Midterm

MIDTERM EXAMINATION:

MARCH 25.

1. Be sure to place your entire midterm on your website and when you
are finished send a link of your test to your teacher directly at dlane@mtsac.edu
2. Make sure that it is YOUR OWN work and that if you use other
authors please be sure to quote and/or cite the material appropriately. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and you will receive an "F" automatically for the examination.

3. Test is due: MARCH 25

4. What is your real name? 

Shawn Arthur Achilles Pepper
5. What is your "user" name? 

Shawn
6. What is your email address that you use for this class?  Perseverance.Rxd@gmail.com
7. Name and address for your website.  Blog Title:  “42”

Blog Address:  http://the-answer-is-forty-two.blogspot.com

8. Have you done all the reading for the first three weeks?

No
9. Have you watched each of the films that were required?

No
10. Please place here all of the postings you have done for this
class (you can copy and paste them)

Thank You James Lett for Your Practical Vehicle
James Lett gives us a refreshingly user-friendly application by which to employ evidential reasoning.
One can work oneself right into a mental Twister when trying to determine the veracity of claims.  By using Lett’s six step approach, or his FiLCHeRS (Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency), critical reasoning becomes suddenly accessible.

Where scientific extrapolation (particularly in the realms of the philosophic and metaphysical) borders on erudite rambling and ineffective use of metaphor in order to explain, Lett instead uses the logic of a mental machinest.  One could even relate Lett’s method to understanding the pretext required to solve the mysterious… one claim at a time.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Why Do the Cards Always Tell Me the Same Thing? (Forays in Cold Reading)

Perhaps out of curiosity or sheer boredom, I decided to play my own psychic several years ago.  Although I eschewed a crystal ball and the loose, flowing, tie-dyed garb typically sold in head shops, I did invest in several sets of tarot cards.  I couldn’t be bothered by reading the how-to manuals, so I dove straight into a spread (the description of which promised to reveal the current circumstances and greater themes of my life).
Three different decks later, the most I could extrapolate from the jibber jabber was:  If I don’t change my life, my life won’t change.  Deep man, really deep.
That’s not really what any of the books or decks said, not literally.  That’s the boiled down version of seven swords, the Hanged Man, and an ominous grim reaper appearing as Sauron the All-Searing Eye.  Can I credit this brilliant revelation to the cards or to my own intuition?  Or better yet, maybe it wasn’t even my subconscious at work but my actual conscious, fully aware of such a blatant fact.
A few years later, I was approached by a woman resembling the cliché gypsum-clad gypsy of some very cheesy ‘80’s TV programming.  She gladly read my girlfriend’s palm and did a spread right on our Café Tu Tu Tango table.  But when she looked at me, she simply recoiled, “You don’t believe in this sort of thing.”
Perhaps that was her way of demonstrating her real psychic abilities or perhaps she was astute enough to realize that I was only going to shell out $10 for my girlfriend and wouldn’t fork out $20.
However, the best cold reading I have seen was at Penn and Teller’s show at the Rio in Las Vegas.
The thinking man’s magical duo contends that psychic powers are nothing more than cow chips.  During the trick, multiple joke books were passed among the audience much like musical chairs.  When the music stopped, three audience members found themselves in possession of several different books.  Penn then instructed each person to select one book.  In that book the person was to select a joke based on certain instructions, such as, “Find a joke that personally resonates with you.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Childish Discovery, The Beauty of Richard Feynman’s World
(Reaction to:  “The Pleasure of Finding Things Out”)

To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour. ~ William Blake
Richard Feynman certainly views the world with different eyes than most.  As a child, he learned from an early age to not accept rote thinking.  His father failed to spoon feed him the answers to the questions the world posed.  Instead, his father encouraged young Feynman to question and to reason, to discover the truest nature that nature herself was willing to reveal.
When walking through the woods in his youth, Feynman Senior encouraged his young son to take notice of all things around him.  It was not enough to merely know the names of the flora and fauna around him for his father asserted that to know such was only to know of people and their naming of things.  But, for example, to truly understand the brown throated thrush, one must watch the bird and learn from it in this way.
Later Feynman rejected the way that mathematics is taught in schools.  He himself gained tremendous joy in discerning the value of x through his own deduction, rather than having to follow a set formula that leads every student down the same path to the same predetermined answer.
Feynman asserts that there is great beauty in understanding the physical world, and that to really understand what exists around us, we must have an understanding of mathematics.  We could, just as Feynman asserts, view a flower.  It is beautiful of its own visual accord.  But it may hold yet majestic splendor than what our eyes initially reveal.  What of its life cycle or how its belonging to an ecosystem impacts the lives of other living creatures?  What of its formation, the construction of its cells, the lay of its petals?  Is not the Fibonacci Sequence in itself a thing of grand beauty?
Perhaps Feynman’s most significant contribution to science is his willingness to discover for discovery sake.  Like viewing a flower, noticing all the ways in which it may be appreciated as beautiful, Feynman seeks to replicate the same in all scientific processes.  He asks us not to predetermine results or outcomes or presuppose answers, but search for the sake of searching, letting Mother Nature open to us like a flower opening her petals for the sun.  He asks us to accept the truth that is laid bare before us.

We may consider Feynman a serious scientist, having given us noble and notable contributions.  But I do not think he would wish us to take this legacy from him.  Rather, I think he would wish we retain a child’s desire to continually explore the known and the unknown, reveling in the pure pleasure of discovering what we think we know, what we think we understand for the first time, and the first time, and the first time….

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Adventures in the Paranormal… Reenacting my Own Astrological Reading
Although I particular disbelieve astrology of every sort and especially astrologists who espouse the details of my life, I couldn’t help but be enchanted by Professor Lane’s search for and encounter with the Brigu Samhita, the world’s oldest astrological text.
I do not expect to find my name in a book, but I will now select several books and having asked several pivotal questions, tell my own fortune.  (This experiment is not dissimilar to the common practice of opening religious texts, such as The Bible, after having asked a life-relevant question, expecting to receive a divine answer).
Before I select the books, let me first pose my questions, which are indeed relevant at this time in my life and being so carry certain gravity.
1.       Will my wife and I ever have children? (Future)
2.       If the answer is yes, when might I expect this change to happen? (Future)
I did manage to find a Bible.  I have also furnished myself a collection of poetry and Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.  You’ll note that nowhere do I have a book on making babies.
Question 1:
The Bible says:  O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good:  because his mercy endureth for ever.  Psalm 118:1
The poetry says:  its nature is satisfied, and it satisfies nature, in all moments alike. Ralph Waldo Emerson from “Self Reliance”
Ayn Rand says:  We wouldn’t be welcome in the research department of an industrial concern, such as—let us say—Rearden Steel.
Question 2:
The Bible says:  And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.  Hebrews 7:15
The poetry says:  Therefore do not begin that game at all.  Edward Carptenter
Ayn Rand says:  She struggled to place the moment into some orderly sequence of time.

Sure enough those answers are clear as mud.  It is not too difficult to imagine, however, where someone with skill (and not too much) could extrapolate some sort of wished-for truth out of such nonsense.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Believer Skeptic… What’s on the Menu Today?
I am certain that you will find chef has produced an excellent regional menu, highlighting—of course—that which is not only in season but flawlessly ripe.  Allow your pate’s palate to ultimate indulgence.
For an agreeably palatable hors d'oeuvres might I suggest either:
1.       Johnson’s Critique de Edward Cayce (served on a bed of Mesclun greens):  As balanced a dish as exists on this menu, it gives a taste of Johnson’s extreme fairness in examining the entire body of Cayce’s work:  bias-free.
2.       “The Astonishing Hypothesis”:  Not nearly as heavy or rich as it sounds, this crisp, refreshing starter prepared by our own Francis Crick suggests our spirit, our soul, our personality resides within a physical house in our very real brain.  A road map to free will accompanies this bite of yummy.
For this evening, we have prepared four main courses.  Our chef apologizes, but we seem to have a tremendous amount of Ken Wilber in stock.
3.       Perfectly Fat Gurus:  Enjoy this robust paunch of guru with a steaming side of disciple-borne excuses and karmic explanations.  We all know, after all, that gurus would never fart, belch, pick their noses, or have ingrown toe-nails.
4.       Pairing of Ken Wilber & Da:  If eating this course does not evoke belly laughter, go straight to a doctor to have your funny bone x-rayed.  Wilber (with a hearty helping of Lane) provides the meat of this feast while Da provides the color (careful, some of the colors may run or even stain).  This is probably the most digestible Wilber dish on the menu and a house specialty.  Just make certain to not confuse the message with the medium.
5.       Now for Evolution:  A bit tough, a bit chewy, a lot of gristle on this one.  More of Wilber’s shortcoming here.  Must have a strong constitution to adequately assimilate.
6.       Intelligent Dinner Design or Evolution Part Deux:  Where did this gourmet go wrong?  Two science geeks talking about some other science geek behind his back… peppered liberally with lots of holons and holonics (warning:  peppering may cause neural sweating).  Oddly enough, the pairing seem to be arguing the same point.  This is one heavy meal, filling, hearty, mostly leftover bits we couldn’t use in other dishes (wings, legs, and eyes), and will probably result in indigestion.
Now, for dessert, I humbly offer:
7.       Fine Feynman:  Delicate pairing of time pieces and high winds surrounding the deaths of the beloved of two mental giants and their opposing suppositions of why both the explainable and unexplainable happened.
8.       Kirpal Singh:  Not quite as good as it sounds.  A tart, somewhat sour reminder of Wilber’s shortcomings when ready applying labels and laurels to gurus.  Best served straight from the blast chiller as Lane’s take on Wilber—although we can only assume is at least half accurate—is a bit overdone, if not in content or context, in sheer volume of ingredient.
And, finally, to cleanse the palate, I certainly suggest:

Chapter 9 – Occam’s Razor:  For those with allergies or digestive sensitivities, you’ll be delighted to know that this recipe is almost 100% Wilber-free.  Well, okay, you got me here, he’s still in there.  However, the chief ingredients (pretext, text, and context) blend wonderfully together just like a salted caramel chocolate.  Yes thank you may I have another?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Ratting Out the Truth, a Response to Feynman’s Call for Scientific Integrity
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. ~ King James Bible, Cambridge Edition
The age of science is a relatively new arrival along the human continuum.  Prior to scientific explanation, we have gotten by on folklore and the elucidation of mystics.  One would assume that with advances in science, technology, and particularly with the arrival of the information age, we would have graduated from witch doctor wisdom.
Yet, Richard Feynman posits a credible theory:  that despite our advances, human logic remains fragile at best, entrenched in the desire to explain with limitation.  What is that limitation?  To produce or report only those experiment results that conform to support any given number of desired outcomes.
Is this credible science?  Is this truth?  Or is it no closer to veritas than a Holy Shaman’s pilgrimage prescription for curing cancer?
Few self-proclaimed scientists may actually have the scientific integrity necessary to report an accurate conclusion.  Feynman suggests that all credible researchers be willing to bend over backwards—not in order to prove their theories correct, but to report the complete findings of every experiment, whether or not those findings lend credence to the original theory.
Mr. Young demonstrated true scientific integrity when he systematically eliminated external stimuli in a rat-maze experiment—something which seems to have never been done before.  While Mr. Young utterly failed to accomplish his original objective, his contribution to science is entirely more valuable—the ability to construct such a biological experiment with genuine results, thereby creating the specific conditions in which a researcher can learn about rats.
“They just went right on running rats in the same old way, and paid no attention to the great discoveries of Mr. Young, and his papers are not referred to, because he didn’t discover anything about the rats. In fact, he discovered all the things you have to do to discover something about rats.”  (CARGO CULT SCIENCE, Richard Feynman, 1974)

Let’s not continue to fool ourselves, unintentionally or otherwise.  Let us keep a child’s zeal for ferreting out a mystery’s truths while retaining our adult responsibility to recognize what is, free of false advertising, misreporting, lies of omission, or embellishment.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Virus of the Mind, Fungi of the Imagination, Fumigation of the Commuter Program, or Get to the Point Already Mr. Dawkins
And now to the point. ~ Richard Dawkins
Good Lord, (or un-lord or virulent pseudo-being, whichsoever Richard D. prefers), please get to it already—the point that is.
This article was exhausting to the point of boredom.  Mr. Dawkins could have easily summed up his theories in a few short sentences.  Droning on unnecessarily seems only to prove a perverse fascination with oratorical diarrhea—perhaps a symptom of these viruses so described.
Moreover, I cannot quite equate his ramblings (that have decidedly limited inner-connectivity and relevance) with theories but his trappings seem closer to a heady recipe of personally religious-driven prejudices and semantics.  Was he spanked by a nun?  One could only imagine.
I was quite disappointed with the whole lot.  I had rather looked forward to this article as I too have struggled with some particularly Christian questions that have never been satisfactorily explained so that my limited brain can comprehend the exact or the implied meaning:
* What or who exactly is the Holy Ghost?
* What does Jesus having died for my sins have to do with anything at all?  How does this process of a man subjecting himself to torture terminating in his passing absolve me of my Earthly misdemeanors?
* Why do some Christians use the titles Jesus and God interchangeably?  Are they the same?  I thought Jesus was supposed to be the son of God.
Mostly, however, I want to know why and how these followers believe as they do.  I am constantly mystified upon attending church.  The sermons seem pedantic, circular, illogical, only semi-relatable, and typically rousing enough to produce dozing (even among the congregation).  However, what I find most perplexing (and somewhat embarrassing—that same emotion one feels after having walked in on one’s parents engaged in raucous sex) is those faithful servants who close their eyes and lift their arms Heaven-ward in exultation (typically during hymn singing).  What is that?
I had hoped that Mr. Dawkins would give some plausible explanation of how and why this might be—this faith, how it occurs, how it is spread (other than missionaries and the missionary position).
I was most disappointed to discover a diatribe on computer viruses deconstructing into a mish-mosh of religiously-ridiculous symptoms masquerading as type set from a heavy medical tome.  As it turns out, the boring bits on commuter viruses held more fact than Dawkins poor analogy of religious faith purporting as virus.
In fact, some of his examples of religious viruses fail to meet his earlier definitions.  When describing computer viruses, Dawkins asserts that a virus must not replicate so virulently as to destroy the host.  This must be true for computers as well for living organisms.  Otherwise, the virus’s entire life cycle would decidedly be less than cosmic blink, perhaps contained to only one machine or one creature.
Yet, in comparing religious faith to viruses, Dawkins cites fanatics so entrenched in their disease that they follow their beliefs to the grave—as the case with Jim Jones.
The spread of religious virus is also predominantly through the vehicle of birth and hence rearing of impressionable, gullible children in a given environment by parents (or other mentors) who are also infected.
While it is possible for viruses to be spread in this same manner, this is not often the prime vehicle of transmittance and therefore another poorly constructed metaphor.
If Mr. Dawkins is so concerned for his six year old daughter, believing she is sure to catch such a virus as Catholicism from a nun, why not remove her from Catholic school, or better yet… vaccinate her by teaching her to think for herself?  Is this not yet another plausible solution?
Lastly, Dawkins explanation of Zahavi’s anthropomorphic peacock talk was nothing short of annoying.  He reminded me of those few acquaintances that fail to grasp both social morays and puns.  Yes, yes, yes, we must always be clear in science, yet does this leave us no room for wit?  Apparently not in Dawkins’s world.
Unlike Dawkins’s assertion that I should be virus-addled with the Lutheran and Church of England diseased-culture I was born into, I ascribe to neither faith.  Nor did I conduct a survey of the world’s faiths having rejected my parents’ beliefs.  Neither have I been taken in by the likes of Tammy Faye Bakker.  Perhaps Mr. Dawkins is just sore about being taken in himself.  His writings do carry the underpinnings of someone who has felt a private sting.

Although I do not disagree with Dawkins’s clever analogy, I wished he had packaged it in a tidier form.  Less words, Mr. Dawkins, more clarity of thought.  Leave the muddling to mixologists rather than biologists.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

We Must Use Check Bits—How Russell’s Exact Thinking & Clarity of Thought Applies to the Disneyland Horses
I worked for several years at the Disneyland Resort at the Circle D Corral.  In that time, I saw many changes happen in the horse training program.
The horse industry is rife with traditionalism—that is, people tend to do things simply because that is the way they have been done before.  No one is quite sure when such-and-such a practice began, but every single person is dang sure that such-and-such a practice is, without doubt, one-hundred-percent correct.  What if such practices do not work well, do not work at all, or produce less than optimal results?  Well, most people continue on in their ways, blind to the results because they operate from their own inexact thinking, instead embracing prejudice, bias, and self-interest as Russell indicates.
We happened to be fortunate enough to have what I can only describe as a progressive horse trainer—a young woman who was willing to throw out not only her own personal biases but all those of her predecessors.  She was willing to challenge everything that was being done with the horses in order to determine what was and what was not working.
One of the many changes she made was in the use of bits.  Drivers use bits to communicate their wishes to the horses—mostly for turning and stopping.  Some people argue that bits are control devices, used to force a horse.  However, this is arrogant, ineffectual thinking as no five ounce piece of metal can literally force a one-ton horse to do anything.
The trainer discontinued the use of check bits.  This was met with no limit of confusion and consternation.
Check bits are a second bit added to a driving bit.  The check bit’s mouthpiece is very thin, creating an uncomfortable pressure in the mouth when applied with force.  The force is applied through a check rein, that either lays over the horse’s face or alongside the horse’s neck, hooking to the saddle of the harness.  The check rein can be tightened or loosened to achieve differing pressures in the horse’s mouth.  If the check rein is fit tight, the horse will not want to rest his head (or drop his head) against the uncomfortable pressure of the bit.  This, in a way, temporarily does force to the horse to carry his head and neck high.  It is believed that his head and neck set produces a particular movement in the horse’s body—particularly in his legs.  Theoretically it creates a high-stepping, knee-snapping action.
Check bits, however, are never used in pulling horses—horses that pull a plow, heavy machinery, or a stone boat or sled in competition.  This is a matter of mechanics and physics.  A horse cannot pull a heavy load if he cannot drop his head and shoulders.

Prior to this new trainer, both check bits and check reins were used.  While they were not tightened to the same degree as in hitch horses, they were still used.  Most interestingly, not a single person working at the barn could explain why they were being used.  It was simply what was done with draft horses (or at the least the draft horses they had been exposed to in Southern California).
At that time, there was also a high incidence of collar sores (a deep, festering sore produced by a poor fitting harness or irregular pressure points caused by the harness) and bit sores.
The trainer was quickly able to determine that check bits, although traditionally used, were not necessary and even harmful to the Disneyland horses, whose job more closely resembles that of a pulling horse and not a hitch horse.  There was no need to create the high-stepping action.  Furthermore, these horses needed to lean forward to start the street car rolling—an action which had previously been impeded by the use of a tight check.
Once the check bits were discontinued, not only did pulling performance increase, the incidence of collar sores and bit sores decreased to zero.  An interesting side effect, there was also a significant reduction in the amount of horse slips and falls—apparently due to the improved physical mechanics of being able to engage in the head, neck, and shoulders in a downward fashion while starting a load.
Even though these improvements were evident, even obvious among a herd of approximately twenty-five draft horses, many of the Cast Member railed, demanding a return to the use of check bits and reins—deeming them necessary.  What a perfect example of clinging to personal biases while completely failing to accept the trainer’s exact thinking. 

What could possibly be the motivations of such people to reject the discontinuance of checks?  It is highly plausible that such individuals felt personally threatened as in the horse industry is it idiomatically accepted that the person with the most know-how is supreme and dictates to others.  Proving habituated tradition in this case was nothing more than harmful pointlessness was indeed a harsh blow to not just the egos of the railing Cast Members but to their status among the human group of relatively-termed horse experts.  Bertrand Russell was most likely a fan of thinking outside the box.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations, by David Willey
Walking On Broken Glass, Acknowledging the Physic(al) David Willey
Mr. Willey proves—quite simply—through four demonstrations that what appears to be superhuman power is nothing more than applied physics… a la cook book fashion.  While strolling on a bed of broken beer bottles from this weekend’s wild soiree may have many a man’s toes curling in anticipatory agony, Willey gives us a simple formula for cheating our senses and making the walk wholly possible:  sans sanguinary socks.
Willey shows us how we might dip our fingers into molten lead, survive a crushing blow, and hold an orange-hot space tile.  While Willey provides these eye popping demos in the name of education, what of the fakers who use such devices as a means of otherworldly trickery, aiming to convince their dupable audience of actual divine power?

Such amazing feats are nothing new, even when reinvented.  People seem to love to be both wowed and fooled, particularly in the name of a good afternoon’s entertainment.  Yet it is not just for entertainment’s sake that we allow ourselves to believe what our eyes tell us is real.  The greater implication is our history of being fooled over reported religious phenomena—incidents upon which faith is often based.  Can such be explained away through simple physical instruction?  Is the simplest explanation always the truest?  At least Willey is only disassembling parlor tricks.  Or is he?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

11. Why does Richard Dawkins consider religion a "virus" of the
mind? Do you agree or disagree?
Substantiate your view.

Mr. Dawkins asserts that religion spreads like a virus and once in a person’s mind behaves much like a virus does within the body.  Furthermore, religion and faith as a virus can present with symptoms not dissimilar to a virus that a person or a computer might contract.

Dawkins explains that viruses have particular attributes—they replicate (in the case of microbiology the replication occurs because DNA itself readily replicates; in the case of computers, the mechanism of replication can occur through copying of sharing of information—both within a given system and through human intervention); viruses must also not be so virulent they kill their hosts before infecting other hosts.  In this manner, Dawkins points out that a virus must have an effect that small enough to initially go un-detected, yet the sum of the effects can have significant, if not disastrous consequences.

Humans are meant to contract the virus of faith through geography and culture—that is we tend to adopt the views of the societies within which we are raised.  The virus of various religions and customs can easily take root within a young mind as children are virtual sponges—their brains are designed to mimic, believe, and accept.  Guilability seems to be a prime condition within which a religious virus to take root.

I accept that the analogy of religion as a virus is interesting.  Do I believe that it is actually a virus?  No.

Viruses are elements comprised of genetic materials that can only replicate within living biological cells.  Even a computer virus is not a true virus, but a name we have adapted to describe an event that can be similar within physical technology.

As far as I know, we have yet to determine that faith or religion exists within our cells or is part of our DNA.  I find it far more plausible that our psychology lends us, as a human race, to believing and accepting certain information or ideas.

12. Give an example of a "cargo cult" belief and critically analyze
it from a scientific perspective? Hint:
think of something that people believe in that lacks overwhelming
evidence to support it.

Many people believe that eating whole eggs is an unhealthy practice, primarily because the egg yolk contains considerable cholesterol… and most people also believe that eating dietary cholesterol will increase the cholesterol levels within their bodies—negatively so.

Like so many things in science, the real answer of whether or not eating egg yolks is good or bad for a person is:  it depends.

Studies in which the impact of ingesting dietary cholesterol on the levels of cholesterol within the body is tested yield mixed results.  Ingesting dietary cholesterol has both been proven to raise harmful cholesterol within the blood and also been proven to not raise harmful cholesterol within the blood.  Other factors come into play, such as total caloric intake, fat intake, and carbohydrate intake—especially readily digested carbohydrates that cause a quick, marked rise in insulin.

The bottom line boils down to something like this:

Ingesting dietary cholesterol has little effect on blood cholesterol—either good or bad.  It does not appear to matter where this cholesterol comes from, whether it is eggs or another source.  What does seem to negatively impact cholesterol levels is much more complex and includes:  genetics, hormones, obesity, and a diet rich in both refined carbohydrates and fats.

Regularly ingesting whole eggs can actually have a beneficial effect on blood cholesterol (both lowering bad cholesterol levels and raising good cholesterol levels) when used in combination with consistent, intense exercise and a diet devoid of high glycemic load carbohydrates, particularly those found in processed foods, sugars, and grains (even if the diet is very high in fats—including saturated fats).

Furthermore, research indicates that the saturated fats and cholesterol found in egg yolks can help individuals lose weight (particularly fat), build muscle, and boost hormone levels (including testosterone).  Also, the fats contain most of the egg’s vitamin and mineral content.

It appears that regular consumption of egg yolks (and even other cholesterol-containing foods) is not only safe for one’s health but can even have beneficial side effects.

Of course the discussion of eggs as a cargo cult science may seem too trivial.  After all, we are not tackling larger phenomena such as global warming, stigmata, demonic possession, or spontaneous healing ala Andy Kaufman.  Yet, consider the source of our confusion—the mainstream media.  How many of us fall prey to being a sheep to this shepherd, simply being directed here and there by whatever headlines the hour?

13. How does one do "science" according to Richard Feynman. Why is
this form of science so important to
human beings? How can such a view of science help enrich one's
appreciation for beauty? Be sure to give
YOUR own example of Feynman's point (no "flowers" allowed).

Feynman believes there are two types of science:  true science and pseudo science.  True science is the action of ferreting out one of the physical mysteries of nature; and, in the process, failing to pre-suppose the facts that one is about to uncover but instead to allow the mystery to reveal its own truths.  In this true science, Feynman stresses is where we find beauty and the pleasure of discovering.

Pseudo science could be described as either that which has no substantiation—only theories and ideas, such as social sciences.  Or, pseudo science could also be described as creating paths and formulas in order to end at a predetermined destination, as is the case with how algebra is taught to most children.  Feynman understood the pleasure of discovering the value of x through whatever means were at his own intelligent disposal whereas his cousin only understood how to work an algebraic equation in a given method to arrive at a given solution.

Feynman’s version of science is ultimately important to human beings as it allows us to discover how things truly are without the handicap of imposing our own biases and self-interests.  Not only this, but often along the path of trying to discern a particular thing, we often uncover alternate truths that we could not have previously imagined (particularly if we were only looking for one variable and only one way to solve for that variable).

This view of understanding the physical world—such as through mathematic reasoning—only enhances the beauty of the world around us.  It seems obvious enough that a sunflower is beautiful to behold.  If we know more of that sunflower, does it detract from that beauty?  Is the seeming destruction of ignorance equal to the destruction of beauty?  Or does understanding a thing implicitly, in all its details only add to the magnificence?

Feynman asserts that to know a thing as intimately as possible increase beauty exponentially.  For example, how wondrous would it be to see a remarkable specimen of lichen growing on a dark boulder deep in the forest?  But how more wondrous does the mystery and the beauty of the lichen become when we understand that lichen is one of nature’s examples of perfect symbiosis whereby algae and fungi co-exist in perfect harmony with each other?

Perhaps one of the most amazing mathematical discoveries is that of the golden ratio.  Not only do we see this pattern repeating itself through nature (such as branch patterns, the veins within leaves, the skeletons of animals, the curve of a seashell, the geometry of a snowflake), we can also observe the same mean in finance, art, architecture, and music.  This singular mathematic sequence surrounds us, transcending our known physical world.  What a wonderful, beautiful mystery.  How can this knowledge possibly detract from the beauty we see?

14. Give your interpretation of the movie "Karma."

I am afraid the link was unavailable due to copyright laws.  I was unable to find the film on alternate sites.

15. Explain, in brief, Darwinian evolution and why John Maynard
Smith's contribution is important in
thinking differently about survival of the fittest.

Charles Darwin is credited for being the first to theorize about an origin of the species differing from that of creationist theories.  Indeed, it is to Darwin we ascribe the theory of evolution.

Darwin’s premises are simple enough to comprehend:  each individual species has evolved, over millennia, through continual adaptation to environmental factors.  Individuals within species whose adaptations provided some biological benefit (wings, gills, lungs, improved eyesight, and so forth) had a greater chance of surviving and hence passing along those same (or similar) genetic traits to future generations.  Hence, Darwin posited both natural selection (by which nature by virtue of being exactly how it is will favor traits suited to improved survival) and survival of the fittest (whereby those individuals adapting to better survive would outlive, outperform, and out reproduce their lesser competitors).

John Maynard Smith brought a background in engineering (and hence mathematics) to the field of biology.  His most notable contribution to evolution is the introduction of applied game theory and the evolutionary stable strategy.

Simply put, a species will evolve different characteristics in order to find a sort of natural balance where nature may favor an array of adapted attributes.  This only makes sense as if, for example, a species was only adapted to survive high temperatures and travel low speeds the entire species would be wiped out if they were suddenly exposed to low temperatures and required high speeds.

I cannot be certain but this idea of ESS may be evident in spawning salmon.  I worked as a technician for the Alaksa Department of Fish & Game, sampling sockeye salmon during their spawning run.  What I found most interesting was that a significant number of salmon return while still immature and may even be a couple years younger than their mature cousins.  However, once entering the stream system, these physically small salmon (some only the size of a large man’s hand) will reach sexual maturity and procreate.

The current theory suggests that not every smolt is destined to return after a given number of years.  Somehow, mysteriously (the mechanism is yet to be discovered), all the smolt in a given spawning year will return at differing annual intervals.  This makes sense as if there were a natural disaster, great enough to destroy an entire spawn, the life cycle of salmon in that region would still continue as there would always be returning salmon.

16. What are Freeman Dyson's views on the "design" of the universe
or the purpose of humankind?

17. What IS the "secret" that Faqir Chand discovered about religion
and its founders?

Faqir Chand discovered that astral projections and other such mystical phenomena can only be attributed to the person experiencing such.  In other words, what Faqir Chand saw as his guru was only his own insight into his own psyche—not the actual physical or metaphysical representation of his guru.  Later, he was astonished to be worshipped as a guru himself, having followers assert that they had witnessed him appearing (when he in fact did not project himself).

Faqir Chand saw that there was no mystic secret at all, just beliefs of the individual and what they wanted to see or experience.

18. Explain the movie Seven and what is YOUR interpretation of it?
In other words, what is the underlying message that the
director is trying to convey?

Seven depicts an aspiring young journalist covering the tragic murder of collegiate Sikh by a group of radical anti-terrorist Muslims.  The youthful Sikh was cut down in cold blood returning a library book—he had been mistaken for a Muslim by the radicals because he had been seen occasionally wearing a turban.  Having learned they had not killed a Muslim, the radicals (the leader of which was motivated by the murder of his father during the 9/11 attacks) decided to target a mosque.  Alas, they happen to kill another innocent—the aspiring journalist.

This film has two strong undercurrents:  that stereotyping is often no more complicated than leaping to conclusions and making sweeping assumptions where judgment is meted out swiftly, unthinkingly, and unflinchingly; and, that where fear and hatred persist—no matter the reason—that violence begets violence.  Acts of terrorisms infamously create an incubator of what the name suggests—terror.  When this inflamed state accompanies profound loss, some react with acts of counter-terrorism.  The victims of such can be counted as collateral damage, not of individual acts of violence, but of terrorism as a whole.

19. Why is distinguishing the message from the medium so important?
Use the Da Free John article as your context.

We humans are a guilable lot.  We are born wanting to believe:  in Father Time, in Father Christmas, in Jesus Christ or other Saviors, in God, in the Easter Bunny.  We tend to view sages and prophets as God-men, nearly immortal (or truly so) and perfect in every way.  In church, we do not discuss the bodily functions of Jesus.  We do not question his sex life.  We certainly do not think of him washing his dirty underwear.  These qualities are too human, too base, too filthy.  It would seem that higher beings, such as gurus (or even just those heroes and role models we look up to), could not possibly be as human, as riddled with frailties and bad habits as the rest of us.

If such a sage writes or speaks his or her doctrine, we tend to regard it in awe, as part of the collective divine whatever.

Interestingly, do we think of Albert Einstein as a God-man?  Would it be strange to think of Einstein on the toilet?  Not nearly as strange as thinking of Jesus sitting in the outhouse with Judas and Paul there to keep him company.

All human prophets are human—no more so and no less so.  All humans obey the same physical laws, have the same body functions (whether they want to or not), and are plagued by the same desires (whether or not they give into those desires is entirely up to them).

Is it possible for such prophets to be prophetic, to positively contribute to other humans intellects… and still be just human?  Are their thoughts, teachings, and writings less valuable, less remarkable if they are found to be law breakers and sinners and host to an array of the most foul body functions?

Da Free John was one funky dude.  He happened to be a prolific spiritual writer and not a bad one at that.  However spiritual he may have appeared, however, his actions in the real world were decidedly not so enlightened.  Da Free John was followed by controversy of his own design:  sleeping with his female disciples, actively using drugs, transmitting herpes, poorly managing his finances yet asking his followers for financial contributions, beating his wife, and a whole host of other social no-no’s.

So, maybe he wasn’t such an enlightened guy.  Maybe he was a smart guy who knew how to lead a group of people with a penchant towards a particular psychology.

What of his writings, his teachings?  Surely he did not record his nonsensical behaviors.  No, his writings are known to be astute, well-crafted, and thought provoking.

It is possible, then, to gain value from his writing alone while also disregarding Da as a prophet.  In our guilability, we tend to get suckered into the works of a person and then believe that that is the only dimension in which the author exists.  We are guilty of the same when we falsely believe that celebrities or politicians or anyone in a place of authority or power can do or say no wrong.  Do we need to hail Master Da as a supreme incarnation of divine wisdom to glean usefulness from his texts?  Of course not.

By failing to separate these two elements:  message and medium, we only leave ourselves open to falling for baited fallacies hook, line, and sinker.  We do not need to deify a person simply because they had something clever to say.

20. What are Bertrand Russell's reasons for NOT being a Christian?
Do you agree or disagree with him? GIVE RATIONAL
ARGUMENTS FOR your position (pro or con).

21. Give a summary of Jim Lett's field guide to critcal thinking (in
your own "300" words, no more). Don't use quotes but write it like a
letter to a friend explain how to think critically in light of Lett's
numerous points.

Dearest Johnny and Samantha,

I regret your decision not to attend our crepe party.  My wife tells me you saw a ghost—Bartholomew Black—in our attic and are too frightened to return.

Permit me to play Sherlock Holmes.  By using FiLCHeRS (six steps in evidential reasoning), I shall prove Bartholomew Black, the ghost, does not exist.

First, I employ falsifiability to test whether or not a ghost exists.  Not only can I not prove a ghost exists, nor can I disprove a ghost’s existence.

Next, logic dictates ghosts are fiction.  We have noisy plumbing, drafts, no attic, and a pale butler we call Black Bart.  Perhaps you had too much sherry during your last visit?

Comprehensively, the evidence points to a drunken encounter with Mr. Bart.  I have yet to uncover any evidence of a Bartholomew Ghost.

Let me be honest.  My wife and I have spent the last three weeks looking for a ghost that has yet to turn up.  I’ll have you know I’m not letting my personal bias influence my investigation.

To replicate the circumstances in which you and your wife thought you saw a ghost, my wife and I have been wandering around drunk late at night.  I admit we have both been startled by our butler and can see how his lurking may appear ghoulish.

I’m afraid Bartholomew’s existence lacks substantial proof.  There is just not sufficient evidence.

There is however sufficient evidence that Mr. Black is a figment of brandied imagination.

Now that I have disproved the existence of a ghost, we do hope you reconsider attending.

Cordially,

Shawn

22. Why does Kurtz believe that skepticism should be applied to
religion? Do you agree or disagree?

23. Why is pretext, text, and context important in analyzing a book
or an argument. Provide your own example.

It is difficult—though not impossible—to argue a point if one does not fully understand all aspects of it.  In this model, where we use pretext, text, and context together, most invalid (yet commonly occurring) arguments take place using only context as reference, having completely (or nearly completely) disregarded both pretext and text… or, as also commonly occurs, people find themselves arguing over something taken out of context (and the pretext and text may or may not be fully understood).

Let us apply this model to analyze Yann Martel’s fiction, Life of Pi.  The pretext of the book is the complete array of symbols used:  in this case, the English alphabet, numbers, punctuation, and capitalization.  To read the book, I must first understand what the alphabet is, know what each letter is, know what each punctuation is and what it means.  Of course if I read the book thus, one letter and one comma at a time, it would be meaningless beyond the comprehension of simple symbols.  One could even go a step farther in applying pretext to a book, where it not only comprised of letters and funny marks that make you stop a thought at the end of a sentence, but it is also comprised of individual pages, binding, ink that forms the letters, and a cover.  I must also know how to work the book, how to turn the pages, in which order, in which direction should I hold the book, in what way to I read the letters, numbers, and so on.

If I had none of this knowledge I would not grasp the pretext.  One could then argue that without this rudimentary understanding I would be, in effect, completely illiterate and Life of Pi, beyond its colorful cover art, would be an inert object, completely devoid of any meaning.

In science, we need to be careful to not skip over full comprehension of pretext before continuing to text and context… a trend that seems all too seductive.

The text of the work comprises the bulk of the symbols arranged in such a way that at least some meaning is discerned.  I can read the book from cover to cover and understand that words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters join together with plot, sub-plot, characters, details, descriptive demonstration, theme, analogy, and metaphor to create the story.  This is where I glean the information (at least partially) that the author intends to convey.

But what of context?  The context of a work can be far more obtrusive and subtle at the same time.  There is the context of the actual work as created by the author (whether intentionally or not).  When was the book written?  Why?  Who was the author?  Where was he from?  What were his social, political, economic, religious, spiritual, scientific views?  What underlying messages was he trying to convey, if any?  What were the author’s motivations for writing the book?  What other factors contributed to the creation of the book in its whole form and in its parts?

Understanding this part of context helps us to put the information we absorbed from both pretext and text into a sort of filing system.

Yet there is also personal context, such as what was happening in my life when I read the book?  Where was I?  Did I read the book in the bathtub?  How did I interpret the meaning and events of the book?  Did I read the book before or after I was married?  Did I read the book only on the recommendation from a trusted friend or was it required reading that I wanted nothing to do with?  Do I have an irrational phobia of tigers (real or imagined) that prevented me assimilating the story?

To read I must first understand pretext and what to do with it.  To gain a rudimentary understanding of the book, I must be able to organize pretext (or have it organized for me) so that I can absorb the text—the body of work.  Perhaps most importantly, however, I must then be careful of how I assimilate this knowledge into context.  If I take the book out of context, I am then failing to understand it:  both as it exists and also its potential value (or harm).

One could take Life of Pi out of context by believing the story is pure fact.  Let us imagine that this person then shares this out of context-ness with ten other people who share their out of context-ness with ten other people and so on.  Now we have populated a small world with individuals who, in essence, believe the wrong thing.  They have all embraced a fallacy.

Doing further harm, by accepting Life of Pi and the events therein as truth, the context of the parable is completely lost, indeed the beauty and tragedy of the story and its significance to an individual psyche is lost too.  Not only have we lost the truth, we have also lost the art.

While Life of Pi is merely fiction, we can easily see that taking a novel out of context can have harmful effects.  There have undoubtedly been countless other novels and works of non-fiction taken out of context.  One must remember to keep the context relevant to the direct matter at hand, referencing only its bearing to the preceding text and pretext (while also taking care to rule out the context leant through personal bias and experiences).

24. What is a "transformative" UFO encounter and does the author of
the Himalayan Connection really believe in UFOs as genuine
extraterrestrials?

The most basic definition of a transformative UFO encounter is a hallucination:  a symbol appearing to an individual that to the person feels real yet lacks any real evidence of an entity’s existence.

The author does not believe that UFOs are genuine extraterrestrials but that human brains are pliable enough to be conned into believing pretty much anything.  The experience to the individual person may be ‘real’ enough in their own mind and yet fail to have any actual reality—such a person who experiences a strong hallucination.  UFOs are nothing more than a figment of consciousness.

25. How does one think more critically when using online sources?
(hint: think of one of the required articles). Substantiate your
views.

26. What are Steven Weinberg's views on religion? Do you agree or
disagree?

27. Why is Sam Harris an atheist? Explain his reasons. Can you argue
against his views? If so, how?

28. Of the first five installments of BEYOND BELIEF which speaker
did you find most persuasive? Explain why.

29. Ken Miller argues against Michael Behe's notion of irreducible
complexity and the notion of intelligent design in biology. Is he
right? If so, explain. If not, give your reasons why not.

30. In the conference BEYOND BELIEF, which speaker did you find to
be the weakest in terms of substance? Explain.

In the end of Steven Weinberg’s lecture, he asserts that the complete destruction of religion may quite possibly be the greatest achievement of science.  This is an awfully bold statement, bordering on the ridiculous.

Before we heap anything in the trash, we might just wan to examine whether or not what we’re discarding is complete rubbish.

To be fair in science, we must not only determine what is true about a thing, we must also prove what is not true about it.  Weinberg completely fails to present any sort of argument at all as to the benefits or even needs of religion among humanity.

Human beings did not develop an extra set of arms or grow a pair of gills or learn to fly for a reason—a billion reasons, actually, when considering our evolutionary history.  While religion and science do indeed tend to clash at the outright, is any scientist out there poking around in the human psychology (and physiology of that psychology) to determine whether or not the development of such religious and mythological convictions are evolutionary beneficial to our species?

I doubt very much that belief in the unbelievable as a global phenomenon, universal to homo sapiens sapiens is an accident.  We seek meaning, we yearn for explanation for a reason.  What is that reason?  Why do we stare into the night sky and wonder?

It seems incredibly arrogant to throw out the entire spectrum of belief outside of current science, particularly before determining why we have those beliefs (not from a historical but a biological perspective).

Of course, one could leap to such conclusions as terminating religion would also terminate religious prejudice and hence end such violence as that we perceive originating from Islam.  Yet this again is a narrow, arrogant, decidedly ethnocentric view.

Perhaps that is the best description of Weinberg‘s lecture:  ethnocentric to the scientific community (no doubt specific to his peers) and to civilized, Western thought.

I view his views as particularly Pleistocene, that is, science is constantly trumping itself.  What we understand today of physics is not what we will understand one-hundred years from today.  Who is to say that what we now call science will not one day be obsolete, nothing more an archaic, dusty relic in the museum of human consciousness, replaced with a new methodology far superior?

I refuse to limited by such inclusive statements as:  the eradication of an entire way of life is a positive benefit to all mankind.  What utter rubbish.  How perfectly Arian of Weinberg.  What better than religious cleansing, than mass cultural genocide?  Obviously this is the answer, according to        , whether or not there are mortal casualties, there will certainly be moral casualties.

                                                                              

31. What constitutes a scientific education according to Huxley?

32. Why is the book BELIEVER-SKEPTIC so critical of Ken Wilber and this thinking? Be specific in your answers

It appears that Mr. Lane is harshly critical of Ken Wilber because of Wilber’s tendency to romanticize and exaggerate that which has not yet been substantiated, as is the case with Wilber’s cultish fascination with Da Free John. 

To a lesser extent, Lane may be extra critical of Wilber’s cerebral love affair with Master Da because Lane himself has been an avid follower and reader of Wilber’s since high school and beyond—using Wilber’s his work in the classroom.  Dare I say Lane has an affinity for Wilber, perhaps not in a hero-worship sort (I doubt very much that Lane views Wilber as a Heart Master Guru), but because he identifies with Wilber on a personal level?  They may be too similar and Lane is as harsh and calculating with Wilber as he would be on himself.

Lane, however, seems most disappointed that Wilber’s infatuation appears juxtaposed to his other works which at least have the possibility of substantiation and therefore beneficial to the field of transpersonal psychology.  Instead, Wilber has gone plain goo-goo ga-ga over Da John and rather than appearing a sane scientist, looks a lovesick fool tinged with viral insanity.  It seems that Mr. Lane—and others—were able to discredit Master Da’s enlightened stature:  what real guru forces his disciples to make pornography and transmits herpes?  Perhaps Wilber missed the boat with this one, being mentally sidelined by a heady concoction of good grammar and drug tripping.  Lane explains:  “…just because one writes well does not mean by extension that he is an embodiment of the highest truth or realization.  Wilber repeatedly confuses the message with the medium.”

33. Give a review and a reaction to the three magazines that you read listed above.

In the “Believer-Skeptic” magazine, author David Lane posits several examples of how retaining a sort of permanent skepsis or doubting, questioning attitude tends to point more to the facts of life rather than the fiction.

“Believer-Skeptic” takes us through a delightful, albeit sometimes wordy, journey whereby we are encouraged to employ critical reasoning skills.  For example, instead of Lane pointing out how Edgar Cayce cannot possibly be the prophet certain individuals take him for, Lane reviews a reviewer (Johnson) of Cayce’s life work, reminding us to both carefully and critically examine the whole of the parts and not a singular gear of a machine.  Later, in Chapter 9:  Occum’s Razor, Lane again reminds us to be mindful of fully understanding and weighing the pretext, text, and context of every argument lest we be suckered into buying something out of context (or worse yet arguing such).

I generally enjoyed “Believer-Skeptic” as it presented what I can only describe as equality in discerning possible truths.  By the end, however, I felt quite bad for Ken Wilber, who seemed to take a smart bashing over the head.  One wonders how Mr. Wilber could possibly stand after having endured such academic knuckle wrapping.

I understand Professor Lane’s cautionary tale in regards to Wilber’s over-exhuberance, particularly in the case of his fanatical toutings of Master Da Free John.  Indeed, Wilber’s frenetic ramblings and sharp exhultations reminds me more of a tripped-out hippy ready to follow the likes of Jim Jones right off a cliff (or into the jungle—whichever comes first).  Such audacity seems on the verge of crazy and I myself wonder at not only the veracity of Wilber’s other statements but also his soundness in powers of reasoning and deduction.  If he could be so taken in by a charlatan, what other cons has Wilber enthusiastically fallen for?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

“Adventures in the Paranormal:  The World’s Oldest Astrological Book” gives such a compelling first hand encounter of a reading from the Bhrigu Samhita that a non-believer could just about make a 180… almost.

The Brigu Samhita seems fascinating of its own accord, with its purported self-replenishing leaves, and its preordination of names, dates, and places.  Beyond the mystical powers it may or may not have, the fact that such a tome exists (even if in parts scattered about India) has certain historical and cultural significance.

Knowing the little I do about David Lane (or even not knowing about him at all), I would have been entirely fascinated by his reading.  Indeed, the sham of most astrologers is their ability to cold read, to put on a show based almost solely on the vague commonality of the human condition (which I am sure is not all that different from culture to culture).

However, the reading of the leaf from the Brigu Samhita seemed almost other worldly, with its direct naming of David Lane and other details which could only be described as spot on.

Is it part of the parlor trick, however, that to read from the Brigu Samhita is really to hot read the intended victim?  Could not the translator be telling Mr. Lane exactly what he knows of Mr. Lane?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The final magazine, an essay in Bertrand Russell’s Mysticism and Logic seeks not to prove or persuade but rather to educate in so simple a way as to make clear.

Heraclitus’s decidedly scientific observations of the physical world are juxtaposed with Plato’s sometimes poetic license and mystical ‘reasoning’.  Russell extends the examples to ask four pertinent questions when trying to determine the validity or falseness of mysticism in a scientific world—questions that we may very well ask when confronted with that which fails to measure up scientifically.

I found this magazine the most pleasurable to read.  Where the others were jarring, this was a change of pace—a bit like going for a walk in a nature reserve rather than being asked to feed a hungry pack of lions by hand.

Extra Credit: List any books you read from the list for extra credit. Provide cogent summaries of each.
Make your own 3 minute movie on how to be an effective critical
thinker (be creative).

DOUBLE EXTRA CREDIT:Give a 200 word interpretation of the required movie, Nicholas of
Cusa. What do you think it actually means