Understanding, Faith, and Gravity

This essay is in response to the video below.



Resisting the urge to explore why it is everything with an 'intellectual' feel has to be presented by someone with a smug English accent (Q Perhaps?) I'd like to explore a serious oversight with this position generally. IE that you must go the degree/education/peer review route to understand something with sufficient strength to attack it.

What they are saying amounts to you must be one of us before you an disagree with us, and if you were one of us you'd not disagree. That's sounds a bit familiar.

Understanding as a matter of faith.

I'll cut through all of it and restate what I hear in different ways whenever scientists like to talk about lay people attacking their work.

The basic claim is that before you can effectively attack a given view, you must first "understand" the view you are attacking. A rational version of this is to say that before you can write a program you must learn code.

That's all well and good but the way most scientists use this attack amounts to an intellectual pissing contest and pulling rank based on time investment rather than any sort of rational refutation or objection. This amounts to an argument from authority. (Your objection is invalid because I have a PHD.)

That may sound absurd on the surface, but consider what is meant by the word understand. All fields over lap at some point. We only live in the one reality. Every frog is connected to every star. Thus, true complete understand is impossible for us presently, perhaps totally if you're a fan of the uncertainty principal being a reflection of ontological reality. IE being unable to observe reality to such and such degree actually limits reality.

So you have to draw a line. You have to apply boundaries. Sometimes these boundaries are very clear, such as exploring the logic of a card game. But as set study shows us, its not always that simple. You can see this yourself when you start a conversation about dogs and end up talking about astrophysics. Dogs>park>park at night>stars.

The point is that you may completely understand something only within bounds, if at all, and where you apply those bounds is your choice ultimately. In addition, since context alters meaning, that understanding can be rendered useless with external and non conflicting data coming from outside those bounds.

Hypothetical: I've shot someone in the head. I'm also being tried for murder. You can fully understand both facts, but do you claim to completely understand the situation from those facts alone? What more data do you need? Consider the true scope of the question. To fully understand you'd have to perfectly master history and psychology at the very least, and perhaps the human brain if an insanity by mental defect defense is used, that would radiate out to physics since the brain is an electrochemical mechanism, and philosophy since you'd also have to define "person"See what I mean? You have to draw a line somewhere, and the key word is you.

So while the argument sounds good there is one insurmountable problem for claiming any scientific claim is totally objective. How you define "understand" and where you put boundaries are themselves subjective decisions.

For the record I don't care if I'm the only person who thinks this way. I don't care that you built a shuttle or this computer. Accomplishments don't denote absolute knowledge and agreement does not alter reality. Contrary to what O'Brian may claim he cannot levitate. But of course this is merely my belief, my faith if you will, in gravity.

Sure you may feel you have good reason, you may even feel you have evidence ,but the rule always applies, your understanding of those reasons and your understanding of that evidence is also subject to applied bounds and is therefor subjective. This extends to understandings of both refutation and prediction. The extends to understanding of experiments. This extends to the very nature of knowledge. Thus science, itself, in a very fundamental way, is subjective. Sound familier?

Ultimately science can be understood as a religion which changes its dogma based on interpertations of clergy derived from what they call experimentation, observation, and prediction.

To dismis this similarity with older faiths is dangerous to the integrity of science.

Reality is in fundamental paradox. There are questions that cannot be answer with the scientific method. But that's another paper.

My point is that I don't need complete understanding of a theory to attack it. It's like chopping down a tree, I don't need to see the whole tree to cut it down, the trunk will do.

If you're a scientist I'll let you make my arguments for me. What If I said understanding Christianity extends to memorizing the KJV bible letter for letter? What if I said you don't understand it enough to attack it or any claim it or I make about it until you have? Would you not immediately attack my definition of understanding? Would you not try to convince me or others that where I put my bounds is somehow invalid compared to where you put your bounds? What if I then said you didn't understand my definition of understand which I said stems from my understanding of the KJV?

We both rationally make the same claim: I don't need to read all your books and records to attack your claim.

The irony of scientists making this claim to religious people is staggering. Never forget, religion gave birth to science they will always be related, as both are effort to understand and predict a world that in some ways is forever mysterious, and unpredictable.

All of reality is in fundamental or harmonious paradox like this at same level.

All of knowledge is suspect (thanks Kant) and the degree to which we accept it is a matter of faith, that fact must be understood by scientists if they wish to avoid turning into a cult. This is both true and unprovable. Thanks Godel.

So I guess in closing what I'm saying is before science can attack religion it needs to understand philosophy and epistemology. :)

Bet the lab coats in the crowd are objecting already, and all I have in response is a question.

Are you sure you understand?

The war between religion and science is futile. It's the left and right had attacking the face. There is a derogatory slang term for that kind of behavior. Retarded.

Ta Da !

tadah_jesus.jpg (JPEG Image, 310x386 pixels) - Scaled (97%)



Cute.

But really, it never fails to amaze me how this logic doesn't bother some people.

Suffering and the Defacto Matriarchy in America.

At a commenters request I have decided to first expand and defined the following point of this post. (http://innomen.blogspot.com/2008/02/masculism-now.html)

7.Men must suffer in order to acquire any sex.

By suffering I mean the dictionary definition... “feelings of mental or physical pain “

Men as a rule must suffer to acquire a mate as a result of competition or the demands of their mate, which must be satisfied . This is so basic I am having trouble finding a way to explain it more simply. But I will try.

First you must grant that in the majority of cultures acquiring a mate is a rite of passage for men. In fact in recent years being a man has literally become synonymous with suffering to archive a goal.

(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=man+up)

Second, you must grant that the exact revere is true for women. Though it is somewhat derogatory, the term “being a pussy” means being like a woman, or doing what feels best, or what is safest and most rational. I have particular loathing for this phrase because it illustrates the enslavement of men and the objectification of women simultaneously.

Look at the mating process. It can be summed up as men competing for the approval of women. Men must get a job, fight for power and money, condition themselves physically, and defeat other men in various ways. and before you even say that women compete too, understand that they choose to compete because they are trained to want President Brad Pitt with super powers and an Aston Martin collection. Men are forced to if they want a mate of any kind, the only difference is the degree of suffering. There is no such thing as a zero maintenance mate. Even superman must suffer to please Louis Lane.

In fact suffering is the entire point, because even if a man had super human powers, a normal woman has the option of raising the bar at will. In short Louis recognized that superman could out compete any normal man without suffering and so she raised the bar until she found a way for him to suffer, she made the plight of the world his responsibility, or made him feel guilty about being super powerful in the first place, depending on media, comic, show, or movie. This is best illustrated in the series, Smallville, where we have a extremely sensual girl (not Louis) judging superman in subjective ways on matters of morality and social correctness, ares where he had no super powers, and always her judgment was final. His competition was Lex, a super rich, handsome, super genius. Now, for her, this is a win/win situation. This is an extreme, but the concept fits almost everywhere, the only thing that changes is the matter of degree.

They as a group suffer to please her, individually they try to shift suffering to the other, and please her more than the other so they may have access to her. This is the case in at least 80% of movies shows and songs. Just look for it. Its right there. From Disney to Romero, from The Beatles to Slipknot, men are told over and over that they must suffer to obtain a female, or they will suffer infinitely more from loneliness.

Obviously those that compete must suffer and those that judge do not, or, being ultra conservative here, must suffer less. As with any competition, it is always harder on the competitors than the judges. Take a foot race for example. Who has it harder, the runners or the guy with the stopwatch?

I hope I've made my point, It really is difficult to explain something this fundamental.

Edit: Found this image.

Seemed to illustrate a point made above nicely.

Death and Miracles

To whom it may concern:

Written in response to this video and the general social reaction to Kenadie Jourdin-Bromley who is a young lady with Primordial dwarfism and related social concepts. If you would like to help her, a PayPal donation link can be found from her official site, located here.


(My favorite picture of her, lifted from here)

For one, these parents are set for life if they play it right, as they should given what she's undoubtedly going to need. I'd say the instant Oprah hears of this young lady and her sickeningly clean cut family, its gold plated stroller / book deal time.

But seriously, with thousands of children living in poverty in our own country and countless millions more abroad, I don't think this particular child is any more deserving of help than any other, no matter how adorable she is. Perhaps even less so, if you want to look at the matter clinically.

I think all children deserve a shot at life, even the ones that don't get PayPal donate links.

I have to ask, why is it when something bad happens they always call it a miracle? Is it really a miracle that this poor person is effectively going to spend her whole short life in a hospital?

I love how 3/4ths of the video are about the painfully banal couple that produced her. I don't care about her parents, and neither does anyone else. All they care about is what they see as the cool freaky small kid.

Why is it when a bus full of school kids explodes and one survives with half her face burnt off its a miracle? If this is the best your god can do, you can keep him. I don't see this as a miracle I see this as a tragedy.

Gotta love the Internet, the modern freak show. Is everyone proud of their gawking? Would you care so much about this child if she were normal? Obviously not.

If she grows up normally in terms of intellect you think she'll appreciate being so objectified and showcased?

And yes mom, she would have been put down if she were a dog, whats so wrong with saying that? Its true. Pointing that out does not mean you agree with it or endorse it. Self righteous narrow minded twit. It's called freedom of speech. Google it. How quickly we turn into Stalin when someone flames us on the intarweb.

Besides, judging from the pastor or whatever you rushed to her side, you presumably think she has heaven waiting for her anyway, so whence comes the anger even if the poster did suggest euthanasia? By your logic would it not be in her best interest?

You Christians don't even act like you really believe in heaven. I mean if I truly believed in heaven and hell, and I truly believed that asking forgiveness saved my soul, and I truly believed, that after a certain age, hell, that is, being tortured brutally for ALL TIME, was a real possibility.

I'd quickly and painlessly murder my own children to insure their entry into heaven and to shorten their suffering. After all, this life is worthless compared to the next, right? And hell is a much bigger problem then death, right? As a parent would you not risk hell to ensure your child's entry into heaven? I would, and I don't even have children.

But no, Christians fight death just as hard as atheists, if not harder. So, I smell bullshit.

And where's the outpouring of support for the hundreds of families that actually lost their children this year? Oh right, they didn't make a cool little freak baby for the Internet to ooo and ahh over. They aren't interesting, right? And make no mistake, thats what they all see her as, the only reason they even pretend to care is curiosity and guilt.

You people disgust me.

Some of us know people who didn't get a miracle, and are infuriated at the implication that these people somehow deserved a miracle to keep their child alive while others did not. The ego of this implication is astonishing beyond words, and that comes from a guy who considers himself a latter day Buddha and potential savior of all sentient life. :)

The only real miracle here is that people will believe anything, even if its in complete contradiction.

Every living human is a miracle, or none of them are, not just the cute little white American female ones.

News flash, she's not an angel, or a doll, or a toy, or an object of wonder. She's a human being, which is more than I can say for most of you. I deeply pity what its going to be like for her to grow up surrounded by you people.

Fortunately for her, the media has the attention span of a 5 year old cocaine addict with ADHD, so she may get a bit of dignity in a little while.

I hope she makes it long enough to be repaired by future gene therapy.

I wish her luck, but no more than the rest of us.

We all deserve a good life, so long as we are sentient, regardless of size.

Masculism Now!

This is a position list meant to express why I feel that men are an underclass in contemporary American society. It is under construction, and open to debate. If you disagree with any of these choose one and meet me on debate.com.

Your comments will not be censored.

1. Men die sooner.

2. Men suffer a great statistical disadvantage when it comes to fighting for their children in court.

3. Men are ridiculed for social expressions of emotion.

4. Men are forced to compete with each other, or capitulate to a woman if they want a mate at all.

5. Men must live up to their mates idea of what it is to be a man and a father.

6. Men must work or risk destitution, homelessness, and social ostracism.

7. Men must suffer in order to acquire any sex.

8. Men are expected to maintain the home with no say in its appearance.

9. Men are constantly required to tolerate inconsistency and irrationality, especially from a mate.

10. Men who use their body to manipulate women are considered abusive and monstrous.

11. Men have an extremely narrow range of options for potential dress and hair style.

12. Men are constantly told by society that they are ugly and not successful enough.

13. Men are constantly told by society that without a woman they are utterly worthless and pathetic.

14. Men are constantly told that a father is replaceable.

15. Men as a gender are given no assistance what so ever in job placement.

16. Traditional man's work is dangerous and difficult.

17. Men lose jobs to women because of their gender alone.

18. Men who express their genetic desire for sexual exploration and polygamy are perverts.

19. Men have almost no organized assistance as a gender.

While simultaneously...

1. Women live longer.

2. Women get a disproportional advantage in court when fighting for parental rights.

3. Women are encouraged to express themselves emotionally both publicly and privately.

4. Women compete for better mates, but even when they settle they have the power.

5. Women get to define what it is to be a man and a father.

6. Women have the socially acceptable choice of not working.

7. Women typically profit from the acquisition of at least moderately enjoyable sex.

8. Women are typically allowed total control of the home's decor.

9. Women are socially allowed to issue conflicting and irrational edicts.

10. Women who use their body to manipulate men are considered strong and clever.

11. Women are allowed a much greater degree of freedom with regard to dress and hairstyle.

12. Women are constantly told by society how beautiful they are.

13. Women are constantly told that they are the sum total purpose of men's existence.

14. Women are constantly told that the most important thing a human can be is a mother.

15. Women are given preferential selection in almost every job market.

16. Traditional woman's work is simple and safe by comparison.

17. Women who work profit socially because of the women who choose not to work.

18. Women who express their genetic desire for sexual exploration and polygamy are sexy.

19. Women have hundreds of social groups to protect their rights and interests.

Masculism: a social theory or political movement supporting the equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life; specifically, a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on males must be removed in order to bring about such equality.

Materials Economy and Monogamy.

Many of the people that speak with me often or read my work, know how I feel about monogamy.

In my view monogamy is one of the most atrocious civil systems ever devised. And I'm on a passive crusade to eliminate it. Now, I don't go around spotting couples and yelling at them, or try to break up marriages.

I go with the flow. I try to make people realize just what it is they are signing up for and the damage it can do. I try to empower both men and women so that they can be happy with each other as equals, and thus fail to need state and corporate reassurance that their mate actually loves them.

Single people working as close friends, are the political and economic equivalent of a polyamorist society. So basically my approach is to discourage people from joining relationships. This does not mean the life of a monk, it merely means life without regard for what the state the church or the government has to say about the status of your intimate relationships, and a whole sale rejection of the idea that in order that one be valuable, he or she must have a single 'mate'. This does not mean do not have children, it just means that there is nothing wrong with being a single parent with a lot of friends.

I seek to empower people.

Monogamy at its core is the idea that a relationship between one human and another must be regulated and sanctioned by both the state and the corporation, and neither of these groups will ever sanction third party or more family units. Now, the state's involvement is pretty obvious, they issue marriage licenses, they issue tax breaks, they handle divorce proceedings and impose limits on when and how a person can get married, always to only one person.

But it doesn’t come close to ending there. The corporation gets in on the action by using the media to tell everyone things like “if your husband loved you he’d buy a diamond” or “if your girlfriend loved you, she’d cook with Kraft cheese”. And they are getting ever more invasive. Think of the insidious nature of “choosy moms choose Jiff” the implication being that if you buy Skippy, you’re a lousy mother.

What does this have to do with monogamy and the materials economy? Well, all of these advertisements have background. Very rarely is a commercial these days merely a notice of product on a plain background. Typically they present the product in some sort of context, and as any student of logic knows, context alters meaning. The context most commonly chosen to hock a product, is the nuclear family context. Because that is the most profitable for outside parties.

Now, I ask you, if you were a corporation, a non human immortal entity with no ability to feel pain or compassion, and the function of your existence was to take money, and you had the ability to control how Americans perceive what a family is, would you? The smart answer is another question. Does the structure of family have an impact on how much money I will spend? Yes, yes it does. And here we get into the meat of this post. The most profitable type of family unit, is a monogamous one. I’ll bet you had never even considered other types. That’s not surprising. Corporations, government, and religion have conspired for centuries to convince you of one simple idea, monogamy is the only way. But the fact is, many cultures enjoy extended families, and do so for economic reasons as well as emotional and cultural ones.

The economic reasons are the focus of this essay. A corporation wants to sell as many products per person as they can. So I ask you, which group would buy more toasters, 10 people living together, or ten people living in units of two? I lived with 6 people once, and we only had the one toaster. It worked out fine. Why? Because we shared it. Also, when it came time to buy new appliances we could have all chipped in, and ended up with the best of the best. This is bad for corporations as they do best selling tons of cheap fragile products, compared to selling one durable product.

This is why the corporations want monogamy around. Because so long as we pair off, we’ll buy more, buy cheaply, and complain less. Pooling resources means more power. Corporations have known this since birth. In fact a company is based on this idea. The simple non-zero sum game where by two people working together produce more than three people working separately, is the very foundation of tribalism. It is a the human expression of a fundamental fact of nature, so much so that multi cellular life is the result. Two cells working together produce more than three working apart.

They want us separate, they want us alone, so that they can exploit us, and continue to exploit the planet.

And their chief tool is monogamy.