We have met the enemy, and he is us.--Pogo, by Walt Kelly
It isn't what you don't know that gets you, it's what you think you know that just ain't so.--Confidently attributed to Mark Twain, and to most other late 19th-century humorists and to some in the 20th century.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Physics, Schmysics Math is pretty nearly unbogus, but in spite of its reputation as a hard science, physics occasionally falls into fairly severe bogosity. This happens most often when physicists follow their theories beyond the data, or try to build models by analogy with some other branch of physics. Once in a while the problem is observational error. Deliberate faking of data is extremely rare in physics, much rarer than in the softer sciences. Occasionally the Grand Old Man of the day denounces some new idea, particularly if it comes out of his own work.
To be fair, we should note that physicists understand these kinds of bogosity fairly well, and generally have a good idea of what to do about it, as a result of sometimes bitter experience. A lot of what you have to do is to wait patiently for the next theory, and get on with your own work in the meantime.
There are many historical examples. We won't discuss the nonsense in Aristotle's Physics. His theories come from the Because I Though of It school of philosophy, and do not involve checking theory by experiment.
Galileo got really angry with Kepler for saying that the Sun and Moon affected the tides on the Earth. He thought that Action at a Distance was invoking occult forces, or what we might now call voodoo.
For a time, heat was imagined to be a substance, named "caloric", that flowed from hot objects to cold objects. Then experiment showed that you could generate any amount of heat from friction. Heat came to be understood more than a century later in terms of atomic motion.
The study of water waves and sound waves gave a mechanical model that was extended to light waves, considered as vibrations in a motionless substance filling space but allowing free movement of material objects. This hypothetical substance, called the "Luminiferous Ether" would have to be stiffer than steel witthout hindering the motion of material objects. When it turned out that the speed of light is the same for observers in motion in any direction, this mechanical theory had to be abandoned, but a decade passed before Special Relativity did away with motionless absolute space, and decades more to create a quantum mechanical theory of light.
Ernest Rutherford created the planetary model of the atom, in which electronis orbit around the nucleus, like planets around the sun. You still see this model sometimes in popular accounts of physics. However, orbiting electrons would radiate all their energy away immediately, so orbits were inherently impossible. Now we suppose that electrons don't have precise locations. The most we can say in this version is that there is some probability of finding an electron at a particular point, and each electron in an atom has a different set of probabilities for where it can be found.
Einstein thought this development of quantum mechanics was completely bogus because of the Uncertainty Principle, but neither he nor anybody else has ever found a hole in the theory. It was rather hard on him since his Nobel prize was for proving the quantum nature of light.
After the success of X-rays, some scientists started to observe what they called N-rays, which were quite difficult to see, mainly because' as it turned out, they weren't there.
Schiaparelli said he saw water channels (canali) on Mars through his telescope. They were also hard to see, and they also turned out not to be there. There is a huge canyon, the Valles Marinaris, but you can't see it through a telescope from the Earth.
We don't know the size of an electron. We do know that its radius is smaller than anything we can measure, and physicists have therefore assumed that its radius is 0, making the electron a point mass with a point charge. This makes the density of mass and charge at that point infinite, and results in various infinite effects that would be visible if they existed. Thay aren't, so they don't. Feynmen and others found a mathematical technique to work around this problem, but the problem doesn't arise if we don't make the bogus assumption.
A more recent example is the idea that there is a singularity, a point of infinite mass, at the center of a black hole. This notion arises from a naive solution to the Einstein equations for General Relativity, without any consideration of the requirements of quantum mechanics, such as the fact that no object can be made smaller than its wavelength. So whatever is going on in there, it isn't a point mass. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics breaks down at the high energies and short distances involved in black hole physics, and can't be reconciled with General Relativity.
None of this would be so bad without the completely bo-o-o-o-ogus statement that the laws of nature break down at the core of a black hole. Well, they don't. Our understanding breaks down, but the universe doesn't need our permission to run in whatever way it actually does, and naturally it does go right on running while we argue in circles.
So you get so-called Science Fiction adventures on TV and in the movies (which the Science Fiction writing and reading community disclaims as utterly bogus and not their fault) where you can work magic at the core of a black hole, maintaining a stable environment by sheer willpower. Or you go to another Universe through a black hole. Or you go to Heaven by falling into a black hole.
Bah!
Humbug!
Oh, you can't get to Heaven (repeat)
In a big Black Hole (repeat)
'cause a big Black Hole (repeat)
Can't grab your soul. (repeat)
Oh, you can't get to Heaven in a Big Black Hole,
'cause a big Black Hole can't grab your soul.
I ain't a-gonna grieve my Lord no more.
I ain't a-gonna grieve my Lord no more.
I ain't a-gonna grieve my Lord no more.
I ain't a-gonna grieve---my Lord no mo-o-ore.
I ain't a-gonna grieve my Lord no more.
I ain't a-gonna grieve my Lord no more.
I ain't a-gonna grieve---my Lord no more.
Dick Grasso got a bum rap from the media, and it cost him his job.
By now everybody who pays any attention to the news knows that Dick Grasso, head of the New York Stock Exchange, was paid $149 million last year, which is outrageous, no matter how much money he made for the Exchange.
The problem is that he wasn't. Sure, that's how the media reported it, but they blew it. Most of that $149 million was deferred compensation that Grasso had earned over decades. It was a lump-sum retirement payout, not this year's pay.
Now we could argue about whether Grasso was worth as much as $10 million a year in retirement benefits, but that is not how the issue was put to the public. We might ask why he got his retirement payout while still working, but that wasn't the issue either.
The issue was put to us by print, broadcast, cable, and Internet news as one of obscenely high annual pay when it was no such thing.
The media blew it big time. None of the reporters got the facts right in the first week. The fact that Grasso was taking retirement pay, not excess salary, is making its way into news reports far too late to be of any help. Nobody in the news business has pointed out that they goofed, and the public misperception is not a story..
It is true that Grasso and the Exchange were partly at fault. They should have corrected the facts loudly and clearly on the first day. They knew perfectly well that the money wasn't salary, but they didn't understand their PR problem. Grasso himself has been described as clueless about what was going on ith the public debate. Part of his problem was that he knew that the deal was legitimate, and he didn't get what the beef was.
Poor bozo. Well, rich bozo, but he's still out of a job he was good at, and his name is now a byword for corporate greed and bogosity.
In any religion that has a scriptural tradition, practitioners are very selective about the portions of scripture they follow and those others that they ignore. This is commonly called hypocrisy, but what can you do? The texts don't agree with themselves, and they certainly don't take any account of changing circumstances. Jjws don't want to build a Third Temple and go back to animal sacrifice, and the Catholic Church doesn't want to be riminded that priests could be marriied for its first thousand years. The big buzz today is about the Muslim "fundamentalists".
We see that different Muslim societies have quite different interpretations of doctrine and practice. The veil for women varies from a head scarf to full-body covering. Bosnian Muslims mostly drink slivovits (the local plum brandy), just like the Christian Serbs and Croats, while in other Muslim societies alcohol is forbidden.
Much of what non-Muslims think they know about Islam is not only wrong but nonsensical. A few Christians have been claiming that Christianity is inherently peaceful, and Islam is inherently militant, war-mongering, and torroristic. I can assure you that if you don't know about the horrors influcted by the Crusaders and the Spanish Inquisition, the Muslim world does know.
On the other hand, some of what Muslims think they know about Islam contradicts the Qur'an. You can ask almost anybody, Muslim or non-Muslim, and they will agree with this. Any Muslim you ask, of course, knows the true interpretation of the Qur'an. It is just everybody else, or everybody not of that person's particular variant faitth, that have it wrong. I'm obviously wrong, according to a lot of Muslims, even though I am going to quote from the prophecies and traditions of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Muhammad's (pbuh) first wife Khadijah was a merchant.
Women are secluded at home.
Women went to the battlefield as nurses with Muhammad's (pbuh) army. A woman saved Muhammad's (pbuh) life in battle.
Unter the Taliban, widows without family were forbidden to work or beg, leaving them and their young children with no means of support.
Muhammad (pbuh) married several of the widows of the Jihad, and encouraged other men to do the same. Support for widows and orphans is an obligation on all Muslims
In a number of Muslim societies, girls are forbidden education.
In early Islam, women were frequently respected scholars of Qur'an and of Muslim law.
Some versions of Islam teach Muslims to hate non-Muslims.
The Qur'an orders Muslims to respect the Peoples of the Book, that is, Jews and Christians, and in fact to respect anyone who wishes peace to Muslims.
In some countries Muslims may not convert to other religions, sometimes on pain of death, and there is a death penalty for proselytizing.
The Qur'an states that there may not be compulsion in religion.
It is often taught that the purpose of Jihad is to destroy the infidel.
When Muhammad (pbuh) entered Mecca, his enemies expected to be killed or sold into slavery. Instead, Muhammad (pbuh) ordered the Muslims to forgive them and leave them in peace.
Much is being made these days about whether President Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. Whatever one may think about this matter, it is worth noting that he is not the only one to do so. Abraham Lincoln claimed that the reasons that James Polk gave for the war between the U.S. and Mexico were completely bogus, and that it had more to do with the elections than the facts. The war with Spain was certainly bogus. More recently, President Lyndon Johnson got into an undeclared war in Vietnam over a trumped-up claim that the North Vietnamese attacked a U.S. warship. President Nixon followed up with the secret war in Cambodia and Laos. He followed that up with a completely bogus peace treaty, resulting in Henry Kissinger getting a bogus Nobel Peace Prize for leaving South Vietnam to be overrun by the North.
Lying to start or stop a war is not particularly a Democratic or Republican failing. It is one of those all-too-human failings where some bunch of bozos has what seems like a good idea, and furthermore think that it is such a good idea that lying to make it happen is an act of patriotism or at least a good political career move.
My point of view on this should be clear: Lying is bogosity. If you want your country to be bogus, and to be known to be bogus, you have every reason to lie. If not, you are better off acting on the assumption that your lies will be found out, and that the adverse consequences of being untrustworthy will outweigh any tactical, strategic, or financial advantage you may temporarily gain. Bear in mind that advantage comes and goes, but you have to live in the same world with the same people for the rest of your life and theirs.
Now you may think that my opinion is utterly bogus. All I can say is, I'll take honest bogosity over lying bogosity any day.
A Sufi tale tells of a poor man who needed a length of rope, and decided to ask his rich neighbor to lend him some.
"Nothing would please me more than to help my neighbor in his need," said the rich man, "but unfortunately just at this moment I need all of my rope to keep my milk tied up."
"What!?" exclaimed the poor man. "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. You can't tie up milk!"
"Ah," said the rich man. "I see that there is something important that you do not understand. You see, when you definitely don't want to do something, any reason is good."
Whenever you hear political rhetoric about why we should or should not do something, remember this story. Politicians don't want to tell you why they really favor or oppose a piece of legislation as long as their is some other reason that appeals to the voters in their district.
Why should we raise taxes? To keep the milk tied up, or to put it plainly, just because.
Why should we lower taxes? To keep the milik tied up.
Why should Californians recall Governor Davis? To keep the milk tied up.
Why should Californians not recall Governor Davis? To keep the milk tied up.
Why invade Iraq? Forget WMD. Forget oil. Forget delusions of empire. No, it's to keep the milk tied up.
"What milk?" you might ask. Well now, that would be telling. But I can give you a hint.
Why do people want to do anything? The usual motives are power, sex, and money, or in some cases life, liberty, or the pursuite of happiness. Truth and the public interest are usually way down the list in the political realm, although there are exceptions. When you hear a politician talking about the public interest, assume that he means keeping the public interested in voting for him.
One of the major anti-bogotical teachings of Jesus is the advice to the hypocrites to take the log out of their own eyes before trying to help someone else remove a speck. This is good advice, to be sure, except for one thing. How do you do that?
I mean, do you have to be perfect before you can give any advice on anything at all? I admit that getting everybody to stop giving advice, even when asked, would probably be an improvement. It would certainly have an interesting and very likely beneficial effect on government if the politicians had to shut up at all times and listen.
OK, so according to Christians, Jesus is perfect and he can give us all advice. But how do we get any more advice? Don't tell me we don't need it. We have these logs in our eyes. Maybe Jesus told us what to do, but if we haven't gotten it yet, can't somebody else try to explain it to us?
And note, Jesus got himself killed. I have expressed my admiration for Socrates not presuming to greater knowledge than he actually had, but he also went and got himself killed. There were a number of prophets in the Jewish scriptures who worked on becoming perfect, and gave their advice, and got themselves killed. Gandhi got himself murdered. Martin Luther King (who was by no means perfect, but let that pass) got himself killed.
Now, I exaggerate. Not everybody who tries to be non-bogus and be helpful gets killed. Some just get locked up, or exiled, or have their careers ruined. Some have to pretend to be clowns. Why do they do it, then?
Because they are constitutionally incapable of deliberate, conscious bogosity. Simple as that. It's rough on them, but the rest of us desperately need these people.
Americans are considered crazy anywhere in the world.
They will usually concede a basis for the accusation, but point to California as the focus of the infection. Californians stoutly maintain that their bad reputation is derived solely firom the acts of the inhabitants of Los Angeles County. Angelenos will, when pressed, admit the charge but explain hastily, "It's Hollywood. It's not our fault--we didn't ask for it. Hollywood just grew."
The people in Hollywood don't care; they glory in it.
--And He Built a Crooked House--, by Robert A. Heinlein
