About Planetforlife
Mission Statement
All our science, measured against
reality, is primitive and childlike--
and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Planetforlife is written
in the spirit of scientific inquiry. The goal of science is to discover the truth, even if the
truth is counter-intuitive or unpleasant. Science is not separate from the everyday
world. Science is asking questions and testing hypotheses. A successful farmer or hunter
living 10,000 years ago did this. Children know they need to understand the world so
they form hypotheses and ask endless questions as any parent knows.
Planetforlife predictions
are extraordinary and for that reason they should be examined with great
skepticism. Carl Sagan (astronomer and science writer) wrote something he called the
"Baloney Detection Kit," which may be viewed at the bottom of this page. Please apply it everywhere and especially
here. Please consider these predictions with the frame of mind of a
scientist. A good scientist has an unquenchable desire to know and--equally
important--a strong desire not to be fooled. Quantities that can be objectively
measured will be used to support arguments that appeal to logic. These arguments
should be persuasive regardless of the reader's political or religious beliefs.
Arguments and the supporting evidence are presented together whenever possible.
Emotional polemics and histrionics are avoided. Learn more about Carl here.
We humans, because of our numbers and our technology, are in control of this
spaceship we call Earth. We must realize that the Earth does not come with an
operating manual and that the Earth's natural resources, though generous, are
finite. There seems to be little public awareness of the oil and gas depletion
problem although the facts are readily available.
Personal
My name is Jack Kisslinger and I live in Madison, Wisconsin. Planetforlife is a
personal effort, inspired by my belief that the coming world energy crisis needs
immediate and widespread attention. My interest in the oil depletion problem
started early in 2003 when I realized how dependent the United States was on this
rapidly disappearing resource. I am amazed by the general lack of
awareness of the problem, although that is changing.
I am optimistic by nature although this website warns of
several dire crises. My wife will attest--I am not easily alarmed although this
website is intended to raise the alarm. (The Y2K "crisis" did not alarm
me in the slightest.) I would characterize myself as a hardheaded realist. I enjoy tennis, backpacking, and playing the piano.
I have a
strong background in science and technology. I
worked as an engineer in industry for more than 20 years. Since 1986, I have been a
self-employed consultant, specializing in systems with "embedded" computers.
Here are some facts about my background:
- Degree in physics from University of Wisconsin-Madison.
- Chief architect of a series of computers with applications
in analytical chemistry.
- Chief architect of a special purpose computer that
performed Fourier analysis.
- Chief architect of a portable computer based sleep analysis
system.
- Designed a portable device for muscle rehabilitation.
- Designed a data system for a Fourier transform infrared
spectrometer.
- Designed a heart rate monitor for cardiac rehabilitation.
- Evaluated a nanotechnology infrared detector at Stanford
University.
- Designed a high voltage controller for an X-ray
microscope.
I strongly believe that scientific literacy is a good thing.
The beginning of my scientific literacy began when I read 1 2 3 Infinity
by George Gamow as a teenager. It must be good because it is still in print. Many
scientists say 1 2 3 Infinity was the spark that launched their
scientific careers. Yet it is short and whimsical and suitable for older children.
I also recommend Physics for Poets by Robert H. March, Asimov
on Physics or Asimov on Chemistry by Issac Asimov. Carl Sagan
has written many books and the Cosmos television program. A major
motion picture, Contact, is based on one of his books. Anything
written by Carl can be recommended.
Floobydust
(Floobydust is a word of uncertain origin that means
"doesn't fit anywhere else.")
Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States
are the only countries not using the metric system. Planetforlife
believes that clear thinking is easier in the metric system. However, oil is often measured in barrels and natural gas is often
measured in BTUs (British Thermal Units), units honored by tradition. The unit most likely
to be understood will be used.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm
Thomas Malthus was right. There are limits to human population growth. Malthus
did not appreciate the effect of fossil fuel on human population growth and so his
timing was a little off. Human population grows exponentially because the growth rate
depends on the number of people. Food production does not grow exponentially. Something
will limit the amount of food that can be produced. It might be a dearth of agricultural land,
water, sunlight or fossil fuel; it is hard to know which. There is no plausible way to
escape the consequences of exponential growth. We humans must practice birth
control or death control will be forced upon us. Learn more about Malthus at
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html
The reindeer on St. Matthew Island provide a
truly terrifying example of what could happen if we humans do not learn how to control
our numbers to match our resources.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF16/1672.html
Comments, suggestions and encouragement are welcome. I will try to reply to all questions. I would very much
like to know about errors in facts, errors in
logic, and broken links. Click the icon or e-mail me at:
jack@planetforlife.com
|
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to
understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a
fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion
that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion that emerges out
of a train follows from the premise of starting point and whether that premise is
true.
Among the tools:
- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the
"facts".
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all
points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better
way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are
experts.
- Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of
all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by
which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives,
the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among
"multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the
right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your
fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's
only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the
idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for
rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
- Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical
quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among
competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
Of course there are the truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are
obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
- If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the
premise) -- not just most of them.
- Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two
hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
- Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified.
Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the
grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle
-- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire
information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You
must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance
to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the
same result.
In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any
good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize
the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can
be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to
justify two contradictory propositions. Among these fallacies are:
- ad hominem
-- Latin for "to the man," attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g.
The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to
evolution need not be taken seriously);
- argument from authority
(e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to
end the war in Southeast Asia -- but because it was secret, there was no way for the
electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him
because he was President; a mistake, as it turned out);
- argument from adverse consequences
(e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn't,
society would be much more lawless and dangerous – perhaps even ungovernable. Or:
The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise,
it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives);
- appeal to ignorance
-- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa
(e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth;
therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or:
There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral
advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience
with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.
- special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful
God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced
one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don't understand the subtle Doctrine of
Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in
the same Person? Special plead: You don't understand the Divine Mystery of the
Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
-- each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and
compassion -- to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You
don't understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)
- begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to
discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the
death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical
adjustment and profit-taking by investors -- but is there any independent evidence
for the causal role of "adjustment" and profit-taking; have we learned
anything at all from this purported explanation?);
- observational selection, also called the enumeration of favourable circumstances, or as the philosopher
Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A
state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial
killers);
- statistics of small numbers
-- a close relative of observational selection (e.g., "They say 1 out of every
5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of
them is Chinese. Yours truly." Or: "I've thrown three sevens in a row.
Tonight I can't lose.");
- misunderstanding of the nature of statistics
(e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering
that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);
- inconsistency
(e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is
capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers
because they're not "proved". Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy
in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never
attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the
major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable
for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the
possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);
- non sequitur
-- Latin for "It doesn't follow" (e.g., Our nation will prevail because
God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the Germans
formulation was "Gott mit uns"). Often those falling into the non sequitur
fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;
- post hoc, ergo propter hoc
- Latin for "It happened after, so it was caused by" (e.g., Jaime Cardinal
Sin, Archbishop of Manila: "I know of ... a 26-year old who looks 60 because
she takes [contraceptive] pills." Or: Before women got the vote, there were no
nuclear weapons);
- meaningless question
(e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if
there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects,
and vice versa);
- excluded middle, or false dichotomy
-- considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities
(e.g., "Sure, take her side; my husband's perfect; I'm always wrong." Or:
"Either you love your country or you hate it." Or: "If you're not
part of the solution, you're part of the problem");
- short-term vs. long-term
-- a subset of the excluding middle, but so important I've pulled it out for special
attention (e.g., We can't afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate
pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore
space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);
- slippery slope, related to excluded middle
(e.g., If we allow abortion in the first week of pregnancy, it will be impossible to
prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits
abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our
bodies around the time of conception);
- confusion of correlation and causation
(e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with
lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are
correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore -- despite the
absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter -- the
latter causes the former);
- straw man -- caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose
that living things simply fell together by chance -- a formulation that wilfully
ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works
and discarding what doesn't. Or -- this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy --
environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for
people);
- suppressed evidence, or half-truths
(e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted "prophecy" of the
assassination attempt on President Regan is shown on television; but – an
important detail -- was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government
abuses demand revolution, even if you can't make an omelette without breaking some
eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed
than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions
suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the
interests of the people?);
- weasel words
(e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United
States may not conduct a war without a declaration of Congress. On the other hand,
Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are
potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either
political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and
calling the wars something else -- "police actions," "armed
incursions," "protective reaction strikes," "pacification,"
"safeguarding American interests," and a wide variety of
"operations," such as "Operation Just Cause." Euphemisms for war
are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes.
Talleyrand said, "An important art of politicians is to find new names for
institutions which under old names have become odious to the public").
|