Even though I haven’t been blogging much recently, I’ve still been accumulating a large number of links, far too many for one sitting.\u00a0 I’ve noticed that they all seem to mostly belong to two categories: Science or Sin.\u00a0 So that tells you which things I<\/em> find interesting.\u00a0 Here they are:<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 This tool will tell you immediately whether your email address has been compromised<\/a> by any known data breaches.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 “Molecular Dynamics” is the name of computer simulations to describe the behavior of atoms in motion.\u00a0 Instead of reading the rest of the links, you should try out this online Interactive MD simulator<\/a>.\u00a0 (The name is a bit of a misnomer, since in this case there are no molecules, just `atoms’ interacting with a force law which is attractive when the atoms are a bit close, but repulsive when they get very close.)\u00a0 Despite the fact that it has only 2 space dimensions, there is still a clear distinction between solid, liquid, and gas phases (except above the critical point<\/a>, where the atoms are too crowded for there to be a sharp distinction between liquid and gas).\u00a0 See if you can adjust the pressure and temperature so that solid, liquid, and gas phases all simultaneously coexist!<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Galileo: the first science publicist<\/a>?<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Although the Catholic Church may have had some temporary hangups about Heliocentrism, it seems the Church has never had any problems with String Theory.\u00a0 In 1277, the Bishop of Paris condemned as heretical<\/a> the propositions that God “could not make more than three dimensions of space simultaneously” and that God “could not make several universes”.\u00a0 To be clear, it’s OK not to believe in extra dimensions or universes, but if you think they couldn’t<\/em> have existed, then you are telling God what he can and can’t do, and that puts you in the same geometrically-misguided camp as the Spherical Heretics<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Haven’t checked how good it is, but here’s some interesting looking online math and science tutorials at brilliant.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Apparently scientists found (in an asteroid) some diamonds which could only have been formed in a planet bigger than Mercury but smaller than Mars<\/a>.\u00a0 Of which there are currently none in our Solar System.\u00a0 But one of the things I learned in Graduate Mechanics<\/a> (see also #3 here<\/a>) is that the Solar System is surprisingly unstable over periods of many millions of years.\u00a0 You might think that the small gravitational effects of planets on each other would be more or less random.\u00a0 But if any two of the orbits happen to synch up into a small whole-number ratio (e.g. 3:2) then these small effects happen in a consistent way each cycle.\u00a0 Sometimes they accumulate, causing large changes to the system (e.g. a planet may be ejected from the Solar System).<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Around 49 million years ago, a bunch of freshwater Azolla fern blooms sank down to the bottom of the Arctic Ocean<\/a> and sequestered about 80% of the CO2, causing the planet to shift from a “greenhouse Earth<\/a> state, hot enough for turtles and palm trees to prosper at the poles, to the icehouse Earth<\/a> it has been since.”<\/p>\n In other news, we are now dumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere<\/a>.\u00a0 Every time you take a breath, you are getting about 40% more CO2<\/a> in your lungs than people got before the Industrial Revolution.\u00a0 (By the way, there’s a name for the political philosophy that we shouldn’t allow random large changes to the world because of the risk of unintended consequences.\u00a0 It’s called conservativism<\/em>.)\u00a0 Here’s one good solution<\/a>.\u00a0 Sometimes, my fellow conservatives, we need to allow a small change to prevent an even bigger change.\u00a0 :-)<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 …or I guess we could try to stop supervolcanos<\/a> instead.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 This is not really a political blog, but I hope nobody thinks I don’t condemn all the bad things just because I don’t talk about them much.\u00a0 I continue to believe that we should not have elected President Trump, that as citizens we ought to speak respectfully<\/a> about the President (no matter who fills the office), and that one of the things we should respectfully say is that he’s done some incompetent and immoral things.\u00a0 As one little example of the latter, consider the pardon of Joe Arpaio<\/a> several months ago.\u00a0 (The guy who wrote the editorial is some kind of socialist, but facts is facts.)\u00a0 On the whole, I’m pleasantly surprised by how little he’s been able to implement his specific political agenda, but I would prefer to have a President who doesn’t systematically undermine his own Cabinet members whenever they try to do anything useful.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 If we don’t like judges reinterpreting the Constitution<\/a>, then there’s a case for reforming Article V<\/a> to make it easier for people to change it when there is enough popular consensus.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Since the US justice system is almost entirely based on plea bargains, it’s worth knowing that there are countries like Germany that manage to avoid it entirely<\/a>.\u00a0 Not sure it is possible with our judicial system though.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 What is the most effective means of dealing with people with reprehensible political opinions?\u00a0 Is it punching Nazis, like Captain America?\u00a0 Is it mockery<\/a>?\u00a0 How about something with a proven track record\u2014befriending<\/a> people who think they hate you?\u00a0 The last link is about St. Daryl Davis<\/a>, a black musician who talks to KKK members<\/a>, and has numerous KKK robes in his closet given to him by people who he convinced to leave the organization.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 People often assume that people mostly only believe in religions because they were raised in them.\u00a0 They also often assume (perhaps because of their social circles) that deconversion from religion is common while conversion is quite rare.\u00a0 Actually, both events are quite frequent<\/a>.\u00a0 In the USA, the statistics seem to say<\/a> that religiously unaffiliated people are actually more<\/em> likely to convert to a religion, than religious people are to become unaffiliated:<\/p>\n “Paradoxically, the unaffiliated have gained the most members in the process of religious change despite having one of the lowest retention rates of all religious groups. Indeed, most people who were raised unaffiliated now belong to a religious group.\u00a0 Nearly four-in-ten of those raised unaffiliated have become Protestant (including 22% who now belong to evangelical denominations), 6% have become Catholic and 9% are now associated with other faiths.”\u00a0 (page 2<\/a> of Pew link)<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course “unaffiliated” is not necessarily the same thing as atheist (although probably most “unaffiliated” households at least do not provide strong social pressure to believe in God or any particular religion.)<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 James Mellaart (1925-2012) was one of the great archaeologists of the 20th century (or so it seemed); he made several major finds but had a tendency to be involved in controversy over the acquisition of artifacts.\u00a0 But recently it was revealed that he engaged in a course of systematic fraud<\/a> that casts doubt on his entire career.\u00a0 This is the guy who popularized the idea of a prehistoric Mother Goddess religion, although this had been disconfirmed by scholarship long before the discovery of his wrongdoing.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Also from St. Brandon Watson’s blog, one of the best answers I’ve ever seen to the rather silly Argument from Lots of Space<\/a> that some atheists use.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 A radio debate<\/a> between St. Luke Barnes (whose book I mentioned here<\/a> and here<\/a>) and Sean Carroll, about whether Naturalism or Theism best explains the universe.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Cosmology<\/a> is pretty good as these things go.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Stanford researchers on the analogue of dark matter in biology: 99 percent of the microbes inside of you are unknown to Science<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Speaking of Stanford, it seems that St. Jane Stanford<\/a> \u2014 the cofounder and architectural designer of The Leland Stanford Jr. University, named after her scholarly son who died at the age of 15 before he could attend college \u2014 was murdered, quite possibly by<\/a> the first President of the University<\/a> (whom she intended to fire, before her sudden death by strychnine poisoning).\u00a0 Fun fact, when this story was told to me at a dinner party, two other people shared accounts of academic poisoning scandals, e.g. the time Oppenheimer tried to poison his tutor<\/a> at Cambridge (but he changed his mind before it was too late).<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Passing from the 6th commandment “Thou shalt not murder”, to the 4th commandment to keep the Sabbath (including allowing your servants to rest): Just-in-Time Scheduling<\/a> is the oppressive practice of telling part-time workers at the last minute what their hours are, based on obscure computer algorithms.\u00a0 Without of course paying them for the hours they had to set aside for work, but didn’t end up being assigned to.\u00a0 This makes it difficult for workers in the retail industry to regularly attend church, attend to children, or indeed have any kind of outside life.<\/p>\n This is bad and it should stop.\u00a0 “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns” (Deut 24:15<\/a>).\u00a0 If anyone reading this happens to be complicit, then “Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you.\u00a0 The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty” (James 5:4<\/a>).\u00a0 So repent from your wicked deeds, turn to the Lord and seek forgiveness!<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Apparently the literary trope of intimidating the natives by predicting an eclipse you just happen to know is scheduled to occur soon, actually happened<\/a> once, although the instigator was a crackpot<\/a> who didn’t know how to calculate the radius of the Earth correctly, and was incidentally a tyrannical oppressor himself…<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 An interesting article by Catholic apologist St. Jimmy Akin on whether the Exodus happened<\/a> (readers can compare to my own take here<\/a>).\u00a0 Fun quote:<\/p>\n If you read the military records left by Egyptian pharaohs, guess what! They never lost a battle! (Though we do sometimes read about them \u201cwinning\u201d battles progressively closer and closer to home as their armies were forced to retreat.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u2666\u00a0 A nice review<\/a> of St. David Bentley Hart\u2019s new translation<\/a> of the New Testament.\u00a0 It’s pretty cool but one thing it is definitely not<\/em> is letting the New Testament speak for itself apart from an agenda, since Hart is very opinionated about a few very specific topics.<\/p>\n One notable eccentricity is he bends over backwards to translate in a way which allows for (but does not require) belief in universal salvation, generally by translating\u00a0\u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 as something like “in the Age” where other translations say “eternal”.<\/p>\n Less defensibly, St. Hart (who is Eastern Orthodox) also claims that the Protestant belief in salvation apart from works has no basis in the text, and fights against it by translating\u00a0\u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 (which is a fairly generic term for doings or deeds) throughout St. Paul’s letters as “observances” rather than “works”.\u00a0 E.g. Hart translates Gal 2:16<\/a> as “A human being is vindicated not by observances of the Law but by the faithfulness of the Anointed One Jesus” (click on the link to compare to other translations).\u00a0 Hart claims that St. Paul “rejected only the notion that one might be `shown righteous’ by `works’ of the Mosaic Law\u2014that is, ritual `observances’ like circumcision and keeping kosher” (from the Preface).<\/p>\n However, the `Jewish rituals’ interpretation of \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 (works) and \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 (law)\u2014while within the possible scope of meaning in certain contexts\u2014fails to make sense of several key passages in Romans.\u00a0 For example, in Romans 2:14<\/a>, when the Gentiles are a “law to themselves”, this clearly refers to their conscience<\/em> rather than to Jewish ritual.\u00a0 Or in 4:6<\/a>, when St. Paul writes that “David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works” (NIV), is it really plausible that King David’s song about forgiveness<\/a> is about the blessing of not having to obey Jewish ritual law anymore?\u00a0 Isn’t it more likely about him being forgiven for an ethical<\/em> breach, like maybe sleeping with Bathsheba and murdering her husband?\u00a0 Or in 7:7<\/a>, the “law” which Paul says he was condemned by is “Do not covet”, which highlights an ethical problem, not a ceremonial one!<\/p>\n Inconsistently, St. Hart retains the traditional translations of \u1f14\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 as “works” and \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 as “faith” in the famous passage in James 2:24<\/a> which says that “a human being is made righteous by works, and not by faith alone”!\u00a0 However, this apparent contradiction is to be resolved theologically, I do not believe that a translator<\/em> should put his thumb on the scale by rendering the exact same contrasting pair of words differently in these verses, to support a preferred theological agenda.\u00a0 (Less importantly, it seems that if he is going to write “Logos” in the opening of John, it would have been nice to also use it in passages like James 1:18<\/a>, “He chose to give us birth through the word of truth…” where \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 seems to have a similarly expansive meaning.)<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 Is Critical Thinking Epistemically Responsible?<\/a> \u2666\u00a0 Teaching people lists of fallacies is insufficient for critical thinking<\/a>, because almost all supposed “fallacies” become legitimate arguments in certain circumstances, and only careful thinkers can tell the difference.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 On being an informed media consumer<\/a>, with reference to the mythology from Genesis of the Tower of Babel.\u00a0 The final conclusion is a bit exaggerated, but makes an interesting point.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 One more reason to engage in critical thinking: the mindless<\/a>, uncritical use of a single statistical method throughout the social and medical sciences.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 But the education grant world<\/a> is even worse.\u00a0 Where worse means not just being incapable of distinguishing between succeeding at one’s goal and the strategy you choose to implement it, but also horribly racist things like assuming children must be in greater need of “help” just because they are black and poor, and therefore putting them in remedial math classes (without ever checking their math ability) where they aren’t taught appropriately.<\/p>\n \u2666\u00a0 If you’d like to send money to a good cause where rational people actually check to make sure that it is highly effective at helping people<\/em>, then please consider the charities endorsed by GiveWell<\/a>, a nonprofit that does just this.\u00a0 Not surprisingly, the best bang for the buck is spending money in 3rd world countries, usually for public health.<\/p>\n (GiveWell only rates secular charities.\u00a0 If you want to give effectively to Christian evangelism then I personally recommend either Wycliffe Bible Translators<\/a> or the Jesus Film<\/a>.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Even though I haven’t been blogging much recently, I’ve still been accumulating a large number of links, far too many for one sitting.\u00a0 I’ve noticed that they all seem to mostly belong to two categories: Science or Sin.\u00a0 So that … Continue reading
\nYes, Critical Thinking Is Epistemically Responsible<\/a>!<\/p>\n