I've spoken on the naturalistic fallacy before but I recently came across a slightly more insidious variety, which doesn't have the same red flags as the fallacy in the forms it's usually encountered, such as revering nature because it's old, or pure, in ways which have no scientific basis. There's simply no good reason to believe that killing a wild turkey is healthier, or more nutritional, than a farm-raised turkey simply because the wild turkey is closer to nature. Perhaps it is, but the data would be found within the nutritional data for the turkey (less fat, perhaps, or more muscle definition) but not simply because the wild turkey is the natural one; it could also be riddled with parasites for the same reason. Natural becomes a non-issue, because we need to look at the specific traits belonging to that turkey, or that group of turkeys.
That aside, the fallacy I've been running into basically this: Trait X evolved, therefore it's beneficial. For instance, gender roles. I heard a brief argument recently that said that we needed to protect gender roles because they had evolved for a reason. To which my response was a resounding "Maybe."
The idea that something has evolved, therefore it is good, is patently false. Violence has evolved. That something has evolved and stuck around is simply a testament to one thing; it makes the bearers of those traits have more babies. In a world where tendencies toward violence were adaptive, violence was selected for. That world may or may not still be around. Evolution doesn't produce the best product; it produces the best compromise between effective and cheap, which is why men have nipples, we still hiccough, and very few of us are 8 feet tall.
Regarding gender roles, evolution almost certainly wasn't a factor, at least as far as strictly genetic evolution. A desire to wear dresses is not a chromosomal trait; it's a cultural one. And cultural norms change much more rapidly than genetic ones. Irrespective of that, though, the premise of the argument belies a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and is logically incoherent. Perhaps there are good reasons for gender roles; I doubt it. I think that as a society we've grown to the point where conformity isn't required, but that's the wrong reason to argue for it. Just as I mentioned in my blog on Climate Change, the reasons we believe something are important. It would be false for me to claim that one hot summer is good evidence for Climate Change, even if I'm right and Climate Change is occurring.
Evolution is a pervasive, powerful force, and understanding it is critical to understanding ourselves, biologically and socially. What it isn't is an excuse for bad behavior. It may explain an origin (and in the case of gender roles, badly at best), but it doesn't address the concern of whether or not the behavior is something we should encourage, and thus has almost zero weight as evidence for any cultural behavior. Deifying evolution as a basis for social actions is the naturalistic fallacy pure and simple, only masquerading as enlightened.
Showing posts with label Fallacies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fallacies. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sexism
Feminism, and usually soon after, sexism, keep coming up lately in both my personal life and on the interwebs. I have some strongly held beliefs on the topics, which I find are seldom represented elsewhere, if at all. I am a feminist, though many feminists I know will disagree with me. So, let me climb into my asbestos suit before I continue.
First, let me define my terms. In a nutshell, feminism is the the belief thatboth all genders are equal. It is not women-are-superior-to-men-in-every-single-way-ism, which also appears and fits into the broader category of sexism, one gender being better than the others. Again, I'm simplifying (read: Wikipedia disagrees with me) but these definitions are sufficient for the discussion at hand.
A trickier term to define is privilege. As the name implies, privilege is always beneficial for the person being described. Privilege is also usually invisible, in this context, to the person benefiting from it, such that unless I compare myself to someone outside of my group, I won't notice it. For instance speaking English has many benefits; these benefits could collectively be referred to as the privilege of English Fluency (or something similar). One benefit is that it's much easier to find a job in the US. It may not seem obvious, if you speak English in the US, but try not speaking it, but if you look into many workplaces, even without the confounding factor of discrimination, people who speak English just understand someone who also speaks English better. They follow directions better- even if they're less intelligent, because they have a common ground. The Tower of Babel myth comes to mind.
Privileges come with all sorts of classes, whether something biological, as good looks, social, as speaking English, or through accomplishment, like being the CEO to a Fortune 500 company, possibly language as well. All of these things have their privileges, but as a buzzword in discussions regarding feminism, privilege refers to the rights/benefits/entitlements of men, solely based on their gender, generally referred to as Male Privilege.
OK, now that the tiresome work of defining terms is done, lets talk about the debate. It's a heated topic, with people on both sides making logical mistakes they'd almost never make in other areas of their life. Ad Hominem attacks are common- "You think women have it easy? You're just a misogynist." "You want me to change my behavior? You're a feminazi." (FemiNazi is also frequently said with a self-satisfied chortle, as though they invented the term themselves). These are brilliant people- but they seem to expect simple solutions to complex situations. And sexism is a convoluted situation.
Consider for a moment this checklist. Many items on it are legitimate. Most are. If you're a male, I highly encourage you to read through it for a bit- it's quite instructive. There are a lot of things which are skewed in our favor, simply because of our apparent gender. But there are some that smack of over-reaching (#23, for instance). And some that are just outright wrong (#13, 20); they could be pleas for sympathy, attempts to flesh out an otherwise remarkable list, or something somewhere between these two- I wouldn't go so far as to say they are deliberately deceptive, however.
What I find most remarkable about the list is the absence of female privilege. If we're being fair-minded, for instance, #4, (from the point of view of a male) "If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities." A significant corollary, indeed one thing that terminates many careers for men, is that there are 20 times as many males in prison as females. For no reason other than birth, I am 20 times more likely to go to prison than half of the US population. #22 mentions driving discrimination, but it remains mum on 9% lower insurance. Or #33 "I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name." Changing your name after marriage is viewed askance at the very best or is illegal at worst- if you're male.
My point here isn't to nitpick (though believe me, I want to nitpick, it's sort of my thing), but to gently point these things out. There are some very good biological reasons for some of the privilege- and some awful social ones. There are some based in social culture that aren't based in animosity toward women. Awareness is important, but once that awareness is raised, we need to reasonably recruit the other side to listen to our points of view. Being a dick (take that, #29) doesn't advance anyone's cause, and for the most part, aside from the most hostile parties on either side, we want some measure of equality, and we're probably willing to listen. That said, fricking listen. Progress comes much more slowly from a never-ending series of self-destructive collisions.
In large part, sexism is the result of a series of social constructs generally built around the way we have lived for centuries. Much of them can be dispensed with in a generation or so- the wrongheadedness about women not being able to vote, or marry, or drive, or show their ankles, these have all gone by the wayside. And, in large part, they needed help from progressively-minded folks.
Chivalry is a favorite point of non-feminists. They like to talk about holding open doors. Many of the extreme feminists took this to the other extreme, making a point of opening the door themselves. What changes? If you don't want to be pampered, well, it's going to take a lot more than opening your own doors to do it. (On a sinking ship, I wonder, would the same impulse be as strong to allow whoever was first in line to the lifeboats?) Personally, I hold the door for anyone, because you're (except for the one turtle) a human being.
But this discrimination has a good point, biologically! The general idea that women's life is more important than male life is true, biologically-speaking. A population can have its males decimated (literally divided in ten) and continue to survive, reproducing the numbers back to 50/50. Do the same thing to the female population and it's nearly certain extinction within a couple of generations. Nature makes us different. There's nothing wrong with embracing that difference. And when there are more important battles to be fought out there, the frustrating thing is watching smart people butt heads over it day in and day out with no gains made, when deep down they're both rational and intelligent and want the same (ultimate) thing- a better place to have more arguments.
My advice? Take care of other people's rights. There are plenty of places where people love each other and can't marry, where people don't love each other and can't divorce, and brilliant minds that can't get an education. I'll hold the damn door if I want to. I'm not doing it to be superior, I'm doing it because I like turtles. If it offends you, let me know, and I'll let it close in your face the next time- because that wouldn't be rude. And, for the love of Thor, leave the English language out of it. But that is a post for another day.
First, let me define my terms. In a nutshell, feminism is the the belief that
A trickier term to define is privilege. As the name implies, privilege is always beneficial for the person being described. Privilege is also usually invisible, in this context, to the person benefiting from it, such that unless I compare myself to someone outside of my group, I won't notice it. For instance speaking English has many benefits; these benefits could collectively be referred to as the privilege of English Fluency (or something similar). One benefit is that it's much easier to find a job in the US. It may not seem obvious, if you speak English in the US, but try not speaking it, but if you look into many workplaces, even without the confounding factor of discrimination, people who speak English just understand someone who also speaks English better. They follow directions better- even if they're less intelligent, because they have a common ground. The Tower of Babel myth comes to mind.
Privileges come with all sorts of classes, whether something biological, as good looks, social, as speaking English, or through accomplishment, like being the CEO to a Fortune 500 company, possibly language as well. All of these things have their privileges, but as a buzzword in discussions regarding feminism, privilege refers to the rights/benefits/entitlements of men, solely based on their gender, generally referred to as Male Privilege.
OK, now that the tiresome work of defining terms is done, lets talk about the debate. It's a heated topic, with people on both sides making logical mistakes they'd almost never make in other areas of their life. Ad Hominem attacks are common- "You think women have it easy? You're just a misogynist." "You want me to change my behavior? You're a feminazi." (FemiNazi is also frequently said with a self-satisfied chortle, as though they invented the term themselves). These are brilliant people- but they seem to expect simple solutions to complex situations. And sexism is a convoluted situation.
Consider for a moment this checklist. Many items on it are legitimate. Most are. If you're a male, I highly encourage you to read through it for a bit- it's quite instructive. There are a lot of things which are skewed in our favor, simply because of our apparent gender. But there are some that smack of over-reaching (#23, for instance). And some that are just outright wrong (#13, 20); they could be pleas for sympathy, attempts to flesh out an otherwise remarkable list, or something somewhere between these two- I wouldn't go so far as to say they are deliberately deceptive, however.
What I find most remarkable about the list is the absence of female privilege. If we're being fair-minded, for instance, #4, (from the point of view of a male) "If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities." A significant corollary, indeed one thing that terminates many careers for men, is that there are 20 times as many males in prison as females. For no reason other than birth, I am 20 times more likely to go to prison than half of the US population. #22 mentions driving discrimination, but it remains mum on 9% lower insurance. Or #33 "I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name." Changing your name after marriage is viewed askance at the very best or is illegal at worst- if you're male.
My point here isn't to nitpick (though believe me, I want to nitpick, it's sort of my thing), but to gently point these things out. There are some very good biological reasons for some of the privilege- and some awful social ones. There are some based in social culture that aren't based in animosity toward women. Awareness is important, but once that awareness is raised, we need to reasonably recruit the other side to listen to our points of view. Being a dick (take that, #29) doesn't advance anyone's cause, and for the most part, aside from the most hostile parties on either side, we want some measure of equality, and we're probably willing to listen. That said, fricking listen. Progress comes much more slowly from a never-ending series of self-destructive collisions.
In large part, sexism is the result of a series of social constructs generally built around the way we have lived for centuries. Much of them can be dispensed with in a generation or so- the wrongheadedness about women not being able to vote, or marry, or drive, or show their ankles, these have all gone by the wayside. And, in large part, they needed help from progressively-minded folks.
Chivalry is a favorite point of non-feminists. They like to talk about holding open doors. Many of the extreme feminists took this to the other extreme, making a point of opening the door themselves. What changes? If you don't want to be pampered, well, it's going to take a lot more than opening your own doors to do it. (On a sinking ship, I wonder, would the same impulse be as strong to allow whoever was first in line to the lifeboats?) Personally, I hold the door for anyone, because you're (except for the one turtle) a human being.
But this discrimination has a good point, biologically! The general idea that women's life is more important than male life is true, biologically-speaking. A population can have its males decimated (literally divided in ten) and continue to survive, reproducing the numbers back to 50/50. Do the same thing to the female population and it's nearly certain extinction within a couple of generations. Nature makes us different. There's nothing wrong with embracing that difference. And when there are more important battles to be fought out there, the frustrating thing is watching smart people butt heads over it day in and day out with no gains made, when deep down they're both rational and intelligent and want the same (ultimate) thing- a better place to have more arguments.
My advice? Take care of other people's rights. There are plenty of places where people love each other and can't marry, where people don't love each other and can't divorce, and brilliant minds that can't get an education. I'll hold the damn door if I want to. I'm not doing it to be superior, I'm doing it because I like turtles. If it offends you, let me know, and I'll let it close in your face the next time- because that wouldn't be rude. And, for the love of Thor, leave the English language out of it. But that is a post for another day.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Overpasses are bad, m'kay?
We are
all susceptible to wrong thinking- one could say it’s fundamental to what makes
us human- and I’m no exception. I do
pride myself on generally knowing whether an idea is coherent or not (something
I’ve worked very hard at), but I make occasional (read: lots of) mistakes. Last night could have killed me, so I guess
it was more than your usual misinformation (whether I believe in Bigfoot is
seldom life threatening) or even the more practical knowledge (knowing when a
so-called “business deal” is a scam).
I suppose
I should set the scene. I live in Altus, a
small town in southwestern Oklahoma, and I frequently have medical appointments
that the local area can’t field, so I have to drive for about an hour to get to
Lawton, a slightly larger small town that manages to pass as a city (no offense, well, not too much offense
to my Okie friends). Yesterday
afternoon, there was a warning that there might be hail in the area, and when I
looked at the weather radar, there was a heavy storm coming right for us. I figured if I left immediately, I should be
able to stay just ahead of the storm. On
the way, my supervisor called to tell me that a tornado had touched down, just
outside of a small town and the highway I was on. I had literally passed the town 4 or 5
minutes before, but besides the ominously dark clouds behind me, it was clear
in front so I pushed on. I heard one of
my favorite songs, Avenged Sevenfold’s Nightmare,
on the radio and saw a perfect 180 degree double rainbow (the second in my
life!) and escaped the downpour with only a few miles of rain, which would last
most of the day for home- it was a great ride.
Most overpasses don’t have anything to hang onto if you are getting pulled by the wind, and the one I was under was no exception.
The best response in my case was to stay away from the tornado, of course- I should have driven at right angles away from the thunderstorm. In my case, that would have meant turning around, and probably sleeping in my car, or a hotel room, in Lawton that night, but it would have been the safest course of action. Since I insisted in driving into the storm, the next best course of action would have been, assuming I saw a tornado, to stop the car, get out, and run for a ditch somewhere a good distance from my car, and lie face down protecting my head until the tornado passed. The reason this (very counter-intuitive) option is safer is because tornados lose wind speed as they get closer to the ground- and at the ground level, the wind speeds are zero. The further you get from the ground, though, the faster the relative speed rises. This is the reason to stay out of the car- they’re high enough to guarantee they’ll be hit with very high wind speeds, making you even more likely to suffer injury by getting rolled over (by which I mean tumbled like a child’s toy, possibly being picked completely up and slammed into something), showered by broken glass or trapped inside. Lying face-down in a ditch is safer because debris is less likely to get dropped on you and you aren’t likely to get blown around, but is still a “last ditch stand” that should be your final, desperate option.
 |
| The double rainbow I saw. |
I
arrived at my destination unhindered at about 3:30 PM, but I still knew I’d
dodged a bullet earlier. I don’t believe
the tornado did cross the highway,
but it could have. By the time my
appointment was over, the weather had passed over, but was still all along the
route back home. So I decided to hang
out in town until things looked better outside.
By the time I left, it was 9 o’clock at night. I felt 5 hours would be plenty of time for
the storm to get out of the way, and never bothered checking my weather
app. For those keeping score, this was
my third mistake that day.
I am
usually a fan of night driving, but this time, it would prove to be a bad
idea. Daylight Savings Time had just
ended, making it much darker than I’d planned, such that I can’t tell what the
clouds look like. There’s no rain and
very little lightning visible. So I
start the 50 mile drive. After 10 miles
or so, the lightning has steadily been increasing, but I can’t see any bolts or
hear thunder, which means it’s far off, and mostly to the North. As it’s not too threatening, I press on. I get about 15 miles in, and the clouds start
to drizzle- nothing that I even need to put my wipers for, but the lightning continues
increasing in frequency, and the wind picks up, still blowing from the south
southwest. It’s perfectly normal to be
driving along in Oklahoma and the wind just decides to blow you off the road,
so that wasn’t alarming in the slightest. Then at what had to be about 20 miles in, a
wall of water hits my car from the South.
My wipers are on full bore and I still only get glimpses of clarity
before they’re filled in by more water.
I slow down, which I almost never do for rain, but I felt myself hydroplaning,
and the water on the road looked deep- we’re prone to flash floods, and this
could turn into one, though probably not enough to float my car, enough to push
it off the road.
So,
driving along at 35 Mph, I make it another 5 miles or so. It could only have been about 10 minutes
before the rain abruptly stopped, but in that time the wind changed direction
twice, blowing straight back toward me (East), and then switching to blowing
towards the south. That was when I
started getting nervous. Then,
lightning bolts, now clearly visible, were in front of me. For a split second, I see what could have
been a funnel cloud highlighted to the northeast- and I start watching the
skies. At least in the day, you have a
clear view of what the clouds are doing, and I just have to wait for an
opportune lightning bolt to strike behind it.
It didn’t take long- and sadly, I wasn’t disappointed. It wasn’t a full funnel yet, but it definitely
appeared like a semi-triangular cloud formation, pointing down in a horizon
that was otherwise featureless.
Now I’m
very nervous. My instinct says to find
shelter, to put something between me and it besides my car. I know the route (and by route, I mean 50
miles of straight, mostly featureless road), and I know that just a few miles
on, near the town the tornado touched down, there’s an overpass where another
state highway crosses. I figure if I can
just push toward that, I can ride it out.
This is mistake number 4, maybe 5 if you count not turning around when
it started getting worse; 6 if you count trying to come back that night at all. I’ll go with 6.
So, I
make it to the overpass uneventfully, but I keep watching
that-spot-in-the-sky-where-I-saw-what-might’ve-been-a-funnel-cloud-forming.
And then
I just wait. The rain had returned, the
wind had changed directions a few more times, and it was moving fast enough to
blow the rain sideways.
I
remember thinking, wouldn’t this bridge
make a sort of funnel? I knew
tornados were often very wide- larger than the bridge in every dimension- but I
figured, at least with cover, I’d have a better shot. After all, the vacuum is above you, so you
should get pulled up, mostly, right? I
waited, hoping things would get better.
They got worse, but I just kept alternately listening to the radio and
listening for the sound a tornado makes.
I’ve been told it sounds like a train blasting by, a high pitched
roar. I figured, if I heard it, I’d get
out and hide under the car. I spent some
time in the back seat, belted in as well.
I had no idea what to do, and was mostly trying to occupy myself by
thinking I was doing something useful.
The bridge was number 7, the bit about the vacuum, while not entirely
wrong, was 8.
After an
hour, things weren’t getting better, and I was going to risk it. I wasn’t going to spend all night in the
car. Press on, like I’ve been
trained. So I did. I was a little more than halfway home, and
made it without further incident.
I found
out this morning not only is what I did a bad idea, it may well be the worst.
Well, OK, not worst- standing atop the bridge holding a metal golf club
aloft after attaching my entire zipper collection to my metal suit while soaking in a vat of
lighter fluid and smoking crystal meth would be worse, but a car is a deathtrap
in a tornado, and the overpass only makes it worse. As far as tornado safety goes though, es no bueno. The
Storm Prediction Center of Oklahoma has posted a detailed and fairly
complicated analysis of “Tornado Vs Overpass” behavior here, but I’ll
simplify it (it’s about 25 pages long, so what follows really is a
simplification).
As I
mentioned earlier, the instinctive thought is “tornados suck you up”. This is true- except that it does not only do that. The funnel cloud, if one is even present,
represents the center of a vortex, a low-pressure area, which is causing wind
to swirl around it. The general
direction is up, but there is a huge sideways component that can extend “a
considerable distance” (when they talk about half mile wide tornados, for
instance) from the visible tornado! The
winds may be at their fastest at the edges, in fact. Think about swinging a rope around in a
circle- the tip is moving much faster than the base where you’re holding
it. This isn’t exactly the same of
course, as there is no solid lever involved, but the principle is similar.
Second,
the debris from a tornado (one might argue the most dangerous component) is
likely to get snagged by the bridge, dumping cars or trees or pieces of
buildings or rabid prairie dogs on you.Most overpasses don’t have anything to hang onto if you are getting pulled by the wind, and the one I was under was no exception.
The best response in my case was to stay away from the tornado, of course- I should have driven at right angles away from the thunderstorm. In my case, that would have meant turning around, and probably sleeping in my car, or a hotel room, in Lawton that night, but it would have been the safest course of action. Since I insisted in driving into the storm, the next best course of action would have been, assuming I saw a tornado, to stop the car, get out, and run for a ditch somewhere a good distance from my car, and lie face down protecting my head until the tornado passed. The reason this (very counter-intuitive) option is safer is because tornados lose wind speed as they get closer to the ground- and at the ground level, the wind speeds are zero. The further you get from the ground, though, the faster the relative speed rises. This is the reason to stay out of the car- they’re high enough to guarantee they’ll be hit with very high wind speeds, making you even more likely to suffer injury by getting rolled over (by which I mean tumbled like a child’s toy, possibly being picked completely up and slammed into something), showered by broken glass or trapped inside. Lying face-down in a ditch is safer because debris is less likely to get dropped on you and you aren’t likely to get blown around, but is still a “last ditch stand” that should be your final, desperate option.
I made
it home safe, largely because the storm didn’t generate a tornado at that time
(as I said, it had earlier, almost at that very spot), but I did make a couple
of decent decisions along the way.
Pushing through the storm slowly, until visibility improved, and
increasing my speed to something high but safe (the speed limit) until I’d
gotten out from under the storm.
Tornados
are one of those instances where your “gut” will lead you wrong, and the only
remedy is research- at least enough to understand your risks. I have now (not too late, luckily), and
hopefully this helps you if your ever find yourself in one of these situations.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Power of a Story
As humans, it's often said that we are social creatures, or animals, and like many cliches it's quite true, and fundamentally so. But we are also more.
Consider this picture. I came across it while placing flags for Veterans' Day. It's a simple, cement tombstone, with the captioned words written apparently with a stick. The way the 'd's were carved, it seemed the person was used to holding a brush, and was probably right handed, pulling the letters toward themself, but by Borned, (which took me a bit to decipher), was probably an artist rather than a writer. The artist theory seemed made more likely by the uniformity, it seems they took great care making sure it looked right, perhaps from deference, perhaps from lack of practice. It took me a Puzzled, I find myself wondering, "Who was this L. Buck?" The grave was half-covered by a bush which was being tended, the Immediately, what comes to mind is the image of a steelworker, working hard for all 63 years of his life. He was beloved by his family as a father and husband but was never able to scrape more than a few nickels together, and he died in abject poverty. His one child was struck down early in life to a fever and his wife, uneducated and heartbroken, wrote what she could to commemorate his life. She got the important parts.
I thought about it a moment, and realized that, this being Oklahoma, he was probably a farmer rather than a steelworker, and his death probably coincided with the Dust Bowl. He died, penniless and unable to afford the healthcare necessary to survive.
Then I realized, why did he have to be a good guy? He could have been a cruel taskmaster, driving his workers to their deaths every day they toiled in his fields (still a farmer), and he died, uncelebrated and unmourned. His grave was marked only because his wife had sought solace in her faith after years in an abusive marriage from which she could not escape, and it was the Christian thing to do. She lived off of his fortune comfortably, donating much of it to charity upon her death.
OK, there's some projection here, a fear of living a life without importance, and granted, some elements in my story are more convincing than others- that he was a farmer, for instance, and that whoever "inscribed" the tombstone was uneducated, and his death was related to the Dust Bowl, but none of them are demanded. The idea that he is even a male is hard to justify. But I dispense with the second story and return to the first, anyway- I can't help it! It's a tragic tale, with a lifetime of accomplishment, love, work, pain, summed up in a legacy of 3 words, 2 numbers and a letter, a testament to ignominy.
One more story. A few months ago, I impulsively stopped in at a garage sale here on base. The family had clearly just had a baby, and seemed to be trying to make room. They were a young couple, about my age (27 at the time), and had a bunch of kitsch left out for people to buy. Perusing it, I was fascinated by these hideous porcelain shell decorations (similar to porcelain angels, but with a poorly executed nautical motif), being sold for 75 cents a piece. Again, I began concocting a story- the couple, young and in love, take a honeymoon trip to the Carribean- yes, to Trinidad; I felt vindicated, as one of the shells was inscribed with the name. Moved but deeply uninterested in the shells, I tried very hard to find something else I might actually use, but I felt compelled to buy something, even if it was just a token, to wish this couple best of luck. I settled on a key chain, which they wanted 10 cents for. I gave them a dollar and left.
Of course, I could be (and probably am, in all three stories) completely wrong. That's not the point.
The point is, the desire for a satisfying narrative is very powerful. We look for patterns. We want to make sense of things, and narratives often do that better than facts, at least at first (especially as capricious as life can be). I think it's one reason we sometimes find ourselves believing foolish things. It's also a way salesmen take advantage of us- playing to our observations and assumptions, like wearing a wedding ring when they aren't married. We just sort of fill in the gaps as necessary, and don't think too hard on them unless we make an effort. It's easy to get swept along in the momentum. Maybe I'll catch myself the next time, but maybe I don't want to. After all, the poignancy of the stories seems to give homage to the hardships of our own lives, which we can't always make sense of, and make it seem just a little bit easier to handle.
So next time you find yourself filling in the blanks on your own, put in that little bit of effort and see how warranted your final version really is- maybe you shouldn't put too much stock in it, but you should certainly enjoy the story.
 |
| L. Buck; Borned; 1871; Died; 1934 |
I thought about it a moment, and realized that, this being Oklahoma, he was probably a farmer rather than a steelworker, and his death probably coincided with the Dust Bowl. He died, penniless and unable to afford the healthcare necessary to survive.
Then I realized, why did he have to be a good guy? He could have been a cruel taskmaster, driving his workers to their deaths every day they toiled in his fields (still a farmer), and he died, uncelebrated and unmourned. His grave was marked only because his wife had sought solace in her faith after years in an abusive marriage from which she could not escape, and it was the Christian thing to do. She lived off of his fortune comfortably, donating much of it to charity upon her death.
OK, there's some projection here, a fear of living a life without importance, and granted, some elements in my story are more convincing than others- that he was a farmer, for instance, and that whoever "inscribed" the tombstone was uneducated, and his death was related to the Dust Bowl, but none of them are demanded. The idea that he is even a male is hard to justify. But I dispense with the second story and return to the first, anyway- I can't help it! It's a tragic tale, with a lifetime of accomplishment, love, work, pain, summed up in a legacy of 3 words, 2 numbers and a letter, a testament to ignominy.
One more story. A few months ago, I impulsively stopped in at a garage sale here on base. The family had clearly just had a baby, and seemed to be trying to make room. They were a young couple, about my age (27 at the time), and had a bunch of kitsch left out for people to buy. Perusing it, I was fascinated by these hideous porcelain shell decorations (similar to porcelain angels, but with a poorly executed nautical motif), being sold for 75 cents a piece. Again, I began concocting a story- the couple, young and in love, take a honeymoon trip to the Carribean- yes, to Trinidad; I felt vindicated, as one of the shells was inscribed with the name. Moved but deeply uninterested in the shells, I tried very hard to find something else I might actually use, but I felt compelled to buy something, even if it was just a token, to wish this couple best of luck. I settled on a key chain, which they wanted 10 cents for. I gave them a dollar and left.
Of course, I could be (and probably am, in all three stories) completely wrong. That's not the point.
The point is, the desire for a satisfying narrative is very powerful. We look for patterns. We want to make sense of things, and narratives often do that better than facts, at least at first (especially as capricious as life can be). I think it's one reason we sometimes find ourselves believing foolish things. It's also a way salesmen take advantage of us- playing to our observations and assumptions, like wearing a wedding ring when they aren't married. We just sort of fill in the gaps as necessary, and don't think too hard on them unless we make an effort. It's easy to get swept along in the momentum. Maybe I'll catch myself the next time, but maybe I don't want to. After all, the poignancy of the stories seems to give homage to the hardships of our own lives, which we can't always make sense of, and make it seem just a little bit easier to handle.
So next time you find yourself filling in the blanks on your own, put in that little bit of effort and see how warranted your final version really is- maybe you shouldn't put too much stock in it, but you should certainly enjoy the story.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Part 2
Continued from last time...
The idea that organisms evolve first according to their environs and second according to the competition is also what the HuffPo shockingly cried that Darwin got wrong. Of course, Darwin got plenty of stuff wrong. And yes, he did indeed "get this wrong", or at least, get the priority backwards. He was quite aware that the environment was a significant cause of selective pressures, but he mostly put it down to competition between species. That he was a brave man willing to risk everything to stand up against the status quo does not make him infallible, and certainly not a man to be worshiped (though, I suppose personal bravery is a much better qualification than political piety, and yet the Pope stands as an edifice to humans overinflated sense of importance). But besides brave, he was also tremendously careful. It was only after 20 years, vetting his ideas, researching, gathering as much evidence as he possibly could that he dared to publish. Careful, brave, and wrong? Certainly. The web of life is very complicated, and remember, this was 150 years ago: they had barely plumbed the mysteries of electricity. They had no computers, no electron microscopes. In the absence of the concept of DNA, Darwin got incredibly close in some ways, and very far off in others. The fossil record was very shallow at that time as well. A man, so concerned with self preservation that he didn't share his idea with anyone outside a circle of close confidants, with limited means and without the benefit of evidence gathered by thousands of scientists working to verify (or disprove) got some things wrong. Barely even worth commenting on, except for this bizarre tendency in the western world of assuming that smart people don't (or can't) make mistakes. What is amazing is how much he got right, without any of the advantages afforded our position. Then again, he did spend 20 years honing his theory.
The very sober abstract is specifically examining the relationship between tetrapods and their roles in nature, which is a general concept, as I detailed last time, that has been accepted for a long while, though it appears it is only recently being studied to get specific data.
The theory of evolution contained a dire warning, as well- a foreshadowing of the industrial revolution which was in full swing by the time he had published. The study of ecology led to the discovery of the peppered moth, a moth which evolved to be black simply because the trees had turned black from the soot, and it was harder to see than its white competition. This seemingly minor discovery showed that not only had humans discovered evolution, their actions would directly impact the rest of the web of life. One hundred years later, and we realize the implications of human caused global warming- and now, we find ourselves in the middle of a mass extinction. But that's another post entirely.
There was a chilling side to Darwin's discovery- specifically, the Survival of the Fittest: the weak die and the strong survive, as Bill Maher quipped (point 6 in this post). This led to the British, Americans, and finally the Germans coming up with some very disturbing ideas. The British, thankfully, didn't go too far. The Americans and Germans certainly did- for Americans, it was their Eugenics programs.
Eugenics led to travesties of human rights. Men and women were rounded up and sterilized, due to "feeble mindedness." While the thought of eliminating all the idiots might have a surface pleasure (particularly after being forced to suffer at the hands of a few), the idea of government funded practice of it is deeply disturbing. Minorities and others were taken as well, removed from their families and placed in foster homes with white people, in the hopes that they would escape the stigma of their past, and be absorbed into the "dominant culture". Evolution was used to justify terrible things. If you want to read about the Germans with their perfect Aryan race, and their breeding programs, I'm running out of room in this post. I can go into more detail if anyone's interested.
But that leads to a significant flaw in the thinking of that day. The flaw is that just because a law exists in nature that we should necessarily live our lives by it for the best. Consider gravity. The theory of gravity basically says that two objects will attract each other. Does this mean that we should go outside, find the most massive thing we can see, and rush over to it? Or simply lie on the ground, in fulfillment of some cosmic purpose? That's foolish on its face.
It is no different to assume that simply because in nature the best adapted survive, we should try to ensure this. Just as with gravity, the law will run its course in any case. It is a cruel, merciless world, run according to a law that tests every aspect of every living organism. The price for failure is death, and death for all your descendants. By the very fact that we are a part of nature we are subject to its laws- but just as we evolved to overcome the fetters of gravity to walk on the moon and explore the stars, we have matured culturally to the point where finally we might cast off the bestial chains of evolution. Evolution has also given us kindness, mercy, music, and dozens of things that make us quite capable of living our lives without ever needing to harm another. Our ability to understand evolution should encourage us to choose which traits that we, as a species, as animals, as individuals, will live by.
The idea that organisms evolve first according to their environs and second according to the competition is also what the HuffPo shockingly cried that Darwin got wrong. Of course, Darwin got plenty of stuff wrong. And yes, he did indeed "get this wrong", or at least, get the priority backwards. He was quite aware that the environment was a significant cause of selective pressures, but he mostly put it down to competition between species. That he was a brave man willing to risk everything to stand up against the status quo does not make him infallible, and certainly not a man to be worshiped (though, I suppose personal bravery is a much better qualification than political piety, and yet the Pope stands as an edifice to humans overinflated sense of importance). But besides brave, he was also tremendously careful. It was only after 20 years, vetting his ideas, researching, gathering as much evidence as he possibly could that he dared to publish. Careful, brave, and wrong? Certainly. The web of life is very complicated, and remember, this was 150 years ago: they had barely plumbed the mysteries of electricity. They had no computers, no electron microscopes. In the absence of the concept of DNA, Darwin got incredibly close in some ways, and very far off in others. The fossil record was very shallow at that time as well. A man, so concerned with self preservation that he didn't share his idea with anyone outside a circle of close confidants, with limited means and without the benefit of evidence gathered by thousands of scientists working to verify (or disprove) got some things wrong. Barely even worth commenting on, except for this bizarre tendency in the western world of assuming that smart people don't (or can't) make mistakes. What is amazing is how much he got right, without any of the advantages afforded our position. Then again, he did spend 20 years honing his theory.
The very sober abstract is specifically examining the relationship between tetrapods and their roles in nature, which is a general concept, as I detailed last time, that has been accepted for a long while, though it appears it is only recently being studied to get specific data.
The theory of evolution contained a dire warning, as well- a foreshadowing of the industrial revolution which was in full swing by the time he had published. The study of ecology led to the discovery of the peppered moth, a moth which evolved to be black simply because the trees had turned black from the soot, and it was harder to see than its white competition. This seemingly minor discovery showed that not only had humans discovered evolution, their actions would directly impact the rest of the web of life. One hundred years later, and we realize the implications of human caused global warming- and now, we find ourselves in the middle of a mass extinction. But that's another post entirely.
There was a chilling side to Darwin's discovery- specifically, the Survival of the Fittest: the weak die and the strong survive, as Bill Maher quipped (point 6 in this post). This led to the British, Americans, and finally the Germans coming up with some very disturbing ideas. The British, thankfully, didn't go too far. The Americans and Germans certainly did- for Americans, it was their Eugenics programs.
Eugenics led to travesties of human rights. Men and women were rounded up and sterilized, due to "feeble mindedness." While the thought of eliminating all the idiots might have a surface pleasure (particularly after being forced to suffer at the hands of a few), the idea of government funded practice of it is deeply disturbing. Minorities and others were taken as well, removed from their families and placed in foster homes with white people, in the hopes that they would escape the stigma of their past, and be absorbed into the "dominant culture". Evolution was used to justify terrible things. If you want to read about the Germans with their perfect Aryan race, and their breeding programs, I'm running out of room in this post. I can go into more detail if anyone's interested.
But that leads to a significant flaw in the thinking of that day. The flaw is that just because a law exists in nature that we should necessarily live our lives by it for the best. Consider gravity. The theory of gravity basically says that two objects will attract each other. Does this mean that we should go outside, find the most massive thing we can see, and rush over to it? Or simply lie on the ground, in fulfillment of some cosmic purpose? That's foolish on its face.
It is no different to assume that simply because in nature the best adapted survive, we should try to ensure this. Just as with gravity, the law will run its course in any case. It is a cruel, merciless world, run according to a law that tests every aspect of every living organism. The price for failure is death, and death for all your descendants. By the very fact that we are a part of nature we are subject to its laws- but just as we evolved to overcome the fetters of gravity to walk on the moon and explore the stars, we have matured culturally to the point where finally we might cast off the bestial chains of evolution. Evolution has also given us kindness, mercy, music, and dozens of things that make us quite capable of living our lives without ever needing to harm another. Our ability to understand evolution should encourage us to choose which traits that we, as a species, as animals, as individuals, will live by.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
What's the harm? This is why science is important.
This is exactly the kind of thing that depresses me about humanity. To sum up:
Granted, the egregious abuse in this story may be telling of a serious mental health issue, suffered by the Trans, or even dos Santos- that's beside my point. I'm not interested in placing guilt, or even blame- the fortune teller had a job to do, the Trans had a business to run, and the victim is right to sue for damages.
What I want to examine is the kind of person that could take something like this seriously. Why would anyone even believe in a fortune teller, for one thing? For the exact same reason one believes in magnet therapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, witches, or breaking mirrors for bad luck (or glasses for good luck). Because they've been told it's true. That's all it boils down to- and society plays it off as harmless, which it is, most of the time. Most Christians I know go to doctors, and get vaccinated (even if they refuse to accept the theory of gravity).
<> There are lists of cases as long as my arm where kids are neglected to death, or even murdered, by their parents because of their ridiculous beliefs. When people take homeopathic talismans to protect them from malaria. Men in Africa sleep with virgins to be cured of AIDS (also, see the even more depressing dissenting opinion here). Vultures are hunted to near extinction for gambling on soccer. Rhinos are killed to make ineffective potions against arthritis. Tigers are killed to make manly wards.
So yes, I get upset when otherwise intelligent people ignorantly ruin our planet, kill our innocents, or spread disease needlessly, because they want to believe in superstitious drivel. < /Rant >
I feel that people believe this sort of nonsense because of the way we're wired. I'll use myself as an example, though according to studies of human beliefs, many people fall into these (and other) traps. 1.) I know that if someone tells me something confidently, I'll be inclined to believe them without trying to verify it. 2.) Similarly, if I hear something multiple times, or I read it in several places, I'll be inclined to believe it. 3.) I also know that if I already believe something, or am inclined to believe it, that I'll tend to remember the things that confirm belief.
I could go on, but let's stick with those three.
1.) Obviously, this is a terrible reason to believe something! And yet, most of us will, and salesmen and preachers alike take full advantage. There are two things I do to avoid this tendency toward blindly obeying. First, I avoid making decisions when caught up in the moment. I give myself a chance to cool off and think about my actions. Second, if I catch myself doing this, I do research to find out whether it's justified.
2.) Just because a billion people believe something, doesn't make it true. One thing that makes this one so dangerous is because of our tendency to gossip and spread rumors. When at all possible, I go directly to the source, if it's about someone, or I verify the story with multiple sources (as above, when I mentioned the dissenting opinion on the virgin cure of AIDS myth).
3.) This is also called confirmation bias, and this one can be tricky to countervail. To do so, I must, on a regular basis, actively seek out dissenting information and re-evaluate my beliefs on a given topic. For instance, after catching myself uncritically repeating the above AIDS myth, I've done some more research- and sadly, it holds up.
The dissenting story was saying that the infant rape in South Africa had nothing to do with the Virgin Cure myth- it still exists. People believe you can cure an STD by transferring it to a virgin. And that's the harm.
A COUPLE allegedly tied up and tortured a teenage employee because a Vietnamese fortune teller told them she stole from them, a Darwin court has heard.There are a few things to this story, but one that jumps out at me is regardless of how much she stole, there's no justification for being subjected to loud Lady Gaga. This is exactly my problem with non-evidence based world views: it's not the everyday people that go around doing insane things, but as long as this kind of irrational, delusional belief is encouraged, we leave ourselves open to just this kind of abuse. Those in the "psychic" industry need to be more responsible (I'm looking at you, Sylvia Browne).Nhung Tri Tran and Trien Tran pleaded guilty to assaulting Leilani dos Santos on February 17, but not guilty yesterday to threatening to kill her and depriving her of her liberty.
...a Vietnamese fortune teller told the couple the person who had stolen the handbag was close to them, and was someone they loved.
Ms Tran also allegedly told Ms dos Santos they would cut off her fingers, but they loved her and would inject her with heroin, so she would not feel it.
Ms dos Santos said Mr Tran beat her in the back with a meat cleaver, threatened her with a samurai sword and burnt her arm with a cigarette.
Ms dos Santos said the couple had a Lady Gaga CD playing loudly.
Granted, the egregious abuse in this story may be telling of a serious mental health issue, suffered by the Trans, or even dos Santos- that's beside my point. I'm not interested in placing guilt, or even blame- the fortune teller had a job to do, the Trans had a business to run, and the victim is right to sue for damages.
What I want to examine is the kind of person that could take something like this seriously. Why would anyone even believe in a fortune teller, for one thing? For the exact same reason one believes in magnet therapy, chiropractic, homeopathy, witches, or breaking mirrors for bad luck (or glasses for good luck). Because they've been told it's true. That's all it boils down to- and society plays it off as harmless, which it is, most of the time. Most Christians I know go to doctors, and get vaccinated (even if they refuse to accept the theory of gravity).
So yes, I get upset when otherwise intelligent people ignorantly ruin our planet, kill our innocents, or spread disease needlessly, because they want to believe in superstitious drivel.
I feel that people believe this sort of nonsense because of the way we're wired. I'll use myself as an example, though according to studies of human beliefs, many people fall into these (and other) traps. 1.) I know that if someone tells me something confidently, I'll be inclined to believe them without trying to verify it. 2.) Similarly, if I hear something multiple times, or I read it in several places, I'll be inclined to believe it. 3.) I also know that if I already believe something, or am inclined to believe it, that I'll tend to remember the things that confirm belief.
I could go on, but let's stick with those three.
1.) Obviously, this is a terrible reason to believe something! And yet, most of us will, and salesmen and preachers alike take full advantage. There are two things I do to avoid this tendency toward blindly obeying. First, I avoid making decisions when caught up in the moment. I give myself a chance to cool off and think about my actions. Second, if I catch myself doing this, I do research to find out whether it's justified.
2.) Just because a billion people believe something, doesn't make it true. One thing that makes this one so dangerous is because of our tendency to gossip and spread rumors. When at all possible, I go directly to the source, if it's about someone, or I verify the story with multiple sources (as above, when I mentioned the dissenting opinion on the virgin cure of AIDS myth).
3.) This is also called confirmation bias, and this one can be tricky to countervail. To do so, I must, on a regular basis, actively seek out dissenting information and re-evaluate my beliefs on a given topic. For instance, after catching myself uncritically repeating the above AIDS myth, I've done some more research- and sadly, it holds up.
The dissenting story was saying that the infant rape in South Africa had nothing to do with the Virgin Cure myth- it still exists. People believe you can cure an STD by transferring it to a virgin. And that's the harm.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Hepatitis C is natural.
One thing that continually bothers me are the sparkling connotations given to the word "natural." Organic too, to a lesser degree (more oriented at sales), but especially natural.
Have you ever heard someone talking about a natural birth? A water birth? Those are good, right? They must be- they're natural. They're better for the baby and the mother because they don't involve those unnatural doctors with their unnatural life-saving apparatuses (apparati?).
Death in childbirth is also death by natural causes.
Also, this definition of natural neatly sidesteps the whole problem of humans somehow being "Outside of Nature". Having a birth inside your air conditioned home, with your fluorescent lights buzzing, on a bed of polypropylene fibers, listening to an iPod playing soothing sounds of the beach on your $450 Sony Home Theatre System is about as natural as wearing clothes or cooking your food before you eat it. Of course, if you use natural to include everything we do, which it rightly should except in extreme cases, then I really don't have an argument. A human's natural environment is in the city, with ponchos and all the considerable delights of science and technology. That doesn't mean that all those delights are good for us, either- just natural.
For the rest of this post, I am going to kick humanity out of nature. I don't understand why, but generally when we say "natural" we really mean "we didn't do it."
Now, don't get me wrong- I'm a big fan of nature. I enjoy learning about minerals or metazoa or the milky way. I enjoy experiencing them, too- when I take my kids hiking or to watch the stars on a summer night. Nature is awesome- but it is something to be respected. If you've ever had the misfortune of staring into a hurricane, or lived through an earthquake, or seen a volcano erupt, it is breathtaking. Turn your attention down in scale, and you will find the world literally teeming with life- at every level!
Let me sum up with a list of things that are natural: Botulism, plague, Mt. Vesuvius, sociopaths, cancer, velociraptors, and salad. Unnatural: Pizza, refrigeration, the flush toilet, vaccines, clothing, farms, and Wall Street. The universe is truly amazing. Natural is a term that should inspire and imply awe, caution, or even fear. While nature is the mother of us all, she was also an abusive, neglectful monster by human standards. For no reason should we take comfort in the idea of some medicine or treatment being "natural."
Have you ever heard someone talking about a natural birth? A water birth? Those are good, right? They must be- they're natural. They're better for the baby and the mother because they don't involve those unnatural doctors with their unnatural life-saving apparatuses (apparati?).
Death in childbirth is also death by natural causes.
Also, this definition of natural neatly sidesteps the whole problem of humans somehow being "Outside of Nature". Having a birth inside your air conditioned home, with your fluorescent lights buzzing, on a bed of polypropylene fibers, listening to an iPod playing soothing sounds of the beach on your $450 Sony Home Theatre System is about as natural as wearing clothes or cooking your food before you eat it. Of course, if you use natural to include everything we do, which it rightly should except in extreme cases, then I really don't have an argument. A human's natural environment is in the city, with ponchos and all the considerable delights of science and technology. That doesn't mean that all those delights are good for us, either- just natural.
For the rest of this post, I am going to kick humanity out of nature. I don't understand why, but generally when we say "natural" we really mean "we didn't do it."
Now, don't get me wrong- I'm a big fan of nature. I enjoy learning about minerals or metazoa or the milky way. I enjoy experiencing them, too- when I take my kids hiking or to watch the stars on a summer night. Nature is awesome- but it is something to be respected. If you've ever had the misfortune of staring into a hurricane, or lived through an earthquake, or seen a volcano erupt, it is breathtaking. Turn your attention down in scale, and you will find the world literally teeming with life- at every level!
Let me sum up with a list of things that are natural: Botulism, plague, Mt. Vesuvius, sociopaths, cancer, velociraptors, and salad. Unnatural: Pizza, refrigeration, the flush toilet, vaccines, clothing, farms, and Wall Street. The universe is truly amazing. Natural is a term that should inspire and imply awe, caution, or even fear. While nature is the mother of us all, she was also an abusive, neglectful monster by human standards. For no reason should we take comfort in the idea of some medicine or treatment being "natural."
Monday, July 5, 2010
Speed of light constant? Hardly.
The speed of light is about 300 million meters per second, or 186,000 miles per second. That's insanely fast, and yet the unit of measurement for our galaxy is the light year- about 6 trillion miles (yes, the light year, like the parsec, is a measure of distance, not time). Our closest star, besides the sun, is Alpha Centauri, and it's about 4 light years away from us. Potentially habitable planets may be hundreds or even thousands of light years away. Which means, if it's possible to break the speed of light, we definitely should. Unfortunately, science says right now that the speed of light is an interstellar speed limit, and if we were to break it, there would be severe fallout (like mass becoming infinite, which could instantly collapse the universe). Scientists and science fiction authors have worked on ways of subverting the rules for years, but with little hope for success. So when I heard about scientists already doing it, and ten years ago to boot, I was excited, but skeptical- this is the sort of thing that would revolutionize text books, and I hadn't heard anything about it.
Unfortunately, it's a matter of conflating two distinct but important principles in physics. The speed of light that I mentioned above is actually the speed of light in a vacuum- in other words, if there is nothing to impede lights' travel, that is how fast it will go. As soon as it hits a substance, such as our atmosphere, or water, it slows down. This is nothing new. Any kid with a clear drinking glass can demonstrate this phenomenon by sticking his finger into the water- it appears to bend in an unusual way. The light is traveling at different speeds through the different mediums.
So, what am I saying, the speed of light isn't constant? You bet. It slows down all the time. Then, what does c stand for in the famous equation E=mc^2? The speed of light in vacuum. This refers to a particular behavior of light, and while we can make objects without mass that can momentarily exceed it through quantum tunneling or particularly odd patterns of bending, c has yet to be exceeded in any meaningful way. The occasions when we have been able to get light to exceed c are either done through technicalities, such as by sending random bits of light forward and some backwards, or only occur over a few feet.
This article refers to one of these technicalities. To help get your head around exactly what's happening, consider this: two ice skaters doing laps side by side around an oval track. At the far end of the track, the inside skater grabs her team mate and pivots, flinging her partner forward much faster than either of them could do on their own. When light hits certain mediums, the waves get squished together, some will slow or even go backwards and others will be flung forward. The effect is short-lived, and doesn't hold much promise yet for any practical purposes, but who knows what the future will hold?
So the take away is this: when you refer to the speed of light, remember that you're usually referring to the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.
Unfortunately, it's a matter of conflating two distinct but important principles in physics. The speed of light that I mentioned above is actually the speed of light in a vacuum- in other words, if there is nothing to impede lights' travel, that is how fast it will go. As soon as it hits a substance, such as our atmosphere, or water, it slows down. This is nothing new. Any kid with a clear drinking glass can demonstrate this phenomenon by sticking his finger into the water- it appears to bend in an unusual way. The light is traveling at different speeds through the different mediums.
So, what am I saying, the speed of light isn't constant? You bet. It slows down all the time. Then, what does c stand for in the famous equation E=mc^2? The speed of light in vacuum. This refers to a particular behavior of light, and while we can make objects without mass that can momentarily exceed it through quantum tunneling or particularly odd patterns of bending, c has yet to be exceeded in any meaningful way. The occasions when we have been able to get light to exceed c are either done through technicalities, such as by sending random bits of light forward and some backwards, or only occur over a few feet.
This article refers to one of these technicalities. To help get your head around exactly what's happening, consider this: two ice skaters doing laps side by side around an oval track. At the far end of the track, the inside skater grabs her team mate and pivots, flinging her partner forward much faster than either of them could do on their own. When light hits certain mediums, the waves get squished together, some will slow or even go backwards and others will be flung forward. The effect is short-lived, and doesn't hold much promise yet for any practical purposes, but who knows what the future will hold?
So the take away is this: when you refer to the speed of light, remember that you're usually referring to the speed of light in a perfect vacuum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)