Category Archives: Philosophy

Cell Phones: Mankind’s Doom

Dr. Ronald B. Herberman is convinced that cell phones raise cancer rates. This man is no scientist, whatever his credentials may say; scientists use the scientific method. Instead, Herberman has The Certainty. MSNBC reports:

[Herberman] says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now — especially when it comes to children.

The article also notes that over a dozen studies have found no cancer-cell phone correlation, let alone causation. But Herberman knows he is right, no matter what the data might say. He is Certain.

Giving Back to the Community

Milwaukee Brewers Hall-of-Famer Robin Yount is coming out with his own brand of lemonade. I chuckled when I saw that Robinade is “made in Wisconsin from 100% natural ingredients including real lemon juice concentrate, lemon pulp and natural lemon oils.” (emphasis mine)

I didn’t chuckle when I read that “In line with Yount’s tradition of giving back to the community, a percentage of profits will go directly to Wisconsin children’s charities.”

It is wonderful that Yount is giving to charity. But he’s not giving back to the community. What has he taken? He is simply giving to the community.

The Certainty

Happy Earth Day, everyone. Some thoughts were provoked by a timely piece by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. He writes about why he left the organization.

Moore is a scientist, trained in the scientific method. He doesn’t have what I call The Certainty. His colleagues did. They were more rigid, more ideological. More Certain.

The breaking point came when, over Moore’s objections, Greenpeace tried to ban chlorine, which is an element on the periodic table.

Moore laments, “the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.”

That hardened mindset is The Certainty. It is environmentalism’s ugly side. It turns it into a religion.

We all know that religion can bring joy and comfort to people. But when The Certainty shows itself, religion becomes something darker.

The environmental movement is the same way. It is wonderful that activists have raised awareness. People prefer a clean environment to a dirty one, and sure enough, look at the data. Our environment is cleaner than it was fifty years ago. What a noble achievement.

Then The Certainty came in. Trying to ban this or that chemical without evidence of harm. Advocating technological regress. Attacking those with fact-based disagreements as corporate puppets, without ever touching the substance of their arguments.

There’s a reason why I think of (radical) environmentalism as the new religion. Like religion, environmentalism has done some good. But like religion, the more radical adherents have The Certainty. That can, quite literally, be bad for our health.

Astro Turf: Mankind’s Doom

Fields made of artificial turf are being investigated as health hazards because some of them contain lead. New Jersey has taken an early lead in overreacting by closing two fields.

This would be a cause for concern if there were signs of lead poisoning in people using the fields. But there is no evidence of even a single player getting lead poisoning.

It’s the dose that makes the poison. That dose just isn’t there in the fields.

A spokesman said, “In the 40 years that synthetic sports turf has been in use in the United States and around the world, not one person has ever reported any ill effects related to the material composition of the fibers.”

It really irks me when media outlets frighten people with scare stories like this. Now a government investigation is wasting peoples’ time and tax dollars because of it.

Putting Religious Intolerance in Proper Context

“It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley, but not at all important whether or not you believe in God.”

Diderot, in a letter to Voltaire (June 11, 1749).

Bumper Stickers and Bigotry

We’ve all seen those Jesus fish bumper stickers on cars. We’ve also seen the Darwin fish, sprouting little legs, that have emerged as a reaction to the Jesus fish.

National Review‘s Jonah Goldberg doesn’t like the Darwin fish. Let him speak for himself:

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

He goes on:

the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

Well, my trusty Buick happens to have a Darwin fish on its bumper. Turns out Goldberg is putting words into my mouth that do not belong there.

The Jesus fish is an expression of faith. The driver is saying to his fellow commuters, “this is what I believe.” It is a positive statement.

I am also making a positive statement. I am saying, based on the evidence I’ve seen, that I believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. I am saying that it is possible for species to evolve over time.

That’s it.

There is no smugness. No mockery. No implication that people who disagree with me are less evolved. Nor do I have any animus toward any religion, Christian or otherwise; disbelief does not equal contempt.

Goldberg reads a bit too much into it, frankly. Evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists. It says nothing about the origins of life itself, let alone the divinity of Christ.

I certainly have my opinions on the matters. The Darwin fish has nothing to do with them. It says only that, as the eons pass, life changes. It evolves.

I get the sense that Goldberg’s faith is deeply held, and is for him a source of strength. That is wonderful.

What a shame then, that he a priori assumes ill motives of people who do not share his faith. My beliefs give me strength, comfort, and beauty, too. Even though they’re different from his.

Pro-Market vs. Pro-Business

People who hold pro-market views are often tarred as corporate shills. That epithet more accurately describes pro-business attitudes, which are very different creatures.

George Mason professor Don Boudreaux discusses this with his usual eloquence in his twice-monthly newspaper column. Well worth reading, especially for you non-economists out there.

Another thing about such name-calling is that it dodges argument on the merits; it is the highbrow equivalent of ending an argument by saying, “Oh yeah, well you’re ugly.” Which of course, has nothing to do with whether the arguments are right or wrong.

A Cooler Perspective on the Global Warming Debate

Over at the New York Times, John Tierney looks at the state of the global warming debate. He points out that those who hold non-mainstream views are usually dismissed as corporate shills.

This is a shame; people have put forward arguments that are either right or wrong. Funding sources have nothing to do with whether those arguments are right or wrong.

Many people think they’re wrong. It would be nice to know why, instead of who underwrites their research. Who cares? There are much bigger fish to fry here.

We know the Earth is getting warmer, and there’s a high probability that humans have something to do with it. Beyond that, we still have a lot to learn. We have yet to conclusively determine whether the net effects will be good or bad. Will it be better to adapt to a changing world, or to try to stop that change altogether? Those are big questions, and we don’t know the answers yet.

So let’s get to finding them out. Demonizing people who disagree with us is, to be frank, a waste of time.

The Things People Do to Each Other

My girlfriend and I just finished watching Schindler’s List. I hadn’t seen it before.

I really don’t know what to say, except that we should all be glad we live in better times.

The Uses of Distraction

The art of argument has a lot of tools. One of them I loathe: the personal attack. Paul Krugman, a partisan Democrat, is a master of the ad hominem. I’ve taken issue with him before.

I’m reading a book of his, 1994’s Peddling Prosperity, for a class right now. Early on (p.23), there is a textbook use of personal attack to distract the reader from the matter at hand. Here, Krugman accuses someone of racism to discredit their main point, which has nothing to do with race:

In 1981 Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan uttered a startling pronouncement: “The Republicans,” he declared, “are now the party of ideas.” Moynihan was and is a moderate Democrat. He once served in the Nixon administration, and he earned the ire of many 1960s liberals both by his willingness to talk about the disintegration of black families and by his authorship of a leaked memo suggesting that the race issue be treated with “benign neglect.”

Moynihan’s “benign neglect” memo is despicable. But it has nothing to do with whether or not the GOP had creative ideas in the early 1980s.

Sadly, the average reader won’t see past that. They will take Moynihan’s wrongness on racial issues to mean he is automatically wrong on anything else he says.

Ah, distraction. When you don’t feel like constructing a strong argument, simply distract the reader. Maybe they won’t notice.