Every now and then there is an Internet meme pointing to health risks from cell phone usage. According to these, carrying an active phone close to your body, or holding the phone to your head while conversing, have some association with cancer, or possibly other physical health risks. Of course the psychological health risks of excessive smart phone usage are well known and discussed, but here I am just concerned with physiological risks to human health. These internet stories were bolstered in 2011 by official reports that additional studies had found possible links between prolonged cell phone usage and certain cancers in humans.
Various professional bodies have done numerous investigations over the decades about this. In particular, the IEEE has looked into it often, since they are closely associated with wireless phone systems, standards, hardware, networks, software, and so on. Most of their studies found no statistically meaningful health effects, although some studies were statistically "inconclusive", and the above mentioned study found "there could be some risk" to humans. The rationale usually offered for minimal risk is that the microwaves used in cell phone networks are "non-ionizing radiation" so cannot break chemical bonds in your body. Without breaking bonds, DNA mutations are impossible, your genes are safe, and so cancers cannot be triggered.
The other potential cell-damage mechanism usually mentioned is that microwaves can heat biological material (like your body), as in a microwave oven. But the microwave power levels used in cell phones (milliwatts) are far too low to cause detectable heating in nearby tissues. With those two potential mechanisms out of the way, it is happily concluded that, aside from that troubling study, there is little risk that cell phone signals can cause cancer or other diseases.
While it is true that microwaves are non-ionizing, the accompanying argument that only thermal effects are important may be too simplistic. Biological molecules may, conceivably, also react to microwaves in additional ways in some cases. Depending on the size, shape and electron charge distribution in the molecules, they may react to microwaves by twisting, vibrating, or rotating (spinning). That is what happens to water molecules in a microwave oven, after all, leading to the desired heating effect. If certain biological molecules happen to resonate with wireless frequencies (which vary over a wide range, from 500 to 5000 MHz or so), then perhaps their response could, in principle, prevent (or speed up) their biological function or behaviour.
Biological molecules have complex behaviours: connecting to or releasing another molecule, being bent, shaped or reshaped inside a cell, passing through cell wall portals, holding two other molecules close together, and so on. If any of these actions is disrupted, sped up, or slowed down in some way, that in turn could interfere with its normal operation inside or between cells. Given the complexity of biochemical reactions, it is probably impossible to say there cannot be any such effect at all. In the worst case, if DNA replication were tweaked even a little, say by increasing the vibrational noise level around the process at some frequency, then copying errors (mutations) might be slightly more frequent. It may therefore, be impossible to rule out an occasional cancer getting a foothold, just at a very low statistical level. Alternatively, if the microwaves disrupt a pore in the cell membrane, it could affect the cell's uptake or discharge of chemicals, such as carcinogens from the cellular environment, or internal wastes. In that case, the microwaves themselves would not "cause" the cancer, but could make the cell more susceptible to cancers caused by those substances.
I do not want to raise fears of cell phones or microwaves in general, and I certainly do not want to start another Internet meme to that effect! However, I have never seen this potential mechanism addressed, much less refuted in what I have read on this subject -- admittedly a small sampling of the available literature. It would be interesting to see what the experts have to say about this. Perhaps they have already examined this possibility and dismissed it? Maybe the microwave frequencies are all wrong for affecting biochemicals? Maybe the resulting vibration or rotational effects are orders of magnitude below the noise level in the cell? I don't know, but it seems that no potential mechanism should be ignored just because it is complicated or difficult to assess.
I note in closing that the same articles reporting negligible health risks of cell phone usage usually also advise that users practice "pragmatic measures" or "prudent precautions" to reduce the (supposedly negligible) risks of microwave exposure. Perhaps after the 2011 reports they are hedging their bets and may now be open to considering the above potential mechanism? Nevertheless, please don't worry about your phone based on my speculations, and do not spread rumours. I am certainly not going to stop using my phone, although I don't often carry it on my person. In any case, there are enough real health hazards in our world to worry excessively about potential ones.
Thursday, 22 November 2018
Friday, 16 November 2018
The Metaphysics of Mathematics
Mathematics is probably considered the science least associated with or affected by faith or religion. It is all neutral axioms and firm logic, theorems and proofs, so how could beliefs come into it? Nevertheless, there are many metaphysical connections and underlying belief aspects in the field of mathematics. I will provide an example, some further observations, a few questions to ponder, and some references to delve deeper into the subject.
Example Exercise: (using only high-school math)
Let f(x) = 1 for x = rational, and f(x) = 0 for x = irrational
Question: what is the integral between 0 and 1 of f(x)?
If you don't know, an integral is simply the area under the plot of f(x) on an x-y graph between the two limits of x, so there is no need for actual calculus (integration) here.
Depending on your metaphysical assumptions, any of the following answers may be correct:
a) If you were a Pythagorean back in the day, you would not believe that irrational numbers actually exist, so f(x) = 1 for all real numbers and the integral (area) between 0 and 1 would simply be 1.
Even today, there are people who question how real most irrational numbers are since the vast majority of them can never be described exactly, because they are an infinite series of digits in any numerical expansion; e.g. x = 0.876513234923746023700147829432764591034 is not irrational. It can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, and so is rational. Only by continuing such a string of pseudo-random digits to infinity can it be said to be irrational. Thus, a vanishingly small percentage of irrational numbers can be described in any finite form: numbers such as pi, e (the base of natural logarithms), square-root of two, 0.909009000900009000009..., and so on. So if most irrational numbers do not truly exist in any meaningful, presentable sense, one could perhaps say that the rational numbers between 0 and 1 far out weigh the irrational ones, and the integral approaches unity in the limit.
b) However, assuming that all irrational numbers do truly exist (in some sense), it is clear that there are any number of both irrational and rational numbers between 0 and 1. Indeed, we can say that there are an infinity of both type between 0 and 1. We cannot count how many, so we might assume (for now) that for every rational number there is an irrational one. Then half the numbers in that range are rational and half irrational, so that the area is one half (0.5). This might be thought of as a pseudo-average of f(x) over the 0 to 1 range.
c) Not so fast! That is not the full story. According to Georg Cantor (19th century) and most mathematicians since then, the rational numbers are "countable", which means they can be paired one-to-one with the infinite set of integers. He provided a simple demonstration of that. On the other hand, the irrationals cannot be counted in the same way, or at least no one has come up with a scheme for doing so. Thus, officially, the rational numbers are a different degree of infinity than the irrationals.
All infinite "countable" sets of things (numbers or otherwise) are considered to be at the "aleph-zero" level of infinity. The real numbers (rationals plus irrationals) cannot be counted, and are therefore considered as "aleph-one" level of infinity. In an aleph-one set, there are infinitely more items than in an aleph-zero set; not just double infinity, but "infinity squared" so to speak (although infinity is not a number so cannot be squared). If the real numbers are aleph-one, while the rational numbers are aleph-zero, then the irrationals must be aleph-one.
Therefore, rather than being the same number of rationals and irrationals between zero and one, there are infinitely more irrationals. That is, for every rational number between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of irrationals. In this approach, the integral of f(x) is arbitrarily close to zero; i.e. the vast majority of the point in x have f(x) = 0 and the "average" over x = 0 to 1 is zero. I expect this would be the "official" answer to the question, referred to as the "non-constructivist" view, but it too is not without metaphysical issues.
d) Finally (I hope), the integral operation is often explained as summing up a huge number of narrow dx slices under a plot of the function, between the two limits of x. Thus, for example, when integrating the function g(x) = x, one would take narrow dx slices between x=0 and x=1, and add up their areas, as dx was made smaller and smaller, the integral would converge on a value of one half (0.5) for g(x). The integral calculus allows one to find the limit, i.e. the true area, without adding up the tiny slices. Thus, dx is referred to as an infinitesimal and, in the limit, there are an infinite number of dx slices between zero and one.
This works well for any continuous function like g(x), but f(x) is an "everywhere discontinuous" function. No matter how small you make dx, there will be an infinite number of rational numbers in the slice and infinitely more irrational ones. Thus, there is no way to look at a finite dx, much less an infinitesimal one to determine the "true value" of f(x) in that slice.
The concept of "real infinities" and infinitesimals caused mathematical philosophers a lot of trouble when calculus was being developed back in the 17th century. Still today, infinitesimals are suspect to many philosophers, who basically say we can use calculus because it "works" for functions like g(x), but not because it represents reality or truth. Given such metaphysical doubt, some would conclude that for the function f(x), dx is meaningless, therefore the integral is undefined; i.e. it cannot be computed.
Some Other Observations:
a) Zeno's paradox updated: movement is impossible as it requires something to be in an infinite number of locations in a finite time, and "real infinities" are impossible. Despite seeming to be silly, this paradox still causes metaphysical concerns for some philosophers.
b) Infinity is not a number, but Georg Cantor's transfinite numbers (aleph 0, 1, 2...) tries to make sense of infinite sets of different "sizes", as noted above. Cantor said there is an infinite series of ever increasing infinities (aleph-n), but I have not seen any descriptions above aleph-2, and some mathematicians question how real the higher alephs are. Hence answer (b) above.
c) Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (in the 1930's?): in any mathematical system there are true statements that cannot be proven within that system; i.e. no mathematical system is "closed". Some people (e.g. John Lucas and Roger Penrose) claim this means that humans are not computers.
d) Euler's identity: 1+ e^i*pi = 0
This combines five, seemingly unrelated fundamental mathematical objects in a relation: zero, unity, two transcendental numbers, even an "imaginary number". How weirdly beautiful is that?
e) Fractals are "fractional dimension" mathematical objects, infinite complexity arising from simplicity, deep beauty from simple equations. They have real-life applications: e.g. the shape of fern fronds, and how long is the coastline of England? (depends on what scale you use).
f) Humorous theorem: there is no such thing as a boring number!
Proof: if there were boring numbers, then the set of boring numbers would have a first member, "the first boring number", and that would be very interesting indeed, so it could not be boring.
Questions to Ponder (based on your own metaphysics):
1. Are mathematical objects (e.g. polygons, relations, theorems) invented or discovered?
2. Do mathematical objects (e.g. numbers, geometric results) really exist?
They are not matter, energy, or information! (this evokes Plato's metaphysical “forms”).
3. If mathematical objects exist, are they part of the universe? If so, could math be different in
another universe or creation? i.e. could God have created mathematics differently?
4. Why is mathematics so effective for science? Do math-based physical “laws” actually operate
the Universe or are they just human models?
References for Further Study:
How religion and faith (metaphysics) underpin mathematics:
https://frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
A brief Reformed Christian view of mathematics:
https://www.redeemer.ca/resound/stewarding-talent-in-mathematics/
A quite different (contrary) view:
http://steve-patterson.com/the-metaphysics-of-mathematics-against-platonism/
A brief but thoughtful book review on the subject:
https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2014/09/the-metaphysics-of-math/
If you want to get lost in the subject! (quickly gets deep):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
This last reference shows that the subject remains an active and serious area of professional inquiry and debate.
Example Exercise: (using only high-school math)
Let f(x) = 1 for x = rational, and f(x) = 0 for x = irrational
Question: what is the integral between 0 and 1 of f(x)?
If you don't know, an integral is simply the area under the plot of f(x) on an x-y graph between the two limits of x, so there is no need for actual calculus (integration) here.
Depending on your metaphysical assumptions, any of the following answers may be correct:
a) If you were a Pythagorean back in the day, you would not believe that irrational numbers actually exist, so f(x) = 1 for all real numbers and the integral (area) between 0 and 1 would simply be 1.
Even today, there are people who question how real most irrational numbers are since the vast majority of them can never be described exactly, because they are an infinite series of digits in any numerical expansion; e.g. x = 0.876513234923746023700147829432764591034 is not irrational. It can be expressed as a ratio of two integers, and so is rational. Only by continuing such a string of pseudo-random digits to infinity can it be said to be irrational. Thus, a vanishingly small percentage of irrational numbers can be described in any finite form: numbers such as pi, e (the base of natural logarithms), square-root of two, 0.909009000900009000009..., and so on. So if most irrational numbers do not truly exist in any meaningful, presentable sense, one could perhaps say that the rational numbers between 0 and 1 far out weigh the irrational ones, and the integral approaches unity in the limit.
b) However, assuming that all irrational numbers do truly exist (in some sense), it is clear that there are any number of both irrational and rational numbers between 0 and 1. Indeed, we can say that there are an infinity of both type between 0 and 1. We cannot count how many, so we might assume (for now) that for every rational number there is an irrational one. Then half the numbers in that range are rational and half irrational, so that the area is one half (0.5). This might be thought of as a pseudo-average of f(x) over the 0 to 1 range.
c) Not so fast! That is not the full story. According to Georg Cantor (19th century) and most mathematicians since then, the rational numbers are "countable", which means they can be paired one-to-one with the infinite set of integers. He provided a simple demonstration of that. On the other hand, the irrationals cannot be counted in the same way, or at least no one has come up with a scheme for doing so. Thus, officially, the rational numbers are a different degree of infinity than the irrationals.
All infinite "countable" sets of things (numbers or otherwise) are considered to be at the "aleph-zero" level of infinity. The real numbers (rationals plus irrationals) cannot be counted, and are therefore considered as "aleph-one" level of infinity. In an aleph-one set, there are infinitely more items than in an aleph-zero set; not just double infinity, but "infinity squared" so to speak (although infinity is not a number so cannot be squared). If the real numbers are aleph-one, while the rational numbers are aleph-zero, then the irrationals must be aleph-one.
Therefore, rather than being the same number of rationals and irrationals between zero and one, there are infinitely more irrationals. That is, for every rational number between 0 and 1, there are an infinite number of irrationals. In this approach, the integral of f(x) is arbitrarily close to zero; i.e. the vast majority of the point in x have f(x) = 0 and the "average" over x = 0 to 1 is zero. I expect this would be the "official" answer to the question, referred to as the "non-constructivist" view, but it too is not without metaphysical issues.
d) Finally (I hope), the integral operation is often explained as summing up a huge number of narrow dx slices under a plot of the function, between the two limits of x. Thus, for example, when integrating the function g(x) = x, one would take narrow dx slices between x=0 and x=1, and add up their areas, as dx was made smaller and smaller, the integral would converge on a value of one half (0.5) for g(x). The integral calculus allows one to find the limit, i.e. the true area, without adding up the tiny slices. Thus, dx is referred to as an infinitesimal and, in the limit, there are an infinite number of dx slices between zero and one.
This works well for any continuous function like g(x), but f(x) is an "everywhere discontinuous" function. No matter how small you make dx, there will be an infinite number of rational numbers in the slice and infinitely more irrational ones. Thus, there is no way to look at a finite dx, much less an infinitesimal one to determine the "true value" of f(x) in that slice.
The concept of "real infinities" and infinitesimals caused mathematical philosophers a lot of trouble when calculus was being developed back in the 17th century. Still today, infinitesimals are suspect to many philosophers, who basically say we can use calculus because it "works" for functions like g(x), but not because it represents reality or truth. Given such metaphysical doubt, some would conclude that for the function f(x), dx is meaningless, therefore the integral is undefined; i.e. it cannot be computed.
Some Other Observations:
a) Zeno's paradox updated: movement is impossible as it requires something to be in an infinite number of locations in a finite time, and "real infinities" are impossible. Despite seeming to be silly, this paradox still causes metaphysical concerns for some philosophers.
b) Infinity is not a number, but Georg Cantor's transfinite numbers (aleph 0, 1, 2...) tries to make sense of infinite sets of different "sizes", as noted above. Cantor said there is an infinite series of ever increasing infinities (aleph-n), but I have not seen any descriptions above aleph-2, and some mathematicians question how real the higher alephs are. Hence answer (b) above.
c) Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems (in the 1930's?): in any mathematical system there are true statements that cannot be proven within that system; i.e. no mathematical system is "closed". Some people (e.g. John Lucas and Roger Penrose) claim this means that humans are not computers.
d) Euler's identity: 1+ e^i*pi = 0
This combines five, seemingly unrelated fundamental mathematical objects in a relation: zero, unity, two transcendental numbers, even an "imaginary number". How weirdly beautiful is that?
e) Fractals are "fractional dimension" mathematical objects, infinite complexity arising from simplicity, deep beauty from simple equations. They have real-life applications: e.g. the shape of fern fronds, and how long is the coastline of England? (depends on what scale you use).
f) Humorous theorem: there is no such thing as a boring number!
Proof: if there were boring numbers, then the set of boring numbers would have a first member, "the first boring number", and that would be very interesting indeed, so it could not be boring.
Questions to Ponder (based on your own metaphysics):
1. Are mathematical objects (e.g. polygons, relations, theorems) invented or discovered?
2. Do mathematical objects (e.g. numbers, geometric results) really exist?
They are not matter, energy, or information! (this evokes Plato's metaphysical “forms”).
3. If mathematical objects exist, are they part of the universe? If so, could math be different in
another universe or creation? i.e. could God have created mathematics differently?
4. Why is mathematics so effective for science? Do math-based physical “laws” actually operate
the Universe or are they just human models?
References for Further Study:
How religion and faith (metaphysics) underpin mathematics:
https://frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
A brief Reformed Christian view of mathematics:
https://www.redeemer.ca/resound/stewarding-talent-in-mathematics/
A quite different (contrary) view:
http://steve-patterson.com/the-metaphysics-of-mathematics-against-platonism/
A brief but thoughtful book review on the subject:
https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2014/09/the-metaphysics-of-math/
If you want to get lost in the subject! (quickly gets deep):
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-mathematics/
This last reference shows that the subject remains an active and serious area of professional inquiry and debate.
Saturday, 10 November 2018
Published a Book Have I
Yes, it's true, I am now a published author! After many years of soul searching and prayer, and not a little procrastination, I finally succumbed to the subconscious nagging and wrote up my book on the bioethics of abortion: Finding the Balance: quantitative ethics resolves the abortion issue. After some positive feedback from reviewers and subsequent revisions, along with the usual battles with my word processor for control of the formatting, I actually got it published! It is a simple e-book, available on Amazon at: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B07JM8L4RT/
The Kindle app is free of charge for computers, tablets and smart phones, so you can read it on almost any device. I also wanted to make the book free to download, but Amazon would not let me offer it for less than $0.99. I won't copy the book description here as you will see that when you open the link. It is a short book and (I think) an easy read, even with its graphs and yes, equations. The first three pages are viewable free on-line. They give my purpose for writing the book and begin to introduce the topic.
Those of you who know me well may think you already know the gist of what I've written, but you would be mistaken. My "quantitative ethics" approach was developed to be as completely neutral as possible; that is, to avoid or counter all the usual emotional arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, as impossible as that may seem. The analysis and results I arrive at depart from a purely pro-life position -- hence the soul searching on my part alluded to above. I will not reveal the conclusions of my efforts here, but I hope my book will help reframe the abortion debate along objective, defendable lines. The quantitative ethics approach is also offered and applied as a new tool for use in other bioethical subjects, such as end-of-life issues.
I expect that most reviews (if I get any at all) will be negative. After all, most people who read books about abortion will likely already be either solidly pro-life or pro-choice, and they will not like what I have written! This could be a good thing as long as it doesn't dissuade everyone else from reading it. The book is mostly aimed at the majority of people, neither pro-choice nor pro-life (or perhaps both), who may be looking for a reasonable resolution to the issue, one that eschews both extremes.
I hope your curiosity will be piqued enough to risk the minimal cost and find out what I have come up with in this book. And if you indeed read it, please consider posting a review on Amazon. Good or bad, any publicity is better than none!
The Kindle app is free of charge for computers, tablets and smart phones, so you can read it on almost any device. I also wanted to make the book free to download, but Amazon would not let me offer it for less than $0.99. I won't copy the book description here as you will see that when you open the link. It is a short book and (I think) an easy read, even with its graphs and yes, equations. The first three pages are viewable free on-line. They give my purpose for writing the book and begin to introduce the topic.
Those of you who know me well may think you already know the gist of what I've written, but you would be mistaken. My "quantitative ethics" approach was developed to be as completely neutral as possible; that is, to avoid or counter all the usual emotional arguments on both sides of the abortion debate, as impossible as that may seem. The analysis and results I arrive at depart from a purely pro-life position -- hence the soul searching on my part alluded to above. I will not reveal the conclusions of my efforts here, but I hope my book will help reframe the abortion debate along objective, defendable lines. The quantitative ethics approach is also offered and applied as a new tool for use in other bioethical subjects, such as end-of-life issues.
I expect that most reviews (if I get any at all) will be negative. After all, most people who read books about abortion will likely already be either solidly pro-life or pro-choice, and they will not like what I have written! This could be a good thing as long as it doesn't dissuade everyone else from reading it. The book is mostly aimed at the majority of people, neither pro-choice nor pro-life (or perhaps both), who may be looking for a reasonable resolution to the issue, one that eschews both extremes.
I hope your curiosity will be piqued enough to risk the minimal cost and find out what I have come up with in this book. And if you indeed read it, please consider posting a review on Amazon. Good or bad, any publicity is better than none!
Thursday, 8 November 2018
Now Where Was I?
After a four (4) year hiatus (Four Years - really? That's forever in the blogosphere!), I am returning to capture additional THoughts, OPinions and IDeas here at my blog. Why did I stop posting? Not sure; I guess I was preoccupied with other crucial aspects of retired living: cycling, moving house, grandchildren, reading, writing, volunteering, watching Netflix, procrastinating, etc. Or maybe, having temporarily run out of ideas, I stopped and just didn't get back to it.
Why am I returning now? Well the THOPIDs have been bubbling up in recent months, demanding to escape from my head and be captured in articulate English, so I have been making notes and have now gathered enough to push me over the threshold of starting again. And who knows, maybe this time I'll actually tell people about my blog, and someone may even read it. 😉
In any case, please continue to ignore the dates on my entries, especially the older ones. None of them are particularly time limited, or tied to past news and events. And having read them over again recently, I still hold pretty much all the same positions. I'll let readers decide whether that makes me dependable and consistent, or just stuck in my ways. Perhaps once captured, the thoughts are forever carved in the cloud and don't want to be changed? Or maybe, having written them out, they vacate my mind. After all, why expend wetware resources when we have the cloud?
All this to say, welcome to my blog, or welcome back if you happened to stumble across it earlier. I also welcome any comments you may have, but reserve the right to delete any that are nasty or abusive.
Now what was that I wanted to write about?...
Sunday, 21 December 2014
Engineering Gender Balance Rant
Please tell me, where is it written that all professions must strive mightily to achieve 50-50% gender parity? For more than twenty years now, the engineering profession, at least here in Canada, has been bending over backward trying to increase the percentage of women practitioners, all without avail. There are special "women in engineering" groups and meetings, scholarships for women students, women role models provided, "outreach" events to entice high-school and even younger girls; and every group photo, engineering advertisement, or awards ceremony has to have women prominently recognized or on display. Male engineering students are continually reminded to be on their best behaviour regarding women students, and many engineering companies try hard to recruit and hire women, when possible.
Early on in these initiatives, there was a modest increase of women up to almost 20% of graduates, but then it dropped back and is currently stuck just above 15%, as I recall. What's more, a large fraction of women engineers drop out of the profession, or seek non-engineering roles once they have graduated and worked for awhile. Some people look upon this situation as a shameful failure, especially when some other professions have had great success building gender balance in their ranks. Thus, efforts are redoubled to change the engineering atmosphere, or even the profession itself, and there is much soul-searching and hand wringing among certain leadership groups. Certainly if a particular workplace harasses or is biased against women as engineers, then changes are needed there, but I have not seen that in the fields where I have worked.
It is great that some women do want to become engineers and those I've worked with have done as good a job as the men in similar roles. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about women doing engineering, but why should it be necessary to increase their numbers beyond whatever the natural percentage of interested women may be? Is it not possible that, by and large, most women simply do not want to be engineers? Is there something special about engineering that we think we need to almost force women to sign up? Maybe women look at engineering work hours and conditions, or pay scales and decide to pursue another career. Or could it be that women generally prefer to work with human beings, rather than with things, as in most of engineering? (e.g. design, hardware, testing, software.) Yes, of course, engineering involves human interaction, but much less than in medicine, teaching, or law, where most of what you do is for and with other people.
Speaking of other professions, is there any similar push for gender balance in nursing or the teaching profession? This short article suggests that such typically female professions have the opposite "problem" (if problem it is), but are not doing much to address it. If gender parity in engineering is so important, why is it not also important in other imbalanced professions? And beyond the professions, is there a similar push for gender equality in the trades, which often pay as well, and can be every bit as rewarding as the professions? Is there a nation-wide full-scale campaign to recruit women plumbers, or women truck drivers? I somehow doubt it.
Given that there are many professions and job categories where women are in the majority, one could also ask where would all these women engineers come from? I doubt there are large numbers of young women out there just waiting for the chance to become engineers. Rather, those women simply choose other interest areas for their education and careers. So a growth in women in engineering would mean a reduction somewhere else.
What's more, most women want to have children at some point and many of those want (and for good reasons are often encouraged) to stay at home with their kids for a few years, thereby taking themselves out of the paid work force. This suggests that, if we want to have enough children to replace ourselves, and want them raised in the most effective way (i.e. by their parents), and don't want a higher unemployment rate for men, then overall, there must be fewer women than men with paid employment.
Before you castigate me for my incorrigible male chauvinism, I am well aware that men can raise children too, but child bearing and breast feeding (the recommended approach) by necessity fall to women, and on average, women make better caregivers than men, at least for pre-schoolers. There is a reason why almost all early-childhood educators and day care personnel are women. Biology is not destiny, but it is a big factor in certain aspects of life, and who is going to tell young mothers NOT to stay at home with their young children if that is what they want to do? Indeed, many working mothers wish they could be at home with their kids.
If engineering societies want to keep banging their heads against the wall trying to increase the number of women practitioners, they will doubtless continue to do so. However, I do not expect them to have much in the way of success, and I for one, do not want my dues or fees going toward pointless and increasingly desperate recruitment efforts. At some point these groups have to recognize that most women simply choose not to become engineers, and let it go. If some professions can be mostly female, we do not need to be sorry or feel ashamed that some others will inevitably be mostly male.
Early on in these initiatives, there was a modest increase of women up to almost 20% of graduates, but then it dropped back and is currently stuck just above 15%, as I recall. What's more, a large fraction of women engineers drop out of the profession, or seek non-engineering roles once they have graduated and worked for awhile. Some people look upon this situation as a shameful failure, especially when some other professions have had great success building gender balance in their ranks. Thus, efforts are redoubled to change the engineering atmosphere, or even the profession itself, and there is much soul-searching and hand wringing among certain leadership groups. Certainly if a particular workplace harasses or is biased against women as engineers, then changes are needed there, but I have not seen that in the fields where I have worked.
It is great that some women do want to become engineers and those I've worked with have done as good a job as the men in similar roles. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about women doing engineering, but why should it be necessary to increase their numbers beyond whatever the natural percentage of interested women may be? Is it not possible that, by and large, most women simply do not want to be engineers? Is there something special about engineering that we think we need to almost force women to sign up? Maybe women look at engineering work hours and conditions, or pay scales and decide to pursue another career. Or could it be that women generally prefer to work with human beings, rather than with things, as in most of engineering? (e.g. design, hardware, testing, software.) Yes, of course, engineering involves human interaction, but much less than in medicine, teaching, or law, where most of what you do is for and with other people.
Speaking of other professions, is there any similar push for gender balance in nursing or the teaching profession? This short article suggests that such typically female professions have the opposite "problem" (if problem it is), but are not doing much to address it. If gender parity in engineering is so important, why is it not also important in other imbalanced professions? And beyond the professions, is there a similar push for gender equality in the trades, which often pay as well, and can be every bit as rewarding as the professions? Is there a nation-wide full-scale campaign to recruit women plumbers, or women truck drivers? I somehow doubt it.
Given that there are many professions and job categories where women are in the majority, one could also ask where would all these women engineers come from? I doubt there are large numbers of young women out there just waiting for the chance to become engineers. Rather, those women simply choose other interest areas for their education and careers. So a growth in women in engineering would mean a reduction somewhere else.
What's more, most women want to have children at some point and many of those want (and for good reasons are often encouraged) to stay at home with their kids for a few years, thereby taking themselves out of the paid work force. This suggests that, if we want to have enough children to replace ourselves, and want them raised in the most effective way (i.e. by their parents), and don't want a higher unemployment rate for men, then overall, there must be fewer women than men with paid employment.
Before you castigate me for my incorrigible male chauvinism, I am well aware that men can raise children too, but child bearing and breast feeding (the recommended approach) by necessity fall to women, and on average, women make better caregivers than men, at least for pre-schoolers. There is a reason why almost all early-childhood educators and day care personnel are women. Biology is not destiny, but it is a big factor in certain aspects of life, and who is going to tell young mothers NOT to stay at home with their young children if that is what they want to do? Indeed, many working mothers wish they could be at home with their kids.
If engineering societies want to keep banging their heads against the wall trying to increase the number of women practitioners, they will doubtless continue to do so. However, I do not expect them to have much in the way of success, and I for one, do not want my dues or fees going toward pointless and increasingly desperate recruitment efforts. At some point these groups have to recognize that most women simply choose not to become engineers, and let it go. If some professions can be mostly female, we do not need to be sorry or feel ashamed that some others will inevitably be mostly male.
Monday, 2 June 2014
Empirical Faith
I find it strange that some people claim that religious faith is "irrational", "blind", or that there is "no evidence" to support religious belief. For Christianity, such statements are simply wrong. I have previously listed evidence that supports theism, the belief that God exists. Here I want to show that Christianity is an empirical faith, and that anyone seeking with an open mind can come to faith by means of rational inquiry.
I am not thinking about logical "proofs" for God's existence, nor philosophical arguments and deductions, however meaningful they may be. Neither am I thinking of "Pascal's wager". Rather, I am considering evidence that can be evaluated by anyone, and an "experimental" approach to finding out for yourself whether God is real. Numerous people started out as agnostics or atheists, but became Christians after investigating the evidence. C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Nicky Gumbel, Mortimer Adler, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Collins, Alan Sandage are a few of the more famous converts.
The first and more obvious approach to finding out whether Christianity is true or not is to collect, study and assess the evidence, setting aside any preconceptions you may have, and comparing Christianity to the alternatives. There are numerous books available and web sites on "apologetics" (systematic argumentative discourse in defense) to present the evidence and walk you through this process. To avoid a biased study, you should also, of course, check out atheist books, web sites and their arguments against theism. Note that every pro and con argument has a rebuttal, so do not take anything at face value. I never said this would be a simple or easy exercise, but surely knowing the truth about whether God exists and who Jesus was is worth the effort. After all, what could be more important than your eternal destination, or lack of same?
The Bible contains most of the historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity, developing from Judaism. Of course the Bible has been attacked and defended from all angles by numerous authors over the centuries, so again, you will have to dig through the pros and cons to make up your own mind. Similarly, there is a mountain of literature about the development of Christianity over the past two millennia, including the formulation of various creeds and doctrines, but that study should probably wait until you are convinced that God exists and has revealed himself to us in the Bible.
At some point in your searching you will doubtless come across statements to the effect that, "Christians do awful things therefore their faith cannot be true". This in its various forms is essentially an ad hominem attack on Christianity; i.e. reject the teaching because the teachers often do not follow it. One of the basic beliefs of Christianity is that all people are sinful (do bad things), and that becoming a Christian does not instantly make you perfect. Thus, it would be strange if Christians, as forgiven sinners, never did anything bad. Christians can make wrong decisions, get confused, be conned or pressed into evil, just the same as anyone else.
Fairly considered, I think that Christianity provides the best model to explain all aspects of reality: the physical universe, the world around us, abundant life, spiritual mysteries, and especially our complicated and bewildering human nature. But of course, I am biased, so you will have to do this investigation yourself. There are other world views that may be considered: Buddhist and Hindu religions, atheistic materialism, postmodernism, animist, Islam religion, etc. These can be compared in various ways, such as: explaining origins, authenticity of their writings, their effect on adherents and mankind in general, the hope or future they offer, how well they explain human behaviour, their view of human rights, our sexual difference, relationships with the world and people, the nature of reality, and so on.
As described above, determining the truth about faith and Christianity is a huge undertaking. It will take a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Indeed some people have been searching agnostics for many years. That is probably why most people do not bother, but merely accept someone else's views. If you are at all inclined to belief, however, there are some shortcuts you can take. I recommend C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is a collection of common-sense observations and arguments delving into the basics of the Christian faith. There are lots of other books, videos, etc. as well. Lee Strobel has a series of apologetics books that present the pro-God, pro-faith, pro-Christ evidence in an easy-to-read format. These can be found at on-line bookstores.
If you don't like scholarly investigation or logical expounding about Christianity, there is another approach -- a more personal and private way to seek the truth -- the experimental method. If you are a sincere seeker after the truth about God, then take your search to him! Put aside your doubts, fears, logical arguments, presuppositions, and with an open mind, quietly pray to God, asking Him to reveal himself to you in some way. Clear you mind and, in your thoughts, say something like, "God, I don't know whether you exist, but I want to find out. Please give me some sort of sign that you are real and that you revealed yourself to mankind in the Bible. I don't know what or whether to believe, but I am open to you, so please let me know if you are real". Use your own words and express your search and deep interest.
To make sure this is not a trivial request and to be sincere about it, you should probably think about and repeat this prayer over several days. Meanwhile you could open the Bible to the book of Mark in the New Testament, and read parts of it each day, asking God to help you understand it. Jesus said "seek and you will find", so if you are truly seeking, then God, through his Spirit, will open your heart to him and help you find him. Each day you should watch for some indication that God is answering your heartfelt prayer. This could take any form; e.g. a dream, a sudden feeling that what you are reading is true, contact out of the blue with a helpful Christian, a reassurance in your spirit that someone is listening and cares about you, a feeling of awe about some event or situation in your life, a change in your attitude or circumstances. Whatever it is, it should be special and important to you.
There is no telling how God will respond to your fervent prayer; many have found that he does respond, not necessarily quickly or in an expected way. But asking God to reveal himself is one tried method of seeking the truth about Christianity and faith. On the other hand, if after prolonged and honest seeking, searching and prayer, you get no discernible response, then you can tentatively conclude that God is not for you or that he isn't real after all. For unknown reasons, not everyone becomes a believer. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not everyone receives it.
So there you have it; some ways to investigate faith claims, or to seek the truth about God and Christianity. Many people have used these or similar methods to convince themselves. While some doubt may remain (few things are 100% certain), you should be able to find enough evidence or personal assurance to allow you to start believing. In so doing, you will find that the so called "leap of faith" is really a series of quite reasonable steps.
I am not thinking about logical "proofs" for God's existence, nor philosophical arguments and deductions, however meaningful they may be. Neither am I thinking of "Pascal's wager". Rather, I am considering evidence that can be evaluated by anyone, and an "experimental" approach to finding out for yourself whether God is real. Numerous people started out as agnostics or atheists, but became Christians after investigating the evidence. C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, Nicky Gumbel, Mortimer Adler, Malcolm Muggeridge, Francis Collins, Alan Sandage are a few of the more famous converts.
The first and more obvious approach to finding out whether Christianity is true or not is to collect, study and assess the evidence, setting aside any preconceptions you may have, and comparing Christianity to the alternatives. There are numerous books available and web sites on "apologetics" (systematic argumentative discourse in defense) to present the evidence and walk you through this process. To avoid a biased study, you should also, of course, check out atheist books, web sites and their arguments against theism. Note that every pro and con argument has a rebuttal, so do not take anything at face value. I never said this would be a simple or easy exercise, but surely knowing the truth about whether God exists and who Jesus was is worth the effort. After all, what could be more important than your eternal destination, or lack of same?
The Bible contains most of the historical evidence for the person of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity, developing from Judaism. Of course the Bible has been attacked and defended from all angles by numerous authors over the centuries, so again, you will have to dig through the pros and cons to make up your own mind. Similarly, there is a mountain of literature about the development of Christianity over the past two millennia, including the formulation of various creeds and doctrines, but that study should probably wait until you are convinced that God exists and has revealed himself to us in the Bible.
At some point in your searching you will doubtless come across statements to the effect that, "Christians do awful things therefore their faith cannot be true". This in its various forms is essentially an ad hominem attack on Christianity; i.e. reject the teaching because the teachers often do not follow it. One of the basic beliefs of Christianity is that all people are sinful (do bad things), and that becoming a Christian does not instantly make you perfect. Thus, it would be strange if Christians, as forgiven sinners, never did anything bad. Christians can make wrong decisions, get confused, be conned or pressed into evil, just the same as anyone else.
Fairly considered, I think that Christianity provides the best model to explain all aspects of reality: the physical universe, the world around us, abundant life, spiritual mysteries, and especially our complicated and bewildering human nature. But of course, I am biased, so you will have to do this investigation yourself. There are other world views that may be considered: Buddhist and Hindu religions, atheistic materialism, postmodernism, animist, Islam religion, etc. These can be compared in various ways, such as: explaining origins, authenticity of their writings, their effect on adherents and mankind in general, the hope or future they offer, how well they explain human behaviour, their view of human rights, our sexual difference, relationships with the world and people, the nature of reality, and so on.
As described above, determining the truth about faith and Christianity is a huge undertaking. It will take a lot of work to do a proper job of it. Indeed some people have been searching agnostics for many years. That is probably why most people do not bother, but merely accept someone else's views. If you are at all inclined to belief, however, there are some shortcuts you can take. I recommend C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which is a collection of common-sense observations and arguments delving into the basics of the Christian faith. There are lots of other books, videos, etc. as well. Lee Strobel has a series of apologetics books that present the pro-God, pro-faith, pro-Christ evidence in an easy-to-read format. These can be found at on-line bookstores.
If you don't like scholarly investigation or logical expounding about Christianity, there is another approach -- a more personal and private way to seek the truth -- the experimental method. If you are a sincere seeker after the truth about God, then take your search to him! Put aside your doubts, fears, logical arguments, presuppositions, and with an open mind, quietly pray to God, asking Him to reveal himself to you in some way. Clear you mind and, in your thoughts, say something like, "God, I don't know whether you exist, but I want to find out. Please give me some sort of sign that you are real and that you revealed yourself to mankind in the Bible. I don't know what or whether to believe, but I am open to you, so please let me know if you are real". Use your own words and express your search and deep interest.
To make sure this is not a trivial request and to be sincere about it, you should probably think about and repeat this prayer over several days. Meanwhile you could open the Bible to the book of Mark in the New Testament, and read parts of it each day, asking God to help you understand it. Jesus said "seek and you will find", so if you are truly seeking, then God, through his Spirit, will open your heart to him and help you find him. Each day you should watch for some indication that God is answering your heartfelt prayer. This could take any form; e.g. a dream, a sudden feeling that what you are reading is true, contact out of the blue with a helpful Christian, a reassurance in your spirit that someone is listening and cares about you, a feeling of awe about some event or situation in your life, a change in your attitude or circumstances. Whatever it is, it should be special and important to you.
There is no telling how God will respond to your fervent prayer; many have found that he does respond, not necessarily quickly or in an expected way. But asking God to reveal himself is one tried method of seeking the truth about Christianity and faith. On the other hand, if after prolonged and honest seeking, searching and prayer, you get no discernible response, then you can tentatively conclude that God is not for you or that he isn't real after all. For unknown reasons, not everyone becomes a believer. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not everyone receives it.
So there you have it; some ways to investigate faith claims, or to seek the truth about God and Christianity. Many people have used these or similar methods to convince themselves. While some doubt may remain (few things are 100% certain), you should be able to find enough evidence or personal assurance to allow you to start believing. In so doing, you will find that the so called "leap of faith" is really a series of quite reasonable steps.
Sunday, 27 April 2014
Capital Punishment
Pro-lifers in favour of capital punishment are sometimes challenged with, "How can you be pro-life if you support capital punishment?" This may be presented as a put down to pro-life views, as if being 'wrong' about capital punishment somehow means that you are also wrong about abortion. Or that being pro-life means you are somehow a hypocrite if you support killing under any circumstances. There are, of course, many pro-life people who are against capital punishment as one way of being "consistently pro-life". But I do not think that is the only legitimate position for pro-lifers.The unborn child in the womb is surely the most innocent of all human beings. Therefore, taking her/his life without legal process and for the most urgent possible reasons (e.g. saving the life of the mother) is surely wrong. In contrast, a condemned criminal is not innocent at all. Rather he (usually a male) has been proven guilty in a court of law of an egregious crime against humanity -- usually the taking of another human life without legal sanction. Once duly convicted, the criminal should have no further human rights. By taking another life, he has by his own action forfeited his own right to life and is now at the mercy of his fellow man in the form of the state. If the state views his crimes (usually plural) as sufficiently bad, then the state has the right to take his life in retribution. This is one way to see justice done; having the punishment fit the crime.
All pro-life people hold the dignity and value of human life very highly. To us, life is sacred and each human is created in the image of God. Therefore, human life should not be taken wantonly, for personal gain, and without due process. However, human life being held so highly, anyone taking another's life in a criminal way (murder) needs to be severely punished for that evil act, possibly up to and including capital punishment. Another answer to the question how a pro-life person can support capital punishment is to consider the opposite: how can anyone who is against capital punishment support abortion? Isn't there something seriously wrong with someone desiring mercy and rehabilitation for a guilty murderer, while allowing innocent children to be killed before birth for any reason at all? Isn't that a truly twisted view of the dignity of human life? Anyone accosting a pro-lifer for her views on capital punishment had better think through his own views first to see how consistent he is.
My own view is that, yes, the state does have the right to take the life of a condemned criminal through capital punishment. However, I believe that there are very few cases when this should happen and that capital punishment in a modern state should be rare. There have been too many cases of wrongful conviction, court-sanctioned revenge killings, and skewed statistics on who gets condemned. Indeed our courts are not as 'blind' as they should be. A life sentence is probably better in most cases. Most modern, democratic states are well enough off and stable enough that they can incarcerate convicted murderers safely and securely without breaking the national budget.
The flip side, however, is that a life sentence should be just that; the convict remains imprisoned until death. When a convicted multiple murderer can be given parole after a mere ten years or so, there is something wrong with our justice system. When a murderer gets out after some minimal sentence, only to re-offend by taking another life, then those who let him out should also be punished in some way. The illegal taking of a human life needs to be treated as the serious offense against God and humanity that it truly is. And that is a consistently pro-life position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)