Several topics of popular discussion in the 1950s included "Nature or Nurture?" and "Creation or Evolution?". An unfortunate consequence in the phrasing of these statements is the assumption that bivalent (Boolean) logic could be used to choose one while excluding the other.
Bivalent logic is perfect for designing computer chips but seems to fall down in the real world. For example, cold is the opposite of hot, but real world examples of "not hot" are warm, lukewarm, tepid, cool, cold, freezing, etc. Multivalent logic ("Fuzzy Logic" is one type) is required for problems that are more complicated and often addresses "the principle of the excluded middle" which can be colloquially summarized as "the 1000 shades of grey between black and white".
Nature or Nurture?
In the 1950s, many people were convinced that it was either Nature of Nurture. Through the study Modern genetics, we have learned that genes are enabled-disabled by both the physical environment as well as the emotional-social environment. So the true answer to the question is "Nature and Nurture", not one or the other.
Creationism or Evolution?
Ancient man believed "the world was carried on the back of four large elephants, standing on the back of a large tortoise, swimming in a large ocean". The truth is that we're standing on the outside of a spinning watery ball (the Earth) which is orbiting a spinning fiery ball (the Sun) which is part of a rotating disk of 400 billion stars (the Milky Way galaxy) with a large black hole at the center which is composed of something rather than nothing. Truth is much stranger than fiction so you would have a tough time convincing ancient man that the second story was a better theory than the first, but science and education tell us that the second story is closest to the truth.
Like wise, we have several versions of how we got here:
God didn't create anything because there is no God
this view is not shared by the majority of the human population, scientists included (by the way, science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and this will never change)
most people of European decent cannot conceive of a creation without a creator (colloquially referred to as the "Watch/Watch Maker" concept)
God created the world 6000 years ago in 4004 BC including dinosaurs as well as all other currently missing creatures. Certain geographical features of Earth, like America's "Grand Canyon" and India's Himalayas where created in cataclysms since then.
4004 BC is the Christian date. Other religions use other dates.
Why would God create universal laws of nature then break them to create the world?
God created the world 6000 years ago in 4004 BC but for some reason also created evidence of a biological and geological historical past (fossils of many creatures including dinosaurs)
Although this is possible, we would never be able to prove or disprove it.
Why would God go to all the trouble to provide us with an artificial historical past?
If this theory is true, then it is also possible that the world was created 5 minutes ago and (like evidence of a geological and historical past) we posses artificial memories of what happened before the creation.
God created the universe 14.7 billion years ago (including all the complicated laws of physics and nature) with the Big bang. Six billion years ago, the Sun and Earth coalesced from material created much earlier by a super nova explosion. Simple life started in our Solar system by a self-organizing property of the previously mentioned complicated laws of nature. {many missing steps go here; no need to bore you with constantly evolving details}. Most large animal life was destroyed on Earth 65 million years ago when an asteroid 10 km (6 miles) wide struck the Earth just north of Mexico's Yucatan peninsula. This gave mammals an opportunity to become the dominant animal life form. Apes and our human ancestors diverged from common branch 6 million years ago. Proto-Humans appeared approximately 3 million years ago. Modern man appeared approximately 200,000 years ago living along side other pseudo-human experiments like Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal peoples
If I had to pick between "one theory that resembles a cheap Las Vegas magic act" or "a theory that appears to be a well engineered design (albeit one beyond our complete understanding)", I'd pick the latter.
Liberal
or Conservative?
(The trouble with "Bivalent Philosophies")
A growing minority of modern-day-people are devout liberals or conservatives and it seems to me that many people become very apologetic of errors caused by like-minded politicians. It is almost as if admitting error would defame their philosophical choice thus defaming themselves. A number of years ago I concluded that all forms of extreme ideology are a form of insanity and need to be avoided at all cost. Here are two bizarre, but real-world, examples:
Hard left liberals: All people in need,
whatever the reason, must to be helped by the state at any cost. My
heart goes out to anyone “in need” but the definition of "in need"
can vary from "needs food and shelter" to "needs money for alcohol
and tobacco" to "needs access to free life-time education in areas
which will never benefit society ".
The problem with this view is that if the state goes too deep into
debt, then no persons' needs will be taken care of because the state will be making
minimum interest payments on the debt.
Hard right conservatives: Under no circumstances
should a woman be allowed to have an abortion, government paid or otherwise.
The problem with this view is that these same people also wish to
withdraw funding for social support systems needed by these women
and their offspring.
BTW, just in case you are wondering, I consider myself a "Social Liberal and a Fiscal Conservative". This places me in the center (but my interest in science and sci-fi makes me lean a tiny bit left of center).
* * * * *
For the next moment, please consider an engineering example (the MARS rover is probably as good as any); sensor electronics and a computer are required to make a machine drive down the middle of a programmed path. When the vehicle drifts a little too far to the left or right, feedback signals (plus and minus) cause the vehicle to correct its course then move a back to center. If too much feedback signal is applied, then the vehicle will spin in a circle. If too little feedback is applied, the vehicle will slowly drift off course and probably crash. Notice that in this example, labels like "right", "left", "center", "plus" and "minus" are not pejorative terms, they are simply labels. How is it, then, that the terms "left" and "right" seem to carry so much weight when dealing with political ideologies?
* * * * *
It is my belief that hard line "fill-in-the-blank" people are so ideologically closed minded that they rarely, if ever, accept an idea from the other side. On the other hand, it seems to me that the majority of people could be labeled centrists and seem to posses open minds (left wing liberals would disagree with this statement). I think this is what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he formed the Democratic-Republican party. He believed that American society wasted time and resources swing from left to right every four years when something middle-of-the-road would satisfy the majority of the electorate. BTW, some of the most interesting political leaders were centrists:
Abraham Lincoln originally ran as an independent (but latter became a republican)
Ronald Reagan was the democratic governor but the republican president of the United States.
Winston Churchill changed parties twice and was considering a third (Conservative 1900; Liberal 1904; Conservative 1924)
In addition, let us not limit the discussion to politics. Religious Fundamentalists are just as closed-minded as atheists are. Thank God (pun intended) the majority of the human population is not in either one of these camps.
Neil Rieck : 2004-05-14 (more to follow when time permits)
Political Thinking?
This week I was discussing some political events with a co-worker when it occurred to me that many political arguments are as ridiculous as religious arguments (for example, like ones used by the Palestinians and Israelis against each other even though they supposedly share the same heritage under Abraham; but I digress). So I decided to check a few political words in the dictionary today and was shocked by some of them. For example, check out this one:
partisan @ wiktionary
Noun
An adherent to a party or faction
A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
The commander of a body of detached light troops engaged in making forays and harassing an enemy.
Any member of such troops.
A kind of halberd or pike; also, a truncheon; a staff.
Adjective
Adherent to a party or faction; especially, having the character of blind, passionate, or unreasonable adherence to a party; as, blinded by partisan zeal.
Serving as a partisan in a detached command; as, a partisan officer or corps.
Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause: partisan politics.
It appears to me that many people possess a faith in politics much like they do in religion. Don't believe me? Then consider these observed facts:
Many people claim to be centrists (and many even claim to switch hit) most secretly usually vote the same way. (they may even tell you they voted one way, the fess-up sometime later; people have fessed-up to me but I have no idea why they lied in the first place)
If the previous point was not true then why would the state of Texas always vote Republican and Massachusetts always vote Democrat? This is why presidential candidates concentrate on battle ground states where the people are split 50-50
The majority of people are “born into their religion” and almost never switch to another. They may slowly fall away from attending XYZ churches but, when asked, will almost always refer to themselves as members of the XYZ religion.
The majority of people inherit a political allegiance from their parents -BUT- switching to a different political philosophy is sometimes more acceptable than switching religions. Like religion, people may lose interest in politics over the years, but when asked on voting day, they will cast a vote as if they were active members of the ABC political religion.
Is there any need for this kind of closed-minded thinking in 2008? I urge all of humanity to stop treating politics as a substitute religion.
Neil Rieck : 2007-12-24 (more to follow when time permits)
Back to Home