"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Thomas Sowell.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
The Brown Shirts Are Purple: the New War on Dissent
SEIU. Remember those initials. On one level they stand for “Service Employees International Union”. On another level they stand for physical thuggery and violence.
Even as the Obamacrats call the teaparty protesters Brownshirts and Nazis, the real Brownshirts are being refocused from intimidating corporations with attempts to destroy them, to taking up Obama’s call to take care of the protesters. This means that physical contact will be happening and will be blamed on the “radical right”.
The SEIU contributed some $61 Million to Obama’s campaign. As Michelle Malkin writes,
How is this different from the Brownshirts who bullied, threatened and physically assaulted their opponents? For that matter, the sanctioning of the blacks carrying weapons at the ’08 polling place was the start of the matter; force is sanctioned, and approved at the highest level of the U.S. Department of Justice, how is that different from the NAZI Brownshirts?
What can we take from the aggregate of these events? The single party unchecked power will be, and is, being exercised beyond constitutional and ethical limits. This is no surprise, since the single party in power believes that the constitution is a malleable source of weak suggestions, not to be taken seriously; and they have the raw-power ethics of an Atheist Alinsky. They are totalitarian statists, and they will not stop at thuggery to get the total control that they want.
They have declared war on dissidence: and that is the congruence with Fascism and the Brownshirts under Adolf Hitler.
Even as the Obamacrats call the teaparty protesters Brownshirts and Nazis, the real Brownshirts are being refocused from intimidating corporations with attempts to destroy them, to taking up Obama’s call to take care of the protesters. This means that physical contact will be happening and will be blamed on the “radical right”.
The SEIU contributed some $61 Million to Obama’s campaign. As Michelle Malkin writes,
Obama called for doubling the counterattack, virtually assembling an unsanctioned army of thugs (in purple) who fill the town halls and actually physically assault those who speak out against the socialized health/death plan of the One.
“…the Service Employees International Union’s $61 million investment in Barack Obama paid off with cabinet appointments, executive orders, key personnel slots, and legislative goodies.
Now, the SEIU thugs are looking out for The Boss. In Tampa, Florida and St. Louis today, the Purple People turned out to give cover to members of Congress targeted by Tea Party activists and town hall protesters. For the first time, the town hall protests were marked by physical aggression. More on the St. Louis arrests of confrontational Obamacare activists here. (Just like Obama wanted: “In your face.”) This is no coincidence.”
How is this different from the Brownshirts who bullied, threatened and physically assaulted their opponents? For that matter, the sanctioning of the blacks carrying weapons at the ’08 polling place was the start of the matter; force is sanctioned, and approved at the highest level of the U.S. Department of Justice, how is that different from the NAZI Brownshirts?
What can we take from the aggregate of these events? The single party unchecked power will be, and is, being exercised beyond constitutional and ethical limits. This is no surprise, since the single party in power believes that the constitution is a malleable source of weak suggestions, not to be taken seriously; and they have the raw-power ethics of an Atheist Alinsky. They are totalitarian statists, and they will not stop at thuggery to get the total control that they want.
They have declared war on dissidence: and that is the congruence with Fascism and the Brownshirts under Adolf Hitler.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Healthcare: A Right Or A Privilege Or An Entitlement?
There was a demonstration yesterday FOR federally enforced health care in our nearby city, the bigger one with the TV stations. The four-person demonstration was actually a family which has a child that cannot qualify for insurance due to a serious pre-existing condition. TV covered them more than the town hall proceedings inside.Pre-existing conditions have always been disallowed out of fairness to the patrons of insurance that use it for it’s intended purpose, which is to enter into a cooperative agreement with similar people to place money into a pool as a hedge against the possible future need for expensive health care; the cost is determined at a probabilistic rate.
For a person with a pre-existing condition to enter that insurance agreement with the knowledge that they would immediately take out of the pool far more than they would ever put in, has been considered not just bad business for the members of the pool, but also fraudulent on the part of the person with the condition, who is using other people’s money to cover their own problem.
But in the all new America where outcomes are guaranteed to be equalized, every person now apparently has a right to every privilege that is available, regardless of either their ability or intent to pay for that privilege. That was the basis for the sub-prime mortgage glut that ultimately brought the entire world’s economy to its knees: it was declared that everyone should own a home regardless of whether they could afford it or intended to pay for it.
But is that colossal mistake enough to cause reconsideration of the Principle of Equalized Outcomes which the Left reveres and pursues frantically? No, not a mere recession or even a depression could cause reconsideration. The Left accepts no culpability; they assign guilt to others and use the opportunity to seize more federal control to control those whom they blame. And then they look for the next equalization opportunity.
The next best thing to mortgage equalization is health care equalization, which is now being referred to as a “right”.
As a right, how did healthcare come to bestowed this distinction? Certainly not by God, since there is a separation keeping God in his place, and out of the Left’s way. No, the new “rights” are bestowed by the new gods: the Leftists themselves. And “rights” far exceed the power and glory of “entitlements”, which include only such things as payback for Social Security confiscations made from a lifetime’s earnings. Such entitlements are revocable and without respect, as we see when Social Security funds are raided time and again, and now, Medicare benefits will be reduced in order to fund the new, gods-given “rights”. The new “rights” are far more powerful than the older entitlements.
The demonstrating woman on the street wailed into the TV camera, “My daughter has a RIGHT to health care!”, and the TV news dutifully carried her pain to the masses.As Alinsky might have put it, “We have whatever rights we can seize and hold; there are no other rights”. These all new rights, if actually bestowed, will reduce life’s benefits for the responsible, who again will pay for the irresponsible.
Is there a moral urgency to force taxpayers to pay for indigent children with serious health conditions? The question should be answered by taxpayers, who would need to enter into a new social contract in order to provide such care. I personally feel that special cases should, indeed, have recourse to special treatments. But that is a contract, not a right.
When my wife and I visited Xian, China shortly after the Tienanmen Square massacre, we took a long walk inside the ancient city walls. We were in a place that had seen almost no whites, where mothers brought their children out to stare at us, and a small crowd followed us around to see what we would do. Burned into my memory is this: sitting on a curb was a man and a woman with a deformed child and a tin can, begging for help for the child. When I think of equalized health care, that is what comes to mind.
The ultimate equalized outcome and right is the right to be impoverished, and with equal poverty at that, unless of course you are one of the elite masters. In other words, all your rights boil down to this: you have the right to be equalized.
A panicky president who wants a 1000 page bill approved immediately and without even being read, a healthcare bill written by an avowed eugenicist and totalitarian, is definite cause for rejecting the bill out-of-hand, and demanding a slow, deliberate, transparent approach to the issue, instead.
The government of the USA is wildly out of control.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Rising Fear of Town Halls...
The "teaparties" and town hall outbursts definitely have the Leftists very worried, to the extent that many of the Alinsky tactics are being employed to fight back.
The idea that dissent is now unpatriotic is becoming a main theme, never mind the pre-election idea that dissent was very patriotic. It depends entirely on who is in charge, and who is dissenting, you see. It's a class issue, and current dissenters are in the wrong class.
And it is becoming common to call the dissenters "paid thugs" and "fascists". The class issue seems to be prevalent here, too, since worse activities including property damage, intimidation with weapons, breaking and entering are all considered legitimate, if the actors are ACORN or black supremacists.
Dissent: no longer just for Leftist Alinsky wackos....
UPDATE:
Pelosi says dissenters are "carrying swastikas", and Dogget calls them "mobs". Of course they would say that. They're scared of the grassroots at work.
UPDATE 2:
(From realclearpolitics) The DNC is running this ad, trying to spin the lie into the public consciousness:
The idea that dissent is now unpatriotic is becoming a main theme, never mind the pre-election idea that dissent was very patriotic. It depends entirely on who is in charge, and who is dissenting, you see. It's a class issue, and current dissenters are in the wrong class.
And it is becoming common to call the dissenters "paid thugs" and "fascists". The class issue seems to be prevalent here, too, since worse activities including property damage, intimidation with weapons, breaking and entering are all considered legitimate, if the actors are ACORN or black supremacists.
"In a fight, anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a blow lands above the belt", Alinsky, Rules For Radicals, p129/130.If there is any fascist activity it is here: the U.S. government has requested that dissenters to the health/death plan be turned in; the U.S. government has now declared that protesters should be photographed, identified, and "interviewed", ostensibly to determine if they are paid agents of ... bad guys. Government intimidation of dissenters is just very, very Leftist.
Dissent: no longer just for Leftist Alinsky wackos....
UPDATE:
Pelosi says dissenters are "carrying swastikas", and Dogget calls them "mobs". Of course they would say that. They're scared of the grassroots at work.
UPDATE 2:
(From realclearpolitics) The DNC is running this ad, trying to spin the lie into the public consciousness:
The Congressional Democrats placed a gag order on the release of the process diagram for the health/death plan which the Congressional Republicans wanted to send out to their constituents. For reasons unknown to me they reversed the gag order, and are allowing this information out to the public.
If you think that government run insurance will save money, consider the cost of the bereaucrats that will staff these functions. Consider also the time that it will take to negotiate this maze, and the liklihood that it will actually benefit you.
The Obama-forced destruction of the insurance industry is not a good thing.
If you think that government run insurance will save money, consider the cost of the bereaucrats that will staff these functions. Consider also the time that it will take to negotiate this maze, and the liklihood that it will actually benefit you.
The Obama-forced destruction of the insurance industry is not a good thing.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
500th Post
This is the 500th post to this blog, which has been active for 21 months. The focus of the blog has varied some from its original intent, with the national advent of the domination of political power by the (now unabashedly socialist) Democrats. In terms of Atheism, the socialistas now in power are not, generally speaking, willing to admit their lack of religious guidance or morals in general, and are in fact faux Christians and heretical Catholics. But their objectives and tactics betray their allegiance to the likes of Saul Alinsky, Atheist provocateur and ethical reductionist. Obama, of course, taught Alinsky tactics right out of the book during his Chicago days as an organizer/agitator.
The month of August will be devoted to the Alinsky tactics of demonizing the enemy in public forums. This time the enemy is the insurance industry, which the Obamacrats are intent on destroying in the public mind, in their march toward government health and death control.
And the mindless Leftist satirists are hard at their ad Hominem work trying to find new synonyms for "stupid" when referring to the opposition:
If you still haven’t read “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, I encourage you to do so, and quickly. Once you have become familiar with the ethics and tactics outlined there it will be easy to see them in play in the administration and Congress and the MSM, virtually every day. It's an all-new Alinsky America.
The month of August will be devoted to the Alinsky tactics of demonizing the enemy in public forums. This time the enemy is the insurance industry, which the Obamacrats are intent on destroying in the public mind, in their march toward government health and death control.
"The organizer... must first rub raw the resentments of the people in the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression." Alinsky, Rules For Radicals (RFR), pg 116.There is little doubt about it. Pelosi has already started the name calling. The White House is demonizing Drudge for the release of video with Obama calling for single payer insurance. Television commercials have already begun. The fear mongering is based on lies, of course, but as Alinsky said, any tactic is justified if the end goal is worth it.
Alinsky's thirteenth rule of tactics:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." RFR pg 130.
Alinsky's eighth rule of tactics:
"Keep the pressure on", RFR pg 128.
Alinsky's seventh rule of tactics:
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag", RFR pg 128.
Alinsky's third rule of ethics:
"...in war the end justifies almost any means" RFR, pg 29.
"The opposition's means, used against us, are always immoral and our means are always ethical and rooted in the highest of human values", Alinsky, RFR pg 29.
And the mindless Leftist satirists are hard at their ad Hominem work trying to find new synonyms for "stupid" when referring to the opposition:
Alinsky's "humor" tenet:The Alinsky ethic, the ethic of the Left which is now in control, is to win by using any method whatsoever. In other words, an Atheist ethic; totally relevant to no morality at all, except those issues chosen by the Left to be denoted as “fierce moral imperatives” And those "fierce moral imperatives" are abandoned at a moments notice, as need be.
"...the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule", RFR pg 75;
Alinsky's fifth rule of tactics:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon", RFR pg 128.
Alinsky's tenth rule of ethics:The Obama administration is seriously jam-packed with Alinsky-Atheists, with eugenicist-socialists in almost every seat of government czardom. And the administration is awash with obsequious slavering “journalists” whose Leftness is far more important to them than any quaint notions of objectivity.
"...you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments" RFR pg 36.
If you still haven’t read “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, I encourage you to do so, and quickly. Once you have become familiar with the ethics and tactics outlined there it will be easy to see them in play in the administration and Congress and the MSM, virtually every day. It's an all-new Alinsky America.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The REAL birth certificate?
This document, displayed (in better resolution and detail) at World Net Daily, has been obtained by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has been pursuing the issue of the unreleased Obama birth certificate, as well as issues surrounding his potential ineligibility to be president of the USA.
Obtained from sources in Kenya, the document appears to be a legitimate birth certificate showing Obama's birth in Kenya, complete with stamp and signature.
According to WND,
"Taitz's motion, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, requests the purported evidence of Obama's birth – both the alleged birth certificate and foreign records not yet obtained – be preserved from destruction, asks for permission to legally request documents from Kenya and seeks a subpoena for deposition from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
Quoted at WND, Taitz said,
"I filed the motion with the court asking for expedited discovery, which would allow me to start subpoenas and depositions even before Obama and the government responds," Taitz told WND. "I am asking the judge to give me the power to subpoena the documents from the Kenyan embassy and to require a deposition from Hillary Clinton so they will be forced to authenticate [the birth certificate].
"I'm forcing the issue, where Obama will have to respond," she said.
"Before, they said, 'You don't have anything backing your claims,'" Taitz explained. "Now I have something. In fact, I have posted on the Internet more than Obama has. My birth certificate actually has signatures."
Always fun, this Obama guy.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Scientific Method
When discussing science, it is apparent that most people have a concept of what science entails, yet when pushing into it a short way, it is also apparent that the concepts of science and the methods of science are variable and even at variance with each other.
As with all discussions it is useful to define the terminology at the outset, so that the discussion means the same thing to all the participants. The underpinnings of science are philosophical and can get to be partisan to various groups of philosophers. That is of little concern to scientists for the most part. Still, even amongst the science community there is variability as is seen in various text books that try to define science for the benefit of student readers.
Some of the more disingenuous definitions are these flip statements that I have actually seen published:
Besides not being useful these statements obscure the fact that methods really are important to science and scientists. One of the best definitions is the one that Karl Popper develops in the first several chapters of his book, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. I’ll try to summarize without prejudicing his concept:
The scientific method is more than just inductive gathering of instances of a fact followed by an inference of natural law from those instances (forensics): there is a “problem of induction” to be considered shortly.
Verification science, or empiricism, has the following preliminary elements according to Popper: First, check the internal consistency of the proposal to be tested; second, test for the character of the proposal, whether it is empirically qualified or if it is tautological or other non-qualified nature; third, compare with other theories to determine if it would actually provide a scientific advancement; finally, test the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions which can be derived from it (deduction of consequences).
These preliminaries fit into an overall empirical scheme that might be described as follows, going beyond Popper's preliminaries:
Also, Popper insisted that it is necessary that falsification of the hypothesis be possible. Falsification is the most necessary criteria, according to Popper, because it allows the demarcation “between physical science and metaphysical speculation”. Any concept that cannot be falsified is not verifiable with physical techniques, and is outside the realm of materialist science. As Popper says, “it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience”.
Experiments and the replication of experiments cannot provide verification, it only provides instances of non-falsification. This is because singular statements cannot accumulate sufficiently to provide a universal statement (law). This is a failure of induction, where instance cannot prove the truth of the entirety. The exception to this is falsification where a singular statement deductively indicates falseness, which according to the principle of the excluded middle prevents the statement from being true.
Popper takes the following position on induction:
The problem of induction.
Induction has been addressed by a great many philosophers of science, from Hume on. There are several objections to induction.
First, there is the problem of verifying induction itself. If induction is a valid process for producing valid results, it should be able to verify itself. But it can’t verify itself if it is not known to be valid in advance. Further, if the principle of induction is taken as a universal, then the idea of validating the validator becomes an infinite regress, never resolving to a verification at any level. So the principle of induction cannot be verified, and cannot be a universal.
Next, according to Schlick (per Popper), “The problem of induction consists in asking for a logical justification of universal statements about reality… we recognize, with Hume, that there is no such logical justification: there can be none, simply because they are not genuine statements.” Hume had said that no amount of “constant conjunction” between events could ever prove the conjunction to be a universal (or law). For instance, if every object we encounter is red, it does not follow that the next object we encounter should be red. As Popper shows, the probability does not approach 1 without becoming a tautology.
Popper takes this one step more. Because induction cannot provide a demarcation between scientific and metaphysical systems, then statements about both systems are meaningless (being undifferentiable as well as non-falsifiable); thus while attempting to eliminate metaphysics from the empirical sciences, metaphysics is allowed (by induction) to invade the scientific realm, producing a contradictory or paradoxical result.
The Problem of Empiricism
Because in experimental science a single successful experiment provides a only a single instance of non-falsification, the need for more instances (replications) exists; this is an inductive accumulation, so the problem of inductive non-verifiability also applies. For this reason even empiricism cannot ever produce incorrigible, incontrovertible, noncontingent proof, in the sense of Truth. Truth is an object in metaphysics, and only metaphysics, never in science.
But empiricism also cannot verify “experiential” or “existential” statements. This is shown by the statement, “there are no white ravens”. No amount of either induction or deductive experimentation can bring a conclusive answer to such an assertion.
Axiomatic Limitations
1. As Hume demonstrates, it is not possible to “demonstrate that the course of nature must continue uniformly the same… Nay, I will go farther, and assert that he could not so much as prove by any probable arguments that the future must be conformable to the past. All probable arguments are built on the supposition that there is conformity betwixt the future and the past, and therefore can never prove it”. (Hume; A Treatise of Human Nature)
For this reason is it axiomatic for science to presume conformity of the past within itself, and between the past and the future.
There are presumed to be no singularities, ever, that are variations in the physical laws. Since this cannot be proved, it is accepted as axiomatic.
2. Notwithstanding Hume’s denial of “constant conjunction” verifiability, the principle of cause and effect is accepted as axiomatic.
3. All the first principles of logic are accepted as axiomatic.
So the scientific method, even if restricted to experimental empiricism, is limited to physical objects that are measurable in the sense that they possess mass/energy and exist in space/time. The scientific method is limited by its inability to prove its basic assumptions (axioms) and is not axiomatic itself, and is not itself a universal. The scientific method cannot provide or argue for or against Truth, because Truth is a metaphysic and is outside the realm of the physical. The scientific method cannot prove existential statements, because of the limitations of the inductive method, inherent even in empiricism.
Commentaries on the Scientific Method
The following comments on the subject of the scientific method and the scientific attitude are taken from known, accomplished and respected scientists.
From Albert Einstein:
“For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic effort of man in the sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.”
“But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself thereby becomes and end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.“ The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.”
Albert Einstein; “Out Of My Later Years”; Wing Books, Random House; copyright 1956, written in 1950, revised in 1956; pg 20,21.
Also from Einstein:
“The supreme task of the physicist is to search for those highly universal laws…from which a picture of the world can be obtained by pure deduction. There is no logical path leading to these…laws. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.”
Albert Einstein; speech on the 60th birthday of Max Plank, 1918; from “The World As I See It”, 1935.
Attributed to Feynman:
“It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
-----
“Remember: In science, we don't prove things true, we show them to be not false. Same thing? Not hardly. For a complete discussion on the topic, read the Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. However what it comes down to is you do not do a test, and then prove a theory true. That can't be done. What you do is come up with a way to falsify your theory, that is to say you come up with a test that says "If things don't come out this way, we know this theory is wrong." You run the test, things come out that way. You have failed to falsify the theory, and we are now more certain it is true. The more than is done, the more certain we are a theory is correct. Each time we attempt to falsify the theory and fail, we are more sure it must be the truth.
“If we do then falsify it, the theory has to be redone. That doesn't mean you toss the whole thing out, it may just mean some refinement is needed. For example you have a theory that predicts when X happens Y will results. In 400 tests, this is the case, however 3 new tests show it isn't. What you discover is that in all those tests, A was also present. You the refine your theory: Y will result from X, except in cases where A is present. Your theory is now a little more narrow in application, and fits with the evidence. Perhaps later you find out what A does, and incorporate that in to a more general theory.
“The point of all this is that real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong. You do everything you can to prove it wrong, then have other people do what they can to prove it wrong. When all of you fail at doing that, when the theory has been refined such that it fits all the evidence and you can't figure out how else to test it, then it is most likely the truth. THAT is what scientific rigor is about. It isn't about coming up with a theory, ignoring data you don't like, showing it to a few people who agree with you, and saying "Ok, we proved this true and nobody else can look at it."
And, from Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”:
“That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
“In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.
“The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest;
but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain
temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--
including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what
we have to deal with.
“We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.
“A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the
subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the
only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't
land.
Feynman: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
From Karl Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”:
“The old scientific ideal of episteme - of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be ‘absolutely certain’.
“With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way for scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
“Has our attitude, then, to be one of resignation? Have we to say that science can fulfil only its biological task; that it can, at best, merely prove its mettle in practical applications which may corroborate it? I do not think so. Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards an infinite yet attainable aim: that of ever discovering new, deeper, and more general problems, and of subjection our ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.
Popper, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, 1935, 2002, Routledge, p 280. [emphasis added]
As with all discussions it is useful to define the terminology at the outset, so that the discussion means the same thing to all the participants. The underpinnings of science are philosophical and can get to be partisan to various groups of philosophers. That is of little concern to scientists for the most part. Still, even amongst the science community there is variability as is seen in various text books that try to define science for the benefit of student readers.
Some of the more disingenuous definitions are these flip statements that I have actually seen published:
“Science is that which the majority of scientists say it is.”
“Science is whatever scientists do.”
Besides not being useful these statements obscure the fact that methods really are important to science and scientists. One of the best definitions is the one that Karl Popper develops in the first several chapters of his book, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. I’ll try to summarize without prejudicing his concept:
The scientific method is more than just inductive gathering of instances of a fact followed by an inference of natural law from those instances (forensics): there is a “problem of induction” to be considered shortly.
Verification science, or empiricism, has the following preliminary elements according to Popper: First, check the internal consistency of the proposal to be tested; second, test for the character of the proposal, whether it is empirically qualified or if it is tautological or other non-qualified nature; third, compare with other theories to determine if it would actually provide a scientific advancement; finally, test the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions which can be derived from it (deduction of consequences).
These preliminaries fit into an overall empirical scheme that might be described as follows, going beyond Popper's preliminaries:
a) speculation and coherence check, possibly with inductive input, resulting in the formulation of a proposed hypothesis;
b) deductive experimental design and implementation;
c) data analysis and congruity check against hypothesis expectations;
d) adjust hypothesis and experimental design, and repeat.
Also, Popper insisted that it is necessary that falsification of the hypothesis be possible. Falsification is the most necessary criteria, according to Popper, because it allows the demarcation “between physical science and metaphysical speculation”. Any concept that cannot be falsified is not verifiable with physical techniques, and is outside the realm of materialist science. As Popper says, “it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience”.
Experiments and the replication of experiments cannot provide verification, it only provides instances of non-falsification. This is because singular statements cannot accumulate sufficiently to provide a universal statement (law). This is a failure of induction, where instance cannot prove the truth of the entirety. The exception to this is falsification where a singular statement deductively indicates falseness, which according to the principle of the excluded middle prevents the statement from being true.
Popper takes the following position on induction:
“Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible.”This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.
The problem of induction.
Induction has been addressed by a great many philosophers of science, from Hume on. There are several objections to induction.
First, there is the problem of verifying induction itself. If induction is a valid process for producing valid results, it should be able to verify itself. But it can’t verify itself if it is not known to be valid in advance. Further, if the principle of induction is taken as a universal, then the idea of validating the validator becomes an infinite regress, never resolving to a verification at any level. So the principle of induction cannot be verified, and cannot be a universal.
Next, according to Schlick (per Popper), “The problem of induction consists in asking for a logical justification of universal statements about reality… we recognize, with Hume, that there is no such logical justification: there can be none, simply because they are not genuine statements.” Hume had said that no amount of “constant conjunction” between events could ever prove the conjunction to be a universal (or law). For instance, if every object we encounter is red, it does not follow that the next object we encounter should be red. As Popper shows, the probability does not approach 1 without becoming a tautology.
Popper takes this one step more. Because induction cannot provide a demarcation between scientific and metaphysical systems, then statements about both systems are meaningless (being undifferentiable as well as non-falsifiable); thus while attempting to eliminate metaphysics from the empirical sciences, metaphysics is allowed (by induction) to invade the scientific realm, producing a contradictory or paradoxical result.
The Problem of Empiricism
Because in experimental science a single successful experiment provides a only a single instance of non-falsification, the need for more instances (replications) exists; this is an inductive accumulation, so the problem of inductive non-verifiability also applies. For this reason even empiricism cannot ever produce incorrigible, incontrovertible, noncontingent proof, in the sense of Truth. Truth is an object in metaphysics, and only metaphysics, never in science.
But empiricism also cannot verify “experiential” or “existential” statements. This is shown by the statement, “there are no white ravens”. No amount of either induction or deductive experimentation can bring a conclusive answer to such an assertion.
Axiomatic Limitations
1. As Hume demonstrates, it is not possible to “demonstrate that the course of nature must continue uniformly the same… Nay, I will go farther, and assert that he could not so much as prove by any probable arguments that the future must be conformable to the past. All probable arguments are built on the supposition that there is conformity betwixt the future and the past, and therefore can never prove it”. (Hume; A Treatise of Human Nature)
For this reason is it axiomatic for science to presume conformity of the past within itself, and between the past and the future.
There are presumed to be no singularities, ever, that are variations in the physical laws. Since this cannot be proved, it is accepted as axiomatic.
2. Notwithstanding Hume’s denial of “constant conjunction” verifiability, the principle of cause and effect is accepted as axiomatic.
3. All the first principles of logic are accepted as axiomatic.
So the scientific method, even if restricted to experimental empiricism, is limited to physical objects that are measurable in the sense that they possess mass/energy and exist in space/time. The scientific method is limited by its inability to prove its basic assumptions (axioms) and is not axiomatic itself, and is not itself a universal. The scientific method cannot provide or argue for or against Truth, because Truth is a metaphysic and is outside the realm of the physical. The scientific method cannot prove existential statements, because of the limitations of the inductive method, inherent even in empiricism.
Commentaries on the Scientific Method
The following comments on the subject of the scientific method and the scientific attitude are taken from known, accomplished and respected scientists.
From Albert Einstein:
“For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic effort of man in the sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.”
“But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself thereby becomes and end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.“ The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.”
Albert Einstein; “Out Of My Later Years”; Wing Books, Random House; copyright 1956, written in 1950, revised in 1956; pg 20,21.
Also from Einstein:
“The supreme task of the physicist is to search for those highly universal laws…from which a picture of the world can be obtained by pure deduction. There is no logical path leading to these…laws. They can only be reached by intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of experience.”
Albert Einstein; speech on the 60th birthday of Max Plank, 1918; from “The World As I See It”, 1935.
Attributed to Feynman:
“It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
-----
“Remember: In science, we don't prove things true, we show them to be not false. Same thing? Not hardly. For a complete discussion on the topic, read the Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. However what it comes down to is you do not do a test, and then prove a theory true. That can't be done. What you do is come up with a way to falsify your theory, that is to say you come up with a test that says "If things don't come out this way, we know this theory is wrong." You run the test, things come out that way. You have failed to falsify the theory, and we are now more certain it is true. The more than is done, the more certain we are a theory is correct. Each time we attempt to falsify the theory and fail, we are more sure it must be the truth.
“If we do then falsify it, the theory has to be redone. That doesn't mean you toss the whole thing out, it may just mean some refinement is needed. For example you have a theory that predicts when X happens Y will results. In 400 tests, this is the case, however 3 new tests show it isn't. What you discover is that in all those tests, A was also present. You the refine your theory: Y will result from X, except in cases where A is present. Your theory is now a little more narrow in application, and fits with the evidence. Perhaps later you find out what A does, and incorporate that in to a more general theory.
“The point of all this is that real science is all about trying to prove your theory wrong. You do everything you can to prove it wrong, then have other people do what they can to prove it wrong. When all of you fail at doing that, when the theory has been refined such that it fits all the evidence and you can't figure out how else to test it, then it is most likely the truth. THAT is what scientific rigor is about. It isn't about coming up with a theory, ignoring data you don't like, showing it to a few people who agree with you, and saying "Ok, we proved this true and nobody else can look at it."
And, from Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science”:
“That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school--we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
“Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
“In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.
“The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for
example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil
doesn't soak through food. Well, that's true. It's not dishonest;
but the thing I'm talking about is not just a matter of not being
dishonest, it's a matter of scientific integrity, which is another
level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement
is that no oils soak through food, if operated at a certain
temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will--
including Wesson oil. So it's the implication which has been
conveyed, not the fact, which is true, and the difference is what
we have to deal with.
“We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other
experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you
were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll
disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some
temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation
as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind
of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to
fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the
research in cargo cult science.
“A great deal of their difficulty is, of course, the difficulty of
the subject and the inapplicability of the scientific method to the
subject. Nevertheless it should be remarked that this is not the
only difficulty. That's why the planes didn't land--but they don't
land.
Feynman: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/cargocul.htm
From Karl Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”:
“The old scientific ideal of episteme - of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge – has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative forever. It may indeed be corroborated, but every corroboration is relative to other statements which, again, are tentative. Only in our subjective experiences of conviction, in our subjective faith, can we be ‘absolutely certain’.
“With the idol of certainty (including that of degrees of imperfect certainty or probability) there falls one of the defences of obscurantism which bar the way for scientific advance. For the worship of this idol hampers not only the boldness of our questions, but also the rigour and the integrity of our tests. The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
“Has our attitude, then, to be one of resignation? Have we to say that science can fulfil only its biological task; that it can, at best, merely prove its mettle in practical applications which may corroborate it? I do not think so. Science never pursues the illusory aim of making its answers final, or even probable. Its advance is, rather, towards an infinite yet attainable aim: that of ever discovering new, deeper, and more general problems, and of subjection our ever tentative answers to ever renewed and ever more rigorous tests.
Popper, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”, 1935, 2002, Routledge, p 280. [emphasis added]
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Allocating Scarce Medical Interventions: Ezekiel Emmanuel Places a Value on Your Life.
Ezekiel Emmanuel, M.D./Bioethicist, is the architect of the looming healthcare / death allocation bill now in Congress. The 1000 page bill is just now being analyzed and leaked out to the public, the one thing that Obama did not want to happen in his panicky rush to get it passed without being read. The author of this bill, health advisor to Obama and brother of Rahm Emmanuel, revealed his ideas about health care management in an article co-published in Lancet on Jan 31, 2009, where several types of healthcare rationing algorithms are analyzed.
Most, like the “First Come First Served” algorithm are rejected, FCFS being disliked due to favoring the wealthy and the “connected”.
However, one method stands out. This is the “Complete Lives System” which places values on people based on how much of their life they have completed, along with the relative initial value of the person. For instance old people have completed much of their lives and are of little retained value. Babies have not received any social and personal investment compared with teenagers, so babies are worth very little while teenagers are worth much more due to the investment placed in them.
Fortunately they included a graph to allow us all to evaluate our personal values according to the “Complete Lives System” of Medical Allocation:
It should be clear that unborn humans have no value whatsoever in this scheme, and that care for people over 40 is iffy. And once you retire, well, you’re done, aren’t you?
Keep in mind that this man designed the 1000 page health plan which the nation is about to received in suppository form. The one thing that is known about the bill so far is that it requires “death counseling” for elders to show them their options for dying. And suicide was specifically kept off the codicil of unacceptability by a Democrat majority vote. An abortion amendment, also by Democrat majority vote, does a deceptive two-step to allow abortion coverage and to require it to be available in all regions.
There will be more revealed about the bill soon, as it gets fully read and sorted through. No doubt there will be many of our current rights that are relieved for our own good, as the statist "ethicists" determine is proper.
Most, like the “First Come First Served” algorithm are rejected, FCFS being disliked due to favoring the wealthy and the “connected”.
However, one method stands out. This is the “Complete Lives System” which places values on people based on how much of their life they have completed, along with the relative initial value of the person. For instance old people have completed much of their lives and are of little retained value. Babies have not received any social and personal investment compared with teenagers, so babies are worth very little while teenagers are worth much more due to the investment placed in them.
Fortunately they included a graph to allow us all to evaluate our personal values according to the “Complete Lives System” of Medical Allocation:
It should be clear that unborn humans have no value whatsoever in this scheme, and that care for people over 40 is iffy. And once you retire, well, you’re done, aren’t you?
Keep in mind that this man designed the 1000 page health plan which the nation is about to received in suppository form. The one thing that is known about the bill so far is that it requires “death counseling” for elders to show them their options for dying. And suicide was specifically kept off the codicil of unacceptability by a Democrat majority vote. An abortion amendment, also by Democrat majority vote, does a deceptive two-step to allow abortion coverage and to require it to be available in all regions.
There will be more revealed about the bill soon, as it gets fully read and sorted through. No doubt there will be many of our current rights that are relieved for our own good, as the statist "ethicists" determine is proper.
Using "Cash for Clunkers" To Confiscate Computers.
Glenn Beck exposes the dirtiness of your government at work. When accessing the government website for the Cash For Clunkers, the following message pops up, in a fashion similar to a privacy statement:
Also,
Because the only ethic for the Alinski Left is "success, regardless", we can expect that EVERY program, decree, and 1000 page bill will contain language that allows the government to confiscate property and nullify rights. And like this case they will be camouflaged as privacy statements or other benignities. How much more not-privacy could this confiscation be than to seize your computer files and give them to foreign officials?
Nothing is exempt from an ethic-free culture and its government.
‘This application provides to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a federal computer system and it is property of the United States government,'" Beck read. "‘Any and all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign.'"[emphasis added]
Also,
Kimberly Guilfoyle, a legal analyst for Fox News interpreted the language to mean the government has very broad authority over your computer - including the ability to seize personal and private information.[emphasis added]
"Could it be any more broad or frightening?" Guilfoyle said. "Here you are trying to be a good citizen and make a charitable contribution, do something that's good and guess what - they are jumping right inside you, seizing all of your personal and private information and it's absolutely legal Glenn."
Guilfoyle also said legally the government can use Web software to track your computer any time they want once you've logged into the site.
"They can continue to track you basically forever," Guilfoyle said. "Once they've tapped into your system, and the government of course has like malware systems and tracking cookies - they can tap in any time they want."
Because the only ethic for the Alinski Left is "success, regardless", we can expect that EVERY program, decree, and 1000 page bill will contain language that allows the government to confiscate property and nullify rights. And like this case they will be camouflaged as privacy statements or other benignities. How much more not-privacy could this confiscation be than to seize your computer files and give them to foreign officials?
Nothing is exempt from an ethic-free culture and its government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)