1. The age of endarkenment

Comment #64501 by j42lewis on August 20, 2007 at 9:36 am

impious:
"Do the homeopaths honestly believe in the nonsense that they peddle?"

Yes. Most of my relatives are dead-set on Homeopathy's effectiveness and superiority over impersonal, pharmaceutical-industry-dominated conventional medicine (indeed, how is it that a pet cat or any other animal could exhibit a placebo effect when being cured of disease via homeopathy, as will be aggressively alleged whenever any semblance of distrust in Homeopathy is detected?). It has "worked" for them so many times, that if it being a real treatment would necessitate re-writing all of our science textbooks, then by golly break out the pencils (a paraphrase of a direct quote). There are a ton of people who really really believe this stuff and get angry when you imply it is nonsense.

My uncle who works as a medical consultant is always sending me articles claiming Homeopathy has been scientifically verified... "The Holy Grail of Homeopathy" (http://www.newstarget.com/z001951.html) etc. These articles and the phenomenon as a whole have all the hallmarks of pseudo-scientific delusion, and yet I admit it is difficult to argue against these people at times.

Until one remembers that the UK Society of Homeopaths has stated "It has been established beyond doubt that the randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy." This kind of clinches it for me - why would you cry foul over subjecting your remedies to tests when there are any tests whatsoever which support them? Honestly, how can a double blind trial not be a fitting research tool... simply have one of your guys do whatever it is he does, and give him either real or empty Homeopathy pills with which to do it without telling him which. If there's a statistically significant difference on any criteria what-so-ever between giving him real pills with which to do his work and giving him blanks, eureka! You've done it.

Sorry to rant.

-J.L.

2. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58278 by j42lewis on July 24, 2007 at 8:18 am

Well, thanks TinyRobot I think I understand. I think the guy in question merely misinterpreted the summary and list of numbered points at the end of chap. 4 as a list of logical premises, I answered similarly to what you say in that R.D.'s argument is that a supernatural explanation for anything, like "God did it", is going to be infinitely more complex than a plausible naturalistic explanation.

Just as when I find broken pieces of pottery on the ground I would sooner conclude that someone had dropped it than a mischievous goblin had stitched together the atoms of the pot shards in place, even if I did not see anyone around or know why someone would bring pottery to the location.

3. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #58100 by j42lewis on July 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I have come across the rebuttal that R.D.'s "central argument" posed in chapter 4 of TGD (Why God almost certainly does not exist) as being logically invalid (premises don't lead to the conclusion "god almost certainly does not exist"). But I realize R.D. did not explicitly list the premises or logical steps to his argument, and that he may have been mis-characterized here.

I've been re-reading the chapter trying to tease out the true premises and logical steps of the argument to rebut the rebuttal, but is anyone else in possession of a firmer grasp on the argument than I am and willing to provide insight?

I think it goes something like this but am not exactly sure:

P1 - God is complex (sky-hook)
Modus Ponens - If an explanation is complex, then a simpler (crane-like, step by step) explanation is preferred. God is complex. Therefore, a simpler explanation is preferred (such as natural selection to explain life, or multiverse to explain fine-tuning).

Any help would be appreciated!

4. Just 120 Trillion Miles From Home

Comment #37595 by j42lewis on May 5, 2007 at 10:00 am

Squinky, Yorker, I see what you are trying to do and you are to be commended for attempting to keep cool heads about speculative ideas & shut down perceived pseudoscientific ramblings. But - you know there's always a "but" with intros like that - I don't think that what those like Ghostbuster are suggesting is of the sort that needs to be shut down. Ghostbuster admits he is speculating, and his speculations are based at least in part on the best estimations of reality we have at the moment.

Yorker - You mention that even if we were theoretically able to build a time machine, it would only be able to send us back to the time in which the machine was built. You mention that this would diminish the interest in such a machine. Why? I think that if even this were actually possible it would be fantastic, incredible, a milestone in human history. I can't imagine how it would work or what "rules" reality would impose on its use, and it seems entirely too good to be true. But I don't think the limitations render the idea uninteresting or non-useful (if realized) whatsoever.

Squinky - You urge us to "call you" when we reach Gliese in 200 years :) If this sort of journey were possible only in a very large & expensive vessel, and it were not feasible to travel any faster, this again would still fascinate me. The idea that space travel may not turn out to be as immediate or glamorous as is portrayed in science fiction, and may instead consist of a single "seed planet", Earth, eventually & over many centuries or millenia dispatching hundreds, thousands, millions of nascent colonies to other worlds, all separated from one another by not only immense stretches of space but also huge expanses of time, is a beautiful one. The thought of innumerable human civilizations sprouting throughout the galaxies and the universe flowering with life throughout deep time is to me more magnificent & awe-inspiring a possibility than the obviously fake & cliche worlds of Star Trek & Star Wars which only imitate the political & social dynamics of 20th century Earth. This, even if when realized it would mean neither I or any single human being could ever visit all of these places or even hear back to know for sure if any of them had been a success - quite a lonely prospect.

I find it interesting enough to consider what we already know about the universe & its possibilities, but it should be permissible to use imagination to suppose what it would be like if certain ideas pan out. Lets distinguish ideas such as near-lightspeed travel, quantum computers & fusion power from concepts such as fairies or astrology which have no basis in our present picture of reality.

5. Richard Dawkins at The Sunday Times Oxford Literary Festival

Comment #28077 by j42lewis on March 27, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Mr. McGrath seems to come off better in this exchange than his debate with Mr. Atkins. Pity.

Good show on Richard's part though, very much liked the "Emperor's imaginary fabrics" story!