Time Out

Today is January 12^th (2015). I just realized that the essay I wrote for February 15^th is listed by Blogspot as the 300^th that I've written, so I thought I'd interrupt the regular flow and take a look at where I stand.ⁱ Actually the number may turn out to be a little higher if I throw in any extra essays in the next few weeks because of breaking news, but the purpose of this reassessment will remain the same.

I've looked at some of the previous efforts and one thing is obvious – I repeat myself. I know I've delivered that message before, but it's worth repeating. I've also explained why the repetition comes about, so I won't belabor that issue – only warn you that it's certain to happen again.ⁱⁱ That's fine, though. I spent much of my life teaching and one thing that's clear is that if something is worth saying, it's worth repeating.ⁱⁱⁱ And with some students it's especially necessary to do so, over and over. So I hope you'll forgive me if I restate some of the points I've made before, but if you don't forgive me I can live with it.

The world is changing. Rapidly. And the change constitutes a challenge. On a content level, the new developments that appear daily provide a lot of grist for me. Blogs, themselves, are a product of the computer era, so I started with that kind of technology, but since I began this series we have seen the explosion of the social media and the propagation of hand-held devices.^iv Needless to say,^v I'm appalled by the trends. One of the biggest problems of modern society is that there is too much communication. I have an old hand-me-down “flip phone” which my wife gave me after she got a new one. She makes me take it with me when I go on a long car trip. It's there, in my glove compartment, so that I'll be able to call for help if I should need it. I take it with me in order to maintain family peace, but I'm not sure I'd know how to use it if that ever became an issue.

Of course my antipathy makes it virtually certain that I'll never make a call while driving, and if someone called me^vi I wouldn't know how to answer, so there's little likelihood that I'd even bother trying. I'll certainly never text – whether or not I'm driving. The phone is old and neither it, nor I, has the ability to do so. If it were so equipped, and if it had “apps,” I wouldn't even take it with me for emergencies. I'd be too intimidated.

I'm a remnant of the past. I remember the maps that were available free at all gas stations when I was growing up. Spread out in front of me I could see where I had been and where I was going, and have the pleasure of planning a trip that included all the places I wanted to see.^vii Ridiculously priced atlases then became available but they're virtually gone from the market, having been replaced by GPS's. With the cost of those devices and the telephone/satellite systems needed for updating and for reports of accidents and construction and the ways around them there's no end to the costs, added to the waste of time that these devices provide.^viii In addition, it's hard to ignore the distraction of the screen, the annoying back-seat-driver voice coming from it, and the certain knowledge that “they” always know where I am.

Politics and the state of the world are also much more complicated than when I was young. As useless as they were, the fire drills and “duck and cover” exercises gave us the feeling^ix that we had some control over our lives and fates. Now we leave that all to the government and we complain about the way they do it. We're not responsible for anything now – whatever goes wrong is someone else's fault.

Our general culture is also deteriorating rapidly. Television reflects it, but our fellow citizens, those who claim to be not responsible – thus those who are irresponsible – are dictating what we see. Sex of all varieties is one of the driving forces. And what is portrayed on the 60 inch screen illustrates the fantasy lives we should all be leading. The “reality” shows let us see what we're supposed to believe is really happening all around us. At least the advertisers benefit from all of this.

These are some of the subjects I've been thinking about over recent years. As well as politics, religion, aging, and all of the other things that control our lives. As I get older, and as conditions around me change, my views of all of these subjects evolve. So when they do, or when I think of something I shoulda said last time, I have a subject for a new essay. It's not important that I've visited the issue before. There's something else I want to say. Perhaps it's not original,^x but I need to incorporate it into my own formulation of whatever the subject is. Which means that I write about it again. As well as some subjects that are different. (Actually I'll mention some of those subjects next week in “Nota Bene 3” – my list keeps getting longer. “Ice Breaker,” originally scheduled for today, will appear the following week.)

But none of that matters. If you haven't read them before, the chances that you'll catch up with the 300 are small. It will take ten months if you read one each day. But if you do, start at the beginning and you'll see how my thoughts, and style (what little there is), progress. You'll agree that even though I'm not a Member of Congress^xi and even though I'm not an idiot^xii I repeat myself.^xiii Ever the twain shall meet.

I        Sit.

ii       Actually it will be here today. I lied. I will belabor it.

iii      Indeed, the repetition is a necessary component of the teaching process.

iv       “Progress” related to the equipment rather than the content.

v        But I'll say it anyway.

vi      It hasn't happened yet and there's no reason to anticipate that it will in the future.

vii     Folding up the map when I was done was nearly impossible, but trying was a lot of fun.

viii    I save time by following the directions my wife gives me. They're usually more accurate than the ones that the disembodied voice gives, and they're usually better tailored to the way I understand instructions.

ix       It was wrong but we didn't know that.

x        And it can't be denied that there is nothing new under the sun.

xi       Objective fact.

xii      That's my view, which, as I've often stressed, is true.

xiii    “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain, a Biography

Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above

The earth is flat.

For many millennia that was a perfectly rational statement – even if we reject it now. All you had to do was look and you'd see it for yourself. And anyone who claimed otherwise was irrational.

Religion is irrational.

That's certainly a rational statement. And anyone who claims otherwise is, himself, irrational. However that wasn't always the case.

The problem is that “irrational” has different meanings – denotations and connotations. It derives from the Latin, and means lacking reason, with “reason” having the sense of measurable “fact.” Nowadays its use is primarily pejorative, indicating that the irrational person or concept not only lacks the support of what is provable, but is inherently ridiculous. It's not only without reason – fact – but it is unreasonable. Religion is bunk.

That which is rational, on the other hand, is demonstrable, measurable, and provable. The earth is spherical. It was provable before the space age and demonstrable after. It isn't flat. That's a fact, and always has been. It's just that it took time for science to establish this reality and educate the rest of us.

Rationality is a human creation. And “facts” change with time. Something is true either because we can see it for ourselves, or someone we trust says it is. So if, several hundred years ago, you maintained that when flammable substances burned they became heavier because the source of flammability, phlogiston – which is lighter than air – was burned off, your claim was a fact. If you contend today, however, that for materials that have been heated there is no such thing as gravity, only phlogiston, your position would be viewed as irrational. Laughable. Even stupid. It is clearly contrary to demonstrable evidence, and in addition we have both physical and mathematical proof that gravity is real.

Facts, then, are what we believe at some point in time. And anyone with a contrary view is irrational. He may be right in the long run, but that is of no consequence. Those who are intelligent will consider his views to be irrational or, at best, unproven. If they, "those who are intelligent," respect the speaker, or choose to believe that the statements agree with their own views, they will state that the ideas, although not yet proven, are perfectly reasonable. If they don't, if they consider the ideas to be in conflict with their own beliefs,ⁱ they are prone to label them as mythology or superstition.

There was a time when the four elementsⁱⁱ and the humorsⁱⁱⁱ were established facts; when alchemy was a respected field; when the earth was the center of the Universe. Now we know better. Or, better, now we know more. And now we recognize that there is still a lot that we don't know. It's not unknowable, but we're not there yet. Some day it will be, for science is all about determining the facts of Life, the Universe and Everything. And, if it's real, whatever it is, sooner or later science will discover it.

However there are also things we don't know not because we haven't figured them out yet, but because they're nonsense. They're irrational. Religion is like that. If it doesn't agree with science, and we cannot imagine that it ever will, it is irrational. Of course we've changed our views of facts in the past, and we may do so again in the future, but that is only because science and wisdom can be trusted to help us work out the details. 

There are many things about which science and religion agree. Both will accept the idea that there are some things that are unknown and others that are unknowable. But while scientists will dismiss anything unknowable as irrational,^iv and while they'll accept anything that happens as fact – neither right or wrong, simply “what is” – those who believe in organized religion,^v whatever that religion is, accept the idea that there are moral absolutes and they have been established by an unknowable divinity. We are wrong when we blindly accept “reality” and ignore its implications. Man is not the measure of all things. There are some things we'll never understand because we're not intended to. It is only hubris that gives some the confidence that everything is knowable by Man.

Religious people make a mistake when they try to show that what they believe is compatible with scientific principles. That position gives credence to the view that for something to be true it must conform to those principles. It is a denial of the idea that there is more to our existence than what we consider “rational.” It is acquiescence to the belittling of religion by some scientists, and the blessing of the pejorative understanding of “irrational.”

Those who dismiss what they consider irrational because they cannot understand it, cannot understand the fact that what is provable is only a small part of reality, and it is inferior to that which cannot be known. It's their loss. Their world is flat.

Next episode: “Ice Breaker” – Oil and water don't mix.

i        Prejudices?

ii       Air, earth, fire, and water.

iii      Black bile, yellow bile, blood, and phlegm.

iv       Silly and superstitious. The crutch of the weak.

v        As contrasted with those who believe in the infallibility of science.

Six Of One

According to chaos theory, a small action may have large effects in this slavishly deterministic universe. One thing invariably leads into another. It's called the “butterfly effect.” The effects may not be desired, but they are predictable.

According to another scientific field – quantum physics – events can only be described in terms of probability. An individual occurrence is unpredictable, but as a whole you can predict events since you have statistics on your side. That's “randomness.”

If we follow the implications of Heisinger's view, however, we can't really know what is happening anyway, since observing or measuring something changes it. We know that truth as the “uncertainty principle.”

So what should we accept? Are things determined or random? Yes. Are they probable or unpredictable? Yes. Do we know what's happening or don't we? Yes. And you're right, too. Schrödinger's cat is alive and Schrödinger's cat is dead.

That's the beauty of science. Everything can be proved. Even if the things it proves contradict each other. Both must be true.

In addition there's no need to decide what is morally or ethically right, and what is wrong. Consequently societal biases are irrelevant. There can be no such thing as a cultural norm in such a system. “Belief” is not an issue in it. There are only absolutes. All that science does is to tell us what is. So now we know. Science is rational, and all rational beings should accept it.

While there are differences – and oft times violent disagreements and arguments – science is very much like religion. Religion, too, rejects the idea of cultural norms in favor of absolutes. Perhaps they are not the same absolutes that scientists promote, but the principle is the same. As is the view of Heisenberg. He maintained that we could neither know nor measure everything. Once again, while the reasons for the idea differ, both science and religion recognize that some things are unknowable.ⁱ

And notwithstanding the claim that belief is not an issue, many of those who reject religion in favor of science – who deem religion “irrational” – accept science with a zeal well beyond that of many who follow religious precepts. But the ideas they accept are also counter-intuitive. From their perspective, creatio ex nihilo isn't rational, but the “Big Bang,” a “singularity,” is perfectly reasonable as an explanation for the Universe; an eternal deity is mythology, but eternal laws of physics make complete sense; and the creation of time and space by G-d should be replaced by the concept of an eternal cosmos.

Another problem of science – at least for amateurs like me – is the idea that the fastest possible speed is the speed of light. Estimates of the size of the universe far exceed what would be expected if expansion were at light speed. It has been hypothesized that there was a period of “inflation” of the universe very early in the first second that followed the Big Bang. In that extraordinarily short period of time the speed limitation obviously didn't exist. Which means that the laws of physics are not immutable.

The contention that science is rational and religion irrational is difficult for me to credit. That, of course, is my problem, but understanding “rational” to mean logical, reasonable, and consistent, while “irrational” means the opposite, itself seems inconsistent with the arguments presented. From my perspective – and I accept the idea that I lack information and do not understand all the issues involved – both concepts are extra-rational. And both those who believe in science and religion will admit that there are many things they don't understand.

But there is a difference. For those who accept religious doctrine, there is much that is unknowable, except to G-d, and it is our function to follow what He teaches us. For those who believe in the religion of science, there is only that which is not yet known. It will eventually be explained by them or their descendants. There will be a time when they know everything. A general theory of everything will be proposed and found to be correct, and there will be nothing we don't know.ⁱⁱ But I don't expect that to happen. Science will absorb a significant portion of the taxes we pay in the search for answers, answers they are certain exist.

In the meantime however – and I believe that will be forever (whatever that means) – the idea of a Creator makes at least as much sense as anything the scientists have to offer. It's as rational as anything they have to offer.

Or as irrational.

Next episode: “Rational, Irrational, Extra-rational, Or None Of The Above” – Or maybe something else.

I        Actually, that's probably an overstatement. Science would maintain that there is nothing that is unknowable, even if there are many things that are unknown. The problem, however, is that since we don't know what we don't know, it is, at least for now, unknowable. Of course we don't know if that's true. (Only the Shadow knows – even if it's not evil.)

ii       See note #i. In truth, I already know everything. But I'm not telling.

What To Do When The Envelope Pushes Back

“We've always done it that way.”

That was the reaction I faced when I introduced a new dictation system to replace the existing practice into my department back in the mid 1980s. It was a voice-activated systemⁱ that could produce x-ray reports immediately without the delays resulting from sending out magnetic tapes to a transcribing service.ⁱⁱ Some people were averse to doing anything that required computers,ⁱⁱⁱ or didn't want to learn anything different from what they were doing. Whether because of laziness or fear however, whatever the reason, there were some who resisted the change. Fortunately I had the authority to implement the new procedure over their objections. And the hospital administration was enthusiastic about the new system because it would save money, and because they wouldn't have to participate in the changes. Except, of course, the savings.

Innovation isn't always easy. But it sometimes makes things better. Build a better mousetrap, and all that. However, while we may demand rapid, if not well thought out, change when there is some well-publicized or stylish problem or disease, we're most ready for such change when neither the problem nor the solution affects us directly; when someone else will have to deal with what we're doing for him. And we want immediate action. If there are unanticipated consequences we can deal with them by introducing a new change. If that doesn't work we can try again. But we can't leave things the way they are.

And not just any change will do. We have to push the envelope; we have to think outside the box. If we're told that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, we know that that it's not always a wheel we want. We have to be creative if we're going to solve the problem.

The usual response of those who are wedded to the present is “What problem?” “If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” And, all too often, they're right. Our society is in a headlong rush to act. We celebrate change whether it solves an existing problem or not. “Don't just stand there, do something.” It doesn't matter what the change is, or whether it's likely to work, action is needed. In too many cases, however, the cure is worse than the disease, and the unintended consequences cause bigger problems than the ones they were designed to address.^iv But, as I noted, we can deal with those problems when we see what they are.^v In the meantime we've demonstrated our sensitivity to the underlying situation.^vi

Change, itself, is not bad as a means to solve problems, but it's not an end. That's where the difficulty arises. Nor is aversion to change an end. The proper balance lies in the willingness (and the ability) to understand all the implications of both the assumed problem and the proposed solution. Neither innovation nor obstruction, when used properly is bad; but we have a habit of misusing them. And that's when things start to get dicey.

It's hard not to see this as an indictment of our two political parties – one attempting to institute sweeping changes which it believes will benefit society, while the other is applying the breaks, in the belief that the changes are inappropriate. They'll hurt more than they'll help. Unfortunately neither is interested in understanding the position of the other. Or, at least, neither is interested in acknowledging any such understanding, and compromising. Too many votes are at stake.

The saving grace^vii is that the system provides for someone who is in a position to mediate the disputes and, when necessary, to override the stance of one or more of the disputants or find a way around it.^viii And if he misuses that position and authority, it can be taken from him.^ix The voice activation system refers to the voice of the voters.

Next episode: “Six Of One" – But I don't know how many of the other.
.

I        The technology was in its infancy then, but the system worked, and it was better than the alternative.

ii       We didn't have typists on premises and the outside services weren't that reliable, so there were often long delays.

iii      We were in the early days of desk-top computers and many of the staff had never worked with them.

iv       Often the best approach is “Don't just do something, stand there.”

v       As Representative Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, said of the “Affordable Care Act,” “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Understanding the implications of what we do before we do it apparently is not necessary, as long as we act.

vi       However we understand it.

vii      Or fatal flaw.

viii     Saving grace or fatal flaw once again.

ix       Though it may take a few years to do so. And if the next President is of the other party he'll likely withdraw the Presidential Order that violated the principles of his party or issue a contradictory order.