The Nye / Ham Debate

Watched the debate with Jessica tonight.  Enjoyed it.  I thought each gentlemen presented his case well.  However, I think many viewers likely missed the case being presented.

It's late, so I'll be as brief as I can.  I just wanted to at least wash off the make-up from this debate to show the nature of the discussion:  Scientism vs. Presuppositionalism.  Not evidence vs. counter-evidence.

This wasn't a debate in which two opponents brought evidence to the audience regarding a conclusion.  The core of this debate is epistemology, one of my favorite topics, and one of the reasons I'm familiar with Ham's circle.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  Perhaps you recall hearing Ham saying things like "Why should we trust the laws of nature?"  "Nye must lean on Christian foundations to use his logic."  Etc.

Ham comes from a group called Presuppositionalists.  Evidence is not their cup of tea.  In fact, they're opposed to the idea of presenting evidence for consideration regarding the veracity of the Bible.  If you have the right/ability to weigh evidence and decide if the Bible is true, you're putting yourself above god; putting god on trial.  Presuppositionalism is a fascinating concept, and I won't go into much detail here.  However, a few points.

Presuppositionalism has five-point Calvinism for its roots—total depravity of man.  Even the mind of man is unredeemed.  You cannot reason with an unbeliever because his mind is corrupt; his mind must first be redeemed.

The typical approach of this group is to undermine the scientific idea of knowledge.  You saw Ham talk about the uncertainty of the past.  The past can't be proven.  Indeed, I agree.  In fact, try to prove to me we weren't all created five minutes ago...programmed with all the memories from pre-five minutes ago.  Can't be done.  Is it absurd to suggest the idea?  Why?  Show me scientific evidence to the contrary.  Am I not then entitled to this 5-minute historical view and still maintain respect in society as a reasonable individual?  You might ask yourself what type of responsibility you have to give assent to an idea.  Is it important to you?  Should it be important to others?

Presuppositionalists maintain an incredibly skeptical outlook on what seems common sense.  "How do you know these elements deteriorated at the same rate in the past?"  Everything gets thrown into murky water.  Then, the core question is, what gives you the right to have your worldview?  From where do the laws of logic come?  Etc.  You'll notice he wasn't presenting evidence for a 6K year-old earth.  He was presenting ideas to challenge what's used to show an old earth.  The evidence of a 6K earth is the genealogy in Genesis.

Nye, on the other hand, has the scientific worldview.  Knowledge is always tentative.  We have no absolutes; everything is subject to further evidence and testing.  On any topic, we have degrees of certainty based on the quantity/quality of evidence.  The scientific worldview is always open to change its mind on a topic.  Nye's answer to "What would it take to change your mind?"—Evidence.  This worldview isn't as fun for some people.  "Where did life come from?"  I don't know.  "Where did conscious originate?"  I don't know.  Many people dislike uncertainty.  Scientists thrive on unknowns; they get to go try to find answers.

Ham's answer to "What would it take to change your mind?"—I'm a Christian.  Evidence isn't part of the equation.  He will not leave it to himself to judge the veracity of the Bible.  The very of idea of changing his mind is opposed to his philosophical core.  Can't be done.  This leaves Ham with certain answers to questions.  "Where did life come from?"  God made it.  "Where did conscious come from?"  God made it.  That's more fun for some. 

To the surprise of many people unfamiliar with philosophy, the study of knowledge is incredibly complex.  Heavy thinkers strive to assume nothing and work their way up from there...give everything some logical base.  However, a problem arises in this exercise.  Moving backwards, we end up in murky water.  Back in the 1700s, Baron Munchhausen called this problem the Munchhasuen trilemma.  For brevity, I'll let Wikipedia serve those who are interested.

The conclusion: epistemic underpinning (i.e. where you start your assumptions) is arbitrary.  This is the reason for the name Presuppositionalists.  They say, "Everyone is presupposing something."  Scientists make assumptions regarding the laws of nature and such.  OK.  Well, we're just doing the same thing.  We also have the right to make our own starting assumptions.  We've decided to make our base the Bible.  They'll take it a step further after that to demonstrate their assumptions are more consistent than any other worldview.

In any case, I've come to the conclusion an epistemic underpinning is philosophically arbitrary.  I don't feel one has philosophical superiority over another.  However, it seems clear to me the scientific worldview has been quite kind to the human race.  It has what we might call practical superiority over other worldviews; it seems to work on this planet.  And in the end, I often wonder if anyone would question the efficacy of a scientific worldview when falling from the sky at 30,000 feet.

Further, I do think there is something absurd about randomly choosing epistemic underpinnings.  In this line, I imagine I can choose whatever I like as my base assumptions...plenty of absurd places I could start.  I'm reminded of a group in Africa heavily steeped in ideas of witchcraft.  They believe they can cast curses on each other.  So, an individual may stub their toe on a root.  "I knew my neighbor put a curse on me!"  Well, could it be you just happened to be walking down this path and didn't see the root?  "Ah, but why was that root there!?  Why was I walking down this path?!"  There's really no stopping this type of imaginative thinking.  It doesn't sit well with me.  And honestly, I just think we—humans—are ready to be passed this type of stuff.  But that's me.

In conclusion, this debate wasn't about evidence.  Certainly not about weighing evidence to see if the Genesis account is true.  Ham is opposed to such a process.  However, I think many of the Christians watching the debate are likely unfamiliar with the underpinnings of Ham's group.  He gave their side of the story, and that's always fun to hear.  Go Ham!  However, I wonder how many would embrace all the theological and practical implications that come with Ham's philosophical core.

So hey...maybe check it out.  You know...if you want to.  :)

The Vacuum Adventure

The last four or five days I've spent researching vacuum cleaners.  We've had enough of our current vacuum, a Hoover WindTunnel we bought five years ago for about $80.  So, I started some research.  There were four vacuums that had my attention - all of them at a much higher price range than we've previously spent on a vacuum.  Here were the finalists.

• Miele Bolero
• Sebo Felix
• Dyson DC25
• Riccar Radiance
• Oreck Magnesium

Which type of vacuum you get just depends on what's most important to you: light weight, easy to use, attachments on board, power, size, etc.

The Miele Bolero is German made.  It's heavy - about 20 pounds.  It has all the attachments on board and does a great job cleaning.  The attractive thing about it is it's made to last.  I'm told you can have it for over 20 years and never replace a motor.  Of all the ones on the list, I gave this one the least amount of consideration...I just didn't like the feel of it that much.  But, it was rated #1 on the Best Vacuums of 2012 lists I saw.  It's on the pricey side at $800.

The Sebo Felix is also made in Germany.  I'm told it's a really great product as well.  The problem is I couldn't find one anywhere.  So, I'd have to order it and then if I don't like it go through the hassle of returning through the mail, etc.  It also has the attachments on board, is lighter at about 16 pounds and has some funky designs.  I would have loved to try one.  They run about $500.

I spent a lot of time on Dyson.  I know people who have them and love them.  I also like the canister idea...something wonderful about seeing what you're getting out of the carpet and I hate buying bags.  This was the only canister model on my finalists list.  Dyson has as ton of models.  Large models, small models, ball models, animal models, this year's model, last year's model, etc. I actually went to Target and bought the DC41 for $550.  I brought it home and returned it later in the day.  It's a ball model which is supposed to be great for maneuvering, but it hurt Jessica's wrists.  It does feel quite a bit different to push.  It seemed like it did a decent job, but I didn't think it was worth that much money.  The DC25 was the previous model and the reviews I read said people like some of the features of the DC25 better than the newer DC41.  Since Jessica didn't like the ball feature, I looked at the DC33, which you can get for $300.  Basically the same vacuum but without the ball.  However, Dyson took a fall when I looked at the next two vacuums.  I'll tell you why there.

The Riccar Radiance I didn't see on any online list of best vacuums.  I'd never heard of it until I went into the vacuum store and saw one.  The salesmen and I went through some demonstrations with sand and pet hair stuff.  We talked about how different vacuums are made.  Some use the motor to suck (like Dyson) and some use the motor to blow (like Oreck).  Radiance has two motors and does both.  However, almost more important than suction is carpet agitation...and wow does this thing agitate the carpet.  We ground sand into a carpet and then set the Riccar and a Dyson DC41 animal next to each other and turned them on.  In front of the Dyson, nothing was happening, in front of the Riccar for about four inches, the sand was bouncing off the carpet about an inch high.  One swipe from the Riccar and that stuff was gone.  Five swipes later from the Dyson and a lot of sand was still visible.  The Radiance is heavy, though.  It's about 20 pounds and has all the attachments on board.  If you're just after raw cleaning power and having the attachments on board, I'd go with this one.  It was $700.  I almost walked out with it.

The Oreck Magnesium ended up being what I took home.  The sand test I mentioned previously I also did with this vacuum.  It performed much better than the Dyson, but not as good as the Riccar.  So, this thing has about 80% the efficiency in cleaning as the Riccar.  The beauty of it is that it's only 7.7 pounds.  It's incredibly light and when vacuuming, I can actually push it around with one finger (if you're into one-finger vacuuming).  The thing about Oreck is it doesn't have any attachments on them...it's one way they keep things so light.  So, you need to have a separate handheld for the edge cleaning, etc.  I'm a bit bummed about  that as I like everything in one place, but I'll see what I think about it as I use it.  I was a bit concerned about Oreck because from the things I read about Oreck, you're supposed to take them in for annual tune-ups.  But, I'm told you really don't have to...most vacuums are the same in that you should really have them in for a tune-up once every couple of years or so.  So nothing different than what you'd experience with other brands.  I also don't have my canister, but I guess I'll live without it.  I just vacuumed the living room with it, and I am super happy with the ease of use.  I think I can sleep at night with this ease of use balancing off the peek performance I saw from the Riccar.  So, that's where I landed.  The Oreck Magnesium with an Oreck handheld.  The combo priced in at $399.  So, close to the same performance as the Riccar at about half the weight and half the cost.  I'll take that.

A couple things about testing vacuums, too.  Many people take their bag vacuum, vacuum a section of carpet, and then take a canister vacuum - like a Dyson - and then go over the same area.  They get a lot of dirt in the canister and say, "See what the other one left behind?"  Well, turns out that's the case for all of them.  Running over an area again, you're just going to get more stuff.  You can run a DC25 on an area then run a DC25 on the same area and get more stuff.  Also, if you have an older vacuum...it will probably be out-performed by a new one.

Anyway, lots of fun with this research, but I'm glad it's over and I have the vacuum.  And this one is light enough I utilize child labor.  :)

Some Not-Often-Publicly-Acknowledged Things in My Life that Make Me Happy

• The burst of pleasant air temperature when you walk into some department stores
• Music while I'm on hold that's periodically interrupted by an assurance that my call is important and someone will be with me as soon as possible
• The Lysol wipes for the shopping cart
• The flashlight on my smartphone
• Tomcat mousetraps (the old style gives me heart palpitations)
• How the recycle trash can doesn't get nasty at the bottom
• The feel of new socks
• Lying on the floor during a good conversation
• A freshly cleaned windshield
• Holes in the bottom of the kitchen trashcan that make it easy to remove the bag
• Boneless chicken
• Strong water pressure in the shower
• Laundry detergent containers with a button dispenser on the bottom
• Seeing a driver use a blinker
• The 30 second fast-forward button on my dish remote - from tackle to hike in one press.
• Dollar menus
• Soft towels
• A chocolate bar with nuts...that actually has a lot of nuts in it
• Libraries
• Sliding into bed when the sheets have just been changed
• Finding my things where I last put them
• Jet-dry
• Erasable pens
• Leaving home and seeing the lights have already been turned off

The Earth and Cannonballs

The earth actually completes a rotation in less than 24 hours!  It's part of what I learned a couple nights ago.

I read the other night that Tycho Brahe didn't think the earth could be rotating because if it did, a cannonball fired in the direction of the earth's orbit should go further than one fired in the opposite direction - but it doesn't.

First of all, I was confused with Brahe's confusion.  If I were going to be confused about why cannonballs don't travel further fired in one direction, I would have been thinking the one fired in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation would have travelled further.  However, I spent some time a while back thinking about Galilean relativity, so I was able to understand why there is no difference between the cannonballs being fired in these directions whether or not the earth is rotating.

As is often the case with these types of things, there is a group who does not believe the earth rotates.  I stumbled onto this site: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/11/earth-is-not-moving.html  Google "the earth is not moving" and you get all sorts of fun. Most of us believe the genuineness of videos seen from space which show the earth is spinning...nope...conspiracy. 

While I can shrug off this skepticism as likely nonsense, I was curious.  If there is no physical differences between the ideas of the earth moving around the sun or the sun moving around the earth, how do we know the earth is moving? I had to spend most the day pondering that and did some research on it.  What a fun time. 

I learned about Foucault's pendulum.  Cool experiment that is.  I've seen it in the science museum before, but I never understood it. That big swinging ball hanging from the ceiling that eventually knocks over dominoes if you have the patience to watch it happen.  This thing actually performs differently at different latitudes.  On the equator, the pendulum has no change, at the poles it spins completely in 24 hours.

It also turns out there is a difference in the direction of cannonballs being fired North and South (assuming they were fired far enough for a difference to be noticed - which wasn't possible during Brahe's time).  This idea is called the Coriolis effect.  Paths veer right or left (from our perspective) depending on whether we do this in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.  This is even seen in the direction of the rotation in storm systems of earth.  Pretty cool stuff.

I also learned about the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.  It turns out the earth actually spins on its axis in 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.  However, it takes another 4 minutes for the sun to return to the same spot in the sky it was the day before.  This is because we've moved on the earth's orbit a bit in that time period.  This website has a good explanation of that: http://howdoweknow.org/index/twodaytypes.txt  I found that very interesting.

So, some fun stuff I thought I'd pass along.

The Power of Ignorance

This is my son's first year in baseball.  The league he's playing in is associated with the city and is designed to prepare him for playing baseball in a school.  The kids are learning and having fun, but - as often is the case - some parents take things a bit more seriously.

A few games ago, the opposing team had a runner on second.  There was a ground ball, so the runner on second base took off for third.  When he was about ten feet away from the base, our third basemen stepped right in his path, blocking him from getting to third.  The umpire missed it and called the runner out when the ball finally made it to third base.  The opposing team's coach kept saying - correctly - the third basemen cannot block the runner's path.  A big discussion started among the coaches about what happened.  A parent a few seats away from me went into a tirade.  She began screaming at the other team's coach, "This is baseball!"  It was obvious she had no idea what she was talking about.  She was ignorant of the rules, but passionately felt the runner should be out, and was confidently obnoxious in expressing her conclusions.  For the informed, we were embarrassed for her.

Betrand Russell said, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Some people haven't had the experience of being an expert in an area and then receive obstinate criticism from a novice.

Yesterday, Tiger Woods made a very impressive chip on the 16th hole in the Memorial Tournament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLNLdHz_A8).  Jack Nicklaus raved, "It's the most gutsy shot that I've ever seen."  He continued later, "Under the circumstances, I don't think I've ever seen a better shot."  A non-golfer may watch that shot and think Nicklaus is ridiculous or at the least being overly dramatic.  The shot was only a handful of yards away and went in the hole...big deal.  It's when a person becomes educated regarding the details that they begin to have some appreciation regarding Jack's statement: the way the ball was sitting in the grass, the direction the grass was facing, the slant of the green, the wind, the impact of a full stroke, the pressure of the situation, etc.  Even when a novice learns of these things, his lack of experience may still leave him not nearly as convinced as the expert who understands how this mix of circumstances impacts the situation.  But a non-golfer seasoned with humility might at least be able to confess, "My ignorance leaves me unimpressed, but since the experts are so thrilled, I'm almost certainly missing the significance."  And if they're interested, they may begin to ask questions to try to understand the topic a bit better.

As an expert No-limit Hold'em player, I've often had the experience of a casual poker player instructing me on how a hand should have been played.  As they begin to justify their thinking, I realize they don't even know how to begin thinking about the game.  They don't even know what they don't know.  Ignorance is powerful.

But why are the intelligent often full of doubt?  It's because they realize the complications involved and it drives them to uncertainty - or at least an appreciation of other experts in the field who may disagree with them.

A few weeks ago, I was reading about a philosopher from the 1800s, Auguste Comte.  He was trying to think of an example of knowledge that would always be hidden.  He decided the composition of the distant stars and planet would be a good example.  One hundred years later, the scientific community using the tool of astronomical spectroscopy would look back on his statement as another example of the power of the position of ignorance.  Science had discovered a method Auguste couldn't have even imagined.  Sometimes we lack the knowledge to even begin imagining a way we may gain knowledge.

To me, the power of ignorance highlights the absurdity of a permanent agnosticism on any topic.  In other words, a statement like "We'll never be able to know that" may always be arguing from ignorance.

Three Strikes Against Humanity

This evening I finished watching a debate on evolution vs. intelligent design.  The lively debate featured many of the heavy hitters in the discussion; I thoroughly enjoyed it.  For those interested in that particular discussion, you can find the first of eight parts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrI&feature=related.

As I often do when watching debates, I imagine I'm arguing against each speaker.  In this particular debate, I was thankful I wasn't arguing against any of the speakers.  All of them seemed highly intelligent and incredibly educated on the topic.  I thought how I'd just have to sit and listen to each one and rather helplessly ask questions from time to time.  In the end, it can only come down to what evidence I find most compelling.  When I've made a decision on a given side of the argument, the opposition may pepper me with questions I can't answer, but I'd be left with only, "Well, I found this idea and/or fact more compelling."  There's little anyone can do to impact a person's sense of what they find compelling when they're making a decision to give or withhold assent to a proposition.  And to that end, it's a bit discouraging because it seems to me we have three strikes against us.

1. We have a laundry list of cognitive biases, ingrained heuristics, and social and emotional barriers that impede us from fairly and logically weighing and analyzing data.

2. Even if we can get the data input straight, our logical abilities have much to be desired.  We're not nearly as logically skilled as we like to think we are.

3. Even when we get the conclusion wrong, we find a way to make the observations and/or results fit our conclusions.

To me, this slows me down to making quick conclusions, makes me want to be sure to include the involvement of other people in an evaluation, and creates a more understanding, tolerant response when someone else simply disagrees with me.  When someone is not convinced after the data is presented, I'm not sure there's much left to be done save to strive to treat everyone involved with respect.  The occasion will surely arise - as it often does for me - when I represent the side who's been shown the evidence and is not convinced.

Science and Our Lives

"Take a left on Exit 765," says the voice on your cell phone.  "The airport is on your left."  You give your spouse a quick video call on your phone; you both smile at one another from 50 miles away and end the call.  You enter the elevator and head up to the terminal floor.  You check in by scanning your credit card and driver's license, head through security, and make your way to your gate.  You're right on time and board your flight.  You sit back, enjoy the smooth take off  and as the plane breaks over the clouds, you take out your iPad, slide your finger across it to find a good ebook and plug in your head phones to tune out the rest of the world.

Science has impacted our lives in a way that humans from just a hundred years ago could not have even imagined.  For those humans who live in a technologically advanced country, virtually every minute of their lives is impacted by scientific expansion.  In spite of this, there seems to be a large gap between  the technology a person uses and that person's knowledge of the history and underlying concepts of that technology.  It seems the average person's understanding of scientific progress is on par with the discoveries from at least several hundred years ago.

How many of us could begin to explain how a GPS system really works?  How the engine in your vehicle works?  How does your voice and image instantly make it to your spouse's handheld device?  What's going on in that elevator when you press those buttons?  How does that airport scanner find your ticket information?  How did that secure x-ray machine help keep you safe?  How does that plane actually get off the ground?  How does that iPad really work?  How does that sound travel to your ears through a wire?

For most of us, these questions leave us shrugging our shoulders.  More often than not, we don't give any of these questions a second of thought.  We simply expect the technology to work.  We get frustrated if the GPS takes us on a longer route.  We're agitated if the video call has a two second delay between the display and sound.  And heaven forbid the elevator should stop between floors!  To top it off, while understanding nothing of the process, we casually lean back in our seats while we're being shot through the air at 500 miles per hour 30,000 feet off the ground.

                

This gap between our understanding of and participation in scientific advancement is progressively growing.  The number of scientific fields and the pace at which each field is making break-through discoveries is overwhelming.  It's nearly impossible to keep up with it all.

It seems to me, for some people this breach of understanding seems to encourage cynicism towards current scientific discoveries and endeavors.  "How could they possibly know that?"  "They've been wrong so many times before about other things."  "They're just after money."  "It's simply not worth spending the money on this research."  Lately, these types of cynical statements often target fields like medicine, biology, and cosmology.

While entrusting every minute of our lives to the scientific philosophy and the past accomplishments of the scientific community, when scientific conclusions challenge other ideas we hold dear or tap into our fears and insecurities, our default often seems to be a rejection of those conclusions.  I'm not advocating we simply swallow anything that comes from some scientist, but it does seem to me a person in today's world should find themselves embracing the scientific philosophy and giving the conclusions of the scientific community the benefit of the doubt.

Further, many in today's community want to stifle scientific endeavors because of the associated costs.  However, many - if not most - of the discoveries that paved the way for the lifestyle we live today were simply stumbled upon as a result of scientific curiosity; someone pursuing knowledge only for the sake of it. 

                

Here's to encouraging each of us to add a science book to our virtual shelves now and then to get a better understanding and appreciation of how science has brought us to where we are today.  And here's to hoping this culture continues to support scientific advancements to help bring us to a brighter tomorrow.