Whoa, my first update in 6 months, no wonder my traffic is
so high ;)
Most of my writing ends up at
useless-knowledge.com. I've been having a lengthy back and forth debate with John Waters. His latest
response extended an olive branch and we've exchanged some friendly emails. I've therefore decided to post my very lengthy final response to John, which was written before I read his friend-letter and thus has our previous heated tone, here. An upcoming article posted to useless-knowledge perhaps tomorrow will link here to this blog entry.
By luck, the editor at useless-knowledge sent this article back as there were some issues with character translation which made all of my hyperlinks fail. I post it here because it makes solid points to many of John's views and I think that for anyone following the debate (I doubt there are many) they can read my responses. This is also a handy place that I can refer too in future engagements with John. That should give enough context to frame the following, it's loaded with hyperlinks which lead to other articles in this dispute:
Our Resident Humorist And 2D Neo-Luddpocrite Mystic: John WatersI'm sorry that John has issues using the
rebuttal forum, but this will be the last public article in this line. I'm sure John will continue and vent his fears and attack the evils of technology in response to future articles of mine in which case, I may feel the need to specifically respond, but this particular back and forth spar needs to be moved off of the main page.
But first, I'll play one more round and rebut John's last few pieces. Let me start by saying that he's made no new points, continued to ignore old threads within our discussion and has done little more than loquaciously maneuver himself into a corner.
John starts
this article as ridiculously as he finishes it. He begins by suggesting that I've "given up". It was merely the last of my
three part article. I made reference within the first two that there would be multiple articles, after all, and the titles also held clues: "part1", "part2". Perhaps John is being funny again? I submitted those three articles back to back, over a period of three days. In any case, not responding isn't a forfeit in this verbal game, it's not throwing in the towel. For the time being, however, I have both the time and the motivation to continue but like I said, my future responses will be at the forum.
I future responses to John at the forum, I will refer to my
three part article which gives good evidence that John is anti-science and embraces the neo-Amish viewpoint. Nothing John has written refutes these and other points. In the same
piece, for example, he throws out the truism that some famous scientists are ethical and worried about the possible impacts of future technology, and then pulls a bait-and-switch with regard to his neo-Amish views. In other words, John implies that since Einstein held views similar to John's, that John isn't a neo-Luddite. Comical, to be sure, but far from true as Einstein held no such views. Einstein wanted to understand the mind of "God", God is in quotes because Einstein didn't believe in a personal God. This was his way of saying that he wanted mankind to understand how everything works. In other words, Einstein wanted to "play God" since surely knowing, which is science, invariable leads to action, which is technology.
Lise Mietner, who discovered how to split the atom based in part on Einstein's notion that matter and energy are essentially the same thing, was opposed to the atom bomb. One of her co-workers, however, was not, feeling that it was important to develop this technology before Hitler and to that end, joined the Manhattan Project. Being cautious and/or having opinions about possible results of scientific research one way, or the other, aren't the ways of the modern Luddites. The Union Of Concerned Scientists today is also very cautious about nuclear proliferation, yet they support stem cell research (even the kind that destroys a human fetus in the process) and many other topics that I often write about, ID in the science classroom being a good example. John's attempted connection between Einstein/Russel and his own Luddite views is a dead-end, in other words.
Waters retreats from his cheap sci-fi/horror fears of up and coming technology to map and simulate the human mind. The same goes for nanotechnology, claiming instead that his "nanotech fears" article was merely jesting on his part! Instead, he focused on scary issues of today, nuclear power and global warming. John now claims that his Luddite article was a spoof, yet, he surely had a goal in mind. My article about
abortion was also a spoof, also with a goal in mind. John, who can't seem to remember what he's read or said, likened my lack of appreciation of his "humor" to being a "humorless fanatic".
Getting back to his retreat, he began by attacking Ray Kurweil's ideas of human potential and the predicted technology along those lines and then ran backwards when I pointed out that Ray is actually a rather reasonable sort of guy.
Since John brought it up, let me briefly mention nuclear power. It is being pushed as a solution to other dirtier sources of power by some the very same scientists who discovered man's role in global warming. By the way, the answers to defeat global warming are more science and technology, including but not limited to high tech alternatives, more on that in a future, non-John Waters related, article.
The discovery of nuclear power was
inevitable, having been set in motion centuries earlier, and, with a tiny bit of imagination, we could conceive of far more terrible discovery scenarios. Nuclear power has many virtues, one of primary interest to me is space travel. With existing nuclear technology, we could reach Mars in a week instead of three months and generally move about the Solar System at speeds more analogous to falcons rather than snails.
The Russians also had some interesting small, reliable, nuclear power systems for some of their more distant northerly towns. Nuclear power gives us the biggest possible energy output in the smallest possible form-factor, at least with existing, practical, technology. Sure, nukes can also make big explosions. Likewise, the same research which is attacking AIDS and cancer could also be used to make custom strains of virus which could spread a modern plague and kill millions.
Yes, science should have ethics as its core. Each new advance should be should be embraced with caution. This is not only common sense, it's already (and has been) common practice, and folks who think as I do champion this view. Stem cell research is often attacked as being immoral, but the process is actually quite ethical – no one has any incentive to have an abortion just to further research, for example, and most of the stock, destined to die anyway, comes from fertility clinics (clinics which are strangely out of the sights of the nuts who attack this kind of thing). The various political techniques of trying to cast a negative light on stem cell research amounts to a mix of ignorance and specific religious dogma and is mostly fit for shallow-thinkers and people who don't know any better, quite frankly. Similarly, if one holds that a rat is his reincarnated ancestor, then surely one might feel as if ethics have been ignored if a local rat infestation is irradiated.
Humanist Carl Sagan makes the case for ethics and caution often. In Pale Blue Dot, he explains in great detail why we must develop the technology to deflect incoming asteroids and notes in the same breath that such technology could also be used to deflect asteroids in our direction! He mentions Hitler specifically, and reminds us that at the very end, Hitler blamed Germany for his woes and ordered his forces to attack his own country.
In other words, if we do nothing, an impact is likely to destroy civilization sooner or later, and if we do something, we risk destroying ourselves. Personally, I'll take my chances with the latter. The very first tool hominids made to easily carve the meat from an animal, doubled as an easier way to slice up hominids from competing tribes. This is part of the very essence of being human in my opinion.
Mankind will never fix itself
first. We will never achieve a utopia
before we undertake the next big tech-leaps. Europe was far from perfect before it sailed for the New World, American Indians didn't do away with wars and bloody sacrifices before they built great pyramids and floating farms, England wasn't a land of peace and goodwill when it began the modern industrial evolution, and tribal warfare wasn't abolished before man discovered and embraced farming and domestication. The notion that we must somehow fix humans before we advance is foolhardy and fantastical. John himself said that humans shouldn't be fixed at the core, and I agree. Of course John pretended that humanists and transhumanists support changing people in some Orwellian manner, but these are merely his neo-Amish fears showing through again and have no basis in reality. In any case, good things often happen in response to bad things. World War Two was tragic, but it arguably left Europe much better off, as Europeans now have the highest standard of living in the world. If one could travel through time, which nasty human deed would one undue? Would the net result be positive, or negative? Wasn't there a Twilight Zone episode about just this scenario?
Regardless of our level of technology, human drama will play itself out, there will be good guys, bad guys, and a majority of apathetic citizens going about their various pursuits and considering their microsecond in the vastness of time, along with their customs and traditions, alright, find, dandy and worth protecting from change.
I would not support removing from babies that which might make them more docile, more open to the norms of society and so forth, even if it reduced crime or warfare (besides, we already have working models for reducing crime and such, we just lack the political will to implement them). Those who are eccentric, those who oppose the will of the majority are often handy to keep ideas fresh as history has shown many times, something else I believe Waters agrees with. Naturally, this doesn't mean that
all eccentric folks are correct or wise ;)
Amusingly, in the same article, John expanded the quote that I copied from WikiPedia concerning Luddites. I had actually meant to copy more of the quote myself but I made a copy/paste error. In any case, the extra text that John quotes in this article actually
helps my point, for it shows even more the nature of John's neo-Amish sentiments as his quote and their quote are in utter agreement; rather, John's quote is a perfect example of the sentiment expressed from the WikiPedia page.
John can't really grasp these ideas because he has demonstrated not only a lack of imagination, but an inability to connect basic dots. And, we should not forget, that John considers
science, both as an institution and as the folks who practice it, evil and immoral. Ironically, John has attacked both of the individuals he trumps in his latest article, Einstein and Russel, in a foolish attempt to make science and and humanism look bad. To John, therefore, the notion that scientists have concerns about the technology they help to produce surely must seem amazing, so amazing that John can equate these realities, realities which are wholly unique in his eyes, with his own neo-Luddite passions.
Is John a New Age Mystic? John claims he isn't in
this article. I have my doubts, however. John said that he is a three dimensional person, implying that understanding him is a difficult task. This truism is of course correct but we are writing articles about each other - therefore, the only way to make any determination about the other is, well, from writing! Sometimes, the sky is blue and sometimes, cats scratch ;) Touting truisms as if they present some deep point of logic is funny indeed; John was correct, he can be comical.
Here then are some definitions and cuts from WikiPedia which to my way of thinking reinforce the notion that John is indeed a New Age Mystic. The WikiPedia article notes the broadness of New Age views and I don't imply that Waters holds all of these views, nor does this article say that one has to hold all of them to be a New Ager. Anyway, here are some cuts that are related to items John has written about from this
page and below that are some definitions:
The term New Age describes a broad movement of late 20th century and contemporary Western culture, characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration. Collectively, New Age has some attributes of an emergent religion, but it is too diverse and diffuse to qualify.
.
.
.
Though there are no formal or definitive boundaries for membership, those who are likely to sample many diverse teachings and practices (from both 'mainstream' and 'fringe' traditions) and to formulate their own beliefs and practices based on their experiences can be considered as New Age. [1] Rather than following the lead of an organised religion, "New Agers" typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of the worlds religions, also including shamanism, neopaganism and occultism. [2]
Most New Age practices and beliefs may be characterized as a form of alternative spirituality or alternative religion. Even apparent exceptions, such as alternative medicine or traditional medicine practices, often have some spiritual dimension — such as a conceptual integration of mind, body, and spirit.
---
Mysticism from the Greek μυστικός (mystikos) "an initiate" (of the Eleusinian Mysteries, μυστήρια (mysteria) meaning "initiation"[1]) is the pursuit of achieving communion or identity with, or conscious awareness of, ultimate reality, the divine, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight; and the belief that such experience is an important source of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Traditions may include a belief in the literal existence of realities beyond empirical perception, or a belief that a true human perception of the world trancends logical reasoning or intellectual comprehension. A person delving in these areas may be called a Mystic.
Having said that, I will concede that many definitions tend to be what I call "greedy". In other words, they are worded such that they fan out and make the largest possible net in order to catch the most people. Pantheism is a personal example. I recently went to a Pantheist web site, and, according to their definition, I do seem to be a Pantheist. I'm not a pantheist, however, and that is the point. So, perhaps Waters isn't a mystic. His writings do seem to push him in that direction however, and he has done nothing to change this impression of himself. Saying, "I am not a New Age Mystic" isn't good enough ;)
I must say however, that his guise as a scientific researcher is comical. John, in
this article, asked me to observe and follow the scientific method to see that his yogic-superpowers “research” is legit. He cited the example of meteors as a similar idea, correctly explaining how many ignored this research. Indeed, the idea that objects from other planets and bodies could reach Earth does seem extraordinary. Think of it – in order for an object to reach space, it must be going at a terrible velocity, this is why space travel is so very dangerous and expensive thus far. During the nuclear tests that the US conducted in the 50s, we inadvertently launched objects into space. Volcanic eruptions are also capable of this incredible feat, as are other collisions in space, including meteor impacts themselves.
Once an object is in space, the chances of hitting another object are also remote. However, objects do collide and do force ejecta into space, and, given millions of years and lady luck, planets are able to exchange material in this way. This has now been established beyond all reasonable doubt. Such
extraordinary claims required
extraordinary evidence! Science isn't about taking someone's word for it based on mere intuition, after all.
John makes some extraordinary claims about his yogic energy forces. It is up to John to convince the rest of us. It is up to John to present his pseudo-science as science. Convince us, John! Testimony from others who have experienced these magical forces isn't enough, I'm afraid. I've heard quite convincing testimony from otherwise sane, professional and trustworthy folks that they have been abducted by aliens. As it stands, John's notions are in league with numerology, ESP and haunted houses. Like meteors, perhaps there is something to his "research", but it will take much convincing before science will accept it, and that is as it should be. After all, ESP has been studied extensively and found to be baloney. Convince us that yogic energy beams aren't baloney, John. Science needs more than your intuition.
Speaking of intuition and imagination, and illuminating the irony of John claiming that I lack deep thoughts, let me remind John about the various issues that he has dropped in our back and forth debates. I claim that John has exhausted his responses and has verbally painted himself into a corner in each case. Does he just keep missing the point? Can he not grasp the topics involved? John comes off as a nay-sayer without substance, he will shout and object, but when confronted, retreat, red in the face, with little more to say about the pertinent issue (though with a heck of a lot to say about any other imaginable subject ;) ).
Here are some connections that I've taken the liberty of making for John. Future space travel isn't science fiction, it's required for mankind to save himself (something John has admitted), at least as far as we thus far know - John considered the notion that our destiny includes exploration of space hypocritical and illogical. John goes on and on about how he thinks mainly using intuition, but refused to answer how intuition fails us in handling octopus, creatures which certainly may seem simple, and disgusting, but which deserve as much respect and compassion as fluffy, furry, soft, cats. John claims that we can't really know if wasps feel pain in the same way that humans do, but ignores the implications of applying the same "open mindedness" to grass. How do we know that grass doesn't scream silently in pain at being mowed? John ignored this thread because responding meant acknowledging certain crucial facts that are incompatible with his views. John also backtracked from his statements about the wasps in another way, claiming that he thought about them many years ago and admitting that he swats mosquitoes. John, you vile, empathetic extinguisher of mosquito consciousness! John backtracked from his previously narrow view of abortion and the rights of fertilized eggs, realizing that his arguments for equating potential life with realized life lead to a corner faster than being ordered there as a disobedient child. John ignored my highlighting of his silly cries of "god playing" in regards to transhumanists. He also ignored my response to his attack of my association of the profound implication of farming with transhumanism, a god playing idea that leads to many things, good and bad. And, as I've already said above, John retreated full force from his fear of Singularity ideas and transhumanism to focus on the truism of the dangers of nuclear power and global warming.
I await a "profound" and "deep" response to these points, John Waters, and if you move your position any further to my side, I expect to be thanked for enlightening you. Relax, that was a joke and not a statement of sheer arrogance ;)
Finally, John has yet to point to a single instance of hypocrisy with regard to myself or T411. As if having an alias means anything besides one's wish to remain anonymous! John claimed that humanists, who aspire to a dogma free morality and sense of ethics, must be logical in all things. He then proceeded to attack various passages in the 11 Chapters as proof that humanists are hypocrites. In the past, John has attacked scientists and humanists for lacking artistic and poetic abilities and likening them to robots. The 11 Chapters is meant to be a book of poetry, so one can only imagine how angry and confused John must have been while reading it. ;) John had grumbles with a few specific scientific statements, the persistence of information in physics, for example, to which I specifically replied. John has yet to reply to those replies – this, folks, is his evidence of hypocrisy; it is about as solid as his evidence for yogic energy forces, and one of several reasons that I liken his debate skills to that of an average eight year old.
Perhaps John isn't as dishonest in the real world as he seems online. His writing is, however, no evidence of this. Finally, and, speaking of evidence, John often challenges me to prove something. Forgetting for a moment the irony (hypocrisy? ;) ) of his own yogic-forces superpowers in this context, one generally cannot
prove anything. I will sometimes say that such and such helps prove my point, but technically, that would be an error. All we can really do is show that something or some point has some good evidence or sometimes, overwhelming evidence. Criminal trials don't often prove cases absolutely, after all, and we have no absolute guarantee that the laws of nature won't be different when we wake up tomorrow. Perhaps John can instead ask, "Where is Fred's evidence for x?", it would make me roll my eyes less at least.
If John decides to respond to this I will post my reply at the
Rebuttal Forum. When you respond, John, please don't forget to mention the neologism in my title.
---
Resources:The NOVA
documentary, "Einstein's Big Idea: The Story Behind E = mc²"
The Union Of Concerned ScientistsThe 11 Chapters Of Life SocietyNuclear Powered SpacecraftNuclear fission pulse unit powered Orions could provide a fast, economical interplanetary transportation with useful human crewed payloads of gargantuan mass.
Orion's technology is also one of very few interstellar space drives that could be constructed with known technology. Orion is the ideal method of propelling a multi-generational starship such as an interstellar ark to the stars at velocities of up to 10% of the velocity of light.
Even at 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships will require a flight time of 44 years to reach Proxima Centauri, the nearest star. An Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years, or 500 years to travel 50 light years. The late astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Do Americans mistrust science? According to Gould, people are born with an innate fascination for science, but that interest is too often turned off as a person grows to fear and distrust science. "It's a shame that this great institution of science, which is so intrinsically embedded in our lives, is so widely underappreciated by the public," Gould said. "Science needs to be understood by everyone, not only for reasons of public well-being, but because it is so thrilling, exciting, and inspiring." Gould said that as president of AAAS he will work to resolve the paradox by improving the public opinion of science.Something about
people's views on global warming which also alludes to this issue:
Some of the statements on the Web, radio talk shows, and in other American media began to resemble diatribes against conspiracies on a variety of other subjects. Such arguments also appeared in Western Europe, Japan, and especially Russia, but Americans were especially prone to openly distrust science. Populist American politicians, geographically and socially dispersed, sometimes scornful of intellectuals, often sympathetic to the views of energy corporations, were more inclined than foreign elites to swallow unscientific views. Remarkably, the science-fiction novelist Crichton got an appreciative hearing as a "climate expert" on visits to Congress and the White House. Such antics widened the divide between the United States and most other nations around the world. The Bush administration's defiant refusal to join in practical steps to address global climate change antagonized many foreigners, while adding to political polarization within the United States itself.The stats for Americans in this regard are generally going south. More Americans believe in the supernatural and less Americans accept solid theories like evolution. Of course America distrusts science – America is
ignorant of much of science. This isn't meant as a slam to my fellow countrymen, but more of a wakeup call, and I'm not alone. Republicans and Democrats are both concerned, after all, science and tech is crucial to our role in the world.
