BBC climate change experiment

The BBC has a distributed computing climate change project underway led by Oxford University:

1. BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

Check it out. It's worth looking into.


6/23 Update:

Also:

The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least four centuries and perhaps in thousands of years, according to a new report released in U.S.

The report also claimed that human activities are responsible for it.

The National Academy of Sciences, US, reaching the conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Wednesday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

1. Earth is hottest now in 400 years: Study

Ethical subjectivity and the nature of ethics

Not long ago I put up a simple post arguing that all ethical judgment is formulated upon a priori value tenets (e.g. human happiness is the greatest good) that are presupposed. Without such there is no ground for ethical evaluation. And (to elaborate) because there is no truth in ethics without knowledge of God, and the knowledge of God is a noumenal matter, there is no absolute ethical system available to us. Consequently, presupposition is necessary in ethics.
i. Ethics presupposes deontology

The very nature of ethics (excluding the strictly relativistic) is inclined toward universalization. For example, if cannibalism is wrong, how can it not be willed that others should not be cannibals? In this sense, ethical subjectivity (with proper conviction) strives to become universalized.

In Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, the elder Zosima had a very memorable remark: "[H]ow can there be crime if God does not exist?" This is a key dilemma to be overcome by ethical systems if they are to succeed in extending beyond subjectivity. In the search for a comprehensive and universally applicable (i.e. "ideal") ethical framework, the uncertainty of God's existence is important as it makes the framework, objectively understood, atheistic. So, again, "how can there be crime if God does not exist?"

Utilitarians would argue that happiness is the most evident a priori tenet and I wouldn't be inclined to disagree with them. Peter Singer, for instance, takes our innate sensory (and psychological) faculties and transcribes them into good and evil. In an oversimplified sense, that which causes more pleasure than pain is good, and that which causes more pain than pleasure is bad (i.e. evil). Two problems that arise from this are the means to the Good and the feasibility of calculation, which I believe are relatively minor concerns that I will not argue here.

A third problem, and what I think to be the most important, is due to the interference of the will and the tendency of most ethical systems to strive for universalization in their own right. The will, comprised of ontological and teleological convictions (tenets), prevents axiological judgment (the determination of tenets) from becoming properly resolvable. I don't find this to be something that necessarily needs to be overcome, on the contrary I believe it is why universalized ethics cannot be a science. The arising problem is thus:

1. Ethics cannot be a science.
2. Non-relativistic modes of ethics seek to become universalized.
3. A strictly relativistic mode of ethics ceases to be ethical.

In my mind, there are two possible paths to take from this:

1. So be it. Ethics will continue the way that it has progressed. There will always be ethical conflict and globalization will never lead to any ethical universality.


2. How do we incorporate relativism and subjectivism into ethics without contradiction?

7/21 update:

I've thought about this off and on for a while and it would be best to disregard the two options at the end. The second "path" is illusory and almost rhetorical; what I have illustrated is the paradox of ethical systems, not their potential direction. Ethics is, after all, a purely subjective value (preference) judgment, so it is nonsensical to think that a system of ethics could ever usurp relativism or be adequate to function universally.

"Fearless feline strikes terror into treebound bear"

Hot off the press (as of yesterday):

1. Tabby cat terror for black bear

A Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA)?

For clarity, here is the text of the proposal for the controversial amendment:

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

`This Article may be cited as the `Federal Marriage Amendment'.

`SECTION 2. MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.

1. The Library of Congress THOMAS: S.J.RES.40 (Senate)
2. Senate talks gay marriage


Contributors to Wikipedia did an admirable job at outlining the arguments in support and opposition of this amendment. If you're at all unfamiliar with them, I would highly recommend these.
3. Criticisms of the Federal Marriage Amendment
4. Arguments in Favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment


Before presenting my own views, I would like to first appeal to comedic defamation rather than reason. (If you don't care, click here to skip down.) In the senate, this bill is sponsored by a Colorado's Wayne Allard (R), of whom an official portrait appears below.


Creepy isn't it? Ironically enough, Time Magazine recently listed Sen. Allard as one of the nation's five worst Senators, calling him "bland" and uninfluential.
5. Wayne Allard: The Invisible Man
6. "Wayne Allard" on Wikipedia

To make the issue partisan for a moment, an enjoyable response on the part of Democrats is that this debate is a superfluous waste of time--a diversionary tactic. Senate minority leader Harry Reid said yesterday:

In spite of the many serious problems we have just discussed, what is the United States Senate going to debate this week?

A new energy policy? NO.

Will we debate the raging war in Iraq? NO.

Will we address our staggering national debt? NO.

Will we address the seriousness of global warming? NO.

Will we address the aging of America? NO.

Will we address America’s education dilemma? NO.

Will we address rising crime statistics? NO.

Will we debate our county’s trade imbalance? NO.

Will we debate Stem Cell Research? NO.

But what we will spend most of the week on is a constitutional amendment that will fail by a large margin, a constitutional amendment on Same Sex Marriage—an effort that failed to pick up a simple majority, when we recently voted on it.

[...]

So for me it is clear the reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another. This is another one of the President’s efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this Administration’s way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day...

7. Democratic leader enumerates issues gay marriage vote won't solve


But alas, pros and cons are more important.

The organization that is ultimately responsible for this bill is the Alliance for Marriage. Their defense of this amendment, as I understood from their keynote on C-SPAN, was threefold (excluding the oft-spoken "marriage is between a man and a women because it just is"):

1. There is research that supports that the parents involved in a "stable" "traditional marriage", have "stronger relationships" and that their children "enjoy longer life, better health, and greater happiness". Therefore, the social institution of "traditional marriage", should be promoted in the interest of public health.


2. Law reflects our priorities to our children, if marriage between two members of the same sex is institutionally accepted, it encourages social acceptance as well, which does not reflect the consensus of many communities, and if the prior claim is accepted, plays a negative role in public welfare.


3. There is a democratic consensus in places such as Nebraska that marriage should be defined in this manner, and it is being undermined by "unelected" (?) "activist" judges.

Unfortunately, the AFM's website offers virtually no arguments specifically in support of the FMA, nor does it provide links to the research (that I could find) that they so eagerly spoke of at their keynote, so those first two arguments could be regarded as interpretive inferences on my part.
8. Alliance for Marriage Web Site

In my opinion, the arguments, as I understand them, don't justify the amendment as it is proposed. My thoughts are as follows:

On the first point, legally defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman will not coerce same sex couples into traditional family structures. While the "traditional family" may promote public health and welfare, this amendment would do nothing to correct it. It is curious that the only legislative initiative brought forth by this organization is aimed at same-sex marriages (or polygomy if wishes to be a pundit and demonstrate its versatility), rather than strengthening the requirements of marriage in order to curb divorce rates or anything to that effect.

On the second point, while it may very well be that our local, state, and federal laws do play a role in sending a message to our children, the proposed one would not be one that is more reflective of all communities, most notably in Massachusetts where same-sex marriages have been legalized. Introducing a federal social policy would be counterproductive in promoting community values because it would be an assertive homogeneous blanket policy. The traditional wisdom on matters of this sort is to leave it up to the states; if we turn to the constitution to restrict or enforce social tendencies, we'll end up with some akin to Prohibition.

On the third, if there is fault within the authority of the judiciary, there should be an initiative to reform it, not to bypass it in one specific instance with an amendment oriented toward a specific cause. Also, reflecting the wanton desires of the majority (in this case generally much less than a 70% consensus depending upon the region) does not mean it is good policy. In fact, I've long felt that a role of the judiciary was to prevent the majority from trampling the minority without sufficient cause. I think Plato was correct in calling unmitigated democracy one of the lowliest forms of government (just above tyranny, in fact): while largely self-determining, it lacks virtue.

The "horse race"-manner in which this issue is approached seems to discourage public debate, and it is my opinion that this approach is reflected through the AFM's website: scant emphasis on justification and paramount emphasis on numbers. Our friend Sen. Wayne Allard displays this tendency as well.

This morning on C-SPAN, Sen. Wayne Allard, when asked by a caller about his own personal views (several such questions surfaced, the answer was always the same), responded with a smirk. "This is not about me," he said, "this is about the people having a voice at the polls." If it is any indication, I think this may be why the people at Time think so lowly of Mr. Allard: he has little or no interest in the "debate" surrounding his propositions, all he is concerned about is seeing that he is in line with current opinion polls.

I think there must be some degree of practical pessimism adopted to reconcile this issue. To say that ## percent of people believe something should be done, does not mean that that percentage is well-informed or attentive, much less necessarily right in their convictions. What is needed to resolve these practical and ideological gaps is honest, open discussion, which I feel is not being pursued by the likes of many proponents of this amendment.

In my opinion (which I have hopefully supported somewhat through this discussion), this amendment will not do anything to improve societal values, nor will it indirectly advance public welfare. It will hamper the liberties of a social minority, tarnish our constitution, upset federalism, and intensify the ideological divisions in this country. That said, it's unlikely that this amendment will pass anyway, and I am disheartened that our president would endorse such an initiative.
9. Bush turns up heat to prevent same-sex marriages

I might also add that the reason that same-sex couples seek "marriage" is not completely rooted in a fascination in the word itself or a desire to "disrupt American values", but in its legal benefits. I've never understood why many groups that oppose same-sex marriage being legally recognized also oppose forms of civil unions and domestic partnerships aimed at creating equal legal entitlements.


As always, if I have left something out or portrayed something inaccurately, please correct me.



7/8 update:

10. Gay marriage amendment falls short again in Senate
11. Statement By President Bush

From President Bush's statement:

My position on this issue is clear: marriage is the most fundamental institution of our society, and it should not be redefined by activist judges. The people must be heard on this issue. And as this debate continues, each American deserves to be treated with tolerance, respect, and dignity.

As before, I understand the "most fundamental institution of our society" part somewhat, but where I lose grasp of the argument is when people refer to marriage as a whole, legally rather than socially considered, and declare that it is "under attack".

I also realize that I made no effort in this post to reply to the slippery slope argument (e.g. if we let two men or two women marry each other "what do we say to the polygomists?" and/or "people will marry their dogs"), because I don't think that argument has any of the validity that marriage between same-sex couples has. Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett had a interesting discussion on this on Tuesday night's Daily Show.

Here's a link and an attempt at a transcript in case the video should go offline:
12. Bill Bennett Places Huge Bet On Jon Stewart

Bill Bennet: ...it's the original department of health education and welfare. The social scientists who have looked at the family say if you didn't have this you'd have to invent it, 'cause there's nothing that could raise children so effectively.

Jon Stewart: It's a relatively modern invention, marriage was about chattel, it was a property arrangement at a certain point.

BB: But the family relationship is not so...is not so..

JS: So why not encourage gay people to join in on that family arrangement if that's what provides stability to a society?

(Applause)

BB: Gay people are members of families. They're already members of families, they're sons, they're daughters..

JS: (With sarcasm) What? So that’s where the buck stops, that’s the gay ceiling?

(Laughter)

BB: Look, it’s a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a woman.

JS: I disagree, it’s a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

(Commercial break, etc.)

BB: The question is, 'How do you define marriage? Where do you draw the line?' Immediately on the heels of this debate, Jon, you have...

JS: Don't go slippery sloping with me because that's ridiculous.

BB: No it isn't, what do you say to the polygomists? What do you say to the polygomist?

JS: Uh...you don't say anything to the polygomist. It's completely.. and that is a choice to get three or four wives, that is not a biological condition that 'I gots ta get laid by different women that I'm married to', that's a choice.

BB: Well that.. no...

JS: Being gay is part of the human condition. There's a huge difference.

BB: Well some people regard their human condition as between three women. Look, the polygomists are all over this, this is the practice...

JS: Let's look at the slippery slope the other way. If government says, 'I can define marriage between a man and a woman,' what says they can't define it between people of different income levels or they can decide whether or not you are a suitable husband for a particular woman.

BB: Because it.. gender matters in marriage. It has mattered to every human society, it matters in every religion. It has.. its...

JS: Race matters in every other society as well. Is it progress in understanding...

BB: It's not a good ground for distinction, race. But gender may be a good ground for distinction in marriage.

JS: Let's discuss this. Dick Cheney would be a perfect candidate for someone who wants to ban gay marriage. Is that...would that be correct? The ultraconservative, draconian...uh...drinks the blood of puppies. He's the guy...

(Laughter)

JS: He's a guy...wouldn't he be a guy...he's the perfect candidate for a guy who wants to ban gay marriage, no? And he's against it.

BB: I...I don't know if he is or not.

JS: If you look at...if you look at his voting pattern, he's a social conservative. He's a social conservative.

BB: He's a social conservative.

JS: But he's not against gay marriage, why is that?

BB: Because of his experience with his daughter. That's right.

JS: Exactly, and you said something earlier that...what was that? Isn't every gay person someone's son or daughter.

BB: Of course.

JS: So why is it that you have to have...

BB: I don't think you want to argue that, because all you need to do is find parents of gay children who do not think their kids should not be able to marry someone of the same sex. You do not want to reduce it to that individual level. But can I say something?

JS: I'm just grasping...

BB: Just grasping the reality here--I know you want to make the conservative boogeyman, you know, that we're intolerant and bigots. This debate is over Jon. Gay marriage is coming because the courts have done it..

JS: No-- the courts haven't done it. They are only reaffirming the natural progression of the human condition. I don't understand why there's always a fight. They always lose, they will continue to lose--so why bother?

BB: The question is whether you think this is the natural progression of the human condition. I don't think it is. You had some spoofing earlier about Norway and Holland...

JS: I'm a spoofer. I spoof.

BB: That's what you do. Yeah, alright, but there are some serious problems there.

JS: In Norway?

BB: No, in Holland...

JS: Because of same sex marriage?

BB: In Holland and Norway. Marriage is taken less seriously. When you define it out. When you start to say it can involve anybody, then I think any grouping, anybody who loves anybody, two can love one, three can love two.

JS: (Interrupting) I think marriage has problems of having nothing to do with gay marriage.

BB: It has serious problems. It has more...

JS: It has serious problems and divorce is not caused because 50% of marriages end in gay-ness.

BB: You are right about that.

Journal Entry: The philosophical jigsaw puzzle

I think that the source of my fascination in philosophy is not because I seek "the truth" as it were, but because I enjoy developing, communicating, and understanding worldviews. [...] These seem to be intertwined in some form with virtually everything, but the medium of its deliberation is naturally philosophy.

A worldview typically is a context for action and experience. The subject tries to make sense of the "why" for surrounding undergoings and delve for a purpose for the subject's self, and that consequent self's actions. A worldview might be looked upon as an assessment of one's experience, an intellectual foray into ontology, teleology, ethics, and everything else.. but it cannot be regarded as something passive. One cannot distance their actions from their worldview, the two are a result and a cause. The interest, I think, that I find in the examination of worldviews is that it is extremely topical and meanwhile looming and ever-important. The fear that I have of my interest in them is that I will reach a conclusion: I will erect thick walls to constrict my epistemology and as I become more and more familiar of the space between those walls, I will at last reach a definitive conclusion and say, "that's all there is to that." At the point that I come to this conclusion, I feel as though my soul^* will be at an impasse as well, and life will lose its splendor. Once my process of becoming has been reconciled, I fear that I will succumb to boredom, monotony, and necessity.
[* Poetically considered; think "heart" with a intellectual connotation.]

The center of my fascination, again, is not the destination, but the seemingly infinite possibility of the process of coming to understand. Even if there is one truthful contextualization to be discovered (objectively considered.. which doesn't seem plausible to me), I don't think that I would care for it. I would either dismiss it as being too simple or unpleasing, and then seek to develop it further, much like a crazy person trying to finish a jigsaw puzzle that has already been solved--dismantling and reconfiguring it again and again to be certain that the picture depicted was correct, and then, dissatisfied, reconstructing that puzzle in ways that seem more interesting than what is produced from its intended configuration. [...]

6/22 update:

In retrospect this sounds almost comical. I've been reading Wittgenstein lately and I think that my interest in philosophy proper is nearly exhausted. I'm still deeply interested in ethics and aesthetics, but those are matters of judgment, not "truth".

I don't think I have any further interest in metaphysics or epistemology.. much less a drive to construct some bizarre "jigsaw puzzle" because I am unwilling to accept one worldview. At present I've come to conclude that, with maybe the exception of ethics, most philosophical inquiries are paltry and unfruitful in comparison to empirical studies (e.g. natural sciences, sociology, economics, psychology). Whether or not I will act upon this conclusion in the near future is something that I cannot say.



1/1/08 update:

Re-reading this, I've definitely come a long way. When I wrote this I was very much into Kierkegaard and learning toward an uncertain religious orientation. The issue for me now is not that becoming or destinations are irrelevant, it's simply that philosophy plays no part in this. Likewise, there's no harm in establishing a sound worldview, provided that it does not claim to know that which it does not or cannot know. I think I've come to reach something of this since I wrote this.