The Packbats' Weblog

A number of people have been talking about whether intelligent design is scientific recently in some interesting new ways: Megan McArdle, Alex Tabarrok, Robin Hanson, and most notably Thomas Nagel.

The focus of these remarks is best summarized in a post three years ago by Alex Tabarrok:

Suppose that you find a watch in the forest. If you know there is no watchmaker then the theory of evolution is a brilliant and compelling explanation for the presence of complexity without design. But suppose that you know a watchmaker exists then surely the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the watchmaker made the watch. Any other explanation, particularly one so improbable (see extension) as evolution would seem to be preposterous and beside the point.

I can only conclude from the above that these people did not ask themselves, "What do we do science for?"

This is hardly a severe sin, of course. The question is hardly primary among the ones that spring to mind. But the answer is, "Science explains the world in a way which lets us predict the world." This is and always has been where Intelligent Design - and creationism in general - fail: under those views, we have no reason to expect, say, the existence of the punctum caecum (blind spot) in vertebrae eyes but not cephalopod eyes - in fact, just the opposite.

Believing that one or more gods exist is no excuse. The only reasonable explanation for the evidence is that every species now extant is descended with modification from simpler species. And once we hypothesize that, the strictly simplest explanation, even if gods are present, is the modern evolutionary synthesis.

From Making Light: A Japanese company, Genepax, has announced and demonstrated a new fuel cell system that runs on water..

Allow me to be careful for a moment. This is important enough - and I happen to be well-trained enough in the relevant field - to make strong statements about, and I do not want to leave a false impression.

*ahem*

It is impossible to make a fuel cell system that runs on water. Further, it is impossible to devise a process for separating water into hydrogen and oxygen that costs less useful energy than the fuel cell produces by recombining the two. Any person claiming to be capable of doing so is, to borrow a phrase, a lunatic, a liar, or Lord of the Cosmos.

I am not even joking. Of course, in this case, I'm betting it's (a) or (b), for a very simple reason: the machine described in these articles violates conservation of energy. To quote Sean Carroll's Alternative-Science Checklist:

Scientific claims — whether theoretical insights or experimental breakthroughs — don’t exist all by their lonesome. They are situated within a framework of pre-existing knowledge and expectations. If the claim you are making seems manifestly inconsistent with that framework, it’s your job to explain why anyone should nevertheless take you seriously. Whenever someone claims to build a perpetual-motion device, scientist solemnly reiterate that the law of conservation of energy is not to be trifled with lightly. Of course one must admit that it could be wrong — it’s only one law, after all. But when you actually build some machine that purportedly puts out more ergs than it consumes (in perpetuity), it does a lot more than violate the law of conservation of energy. That machine is made of atoms and electromagnetic fields, which obey the laws of atomic physics and Maxwell’s equations. And conservation of energy can be derived from those laws — so you’re violating those as well.

Genepax is pulling a scam, intentionally or not. The only possible way their device could work is by annihilating the entire modern structure of physics and chemistry simultaneously, and destroy them far more thoroughly than general relativity and quantum mechanics destroyed their respective predecessors. Do not even dream of betting against those kind of odds.

---

One final note, for those who may be curious: it was not any special wisdom of mine that allowed me to come so rapidly to the above conclusion. It was a simple three-step process:

1. Diagram the claimed process - where the fuel comes in, where the energy and known waste comes out. (You have to have waste come out - that's the second law of thermodynamics.)

                ________________________    _____________
water (fuel) -> | Genepax's MEA system | -> | Fuel Cell | -> water (waste)
                ------------------------    -------------
                                                      L----> energy

2. Add up the known outputs and subtract the inputs. (The inputs are always known. They're the things you have to pay for.) Compare to zero.

(energy + water) - water = energy > zero

3. If the answer is greater than zero, it's a scam. Q.E.D.

If any part of the above is unclear, I will gladly explain in the comments. Thank you for your time.

No essays yet - school and school and school, unfortunately. However, I do have this pleasant little screed, sent to the campus newspaper in reply to a foolish little letter that appeared there today:

In the Friday, April 25, 2008 Diamondback, the following claim appears in a letter by one Tung Pham, Junior, Mathematics:

"There is no scientific consensus that global warming is caused by industrialized carbon emission[.]"

Tung Pham, you have been lied to. Such a consensus has existed for, at a minimum, over eighteen years. Why do I say eighteen years? Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, founded in 1988, released its First Assessment Report in 1990, from which I quote:

"We are certain of the following:

• there is a natural greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
  
• emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it."

If, perhaps, you object that this report is outdated, I refer you to the Fourth Assessment Report, and specifically the Summary for Policymakers provided by the IPCC <http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf>:

"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4)

"During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic [resulting from or produced by human beings] forcings. Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at
smaller than continental scales."

Note the specific modifiers placed on each of these. These terms have been chosen to indicate exactly how certain these people are: "Very high confidence": at least 9 out of 10, "very likely": >90%, "likely": >66%.

All the IPCC does is review the scientific consensus -

"Mandate: The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

- and that consensus is unequivocal. Global warming is occurring. And global warming is occurring because human beings are causing it.

Robin Zimmermann
1st-Year Master's Student
Mechanical Engineering

Peace out.

What secret (your or someone else's) do you wish you'd done a better job of keeping? View other answers

...I'm sorry, I have to ask: does Livejournal think I'm stupid? I'm not as careful as filthspigot about separating my LJ and personal lives, but what made them think that this question even made sense?

Let me break it down.

1. I have a secret.
2. I spill it, wholly or partially - a matter which is a source of personal guilt.
3. ???
4. I tell the entire world.

I mean, pardon me, but even I am not that lousy a prevaricator.

Question: does anyone know why every version of Firefox on Mac OsX 10.3.9 renders the little "hearts" symbol (♥) as a vertical line?

Edit: Apparently for the same reason the text gets grainy sometimes - the rendering code is flaky. There's a fix promised in Firefox 3. Thanks, baxil!

As one who cares deeply about the idea of accurate product labeling, I am appalled that the FDA is considering loosening its regulations. To use the only example that has been made public, allowing food like cocoa with vegetable oil to be referred to as "chocolate" is certain to be detrimental to the health of millions of Americans who seek out the genuine article in part for its demonstrated beneficial properties (the antioxidants help reduce strokes and heart failure), not to mention the millions of Americans with allergies to peanuts, canola oil, and other common substitute ingredients.

Can it fail to be obvious what will result from legislation along these lines? Our country is in the midst of what has been widely described as an "obesity epidemic". One even sees in new immigrants a sudden surge of heart attacks during their first months here. And regulations like the proposed would make it impossible for naive customers to protect themselves from yet another source of unhealthy fats.

I say again: I am appalled that the institution that was founded because of the 1906 Food and Drugs Act precisely to prevent "the addition of any ingredients that would substitute for the food, conceal damage, pose a health hazard, or constitute a filthy or decomposed substance" - and the vegetable oils replacing the cocoa butter would qualify under both the first and the third of these - would consider such a destructive regulation.

See Making Light's post for links to further information – the period for public comment on this docket ends April 25.

So, a week off from school, right? Counting the two bracketing weekends, that's 9 days between classes.

...aaand I finally finish all my homework assignments Day 8.

Well, I guess I have sixteen hours of vacation, at least....

Back in 1994, a rather well-known physicist named Murray Gell-Mann wrote a book called The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. Back in, hmm, August, I checked a copy out of the library.

I'm not done with it yet. But judging it so far, there's an important lesson I think people should learn, here, in writing books or articles on popular science. And it comes down to these two things: rigor and readability. You can be exactly right, or you can be easily understood. Being both is hard or impossible. In this case, Gell-Mann was writing a popular science book, so he wanted to be understood. But he is a physicist, and used to exactness*, and he let that lead him into a big mistake: he tried to stay precise – correct – without spending the time to explain the definitions.

This is unbelievably important. Unless you spend the time to make definitions, you cannot be precise. 90% of confusions are definitions or semantics.

Scientists are probably worse off here than anyone else, since they're used to talking with people who already know the definitions. But if you want to explain it to people who don't, you have to fudge it or spend a lot of time working it out.

This has been another installment of "Robin Pretends To Know All Theatre". Thank you for coming.

* For all the jokes that science guys make about the philosophy guys**, they do have this in common: they both define words very precisely. Defining words precisely is absolutely necessary to clear and correct reasoning on any difficult subject.

** Q: How do you get a philosopher off your porch? A: Pay him for the pizza. Q: What does the liberal arts major say to the science major? A: "Would you like fries with that?"

So, I have been reading the online version of The Writer's Almanac, since my dad listens to the show, and sometimes there are some very fine poems there. Today, I decided to look up all the ones I'd bookmarked on 'real' poetry sites. Which went well, until "My Love Is Like to Ice" by Edmund Spenser. (Coincidentally, this is today's poem. For the next couple hours, anyway.)

When you Google "My Love Is Like to Ice" by Edmund Spenser, you get about two hundred sites of love poetry!

What is this? "Love" is in the title, so it's romantic? Bah! Unless he's entirely corrupting all the common metaphors of romance, Spenser's saying that he loves someone who doesn't love him back, and loves her the more for the lack of reciprocation! I like the poem, but that's not romantic.

...there, I'm done. Anyway, Poetry Connection's page with "My Love Is Like to Ice" seems to be okay, though ad-clogged.

"Love" poetry. Hmph!

I have been reading ginmar's journal recently, and it got me thinking about how each person's freedom is restricted by everyone else's. Oddly enough, a recent 'situation' I was in offered an example of this theory in action.

Some unspecified time ago, I was working on a school assignment. Specifically, I was working on rewriting the paper I turned in two weeks ago, but that's not important. And I was working on this assignment in a (semi-)public place, i.e. someplace which other people shared the right to occupy. And, in this case, there were other people, sharing the right to occupy the space.

Here's the question: How much right did I have to restrict what they could do there?

Certainly, they had the right to be there while I tried to write. Likewise, I had the right to be there and try to write. I will be the first to admit that there are times when I wouldn't have that right, but in this particular instance, I had a strong claim to it. And so did they. No argument there.

Certainly they had the right to use their laptops there. Similarly, I had the right to use mine. Certainly, they had the right to read the newspaper there. Similarly, I had the right to read my class notes.

Certainly they had the right to play their music there ... no, wait!

When you reach the issue of the music, a new problem arises. Or rather, an old problem becomes rather more severe. That problem is: I was writing! How much right did they have to interfere with my trying to write? How much right did I have to interfere with them trying to play music?

I won't disguise my opinion. I believe that I had the right to keep either and both of them from playing their music out lout, and that's it.

Why do I claim this right? I argue that it is a reasonable compromise. To play the music out loud (and I emphasize that qualifier for a reason) is to make the space have music playing in it. We both have control over the space, so we both have control over whether music should be playing in it.

Now, at this point we're even, or I'm behind. If they both want the music playing, I lose. But there's another factor.

I have no control over what music they listen to. If either of the, want to play music on their headphones, they can. Therefore, if they want to listen to their music, and I want (relative) silence while I work, we can have both.

How reasonable a compromise is this? I believe it to be eminently reasonable, for two reasons. The first is the obvious: the fact that they would not be severely inconvenienced by submitting to the compromise. The second is much more sophisticated: an appeal to John Rawls.

I first heard of Rawls Game (that is the name that was given to it) a year or so ago, at a community college philosophy club meeting. I heard of it again very recently; in fact, in the same class for which I was writing the paper. The idea is fairly simple; it is a thought-experiment.

Imagine that a group of people is brought together to write the constitution for a new country. However, when they finished, they would be randomly assigned their positions in the society they created. That is, when they are writing the rules of society, they don't know who they will be afterward. This hiding of their future roles is called the "veil of ignorance".

Why is this concept so useful? Because any law that you make that involves more than one person, is a law you have to make not knowing which person you will be. That means that you won't want to make laws biased towards one person, or against another. If you made a law saying that every left-handed person in the country would have to be stoned to death, you could end up stoned to death!

Now, how does a thought experiment about constitutional law apply to my situation, above? Bring in the veil of ignorance! If I don't know which person I will be – the writer or the music-listener – then I have to come up with something I can accept, either way. I can't say, "I have the right to blare out my music, period, and I have the right to silence while I work, period!" I have to come up with what both people will do, before I know which one is me. I have to be fair.

And that's what mutual freedoms are all about.