I try to lead an ethical life. I often find myself with great empathy for others; though admittedly, not all of the time. I most certainly believe that the retention of knowledge and the supression of an open forum for debate are the most unethical things possible (burning books comes to mind.) Nonviolence ought to always be the answer, even though there are times where it doesn't seem to work (Hitler, anyone?) But, I am an outspoken atheist. I'm a member of a student group in which a majority of the members are atheists. I identify with a very specific group of people who are all outspoken against theism, irrationalism, and blind faith in all of its forms.
Of course, this makes me a militant atheist. The term was apparently coined by Lenin, but I've seen the phrase thrown around a few times recently; by pundits, religious nuts, and to my surprise, even the author of a popular science book.
If, by this accusation, they mean that certain atheists are outspoken with their beliefs, then they're damn right. Of course, the word militant itself doesn't seem to fit here. For example:
That's who they're talking about. Guys on YouTube who are angry and bitch a lot! Nevermind the countless deaths caused by the Islamic extremists, the bombings of abortion clinics and murdered doctors caused by the religious right, and the countless atrocities justified by the holy books throughout history... Any highschool history textbook will show you the atrocities religion has caused (public highschool I should say.)
Given these facts, it seems like the phrase militant atheist is, go figure, a scare tactic.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
On Bullshit.
Recently, I was introduced to an episode of "Penn and Teller's Bullshit"; this one about recycling. Of course, recycling is supposed to be a great thing, but is it? According to the show, recycling isn't as good as we make it out to be, which is understandable. But is it really so bad that the public requires an entire show dedicated to it, or are Penn and Teller just running out of material? After all, there's only so many religions in the world.
First claim: Recycling doesn't save energy.
After some superfluous bit about how far people will go to recycle, Penn and Teller get to their first point. The argument against recycling, they say, is that it doesn't actually save energy. And this should be a very good point, since that is exactly the reason most people cite when asked why recycle. The reasoning? According to Penn, recycling items increases energy use (gathering, sorting, cleaning.) Of course, this wasn't really backed with numbers, charts, pictures, or any sort of evidence. In fact, Penn didn't even elaborate on the point. Apparently, we're just to take his word for it.
However, Penn is right in saying that the processes included with recycling a product definitely use energy, but he is wrong to say that it isn't beneficial. Recycling aluminum may reduce energy use by 90%; steel by 50%; paper by 25%; and glass by 4-32%. Air pollution is also reduced (95%, 85%, 74%, 20%.) [Middleton]
Admittedly, the numbers seem a bit off. To claim that recycling aluminum may eradicate air pollution nearly completely is pretty extraordinary. But a look at the chart of the processes to make aluminum brings plausibility to the claim:
Penn's first claim, that recycling doesn't save energy, doesn't hold up. Had he given a more maximal claim, referring only to plastics, he may have held some ground, but he didn't. Next to saving energy, recycling provides myriad of other benefits. These range from lower production costs, less air pollution, less water use, etc. First claim: busted.
Second claim: This can actually be put into standard form rather easily.
To sway my mind, Pen should offer up some evidence here. And he does. The show offers two figures regarding the cost per ton for collection of waste - waste against recycled waste. Waste, according to the EPA official they interview, costs $50-60 for collection and processing (dumping). Recycling on the other hand costs three times that much. Not only this, but another authority on the subject reveals that at the time of filming, New York (state or City isn't specified) was spending $33 million (I assume; only the number was given - it was not stated if it was a net loss, total spent, or anything else.) Hefty amount of money, right? Well, should it be in regards to New York State, then the cost is roughly $1.70 per person ($33 million divied up among 19 million people.) This isn't exactly what I would call a big mark against recycling.
But let's assume that recycling doesn't provide any economic benefit. This still doesn't quite get the job done, we have other benefits to account for also. As we saw before, recycling provides other incentives: reduction in energy use and air pollution, even water usage. It also cuts out several steps, especially when it comes to recycling metals (mining comes to mind.) All of these, it seems safe to say, save money. And if not directly, then at least eventually. The idea behind recycling is to prolong the amount of time we have to use our resources, before they run out. Once nonrenewable resources peak (that is, we use half of the total amount on Earth), the cost associated with processing and using them grows greatly. Take, for example, peak oil. The production of oil, graphed over time, follows a bell curve. At the top, or peak, of this curve is the point at which we have used half of the world's oil supply. Then then production lingers off due to greater difficulty to extract and process it. Price however, is different. Once the peak is reached in the curve, the price to use oil goes up. This is because oil becomes more scarce, more difficult to process, and we are forced to use lower quality oil left over from the 'good ol days.' And this is true of any nonrenewable resource; its not some theory, its simply a phenomenon.
Perhaps an argument, in this case, could be made against paper. Trees are most definitely a renewable resource (whether or not you would be able to tell based on our actions is a story for another time.) So perhaps it would make less sense to recycle paper... But then you need to lay down the costs for planting trees to make up for waste paper and recycling paper. Not to mention the enviromental impacts, which may have economic consequences in the end also. Second claim: not plausible.
Third claim: Not really a claim.
This one is more like retracing steps. The show goes back to elucidate on recycling plastic and paper. Like I just said, there may be a case against paper. And a point the show doesn't make, is that plastic replaces the use of other resources and may last much longer.
So, third claim-thing: valid point!
Fourth claim: Recycling creates "shitty" jobs.
The point here is that recycling includes many steps. Some of these steps require people to do manual labor, such as sorting material. As Penn puts it, these are useless jobs because recycling is useless (the net effect on the world world would be greater if these jobs were on an assembly line instead.) As we've seen, this isn't the case so much. There are benefits for recycling, so these jobs are justified. Of course, this includes the money which is put back into 'the system' from the income of the workers. Fourth claim: bullshit.
Fifth claim: recycling doesn't save space.
After blaming the entire enviromental movement on the aforementioned EPA official, Penn, and yes, Teller, both make the case that recycling doesn't save space.
And a good case it is. Landfills are ensured to not allow any sort of toxic substance to leak into groundwater. The methane gas which rises up from the decomposing whatever is captured and used as a power supply. When a landfill is full, its prime spot for parks and things of the sort.
After making this good argument however, a clip is shown, making the claim that recycling is just a way of telling people how to live their lives. You know, the whole 'the gov't is trying to control us' bit. Yadda yadda, blah blah, I think that's called scare tactics. Epic phail.
Regarldess though, fifth claim, minus the fear bullshit: excellent point indeed!
The Argument against Recycling
First claim: Recycling doesn't save energy.
After some superfluous bit about how far people will go to recycle, Penn and Teller get to their first point. The argument against recycling, they say, is that it doesn't actually save energy. And this should be a very good point, since that is exactly the reason most people cite when asked why recycle. The reasoning? According to Penn, recycling items increases energy use (gathering, sorting, cleaning.) Of course, this wasn't really backed with numbers, charts, pictures, or any sort of evidence. In fact, Penn didn't even elaborate on the point. Apparently, we're just to take his word for it.
However, Penn is right in saying that the processes included with recycling a product definitely use energy, but he is wrong to say that it isn't beneficial. Recycling aluminum may reduce energy use by 90%; steel by 50%; paper by 25%; and glass by 4-32%. Air pollution is also reduced (95%, 85%, 74%, 20%.) [Middleton]
Admittedly, the numbers seem a bit off. To claim that recycling aluminum may eradicate air pollution nearly completely is pretty extraordinary. But a look at the chart of the processes to make aluminum brings plausibility to the claim:
1. Mining > 2. Bauxite > 3. Bayer Process > 4. Alumina > 5. Electrolysis > 6. Aluminium > 7. Rolling, drawing, casting, etc. > 8. Consumer products > 9. Waste. [Middleton]Normally, the process ends there, and the waste is sent to landfills, etc. However, recycling the waste leads to a flow chart which leads back to step number 7. So we find a chart like so:
And, of course, the benefits become explicit. By recycling we cut six steps out of the process and replace them with two (gathering and processing/remelting.) Even more so, some of the steps known to exacerbate enviromental issues the most are cut out; most notably mining. However, something different may be said for plastics. Due to their heavier chemical compositions, recycling plastics may not be as useful as other items.
7. Rolling, drawing, casting, etc. > 8. Consumer products > 9. Waste > 10. Remelting > 7. Rolling... [Middleton]
Penn's first claim, that recycling doesn't save energy, doesn't hold up. Had he given a more maximal claim, referring only to plastics, he may have held some ground, but he didn't. Next to saving energy, recycling provides myriad of other benefits. These range from lower production costs, less air pollution, less water use, etc. First claim: busted.
Second claim: This can actually be put into standard form rather easily.
- In a free market, people pay for what benefits them.
- Recycling programs are payed for by taxes, namely, subsidies.
- Subsidies support "questionable" or "obsolete" programs.
- Such programs aren't in the interest of the people in a free market.
- Therefore, recycling is bullshit, and doesn't actually have benefits.
To sway my mind, Pen should offer up some evidence here. And he does. The show offers two figures regarding the cost per ton for collection of waste - waste against recycled waste. Waste, according to the EPA official they interview, costs $50-60 for collection and processing (dumping). Recycling on the other hand costs three times that much. Not only this, but another authority on the subject reveals that at the time of filming, New York (state or City isn't specified) was spending $33 million (I assume; only the number was given - it was not stated if it was a net loss, total spent, or anything else.) Hefty amount of money, right? Well, should it be in regards to New York State, then the cost is roughly $1.70 per person ($33 million divied up among 19 million people.) This isn't exactly what I would call a big mark against recycling.
But let's assume that recycling doesn't provide any economic benefit. This still doesn't quite get the job done, we have other benefits to account for also. As we saw before, recycling provides other incentives: reduction in energy use and air pollution, even water usage. It also cuts out several steps, especially when it comes to recycling metals (mining comes to mind.) All of these, it seems safe to say, save money. And if not directly, then at least eventually. The idea behind recycling is to prolong the amount of time we have to use our resources, before they run out. Once nonrenewable resources peak (that is, we use half of the total amount on Earth), the cost associated with processing and using them grows greatly. Take, for example, peak oil. The production of oil, graphed over time, follows a bell curve. At the top, or peak, of this curve is the point at which we have used half of the world's oil supply. Then then production lingers off due to greater difficulty to extract and process it. Price however, is different. Once the peak is reached in the curve, the price to use oil goes up. This is because oil becomes more scarce, more difficult to process, and we are forced to use lower quality oil left over from the 'good ol days.' And this is true of any nonrenewable resource; its not some theory, its simply a phenomenon.
Perhaps an argument, in this case, could be made against paper. Trees are most definitely a renewable resource (whether or not you would be able to tell based on our actions is a story for another time.) So perhaps it would make less sense to recycle paper... But then you need to lay down the costs for planting trees to make up for waste paper and recycling paper. Not to mention the enviromental impacts, which may have economic consequences in the end also. Second claim: not plausible.
Third claim: Not really a claim.
This one is more like retracing steps. The show goes back to elucidate on recycling plastic and paper. Like I just said, there may be a case against paper. And a point the show doesn't make, is that plastic replaces the use of other resources and may last much longer.
So, third claim-thing: valid point!
Fourth claim: Recycling creates "shitty" jobs.
The point here is that recycling includes many steps. Some of these steps require people to do manual labor, such as sorting material. As Penn puts it, these are useless jobs because recycling is useless (the net effect on the world world would be greater if these jobs were on an assembly line instead.) As we've seen, this isn't the case so much. There are benefits for recycling, so these jobs are justified. Of course, this includes the money which is put back into 'the system' from the income of the workers. Fourth claim: bullshit.
Fifth claim: recycling doesn't save space.
After blaming the entire enviromental movement on the aforementioned EPA official, Penn, and yes, Teller, both make the case that recycling doesn't save space.
And a good case it is. Landfills are ensured to not allow any sort of toxic substance to leak into groundwater. The methane gas which rises up from the decomposing whatever is captured and used as a power supply. When a landfill is full, its prime spot for parks and things of the sort.
After making this good argument however, a clip is shown, making the claim that recycling is just a way of telling people how to live their lives. You know, the whole 'the gov't is trying to control us' bit. Yadda yadda, blah blah, I think that's called scare tactics. Epic phail.
Regarldess though, fifth claim, minus the fear bullshit: excellent point indeed!
Final Thoughts
Well, it seems some sound arguments were definitely made against recycling. Perhaps we should think more skeptically of recycling plastics and paper, though the show didn't convince me that any final word was out. Next to those two materials though, recycling is very much a good thing, despite the arguments thrown at them. Recycling really does save energy, money, and most importantly resources.
The last segment regarding landfills is a very excellent point to bring up; landfills are actually of great use, if used correctly. And this, at least I think, goes against the folk perception of landfills: giant piles of trash which serve no purpose other than to be shitty. And to an extent, that is what they are. Fortunately for us, humans occasionally reveal their capacity to use reason to conjure elegant solutions out of situations in which no one would suspect solutions to be found. However, "Bullshit", at least for this episode, was tainted with bullshit.
_____________________________
Reference: Middleton, N. (2003). The Global Casino (3rd ed.). New York: Hodder.
The last segment regarding landfills is a very excellent point to bring up; landfills are actually of great use, if used correctly. And this, at least I think, goes against the folk perception of landfills: giant piles of trash which serve no purpose other than to be shitty. And to an extent, that is what they are. Fortunately for us, humans occasionally reveal their capacity to use reason to conjure elegant solutions out of situations in which no one would suspect solutions to be found. However, "Bullshit", at least for this episode, was tainted with bullshit.
_____________________________
Reference: Middleton, N. (2003). The Global Casino (3rd ed.). New York: Hodder.
Hm.
So it's been over a month. Somehow I let myself slip into a cozy nook amongst my peers: start a blog, and then don't blog.
Admittedly, I have been busy with school now in session, but that's hardly any reason to not blog.
So, in order to mitigate the situation, I'll be holding myself accountable for one blog post a week at the minimum.
You're definitely welcome to read them.
Admittedly, I have been busy with school now in session, but that's hardly any reason to not blog.
So, in order to mitigate the situation, I'll be holding myself accountable for one blog post a week at the minimum.
You're definitely welcome to read them.
Friday, August 29, 2008
It's Friday
And that means it's Science Friday! Yesssssssssssssssssssssssss! But, as I was on my way home from campus, I heard this.
This is why we need greater scientific literacy in America. Though, I have to say, at least the woman was for independent confirmation of results from studies.
This is why we need greater scientific literacy in America. Though, I have to say, at least the woman was for independent confirmation of results from studies.
Monday, August 18, 2008
There he... goes... again
In case you missed the Civil Forum featuring John McCain and Barack Obama, here's a transcript.
In this forum, McCain implicitly declared reason #452 as to why he shouldn't get our vote this upcoming Nov. Apparently, he thinks scientific research is bad. Notice that in his response to the question of how McCain defines rich and how that relates to his philosophy on taxes, Mcain eventually came to government spending and this:
But to McCain, these are examples of research that have beneficial effects in mind. That is why he believes something such as bear DNA is superfluous research which only wastes tax dollars. Nevermind the fact that bear DNA will most likely have something to add to the enterprise of biology, which could in turn provide us with some potential medical benefits, if not at least add to our knowledge. What would he have said about the Keeling Curve had he the chance? Would he assume that superfluous also ("Why waste money to send balloons over the ocean!!?") Most scientific discoveries don't have some benefit relevant to whichever country in mind, but most benefits from science come from pure research.
Not to mention, $3 million is very little compared to what else the government spends. It's only one penny ($0.01) from each citizen (or less given that we reached the 300,000,000 mark a few years ago.) What about the funds for the Iraq war, which are in the billions?
So here we have a spavined man who doesn't understand science very well, and he wants to be president of the world's scientific leader. Does anyone feel as if this is a prescription for disaster?
In this forum, McCain implicitly declared reason #452 as to why he shouldn't get our vote this upcoming Nov. Apparently, he thinks scientific research is bad. Notice that in his response to the question of how McCain defines rich and how that relates to his philosophy on taxes, Mcain eventually came to government spending and this:
From this, and the context it was taken from, we can deduce McCain's argument to be this:
And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in way that mortgaged our kids' futures.
My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue...
... but the point is, it was $3 million of your money. It was your money. And, you know, we laugh about it, but we cry - and we should cry because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars.
- Taxes come from the public.
- The government should spend these taxes on useful things.
- Scientific research, namely bear DNA, is not useful.
- The government spent $3 million on bear DNA research.
- Therefore, the government is wasting your money.
But to McCain, these are examples of research that have beneficial effects in mind. That is why he believes something such as bear DNA is superfluous research which only wastes tax dollars. Nevermind the fact that bear DNA will most likely have something to add to the enterprise of biology, which could in turn provide us with some potential medical benefits, if not at least add to our knowledge. What would he have said about the Keeling Curve had he the chance? Would he assume that superfluous also ("Why waste money to send balloons over the ocean!!?") Most scientific discoveries don't have some benefit relevant to whichever country in mind, but most benefits from science come from pure research.
Not to mention, $3 million is very little compared to what else the government spends. It's only one penny ($0.01) from each citizen (or less given that we reached the 300,000,000 mark a few years ago.) What about the funds for the Iraq war, which are in the billions?
So here we have a spavined man who doesn't understand science very well, and he wants to be president of the world's scientific leader. Does anyone feel as if this is a prescription for disaster?
Shave off those crazy people...
I'm sure this is making its rounds around the blogosphere: WWJD - he'd lower gas prices! This is an article in which a group claims that their prayers for lower gas prices have been answered by Jesus.
Of course, this would be a great time to pull out Occam's Razor. There could be several explanations as to why gas prices have gone down, and it's in our best interest to find the most plausible cause.
God may have been the cause, but that requires us explain God - some supernatural being, totally mysterious, totally immaterial, etc. We could also attribute the recent fall in gas prices to a naturally occuring pattern or maybe even supply and demand. Both of these are better answers because they don't appeal to anything supernatural. They can both be witnessed, recorded, and studied as naturally occuring phenomena! This makes them simpler, at least compared to God, so we should place our bets with them instead.
Of course, this would be a great time to pull out Occam's Razor. There could be several explanations as to why gas prices have gone down, and it's in our best interest to find the most plausible cause.
God may have been the cause, but that requires us explain God - some supernatural being, totally mysterious, totally immaterial, etc. We could also attribute the recent fall in gas prices to a naturally occuring pattern or maybe even supply and demand. Both of these are better answers because they don't appeal to anything supernatural. They can both be witnessed, recorded, and studied as naturally occuring phenomena! This makes them simpler, at least compared to God, so we should place our bets with them instead.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Snake Oil Science
I haven't posted in a while because I've dedicated all of my time to reading this book (I'm a slow reader.) Ok, not really, I just cant' find anything to write about.
I'll be posting a review of Snake Oil Science when I'm finished with it.
I'll be posting a review of Snake Oil Science when I'm finished with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
