Change is part of life. Without it, everything would suck. Being stuck in one place, across my life, drives me nuts. I'm not a "through the motions" kind of guy, though I have things I keep like that. It's tough to explain... while parts of my life may be status quo, I'm always doing something to better myself.
To that end, I've been looking for a new job. I'm absolutely fed up with my current employer. In my nearly six years here, instability was part of the job. Until this last bout, as we're going through merger actions (we were purchased by a bigger fish last year), I hadn't gotten this stuck. But this round, things have been grating on me. I know what I'm doing at work, but not what my job is. I couldn't describe what I do, or why they have me employed. I was told because I was a technical expert, but everything I do is around process (something I didn't really handle before) related.
On Wednesday, I interviewed with the largest employer in the US outside of the Federal Government. Sitting through it all, I've realized exactly how much my current job has hurt me. Answering questions and talking about my accomplishments, I realized that in six years of work, I did a lot, and learned a lot, but none of it related to being in a team doing that same thing. I'm trying to become a programmer, something I went to college for and would love to make my career focus. I have the skills and education for it, but everything at my current job has been a one-man show. We had no resources to get things done, so we cobbled it together. This new job would be resource and team intensive.
I'm not scared of starting somewhere new. I crave that. I'm not scared of moving, I've been trying to for years. I'm not scared of programming, though the scale will be a bit daunting. But what I am scared about is failure. I'm scared of getting a job and figuring I don't know anything, and will be fired for it. I don't know how I'd react. I've never been fired from a real job (in fact, the only time I was canned, it was as a scapegoat when I was 14, but totally different story), and for the most part, I've excelled. I demand such of myself. I like metrics, goals, and a way to measure myself.
That's probably why I'm so dissatisfied right now. I don't have anything to strive for. We're trying to stitch everything together because they laid-off most of our experts. I don't know how I can succeed, because I don't know what I'm doing. But changing means taking a risk. Moving somewhere new and potentially failing. I should know if I get the job by the end of the week. My impressions after the interview were that I stood a very good chance. They liked me (for whatever reason) and felt I'd be a good fit. They're most likely doing a background check and will see my ugly but improving credit and clean record (seriously, only trouble of note is a couple of speeding tickets). So now I'm in that terrible waiting part, which is the worst.
I hope it goes well. That's all I can do. It's out of my hands. My general motto is that I don't get worked up over things I cannot control, but at times like this, it's hard to stick to it. But should I get it, that means change.
And it scares the shit out of me.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Friday, March 07, 2008
Beyond the Brick, Changes, etc.
So, for the one or two people that may even remember this place and the outside chance that you wonder what's been going on... well, stuff. Mainly, most of my efforts have gone to my new community site, Beyond the Brick. It's a blog (though not as biting as this one) run between a few friends and myself, along with a discussion forum.
Outside of that, work sucks donkey parts. I've actually been pretty active in applying for a new job, and had an interview in KC earlier this week. I didn't get it with perhaps the lamest excuse ever: "they're holding out for someone that has experience in skills they didn't require." Basically, I had the goods, had a great interview, and was a strong candidate, but they want someone with experience in one particular language.
Outside of that, work sucks donkey parts. I've actually been pretty active in applying for a new job, and had an interview in KC earlier this week. I didn't get it with perhaps the lamest excuse ever: "they're holding out for someone that has experience in skills they didn't require." Basically, I had the goods, had a great interview, and was a strong candidate, but they want someone with experience in one particular language.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Holy Freakin' Crap
Okay, it's time that I have to geek out a little. It's no secret that I like LEGO or Star Wars, and more specifically, the two. I belong to a community called "From Bricks to Bothans," and part of the reason I've neglected my blog so much is that I'm a MOD on that site.
Anyway, a fellow MOD and myself came up with a contest to run for all the builders out there, called Steam Wars. Basically, it's a fusion of Steam Punk (think Jules Verne stuff taken to the extreme) and Star Wars. The rules are simple, create a Star Wars vehicle in Steam Punk style. It's generated a lot of interest and buzz on the community, but it's started to spill out past that. We've now been featured in a couple of blogs. And not just any blogs...
The Official Star Wars Blog and Wired.com Geek Dad blog.
That's right.
Anyway, a fellow MOD and myself came up with a contest to run for all the builders out there, called Steam Wars. Basically, it's a fusion of Steam Punk (think Jules Verne stuff taken to the extreme) and Star Wars. The rules are simple, create a Star Wars vehicle in Steam Punk style. It's generated a lot of interest and buzz on the community, but it's started to spill out past that. We've now been featured in a couple of blogs. And not just any blogs...
The Official Star Wars Blog and Wired.com Geek Dad blog.
That's right.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
A big step for me...
Sigh... a whole month without a post? That's bad, even for me. There are reasons... I've just been absurdly busy (mostly work stuff), but you don't care about that. However, I decided that I was going to cancel the subscriptions to the online games I play (that would be the big step).
Plus side, I did a whole long post about science and naturalism on a site I frequent (LEGO forum), which was kind of interesting. There's a whole board created just to discuss "hot" topics, and that's one I picked in response to a great deal of science bashing over in a religion thread. I was in that one, being nice, level and calm. Well, until I said that religion damages kids, and people kind of went apeshit. Well, just a few people.
It brought out an interesting side of online communities. There were a handful of people that took real issue with me posting, because I could even think to disagree with them. It doesn't help that I was recently elevated to a MOD on that forum, and now some godless heathen is in control of their posts (which I never let get in the way... I enforce the rules and help guide the community; my beliefs are neither here nor there). Two of them are kids, so they don't know any better yet, and another is an adult who should (and has taken equally attacking stances towards other subjects and people who don't agree with him). I also was protesting a law in Texas that mandated an open podium for religion (and only religion, and only religions that were deemed "non-offensive," and would not allow for rebuttal from us godless heathens or... you know... facts) and that was what really sparked off the breaking. I like the constitution, and the whole establishment clause and freedom of speech, and who in the hell gets to decide what's "non-offensive."
It's funny to me, because the reaction its garnered is about as un-Christian as I can imagine. They now frequent topics just to disagree with me, PMs about my beliefs, and bug others about it.
Anyway... the section... here's the post:
Science and Naturalism
Since we have a head-banging topic on religion going, I figured I'd take a moment and try to separate out the greater portion of science discussion (or attacks) that exists in that thread. I threatened to make it... and so here we are.
Vastly important note... this is not an anti-religion topic, an anti-god(s) topic, or even an anti-faith topic. Those can be fine things, but ultimately, they serve different purposes in the human psyche. The conflict between science and religion dates back a long time, and it comes down to the rejection of the "supernatural" element in science. This is called, in turn, Naturalism.
Naturalism (or Methodical Naturalism) is the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Before jumping on the word assumption here, remember that assumptions are a part of life, and required for logical discourse. But said assumptions are backed up by testing, evidence, and explanation. The world as we see it can be explained without our own terms without adding a "supernatural" element to it. I.e., the sun Rises because of the rotation of the Earth, not because invisible fairies are pulling it across the sky. By making the assumption that fairies don't exist, we are able to test, observe, and prove that the Earth a) rotates and b) the Sun's position is static relative to the Earth, and the apparent movement is in fact caused by the actual movement and rotation of our globe.
On the surface of this belief, religion and science do not collide. Science is not out to ever disprove (or prove) the existence of God(s). It's there to explore, explain, and expand on our understanding of everything around us. By design, Science is self correcting, open to review, and constantly changing and evolving. Where the conflict starts is when a conclusion arises that runs afoul of an accepted non-naturalistic belief. For practical purposes, that typically falls to the sciences of Astronomy, Biology, Cosmology, Archeology, Paleontology, and other sciences that focus on the past. However, science is far broader than this, chemistry, physics, medicine, biochemistry, agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, and thousands of other disciplines make up what can be called "science." Please note, evolution isn't a science in itself, it's a theory that's touched on by many different disciplines.
But remember the point of naturalism, as a rejection of the supernatural as an influence. Without this belief, the whole concept of science, in and of itself, breaks down. As soon as you say something can work in violation to the laws that govern our existence, you've invalidated those laws. We're not talking about things like evolution here, but the basic principles. In general, you can draw the biggest conflicts between science and religion to a few related topics:
The most common (and incorrect) criticism is that this scale is either incorrect or inaccurate, and therefore, the Earth is not as old as "science" says it is. Again, it's a sad generalization calling out science, or is more often the case, evolutionists, as being incorrect here. This is correlated by physics, nuclear science, chemistry, and geology. It's most definitely not inaccurate, since the half-life of C14 can be easily tested in a lab (and created in scale experiments). But perhaps the most damning thing about this supposed criticism is that geologists don't use carbon dating to measure the age of the earth, rocks, or other features. It's only accurate to 60,000 years (the amount of time it takes for the vast majority of C14 to become N14... which, incidentally, we can measure it that long because we can see the ratio of N14 to C14), and therefore, of little use dating the Earth. Instead, geologists use Uranium-Lead dating. Uranium 238 decays into Lead, and this takes a very long time... 4.45 Billion Years. That means that U238 hasn't gone through a full half-life cycle on Earth yet. And this is exceedingly accurate, refined to a level of +/-50 years. That's an extremely small margin of error to work with.
Trying to call this method into doubt undermines a lot of other known facts about Science. The half-life concept isn't just used in dating the earth, but also in atomic clocks, radiology, meteorology (since C14 factors in to the interaction of the atmosphere and cosmic rays), and chemistry. It undermines the whole thing the same way as supernatural intervention does... you can't trust any result or value you receive... what's to keep someone/thing/god/monster/nose from changing it to 6 days tomorrow?
Oh, as a brief aside... while I know I promised this would be about science, I should point out my biggest problem with YEC. My stance against misinformation is well documented on these forums, and when I make a factual error, I own up to it. But willfully perpetuating wrong information should be punished. Ironically, my opinion on YEC was formed back when I was still a very "active" Christian. It undermines the entire point of the Christian faith, and the very idea of a Christian God. It requires that God be deceitful by nature, and that he put lies into the record around us. We're not just talking about things like fossils here (even though dating methods put them back millions upon millions of years ago), though that's a big one (if you're a Christian and you hear someone else say that God put fossils there to test people, be sure to tell them that God doesn't lie, and that's what something like that would be). But further things, like cosmology, astronomy, and history are called into question with the belief of YEC, and that God had to set up the entire cosmos to appear as if it was a whole lot older than it was to "trick" us.
Of course, my views about the whole god(s) thing have changed since then, giving rise to the naturalist view, but back then, I had a real issue with that. In a lot of ways I still do, because it belittles so much done by so many people. Not just scientists, but also historians, writers, cultures, and religions as well. That should never be tolerated.
Okay, back to the topic at hand. Specific instances of science come under attack constantly, despite the fact that what is usually attacked is not linked to any one specific scientific discipline. Evolution, for example, is not a discipline in itself, it's an area of study. It's not a singular theory, or even one that can fit into a paragraph. It's a multitude of theories, hypothesis, facts, and ideas that have come together from centuries of testing, observation, experiments, and learning. And no part of it negates a belief in a higher power, only the narrow view of the origin/creation as a literal event. Mind you, the same argument is not limited to just evolution. It was made against astronomy during the time of Galileo, and astronomy came out as right, despite direct contradiction from that same narrow view.
By its nature, science is always interconnected, since there are parts that overlap with each other, often as near compliments. Cosmology, the origin of the universe, intersects with astronomy, and both together fill in gaps into geology. Again, a big issue is to undermine one part and leave the rest untouched... that's where you see scientists get up in arms over the idea of Intelligent Design (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a science, it's an insult to all real science), even if their specific area of study or discipline isn't directly affected... it tries to undermine the whole thing.
It's also to understand the very nature and philosophy of science. It's not about creating laws or facts, it's not a matter of faith and belief, and it is never, never just making stuff up. Naturalism is a way of explaining what we can observe around us. We take water as a liquid, heat it, and it will boil and "vanish" into thin air. Through observation and controls, we know that heat transfer (thermodynamics) increases the temperature of the water until it changes states from liquid to gas, becoming water vapor. The water doesn't vanish, it just changes states. If you were to capture the vapor/air and sufficiently cool it, it'd change back into a liquid. Once upon a time, that would have been considered magic, without an explanation.
Over the years, mythology/religion has sought to fill in those gaps in understanding, attributing to the supernatural what could not be explained as the natural. But this was before the rise of naturalism, which said there is a natural explanation for everything. At best, it's currently unknown, and merits further study. It does not actively try to disprove any sort of higher being, but by design, does not allow for a "god(s) did it" argument or explanation for anything. Unless, of course, there was a natural and concise explanation for god(s), then we'd jump right at it. The motion of disallowing the supernatural explanation means that everything has an explanation, as stated before, and that claims that rely on them must be false (or have a mundane reasoning behind them). This would amount to things like miracles, ghosts, psychics, talking to the dead, remote viewing, ESP... the list could go on forever. As Pierre Laplace so eloquently said to Napoleon when asked where God fit into his book on science... "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là". It holds true for all naturalistic explanations, there is no need for the supernatural because the natural can explain it.
But again, remember that science is: it's a process of explaining the natural and observable causes in the universe. The naturalist movement generally started with the age of scientific enlightenment (which could go back as far as Leonardo, but generally starts with Galileo, Copernicus, and later, Darwin).
It does need to be noted a few facts about science with all of this, and definitions that are needed when discussing science. These are important for a number of reasons. First, they are important to the very core of what science is. Second, when people attack or criticize science, nothing shows off ignorance any more than failure to understand the very principles of what science is. This is very apparent in the discussion around evolution, since nearly all of the arguments require that you know nothing about the basics of the scientific method to believe them. Third, and most importantly, it doesn't apply only to science, but to most logical endeavors.
The Scientific Method is not a single method, but instead a collection of different problem solving and logical processes that together fit into the fundamentals of science. It requires science be based upon observable (either directly or indirectly), empirical (non-biased data), testable, and measurable actions/results. This fits into what was described above, the removable of the supernatural as a result. Since it can not be observed and tested, it can not fit into this method. Thus, science is never seeking to prove or disprove God(s). This process of action binds the rest of science together. If it can't be tested using the scientific method, it's simply not science.
This part, in turn, moves to the basic structure that makes up science. It starts with observation, which optimally is observed more than one or recorded and can be re-examined. Observation pushes into learning, and when examining the results, it starts to build into hypothesis. Please note, a hypothesis is not a "guess." It's much more formulated than that. Once a hypothesis is formed, it's a matter of testing and continued observation. Remember that for science, it has to be testable, and by that nature, potentially falsifiable.
That's a cornerstone of science, that a result can always be falsified if evidence later contradicts it. The Scientific Method makes the whole system open to peer review. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in science is above examination. Not the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, or the big bang. It's all constantly being examined, tested, and revised. If someone puts out bad data, the idea of peer review guarantees that it will be caught. Take a classic example of Cold Fusion... a few individuals posted results based on a long-standing hypothesis and theoretical discussion. The rest of the community started to look through the result and raised the red flag. Essentially, science has a built-in bull* bleep * detector.
Again, we're still dealing with the observation and hypothesis level here, we haven't moved on to theory. The process requires that someone publish their proof, experiments, and observations right along with their conclusions. Again, the subject of peer review. While someone doesn't always have to post full instructions on how it was done (for patent issues and the like), they do need to disclose what they did. Which leads to another important concept, that of independent conformation. This means that once a conclusion has been reached, someone else needs to come to the same conclusion using similar data.
We'll take fossils for this one. Someone can dig up a fossil in a particular locale that's unique. Let's say they found a new dinosaur, the Rockosaurus, in southern Canada. Using established concepts, our intrepid Canadian Scientist, Dr. TPJ, determines it was 78 million years old. This is amazingly odd, since there are no records of other dinosaurs in the same area. Further observations uncover a couple more in that same area, and our fair doctor sets about to explaining his observations. He double-checks the dating, dating on the surrounding rocks, and looks at his own experience in the field and at the evidence from the surrounding area. He has an independent source double-check his dating numbers, and pulls other reports for the area he's been digging and what's known about it. By checking micro-fossilization and strata studies done by several sources, he determines that the soil he pulled the Rockosaurus from did indeed date from 80 million to 75 million years ago. The date-time is confirmed, and he has to start looking further.
Ultimately, through a whole lot of other testing, he finds out that the area did indeed look like it could support the Rockosaurus as far as diet and environment, and starts to hypothesize about the creature and its place in the ecosystem. Further study reveals a few things known about dinosaurs in general, and this one was a carnivore, and most likely hunted smaller Andrewasaurs, which have been found in nearby areas, but not here specifically. The environment would support the Andrewasaurs on all fronts, and given what is known about the little buggers, they would not likely fossilize in that area. The doctor therefore hypothesizes that the Rockosaurus was a large predator and further study could conclude the area had a larger food supply.
Once he publishes his studies, another doctor discovers evidence of the Andrewasaurs in the same area, as well as evidence that there was an active predator species at work in the area, eating the Andrewasaurs and keeping their population in check. This creates independent evidence that Dr. TPJ's original hypothesis is correct. There may be adjustments or new conclusions in light of the new evidence, and it continues to grow. Please note, this still remains as a hypothesis, and does not move past that at the point. It will, however, become part of a larger theory, that of dinosaur ecology in southern Canada. In some cases, independent results may be someone looking at the same thing and coming to the same conclusions.
Which leads then to theories. Again, a theory never means guess. It is based on a mountain of data, experiments, and observations. It does not focus on a small little portion of data, but a broad concept that touches many things. The theory of evolution does not just focus on the origin on mankind. It focuses on the changes and progression of less complex life to more complex one. Humans are a very small part of the overall picture. And it touches into many disciplines... astronomy and cosmology (origins of the stuff that makes up what we see and how it came together); biology, paleontology, geology; chemistry, history, sociology... the list goes on quite a ways.
All theories are collections of several hypotheses and observations that create a large set of conclusions with a general overtone. The theory of evolution states that all life developed from simpler creatures over time, but there are tens-of-thousands of parts that go into that general conclusion. One important thing to note is that by proving an individual conclusion wrong, you do not invalidate the whole theory. A theory, in and of itself, is hardly ever turned over as false, even when parts are. Science is self-correcting and constantly adapting, and will change to accommodate what the new data and observations point to. It's also fairly rare that a conclusion was devoted to proving something wrong; typically, they're trying to prove the same thing and may come into conflicting results. The scientific process means that the conflicting information comes together and is refined into something even stronger.
That's the beauty inherent in science, that the more its refined, the stronger it gets. We can use astronomy as a wonderful example here, because our knowledge in the field has progressed drastically in the last few decades. This has been driven by a lot of things (and held up by so many others). Generally, before the age of enlightenment, it was the realm of "the heavens." Galileo smashed that apart with basic observation, and Kepler continued to dash a lot of concepts along with it.
But in the last three years, we've gone from simply theorizing that planets were out there, to viewing accretion disc (where stars and planets are born), to indirectly detecting planets (wobble methods and dimming detection), to actually imaging a planet around another star (albeit very blurry and the planet is barely a planet and almost a star). Science has accommodated these changes over time. It used to be that we felt that small stars, like our sun, were the majority, but we were in the minority as a single pair. Most stars were thought to be binaries because that's what we observed. As our imagining skill improved, we classified a whole new generation and type of stars, that of the Red Dwarf (not to be confused with the very funny Brit Sci-Fi show), which is a low-mass/low-luminosity star. They're very hard to see from Earth, but the Hubble is great at detecting them. So we now know that these are the most common type of star. Our understanding constantly changes and revises itself, usually in a "somewhat" straight progression, but often through bursts and zig-zags and complete circles.
There is far more to explain, but this is most likely already the longest post in FBTB history, and I will take time to let it sink in before moving on to further topics in regards to science. There's far more to be said for Evolution, Astronomy, Biology, Sociology, Philosophy, Skepticism, Ethics, and far, far more. Feel free to bring up or propose topics as you see fit.
Plus side, I did a whole long post about science and naturalism on a site I frequent (LEGO forum), which was kind of interesting. There's a whole board created just to discuss "hot" topics, and that's one I picked in response to a great deal of science bashing over in a religion thread. I was in that one, being nice, level and calm. Well, until I said that religion damages kids, and people kind of went apeshit. Well, just a few people.
It brought out an interesting side of online communities. There were a handful of people that took real issue with me posting, because I could even think to disagree with them. It doesn't help that I was recently elevated to a MOD on that forum, and now some godless heathen is in control of their posts (which I never let get in the way... I enforce the rules and help guide the community; my beliefs are neither here nor there). Two of them are kids, so they don't know any better yet, and another is an adult who should (and has taken equally attacking stances towards other subjects and people who don't agree with him). I also was protesting a law in Texas that mandated an open podium for religion (and only religion, and only religions that were deemed "non-offensive," and would not allow for rebuttal from us godless heathens or... you know... facts) and that was what really sparked off the breaking. I like the constitution, and the whole establishment clause and freedom of speech, and who in the hell gets to decide what's "non-offensive."
It's funny to me, because the reaction its garnered is about as un-Christian as I can imagine. They now frequent topics just to disagree with me, PMs about my beliefs, and bug others about it.
Anyway... the section... here's the post:
Science and Naturalism
Since we have a head-banging topic on religion going, I figured I'd take a moment and try to separate out the greater portion of science discussion (or attacks) that exists in that thread. I threatened to make it... and so here we are.
Vastly important note... this is not an anti-religion topic, an anti-god(s) topic, or even an anti-faith topic. Those can be fine things, but ultimately, they serve different purposes in the human psyche. The conflict between science and religion dates back a long time, and it comes down to the rejection of the "supernatural" element in science. This is called, in turn, Naturalism.
Naturalism (or Methodical Naturalism) is the methodological assumption that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Before jumping on the word assumption here, remember that assumptions are a part of life, and required for logical discourse. But said assumptions are backed up by testing, evidence, and explanation. The world as we see it can be explained without our own terms without adding a "supernatural" element to it. I.e., the sun Rises because of the rotation of the Earth, not because invisible fairies are pulling it across the sky. By making the assumption that fairies don't exist, we are able to test, observe, and prove that the Earth a) rotates and b) the Sun's position is static relative to the Earth, and the apparent movement is in fact caused by the actual movement and rotation of our globe.
On the surface of this belief, religion and science do not collide. Science is not out to ever disprove (or prove) the existence of God(s). It's there to explore, explain, and expand on our understanding of everything around us. By design, Science is self correcting, open to review, and constantly changing and evolving. Where the conflict starts is when a conclusion arises that runs afoul of an accepted non-naturalistic belief. For practical purposes, that typically falls to the sciences of Astronomy, Biology, Cosmology, Archeology, Paleontology, and other sciences that focus on the past. However, science is far broader than this, chemistry, physics, medicine, biochemistry, agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, and thousands of other disciplines make up what can be called "science." Please note, evolution isn't a science in itself, it's a theory that's touched on by many different disciplines.
But remember the point of naturalism, as a rejection of the supernatural as an influence. Without this belief, the whole concept of science, in and of itself, breaks down. As soon as you say something can work in violation to the laws that govern our existence, you've invalidated those laws. We're not talking about things like evolution here, but the basic principles. In general, you can draw the biggest conflicts between science and religion to a few related topics:
- Evolution as the origin of life (and as part of that, man)
- Cosmology, the origin of the universe, our galaxy, and solar system - specifically, the conflict between the traditional Age of the Earth/Geology and the push for Young Earth Creationists (Intelligent Design religious folks who say the Earth is 6000 years old) and Old Earth Creationists (people who accept facts like the Earth being 4 billion years old, but still try to point to a higher power as the cause for everything)
- Consciousness, Morality, and the human psyche
The most common (and incorrect) criticism is that this scale is either incorrect or inaccurate, and therefore, the Earth is not as old as "science" says it is. Again, it's a sad generalization calling out science, or is more often the case, evolutionists, as being incorrect here. This is correlated by physics, nuclear science, chemistry, and geology. It's most definitely not inaccurate, since the half-life of C14 can be easily tested in a lab (and created in scale experiments). But perhaps the most damning thing about this supposed criticism is that geologists don't use carbon dating to measure the age of the earth, rocks, or other features. It's only accurate to 60,000 years (the amount of time it takes for the vast majority of C14 to become N14... which, incidentally, we can measure it that long because we can see the ratio of N14 to C14), and therefore, of little use dating the Earth. Instead, geologists use Uranium-Lead dating. Uranium 238 decays into Lead, and this takes a very long time... 4.45 Billion Years. That means that U238 hasn't gone through a full half-life cycle on Earth yet. And this is exceedingly accurate, refined to a level of +/-50 years. That's an extremely small margin of error to work with.
Trying to call this method into doubt undermines a lot of other known facts about Science. The half-life concept isn't just used in dating the earth, but also in atomic clocks, radiology, meteorology (since C14 factors in to the interaction of the atmosphere and cosmic rays), and chemistry. It undermines the whole thing the same way as supernatural intervention does... you can't trust any result or value you receive... what's to keep someone/thing/god/monster/nose from changing it to 6 days tomorrow?
Oh, as a brief aside... while I know I promised this would be about science, I should point out my biggest problem with YEC. My stance against misinformation is well documented on these forums, and when I make a factual error, I own up to it. But willfully perpetuating wrong information should be punished. Ironically, my opinion on YEC was formed back when I was still a very "active" Christian. It undermines the entire point of the Christian faith, and the very idea of a Christian God. It requires that God be deceitful by nature, and that he put lies into the record around us. We're not just talking about things like fossils here (even though dating methods put them back millions upon millions of years ago), though that's a big one (if you're a Christian and you hear someone else say that God put fossils there to test people, be sure to tell them that God doesn't lie, and that's what something like that would be). But further things, like cosmology, astronomy, and history are called into question with the belief of YEC, and that God had to set up the entire cosmos to appear as if it was a whole lot older than it was to "trick" us.
Of course, my views about the whole god(s) thing have changed since then, giving rise to the naturalist view, but back then, I had a real issue with that. In a lot of ways I still do, because it belittles so much done by so many people. Not just scientists, but also historians, writers, cultures, and religions as well. That should never be tolerated.
Okay, back to the topic at hand. Specific instances of science come under attack constantly, despite the fact that what is usually attacked is not linked to any one specific scientific discipline. Evolution, for example, is not a discipline in itself, it's an area of study. It's not a singular theory, or even one that can fit into a paragraph. It's a multitude of theories, hypothesis, facts, and ideas that have come together from centuries of testing, observation, experiments, and learning. And no part of it negates a belief in a higher power, only the narrow view of the origin/creation as a literal event. Mind you, the same argument is not limited to just evolution. It was made against astronomy during the time of Galileo, and astronomy came out as right, despite direct contradiction from that same narrow view.
By its nature, science is always interconnected, since there are parts that overlap with each other, often as near compliments. Cosmology, the origin of the universe, intersects with astronomy, and both together fill in gaps into geology. Again, a big issue is to undermine one part and leave the rest untouched... that's where you see scientists get up in arms over the idea of Intelligent Design (sorry, I can't bring myself to call it a science, it's an insult to all real science), even if their specific area of study or discipline isn't directly affected... it tries to undermine the whole thing.
It's also to understand the very nature and philosophy of science. It's not about creating laws or facts, it's not a matter of faith and belief, and it is never, never just making stuff up. Naturalism is a way of explaining what we can observe around us. We take water as a liquid, heat it, and it will boil and "vanish" into thin air. Through observation and controls, we know that heat transfer (thermodynamics) increases the temperature of the water until it changes states from liquid to gas, becoming water vapor. The water doesn't vanish, it just changes states. If you were to capture the vapor/air and sufficiently cool it, it'd change back into a liquid. Once upon a time, that would have been considered magic, without an explanation.
Over the years, mythology/religion has sought to fill in those gaps in understanding, attributing to the supernatural what could not be explained as the natural. But this was before the rise of naturalism, which said there is a natural explanation for everything. At best, it's currently unknown, and merits further study. It does not actively try to disprove any sort of higher being, but by design, does not allow for a "god(s) did it" argument or explanation for anything. Unless, of course, there was a natural and concise explanation for god(s), then we'd jump right at it. The motion of disallowing the supernatural explanation means that everything has an explanation, as stated before, and that claims that rely on them must be false (or have a mundane reasoning behind them). This would amount to things like miracles, ghosts, psychics, talking to the dead, remote viewing, ESP... the list could go on forever. As Pierre Laplace so eloquently said to Napoleon when asked where God fit into his book on science... "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là". It holds true for all naturalistic explanations, there is no need for the supernatural because the natural can explain it.
But again, remember that science is: it's a process of explaining the natural and observable causes in the universe. The naturalist movement generally started with the age of scientific enlightenment (which could go back as far as Leonardo, but generally starts with Galileo, Copernicus, and later, Darwin).
It does need to be noted a few facts about science with all of this, and definitions that are needed when discussing science. These are important for a number of reasons. First, they are important to the very core of what science is. Second, when people attack or criticize science, nothing shows off ignorance any more than failure to understand the very principles of what science is. This is very apparent in the discussion around evolution, since nearly all of the arguments require that you know nothing about the basics of the scientific method to believe them. Third, and most importantly, it doesn't apply only to science, but to most logical endeavors.
The Scientific Method is not a single method, but instead a collection of different problem solving and logical processes that together fit into the fundamentals of science. It requires science be based upon observable (either directly or indirectly), empirical (non-biased data), testable, and measurable actions/results. This fits into what was described above, the removable of the supernatural as a result. Since it can not be observed and tested, it can not fit into this method. Thus, science is never seeking to prove or disprove God(s). This process of action binds the rest of science together. If it can't be tested using the scientific method, it's simply not science.
This part, in turn, moves to the basic structure that makes up science. It starts with observation, which optimally is observed more than one or recorded and can be re-examined. Observation pushes into learning, and when examining the results, it starts to build into hypothesis. Please note, a hypothesis is not a "guess." It's much more formulated than that. Once a hypothesis is formed, it's a matter of testing and continued observation. Remember that for science, it has to be testable, and by that nature, potentially falsifiable.
That's a cornerstone of science, that a result can always be falsified if evidence later contradicts it. The Scientific Method makes the whole system open to peer review. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in science is above examination. Not the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, or the big bang. It's all constantly being examined, tested, and revised. If someone puts out bad data, the idea of peer review guarantees that it will be caught. Take a classic example of Cold Fusion... a few individuals posted results based on a long-standing hypothesis and theoretical discussion. The rest of the community started to look through the result and raised the red flag. Essentially, science has a built-in bull* bleep * detector.
Again, we're still dealing with the observation and hypothesis level here, we haven't moved on to theory. The process requires that someone publish their proof, experiments, and observations right along with their conclusions. Again, the subject of peer review. While someone doesn't always have to post full instructions on how it was done (for patent issues and the like), they do need to disclose what they did. Which leads to another important concept, that of independent conformation. This means that once a conclusion has been reached, someone else needs to come to the same conclusion using similar data.
We'll take fossils for this one. Someone can dig up a fossil in a particular locale that's unique. Let's say they found a new dinosaur, the Rockosaurus, in southern Canada. Using established concepts, our intrepid Canadian Scientist, Dr. TPJ, determines it was 78 million years old. This is amazingly odd, since there are no records of other dinosaurs in the same area. Further observations uncover a couple more in that same area, and our fair doctor sets about to explaining his observations. He double-checks the dating, dating on the surrounding rocks, and looks at his own experience in the field and at the evidence from the surrounding area. He has an independent source double-check his dating numbers, and pulls other reports for the area he's been digging and what's known about it. By checking micro-fossilization and strata studies done by several sources, he determines that the soil he pulled the Rockosaurus from did indeed date from 80 million to 75 million years ago. The date-time is confirmed, and he has to start looking further.
Ultimately, through a whole lot of other testing, he finds out that the area did indeed look like it could support the Rockosaurus as far as diet and environment, and starts to hypothesize about the creature and its place in the ecosystem. Further study reveals a few things known about dinosaurs in general, and this one was a carnivore, and most likely hunted smaller Andrewasaurs, which have been found in nearby areas, but not here specifically. The environment would support the Andrewasaurs on all fronts, and given what is known about the little buggers, they would not likely fossilize in that area. The doctor therefore hypothesizes that the Rockosaurus was a large predator and further study could conclude the area had a larger food supply.
Once he publishes his studies, another doctor discovers evidence of the Andrewasaurs in the same area, as well as evidence that there was an active predator species at work in the area, eating the Andrewasaurs and keeping their population in check. This creates independent evidence that Dr. TPJ's original hypothesis is correct. There may be adjustments or new conclusions in light of the new evidence, and it continues to grow. Please note, this still remains as a hypothesis, and does not move past that at the point. It will, however, become part of a larger theory, that of dinosaur ecology in southern Canada. In some cases, independent results may be someone looking at the same thing and coming to the same conclusions.
Which leads then to theories. Again, a theory never means guess. It is based on a mountain of data, experiments, and observations. It does not focus on a small little portion of data, but a broad concept that touches many things. The theory of evolution does not just focus on the origin on mankind. It focuses on the changes and progression of less complex life to more complex one. Humans are a very small part of the overall picture. And it touches into many disciplines... astronomy and cosmology (origins of the stuff that makes up what we see and how it came together); biology, paleontology, geology; chemistry, history, sociology... the list goes on quite a ways.
All theories are collections of several hypotheses and observations that create a large set of conclusions with a general overtone. The theory of evolution states that all life developed from simpler creatures over time, but there are tens-of-thousands of parts that go into that general conclusion. One important thing to note is that by proving an individual conclusion wrong, you do not invalidate the whole theory. A theory, in and of itself, is hardly ever turned over as false, even when parts are. Science is self-correcting and constantly adapting, and will change to accommodate what the new data and observations point to. It's also fairly rare that a conclusion was devoted to proving something wrong; typically, they're trying to prove the same thing and may come into conflicting results. The scientific process means that the conflicting information comes together and is refined into something even stronger.
That's the beauty inherent in science, that the more its refined, the stronger it gets. We can use astronomy as a wonderful example here, because our knowledge in the field has progressed drastically in the last few decades. This has been driven by a lot of things (and held up by so many others). Generally, before the age of enlightenment, it was the realm of "the heavens." Galileo smashed that apart with basic observation, and Kepler continued to dash a lot of concepts along with it.
But in the last three years, we've gone from simply theorizing that planets were out there, to viewing accretion disc (where stars and planets are born), to indirectly detecting planets (wobble methods and dimming detection), to actually imaging a planet around another star (albeit very blurry and the planet is barely a planet and almost a star). Science has accommodated these changes over time. It used to be that we felt that small stars, like our sun, were the majority, but we were in the minority as a single pair. Most stars were thought to be binaries because that's what we observed. As our imagining skill improved, we classified a whole new generation and type of stars, that of the Red Dwarf (not to be confused with the very funny Brit Sci-Fi show), which is a low-mass/low-luminosity star. They're very hard to see from Earth, but the Hubble is great at detecting them. So we now know that these are the most common type of star. Our understanding constantly changes and revises itself, usually in a "somewhat" straight progression, but often through bursts and zig-zags and complete circles.
There is far more to explain, but this is most likely already the longest post in FBTB history, and I will take time to let it sink in before moving on to further topics in regards to science. There's far more to be said for Evolution, Astronomy, Biology, Sociology, Philosophy, Skepticism, Ethics, and far, far more. Feel free to bring up or propose topics as you see fit.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
"Marching Band Music Makes me Hot!"
Well, not really. I thought band was a joke (a rather pointless one at that), but I didn't have anything better to do. I abandoned it once I was out of high school.
That being said... the line is a quote, anyway. It's in the
Check out the video on YouTube (sorry, can't embed this one).
Yes, it's a country song. Over the last few years, my music taste has transcended genre. Genre is a marketing concept more than anything, and I just like to listen to stuff I enjoy without such trapping. Plus, my wife likes Country music, so there is that.
That being said... the line is a quote, anyway. It's in the
Check out the video on YouTube (sorry, can't embed this one).
Yes, it's a country song. Over the last few years, my music taste has transcended genre. Genre is a marketing concept more than anything, and I just like to listen to stuff I enjoy without such trapping. Plus, my wife likes Country music, so there is that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)