Letters to the Editor
MacK..
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 49
-
Grubert
[Read the article: Our rosy future, according to Freeman Dyson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Grubert, you say:
"My science history books must be different then yours; the trouble with Ptololomy's system was described as long standing, whereas I know that telescopes weren't developed until the early Renaissance. I've never read that the heliocentric model was developed because of new data from telescopes, and I have read a good deal about the matter."
You are of course absolutely right, Ptolomy's system started to have problems as soon as consistent observations using the same measurement system showed up, especially of major planetary motion (Venus, etc.) The problem was that, with the benefit of some (a lot of) observer bias, quite a lot of observations were consistent with Ptolomy -- and for that matter the math of the Copernican system was well, tough for observers of the day, especially as applied to objects for which the difference between behaviour in either system is so small that it absent very accurate measurement, who could tell. I mean, who would rather not choose a system that they can easily make sense of, than one that is pretty hard to understand.
Observer bias is of course a serious issue . . . the global warming debate is fraught with it, from both sides. I think the warming side of the argument is right, but is engaging in observer bias on all sorts of issues -- which leads to exaggeration and a tendancy to see the impact of global warming in what are fro example straightforward ecological disasters driven by say deforestation. Similarly, the anti-global warming crowd grasp at straws to try to argue that the suggestion that the globe is warming is false, or explainable by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with human activity. Dyson pretty fairly points out the problem -- my issue with him is that he then engages in the same mistake . .
But those on this forum attacking him demonstrate observer bias in spades, and neo-luddism, and the acute intellectual jealousy of science of those who were to lazy to study it (and if my national syllabus had quantum mechanics on the Physics and Chemistry syllabus for most college bound 16-18 year old high-school kids (doing physics and chemistry, which most do because of college entry requirements, along with three languages), not understanding some basic quantum mechanics math is down to laziness.
-
Sounds like Sinead O'Connor
[Read the article: My Christian daughter says I'm going to hell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When here parents split up she was left in the custody of her mother -- who was quite simply a religious lunatic (catholic.) Her father, John, was a very nice, essentially agnostic guy. Sinead's had professional success, but her personal life is to put it mildly an ongoing train-wreck, mainly put down by those who know her to the atmosphere in her childhood home.
Of course the Catholic version of religious lunacy strikes me as little different from many Protestant Evangelical Churches. I also find the aggressive atheisism of the likes of Dawkins almost as offensive . . .
-
Try the reductum ad absurbium argument -- it works with teenagers
[Read the article: My Christian daughter says I'm going to hell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tell her that you have questions you need answered before you can hear about her Church/God/Jesus? Insist on answers first . . .
Ask her if here views mean that she supports the Westboro Baptist Church? (as in God-Hates-Fags, protests at funerals of gays and soldiers.) Ask her why not? Run a few of Fred Phelps quotes by her and ask "doesn't your church say that too?"
Ask her about Operation Rescue's involvement in murders -- "right or wrong hon?"
Ask her about letting Muslims move to the US, what does her church think about what this is doing to the Christian USA. Ask her if the US should have admitted jews during the war . . . What about the No-Nothing Party, were they right? Why not?
Ask her about non-Evangelical Protestant teachers -- should they be allowed to teach? (by the way there was a time when school boards would not hire "non-Christians" in many parts of the US). Should her Jewish/Catholic/Hindu teacher be employed? What should be done about the science teachers who preach heresy?
Fill her up with perfectly reasonable questions to ask.
Do not engage in my "strike first" tactic for dealing with Evangelists -- "Can I talk to you about Satan" ... "He wants you" ... Pulling out piece of paper "I have this contract" ... "You won't regret it while you live" ... jab at arm with fountain pen "we just need a little blood here" -- do it slowly and extra earnestly .... heh heh! Oh and throw in people we have signed up "George Bush"