Having just come across the following article, I find myself again asking questions along the lines of, "How stupid have we become?!"
The article: Sleepy teens could mount legal challenges against morning exams
If you can't be bothered to read it, the article essenitally says that 'experts have discovered' that teenage boys are not at their most alert at 9am, and therefore they could claim that they are being discriminated against for having to sit such a 'potentially life-changing test' at such an unreasonable time.
Now, the way I understand it, in the world of work you get told what time to be at work and when you will be working until. It would be ridiculous for a shop manager to annouce, "Tomorrow, we'll be opening at 11am, to make sure the younger members of staff are able to cope properly."
Thinking a little more about the wider picture...
- The average modern teenage boy spends a lot of time playing computer games.
- Spending time in front of 'screens' just before bed makes sleeping more difficult.
- The online community for computer gaming is at its peak at 9pm-1am.
- Many teenagers do not go to bed as early as they should.
- As people grow up, they become less attached to computer games.
- As people grow up, their priorities change due to having a job and making sure they are not tired for the morning work.
Perhaps, if teenagers saw their school life as an opportunity to get into a good routine which would greatly benefit them for adult working life, then 9am lessons, lectures and exams wouldn't be a problem.
Perhaps, the reason adults can better cope with those early mornings is because they can prioritise better.
Perhaps, 'rights of the child' has gone too far and some good discipline is needed: discipline to get oneself to bed at a sensible time so as to be able to get oneself out of bed at a suitable time the next morning.
Responsibilities need to come before rights.
'Experts' need to learn to take the wider picture into consideration before making their conclusions.
Parents need to take seriously their responsibility to properly parent their children (late nights and hours on computer games is not good).
UK policy makers need to get a grip on what things need to be enforced on teenagers to prepare them for adult life, rather than trying to make those school years more comfortable by pandering to the pathetically selfish wants of teenagers.
If I was told that in order to get the job I really desired, I would have to sit an exam at 3am, then I would do everything possible to make sure I was ready for it.
Let's take this a step further. Responsible people need to be ready for anything:
- If your house is on fire at 3am, you don't wait until 8am to put it out.
- Hospitals are open all hours in case of emergencies, and you would expect the staff to be fully alert if you were in a state of medical emergency.
- In the army, recruits don't expect wars to be fought only in the afternoons.
- The police don't close up for the night at 10pm because they feel a little tired and won't be at their best.
In the words of Andrew Wommack, "How dumb can you get and still breathe?!"
Saturday 12 December 2015
Friday 11 December 2015
I recently overheard someone letting off a bit of steam regarding their inability to do maths.
The part I heard went like this: "Humans aren't naturally good at maths. I mean, that's why we built computers. We get the computers to do the maths because we're just not naturally good at it."
I had to chuckle to myself as I walked on past. They obviously struggled with maths at school (like many people) and wanted to justify their inadequacy.
Here's why they're wrong:
Humans invented the computer (and the calculator). A computer/calculator is simply a machine that takes the inputs (the buttons you press) and gives you an output (the answer on the display). The actual process of converting the inputs to outputs requires programming. It involves compex algorithms which must be set up by... a human.
These algorithms will work for every input. It's not that the calculator somehow 'knows the answer,' but go through a process to reach the solution shown. For example, I have a few algorithms which help me multiply numbers together. I do not know the answer to every possible multiplication problem, but with pen and paper I could (if I so desired) figure out the answer. With time, I can use algorithms and other methods to figure out square roots of awkward numbers, and I could even develop methods to calculate the value of pi to however many decimal places.
But a computer can do it faster! This is the only benefit to using a computer/calculator. The human brain is capable of performing every operation that a calculator can do, but (in general) the calculator will be faster.
However, we do need a human brain to interpret the answer that is given by a computer. We need to use a 'test of reasonableness' to make sure the answer is in the region we expect. If I input 5x6 and get an answer of 300, I'd need to double-check I entered the inputs correctly. However, those people who struggle with maths often expect a calculator to always give them the correct answer, attempting to relieve themselves of the responsibility to check the resonableness of the answer they get.
In short, using a calculator still requires more than just the ability to punch numbers in. You still need a logical brain, or you end up with (more) problems!
To conclude, a computer will only ever have mathematical talent as good as the person who programmed it... it's just that the computer will do it faster. Mathematics helps you to develop logical reasoning. It seems that the person who said the quote above struggled with maths, and it shows through their lack of logical reasoning in their statement!
The part I heard went like this: "Humans aren't naturally good at maths. I mean, that's why we built computers. We get the computers to do the maths because we're just not naturally good at it."
I had to chuckle to myself as I walked on past. They obviously struggled with maths at school (like many people) and wanted to justify their inadequacy.
Here's why they're wrong:
Humans invented the computer (and the calculator). A computer/calculator is simply a machine that takes the inputs (the buttons you press) and gives you an output (the answer on the display). The actual process of converting the inputs to outputs requires programming. It involves compex algorithms which must be set up by... a human.
These algorithms will work for every input. It's not that the calculator somehow 'knows the answer,' but go through a process to reach the solution shown. For example, I have a few algorithms which help me multiply numbers together. I do not know the answer to every possible multiplication problem, but with pen and paper I could (if I so desired) figure out the answer. With time, I can use algorithms and other methods to figure out square roots of awkward numbers, and I could even develop methods to calculate the value of pi to however many decimal places.
But a computer can do it faster! This is the only benefit to using a computer/calculator. The human brain is capable of performing every operation that a calculator can do, but (in general) the calculator will be faster.
However, we do need a human brain to interpret the answer that is given by a computer. We need to use a 'test of reasonableness' to make sure the answer is in the region we expect. If I input 5x6 and get an answer of 300, I'd need to double-check I entered the inputs correctly. However, those people who struggle with maths often expect a calculator to always give them the correct answer, attempting to relieve themselves of the responsibility to check the resonableness of the answer they get.
In short, using a calculator still requires more than just the ability to punch numbers in. You still need a logical brain, or you end up with (more) problems!
To conclude, a computer will only ever have mathematical talent as good as the person who programmed it... it's just that the computer will do it faster. Mathematics helps you to develop logical reasoning. It seems that the person who said the quote above struggled with maths, and it shows through their lack of logical reasoning in their statement!
Thursday 10 December 2015
Tuesday 8 December 2015
Where to live?
Regarding the recent flooding in Cumbria, the question is again brought to my mind: how do we understand our 'right' to live where we want?
In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?
So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?
If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?
Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.
At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?
The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.
In UK, we have quite variable weather: hot and humid summers, cold and frozen winters, lots of rain... and of course the floods at times. Those of us who have lived in UK for a long time should surely be aware of such things?
So when it comes to looking for a house to move into, surely a flood plain is not the most logical choice? Sure, to some extent, we don't expect rivers to rise above those high water marks, but the possibility is always there. Why do people get angry at the government and councils for 'not providing adequate flood defences' when they have chosen to live in such a place?
If I chose to live at the base of an active volcano, do I have a right to be angry at the government if the volcano erupts and I lose my house?
Personally, I just don't understand it. I wouldn't choose to live in a valley, or on a volcano, or on a fault line with frequent earthquakes. I wouldn't want to live too close to a train track because of the noise. I wouldn't want to live too close to sewage works because of the smell. I wouldn't want to live too far in the country because of the travel expenses to get into town, to work or to do the shopping.
At what point do people say, "Oh, but I want to live in a nice (picturesque) place!" and then feel they have a right to moan and complain because of a natural consequence? Shouldn't practicality come first?
The only people who could be justified are those living in a designated council house which happens to be on a flood plain. Those people don't have a choice and yes, in that situation, the council should know better.
Sunday 6 December 2015
UK's recent decision to bomb Syria...
Despite the UK's laws regarding tolerance, anti-racism and so on, could the government's recent decision to bomb Syria be considered 'ethnic cleansing'?
It's a group of people, originating from a different country, with a different culture and a different set of values and beliefs. The majority of people in UK disagree with their values and beliefs (I also believe we should protect human life rather than destroy it) and yet members of our government believe that the destruction of such a group of people is part of their "moral and practical duty" (i newspaper, 3rd December 2015, page 4).
Schoolyard fights are vengeful:
- "Billy took my sandwich, so I'll take his lunchbox."
- "George took my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy took my bag, so I'm gonna punch him."
- "George punched me, so I'm gonna give him a black eye."
- "Billy gave me a black eye, so I'm taking this knife and we'll see what happens!"
Most of us can see how things escalate when we always try to get 'one-up' on the other person. But I find it ironic how, in the adult world, it's gets even more childish:
- "Billy said he'd take my sandwich, so tomorrow I'll get his lunchbox."
- "George says he's gonna take my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy says he's gonna get my bag, so I'll punch him to teach him a lesson."
- "George is gonna punch me, so I'll give him a black eye before he does it."
- "I'm taking this knife to school, just in case Billy even thinks about giving me a black eye!"
I'm not saying any choice is easy. In UK, government laws and policies have got us to a point where (on the surface, at least) we are tolerant of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. And now the government has condoned an action which is intended to destroy a group who are ehnically and religiously different.
The reality is that essentially we all have intolerance towards people who hold different beliefs to us. Atheists believe Christians (and other religious people) are uneducated; Christians believe atheists need to open their mind to the existence and experience of God; agnostics believe both sides are fools because there's not enough evidence either way; certain Muslim extremists believe any non-Muslim should be killed; Jews believe that accepting Jesus as the Son of God is a step too far; Mormons believe that even Christians need to open their minds to the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith.
But intolerance isn't just limited to religious examples: some people are intolerant of those who use animals for medical testing (before the medicine is tested on humans) to the point where they will vandalise such clinics; some people are intolerant of those who believe climate change is a natural process and not human-induced; some people are intolerant of those who believe that natural relationships should be between two people of opposite sexes.
Let's face it, if we think that another person has a respectable belief, then we'd be foolish not to believe it also. If, however, we choose not to believe as someone else, we either accept that we are foolish for not believing it, or we believe them to be foolish for believing it.
Hence, under the surface, logical people are intolerant, and illogical people are just ignorant.
So, to solve this whole mess, UK's government could simply apologise for forcing the notion of 'tolerance' on their citizens and keep and enforce a standard of British laws that they don't alter, claiming it as 'British culture'. Then, if anyone disagrees, or takes action against those laws, their moral position is clear and the consequences are clear. Although people may disagree with the action, hypocrisy is eradicated.
Now, that was a tangent! Back to the topic of this: with the decision to bomb Syria, UK's government have effectively pinned their colours to the mast that there is a line, that tolerance only goes so far. They have also shown that they will go as far as attacking another country to eradicate those beliefs they find offensive. How do they reconcile that decision with their 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' society they hope to uphold?
It's a group of people, originating from a different country, with a different culture and a different set of values and beliefs. The majority of people in UK disagree with their values and beliefs (I also believe we should protect human life rather than destroy it) and yet members of our government believe that the destruction of such a group of people is part of their "moral and practical duty" (i newspaper, 3rd December 2015, page 4).
Schoolyard fights are vengeful:
- "Billy took my sandwich, so I'll take his lunchbox."
- "George took my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy took my bag, so I'm gonna punch him."
- "George punched me, so I'm gonna give him a black eye."
- "Billy gave me a black eye, so I'm taking this knife and we'll see what happens!"
Most of us can see how things escalate when we always try to get 'one-up' on the other person. But I find it ironic how, in the adult world, it's gets even more childish:
- "Billy said he'd take my sandwich, so tomorrow I'll get his lunchbox."
- "George says he's gonna take my lunchbox, so I'll take his bag."
- "Billy says he's gonna get my bag, so I'll punch him to teach him a lesson."
- "George is gonna punch me, so I'll give him a black eye before he does it."
- "I'm taking this knife to school, just in case Billy even thinks about giving me a black eye!"
I'm not saying any choice is easy. In UK, government laws and policies have got us to a point where (on the surface, at least) we are tolerant of people from different ethnic and religious backgrounds. And now the government has condoned an action which is intended to destroy a group who are ehnically and religiously different.
The reality is that essentially we all have intolerance towards people who hold different beliefs to us. Atheists believe Christians (and other religious people) are uneducated; Christians believe atheists need to open their mind to the existence and experience of God; agnostics believe both sides are fools because there's not enough evidence either way; certain Muslim extremists believe any non-Muslim should be killed; Jews believe that accepting Jesus as the Son of God is a step too far; Mormons believe that even Christians need to open their minds to the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith.
But intolerance isn't just limited to religious examples: some people are intolerant of those who use animals for medical testing (before the medicine is tested on humans) to the point where they will vandalise such clinics; some people are intolerant of those who believe climate change is a natural process and not human-induced; some people are intolerant of those who believe that natural relationships should be between two people of opposite sexes.
Let's face it, if we think that another person has a respectable belief, then we'd be foolish not to believe it also. If, however, we choose not to believe as someone else, we either accept that we are foolish for not believing it, or we believe them to be foolish for believing it.
Hence, under the surface, logical people are intolerant, and illogical people are just ignorant.
So, to solve this whole mess, UK's government could simply apologise for forcing the notion of 'tolerance' on their citizens and keep and enforce a standard of British laws that they don't alter, claiming it as 'British culture'. Then, if anyone disagrees, or takes action against those laws, their moral position is clear and the consequences are clear. Although people may disagree with the action, hypocrisy is eradicated.
Now, that was a tangent! Back to the topic of this: with the decision to bomb Syria, UK's government have effectively pinned their colours to the mast that there is a line, that tolerance only goes so far. They have also shown that they will go as far as attacking another country to eradicate those beliefs they find offensive. How do they reconcile that decision with their 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' society they hope to uphold?
Saturday 28 November 2015
I had this saved on my computer and just read it again:
This one will make you think.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "we reap what we sow."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God, and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
This one will make you think.
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives. And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"
In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.
Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbour as yourself. And we said OK.
Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.
Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.
Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "we reap what we sow."
Funny how simple it is for people to trash God, and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.
Sunday 22 November 2015
Does atheism require faith?
Today's thought comes from a recent conversation regarding atheism.
Many times I have heard it said that atheist is the absence of belief: that all religions require a belief in something (God, Allah, Enlightenment, etc), but atheism is the absence of such beliefs.
But my thinking is that atheism is, in actual fact, a belief system: it is the belief that there is no God.
Putting forward this proposal spawned a flurry of comments from my friend, trying to convince me that atheism is certainly not a belief system and cannot be likened to other religions.
Two things come from this:
Firstly, that belief in the non-existence of God tends to carry with it a belief in the non-existence of anything supernatural. The follow-on is that the only things "rational" people believe in are the things confirmed by science. And this pathway leads to the belief system that science, despite not yet having all the answers (it is forever a work-in-progress), will ultimately be able to explain all of the intricacies of the universe. This is also in spite of the fact that science (currently?) only works with the physical nature of the universe, not the supernatural aspect that is a major part of most religions.
So, it seems as though atheists have a faith in science. Despite knowing that science does not have all the answers (as yet), I have currently not found an athiest willing to engage in such philosophical debates who does not refer back to science to back up their own beliefs.
Secondly, the recent conversation with my friend turned rather quickly to concern that a person could possibly entertain the thought of a supernatural force operating in the universe. A striking resemblance to people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that people holding a faith in God are deluded. The problem with this line of thought is that it is highly intolerant of religious people. The claim that a person "of no religion" is the most able to be objective becomes a farce: their own belief system becomes a driving force of religious intolerance.
To sum up, it seems to me that atheism not only requires a belief in the non-existence of God, but also in the infallibility of scientific theory and testing (despite the ever-changing nature of science, which currently does not hold all the answers). Atheism also causes a large amount of intolerance to people who do not share the same belief system.
Therefore: atheism seems to require faith, and it seems to carry with it some similarities to religious extremism.
Note: By stating that science does not hold all the answers, there is no implication that any particular religion does hold all the answers.
Many times I have heard it said that atheist is the absence of belief: that all religions require a belief in something (God, Allah, Enlightenment, etc), but atheism is the absence of such beliefs.
But my thinking is that atheism is, in actual fact, a belief system: it is the belief that there is no God.
Putting forward this proposal spawned a flurry of comments from my friend, trying to convince me that atheism is certainly not a belief system and cannot be likened to other religions.
Two things come from this:
Firstly, that belief in the non-existence of God tends to carry with it a belief in the non-existence of anything supernatural. The follow-on is that the only things "rational" people believe in are the things confirmed by science. And this pathway leads to the belief system that science, despite not yet having all the answers (it is forever a work-in-progress), will ultimately be able to explain all of the intricacies of the universe. This is also in spite of the fact that science (currently?) only works with the physical nature of the universe, not the supernatural aspect that is a major part of most religions.
So, it seems as though atheists have a faith in science. Despite knowing that science does not have all the answers (as yet), I have currently not found an athiest willing to engage in such philosophical debates who does not refer back to science to back up their own beliefs.
Secondly, the recent conversation with my friend turned rather quickly to concern that a person could possibly entertain the thought of a supernatural force operating in the universe. A striking resemblance to people such as Richard Dawkins who believe that people holding a faith in God are deluded. The problem with this line of thought is that it is highly intolerant of religious people. The claim that a person "of no religion" is the most able to be objective becomes a farce: their own belief system becomes a driving force of religious intolerance.
To sum up, it seems to me that atheism not only requires a belief in the non-existence of God, but also in the infallibility of scientific theory and testing (despite the ever-changing nature of science, which currently does not hold all the answers). Atheism also causes a large amount of intolerance to people who do not share the same belief system.
Therefore: atheism seems to require faith, and it seems to carry with it some similarities to religious extremism.
Note: By stating that science does not hold all the answers, there is no implication that any particular religion does hold all the answers.
Saturday 17 October 2015
The term 'Islamist'
Having just read an article about someone who was "speaking out against Islam and Islamism," I realise that I have heard the terms 'Islamist' and 'Islamism' quite a bit recently.
This is causing me a bit of confusion... not from a religious standpoint, but from a grammatical view.
I'm assuming that an 'Islamist' is a person who follows Islam. And I'm also assuming that 'Islamism' is the term given to the set of beliefs that 'Islamists' follow. Please, if I am wrong in these assumptions, can somebody correct me!!
Because...
I thought that a person who follows Islam is called a Muslim. And I also thought that the term given to the set of beliefs that Muslims follow is just Islam. In other words:
Islamist = Muslim
Islamism = Islam
In summary, why on earth are there two extra words being used when the English language already has the words to describe those things?!?!
EDIT:
I have recently found that the term 'Islamist' effectively refers to Muslim extremist and 'Islamism' to the set of beliefs of such extremism. This is to differentiate between those who use Islam to practise terrorism (or use terrorism to practise Islam?) and the amicable Muslims who simply practise their faith in a non-destructive way... according to my current understanding!
This is causing me a bit of confusion... not from a religious standpoint, but from a grammatical view.
I'm assuming that an 'Islamist' is a person who follows Islam. And I'm also assuming that 'Islamism' is the term given to the set of beliefs that 'Islamists' follow. Please, if I am wrong in these assumptions, can somebody correct me!!
Because...
I thought that a person who follows Islam is called a Muslim. And I also thought that the term given to the set of beliefs that Muslims follow is just Islam. In other words:
Islamist = Muslim
Islamism = Islam
In summary, why on earth are there two extra words being used when the English language already has the words to describe those things?!?!
EDIT:
I have recently found that the term 'Islamist' effectively refers to Muslim extremist and 'Islamism' to the set of beliefs of such extremism. This is to differentiate between those who use Islam to practise terrorism (or use terrorism to practise Islam?) and the amicable Muslims who simply practise their faith in a non-destructive way... according to my current understanding!
Monday 13 July 2015
Brainwashing and Extremism
The term ‘brainwashing’ gets thrown around a lot, especially when it comes to dealing with terrorism, extremism and general intolerance. It even gets thrown around when someone just doesn’t agree with your point of view. But how can we define it?
My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.
There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.
But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.
The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?
UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.
The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.
UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.
People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.
The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.
So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.
It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.
So, who is the extremist?
My current line of thinking points towards a definition such as, “forcing a person to commit to a set of beliefs or principles which they may not choose to follow if they were given free choice.” In my mind, there is an element of it not being of the person’s freewill (one dictionary defines it as “to cause one to alter their beliefs” but I do not feel this is strong enough). Most definitions even suggest the involvement of torture.
There are some dangers here. People believe all sorts of things of their own free will, and yet it is all too easy to just throw the ‘brainwashed’ label at them. This is often said about religion. Just because someone has decided to commit themselves to a particular set of beliefs and principles, it does not mean they were forced into it.
But also, look at it from another perspective: the education system. When a parent sends their child to school, they are allowing the government to educate the child into a particular way of thinking. If a parent does not wish this for their child – opting for home-schooling – then there are various checks to make sure that the required governmental standards are being met. Education in the UK is compulsory, and it is government controlled. Every child is essentially ‘brainwashed’ into UK society.
The irony here is that if a person chooses not to conform to the standards of the society, then they are labelled with ‘brainwashing’, ‘extremism’ and even ‘terrorism.’ But what makes the standards of society correct?
UK is a place where people supposedly have various ‘freedoms.’ And yet there are restrictions. We are free to study – as long as it is not to study bomb-making. We are free to speak – but this gets restricted when it comes to various topics.
The other problem is that the laws change. Someone who upheld the law 25 years ago might be branded a criminal now, should they wish to continue upholding those laws. Just because a particular point of view might be ‘outdated’ in the eyes of society, that – by itself – does not make that point of view incorrect.
UK also aims to be a ‘tolerant’ society: a place where we allow people to follow their own religion and beliefs. And yet, if a person uses their ‘free speech’ to say that they think a particular action is wrong, they are easily branded ‘intolerant’, possibly an ‘extremist’ and the phrases ‘brainwashed’ and ‘the grass-roots of terrorism’ will probably not be too far behind.
People use examples from the past of how religion (often Christianity) held back the advances of science because it could be seen to contradict the religious traditions. However, UK society is now at a point where the pursuit of science has led to the ridicule of people who follow religions. Where religion once used to be ‘intolerant’ of science, science (and so-called ‘free-thinkers’) has now become quite intolerant of religion.
The problem is that society is ultimately brainwashed. It could be argued that a free society is one where people can be educated if they want to. Everything could be done on the basis of if you want to. However, that is also a brainwashed society: the dominant ideology being that this ‘freedom’ leads to a better community. But, due to parental responsibility, any education will be built upon the parents ideology. This can actually be seen in society today: a parent who has contempt for their education may well bring up a child to also have contempt for education.
So, I do not really think that we can avoid brainwashing, but what we can avoid is using the word as a way of demeaning (or bullying or harassing) people who thoughtfully disagree with us. And we certainly need to avoid labelling people as ‘extremists’ because they do not see our point of view.
It seems to me that the next ‘religious war’ has already been started by the atheists with their intolerance to people who believe in higher powers. The irony here is that as things escalate, the accusation is thrown at the religious people for their intolerance and reluctance to change their point of view.
So, who is the extremist?
Thursday 25 June 2015
Carbon Dating
Carbon dating was invented in the late 1940s (from the end
of the second World War), and so it is only about 70 years old.
It relies on carbon-14 isotopes. To understand this naming:
the common carbon-12 isotope has 12 nucleons:
6 protons, 6 neutrons; whereas the carbon-14 isotope has 14 nucleons: 6
protons, 8 neutrons. (An isotope is a different form of an element, having the
same number of protons and electrons, but with differing numbers of neutrons)
Carbon-14 is unstable, and decays radioactively through beta
decay. Scientists say that carbon-14 is constantly produced (cosmic rays (rays
from the sun) collide with atoms to produce an energetic (fast-moving) neutron,
which collides with a nitrogen-14 atom, producing carbon-14 and a proton), and
has reached an equilibrium state where the percentage of carbon-14 atoms in all
the carbon atoms is now a constant value.
Scientists say there is one carbon-14 atom in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
This would give the percentage of carbon-14 compared with
normal carbon-12 as:
0.00000000001% (US trillion (1 with 12 0s)) or,
0.00000000000000001% (UK trillion (1 with 18 0s)).
Scientists say that carbon-14 has a half-life (the time it takes for half of the atoms in a given space
to decay) of ‘about’ 5,700 years. This means that the process has been around
for 1.23% of one half-life (the
process being around for about 70 years).
Scientists say that the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to
carbon-12 atoms is constant in all living things (and in the air), and that
when a living organism dies, the carbon-14 stops being produced. Therefore, by
knowing the half-life of carbon-14 decay, the age of the remains of the living
thing can be found by back-tracking from the amount detected to the original
constant amount.
Scientists also say that carbon-14 dating is only ‘reliable’
for objects up to 60,000 years old. That’s roughly 10 half-lives.
For objects older than 60,000 years, other radioactive
dating must be used:
Uranium-235 (half-life = 704 million years)
Potassium-40 (half-life = 1.3 billion years)
Uranium-238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years)
and so on.
Carbon-14 dating is considered the most reliable since
carbon is present in almost every object, living or inanimate. Although
radioactive isotopes of other elements can be used, the amount of the
radioactive isotope present in the object is significantly less than carbon-14.
At this stage, it might be worth posing a few questions:
1. Considering
the process has only been around for about 70 years, how reliable is it to assume
that the amount of carbon-14 is constant in all
things, and that this value has been constant since the birth of the universe?
2. Every
measurement has with it an element of inaccuracy. Given the already tiny
quantities being used, what is the extra level of inaccuracy introduced due to
the equipment?
3. Given that
other forms of radioactive dating are less reliable due to even smaller
quantities of the required isotope, what inaccuracies are introduced?
4. Radioactive
dating has been around for about 70 years. As mentioned earlier, this is 1.23%
of one half-life of carbon-14. For uranium-235, this would be 0.000009943% of
one half-life. Can scientists really measure that accurately and reliably?
Note:
Carbon dating came into use in the late 1940s. Codenamed
‘Trinity,’ nuclear testing began in 1945, and within 20 years at least five
countries were performing nuclear tests. This has an impact on the radioactive
makeup of objects: more so for the immediate areas of the testing, but the
effects can be far-reaching, especially due to the wind carrying the fallout.
Hence, this begs the question of the reliability of any
method of radioactive dating.
Half-life equations are of the form:
Where: N is the number of radioactive atoms
remaining
N0 is the initial number of
radioactive atoms
t is the elapsed time since death (in
years)
T½ is the half-life of the
radioactive isotope (in years)
In order to get the percentage of radioactive atoms
remaining, we need to find:
This can be done simply by rearranging the equation. For our
example of using uranium-235 with the dinosaurs:
t is 65,000,000
T½ is 704,000,000
Therefore:
and then simplifying
and
then rearranging 
and then solving
So, for the dinosaurs to be 65 million years old, there will
be 93.8% of uranium-235 still present in the material being used to date them.
Now, assume the dinosaurs only lived about 6,500 years ago
(in-line with a literal reading of Genesis 1, the Christian creation story).
Then the result would be:
and then simplifying
and then rearranging
and then solving
Taking the difference between these values, this shows that
there is only a loss of 6.8% of the uranium-235 atoms to place the dinosaurs
from being 6,500 years old to being 65 million years old.
To better help understand how a small percentage error in
the measurement of uranium-235 can vastly change the perceived age of the
dinosaurs:
|
Percentage of
uranium-235
|
Age of dinosaurs
(in years)
|
|
100 %
|
Died this morning
|
|
99.9994 %
|
6,500
|
|
99 %
|
10,200,000
|
|
98 %
|
20,500,000
|
|
97 %
|
30,900,000
|
|
96 %
|
41,500,000
|
|
95 %
|
52,100,000
|
|
94 %
|
62,800,000
|
|
93.8 %
|
65,000,000
|
Assumptions made:
- Uranium-235 is present in a dinosaur’s body.
- Uranium-235 decays in a similar method to carbon-14.
- Uranium-235 having a half-life of 704 million years is a reliable fact.
- The tiny quantities of uranium-235 present can be measured to a high degree of accuracy.
- Nuclear testing has not altered the results in any way.
Purpose (raison d'être)
The reason for this blog is to air some of my many questions and thoughts. Many thoughts pop into my head and I wanted somewhere I could put them.
It's not so much that I feel I am the answer to the world's problems, or that my voice is the one every person should listen to...
If anyone wants to respond to the posts, I would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Feel free to prove me wrong... part of my hope is that someone more intelligent than me will be able to clarify things and show me the errors of my thinking.
It's not so much that I feel I am the answer to the world's problems, or that my voice is the one every person should listen to...
If anyone wants to respond to the posts, I would be interested to hear other thoughts.
Feel free to prove me wrong... part of my hope is that someone more intelligent than me will be able to clarify things and show me the errors of my thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)