A discussion of the formation of the universe, it seems, requires a discussion of what we regard as reality. Without getting too philosophical and trying to maintain a somewhat practical approach, there is a distinction between reality and science. Science, it is submitted, develops theory based on ‘facts’. However, these facts are what can be referred to, and often are of course, as ‘experimental’ facts. In other words observables.
What I will refer to as primary observables are what we experience through our basic 5 senses. However, science has gone far beyond these primary observables. The vast majority of observations, or experimental facts, are through instrumentation and the resulting ‘facts’, or scientific facts, through inference by applying mathematical and existing scientific theory. Instrumentation is not an extension of our basic 5 senses but rather an extension of our intellect applying, at times, as a technique, simulation of our senses. The design of instruments i.e. to what we expect these observables to speak, is based on the application of existing scientific facts in accordance with accepted scientific and mathematical theory.
Someone once asked me what the relationship between language, generally, and mathematics. I explained that, in my opinion, mathematics was an extension of our perception in order to deal with the unknown in a rational fashion. The basic test for a scientific theory is very much one of "proof is in the pudding". In other words, does it work. The fundamental elements for any theory in considering this issue are internal consistency and usefulness. The test of usefulness is to what extent it satisfies our desire for an ‘explanation’ of the observables and predictability. Esthetics seems to play a role as well – thus, ‘the simplest answer is usually the right one’.
To follow this line of reasoning back, a scientific theory is very much a manifestation of our intellects and very much culturally oriented. It thus has the limitations of our intellects and is biased by our culture. Observables are an expression of what our instruments tell us. What our instruments tell us is very much a manifestation of our intellects as well as integrally connected to scientific and mathematical theory, with in turn are rooted in our intellects. Thus, scientific facts can be no more, since it is based on the application of scientific and mathematical theory to observables, than a manifestation of our intellects and culturally modified. For example, we can consider that the speed of light is constant as a scientific fact. This has been confirmed now by many experiments over many years. Einstein, of course based his special theory of relativity on this and this theory has enjoyed tremendous success. However, is the speed of light, in reality, constant? To what extent is this ‘conclusion’ merely a reflection of the limitations of our intellect. In other words is it really a result of our intellectual frame of reference. I do not think this is easily answered since the underlining issue is the limitations on our intellect which, obviously, limits what we can, at our present stage of development, comprehend or even be cognisant of. It is submitted that the same applies to our ‘known universe’ – stars, galaxies, etc. If the theories and instrumentation used to observe stars flow from our intellect how can we say that stars don’t.
23 December, 2007
Christianity in China
Christianity in China
The article you enclosed below is interesting and obviously the person who wrote it has been quite involved for many years. Generally that makes it touch to critique - but not for me, of course.
His discourse seems to be very much from the Protestant, Pentecostal point of view and, as far as I am concerned, anytime someone looks at an issues from such a one sided point of view they run a real risk of missing very important aspects and even dimensions of the issue. Someone might say, well it may be he is coming from one direction, but then, he is right. This of course raises one of the main distinctions between ‘preaching’ and ‘intellectual discussion’. Here, will all due respect, it seems to me he is preaching but couching it in intellectual discussion. One of the main issues he appears to overlook, of course, is religions indigenous to the Far East, for example, Buddhism, and now Fallun Gung (if it can be classified as a religion).
Another issue he appears to overlook is the co-relation between economy prosperity, along with its desire for anything Western, and Protestantism. Basically, one may argue that Western religion, and Protestantism in particular, go hand in hand with economic development. A further argument is that it is economic development that gives rise to democracy (it creates a middle class who are educated and have the economic freedom to consider things on a level higher than hand-to-mouth, and who, with a newly installed vested interest demand a say on how things are run).
So, it is not entirely accurate, in my opinion, to say that Protestantism gives rise to democracy. But, it may be more accurate that Christianity helps to creates an social order that is favourable to the development of commerce which in turn gives rise to democracy. A trivial example of how this may work is the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. Clearly, dealing with people on a commerce basis requires a considerable amount of trust. For example, you may sign a contract with another person but if they don’t honour it, or, worse, never had any intention of honouring it, then doing business becomes impossible. This is even though there may be a well developed civil court system. This example is very apropos for the China situation since, as I am sure you have heard a million times, one of the big complaints Canadian businesses have had over the years is that the Chinese businessmen simply can’t be trusted. So, as people become more prosperous they demand a society that is more stable and where conducting commerce is more predictable. The Ten Commandments are very much suited to this. So they naturally are drawn towards Christianity. To take this further, any denomination that proselytises aggressively will, perhaps, make considerable gains.
Also, as mentioned he does not take into account indigenous religions and I think that this is a weakness in his presentation. In a word, Christianity is a Western religion and they are Eastern. There is a difference and, in such issues, in my opinion, these differences are significant. For example, if we look at history, it may be that the Chinese take Protestantism and meld it with a more eastern religion so that the result is something in between. It may be called Pentecostal but it is really Chinese-Pentecostal and 100 years from now people will look back at the differences.
On the other hand, as we have discussed before, the Chinese government ban on religious freedom to the extent of persecution, will likely result in one religion emerging as the dominant religion. He, of course, touches on this issue, but there are two things. If the Chinese government were to allow religious freedom, which, if they were smart they would, then this phenomenon would, in my opinion, very likely by undermined, resulting in, basically, 1.3 billion little religions. Also, there is competition for the spirits of the Chinese and since they are Chinese in nature may very have a greater chance in a ‘survival of the fittest’ atmosphere.
Anyway, after the above, I hope you’re still talking to me.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, August, 2007
The article you enclosed below is interesting and obviously the person who wrote it has been quite involved for many years. Generally that makes it touch to critique - but not for me, of course.
His discourse seems to be very much from the Protestant, Pentecostal point of view and, as far as I am concerned, anytime someone looks at an issues from such a one sided point of view they run a real risk of missing very important aspects and even dimensions of the issue. Someone might say, well it may be he is coming from one direction, but then, he is right. This of course raises one of the main distinctions between ‘preaching’ and ‘intellectual discussion’. Here, will all due respect, it seems to me he is preaching but couching it in intellectual discussion. One of the main issues he appears to overlook, of course, is religions indigenous to the Far East, for example, Buddhism, and now Fallun Gung (if it can be classified as a religion).
Another issue he appears to overlook is the co-relation between economy prosperity, along with its desire for anything Western, and Protestantism. Basically, one may argue that Western religion, and Protestantism in particular, go hand in hand with economic development. A further argument is that it is economic development that gives rise to democracy (it creates a middle class who are educated and have the economic freedom to consider things on a level higher than hand-to-mouth, and who, with a newly installed vested interest demand a say on how things are run).
So, it is not entirely accurate, in my opinion, to say that Protestantism gives rise to democracy. But, it may be more accurate that Christianity helps to creates an social order that is favourable to the development of commerce which in turn gives rise to democracy. A trivial example of how this may work is the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”. Clearly, dealing with people on a commerce basis requires a considerable amount of trust. For example, you may sign a contract with another person but if they don’t honour it, or, worse, never had any intention of honouring it, then doing business becomes impossible. This is even though there may be a well developed civil court system. This example is very apropos for the China situation since, as I am sure you have heard a million times, one of the big complaints Canadian businesses have had over the years is that the Chinese businessmen simply can’t be trusted. So, as people become more prosperous they demand a society that is more stable and where conducting commerce is more predictable. The Ten Commandments are very much suited to this. So they naturally are drawn towards Christianity. To take this further, any denomination that proselytises aggressively will, perhaps, make considerable gains.
Also, as mentioned he does not take into account indigenous religions and I think that this is a weakness in his presentation. In a word, Christianity is a Western religion and they are Eastern. There is a difference and, in such issues, in my opinion, these differences are significant. For example, if we look at history, it may be that the Chinese take Protestantism and meld it with a more eastern religion so that the result is something in between. It may be called Pentecostal but it is really Chinese-Pentecostal and 100 years from now people will look back at the differences.
On the other hand, as we have discussed before, the Chinese government ban on religious freedom to the extent of persecution, will likely result in one religion emerging as the dominant religion. He, of course, touches on this issue, but there are two things. If the Chinese government were to allow religious freedom, which, if they were smart they would, then this phenomenon would, in my opinion, very likely by undermined, resulting in, basically, 1.3 billion little religions. Also, there is competition for the spirits of the Chinese and since they are Chinese in nature may very have a greater chance in a ‘survival of the fittest’ atmosphere.
Anyway, after the above, I hope you’re still talking to me.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, August, 2007
Glass Half-Filled
If you give someone a glass of water some may say it’s half full and some may say it’s half empty. However, some may comment on the degree to which the essential physical properties of the water have been restricted by its conformity to the glass.
This is not a trivial observation since it applies to many things. For example, when we formulate the expression of an idea verbally the concepts involved are seriously restricted and modified by the words used, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied. It also applies to the concepts and thought processes involved as well. In other words when we talk about a particular idea it is our concept of the idea and not the ‘thing’ itself that we are trying to articulate.
This applies to scientific endeavours as well. The theories we develop are nothing more than verbal expression of concept we develop. It maybe said that these concepts are developed by reference to observables (experimentally obtained ‘facts’). However, it is our psyche that is considering, interpreting and incorporating these ‘observables’. In other words, we develop a ‘world view’ or, to phrase it more simply, ‘ideas’ based on this information and the theory is the verbal expression, and so seriously restricted and modified by the formulation of this world view, the words used to express it, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied (there may be other influences as well).
Further, the ‘observable’ is severely restricted by the experiment and instruments used in the experiment and are, in reality, nothing more than some incomplete and fuzzy reflection of what is being observed. Of course the experiment itself is based on theory and current ‘knowledge’, all of` which is subject to the same analysis. It is clear to see how the particular equipment used must restrict what we observe regarding the properties of whatever it is for which we are attempting to learn the essence by conducting the experiment. It may be a bit harder to see that the design of the experiment, what equipment is used, the construction of the equipment, the recording of the results, their processing, interpretation and integration are seriously restricted in a fashion as described, but it must. Of course, what makes a good scientist is being able to come up with something useful despite the above restrictions.
For a quick illustration see ”E really does equal mc squared”, G&M, 21Dec.’05,(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051221.wmit1221/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?). The article reports that some scientist conducted an experiment to determine the equation e=mc2 to a greater degree of accuracy, explaining that it is only a theory. There are a few things to keep in mind when reading this article. There is no indication that the scientist made any reference to what light is. It seems a bit strange that someone would be conducting such an experiment without even know what is light(‘c’ refers to the speed of light) and if we don’t know what light is how can we talk about its speed. On the other and he explains that this theory (expressed by this mathematical equation) is quite useful -vis.: “GPS is the most common use of the theory in modern life”. He concludes:” However, despite surviving its most difficult test to date, Prof. Pritchard said it doesn't prove Einstein's theory to be absolutely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."
The second thing to keep in mind is that, as can be seen from the above quote, he is referring to our ‘world view’. On the other hand, he is operating under a misconception when he says “more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete” since he is equating our ‘world view’ with reality - clearly not accurate. If all we are interested in is a drink of water then restricting the essence of water by pouring it into a glass may be tolerated. However, if we are interested in the essence of water we are clearly severely restricted in what we can say about its physical and chemical properties. This also applied to attempting to understand a particular circumstance or incident, en event.
As a lawyer I attempt to get to the bottom of things by asking questions. However, clearly asking questions restricts the information we obtains severely and the information we obtain is subject to interpretation (or ‘twisting’) since it is, by necessity, ambiguous (some lawyer have been accused of using this as a strategy). So, although professing to get at ‘the truth’ in reality what is obtained is some prejudiced and vague reflection of the truth. The further we get from a specific incident and the closer we get to trying to understand the ‘essence’ of someone’s situation the greater this problem. This problem is heightened if we apply predetermined questions.
A good example of this are the application forms the Canada Immigration requires the person to fill in (accurately, truthfully and completely). By the very nature of forms they are a predetermined set of questions which they have decided will get to the essence of the issue (spousal sponsorship, say). In my experience it is very seldom that by answering them one gets an understanding of the essence of the relationship and the persons’ circumstance. Further, it doesn’t matter what list of questions they put in the application forms this will be the case - to a greater or lesser degree (fortunately for me, since it gives me a job). When I am interviewing someone I must also keep in mind the cultural aspect.
A list of predetermined questions immediately restricts the information gathering by the Western bias that experience must be ‘objective’, ‘chronological’ and obey the logical rules implied with the assumption of ‘causality’ (cause and effect). There is also the underlying belief, very Western in my opinion, that information obtained in such a manner is correct (keep in mind that in Mediaeval times Westerners operated under the belief that answers obtained thru torture were correct and that trial by ordeal was a legitimate manner of getting at the truth - it is interesting to note that this lead to the development of the institution of lawyers).
Very early in my career doing refugee claims I determined the importance of my Western bias and its potential for restricting my ability to learn the essence of the situation. On the other hand, if we want to get the essence of a circumstance or a person asking questions can be useful and even necessary. But, its restricting influence may be reduced allowing us to come to a more useful ‘world view’ by not approaching it with a predetermined set of questions.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, January, 2005
This is not a trivial observation since it applies to many things. For example, when we formulate the expression of an idea verbally the concepts involved are seriously restricted and modified by the words used, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied. It also applies to the concepts and thought processes involved as well. In other words when we talk about a particular idea it is our concept of the idea and not the ‘thing’ itself that we are trying to articulate.
This applies to scientific endeavours as well. The theories we develop are nothing more than verbal expression of concept we develop. It maybe said that these concepts are developed by reference to observables (experimentally obtained ‘facts’). However, it is our psyche that is considering, interpreting and incorporating these ‘observables’. In other words, we develop a ‘world view’ or, to phrase it more simply, ‘ideas’ based on this information and the theory is the verbal expression, and so seriously restricted and modified by the formulation of this world view, the words used to express it, application of grammarical structures and the logical rules applied (there may be other influences as well).
Further, the ‘observable’ is severely restricted by the experiment and instruments used in the experiment and are, in reality, nothing more than some incomplete and fuzzy reflection of what is being observed. Of course the experiment itself is based on theory and current ‘knowledge’, all of` which is subject to the same analysis. It is clear to see how the particular equipment used must restrict what we observe regarding the properties of whatever it is for which we are attempting to learn the essence by conducting the experiment. It may be a bit harder to see that the design of the experiment, what equipment is used, the construction of the equipment, the recording of the results, their processing, interpretation and integration are seriously restricted in a fashion as described, but it must. Of course, what makes a good scientist is being able to come up with something useful despite the above restrictions.
For a quick illustration see ”E really does equal mc squared”, G&M, 21Dec.’05,(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051221.wmit1221/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/?). The article reports that some scientist conducted an experiment to determine the equation e=mc2 to a greater degree of accuracy, explaining that it is only a theory. There are a few things to keep in mind when reading this article. There is no indication that the scientist made any reference to what light is. It seems a bit strange that someone would be conducting such an experiment without even know what is light(‘c’ refers to the speed of light) and if we don’t know what light is how can we talk about its speed. On the other and he explains that this theory (expressed by this mathematical equation) is quite useful -vis.: “GPS is the most common use of the theory in modern life”. He concludes:” However, despite surviving its most difficult test to date, Prof. Pritchard said it doesn't prove Einstein's theory to be absolutely correct. Future physicists will undoubtedly subject it to even more precise tests because more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete."
The second thing to keep in mind is that, as can be seen from the above quote, he is referring to our ‘world view’. On the other hand, he is operating under a misconception when he says “more accurate checks imply that our theory of the world is in fact more and more complete” since he is equating our ‘world view’ with reality - clearly not accurate. If all we are interested in is a drink of water then restricting the essence of water by pouring it into a glass may be tolerated. However, if we are interested in the essence of water we are clearly severely restricted in what we can say about its physical and chemical properties. This also applied to attempting to understand a particular circumstance or incident, en event.
As a lawyer I attempt to get to the bottom of things by asking questions. However, clearly asking questions restricts the information we obtains severely and the information we obtain is subject to interpretation (or ‘twisting’) since it is, by necessity, ambiguous (some lawyer have been accused of using this as a strategy). So, although professing to get at ‘the truth’ in reality what is obtained is some prejudiced and vague reflection of the truth. The further we get from a specific incident and the closer we get to trying to understand the ‘essence’ of someone’s situation the greater this problem. This problem is heightened if we apply predetermined questions.
A good example of this are the application forms the Canada Immigration requires the person to fill in (accurately, truthfully and completely). By the very nature of forms they are a predetermined set of questions which they have decided will get to the essence of the issue (spousal sponsorship, say). In my experience it is very seldom that by answering them one gets an understanding of the essence of the relationship and the persons’ circumstance. Further, it doesn’t matter what list of questions they put in the application forms this will be the case - to a greater or lesser degree (fortunately for me, since it gives me a job). When I am interviewing someone I must also keep in mind the cultural aspect.
A list of predetermined questions immediately restricts the information gathering by the Western bias that experience must be ‘objective’, ‘chronological’ and obey the logical rules implied with the assumption of ‘causality’ (cause and effect). There is also the underlying belief, very Western in my opinion, that information obtained in such a manner is correct (keep in mind that in Mediaeval times Westerners operated under the belief that answers obtained thru torture were correct and that trial by ordeal was a legitimate manner of getting at the truth - it is interesting to note that this lead to the development of the institution of lawyers).
Very early in my career doing refugee claims I determined the importance of my Western bias and its potential for restricting my ability to learn the essence of the situation. On the other hand, if we want to get the essence of a circumstance or a person asking questions can be useful and even necessary. But, its restricting influence may be reduced allowing us to come to a more useful ‘world view’ by not approaching it with a predetermined set of questions.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, January, 2005
20 December, 2007
Poll on reasonable accommodation
My Comments:
I think, with all due respect, that conduction opinion polls regarding human rights of minorities
can be a dangerous thing, even in a democracy, or perhaps because we are in a democracy where the majority (this may be disputed in the current Canadian context) rules. By design it is looking at the opinions of the general public (i.e. the majority) with respect to the accommodation of a minority group. The Charter of Right and Freedoms is precisely to protect the rights of minorities against the will of the majority. It seems to me self-evident that: “The greater the accommodation in question and the smaller the minority group the stronger the results of the opinion poll may be against accommodation; but, the greater the need for protection.”
As an extreme example, one need only ask one’s self what the results of an opinion poll would
likely have been on the Chinese Head Tax (or, on the free accommodation of Chinese immigrants) during its hay-day.
I am a strong believer in a free and open society. However, I have a lot of difficulty
understanding the benefits of such opinion polls or what the possible purpose(s) might be, except perhaps, to illustrate the need and importance of fundamental laws such as the Charter and of we, Canadians, being vigilant in their application.
We have emerged into a Golden Age of Human Rights, lets not allow anything to cause us to drift back into the Dark Ages.
Lloyd MacIlquham
The above comments were in response to the following:
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/49#comment_2657
By significant majorities in Canada as a whole, and by overwhelming majorities in Quebec, Canadians and Quebecers declare limits to reasonable accommodation.
When asked whether it was reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities, or whether immigrants should fully adapt to culture in Canada, only 18 percent of respondents said reasonable accommodation best reflected their personal views, as opposed to 53 percent who thought immigrants should fully adapt (21 percent who agreed with neither statement).
In Quebec, only 5.4 percent of respondents thought reasonable accommodation reflected their views, while fully 76.9 percent thought immigrants should fully adapt.Interestingly, the parts of Canada with fewer new Canadians were more likely to support accommodation. Leaders from across Canada should be watching the developments in Quebec, because they may well be a precursor of things to come in other parts of Canada.In the support materials on the right is the release and the detailed polling tables. Survey results touch upon awareness of reasonable accommodation, and views about accommodating minorities at work, school, public places etc.
Quite a bit of very interesting information.
I think, with all due respect, that conduction opinion polls regarding human rights of minorities
can be a dangerous thing, even in a democracy, or perhaps because we are in a democracy where the majority (this may be disputed in the current Canadian context) rules. By design it is looking at the opinions of the general public (i.e. the majority) with respect to the accommodation of a minority group. The Charter of Right and Freedoms is precisely to protect the rights of minorities against the will of the majority. It seems to me self-evident that: “The greater the accommodation in question and the smaller the minority group the stronger the results of the opinion poll may be against accommodation; but, the greater the need for protection.”
As an extreme example, one need only ask one’s self what the results of an opinion poll would
likely have been on the Chinese Head Tax (or, on the free accommodation of Chinese immigrants) during its hay-day.
I am a strong believer in a free and open society. However, I have a lot of difficulty
understanding the benefits of such opinion polls or what the possible purpose(s) might be, except perhaps, to illustrate the need and importance of fundamental laws such as the Charter and of we, Canadians, being vigilant in their application.
We have emerged into a Golden Age of Human Rights, lets not allow anything to cause us to drift back into the Dark Ages.
Lloyd MacIlquham
The above comments were in response to the following:
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/49#comment_2657
By significant majorities in Canada as a whole, and by overwhelming majorities in Quebec, Canadians and Quebecers declare limits to reasonable accommodation.
When asked whether it was reasonable to accommodate religious and cultural minorities, or whether immigrants should fully adapt to culture in Canada, only 18 percent of respondents said reasonable accommodation best reflected their personal views, as opposed to 53 percent who thought immigrants should fully adapt (21 percent who agreed with neither statement).
In Quebec, only 5.4 percent of respondents thought reasonable accommodation reflected their views, while fully 76.9 percent thought immigrants should fully adapt.Interestingly, the parts of Canada with fewer new Canadians were more likely to support accommodation. Leaders from across Canada should be watching the developments in Quebec, because they may well be a precursor of things to come in other parts of Canada.In the support materials on the right is the release and the detailed polling tables. Survey results touch upon awareness of reasonable accommodation, and views about accommodating minorities at work, school, public places etc.
Quite a bit of very interesting information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)