tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31447356295469664742010-03-10T16:48:43.691-05:00The Modern Synthesis of Faith and ReasonJustin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-20644275567736644412010-03-10T16:07:00.002-05:002010-03-10T16:18:05.832-05:002010-03-10T16:18:05.832-05:00

For those who don't know, a googlewhack is what happens when you only get one entry in your search. It used to be fairly easy but these days I've wondered if they are even possible.Anyways, I just got an unintentional googlewhack for the first time in my life. And it was with a pretty cool search term: +"median productivity" ezra klein. The background is that I've been browsing the responses on

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-32902308163035138752010-03-09T23:52:00.002-05:002010-03-10T00:19:16.412-05:002010-03-10T00:19:16.412-05:00

One of the cherished ideals of the secular progressive movement is called liberal neutrality. That basically means that the government gives people a certain amount of freedom and wealth and then people are free to choose their own version of the good life. That may mean carving marble statues of pelicans. It may mean joining a lesbian commune. It may mean joining a strict religious subculture.

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-6106719159311349432010-03-05T20:50:00.005-05:002010-03-06T08:22:00.539-05:002010-03-06T08:22:00.539-05:00

I'm not the policy wonk type who gets into the finer points of how the inner workings of government are structured, but it seems to me that only thing holding up universal health care is the progressive's desire to have federally funded abortions. The major paths seem to be:Reconciliation. This lets the Senate get around the filibuster. The reconciliation process cannot be filibustered. The

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-9902139686762565872010-03-05T06:00:00.000-05:002010-03-05T06:00:09.660-05:002010-03-05T06:00:09.660-05:00

Atheists have many false beliefs if naturalism is true. False consciousness is the rule, not the exception. The overarching argument is evolution. Atheists may believe a lot of things about their own worldviews and behaviors, but in reality they only exist for instrumental reasons. They are aimed at maximizing reproductive fitness. Atheists believe in moral values such as 'murder is wrong' but

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-73730135661775110442010-03-04T12:57:00.002-05:002010-03-04T19:43:42.981-05:002010-03-04T19:43:42.981-05:00

The best way to understand derirism is that it is old-fashioned social contract theory before Rawls and Harsanyi came along. Classical social contract theory is simply morality based on self-interest. There are no morals. The only thing like a moral duty is the duty to pursue your self-interest in a rational manner. If it is in your self-interest to be rich then you "should" get an education and

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-45798771019757896742010-03-01T17:15:00.000-05:002010-03-01T17:15:00.115-05:002010-03-01T17:15:00.115-05:00

Andrew Brown asks:Name three people, preferably contemporaries, whom you honestly believe are smarter, better educated, and more honest than you are, but who disagree with you about God. So atheists must name believers, and vice versa.My first two choices are easy: Herb Gintis and Tyler Cowen. I had to think a bit for a third by I have a good choice: David Sloan Wilson.They are objectively better

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-53618888854010429902010-02-27T21:15:00.002-05:002010-02-27T21:47:07.005-05:002010-02-27T21:47:07.005-05:00

An interesting point has come up in the comments of the thread about the The Umbrella Fallacy. It is the difference between prima facie and an in-depth analysis (is there a Latin phrase for second, third and later looks?).Prima Facie JustificationI do not think that rationality is the privileged domain of philosophers and scientists. I think that most people are prima facie justified (rational)

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-58231911169695211332010-02-26T09:36:00.003-05:002010-02-26T15:30:36.918-05:002010-02-26T15:30:36.918-05:00

The definition of a logical fallacy is an error of reasoning so common that it deserves its own name. I propose the umbrella fallacy (an indirect homage to Schopenhauer) for cases where atheists make an argument against faith, but then put that argument away like an unneeded umbrella when it comes to other beliefs with similar epistemic status. E.g. atheists will furiously criticize the

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-11657403949594565632009-12-07T00:26:00.002-05:002009-12-07T00:32:57.137-05:002009-12-07T00:32:57.137-05:00

You might be an establishment libertarian ... if public choice theory applies to all government activity but climate science.Note: futarchy and cryonics are not orthodox, but neither will they earn you the ire of the New York Times.

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-22978472404547900682009-12-07T00:22:00.001-05:002009-12-07T00:23:42.864-05:002009-12-07T00:23:42.864-05:00

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not.

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-36944524167246638822009-12-02T22:08:00.001-05:002009-12-02T22:15:28.295-05:002009-12-02T22:15:28.295-05:00

Tyler warns against good and evil thinking (although clumsily). That's good advice. But I think we should embrace biased thinking. I don't mean adopting biases. I mean thinking about biases. I subscribe to the Caplan/Edgerton view of biases. What Robin Hanson calls the One Ring to Rule Them All of biases. What does that mean? It means that we can gain utility out of beliefs that are not aimed at

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-81253100221128325292009-12-02T06:00:00.001-05:002009-12-02T06:00:00.767-05:002009-12-02T06:00:00.767-05:00

Here is a twist on Pascal's Wager. Which do you choose?Option A: Five thousand dollars if the National League wins the World Series in 2050Option B: One thousand dollars if the National League wins the world series in 2010Not all beliefs can be settled in the short run. This raises an interesting source of bias. In theory we should aim our beliefs at the truth. But there is the temptation to

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-26115637275648948442009-11-26T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-26T06:00:04.832-05:002009-11-26T06:00:04.832-05:00

I've been participating in a really interesting discussion in the comments on Overcoming Bias. It really highlights why monogamy is the only way to have a society that (1) cooperative, and (2) egalitarian. Chimpanzee politics is a bloodsport in which male chimps fight to become alpha males. This does not happen with bonobos because the females have disguised fertility. It is relatively easy for

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-48936463753502325802009-11-25T11:07:00.003-05:002009-11-25T11:32:29.865-05:002009-11-25T11:32:29.865-05:00

March Hare has requested a definition of an alpha male. March can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming the point of this objection is "if you can't define alpha male then you need to abandon your claim that there is status-seeking behavior in the realm of sex and reproduction." I don't think that is correct. First, this is a blog not a philosophy journal. I already write long posts and I

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-17241327419298307492009-11-25T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-25T06:00:00.160-05:002009-11-25T06:00:00.160-05:00

I’ve been on a bloggingheads kick lately. One of the most enjoyable that I’ve seen was between Will Wilkinson and Joseph Heath. It is about Heath’s new book Filthy Lucre. It is an economics book for the general reader from a slightly left-leaning perspective. Heath ultimately champions what Wilkinson himself has called a laissez-fair welfare state. The “Nordic Tigers” like Iceland and Denmark do

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-29900347493974921632009-11-24T10:55:00.005-05:002009-11-24T11:06:15.456-05:002009-11-24T11:06:15.456-05:00

Libertarian economists such as Gary Becker have been aggressively promoting free markets based on a mathematical vision of rational decision making. Needless to say, this vision could only apply to ultra-logical people like Mr. Spock - the notorious Homo economicus. Becker and others have used this model to defend free markets and "colonize" other academic disciplines like political science and

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-36624588091118797992009-11-23T16:03:00.002-05:002009-11-23T16:19:25.245-05:002009-11-23T16:19:25.245-05:00

Robin Hanson always has the most interesting posts. The most extensive and authoritative report … concluded that 2 percent of men with “high paternity confidence” — married men who had every reason to believe they were their children’s father — were, in fact, not biological parents. Several studies indicate that the rate appears to be far higher among unmarried fathers. …Hanson argues for

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-15691214638386708492009-11-22T06:00:00.001-05:002009-11-23T12:06:44.314-05:002009-11-23T12:06:44.314-05:00

One of my favorite parts of the Sermon on the Mount is a warning not to judge others. But it also appears contradictory. (Matt. 7:1-6) 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-57784098548134125112009-11-20T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-20T06:00:03.008-05:002009-11-20T06:00:03.008-05:00

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution has a running bit where he channels his brother Tyrone to argue the opposite of what Tyler believes and generally makes a pretty compelling case. I decided to shamelessly rip him off by channeling an atheist. In keeping with Tyler's tradition I will call him Jason.Christians always ask me why I don't torture babies or something, as though life is like a

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-56670087706503563742009-11-19T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-19T06:00:08.314-05:002009-11-19T06:00:08.314-05:00

Robin Hanson has an interesting post in which he argues that people who favor laws against employer discrimination are inconsistent. The gist of the argument is that we grant whites the freedom not work for blacks (because whites do not have to apply to firms owned by blacks) but we don't grant whites the ability to not hire blacks. I think the distinction is clear. Employers have bargaining

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-28369418225361076002009-11-18T06:00:00.001-05:002009-11-18T06:00:07.196-05:002009-11-18T06:00:07.196-05:00

The first computer was probably the Z1. It was invented in 1936 and had ran at about 1 hz. Your cellphone is about 500 million times more powerful. That is where 75 years worth of technological advance has taken us. What will computers be like in a 1000 years? In ten thousand years? In a hundred thousand years? Computers could be so powerful that they could they could create virtual universes

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-39190177925675034962009-11-17T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-17T06:00:07.614-05:002009-11-17T06:00:07.614-05:00

Steven Pinker has deliciously skewered Malcom Gladwell in the New York Review of Books. Since my sympathies are closer to Pinker than to Gladwell, I enjoyed it. But I think Pinker is wrong:Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-63417681145676523672009-11-16T12:36:00.003-05:002009-11-16T12:41:29.632-05:002009-11-16T12:41:29.632-05:00

Paul makes a few different objections in his rebuttal. Challenging SociobiologyThe most important objection directly challenges sociobiology, at least for humans. However, Paul does not actually provide any evidence to back up his assertion. His response is thus in stark contrast to my opening post, and this post, which have evidence from both animals and humans about sexual selection. There are

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-52148587771231988822009-11-16T06:00:00.000-05:002009-11-16T06:00:08.005-05:002009-11-16T06:00:08.005-05:00

Robin Hanson has an interesting post in which he discusses a study showing that human females are slowly evolving towards becoming shorter and heavier.Our culture respects taller thinner women who wait longer before having kids, but in fact we are evolving short heavy women who have kids earlier. Shades of Idiocracy – in many ways we are evolving to become less of what we now respect.That does

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3144735629546966474.post-46174942485371947612009-11-15T16:34:00.005-05:002009-11-15T17:26:43.539-05:002009-11-15T17:26:43.539-05:00

In The UntouchablesElliot Ness said: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Jewish law is designed to keep people from using the Chicago way. The whole purpose of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" justice is to prevent escalating cycles of violence. But that is not enough

Justin Martyrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16072356181773206484noreply@blogger.com0