Standing up for what you believe

I’ve long had difficulty with the validity of advice that says “always stand up for what you believe.” Superficially, it is inspirational to those working in a difficult and discouraging situation. It is meant to convey encouragement that a person should strive not to give up on a difficult goal. Keep chipping away at the problem. You can eat an elephant, but only by one bite at a time. There are many aphorisms that tie into this sentiment. A crisp analysis of this is not like a problem in algebra, you know, a problem with a unique solution. If you share the person’s subjectivity, then perhaps there is no problem.

Standing up for what you believe is often used to proclaim a refusal to give up some action or view. It can telegraph moral clarity and devotion to an ideal.

What are we to think when a leader stands up and proclaims that they intend to stand firm on their convictions? Irrespective of whether or not you agree with them, doesn’t their proclamation to stand fast say something about flexibility in the face of contrary evidence or logic? If new thinking comes along, wouldn’t we want a leader who can turn the boat around to a better heading?

We don’t want wishy-washy or indecisive leaders- don’t we really want action based on the best thinking? In a democracy it is our job to put the best thinkers in the important slots.

The weakness of this advice comes into view when you consider whether any given goal is “worthy” or not. Is there objective information or reason supporting going after a goal or maintaining a belief? Even if a belief or goal is objectively valid, is it something worth committing your life to? Will it really lead to the desired end? On the personal level, someone may be convinced that a goal is indeed worthy and is backed with good intentions, tight reasoning or what appears to be justifying evidence.

A person may be genuinely convinced that their goal or belief is worthy irrespective of objective fact or analysis. They would be making a subjective decision to stay on the path for reasons of comfort or aesthetics. As long as your path is not harmful to those around you, why not?

People possessed of divine certitude in their politics or religion, for example, will often claim that a particular hill really is worth dying on. They are willing to defend their beliefs to their last breath, a few in the literal sense but most metaphorically speaking. Righteous though they may seem, are we obliged to stand by and let the firmly held but baseless or insane beliefs of others swerve our democracy into an autocratic swamp of fringe beliefs and looney political theories?

The societal problems are supposed to be addressed by voting based on rational thought and conveyed through freedom of speech. Today in the US, large and well-funded forces are focused on eliminating time-tested elements of democracy based on firmly held beliefs.

The practical difficulty in the US is that monied interests have the cash to buy media time to persuade the masses. Repetition of untruthful assertions and fearmongering are highly effective. Recruiting and inciting people into the dark side of politics is all too easy as the GOP has shown for decades. And yes, I’m taking sides.

This is my theory: From the view at 30,000 feet we can broadly divide thinking into two manifolds- analytical thinking and devotional thinking. Analytical thinking is that in which conclusions or practices are based on consideration of established secular principles, measurable evidence and the science behind cause and effect.

Devotional thinking is rationale based on adherence to doctrine- be it religious or political. A particular doctrine guides a person’s beliefs, emotions and actions or conclusions, maybe even in the face of contrary evidence.

Analytical thinking is my preference but it can go awry. Conclusions may be drawn from faulty evidence or previous thinking that is factually incorrect or poorly conceived. Worse, human thinking is subject to stranding in the cul-de-sac of confirmation bias. Many of us get stuck in this appealing comfort zone indefinitely. Beliefs or opinions are often cherished and difficult to release.

So, what do you say to a person who adheres to a belief that can be objectively contradicted with arguments based on data or rational analysis? How far along are we obliged to indulge a person in a faulty belief? Should we be supportive and encourage them to “stand up for what you believe” knowing full well that they are on a fool’s errand or their belief leads to actions troublesome for others?

This is where politics comes in as useful. In principle, poor thinking can be outvoted. A majority of poor thinkers with bad ideas is a problem as history shows. Assuring the survival of liberal democracy takes continual monitoring. Oh yes, the continuance of liberal democracy is axiomatic in my view.

No doubt this ground has been plowed by philosophers for centuries. But, I don’t call myself a philosopher.

Is it really our place to correct a person’s belief? Who am I to reset an adult’s thinking? If someone is operating on the basis of incorrect information, like a definition or a piece of data, it could be argued that correcting them would be an act of kindness. If someone is just full of harmless baloney, then perhaps they should be left to wander through life as is.

This situation has been part of the human condition forever. Everyone has the right to be an idiot now and then. But what happens when their idiocy becomes a problem for others or too self-destructive to stand by and watch in civil society?

Speaking for myself only, I’m inclined to ignore those who espouse ignorant or magical beliefs. I’ll steer clear of the flat-earthers or Baptists, for instance, as not worth the effort to engage. With homeopathy believers, in a moment of weakness I might engage with some words about basic chemical principles relating to dose/response relationships. With the anti-vaccine crowd … this a tough one. All too frequently I go non-linear and become scornful of those harboring misplaced fear or anger towards vaccination. I’ll start gibbering and sputtering if I don’t quit thinking about it.

Speaking of goofy beliefs, I’ve had a longstanding issue with most religions, the big 3 in particular. To me, standing up for something that derives from magical thinking and no evidence seems foolish. Writings of dubious origin and translated or edited over the millennia could be as source of fiction or a mixture of truth and fiction. Followers of religion operate under the belief that their religious doctrines are set in stone and are the basis for all moral behavior.

Religion finally boils down to being a theory of the universe. The big 3 religions have always struck me as transparently anthropomorphic rationalizations of the universe using iron age thinking. I used to engage with others on this for fun but it’s nothing but aggravation now.

Does science give us the ultimate view of the universe? We only get pieces of it directly. The universe most of us know is substantially based on our what our brains perceive via stimulation of the nervous system. What we can see is limited to a very narrow slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, maybe one octave wide. Light waves exist many octaves distant on either side of the visible range. On the high energy side, there is the gamma ray universe shining brightly from nuclear reactions in stars and other objects. On the low energy side is the radio universe shining away by larger scale mechanisms. Adjacent to the visible spectrum is the x-ray and ultraviolet spectrum. On the opposite side are infrared and microwaves. All can reveal insights based on how they interact with matter. We exploit imaging, spectroscopy and mathematics to understand the universe outside of the solar system.

But maybe the reality we experience is just a type of baseline hallucination that we think of as our “normal” consciousness.

Science is unable to help with the desire to know the supernatural. Science requires observation, quantification, measurement and analysis. I suppose that if you could start classifying and counting miracles per square kilometer, you could begin to understand the effects of location and type of miracle. Anyway …

Gosh. It seems that I’ve painted myself into a corner.

Attacking Russia. WTF?

I’m about to say some things that may seem (or are) hopelessly naive. But sometimes we should stop and reexamine our basic assumptions.

So, I have to ask the question. Why would anyone in their right mind contemplate an unprovoked attack on Russia? The present-day Russian and former Soviet leadership has always made a show of holding back what they call “western aggression”. They justify their military buildup by claiming that NATO is an immediate and existential threat to their security. But seriously, who the hell would want to control Russia? They fear the push back on their own behavior which is to threaten the west. It would be a total disaster for everyone.

Yes, NATO is a threat insofar as they hold the line against Russian expansionism. Should states succumb to Russian control just because the leadership of Russia says so? Obviously not. Russian control seems to come with the loss of freedoms, stultified economic progress and political oppression. Putin’s war was initially justified, at least by what is available in the western press, as a strike on incipient Nazism in Ukraine which Putin declared as a direct threat to the security of the Russian state.

Everyone outside of Russia realizes that this is a bald-faced lie cynically devised to justify Putin’s dream of empire.

For arguments sake let’s say NATO attacks Russia for whatever reason and let’s say NATO wins. What have they won? A giant collapsed country full of permafrost and mosquitos populated with angry citizens living in economic collapse. The US and coalition forces couldn’t even control Afghanistan with its population of neolithic religious maniacs and their opium poppy fields. And we left the poppy fields intact too!!What chance would there be for western forces controlling a defeated Russia? It would be like the dog who caught the car. What next?

The same question applies to Putin. If he conquers and occupies Ukraine and then the other former Warsaw Pact countries, what will he have gained? Apparently, Putin guessed that they would roll over and comply. That was the state of affairs during the days of the Soviet Union. The USSR had a powerful and penetrating police apparatus with a network of remote prison labor camps and little presumption of innocence.

Unfortunately for Putin, Ukraine didn’t just roll over and concede. They are fighting back against certain authoritarian control and loss of their Ukrainian heritage. In doing so, it is revealed to the world that Putin’s conventional military is a paper tiger. Military planners the world over are taking notes on the modern conduct of war. Resources that might have modernized the Russian military have been funneled elsewhere for a long time.

Russia’s nuclear forces, however, are something to worry about. However, Putin and his cronies know about Mutual Assured Destruction. This principle has prevented nuclear war since Russia got the bomb. Putin knows that if he releases nuclear war shots, the resulting nuclear exchange will not only devastate all participants, but will bounce the rubble a few times as well. Even if land-based missiles are destroyed, the respective submarine fleets can continue to unleash nuclear hellfire at leisure. The meaning of victory becomes very hazy here.

As always, the Russian model of conquest seems to impose brutal authoritarian control to suppress opposition. Not because there is something wrong with the Russian people. But Russian leadership has been so oppressive for so long that there is no institutional template for alternative leadership.

This is very simplistic, but does Russia know that nobody wants control of their country? Imagine the folly of it. Since the days of Stalin they have worked themselves into a lather about the west. The cold war was a game of weapon/countermeasure cycles that has quietly developed into Cold War II. It is all so unnecessary.

I think it is fair to say that everyone wants a peaceful Russia that can participate in world trade, tourism, science and cultural affairs. A reclusive and paranoid Russia that is angrily stamping its feet and issuing threats to its neighbors is a Russia that will remain unhappy and dangerous. Decent people and rich culture are abundant in Russia. Their leadership doesn’t let that shine through.

Yes, we understand that Russia was viciously invaded by the Nazis some years back but they prevailed. At some point everyone has to look to a prosperous future. Yes Russia, this includes you. There is no similar threat to Russia in the world today. Just because the west responds to Russian provocations doesn’t mean that there is an intent to attack. Just because the economic engines of the west outperform them at present doesn’t imply imminent attack either.

I would love to visit Russia as a tourist. Russian hospitality is first rate and the countryside is beautiful. Many people around the world would love to visit. But until the people can break free of oppressive leadership, it will remain a hermit kingdom in the manner of NPRK.

Meta Making Progress Towards a Science Fiction-Like Dystopia

A piece in the Washington Post by Prashnu Verma appeared reporting progress with Meta’s Cicero artificial intelligence (AI) system. The thrust of the report is that Cicero can play a game called Diplomacy better than humans. The article is worth reading- I know nothing about AI so all I can do is link readers to the article.

Quoting from the Post article-

“Researchers at Meta, Facebook’s parent company, have unveiled an artificial intelligence model, named Cicero after the Roman statesman, that demonstrates skills of negotiation, trickery and forethought. More frequently than not, it wins at Diplomacy, a complex, ruthless strategy game where players forge alliances, craft battle plans and negotiate to conquer a stylized version of Europe.”

Further down …

“It’s a great example of just how much we can fool other human beings,” said Kentaro Toyama, a professor and artificial intelligence expert at the University of Michigan, who read Meta’s paper. “These things are super scary … [and] could be used for evil.”

The nations of the world have civil and criminal laws to discourage and punish people who use their natural intelligence to commit crimes and misdeeds. What about those who use- or unleash- AI to achieve ends that would otherwise be ruled as unethical or even illegal? Pet owners can be held liable for the damage their pets do. Why shouldn’t AI owners have at least the same liability? Could a court order the alteration of an AI’s algorithms in a way that would shut down objectionable or unlawful “behavior”.

If the work product in the application of any intelligence includes action, then where does that leave an AI that can make decisions independently? When could we let it loose to do things that may affect people in novel circumstances? And what kind of ethical responsibility do programmers have in anticipating negative outcomes and acting to arrest them? Lots of questions.

One of the consequences of technological advance has always been the elimination of jobs. That is, getting the same or better results with a lower headcount. It represents cost savings and added margins for an organization. AI will be a valuable tool in the eternal drive for faster-better-cheaper.

AI will almost certainly change many experiences in life. AI systems will manage and replace people in the workplace. It is likely to improve multitasking in many job descriptions, boosting productivity over human counterparts. AI will produce a more effective sales force because the art of persuasion will become much more highly refined. Just what we need- craftier salespersons humping our legs for a sale.

On the positive side, AI has the potential for executing better judgement in many situations. For example, law enforcement could be polished to a point where many errors in judgement can be avoided. This applies across the board in all activities.

AI will also enable criminal intent. The ability to execute crimes will be improved with better judgement, knowledge and fewer mistakes.

Soon, if not already, wars will be guided and fought between AI systems. Cold war type activity could be refined to produce better intelligence and undercover schemes to outwit the other side. Leaders could put AI to use in the darker side of governance. It could be used to keep better track of individuals and information related to them. It could also be used to apply punishment to people without the messy issue of personal morals.

Any dark human activity you can imagine can be made more effective with the application of AI. If it can be tried, it will be tried.

Toxic News. Lamentations of a Liberal.

Warning. I’m hammering on Trump. If this bothers you, please move along.

I really have to back off on the consumption of news. My attitude has become far more misanthropic than usual. Between the savage war in Ukraine, Trump’s traitorous boy crush on Putin and bills signed by that demon-seed governor of Florida, my head is throbbing from the noise of all the dissonant waves coming in. Surely, something is going right in the world, isn’t it? Maybe?

Part of what is stressful is the inability to intervene personally, to make a positive difference. Oh, to have 2 minutes to yell at #45. Or to remind DeSantis and the Florida legislature that their elementary schools have never taught sex education and have never given kids instruction on how to choose alternative genders or lifestyles. It would be disastrous for any teacher’s career and they know it. This LGBTQ instruction “issue” in K thru 3rd grade is entirely invented to agitate the excitable and poorly informed on a certain side of the bell curve. This is social conservative engineering boldly executed in plain view and vastly amplified by instant distribution on social media. DeSantis is maneuvering to be an alternative to Trump in 2024, which is a choice between bad and awful.

Trump is morally bankrupt. This should be obvious to any high school graduate who paid attention is school. He is a real estate developer who banks on his special gift of persuasion. His speaking style is well suited to that of an after dinner speaker. He teases his audience by saying naughty things and mugs and poses behind a false modesty, all of this while he is not making outrageous claims about his abilities. And many people eat it up. It is a very effective rhetorical style polished by years of practice. His time on reality TV has helped hone an air of authority and expertise in organizational management.

He learned that if you are going to exaggerate, make it big and repeat as often as possible. Throw great gobs of it and see what sticks to the wall. This is propaganda 101: Political persuasion through any means available.

As corrosive to American democracy as Trump is, there is a bigger problem. That would be the matter of his large crowd of eager voters. They seem to be of a disposition that instinctively distrusts government and lays a large part of the blame of alleged government malfeasance on liberalism. Since the days of Reagan, the word “liberal” has come to be an epithet through repeated encouragement by Republicans. Blame for societies ills on liberalism was further exaggerated by Newt Gingrich in the 1990’s. Unfortunately, this guy has reappeared and is frequently interviewed in conservative (Fox) news today.

I can remember stopping by a booth at the Boulder County fair in the mid 70’s which was occupied by the John Birch Society. They are ultraconservative, staunchly antigovernment and libertarian in orientation. I see many similar traits in the earlier Tea Party and in the current MAGA crowd. Unfortunately, once someone embraces this kind of mind-set, they rarely come back towards the middle in my experience. Distrust, fear and paranoia are things the human brain does very well.

Never in the history of humanity have so many people had a platform for the instant broadcast and receipt of political information. It is a challenge to the stability of a democratic nation when fringe ideas spread and are adopted across the population in a matter of days. Not everyone remembers history or has a grasp of basic political and economic concepts. In prior times, there were limits to the accessibility, reach and variety of news and opinion. There was also editorial control over what got published. Fringe letters to the editor or op-eds were published once and that was it. The reach was often limited to where the paperboy went.

With most of social media in much of the world there is no editorial control. Any brilliant or stupid post gets broad circulation with equal ease. The volume knob has been turned up for individuals who wish to practice the art of persuasion. Unfortunately for the Chinese and Russian people, their governments are clamping down on the content of both received and sent information.

Back to toxic news. Broadcast companies are businesses. Broadcast news has a job to do. It is to deliver as many eyeballs to ad messages as possible. It’s the same with social media. What gets aired is that which is compelling to the eyes and heart. And “compelling” draws eyeballs. To expect to get an education or a balanced view from commercial TV is a fools errand. Some people believe that “balanced” means that all views are equal. Well, some views are based upon a false premise and are unworthy of consideration. Also, the old saying “if it bleeds, it leads” still applies no matter what pious talk you may hear about journalism.

Something that needs to be said

I completed the hunters safety course back when I was about 12 years old in the late 1960’s. I got a kick out of target practice and plinking tin cans or watermelons just like everyone else. I remember stalking imaginary prey in the countryside along Lizard Creek in Iowa, just itching for a reason to fire the .22 caliber rifle at it. I might have actually hit a bullhead in the creek (properly pronounced ‘crick’) but it got away. In retrospect, shooting at a fish was cruel and pointless. As a high schooler I went elk hunting in the mountains of northern Colorado. We never saw an elk.

Shooting is something that I never latched on to for some reason. Probably because guns weren’t a big thing in my family. My farming parents and grandparents in Iowa never fought in the world wars because of the accident of their birthdates. My father served in Korea, but just after the war. I saw my grandfather shoot a badger once, but only because he was afraid we’d stumble upon it. Today I have a .22 caliber antique Ruger revolver somewhere in storage that I inherited. That is my arsenal.

I guess I’ve been lucky. I’ve never had the fear of foreign invaders taking over North America by anything less than global nuclear war. I’ve never had a fear of a tyrannical government, at least until Trump and his motley band of demented idiots came along. I have never lived where I felt I needed to keep a gun at the ready. And I’ve never had the need to strut around like a peacock in tactical gear packing pseudo-militaristic weapons.

Guns are too deeply imbedded in American culture and in the basements of citizens to ever be gotten rid of by a government ban. There would be a civil war before guns could be confiscated, which I doubt will come to pass.

The great advantage guns give you is the ability to commit severe and instantaneous violence from a safe distance. Since the invention of gunpowder in China, the utility of blasting things at people has been lost on no one. The firearm has long been popular as an enabler of protection, conflict and crime. So popular, in fact, that most Americans are stuck between the brick walls of gun violence and second amendment arguments with no resolution to the conflict coming anytime soon.

There is one thing we can do, however. Something that a civilized citizen of this amazing democracy can easily do. We can urge fellow citizens to simmer down a little. We can show some restraint in the reflex to use, carry or flaunt our firearms in public, especially as a half-hidden means of intimidation, as a first step. On the streets and in the movies.

In American entertainment, guns wielded by attractive actors and actresses are the usual tool for the resolution of conflict. The accurate portrayal of shooting technique and the highly realistic effects of a bullet on the human body have become an art form in US entertainment. Not so in British television I have noticed. There is generally very little gunplay in Brit TV entertainment. And they still manage to tell a great story through well crafted writing. How can a kid grow up in America and NOT come to the conclusion that pointing a gun or shooting someone is the most effective way to settle a dispute?

It has been said jokingly that the second amendment has become the founding document of the angry white male gun club. This may be an exaggeration but we cannot forget that the amendment defines a right, not an obligation to use. It is not an invitation to aggressive, belligerent behavior with weapons. It does not give the person pointing the weapon the right to be judge, jury, and executioner unless in self defense.

There will always be people, some of them fearful, who harbor an unusually large fascination with weapons. Realistically, these folks are probably beyond reasoned persuasion to a lifestyle less oriented to paranoia mixed with weaponry. But we can try to improve this American civilization around them overall to one that more substantially values non-violent means of conflict resolution, either in reality or in the movies. Plenty of other countries can do it, why can’t we?

Education is struggle, not just knowing what to click

The local school board has recently voted to spend $482,000 to purchase iPads for a high school. “If we don’t do this now, and are already behind, we will get swamped. Instead of buying for a grade level or a school, it’s going to have to be for every kid in the district,” stated the board president. Chiming in was the superintendent who said “It’s not the wave of the future, it’s here now,” Mr. XYZ said. “It’s about the digital world we’re in more than it is about the device. We just have a device now that allows us to do that. The struggle now is getting everyone up to speed.”

There is utterly nothing novel or surprising about these sentiments among educators. The eternally open door to the brave new world beckons educators to outfit their classrooms with the latest and greatest. This is a healthy and vital impulse that I hope we all value.

From where I sit as a 59 year old industrial chemist, the image of new iPads holding a key to mending our educational woes seems like only the latest false prophet to pass our way.  Am I just grumpy or quietly jealous of the lucky young pups getting their iPads? Well, I am prone to grumpiness. Jealous of the students? No. I have declined the issuance of an iPad at work.

I think part of what we see is FOMO: Fear-Of-Missing-Out. To be sure, iPads or other brands are popular for a reason. They’re a wonderful tool for finding information about nearly anything and they are just plain fun to monkey with. So, as a resource to students, the iPad will obviously provide an ever widening portal to the world’s treasure of information. For this it has merit.

Two things can happen to those who frequent cyberspace. First, we find information through the use of search terms that lead us to a great many sources to choose from. But which are the most credible sources? Are they out dated?  Eventually, if civilization holds up long enough, we’ll relearn the importance of rigor in publishing. Secondly, and critically, when we find some information will we understand it? Searching and finding are not equivalent to substantive understanding.

A psych prof once related to me that true learning requires struggle. In my experience I have found this to be a fairly accurate truism. In my college teaching years I always conveyed to students that part of the secret to success in chemistry was to read the text several times and strive to understand the reasoning in the example problems.  Just as importantly, always do the assigned problems. Freshman chemistry is heavily weighted in quantitative concepts and math problems. In fact, freshman chemistry can often morph into a math class for many students. First year chemistry is a struggle for most students. The trick for the educator is to convince the students that struggle is not the equivalent to failure.

Being an organikker I taught sophomore organic chemistry. Chemistry is highly vertical meaning that successive course work depends on content from previous classes. Organic chemistry is a bit different in that much of it is qualitative and heavily weighted with new vocabulary and the symbolic language of reaction mechanisms. I used to say that sophomore organic was the year of 10,000 structures. An important part of learning organic is the rote mechanical-tactile brain activity of drawing structures by hand. We chemists are just crazy about structures. Drawing pictures helps to seal the connection between vocabulary and structure. Being asked to draw structures correctly and adding functional groups forces one to associate symbols with composition and vocabulary, but also to acknowledge the 3-D aspects of molecules. Like freshman chemistry, organic requires a good bit of struggle.

In the past I was involved in public outreach with the science of astronomy. Having racked up many seasons of observing and studying the topic I was conversant enough to give star talks and usher visitors for a chance to peer through the 18 inch Cassegrain in the dome. I did this for some years but finally tired of it. What wore me out was that the public rarely had more than superficial interest in the topic. They were just happy to see the moon. It was infotainment and I had been an infotainer. What I finally realized was that to truly appreciate the wonder of astronomy and the mechanisms that grind the universe forward, a visitor would have to sit down and grapple with a lot of physics and new phenomena. A person has to be willing to commit to some struggle to gain the wonderful insights. My hard won knowledge offered to visitors just washed over them for the most part. It was a show and I was a performer.

So let me close the loop by connecting struggle with educational technology. It is my fervent hope that curriculum does not confuse learning to operate a device as evidence of subject knowledge. Most devices are designed to be easy to learn. What is crucial in K-12 education is that a groundwork of basic facts and knowledge of systems and processes are absorbed by students. A basic knowledge of geography facts, government facts, history facts, math facts, grammar and vocabulary facts, sciency facts, etc. are still necessary to have to build upon in the future. Any notion that facts can be left by the wayside in favor knowing where to look for them is a tragic mistake. Eventually people have to draw upon facts to properly search Google. After all, facts have names and to dig deeper into a topic, the user must supply the right search terms. The wrong synonym in a given search may not take the searcher to what they are looking for. Facts in your brain are still very necessary.

 

God in the image of man

The portentous return of American protestant evangelical politics on the coattails of the Trump win has certainly been startling to me at least. As if to underscore this return is the announcement that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will take on the case No. 16-111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al. Petitioners.

According to the petition for a Writ of Certiorari, at issue is the following:

Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment

I for one sympathize with both parties. I would like to think that as a business man I had some control in the business arrangements I enter into. On the other hand, it seems quite reasonable that an order for a wedding cake should not be complicated by the theology of the baker. I gather that the sign over the door did not say “Bakery for Observant Christians Only”.

Having been in sales, I know there are a hundred ways to purposely kill a sale without it descending into a fight or bad feelings. A sky high price, a ridiculously long delivery time, kitchen remodeling, a diseased baker, etc. Ok, so it is a lie. It happens.

From my purchasing experience I know it is possible for a careful buyer to disclose as little information as possible so as not to cue a vendor to raise the price or decline to make an offer. The couple in question could have discretely asked for a cake without giving away their relationship or could have sent in a proxy. The figurine of a gay couple on top of the cake could have been purchased separately and set in place at a different location. Alternatively, the gay couple could have simply found another baker willing to do the job, say in Boulder to the north.

Yes, yes, yes. I know. Neither side should have to use subterfuge to complete this simple transaction. And neither side, in principle, should have to fear the consequences of their core values. But for crying out loud, this is Colorado Springs. A more conservative Christian enclave would be hard to find. The city is full of conservative retired military and a number of fundamentalist Christianist organization headquarters like Focus on the Family among others. But what are you going to do? Fight to the death everyone you find disagreeable? Does everything have to be consecrated to God? Crimony! Can’t there be secular activities like putting a lug nut on a bolt or buying baked goods?

If SCOTUS rules against Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, then they will have set back the cause of LGBTQ rights, possibly for generations. Likewise, a ruling for the respondent might do similar damage for the conservative cause. Both sides could live with some ambiguity in this matter.

The notion that baking a cake for a gay couple somehow validates LGBTQ values seems to be a bit of a stretch. It seems to me that a conception of a God who would see the act of baking this cake with so negative a view as to impose an existential threat to the baker’s eternal salvation is to conjure up a very strange picture of the deity. If a human were to wield this kind of existential threat to the baker, that human might be regarded as psychopathic.

In my view, American evangelical Christianists have constructed a model of God in the image of a very cranky, peevish male human. A God who set the galaxies spinning, ignited our sun, breathed life into inanimate earth, and accounts for every flea riding the tail feathers of every bird would certainly have the insight and fatherly patience to see this gay Wedding Cake matter as a tempest in a teapot. Yes? Maybe? But perhaps that is me constructing God in the image of a mensch.

I like that- God as a mensch.

 

 

 

Nerve Agents vs Bombs. Why ban one and not the other?

The recent news footage out of Syria showing victims of a chemical attack is haunting. When I first saw it I couldn’t quite comprehend what I was looking at. But after a minute of increasing discomfort I began to grasp the horror of the situation. Victims lying on the ground in puddles of water or in the midst of being flushed with a stream of water, gasping for air and limbs quivering in wide-eyed disbelief and fear of what they were experiencing. Others were unconscious or dead. Rescuers were moving around the victims not knowing what to do beyond rinsing off the bodies. Those handling the water, I’m sure, were grateful to be giving some kind of aid no matter how small.

It is interesting to see how people, myself included, react to this kind of news. I mean, this shouldn’t be happening. After all, the world has international conventions and treaties banning the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare. Humanity has gone to some length to bar the use of war shots designed to release toxic gas or aerosols over anyone anywhere.

When we shudder and express sincere horror at the barbarity of a chemical attack on civilians, along what track is our thinking guided? What kind of decision process might lead us to believe that a sarin attack is a higher level of depravity than a bomb blast? Could it be true that people who release chemical agents are actually guilty of a higher crime than those who send bombs in the direction of a civilian neighborhood or even just 50 caliber bullets?

Explosives are chemicals that unleash kinetic and thermal violence for a few seconds per explosion. Nerve agents move like the wind, breathing lethal aerosols or gas as they flow and leaving who knows how much contaminated … everything … and for how long. Bombs can be aimed, a gas cloud not so much. Bomb violence is much more common than death by acetylcholinesterase inhibition, yet our attention is always drawn to chemical violence.

We have an industry called show business that exploits bomb violence in its entertainment products. And we the viewing audience have become desensitized to the horrific effects of explosions by sheer repetition of highly staged portrayals. Perhaps it is the very novelty of a chemical attack that captures our attention. If you survive a bomb blast, there is a chance that you can be sewn back together again. If you receive an exposure to sarin, well, what do you do to stop the inhibition of an enzyme? Find a dose of atropine if possible from someone who knows it’s in stock somewhere.

The acceptance of explosives but not chemical agents as legitimate weapons of war is at best a false dichotomy. But, we are a world of men and women and weaponized conflict. If a ban on chemical and biological weapons can be negotiated faster than a ban on the use of explosives, then we take what we can get. But let us not get desensitized to high explosives and the horrific tragedies they produce.

Oh, one pet peeve. They’re not ‘explosive devices”, they are bombs. The former may infer skillful and clinical dispassion. The latter suggests dumb, blunt force. The latter seems more to the point.

An organic chemist looks at evolution

I wrote this essay a few years ago but did not publish it. I don’t remember why. This is not written for evolutionary biologists. For better or worse, here it is.

On weekends I check in on C-SPAN 1 and 2 to see what folks are talking about. A couple of weekends ago on Earth Day there was a C-SPAN 1 broadcast of an April 19th, 2017, panel discussion on the ” March for Science and Threats to Science.” The segment was hosted by The Heritage Foundation and featured a number of well dressed folks who were quite authoritative and highly skilled in the rhetorical arts. Curious thing that the Heritage Foundation chose this topic to weigh in on.

The discussion followed various lines of conservative analysis of the 4/22/17 March for Science and touched on the New Atheism, Neo-Darwinism, with allusions to a supposed endemic misanthropy of some March for Science participants.

One of the panelists was a fellow named Stephen C. Meyer who is a senior Fellow and founder of the Discovery Institute. Meyer is a very articulate and persuasive proponent of creationism. His contribution to the discussion was a recitation of the pro-creationist argument on the weakness’s of Neo-Darwinism. The thrust of his argument centered on the disagreement among scientists meme in the field of biological evolution and how this delegitimizes the whole concept. This line of argument is a common (dare I say standard?) rhetorical trick used by creationists to cast doubt on the science of evolution.

Pro-creationist adherents have learned that they do not have to prove evolution is incorrect. They need only make a case for disagreement in the scientific community of its veracity or infer scientific misconduct. As a friend once quipped, they stir up a dust cloud and then complain because they can’t see anything.

Darwin and the story of the expedition of the HMS Beagle is a tale of 19th century discovery that is inspirational and iconic. Too often, however, Darwin’s writings on natural selection is not portrayed in the historical context relative to modern molecular biology. When I hear creationists discuss evolution, the discussion seems to remain with the work of Darwin. I would maintain that if Darwin and Lamarck had not developed their work on natural selection, modern molecular biologists would have had to postulate evolution themselves.

Public discussion of evolution in the limited context of Darwin is frequently burdened with misinterpretations and half-truths by adherents and deniers alike. It is not unusual for people to become confused by the use of imprecise language when discussing evolution-as-Darwinism. For instance, I’ve heard knowledgeable people assert “… the species evolved (such and so) in order to adapt …”. Well, yes and no. The species may well have over time evolved some adaptation. However, the words “… the species evolved …” may be misinterpreted by some as meaning that a species, when presented with some survival challenge, may have taken the chance to unsheath some mechanism to respond by rejiggering its genetics in a way that would lead to survival of subsequent generations. A more accurate description might be that fortuitous genetic mutations in the past have allowed the organism to survive challenges presented by a changing environment. There is a critical qualifier, however. The lucky mutation must be survivable and facilitate the continued reproduction of the critical trait to subsequent generations. Mutations occurring after the possibility of reproduction lead only to an evolutionary dead end.  Evolution is blind going forward. Descriptive language must be built around that concept.

Rather than consuming time and bandwidth reciting the history and elements of Darwinism, the reader is invited to pick this up elsewhere. Instead, I would like to throw an idea on the table. Perhaps writers and public figures should deemphasize Darwin’s work and emphasize the mutability of the genome.

If we consider that the large scale structural morphologies of organisms are an emergent phenomenon and arise as a result of molecular and cellular scale structures, then we can begin to see evolution much like a performing symphony orchestra is comprised of many instruments, each with characteristic effects. The overall effect is the sum total of all the contributing instruments. Evolution then becomes a matter of changing the score a bit here and there to produce variants. The notion of life as an emergent phenomenon is itself evolving to a high level of theory. See: Pier Luigi Luisi, The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology 2nd Edition, 2016, Cambridge University Press.

With 19th century Darwinian theory, we are limited to observing evidence of change at the macroscopic level but with no credible mechanism for the manner of change or a cause for initiating a change. Without a mechanism, plausibility is a tough sell to students, teachers, and the rest of the lay public. Darwinism is a tidy package with an appealing story. However, without mention of its mechanism it resembles magic. Evolution at the molecular scale can offer mechanisms and measurements. I would offer that Darwinism could be treated in a historical context, but a transition to the level of  molecules appropriate to the intended audience should happen. Evolution rests on the mutability of genes.

Another troublesome aspect of explaining evolution is the plausibility of random change leading to organisms of greater complexity. The notion that the human eye or hand is the result of random change is simply too incredible for non-sciency people to accept. For them, it is an intellectual cul-de-sac that, in parallel with their religion, only validates “creation implies creator”. To folks firmly affixed in concrete reasoning, the notion of non-living, disorganized matter somehow spontaneously organizing to form elaborate life forms is beyond comprehension. This argument is often brought up as a coup de grace against evolution. Randomness as a successful driver seems so implausible.

Perhaps Darwinism is better expressed as only an introduction to the story of  molecular evolution.

Standing in the way of a mature understanding of evolution is the plausibility of random change giving way to greater complexity. What exactly do we mean by random? Does random change imply an infinite range of categories of influence and outcome? What exactly is it that is random? This is difficult even for scientists, let alone the lay public. Let’s consider some relevant aspects of the world of the molecule.

Axiom 1: The initiation of life may be a quite different chemical mechanism from the reproduction of life.

The origin of life and the evolution of life are different processes. The physical conditions and available substances amenable to evolution necessarily diverge from those present when and where life arose.  Origins and subsequent evolution must be pulled apart into separate arguments for the sake of clarity.

Axiom 2: Evolution is a molecular phenomenon.

In order to have macroscopic change there must be microscopic change. The DNA molecule is well established as the repository of stable organizational information necessary for the construction and operation of living things. If change characteristics are to be passed along through successive generations, then DNA has to change accordingly. DNA is ordinary matter and subject to the constraints of chemistry and physics. A part of being subject to chemical change is the effect of adverse conditions to contend with in general (bio)chemical synthesis. Biochemistry is largely aqueous chemistry with all of the constraints and degrees of freedom that follow: Solubility, Gibbs free energy, transition states, polarity, acidity, concentration, catalysis, stability in an aqueous environment, reaction rates, stoichiometry, time, temperature, and reduction/oxidation potential.

All of the parameters listed above represent variables with their own range of values that must be in alignment in order for life to happen. Rather than be overwhelmed by them, they could be considered as a finite number of channels in which a limited range of inputs give rise to a limited range of outputs.

Axiom 3: Atoms and molecules must collide in order to react.

A generalization in chemistry is that atomic and molecular interactions require the components to collide at some range of favorable trajectories. The mobility necessary for atomic and molecular interactions to occur is available in fluids but not solids. If molecules are held in place in a bulk solid phase, then they don’t have the opportunity to bump into one another just right and interact. The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen. Water, H2O, is comprised of the most cosmically abundant element bonded to oxygen, the most abundant terrestrial heavy element.  A planet that has water with a climate and pressure amenable to the liquid phase is a planet that has a start on supporting life. Life is substantially a solution phase phenomenon.

Axiom 4: There is a menu of limitations in the behavior of molecules.

1. The set of atoms necessary for constructing life on earth is of limited number and variety
2. The behavior and properties of a given atom is based on the physics of electric charges and the best description of how and where electrons spend their time. This is successfully described by quantum mechanics.
3. Because of physics and more to the point, quantum mechanics, the electrons which do the chemistry are capable of a finite variety of allowed states according to selection rules.
4. There is a limited set of ways that a given atom can attach to other atoms to make chemical bonds under ordinary terrestrial conditions.
5. Molecules are made of atoms. These atoms naturally form a set of characteristic groupings within a molecule that are energetically preferred and thus common. The groupings are called moieties or functional groups. Examples are stable 5 and 6 member rings of atoms (pentagons and hexagons), carbon chains long and short, single, double, and triple chemical bonds. The variety of connected atoms in living systems include carbon-oxygen, carbon-carbon, carbon-nitrogen, carbon-sulfur, carbon-phosphorus, oxygen-phosphorus, oxygen-hydrogen, carbon-hydrogen, nitrogen-hydrogen, sulfur-hydrogen, and maybe a few more. Atoms can connect or disconnect, but in a finite number of ways. The atoms that make up “biomolecules” have certain features that make them amenable to dissolution in water. In particular nitrogen and oxygen have non-bonding electron pairs that attract certain hydrogen groups to make something called a hydrogen bond. This behavior lends water solubility to biomolecules.
6. Certain groupings of molecules can intimately comingle indefinitely in the liquid state, but other groupings spontaneously separate into separate “phases” or layers to minimize contact. Consider oil and vinegar and how they spontaneously separate for minimum contact in salad dressing. Molecules that have a charged end and a long water insoluble end may form organized structures called micelles in water. It bears a resemblance to the cell wall. It is an example of spontaneous organization because it is energetically favorable.
7. The assembly, behavior, and disassembly of biomolecules follows finite, definable chemical interactions. Synthetic biomolecules are indistinguishable from the biological version.
8. A limited number of liquids are compatible with living systems. Life as we know it requires that molecules are mobile during certain periods. Living things reproduce and grow. This requires changes that are only possible if molecules can move within the system. Movement happens within a fluid system.

The list above sketches out some limitations that atoms and molecules are subject to. It is useful to note that the atoms and molecules of life are subject to constraints that prevent them from behaving in a completely random fashion. Molecules in general will not form in every conceivable connective permutation under terrestrial conditions. Particular routes and end-states are energetically preferred. Things that have only specific behaviors are things that will always behave or react in a particular set of ways to give a limited range of products. Products from molecules that react along alternative pathways will favor the end-state of the fastest pathway. That means that there is exclusion of some molecular products. This is another loss of randomness overall.

Contrary to your camp counselor’s advice, not just anything is possible. What makes the universe sensible and relatively stable is the fact that objects and events interact or unfold in ways characteristic to their building blocks. What follows from the limitations of objects and events is that many forms of behavior or channels of interaction are therefore excluded. That is, there are not an infinite number of ways that a biomolecule can behave. The interactions in which a biomolecule can behave is channeled through a limited number of pathways due to the nature of the chemical pathways that are energetically favorable. The universe is surely chaotic, but not entirely so. Organization in biomolecules, or should we say a finite number of energetically favored structures, are the result of the limited number of ways that molecules can interact under terrestrial conditions.

Is is a common assertion by creationists that the odds of a hand or eyeball spontaneously forming could result from random interactions is 1 in some extremely large number. To the contrary, there is a case to be made that the hand or eyeball is the result of a series of natural molecular collisions, each constrained to a limited range of reaction possibilities over a very, very long period of time. What’s more, a molecule at room temperature is colliding with another molecule at maybe a frequency of 10^12 or 10^14 per second*. Scale that up to 1 million years and you have a tremendous number of opportunities to produce change.

* These frequencies may be off a bit, but it is what I seem to remember.

Lamar, my boy, show ’em how it’s done.

Dear Rep. Lamar Smith,

Yer a smart feller there, Lamar. Ya have a BA from Yale and that JD from SMU. Ya passed the bar exam and started private practice in San Antone. In 11 years ya worked yer way up ta national ‘lected office.  It’s an accomplishment no matter how’ya look at it. And that America Invents Act piled on some mighty fine improvements ta the patentin’ process. That was good work there boy.

As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Tech-nology, ya been perty skeptical ’bout them snooty climate science boys with their jar-gon and their uppity attitudes actin’ all high’n mighty-like ’bout climate n’such. A good ole’ boy from the Hill Country ought ta be able to pick up on that fancy c’mputer modelin’, right?

I think that ya ought ta throw some of yer many talents inta climate modelin’ yerself. You’d be doin’ the scientific folks a favor. You’d roll up yer sleeves an’ dig in ta clean’n up that po-litically correct climate data. Darn tootin’ you would. I’m sure the folks at NOAA would give ya a desk er somethin’ ta do yer cipherin’.

Give it some thought, Lamar. Shouldn’t take more’n a few Saturday afternoons ta make a big dent innit. Don’tcha think? Keep yer head on a swivel.

Th’ Gausslin’

 

(Texican language services provided by Elroy)