Podcasts of Note

I've made a separate division for podcasts on the left sidebar. At the moment there are three listed; although I do listen to some others on a sporadic basis, these are my bread-and-butter podcasts. (Hint: you don't have to have an i-pod to listen to podcasts. Any mp3 player--including your computer--will do.)

The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe: If I were to recommend one podcast, this would be it. I've been listening for at least two years. It features several regular participants who discuss science and skepticism in an engaging way, and there is usually an interview with someone of interest to the science/skeptic community. After a while it's like listening to friends having a fun and lively conversation. I've subjected my wife to a few episodes while road-tripping, and even she liked it. I should warn you that the language can be PG-13, so if you are on a family trip in your car you will want to wait until the kids have fallen asleep.

Point of Inquiry: This podcast is produced by the Center for Inquiry, a secular humanist organization. It focuses on pseudoscience and the paranormal, alternative medicine, and religion and secularism. The format usually consists of an interview with an author of a book that treats one of these issues. You may be surprised by how often you agree with what you hear, but even when you disagree it is useful to hear another well-articulated perspective.

WNYC - Radiolab: This is a public radio program that takes (mostly) science topics and turns them into riveting radio. I suggest that you listen with headphones because it is also a rich auditory experience.

I'm always game for a good podcast, so please recommend your favorites.

---

Continue reading...

Going to the ER is like eating cake.

In his op-ed column in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago, Paul Krugman blasted those who minimize the problem of people lacking health insurance by suggesting that all Americans have access to medical care via the emergency room. If I were a single man I would probably be in the group that Krugman criticizes. I'm generally as healthy as a horse: I rarely miss work because of illness, I rarely initiate a visit to a doctor, and the last time I had blood work done, my numbers were great. I do have a couple of health issues, but they are manageable and I get along just fine. If needed, the ER could serve as my source of health care, and I would assume the same for others.

Enter my wife. Although you would not know it by looking at her, modern medicine has been the source of her survival since she was in the womb--literally. I just made a list of her current health problems. Not counting her very poor (uncorrected) vision, or the gestational diabetes she had during her last pregnancy which required daily monitoring of blood sugar and insulin injections, I count six problems that actively require some kind of medication or other therapy. Actually, one of those is not much of a problem now because of successful physical therapy, but it isn't cured either, and hints at a comeback from time to time.

Of my wife's six health problems, none of them are candidates for ER treatment. Sure, if she had some kind of acute emergency then the ER would work, but really they are chronic problems that need sustained attention and monitoring by the appropriate health professional. Thank heaven that we have good health insurance through my job.

Recently we did make use of the emergency room. Although we did not know it at the time, our baby boy had pneumonia and we rushed to the ER (~1am) when he started having trouble breathing. They gave him several nebulizer treatments, did some blood work, and took chest X-rays. Initially they were going to admit him to the hospital, but when the pediatrician finally saw him he was discharged and all further treatment was managed by the pediatrician's office. For their services, the ER billed our insurance company over three thousand dollars, of which our insurance company agreed to pay several hundred, and we simply paid our co-pay (as well as our premiums, of course). Again, thank heaven that we have good health insurance. (And in case you were wondering, baby boy is just fine, thanks.)

I know that the problems with cost and administration of health care in the U.S. are complex, and I will not enter into what kind of policies would be best, or which political party has the best answer. However, one thing is clear to me: the ER is not the answer. When I think of my wife and those less fortunate than we are, "let them use the ER" sounds like "let them eat cake."

---

Continue reading...

Everything I Know About Epistemology, I Learned From The Ensign

(Having never taken a serious interest in philosophy, that's probably pretty close to the truth.)

Elder Gerald Lund (of the Seventy) has the distinction of having written the only article for a Church magazine that uses the word "epistemology." The article is "Countering Korihor’s Philosophy" from the July 1992 Ensign (written before he became a General Authority). I originally found it as a missionary and have kept my copy since then.

The article first introduces some philosophical terms.

"Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of reality. It tries to answer the question 'What is real?'"

"Axiology is the study of ethics and values."

"Epistemology is the study of how we know what is real or true."

Elder Lund then lists and briefly explains some systems of epistemology: authoritarianism, rationalism, pragmatism, and empiricism. Of course he also adds revelation. He also explains that our metaphysics, axiology, and epistemology interact and inform each other.

Having provided this helpful primer, it's time to kick some Korihor rear-end. The article lays out Korihor's philosophical foundations and how Alma responded to them. It provides a fresh view of Alma's confrontation with Korihor, and I wish there were more of these kind of articles.

I do have two main reservations: First, in my opinion the swipe at humanists is not entirely warranted. I think that you can be a good Mormon and still find a lot of agreement with secular humanists. And if you are like me, you don't entirely disagree with some of the modern Korihor-like statements quoted in the article because they don't lend themselves to easy categorization of true or false.

Second, the article gives the impression that confounding Korihor-types is as easy as following the included chart.

No matter how clever, how sophisticated the philosophies of an anti-Christ may seem, they are not true. They are riddled with contradictions, errors, and false assumptions. The gospel, on the other hand, is truth—truth that has stood the test of centuries, truth that can withstand rational examination, truth that is pragmatic and practical, truth that can be confirmed through personal experience. A believer need not apologize for his or her beliefs, for these beliefs withstand every scrutiny much more efficiently than do the doctrines of Satan.

That sounds a little hubristic to me. If you think that you are going to destroy the arguments of a thoughtful atheist using this article, you are probably in for an unpleasant surprise. Imagine that Alma and Korihor were talking about UFOs, Zeus, or something else that you do not believe in (that others do) and you begin to see the problem. My point is simply that when push comes to shove, Mormonism does not rest on impeccable philosophical arguments and consistent logic. It has vulnerabilities that can only be shielded with faith. I am reminded of a statement by President Ezra Taft Benson:

Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively. We are not obligated to answer every objection. Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand.

---

Continue reading...

Brian Greene on Infinity, the Multiverse, and Other Oddities

WNYC Radiolab (a program/podcast that you should be listening to) has a discussion with theoretical physicist Brian Greene. The first part of the discussion is about the wild idea that out in the universe--somewhere--is a person exactly like you. The reasoning is that there are only so many arrangements of matter, so if the universe is infinite, then any particular arrangement of matter will eventually repeat. In other words, somewhere out there is someone who is just like you down to the last neuron.

Later the discussion turns to the concept of the multiverse. Although interesting in itself, what caught my attention was Greene's repeated emphasis that the multiverse is not just a crazy idea that physicists/cosmologists dreamed up and decided to push. Rather, he claims it falls naturally out of observed realities, such as the cosmic microwave background. Whether that is overreaching or not, I honestly don't know.

The idea of a multiverse is sometimes attacked with Occam's razor--that without direct evidence of a multiverse, it is more parsimonious to hold that there is only one universe. Dr. Greene turns that on its head. Which is more parsimonious, the particular fundamental constants that we have, or all possible values and combinations, only one of which we observe?

Now maybe you don't think that the universe is infinite, so--whew--there's not another you out there. But if, according to a prominent strain of Mormon thought, we are part of an eternal enterprise of people production that extends infinitely into the past and future, then it is hard to escape the logical conclusion that you and I are not really unique in the grand scheme of things. Have fun chewing on that.

---

Continue reading...

Joseph Fielding Smith and Sterling Talmage on God's Power

In Man, His Origin and Destiny (MHOD) President Joseph Fielding Smith described a conversation that resulted from a speech in which he gave his opinion that the earth literally stood still for Joshua (p. 12).

[The speech] was published and it brought into my office a teacher of science with whom I had gone to school in earlier days. He took me to task for my remarks and said: "Why, do you not know that if the earth slowed up for part of a day that it would create such a terrific wind that everything on the face of the earth would be swept off?" I looked at him and with a smile said: "My goodness! Is it not too bad that the Lord would not know this?" The conversation ended.

Over 20 years previous to the publication of MHOD, Sterling Talmage, the son of Elder James E. Talmage, argued this same point with then Elder Smith. Again, the context was a speech by Elder Smith, published in October 1930, wherein he related someone's incredulity [1] that the earth stopped and then argued that God has all power to do so. Sterling responded with "An Open Letter to Elder Joseph Fielding Smith" [2]. In the letter Sterling detailed some of the catastrophic consequences stopping the earth would have. The portion quoted below specifically addresses God's power.

For the reasons given I cannot believe that the rotation of the earth was stopped in the interests of Joshua's victory. Let me make clear the fact that I am not questioning the power of God to do so. He could have stopped the rotation of the earth, or he could have made the earth cubical instead of spherical, or he could have made water run uphill instead of down, or he could have caused the oceans to hang on the hillsides instead of settle in the basins, or he could have made the sun move around the earth as the moon does.

But he did not!

... I am convinced that the laws of nature are a part of the law of God. It is only another step to say that the law of gravity is as much a part of God's plan as is the law of tithing. And I claim that it is not irreverent to say that God cannot wantonly ignore the law of gravity that he has established to hold the planets in their courses, any more than to say that he cannot make a tithe (defined as a tenth) equal to seven or to seventeen percent. This is only another way of saying that God cannot perpetrate an absurdity. I admit that, in the realm of miracles, I am not wise enough to say in every case what constitutes an absurdity; but some of them are not hard to recognize.

Talmage's argument is certainly an interesting one, and I think there is merit to it, but I also have some sympathy for President Smith's perspective. I think it's best to make as few assumptions about God as possible. The more an argument is based on collected evidence, the better.

Notes:
1. This may be a reference to the same conversation as related in MHOD.
2. Published in Can Science Be Faith Promoting?

---

Continue reading...

A Call for Papers: Mormon Thought and Engineering Vision

I am passing along the following announcement [official site]. My brief comments are below.

The Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies in the School of Religion at Claremont Graduate University is pleased to sponsor a conference on:

Parallels and Convergences: Mormon Thought and Engineering Vision

Location:
Claremont Graduate University, 150 E. 10th Street, Claremont, CA 91711

Important Dates:
Abstract deadline: 2008 December 1 (extended abstract)
Conference: 2009 March 7 (Saturday)

Topics:
The Howard W Hunter Chair is interested in expanding the discussion of Latter-day Saint (LDS) perspectives on the attributes of God and the potential of man through a variety of innovative directions. One of the directions to be explored is whether there is a possible resonance between Mormon and engineering thought. The assumption is that according to LDS understanding, God is the architect of the Creation and the engineer of our bodies and spirits. Man, on the other hand, is believed to be capable of growing to become like God. The theological question is: where does engineering fit in the convergence of these two realms?

Papers for Parallels and Convergences: Mormon Thought and Engineering Vision should present scholarly discussions that explore scriptural background and LDS philosophy, set in the context of engineering and technology.

-----------------------
This looks like an interesting conference; I think its best potential lies in exploring connections between Mormonism and advances in technology. However, it could also be a menagerie of naturalistic fallacies--and don't get me started on Intelligent Design. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see these kinds of things happening. Maybe some time they can focus on Mormonism and stochastic processes.

---

Continue reading...

The Argument from Resurrection

In arguments among Mormons regarding science and religion (or among Christians in general), it is not uncommon to see what I call "the argument from resurrection." It usually takes the following general form:

1. You claim that X is scientifically untenable.
2. However, the resurrection is also scientifically untenable.
3. We believe that the resurrection is (or will be) a reality.
4. Therefore, I am justified in believing X.

Something about how the argument from resurrection is often used bothers me, and I'll try to explain why. (Of course, my comments are based on an acceptance of #3 above.)

I think the fundamental problem lies in the difference between X and the resurrection--a false equivalence. Practically speaking, the resurrection is a future event or state, and it can be framed as a technological problem. Somehow, God can put us back together. It may seem impossible from our perspective, it may raise some tough questions, and perhaps our understanding or mental picture of the resurrection is not very accurate, but who is to say that such a technological achievement cannot be made. After all, God is God.

In contrast, the point of contention in #1 above usually involves a matter of history. The issue then is not what God could or could not do, but what the surviving evidence suggests. If the evidence contradicts X, then God's power, as exemplified by the resurrection, is really irrelevant. The question must turn to whether God would tamper with the evidence, which is not a scientific question.

Sometimes people slip into arguing over technical feasibility, which--with some exceptions--I think is a mistake [1]. So, for example, the issue with a global flood is not where all the water came from, or where it went, or whether Noah and his family could care for all of those animals. Although those are important questions, they are resolvable by appealing to miracles (i.e. God's superior technologies). The real issue is why geology, biogeography, and genetics do not give any support to such a flood.

Another example (if I recall correctly) is a certain book in which the author employed the argument from resurrection to support a literal interpretation of Joseph Smith's statement that

...the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is to purge out the old blood and make him actually of the seed of Abraham.

If this is to be taken literally (and I don't think it need be), it is totally disconnected from modern biology. Again, the issue is not what God can do, but what we find if we look into the matter [2].

So when you see the argument from resurrection take a step back and determine what is at issue. Is it God's ability to do something, or is it the nature of the evidence? If it is the latter, then the argument from resurrection has probably been misapplied.


Notes:
1. The general exception to this is when someone makes a specific non-miraculous proposal. You can then follow-up on what the consequences of that proposal would be (i.e. what predictions it makes).

2. Remember that the mechanism of heredity was not known for another hundred years. The notion that blood was involved goes back to the ancient Greeks. Having said that, I doubt if a study has ever been done that compared the genetics of a Gentile pre- and post- reception of the Holy Ghost.

---

Continue reading...

Magicians and Neuroscientists

I love a good magic show. Magicians and neuroscientists have teamed up to write a scientific paper. As described by the New York Times,

In a paper published [July 30] in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, a team of brain scientists and prominent magicians described how magic tricks, both simple and spectacular, take advantage of glitches in how the brain constructs a model of the outside world from moment to moment, or what we think of as objective reality.

The paper, Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research, is available to read for free. The paper is an outgrowth of a conference last year, of which some videos are also available for viewing. A few specific tricks are explained, but the discussion is mostly about general principles.

Incidentally, if you spend any time paying attention to the skeptics movement, you'll find the involvement of magicians. James Randi, one of the authors of the paper, is particularly prominent. Their expertise in deception, as part of their craft, gives them insight into evaluating paranormal claims. After all, they do make their living by appearing to do or know impossible things.

---

Continue reading...