Monthly Archives: June 2011
Oh, Ye (Space) Gods…
I was looking at the search term referrers on my stat page yesterday and was favored by the laws of probability to have noticed the following: “alien tomb found in africa”
So after googling it, I found this page http://www.burlingtonnews.net/skulls.html as the highest ranked link in the search results.
I noticed a lot of interesting pics of congenitally and ritually deformed human skulls, others looked as though they had been partially or entirely sculpted, cast-made, or merely photo-edited images of possibly genuine skulls.
Note the screenshot posted above for some examples…
There were the usual assertions attempting to dismiss conventional explanations for the deformities of the skulls. I found them unconvincing from a lack of real justification, much less ‘proof,’ a word that I do not believe means what some seem to think it means…
Anyhoo.
With this bountiful collection of somewhat macabre images, and there were more lower down the page, there were claims being made for them of an extraterrestrial origin for a lot of the skulls, and claims of human emulation of aliens for others, as well as a highly questionable image said to be that of a skull belonging to a ‘mysterious horned race,’ like one of those shown above, at the bottom row of images.
Among other tidbits were the typical claims of hidden, forbidden, secret, and otherwise jealously guarded ancient knowledge, that somehow eluded all of those blind, dogmatic mainstream archaeologists, and curiously enough, easily accessible on a publicly viewable website from nearly anywhere on the planet that the open web may be reached, and not requiring any special pass-code or membership status in a sooper-sekrit society.
One thing that was obvious is the discrepancy between the claims of the Pharaoh Akhenaten having an alien-shaped skull, though if you look at the photo near the top of the page labelled with his name, or the screenshot above in less detail, it’s apparent, given their own evidence, that no such thing was the case…
Looks just like a normal human skull to me, but what do I know?
Kind of Ye Olde and Ye Krustie on this and similar sites is the theme of public revelation of the deformed skulls causing public unrest, chaos, religious upheavals, smilodons and dire wolves living together, leading to ‘the collapse of civilization,’ requiring an impossibly well-coordinated global academic conspiracy to ‘hide the truth’ and maintain the status quo, an idea I’d heard in various phrasings years ago from a couple of fans of Graham Hancock, and even further back in the literature to Erich Von Däniken’s ethnically, culturally, historically, and intellectually insulting alien-astronauts-as-ancient-gods claims.
That’s a very common notion with many occult claims, though I’m unaware of any evidence of skeptics and mainstream research workers staging ideological cleansing pogroms or arresting and sending to concentration camps those who make these claims…
…and saying it so openly without any show of reprisal, publicly making these statements in bestsellers, on talk-show interviews, self-made documentaries, and presentations before live audiences.
And so, my somewhat uncharitable opinion shall be expressed, for the first time on this site, with an image that I shall be making some use of in future posts…
Have an awesome Tuesday!
Point by Point – With Thanks to Carl on Virginian Opinions
Image via Wikipedia
[Last Update: 2011/06/27, 2:44 am. Text Added, Context Clarification]
Last night, I was looking over a cute little piece at this URL: http://www.t4at.com/apps/blog/show/7517474-the-issue-of-homosexuality sent to me by one of my blogging buddies over on Virginian Opinions. He thought I might have a little fun looking it over and critically examining it, and in this post, I shall do just that.
It’s been a while since I’ve done a Point by Point installment, so this shall amuse my evil and snarky tentacleness most excellently, though I’ll avoid being gratuitously cruel to the writer of the article thus critiqued.
Even scanning it earlier, this article has grunchloads of logical fallacies, factual misconceptions, and uses several insecure assumptions for what the writer mistakenly believes is a valid logical argument.
In this post, I’ll enumerate and identify where and how, and where possible, why, he goes far off the path of sound argument, though I must add that I’m no Steve Novella, nor a practitioner of the Evil Spock school of logic, but I’ve been sharpening my argumentation chops for a while, and this will be a good test of my skills. Where possible and relevant, quotes will be verbatim, and paragraph separation is my own for ease of reading on this blog page.
Onward then!
Just last night, as most of you know, the New York legislature voted to legalize gay marriage in the state of New York, becoming the 6th US State to do so.
I was spending my evening as I often do, taking care of business on the computer, with my TweetDeck open as per usual. I couldn’t help but notice the reaction coming from the people in my timeline. Most of the people tweeting (who are a very conservative bunch, mind you), were very happy the law had been passed. They were quite enthusiastic about it. It was really kind of a larger wake-up call for me. I was unaware that so many in my timeline who were conservative held that opinion.
…I notice many people who claim to be conservatives but seem to only be conservative fiscally. I believe being a conservative is not just fiscal conservatism, but the whole package.
I know several people who think that being conservative only means supporting less government spending, etc. on fiscal matters. I also know many people who think that homosexuality is an irrelevant issue at this point in time. That is to say, they think that there are bigger issues facing us right now than social issues, and that fiscal issues are what we should be paying attention to.
I saw a lot of both in my timeline last night, and I couldn’t help but keep asking myself the same question again and again in my head: “We claim to be conservatives. So why is THIS the issue everyone seems ready to compromise on? Why do we suddenly become liberal when it comes to THIS issue?”
This just screams of both the No True Scotsman fallacy (in this case saying that no true conservative would take that position, therefore those who do cannot or shouldn’t be called REAL conservatives) and the False Dichotomy fallacy, arguing that one is either totally conservative on all issues or not a true conservative at all, again also going back to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Logic fail #1.
I would therefore like to state, first and foremost before I delve deep into the issue, that I am emphatically anti-homosexual marriage. I do not believe that it is moral or acceptable to allow homosexuals to marry, and I do not believe that homosexuals have a right to marriage.
Now, assuming I didn’t drive you off immediately after stating my general positions, let me say this: I do not hate homosexuals. As a Christian, I do not approve of the behavior, but I do not at all hate gays. I know several homosexuals, many of whom are incredibly intelligent, kind human beings. My belief that they engage in an immoral behavior does not translate into ANY ill will for them, or any dislike or rancor against them personally…. So once more, I do not hate gays. I do not bear them any ill will. I disapprove of their behavior, not of them personally.
This is nothing more than a rehashing of the old “I don’t hate X, some of my best friends are X.” and the “I hate the sin but love the sinner.” arguments used to cover for nothing more than bigotry, in this case naked homophobia with a condescending twist.
I hear often, those in favor of gay marriage shouting “You can’t just outlaw gay marriage because it feels wrong to you. You’re just trying to legislate your morality!” True enough, homosexuality is contrary to my moral values. But that is no reason to discard my arguments against it. I am a Christian, and i do believe homosexuality to be morally wrong, as it is said in the scriptures (1 Cor. 6:9-10, Lev. 18:22, directly condemning homosexuality and Deut. 23:17 condemning sodomy, used as a synonym for homosexuality in the Bible). It does run contrary to my sense of morality.
Ah, yes, the time-honored Argument from Authority, in claiming that the source so quoted is both relevant to the discussion and infallible, predictably enough by referencing scripture, when outside of the writer’s own belief-circles it is far from legitimate as a source of support for his argument.
He quite openly states that his intolerance derives from passages in a book whose moral principles are those of Bronze-Age shepherds, outdated for thousands of years, written in a work of questionable authorship, contradictory claims, and which assumes for its legitimacy the direct inspiration by a god whose existence is at best supported by philosophical arguments of why he might exist, arguments which are not at all convincing without a prior existing belief that they are true.
Not convincing in any objective, demonstrable sense outside of established theistic doctrines, that is…
Anyhoo:
…Permit me to sum up my answer to this question before elaborating:
1) Morality determines where we are culturally.
2) Morality Necessarily Flows From Religion.
3) Legislating Morality is not a bad thing, if done properly.
4) We should not allow acts that are immoral and wrong.
5) Homosexual marriage is immoral and wrong.
6) Therefore, Homosexual marriage should not be allowed.
Now, we have the argument in generic form. The argument I have presented is logically valid. That is to say, if the premises are true, the conclusion is true as well. It is a sound, logically valid argument. Now there is a difference between valid and true. My argument may be valid, but it the conclusion is only true if the premises are true as well.
This might be the case if the premises, the assumptions he’s using in his argument, are secure. Unfortunately, several of them involve claims of both fact and value that do not appear to be in evidence, again, outside of the writer’s own religious belief-system in any objectively convincing and publicly demonstrable manner.
He seems to be using his own religious opinions as self-evident givens in his argument, not anything that would convince an outsider to his faith.
Also, the logical pedant in me says that since he’s claiming that this is a deductive, necessarily true argument, a syllogism, and a valid syllogism must by the rules of syllogistic logic have only TWO premises and a conclusion, he has far too many premises in his argument for an allowable and properly-constructed syllogism.
Aristotle would shake his head in dismay, and I dare say so would George Boole. The gods of logic frown with profound disapproval upon you sir…
First, morality in a more universal sense of evolved moral instincts independent of a specific cultural and religious outlook, those that have been studied in game-theory simulations by psychologists, may be part of an indicator of where we are culturally, but what evidence does he have that it has to be his moral system, that specific to his personal religion. This is far from established as meaningfully true.
Second, He ignores the entire history of the various schools of philosophical ethics, particularly humanist ethics, consequentialist ethics, and so on. Religion may be the first institution that codified moral principles, but it is far from necessarily true that morals are solely the province of religion. Fact fail.
Third, some moral, or ethical behavior may be needed for a functional society, like laws against murder, rape, theft, fraud, and laws promoting or protecting such human moral instincts as fairness and monogamy, but who says that his system of morality, no longer in vogue since Medieval times, and even then outdated, has to be the model for everyone else’s laws. Yes, when the morals legislated are suspiciously those you happen to subjectively value, it is not the proper way to legislate them. Fail #3.
Fourth. In essence, my main objection to this is that he’s using his own religious belief-system as the model for what’s immoral and wrong, according to which God hates gays, and the shrimp he created too. Foul #4.
Fifth. Again, using his own subjective religious beliefs, far from secure or objectively self-evident, as the premise.
…and now the moment you’ve all been waiting for (well, maybe not, but anyway…)…
Six. The conclusion to his argument. As a claimed deductive argument (one that follows with certainty from the truth of the premises) we have seen that it rests upon shaky ground indeed, and since none of the far-too-many-premises-for-a-proper-syllogism assumptions are demonstrably true nor even secure, the argument does not follow from the premises, and is thus very, very, non sequitur. I must say it doesn’t even make for a good, sound inductive argument either, but that’s not the sort he’s implying it is.
The full text of his description of his premises is long-winded, and with more logical fallacies than I can pick out in the space of this post, but his summary afterwards of his premises and conclusion doesn’t do much for his case either:
1) Society is defined in every way by its sense of morality, so it is critical that we are using the right one.
2) Our sense of morality necessarily comes from our religious beliefs, so it is critical that we are following the right religious belief.
3) Legislating morality is inevitable, so it is critical that we are legislating the right, correct morality.
4) It is simple common sense that we should not allow immoral and wrong acts.
5) Homosexuality is immoral and wrong based on the condemnations of it in the Bible, which upon furthur examination is seen to be the correct source of morality, and calling it a civil union doesn’t make the immoral action any more acceptable or any less wrong.
Therefore, we cannot allow homosexual marriage.
To wit:
1) Who gets to decide which is the ‘right one’ this is far from evident. Definitely not HIS outdated morals.
2) This is simply not in evidence, since any fully developed culture has much more than just moral elements, and whose religious beliefs are self-evidently, or even justifiably the right ones? They are all mutually inconsistent, with no way to know objectively which is the correct one.
3) Again, as for 1).
4) Common sense is often wrong, and again, as per 1).
5) Neither self-evident nor true outside of his personal religion, and only a part, though a noisy one, in the American religious community. The bible is a questionable source of morality at best, since it can be used, if you look long enough, to support any position you want, including rape, genocide, and slavery, not something I’d want as MY source of spiritual guidance.
Well, it’s been fun, and it’s getting late for my Troythuluness. But I must say this critique has been most entertaining to write, and hopefully, to read. I just hope I wasn’t being too unkind, but criticism as a rule is not conducive to warm and fuzzy feelings.
Goodnight, and have a terrific Monday, my cool and awesome peeps!
What are My Politics?
Image via Wikipedia
I’m going to deal this post on something I’ve touched on, hinted at, and alluded to in other posts, but haven’t dealt with directly, my political views.
Every once in a while, I’ll weigh in on some politically-connected topic, often in a less satisfactory manner than I’d like to.
Hence this post.
I don’t ordinarily have much interest in the subject, and my main concern with it lies in the intersections of religion and politics with science and science education, or otherwise when a policy decision somehow and otherwise is important and of interest.
When I use the phrase, ‘I believe’ in this post, I’m not using that to imply that I hold a given view is actually the case in fact, but that it ought to be that way, otherwise I’m committing the moralistic fallacy, confusing an ‘ought to be’ for an ‘is.’
I’m well aware that my opinions, like those of most people, are only interpretations of facts, and value judgments, not facts themselves.
Otherwise, aside from fulfilling my civic duty of voting during elections and referendums, I couldn’t give a rodent’s posterior. Most political discussions bore me to tears.
Bear with me for a bit, for this post will not have the usual opening, narrative, and closing at the end like some articles, and may be even ramble a bit as I’m collecting my thoughts even as I write this.
I consider myself socially liberal and financially conservative. Living on a fixed income, I’m very careful about my spending, but I support social programs like social security and medicare as social safety nets for the retired and financially less capable who need medical coverage.
Also, I believe that the civil liberties of individuals should be respected and protected, but also that in return, those individuals should recognize and carry out their responsibilities and civic duties to the community.
My view of federal taxation is that if you are able to vote in this country and enjoy the other benefits of its rights, laws and protections, and, yes, its privileges, then you shouldn’t bitch about the responsibility to pay taxes in return for those benefits.
I support full and equal rights, and responsibilities, for all, regardless of ethnicity, sex, gender orientation, religion, lack of religion, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, ideology, or cultural and national origin.
I support the separation of church and state, as outlined in the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
After all, it protects, at least in writing, believers from not only government repression of their own religion, but also from other religions who may wish to impose their beliefs on or discriminate against those not of their own faith or not of any faith, and it protects, again, at least in writing, from government sponsorship of religion.
While I’m certainly not a big fan of an overreaching government, I believe that a competent, effective federal government should have enough authority and funding to protect those within its borders from unethical, unfair, and unsafe practices by powerful socioeconomic bodies and that the rights of workers, public and private, with or without unions, should be protected.
These are my basic views in a nutshell, and are about the full extent to which I actually concern myself with politics.
TED – Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken
A renowned paleontologist discusses his ideas on recreating dinosaurs by the activation of dormant ancestral genes in living birds, such as the ‘Chickenosaurus.’ This makes me think of a joke I once had on the front page of this blog, in my avatar widget: “I found out what killed the dinosaurs…It was suicide. A time traveler went back sixty-five million years ago and told them that they would evolve into chickens.” I know…*Groan* Anyway, enjoy the talk.
APW | Astronomy Pix of the Week for June 19-25, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
APW is a weekly installment, published each Saturday between 7:31 and 8:30 am EDT, of links to each daily entry on NASA’s website Astronomy Picture of the Day. I hope you enjoy looking at these often breathtaking images as much as I do.
WPS | Web Picks Sceptique for June 24, 2011
Image by Scott Hurst via Flickr
-
on Blonde Nonbeliever… Wittiest Atheist Response ever…
-
on Sciblogs… Woo Sites Award Australian the Nobel Prize…
-
on New Scientist… Mathematics breathes new life into Escher’s art…
-
on Countering… Michael Shermer and Belief Systems…
-
on NeurologicaBlog… Michelle Bachmann Promotes Creationism…
-
by Tarini Awatramani… My skepticism of pop spirituality…
-
on The Moderate Voice… America’s Rejection of Evolution Reflected in Miss U.S.A. Pageant…
-
by Massimo Pigliucci… William Lane Craig and Logical Fallacies…
-
on Left Hemispheres… The Use of Mockery…
WPS is a selection of links to blogs, news outlets, and cool little sites on the Web that relate to science, reason, skepticism, atheism, the fringes and borderlands of science, memes relating to science or skepticism, and anything that catches my eye or which I’m deluded enough to think might arouse the interest of you, my perspicacious and discriminating readers. WPS is published once or twice a week from Wednesday to Saturday on the Call.
Who gets to say what’s Science?
I’ve heard the following, and similar statements, many times in different venues both face-to-face and online:
“A consensus is not scientific.”
“That’s not science! It’s just more alarmist propaganda from Al Gore!”*
“Science, you see, is highly politicized!”**
I’ve often stated on this blog that I use science as my criterion for what’s most likely to be objectively true about the world and ourselves, but that begs the questions: What counts as sound science? Who gets to speak for science as a whole? What sorts of things should we call science? What can we rightly not?
And for the record, emphatic denials aside, there is such a beast as a scientific consensus…***
I’ve learned that those with at most a fair layman’s understanding of science, such as myself, do not get to decide on our own what science is, and what is not, based upon our mere personal inclinations, wants, needs, nor our political, religious, economic, and other sorts of ideologies, and this is especially true in the case of elected officials, media personalities, and clergy without a scientific background and training.
It is those who do, and have done, the conceptual and practical work of science, particularly those whose work leads to working technologies — I’m reminded of the work in astrophysics that lead to the practical release, first in the development of the hydrogen bomb, of thermonuclear energy and subsequent modern applications of plasma physics — over the last several centuries who’s work collectively speaks for the scientific enterprise.
Even individual professional scientists can get things wrong, sometimes grossly wrong, about their own enterprise. This is why sound scientific thinking mistrusts arguments from authority, why science is self-critical and self-correcting, why science makes use of observational controls, and because professional expertise is not universal: One can be a world-class expert in one field of study, and an absolute crank in another.
This brings to mind Linus Pauling, a brilliant chemist, and his unfortunate promotion of orthomolecular medicine, and the early claims of cold fusion made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, both of these claims since discredited.
Not everyone is an expert, and no one can be an expert at everything.
Science is messy and imperfect, like all human efforts, but unlike some, it evolves over time, updating its philosophical foundations, its methods, and most obviously, its findings, discarding that which is found to be mistaken, keeping what works, and adding to itself in an endless cycle, in a historically progressive selective process concerning its tools and ideas.
The question asked by this post’s title has been somewhat purposely misstated, for it’s not who gets to decide what counts as science, but WHAT gets to arbitrate the matter, a power higher than you, myself, any individual or finite group of them: It is the collective body of human knowledge, thought, and experience since at least the beginning of the scientific revolution that gets to speak for science…
…the totality of conceptual underpinnings, methodology, modes of reasoning, criteria of hypothetical soundness, those things that we can honestly say that we know — however incompletely we may know them at present — about the world and ourselves; all of these things accepted by any credible research worker, however provisionally in the event of better data, better ideas, and better reasoning one day presenting themselves to our scrutiny…
It is what does not lead us down the path of error, that which truly adds to our understanding, which illuminates us rather than obscures in mysticism and fallacy what we can learn about the universe and those things within it. It is that, which, whatever form it takes, lights a clear passage through the befuddlement of doctrine, dogma, superstition, and magical thinking.
It is what gets genuine results, in short…
…it’s what really works, bizatches.
Related articles & Notes
*For those who may ask, or not, I’ve never directly read nor seen anything written or produced by Albert Gore, so I’m unacquainted with his arguments, and I’ve noticed an unhealthy fixation with Mr. Gore among many climate skeptics I’ve met.
**This is said most often by some of our elected representatives and their allies, who do most of the politicizing of science, in working to cast doubt upon the science they collectively so oppose on ideological grounds, the very meaning of Junk science.
- ***Science, settled science, scientific consensus and popular science (aleksandreia.wordpress.com)
- Clarifying some myths in the history of science (secularnewsdaily.com)
- Early history of science (openparachute.wordpress.com)
[Last Update: 2011/07/06: Paragraph 11 Added]
It is a Fact that…
Image via Wikipedia
I’m going to raise the tone for this particular post just a few notches, and take a stronger stance than I have on many of my other entries. Some of you may agree with the points I address, some may disagree, others still may consider the tone of this post to be overly doctrinaire, dogmatic, even religious in its implications of seeming worship at the altar of materialistic science.
No matter. Like it, or not, agree or not, think what you will. You will anyway, and I can do nothing to change that.
Science and other methods of rational inquiry are the best means we currently have to give us a real understanding of the world and ourselves; There are things we really can say that we know about the universe and humanity, and it seems as though we shall never run out of new things to discover about either.
There are facts about reality that still, our understanding of which, even today, are so well-supported by sound argument and objective data, that it is incredibly unlikely that they shall at any point in the foreseeable future be rejected or overturned in their basic formulation, though conceptual paradigms and descriptive details are certainly subject to updating with better reasoning and newer information.
But regardless of our knowledge or acceptance of them, facts themselves have a distressing tendency to go on being facts no matter our likes, beliefs, or wishes.
Thus, it’s important to note the difference between facts, which change only when the things they concern undergo change, our understanding of those facts, which while provisionally true are always open to revision, amendment or rejection, our claims of fact, which may be true or false to varying degrees, and our personal truths, or opinions, which while perhaps derived from facts, or not, are only at best subjective interpretations of facts, and not facts themselves.
I will shortly note those things we have reason to consider facts, not ‘just theories,’ as certainly as we can possibly know anything using scientific and rational methods.
I’ve said it elsewhere, but a scientific theory is not a hypothesis, not a guess, and not something you come up with while drunk or stoned.
A hypothesis does not get promoted to a theory, nor a theory to a law. Scientific theories are the sets of ideas we use to describe and explain a given set of observational facts, though how we look for and interpret facts is sometimes driven by theory and its attendant hypotheses. The existence of gravity was a fact for teens of billions of years before Newton formulated the first useful mathematical laws describing it, and it will not just go away if suddenly no one accepts it anymore.
You cannot change facts by denying them, arguing however facilely against them, or by legislating them away.
…But first, an important disclaimer:
I won’t make much in the way of actual arguments in this post to persuade or convince anyone in what follows after this note, but merely offer examples of what has been well-demonstrated by those more properly qualified than I, and perhaps you as well, depending on whatever your expertise and knowledge-base is, and isn’t, as solid, reliable science that we can be pretty confident in if not certain of its factual nature, implausible claims of vested interests in money, careers, suspected political agendas, and academic conspiracies by criminally dishonest scientists aside…
…as if it were only media pundits, politicians, corporate lobbyists and executives who are motivated principally by a genuine concern for the truth, and none of the previous, an extraordinary claim indeed.
Call foul however you like on those things you disagree on as to their inclusion as facts; If it makes you happy and reassured of the correctness of your own position, of your own superior understanding, reasoning, objectivity and undoubted good common sense, then I henceforth declare you, for all time and space, completely, incontrovertibly, and absolutely right.
You win the argument, hands down. It feels so good to be right, doesn’t it?
And so, with all real need for anything but intellectually dishonest sham argumentation thus removed from the equation, let’s get on with this…
It is a fact that…
- …calling something a fact in science is not the same thing as calling it a fact in the everyday sense, nor that we claim to know and understand it with total and absolute certainty…
- …living things evolve, both microevolution and macroevolution together, and this has been happening over billions of years on an old world, within a still-older universe, neither of which needed a supernatural creator to bring them about…
- …despite what pundits, the fossil-fuel industry, and politicians claim, the global climate is being adversely affected by human technology, in ways that foregoing any action on dealing with it effectively could have serious economic consequences…
- …there is a definite causative relationship between atmospheric release of CFCs and degradation of the ozone layer…
- …there is a known causative link between tobacco products and certain forms of cancer…
- …the best data shows that vaccines do not cause autism-spectrum disorders…
- …Atlantis was a place first known only to Plato, because he made it up from whole cloth just to tell a story and make a philosophical point about his politics, and is no more real than the setting of his Allegory of the Cave…
- …no psychic who has ever been adequately examined and tested by non-believers has ever been shown to possess genuine supernormal abilities…
- …no UFO sighting, crop-circle, animal mutilation, or alleged alien abduction that has ever been fully investigated and explained has ever been demonstrably caused by any intelligent extraterrestrial or paranormal entities, and those cases that have not been completely explained due to a lack of adequate data don’t strengthen the case for either…
- …the features of Near death experiences (NDEs) are perfectly consistent with what we know even now of the functioning, and the malfunctioning, of the human brain, and stories told of strange experiences by those allegedly traveling outside their bodies during an NDE are only that — stories — not evidence of anybody’s idea of an afterlife…
I sound pretty confident about these statements, don’t I…
Well, I have reason to, for time and time again, these claims have been looked into by those with more scientific, medical, and forensic acumen, much less experience, than yours truly. They have all been looked into, case by case, over and over again, and been found, as the data becomes less ambiguous, to have perfectly prosaic explanations for seventh statement onward, or in the case of the third through fifth statement, definite causal relations, and in the sixth, a definite non-causal relationship.
How much more do we really need to look into the more paranormal claims before we finally decide that until some new, more convincing data come up, there’s probably nothing left there to see?
How much more do we really need to say, ‘the jury is still out,’ how much overcautious indecisiveness is really warranted with the non-paranormal positive statements before we finally take decisive action, particularly with the third statement?
Object to any of these as you wish, I only ask that you keep your objections reasonably civil; Nobody appreciates a crybaby in a presumably adult body throwing a temper-tantrum because their personal truths and delicate sensitivities have been offended by one so unread, pseudo-intellectual, libtard, and close-minded as myself…
If you wish me to change my tune on any of these, remember that you are making one or more claims of which I have reasons, very sound ones in my view, to remain unconvinced, and that as the claimant, however positive or negative the claim, the burden of proof properly rests on you…
…not I!
Related articles
- On The Notion of Facts in Science (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
- Some tips on skeptical newswatching (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
- Contradiction vs Violation of Physical Laws (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
- Scientific Realism (visayanatheists.wordpress.com)
- Science, religion and respect for meaning (openparachute.wordpress.com)
[Fiction] Freedom, Part 3 [First Draft]
It had been some several Sirugian lunar cycles, by the newly rechristened Imegaa Enzael‘s log, since the former terror-weapon, the ex-Enforcer Prime, had turned on his masters, literally destroying the crew, dispersing their bodies into a burst of neutrinos, and commandeered the ship.
The Mirus labored, with only minimal time spent at eating, rest or sleep, to refit the great vessel, an experimentally upgraded Bloodferret-class (English translation) warship, more to his liking and needs.
He had recently discovered and accessed manufacturing templates for automation systems that when completed were quickly installed in the appropriate locations throughout the ship, and after several months of work, he completed installing systems which would not only operate the ship without full crew, but also do the work of damage-control, system diagnostics, and preventive maintenance.
Even the ship’s factory systems could now be operated without crew, and new replacement parts could be sent for by the diagnostic systems and delivered by worker drones to the needed location.
He inspected his handiwork, satisfied with the results, and smiled, surgically-enhanced canines just short enough to avoid protruding over his Terran lips showing.
He quickly closed his lips as a sudden wave of undefinable remembrance and revulsion came over him.
He was silently grateful that he wasn’t forced to see his own grin in a mirror, since the Kai’Siri had altered his teeth, bringing him more in line with their own…esthetic standards…for reasons he would rather not speculate on.
The ship’s records, even cleverly doctored as they were, suggested however vaguely that he wasn’t just…employed…as an unthinking weapon.
His fangs disgusted him, and he felt alien in his own body whenever he saw them. They…gave him uncomfortable thoughts, for despite significant differences as distinct species, Homo sapiens and Homo sirugensis shared many things in common…
He summoned his Emissary to him when this feeling passed, as quickly as it had come. There was work to do.
Not having had the time to teach his android go-between English, the exchange took place in the less grammatically-truncated Kai’Siri tongue.
A translation follows:
“My Lord,” Imegaa Mokkano began, “The ship is fully ready for operation. I have completed the inspection you ordered and found all to your specifications. We can go to war, if that is your wish. I and the vessel await your command.”
The left corner of the Mirus’ lip upturned slightly at the news, and briefly, he even allowed himself a full smile. The presence of his servant eased his dislike of showing his perfect but alien teeth.
“Imegaa, as sweet and loyal to your cause as your namesake..,” he paused as he considered his response, “To bring war to the warlike would much gladden my heart, but there is other business that must needs be attended to first.” He continued, “The ship’s records show me that it was scheduled for a raid on a world that I have not seen for many decades now, for youthful though my body is, my spirit is greatly aged with what knowledge I have of my horrific labors. I would go to that world again, the world of my birth, to see if it still lives in spite of Kai’Siri design, and if so, to offer what warning I may and assistance I can render, for as you have your loyalties to me, so I to the home of my own race. I must protect it if at all I can. So…”
He paused again, with an almost face-splitting grin, as much as a human can comfortably manage, and with full good humor, “…set course for Earth! It’s been a long time, and revenge, sweet revenge, will have to wait for another day!”
“As you desire, so shall it be, Mirus.” the android said with a curt nod and its left hand, palm facing right and fingers pointing upward, across its petite feminine chest in the traditional Kai’Siri gesture of respect.
In less than a moment, the great vessel’s engines rumbled with activity, as it prepared to make the jump through Superspace, the Mirus, humming tunelessly to himself and seated on the bridge’s command chair which was now more seemingly suited as a throne.
To Be Continued…
Related articles
- [Fiction] Freedom [First Draft] (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
- [Fiction] Freedom, Part 2 [First Draft] (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
- Ideas and Hints for Some of the Fiction on this Site (kestalusrealm.wordpress.com)
[via Potholer54] Why the media screws up science: Sources
Uploaded by potholer54 on Jun 12, 2011
SOURCES:
1:31 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1372747/Ever-wondered-Mars-red…
1:56 http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2011/04/02/was-mars-nuked
2:47 EVIDENCE FOR A LARGE, NATURAL, PALEO-NUCLEAR REACTOR ON MARS
John Brandenburg, 42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference 2011
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf
3:00 “Life and Death on Mars” by John Brandenburg
4:04 Interview with John Brandenburg on thespaceshow.com, Feb 22, 2011-06-12
http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/dr-john-brandenburg-tuesday-2-22…
6:38 My video “Climate Change — Is it getting cooler?” Please see that video for sources on NASA story
7:26 Conservapedia “Counter examples to an old Earth” http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth#cite_note-6
9:09 Plant fossils of West Virginia website page http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
R. Scotese paleoclimate graph at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Geocarb III: a revised model of atmospheric CO2 over
Phanerozoic time
Robert a. Berner and Zavareth Kothavala, American Journal of Science, February, 2001 p.201
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf
10:46 “Japan’s Earthquake Watch”
BBC online October 25, 2004
11:34 “What the weatherman never said” By Christopher Booker Daily Telegraph, 20 Feb 2010
APW | Astronomy Pix of the Week for June 12-18, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
APW is a weekly installment, published each Saturday between 7:31 and 8:30 am EDT, of links to each daily entry on NASA’s website Astronomy Picture of the Day. I hope you enjoy looking at these often breathtaking images as much as I do.
