R Soul on 3/7/2012 at 18:58
The question that bugs me is where did all this come from? Astronomers have used the current state of the universe to work backwards and suggest that things must have exploded out from some point, but then what? Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted to/from energy, so has this matter always been here? How did it become compressed enough for the big bang? If it can't have just popped into existence, it must have come from energy, but where did that come from? Matter?
If it's part of a cycle, when did that start? If you say there's always been this cycle, that just sounds like a guess. Something happened in the extremely distant past that is beyond our understanding, and I think that always will be. And that annoys me sometimes.
demagogue on 3/7/2012 at 19:08
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
In regards to anti-intellectualism, I think the idea that the US has a near monopoly on it is anti-intellectualism in itself.
For the record, I didn't say the US had a monopoly on it, I just pointed to it as an example because it's the closest to my world ... & anti-intellectual critical theory is largely a European movement, although it has a (relatively) big American following too.
I realize people make claims about sociology too flippantly, but it can't be denied there are definite trends of anti-intellectualism in our culture that have definite social, cultural & political sources... There's a definite tradition developing that gets linked with conservative politics, to the effect that self-appointed culture police will say "you're not a real Republican if you take seriously certain scientific theories as credible. And if you're not a real Republican, your patriotism is in question", or have you not talked to your Republican neighbors lately? This is something people get belligerent about & leave the room in disgust for... so it's impossible not to notice IMO. I've never anyone ever say "This disgusts me. We're not going to continue this conversation. Honey, get your bag. We're leaving. " over a scientific theory
except American suburban conservatives (climate science & evolution being the two charged ones)... and unfortunately on that count I've seen it more than a few times.
Edit: Let me add that, to the extent this is something of a caricature, it's a caricature some people take up as a standard of allegiance, like they believe this is what they
should stand for. As I understand it, there's just no way to understand how belligerent they get in just this way -- I mean I started as an environmental lawyer. Nobody ever got heated up talking about the science of acid rain or smog or even the ozone layer, and you can have a rational conversation about environmental regulation -- but mention climate change and the sparks fly and people get very angry very fast & storm out of rooms. Science is science & doesn't distinguish these; it's the politics doing the work. And it's hard not to see it as taking up a mass-media constructed standard. I seriously doubt the ones getting the most belligerent ever actually studied the science & economics of climate change. It was packaged for them on a mass scale.
Edit: To be even handed here -- Crit Theory & PoMo people on the other hand will give you a really snarky look and it'll be something like this exchange I heard. A: "I teach literature. And what do you do?" B: "I'm a cognitive psychologist" A: "Oh, we use a lot of psychology in literature to tear down Western hegemonies. I'm trying to get my daughter to learn Freud's theories so she understands human psychology. What's your advice?" B: "Freud has absolutely nothing to do with human psychology." A: "Well, that's your opinion." *snarky eyebrow-arch* B: "No, it's what the evidence says." A: "And isn't this bloodlust for always more 'evidence', more 'efficiency', more 'consumption' just our sick Western fetishes?" ... and they'll just go on forever about it, never budging; they try to make you feel uncomfortable so
you feel like leaving. Unfortunately, here too, I've seen this happen more than a few times.
Those are the two flavors of anti-intellectualism in our culture I've noticed anyway. If there are more, by all means it'd be good to hear other variations out there. I love concrete examples to get an idea of what's really going on.
Edit3:
Quote Posted by R Soul
How did it become compressed enough for the big bang? If it can't have just popped into existence, it must have come from energy, but where did that come from? Matter?
I'm not an expert on this haha, so feel free to take this with an iceberg of salt... But as I understand it (the quote they always throw out), the Big Bang wasn't an explosion of stuff into space, but an explosion of space itself. So thinking about it as matter all tangled up in there is already missing what it is. Also remember that matter & energy are the same thing. And empty space can generate energy just from quantum fluctuations. So stuff can and does come from "nothing" so to speak, and does all the time, billion of particles popping in and out of existence in tiny areas every second. There are plenty of experiments confirming it. But anyway, one book I read said that String Theory has an explanation in terms of these massive world sheets -- with an entire universe being strings connected to the world sheet -- and when two of them collide, you get a massive transfer of matter and energy that acts like a big bang... Or something like that.
june gloom on 3/7/2012 at 19:13
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I have a theory that a person's intelligence is inversely proportional to the number of cell phones they've owned in their lifetime. This was actually a replacement for my previous theory relating to digital watch ownership.
Inline Image:
http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2007-06-05-bumper.pngSubJeff on 3/7/2012 at 19:49
dema - that linking of scientific belief all the way to politics does seem to be an American thing. I've never come across a (non-covert) suggestion of the same in the UK, either socially or in the media. People do get into heated debates about stuff here, but walking out? Even when it gets uncomfortable we just switch the subject.
The rear lounge. 5.45pm. Sunday.Peter: "That's nonsense Jenkins, and I don't want to discuss it any more. Pipe down like a good chap."
Jenkins: "
You pipe down. Ingrate."
Peter: "No, I'd rather
you did. And I'm quite sure everyone else... agrees."
Uncomfortable silence. Jenkins sniffs. Peter adjusts his cuff.Tom Singen-Smithe: "Now then chaps, what's all this, eh? Smashing cucumber sandwiches Julia. Don't you agree, Jenkins?"
General sigh of relief. Pistols forgotten about. Port flows. Life goes on.What I
have noticed amongst my peer group is, as I've stated before in a previous thread, an almost rampant distaste of religion of any sort. Whilst I sympathise with much of the discussion and logic, I find the manner of disregard for other people's way of life a little disturbing. I'm prepared to entertain it provided it's not harmful.
Which kind of goes back to my original point (at last). The media here often peddles a wishy-washy bent on things, and the nature of self publishing on blogs and social media has taken a weirdly backwards turn. Take home vs hospital births for example. There is a rather frothy, mixed up in feminism somehow, idea that home births are what we should be doing because it's "nicer". Whilst I understand that having your baby at home could be wonderful for all sorts of sentimental reasons it just isn't safe, for many more reasons. But don't let these pro-home people into the debate, because they seem unable to grasp the simplest of stats, the most basic risk management suggestions; it doesn't fit with their agenda so you might as be talking out of your derriere.
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -- DNA
Well this is just it - I don't believe there are fairies at the bottom. I'm just not entirely sure that
all of the wonder I feel can be explained by evolution and neurochemical programming. Perhaps I'm not jaded
enough.Jason Moyer on 3/7/2012 at 19:57
The degree of respect I give people's religious or spiritual wackiness depends on how much of a tangible effect it has on me. If someone I have to deal with everyday is a kook, sometimes it's just better to humor them. I've gotten significantly more militant and open about it over the years though, in general, because I don't see how attacking a religious belief is any worse than attacking any other completely ludicrous idea. If someone wants to argue that the Theory of Relativity is bonkers I'm not going to file a lawsuit against them or something.
What I won't do is say something like "Christians are idiots", because that's just plain silly and there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I'll openly ridicule what they believe in but that's not nearly as important as judging someone on whether or not they're a decent person. I feel like this should just branch off into an "Atheism is awesome, everyone else is a tosser" thread.
demagogue on 3/7/2012 at 20:45
Looks like her hair is made out of ... yarn?
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
dema - that linking of scientific belief all the way to politics does seem to be an American thing. I've never come across a (non-covert) suggestion of the same in the UK, either socially or in the media. People do get into heated debates about stuff here, but walking out? Even when it gets uncomfortable we just switch the subject.
It was in Texas, and even then it was shocking (to me). It wouldn't happen in someplace like NYC; even my most conservative friends in NYC could still carry on a conversation. They might get loud but won't be petty. But it taught me not to underestimate how passionate some people still get about politics.
BTW, as another sign it's not just America, IIRC Fragony was from the Netherlands, and we all remember how much he flipped out over climate change.
As for religion, not only do I give them respect, I can usually join in some theological discussion they're having, and I think theology is something worth doing and doing well. For one thing, I don't it's very good theology to look for God in the cold clinical description of science either... like you're making footnotes to textbooks in genetics and geology and gynecology, etc. I always thought "scientific creationism" or "intelligent design" or "virgin-birth genetics" studies were a bad idea not only scientifically but an even bigger problem theologically, because they were insisting on shoving all the grand theological concepts into the worst boxes for them to fit in the universe. Great, now the meaning of the virgin birth is some freak genetics to get extra chromosomes... nothing to do with the special role of Jesus anymore... Are you really happier now with your theory?
I'd probably be happy to talk about Buddhist or Islamic (I like Sufism) or Shinto theology too, but I just don't know enough to trust that I'd be doing it well. So if I talk more about Christianity it's because I've studied its theology more. (Although I went to a Jewish-Christian temple for a while, too, so it's always been natural for me to blend Jewish & Christian theology pretty seamlessly). But I've liked talking about it with people from those faiths and trying to understand their theology. I mean you can't pour thousands of years of the brightest minds spending their life's work on something & not expect very beautiful ideas to be developed worth exploring.
Vivian on 3/7/2012 at 21:09
blackholes are baby universes. That's how it got compressed enough. Google it, someone said it, sounds kinda sensible
CCCToad on 3/7/2012 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Anti-science posing as science has, unfortunately, given legitimate science a bad name. It would help if people who should know better (i.e. the presumably educated people who filter information down to the hoi polloi) would be capable of making a distinction between the two.
Why would they do that? There's more money and better ratings to found in hyping shows such as "ancient aliens" than in actual science.
Vivian on 3/7/2012 at 21:45
Dude, a national newspaper reporting on some of my work said we were digging up the dinosaurs thought to be the ancestors of whales. The situation is hopeless. Journos don't even use wikipedia.
