1. Unintelligent Design

Comment #231933 by Ailes du Serpent on August 17, 2008 at 10:30 am

Well, the basic premise of the article ("Hey, how's this for a counterargument against ID, we're not so intelligently designed after all, here's example A, B, C ... ") isn't a particularly new one.

It IS however a good simple punchline argument to give to the undecided masses to immunize them against creationism. Believers themselves however are mostly too deep through the looking glass, that they rather 'rationalize' reality than scrap their fantasy premise:
The most common creationist retour to the question "If Intelligent Design is valid, how come there is (imperfection X,Y,Z) ?" is something like "Well, obviously it all WAS perfect, but after the FALL OF MAN it became tainted...", and they think that this is an answer at all ("What do you mean you don't understand? It's RIGHT IN the Bible!").
At least it evaporates the farce idea that Intelligent design has nothing to do with religion.
The other possible answers aren't much better either: If you "don't know yet why there is imperfection A,B,C, but ID nevertheless is true, don't worry, trust me, because see here this minor fault in evolution..", you should should up and do more research (yeah right).
But I digress, everyone knows about the tediousness that is arguing with these guys.

Anyway, as I said before, the argument of the article is a nice quick no-brainer against ID to use for the public.

2. Toward a Type 1 civilization

Comment #219019 by Ailes du Serpent on July 26, 2008 at 4:52 am

Hm. Mixed feelings about this:

You know, I grew up in eastern germany, back in times when it was communist. I remember back in school we were thought a similar chart of "historic progression":
- hunter/gatherer pre-society
- agrarian/feudal slave society
- bourgeois/capitalist society
- and finally socialist/communist society as the perfect be-all-and-end-all of history. (the "twist" was that it was meant to come "full circle" in the end, that is arriving at the same paradisic freedom we were supposed to have in the pre(oppression)society ).

Those were the "immutable laws of history", as handed down by the prophet Marx.

There are some things to it, but assigning a teleological order to it always struck me as bullshit, even in the fourth grade.

My issue would be that it is rather debateable that a Type 1 Energy-Mastery (planet scale) is ONLY achieveable with the described Type 1 society (global democracy, etc.). I think this says more about the authors private preferences and hopes than anything else (not to dismiss the author, I mean I'd prefer such a society too). You can argue that certain types of societies are better fitted for achieving certain kinds of goals (like moving up the Energy-scale), but I don't know, ever since my communist upbringing I've grown kind of weary of teleologic historic plans and outlines. Some of it has almost a religious quality to it, "inevitable progress" sometimes can sound like "secular rapture" (mainly adressing the transhumanist/singularity nerds who think that someday technology will inevitably be so advanced, save us all and spirit us away into paradisic times). There are lots of people, like religiously deluded people, who would gladly be stuck on a certain step of the "progression ladder" and don't develop any further (Hardcore christian and jewish sects for example, or 'primitive' tribes, etc.) - it may be inconceivable to most of us, but yes, many people in the world really think differently, really have a different view on what'd constitute a "perfect society", which for them is something rather from the past. They get this worldview from the religious delusions that are fed to them by the people who actually profit from their positions in such societies (priesthood, chiefdom, patriarchy, you name it...). I mean, you can leave all those behind while the rest of us moves on, only thing is that those people have a nasty tendency to fuck it up for the rest of us..
anyways

3. Texas Fiction Science

Comment #219015 by Ailes du Serpent on July 26, 2008 at 4:29 am

I once saw a comic, may have been here on this very same site, that pretty much encompasses my feelings on this and similar creationism issues:

If I recall it correctly, it was something like this, a chinese classroom, children learning evolution, and the teacher says "Thanks America, for teaching your kids creationism and giving up scientific leadership to us", or something to that effect.

4. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202837 by Ailes du Serpent on July 2, 2008 at 3:43 am

Echoing the pity for this poor chap. I hope he doesn't go on debates, because he will get whipped and creamed, by both camps. On the other hand, maybe that'll push him finally over the edge and lets him reevaluate his core religious claims.

5. The $10,000-a-Month Psychic

Comment #200909 by Ailes du Serpent on June 28, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Well, things like that always make me tune into the old Randi refrain, if there's something to it, why not test it (and why did all tests so far disprove psychic ability beyond statistical chances?).

For instance I'd like to see the complete score of predictions this woman (and every other psychic) has made, as it's usually a "count the hits, ignore the misses". The article brought up a nice scenery of 10 or so companies who talked about their use of psychics, but many requesting anonymity (out of embarassment, maybe?). Imagine then how much more embarassing it must be for the HUNDREDS of companies that depended on psychics and failed! They won't talk, and so we only hear the nice stories.

And it always reminds me that successfull people aren't necessarily always wellrounded "smart" people at the same time. Most often they 'just' have, like everybody else, particular skill in their special fields, or enough determination to make it. I always wondered why for example movie stars often fell for religious cults and sects, then it dawned to me that I overestimated them as persons based on the fact that I liked their movies and media portrayal, while in reality they may not be as smart as the people they played (and the fact that the shallowness of showbusiness makes the actors especially vulnerable to the 'confirmation' and 'meaning' these cults provide).
Back on topic..

Though from what I get from the article so far, I can't summon up much disdain for this woman. Of course she sustains the allencompassing culture of irrationality further, on the other hand, you know what they'll say about the fool and his parting money. If they want to pay high bucks to listen to the business opinions of what seems to be essentially a housewife without expertise, let them burn their cash. And who knows, maybe this woman has something worthwile to say. Not, mind you, because she has any supernatural powers, but because in business it's sometimes good to take in an outsider opinion (because you yourself are so entrenched that you'll lose sight of the big picture, you know, the tree-in-the-forest deal).

For example, I often see movies coming out where I can only say "what the hell where the producers thinking? This stuff will bomb at the box office!", and it does. I imagine, to see this can be harder for a moviemaker in the business who's "totally confident in his product" and the sycophantic corporate culture of yes-men doesn't help either. In these cases, sometimes it's good to have a person there to cut through the BS to say "No, this is crap". Like this woman does maybe, or like I can do. Though I can do it much cheaper, and without any psychic flim-flam (which is, ironically, maybe what gives credence to her in the minds of superstitious people: "listen to her, she 'knows' stuff!").

Though I at least concede favorably that she doesn't play up the supernatural aspect so much, from what I've seen in the article. Additionally, to confirm I glanced over her website a bit, which seems she basically takes an approach of new age-y truisms, rather lean on the esoterical side:

"I welcome you to the Practical Intuition Website. You as a human being are vastly more powerful and accomplished than you often realize."

I can grant her that. Nice weasel formulation. It can be understood rationally, in a way, and at the same time contains all the right words to appeal to the esoteric crowd like a dog whistle.

"You have innate abilities, already developed, that allow you to understand yourself, others, and your environment. These abilities can help you act in ways that create joy, success and healing."

Same as above. Though as always it doesn't contain any hard meat arguments (she wants to shill books and seminars, of course, and I imagine them being even more trueisms like: "Think positive" - really ? duh I thought I was suppose to think negative, thank you lady, here's your 10000 bucks!)

6. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181461 by Ailes du Serpent on May 17, 2008 at 8:56 am

Forgive me my lack of expertise about the british newspaper landscape, but surely this must be a satirical op-ed piece ?

I mean, maybe I have no reading comprehension, but as far as I see it, it's about giving children the opportunity to opt out of (mandatory, or how is it handled in UK ?) religious classes, if he/she (and their parents, I presume) want to.

And the article makes it sound like 1984 is right around the corner and the state forces children to atheism, etc.

That's why I originally thought this was satire, because I have a hard time believing someone can rage against the "secular thought police" while simultaneously denying people the choice of their conscience to opt out of religious indoctrination.

The real issue this brings up is, and excuse again my lack of expertise, the nature of the religious classes. I assume this is about courses in public (state-run) schools ? Are they (a) non-proselytizing and do you learn facts about world religions, history and culture, or is it (b) just an extension of sunday praise and worship ?