Nov 11 - Is modern science a religion? (trust, faith, truth, facts, beliefs)

Last year, I had a blog post "Is atheism a religion" (May28, 2013)  https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=284840814985716120#editor/target=post;postID=2661756584077450392;onPublishedMenu=posts;onClosedMenu=posts;postNum=49;src=postname

Among other things, I wondered if modern science has gone so far out of reach of the majority of the population that it is becoming religion like.

Let's explore that particular point a bit more.

In the Enlightenment period, scientific discoveries shed light on mysteries that were explained by religion.  We can directly observe why the earth is round rather than flat by observing objects coming over the horizon.  We can understand Newton's law of motion and how it is a better theory than the Greek's notion that everything tend to rest.

On a personal level, we accept that the world is round and Newton's law of motion as fact.

While not all of us understand the science behind steam engines and thermal dynamics, we likely can find someone we personally know and trust that understand this.  We can therefore place our faith on this personal friend and believe that thermodynamics is valid.

Should we find that this friend is not reliable in other scientific matters, our faith in this person is now in doubt and we may not believe his earlier claims about thermodynamics? Nevertheless, there is comfort in knowing that there is a personal connection in having this faith that we can affirm every time we interact with this friend in other matters.

Let's now go to modern science.

How many of us know, or have personal trusted friends who know the equation that led to the conclusion that there is dark energy?  the black hole?  the multiple universe and action at a distance explained by quantum mechanics? the accuracy and validity of the "models" use to predict climate change?

Religious prophets use to be the ones offering explanations for mysteries in the world and predictions about the future because of their close connection with the almighty.  We were asked to have faith in the almighty.

We now trust Nobel Laureates, celebrity scientists to explain our mysteries and predict the future.

What is the difference between these high priests of science and those of an ancient Mayan culture if we do not have direct understanding of the science itself?


Some say that even if we do not understand the science itself, we should trust the peer review process and the Nobel selection committee or similar bodies with no outside interests..

In theory, peer review works just like self regulating professional bodies (College of physicians, Professional engineers association, Pharmacist and other professions).  The professional body looks after the practice of that profession as the general public do not have the knowledge to do so.

In reality, these professional bodies do that as well as err on the side of protecting their own members.  Malpractice cases will not ever happen if the professional bodies are fulfilling their mandates.

Peer review is a process that does not pay, often seem like opposing camps protecting their positions, and with no way of knowing whether proper review was actually carried out.

Put that against the seduction of telling the public what they want to hear, what the research grant agencies want to pursue and we have the potential of giving in to the mob.

As to trusting committees or experts with no outside interests; there is always an interest.  The Nobel selection committee's interest is to maintain and promote the reputation of the prize.  It is difficult to say whether they are leading or following public opinion when they award Obama the peace prize only months after he became president.

There is one more thing going for science over religion.  Science is falsifiable. Experiments can be carried out to prove or disprove scientific claims.

How many of us understood the experiments carried out at the Cern collider to prove the existence of the Higg's boson?  Do we personally know someone we trust with other things that understand this?

So our trust in science is really faith in scientists.

The current popularity of trends like buy local, organic, and anti GMO are likely rooted in our suspicion that something we do not understand should be avoided.  However, we have gone too far down the division of labor, specialization of skills, and advantages of global sourcing to go back to self sufficiency within our small circle of people we know.

Is it really this bad or is it our suspicious mind making life difficult for us?

For more discussions about whether science is a religion, have a look at this videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvKLL-db0kc

Meeting on professionally prepared job resumes and dating site descriptions

We had our meeting Tuesday night and it was interesting.

There was a general unease about paying someone to do this.  It seems alright to get advice, to take a course, or have someone help with the draft.  Paying seems to have crossed a line somewhere and we were having trouble nailing the reason for that line.

Richard had a great parallel in sending handmade cards versus a greeting card purchased from the store.  There is a commoditizing effect to this. 

However, is this discrimination towards those who are artistically challenged but nevertheless want to express some heartfelt feelings in a greeting card?

Rafi said that we seek representation and professional help in other important and complicated issues in our life.  Lawyers represent us in legal matters, real estate agents represent us in likely the largest transaction in our lives for most of us.

So why should it be different in matters of job and mates matchings?

There are many good workers that may not be good at preparing resumes or good persons not good at describing themselves.  Knowing that first impression matters, a proper presentation of a person's background bridge this initial gap.

Think of the typical "pickup line at the bar".  Why should the ability to "break the ice" be the most prominent feature in determining their first impression of a person?

I know, having your "representative" do the pickup line is a nonstarter. Why?  Is it our bias for the ideal candidate that gloss over all the other shortcomings that someone with a good pickup line has?

One thing is certain.  The acceptance of meeting through some kind of Internet web site is no longer the negative that it once were.

Maybe in time, we may also get pass the charm of the charismatic or the communicative.

Should job resume or dating site descriptions be prepared by hired professionals?

 
If you are taken aback by the title of this coming week's discussion for the Ideas Cafe, why?

Is it because we assume that job resumes "should" always be prepared by the job applicant as presentation of their background is one indication of how good a worker they are?  Even for jobs that do not require writing or presentation skills?

Think about how society expects job applicants to behave when going for a job interview; that the person should dress better than usual, be more polite than usual, expand on their positive points and hide their weaknesses.


It is not as if the employer does not know this.  Employers likely will think badly of applicants who do not dress well or behave in the expected manner.  Or seen as "not showing that they are interested in the position" if these expected behavior is lacking.

Why is it acceptable for job applicants to wear clothes and shoes that they do not make themselves but are frown upon when they have someone else prepare their resume for them?

Oh, but of course, it is because the job do not involve tailoring and shoe making.  Do tailors and people in the fashion industry make their own apparel for job interviews?

Yes, job interviews happen so rarely in one's career that even in the clothing industry, it is not practical to see the applicant's ability through the cloths they make and they can be excused for wearing store bought cloths. Their choice of cloths is enough to show their fashion sense.


The same can be said about preparing job resumes.  It is not something that is done often and it is the content - what the job applicant has to offer that is important, not who prepared it.  Their choice of who they choose to prepare their resume shows their ability to choose who to delegate jobs to.  Isn't effective delegating one of the most important management strengths?

So, perhaps expecting job applicants to prepare their own resume is just one of those practices that should be retired?

As to dating website descriptions, the same applies.  It is not something that one do often and a professional should help make sure the person is presented well in order to make a good match.  In fact, should we not be avoiding those who have had so much practice in dealing with dating websites that they must have been doing it all the time?

Besides, there is an expectation that most photographs used here are the best there is, likely professionally done, and perhaps done some time ago.

We do not look down on people wearing makeup for their photographs so why should we look negatively on a description properly prepared ?

Maybe it is to do with social convention, with our expectations of how things should be. 

Then it is the reader that should change?

What about open disclosure.  Surely we should look positively on someone brave and honest enough to openly say that their personal description is professionally done.  No?  Aren't we a strange bunch of people? 

In both job search and partner search, is there too much wishing and not enough reality?

For a sample of what dating description professionals do, see this as an example of the before and after to see what you think!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9YBYSZZtQA

Meeting on heroism

We had our meeting on heroism.  There was a good turnout as it was also a dinner meeting.

From the discussion, we can see three types of heroes,

1. Those that respond to an emergency to save someone or rectify a situation.  It is done intuitively without much thought.

2.  Those that have the courage to stand up to a bully, to go against tremendous mental pressure or prevailing opinion.

3.  Those found in mythology such as the Hercules, Achilles etc.  These are figures to hold out as examples for humans to admire and to define what bravery is.

Fundamentally, heroes are people that we come to admire because of acts of self sacrifice or risk taking to save others or to preserve an ideal for the group.  Because of this admiration, heroes are held out at role models for others to serve the common good of the group.

The attraction to heroes is also used by states and institutions to promote their own agendas of patriotism and loyalty to the institution, to raise the bar for the rest of the participants to aim for.

Some at the meeting said sacrifice is an integral part of being a hero. 

However, on further contemplation, I think that sacrifice is so common in heroism because sacrifices are generally graphic and easily seen.  To die, get seriously injured, or suffer wide spread condemnation is there for all to see.  Even risking these possibilities is generally very evident.  Sacrifice illustrates the supreme difficulty and challenge of the endeavor.

If someone saves a child from drowning in a river without any danger to himself because he did it with ingenuity instead of bravado, I think most of us will still consider this person a hero.

We also agreed at the meeting that someone cannot become a hero just by self declaration.  It is a status bestowed by others.  Therefore, admirers are required for heroism.

Chris came up with the great thought experiment for the example recently of a small plane making an emergency landing on the highway and some of the people close by went to pull the occupants out before the plane caught fire.  We all agree that these people are heroes because they took great risk to save others.

However, Chris' thought experiment added a twist to the ending - as the occupants were pulled from the plane, someone declared the whole thing as a staged practical joke on the rescuers.  So there never was anyone in real danger but the rescuers did not know that.  In the context of the practical joke, the rescuers became the laughing stalk rather than heroes but the situation is essentially similar.

The missing ingredient is the admirer.

Some thought that heroes personify altruism and putting the welfare of others ahead of the self.  A quality we so need in our society.

Others thought that there are limits to pushing altruism as an ideal. Putting other people's welfare ahead of our own may eventually over emphasize the needy as a necessary condition.  We should always look after our own affairs and those close and dear to us before helping others.

As to the question of whether there is any difference between a heroic act versus a reckless act,  we have to say that it is perhaps the same for the first type of hero that just jump in without much thought. The outcome may be the judge; hero if it turned out, and reckless if it failed.

I think generally heroes represent one element of leadership which is courage.  There are other qualities such as foresight, judgment, empathy, and intelligence but these are usually not as evident as courage and bravery so we carve out a different status for this. 

It is telling that states will honor their heroes with medals and other forms of recognition but not always put these same heroes into strategic planning.  Everyone has their place.....

Intellectual property - monopoly on innovation?

Intellectual property (IP) rights are legally recognized exclusive rights to creations of the mind.^[1] Under intellectual property laws, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property rights include copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets.

This is from Wikipedia for a definition of intellectual property.

Is it a monopoly that encourages innovation by protecting the inventors hard work and encourages them to invest more time and resources in their endeavors?   Or is it a legal entity that blocks later comers from improving on the initial filer of the claim?


What about drugs that involve expensive development and approval cycles.  The pharmaceutical companies may need protection to recover these costs but are they setting the cost of drugs unnecessarily high, blocking access to the population?  Should third world countries pay less for these drugs?





The general public do not seem to think much of the legality of downloading music and movies. Their arguments range from "it does not cost the company anything" to "my payment only goes to the big media companies".  Are these arguments justified?









Then there is the libertarian's argument (from Wikipedia)

Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:

[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call him Galt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops. To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.^[78]

 In the software development area, is open source shareware preferable to proprietorial? Is the "walled garden" analogy for Apple restrictive or more controlled versus the MS-DOS open platform?

Isaac Newton, famous for his laws of motion, said he "stood on the shoulders of giants" as a way of acknowledging that he is merely adding on to some great ideas before him.  It can be said that no ideas come out of a vacuum and all inventions are modifications or building on previous knowledge.  Therefore, granting monopoly for any invention, even for a limited time, necessarily slows the adoption of these ideas by others.

Are current patent laws with "patent troll" companies serving more patent lawyers than innovation?

If you think that intellectual property is not a concern, think of the price of drugs, music, media, and everything that you use. On the income side, our economy is moving more and more on the intellectual front rather than the manufacturing of hardware.  From developing video games and iPhone apps to coming up with new ideas and trends, developed countries are more and more a knowledge economy depending on protection for that knowledge.

We cannot make a living on ideas without paying for other people's ideas.

Heroism - what makes someone a hero?

Who is your hero and what qualities convince you that it is so?

The most obvious example is that of selfless acts of sacrifice in times of war.


Battle situations create crisis for someone to step in to sacrifice for the benefit of the group or country.  Whether it is the soldier who throws himself over a ticking grenade to cover the explosion so that his comrades can survive or the volunteer to charge at the enemy against all odds, we consider them heroes.

Do heroes always have to be "unsung"? 

Mercenaries who are paid handsomely to take great risks may be performing the same act but likely will not be awarded heroic status.  Do heroes have to perform an act in situation they didn't choose?

But what if it is a soldier that craves visions of glory, placing the value of legacy over his life.  This is his chance to achieve everlasting fame.  Should he still be considered a hero?

In other words, is it the act alone or is intent and integral part?

What about the admirers, do we admire acts of heroism by German and Japanese military men in the second world war?  Are they heroes nevertheless?

Is the cause a essential part of heroism?

What is the difference between bravery and heroism.?

What is the difference between heroic versus a reckless act?

Are heroes promoted by the propaganda machine to glorify risky acts that no thinking person would otherwise do?  The Japanese suicide bombers come to mind.



Many would consider Nelson Mandela a hero.  Is it because he endured years of prison life? or because his forgiveness of the prison guards? or the conciliatory approach he took in leading the change after being release from prison?  Would he be a hero if he did not go to prison but achieve what he achieved?



If we agree that heroes have to be selfless, make sacrifices, take great risks, found themselves in situations they didn't choose, towards a cause that others approve, possibly in order to have glory......

It does not add up to a great picture.