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

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

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Since you brought it up

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

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

Well, ick but...

[neuromancerzss.livejournal.com]

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.

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: Since you brought it up

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

"I don't understand how you can hold that position without being a postmodernist" followed by a request for clarification on your position wrt postmodernism is not an accusation of postmodernism... it is a display of incredulity.

Re: Since you brought it up

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

"claim" was an imprecise word, then. Apologies.

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

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

So... you have "your opinion." As I've said, I find your case unconvincing.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

You seem to have a curious notion of "opinion" and "fact."

I've encountered this belief frequently. That people have it is a fact. I combat this belief, not because I think it might be statistically significant amongst the American populace (and, as I've stated repeatedly, I find that such a study would be misleading and cause me to passively ignore destructive behaviors), but because I see it and it has an immediate impact on the world I am able to observe.

Now, it is my opinion that I should do this instead of relying on largely unverifiable and easily manipulative studies to guide how I can and should act on my beliefs.

If you disagree with that, and feel that you should rely on said studies to make largely inconsequential change, more power to you. That's "your opinion" and we will have to respectfully disagree.




I suppose, to attempt to think in your terms (though I know you hate that postmodernism fluff), I should say that I'm not interested in building a generalized case, or to try and demonstrate that this is a socially significant problem on a large scale. While I am interested in large scale problems, and work to try and solve them, I also fervently seek to solve those that exist on the small scale, within my grasp. You seem to feel that this "science as religion" business is small scale, and thus not worth paying attention to. I honestly have no notion of how widespread this is, and am not interested in finding out. I see it in front of me, and I work to fix it. Individual conversation is more likely to change opinions than pamphlets anyways.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

You also seem uninterested in accounting for your own cognitive biases...

You have brought evidence insufficient to your claim to the table, so I'll consider what you've said (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.) as your opinion.

If you had been able to support your claim with more than your own personal anecdotes, then I (another person, who did not observe what you did, and may well have had different experiences of my own) shall consider your proposition (that there is 'science-worship' going on) to be an opinion.

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.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

On the issue of social change, I don't see how arguing against Creationism (when I see it) prevents me from arguing against racism, sexism, etc, (or striving to act without influence from the same.)

Creationism supports (or is used to support, at the very least) a kind of religion which I feel is ultimately responsible for much sexism, racism, and violence in the modern world.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

Consider the diversity of different communities. You seem to be thinking in terms of "America," or at least on that scale, which is often a fallacy.

Take a random county in rural Kansas. Creationism is dominant. It is full of outright instead of subtle racism and sexism.

Take Worcester's WPI community, where you live. Creationism as a doctrine is nearly nonexistant. There is plenty of racism and sexism, however, though it is subtle and easily ignored.

Your actions in Worcester do not affect those in Kansas. Simple.

Therefore, arguing against Creationism is simply blowing hot air, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. About the only thing it accomplishes is makes you look smart amongst your circle of friends because you eloquently argue a position they hold -- and perhaps that's why you do it, for social status; I don't know. That's about the only reason I can think of.

It's a question of energy, and resources. I only have so much time in a day. I'd rather work towards being able to change something, not preaching to a fanatic choir.

And it's a matter of practicality. I've found that arguing against Creationism with Creationists (which I've seen plenty of in VA, not here) only leads to circular and infuriating discussions and gets nowhere -- leaving only negativity on both sides. But I CAN argue for positive social change outside of that doctrine. It's certainly difficult, but doable, having changed the ground on which the ideologies are clashing. And I've gotten results.

Re: Reply on or around May 6th

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

I was assuming America chiefly because I (implicitly) assumed you were as well. I generally take "Modern Western Civilization*" to be my frame of reference.

I don't agree Creationism is nonexistent in Worcester, but it isn't my real target.

I agree with Sam Harris's position, that religious moderates are also an enemy of reason as an enabling factor. I agree with Dan Dennett that first and second order belief in religion is accompanied by an overweaning respect for religious positions. If I question someone's opinion on baseball, that is acceptable... but religion is expected to have a special kind of respect, and religious positions are afforded a special exemption for the requirement that one must provide evidence to support claims. Finally, I agree with the survey information of opinion over the last 100 years, which shows that Atheists are the most mistrusted minority in the country.

Consider gay marriage, or abortion rights, in Massachusetts. 70% of WPI students are nominally Catholic. Were this statistic true (and I believe it isn't chiefly because I don't think the students signed the cards themselves, or appreciate what it actually means to be Catholic, but I'm digressing), then it would -clearly- have some bearing on these issues at WPI. It is certainly true that there are plenty of Catholics in MA, and that their religion influences their position on abortion.

When the Anglican/Episcopalian church has two openly married lesbian atheist archbishops who are evaluated on the basis of their job performance (as administrators of a voluntary organization which regularly performs certain ceremonies), when that is considered the 'moderate' opinion, then I'll consider public opinion on religion to be in the right place.

---

* Europe, but not Russia, North America, Japan, and urban centers/ individuals elsewhere on a case-by-case basis... Modern meaning 'after 1950'.

Or I'll take a page from your book

[elenuial.livejournal.com]

which I feel is ultimately responsible for much sexism, racism, and violence in the modern world.

That's a nice opinion. I don't know if I'd agree that it's generally true.

Re: Or I'll take a page from your book

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Gee, maybe the reason I prefaced my comment with 'I feel' was because it was an opinion... as opposed to your initial fact-like statement:

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.