What is Science?

In recent months, I have joined a group dedicated to the promotion of science, The Alliance for Science. There was recently a call for position statements for the website, which I am in the process of writing. In my research, I came across this speech on the title topic by Richard Feynman. It is a wonderful speech despite the sexism in parts. His definition of science is spot on. He starts by building up to a description of the development "intelligence" first as individuals solving problems, then as individuals communicating experience and ideas to other individuals creating a cultural "race memory." He continues

This phenomenon of having a memory for the race, of having an accumulated knowledge passable from one generation to another, was new in the world--but it had a disease in it: it was possible to pass on ideas which were not profitable for the race. The race has ideas, but they are not necessarily profitable.

So there came a time in which the ideas, although accumulated very slowly, were all accumulations not only of practical and useful things, but great accumulations of all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs.

Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initio again from experience what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it is passed down. And that is what science is: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience from the past. I see it that way. That is my best definition.

That is a good definition. He boils it down to one sentence later in the speech "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Over at ScienceBlogs, Chad Orzel's Uncertain Principles has put out a call for votes for the Greatest Physics Experiment, offering up eleven candidates. One of the candidates is Galileo, for two experiments. One of them, the one on the motion of objects, I remember having to reproduce in high school. Galileo timed balls of different weights as they rolled down inclined planes to see if heavier ones reached the bottom of the run before the lighter ones. Aristotle had claimed that they would. That's what my "common-sense" told me before I did the experiment. But as anyone who has done the experiment remembers, it's not true that heavier balls reach the bottom before lighter balls. My common-sense had mislead me. I had fooled myself into thinking that I knew something -- something that was in fact false.

So I would add to Feynman's one-line definition something else, also said by Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." Thus, science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, and in the misleading nature of common sense. It is a method for minimizing the influence of biases; for weeding out "all types of prejudices, and strange and odd beliefs."

ACLU Derangement

Over at the wonderfully named Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton has a few interesting posts on The ACLU Derangement Syndrome, which he got from Eugene Volokh, who named it after various earlier derangement syndroms. As Ed explains it:

The idea is that some subjects prompt such anger in some people that they are incapable of thinking rationally about that subject.

The ACLU derangement is, I think, frequently the result of an inability to distinguish between religious exercise by private parties and government preference for or sponsorship of a class of religions. The ACLU regularly opposes the government in latter case and defends private parties in the former case. I have run across quite a few people who feel that witholding government sponsorship of their religion is an infringement on their free exercise (rather than a limitation on government power,) and who thus view the ACLU as opposed to the free exercise of religion (particularly theirs.) They view the ACLU defense of religious exercise as inconsistent with their experience, and either ignore it outright or dismiss it as "window dressing."

Creationism: Hijacking the Book of Genesis

This meeting of The Alliance for Science may be of interest to those in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area who follow the political origins debate.

(from the original flyer:)

THE ALLIANCE FOR SCIENCE (AfS)

Creationism: Hijacking the Book of Genesis

by

PAUL S. FORBES,

Co-Chairman of the Alliance for Science

Creationists oppose evolution because they claim it contradicts the inerrant word of God as revealed in the Book of Genesis. Does it? Learn what archaeology and the study of ancient texts reveal about Genesis and its origins.

Wednesday, January 25

7:00 to 9:00 PM

OAKTON HIGH SCHOOL, LECTURE ROOM

2900 SUTTON ROAD {Enter Door #5}

VIENNA, VA 22181

{The Vienna/Fairfax-GMU Metro Stop on the Orange Line}

The meeting will also address:

• The Clergy Project (a new member of the AfS Council) and Darwin Sunday, February 12
• The preparations for the AfS launch at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) national meeting on February 19 in St. Louis MO
• Current status of the organization and how you can help

The Alliance for Science
The mission of the Alliance for Science is to achieve public understanding and support for science, and to preserve the separation of science and religion
info@allianceforscience.org

Directions to the Meeting:

• From I-495, the capital beltway, take I-66 West.
• Exit I-66 at Nutley Street, which is the first set of exits outside the beltway.
• The Nutley Street exit is a long service road with three separate exit points.
• Go to the 3rd and last of these exits. The sign will say, "Metro Parking."
• Take the "Metro Parking" exit to a traffic light at Country Creek Road.
• Turn left onto Country Creek Road. Oakton High School is dead ahead.
• Go to the 4-way stop at Sutton Road.
• Go straight through the stop sign into the Oakton High School parking lot.

Parking is available on all sides of the school, but the parking lot in the rear is larger, and is closer to the auditorium. If you park in the rear, enter the school at Entrance # 5.

Ten answers to ten questions

I am probably not the target of these questions, since I am not pro-immediate withdrawal, but I found them interesting none-the-less. I probably would have left answers to a few of the ones I found more compelling as a comment over on Positive Liberty, but comments were closed. Since this is more than a comment, I will answer them all.

1) When, if ever, is preemptive war is justified?

I'll assume that "war" means a commitment of U.S. military forces with the intent of overthrowing a government. Grenada was a war by this definition. When

• there is a consensus that there is a imminent and specific threat to United States interests to preempt
• the evidence for and against the imminence of this specific threat has been communicated to the American people
• there is sufficient political support for a universal draft to support the war effort

Anything short of that, and a preemptive war is not justified.

2) When, if ever, is the United States justified in removing a foreign dictator from power?

When said dictator has comitted an act of war against the United States or against someone with whom the United States has treaty obligations with which require our intervention; in the situation covered in question 1; and in the case of a broad international consensus action which is also supported by the citizenry.

3) Do you agree with the position—recently quoted approvingly on this blog by Dr. Kuznicki—that Islamic terrorism is not a serious threat, but a hobgoblin used by the Bush Administration to increase its authority?

To some extent. I think the administration's failing is not so much in the overstatement of the threat of terrorism as in the conflation of that threat with the problems in Iraq.

4) Precisely what (if anything) do you propose the United States do about the Iranian nuclear weapons program?

The same thing we do about the North Korean nuclear weapons program.

5) Do you believe that the United States should defend Israel, either militarily, by the sale of arms, or in other ways (please specify)?

Yes. I also think that the U.S. should call Israel on violations of international law no more (and no less, not that that has been a real issue) than it calls Syria, the PA or Saudi Arabia on such violations.

6) Can you name a specific case in which an American dissenter, not actually affiliated with a terrorist organization, has been jailed or otherwise deprived of civil rights under the PATRIOT Act?

Can you name a specific case in which a specific act of terrorism was prevented for each provision of the PATRIOT Act? I don't need a specific case of bad faith on the part of the federal government to question giving it some power or other; the government needs to give me some justification for ceding to it a given power.

7) Do you believe that we ought to remove American troops from Iraq immediately, regardless of the consequences to Iraqis?

No. However, I do believe that the Iraqis should have a say in the matter.

8) With regard to interrogation or incarceration: do you believe that infringements of religious sensitivities (e.g., mistreating the Koran) or personal sensibilities (e.g., making men wear women’s underwear on their heads) ought to be regarded as comparable with physical torture?

No. But I should note that being "regarded as comparable with physical torture" is an extremely low bar.

9) What, if any, legal consequences do you believe flow from a declaration of war?

I disagree with Clarence Thomas that executive actions are immune from judicial review after a congressional authorization of military force. The executive should be given some latitude during a time of war, but that does not exempt it from review.

10) Do you believe that the Bush Administration purposely manipulated intelligence information in order to persuade the Congress to authorize military intervention in Iraq?

I do believe that the "mushroom cloud" language used by the administration was intentionally hyperbolic. I believe that the administration did not share the caveats of the intelligence community regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein with the people in order to minimize opposition to the war. I also believe that the reasons that motivated the administration to war in Iraq, the establishment of a Democracy (other than Israel) in the Middle East, did not have the support of the American people, and that the administration intentionally overstated the threat of Iraq and intentionally mingled references to the threat of Saddam Hussein with references to September 11th in order to generate additional support. And I believe that these actions have had the effect that you cite in this earlier post (quoting Angelo Codevillia)

The United States is not at peace, and it is not making war. To this extent alone the accusation of empire—the dawdling kind that wastes its core resources—sticks. If we continue to trifle with empire rather than establishing peace, we shall reap stalemate, retreat, and the domestic strife that is empire’s bitterest consequence.

The Bush administration brought us into war without the full and informed support of the American people, and without an adequate post-war strategy. Bush should have listened to his father:

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
--George Herbert Walker Bush, A World Transformed, 1998

By ignoring this, George W. Bush has harmed our country.

Idolators

My opinion is that there is a very thin line between belief in the existence of a personal god and idolatry. The type of idolatry varies, but it is my experience that fundamentalists of all stripes worship a personification of their own prejudices. It is not sufficient that they think someone is wrong, it must also be the GOD has declared that the aforementioned someone is WRONG! The variant of fundamentalist matters little. The Washington Post adds another data point in support of my position.

Iranian Leader, Evangelist Call Prime Minister's Illness Deserved

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 6, 2006; Page A12

The television evangelist Pat Robertson and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may not agree on much, but both suggested yesterday that the severe illness of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was deserved. Both men's comments were immediately condemned by religious leaders.

Speaking on his Christian Broadcasting Network's "700 Club," which says it has 1 million viewers, Robertson said God was punishing Sharon for dividing the land of Israel. Sharon, who engineered Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip last year, suffered a massive stroke Wednesday.

...

Ahmadinejad, elected in June, previously made headlines by calling the Holocaust a myth. "Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Chatilla has joined his ancestors is final," he was quoted by the Iranian press as saying yesterday.

Those who interpret various disasters as evidence of their dieties' agreement with them are despicable.

The Lies of the ID Apologists

Well, I'm back from my travels. A few weeks ago, I was surprised at the relative silence of the pro-ID folks with respect to the Dover Panda Trial decision (Jason Rosenhouse's excellent summary of Judge Jones's decision can be found here.) I was curious how they might respond, given the detail that went into the decision. Sure, there were the "activist judge" accusations predicted by Judge Jones in his ruling. Another tack taken by Phyllis Schlafly is to accuse the life-long Christian Judge of bias when he thinks that religious people shouldn't lie. Of course, she doesn't come right out and say that, she actually accuses him of bias and quote mines the ruling to make it look like the Judge is biased against religious people.

[Judge Jones] lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public."

But her quote dishonestly puts a period where there is none. Here is the sentence from which she quotes only a clause:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy.

The meaning is clear. Judge Jones did not criticise anyone for any public assertions of religious conviction. The criticism is for lying. If there is any bias, it is his apparent view that dishonesty in those who are overtly religious is somehow ironic. Such a view is naïve, but even so, the attempted deception was unusually blatent and clumsy.

Q. When did you first become aware of the fact that your father was in possession of the $850.00 that was being donated to buy Of Pandas and People?

A. Well, Mr. Buckingham gave the check to me to pass to my father. He said this was money that he collected for donations to the book. So I gave it to him.

Q. So you were the conduit --

A. Yeah.

Q. -- by which your father received the $850.00?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me why, in January of 2005, you didn't tell Mr. Rothschild on his repeated questioning that your -- that Mr. Buckingham was involved in that exchange?

A. Basically because I understood the question to be, who donated the books? Do you know anybody that donated? I only knew my father was the one that donated the books. I am still to this day convinced, you know, that Mr. Buckingham didn't give any money towards the books.

He said to me, this is money that he collected towards the books. And I didn't ask him. You know, he didn't say -- if he would have said, some of this money is mine, or I put 50 bucks in the pot, or I did this, I would have told Mr. Rothschild at that time.

Q. The specific question was asked to you, sir: You have never spoken to anyone -- anybody else who was involved with the donation? And your answer was, I don't know the other people. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved with the donation?

A. Okay. I'm sorry. What --

Q. Why did you -- I'm on page 16.

A. Okay.

Q. Line 9. That didn't say, who donated? That said, who was involved in the donation? Now you tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham's name.

A. Then I misspoke. Because I was still under -- from behind -- wait a second. I -- well, I'm going back here -- and so, yeah, that's my fault, Your Honor, because that's not -- in that case, I would have -- I should have said, Mr. Buckingham.

Q. Tell me again why you gave the money to your father. Why did you utilize your father as the ultimate recipient -- not the ultimate recipient, but as a conduit for this money?

A. Why he was the conduit?

Q. You took the money from Mr. Buckingham, if I understand it. You turn it over to your father. Is that correct?

A. Yes. Yes, sir.

Q. Because the check was made specifically to your father. Why was your father involved?

A. He agreed to -- he said that he would take it, I guess, off the table or whatever, because of seeing what was going on, and with Mrs. Callahan complaining at the board meetings not using funds or whatever.

Q. Why couldn't you use Mr. Buckingham's check? What was the difference?

A. My father was the one that agreed to do the books.

Q. I understand that.

A. And that basically anybody, you know, if somebody wanted to give money, they could give money to him. He just passed, you know --

Q. Now the way I understand it from Mr. Buckingham's testimony, Mr. Buckingham stood up in front of his church. Mr. Buckingham, despite testimony which was somewhat confusing, obviously, apparently made a plea for funds for this book. Mr. Buckingham received in addition to, apparently, his own contribution funds, which totaled $850.00. Why couldn't Mr. Buckingham's check be used? Why did your father have to be involved?

A. I guess it could have been used, but put the thing is, the money was going to him, and he was purchasing the books. And I think it was basically, if somebody gave money, fine. If not, he was going to buy the books. He was going to do it himself.

Q. You don't know why Mr. -- in other words, you don't know why Mr. Buckingham couldn't just purchase the books directly? Is that what you're telling me? Because I still haven't heard an answer as to why your father -- why the funds had to be paid first to Mr. Buckingham, why Mr. Buckingham couldn't write a check. Why did he have to give the funds to your father? I still haven't heard an answer.

A. I guess he wouldn't have had to give the funds to my father. It's just that he was -- he had made -- he had made the --

Q. Who's he?

A. My father. He had made the -- oh, I don't know what word I'm looking for. He said that he would get -- donate the books, you know. So basically, I guess, he asked -- I guess you're saying, Mr. Buckingham went before his church. He collected money --

Q. You were here. You heard Mr. Buckingham.

A. He collected the money. And just -- because -- he had the check, gave me the money, I gave it to my father.

Q. I still haven't heard an answer from you as to why your father was the recipient of this money. Tell me why.

A. Because he's the one that said he would donate the books.

Q. It wasn't -- the money did not belong to your father. It came from Mr. Buckingham. He didn't donate the books. He received money from Mr. Buckingham that Mr. Buckingham received through donations from his church. Your father, unless I'm missing something, did not donate the books. He was the recipient of donated money and purchased the books.

A. No, but my father donated money towards the books. It's just that people had given money, and if -- basically, if no one had given a penny, my father would have bought all the books. So he must have went out and said, you know, if you want to give money, Mr. Bonsell is -- and so that's why the check is in his name, because the money was going to him. He was buying the books. So he did put money towards the books, and he would have bought all the books.

Q. Now you were under oath. You know you were under oath on January the 3rd of 2005, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your reason that you didn't mention Mr. Buckingham's name on January 3rd of 2005 is because you said you misspoke?

A. I was under the impression, Your Honor -- I was under the impression -- they were asking me who -- do you know anybody else? I mean, because I'm the one that brought my father forward in the testimony. I said, it was my father. He was the only one that I knew that put money towards the books. Because, to be honest -- I mean, truthfully, I did not know that Mr. Buckingham gave any money towards those books. I would have said that. I would have said that. Now like I said --

Q. You knew on January 3rd that Mr. Buckingham had possession of funds that he received from his church, didn't you?

A. Not from his church, no.

Q. You knew that Mr. Buckingham had received funds, which he turned over to your father, from someplace?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Do you have any explanation for why Mr. Buckingham in this same series of depositions in January of 2005 also failed to admit that he was involved in soliciting money for the purchasing of this book? Do you have any explanation for that?

A. Why he said he wouldn't solicit money? I don't know.

Q. Were you here for Mr. Buckingham's testimony?

A. I heard part of it.

Q. Well, let me represent to you that Mr. Buckingham testified in June of 2005 in his deposition that he didn't know where the money came from. Do you have any explanation for why that is?

A. I don't have any explanation for that.

THE COURT: All right. Those are the questions I have.

Now, unlike Judge Jones, I expect dishonesty from a certain class of religious individual. Witness Phyllis Schlafley's dishonest criticism of Judge Jones. I expect their dishonesty. What angers me is their unmittigated gall in expecting their dishonesty to go unexamined. And their faux indignation when they are called on it.

(via Evolutionblog.)