It occasionally happens that I go to some site for a quick update on something seen on TV or mentioned in a conversation, and I realize after a while that I've just spent 7 to 8 hours straight following an interminable chain of links from site to site trying to make sense of the mess. The latest example of this for me was last Friday (Winter Solstice 2012) when I wanted to know what the "Georgia Guidestones" are, and ended up sometime Saturday bewildered by the insanity that is conspiracytheory.org and its obsessions.
To save y'all a similar experience their premise is that The Illuminati (an outgrowth of the Freemasons and the Templars, etc.) are behind The New World Order (via Skull & Bones) seeking to establish a technocracy/oligarchy using the "science" of Darwinism (aka evolution and Malthusian dialectic).
And just tonight I came across an article in Cell Biology about how to deal with science denial with special concern to not just condemn the deniers as ignorant. (The key is to realize that they are not necessarily ignorant, but are reacting from a position of personal fear and emotional/social convictions.)
This has given me some personal insights on how to deal with some folks I cannot just ignore (i.e. family, good friends, co-workers). I'm going to write about some points I'm going to try.
First, I will want to draw a distinction between science as an epistemological means of learning, and its handmaiden of application, technology. The method of science is a logical framework used in many fields of endeavor. In the scientific method, facts (in the form of observed phenomena) are examined and related to each other to form a hypothesis. The hypothesis is used to generate predictions, and more observations are gathered to test those predictions (experiments.) This framework is similar to the philosophical method of dialectic, which is used to extend and explore the moral and metaphysical questions of philosophy.
Science makes no particular claims of being infallible or of possessing any particular Truth. Anyone truly versed in the scientific method knows this and can cope with the paradigm shifts that sweep through fields of scientific inquiry every so often. Once a collection of hypotheses gather a large body of evidence, the collected framework may obtain the status of "laws" or theories. This is in contrast to the fields of religion and morality, which have an extremely poor record of dealing with contrary evidence.
One of the most significant organizing paradigms of modern science is the concept of evolution -- which is nothing more than a statement that future conditions come about as a result of changes in previous conditions. That is, there is a cause and effect relationship between conditions yesterday and conditions today. The theoretical framework has a host of attendant mechanisms as to what these causes are, giving rise to the "Theory of Evolution" that is so upsetting to the conservative mindset.
One must draw a distinction between the theory of evolution as a scientific paradigm, and the (deliberate) confusion between the process of natural selection and the phrase "survival of the fittest." The process of natural selection is totally value neutral, there is no consciousness determining what is good or bad in terms of the changes that occur by natural processes. The "fitness" is determined simply by whether or not the changed processes still work or are more efficient than the previous form of the processes; if the new form of the process is less efficient or adversely changes the continuation of the process, it simply will not replace the previous process nor will it continue to exist in parallel with the previous process. The political concept of "Social Darwinism" is not the same as the natural process of evolution.
As a brief digression, I would examine the historical development of this confusion. Charles Darwin did not propound "Evolution" as a complete theory in his seminal work "On The Origin Of Species". It was based on previous work by others, and was refined by many others after him. The reason that Darwin get the credit is that he proposed the mechanism of natural selection in combination with random changes (mutations) in biological organisms as the best explanation for how new species arise from previous species. This synthesis was not possible until genetics and biochemistry showed the mechanisms of mutation; the geological effects of population isolation were observed and formalized; and the process of natural selection was hypothesized and confirmed. It became controversial when non-scientists seized on Aldous Huxley's (unfortunate) use of the phrase "survival of the fittest" in Huxley's promotion of Darwin's theoretical framework.
This phraseology had its antecedents in Malthus and other political and social theorists. Additionally it is apparently close to a Masonic concept of "becoming" which refers to a moral progression of Man towards his destiny of apotheosis and union with the divine. (N.B. I am not a mason although I'm familiar with much Hermetic and occult thought -- my personal belief system is not currently consistent with their membership requirements. I cannot accept or profess a belief in a Great Architect.) William Jennings Bryant used much of this imagery in his prosecution of Richard Scopes in the "Monkey Trial" of the Tennessee's anti-evolution teaching laws.
Clearing out the emotional cruft of the conflation of the scientific mechanism of evolution -- the best organizing principle of modern biological disciplines -- and the morally repugnant concept of "Social Darwinism" which is blamed for the perceived moral and social degeneration -- that seems to be the inevitable result of failing to learn from history -- may allow one to change an argument from a position of "I'm an Evangelical, I can't believe in Evolution" to one of "How may I reconcile evolution with being an Evangelical?"
Evolution is not, however, the only example of science denial currently facing the world. The "anti-vaccination" problem, and the global climate change deniers are two other controversies currently in the American social consciousness. Both of these, as well as the anti-evolution controversy, actually use a misapplication of the methods of science to create a strong "pseudoscience" to support themselves. They misapply the scientific method primarily by excluding from their hypotheses and conclusions any data that doesn't conform to their pre-supposed theories.
The internet, in the form of the World Wide Web and Social media, make this all too easy. I, personally, have seen this happen in the "unfriending" on Facebook by individuals when I throw grit in the workings of their minds by pointing out contradictions. It is all too easy for these people to elect only to read sites and pages and messages that support only the information they want to believe. There is a deep connection between science and faith, in that they rest ultimately on a premise that what we perceive with our senses represents an underlying "objective" reality. This is an debate for philosophy, and therefore not exactly the domain of science qua science. (The "Philosophy Of Science" is another whole realm of inquiry!) However, the scientific method cannot properly use belief as a filter for the data it examines in evaluating the correctness of a theoretical framework.
In my excursion down the rabbit hole of the internets I was struck by the observation that many of the conspiracy theories that I saw on this trip were easily refutable by methods and information that I knew by the time I graduated from my North Carolina High School in 1971 -- not to mention the continuing advance of observed phenomena since then. (One particular strawman for the New World Order technocracy is their postulate that "Science" will become the only government approved source of information. It is already too late for that in that the internet and WWW provide instant access to all kind of "unauthorized" information. Attempts to suppress information at the level required for a NWO regime to succeed is no longer possible. Witness the failures of the "Great Firewall" of China and the attempts by Iran and North Korea, among others, to prevent access to information they deem dangerous. [Well, N. Korea succeeds better than most simply through the lack of access to any network connections.])
So the answer to science denial is simple -- more real information and education in the scientific method. Just as the answer for hateful and ignorant speech is simply more correcting speech. This very weblog is engaged in that "culture war" by making some of that speech. I invite brave readers to become fellow warriors by engaging in the ongoing discussions that are taking place.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Saturday, December 15, 2012
We are losing the "War On Drugs"
The United States of America is losing the so-called "War On Drugs."
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
It is a modern-day echo of the Prohibition Era, when the US tried to ban alcoholic beverages and instead created a permanent criminal class.To be sure, there was "Organized Crime" prior to Prohibition, but they didn't become Big Business until the opportunities of transporting and providing alcohol to the millions of Americans who didn't believe in Prohibition came along.
The first indicator of the failure of ProhibitionII is in the costs associated with it. There is a clock that shows some of these costs at http://www.drugsense.org but even it can't tell the whole story. What it shows are the declared direct costs to the Federal and State governments for this war. It does not show the collateral costs in terms of lives and extra bureaucracy that are required to support the effort. Also not included are the costs to the Defense Department and Department of Homeland Security for equipment and personnel that support this war in addition to their "regular" tasks.
Almost all sectors of the economy are struggling with the results of the Great Recession, except the unrecorded Organized crime sector. The indications are that they have slowed only a little.
There is an easy way to cripple Organized Crime, cut the addiction rates, dramatically lower the number of deaths, and provide a huge economic windfall of income.
Legalize the recreational use of most of the banned drugs -- but require all providers and users to pay the governments for the privilege. Many states regulate alcoholic beverages this way, requiring strict licensing for sales and distribution, or even running the retail outlets themselves. Do not allow the criminal entrepreneurs to simply "go legal" and to keep getting their cut, instead ensure that new people and businesses get first chance at the new opportunities. The information on those who are already involved are mostly available to existing law enforcement agencies (even if not acted upon for "lack of evidence" that would hold up in court.)
Let the new commerce use the law enforcement indications "taint" an applicant and require a 1 year waiting period before granting any "tainted" applicant a license.
This frees up much of the excess expenses used the the current enforcement -- no new licensee checkups would require the use of SWAT teams or excessive force to keep track of their compliance. The new taxes collected would fund the enforcement with much left over to fund treatment programs for the users who are found to be overusing the drugs. (Modern computer systems would be able to track usage and find the excess users, who would most likely be illegally re-distributing the drugs.)
Medical costs for handling overdose or poisoning cases would drop since the drugs would be of uniform quality and purity. Care should be taken to see that the legal distribution channels cost less than any surviving illegal channels. Privacy policies would be established to keep user identities safer then currently is the case.
Real drug education would occur in the schools to frankly explain the effect of the drugs and explaining that their use is available but discouraged for economic and mental health reasons.
Marijuana would be a special case. There is less inherent danger in marijuana -- it does create a psychological dependence, but not a known physical addiction. It is currently a "gateway" drug simply because the dealers have a major incentive to push other drugs on their clients. Experience in California and Spain and The Netherlands have shown that casual marijuana users do not go on to harder drugs on their own. Marijuana should probably be treated less strictly than most drugs in the same way beer and wine are treated less strictly than "hard liquor." It would also be safer, in that there would be no contamination of the reefer with agents like PCP or Ketamine.
Finally, not all currently illegal recreational drugs would necessarily become available to all. Certain drugs would still be more restricted or even be unavailable without special need being established. For example: Ecstasy is popular, but until it is better studied and relatively safe usage level are established it might not be freely available. Also, the "date rape" drugs have no legitimate use at present and could remain banned.
Decriminalisation and regulation of the "hard" recreational drugs would have many benefits and put much of organized crime right out of business. It would provide opportunities for new businesses and new revenue streams for the governments, and would result in less human suffering.
Think about it.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
A Rationale for Spirituality
Religions pretend to care for the spiritual needs of the human family. What they really do is channel and control the energy and actions of their adherents for the accumulation of power over them, and usually to the aggrandizement of some ulterior motive of the institutionalized church. This is effected through the manipulation of the myths and superstitions of the culture by claiming to speak for “god” in all matters of spiritual endeavor. The rational mind is naturally suspicious of this effort and often finds an atheist position that rejects spirituality and religious talk.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
My problem with the “hard core” atheist position is that it often rejects the notion of spirituality as part of the human experience, replacing it with a notion of neurobiology and mental discipline. I contend that there is a “spiritual” dimension to the human experience, and its care should be part of the rational life.
So, what is this “spirituality” of which I speak? The best definition I can come up with is that it is the sense of the numinous. I don't mean only some mystical sort of “divine presence” or “wonder and awe” that are the stock in trade of many spiritual hucksters, but a sensible human perception of an inherent “rightness” of some situations and events. The sense of the numinous includes, but is not limited to, these “divine presences” and wonderful times, and also the sense of beauty and rightness that we feel on seeing scenes and situations that make us aware of our connectedness to each other and the universe.
There are clear scientific studies that show that humans are equipped to have this sense. Trans-cranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) can induce the sensation in experimental situations. Certain drugs are also known to induce the sensation as part of their effects. History records many disciplines and methods that may induce it. There is a vast body of art and history that speaks to a universal sense of beauty and wonderment. And I hope that most readers here will have a knowledge of the sensation of rightness that is the surest guide to maximal happiness for the greatest number of people – a principle that is nearly universally recognized as the basis of morals and ethics.
The neurobiological model of the brain minimizes the concept of mind and focuses instead on the nerves and chemical signals, explaining this sense as a merely physical reaction to stimulus and neurochemical release in the flesh. I wonder, however, why these circuits and reactions evolved and remain part of the human body. The science is clear, the sensation and brain circuitry arose via the evolutionary mechanisms of random mutation and genetic serendipity. But what life advantage do they give so that the process of natural selection keeps it in the mix?
We need to examine what happens if this mechanism is eliminated. There are not any studies I am aware of that specifically call out this sense, but I would expect that its lack leads to a severe anti-social personality (because there is no sense of connectedness to other humans) that doesn't reproduce effectively. The genetics of socio-pathology are being studied, and I am willing to predict that some of the causes to be found will include loss of the sense of the numinous.
Given, now, that we have a sense to guide and evaluate “spiritual” situations, what do we do with this knowledge? I, and many of the folks that I feel spiritually kindred to, actively use this sense in our everyday lives to inform and guide our behavior and plans. Some seek the spiritual within the structures of traditional religions and seek to reform religion to be more compassionate and supportive. Others seek practices and solace in non-religious manners, picking and choosing from a wide variety of cultures and traditions. Still others choose to label it as something other than spiritual and construct a lifestyle that affords them a satisfying experience.
I would like to see all good folk recognize this sense and accept the “numinous” label as something distinct from “religious” or “spiritual.” This would allow everyone, religious, spiritual and atheist, to see the basic rightness of the results of this sense and apply this sense in the living of their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)