Difference Between Reputation and Honor

 Reputation is how you are perceived by men.  Honor is how you are perceived by God.

When Science Becomes Dogma - Top 4 Indications

Over the years the scientific world has done a lot to keep us from believing that we'll ever have any contact whatsoever with any authentic supernatural phenomena.  Of course we know that supernatural phenomena is not scientific because it is not possible to replicate in a controlled environment.  This lack of verification procedure combined with the rare reliable reported instances of the supernatural gives us good reason to believe that no authentic supernatural phenomena actually exist.

In addition, many phenomena once considered to be mystical have been able to be captured and replicated by the scientific world.  It's much more effective to grab a telephone to talk to someone across the world rather than use some sort of magic spell to get the task done.  Rightfully, science has replaced religion and superstition in intricately explaining countless phenomena of the natural world and using that knowledge for the benefit of most of mankind.  But despite this, the scientific world can still place itself in the danger of creating a dogma of its own, replacing a lot of the dogma it once eradicated.  This dogma might be an improvement over ancient mystical dogma, but it's still dogma nonetheless.

The following four instances are indications of when the scientific community has unwittingly adopted a dogma of its own:

(1) When science crosses the FACT-VALUE threshold, it has at least partially turned into dogma.  It has put a foot outside of the limited domain of scientific ability.  Science can only explain what things ARE.  It can NEVER can explain what things SHOULD be.  It never explains ideals.  Imagine if the Michaelson-Morley experiment yielded the results that SHOULD have happened.  We might have never discovered special relativity.

Unfortunately, this means that science has nothing to say about morality.  In fact, science views religion and morality both in EXACTLY the same way: non-scientific.  You can do some really EVIL science experiments, as some have done in the past, and it still counts as science, passing every requirement of the scientific method to more accurately determine how nature operates, even though such experiments violate every moral law you can think of.

Whether the scientific world knows it or not, when you ascribe a special rule that human suffering should be avoided, that is reaching out to philosophy or religion, not science.  Basic morality is good dogma of course, but it is still clearly dogma.  It's not scientific.  Morality has no standard units of measurement, even after centuries of attempts.  Just as logic alone cannot be used to justify religious faith as real, scientific procedures alone cannot be used to justify morality as real.

(2) Recall that the scientific method is a tool, a process.  Designed to arrive at facts and facts alone.  When you start believing this tool has emotions and CARES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU FOLLOW it, we run into dogma again.  You wouldn't say a hammer cares whether you use it correctly or not.  Science is the same way.  We can't pretend that science itself gets offended if you badmouth it or use it incorrectly.  Science doesn't care.

(3) When the scientific community starts pushing it as MANKIND'S DUTY to pursue scientific thought, again, dogma.  Science can tell you if taking a certain path is effective in reaching a goal, but it can't tell you which goals you should pursue.  It can show you how to design circuits powerful enough to cause you harm, but it can't tell you that you shouldn't design such circuits.  It can show you whether or not eating your vegetables can increase your life expectancy, but it can't tell you whether or not having a higher life expectancy is something you should strive for.

(4) And finally, when you start believing that science is the ONLY PATH to truth, yep, dogma for sure.  Science claims that its path can yield reliable, consistent results.  These results can certainly be interpreted as being indicative of a truth.  But it only really shows evidence.  Maybe extremely convincing evidence.  But the jump from extremely convincing evidence to absolute non-refutable truth is a (sometimes obvious) judgment call that real actual science doesn't claim to make.  

I wouldn't say that believing convincing scientific evidence to be absolute truth is itself unscientific, because I think it still is, but going with the converse and believing that if something is absolutely true then it MUST be able to be examined scientifically is not claimed by science.  It's not even claimed by logic.  The statement if A then B doesn't imply its converse, if B then A.  

In fact, mathematically at least, Godel showed rigorously in his incompleteness theorems that unprovable truths can indeed exist and it's certain that we will never find a path that will enable us to know all truths from that path alone.  Scientific processes are the best-known paths to truth of course, but it's a big jump to say they're the only path or that no path exists outside of them.  Particularly when we are limited to only five senses that can be used to interact with the external world.

The four instances of scientific dogma above are all common in religious dogma.  

Let's summarize to get a better look -

Instance 1: science tells us the way things should be even if they aren't that way

Instance 2: science cares about you following it

Instance 3: science is mankind's duty

Instance 4: science is the only path to truth

Looks familiar to me.  I certainly see them in the religion I follow.

Real science claims NONE of these things.  It only claims that we can use a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning to design procedures that make better predictions and provide more accurate explanations about the behavior of natural phenomena.  That's it.  But even that is a HECK of a lot of value.

Lose as Much as Possible - Unconventional Arguing Techniques

I notice that quite a lot of people can't STAND to be wrong about anything.  Not ONE thing.  Not even one SMALL thing!  

They act like losing even some small argument means losing their entire reputation.

I think this makes them very ineffective at arguments.  It's like being a boxer who can't handle taking a punch.  One who just relies on knocking out opponents with one hit before the opponent is able to hit back.  Very unrealistic expectation.  

Here are some recommendations I'd make for having a more effective argument.  Some of these recommendations may initially seem unintuitive, stupid, and perhaps even lazy.  A huge chunk of people can't stand applying a technique similar to these due to fear of even a slightly damaged reputation.  They would prefer to put in more work to be less effective as long as they think it will keep them from taking even a minor hit.

Recommendation 1: Attack your own argument ASAP.

Try to discover and point out the flaws in your own argument before your opponent can.  It takes away most of their weaponry right from the start.  It lets them know that you've done your homework and you can take a hit.  Many people who argue don't have the guts to do this.  They try to hide their weak points and hope their opponent won't discover those weak points.  I guess this strategy works against feeble opponents who can't figure things out, but it won't work for strong opponents.  And limiting yourself to weak opponents only is pretty sad.

Recommendation 2: Try to argue against just ONE big thing your opponent argues for, but no more than that.

Since many people can't STAND to be wrong about even the smallest of things, they are unable to establish what are the leaves and what is the root of the tree of a structured argument.  They are used to attacking every leaf and every root they see.  Wastes a ton of energy.

So lose the smaller arguments on purpose.  Roll with the opponent on the small stuff.  Roll with their opinions as much as you possibly can without sacrificing your main point.  

As your opposition thinks they're building momentum by knocking down the leaf arguments that you don't even worry about, they might suddenly get surprised when they eventually reach the root and find that you defend that one big argument with a lot more vigor and strategy.  The sudden loss of easy momentum adds a bit of intimidation.  And you will have a lot more energy than your opposition, because even though they did get some seemingly easy victories, they had to search for those victories - and that alone causes some mental wear and tear.

Recommendation 3: Realize You Don't Need To Win, You Just Need To Sow Doubt.

Last realize you don't need to win.  So don't try. Rather than getting your opponent to completely accept your argument, just attempt to get your opponent to ever so slightly doubt their own argument instead.  If you do this well enough you can just leave and your opponent ends up fighting themselves, and they may ultimately finish the job on their own and take up your position without you ever knowing it.

Conclusion: All of these recommendations may appear to be losing efforts on the surface, but sometimes when you're caught in something like quicksand or a skid, doing the opposite of what you think you should do tends to work the best.

Pledge of Allegiance AGAINST the Kardashians

 I'm not sure how "relevant" the Kardashians still are, but I made this pledge quite a while back:

I pledge allegiance against the Kardashians

Who have embarrassed the United States of America

And against the shallowness for which they stand

Abusing fame and wealth, in the face of God

And leaving low aspirations of intellect for all

How I Found Out About Cannibalism

When I was in first grade in the late 80's, our excellent teacher (who I remember fondly) would routinely sit the entire class in a circle and give us all copies of some small booklet.  One student would read a page and then we'd progress around the circle with each student reading another page until we had completed the entire booklet.  

There were probably 20 pages in each booklet with no more than 5 words on each page.  And they were of the same series.  Very age appropriate.  

But I remember early in the school year thinking something that was not very age appropriate when I read the title of one of the booklets.  I can't remember the exact names in the three-word title, but I sure remember the verb between the names.  It was something along the lines of "Joe Meets Sally."

And despite the picture of two kids shaking hands on the cover, my blood went cold.

I knew what the word "meat" meant - although I probably didn't know how it was spelled - and I thought "Wait a minute...  Is someone being turned into meat here?  Is someone actually being cooked?  And are we reading about it in the first grade?  That would be rated R and we're little kids!  We're too young to read about that!  That can't be right!"

Trusting that there's no way such a gruesome topic could possibly be a part of first-grade curriculum, I decided not to panic and to just wait and read along with everyone else, even if I worried that the happy pictures might suddenly turn macabre at any moment.

Well, as we progressed through the book, it became apparent to me that this version of the word "meet" just meant seeing someone for the first time and had nothing to do with transforming anyone into an entree.  So I ended up learning the idea behind cannibalism at the same time I learned a very elementary word in the English language.

Of course this experience only taught me the theoretical idea of cannibalism, not that cannibalism actually existed.  When I found out it actually was a real thing much later it left no impression on me that I can recall.

I figured somebody somewhere might find that story to be of interest, but I'm not sure.  There also was a time in community college I was challenged to an arm-wrestling contest by an old fellow who appeared to be over 90 and who many times informed me he survived the holocaust and even showed me his evidence of this by rolling up his sleeve and showing me a tattoo of a number on his arm.  His wife was in my evening art class and I saw him at the college all the time.

It's weird that since I can't confirm these experiences directly with anyone in my life today that they both seem almost like a dream, but I remember them very distinctly as being quite real.  My actual dreams are far too incoherent when compared to these experiences.

Never Say The N-Word

Mathematical Proof that Saying the N Word Is Always Wrong

Symbols

E = an error/wrong occurs

G = a skin color

T = a form of treatment

S = saying the N word

A = action

R = racist

D - discrimination based on skin color

W = white

Axioms

1) If R then E 

2) If D then E 

3) If((If A(G) then T) & (if A(Not G) then Not T)) then D

4) If S(W) then R 

5) S is an element of A 

6) R is an element of T 

Proof Steps

SHOW For All S, if S then E 

1) We already know If S(W) then R.  And if R then E. 

2) So now we just need to show If S(not W) then E.  That will 

be enough to show For All S, if S then E.

3) So let's start with S(not W) and see if it leads to E.

4) If (S(not W) then R) is true, then R will lead to E.

5) So we'll say (if S(not W) then not R) and see where that leads.

6) Well, by plugging both what we just did in step 5 into axiom 3

and also plug axiom 4 into axiom 3, that will yield D. 

7) By axiom 2, if we have D then we have E.

8) So whether or not S(not W) leads to R or not R directly,

we still end up with E no matter what. 

9) Conclusion is that S(W) and S(not W) both lead to E,

so for all S, if S then E. 

QED