Nails on a Chalkboard

[etherial]

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.

Comments

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Worship? Unless you've bought the fallacious garbage about "atheism is a religion and Dawkins claims he's their prophet," I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.

As for 12 versus 13 months, 12 30 day months with 5 not-days-in-months is almost as smooth.

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

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. Functionally, as a belief system, it is often the same as a religion. And nothing smacks of psuedo-worship more than using the names of scientists for our calendar months.


I could get behind a 5 not-days-in-months system, provided they were designated non-religious time-off holidays. XD

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

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.

If you're claiming this on the basis of anything more than your own opinion, please cite. If not, then provide a counterexample to mine: belief in creationism in the United States is inversely correlated to education.

"This sounds like religion to me" isn't much of an argument, unless you have a higher degree in a relevant field of which I'm unaware.

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

I'm simply making a functional personal observation from my time at WPI. I've heard over and over ridiculous arguments made in the name of "science" from people who misunderstand it -- and many are supposed to represent those who specialize in it.

Now, if you want to play the citations game, feel free to cite your example -- even though I think it's an irrelevant argument. I'd like to note that I'm discussing science from a social and political perspective, where people seem to forget that empiricism forms the basis of scientific modes of thought. And "modes of thought" is the key phrase there.

And I'd like to quibble with your notion that someone needs to have a degree to have a reasonable argument or opinion. Trickle-down economics is dumb as all hell, but was espoused by economics PhDs. A degree is a nice two-second metric if you plan to not consider another person's thoughts, but hardly applies if you want to debate their words on their own merit.

After all, do you have a PhD in epistemology? The history of time-keeping? Sociopolitical philosophy? Sociology? Political Science? No? Then why are we talking?

That said, I assume you will continue to debate with me. I, unfortunately, will not likely have the time to engage you with as much effort as the discussion will deserve, as I'm finishing up an MQP as we speak.

Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

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.

Since you brought it up

[juldea.livejournal.com]

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

Re: Since you brought it up

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

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])

Re: Since you brought it up

[nightskyre.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Since you brought it up

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Since you brought it up

[juldea.livejournal.com]

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

Thanks. That helps. Also sounds seriously unfortunate.

Re: Since you brought it up

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Well, it sounds unfortunate because he's biased. You might want to read a postmodernist's argument on their own terms before you make up your mind. :)

That person is not me, however, since -- despite the claims above -- I am not a postmodernist.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

* 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.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

so... you don't care about statistical significance, but are somehow empirical?

Frankly, I think you fail to make your case that Science is taken as a religion. "I know a few guys from a school of 7000 people" says nothing about people outside of that arena.

You conflate "science" with pseudo-science-- would you care to clarify your definition of what these folk who are worshiping science believe in? Pseudo-science is, (as far as I'm concerned), by definition not science.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Pseudo-science is, (as far as I'm concerned), by definition not science.

Cool. I'm not under the impression that we were speaking about you personally, but perhaps the initation of the conversation is dim to my memory and misunderstood by both.

An example, by the way, would be that "1 in 4 women are sexually abused." How do you interpret that? What basis is there to say that? What parameters exist that informed or influenced that statement?

And yet, because it is a "statistic," many are willing to say, "Yes, this supports my belief, so what I believe is the Truth." Or, they point to the holes that I've mentioned and say, "This isn't scientific, therefore I don't believe this and my beliefs are still valid and the Truth, because I have this other equally groundless statistic that backs it up."

Neither line of thought is particularly logical, but uses "science" to justify itself.

"I know a few guys from a school of 7000 people" says nothing about people outside of that arena.

You're putting words in my mouth, but as I said above and below, I'm not speaking to the worldwide arena.

you don't care about statistical significance, but are somehow empirical?

I adhere to empiricism insofar as so long as I've experienced it then it's worth paying attention to. Statistical significance is important and well and good, but part of my emphasis as a social progressive is combatting negative and harmful attitudes even if they don't fall within the std. dev. for the population of America. Besides, in my experience, whether something is statistically significant largely depends on the parameters you set: sample size, the defining elements of your population, etc., and is even harder to get a measurement that speaks to anything concrete.

Because of that, I rarely trust popularly reported social statistics unless I've seen the data and run them myself, knowing the parameters of the sample. And even then they're only a metric, and beyond that rarely practical on a personal level.

My point, as a symbolic interactionist, is that I've seen a lot of attitudes that corroborate my statements. I could, in fact, run a statistical analysis, but would you care? "75% of elenuial's interactions with scientists have shown they have an illogical faith in tenets they associate with science that have nothing to do at all with the discipline." If you're looking for "hard data," then you'll realize that such a population being described isn't applicable to the larger world.

Which is my point as a symbolic interactionist: it is applicable to me, because it is within my realm of experience. In my experience, there is statistical significance that may or may not apply to your experience. I see this attitude, and so I combat it.

And I think relying on other people's studies of huge samples is largely irrelevant if you want to make legitimate change in the world. "Think globally; act locally," is a catchphrase amongst social activists of all beliefs, and it makes sense. Knowing that 51% of Americans believe in Creationism has no impact on your personal world. How many of your acquaintances are Creationists? Much fewer, I imagine. But how many are subtly sexist, or racist without even knowing it? Much higher, I would guess. So it makes little sense to rail about Creationism, because everyone you know already agrees with you. It's more important to point out the issues that people are hung up on, because that's where you can make change.

I'm a firm believer in making change that you can measure, and if that means railing against a belief I've beaten my head against time and again, then that's what I do. If that means I look foolish to you, then I suppose that's a price I must pay.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

And I should mention that "a few guys" hardly covers it. I've encountered ridiculous superstition-like beliefs supported with equally silly and fallacious logic countless times -- to the point that I see little else -- amongst people who purport to believe in nothing but "science."

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

And that's not to say that you shouldn't support larger social change whenever possible. But it's harder to make a change with rednecks in Ohio than there are fools in Worcester. That, in plain English, is a large part of my point.

[siderea]

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

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Hi siderea. Sorry I haven't responded until now, but I was doing MQP work until earlier this week, and forgot about this comment until now.

The fallacious beliefs I have found are often the purest libertarian ones. For example, hostility towards any policy aimed at promoting racial or gender equity. They cite that there is a lack of hard quantitative data that such disparity still exists, which smacks of willing blindness to me.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

But their arguments aren't on a scientific level in the first place. A lack of evidence is just a lack of evidence and choosing whether to govern not at all or to govern by intuition is just political opinion. It's basically just a perspective switch on what the government's default course of action should be.

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Thus, it's a fallacy, and a really annoying one, because they're as unshakeably certain as any fundamentalist.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

But that isn't based in any way on science, so I don't see how it's an example of your complaint. From the description given they weren't even trying to make an argument based on science.

As to unshakeability, it doesn't sound like anything was presented to shake their beliefs. They even gave a criteria (possibly false) for changing them: "evidence of continuing inequity".

It seems like you have a point you want to make and that you *know* is true, but are having trouble actually coming up with evidence for.

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

they weren't even trying to make an argument based on science.

Your understanding of science is probably getting in the way of you understanding what actually transpired. Point: they believed they were arguing from a scientific standpoint, and thus, given science's claim to objective truth they were expanding beyond its domain, they believed they were absolutely right.

They weren't using your definition of science, but they were calling it science. Thus, my complaint.

They even gave a criteria (possibly false) for changing them: "evidence of continuing inequity".

I gave it to them (ie how the inequity along racial lines is evidence of subtle institutionalized and socially acceptable racism, esp. in light of the puported "ghetto" stereotypes etc. etc.), but the people being discussed dismissed this out of hand because I didn't immediately attach definitive quantitative analysis to my conversation.

It seems like you have a point you want to make and that you *know* is true, but are having trouble actually coming up with evidence for.

1) See my discussion with dirkcjelli. Then bring it to his journal, as there is now a forum over there to discuss all of this.

2) It seems that you got angry at one of my early comments, and are now just looking to poke holes in general in my statements, possibly out of some leftover emotional residue. You might want to take a step back and evaluate whether your aggression is appropriate.

We don't disagree, from what I can see, on what science is and is supposed to be.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

As per request, continued here.

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

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.

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

I agree with you for the most part, but for a more in-depth answer, feel free to look at my response to dirkcjelli above.