Current music:	The Who - Behind Blue Eyes
Entry tags:	reading, thinking

Catching up...
Ok, well, now my lymph nodes have turned into golf balls and I can't swallow because it hurts too much. Damn.

• The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism: A pretty good read (longer than a typical news article) suggesting the reason that scientific types cling so strongly to evolution is basically the a priori assumption of materialism. In a sense, I think that the Catholic Church's approach here is not so bad: the understanding is that the Church has no business dictating empirical study, and science has no business dictating theological matters. The only reason there's any controversy over the evolution thing is that scientists are describing a mechanism, but often accidentally assume a metaphysical meaning (there is no design). The Catholic Church says, "Well, evolution may be how it happened, but it's all part of God's plan, that's theology and you have no business there." I see both sides, but I think the current brouhaha over actually teaching ID in class - well, that's just silly. Science education should focus on the mechanisms that are involved, but obviously not any philosophical implications. Personally, I think the whole tenet of faith would be undermined if ID were true (there is proof of a designer). Evolution demands faith from religious people that it IS part of God's plan, and that's as it should be, no?


• Slashdot Comment: This is a good short comment on the way pro-life and pro-choice advocates see their opposition. I sort of am inclined to agree to some extent with the poster: If you think an unborn baby is alive, your only ethical choice is pro-life (otherwise, after all, you'd allow mothers to kill their babies after birth, too.) If you think an unborn baby (perhaps up to a certain point) is NOT alive, then of course most would agree that a human must have the right of control over her own body. But we level accusations at people from the wrong perspective; I'm quite certain I've accused pro-lifers of just trying to repress women... and sometimes I think there's some truth to the saying "If men got pregnant, abortion wouldn't just be legal, it would be a sacrament." *sigh* But yes, I especially like a reply that quote Lazarus Long: "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend."


• A Parable about Openness: Reads a little disjointed, but some good ideas about transparency and privacy. There's a saying that "Information wants to be free" - some people interpret this as a moral imperative, but in fact it is simply an observation. If you've ever tried to keep something secret, you'll know that word spreads quickly because the cost of spreading and duplicating information is very different from physical goods. Governments go to a huge amount of effort to prevent their classified information from getting out, and yet it still does. But what does this say about privacy? I've actually been wondering about the duality of wanting government, scientific and commercial information free, but personal information protected. What's the justification? Brin argues we should just live in an entirely transparent society, where every individual is open to as much scrutiny as any other. Can't say I like the idea, but I'm thinking now...


• What You Can't Say: Paul Graham, esteemed hacker and philosopher in my book, writes about Conformism, Heresy, and cursing in front of little children. Interesting, though it basically says "If you find something you can't say, don't say it, because you'll just end up arguing with idiots. Keep your thoughts to yourself!" I'm not sure I can agree with that - I sometimes say things just because I think people will disagree with them (which, admittedly, is not that same as breaking a taboo). But I think criticism is the best way to learn, so I can bring out a particular facet of what I think, have it torn down, and move on with new knowledge. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I disagree with keeping your mouth shut. The whole problem is that if nobody says something, it will only get more entrenched. Fortunately, he does provide examples of meta-attacks, which are interesting and, overall, perhaps a better strategy.

Not that I expect anyone to read it all, but it is interesting stuff... I encourage you to read at least one (the slashdot comment is shortest, the one on scientific materialism is most likely to give you serious food for thought, I think) if you have the time.

Well, now that I've had a cup of Earl Grey, I must say my throat feels a lot better.