Letters to the Editor
PaulBC
Published Letters: 240 Editor's Choice: 24
-
science can/cannot explain everything is a silly formulation
[Read the article: Proud atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The idea of "explaining everything" presupposes that everything is ever going to be explained and that our limited human minds are going to comprehend that explanation. Historically, people would have laughed at the idea: of course there are plenty of things too hard to understand. The success of science may have caused some unwarranted optimism during the 19th century, but it's largely been shattered by developments since then.
Science may (emphasis on may) allow us to derive the defining rules of the universe, but nothing is going to tell us the ultimate outcome. The human mind cannot use reasoning to "explain" who will definitely win a chess game from a given board position, even though the information is complete, the rules are known, and the possibilities are finite. You can certainly accumulate empirical measures on who will probably win. For certain small endgames, you can even do an exhaustive analysis. Who knows, we might someday "explain" who wins at chess, but only because it is finite.
Experimental science is a powerful tool in areas that defy exact analysis. But the results are always incomplete and often admit anomalous outcomes. We won't explain everything, and we already have computer generated "explanations" of things (like chess game outcomes) that are already beyond human comprehension in the sense that anyone will read them and have a conscious sense of the meaning. At best, you understand a little at a time.
I think the main issue for an atheist is whether the addition of religious belief adds any value to the explanation. There is an honesty in saying "I'll never explain this because I'm not smart enough and I don't have all the information." It's not clear how it helps to say that it is explained by the existence of an advanced being who by definition cannot be fully understood.
-
the only thing the denial admits
[Read the article: A denial that admits too much?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is that he's a moron, but we knew that already.
It's possible that he found out about that men's room through the Internet and let it slip (which I guess Grieve is insinuating). It's also possible that he was just saying "I'm not hip enough to know about all those things the kids talk about on the Internet." I also agree that anyone who is net illiterate should not be making policy.
But what strikes me is that my cheapo cell phone can browse the Internet if I'm willing to pay for the service. Surely, he has Internet access through his Blackberry. Saying he only uses a Blackberry is a pretty moronic way of suggesting he is somehow off the Internet.
Finally, assuming there is a subculture of airport men's room cruisers (which I wouldn't have till now) who's to say they aren't using Blackberries to tell each other about the various hot spots out there?
-
no, it turns them into competent animal protectors
[Read the article: Ellen, the dog bullies and me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I admit, I haven't the slightest idea how Ellen DeGeneres feels. If I ever become a celebrity and begin to imagine that the rules for the little people don't apply to me, then maybe I'll start to understand. Till then, spare me the tears and try reading the contract next time around.
The fact is that there are very bad people out there who try to obtain animals for terrible reasons (e.g. dog fight practice) that are anathema to the job of an animal shelter. Some of them might even be friends of Ellen DeGeneres, and she doesn't know. Maybe she knows all her friends well enough, but they have some friends that they don't know well enough. See how this starts to slip?
Ms. DeGeneres went through a routine process to determine if she is likely to provide a better home for "Iggy" than the animal shelter. It's not a perfect process, and the fact that she's famous really didn't enter into it. Her friends didn't go through that process. If she wanted them to have the dog, she could simply have followed a protocol.
If she loves dogs as I imagine she would insist, then she would understand the reason for having objective processes to prevent bad people from doing terrible things to dogs. The process does not have a special exempt status for celebrities with hairdressers who have kids. I would argue that it should not. But if Ellen thinks it should, she's entitled to try to make that change.
Till then, she should shut up and honor the contract. Maybe I'm a self-righteous tyrant myself, but I would say that the existence of an objective process without exceptions for celebrities and other privileged characters is really much more important than the pain caused to Iggy, Ellen, her hairdresser, and her hairdresser's kids. Because if that process fails, Iggy may benefit, but thousands of other dogs are going to be harmed.
I'd probably respect her more if she went on air and said: "I'm famous for crying out loud. I expect special treatment and if I vouch for my hairdresser, that ought to be good enough for anybody." Because that's really the only argument she has going for her, and it carries somewhat more weight than a lot of blubbering.