etherial | Nails on a Chalkboard

Current Mood: irate
Current Music: Everybody's Changing - Keane

Nails on a Chalkboard

I've been listing to Introduction to Judaism from The Teaching Company, and every time the Professor gives a date, the sound of the CE grates on my ears like nails on a chalkboard. Now, I understand that the whole point of CE is to make the calendar less "Christocentric", but not only do I feel it fails in that regard, I feel it perpetuates the supremacy of the Christian Calendar whilst smacking of Revisionist History.

It wasn't anno Domini, it was of the Common Era. Bullshit. Why do we use a Calendar where the months have an idiotically variable number of days? Why do we use a Calendar where half of the months are named after Pagan gods and the other half are named after numbers (that don't correspond to their ordinals)? Why do we use a Calendar that is neither absolute nor relative and crossing where Year 0 should be is a pain? Why do we use a Calendar with a Leap System accurate for only 4000 years? Why do we use a Calendar that has been moved several times over the course of the centuries? Why do we use a Calendar with 7-day weeks? Why do we use a Calendar whose origin is the (presumed) date of birth (or by some accounts conception) of the Christian God? Because it was divinely given to us by the Pope.

Replacing anno Domini with Common Era does nothing to change the Christian origin of the Calendar and serves only to perpetuate its (divine) "rightness". In its historical light, the use of "Common Era" can be seen as merely a shortening of "the common era of the Nativity of Our Lord" or "the common era of the birth of our Saviour". Ever since I got my very first checking account, I've been writing AD on my checks. Most people who notice it are bemused that I would put in the effort, but a few people, mostly Chinese and Jews, understand the point: The Christian Calendar is not the One True Calendar. Yes, it's the one used (nearly) everywhere right now, but not only could that change, but there are very good reasons to do so.

I've also, as an intellectual exercise, been keeping track of the date using the Calendar of the Illuminati that I devised back in 5999, after rereading The Illuminatus! Trilogy. If anyone's wondering, today is the second day of the month of A, 6007. For eight years, I've been telling time in my head using another Calendar, and it's been interesting. When we hit the next Leap Year (6011, for those of you who are counting), I'm planning on making some of the adjustments I've been thinking of, including adjusting the Leap System to remove some of its swing.

We haven't reached consensus on which Calendar to move to (I'm currently favoring the Tranquility Calendar with my Leap System), so I'm content at continuing to use the Christian Calendar. But I find it intellectually dishonest and disgustingly PC to call it anything but.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

The idea of a calendar devoted to science-worship is just as disturbing to me as a religion-centric calendar.

"Worship" seems like an odd term to use; perhaps "venerating" was was you had in mind?

In any event, why is that? To what cultural group do you belong to? Myself, I think a culture venerating the people and events that that culture considers important and valuable is a lovely and life-enhancing thing to do, and since I value science more than religion and since science can belong to all people regardless of religion, I'd be delighted to see my society decide to venerate those who were important to science in this way. Do you object to all veneration of people, or just the veneration of particular parties?

In bullet form, in deference to your MQP. Feel free to wait a week or so before replying and/or to poke me at my own livejournal re. this/these topic(s).

* WPI is a poor sample, even of 'people who believe in science'

citation: a blog entry (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php) about a survey from Science magazine (Mazur A (2007) Disbelievers in evolution. Science 315(5809):187.)

* You seem to be arguing from a post-modernist perspective... I reject post-modernism (when if you do reply, please clarify your stance on this point)

* If one has an advanced degree in a related area, I'm more willing to accept their opinion on a subject. I was basically saying "That sounds like &#(@ to me... but if you've got something to back it up, I'll reconsider." I agree such degrees are not a prerequisite for discussion... but if you did have one, say an IQP on the subject, I'd be willing to accept "from my 9 months of research on this specific subject, I draw the conclusion X" more readily than "I draw the conclusion X" with no preface.

Which fallacious beliefs have you found them often to use science to justify?

I've never had anyone give me a good, understandable definition of "post-modern." Can you?

Well, since you didn't ask for -concise,- I'll try...

Like The Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernism, etc it is a name for a particular philosophical and artistic "movement."

Modernism advocated sweeping 'revolution,' and abandonment of the old ways (of society, of politics, of art, etc). Very 1920's "Progress!" as the pulps.

(Technically, any philosophy or movement after Modernism is postmodernism, but I'll construe it a bit more narrowly... as do most folk.)

Postmodernism is a rejection of all that. It entails a rejection of 'progress' itself. ("antiprogressives make dirk angry") Incorporating sociological perspective (the notion that all morals are relative to their environment), they are prime advocates of moral relativism.

They take another belief system, say... "Western Science," and say that it is just another 'cultural myth,' i.e. that it is a series of stories and ceremonies bereft of any more meaning than hunter-gatherer tribal dancing.

Postmodernists would have you believe there isn't a philosophy "after" postmodernism, that its deconstruction of other systems is the end of movements... rather like the Marxist notion of Communist Dialectic, the secret to history, and all of that.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism)

he term postmodernism is often used pejoratively to describe tendencies perceived as relativist, counter-enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relation to critiques of rationalism, universalism or science. It is also sometimes used to describe tendencies in a society that are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of morality...

But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?

– Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Decoded

The criticism of postmodernism as ultimately meaningless rhetorical gymnastics was demonstrated in the Sokal Affair, where Alan Sokal, a physicist, wrote a deliberately nonsensical article purportedly about interpreting physics and mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which was nevertheless published by Social Text, a journal which he and most of the scientific community considered postmodernist. Interestingly, Social Text never acknowledged that the article's publication was a mistake but supported a counter-argument defending the "interpretative validity" of Sokal's false article, despite the author's rebuttal of his own article. (see the online Postmodernism Generator[17])

Hey, I was wondering when you'd show up. You (I think) have both the know-how and the access to answer a question I've had in this matter for a while: Do people, deprived of external information about the time, develop weekly routines? Do we use a 7-day completely for cultural reasons, or are there seemingly scientific reasons why we may want to keep it (or change it)?

If we reject one aspect of the Calendar as being outdated, why do we not re-examine the others?

I'm not particularly inclined to have a long winded debate with you on much of anything, but I think Jonathan Edwards is a pretty good example of a very, very educated man who had a strong belief in creationism.

I also think you are making a very broad (and inappropriate) statement. Are you asserting that people like my wife and I don't qualify as "educated" (despite our degrees) on the grounds that we have a completely unrelated belief in the creation of the world by a divine being?

I don't have a problem with your rejection of creationism, it's your antagonistic view of Christianity that irks me so much.

This is your notice that I never intend to speak to you or your wife again (in either electronic media, or face to face) except to prompt you to move out of the way in crowds, acknowledge your presence, and warn you if you're about to cross the street into the path of an oncoming bus, etc.

As such, I will not be responding to the above.

Science, as perceived in the mind of the majority of individuals who proclaim allegience to it, is just as often used for justification of fallacious beliefs as religion.
You REALLY need some backup for a statement like that.

This "science is religion" stuff is a lot of crap. It's seductive to say "hey man, everyone's got their own beliefs" so we can all get along and be friends, but one set actually has universally-testable support for their statements.

Science isn't a belief system. It doesn't dictate right from wrong or what our purpose here on Earth should be, but it does dictate that shit falls when dropped and populations change over time. The only real faith it brings to the table is faith that the scientific system of verification will work on the large scale and continue to work as the individual has seen it work on the small scale, and if they ever suspect that it isn't they can provably determine whether it has gone off-course just by checking the results themselves.

Honestly this sort of rejectionism doesn't actually help causes. Dawkings, etc. may not respond nicely to a scientist claiming to be religious, but they'll respond in a way that engages the discussion (at least for the benefit of the audience rather than their opponent). This sort of response does nothing to distinguish you or your beliefs from those of the rejectionist creationist.

He is a young earth creationist who believes in biblical inerrancy. As such, debating him is foolish.

So say "yes, I think you're uneducated because you reject large portions of the fields of biology, geology, and history". Being calmly dismissive with reasoning projects a far better portrayal of the rationality of your cause than the online equivalent of closing your ears.

Except he isn't ignorant or uneducated... he is willfully ignoring evidence in favor of his faith-based position.

There are plenty of people in his life who are willing to calmly state the above, who are willing to ignore his delusional position(s). These positions include intolerance of homosexual acts/marriage on the basis of the Bible.

If, on a non-religious basis, he said "I think all the Jews should be killed," I don't believe you'd expect me to talk to him. I'm satisfied he isn't going to run out and lynch gay people, so I'm done.

I'll do the bare minimum to function with him in society, and advocate for my own position to those who are still amenable to rational discussion. (Frankly, I would encourage everyone else to never speak to him again as well.)

also, actually -read- the wikipedia link he posted.

His defense of his position included a guy who liked to burn witches, for "Christs sake"

So, point 1, amend or explain the statement about education. I think you were just pointing out a general trend rather than an absolute. Don't let his contradiction of the misread stand without saying it's a misread. Debate is more about playing to the crowd than the other person.

Point 2, I wouldn't expect you to debate the Nazi, but I think you should explain your disengagement. Taking the extreme act of stating that you will not even interact with an opponent may not drive anyone into the pro-Nazi camp, but might drive someone in the middle (not that there's much of a middle in the "Kill the Jews?" argument) away from your position. The perception at large of liberal atheists also being fanatics is fueled by this sort of "I'm right and don't need to talk about it" reaction. Your opponent might not deserve a response, but your audience is the more important subject (not that Greg's journal is exactly a key battlefield in the cultural war, but good practices are good practices).

I anticipated some discussion (although, at the time, I thought it would be with Greg), so didn't feel it critical to expand on my reasoning. (Thanks).

As I was informing him I was severing communications, if I'd included further comments I felt it might confuse my message to him.

Your point, however, is taken and appreciated.

neuromancerzss can express views similar enough to mine that my point gets across, in my journal, it's better that he do it, both because it fosters the same discussion with slightly different language, and because, when we disagree, I then get to argue with both of you.

I didn't mean to imply fault. I thought he was just faster on the draw. *hat tip to both*

I was just letting you know why there was a man behind the curtain.

Indeed, I didn't ask for precise. ;)

Thanks. That helps. Also sounds seriously unfortunate.

IANAE, but the only cycles I know of that work that way are circadian rhythms (which will push past 24 hours in a vacuum, but usually stay under 30) and menstrual cycles.

I'll have to remember to start writing "A.D." more often.

Though the fact that it's first-person-plural is a little irritating, as per

joshwriting above.

Quick, someone give me the Latin for "In the Year of Their Lord?"

I've heard that people go to 25-hour sleep cycles. I do not know if they go to 7-day cycles. 7 is most likely cultural.

* WPI is a poor sample, even of 'people who believe in science'

Fair enough. But it's relevant to my experience, as I explain below.

* You seem to be arguing from a post-modernist perspective... I reject post-modernism (when if you do reply, please clarify your stance on this point)

I'll avoid the smarmy comment of, "Well postmodernism accounts for that..." and just say that I don't fall in line with postmodernism either, though I don't wholly reject as do you. I see the tools of postmodernism as useful and essential to understanding the complex nuances of mixed-up meaning in the media-saturated first world.

That said, I believe that at some point analysis of any sort -- postmodernist or objectivist or whatever -- does not replace practicality when concerning most social and political issues. If you wanted to pigeonhole me, you could call me some breed of humanist or practical-minded symbolic interactionist.

On global warming, science as an empirical practice is very important and I wish it weren't glibly ignored when making federal and international policy.

On issues of human behavior and sociological issues, science becomes fuzzy, and in my mind you have to rely on a harder form of empiricism: what you observe. While statistically analyzing trends is important and necessary in those realms, when I see objectionable behavior, regardless of whether it's statistically significant, I feel the need to address it. And while many people use different logic to define objectionable, using science becomes an imprecise metric under these circumstances.

As you claim below, postmodernists claim "is just another 'cultural myth,' i.e. that it is a series of stories and ceremonies bereft of any more meaning than hunter-gatherer tribal dancing." And that's just silly at the level you're assuming it. Science, as a practice, is empiricism. But a lot of people forget that, and adhere to its trappings as a belief system.

Simply put, I have come across enough scientists who treat the trappings of science as vestments, and some of the associational tenets as a religion. While that doesn't make empiricism or science as a practice religion, it makes their practices so. And, echoing my statements above, while it may not be statistically significant, it is significant in my observation and leads to beliefs I take issue with, which is why I address it. On some level, I can't change anyone's mind -- I can't make anyone change religions. But what I object to is people spouting their beliefs at me and claiming some sort of psuedo-science backs it up as Truth, and thus blinding them to the real consequences of their words and actions.

* If one has an advanced degree in a related area,

I have no degree, but I feel I have put enough study into this area to not just spout what I've gotten out of an intro to lit crit book or the gospel according to the Bible or Science, and have used some of these ideas -- esp. the work of Charles Mills -- to draft a paper on race and racism from a biracial perspective in the South. For what that's worth.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 4

Nails on a Chalkboard

no subject

Reply on or around May 6th

no subject

Since you brought it up

Re: Since you brought it up

Re: I don't care

re: nothing to do with Christianity, per se

Re: Since you brought it up

Re: Since you brought it up

no subject

Re: Since you brought it up

Re: Since you brought it up

Well, ick but...

Re: Well, ick but...

Re: Well, ick but...

Re: Well, ick but...

Re: Well, ick but...

Re: with Greg

Re: with Greg

Re: with Greg

Re: Since you brought it up

Re: I don't care

Re: Well, ick but...

Re: I don't care

Re: Reply on or around May 6th