Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who helped engineer the slim margin of passage for the health care legislation is going to retire. The pro-life member became a lightening rod for opposition after securing an agreement from Obama to ban federal funding for abortions.
President Obama reportedly called to ask Stupak not to resign as did Speaker Nancy Pelosi. With the legislation still unpopular with a large percentage of votes, Democratic members appear to be trying to avoid the issue on the campaign trail. In Stupak’s case, he reportedly said that, while the vote was not the cause for his retirement, he said retaining his seat would require too much of an effort.
Stupak was embarrassed by another member screaming “baby killer” during his speech on the floor, here.
For the full story, click here.
Slarti,
Copy that on Gödel. “Segmented” perfect knowledge is possible, just not perfect total knowledge (omniscience by definition).
Canadian Eh,
That (and this) are merely the exceptions that prove the rule! 😉
Slarti,
You seem to be developing a better understanding of ” short ” as demonstrated in your last post about not understanding the meaning of the word ” short ” 😉
I think my previous post is nigh conclusive evidence that I don’t understand the meaning of the word ‘short’…
Buddha said:
“First, despite you mistaking argument by analogy for misunderstanding on another thread, I do understand spacetime is not like a fluid in the definitional sense.”
Nice callback. 😉
I’ll keep this relatively short since you seem to have gotten my point and agreed with it – namely that you are not required to accept any scientific theory before that data is in, you just have to accept the data (or show that it is invalid). I dislike the fact evolution and the Big Bang theory are frequently lumped together as litmus tests for scientific literacy as that act in and of itself shows a lack of scientific literacy. To be against evolution (the broad theory, not the details) is to deny literally hundreds of thousands of scientific papers – even to deny the evidence written in the DNA of every cell in our bodies. To deny the big bang only requires that we re-evaluate that belief in the light of new evidence as we obtain it. It will be very interesting to see what happens to the standard picture of particle physics and modern cosmology once the large hadron collider goes to full power – thanks for allowing me to get ‘on the record’ so to speak with my prediction of what the LHC will show.
In Lerner’s book he discusses several alternative explanations of the Hubble shift (tired light, matter/anit-matter explosion of the visible universe, etc.) and admits that none of them are without problems. I tend to think that the correlation of distance with speed is probably correct although when you investigate the issue it is far less clear-cut than is popularly presented. For instance, if you see an object that is blue shifted with respect to the cluster it seems to be a part of, is the blue shift due to its orbital velocity in the cluster being oriented in our direction or is it due to being an interloper that is closer to us and not part of the cluster at all? When you start getting down into the weeds on these issues the necessary knowledge of astrophysics starts increasing rapidly.
As to Prigogine – as I said, I quickly get out of my depth when discussing his theories (if I had remained at Michigan State and gotten my PhD studying dynamical systems and ergodic theory with Sheldon Newhouse I would likely have been able to discuss this at a much higher level – it’s unfortunate that Gauss was the last complete mathematician…) but they seem to me to be more in harmony with non-inflationary models. On the other hand, if I had stayed in physics I think that it would have been likely that I would have followed in Dr. Alfven’s footsteps (or more accurately, he would have been the giant upon whose shoulder I was standing). I have always been more interested in Newtonian mechanics and electricity and magnetism than in areas like quantum mechanics (although I’ve always wanted to understand general relativity as well – in my next life, perhaps…). Additionally, I think that the field of plasma physics is the area most likely to yield a breakthrough in fusion technology which appeals to my sense of socially conscious science (not to mention the fact that the inventor of reliable fusion technology will likely become the richest person in the world – or die a pauper when some capitalist takes advantage of them… ;-)).
I’m not sure that Godel’s theorem prevents us from understanding any aspect of the universe as it is a mathematical statement, not a scientific one (if you consider the territory/map analogy, Godel said something about the limitation of any particular map, but I don’t think that his theorem contradicts the idea that there is as accurate (but not perfect) a map as you would like for any particular piece of territory – just that there is a single map that is 100% accurate for the entire territory).
I agree with you on inclusionary vs. exclusionary and look forward to continuing this discussion when LHC results start to arrive…
Slarti,
Interesting bit about Lerner provides about the CBR model’s statistical structure. I did not know that. Not the best modeling job perhaps, but this touches upon something I was going to address on the 120 thread about the difference between tools and I’ll leave that to that forthcoming answer.
First, despite you mistaking argument by analogy for misunderstanding on another thread, I do understand spacetime is not like a fluid in the definitional sense. Second, I’m not married to any theory but the best one I’ve seen today as compared to those I’ve previously seen. You claim to be agnostic on the matter and you’d find we are in agreement on that pending “events” like my next point. Thirdly, Higgs bosons. The willingness to explore non-inflationary models does nothing to mitigate that proving or disproving the existence of the Higgs boson will answer the fundamental issues and assumptions about mass that underpin any and all theories. In this I think we are in agreement. Fourthly, I’m just surprised you’d be a non-inflationary guy, Slarti, hence my dismissive non-inclusion in the options presented above in re cyclical. A sloppy assumption on my part. My bad. Speaking of assumptions . . .
Now on to Dr. Lerner. Interesting idea. Meriting further study I’d even say so if your point in part or in toto was that one can have a point of view that is both scientific and discounts the big bang, then point taken. Lerner does point out some valid issues about assumptions of FRW models yet glosses over a pretty large assumption of his own, namely that the Hubble effect has or even could have another explanation that wouldn’t turn the rest of physics on its collective ear as Hubble’s tying of redshift to a Doppler effect is pretty solid work. He only based it something like 20 years of observations if memory serves. It’s a fundamental relation between recessional velocity and distance. Correlation is not causation but I have a hard time envisioning another causation in this instance. But overall? Like big bang models that utilize dark matter (of which I too have issues in re baryonic versus non-baryonic composition) it is merely another theory with what I will stipulate in an interesting take on the data on the CBR (some of which is new since the last time I really dropped my head into cosmology), but it is no more conclusive than the FLRW based models. I do rather like the way he addressed the fractal distribution of matter too.
As to Prigogine’s concept of time, I happen to share it but I’m not sure why you’d think that’s inconstant with an inflationary model. And you had to bring up Hannes, didn’t you? lol. He was quite a guy and I’ll stipulate that his work on filamentary super-structure caused many an inflationary model proponent to pull their hair out, it did indeed bear some of that observational fruit. But in the end? My choice in inflation is merely that, a preference at this point pending better observation(s) from both astrophysicists (weak gravity experiments done well outside the local well) and particle physics (the aforementioned Higgs boson).
But see, here we come once again to a chance to look at the difference between belief and knowledge. A belief requires some sort of (usually imagined) conclusory certainty. Knowledge does not but rather requires a willingness to constantly re-evaluate one’s certainly in light of new facts and/or models. Given that humans crave order by nature, it is not surprising that they will make up that order (like fundamentalism) from wishful thinking when the universe constantly tells us that the only true constant is change. It’s a natural if unfortunate reaction. To Gödel’s amusement, we’ll never be able to describe the universe with conclusory certainty no matter if the inflationists or static model crowd wins the day. We might get very very good at manipulating some fundamental forces, but the mystery of a complete model will always remain exactly a mystery.
I’m not opposed to a static model, but right now I’m still leaning toward inflation. You have, however, given me something to think about but this in noway invalidates my earlier assertions vis a vis systematic study as being a better choice than uninformed belief. It merely illustrates that for any given problem, there can be more than one model: an inclusionary way of thinking. And that’s the ultimate line in the two tribes of mankind: the inclusionary and the exclusionary. One is a survival adaptation that can lead us to the stars, the other is a survival adaptation that is outmoded and promises to either keep us on the plains or under them if we don’t abandon that old irrational impulse as a species.
D’oh! Here’s a link:
Video didn’t post, let me try again:
Buddha,
Since I have claimed scientific credentials (and provided the means to verify them) on other threads, I should preface this comment with the statement that in this discussion I am not claiming to have any more specialized knowledge in the field of cosmology than anyone else – I am nothing more than an amateur in this field and my opinions are the result of casual study only (and mainly the result of reading the book ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’ by Eric Lerner – while I don’t necessarily agree with him on what he thinks did happen, I do agree that there are serious problems with the Big Bang theory and find the plasma alternative put forward by Nobel-laureate Hans Alfven much more compelling).
Buddha posted:
Except for all that cosmic background radiation. I thought you liked it when more established theories bore observational fruit.
I certainly like it when theories bear observational fruit (Mmmm, observational fruit…) I just question that the cosmic background radiation confirms the big bang. From Eric Lerner’s website:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
It’s arguable that the universe is cyclical, but that just renders the argument against “a” big bang semantic.
I’m not making a semantic argument, I don’t believe any form of the Big Bang is correct. I’m using capital letters here to indicate that I don’t believe in a massive explosion of all matter in the universe – a matter/anti-matter explosion of our corner of the universe (a big bang causing the Hubble shift in the visible universe) is a possibility I’m agnostic on.
If you have an alternative cosmological model, I’d like to hear it. It better be better than the story Penrose and Hawking and Thorne tell. Because all of theirs begins with a big bang.
It’s not necessary to have an alternative theory to believe a scientific theory is not correct (I do and I’ll mention some aspects of it below and more upon request to the limit of my understanding). This is the essence of falsifiability and lies at the root of my objection to the Big Bang theory – I believe that in modern cosmology theory has outpaced experimental verification to the point that it has gone way off course. By necessity theory often precedes experiment (such as in relativity), but there is a danger in theories gaining such widespread acceptance before the experimental facts start coming in. You can end up with additions being made to the theory in order to account for new data just as epicycles were added to the geocentric theory of the solar system. In particular, several aspects of the Big Bang were added to ‘save the theory’ – such as inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, things that have never been observed in terrestrial physics (this does not mean that they are wrong, but it does mean they should be viewed with skepticism at the very least until there is experimental evidence for them). It is my belief that when the Large Hadron Collider goes to full power (later this year, if I recall correctly) that cosmologists will have some ‘splainin to do. I’m guessing that they wont find any dark matter (essentially disproving that it has enough energy – and hence enough mass – to have any significant effect in the Big Bang theory). Should they find evidence of the Higgs boson, I’ll have to re-evaluate my beliefs.
My objection to the Big Bang mostly has to do with time – on the evidentiary side, large scale structures have been observed in the universe -the smallest of which would have required over 70 billion years to have formed – and on the heuristic side, lifetime seems to scale naturally with size (which seems quite reasonable given relativity) compare the ‘lifetimes’ of sub-atomic particles, biological organisms, mountains and other geological features, the earth and the sun and there seems to be a pattern – I just don’t buy that the age of the universe is of the same order of magnitude as the age of the sun. I also believe that alternative cosmological theories are more consistent with the idea of time put forward by Nobel-laureate Ilya Prigogine than the Big Bang theory is (admittedly, I quickly get out of my depth discussing Prigogine’s theories).
As to what I do believe, cosmologically speaking – I tend to favor the ideas put forward by Hans Alfven (for which he won the Nobel prize) that electromagnetism is more important on large scales than has been previously thought. He basically explained how the Earth’s aurora worked via plasma processes observable in the lab. He originated the idea of the ‘cosmic triple jump’ from the scale of plasmas in the lab, to the scale of the Earth’s magnetosphere, to the scale of the galaxy, to the scale of the observable universe (each jump in scale is on the order of 10^9). His theories about the Earth’s magnetosphere and the solar system have been proven correct and laboratory experiments show results which can explain the formation of galaxies and the large scale ‘filaments’ of galaxies which make up the observed ‘superclusters’. I find myself much more likely to believe that processes which we observe in the lab are at work in the universe as a whole than processes which have never been observed on Earth. In any case, I leave you with the following video:
Slarti,
Except for all that cosmic background radiation. I thought you liked it when more established theories bore observational fruit. It’s arguable that the universe is cyclical, but that just renders the argument against “a” big bang semantic. If you have an alternative cosmological model, I’d like to hear it. It better be better than the story Penrose and Hawking and Thorne tell. Because all of theirs begins with a big bang.
Buddha,
I don’t believe that the universe began with the Big Bang. It is not an unscientific position to take.
What was that noise?
“In an unusual last-minute edit that has drawn flak from the White House and science educators, a federal advisory committee omitted data on Americans’ knowledge of evolution and the big bang from a key report. The data shows that Americans are far less likely than the rest of the world to accept that humans evolved from earlier species and that the universe began with a big bang.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/evolution-big-bang-polls-omitted.html
This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171782805022028.html
The predictable consequences of forcing companies to sell healthcare insurance to people with pre-exisiting conditions are unfolding.
…state officials have demanded that the insurers-under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments-resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products.
Massachusetts’ “insurance regulators have concluded the reason [that state’s] premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses” imagined by President Obama and Governor Patrick.
– The unsurprising fact that because Massachusetts’ universal healthcare mandate prohibits exclusion for pre-existing conditions, people simply “wait until they’re about to incur major medical expenses before buying insurance and transfer the costs to everyone else.”
– Once the medical emergency has passed, short-term enrollees drop their coverage – because they know they can demand “insurance” the next time they want it.
– Blue Cross Blue Shield reported “short-term customers … ran up costs more than four times the average” and dropped coverage “within three months.” Harvard Pilgrim’s experience with such hit-and-run enrollees is that they remained with the plan “fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher.”
Buddha & Mespo,
Bravo you guys really are the best!
As to Rep. Bart Stupak, I’m glad he is retiring. Although I bet he turns up again as a lobbyist or some such somewhere soon, given his many years as a C street tenant and his connection with THE FAMILY. Maybe if he stuck around he’d be an ethics casualty.
Truly, I don’t see how he “helped engineer the slim margin of passage for the health care legislation.” More like he repeatedly gummed up the works enough that he almost completely derailed it.
This was not an honorable or principled stand; Stupak repeatedly went before the cameras insisting falsely, that things related to abortion were in the bill that just weren’t there. IMHO he is either too lazy to read or a dangerous liar. Probably both!
There’s an old sayin’ “cleaned your clock”
Well, Reverend A&W, Buddha just wicked your wicker…
Byron:
“Doesnt Sam Harris say there is an objective morality?”
****************
Buy his new book, The Moral Landscape, and see for yourself.
Rev. Dr. AW Wicker
1, April 9, 2010 at 4:33 pm
What do you know about serving two masters. I doubt very seriously you know what the Bible states. It appears to me that the the GOP so called Christians and the teabaggers, specifically the “charming and deceitful” Sarah Palin are serving two masters…God and money. Also, those who are so pleased with the charming the so-called “godly Sarah Palin” are really deceived… you are deceived ” by your lust of the eyes the lust of her flesh and the pride your life.” Her speech and behavior is so irrational because she is so self-centered and self-absorbed, and definitely seek self-aggrandizement You don’t think…you just lust after her beauty.
Isn’t that what Adam in the Garden of Eve did, lusted after Eve and plunged everybody in sin. The blind lead the blind,you all fall in the ditch. Check it out. Read and study the Bible. I dare you! The love of money is the root of all evil
=============================================================
I’m not certain if that rant was to me because of the two masters thing or not but I’m going to take this opportunity to address your points. First … I earned a “M.Div” when I was in my thirties. I suspect you believe you are protecting “The Word” with such talk but if The Christ is indeed moving within you then you should have sensed the idea that arguing religion is a sure fire way of destroying whatever testifying you are trying to put forth. This is a common “baby christian” mistake.
Buddha,
Bravo!
Dr. Wicker:
“If this is your position,
then so let it be. I guess you are your own god…self sufficient one. Also, who are you to tell me what I should believe. You have a position on life, state it. Don’t try to tear down my position. I believe in a Holy God and the Holy Bible, literally. That is my position, that is my belief.”
******************
While we may all have the equal right to believe things; all beliefs are not equal. Some are downright silly, or unfounded. What I believe is that no belief is immune from criticism simply because it has subscribers. By virtue of their implausible existence and their innate dignity, people are entitled to respect – not beliefs. They must enter the crucible of reason and withstand the scrutiny. If not, they fall harmlessly into the slag heap where so many other mythologies have ended up. Zeus, Poseidon, Baal, etc., have all enjoyed fervent followers who sincerely believed because they were without other more plausible explanations for the order of the natural world. You, on the other hand, have at your immediate disposal, information denied to men for centuries, that rebuts any literal interpretation of a book written by men in the First Century. You CHOOSE to reject it out of some sense of piety or fear or maybe just obstinacy. That’s not religion, my dear sir, that’s tomfoolery for which you demand respect. I will have none of it!
Finally, it’s worth remembering that you are free to subscribe to your beliefs because of folks like me who believe in the ideas of the Enlightenment and secular humanism. Were we under your dominion, we would be free only to believe what you believe.
What Buddha said.