An exercise in Logical Fallicies: Dawkings is apparently no Einstein (Part 1)

So I grabbed this op-ed piece written by Paul Jackson about Richard Dawkin’s "assaults" on the religious beliefs of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. With seeming magic, I can direct you to that article right now:

ATHEIST AUTHOR NO EINSTEIN

Reading this quickly reminds me how much I despise the fucking Calgary Sun. In the following post I will attempt to reveal as many logical fallacies as I can in Jackson's editorial. I am at a disadvantage if only because I am not very familiar with Dawkins' work at all. Though I know he is, what many would consider, an "activist atheist." From what I've heard, I believe I disagree with his views on several points. Primarily, Dawkins has set out to prove that God does not exist. And that all who continue to believe in Him are delusional. My own personal opinion is that people can believe whatever the fuck they want to believe. Any attempt to tackle an issue as big as God is, in my opinion, pointless. Whether attempting to logically or scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God is completely useless because these questions always come down to a deeply embedded personal value decision. In the end, believers will always believe, and disbelievers always disbelieve.

But to the good stuff.

Jackson starts off by stating that Dawkins' big seller, The God Delusion, has "allegedly sold one-million copies," then adding, "pretty insignificant number considering how many copies of the Bible, Talmud, an Qur-an are sold each year." Now, it turns out to be somewhat difficult to get exact (or even estimated) sales of a book from off the Internet. The easiest way one can get an idea of how well a book is doing is by checking its position on several prestigious top-sellers lists. The New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller list is one, where, according to Wikipedia, it peaked at #4 after nine weeks on the list, and dropping to where it is now--number 10--after a total of twenty-nine weeks on the list. Amazon.com has it currently ranked as #48, after peaking at #2 in November 2006. And the book was only published a little earlier in 2006.

So, it seems to me at least, that The God Delusion is not doing too bad. In fact, when I was checking these sites I did not see one edition oof the Bible, Talmud, or Qur'an even once. Striking, since an astounding 5 to 6 billion bibles have been sold throughout all of history. That makes it the number one in Wikipedia's list of estimated best sellers. The Qur'an comes in number 3 with 800 million total sales. Curiously enough, the Quotations from Chairman Mao--a collection of quotes from the founder of China's devoutly atheistic communist society--comes in second with 900 million total sales. (By the way, if you look at Wikipedia's List you'll also notice the J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter books come up six times in the top 20!) The point is, if you want to make a book look like its doing really poorly, compare it to the Bible. Or, better yet, compare it to the sales of the Bible, Talmud, and the Qu'ran! Books that have been around for several millenia!! Take that Dawkins.

I think here Jackson is committing the non-sequitur fallacy. This fallacy (which means "it doesn't follow") occurs when one attempts to draw a conclusion from an argument that does not logically connect. Jackson is saying that The God Delusion does not sell as many books as the religious texts from the world's three leading religions, and so--presumably, we haven't really gotten there yet--something is fundamentally flawed with Dawkins' book: that it is insignificant.

Jackson continues with the non-sequitur fallacy as he gets into the meat of his editorial. Jackson states that "Albert Einstein--assessed by many to have had the greatest intellect of any human being ever born...did believe in God."

First off, I'm going to suggest that Einstein was not the smartest human being ever born. How could we possibly ever know that? I do agree that he was the greatest physicist of all time. That is entirely sure. But human being? Intellect is largely a social construct, and its definition and evaluation changes with a culture and technology. Was every human being who lived before the twentieth century less intelligent than us simply because they had not yet fully understood the speed of light?

Jumping back to the Einstein comparison, it appears as if Jackson himself "hasn't read much about Albert Einstein." A brief look on Wikipedia explains that, while Einstein considered himself deeply religious, he himself wrote that "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." For Einstein, God was found in the greater clockwork-like machinery that propels the universe so perfectly and beautifully. The last years of his life, which were spent on attempting to discover a unified field theory, was his idea of searching for God. I bet Jackson doesn't feel the same way--we'll find out soon.

Oh, and I don't agree that Einstein's "theory of relativity changed the way we look at science." I'd go as far as to say that it changed the way we look at the world--this concept that all energy and matter in the universe were deeply related. But "changed the way we look at science"? It surely allowed for many great advances in science and technology (nuclear fission and the atomic bomb, for example) but even after the discovery of e=MC², science was done in the exact same way as it was to even discover that formula. The scientific method has not changed. Maybe I'm just being picky about semantics.

The next part is gold, though. In following the claim that Einstein, the man who changed the way we look at science, believed in an Intelligent Designer, Jackson writes

"Dawkins doesn't think so.
There is no God, no Heaven.
Where is this guy coming from?
Does he think he is more intelligent than God?
Apparently so.
Has he ever been over to the Other Side?
I'll bet you 1,000-to-1 he hasn't."

Now, I've been waiting to say this. I'd be so confidant to bet a billion to one that Dawkins has not "ever been over to the Other Side." Nor has Jackson. Fuck. Nor has anyone! Is Jackson completely oblivious to the existence of logical fallacies?! I don't even know what the hell he is trying to say here. First of all, Jackson is calling Dawkins, and every other atheists for that matter, ridiculous for believing that "[t]here is no God, no Heaven." SOMEHOW, from there he supposes that Dawkins believes "he is more intelligent than God." But--I'm only guessing here--obviously Dawkins can't be more intelligent than God because... he hasn't "been over to the Other Side?" Is that why?

I believe that the most prevalent logical fallacy committed here is the use of a tautology (otherwise known as "circle reasoning" or "begging the question"). Basically, Jackson is requiring us to accept his conclusion--that God exists--to follow his argument that Dawkins is wrong about God not existing. These are usually tricky to detect, but in questions about God like this one they tend to stick out. I think that Jackson is arguing that Dawkins has to be wrong because

-> (Assumption) God exists.
-> (Assumption) You have to be smarter than God to prove He doesn't exist.
-> Dawkins does not believe God exists.
-# Therefore, Dawkins believes he is more intelligent than God.

-> (Assumption) God, by definition, is the most perfect, most intelligent being in the universe.
-# Therefore, Dawkins can't be intelligent enough to disprove His existence.

Of course, this is how I have constructed the argument to make sense to me. I had to leave out some of his prepositions for me to make even a feeble argument! Somehow, having been over to the "Other Side" is also a part of this argument. Of course, this part does make sense if we were to assume that Jackson is trying to claim that since Dawkins has never been to the "Other Side," he cannot prove that it does not exist.

I'm going to conclude here because I've been ranting for quite a while and actually have stuff to do today. The problem with this last preposition is that science does not set out to prove a negative. Jackson is here going with the mantra that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." And that's entirely true. Science, that thing that Dawkins is kind of doing, intends only to explain the observable universe. And hell, even he explicitly states that there is a possibility that God exists (I'll have to find this source again). It's just that we can NEVER know. And, like any good critical thinker, he bases his view of the world on hard, conformable facts. And those facts suggest that, sorry, there is no God.

(Believe it or not, we're only half way through this editorial. Check in soon to read part 2)

Chris Ben-whaaa?

The front page of last Tuesday's Calgary Sun proclaimed to the universe that Canadian wrestling superstar, Chris Benoit, was dead along with his wife and 7-year old son. Apparently, there was some confusion when it was first released that Chris was dead. According to Wikipedia, the WWE

"canceled the scheduled three hour long live RAW show on June 25, and replaced the broadcast version with a tribute to his life and career, featuring his past matches, segments from the Hard Knocks: The Chris Benoit Story DVD, and comments from wrestlers and announcers."

Seems like the decent thing to do. Back in 1999, when Owen Hart fell 28 meters to his death during a PPV event, the show still continued. It was the night after his death that a tribute show was played instead the of regularly scheduled matches. The WWF apparently got into a little bit of heat for waiting a day.

A weird coincidence: both of these deceased wrestlers were from Canada. Benoit from Montreal and Hart from no where else than Calgary, Alberta. This reminds me of perhaps my only memory watching wrestling on TV (something it seemed everyone on the planet except for me enjoyed). The occasion was that the WWF came to Vancouver. The one match I remember watching had Chris Benoit faced off against... someone else. And Benoit got his ass "beat" probably five or six times. Literally. But each time he kicked out of the hold at the very last minute. I even think they fucked up their choreography a few time, and so even though "3" had been called, he kicked out and the match continued. Lifelike! So, the match is going on and on. Benoit finally pins the guy, and the match ends, and all my fellow Vancouverites are cheering for the victorious Canuck.

Fast-forward a few years to today. Benoit is found dead--found to have committed suicide after murdering his wife and strangling his 7-year old son to death. The WWE found this out after running the tribute show. I must say, it's very bizarre how mixed the emotions in some people are about this. In the newspaper the day after there were pictures of the memorial set up to Benoit. In one photo was a letter written in a child's scribbled writing, saying something about missing Benoit up in heaven. Kinda cute.

Well, I guess it could have been if it weren't for the fact that Benoit murdered his wife and his autistic son! The guy was a fucking maniac! The last place anyone would want this guy is in heaven! So what if he was Canadian? Are people missing out on this detail? As if wrestling wasn't produced by and for nutjobs in the first place.

Europe cancels creationism vote

In the Calgary Sun today was a small, two sentence article succinctly stating that a resolution which banned "creationist and intelligent design views from school science classes," and which the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly was going to vote on today, was canceled. The reason? "[T]he proposed resolution was one sided."

Now the greater issue of legislating what can and cannot be taught in public schools is a very controversial topic. In many subject, for example History and English to name only two, there are a variety of view points and interpretations that I believe must be presented to students, where they can discover for themselves what might be considered "truths." The best way I can explain this begins by assuming that many people read, at some in their education, read Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

This story follows one man, Marlow, up the Amazon River during the time of Belgium's King Leopold's vicious colonization of the Congo at the end of the 19th Century. Marlow snakes his way up the river on a riverboat into the depths of the Congo to retrieve a Colonel Kurtz. Colonel Kurtz, as Marlow himself comes to parallel, has gone quite insane. When Marlow arrives as the forgotten "Inner Station," he finds that Kurtz has become a god to the savages (read: black natives). Trust me; it's all very exciting. Watch Apocalypse Now! for its contemporary translation of nationalistic imperialism.

On the other hand, I would not be surprised to discover that very few High School students have read or even heard of Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. I spent no more than two lectures on it in a 100-level English course. Achebe is an out-spoken of Joseph Conrad and specifically of the teaching og Heart of Darkness in schools. Achebe argues that, despite what we learn in school, Conrad was just as racist and chauvinistic as the next white imperialist of the day. We definitely see this in how Conrad depicts women in Darkness--as innocent, fragile things that are too be kept isolated from all unpleasantnesses in the world; and which, ironically, they may be partially the cause of. However, when we consider the only two lines of dialogue spoken by black characters:

"Mistah Kurtz, he dead"
[I have forgotten the second]

That's it. There are no other lines spoken by black characters in the novelette. Achebe combines this with other evidence to argue that Darkness is a racist piece of literature that should not be taught in school. This begins to lead us back to the debate about prohibiting the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools.

As shown in looking at Heart of Darkness, there is always more to teach. Can we read as a Modernist allegory of the gradual and symbolic descent into madness and absurdity without looking at the racism that it revolves around? And is the racism so badly presented that the work loses all merit as a piece of great literature? I disagree with Achebe that Darkness should not be taught because, notwithstanding cultural prejudices, it is a great piece of literature. Rather than prohibiting its teaching in schools, I say more about it should be taught. Why not bring in Achebe's argument while discussing Darkness, or even reading Things Fall Apart as well?

Creationists (and intelligent design proponents--they're the same thing) have taken this same argument and moved into the field of science: if we're going to teach evolution, they argue, why not also bring in the creationist argument while discussing evolution, or even reading the Bible as well? But while some subjects, as I have stated like History and English, possess multiple viewpoints and interpretations, others do not. As a simple point, there is only one way to add 2 + 2. And you will always get 4. If not, you've done something wrong. Furthermore, if you divide the circumference of a circle by its diameter, you will always get π. Even if we don't fully know what π is equal to (it's actually impossible), we know that this equation will always be true. It has been replicated millions of times with an extremely high level of accuracy. Science is the same way,

In subjects such as Math and Science, the variety of interpretation greatly homogenises. The reason for this is that the logic that these disciplines are formed from requires that everything addressed by mathematics or science must conform to these rules of logic. Science, for its own part, is unique in forming a naturalistic view of the world from the study and investigation of observable phenomena around us. Therefore, whatever is considered science must be observable and testable. Evolution is science. Creationism (or ID) is not. Therefore, creationism should not be taught in science classes anywhere. To do so would represent a gross violation of the separation of church and state, as creationism is purely a religious doctrine held and asserted by those of the Abrahamic religions.

I am actually surprised that, first the vote was canceled due to being too "one-sided," but also that it took so long for this issue to boil to the surface in Europe. To be honest, I previously believed that America was the main place in the industrialised world where the evolution/creationism debate was raging fiercely. However, it appears as if the judiciary in America is actually having success outlawing the teaching of creationism in public schools. In the fall of 2005 a group of parents in Dover, Pennsylvania sued the school district to stop teaching evolution in biology classes as scientific fact (which, by the way, it is.)

Check out this article: 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' TEACHING BAN

In a definitive 139-page verdict, this article states, the judge decided that ID could not be taught in schools as it was little more than creationism thinly veiled.

On a similar subject, last April the EU did pass an argrement that "makes it an offence to condone or grossly trivialise crimes of genocide - but only if the effect is incitement to violence or hatred" (The BBC again).

All of these issues seem to me to be contributing to a greater debate in both Europe and the world: limits to the freedom of speech and to the freedom of intelligence (which I just made up). There is already so much legitimate subjects and controversies for youth to be taught. Some, like Chinua Achebe's argument against the canonical text, Heart of Darkness are not even made aware to most high schoolers! I'm dragging on so I'll quickly conclude by saying that teaching children creationism is tantamount to contributing to the intellectual delinquency of a minor. And if you're cool with that, fine. Just keep it in your damn Sunday schools.

(I think the one thing we can all agree on, though, is that it was the right decision on Germany's part to ban Tom Cruise from shooting his next movie on German military sites. Now, if America could only deport him back to wherever the fuck Scientologists come from. READ MORE HERE)

Music Review: Mice Parade - Mice Parade (2007)

Experience so far has led me to preemptively have high expectations for bands with the word "Parade" in their name. And when you precede that word with the name of a furry mammal, you better have something good besides my hasty, worthless, and undeserved admiration.

Despite the similarity of the name Adam Pierce's band with another band, it turns out "Mice Parade" is what you get when you take the letters that spell "Adam Pierce" and move 'em about. (Clever little anagram.) And he's been putting out albums for five more years than that other as-of-yet unmentioned Canadian band. Oh yeah, and he also drummed for fucking HIM.

Now, many people are uncomfortable with, perhaps even despise, the concept of pigeonholing bands into "genres" and "sub-genres." I, on the other hand, am a whore for classification and genre-ing. If for no other reason than it makes it easier to find other music that you might like. You like your Explosions in the Sky so plug in "Post-Rock" to find Mogwai. You like your LCD Soundsystem so you plug in "Electronic[a]" and find The Knife. Maybe you're going a little crazy, so you put in "Post-Rock" AND "Electronic[a]" and Bingo, you get Mice Parade.

Mice Parade presents one constant that wins me over every time: bad-ass steel guitar playing. Of course, as everyone knows, to be a Post-Rocker you have to have at least two tracks with minimal or no lyrics at all. Check out the ambient and chill "Circle None," as well as the rocking "Snow" for these tracks. I was kind of surprised with the more Pop-y "The Last Ten Homes," then kind of freaked out by the voice of Kristin Anna Valtysdottir from Múm in "Double Dolphins on a Dime." My favorite track, however, was "Satchelaise," which carried a awesome beat and kind of reminded me of Jose Gonzalez.

Speaking of... though it's kind of early to be getting anxious, Jose Gonzalez has his next album, In Our Nature, due out September 25. Other, sooner, releases of some note include:

Interpol - Our Love To Admire
Smashing Pumpkins - Zeitgeist
Spoon - Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga
The Might Be Giants - The Else

All due to be release on July 10. Two weeks from now!

Genius

These essays were written by a genius! They actually make me wish I were back in High School, but not squandering my time by taking everything seriously.

Of course we have to be pretty skeptical about whether these are genuine or not. They were on the Internet and all. Do a search for PETER NGUYEN and decide for yourself. As far as I can tell, there are, in total, four of these papers. From the titles (US History, Honors English) as well as length (four to five paragraphs) it appears as if these are for High School classes. I'm just having a real hard time believing that these are real. They're just TOO good!

I would love for them to be real because it simply proves that Genius is not always something taught in schools. Rather, I believe it is partially the result of rebelling against and challenging this same institution with is charged with--and failing at--educating the youth of our society. But more on this later. I still can't get over the Whitman piece...

Credit though to the BLOG I STOLE THESE FROM. (To be fair, I received them in an email first.)

Seriously, though. Fucking genius.

Trip of a lifetime to our hollow earth!

I read in the Calgary Sun about a month ago that a group of adventurers were planning a trip to the Arctic. While there were a bunch of -ologists signed up for the trip, they're not the type you'd typically expect to go looking to do research in the Arctic. The National Post explains "[w]hile [the organizer] insists the journey has a genuine scientific purpose, Mr. Agnew also says the expedition will include several experts in meditation, mythology and UFOs, as well as a team of documentary filmmakers."

What do they expect to find all they way up there in the progressively unfrozen north of our world? A fucking hole that tunnels beneath the surface of the Earth! And not to the thick layer of molten lava that we're taught through indoctrination in our public schools. Rather, to a magical land

"where the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel today dwell in perfect harmony, with life spans equal to those of Methuselahs of the Bible, whose only desire is to live in peace. Their flying saucers [sic!] in defense of their country at times are see on on our surface world."
-- from their website, OUR HOLLOW EARTH

They had an expedition organized by holiday expedition entrepreneur Steve Curry planned, coincidently, to leave two days from now, June 26, 2007, but was canceled after he, well, died. The reason this "Hollow Earth Hypothesis" was back in the news was that the trip has been revived. Now, all those who are interested in participating in "the greatest geological expedition in history" only have to wait one more year. You can even put down your $20 000 deposit now!

Magnetic bracelets dis-informercial

Television shopping blows me away. And the one reason why I cannot wrap my head around the idea is this one word: overhead.

Now, I have no idea whatsoever about the cost of televising anything, but I am sure that the cost is in large part dependent on the time of day for obvious reasons: it'll cost more money to reach more people. But let's just assume that you're advertising on the cheapest, lamest, least watched time and channel. My guess is that you'd still be looking at tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars for a given time slot. So obviously, one would expect to make more money from the advertising in that time slot than it cost to pay for it. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a 30 second commercial or a 30 minute program on the Shopping Channel. The fact stands that you expect your advertising to reach enough people who will actually go out and buy your product, to make you more money, than it cost to air that segment.

So I'm watching the History Channel and they break to a 2 minute commercial selling magnetic bracelets. It was one of those infomercial segments that must have been around since the dawn of colour television, with fake customers attesting to how great their fake experiences with such-and-such fake product was. The segment is concluded--always--with a blue screen (thus the colour television) with video continuing to loop in the top left; maybe a mailing address on the top right; a big, bold eleven digit phone number in white text with symbols for Visa, MasterCard, and American Express maybe right above it. Usually you make four simple payments plus a less than modest shipping and handling cost. On this specific infomercial, there strangely was no cost displayed. Oh well.

I tried to remember the website that it displayed, but forgot it five minutes later. Too bad. I could have grabbed some awesome quotes. What stood out about this infomercial was that they claimed that it "balanced" your negative and positive life energy to equally distribute you "chi." Just so you knew they weren't talking Bullshit there were several Asian actors hired to appear for brief moments. I think there was even a graphic showing how the chi became equally balanced around your body due to this magnetic bracelet. How this seemingly cheap piece of metal--which, if I were to describe it, looked little more than a poorly twisted bar of copper with balls on the end--could work its magic from your wrist to balance chi around your whole body I fear will forever be concealed from us behind the impenetrable shade of Oriental mysticism.

Unless, of course, it was all Bullshit. And it is. There is no such thing as "chi" or "life energy" or "the Force," for that matter. The whole marketing ploy that's being played upon is Western society's perceived awe of Oriental mysticism. Like people who get tattoos of Japanese characters on their back, our culture has come to understand itself too well that we want something new. There is definitely nothing mysterious about ours anymore. We've almost even killed all of our gods. So now we're attracted to whatever else might hold a hint of mystery. It's curious human nature, and I can't blame that, but come on! BALANCING CHI?! This infomercial didn't even make the claim that I was expected, that the bracelet pulls the iron in your blood to a certain location (your wrist). But that's only for arthritis. Why limit yourself? Why not claim that you're balancing the WHOLE BODY'S CHI instead? There's probably four times as many people with unbalanced chi than those with arthritis in their wrists.

By the way, that arthritis claim, that magnetic bracelets pull the iron in your blood to your arthritic wrist is Bullshit too! The iron in blood is not even ferromagnetic! It isn't attracted by magnets! Think about that the next time you go to the Dollar Store and put down, what, three or four dollars for one? What? No? $150?!

Check this out: NO RELIEF WITH MAGNETIC BRACELETS: STUDY

Science at work!!

So why does television shopping blow me away? Because in order for commercials of any kind to still be around today, they must be working. That means, entrepreneurs, quacks, con-artists, whatever you want to call these people who are trying to sell you "chi-balancing magnetic bracelets" are making more money selling these things than it costs to televise the advertisement. And my uneducated guess is that they would have to make more than maybe a couple bucks more than it cost in the first place, or else it wouldn't really be worth it, would it? That means thousands of people are buying into this BULLSHIT!

I bet now my show is over too. Fuck.