sudo life

I’ve been a scientific skeptic for over nine months now, and I’ve discovered that most people don’t really know what this means. So, I’m going to attempt to explain it.

You can boil down the concept of scientific skepticism down to one single concept: we know things based on empirical evidence. But what does that mean? It means that the only evidence acceptable in support of something is that evidence that is available to everyone and can be verified by anyone.

When looking at the phrase ’scientific skepticism’ it’s important to focus on the first word. A scientific skeptic uses science and the scientific method to verify or discover new evidence.

There are many famous scientific skeptics you probably already know about. Here is a short list: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Penn & Teller, and even the Mythbusters crew.

Using the scientific method, there are several things already know. We understand the effects of gravity (but are still working on how it works), the concepts of thermal-dynamics, the workings of the atom, evolutionary biology.

The things that there isn’t empirical evidence for are the things that the skeptic rejects. Examples of these things include: homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, and faith healing.

Sometimes the question arises about things everyone feels that they know, but we don’t really have evidence for. There is a scene in the movie, Contact, that illustrates this. The main character is asked to ‘prove’ that she loved her father. The point is that this was something she knew was true, but couldn’t really prove.

But is this a proper application of the skeptic epistemology?

There are several ways I’ve approached this problem. The first goes something like this. Personally, she has a lot of evidence for the fact that she loves her father. She has no problem knowing beyond all doubt that it is a simple fact. However, getting proof to this fact demonstrable and verifiable to a third person would be a bit more difficult. Some say that it would be possible for her to be hooked up to an MRI or EEG machine and readings of her brain to be taken. Or perhaps measurements of her body chemistry and how it reacts to thoughts of her father. In the end, however, there is an important thing to note that makes all of this rather pointless. She’s not trying to get other people to believe that she loved her father. It doesn’t really matter what anyone else believes. If she were to take on the task of trying to get other people to believe, perhaps then it would be necessary to provide such evidence.

When approaching a new idea, a skeptic will take a neutral stance and then look at the evidence. If the evidence contradicts the idea, then the idea is wrong, or incomplete. If the evidence is not enough to render a judgement either way, the skeptic will withhold judgement. This is an extremely important point. Skeptics are more tied to the method of knowledge discovery than to the knowledge itself. If contradictory evidence appears, the original idea is discarded and the search for a new one begins, one that fits with the evidence. Sometimes such new ideas are easily located, others may forever be out of our reach.

Philosophy meaning, Philosophy, Science, skepticism

Why is it that people are so willing to confine themselves to the smallest possible world they can create?

I want to yell at them, “Your god is too small!”  They don’t want to open their minds to the bigger world.  They go along spouting things from their mouth that they themselves were once told, and they never questioned.

“Well, that sounds right,” is their creed, and they do not know the meaning of truth, corrupting the very idea of it with their vile incompetence.  They take joy in not understanding the world around them, to the point that they think every one else should celebrate that same joy.  “Have no worries, have no questions, but trust god.”  It is evil to try to understand the world.  It is evil to look for knowledge!

It horrifies me and fills me with despair.

I look around and I see the corruption of everything I hold dear: justice, understanding, knowledge, freedom, love, and truth.  Justice is at the whim of the people, understanding and knowledge are divinely revealed from god, more security for more freedom, sexuality paraded around as momentary lust replaces a deep emotion, and truth is unreachable.

What is this world that is so backwards, and how did I come to see it as such, being a part of this world?

Am I the one that is backwards?

Can it be backwards to believe that justice and understanding is a product of reason?

Can it be backwards to believe that knowledge is a product of evidence?

Can it be backwards to believe that freedom means without control?

Can it be backwards to believe that love is the product of a deep emotional connection?

Can it be backwards to believe that truth can be verified through the application of the scientific method?

If any of these things be considered backwards, then god damn it, I’m going to be backwards!

We have but one life to live on this earth, and we’re lucky to have that.  There are no second chances, no ‘do-overs,’ no reprieves.  This world is what we make of it, and we must do our best to not allow ourselves to let our short time here slip away.

Personal Philosophy, Science, skepticism

I’ve been reading over some of my past blog entries in the archives, and I’m amazed at some of what I wrote.  I’ve changed so much in the last few years that it’s hard for me to even indentify with that person who was writing back then.  Here’s an overview of huge changes over the course of my blog entries:

Christianity -> Atheism
Conservatism -> Libertarianism
Bush Supporter -> Bush… not-supporter
Mysticism -> Scientific

Those are huge changes taken individually, but all four together just leaves me stunned.  It’s hard for me to put into perspective.  I’m basically a completely different person than I used to be.

How could that happen?

Was I really always this person I am today and before just fighting against it?

Well, as I look at these changes a bit more, I realize that they are all based on one thing, a change in my basic epistemology.  Basically the move from mysticism to skepticism.

There is the saying that says something along the lines of ‘people never change.’  Well, I now know that’s complete bullshit.  Get with the game!  Your destiny is in your hands, and you decide who you want to be.

Personal change, Philosophy

I’ve been planning this post for about a week now, but have been going back and forth on whether to actually write this. The fate of this entry was sealed, however, this morning as I read an article that popped up on my personal Blog roll. I’ll admit it now, the article had me in tears at the horror we as a people have become. I will not be posting a link to this article, because it is not for the faint of heart.

I coined this term “beautiful ugliness” after reading a story over the weekend about the hypothetical ending of mankind – self destruction. This term fits because we often forget that even though we have a great capacity for good, we have an equal capacity for evil. Over the course of history, which has been exercised more often? It’s difficult to quantify, though I can give it a shot.

There were nearly six million jews killed during the Holocaust. Have we ever had the mass saving of six million people? There were nearly 200,000 people killed instantle when we dropped nuclear weapons on Japan. Communism has killed nearly 100 million people worldwide. How many people were killed from the crusades, or earlier empire building wars? Was it more people than were saved?

On a more personal level, I’ve lived a life of nievity, and will continue to do so. I do not purposely hurt anyone , nor do I ever plan to. I have a confession to make. Recent analysis over the last year indicates that I probably had Aspergers growing up which has turned into obsessive-compulsive disorder now that I’m in my twenties. Ergo, I am not normal, nor can I really comprehend what is normal because of my social isolation.

I’ve recently come to the realization that people are radically different than I think of them in my little idealized world. People can be vindictive, cold hearted, and cruel – on a personal level. I always thought that those who would willingly harm another were few, and tended to lead nations at some point in their lives. This is not the case.

When asked what kept people from committing murder, theft or other criminal acts, the response was overwhelmingly ‘the law.’ There is no concept of an underlying moral code one should live by; people think the government as the final say. This is a foreign idea to me, as I’m more likely to follow my moral code, even if it goes against the law.

With this in mind, it is surprisingly clear how the Germans allowed their country to systematically go about the annihilation of certain groups of people during the second world war.

In this sense, we are like children who have not yet reached adulthood and the responsibilities it entails. As a race, humanity has not yet grown into accountability and personal responsibility.

The worse part is that instead of getting better, we are getting worse. In todays world of instant gratification, things have been devalued so that nothing is sacred. Sex has become a marketing tool, or a way of casual entertainment. Religion is protrayed as full of extremists who wish to control you (and the portrayel is more often than not, correct).

I do not expect that I’ve been able to communicate successfully what I am trying to say here, but I could not let this simmer any longer. Humans are beautiful, and yet so ugly. We can do so much good, and sometimes we do, but we also have a great capacity for evil, and sometimes that capacity is realized. Finally, instead of things getting better, things are getting worse.

Note: If you think you can handle the article that set me off on this post, please email me and I will send you the link. Beware, once again, that it is not for those who do not want their idea of our society shattered.

Update: As I’ve gone back and reread this, It hardly communicates what I was trying to say.  I’m going to leave this up, however, and hopefully rewrite this someday to encompass exactly what I mean.

Personal Philosophy

Here is my current line of thinking:

1. If there is a god, faith in that god does not depend on knowledge of a certain scripture.
2. If there is a god, we would be unable to completely be certain of it’s existence, relying on faith instead.
3. There is a god.
4. This god is All-knowing, All-present, and All-loving.
5. This god is so far above our level of thinking, we can not begin to fathom what that thinking is, therefore it is pointless to try to judge god’s thoughts.
6. My faith exists through what I percieve as reflections of god’s ultimate plan in my life.
7. The strength of that faith is not dependent upon outside forces.

Ok, that’s my start. I plan to add my thoughts on prayer, miracles, and other things later on.

Until next time, so long, do well, win awards, and thanks for all the fish. See you in the funny papers.

Theology christianity, Philosophy

There is a devil whispering in my ear the question:

How can something beyond our control have influence on our morality?

Such is the problem with the so-called “Original Sin.”

Theology christianity, Philosophy