Philosophy, Science, and Religion

Right off the bat, I should make one thing perfectly clear: I'm not a scientist. On the contrary, by training and temperament, if not by profession (I'm a computer programmer) I am an engineer. An engineer is not a scientist, someone who seeks to describe and explain the universe, he is instead a technologist, which is how I describe someone who seeks to invent new things and new ways of doing things. To many people, the line between technology and science apparently doesn't exist. On Slashdot, for example, NASA's achievements are put into the "science" category as are breakthroughs in medical treatments, but those both more properly belong in the 'technology" category, which simply doesn't exist on Slashdot.

The reason I start with the statement that I'm not a scientist is because I intend to be critical of how science is thought of in the modern world, especially by people who like to think of themselves as "progressives", and I want to give people something to complain about at the start rather than making them wade though some tedious logic before reaching a conclusion which
might be outrageous.

Today, I'd like to discuss the relationship among science, religion, and philosophy because some people have some pretty odd ideas about what science is and I hope that I can lay it out in a way that makes my position clear.

Philosophy is a search for truth. No, more than that. Philosophy is a search for Truth. That is, it is a search for things that are true no matter who you are or what your situation is or what you think about the truth that is found. That makes it a superset of both science and religion, which are both means of searching for true things.

By the way, that's what people mean when they talk about science and religion being belief systems. A belief system is a way of evaluating the quality of an idea. The main difference between science and religion lies in the way in which they evaluate ideas. I'm not particularly religious, but it seems to me that in a religion, people evaluate the quality of their ideas by an
appeal to an authority, be it a priest or a religious text, and by how they feel about an idea. In science, one idea is considered better than another if the first idea makes better predictions than the second.

This leads me to the topic of "Global Warming". Actually, I call it the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Crisis, or AGCCC, for short. The reason I call it by such a large and unweildy name is to emphasize how fragile the idea is. If the climate, however you define climate, is changing, then mankind is doing the wrong thing only if the change is anthropogenic and only needs do anything about it if it's both global and a crisis. Break the chain at any point, and the theory falls apart.

When talking about AGCCC, many people talk about the "consensus of scientists" as if that had any meaning, from a scientific perspective. Come to think of it, it DOES have meaning from a scientific perspective, but the science in question is sociology, and not climate modelling. The prediction that can be made is that if someone identifies himself as a climate researcher, that
person can, with good reliability, be counted on to say they believe in AGCCC. The problem is that belief is independent of truth and AGCCC is a plausible theory, but there are many plausible things that are false and implausible things that are most definitely true. The question, therefore, remains, is the AGCCC theory true? That is, are predictions made based on the AGCCC theory better than any other theory? In particular, are they better than the
"null hypothesis?"

A consensus is a political thing, so saying that there is a consensus of scientists is making a political statement. Othe statements, like the ones made in this one are rather more religious than scientific or political. Heck, it almost reads like something out of Leviticus. The only problem is, it's got nothing in it but assertions and the conclusions, while plausible, are based upon what, exactly?

The world is fully of plausible things that aren't true and implausible things that are incontrovertible fact. The place where we don't worry about facts and predictions and worry only instead about the plausibility of an idea is religion. In science, true science as opposed to the thing that people in lab coats who preach at us do, we don't worry about plausibility or the appeal of an idea or the charisma of any believer. Instead, we worry about the predictions.

I'm (almost) a writer

I wrote an article for Linux Journal magazine and it's been accepted. I don't know when, if ever, they're going to publish it, but it's been accepted.

What is there to admire about Archie Bunker

I go to the gym most days, and Al, the guy who's always there when I get there at 5:30 in the Blessed AM, often talks to me about stuff that comes to mind. The other day, the subject got around to formulas for various kinds of writing and if you talk about formulaic writing, you have to talk about the television situation comedy.

Sitcoms are formulaic, but the formula sometimes changes. Shows that change the formula are riskier than average, but when they win they're a big win and they can spawn dozens of imitators. One show that changed the formula was "All In the Family". When I mentioned "All In the Family", Al said that he didn't like it because Archie Bunker was bigoted and autocratic and several other things that I don't remember.

But it got me thinking about how such an unsympathetic character could become such an icon. That, of course, led me to think about the other characters in the show, and I think I've figured it all out.

In "All in the Family", each of the four main characters was the embodiment of some characteristic. Edith is wisdom, Gloria is Passion, Michael is Intellectualism, but what is Archie? Archie is Courage or Persistence in the face of opposition. The thing is, narrative is driven by conflict and since the conflict has to be between the members of the household, that means that Archie is going to steadfastly defend a position that is unwise, unenlightened, or passionless. (Actually, since passionless anything is boring, Gloria was rarely at the center of the narrative. Her main reason for existing was to bring Michael in the household. I digress.) Since persistence is often in conflict with the wise or the smart, Archie's actions and beliefs often drive the plot of the show.

In "All in the Family", each character has what I think of as their moment. For me, the defining moment for Edith is when she explains to Michael why he and Archie argue. Michael doesn't want to hear it, but Edith insists because it is important. Archie's defining moment is when he sneaks his grandson Joey out to be baptized against the wishes of the entire family, and Reverend Felcher. ("I hope that took, Lord, because they're going to kill me when I get home.")

Michael's defining moment, at least for me, is when his smarter friend visits. Michael wants to play chess and do "smart things", but his smarter friend wants to just hang out and have some fun. Gloria suggests charades and Michaels is opposed to the idea even as his friend is all for it. This is defining for me because my beliefs are sometimes described as "anti-intellectual", but I think of an intellectual as someone who can't get over how smart he is. At its core, intellectualism is a phony belief in one's own superiority. What matters about the intellect is what you do with it, not using it to prove your superiority. What's important is what problems you solve. I find that a refreshing attitude about intelligence from a not particularly bright, although often intelligence-obsessed, media culture.

So, I think Archie turns out to look pretty good in Media's lens. Yes, he's bigoted and anti-Semitic, but if you're family he'll stand by you (even if your last name is Stivic) because you're family and he won't waver. I get the sense that he's doing his best to be steadfast in a world where his values are out of step with everyone else's, but that's because he's out of his depth or hasn't managed to keep up during a time of rapid change. He's a sometimes inconvenient rock in a river, not a wall.