The MIRACULOUS Return of My "Darwin's Cathedral" Book

Is religion a useful biological "adaptation", as claimed by biologist David Sloan Wilson, author of the 2002 book Darwin's Cathedral - Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, or is religion a "delusion" and a "mind virus", as claimed by biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the 2006 book The God Delusion ?   Or, as I claim, is religion BOTH a delusion and an adaptation?

This posting is about these two important books, but first, I must tell you the "miraculous" story of how, against all odds, I happened to get my copy of Darwin's Cathedral in the first place, how I stupidly lost that book, and the amazing story of how I got it back.

Dilbert Bridges the Liberal/Conservative Divide.

I've often said that Dilbert is "the story of my life."

Well, this recent strip is, IMHO, the funniest (and most true) ever.

This strip has triggered quite an active cross-discussion on the Dilbert website. Unfortunately, some of the comments are "flaming" (hostile and insulting interaction), so be forewarned.

However, one comment that caught my eye included a pithy P. J. O'Rourke quote:

"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors — psychology, sociology, women's studies — to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view."

-- P.J. O'Rourke

This strip also plays into the Liberal/Conservative (L/C) theme of quite a few postings on this blog, with links to some below.

Just click on the blue titles to read them. Some include serious, extended, courteous cross-discussion
between me and my friends and colleagues, including the Chairman of my PhD committee, Howard Pattee. Some of those may even qualify to be published alongside the dialogs and writings about Socrates by Plato and Aristotle. Enjoy!

L-MINDS AND C-MINDS

A series of Topics and Comments on the Liberal Mind (L-Mind) or Conservative Mind (C-Mind) we observe in many of our fellow human beings.
Click for: 1 - Fallibility, 2 - More on..., 3 - Origin of..., 4 - Plato and Aristotle..., 5 - Even More on ...,6 - L/C Persistence, 7 - Still More on, 8 - L/C Presentation, 9 - Back to L/C Basics, 10 - L/C Mental Health, 11 - Voting and Notions of Fairness, 12 - L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds, 13 - Lessons from Tuskegee Experiment, 14 - Haidt's Paper: What the Democrats Don't Get, 15 - Carbon Tax a Loser (Too Bad), 16 - L/C Minds and Temper, 17 - Vi and Ira: L/C Minds on AP Video, 18 - Haidt's TED Talk: L/C Five Channels of Morality.

Ira Glickstein

VISUALIZING: for Science and Technology

Computer Model Visualization of Crash-Dummy

Nowadays it is common to use computer models, such as the crash-dummy in the adjacent image, to help us VISUALIZE and better understand complex situations and systems. Prior to the advent of computer models, we had to use mental models in our "mind's eye", along with physical aids such as paper maps and diagrams, modelling clay, and other means.

LINKS TO RELATED POSTINGS AND RESOURCES
VISUALIZING Relativity - PowerPoint Show
VISUALIZING Relativity - Excel Spreadsheet
VISUALIZING for Science and Technology - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING Einstein's "Miracle Year" - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING My Insight Into Lorentz Gamma - Blog Posting
VISUALIZING the "Twin Paradox" - Blog Posting

Albert Einstein was a great physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, as part of the thought process that resulted in his theories of Special Relativity (1905) and General Relativity (1915) he imagined himself riding along a beam of light; or as an observer standing along the tracks as a train zipped by at near-light-speed; or as a scientist sealed in a closed box and not able to tell if the box was stationary on the surface of the Earth, subject to gravity, or in deep space, far from massive objects, but subject to acceleration due to being dragged by a rocket at ever-increasing speeds.

VISUALIZING the Solution
Using Math and Graphics

Of course, Einstein and virtually all scientists and technologists use mathematical abstractions to quantify the meaning in our visualization models. We change the initial conditions and run these models to simulate what may or may not happen in different situations.

COMPUTER MODELS FOR VISUALIZATION

As personal computers and the Internet have become endemic, manual typewriters, paper maps, physical books, and so much else has been displaced by automated versions. Similarly, computer visualizations and models have displaced older methods - except for that old reliable "mind's eye" which remains as important as ever.

During my career as a Senior System Engineer at IBM and Lockheed-Martin I made extensive use of computer models and visualizations and have continued to do so since retirement.

In particular, I have created visualizations for the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect and Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

As a Guest Contributor to the World's most popular Climate site, I authored a four-part series on Visualizing the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect that attracted over 65,000 page views and over 2000 comments (see:  Physical Analogy,  Atmospheric Windows,  Emission Spectra, and Molecules and Photons,) The following graphics are some of the animated visualizations I created for that series.   

Physical Analogy

Model of a Physical Greenhouse

Model of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse"Effect

Modeled Down to Photons and Air Molecules

VISUALIZING EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY

Perhaps the most well-known equation in the world is E = mc2, recognized by virtually every person. But, what does it really mean?

And, many people know about the so-called "twin paradox", where one twin goes off on long mission at high speeds into space, and comes back younger. But why does this happen and exactly what causes it?

If "everything is relative" why isn't the stay-at-home twin also also younger? So, everything is not relative, and perhaps Einstein's original name for his theories "Invariance" is more apt -for the fact all observers, including those moving at different speeds, measure the same speed for light.

If the traveling twin is younger due to experiencing high speed and acceleration, then it is aging that has slowed down, not time, per se.

Furthermore, what, precisely, is TIME? And how is TIME united with SPACE to form SpaceTime?

When you Google any of this stuff you are quickly buried in equations and tensor mathematics that no one (even an engineer like me) can really understand!

Well, all this bothered me for most of my life until, back in 2012, I decided to answer Alan Alda's Flame Challenge "What is Time?" and produce a short video. In the research process for that project, I think I had a critical insight into TIME, SPACE, and RELATIVITY that may help you VISUALIZE this important scientific theory.

Time - the fourth dimension (2013 Flame Challenge) from Ira V Glickstein on Vimeo.

Since that time, I've continued to delve into Relativity and I've come up with what I think is a unique way to visualize and ... perhaps ... even understand it. The following images are screenshots from an Excel spreadsheet I created to provide myself (and you :^) a "hands-on" experience with the relativistic effects of high speed (kinetic energy) and high acceleration (potential energy), including time dilation, length contraction, and the curvature of SPACE and TIME. It is available free.

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the Main Panel where user selects a Star, Planet, or Set Angle Option. In the case illustrated, the SpaceTime angle is set to 30º, where velocity is half the speed of light. This causes clocks to slow down by 13.4%, which corresponds to 49 days per year or 482 seconds per hour. Right side shows Special Relativity Effects due to the Kinetic Energy of moving at half the speed of light in empty Space. Left side shows equivalent General Relativity Effects, where Time "curves" due to the Potential Energy of being "at rest" close to a Black Hole.

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the SpaceTime view of the right side of the Main Panel (where the vector sum of TRAVEL + AGING = 1) plus the Minkowski-Like SpaceTime view (where the simple sum of TRAVEL + AGING =1).  

Free Excel Spreadsheet for VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Special and General Relativity. 

Image is of the Minkowski-Like view (described above) compared to a Planck view, where both Space and Time are assumed to be discrete, and Each tiny cell is 1 Planck Time (tP ) by 1 Planck Length (ℓP).

THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY!

As my principal PhD advisor, Howard Pattee, taught me, "The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY". That sage statement means that no model is exactly the same as the thing being modeled (else it would be the real thing.)

We make models because the real thing is too complex and difficult for us to visualize, or -like the Global Climate- is not readily available for us to experiment upon.

The MAP is NOT the TERRITORY !

Many a General (or football coach) has moved symbols around on a map of the field of battle, convincing himself and his staff of inevitable victory, only to find his opponent also had a model, perhaps a better one plus superior forces to carry it to victory. 

We generally model only the most important or critical parts of the situation or complex system we are trying to visualize. We consider the model to have been successful if the results match actuality to some level of fidelity, at least for those significant portions. If subsequent testing reveals that the model does not comport with reality, we must improve or discard it.

CONCLUSION

This is the first of what I believe will turn into a series detailing my VISUALIZATION of Einstein's Relativity. Please stay tuned!

Ira Glickstein

I presented the "Fallacy of the Excluded Middle" to an interactive audience of over 50 at The Villages Philosophy Club on 30 May. If you would like a copy of my animated Powerpoint slides send an email to me: ira@techie.com (my attempts to upload the slides to my Google site have been unsuccessful so far).

PASCAL'S WAGER
"Pascal's Wager" as to the existence of God is an early example of how the rhetorical FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE may be used to push an unsuspecting audience to unwittingly accept an argument that is lacking in basic logic. Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662, was a French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist, yet even he was taken in by this fallacy! He argues as follows:

 

• God is, or He is not. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is.

• Wager, [that God] is ... There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, … against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.

• And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

 

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's Wager Based on Pensées, part III, §233)

 

This argument seems reasonable at first glance, particularly if you are motivated to want to believe in God. Our life here on Earth is difficult, short, and FINITE while our potential life in Heaven after our Earthly existence passes is INFINITE in length and high in quality.

 

Reason alone cannot answer the question as to God's existence, so we should assume a 50% chance either way.

 

As the decision matrix above shows, existence of God is either FALSE (TOP ROW) or TRUE (BOTTOM ROW),  and we can take ACTION to CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD (COLUMN A) or CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE (COLUMN B).  We have no control over the rows, but we do have control over the columns.

 

If we pick COLUMN B (NOT TO BELIEVE) if we have chosen rightly we get "nothing lost, nothing gained" OR, if God exists and we have chosen wrongly, we get damned for disbelief in Eternal Hell.

 

On the other hand, if we pick COLUMN A (BELIEF IN GOD) if we have chosen wrongly we get to do some unnecessary prayer ritual and curbing of some pleasures OR, if God exists and we have chosen rightly, we get the ultimate reward of Eternal Life in Heaven!

 

On balance, it is clear that COLUMN A (BELIEF IN GOD) is the better wager by far.

 

WHAT IS WRONG WITH "PASCAL'S WAGER" ?

 

So, what is wrong "Pascal's Wager" argument?

 

The LOGICAL fault is that we have EXCLUDED a bunch of possibilities that lie between GOD is FALSE and GOD is TRUE.

 

For example, assuming God exists, WHICH GOD should we choose to believe in? The KIND, LOVING, and FORGIVING GOD of many branches of major religions, or the STRICT, VENAL, and UNFORGIVING GOD of, for example, the Spanish Inquisition or the Islamic Jihad?

 

If your answer is the KIND GOD, I invite you to set up a decision matrix where the rows are KIND GOD and VENAL GOD and the columns are belief in the VENAL GOD or belief in the Kind GOD. If you follow the logic, you will determine that your best bet is belief in the VENAL GOD! (My Powerpoint charts give the details, but, in short, the KIND GOD is more likely to forgive you if you happen to wrongly choose to believe in the venal God, while the venal God will not forgive you if you happen to choose wrongly!).

 

HOW THE FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE WAS APPLIED TO THE GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE

 

In an earlier posting (here) I showed how "One Guy With a Marker" DID NOT  MAKE "the Global Warming Debate Completely Obsolete".

 

The decision matrix below shows what he wrote in each box (in Black) and my comments (in Red).

 

Let us review the boxes (again with his writing in BLACK and mine in Red:

1. L GLOBAL DEPRESSION: This box is included to make it appear he is being “fair” to Skeptics. He assumes that taking Action to stop GCC will be so costly that, if it turns out to have been unnecessary, the result will be a “Global Depression”. Certainly, maximum environmental spending will damage the world-wide economy, but I doubt that type of spending, alone, will trigger a “Global Depression”. When we get to box #3 we will see that he doesn’t really think so either! HIGHLY UNLIKELY
2. J SMILEY FACE: GCC is “False”, we take No Action, so all is well! But, is it? Does his “GCC” include NATURAL PROCESSES and CYCLES that have caused Global Warming (and Cooling), Floods (and Droughts), and Violent Storms (and Blessed Rain) prior to the advent of Humans on Earth, and before we Humans had the capability to affect the climate? Apparently not, else “GCC” could not be totally “False”. Therefore, by “GCC” he is referring ONLY to the HUMAN-CAUSED variety, totally ignoring the evidence from the geological, ice-core, and historical records of NATURAL Global Climate Change and some Catastrophes. WHAT ABOUT -- NATURAL -- GCC ?
3. J SMILEY FACE: This box is totally inconsistent with box #1! If Action to stop Human-Caused Global Warming is so costly as to cause a Global Depression in the first box, would it not also cause such a Global Depression in this box? So, why the Happy Face? Realistically, even if we in the US and other nations in the Developed World take maximum Action to reduce our CO2 emissions, it is totally unrealistic to expect those in the Developing World to do the same. Indeed, China, India, and other countries will continue to build power plants, nearly all of them coal-fired. CO2 levels are bound to continue their rapid increase for at least the coming several decades, no matter what we do. CONTRADICTS BOX #1 (GLOBAL DEPRESSION)
4. L GLOBAL DEPRESSION:  This box is filled with terrible consequences and is intended to scare us into taking maximum Action. He assumes the worst-case Global Warming of several degrees predicted by Climate Models despite the failure of those Climate Models to predict the past 17 years of absolutely no net Global Warming. (The most realistic prediction is continued moderate change in Global Temperatures, mostly NATURAL but some small part HUMAN-CAUSED. As standards of living continue to improve world-wide, populations will stabilize which will allow reasonable action to be taken to moderate CO2 emissions, and Human Civilization will ADAPT to inevitable Natural and Human-Caused Climate Change as we have throughout history.) BASED ON -- FAILED -- CLIMATE MODELS

 

The following chart of Warming Predictions vs the Real World traces temperatures from 1979 (when satellite-based global temperatures first became available) to the present. It shows how badly these THEORETICAL Climate Models have failed to agree with the REAL WORLD measurements.

 

 

 

The black and green wiggly lines are ACTUAL measurements. Over some 34 years, they show a net Global Warming of less than 0.2° C (about 0.3° F), and a "PAUSE", since 1997, of 17 years with no net Global Warming at all.

 

The red line is the AVERAGE of 102 OFFICIAL IPCC CLIMATE MODELS. Note that it predicts Global Warming of more than 0.8° C (about 1.5° F), OVER-ESTIMATED by more than 400% !

 

NONE of the 102 models predicted the "PAUSE" ! The model that predicted the least Global Warming was about 100% high, and the one that predicted the most Global Warming was about 1000% wrong! Please note that during the entire 34 year period, CO2 (carbon dioxide), which Global Warming activists say is the major cause of temperature increase, has continued to rise rapidly!

 

SUMMARY OF THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF THE FALLACY OF THE EXCLUDED MIDDLE

ABSOLUTE DICHOTOMIES: All or nothing … Camelot or Catastrophe 

EMOTIONAL: Powerful in political rhetoric, but dangerous in science

HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS: Each choice is perfectly TRUE or FALSE, Action is totally YES or NO 

NOT LOGICAL: The real world is mostly shades of

DICHOTOMIES ARE USEFUL IF WE UNDERSTAND HOW WE ARE SIMPLIFING REALITY 

 

As long as we understand that almost all measurements are continuous and our classifications are made for convenience, dichotomies can be useful.

 

For example, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator divides all humans into some 16 different "Personality" types, using four dichotomies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator).

 

As the graphic illustrates (according to Jung as interpreted by Myers-Briggs) each of us is somewhere along a continuum between:

• Being an EXTROVERT (outward-turning) or being an INTROVERT (inward-turning), 
• INTUITING (viewing information in an abstract, theoretical way) or SENSING (viewing information in a tangible, concrete, present way)  

• THINKING (in a detatched, logical, reasonable way) or FEELING (in an empathizing way seeking hamony) and  

(added by Myers-Briggs)

• JUDGING (Detailed thinking or feeling) or PERCEIVING (Contextual sensing or intuition )

 SO WHAT PERSONALITY TYPE AM I ?

• When I was tested I was married, with children and a successful career. I scored as an Extrovert, but close to the border with being an Introvert. Had I been tested while in college, I would probably have tested as an Introvert.
• I scored as rather solidly iNtuiting (rather than Sensing, and solidly Thinking rather than Feeling, and would probably have scored about the same while in college.
• Finally, I scored as slightly more Perceiving than Judging, and I am not sure how I would have scored on this dichotomy while in college.

One of my favorite graduate school professors, the late Walter Lowen, wrote a wonderful book about "Dichotomies of the Mind", where he utilized and adapted the Myers-Briggs methodology, and added his own spin to it. (See http://www2.binghamton.edu/news/inside/news.html?issue=2006may11&id=9 and http://www.amazon.com/dp/0471083313/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=32558223871&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=s&hvrand=4187338426078731296&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_5598tj0ph5_e)

As the graphic indicates, while I score as an ENTP (which is called an "Inventor" by Myers-Briggs or a "Suspector" by Lowen), my personality extends a bit on all sides, particularly to the INTP ("architect" or "theoretician"),  ENTJ ("General" or "Analyst"), ENFP ("Journalist" or "Perceiver"), and ESTP ("Promoter" or "Operator") categories.

Bottom Line: Dichotomies are OK to use for convenience and for compacting lots of information into a single package (like a "Personality type") as long as we recognize that we are not really confined into a single discrete box!

Ira Glickstein