I am a great fan of the Scientific Method. I believe it is the means by which mankind tries to understand the laws the Creator set in place at the beginning of the Universe. My own version of God's Law.
The Scientific Method is a rational process. Someone gets an idea of how something works, a What If. So they design some experiments and make some observations. If the results seem to support the What If, the hypothesis, they publish their data and let other learned peers do their own tests and provide their own criticism. If the observations are repeatable, a Theory is born. This is not necessarily the be all and end all of the Law of Nature they are trying to understand because, as new technology, data and insights occur, they are challenged, revised and amended, all using the same Method.
Here is where Faith comes in. I am not schooled enough in science to understand the facts first hand so I need to put my Faith in the Scientific Method and those who are using it. I can't determine what is fact and what is balderdash so I look at the opinions of the scientists. If the Method seems to have been followed, I take the theory on faith.
So now we come to one of the great debates of our time. Climate Change/Global Warming. It all follows the Laws of Nature and involves physics, thermodynamics and a whole lot of other disciplines that are Greek to me. I once looked at the math involved in the calculation of friction of air masses which is basic to the study of meteorology and came away shaking my head.
There are these 'scientists' out there who have concluded that man is affecting the environment in a negative manner causing damaging climate change. Non-scientists have taken up their cry and have made a political issue out of it, demanding that we take drastic steps to change our ways in a manner that will negatively affect our economy and be detrimental to our standard of living.
I am not competent enoigh to understand the science involved so I look at whether the Scientific Method has been followed to draw the conclusions. It appears that a group of what appear to be politically motivated 'scientists' have studieed data they refuse to share. Climategate has shown that they have unashamedly massaged data to support their conclusions. They further have used political avenues to castigate their critics preventing any true peer review or discussion. Then they have had to retract some of their pronouncements made based on faulty input when they have been caught out.
As a laymen who is being asked to give up much based on their conclusions, I have come to my own belief that the Scientific Method has not been followed by these people. As a result, I have no faith in their findings and will not support their recommendations. Maybe there is some truth to what they say, since the climate appears to move in response to a 100K year cycle, but to conclude that it is man made or that any steps we take now can reverse the trend, if there is one, are unproven.
Let me see some open debate. Let all the data be shared, tested and discussed. Let a theory be developed that is generally supported because it is verifiable and repeatable. Then let's see if drastic steps will make a change or if we should be spending our time preparing for the inevitable changes to come.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Thursday, September 17, 2009
"...all men are created equal..."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I have been mulling over this part of the Declaration of Independence in light of the ongoing push for egalitarianism and social justice and I finally conclude (to my dismay) that Jefferson got it wrong.
If we were all created equal, we would
- all run the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds
- make new discoveries in quantum mechanics
- not consider Ron Jeremy's anatomy to be remarkable
It is obvious that we are not all equal in any way that our capabilities can be measured. Perhaps it should have said "...are created with equal opportunity..." or that the next phrase, referring to inalienable rights, might have covered what was necessary about liberty.
In any case, I see that the misapplication of the "equal" ideal is leading to many of the current issues causing problems today. The claim to equality at birth leads some to believe that we should all have equal outcomes in our lives. The move towards eliminating school grades, removing winners and losers from kids' competition and using affirmative action instead of objective testing are only a few of the warped applications of this misleading idea. As a result, we are being dumbed down to our lowest common (but equal) denominator.
I have been mulling over this part of the Declaration of Independence in light of the ongoing push for egalitarianism and social justice and I finally conclude (to my dismay) that Jefferson got it wrong.
If we were all created equal, we would
- all run the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds
- make new discoveries in quantum mechanics
- not consider Ron Jeremy's anatomy to be remarkable
It is obvious that we are not all equal in any way that our capabilities can be measured. Perhaps it should have said "...are created with equal opportunity..." or that the next phrase, referring to inalienable rights, might have covered what was necessary about liberty.
In any case, I see that the misapplication of the "equal" ideal is leading to many of the current issues causing problems today. The claim to equality at birth leads some to believe that we should all have equal outcomes in our lives. The move towards eliminating school grades, removing winners and losers from kids' competition and using affirmative action instead of objective testing are only a few of the warped applications of this misleading idea. As a result, we are being dumbed down to our lowest common (but equal) denominator.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Television Networks Rant
I'm not going to get into the merits of what is broadcast on television these days, but there are some shows that Sandy and I like to watch. Because there is an element of serialization in most series these days, we don't like to miss one but we also don't like to watch reruns of shows we have seen.
Does anybody remember the good old days when they started a series in September and a new episode was aired every week until March? Then they went into reruns and did it all again for people who didn't watch it the first time around.
These days, they will run a few episodes in a row and then put in some reruns or other programs and then, out of the blue, throw in a few more new episodes. Then they'll switch nights without telling anyone. Any viewer using old technology has very little chance of catching all the episodes.
I sit down ever Monday morning and check our current programs out at tv.com to get the air dates for the new episodes. I track these in a spreadsheet (what else?) and then make sure the PVR is picking all those up to record. Still, from week to week, they alter the line-ups on a regular basis. For example, last week they might say that we can expect three new Criminal Minds episodes over the next three weeks. This week, they may be delayed for a week or more.
I have a handle on this through some work on my part, but what is going through the minds of those network scheduling people? Do they purposely want to make it difficult to follow their shows or do they figure that viewers can't tell the difference between a new episode and a repeat?
Then, they screw up the PVR's by having a program go from 9:00 to 10:01. What's with the extra minute? I can record two shows in a given time period and that minute keeps me from recording a pair starting at 10:00. I can start early but not late. I can end late but not early. So I have to time shift.
Another beef is that we got watching a couple of series with ongoing story lines (Eli Stone, My Own Worst Enemy) and they cancelled them. After they had shot the last show for what they thought was an ongoing series. You get involved, like the characters and then they leave them hanging forever.
Jericho was the exception. At the end of Season 2, they didn't know whether there would be a 3 so they shot two final episodes. A cliff-hanger and another that wrapped the story up. It was cancelled and we had closure.
It's easy to see that there is no concept at the networks of what makes a rewarding viewing experience. Morons are running the world. It's too bad that it's an inexpensive pastime that I enjoy or I'd take up video games instead.
There, I got that out of my system. For now.
Does anybody remember the good old days when they started a series in September and a new episode was aired every week until March? Then they went into reruns and did it all again for people who didn't watch it the first time around.
These days, they will run a few episodes in a row and then put in some reruns or other programs and then, out of the blue, throw in a few more new episodes. Then they'll switch nights without telling anyone. Any viewer using old technology has very little chance of catching all the episodes.
I sit down ever Monday morning and check our current programs out at tv.com to get the air dates for the new episodes. I track these in a spreadsheet (what else?) and then make sure the PVR is picking all those up to record. Still, from week to week, they alter the line-ups on a regular basis. For example, last week they might say that we can expect three new Criminal Minds episodes over the next three weeks. This week, they may be delayed for a week or more.
I have a handle on this through some work on my part, but what is going through the minds of those network scheduling people? Do they purposely want to make it difficult to follow their shows or do they figure that viewers can't tell the difference between a new episode and a repeat?
Then, they screw up the PVR's by having a program go from 9:00 to 10:01. What's with the extra minute? I can record two shows in a given time period and that minute keeps me from recording a pair starting at 10:00. I can start early but not late. I can end late but not early. So I have to time shift.
Another beef is that we got watching a couple of series with ongoing story lines (Eli Stone, My Own Worst Enemy) and they cancelled them. After they had shot the last show for what they thought was an ongoing series. You get involved, like the characters and then they leave them hanging forever.
Jericho was the exception. At the end of Season 2, they didn't know whether there would be a 3 so they shot two final episodes. A cliff-hanger and another that wrapped the story up. It was cancelled and we had closure.
It's easy to see that there is no concept at the networks of what makes a rewarding viewing experience. Morons are running the world. It's too bad that it's an inexpensive pastime that I enjoy or I'd take up video games instead.
There, I got that out of my system. For now.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Why libertarian?
My first response is to ask Why Not??????
I didn't set out to be a libertarian. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know what a libertarian was. I was raised in a typical Canadian household where political ideologies weren't discussed much. In the early 60's, my parents did give me a respect for JFK and Martin Luther King, but this was base on what they did and not the politics they espoused.
As I grew, I found that I wasn't comfortable in either traditional political camp. Formal political science education wasn't something I ran across and political ideology wasn't a big staple in Canadian debate. Sure, you would support one or the other of the big parties but, with the exception of the NDP, they were virtually interchangeable. What I did do a lot of was read novels, both fiction and science fiction. The ones that stuck with me the most were those of Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein.
In recent years, I found my way to the Vulcan Riders and Owners Club. In addition to sharing ways to improve our Vulcan motorcycles and planning where to gather to ride, a number of VROC members engaged in political and religious discussions on our Newsgroup.
Drawn into the debates, I found a curious thing. On individual freedom topics, like gay marriage, blue laws, drug legislation and freedom of speech, I found myself aligned with the left wing element. My thought is that my freedom should stop at the end of another's nose and that anything that happens between consenting adults is just fine by me. On other issues such as personal accountability, affirmative action and welfare, I found that I was squarely in the right wing camp. I was accused several times of being wishy-washy and a Mugwump (a creature who sits on the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other). I didn't think this was true because, dammit, none of my positions was wishy-washy.
Then good old Chris 'U-Turn' Ritz suggested I look up the definition of libertarian. The philosophy, not the party. Lo and behold, there I was. There is a second axis to political thought. One does not need to buy into a one dimensional ideology after all. I can have my cake and eat it too, but there is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Libertarians come in various stripes and do not suffer political platforms at all well, so we have very little chance of prevailing in the polarized US or Canadian scenes these days. It is interesting that most of the US Founding Fathers' writings, particularly Thomas Jefferson, show a decidedly libertarian bent. This is what led them to be the first to introduce the ideal that individual freedoms were paramount to the world stage.
I am not a pure libertarian, however. I do accept the Canadian concept that universal health care is a right because we said it was, although I deplore the bureaucratic mess the governments have made of it. I also, in these times, have strong protecionist leanings because a globalization in its current form is not a level playing field. There will be more on these exceptions later, but my general position is concurrent with the principles of libertarianism.
One thing that does intrigue me is that discussions with people who don't usually get into political philosophy often reveal the person to have libertarian leanings. I can't help but wonder that, if we get more vocal and share our views, maybe the world can be changed.
For those not previously familiar with this topic, talk radio host Neil Boortz is a blunt and often obnoxious proponent of the creed. I am currently reading his book, Somebody's Gotta Say It (thanks Scotty), and find myself agreeing with his observations almost completely. I will put the link to his website in the Links section of the sidebar to the right. The Nuze section has daily rants that I like reading.
I'll sign off now, but promise I will be back rambling before too long.
I didn't set out to be a libertarian. As a matter of fact, I didn't even know what a libertarian was. I was raised in a typical Canadian household where political ideologies weren't discussed much. In the early 60's, my parents did give me a respect for JFK and Martin Luther King, but this was base on what they did and not the politics they espoused.
As I grew, I found that I wasn't comfortable in either traditional political camp. Formal political science education wasn't something I ran across and political ideology wasn't a big staple in Canadian debate. Sure, you would support one or the other of the big parties but, with the exception of the NDP, they were virtually interchangeable. What I did do a lot of was read novels, both fiction and science fiction. The ones that stuck with me the most were those of Ayn Rand and Robert A. Heinlein.
In recent years, I found my way to the Vulcan Riders and Owners Club. In addition to sharing ways to improve our Vulcan motorcycles and planning where to gather to ride, a number of VROC members engaged in political and religious discussions on our Newsgroup.
Drawn into the debates, I found a curious thing. On individual freedom topics, like gay marriage, blue laws, drug legislation and freedom of speech, I found myself aligned with the left wing element. My thought is that my freedom should stop at the end of another's nose and that anything that happens between consenting adults is just fine by me. On other issues such as personal accountability, affirmative action and welfare, I found that I was squarely in the right wing camp. I was accused several times of being wishy-washy and a Mugwump (a creature who sits on the fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other). I didn't think this was true because, dammit, none of my positions was wishy-washy.
Then good old Chris 'U-Turn' Ritz suggested I look up the definition of libertarian. The philosophy, not the party. Lo and behold, there I was. There is a second axis to political thought. One does not need to buy into a one dimensional ideology after all. I can have my cake and eat it too, but there is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
Libertarians come in various stripes and do not suffer political platforms at all well, so we have very little chance of prevailing in the polarized US or Canadian scenes these days. It is interesting that most of the US Founding Fathers' writings, particularly Thomas Jefferson, show a decidedly libertarian bent. This is what led them to be the first to introduce the ideal that individual freedoms were paramount to the world stage.
I am not a pure libertarian, however. I do accept the Canadian concept that universal health care is a right because we said it was, although I deplore the bureaucratic mess the governments have made of it. I also, in these times, have strong protecionist leanings because a globalization in its current form is not a level playing field. There will be more on these exceptions later, but my general position is concurrent with the principles of libertarianism.
One thing that does intrigue me is that discussions with people who don't usually get into political philosophy often reveal the person to have libertarian leanings. I can't help but wonder that, if we get more vocal and share our views, maybe the world can be changed.
For those not previously familiar with this topic, talk radio host Neil Boortz is a blunt and often obnoxious proponent of the creed. I am currently reading his book, Somebody's Gotta Say It (thanks Scotty), and find myself agreeing with his observations almost completely. I will put the link to his website in the Links section of the sidebar to the right. The Nuze section has daily rants that I like reading.
I'll sign off now, but promise I will be back rambling before too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
