The Big Bare Pole

The Bare Pole

Thanksgiving Day holiday shopping, Black Friday, Cyber Monday. Is the whole sad business driving you crazy? Leaving you frustrated and saddened? Perhaps you are borderline embarassed to be an American in the twenty first century. I feel your pain. This is the type of situation that can only be fixed by a complete overhaul. Think Healthcare dot Gov. That kind of overhaul.

Therefore I suggest open proselytizing! Pledge to do your part and make certain everyone hears about Festivus, the holiday for the rest of us. Though its origins are dubious and spoofy, I believe we can take up the Festivus Pole, wave it proudly and claim its rituals as our own. So, get your family, friends, and loved ones around the dining table and let the healing begin. Rest assured, there is nothing to buy, little to remember, nothing extra to worry about. Once you’ve erected your Festivus Pole and have your family around the table, you’re half way there. The customary beginning ritual is the “Airing of Grievances”. This should come naturally. After a few drinks and some conversation about politics, the ever popular ritual “Feats of Strength” should naturally follow. Later as things mellow, everyone will enjoy reciting “Festivus Miracles”.

Buck-up Bah-Humbuggers! Let’s be clear and have no fear, Festivus is here— to stayyyyyy….

This I Believe

For sometime now my local radio station running this series of essays sent in by listeners. The topic is, This I Believe. I have enjoyed several of them. Others, not so much. In short I have been rolling this topic around my brain for a while. I kept thinking that I would write something down- eventually. Then, out of nowhere, a friend asks me to comment on a quote by Robert Anton Wilson regarding belief. So, I figured I would just let it out.

I basically agree with R.A. Wilson when he says, "My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence". However, though he only died in 2007, Mr. Wilson was born in 1932 and though very knowledgeable and thoughtful, he belonged to another time. This doesn't make him wrong. I am just not certain that he was aware of the latest brain research, which turns out to be pertinent. This is my view and I will expand upon it momentarily.

One of the first problems we run into when discussing "Belief" is how many people, sophisticates and lay folks, conflate or overlap their usage of this concept. People regularly say things like, "I believe I will go to the gym", when they really mean, "I have decided to go to the gym". Here is another way we loosely use this idea. "I believe in love or family or values and so on)". They use this device when they really mean, "I like loving and being loved. It feels good". One infers the subcontext to be, "I observe loving behavior is also important to others". How about, "I believe in America". Or, "I believe in justice". I concede, these phrases have a nice ring to them. Sadly, they are often used in such a shallow manner that they have sunk to a level between insipid and meaningless. Many times such statements are made to glorify the person making the statement and/or laying blame/guilt upon those of a different opinion in a given matter. I refer to this as, 'The Belief as a Bludgeon' strategy. I suggest this is the last refuge for a mind that can not or will not engage in critical thought or rational discourse. Or, in the worst scenario, the first refuge.

Then further, we hear people essentially say, "I believe in an invisible, (often anthropomorphic, though sometimes disperse and all-pervading), being who is all-powerful, judgmental, and lives in the sky (or wherever) and who intervenes in human business through magic unseen channels". Now we are in different territory.

So, what is the problem with a person stating that they "believe in love"? If we cede the semantic ground and infer their real intent, nothing. Well, almost nothing. I suggest that one little problem does begin to rear it's ugly head in such discussions. Too often, those making such claims appear to have skipped right over the important bit. Huh, what important bit? In a word, Evidence. I purposefully capitalize the word. I suggest it should rightfully be captialized in keeping with its profound importance.

When a person says, she believes in love, a number of factors are at work in arriving at such a claim. I will not attempt to enumerate all of them but community norms might be one such factor. However, there is one thing we all can reasonably infer from such a statement, there was a groundwork of Evidence through experience that leads a person to this claim. Sure, we don't usually label things overtly in this manner as we go through our days. As in, "Wow, I had a loving interaction and this has provided me with further evidence for my claim".In fact, science now indicates that our emotions tend to mediate such experiences and inform our judgments. In other words, the whole system seems to be built-in to some degree and we are scarcely even aware of the process, at least consciously. *See suggested reading below.

I will make a brief aside regarding a complex topic to which I could not do justice in this small space. Recent brain research tends to show that we have a tendency to belief or, at minimum, imperative choice. An admittedly way-to-simplified expanation would be that our survival (early in our sentient development) necessitated making relatively quick potentially life or death judgments. This very roughly corresponds (though on another biological level) to belief. I know it's sketchy and others explain it rather better, though, I suspect, not in this little space.

Ok, now the tricky bit. What is the problem with believing in the Big Guy in the Sky? The short version is, there really isn't a short version that is easily stated, truly informative, and powerfully persuasive. With that said, what am I bound to do? Correct-a-mundo! Elucidate a short version. Disclaimer. For my believing friends and family and others, feel free to skip over this part or read it and dismiss it as you wish. And, now, (I hear a drum roll. Do you?) the short version of something for which I've already admitted there is not short version.

The believer perspective starts from the position, "I know how the world is (the BGS made the earth, and the flowers, and the mountains, and the stars and so on. Then, rather like a cherry on the top of an ice-cream sundae, he made humans. Now, it is incumbent upon me to go about and make the world fit into this model". The non-believer perspective is, "I don't know how the world is (except to the extent that, I stand on the shoulders of giants who came before and laid a road of discovery upon which I am priveleged to tread and marvel). And even then, I need to question, examine, and discover what is true, as best I am able, with the tools at hand. And, if I were to find a thing to be true, which ran counter to the claims of some previous giant, I sleep easy in the knowledge that this is nothing less than she would expect from her progeny of discoverers."

*Suggested reading: Why We Feel: The Science of Human Emotions, by Dr. Victor S. Johnston.

Yes, it is, like most everything else, available on Amazon.

Spoiler/Warning: If your personal operating system is not yet upgraded to include Evolution by Natural Selection, this book could cause a mind melting dissonance.

The Navy Yard Massacre and the ensuing policy debate

Gosh, another massacre and another flare up of the so-called "gun control" debate. First, the whole thing is misnamed. I believe intentionally by the "gun huggers" (defined entirely by me as: those who value their supposedly inviolate second amendment rights more than they value the safety and security of their fellow citizens). The real thing we are discussing is the thoughtful rational approach to public safety and crime prevention as it relates to firearms. 

One of the popular gun-hugger positions is that baseball bats, automobiles, or a dozen other prosaic items cause more deaths in a time period than do assault weapons. This is truly specious argument. The fact is hammers are not designed to kill as many human beings at a distance with as quick and overwhelming a force as possible. Neither are cars. Or feet. Long range semi-automatic weapons are designed to do that. Oh, and for those "deep thinkers" who are going to bring up the notion that these weapons are also used for target shooting, sorry, but no. Sure they are used for this purpose but using that argument to justify the proliferation of such weapons throughout our society to virtually anyone who wants one is prima facie wrong. The desire of "gun huggers" to target shoot is, in the estimation of thoughtful people, entirely outweighed by public safety concerns. I unapologetically suggest that people who love their guns more than the safety of their fellow citizens do not deserve to have their arguments acribed the same weight as those of more rational public policy advocates.

The time for agreeing to disagree is over. It is time for us to stand together and convince our Legislators to do the right thing or vote them out.

Senator Gabrielle Giffords, a gun owner and victim of gun violence stands firm with thoughtful majority on this issue. The thoughtful majority needs to stand with her. Her group is Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Dog fighting, puppy-kicking, and logical thought.

Given the paranoia/histrionics of some of my fellow citizens, I offer the following disclaimer. Simply because a I put forth an opinion at variance to yours, one should not infer that puppy-kicking is one of my recreational activities. Nor do I condone dog fighting. I have owned pets (dogs and a cat) most of my life and felt a deep affection for each one.

With that said, I have difficulty with the following quote: "I believe if Dante were alive today and were rewriting the Inferno, that the lowest places in hell would be reserved for those who commit cruelty to our animals and to our children." - U.S. Attorney George Beck speaking about the three year investigation (on dog fighting).

First, set aside the lack of evidence or logical argument for a physical hell. From a standpoint of reason alone, I would suggest the such statements are based in fuzzy thinking and serve only to muddy the waters in any thoughtful debate. It is less clear to me whether the writer is attempting to suggest an elevated status for the canine or a diminished status for the human child. Does it occur to anyone else that a certain beneficial moral clarity is implicit in the ability to identify members of ones own 'Team'?

I am proud to state for the public record, I consider humans, as flawed and often annoying as they are, to be the other members of my Team. Yes, I may love the (canine or feline) mascot. However, if a teammate and the mascot are both drowning (and, for the logicians, I have an equal chance of saving either and only one can be saved) this is not a judgment call. This does not require existential angst or hand-wringing on my part. To be clear. When you agree to go to the lake with me, you should assume that, if such a dire situation were to arise, I'd save you and mourn the dog. And, frankly, I'd prefer to know your stance on the issue prior to our outing. Life vests notwithstanding.

Animal Holocaust

I responded to a Facebook post regarding a so-called animal holocaust.
One respondent to my post stated that, "Youre assuming that humanity and its ways are superior, why?"
In order for the reader to understand my response to this question, it might be helpful to know what I posted that prompted the question. I include the text of that post here: Yes, cows and pigs and sheep and so on are living creatures with whom we share the planet. I am sympathetic to the argument that humans should be mindful in our stewardship of the resources of the Earth. However, the lives of our ungulate planetmates were not tragically cut short before they could pen the next great symphony or discover a new anti-viral, or figure out how to end poverty. They weren't going to settle down with a beloved family and send their offspring to livestock college for the upward mobility. They were converted into food for humans. One could reasonably choose not to participate in that cycle. One might reasonably argue about the conditions under which that happened. I've also read a bit of Temple Grandin's work and found it thoughtful. But with all due respect, comparing this activity to any human genocide does not elevate the livestock. It demeans the survivors of those atrocities, the memory of those who perished in them, and their families.

I am blogging on this because I thought if wasn't right to dominate this poor fellow's Facebook page with my response.

My response to the superiority question above.

The case

I don't assume humanity is superior. I state it outright on the basis of evidence. It is clear that humans ponder over these matters because they are (and I can't overemphasize this) able to do so. If I had any substantial evidence that say, sheep, were pondering over similar matters, this would give me pause in my dinner choices.

I consider myself an ominivore. Further, I suggest the scientific evidence clearly indicates that humans evolved as omnivorses. With that said, I do ration the amount of meat I consume based on a number of factors including health risks associated with excessive consumption. Also, I would not consider eating another primate or a cetaecan. These creatures appear to be too close to human style thought processes for my comfort level. Also. I would not consider eating some sentient alien from another world simply because it was not "human".

The challenge.

Here is my challenge to those who daily lay claim to the high ground with their compassion and concern for animals. Examine the boundaries of your own concern. Where is the "bright line" for you?That is to say, I've yet to meet anyone for whom this compassion is boundless. (Don't get me started on Buddhists, as we haven't the space here.) Mostly such compassion extends to higher order mammals. Below that folks have the same "kill-as-many-as-needed-so-I-don't-need-to-step-over them-in-the-grocery-store-or-shoo-them-from-my-bed" attitude as everyone else. So, where is the line for you? Is it rodents? If you were around for the bubonic plague (caused by the fleas that lived on the rodents) would you have clamored for the "rights" of the rats? Are rats still a bit too furry and cuddly for you? How about parasitic worms? A substantial fraction of the world's population are infested with and debilitated by such creatures. Why do we not see folks chanting with protest signs outside the clinics devoted to killing these animals by the millions? In the interest of brevity, I will not bother with single celled animals.

The olive branch.

In the end, if a person feels that not eating meat is a good choice, bless your heart. I have no issue with you. Shouting into the public marketplace of ideas that there is a ongoing "holocaust" is a different matter.

What if it wasn't a matter of Belief?

The Official UFO Debunker Plans & Policies

1- Point out that very large percentages of things reported as UFO's turn out to have conventional explanations, but do not talk about  the widely varying observational abilities and critical thinking skills of individual observers. Do not acknowledge that serious ufologists attempt to screen out the goofy bits and bring some rigor to the investigation of the promising cases.

2- Always refer to people interested in UFO's as "believers", implying that their positions are always faith-based.

3- Argue that any given case could have been something conventional and we will never know because we never have all the facts. Never acknowledge that intelligent, educated, rational, and generally well-qualified observers have reported thousands of unexplained craft displaying extraordinary performance, highly unusual characteristics, and seemingly intelligent control.

4- As a corollary to rule three, avoid mentioning that such reports have spanned many decades and often include patterns of behavior on the part of the unidentified craft.

5- Focus on well-known problems and limitations of human perception, implying that giving any credence to eye witness testimony is tantamount to stupidity. Never mention that our court system regularly incarcerates our fellow citizens based upon eye witness testimony. Also avoid discussions that point out the fact that, if human perception was as flawed as debunkers claim, most people would be too frightened to cross a busy street, drive a car, or fly in an airplane.

6- Comment regularly on human credulity and wishful thinking. Sprinkle in comments about a desire for "Saviors from Space. Do not mention that every group has its cultists and fringe elements. Also do not bother to share that most close encounters do not leave the witnesses feeling as though they were visited by angels but rather they are left frightened and bewildered.

7- Always act as though no one before you has really conducted a thorough investigation into the classic UFO cases and consistently maintain that it's only a matter of time and diligence before the "real answers" to those cases are found. Avoid mentioning that the suggested answers proposed by debunkers have already failed to account for the features described by the witnesses.

8- Demand that UFO "believers" produce just one spaceship or physical evidence that one has been here. Do not mention that serious UFO investigators do not claim to know for certain that there are alien visitors. While they may personally believe this to be true, the thoughtful ufologists simply advocate that serious scientists/engineers gather evidence in an attempt to answer the open questions of a real phenomena witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide.

9- Pretend that every ufologist strives to have people agree on the alien visitor hypothesis. If they shout anything about keeping an open mind while we pursue serious scientific study, pretend that you don't hear them.

10- Forget that many ufologists are just as smart as you. Then condescendingly explain to them how they have stupidly and/or foolishly drawn a fantastical conclusion from insufficient evidence. Do not offer to help gather more evidence or even admit more evidence may exist.

11- Act as if you do not understand how the worst UFO related drivel comes into existence or gets propogated. Help to shield the public from the following ideas. The fact is most UFO witnesses are regular folks who see something extraordinary and are left on their own to puzzle out the nature of what they saw and what it may mean in some larger context. Most people intuitively understand when they have witnessed something that contradicts their understanding of the world and the way it works. From this point, it is a simple matter of human nature. There are a number of ways to describe human nature but one of the clearest and most consistent is that humans are pattern recognition machines. This is one reason people enjoy puzzles. When something falls outside established patterns we are programmed to notice and determine why.

In their attempts to solve the puzzle of their experience, clearly some witnesses employ shoddy thinking, some are taken in by hucksters who sell books and videos promoting their personal theories/delusions and so on. However, even if a witness possesses a basic understanding of how the world works (for instance, a bit of physics and some rational thought) the "high strangeness" of what they've seen naturally gives rise to some rather incredible possible interpretations. A person need not be stupid, irrational, or crazy to consider these interpretations. Furthermore, the consideration of or even adoption of a wild interpretation does not necessarily indicate that a person is unwilling to hear or accept other views. In fact, any number of serious sober witnesses would love the opportunity to consider other views based upon sound scientific investigation. Sadly, such an opportunity is unlikely given that the organizations possessing the necessary resources have not been engaged.

(found a version online and tweaked it to fit. JF 060413)

The value of clear thinking

National Day of Reason, May 2, 2013

The value of Clear Thinking can not be overstated. Though I am the first one to cut a person slack for believing what they want, bringing those beliefs out into the public arena and making claims about the truth of those beliefs is an entirely different matter. The personal belief argument comes from a position of, "I own myself and my thoughts and can believe as I wish". My starting position is, I feel strongly about ownership of my own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs therefor I must likewise accord others the same right.

It is my considered opinion that we all hold, at some level, two incompatible mental states about the world around us.  Which is a short hand way of saying that our internal belief system does not fully match up with what we could substantiate in a debate in which there was a high bar of logic/evidence. It seems to me that this is part of the human condition and it is unlikely to change. I base this on the axiom, "We are not essentially thinking beings who can feel, but feeling beings who can think." This is an idea which gains further traction everyday with our understanding of the human mind through advancements in neuroscience.

The important bit is, what we do with the innate discrepancy between our mushy/emotion/fantastical/imaginative inner selves and the need to solve problems and get-on-with-it in an external world where we depend on logic and reason to be our universal language? I am sure there is a longer answer and I wish I was knowledgeable enough to state it. I suggest the short answer is, we start with seeing ourselves as clearly as possible and humbly admitting that our default starting position is, "I don't know".

This brings us to the religionists. First the disclaimer. Most people in the world, currently, are religious. Therefore most of the people I know, care about, and deal with are religious. We can reasonably infer that, though I differ from them on this, I do not feel any need to be hurtful, overly judgmental, etc. In truth, the vast majority of us, from both sides of the "belief fence", have much more in common than we have difference. I have no doubt that my believer friends and family are mostly decent, loving, intelligent folks who care about their loved ones and are simply looking to prosper in their own way in this life. I feel connected to them and I hope they feel similarly.

With that said, there are things about the way believers look at the world which are troubling from a clear thinking perspective. Believers, by definition, start out from a place of, I know how and why the world works as it does. God did it. Maybe they see a God who made the whole enchilada then sits back on his/her throne watching the sublime and the heinous with equal relish. Or perhaps, they favor a more interventionist God. Do this and don't do that and I will answer your pleas and prayers (sometimes and with varying conditions). All of it is held together with a basic tenet. The believer knows at the outset that a certain set of things are true. It is the way it is. Period. From there they attempt to backfill with evidence. But how could we have confidence that evidence found in this way would not be tainted? The best scientists in the world, fully aware of the possible taint of their own beliefs and biases, are constantly questioning and tweaking their assumptions, methods, and results to insure their work stands on its merit.

Given the problem set currently facing humans on this planet, my contention is simply this- we need a century of reason. On the other hand, I am willing to start with a day.