently Michael Behe has used the protein transport mechanism as an example of “irreducible complexity” and from there proposed that an intelligent designer was involved. It really should be obvious, one would think, that proposing an inference based on a lack of data is actually a worse gamble, probabilistically, than making the original radical inferences for evolution.
The problem comes when the artifacts of the components of the machinery are found in unassembled form in earlier creatures. Finding the components of the “irreducible complex” machinery always emboldens the evolutionists to claim that all that was needed for the machine to exist was time… deep time, the magic elixer of evolution.
This is the point where I.D. proponents must rely on probability to determine that the likelihood of self-assembly of loose components running around accidentally forming into a new, valuable function such as protein transfer is smaller than miniscule. But that argument never gains traction with the deep time crowd. (Not that any I.D. argument ever would).
The point is that I.D. arguments are both inferential AND falsifiable, in a very loose use of that term.
I.D. is doomed, for the reason that it can never be proven, and it frequently can be disputed if not disproved outright. I.D. just doesn’t know how it will be disproved in any given case. But of course that is true of evolution, too, with its mountain of inferences and not one single experimental verification. Both are completely speculatory.
So I don’t support either one.
The problem comes when the artifacts of the components of the machinery are found in unassembled form in earlier creatures. Finding the components of the “irreducible complex” machinery always emboldens the evolutionists to claim that all that was needed for the machine to exist was time… deep time, the magic elixer of evolution.
This is the point where I.D. proponents must rely on probability to determine that the likelihood of self-assembly of loose components running around accidentally forming into a new, valuable function such as protein transfer is smaller than miniscule. But that argument never gains traction with the deep time crowd. (Not that any I.D. argument ever would).
The point is that I.D. arguments are both inferential AND falsifiable, in a very loose use of that term.
I.D. is doomed, for the reason that it can never be proven, and it frequently can be disputed if not disproved outright. I.D. just doesn’t know how it will be disproved in any given case. But of course that is true of evolution, too, with its mountain of inferences and not one single experimental verification. Both are completely speculatory.
So I don’t support either one.
Richard Dawkins’ War On the “40Percenters”
“Historydeniers!”; “40percenters!” [1]; those are the Ad Hominem Abusives of the new Dawkins battlefront: history as Richard Dawkins decrees it is not to be denied. To deny evolution is unconscionable: evolution is fact and is the backbone of biology which is the foundation of science and all truth in the universe. Maybe all the universes. Maybe it’s even more true than that. It certainly is in Dawkins’ universe.
Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.
But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:
First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.
Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.
The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.
The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.
The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.
Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.
Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of "sufficient inference" coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.
Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.
Richard Writes A Book:
Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.
The excerpt from Dawkins’ new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.
What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.
[1] Dawkins cites 40% of the U.S. population as being “creationist”. These he calls "40percenters" and labels them "historydeniers".
Comparing the “fact” of evolution to the fact of the size of the moon being smaller than the earth, Dawkins clearly goes out of his way to obscure the difference between measurable facts vs. non-measured inferences, experimental data vs. conjecture. Or perhaps he truly doesn’t know the difference, being a life-long evolutionary proponent who has never been forced to be subject to actual experimental proofs of his proclaimed scientific “facts”. He does admit that all the evidence for evolution is inferential, and he makes the standard claim that mountains of such conjecture make it fact.
But that is not true. It fails the basic tests of logic. Let’s run some tests:
First, Dawkins seems to think that declaring a tautology based on conjecture creates a truth, or at least a fact. First Principle #1 (identity or tautology) states that “If it is true, then it is true” . This is not the same as “If I declare it true, then it is true” . False tautology: Logic failure #1.
Next let’s try First Principle #2, which states that “a proposition cannot be both true and false”. Now, without experimental verification can we know if a principle is true or false, fact or fallacy? The Atheist / Materialist / Empiricist viewpoint is that evidence of a material nature is required in order to believe a thing. The evidence offered for evolution is inference: conjecture. This is not physical, material evidence, it is non-physical, non-material; moreover it smacks of being religious, a belief without empirical, experimental, substantive, material evidence. Dinosaurs? DNA? Do inferred relationships prove descent? Or are they conjecture? Clearly the latter.
The inference / speculation issue is one that Dawkins cannot dodge and cannot win, straight on. It violates the concept that science is the search for “what is” by inserting extrapolative speculation as a substitute for experimental data. It contradicts the concept of science itself. It fails the Non-Contradiction Principle hands down. Logic failure #2.
The third First Principle states that a “thing cannot be partly true and partly false”. Dawkins violates this by stating that evolution is true, when evolution is hardly even defined properly at this late date. We don’t need to understand mechanisms to know that it happened – is his response (elsewhere). Thus evolution is commonly compared to gravity, which we know exists without knowing the mechanism. But this is a false comparison; we can experimentally measure gravity but we cannot produce any experiments that even produce evolution much less measure it. So evolution falls back again onto “mountains of inference”, ie. conjecture, as its source of truth. Is evolution completely true? No one really knows other than accepting the religious stance that sufficient conjecture proves the case. So the third First Principle is an unknown and possibly unknowable source of validation or invalidation for evolution.
The only case made by Dawkins is the assertion of the sufficiency of inference and conjecture. He ignores the probabilistic issues surrounding evolution, especially the issues of first life: an existence philosophy limited to material causes requires a material cause for first life, an occurrence attributed to magical, fortuitous, undefined replicators in Dawkins’ earlier works. Also ignored is the problem of too-rapid evolution in the Cambrian period, a problem requiring special convolutions in speculatory inferences.
Dawkins’ real case is contained in his adjectives. He claims straight out that evolution is believed by “reputable” scientists, and “unbiased” readers of his book. If you disagree, you are designated a dreaded “historydenier” status, or the new pejorative, “40Percenter”. These Ad Hominem Abusives, hurled from an agenda-driven position of logical weakness, are a specialty of the Atheist Left, of which Dawkins is a prime example. If you cannot convince with logic, then first ridicule and second go for legal restrictions on non-congruent thought, such as removing children from homes of “historydeniers”, who Dawkins has previously declared are child abusers.
Dawkins does not use logic to seal his argument. He uses the religious credentials of "sufficient inference" coupled with ridicule and defamation of dissent and dissentors. He is a religious zealot selling a religious program which claims exclusive, absolute truth.
Dawkins has not yet slipped the reigns of rationality to the point of professing eugenic solutions for “historydeniers”. However, we should watch for that in the future, because his grip on logic and rational thought is virtually non-extant. Or maybe that idea is toward the back of his new book.
Richard Writes A Book:
Logic, principles of rational thought, discernment, critical thinking, the First Principles – all these are not taught or mentioned on Dawkins’ website, at least the last time I searched his “oasis of clear thinking”. They are presumed present due to the Materialism espoused there. But a perusal of Dawkins’ writings reveals not a familiarity with logic, but a rabid defense of a cherished agenda along with associated rationalizations in support of it.
The excerpt from Dawkins’ new book, "The Greatest Show On Earth" seems to indicate yet another step in the same direction. After inflating his own intellectual image with references to ancient Greeks, Romans and the Latin language, Dawkins gets to the meat of his pique: there are deniers out there: that’s just wrong! And the flow continues in that direction. Dawkins doesn’t pretend to use logic; he uses pejoratives, and that reveals the incredible rational weakness of his position. Despite this flaw he undoubtedly will sell a boatload of books, and the ridicule contained within will no doubt be satisfactory to convince a few others of his keen grip on ontology.
What is truly a shame about modern schools is not whether they do or do not teach that evolution is truth. What is a shame is that they do not teach the principles of rational discernment. And you can’t get that from Dawkins, either.
[1] Dawkins cites 40% of the U.S. population as being “creationist”. These he calls "40percenters" and labels them "historydeniers".
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Stopping ObamaCare For $10
Hugh Hewitt over at Townhall.com::Blog has one of the best ideas for a positive grassroots response that I have seen to date. His idea is based on the race for Harry Reid's Senate seat in Nevada, a race that Harry Reid is LOSING! Reid is 11 points behind his opponent, Danny Tarkanian.
Here's Hewitt's idea: Send Tarkanian $10. Then email Reid and tell him that if ObamaCare passes, you will support Tarkanian with even more donations. If this goes viral, the effect could be electric!
Here's Hewitt's page, here's Tarkanian's campaign website, and here's Reid's email.
If you send this on, think of the grassroots effect on both Reid and the Tarkanian campaign to remove Reid!
My donation and email to Reid are done.
Help this go viral: send it on!
Here's Hewitt's idea: Send Tarkanian $10. Then email Reid and tell him that if ObamaCare passes, you will support Tarkanian with even more donations. If this goes viral, the effect could be electric!
Here's Hewitt's page, here's Tarkanian's campaign website, and here's Reid's email.
If you send this on, think of the grassroots effect on both Reid and the Tarkanian campaign to remove Reid!
My donation and email to Reid are done.
Help this go viral: send it on!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Quote of the Day
In The Road to Serfdom, economist and political philosopher F.A. Hayek chastised the "socialists of all parties" for their belief that "it is not the system we need fear, but the danger it might be run by bad men." Today's "presidentialists of all parties" — a phrase that describes the overwhelming majority of American voters — suffer from a similar delusion. Our system, with its unhealthy, unconstitutional concentration of power, feeds on the atavistic tendency to see the chief magistrate as our national father or mother, responsible for our economic well-being, our physical safety, and even our sense of belonging. Relimiting the presidency depends on freeing ourselves from a mind-set one century in the making. One hopes that it won't take another Watergate and Vietnam for us to break loose from the spellbinding cult of the presidency.
Gene Healy, CATO Institute, "The Cult Of The Presidency" , June '08, Reason Magazine.
Evidence Based Health Care
The Enlightenment Left will claim, if asked, to be reason-based, rational and scientific, as opposed to the religious, faith-based Right. I have yet to come across an Atheist, secularist Leftist who actually understands either logic, rational thought processes, or the basic theory of evidence.
The desperate attempts to ram through a 1000 page, unread, government takeover of American health care is a case in point. In the attempt to do so, all evidence as to the nature of the program mandated by the bill(s) has been drowned out by self righteous cries of “moral imperative”.
When actual portions of the various congressional bills are brought to light, the providers of that actual evidence are called “liars”. When the impending collapse of Canada’s health care system is presented as evidence, the similarity of the unread congressional bills to Canadian care is denied. When the egregious rationing of the British Health Care system is offered into evidence, rationing is denied without evidence of financial stability of either the economy or the proposed health care system. What is the evidence that the supposed 45 million uninsured are even Americans?
Evidence is not part of the Left’s assault on the American way of providing health care: a fabricated morality is the justification. In fact, it is religious in nature, based purely on a convenient, temporary “moral” basis - the most onerous type of religious credulousness – one demanding obedience from all citizens.
Why no evidence offered up by the Enlightenment Left? Could it be that all evidence that is real, is negative? The financial evidence alone should be enough to sink the bills. The existing struggling Medicare system will be raided of one third of a Trillion dollars of money allocated to health care for seniors. The remainder of the funding has not yet been found. Yet there will be no rationing?
Rationality is never one of the Left’s strong points, and this time they have rationalized themselves into a position so weak that even total control of the U.S. government might not salvage their “moral imperative”.
When they fail, their bleatings will be couched in terms of morality, or rather the immorality of the opponents of their proposed government take-over. The religion of Leftism will become self-righteous to a breast-beating, screaming maximum. And they do self-righteous indignation so well. It should be very entertaining.
The desperate attempts to ram through a 1000 page, unread, government takeover of American health care is a case in point. In the attempt to do so, all evidence as to the nature of the program mandated by the bill(s) has been drowned out by self righteous cries of “moral imperative”.
When actual portions of the various congressional bills are brought to light, the providers of that actual evidence are called “liars”. When the impending collapse of Canada’s health care system is presented as evidence, the similarity of the unread congressional bills to Canadian care is denied. When the egregious rationing of the British Health Care system is offered into evidence, rationing is denied without evidence of financial stability of either the economy or the proposed health care system. What is the evidence that the supposed 45 million uninsured are even Americans?
Evidence is not part of the Left’s assault on the American way of providing health care: a fabricated morality is the justification. In fact, it is religious in nature, based purely on a convenient, temporary “moral” basis - the most onerous type of religious credulousness – one demanding obedience from all citizens.
Why no evidence offered up by the Enlightenment Left? Could it be that all evidence that is real, is negative? The financial evidence alone should be enough to sink the bills. The existing struggling Medicare system will be raided of one third of a Trillion dollars of money allocated to health care for seniors. The remainder of the funding has not yet been found. Yet there will be no rationing?
Rationality is never one of the Left’s strong points, and this time they have rationalized themselves into a position so weak that even total control of the U.S. government might not salvage their “moral imperative”.
When they fail, their bleatings will be couched in terms of morality, or rather the immorality of the opponents of their proposed government take-over. The religion of Leftism will become self-righteous to a breast-beating, screaming maximum. And they do self-righteous indignation so well. It should be very entertaining.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Moral Lectures from the Morality-Free
Obama once again declares a moral imperative. His health care take-over is moral; dissenters are liars. This is the essence of his message to the religious groups that Obama has approached in the last weeks.
Obama has spread abortion funding around the world. He has supported partial-birth abortion. He wants to kill DOMA, the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman. He lies about his positions on just about everything – from single payer insurance to his birthplace to his friendships and associations to his ethics as an Alinsky purveyor. So it is no surprise that he lies about morality – he has no concept of what morality is.
The Alinsky-Obama morality is clear. According to Alinsky, the only immorality is the failure to pursue a radical opportunity. And that is the sole morality of the radical Left. There is no accompanying examination of “means” for ethical or moral consideration: the “end” justifies any means whatsoever, including defaming the opposition as “immoral”. And that is just what a desperate Obama is doing.
So is it surprising that the idea of eliminating the “last year of life” of the elderly is part of Obama’s thought process? The savings produced by not providing care to the elderly would be significant, a concept not lost on the eugenist-in-chief, and certainly not his health advisors, such as Emmanuel, who has already decided the value of the lives of every person at every stage of his life. There is no morality involved in deciding whom to deny care; the decision is strictly utilitarian, based on the pre-calculated value of the life of that patient. If you think that this sounds familiar, re-read the book “The Nazi Doctors”, by Robert Jay Lifton… if you can stomach it.
The Emmanuel Human Life Value graph is shown here again, so that you can determine the value of your life, your baby's life, your parents and grandparents lives... and ultimately your life at life's end:
Obama has staffed an entire czarhood with morality-free Leftists. These individuals are quite comfortable in creating their own ethics-of-the-moment, convenient behaviors decreed by them to be moral, and even moral imperatives, at least at the moment they are uttered. Tomorrow, of course, these behaviors or programs might not matter in the least, but today they are moral and imperative.
Now Obama cronies are lecturing the public on “integrity’. David Axelrod is a professional lie-monger, and that is not a lie. He “repackages” issues to be presented to the public in a fashion that obscures the real intent. One of his clients was Michelle Obama who was trying to slick out a way to perform [illegal] patient-dumping in order to raise the bottom line at her hospital; Axelrod recommended “rebranding” the issue to make it palatable to the poor blacks who were being turned away in favor of more lucrative patients.
This is the same Axelrod who “repackaged” a huge utility rate hike, using fear mongering ads predicting power outages a la California, and promoting rate hikes through a front group he called “Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or Core” - failing to declare that the ads were paid for by Commonwealth Edison, the beneficiary of the rate increase.
This is the same Axelrod whose son now runs the Axelrod firm, AKPD, which is still paying the elder Axelrod, and which is paid to develop ads for at least two front organizations for PhRMA for supporting ObamaCare: profiting from the drug organization that hopes to profit from ObamaCare. This is integrity, Obama-style, Chicago-style, Alinsky-style.
The idea of Axelrod lecturing on Integrity is ludicrous at any and all levels.
Much of the USA subscribes to a different type of morality, one of higher derivation, one that is absolute and not convenient, one that has a real integrity. Perhaps it is this conflict of moral basics that is helping to drive Obama and his Leftist cronies into sub 50 percentile approval ratings, and Democrat congressmen into hiding.
Obama has spread abortion funding around the world. He has supported partial-birth abortion. He wants to kill DOMA, the restriction of marriage to a man and a woman. He lies about his positions on just about everything – from single payer insurance to his birthplace to his friendships and associations to his ethics as an Alinsky purveyor. So it is no surprise that he lies about morality – he has no concept of what morality is.
The Alinsky-Obama morality is clear. According to Alinsky, the only immorality is the failure to pursue a radical opportunity. And that is the sole morality of the radical Left. There is no accompanying examination of “means” for ethical or moral consideration: the “end” justifies any means whatsoever, including defaming the opposition as “immoral”. And that is just what a desperate Obama is doing.
So is it surprising that the idea of eliminating the “last year of life” of the elderly is part of Obama’s thought process? The savings produced by not providing care to the elderly would be significant, a concept not lost on the eugenist-in-chief, and certainly not his health advisors, such as Emmanuel, who has already decided the value of the lives of every person at every stage of his life. There is no morality involved in deciding whom to deny care; the decision is strictly utilitarian, based on the pre-calculated value of the life of that patient. If you think that this sounds familiar, re-read the book “The Nazi Doctors”, by Robert Jay Lifton… if you can stomach it.
The Emmanuel Human Life Value graph is shown here again, so that you can determine the value of your life, your baby's life, your parents and grandparents lives... and ultimately your life at life's end:
Obama has staffed an entire czarhood with morality-free Leftists. These individuals are quite comfortable in creating their own ethics-of-the-moment, convenient behaviors decreed by them to be moral, and even moral imperatives, at least at the moment they are uttered. Tomorrow, of course, these behaviors or programs might not matter in the least, but today they are moral and imperative.
Now Obama cronies are lecturing the public on “integrity’. David Axelrod is a professional lie-monger, and that is not a lie. He “repackages” issues to be presented to the public in a fashion that obscures the real intent. One of his clients was Michelle Obama who was trying to slick out a way to perform [illegal] patient-dumping in order to raise the bottom line at her hospital; Axelrod recommended “rebranding” the issue to make it palatable to the poor blacks who were being turned away in favor of more lucrative patients.
This is the same Axelrod who “repackaged” a huge utility rate hike, using fear mongering ads predicting power outages a la California, and promoting rate hikes through a front group he called “Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or Core” - failing to declare that the ads were paid for by Commonwealth Edison, the beneficiary of the rate increase.
This is the same Axelrod whose son now runs the Axelrod firm, AKPD, which is still paying the elder Axelrod, and which is paid to develop ads for at least two front organizations for PhRMA for supporting ObamaCare: profiting from the drug organization that hopes to profit from ObamaCare. This is integrity, Obama-style, Chicago-style, Alinsky-style.
The idea of Axelrod lecturing on Integrity is ludicrous at any and all levels.
Much of the USA subscribes to a different type of morality, one of higher derivation, one that is absolute and not convenient, one that has a real integrity. Perhaps it is this conflict of moral basics that is helping to drive Obama and his Leftist cronies into sub 50 percentile approval ratings, and Democrat congressmen into hiding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)