GoughThoughts

RIP

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:07:03 -0400

It is with some sadness that the clan declares its extinction today. The attempt of GoughThoughts was to provide commentary on various social and political news items from the viewpoint of a fictional entity known as the Goughclan.

The fact that after over a year, readership never extended beyond a few close friends and family members shows that the attempt was a failure.

When an idea fails, it is time to set it aside and move on to the next idea. And, so with that, I bid farewell to the clan with some sadness, but with no regrets. May it rest in peace.

The Path Less Traveled...

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:14:17 -0400

Yesterday morning, federal regulators seized Washington Mutual Bank. The bank had not failed, and was not in danger of failing. How do we know? Because Chase Morgan bank promptly bought Washington Mutual for $1.9 billion. Chase Morgan is not a charity. They bought Washington Mutual because Washington Mutual was a good investment. So, why did federal regulators seize Washington Mutual?

Chase Morgan has wanted to buy Washington Mutual for some time, but apparently, Washington Mutual wasn’t interest in selling.

Enter the current banking “crisis.” A little back-room dealing, a little down-talking the bank, and voilá, you have a bank “close to failure.” After a little encouragement from the Democrat chairman of the banking committee, the feds seize Washington Mutual and force its sale to Chase Morgan. For less than market value. It’s good to have the Democrat chairman of the banking committee a friend of Chase Morgan. He pulled the same trick a few months ago with Indy bank. Publicly declaring it insolvent and causing a run. The feds seized it and promptly sold it to Chase Morgan as well.

America is stumbling down a horrible road. A road where wealth comes via corruption and government power brokering. Where governments can ignore property and ownership and confiscate and disposition businesses as they see fit. A road that whispers that capitalism is evil and socialism is just and fair. Too many Americans are embracing the seductive voice of the state calling to them to let her take care of them. Too many.

The Goughclan is both angry and frightened. Angry at the corruption of men in government who, for their gain, play tyrant. Frightened because of where the road leads: misery and want. If we walk down this road, the day is not far distant when standing in line for gas or food will be the rule, and not the exception.

Throughout human history, the road less traveled has been the road of capitalism. Less traveled because governments hate it and do everything in their power to turn people away from it. For decades, Democrats and many Republicans have whispered that the state is mother, the state is father. That the state will care for you and feed you and keep you safe. And the only price is your freedom. Like Esau of old, too many Americans are eager to sell their birthright of freedom for the mess of pottage promised them by liberals and “compassionate” conservatives, and we are beginning to see the consequence.

Remember

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 10:27:06 -0400

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

A Depressing Day

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:49:52 -0400

This is a depressing day for the Clan. First, it learned that the great state of Colorado has been struck by suicidal stupidity; passing a renewable energy act that resulted in the shuttering of two coal-fired power plants. Not to worry, environmentalist idiots respond. We’ll replace them with expensive, inefficient, high-maintenance, resource-consuming, land-grabbing solar furnaces that produce 1/10th the power.

Yes, Colorado is going green. The green of vines growing over abandoned homes and factories. The green of dollars leaving people’s wallets as they hunt for portable generators to provide electricity during the rolling blackouts.

It somehow seems fitting therefore, that Denver, the heart of Coloradoan stupidity, is hosting the Democratic National Convention. The one where Obama will be likely declared presidential nominee. The same Obama who hangs out with terrorists and when called on it, threatens legal action to shut down the television station. I guess it only makes sense that communist thug environmentalists should love a communist thug stalinist for a leader.

Not a particularly proud day for America.

Theistic Science

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:29:57 -0400

Rarely, when the clan is particularly bored, it heads on over to the theology online forum to view the babel that is Christianity. Even more rarely, the clan actually participates in a thread, usually when it is something actually interesting and thought provoking, a rare gem in a forum that mainly consists of: You read the Bible differently than I do, so you are a heretic: burn in hell!

One such post was an individual claiming that God is unscientific and trying to mingle the two was “jumping the gun.” This gave the clan an opportunity to ponder the relationship between theism and science and the following conversation took place:

...thanks for your thoughtful post. You're the first person to engage me on a scientific level rather than a theological or Biblical level, and I appreciate it.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the theories can predict all the implications of quantum mechanics and relativity, but rather that they are derived from those fields.

Fair enough, but those who subscribe to a creator also derive theories based on that understanding. In fact, much of the modern field of science was driven by men of Christian faith whose understanding of a creator led them to conclude an orderly universe of identifiable and predictable behavior. This was actually a fairly radical concept at the time.

If there was some observation that wasn't accounted for by a theory, it would lose credibility.

This is simply not true. There are many observations today not accounted for by any number of theories. These theories are still held as valid because they are the best we have. See my original point about dark matter.

For example, scientists used to believe that matter burned because it contained “phlogiston.“ A burnt material was “dephlogistonated.“ This theory accounted for observations like rusting and combustion, but the death blow to the theory was that some things gain mass when they are burned, even though they are supposed to be losing phlogiston. A single observation falsified the theory.

An observation that directly falsifies a theory in its current form does not necessarily scrap the theory, but instead calls for a re-examination of the theory. The theory may simply require modification, not complete abandonment. For example, the phlogiston theory of combustion could have been modified to posit the existence of negative phlogiston, which would be gained by a substance with a phlogiston deficiency during a combustion like event. Further experiments would then be run to test the modification.

I agree it's not invalidating [God as a factor], but it's an area of concern that other theories don't need to worry about. When a theory is falsified in the scientific community, we typically never hear about it again. For example, when the background microwave radiation was discovered, the douters of the Big Bang theory changed their minds over night.

This simply isn't true. There are still respectable physicists who do not subscribe to the Big Bang model. They are in the minority, but they are working to find a modification of steady state that will explain the observed microwave background radiation. The problem is that much of our science today is passive observation rather than active experimentation, particularly in fields like cosmology and archaeology/geology. And when you fail to experiment, the scientific method breaks down. Much of science today is nothing more than the Aristotlean method, where an individual observes and then argues the conclusions of his observations.

We can't say the same for supernatural theories. They tend to stick around far too long. Astronomy has completely replaced astrology in terms of explanatory power, but we still devote weekly newspaper space to astrology.

I think this is where your error lies. You are ascribing God as a theory of creation. The actuality is, whether God is to be considered one of the basic assumptions when creating theories.

If you have ever taken a college-level physics course (a good one, that is), you will have been introduced to the idea of basic assumptions. These are unprovable statements that physicists simply assume, a priori, to be true. It is impossible to prove that they are true, but because certain assumptions are required as a foundation to scientific inquiry, physicists came up with a set of basic assumptions that they agreed that, though unprovable, were, nonetheless, true.

At the beginning of modern science, one of these assumptions was that God existed, was a being of order, and created the universe. This was an extremely important base assumption because it allowed the corollary that the universe followed predictable laws that were discoverable. Other basic assumptions are: That local physical laws (as demonstrated by experimentation) exist uniformly throughout the observable universe and that local physical laws have remained constant throughout the history of the universe and will remain constant throughout the future of the universe. As rationalism replaced theism in scientific inquiry, a new basic assumption replaced the first: namely, that all events in the universe can be explained by purely mechanistic means.

The interesting thing is, is that this assumption requires the addition of a NEW a prior assumption: That the universe is ordered, predictable and discoverable. So by replacing the basic assumption of an orderly creator, you have had to posit an additional unprovable assumption.

Ironically, by removing the concept of an orderly God from your base assumptions, you have actually weakened the foundation of science because the more unprovable assumptions you have to make, the greater the risk that one of them is wrong.

What I mean is that the role of God in the world is extremely flexible, and it adapts to every new observation that scientists make. In other words, the creator theory is unfalsefiable.

The idea that a scientific theory must be falsifiable to be valid is actually a fairly recent concept introduced by science philosophers (I forget the actual individual's name). Prior to about 1950, the main requirement for a valid theory is that it make predictions that were experimentally verifiable. Falsifiability is a good criteria for a theory because it does make it easier to discard the theory, but it is not a requirement. M-theory is not falsifiable, but it is still considered a valid theory because it explains many observations and makes predictions that can be experimentally verified.

Scientific theories about the beginning of the universe come and go as our knowledge grows, but a creator theory has stuck around for thousands of years because we continually say, “Oh, then this is how God must be.”

I disagree. “How” God is has changed historically through means independent of scientific inquiry. What science may do is change our understanding of how God did things.

Explaining why the universe seems to be attracted to itself is done much better by appealing to superdense matter than an act of God, simply because it still is derived from our current scientific understanding about things that are attracted to each other.

Again, you are missing the essential point. To the theistic scientist, gravitational attraction IS an act of God because he established the force and the laws governing it when he created the universe.

Let me explain using the dark matter problem as an example:

A physicist operating from the base assumption of an orderly creator would conclude that some force or undiscovered principle must be at work and that a greater understanding of the nature of creation would reveal it. Such a scientist would pursue many different avenues of research because he sees all of creation as an intelligently-crafted whole composed of interworking components. On the other hand, a physicist who subscribes to the purely mechanistic basic assumption limits his avenues of inquiry because he has accepted as a basic truth that ALL observable events can be explained in purely mechanistic terms; he will therefore immediately rule out investigating avenues and theories that might call for intelligence or purpose.

Thus the theist scientist is actually less limited in his scientific inquiry. A purely mechanistic explanation will not invalidate his base assumptions, but he is also able to look into other possible causes that include intelligence, deliberate design and purpose. As long as these theories can include testable predictions, they are valid theories, yet they are impossible to arrive at by the non-theistic scientist who is bound by his denial of a creator in his base assumptions of foundational truth.

The above discussion led the clan to an interesting observation on evolution. The claims of scripture (that life reproduces after its own kind) is experimentally testable, and has been tested for thousands of years and millions of generations of organisms, and it has always been shown to be true. In physics or chemistry, this level of experimental support would have long since resulted in the establishment of the theory as a scientific law. (Note that kind is not the same as species; an abstract and largely unmeasurable quantity that most biologists can’t even universally agree upon).

However, a law that organisms always reproduce after their own kind invalidates the theory of evolution inasmuch as it applies to the development of new kinds of organisms.

For the theistic scientist, this presents no dilemma, since his base assumptions allow for the existence of special creation in the universe (note that it is not necessary to know how in order to recognize the phenomena. No physicist to this day knows how gravity works, but all recognize it as a legitimate phenomenon).

However, for the non-theistic scientist, this violates one of his base assumptions, namely that all processes can be explained by purely mechanistic means. So, why the sharp criticism of the idea of special creation?

The Goughclan is of the firm opinion it is because of the corollaries that follow. If the existence of God is posited, then, in addition to the corollaries of an ordered universe, there is a further corollary of expected requirements on human behavior. And, that, is the sticking point. Admitting a postulate of God opens the door to facing moral judgements on human behavior. Thus the fanatical adherence to the base assumption that all events are purely mechanistic. Because where there is no God, there is no moral judgment.

Don’t Ever Do This and Drive

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:04:56 -0400

The Goughclan has decided that there is a stupidity epidemic throughout the world. Fox News has a story with a provocative headline: Girl Sends Text Message Just Before Fatal Crash

A girl, drunk and speeding, lost control of her car, crashed and died. But the real cause? Texting. Yep, texting. See, her cell phone was found open and on at the crash site, and phone records showed she was texting just before the wreck.

The mother’s reaction? She hopes that this teaches others not to text while driving. Of course, drinking while driving is perfectly fine. As long as you keep your cell phone off.

The Goughclan can see it now. The officer pulls the car to the side of the road.

“Ma’am, I’m going to have to cite your for texting unless you put the cellphone down right now. Here, hold this beer instead. That’s much better. Remember, texting while driving is dangerous. You have a nice day, now, ma’am.”

Pity the fool

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:43:00 -0400

Saxby Chambliss, along with four other Republicans, has decided that his picture should belong in the dictionary next to the word fool. Just so people will know exactly what the word means.

Senator Chambliss “worked” with Democrats (read: caved to) on a “compromise” bill that would supposedly allow for offshore drilling and thus alleviate the current oil supply issues that are helping to keep oil prices high.

Rush Limbaugh learned about this and on his August 8th show took the senator to task, prompting a call in from Chambliss. During the call, Chamblis, just to make sure that everyone knew he was serious about being listed next to the word fool in the dictionary, actually maintained that Democrats compromised with him because they allowed four states to decide if they wanted to drill off shore. As long as it was more than fifty miles away. And as long as the ACLU said yes. And as long as PETA agreed.

At this point, the Goughclan’s rage turned to rage mingled with pity. As Chambliss continued to prattle on about how his bill actually accomplishes something, it became clear to the clan that the good Senator actually thought drilling would occur as a result of his bill; that the Democrats had actually shifted on this issue. No doubt he thought the noise of Democrats laughing behind their sleeves, knowing full well that PETA and the ACLU would tie any attempt to drill up in the courts for the next 50 years, was simply them politely hiding a sneeze.

Then again, maybe Chambliss’ picture should go next to the word violin in the dictionary. After all, Democrats played him like one.

The Bear Awakens

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:31:54 -0400

Russia is on the move. Flexing its muscles. Sending a message to any former satellite state of what happens when you look West.

Taking its cue from Hitler and Sudentland in 1939, Russia proclaims it is only acting in the interest of a Georgian province that doesn’t want to be part of Georgia, and is, at its heart, Russian.

And so the tanks rolled in. Then came the assurances that Russia was only liberating oppressed Russians and would not invade any further. Then they opened a second front. And pushed into Georgia. To historians, it was Czechoslovakia once again.

The questions now are what to do about it? Georgia cries to the United States, pleading for help. Georgia sent 2000 of its troops to help us fight our war in Iraq. Now they plead for our help in defending them from a bear. But the bear is strong and many Americans are afraid of the bear. And many other Americans love the bear more than the eagle.

So, what will we do? The Goughclan is afraid of the answer. Because the bear only fears something bigger and stronger than itself. The eagle is stronger than the bear, but only if it isn’t afraid to fly.

But, it’s pollution!

Tue, 8 Jul 2008 10:59:16 -0400

In a shocking discovery, German scientists have learned an amazing fact: that fertilizing plants helps them grow!

Yes, that’s right. When the scientists sprayed jets of carbon dioxide on plants, they found crop yields improved by 10%. This was a truly surprising discovery, because, apparently, German scientists forgot their second grade science classes where they learned that plants use carbon dioxide to make food.

Stunned by their discovery that feeding plants helps them grow, the scientists will next do experiments to discover whether warmer weather is also beneficial.

The Goughclan waits with breathless anticipation this next round of scientific inquiry. Will warm temperatures help increase crop yields? Montana farmers can’t stand the strain of knowing whether it is better to plant in spring or winter, and the Siberian farming cartel is waiting to take over world food production if the science proves that warm temperatures actually harm crop production and the true breadbaskets of the world should be the arctic tundra.

Aren’t they cute?

Fri, 30 May 2008 09:23:22 -0400

In another example of the sick and twisted mentality of modern human thought at work, the morally superior have determined that a new Brazilian tribe must be condemned to live in continued horrifically primitive conditions to “protect their autonomy.”

You see, according to these evil men, increasing quality of life by providing clean water, electricity, medicine, air conditioning, modern farming techniques, etc. will make these noble savages extinct. Because in their sick and twisted world extinct means, not losing your life (which happens a lot in primitive societies), but rather losing a culture that these morally superior asses in their climate controlled ivory towers thinks is noble because they don’t have to live in it.

There are many things that disgust the Goughclan. Near the top of the list are people who think keeping other people in poverty, misery and squalor is noble.