Have you ever heard someone arguing in favor of a position with which you disagree, but their arguments are so bad that you can’t help but think “Man, I could do a better job arguing for their side than they are, and I don’t even agree with them!” I thought it might be interesting to do exactly that — consider some interesting issues, and come up with my own versions of what the people who I think are wrong should be saying.
The rules would be: (1) The claims would be somewhat judgmental, rather than straightforwardly empirical. I’m not going to waste my time arguing that the universe is not expanding, or anything like that. (2) I have to stick to making individual statements that I really do believe, even if I don’t think they are sufficient to support the ultimate conclusion. I reserve the right to come up with more rules as I think of them.
Here are some possible claims to be considered:
- God exists.
- The Iraq war was a good idea.
- Women scientists shouldn’t complain about discrimination.
- Research on string theory is a waste of time.
- Talking about the multiverse is intrinsically non-scientific.
- We shouldn’t worry about global climate change.
Any other suggestions? I’m sure there are lots of things I don’t believe, but could come up with better arguments for than I usually hear. It’ll be like being on the debate team again.
Oh, man, you’re going to make me miss my debate days.
#1 is always an interesting one. #4, I actually lean toward believing, but I’m a non-scientist, and I’m basing that on what I read in places like The New Yorker. (Well, and to be fair to myself, on the layman science reading that I do, despite not being trained in any discipline.) And #2 might be more interesting if phrased as “The Iraq war was justified.” I could make that argument pretty easily. (That’s not to say it’s right.) Especially from our current vantage point, to say it was a “good idea” seems like loading the deck…
The Belle Waring post I was thinking of.
Going into particle physics is a bad idea.
The war in Iraq, along side but perhaps even more so than Darfur, marks the first major genoicide of the 21st century. The brutal US-led invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions more. It would be as if, proportionally, a foreign invasion of the US resulted in the deaths of 5-7 million Americans and the creation of 20 million American refugees. In addition, a large percentage of the professional classes in Iraq have fled the country and it is kind of hard to have a healthy functioning society without doctors, engineers, etc. The invasion of Iraq is a war crime. The people who planned it are criminals of the worst kind and should be brought to justice for the massive suffering they have caused.
Here is a tough one: national security at times of war requires compromising some civil liberties.
(anything else Bush has said or done would also qualify for this game).
It’s not a new idea (but still a good one). Last year it had a brief surge in popularity as “Opposite Day”. Here are two good examples:
Against abortion: http://www.philosophyetc.net/2006/07/opposite-day-abortion-edition.html
For the divine right of kings: http://positiveliberty.com/2006/03/jason-on-opposite-day-a-plea-for-the-divine-right-of-kings.html
The war in Iraq, along side but perhaps even more so than Darfur, marks the first major genoicide of the 21st century. The brutal US-led invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions more….The invasion of Iraq is a war crime. The people who planned it are criminals of the worst kind and should be brought to justice for the massive suffering they have caused.
You see, Sean, if I were making a of list my own like yours, my #2 would be the negation of your #2, and the above quote illustrates why.
It’s not that I’m hugely enthusiastic about the Iraq invasion, it’s just that the arguments used against it (particularly the ethical arguments) simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It’s as if nobody actually bothers to try to come up with a good argument, because, after all, “all of us decent smart people already agree that Bush is evil, etc.”
Moreover, discussions of such topics are –to my annoyance– always highly contaminated with emotionally-charged rhetoric. I mean, Iraq in the same category as Darfur? Give me a break.
I suggest as a candidate:
“This (as proposed in the post) is not a worthwhile exercise”.
As an aside, I’d say that scientific matters should be a matter of understanding, not belief. The only time belief should play a role in science is when it is about science that one does not (yet) understand, and the belief then is that there is something to understand.
“Do you believe in evolution?” is a silly question IMO, “Do you understand evolution?” is much more important and useful. The first question is theological. Of what use is a poll that shows that “56% (made up number) of Americans do not believe in evolution”, when objective tests might show that “Only 15% (made up number) of Americans can demonstrate their understanding of evolution by answering some simple questions about the subject.”
In the above example, it is not the 56% that show the lack of scientific temperament or education, it is the 85%, which should be much more alarming.
The arguments used against Stem Cell research.
To find more examples, you can just listen what Bush has to say on pretty much any subject. 🙂
Talking about the Multiverse is intrinsically non-scientific because it comprises two crazy assumptions and some silly consequences as follows:
1)The wavefunction does not merely encode all the information about an object, but has an observer-independent objective existence and actually is the object.
2) The wavefunction obeys the empirically derived standard linear deterministic wave equations at all times. The observer plays no special role in the theory and, consequently, there is no collapse of the wavefunction.
3) Each interaction, usually irreversible, between subsystems that correlates the value of a quantity in one subsystem with the value of a quantity in the other subsystem causes a decomposition or decoherence of the universal wavefunction into non-interacting and mostly non-interfering branches, histories or worlds.
4) The conventional statistical Born interpretation of the amplitudes in quantum theory is derived from within the theory rather than having to be assumed as an additional axiom.
Oh, maybe it can be at least be “discussed” as science after all 🙂
Michael:
I think you are confusing the quantum-branching multiverse with the idea that whatever underlies our universe (or at least the family we belong to) can and does produce more than one contiguous universe. In particular: the matrix can produce universes with different properties, different physical laws and constants (which still doesn’t explain the laws behind what makes for the other laws.) As I said, that has scientific consequences, because the percentages of universes that share properties has frequentist consequences for how likely we are to find new properties of this universe. (Peter Woit, et al – I would hope you and the like-minded would at least address this simple point.)
The moon landing was faked.
A. Since there are so few jobs in physics and astronomy, it’s good
that women & minorities are discouraged from the field.
B. The natural mode of human sexual behavior is male-female monogamous partnership for life.
C. Immigration hurts America.
The death penalty is a crime deterrent.
Liberals stand for something
Liberals never result to name calling
Neil,
I understand that Multiverse can be defined in a number of different ways, some compatible with each other and some not. I was just choosing the way that the concept makes the most sense to me. The string “landscape” is another story which I understand even less of.
How about, “Atheists cannot be moral” ?
6) We shouldn’t worry about global climate change.
I double-triple dare ya.
Michael BAcon, AFAICT, string ladscape could be yet another branch of the multiverse or maybe the repository of multiverses 😀
Cutting taxes on rich people and corporations is good for the middle class and poor
Elliot
1. God exists or we wouldn’t be talking about him.
2. The Iraq war was a good idea for a Stephen King Movie.
3. Women scientists should not complain about discrimination – note gender in remark #1 above.
4. Research on string theory is a waste of time unless you get paid for it.
5. Talking about the multiverse is intrinsically non-scientfic, since the word “intrinsic” only has meaning within the context of one specfic universe.
6. We shouldn’t worry about global climate change. Worrying never helps.
The war in Vietnam was a civil war.
Liberals grasp economic theory.
Socialism doesn’t require coercion.
I wasn’t a radical liberal at one time.
The high cost of health care is due to frivolous lawsuits by trial lawyers.
Ok Sean here’s a really hard one
how about: “Death IS a state of Mind”