Brainwacker

Books I have read on Economics/Libertarianism/Philosophy/Ethics

2006-02-07T22:09:00.000-08:00

Posting now, will clean up and put in table format later.

Title, Author, Date Read (if known)

Making Economic Sense,Murray N. Rothbard,"April 30, 1997"
Why Government Doesn't Work,Harry Browne,
Society By Agreement: An Introduction To Sociology,Earl R. Babbie,1978
Drug Prohibition and The Conscience of Nations,Trebach and Zeese,
Man Economy and State,Murray N. Rothbard,"Jan 26,1994"
The Structure of Production,Mark Skousen,
"The Incredible Bread Machine: A Study of Capitalism, Freedom ad the State",R.W.Grant,
Economics in One Lesson,Henry Hazlitt,"Reread on Feb 3, 1996"
American's Great Depression,Murray N. Rothbard,"December 12, 1992"
How Wall Street Works: The Basics and Beyond,David L. Scott,
Child Labor and The Industrial Revolution,Clark Nardinelli,
"Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth: On Universities and the Wealth of Nations","William Warren Bartley, III","April 7, 1994; Reread December 23, 1997"
The Ayn Rand Library Vol. I - Philosophy: Who Needs It,"Ayn Rand, With an Introduction by Leonard Peikoff","February 1, 1993"
The Ayn Rand Library Vol. IV - The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z.,"Ayn Rand, Edited by Harry Binswanger",Summer 1993
The Ayn Rand Library Vol. V - The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought,"Ayn Rand, Edited and With Additional Essays by Leonard Peikoff",Spring 1993
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,"Ayn Rand, With Additional Articles by Nathaniel Brandon, Alan Greenspan, and Robert Hessen",Spring 1993
The Virtue of Selfishness,"Ayn Rand, With Additional Articles by Nathaniel Brandon",Spring 1993
Seven Theories of Human Nature,Leslie Stevenson,Fall 1978
Liberty and Nature: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order,Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl,"September 19, 1993"
Liberty for the 21st Century,Tibor R. Machan and Douglas B. Rasmussen,
Free Market Environmentalism,Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal,
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics,Ludwig Von Mises,
Inside American Education,Thomas Sowell,"December 26, 1993"
Why We Spend Too Much On Health Care,"Bast, Rue, Wesbury","December 5, 1992"
On Liberty and Drugs,Friedmand and Szasz,
The Tragedy of American Compassion,Marvin Olasky,"November 22, 1992"
The Fundamentals of Liberty,Robert LeFevre,
Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Commone Sense,Dixy Lee Ray,
To Turning Back,Wallace Kaufman,"April 23,1997"
The Ideas of Ayn Rand,Ronald E. Merrill,
Trashing the Planet,Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo,"December 5, 1993"
Ecoscam,Ronald Bailey,"August 25, 1993"
Hidden Order,David Friedman,"May 25, 1997"
Crisis Investing for the Rest of the '90s,Douglas Casey,"December 11, 1993"
"Rhinos: Conservaton, Economics, and Trade-Offs",Michale 't Sas-Rolfes,"March 31, 1996"
Elephants and Ivory: Lessons from the Trade Ban,"Ike Sugg, Urs Kreuter","March 23, 1996"
The Evolution of Cooperation,Robert Axelrod,"August 22, 1993"
The Selfish Gene,Richard Dawkins,"1977-78, reread several times in the 80's and 90's"
Atheism the Case Against God,Smith,
The Ten Things You Can't Say in America,Larry Elders,
The Anti-Chomsky Reader,Peter Collier and David Horowitz,Summer 2005
The Extended Phenotype,Richard Dawkins ,
The Blind Watchmaker,Richard Dawkins ,
Population Biology and Evolution,Otto T. Solbrig and Dorothy J. Solbrig,
Freedom Evolves,Daniel C. Dennett,
The Other Path,Hernando De Soto,
The Roosevelt Myth,John T. Flynn,
Virus of the Mind: The New Science of the Meme,Richard Brodie,
Preferential Policies: An International Perspective,Thomas Sowell,
Compassion Versus Guilt and Other Essays,Thomas Sowell,
A Conflict of Visions,Thomas Sowell,"Reread on June 7, 1993"
Markets and Minorities,Thomas Sowell,
The Vision of the Anointed,Thomas Sowell,"January 13, 1996"
Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality,Kenneth Lux,
Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School,Gene Callahan,"July 4,2002"
Knowledge and Decisions,Thomas Sowell,
The Content of Our Character,Shelby Steele,"May 11, 1994"
"Hayek Co-Ordination and Evolution: His legacy in philosophy, politics, economics and the history of ideas",Jack Birner and Rudy Van Zijp,
The Theory of Money and Credit,Ludwig Von Mises,
The Experience of Free Banking,Kevin Dowd,
"Lift her up, tenderly",Bob LeFevre,
A Nation of Victims: The Decay of American Character,Charles J. Sykes,
Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality,Thomas Sowell,"May 8,1994"
Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980,Charles Murray,
Simple Rules for a Complex World,Richard A. Epstein,
The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America,Philip K. Howard,"February 11, 1996"
Is Reality Optional?: and other essays,Thomas Sowell,
Ethnic America: A history,Thomas Sowell,
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,F. A. Hayek - Edited by W. W. Bartley III,"May 1, 1994"
The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism,David Friedman,
Fiat Money Inflation in France,"Andrew Dickson White, with a forward by Henry Hazlitt","November 24, 1992"
Whatever Happened to Penny Candy,Richard J. Maybury,
Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life,Daniel C. Dennett,"August 22, 1995"
The Philosophical Scientists,David Foster,
Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes,Gould,
Vaulting Ambition,Philip Kitcher,
River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,Richard Dawkins,"August 14,1995"
Climbing Mount Improbable,Richard Dawkins,"November 17, 1996"
The State of the Union: Essays in Social Criticism,Albert Jay Nock,
What Has Government Done to Our Health Care,Terree P. Wasley,
South Africa's War Against Capitalism,Walter E. Williams,
Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws,Richard A. Epstein,
Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction,Peter J. Ferrara,
"Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class, and Justice in the Origins",Thomas G. West,
Crimes Crusades and Corruption: Prohibitions in the United States 1900-1987,,
Money Mischief: Episodes in Monetary History,Milton Friedman,"January 30, 1992"
What Has Government Done to Our Money?,Murray N. Rothbard,
Prices & Knowledge: A Market Process Perspective,Esteban F. Thomsen,
Welfare Economics and Externalites in and Open Ended Universe: A Modern Austrian Perspective,Roy E. Cordatoq,
"The Failure of the ""New Economics""",Henry Hazlitt,Winter 2004
The Excluded Americans: Homelessness and Housing Policies,William Tucker,
The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective,Thomas Sowell,
The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America,"Burton W. Folsom, Jr. foreword by Forrest McDonald","March 7, 1993"
Capitalism,Arthur Seldon,
Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America,Richard K. Vedder & Lowell E. Gallaway,"October 16, 1993"
Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,"John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, PH. D.",
Whatever Happened to Justice?,Richard J. Maybury,"June 18, 1994"
Our Enemy the State,Albert Jay Nock,
Holidays in Hell,P. J. O'Rourke,
Capitalism and Freedom,Milton Friedman,
The Ruling Class: Inside Imperial Congress - Abridged Edition,Eric Felten,
Neither Bullets Nor Ballots: Essays on Voluntaryism,"Carle Watner, George H. Smith, Wendy McElroy",
Libertarianism in One Lesson,David Bergland,
For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto,Murray N. Rothbard,
"The Constitution of the United States of America, and The Declaration of Independence, with notes by Ralph Ashby",The Fouding Fathers,
A Call for Revolution: How Washington is Strangling America - and How to Stop it,Martin L. Gross,
The Power of Congress (as Congress Sees It),Edited by R. S. Radford,"October 4, 1993"
The Prince,Machiavelli,
The Philosophy of Ownership,Robert LeFevre,
The Anti-Captitalist Mentality,Ludwig Von Mises,"December 13, 1992"
The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation,Matt Ridley,
"Defending the Undefendable: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue's Gallery of American Society",Walter Block
The Territorial Imperative,Robert Ardrey
Evolution: The Fossils Say No!,"Duane T. Gish, Ph. D."
The Dangers of Socialize Medicine,Edited by Jacob G. Hornberger and Richard M. Ebeling
The Age of Reason,Thomas Paine
"Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder",Richard Dawkins
The Market for Liberty,Morris and Linda Tannenhill
The Capitalist Spirit: Toward a Religious Ethic of Weath Creation,Edited by Peter L. Berger
"The Capitalist Revolution: Fifty Propositions About Prosperit, Equality, & Liberty",Peter L. Berger
The Scottish Enlightenment and the Theory of Spontaneous Order,Ronald Homowy
The Lysander Spooner Reader: With an Introduction by George H. Smith,"Lysander Spooner, Edited by George H. Smith"
The Government Against the Economy,George Reisman
A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees,Stephen P. Halbrook
"Economics on Trial: Lies, Myths, and Realities",Mark Skousen
The Morality of Capitalism,Edited by Mark W. Hendrickson
Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question,Harry V. Jaffa
Payback: The Conspiracy to Destroy Michael Milken and his Financial Revolution,Daniel Fischel,
"Republican Party Reptile: The Confessions, Adventures, Essays, and (Other) Outrages of ?",P. J. O'Rourke,
The Origins of Species,Charles Darwin,
The Panda's Thumb,Stephen J. Gould,
Ever Since Darwin,Stephen J. Gould,
Immorality of Christianity,G. James Stewart,
The Farm Fiasco,James Bovard,
Taking Responsibility: Self Reliance and Accountable Life,"Nathaniel Branden, Ph. D.","February 3, 1996"
Animal Farm,George Orwell,
Ten Philosophical Mistakes,Mortimer J. Adler,
"Anarchy, State, and Utopia",Robert Nozick,Half way through and quit
The New Skepticism,Paul Kurtz,
Patient Power: The Free-Enterprise Alternative to Clinton's Health Plan,John C. Goodman and Gerald L. Musgrave,
"Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies",George H. Smith,
Popper Selections,Edited by David Miller,"April 23, 1994"
Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical,Chris Matthew Sciabarra,
Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand,Nathaniel Branden

Did John Locke Model Property Rights Correctly?

2006-01-28T06:30:00.000-08:00

I have devised an example, which follows property rights rules in accordance to Locke, and yet it strikes me as unjust.

A primitive community lives on a island. Their only source of water is a spring in a large field at the base of the mountain and to it's south. The spring is at the bottom of a depression and the sides leading down into the spring are treacherous and unimproved. Everyone in the community freely visits the spring to obtain drinking water. The land around the spring is uncultivated; no one bothers because of all the traffic to and from the spring.

The water running out of the spring only stays at the surface for a short while before resuming it's underground journey. The soil is very porous being made of volcanic ash, and pumice. It rarely rains but it is very humid on the island due to proximity to the sea. Mists do settle in the evening on the porous rocks at the top of the volcano and the water then drips deep underground. The only reason the water from the spring even comes to the surface is that the basalt bedrock is close to the surface at the spring. This impervious layer of basalt underlies the volcano but extends into the field only a short way before plunging straight down in an underground cliff. The water of the spring follows this path only appearing at the surface for a short while.

One day a castaway from a more advanced market based society is washed up on shore. He is a very technological oriented fellow and knows the basis of many of the improvements humans have made to their lives over the eons. He soon ingratiates himself to his guests with technological improvements. He is accepted into the community, marries a local, and plans on living the rest of his life there, given his options. This island was not on well-trafficked sea lanes so he doesn’t expect any rescue.

One of his first improvements was to pick the steep end of the spring to the north, which no one was using because of easier paths, and to install a stairway and walkway that greatly improved access. Since this area was not owned and he had mixed his labor with it he claimed it as his own. This was in accordance with local custom regarding huts, and gardens so the local chief let it stand. Individuals were allowed to homestead areas of the island, build structures and gardens, and exclude trespassers. The castaway then started charging others a minor fee for use of his walkway and stairs. Since it was so much more convenient everyone started using it.

After a long period it became apparent that the foot traffic had become more concentrated and orderly. This made the field around the spring open to cultivation. So the castaway removed the unwanted vegetation and started to cultivate the fields around the spring. He also installed a platform that extended out over the spring at the same location as his stairs, with a counterbalanced rope and bucket pulley system. This made fetching water even more efficient, as the user would only need to lift half the weight of the water for each bucket, instead of the full weight of the water plus there was no need to walk up and down the stairs. He started charging individuals for each bucket they fetched in this fashion and used the proceeds to install yet more pulley systems.

The spring was located between two villages. One village was to the northwest and one to the northeast. The footpaths originally beaten into the ground pointed directly out in these two directions, however there was also a direct path between the two villages that ran along the north edge of the field at the base of the mountain. Those two pathways had originally curved down towards the southern edge of the spring where the access was originally the best. So the three pathways formed a triangle with the spring on the interior southern corner of the triangle. The castaway had built his access point on the north end of the spring and walkway that served it ran due north into the originally unused ground at the interior of the triangle. His walkway was perpendicular to the village-to-village path. With this new access point the natural foot traffic shifted to the north with the spring now outside the resulting triangle.

The castaway was cultivating more and more of the land around the northern end of the spring. Everyone appreciated his efforts and tended to stay off his gardens but sometimes the beds closer to the northern entrance would get stepped on. This is when the castaway introduced fences. He decided to protect his beds by building a fence on either side of his walkway. Once installed this solved his problems. Everyone was entering his walkway from the open end at north. He extended this even further making additional land around the spring available for his homesteading.

Occasional stragglers would still sometimes walk on his beds, which were the most productive on the island because of the amount of irrigation the castaway could afford to provide. One of his innovations was to let the natives pay for use of his platform by fetching two pails of water, keeping one and dumping the other an irrigation system placed next to the spring. The castaway decided his crops were just too valuable to leave exposed like this, so he fences in the entire area he homesteaded. Since he had homesteaded all the land that was no longer being used for foot traffic this essentially closed off all points of access to the spring except his walkway. He now owned a defacto monopoly on access to the most valuable water resource on the island. No one complained because he didn’t charge monopoly prices and has vastly improved living conditions on the island. It was better for everyone.

The castaway however is lonely for his old life. Living on the island is pleasant but he missed many of the advantages of his original life. One day a ship arrived at the island. Due to an uprising in another area it had become dangerous to take the old shipping routes, plus a newly discovered area rich in resources put the castaways island along a new trade route. The castaway, after long consideration, decided to sell his holdings and move himself and his family back to his native homeland. He sold his lands to a shipping company which needed both the water and the food that this island could provide for the their trade route.

What happened next, was that, the shipping company started charging monopoly prices. Instead of getting one bucket of water for each delivered the shipping company charged the natives one hundred. Since the natives had no other source of water they essentially became the slaves of the shipping company. Which exploited them to the utmost. Not only for water but also for food production.

Life changed for the islanders. Many felt cheated. They liked their original lifestyle and are not interested in working so hard. Not only that but the more intense harvesting of fish, and other resources is destroying the possibility of living as they had, in a renewable fashion. They have had to make tradeoffs that they would not have had to do if they had free access to water. The shipping company started requiring that they pay a portion of the water fees in wood also and this has resulted in the denuding of the forest that once covered the island. Many of the islanders end up having to take jobs with the shipping company in order to survive. Some end up migrating off the island because opportunities that are better elsewhere.

From the perspective of a Lockean system of homesteading and property ownership it seems that at each step in this tale is just

Now the question is. Were the islanders cheated or not?

My position would be that they were. I think ownership over natural resources can be acquired by means other than "mixing ones labor" with them. I believe that mere usage of them can constitute a claim of ownership.

The response to that might be "ownership by whom?". After all, as originally stated no single native claimed ownership of the resource. It certainly wasn't private property. However, think about it more deeply. One could map what was going on to co-ownership instead of non-ownership. This might especially become apparent if the a chief of the two villages tended to be in charge of local justice and administering common assets. You could think of the entire social structure as a kind of cooperative with group ownership. Perhaps they don't elect the chief by voting, but who is to say voting is the only correct means to determine officials, and perhaps no one ever invented that technology. After all voting is a technology. Furthermore, perhaps they can’t dispose of their "shares" like we can with our corporations but otherwise it has quite a few similarities to a corporation if you think about it. There is mutual ownership and yet a single person, or group of people act as proxies in control of the resource for the true owners.

One of the problems I have with this Lockean homesteading of access to the spring is that the natives have been in truth defrauded. The social norms that were in place at the arrival of the castaway were founded on expectations that were violated in a way that was beyond the sophistication of the natives. The closure of access to the spring was an unexpected strategy. You will note that by the end of the story the castaway had not claimed ownership of the spring but only the land surrounding it. He had defacto ownership but not dejure ownership over the spring. Tricky bastard. The natives may have had concepts of private ownership and homesteading as part of their culture, but just never expected someone to use them in this way. They would be outraged against this behavior and frankly I think they would be absolutely correct in their judgment.

So what do you think? Do I fundamentally misunderstand the Lockean conception of property rights? If I have it correct, and this is a flaw, do all other schools of Libertarian thought on property rights also suffer from the same flaw? As far as I know they do. Why shouldn’t we consider other forms of collective ownership valid, that is, forms other than ones based on transferable stocks and contracts?

Some evidence that torture is not the official US policy

2006-01-22T07:19:00.000-08:00

The conclusion I came to on the Abu Girab torture incidents was that it was some loose cannons operating of their own accord, not official US policy. There was not clear cut evidence in that case that it was the policy except for the claim of the perpetrators that they had been ordered to do so by higher ups.

Often when discussing the Abu Girab incident my opponents would then shift to other incidents to show a pattern. One often used was the killing of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush by US Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer. The victim was suffocated in a sleeping bag in this incident.

During the trial, prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan described a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques from simple interviews to beatings to simulating drowning, and finally, to death.

"He treated that general worse than you would treat a dog and he did so knowing he was required to treat the general humanely," Dolan said.

Again in this incident the perpetrator claimed that his commanders had approved of his interrogation techique.

Well Welshofer was found guilty of negligent homicide on Saturday. Which again shows the difference between us and them. However, what is most interesting in this case is the e-mail trail that shows his defense was fabricated.

In an e-mail to a commander, Dolan said, Welshofer wrote that restrictions on interrogation techniques were impeding the Army's ability to gather intelligence. Welshofer wrote that authorized techniques came from Cold War-era doctrine that did not apply in Iraq, Dolan said.

"Our enemy understands force, not psychological mind games," Dolan quoted from Welshofer's message. Dolan said an officer responded by telling Welshofer to "take a deep breath and remember who we are."

In his own words Welshofer admits that there were rules in place that restricted him to the same policies used through-out the cold war. Presumably policys in place under Democratic as well as Republican administrations throughout the era. It also shows that he was aware of them and chose to ignore them.

This does leave me wondering about the commander who wrote this reply. Upon recieving such an email wasn't he the least bit curious to see how these interrogations were being carried out. From the article I get the impression that he dropped the ball on this one, especially given the following from the article.

Welshofer used his sleeping bag technique in the presence of lower ranking soldiers, but never in the presence of officers with the authority to stop him, Dolan said.

It might have been that his superior had popped in for the occasional visit but that Welshofer was actively hiding these techniques by keeping a lookout or doing them when he knew superior officers would not be present. If so then how much effort does it take to find out? Not much I think as he could ask who was involved in the interrogations and then query them as to the worst techniques used. Even better he could have just asked the Iraqi being interrogated and followed up on that.

All in all, I think this is not only a crime on the part of Welshofer but also a failing on the part of the army. It does show a lack of supervision. Clearly an Iraqi General is covered by the Geneva Conventions (assuming Iraq is a signatory), so torture is not allowed regardless of US policy. Officers are instructed in such things and Welshofer should have known that it would be a crime regardless of whether his superiors ordered it or not.

I will conceed that the fact that this was a Iraqi General whereas the Abu Gharib victims may not have been, and that there might have been a different policy for different types of prisoners. It's possible. That's why I titled this article "Evidence that ..." and not "Conclusive evidence that ...".

I do not in reality know what the policy was, not being there, however I don't like the standard of evidence that is being used to convict the Administration. Many of the "deaths in captivity" being counted by those arguing against the Administration were Iraqi soldiers who had died of wounds recieved on the battlefield. If you are going to argue a position at least do so honestly. I understand that who use these statistics to argue are often unaware of such things but I feel it is their responsibility to verify such facts. It is well established that such statistics are often already contain partisan interpretations if not outright deceptions.

How many times have we heard numbers on civilians killed where those citing the statistics count terrorists as civilians? Though it is technically true that terrorists are not soldiers it is deceptive to group them with innocents, as they are certainly not innocent. Frankly, this sort of thing gets me pissed.

Is Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory

2006-01-07T11:34:00.000-08:00

In the comments section of an article he wrote David Friedman makes the claim that ID is a scientific theory:

As I argued in a different post on this blog, I think ID does make testable predictions--some of which turn out to be false, such as the prediction that humans don't have an appendix.

ID is not a scientific theory because it specifically does not make predictions. It is only a criticism, and a bad religious one at that.

That one can deduce certain things from a position and then falsify those things does not mean that position is scientific. The Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pool, and that the Quran is literally true. We know that this is easily disproved empirically. One can also disprove many Christian beliefs both empirically and/or logically. One cannot have an omnescient and omnipotent being due to the inherent contradictions, so any religions theory that holds this as true is disprovable and therefore falsifiable. This doesn't mean Islam or certain brands of Christianity are scientific. A scientific theory cannot be ad-hoc the way these religions are.

By ad-hoc I mean one cannot shift ones position once something is shown to be false. It used to be the ID position that the eye was too complex to have evolved. This has been shown to be false. You'd think the argument (not theory) would be dropped at that point, but no they shift to some other organ or organelle. Now it's the flagella that they claim to be to complex to have evolved, or microcellular processes.

Well that is no theory, it's the same old, if I don't understand it then "God did it". I don't see how ID is any different then saying those words. First we have to show that Zeus doesn't throw lighting, then we have to prove the earth is not flat, then that the sun does not revolve around the earth, each time with assurances that the claimants knew the truth because there was a God and they knew what God had to say on the subjects.

Screw that whole argument. That we do not know exactly how a flagella evolved speaks to our ignorance about that one fact, and not to the existence of a designer.

We have overwhelming evidence that in fact the mechanism called natural selection can operate in ways that produce things that appear to be designed. In fact we can build computer simulations that apply all the relevant aspects of natural selection and the products will indeed look designed. Furthermore, we actually use such programs to automatic design. Designing is not something that only intellegent beings can do, totally unconcious and simple processes can do design and do so in novel ways. Ways the stump the most intellegent humans for generations.

So where does the "I" in "ID" come from. Religion that's where. They wish not to accept the fact that non-intellegent design can and provably does outperform humans in many cases. Here we have an area, biology, where over and over again designs beyond any know intellegent capacity were done so by non-intellegent processes. One would think that at this point it would be non-intellegent design processes that would be held in awe and not the baser intellegent kind. After all the only truly intellegent designers we have any experience with are men, and frankly we have yet to match nature.

So no, as a matter of fact, ID is not a scientific theory. It is merely a religious criticism, and a fatally flawed one at that.

Sure, Now They're Protesting ... But Why?

2005-11-13T05:43:00.000-08:00

Via Instapundit I read an article "Al Qaeda on defensive as bombs begin to backfire". My initial reaction on seeing the headline, "What took them so long, do only Muslim deaths count?"

The article characterizes the protesters as moderate Muslims.

As moderate Muslims dare to protest at daily death tolls, even the prospect of one of Osama bin Laden's most feared cohorts, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, being handed over is being discussed.

So what did one of these "moderate Muslims" have to say.

"We came to support our nation and our unity," said Ibrahim Haniya, 22, who marched with a group of friends. "These bombers didn't differentiate between Muslims, Christians or Jews. They were against the world."

Oh, I see, it's OK to target and murder innocent Christians and Jews as long as no innocent Muslims are killed.

Copyrights as Physical Property Rights

2005-11-06T15:00:00.000-08:00

This article is in draft and I will be changing it...

I don't see the problem that the anti intellectual property people have with copyrights. It's pretty damn obvious and in fact provable that if you produce a copy of "The Santanic Verses" that you haven't written it yourself from scratch. Even with complete freedom to use your own personal resources as you desire you cannot do so without using an existing copy. The odds are the universe will blink out before you manage to write "The Satanic Verses" without access to another copy. So it is no real sense restriction on the use of your resources to disallow you from copying my book. Go ahead, play with all your resources for the rest of your life and it will not result in you producing "The Satanic Verses" so long as you do not infringe the copyright.

Now it is possible for you to make a copy. However that requires that you obtain a existing copy. These can be of two kinds, authorized and unauthorized versions. If you use an authorized version to make your copy then you are in fact violating a physical property right. The owner of the authorized version has complete ownership of the physical copy except for the purposes of copying. Those rights are retained by the copyright holder. He owns the rights to the physical object with regards to copying. There is no way to make a copy without violating this physical right. What of the unauthorized copy. Well it was produced using the input of another persons property. Thus it is not properly owned by the person who holds it.

Perhaps you skeptics can get a handle on this if you think of a book not only as a consumer good but as a producer good. It is a producer good in the sense that it can be used to produce additional books. It is in a sense a factor of production like a printing press. The copyright owner retains ownership the right to use the good as a producer good. When a unauthorized copy is made it is tantamount to the unauthorized use of a productive piece of machinery. It doesn't matter whether you provide the raw materials in this process, you are stealing the use of the machine. In so doing you have mixed your private property with the owners in way that violates his rights and you must provide restitution. Can someone come onto your beachfront property, dump a bag of sand upon it, mix it in and then claim ownership? Of course not. Nor can I make a delivery of raw materials and employees to a Toyota factory after hours, build a minivan using their resources, and claim full ownership of the end result.

If someone were to hack into your computer to print off some photographs he liked on your paper you certainly wouldn't like it. Do you think it is any better if instead of stealing the copies he made with your property that he offered to compensate you for the cost of the paper alone?

This issue can also be extended to the issue of property abandonment. If a copy of a book that is copyrighted is lost but the copyright owner still retains ownership then the copy only represents a restricted copy. If instead the copyright holder should abandon ownership then it is up to anyone with a copy of the book to homestead this right.

Note that my argument does not hold water when trying to copyright phrases like "I'm Loving It". How exactly do you prove in court that someone else didn't independently invent that phrase. Also understand that there is a continum all the way from an exact copy to a book that touches on the same subject. Thus drawing a clear line is not possible. However the same holds for other physical property rights we recognize. Exactly how deep below the earth and how high above it does a landowner control? So this is another area where copyright ownership is similar to any other property right.

Do I Need to Speak Arabic to Judge the Koran?

2005-10-16T12:26:00.000-07:00

Vavoom over at Tedrow Drive is now trying to argue that one must understand Arabic in order to properly evaluate the Koran. He did so in the 2:04 am comment in this article. I had stated that there were clearly evil and intolerant passages in the Koran and he came back with this.

I think there are passages in every text in every religion that are problematic. Part of this has to do with interpretation. No, I don't mean interpretation of English versions of the Koran. Rather, I mean that the tranlation from arabic to english is often sketchy. Also, context does matter. Often, statements are taken out of context, translated poorly and later misinterpreted. Can you read arabic? I strongly suggest you learn how, if you can't. It might help you make a better assessment. I focus on peaceful aspects of all religions. As such, I respect them all.

I don’t buy this argument for several reasons.

1) He is practicing the Tu Quoque fallacy again. Other religions wrongs do not forgive Islams wrongs.

2) Mistranslation runs both ways and not just the way he wishes. It might be that good things are being mistranslated into bad. However, it is equally likely that bad things were mistranslated into good.

3) He puts the quite unreasonable hurdle of requiring non-Muslims to learn Arabic before they can evaluate the morality of the Koran. Does he hold Muslims up to the same standard. By this standard non-arabic speakers can’t rightly call themselves Muslims, they don’t know what the Koran actually says. Perhaps the parts that are taken as "good" by non-arabic speaking muslims were mistranslated and are actually "bad" passages.

4) Just because there might have been a mistake in translation doesn’t mean there was in any specific case. The same holds true for context. This reminds me of the argument made by certain philosophers that we cannot trust our senses in general due to optical illusions, therefore reality is an illusion. Come on, you have to prove that in a particular instance a mistake was made. Using this criteria, I’ve seen Vavoom make mistakes in the past so I guess I’ll just assume everything he does is an error.

5) Despite his claims we do have the context. The translators don’t just translate specific quotes but the entire Koran. In fact this argument can often run the other way. Seemingly tolerant passages can be seen to be intolerant when taken in context. This is why there is a need to be specific.

6) We have multiple translations into English from the point of view of different religious interpretations by, of course, Arabic speakers. This presents no hurdle whatsoever, since we need only look at the multiple versions for discrepancies. If they all agree in principle, if not in exact wording, then we know that differences in religious interpretation was not a problem.

7) What the heck does concentrating on the peaceful aspects have to do with proper translation. If the Koran says to kill non-believers, and it does, then sticking your head in the sand isn’t going to change that fact.

I am using the Yufali English translation of the Quran as my source. This is the one recommended by many Muslims. I am also using the Skeptics Annotated Quran which is the Pickthal translation. Futhermore the Shakir translation is available online.

Take a look at these different translations and see if you don’t agree that the teachings in the Koran are intolerant if not just plain old evil. I see no important difference between these translations.

All three translations are available here. So you can go read them in context if you wish, but it doesn't help.

Of course I could have put more topics, and more quotes per topic, but I didn’t want to end up making you read the entire Koran. Peruse them and see. I have nothing more to say on the topic, as it is quite clear the Koran is intolerant.

Mandatory Religious Warfare

002.216
YUSUFALI: Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
PICKTHAL: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
SHAKIR: Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

061.004
YUSUFALI: Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.
PICKTHAL: Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure.
SHAKIR: Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way in ranks as if they were a firm and compact wall.

009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

009.041
YUSUFALI: Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.
PICKTHAL: Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.
SHAKIR: Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know.

009.042
YUSUFALI: If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them. They would indeed swear by Allah, "If we only could, we should certainly have come out with you": They would destroy their own souls; for Allah doth know that they are certainly lying.
PICKTHAL: Had it been a near adventure and an easy journey they had followed thee, but the distance seemed too far for them. Yet will they swear by Allah (saying): If we had been able we would surely have set out with you. They destroy their souls, and Allah knoweth that they verily are liars.
SHAKIR: Had it been a near advantage and a short journey, they would certainly have followed you, but the tedious journey was too long for them; and they swear by Allah: If we had been able, we would certainly have gone forth with you; they cause their own souls to perish, and Allah knows that they are most surely

009.044
YUSUFALI: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.
PICKTHAL: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask no leave of thee lest they should strive with their wealth and their lives. Allah is Aware of those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: They do not ask leave of you who believe in Allah and the latter day (to stay away) from striving hard with their property and their persons, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil).

Don’t befriend Jews,Christians, or any non-Muslim:

003.028
YUSUFALI: Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.
PICKTHAL: Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.
SHAKIR: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

005.051
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Reasons to hate Jews:

005.013
YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.
PICKTHAL: And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished. Thou wilt not cease to discover treachery from all save a few of them. But bear with them and pardon them. Lo! Allah loveth the kindly.
SHAKIR: But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others).

005.059
YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?

005.060
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
PICKTHAL: Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

005.064
YUSUFALI: The Jews say: "Allah's hand is tied up." Be their hands tied up and be they accursed for the (blasphemy) they utter. Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched: He giveth and spendeth (of His bounty) as He pleaseth. But the revelation that cometh to thee from Allah increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. Amongst them we have placed enmity and hatred till the Day of Judgment. Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief.
PICKTHAL: The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will. That which hath been revealed unto thee from thy Lord is certain to increase the contumacy and disbelief of many of them, and We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguisheth it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loveth not corrupters.
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say. Nay, both His hands are spread out, He expends as He pleases; and what has been revealed to you from your Lord will certainly make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; and We have put enmity and hatred among them till the day of resurrection; whenever they kindle a fire for war Allah puts it out, and they strive to make mischief in the land; and Allah does not love the mischief-makers.

002.096
YUSUFALI: Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life,-even more than the idolaters: Each one of them wishes He could be given a life of a thousand years: But the grant of such life will not save him from (due) punishment. For Allah sees well all that they do.
PICKTHAL: And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.
SHAKIR: And you will most certainly find them the greediest of men for life (greedier) than even those who are polytheists; every one of them loves that he should be granted a life of a thousand years, and his being granted a long life will in no way remove him further off from the chastisement, and Allah sees what they do.

005.041
YUSUFALI: O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places: they say, "If ye are given this, take it, but if not, beware!" If any one's trial is intended by Allah, thou hast no authority in the least for him against Allah. For such - it is not Allah's will to purify their hearts. For them there is disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a heavy punishment.
PICKTHAL: O Messenger! Let not them grieve thee who vie one with another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths: "We believe," but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: listeners for the sake of falsehood, listeners on behalf of other folk who come not unto thee, changing words from their context and saying: If this be given unto you, receive it, but if this be not given unto you, then beware! He whom Allah doometh unto sin, thou (by thine efforts) wilt avail him naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the Will of Allah is that He cleanse not their hearts. Theirs in the world will be ignominy, and in the Hereafter an awful doom;
SHAKIR: O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.

062.005
YUSUFALI: The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of Allah: and Allah guides not people who do wrong.
PICKTHAL: The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of the ass bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.

062.006
YUSUFALI: Say: "O ye that stand on Judaism! If ye think that ye are friends to Allah, to the exclusion of (other) men, then express your desire for Death, if ye are truthful!"
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad): O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah apart from (all) mankind, then long for death if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR: Say: O you who are Jews, if you think that you are the favorites of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death If you are truthful.
062.007
YUSUFALI: But never will they express their desire (for Death), because of the (deeds) their hands have sent on before them! and Allah knows well those that do wrong!
PICKTHAL: But they will never long for it because of all that their own hands have sent before, and Allah is Aware of evil-doers.
SHAKIR: And they will never invoke it because of what their hands have sent before; and Allah is Cognizant of the unjust.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

009.041
YUSUFALI: Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.
PICKTHAL: Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.
SHAKIR: Go forth light and heavy, and strive hard in Allah's way with your property and your persons; this is better for you, if you know.

009.042
YUSUFALI: If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them. They would indeed swear by Allah, "If we only could, we should certainly have come out with you": They would destroy their own souls; for Allah doth know that they are certainly lying.
PICKTHAL: Had it been a near adventure and an easy journey they had followed thee, but the distance seemed too far for them. Yet will they swear by Allah (saying): If we had been able we would surely have set out with you. They destroy their souls, and Allah knoweth that they verily are liars.
SHAKIR: Had it been a near advantage and a short journey, they would certainly have followed you, but the tedious journey was too long for them; and they swear by Allah: If we had been able, we would certainly have gone forth with you; they cause their own souls to perish, and Allah knows that they are most surely

009.044
YUSUFALI: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.
PICKTHAL: Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask no leave of thee lest they should strive with their wealth and their lives. Allah is Aware of those who keep their duty (unto Him).
SHAKIR: They do not ask leave of you who believe in Allah and the latter day (to stay away) from striving hard with their property and their persons, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil).

Attempted Assasination of the Word "Rational"

2005-10-16T08:25:00.000-07:00

Over at Catallarchy I had commented on an article titled “Gerin Oil Addiction”, which was itself a comment on an article by Richard Dawkins titled "Opiate of the Masses" . I only mention this to point out that I came across someone in the comments there who seemed to have a serous issue with rationality. He seems to think of rationality as a source of evil. His name is Brian W. Doss and he has since posted an article titled “As if reading my mind” in which he advances the notion that the word rational has been stripped of meaning and should be discarded in favor of other more descriptive terminology.

In the Gerin Oil comments I was getting the distinct feeling that Mr. Doss was confused as to the meaning of the word rational when used by us rationalists. I didn’t however want to get into long discussion at that point. Now that he has declared war not only on rationality but also on the use of the word rational I am going to have to take issue.

The article “As if reading my mind” is in itself thin on argumentation and instead it extensively quotes another article at Crooked Timber, comments in that article, and quotes from an economist, Ludwig von Mises, on rationality. All the quotes he uses were on the term “rational” as used in economics.

Yet Doss uses these quotes to try to bolster the idea of getting rid of the use of the word “rational” in everyday language. I think I am justified in this interpretation because he links to the “Gerin Oil” comments, in his post thusly:

As if reading my mind
…or reading the blog comments, John Quiggin reposts a quick meditation on how ‘rational’ has been stripped of meaning and should be discarded in favor of more directly descriptive terminology:

Those comments were not about economics and thus the word “rational” was being used with a common language definition and not an economic one.

The common language meaning of rational, as used by rationalist, and the economic meaning as used by economists are different. Thus, none of the quotes cited by Doss count against the rationalists in the “Gerin Oil” blog comments. Trying to use them this way is committing the fallacy of equivocation.

I don’t know if this is intentional or not but by the end of the article Doss admits something I suspected all along.

“That word you keep using. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
NB: This applies to me equally.

He admits he doesn’t know what rational means. So perhaps we can forgive him his equivocation.

I think that was enough to put a bullet in the argument put forth by Doss but I would like to clarify why I disagree not merely with his argument but also his position. I don’t agree that the word “rational” is confused to the point of meaninglessness in common usage. I also would like to state why I agree with the article he quotes.

First I’ll tackle common usage.

Common Usage
When I use the word rational in the phrase “rational behavior” in everyday conversation I mean the following:

Rationality consists of recognizing the possibility of error in our beliefs and actions, then using every method available and commensurate with the situation to reduce such error.

As you can see this definition is in the realm of human behavior. It is used in categorizing human behavior. It may not draw a crisp line between categories but it is useful nonetheless. In this way it is like the word “bald” with regards to hair loss. There are degrees of baldness and there are degrees of rationality.

As a simple example one can clearly categorize these behaviors with regard to rationality in relationship to the situation.

Situation: A Catholic woman desires to meet a man for a serious relationship that leads to marriage and children. She is beautiful and intelligent and wishes to raise her children as Catholics.
Categorize these behaviors as to rationality if they are motivated by her desire to meet such a man.
1) She goes to a Catholic church
2) She goes to the library
3) She goes to a bar
4) She moves to Alaska. There is little competition for men there.
5) She goes to a Synagogue.
6) She goes to a Mosque.
7) She works at a strip club where she can meet lots of men and they can evaluate her assets.

Now I think we can all agree:
That 1) is the most rational behavior given her situation.
That 2) and 3) are fairly rational and that she can take addition steps to ensure success. That for various reasons 4) may or may not be rational.
That 5) 6) and 7) are irrational.

So given her situation and goals we can say that certain behaviors are more prone to error and are less likely to lead to satisfaction of those goals. Assuming that people wish to attain their goals, the definition of a goal, then we can see that rational behavior is the best means to that attainment. One can use less rational means to attain a goal but such behavior is less likely to result in success.

Note that this doesn’t mean that one cannot attain ones goals through irrational behavior. If our imaginary woman where working at a strip club and someone told her she was behaving irrationally, then that would not be the same as saying she could not find a husband that way. It’s possible that she would, it’s just not likely.

Using the fact that rational behavior leads to success in the attainment of goals we can derive normative statements. Thus we can say that, rational behavior in the attainment of ethically good goals is good, and that irrational behavior used to further such goals is bad. Thus in my example, given her goals, going to church is good behavior while being a stripper is bad behavior.

The objective facts also effect rationality. If there were no churches, bars, libraries, or state of Alaska, and such then being a stripper would certainly appear more rational. You'd have to eliminate lots of options however to make being a stripper look like a good option for meeting desirable men.

Since rationality has to do with human behavior which is in turn effected by knowledge it is only natural to expect rationality to depend upon knowledge. Thus in my example, if she were not aware of churches, libraries, and the state of Alaska, then going to bars would move up on the list of rational behavior and might be considered rational to her goals, given her knowledge.

The fact that rationality is relative to a persons situation and knowledge means it is in a sense subjective. However due to the fact that subjective situation and knowledge can change due to objective facts it is also in a sense objective. What was once a rational decision in ignorance of a fact may become irrational in light of that fact, or vice versa.

So I disagree with Doss. The word “rational” is useful (although a complex concept). The particular meaning of the word I have discussed here is clear. Not only that but that particular meaning describes a concept that is not only useful in it’s own right but also integrates well with other concepts such “good”, “bad”, “error”, “efficient”, “goal”, “behavior”, etc.

Usage by Economists

The prior discussion was all within the framework of common language usage. Let me move on its usage in economics and why I agree with the Crooked Timber article.

Often, scientists use common language words but give them a different meaning within their discipline? Thus when physicists name the charm particle that doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with transmitting aspects of personality. In this case it is merely being used as an identifier with no other meaning, and was probably done to make an otherwise boring topic more humorous. Scientists aren’t the only ones with specialized vocabularies either. Many other groups have developed special language suited for their discipline for various reasons. Examples run from fry cooks to gang members.

That economists would use this word in a special discipline specific way doesn’t bother me. Nor does it bother me if they give it a completely different meaning as per above. Both are compatible with the needs of specialized vocabularies. What does bother me however is the following:

1) Economics studies human behavior, not some esoteric thing like particles. This presents two problems
a) The word “rational” defined in terms of human behavior in both common language and economics. This causes confusion that is not likely in a discipline such as particle physics. When economists are talking about human behavior we cannot be sure which meaning of rational to take. When physicists are talking about human behavior we know what meaning of the word charm to take.
b) It is likely that the common language definition of the word would be useful to use in economics, since it does bear upon human behavior. People do act rationally and irrationally using the definition I gave above. Thus by redefining the word economics loses a powerful concept.
2) Economists from different sub-disciplines give the word different meanings. The Austrian concept of rationality is quite different from the Neo-Classical one.
3) Even within a particular economic discipline the word is not used consistently.

The reason these issues bother me is that they can and do lead to error. Since economists are free to coin new terms there is no reason I can see for them to continue in this behavior. To do so would be irrational.

Trying to Have a Discussion About Islam

2005-10-09T14:39:00.000-07:00

I'm trying to have a discussion about Islam with Vavoom over at Tedrow Drive but he is being evasive. One of the commenters there responded to me as if my questions were equally applicable to Christianity and Judaism. He's of the mistaken viewpoint that Islam had some claim to some form of historical moral superiority. I don't think that is the case. I tried to post my reply to him but it was too big for the comments section. That's why I have the word "bloviating" in my tag line.

I didn't proofread this so I may go back and fix it for spelling or grammar. I won't remove or add sentences, and will only change a sentence to give my true meaning if I have a typo or something.

Heres my reply:

Mindful: “Your criticisms of Islam apply equally well to both Christianity and Judaism. Doesn't the Bible approve slavery and say that we should kill those who work on the Sabbath? For centuries, non-christians were persecuted for voicing their beliefs.

I don’t go to Muslims to criticize Christianity and Judaism. The Muslims already have their own misguided reasons for doing so. Some of which you have bought into. I go directly to Christians and they can defend themselves against many of these charges. For instance, many do not take the bible literally. I have been to churches and they do not use the whole bible. In fact they go out of their way to teach that certain parts are overruled by the appearance of Christ. In particular the parts about slavery and killing those who work on the sabbath.

I just had a conversation with a Catholic the other day and he is very much aware of the stupid teachings in the bible, he rejects them, and he is honest in saying that most Christians are not even aware of them. He does not believe the bible was written by god but by fallible men and that it is full of mistakes and frankly evil stuff.

There are fundamentalist Christians who believe in the literal truth of the bible and those are the most dangerous kinds of Christians. They tend to be the ones involved in bombings of abortion clinics and the like. This is not a general problem even with them however since Jesus did not run around chopping peoples heads and hands off, raiding caravans, making war on peaceful neighbors, massacring whole populations, like Mohammed did. For the most part I have to agree with the Christians that the bad behavior in the past is against the teachings of Christ.

Christians and Jews have other defenses that Muslims don’t. In Christianity and Judaism it is God doing allot of the killing and punishing. In fact when he punishes he even punishes Jews. When he commands the slaughter of innocents or does it himself it becomes a historical issue. Much of the time God is killing Jews. God may have commanded the Jews to slaughter the Midianites, Canaanites, or Baconites J but what does that matter to anyone today? That Jews slaughtered some tribe called the Midianites at some time in the past may be reprehensible but puts no one in danger today. I can find no general commandment in the Bible for Jews and Christians to kill any group today. That is not the case with the Koran.

Today’s Jews are not responsible for some unjustified slaughter that occurred two thousand years ago. Not even if they teach that the slaughter is valid Jewish doctrine and they personally believe in it. The reason why they are not responsible is because they didn’t do it. Now if they teach the slaughter was evil, an opinion held by most Christians and Deists, then they are blameless in all ways. However, if they sanction it then they are not blameless and can be held in contempt for at least this one evil belief. Even in this case however such a Jew is not a danger to anyone in the present. Furthermore, if you read the text on the killing of say the Midianites there is no general requirement by God for Jews find and kill them today. Even if there were Midianites they would have a reason to be unhappy with history but would not need to be in general fear of Jews.

I want to also apologize to any Jews. I really shouldn’t be using the bible in this case. It would be the Torah, and other religious texts.

Now if the Jews were strict literalists, if the Torah taught them to slaughter Midianites up to the present day, if Jews were actually slaughtering Midianites, then the Midianites would be justified in protecting themselves. Not only would the Jews actually participating be guilty but also those who were advocating the crimes. The murderers themselves guilty of murder and the inciters guilty of incitement to murder.

Furthermore, if the murderers were a member of some organization that had sanctioned such behavior then other members can be held responsible, should they become aware of this and not disassociate themselves. If you join an organization that has literature that calls for the murder of innocents, go to meetings where the leaders of the organization incite for such actions, you donate money to support the organization, and then some other members act on these beliefs then you share part of the guilt. This is a lesser crime than murder, or direct incitement to murder, but it is still a crime and you should be punished, force to pay restitution, and possibly locked up if you continue in such behavior in order to protect your victims.

I also think there are additional crimes that can be associated with these evil beliefs.

I believe it is a crime to knowingly and with reasonable regard to the truth, deceive another into believing something that is untrue about someone else that would lead that person to behavior that is harmful to either themselves or the other person. I spend a lot of time thinking about such ethical issues.

There are laws on the books, libel laws, related to this crime so it is at least partially recognized. I think these laws are inadequate as to their scope. For instance, I understand that libel only pertains to specific lies about an single individual. You cannot sue for libel if the lie is about a group that you happen to be a member of.

I am of the opinion that this, libel upon groups, is a crime regardless of whether there is a law against it, similar to my belief that slavery is a crime regardless of whether it is lawful. There are some countries with laws of this kind on the books. In Germany for instance there are laws against promulgating Nazi ideology. Don’t be confused into thinking this would apply too broadly. My crime includes the adjective phrase “knowingly and with reasonable regard to the truth”, and people do make mistakes. But I think a reasonable man test should apply, and that gross over generalizations fail this test.

There is no reasonable person who can believe that “all Jews are greedy”. If you teach this to another person, especially a minor, then you are committing a group libel and I think anyone in the group has standing to sue you to stop. Furthermore, if the person you teach this to commits a crime against a member of the aggrieved group that you should be held partially responsible.

There are many teachings in Islam for which none of the excuses available to Christians and Jews apply. In addition Muslims are obeying these evil teachings today and they cite them in their sermons, both before and after members of their mosques commit their atrocities. To lesser and greater degrees many Muslims are guilty of the crimes I have discussed above, in addition to others.

I understand that, as with most religions, there are many Islamic sects, regional differences, and even differences of opinion within particular sects. I know many Catholics and their opinions vary greatly. I only know this however by speaking to them and discussing many different issues. All present day Catholics that I have met do not condone the murder of heretics. This has not always been the case and the only reason I know is because I have asked. There are to my knowledge no Catholics running amuck killing heretics. I have discussed the issue of killing heretics with educated middle class Muslims and they have no problem with it. For instance, a Pakistani I know was asked about the heresy laws of his own country (and others) “Isn’t that wrong”. His response was “You just don’t like it because you are not a believer”. Really, this is the level of moral understanding that I have seen from well-educated Muslims. Worse still I see plenty of Muslims, even clerics from esteemed religious institutions who should know Islam, calling for the murder of non-Muslims.

It is not a common practice for Catholics to kill family members that turn apostate. I know of no current teachings of the Catholic Church to do so. I understand that there are crazy people like say John List, and I do not count this against modern Christians in general. List may have found his inspiration in the bible but it was not due to anyone in the Catholic faith telling him to take it literally. If John List was a fundamentalist and his preacher told him the bible was literally true, and if a reasonable person could interpret the bible to be teaching to kill your family then I would hold the preacher accountable. I doubt that is the case. This is a behavior that is practiced in Islam. They kill family members for minor violations of Islamic law like sleeping around to protect the family honor. The same goes for apostates, which, is an even worse crime in Islam.

My issue is with the evil teachings of Islam that I have read with my own eyes.

Mindful: During that time, the muslim world treated non-muslims with respect.

This is a false statement. You have failed to skeptically investigate the claims. I think you are ignorant of the actual treatment of non-muslims during the period. Muslims are in a state of denial about their religious history that is similar to Christian denial. There are Muslim apologists just like there are Christian ones There is a difference however in how they proceed, Christians deny that these past evils were due to following Christ, Muslims just deny the history completely.

Under Islamic law conquered Christians and Jews have the status of Dhimmitude. Dhimmis are required to pay a Jiyza, or political poll tax. During collection of this tax there is a requirement that the Dhimmis are made to feel subdued. Often there was a humiliating public ceremony in which the tax was collected during which the dhimmis were given some sort of beating.

Muslims need not pay such a tax and therefore the Islamic ruler's only tax base was often the Dhimmis under their control. One way to get out of the tax is to convert to Islam, which often the rulers would not allow lest their tax base be eroded. There was an open invitation by the rulers for non-muslims to come to their countries, but one can see that this is for selfish motivations and not out of some form of beneficence. Like when certain Muslim conquerers released some of their prisoners for ransom, this was not a sign of tolerance. Often an Islamic ruler is praised for such a ransom when in many other cases he just had everyone slaughtered.

Dhimmis were required to wear special clothing so that they could be harrassed in public, were not allowed to testify against Muslims, were not allowed in many occupations, were not allowed to be the bosses of Muslims, were not allowed to build or repair their churches and synagoges, not carry weapons, couldn’t build their houses higher than Muslims, and so forth. Their position was precarious because they were often subject to purges, and the local Muslim population had no monetary incentive not to abuse them. Often a spat between a Muslim and a Dhimmi would degrade into a Muslim riot to punish all the Dhimmis for the transgression, even if it was originally the Muslim that was wrong. Also this whole time Muslims were allowed to own slaves, and Christians and Jews not. So guess who made up the slaves?

You may not be aware of this but many of the Southern US plantation owners thought that they were doing their slaves a favor. Not only that but quite a few slaves were allowed a sort of Dhimmi status and were allowed to go into the trades. Not because the slave owner was showing any kind of respect, but purely on a financial consideration. It is often possible to make more money on a slave by allowing the slave to educate himself in a trade and buy his own freedom. Slaves don’t make very good employess precisely because there is nothing in it for them. Not only that but there are costs involved in maintaining slaves in their positions. This practice of manumission via self-purchase has been common through-out history due to the financial incentives. It has nothing to do with any moral enlightenment on the part of the slave owner.

Such slaves were allowed to walk around freely, get jobs, etc. In the case of the southern US there was already a identifiable difference, skin color, between slave and slaveholder, so there was no need for distinctive clothing. In the more ancient slave holding communities this condition did not hold, so both capturing escaped slaves and identifing them were both more costly and provided different incentives in those societies that lead to different social attitudes. Once slaves bought themselves freedom in these more ancient societies they could literally change their skin color by switching their dress. The same was not true in the south and many of the slaves who bought their freedom moved north to avoid the social stigma of their skin color. The Dhimmis in Islamic culture had no so out. They were literally tax slaves who could never buy their freedom, unless perhaps they converted to Islam.

Of course, there is the issue of unbelievers such as myself who are not Christian or Jews. They were for the most part just put to death, without even an opportunity to convert, as were many Jews and Christians. There was no tolerance for beliefs outside of this small sphere. Atheists and Idolators were not tolerated in Muslim society and their only choice if they survived the murderous invasion was conversion or death.

Mindful: In the past, Islam was the religion of peace, both morally and geopolitically, and you would have been inveighing against Christians for hewing to their own misguided scripture.”

I am glad you recognize my moral superiority. :) It was people like me inveighing against Christian beliefs and Christian behavior that did lead to their reformation. Both the belief and the behavior has changed for the most part. Christianity still needs work in on some beliefs and some behavior but for the most part it is a peaceful religion. Islam has not experienced such a reformation.

It was Vavooms railing against the idea that Islam needed to get out of the 17th century that originally got my attention over at www.bloggledygook.com. He seems like a rational guy but I think he is not seeing the big picture here. Islam really still is in the 17th century compared to Christianity and Judaism.

If you knew your history then you would realize there was never a period of time in which Islam could claim to be the religion of peace. As they say, history is always written by the winners.

Mindful: Imagine if the vast majority of Christians lived in poverty and ignorance. Do you think they would be great humanitarians? Do you think they would grow up gentle and giving? They would not.

The empircal evidence doesn’t back you up on this claim. The most violent and fanatical Muslims have been the richest, not the poorest. Osama Bin Laden was rich beyond my wildest dreams, and was educated in the finest institutions. Do you forget how and where the suicide pilots had access to flight instruction?

There have been and are vast populations of Catholic Christians living in abject poverty but they are not running around blowing up innocents. My grandfather was a poor sharecropper and my mother used to work in the fields picking not only their own crops but the crops of others. She used to get paid the same amount as the adults because she picked just as much, at age six her father demanded the same pay for her, and she was quite proud of that. He died from a rattlesnake bite he got in the woods, around the time my mother was seventeen.. She had four sisters and two brothers. All of who grew up to be gentle and giving.

I don’t know what being a “great humanitarian” has to do with it. Many of the greatest humaniarians of all times lived in abject poverty as children, Carnegie and Mother Teresa among others.

Vavoom, is worried about word count but look how much information it took to correct your three false sentences. I guess I could have said “Malarkey” but I assumed you were earnest but ignorant and not just a garden variety liar. It is my concern for the truth and that you know it that requires me to do more than that.

Mindful: The radicalism of state-sponsored Islam today is the effect of a century of poverty and misrule instigated in large part by the misguided actions of European (christian!) powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

I have to chuckle. Do you only get your history from Muslims? Why is it that only non-whites get to pull the historical victimhood card. Europeans were victims of the Romans conquest long before Muslims existed. There was a four hundred year history of Muslim conquest of Christian lands long before the first Crusade, and all the Crusades were started based on actual honest grivences. Muslims had invaded all the way into Spain and held it for hundreds of years before they were pushed out.

Christianity was not originally spread by the sword and it was the Muslims that precipitated the situation in Spain, in which after centuries of Dhimmitude the inhabitants threw off their chains. They were extremely intolerant of their overlords and anyone who appeared to work with them. This is not surprising, often brutal slave colonies like Haiti turn against their masters. The Haitian flag included the symbology of a white baby impaled on a spike. It is understandable and one of the reasons slavers are often afraid to free their slaves. So it was partially the Muslim’s fault the inquisition occurred. This is something I was not aware of until recently and had always blamed it on the Christians.

There are other problems with Christianity with regard to intellectual intolerance, but again the Muslims shared this trait. After all Islam is a bastardized form of Christianity. Thus Muslims burned down the library at Alexandria with the guy in charge saying something to the effect that “If any book disagrees with the Koran then it is pernicious and needs to be destroyed. If any agrees then it is superfluous and should also be destroyed”. He burned the books to heat the bath houses. Perhaps to wash off the guilt.

You are quite ignorant if you think that Islamic society was just peacefully minding it’s business up until the Ottoman empire was destroyed. Islam had taken over one million white slaves during the eighteenth and into the early nineteenth centuries. For over two hundred years they had raided not only European shipping but often landed in European lands to take slaves. Britain in particular was a target, and I mean literal slave raids in the country itself. Britain put up with this for over 200 years before it was put to a stop in 1830 by the descendent of a British white slave who had made his escape.

The Ottomans entered into WWI on the side of Germany. Do they get a free pass for that also?

I get sick of the Muslims constantly whining about our Western interference into their politics. What about their interference in ours? Take Sirhan Sirhan for instance. Why can’t I complain about the all the bribes coming from oil rich countries, you know registered lobbyists, to influence my leaders. I feel just as oppressed by some of the things my government does as they do by theirs. Why can’t I blame them. Why the hell for instance are my borders open to Muslim imperialist expansion while they prevent all immigration to their countries, why can they use government funds to build Mosques here, while not even private funds can be used to build a single Church in their country? If we are running the show then why don’t we get their oil for next to nothing? If we are running the show then why aren’t we forcing them to build churches and why aren’t the laws set up in their countries to our citizens favor and not the other way round. How did it end up that they nationalized US and British oil companies if we are in control? Why is it that since the “misrule instigated in large part by the misguided actions of European (christian) countries” that the Muslim population has advanced at a rate far exceeding those of western countries? Isn’t that a measure of welfare? Didn’t they benefit from medicine and trade with us? Does the doubling of their population reflect on us or them and the way they treat their women, as baby machines?

Note that the prior paragraph consists mainly of retorical questions and does not neccesarily represent my views in any particular instance. I was mocking the silly claims made by the other side.

Mindful: So maybe we can lay the blame of all today's chaos at Jesus's feet. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? Just as ridiculous as blaming Mohammed.

Jesus didn’t call for mass slaughter, nor did he practice it. So he cannot be blamed directly or indirectly in any case. On the other hand Mohammed did both.

Mindful: The fact of the matter is, the clerics that want to kill Salman Rushdie are responsible for their own actions.

Of course, so what? That is the case regardless of whether Islam calls for the murder of apostates or not. They should know that the Koran is a false document and should behave themselves.

Do you really think that the Koran would stop them from believing something they really wanted to believe?
Do you even listen to the other side? I think it is clear that there is nothing about the Koran that would stop them. Why would you think that. Why would I expect a book instructing them to kill apostates to act as a restrain. No I would expect such a book to spur them on.

Mindful: If they need to believe something, they can just reinterpret it.
I don’t think that the option of reinterpreting the Koran is open. It says in plain language to kill.

Mindful: They are playing for power and, in their part of the world, violence is the best way for them to achieve it.

Violence is the best way only because in their part of the world intolerant Islam holds sway. Pat Robertson opened his stupid mouth (and that was not some sort of religious edict) about it would be a nice thing if Chavez got assassinated (and it probably would) and look at all the trouble it got him in. He had to apologize. Muslim clerics are constantly calling for death and it only increases their esteem with the Muslim population.

Theo van Gogh was killed for speaking up against Islamic treatment of women. The person who did it was doing it for power the same as any cleric. Any time you murder someone else you are using power to get your way. This is not just about political power. It’s not just politicians but the common guy on the street in Muslim countries that will murder for insults to Islam, like someone printing that Muhammed would have married one of the Miss Universe contestants. Hell some Palesteinians rioted and attacked Christians just a little while ago over the insult of a rumor of Druze schoolgirls posing for nude pictures.

Mindful: The only difference between them and the Christian leaders of the western world is that they grew up in a culture of hatred.

I can’t believe you mean what this sentence says, since you are trying arguing the opposite. Have you written something you didn’t intend? Do you mean to say that Islamic culture is a “culture of hatred”?

Mindful: The reason Vavoom calls you prejudiced is because you judge people by their religion. Why not judge them by their actions instead?

First off I don’t believe Vavoom actually called me prejudiced. He said that he “wrote off my comment as prejudicial” and that my “generalizations smacked of prejudice”. He couldn’t actually make a direct charge because I didn’t actually make any judgement about him based on his religion.

Second off, the phrase “you judge people by their religion” is kind of a loaded accusation. Everyone judges people by their religion. I am sure that you would be surprised if you sat down at a dinner with some orthodox Jews and they served up a big baked ham. I certainly won’t disagree with the statement in that sense. I certainly do believe that Jews have a tendency to avoid pork.

However, even in this case I wouldn’t assume that every single Jew doesn’t eat pork, and I am sure some do. Although I would make fun of them for not being good Jews. :) A good comedy skit might be some goy munching down on a ham samwich and a Jew getting indignant that he wasn’t offered a bite, and saying his generalization smacked of prejudice. “What do you think all Jews avoid pork just because the Torah says so?”

Thirdly, to my knowledge I have not judged any individual based on his religion in any of these posts, other than expecting a Muslim to be able to answer some hard questions about Islam.

Mindful: Vavoom is a good person.
Yes, it appears so to me. What is your point? I haven’t charged him with any crime worse than pointing out a little hypocrisy and a dash of intellectual error.

Mindful: I know that because he does good works. I know many people, both Muslims and Christians that do good works. The other kind, bad people, are not bad because they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or even Satanist. They are bad because they do bad things.

I think this is a naïve statement. What about people who do both good and bad things? John Gotti and Osama Bin Laden are both loved by many people for their good works. Both were quite charitable.

Mindful: As the bible says,
First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
-Matthew 7:5

I don’t appreciate being quoted to from Christianity about proper methods for intellectual inquiry. The bible has many more lessons on how to stick your head in the sand than to discover the truth. Doubting Thomas ring a bell? It is especially ironic that you do so after positing that Christianity is no more depraved than Islam.

Mindful: In other words, we need to make a true effort to understand the roots of violence and intolerance in the world.

By which you mean I ought to knuckle under to your ill informed belief on such. Like your theory that it is poverty that is the problem. Funny thing I have found is that many people who espouse this theory tend to want policies that would lead to more poverty, like reducing capitialism and increasing socialism.

I have made a true effort to understand the root causes of violence and intolerance in the world. They are multiple and varied. Funnily enough some of the worst violence and intolerance has been spawned by people trying to “do good works”. People like Marx come to mind.

Mindful: Sometimes we can do that best by examining the origins of the violence and intolerance in our own past.

That’s fine if we are not the only ones doing it, and if it doesn’t make the mistake of punishing the children for the sins of the fathers. It’s a double standard if only people of European ancestry are held to this standard. I don’t see this kind of introspection in the Arab world. The amount of self-flaggelation about history that goes on in America is frankly embarrasing, when compared to the self deception encountered in the Muslim world. The ruins of the World Trade Center hadn’t stopped smoking before Muslims were coming up with a pro-Islamic twist on the events.

You may not know this but I am not Christian, nor a member of any religion or ideology with any history of intolerance. I rejected Christianity at a very young age specifically because I found it ethically untenable. I was around seven when I decided that a God as described by could not exist due to the ethical contridictions that were inherent in the way Christianity was taught. How can you make a honest intellectual inquiry when you are being threathened to burn in hell for eternity if you don’t believe the arguments being postulated, regardless of whether they are true or false.

Mindful: Let's make sure that we are not damned by the very standards we try to enforce upon others.

“What’s this we shit paleface.” I pass my standards with flying colors.

Let's make sure we judge people by their actions, not their beliefs.”
Well there are two meaning to this sentence depending upon what we choose the word “judge” to mean.
1) If by “judge” you mean “to find guilt in” then I agree. However, remember that it is precisely for this reason that I am against Islam. After all, does not Allah burn people in hellfire forever on the mere issue of belief? Doesn’t the Koran instruct over and over to be predjudiced against unbelievers?
2) If by “judge” you mean to “gage and predict behavior” then I disagree. I think beliefs are a good metric by which to do so. If you do not think so then I suggest you try wearing a white sheet to a Nation of Islam rally to test your theory. You might be surprised at what actions people take due to their beliefs. What you cannot judge people upon, in this sense, is their lack of belief. A lack of belief is no guide to their actions. If a person literally believes every word of the Koran then I am perfectly justified in being concerned with their potential actions. Especially, if others who share this belief have acted badly and then justified their actions on the basis of this belief.

Finally, I’d like to say that my purpose is to get more input on this religion called Islam. I am trying to find a Muslim who believes for instance that I have a right to move to Pakistan, open a institution, and teach about the evils of Islam. I want to find a Muslim who will tell me that the Koran is full of falsities, absurities, and just plain evil. I want to hear a practicing Muslim tell me that yes indeed Muhammed murdered innocent people to take their belongings, raped their women, ordered the execution of poets, and even stole the wife of his adopted son after he saw her naked and couldn’t control himself. I want to know how they rationalize this in their head. Seems to me if my own beloved prophet had done this stuff then it would put me in a state of psychic distress. No wonder some Muslims kill people for even questioning the religion a little bit.

The other purpose was to correct Vavoom on some of his misunderstandings. He made statements to the effect that it was Americans responsibiliity to learn Islam,and vote for Muslims. It made it sound like it was non-Muslims responsibilty to lift up Muslims. If that is my responsibilty then with that responsibilty must go authority. My first decree is that that stop believing in the evil ideology, my second that they learn some real history, and my third that they take a skeptical eye to their religion. I however do not accept this responsibility. It is their responsibilty to act in an ethical manner, not mine to teach them how. Nor mine to feed them and clothe them. Nor mine to teach them proper history. Nor mine to learn their religion.

If I choose to learn their religion it will be to my benefit and to protect myself. I have no duty to do so for their benefit. If I choose to lift them out of their ignorance, then it will also be for my benefit, and incidentally for theirs. When I have finally understood their religion to the degree necessary, my first task isn’t going to be reasoning, people of faith are famously resistant to reason, my first task is going to be informing non-muslims of the threat, if any.

I don’t really care if Vavoom thinks that is egotistical. What the hell does he think his prophet was if not egotistical. The guy thought he spoke for god.

Does Islam Contain "The Golden Rule"

2005-10-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

This post details my search for "The Golden Rule" in Islamic teachings.

I've been reading the Koran trying to figure out what Islam is all about, but it has been slow going. It is poorly structured and so doesn't make a good read. It is even more boring because it repetitively tells the reader he is no good if he isn't Muslim. Plus, it spends much verbiage retelling stories of the bible incorrectly, lying about other religions beliefs, and giving bad history (eg It claims Alexander the Great was a Muslim). So my motivation is low, and I often find better things to do.

I wanted to skip over all the passages in the Koran that repetitively tell us that unbelievers burn in hell, plus all the badly retold bible stories and get to some actual meat. To answer the question, “Where’s the beef”, I have used a site with a Koran annotated by a skeptic to get a quick overview of it's contents. He has pages that classifies the Suras of the Koran into categories such as good stuff, injustice, intolerance, absurdites, etc. I followed the links on those pages to the sections and read them. I have cross referenced this Koran with others and the translations are pretty much the same.

In reading these sections of the Koran it struck me that there didn't seem to be the concept of "The Golden Rule". Which is surprising since this concept has been in every religion I know of going back to Confucius. So I went on the web and did a search on "Golden Rule" Islam and the first link titled The Golden Rule was on a web site called FaithFreedom.org. I read the entire article, which was based on a debate between a Muslim, Yamin Zakaria, and an apostate, Ali Sina. Ali Sina was claiming that there is no Golden Rule in Islam, and was using the debate as evidence for that. In the debate Yamin Zukaria had responded to Ali Sinas claims about the Golden Rule by questioning the Golden Rule and not by saying "We Muslims believe in it too". So here we had a Muslim and a Muslim apostate both agreeing that Islam had no golden rule.

Ali Sina did point one Hadith that came close:

The closest that Islam comes to this principle is a hadith that says:

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." [Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."]

The same hadith is reported by Bukhari 1.2.12

"The Prophet said, "None of you will have faith till he wishes for his (Muslim) brother what he likes for himself."

Thee brotherhood in Islam, however does not extend to everyone. Verse 9:23 of the Quran states that the believers should not take as friends and protectors (awlia), even their own fathers and brothers, if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses in the Quran that tell the Muslims to be harsh to unbelievers. The unbelievers in Islam are treated in the same way that the “niggers” and Jews are treated by white-supremacists[sic].

I agree, one cannot restrict the Golden Rule to ones Muslim "brothers" and still have it retain it's universal message.

I moved on to other sites, looking for an Islamic Golden Rule, and immediately found other people claiming that Islam did have a Golden Rule. This was the version:

Do to all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves.

However, none seemed to have the location in the Quran or Hadith where it existed. It would be better if it was in the Quran since it is the final authority on issues Islamic, but I would be satisified if some Islamic text, any one, contained it.

I went through several pages of Google searches and could not find a reference (skip this paragraph if you are not interested in how I found it). So I decided to do a different search. I took the claimed passage and searched on that once with the word Quran and once with the word Hadith. I got no hits with Quran and three hits with Hadith. On the three pages there was the claim that the passage came from the Hadith but not which Hadith and where. I shorten the passage but still used Hadith on my next search and the third result listed was good, it included a reference to location.

Do to all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves. (Hadith) (2 p. 75)

I finally found a reference, (Hadith) (2 p. 75).

Time to confront Ali Sina. I sent him the following email.

Ali Sina,

You had a long article on your site www.faithfreedom.org claiming that Islam has no equivalent of the golden rule.

I did a quick Internet search and found this.

Do to all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves. (Hadith) (2 p. 75)

Please correct your site or reply with good reasons why not.

The debate you had with Yamin Zakaria is informative only if he is some kind of religious scholar. It is curious that he does not know of this Hadith. I am also wondering why you don't know about it.

Regards,

Brian Macker

Well Ali Sina replied saying it was not true.

There is no such hadith. Please try to find it. What does (hadith 2 page 75) mean? This is not a correct reference.

Oops! I didn't know how these references were done and just assumed that it was correct. I haven't read the multi-volume Hadith. I went back to the article with the reference and actually read it. I hadn't read it because I was only interested in the reference. Well readint it I noticed a lot of the quotes from other religions had the (2 p. 75. I then realized he was referencing his own bibilography at the bottom of the page. The quote came from page 75 of the book "Everyone Is Right. A New Look at Comparative Religion and its Relation to Science". It was not a reference to the position in the Hadith. I'd hate to buy a book with a stupid title like that, after all how can everyone be right if they disagree, but I might have to do so to follow this chain.

There was more content to Ali Sinas reply. I am not going to include it all but he did point out:

I did some search on that. I saw the same statement is mentioned by a Bahai with no reference at all. I also saw the same is mentioned by a Muslim claiming it is from Sahih Muslim 138. This is not a proper reference.

In the following link this Muslim has quoted this along with lots of other good statements attributing them to Muhammad and even giving reference.

http://www.ummah.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32236.html

He is just lying. There are no such hadiths. Please try to find those references and see for yourself. Muslims think it is meritorious to lie. So not only they are not ashamed of fabricating things in order to make their religion look good, they actually think they will be rewarded for it.

Now let us suppose for the sake of argument that such hadith actually exists. Then we have another problem and that is it contradicts the Quran. Every Muslim would tell you that if a hadith contradicts the Quran that hadith is false.

I checked Sina's claim about Sahih Muslim 138. I found many references to this in a web search but Sina is correct. According to introduction in the reference Sina gave.

the Sahih Muslim is divided into 42 books on different subjects, each book containing many ahadith. The numbering system used by Muslim is consecutive and uninterrupted for the entire collection.

There are only two possible interpretations for h Muslim 138, one that it is the book number, or two part of the consecutive numbering system. Since there are only 42 books it cannot be the book number. So it must be from the consecutive numbering which results in this:

Book 001, Number 0138:
Al-Bara reported it from the Apostle (may peace and blessing be upon him) that he observed with regard to the Ansar, None but the believer loves them, none but the hypocrite hates them. He who loved them loved Allah and he who hated them hated Allah. I (the narrator) said: Did you hear this hadith from al-Bara'? He said: To me, he narrated it.

Well that certainly doesn't sound like the Golden Rule. Sina is correct.

Ali Sina's email ended with:

Please also continue reading my site and try to find its error. I will promise to remove them. I never claimed infallibility. I am sure you will find some errors, so let me know.

Well that's reasonable.

I ordered a used copy of the book, "Everyone Is Right. A New Look at Comparative Religion and its Relation to Science", and Isee where it claims the quote comes from. When I get the book I will write Ali Sina again to give my results, and will update this post.

Update:
I received the book today and it doesn't have a proper reference to the quote. On page 75 it says the following:

Do to all men as you would wish to have done unto you; and reject for others what you would reject for yourselves. (Hadith)

I found an article by Theodore P. Seto titled "The Morality of Terrorism" which includes this same quote. It doesn't provide a proper book and number of the quote. I have emailed him to ask for his source.

So far I have found no evidence of any version of the Golden Rule in Islam.

Update:
I had ordered the Al-Hadith of Mishkat-Ul-Masabih as translated by Maulana Fazlul Karmin. I have found a quote that I believe is suppose to be the source of the quote. (Mishkat-Ul-Masabih Book 1, Chapter 1, Section 2, 4w) this is at the bottom of page 115 in my translation.

4w.Mu'az-b-Jabal reported that he asked the Holy Prophet about the most excellent faith. He said: It is that you love for Allah and hate for Allah, and engage your tongue in the rememberance of Allah. He enquired: What more, O Prophet of Allah? He replied: It is that you love for men what you love for yourself and hate for them what you hate for yourself. -Ahamad

Note that this is a much weaker wording than "Do unto" since feeling emotions about what happens to others isn't the same as restricting your actions based on those emotions. I do not believe this counts as a golden rule. I will be investigating further.

Who's the Genetic Freak? Him or Her?

2005-10-08T18:41:00.000-07:00

Foreign Dispatches has an item on Tom Cruise speculating that he might be a genetic freak because of his crooked teeth.

In the article the author theorizes that Kidman cannot get pregnant because of Cruises condition then gets into a discussion pondering if beauty is truly a marker of genetic fitness.

What does it say about beauty as a marker of reproductive potential that hardly anyone seems to have noticed Cruise's potentially sterility-denoting genetic anomaly until now? When you also take into account that some of the most strikingly beautiful women are actually genetically male, you have to wonder how much stock to put into the claim that looks tell you anything about reproductive fitness. It isn't exactly as if the typical mother of 10 is or ever was a potential Hollywood starlet either.

I am sad to admit that I noticed his malpositioned incisors and his crooked nose a long time ago. I was just too polite to mention it. I had just assumed he didn't have enough money for an orthodontist and a rhinoplasty, what with belonging to a cult and all. ;)

I guess the author didn't read the 'genetically male' article, since it theorizes that Kidman is the guilty party. You know beatiful woman, no children, ergo genetic freak. Which for some reason I find a hilarious joke on the author at Foreign Dispatches.

Let's be honest, I find it more plausible that Cruise has bad teeth because he is the illegitmate child of Austin Powers. Furthermore, that Kidman is not barren but is was on the pill. She refused to get pregnant with Cruise because he is a freak not of the genetic but religious kind. I know, I know, there are holes in my theory like the kids being adopted, but I didn't think we were holding the bar up that high.

$10,000,000 Judgment Against Spammer

2005-10-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

I just love it.

"On Thursday the 22nd, Robert Braver, an Oklahoma ISP owner who is a long time activist against both spam and junk faxes, received a default judgment of over $10 million against high profile spammer Robert Soloway and his company Newport Internet Marketing. Soloway has frequently been cited as one of the ten largest spammers in the world."

However, I don't think it is going to stop the spam. Probably would be better if the plaintiff was allowed one wack with a ball-pean hammer to the back of the Soloway's head.

Hi, my name is Karen and I work for Walmart

2005-10-02T13:19:00.000-07:00

Walmart runs a radio ad in the New York area on WABC that goes something like this.

"Hi, My name is Karen. I work for Walmart out of Monroe, NY. When I first started working at Walmart I was working as a Prostitute Stalker and they approached me for a management position. I said why not. Now I am working as an assistant manager. Some day I want to be CEO. My name is Karen. I work at Walmart"

I'm paraphrasing everything except the "Prostitute Stalker". I know that isn't what she is trying to say but it sure sounds like it. I assume she is trying to say "Produce Stocker". I laugh every time I hear it. Have you ever heard the commericial?

Palestinian's Historical Claims Falsified

2005-10-02T10:00:00.000-07:00

If you've ever looked into the history of the establishment of Israel you will know that the Israelis and the Palestinians make totally different historical claims. I recently came across and article on old documents that have been uncovered which don't make the Palestinian claims look so good.

Taught to use the language of National Liberation politics at Soviet bloc schools in the 1960s, '70s and '80s, today's Palestinian Arab leaders employ the rhetoric of Third World anti-colonial struggle. This has given us the spectacle of Cuba, which was the passion of leftist intellectuals in the 1960s and '70s, teaching Arabs to blow up Israeli Kibbutzim, which were the passion of leftist intellectuals in the 1950s.

This fabrication of events seems to be a common strategy of the Palestinians as is evidenced by several hoaxes that were orchestrated recently. The Jenin Massacre Hoax and the Al Dura shooting have both been shown to be hoaxes. You can see a video here showing how the shooting of the young boy Muhammed al Dura was faked by the directors of Pallywood.

Gesture Required from Hmong Among Us

2005-09-25T08:06:00.000-07:00

I was outraged by the massacre of landowners in Minnesota by the Hmong poacher. I am originally from Minnesota and remember the state as one of the most tolerant in the country regarding race. More tolerant than the state I now call home, New York.

I was even more outraged as I read articles blaming this on the "racism" the Hmong in general feel they live under. This is a typical blame the victim attitude.

The fact we welcomed these people into our country as our guests, nay equals, makes it incumbent upon them to learn and obey our rules. Rules we developed by a hard process of trial and error to prevent conflicts such as this. It is the Hmongs general lack of understanding of these rules that is the proximate cause of these killings.

I do not think it is enough for a few Hmong leaders or even all Hmong to be "outraged and sickened" by this crime. They have to take decisive action to make sure this doesn't happen again and to gain trust in the community. One way they can do this is to show that hunting privileges are less important to them than the human lives loss due to their lack of respect for US hunting laws and property rights.

Only actions and not words can show that they truly believe this. I suggest that they organize a voluntary cessation of hunting for one season by all Hmong within the US. During this season all Hmong hunters would pay the registration fees they normally would for hunting, collect those moneys and give them to the families of those who were brutally massacred. They should also take a public vow to obey US hunting regulations and to not trespass on private property.

They should also refrain from using the "race card" in their interactions with other citizens. It is an ugly method to gain economic advantage. Many ethnic groups have settled in the United States only to do better economically than the current residents. As an example, West Indians, the ancestors of slaves, and blacker than any other American minority, now have higher incomes than the average American because of their exemplary work ethic.

Racial animus is not a barrier to success in a free society, because it is in the interest of even the most racist employer to hire a minority if their pay scale is suppressed. If a racist employer did not do so he would soon be put out of business by those willing to recognize the true value of the work output of the minority worker.

Until such a gesture is done there will be a stain on the Hmong community similar to that haunting the Islamic community for not responding to the events of 9/11 except with celebration here and abroad. Claiming outrage is not enough. These communities must purge themselves of the attitudes that lead them to trespass against others. They must stop teaching that nonbelievers are evil and deserve to be killed. This requires a rejection of some of the most central teachings of the Koran, so it will not be easy. Many Christian sects have accomplished the rejection of parts of the Bible so it is not an impossible task. It is however a task that needs to be done and not one that is the responsibility of the nonbelieving victims to accomplish.

I do not know if the Hmong have similar customs and beliefs but if they do they need to purge themselves of them to live in a modern pluralistic society. I certainly hope they do not has as long a journey as the Muslims require.

A Critique of 'Amazin Al Quran'

2005-08-21T17:57:00.000-07:00

There is a notion popular with Islamic apologists that, unlike other religions, Islam is a religion of science. In that spirit there is an article circulating on the internet titled, Amazing Al Quran that attempts to support this belief that the Qur’an contains science revealed to Muhammad by Allah. Science that the actual authors of the Qur’an could not have known at the time of its writing without divine intervention. This is a critique of that article.

I have arranged the sections of my critique identically with the original article for ease of comparison.

“Amazing Al Quran” Part 1

Introduction

The introduction claims that non-believers who read the Qur’an are surprised that it doesn’t resemble an “old book from the desert”. I don’t know why he thinks I should think that, since I got my copy of the Qur'an fresh off the presses at Penguin publishing. Kidding aside, he means that we are surprised that it not written from a desert provincial perspective, by some sand yokels.

I think the author underestimates this reader. I'm not surprised because I wasn’t expecting it to be provincial. Arabia after all was a major trade route and close to several the seats of some of the earliest civilizations. It’s not like, say, the deserts of aboriginal Australia. I am in the process of reading it and it fully meets my expectations of what an old book from the Saudi desert would contain.

Merchant Marine

The articles author thinks the reader should be amazed that the Qur’an speaks of the sea. I don’t find this amazing at all. Mecca is only forty miles from the sea. Medina is 80 miles from the sea. Mecca and Median are about 200 miles apart. Muhammad sent or led many raiding parties against Caravans moving between Mecca and cities to the north. These caravans traveled along the flat plains along the Red Sea. Certainly Muhammad was aware of the sea and would have heard tales from sailors or people in contact with them. Although Muhammad was illiterate he did pay people to read to him, such as the Jewish scholars. You have to remember that the Arabian Peninsula was a major trade route. Trade passed through there all the way to China and into Europe. Trade for Chinese silk was established over 470 years before Muhammad was born.

The Smallest Thing

The section titled “The Smallest Thing” talks about knowledge of the atom in the Qur’an. The author thinks that the reader should be impressed that the Qur’an says:

" He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...".

He feels that his shows some kind of scientific understanding that should not have been available to the author of the Qur’an. That might impress the ignorant by I am not the least bit impressed. Taken as a whole it reads like metaphorical boasting and not as a scientific discussion. The English language also has words for a small particle like mote, speck, dot, grain, and fleck. The words in the Qur’an are not being used in a scientific way and translation to any one of these other words is just as suitable in this context.

Here are other references I found to “atom” in the Qur’an:
34:22 Say (O Muhammad): Call upon those whom ye set up beside Allah! They
possess not an atom's weight either in the heavens or in the earth, nor have
they any share in either, nor hath He an auxiliary among them.

99:7 And
whoso doeth good an atom's weight will see it then,
99:8 And whoso doeth ill
an atom's weight will see it then.

10:61 And thou (Muhammad) art not
occupied with any business and thou recitest not a Lecture from this
(Scripture), and ye (mankind) perform no act, but We are Witness of you when ye
are engaged therein. And not an atom's weight in the earth or in the sky
escapeth your Lord, nor what is less than that or greater than that, but it is
(written) in a clear Book.

Here he is using the word atom to mean something insignificant. It’s merely being used as a simile not as a scientific concept. He is doing so when discussing the magnitude of a moral or immoral act. Behavior is not something that is even measured by mass or weight so this cannot be interpreted as scientific.

If Muhammad were using the terminology to mean the Greek concept of atom then he was using it incorrectly. By definition the Greek word for atom means the most indivisible particle of something. It literally means uncuttable. Using that definition all indivisible particles are atoms. So electrons and quarks would be the true Greek atoms. There are no particles smaller than the most indivisible ones by definition. This is something they deduced from a belief that if the cutting could go on forever then you couldn’t reassemble the pieces into the whole.

Also remember H2O is a molecule not an atom in modern terms. So if you continue cutting it down to its atoms it is no longer water. So even though the Greeks had deduced some information about cutting something into smaller pieces they were hardly doing modern science. What they were doing was armchair philosophy. There are no records of them making an actual attempt to verify their idea against reality.

Just because modern scientists decided to use the word atom to mean a proton/neutron nucleus with an orbiting electron doesn’t mean it matches the Greek definition. It doesn’t. The Greeks were wrong on many aspects. Democritus says of atoms:

"They have all sorts of shapes and appearances and different sizes.... Some are rough, some hook-shaped, some concave, some convex and some have other innumerable variations."

None of these notions apply to the modern scientific idea of an atom. They don’t even get close to approaching more primitive orbital models of the atom.

Scientists could just a well have decided to use the word atom to mean molecule instead of its current definition. The most indivisible particle of, for instance, water is not a single molecule of H2O. If you split it then it is no longer water but is Hydrogen and Oxygen. That does not however mean it could not be reassembled so therefore it doesn’t violate the Greek idea, and therefore the Greeks could not have been referring to a molecule. The closest thing to the Greek idea is a subatomic particle.

Lest you think I am playing games see this scientific paper ...

"In this century we thought we found the atom. It might be the
chemical atom at 10**(-10) meters in size, or nucleons at 10**(-15)
meters, or quarks at 3x10**(-16) meters. Or it maybe smaller, or
perhaps even a `Dirac' point-like particle. All of these candidates in some sense would satisfy the Greeks.”
So either Muhammad was using the atom as a simile or he was using the Greek term incorrectly. He certainly wasn’t being precise. Nor is it clear he was trying to convey the idea that there were things smaller than modern day atoms. Heck, the modern terminology wasn’t even coined yet so he couldn’t. In every Qu’ranic reference to the atom cited above the context is spiritual, not scientific.

The author summarizes his position by saying, “Undoubtedly, fourteen centuries ago that statement would have looked unusual, even to an Arab. For him, the dharrah was the smallest thing there was. Indeed, this is proof, that the Qur'an is not outdated.” The author’s conclusion is false in all its particulars. It is not “Undoubtedly” true since he doesn’t know if this would be unusual for an Arab of the time. These were caravan raiders not Greek philosophers. Nor is the final statement true since you cannot prove something based on false conjecture.
What is clear is that Muhammad was using the word dharrah incorrectly if it meant the smallest thing there was and he meant it in a precise scientific way. Seems much more likely that he was not using it literally but figuratively.

Honey

The author next goes into medical advice in the Qur’an. He comes to the conclusion that there is no medical advice in the Qur’an because it was written before the Prophet was born. He says:

“It is the words of Allah, which existed before creation, and thus nothing canbe added, subtracted or altered. In essence, the Qur'an existed and was complete before the creation of Prophet Mohammed, so it could not possibly contain any of the Prophet's own words or advice.”

This is patently absurd considering his whole argument about the atom was in regard how ridiculous it would sound to Arabs of the era to think of something smaller than the dharrah. Why would it matter what Arabs thought if the Qur’an was written prior to their existence. He is trying to have it both ways and I’m not buying it. Either one or the other is true not both.

At first the other claims there is no medical advice then latter he contradicts himself by saying:

“Qur'an only mentions one item dealing with medical treatment, and it is not in dispute by anyone. It states that in honey there is healing. And certainly, I do not think that there is anyone who will argue with that!”

First he is arguing that there could not be medical advice in the Qur’an for this that and the other reason, then he provides an example of such advice rendering his whole argument moot.

Besides, what is there to prevent Allah from having medical knowledge that even we don’t know about now in modern times? Why isn’t that in the Qur’an? Why is it that the only information available is about things that were known prior to Mohammed? Why not share that information? Once they had it there could be contradiction with modern medicine. Even primitive treatments compatible with existing technology would not provide a contradiction. They could have for instance been taught germ theory and surgery. Of course MRI scans or X-ray photography would have been out of the question.

Prophet Muhammad (s) and the Qur'an

The author next tries to argue that the Qur’an could not have been from Mohammed’s mind because it would certainly contain things of concern to Mohammed’s personal life. He concludes from this that, it must have been written by Allah. This is a fallacious argument. People write things all the time without referring to their personal problems. I don’t think you will find any mention in the Theory of Relativity of Einstein’s personal life.

Besides the notion that the Qur’an was not concerned with Mohammed is false. I can think of no document more self-interested than one that purportedly comes from a God and tells everyone to listen to you and you alone. Why would a guy pretending to be a spokesperson for a god start whining about personal problems? That would show weakness. Instead I would expect something like this Surah and especially the part in bold.

33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

I knew at the outset of first reading the Qur’an that it was suppose to be authored by Allah. Yet the very first surah contains a prayer addressed to Allah. It speaks in the second person saying 1:5 “Thee (alone) we worship; Thee (alone) we ask for help.” Instances of Allah apparently talking to himself, the many grammatical errors (there are two in Surah 1:5 alone), and the ambiguity in many parts do not point to an omnipotent being as the author. These errors are in the original Arabic, not merely the translation.

Scientific Approach to the Qur'an

Next the author claims that the Qur’an is scientifically falsifiable. He states that this is possible because of this statement in the Qur’an.

“Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.”

This is a clear challenge to the non-Muslim. Basically, it invites him to find a mistake. As a matter of fact, the seriousness and difficulty of the challenge aside, the actual presentation of such a challenge in the first place is not even in human nature and is inconsistent with man's personality. One doesn't take an exam in school after finishing the exam, write a note to the instructor at the end saying, "This exam is perfect. There are no mistakes in it. Find one if you can!". One just doesn't do that. The teacher would not sleep until he found a mistake! And yet this is the way the Qur'an approaches people."

Actually this type of bragging is quite common of dictators. After all anyone disputing them ends up with their head chopped of. A punishment advocated, no mandated, for unbelievers in the Koran.

Nor is this braggadocio unique to Islam among religions. This statement is not so much a claim of falsifiablility than it is of religious inerrancy. Many religions claim their religious texts are inerrant. So this is not as unusual as the author thinks.

Falsification Test

This section expands on the prior and tries to claim that Islam has a falsification test in the surah:

4:82 "Do they not consider the Qur'an? Had it been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."

In this case for this to truly be a falsification test the Islamic believer must be committed to rejecting his religion should it fail the test. If the test fails and the Qur’an is still claimed to be true then the statement is nothing but a idle boast. To be falsifiable requires more than a just a boast. It also requires the commitment to the rules of logic. After all, what good is it to claim you are falsifiable if you do not accept basic notions of logic?

From a scientific point of view it doesn’t matter whether you make a claim of falsifiablility. What matters is if the hypothesis or theory truly is falsifiable and whether you are willing to live with the logical results. If the theory uses ad-hoc methods to avoid living with falsifications then it is still not a scientific theory regardless of whether it appears to be.

I agree the above Surah 4:82 is falsifiable if one is committed to logic but that does not render it true. Every false statement is falsifiable. In this case the boast itself is false. There is much discrepancy in the Qur’an in the form of many absurdities and contradictions rendering it false, and therefore by deduction the Qur’an is false. However, someone not committed to logic can commit two intellectual deceptions to get out of this conclusion. One is to deny that contradictions are truly contradictions and the other to deny that the falsification test was really valid in the first place. I am sure there are other means to twist the logic.

Of course, none of this is really necessary to prove the Qur’an false if we also are required by Islam to accept that it was written by an omnipotent and omniscient being and unaltered by man. All we need do is find one minor error to prove Islam false.

Embryology & Skeptic's Reaction

The author then brings up the issue of embryology in the Qu’ran. His position being that this is somehow proof of its divine origins. This issue has been covered extensively elsewhere and again this was information that was available prior to the authorship of the Qur’an and therefore contemporaneously. The ancients really were not as ill informed as the author expects us to believe. Here the important part of that article:

But don't take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded,
"The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and
Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages"
(B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p.54)
In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.

So the author was wrong. The information was available at the time. Also since the naming of the stages and number is pretty much arbitrary we know the source. It is highly unlikely the same arbitrary choices would be made twice.

I found it interesting that the author of the article I am critiquing had this to say...

“However, because of the high position, respect, and esteem man gives scholars, one naturally assumes that if they research a subject and arrive at a conclusion based on that research, then the conclusion is valid.”

It shows his ignorance of science. This is not how science works. In science, there is an assumption that anyone can make an error. Scientists can and do change their minds.

In this case it appears that Moore has changed his mind. The Saudi’s that funded him got their moneys worth, for sure, since they can use his prior findings based on his ignorance of history, but the scientist now looks foolish or greedy. At the time of his error he was apparently not impressed enough to convert to Islam so apparently, even at the time, he did not assume it was because of divine revelation. If you read the linked article you will also know that in the sixth edition of his book "The developing human" refers the reader to the essay by Basim Musallam that was quoted above. So Moore has retracted his claims.

Geology

The author then moves to Geology without giving a single concrete example. He merely states that the Qur’an is a authority on this subject and tells the reader to look it up himself. This is a not difficult since the Qur’an repeats many of the scientific errors of the bible such as claiming a two-day creation for the earth. This is not the accepted scientific timeframe by an error of over eight orders of magnitude. Not only that but in the Qur’an the earth and heavens are created in backwards order, with earth first then heavens.

The Qur’an states that the earth is “fixed” in 27:61 yet we know it orbits the sun and that the continents move.

Does this sound like valid geology?

“Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting
in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout: We said: O Zul Qarnain! Either punish or show them kindness.” (Al-Kahf: 86)

A muddy spring big enough that the sun could be said to be setting in it is quite a geological feature. Now I could understand this if it were to be taken metaphorically. Perhaps he traveled to the edge of a large swamp. The swamp would have to be large enough that the sun would set on the horizon of it and therefore appear to be setting into it. However if we choose to interpret this metaphorically then why not all the other statements like “smaller than an atom” or “two days” in which case they are no longer science.

I looked up some other apologists claims of geology in the Qur’an. They interpret Surah 52: 6 "And by the sea that is set on fire" as being a reference to mid-oceanic trenches. I find that to be anunreasonable interpretive stretch. I will accept that it is a reference to lava which was well know in the ancient world. Remember that the notion of hell fire and brimstone came from such observations. I just don’t see where they get the notion that it was underwater. It plainly states that it is the sea itself that is on fire, which indicates lava to me. Perhaps the context will give more information. It is in Surah 52, which is titled, “Al-Tur” or “The Mount”. This indicates a volcano and not a sea floor.

I checked further and looking in one of my own Qur’ans. It is not translated there as “fire” but instead as “swell”.

52:6 And by the Ocean filled with Swell;

Another online translation has it as “kept filled”:

52:1 By the Mount,
52:2 And a Scripture inscribed
52:3 On fine parchment unrolled,
52:4 And the House frequented,
52:5 And the roof exalted,
52:6 And the sea kept filled,
52:7 Lo! the doom of thy Lord will surely come to pass;
52:8 There is none that can ward it off.
52:9 On the day when the heaven will heave with (awful) heaving,
52:10 And the mountains move away with (awful) movement,
52:11 Then woe that day unto the deniers Those who deny the existence of hell will be thrust into its Fire.
52:12 Who play in talk of grave matters;
52:13 The day when they are thrust with a (disdainful) thrust, into the fire of hell

With plain reading the purpose of the Surah is not to convey any sort of scientific knowledge of ocean floor expansion and volcanism. The purpose of 52:6 is to fix a location by a mountain. With the purpose of the entire Surah being to warn of the damnation of unbelievers, a topic repetitively repeated throughout the Qur’an.

The only reference to fire here is hell fire. So even if the proper translation of 52:6 was “sea that is set on fire” then it is in the context of a mountain and hell fire spouting from it, which is not surprising. How do you fix the location of a single mountain by saying it is next to underwater volcanic sea trenches that span the globe?

You Did Not Know This Before!

In the final section of part 1 the author attempts to argue the Qur’an provides information and states that it is new information “unknown to the reader”. He tries to paint this in a good light by writing …

Undoubtedly, there is an attitude in the Qur'an which is not found anywhere else. It is interesting how when the Qur'an provides information, it often tells the reader, "You did not know this before." Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which makes that claim. All of the other ancient writings and scriptures that people have do give a lot of information, but they always state where the information came from.
For example, when the Bible discusses ancient history, it states that this king lived here, this one fought in a certain battle, another one had so may sons, etc. Yet it always stipulates that if you want more information, then you should read the book of so and so because that is where the information came from.

This is ridiculous; the author is criticizing other religious texts for good scholarship. For that is exactly what a good scholar does, he documents source. A good scholar references his sources so they can be crosschecked and verified.

As an example of bad scholarship just take a look the above text. He claims, “Indeed, there is no scripture that exists which makes that claim.”. Well where did he get that information from exactly? It would be nice to have a footnote with a list of all these religious texts that do not make the claim to be providing new knowledge.

I don’t buy the premise anyway. The whole purpose of writing something is to provide the reader with something he didn’t know before. Is the New Testament telling us about something that the ancient Egyptians knew about long before Christ? Of course not! It was providing us with new information, the arrival of the messiah. Heck, I occasionally get those door-to-door missionaries asking me “Have you heard the news?” They are claiming to be giving me new information also.

He only gives a single specific example of this new information. He again does not provide the Surah so my critique will have to again make up for poor scholarship. The example he gives is this:

In concurrence with the advice given in the Qur'an to research information (even if it is new), when 'Umar was caliph, he chose a group of men and sent them to find the wall of Dhul-Qarnayn. Before the Qur'anic revelation, the Arabs had never heard of such a wall, but because the Qur'an described it, they were able to discover it. As a matter of fact, it is now located in what is called Durbend in the Soviet Union.

So the Koran mentions some wall. This, on the face of it, is not very impressive scientific knowledge and as I dig deeper it will become less so. A simple interpretation is that somebody heard of a wall and believed that other tribesman had not heard of it. The fact that they found a wall and after the fact claimed it was the wall mentioned does not mean in fact that it was the correct wall. After all why not claim it was the Wall of China? Well I researched this further and the name Dhul-arnayn is interpreted by some to be Alexander the Great. In fact you can look up “Alexanders Wall” and you will see that it is in Durbend so this must be the wall he is discussing. One problem is that most historians do not believe Alexander the Great campaigned in that area.

For arguments sake we can live with such a misidentification of how the wall came to be. So what if Alexander didn’t build it. Allah could tell of a wall that was called by that name. Which would be the truth. We can also be generous and assume the correct wall was found. These assumptions are overly generous since the Quran does say that Alexander was in the area.

But the author claims more than mere historical accuracy. He is claiming this is information original to the Qur’an and not available to the locals.

In contrast to this concept, the Qur'an provides the reader with information and states that this information is something new. Of course, there always exists the advice to research the information provided and verify its authenticity. It is interesting that such a concept was never challenged by non-Muslims fourteen centuries ago.
Indeed, the Makkans who hated the Muslims, and time and time again they heard such revelations claiming to bring new information; yet, they never spoke up and said, "This is not new. We know where Muhammad got this information. We learned this at school." They could never challenge its authenticity because it really was new!

What of it? So what if the Makkans were a bunch of ignoramuses. Perhaps they didn’t even go to school. The author has made a lot of claims here but again he does not back them up with references. A particular person’s or group’s ignorance of some information does not prove that it is new information. I never heard of the wall of Alexander before but that doesn’t mean others have not, nor does it mean the information had divine providence.

So what about the claim that this was new information, that is, information that would indicate a divine source? Well certainly if there were people calling it “The Wall of Alexander” they knew about it. Turns out that the Surah, 18:94-7, that mentions this is doing so in the context of Gog and Magog, a story from the Bible, not exactly a new story. Note that the wall is not mentioned in the bible. Here’s the Surah from the Qur’an…

18:93 Till, when he came between the two mountains, he found upon their hither side a folk that scarce could understand a saying.
18:94 They said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Lo! Gog and Magog are spoiling the land. So may we pay thee tribute on condition that thou set a barrier between us and them ?
18:95 He said: That wherein my Lord hath established me is better (than your tribute). Do but help me with strength (of men), I will set between you and them a bank.
18:96 Give me pieces of iron - till, when he had levelled up (the gap) between the cliffs, he said: Blow! - till, when he had made it a fire, he said: Bring me molten copper to pour thereon.
18:97 And (Gog and Magog) were not able to surmount, nor could they pierce (it).

So is the story of Gog and Magog including the reference to the wall something unknown to peoples of the time and area? Well it turns out that the answer is no. There was a Syrian legend of Alexander circulating seventy years before Mohammed’s birth about Gog and Magog that mentions the wall.

From the Syrian "Christian Legend concerning Alexander" (circa about 500 AD?):
(144) An exploit by Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, showing how he went forth to the ends of the world, and made a gate of iron, and shut it in the face of the north wind, that the Hunaye might not come forth to spoil the countries: from the manuscripts in the house of the archives of the kings of Alexandria.

So the fact is that this is not new information.

Nor did I find a claim in the Koran that this is "new information". The author lies twice.

Science is not merely a few isolated facts about the world. Science is an entire methodology of cataloging information and creating well-tested models of how the world. There are certain assumptions about the world that science makes and certain rules that are followed that are entirely at odds with the whole concept of a revealed religion. As an example, scientists do not chop off the heads of other scientists with opposing views.

Scientists assume that existing beliefs and models may be mistaken because of the inherent fallibility of men. Scientists assume the world behaves in a regular and understandable fashion. Scientists assume that the world is not self-contradictory. These are reasonable assumptions because without them the world would be unknowable. Such assumptions are called a-priori since any honest attempt to gain knowledge has to rely on them.

If men were infallible there would be no controversy about to how to gain knowledge, that there is proves that men are fallible. If the world were not regular then the pursuit of knowledge would be pointless since applying such knowledge would not allow us to act with reasonable expectation that the outcomes of such acts would match our expectations. If the world where self-contradictory then the predictions of outcomes from prior knowledge and actions would also be impossible.

Here are some surahs that I have collected that are incompatible with the sprit of science. They are incompatible because they are not open to the possibility of error in the Islamic belief system, or because they are illogical with regard to an honest intellectual pursuit of knowledge. This is a small sampling and just scratches the surface.

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
2:96 And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and
(greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.
2:99 Verily We have revealed unto thee clear tokens, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.
2:121 Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers.
4:61 And when it is said unto them: Come unto that which Allah hath revealed and unto the messenger, thou seest the hypocrites turn from thee with aversion.
4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them
6:110 We confound their hearts and their eyes. As they believed not
therein at the first, We let them wander blindly on in their contumacy.
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
29:68 Who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie concerning Allah, or denieth the truth when it cometh unto him ? Is not there a home in hell for disbelievers ?
33:1 O Prophet! Keep thy duty to Allah and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
33:61 Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
51:10 Accursed be the conjecturers
59:13 Ye are more awful as a fear in their bosoms than Allah. That is because they are a folk who understand not.
61:9 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse.
98:6 Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and
the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created
beings.

Here they are rephrased as pseudo-unscientific principles.

2:6 Don’t bother telling other scientists about your theories. It is all the same whether you do or don’t. They wouldn’t have believed even if you told them.
2:7 The correct theory itself has made the other scientists prejudiced and blinded them. They will die awfully as they implode into a black hole.
2:96 Jews are greedy, that’s why they don’t believe in proper theories and shouldn’t be scientists at all. Gravity has doomed them. They are being pulled by it.
2:99 My theories are obvious, and only miscreants will disbelieve in them.
2:121 Any scientist who reads my theories properly will believe in them. Any other scientists are losers.
4:61 If you tell people about my theories then the hypocrites will turn away in aversion.
4:89 Other scientist who do not believe in my theories wish that you should too, so that you will be debased to their level. So do not be friends with such scientists till they not only believe but run their lives according to my theories. If after agreeing to my theories they believe they are false then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose neither friend nor lab assistant from among them
6:110 Since they didn’t accept my theories blindly, therefore, the theories themselves have had the effect of addling their brains and blurring their eyesight. My theories will let them wander blindly on in their contemptuous resistance to my authority.
9:5 After the university spring break is over, personally slay the opposing scientists who use pictures of human anatomy, drawings of animals and other drawings and models of organisms. Slay them wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each an ambush in the faculty lounge. But if they repent and establish a university department addressing your theories and pay for your teaching assistants, then leave their
way free. Look at us! We are flexible about our theories.
29:68 There is no greater crime than for another scientist to criticize my theories, or claim they are not true. Are not lecture duties assigned to those who disbelieve my theories?
33:1 Oh myself! Believe my own theories as a duty to myself. I
promise myself not to obey anyone who doesn’t believe my theories.
33:61 Accursed [scientists], they will be seized wherever found, be it the laboratory or out doing field research, and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
51:10 Accursed be the theoretical conjecturers (scientists).
59:13 Other scientists fear me more than they fear my theories. Because … boy are those other scientists stupid!
61:9 The one theory has lead me to all other true theories and sent me to so that I might conquer by violence all of science however much other scientists may not like it.
98:6 Look! Any scientist who doesn’t believe in my theories is end up in the autoclave. They are less than dirty pigs (so what does it matter).

This is certainly not in the spirit of open scientific inquiry. This is hardly surprising since a revealed religion is based on faith. Faith is belief unsupported by evidence, whereas science deals in the opposite.

I have read part 2 and 3 of the article and I find them similarly lacking. Perhaps if I have the time I will review them later.

Yea! My Policemans Helmets are flowering

2005-07-08T16:00:00.000-07:00

Wow! The flowers are so much better than I expected. So far two red plants, one purple, and one pink. Ever since I was a kid I've been trying to start these things and never got them to germinate.

I used to love the native touch-me-nots of upstate NY when I was a kid. The first time I noticed them was because my father had planted store bought impatiens in a planter on our deck. I was intrigued by the swollen stems, which made the plants look like succulent bonsai, and the bright flowers with tiny noses. The petals have embedded beads that act as retro-reflectors of any ambient light to better attract insects in the shade. They were awesome at night when flowers glowed under the back porch lights

So one day I was coming back from a small stream at which I used to play and low and behold there were the same stems on these wild plants. I tracked their progress and was surprised by the little orange goldfish like flowers. The most exciting thing was the seedpods, which explode like little firecrackers when ripe. The slightest touch to a ripe one generates a satisfying pop that scatters seeds to the four corners of the earth. Brushing an undisturbed plant for the first time sets of a fireworks grand finale.

I was reading about these wild impatiens when I learned about another member of this family the Policeman’s Helmet. I found a seed supplier and for three years was unsuccessful at getting them to germinate. The seeds about size of the wild touch-me-not seeds and needed cold stratification and surface sowing which I provided. All they seemed to do is grow mold. I finally gave up around twenty years ago.

This year I decided to try again. I got seeds from two sources. One set of seeds looked just like the ones I had before, but the seeds of the other supplier were large, about eight times as heavy as the others. Then I realized why I was unsuccessful before. The small seeds were all shriveled up and dead. The shriveled seeds grew mold once again but the hefty seeds germinated.

Nice plump seeds. These ones will make wicked projectiles. Did I forget to tell you they have the same exploding seedpods. I can’t wait to prompt some naïve admirer to touch one.

Flag Burning Amendments

2005-06-26T18:45:00.000-07:00

... are a stupid idea. Say no more.

Constitution Taken Off of Life Support Today

2005-06-23T19:15:00.000-07:00

With todays Supreme Court Ruling in the Kelo case the Constitution was officially taken off of life support.

The Constitution originally suffered brain damage in a accident related to the commerce clause, and was declared brain dead after drug seizure rulings. Life support started a short time ago when the lungs stopped of their own accord after a ruling on medical marijuana.

The constitution's pulse stopped with the removal of the heart, private property rights, today June 23, 2005.

It was determined that the body would generate more revenues for the government as body parts, instead of as a restrain on government. No other value was discerned as no treasure map was to be found on the reverse side.

Afterwards Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer sat down to a nice liver dinner including fava beans and a nice chianti. They shared the dinner with local politicians and developers having political connections.

No autopsy is planned and the hollow body is scheduled to be embalmed and put on a display in the tradition of Lenin. When asked about their actions, the attending doctors at the Supreme Court replied, "It was put in this state in order to maintain it as a 'living document'".

It's a Miracle! Virgin Mary Appears in My Fudge!

2005-05-19T19:00:00.000-07:00

Spitting image. Don't tell me it isn't and don't tell me it looks like a smiley face. It's just that she is happy with me indulging myself.

Weaponless Midgets vs.a Lion

2005-05-10T15:32:00.000-07:00

Who would win? I'm betting on the lion. How could anyone think otherwise.

Never Fathomed the Depth of the "Bush = Hitler" phenom

2005-05-10T15:15:00.000-07:00

Here's a gallery of "Bush=Hitler" Allusions. Never realized there were so many.

Race Baiting for Open Borders

2005-04-10T12:14:00.000-07:00

While I was over at No Treason I also spotted a post titled "The Real Reason Some People Want Closed Borders". by John Lopez. Based on the number of comments, I see this is an issue people aren't willing to discuss, lest they be called a racist. Which is a reasonable assumption given poor reasoning that went into this post.

One commenter got the gist of the post.

In my decade of libertarian discussions and debate, I have yet to hear an anti-immigrant position that at it's essence in principles did not boil down to "I just don't like those brown-skinned other people"

Although this commenter goes a little further than claiming it is only "some people".

John's post starts with a picture of some illegal immigrants who beat a team of MIT students for an engineering prize. He then writes:

Let that sink in for a minute.

I wasn't surprised so it left me wondering what I was suppose to let sink in. It's no surprise to me that a U.S. high school team might beat MIT. I've heard of this kind of thing before.

It certainly would have been more surprising had I believed that illegal immigrants were not are allowed to go to taxpayer funded schools. After all then they would have had to pay for their own education. That would be hard to do on an illegal off the books salary. So I don't think we are to be surprised that they got a good education because they were here illegally. Since most people know that doesn't preclude one from getting a free US education.

That leaves me with one thing. We were suppose to be surprised because they were "brown skinned". That leads me however to wonder exactly what racial makeup John expects us to assume on the part of the MIT team. Here I was assuming that team had perhaps a Chinese and East Indian or two. Is he some sort of racist that assumes MIT is all white?

I’ve given enough of the background so now on to my point. This post wasn't about me. Johns post was mainly a hack job on one Ira Mehlman. I found it hard to believe that a guy named Ira Mehlman would be concerned about immigration for solely racist reasons given historical facts about Jews, or for the fear of an inability of Jews to compete academically with Hispanics. I did look it up, and Ira is a Jew, or at least he is a co-founder of an organization titled "American Jewish Immigration Policy Institute".
So not finding this Johns post credible I decided to find out Mehlman's real reasons were. Was he against immigration for the same reasons as say a Chuck Pearson. Someone who, by the way, has a problem with Ira.

You can't read a news story like "Mexican Official Wants Border Eliminated" without running straight into a Jew. "'It is clear that their objective is to affect the domestic policies of the U.S.' said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform" -- thus proving once more Pearson's Law. "Any organization that is not explicitly anti-Semitic ends up being run by Jews." Surprise!

I doubt it. This guys so dumb he didn't even recognize that Ira was arguing against a fully open border with Mexico. Ira seems smarter than that.

One of the first things I wondered about is how Mehlman got pulled into this MIT article. He wasn't mentioned at either of the links provided by John. The way John made his post it seemed like Ira couldn't help but speak up about the winning of this award. Is Ira against private organizations awarding prizes to illegals? I don't think so. I found the original article at Wired here. They made the connection but with a lot of intervening text that John removed. Ira's quote wasn't about the prize. It really only pertained to taxpayer money going to illegals.

Next I wondered why John felt justified in saying this was Ira's "real" reason for wanting closed borders. In the colloquial the "real reason" is a sole hidden agenda. Was it true that Ira was hiding something and that it was the sole reason he was for closed borders? Well, firstly the reason isn't hidden. He states it plain and clear. Furthermore, he has lots of other reasons, it's just that John didn't feel the need to mention them, or perhaps even to look them up. Reasons like a quite justified fear of muslim immigration, a perhaps ill informed concern about unskilled labor, concerns with overpopulation, infrastructure and tax burden, also concerns about fairness on the issue of the educations grants from the state.

Well so far John has lead me astray on most of these facts, so I began to wonder if Mehlman was even wants closed borders as the title states. Again, I have been mislead. Turns out Ira is all for immigration as one would expect given his heritage. It's just that he wants it done legally. The opposite of an open borders position is not closed borders after all.

Of course, maybe I got John all wrong, and he was moralizing about some other point besides racism. If it truly was about education grants then why didn't he balance his article and complain about foreign countries not allowing US citizens access to their programs? Then an Ira Mehlman could win one of those lucrative oil revenue supported grants from say Saudi Arabia. That would be a laugh if Jews won all the grants from Saudi Arabia.

Reverse Equivocation

2005-04-10T09:20:00.000-07:00

I was over at No Treason reading a post by John Sabatta titled Jon Henke Sucks Ass. I followed the link over to Billy Beck to see what the fuss was about. Turns out it is about this quote from Henke:

"Here's the thing: maybe you know some way to engage in politics without compromising, but I don't. Actually, that's not quite true. There have been a few people who've done well without much in the way of compromise: Genghis Khan comes to mind. Stalin. Mao."

Beck took an alternate meaning of "politics" than intended and found the statement offensive.

And I actually have people asking me why I say this person is a "punk". We're talking about someone who will actually compare people who will not stoop to electoral politics with all the worst murderers in history.

Henke defends himself in the first comment at No Treason.

Look, I'm not particularly concerned with the apolitical stance you guys take. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.

But what Billy wrote is a lie. Perhaps he knows better and perhaps not, but if there's a shred of intellectual honesty among you, somebody will observe that I could NOT have been comparing Billy Beck, or any of you, to the aforementioned murderers. I explicitly stated that you have to be a ruthless totalitarian to be able to participate in politics without making compromises. In politics, you can either negotiate with your opponent, or kill him.

Billy Beck, et al, do NOT participate in politics. What's more, in that same post, I wrote of political conscientious objectors like yourselves: "I accept that. I even admire it".

On the narrow subject of what Jon Henke meant by "politics" in his Ghenghis Khan quote, I think Henke wins this fight and Beck loses. Billy Beck did misunderstand him, and uses his own personal equivocation to make his deduction. He equivocates on the meaning of "politics" in order to turn Henke's statement into a vile comparison. That form of reverse equivocation is no more than a straw man argument. You have to get the oppositions argument correct before you can refute it.

Was Beck wrong in his interpretation of Henke? Was he being reasonable? Let's see.

There is a longstanding tradition in Libertarianism to talk about "the political means" to refer to the use of force to impose ones will on others. In fact many "pure libertarians" refuse to join the LP precisely because they are "political parties". Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that Henke was using a definition similar to this when talking about libertarians and libertarianism? Especially, after Henke makes it clear? I think so.

This opinion is not shared by Beck. Even after being corrected by Henke he goes on to comment.

You're wrong, Henke. You don't know what you're talking about, and this episode is emblematic of your problem, which is mainly that you're simply ignorant.
I did not lie about anything, I made no mistake of understanding or anything else. The fact is that you have no idea what you wrote means. And the fact that you're such an ignoramus is what brought you to this strait. You're a strutting fool, with far more attitude than you're worth.

This is one incredibly beautiful example of screwy logic. He's claiming here that Henke doesn't know what he himself meant. Furthermorw, he is acting as if there is only one possible definition of the word "political". Is he merely calling Henke ignorant for using a different meaning of the word than the one he wishes to impute? No, he is going further than that. He's claiming there is only one possible definition and that Henke is an ignoramous for not knowing this.

Perhaps Beck is ignorant of the fact that the word "politics" has multiple definitions?

Lets look at the American Heritage entry for the word politics:

1. (used with a sing. verb) a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. b. Political science. 2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) a. The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: “All politics is local” (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.). “Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night” (Jeffrey Archer). b. The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government: The politics of the former regime were rejected by the new government leadership. If the politics of the conservative government now borders on the repressive, what can be expected when the economy falters? 3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political life: studied law with a view to going into politics; felt that politics was a worthwhile career. 4. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Intrigue or maneuvering within a political unit or group in order to gain control or power: Partisan politics is often an obstruction to good government. Office politics are often debilitating and counterproductive. 5. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) Political attitudes and positions: His politics on that issue is his own business. Your politics are clearly more liberal than mine. 6. (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The often internally conflicting interrelationships among people in a society.

Beck is claiming that he meant version five. That isn't reasonable in light of the original context, the liberarian view of politics, and further in light of the fact that he was corrected by Henke in his comment as stated here.

So tell me, how exactly did I compare NON-participants to murderers? And how do you reconcile my *admiration* of principled non-participation with Billy's claim that I compared principled non-participation to murderers?

You can't. You simply can't. I informed Billy of his misapprehension. He blew it off. Now you know. If you can reconcile the clear meaning I gave with the fucked up, ass-backwards intent Billy infered, by all means, be my guest. But I think that, whatever your opinion of my political stance, you have both gotten this one badly wrong.

You don't owe me an apology. You don't owe me shit. But you owe it to yourself not to spread such a poor misunderstanding.

Was what Billy Beck wrote “a lie” as Henke claims. Well that depends on whether Beck knew the meaning that was intended at the time, doesn't it. If he knew then it was a lie. If not then perhaps it was just some form of reverse equivocation. A logical fallacy, sure, but not a lie. This leaves Beck in a quandary. Does he claim ignorance, or a poor grasp of logic?

Now personally I thought the meaning was clear from the context, so unless there is something strange about Beck's thought processes here. I don’t see how he could not know what Henke meant. Did he commit a fallacy, was he lying, or was this due to some other reason known only to him? I'm not going to fall into the trap Beck did however. I leave it up to Beck to tell us.

I do however form opinions and at this time my opinion is that Beck doesn't argue fairly, or with any sort of logical rigour. It is very hard to argue with someone who puts words in your mouth. You end up spending all your time defending your character and never on the point at hand. At some point Henke is just going to have to ignore him. My opinion will change the minute Beck apologizes to Henke. That, however, is going to be a tough pill to swallow after calling Henke a "punk".

Retribution

2005-03-19T08:16:00.000-08:00

Mark Kleiman has a good post on retribution. It changed the mind of a least one blogger, Eugene Volokh. I'd like to commend Eugene on admitting he was wrong on this issue.

Eugene was arguing for retribution and Mark argued against it. Now that is not entirely true since Mark did make some good points on why things considered retribution by some should be allowed.

On reflection, I'm not sure "retribution" is really the most helpful term to use, because it conflates three related but distinct ideas.

One is that the suffering of the person punished is a good in itself, because he deserves to be punished. That's a view with which I disagree, though I'm a little surprised that none of the bloggers denouncing it as "barbaric" or "medieval" has bothered to notice that it was the view, for example, of Kant, the beacon of the Enlightenment. (Kant goes so far as to say that the criminal is "owed" his punishment, and that withholding it is an injury to the criminal.) Let's call that view "just deserts."

A second idea that goes by the name of "retribution" is that the punishment of the offender is in the interest of the victim, the victim's family and friends, and those who share characteristics with the victim. If you regard the satisfaction of someone's preferences as being in that person's interest, then this version of the retributive idea -- call it "vindication," as opposed to "just deserts" -- is obviously true. Most, though not all, victims and their intimates want the perpetrator punished, and punished severely. How much weight the satisfaction of that preference deserves in policy-making is a different question, but that vindictive punishment benefits the victim in this limited sense it would be hard to deny.

But vindication also serves the victim's interest in a more material sense: being the victim of a crime is a blow to self-esteem and a source of the loss of social standing, and the punishment of the perpetrator helps reverse those losses, with more severe punishment being more effective in that regard.

It's not hard to see why that should be true. As a matter of sociological fact it is safer to aggress against lower-status people, and riskier to aggress against higher-status people; that's part of what status means. Donald Black has documented what seems to be a universal rule that the severity of punishment tends to rise with the status of the victim. So victimizing someone signals to that person, and to others, that the victim is someone who can safely be picked on.

If the victim, or his kin, or the state, inflicts damage on the perpetrator, that demonstrates that the victim was not in fact someone who could be picked on, and the more severe punishment the more effective the demonstration. That tends to make the victim feel better about himself, and to increase the esteem in which the victim is held by his community. (The fact-value distinction, however valid philosophically, has little weight psychologically: that the perpetrator isn't punished, or isn't punished much, suggests that he didn't deserve much punishment.) Severe punishment might also make that victim, and similar victims, less attractive targets for future victimization. That's not the same as general deterrence, because it's specific to the victim or victim class, though obviously the phenomena are related.

A third meaning of "retribution" is that punishment serves an expressive purpose as well as more immediately practical ones. Punishment announces the judgment of the community about the wrongfulness of the act, and the extent of that wrongfulness.

I think these are important distinctions that are often lost on people who are anti-retribution.