But, But, But …

The current theoretical darlings of cosmologists are dark matter and dark energy, even though there are no identifiable causes for their existence or mechanisms for their effects. Dark matter was conjectured because of phenomena observed that could only be explained by either the law of gravity varying from place to place or some new mysterious source of gravitational force existing, one that we cannot see. Well, everyone knew that gravity, or the law describing its effects, must be the same everywhere, so they settled for the mysterious source of gravitational force.

The same goes for dark energy. Since they believe space is expanding (specifically space-time, but only between galaxies, not within them) they were perplexed when their measurements showed the rate of expansion was increasing. Now, with no mechanism or description of how a non-material thing like “space” could expand, they came up with another mysterious force: dark energy, again something that we cannot observe, but is causing the expansion of space-time to accelerate.

But now, as the blog EarthSkyNews reports: “A new analysis of nearly 2,100 supernovas hints that dark energy – the mysterious influence driving the expansion of the universe – might change strength over time. If so, it would point to surprising new physics that could affect the fate of the universe.”

What the fuck, Cosmo-nerds? Gravity cannot vary from place to place but dark energy can? Apparently they haven’t noticed that if one peruses the problems by speculating that gravity can vary, most everything falls into place and no weird conjectures need be made. I guess they really like the rabbit hole they have plunged into. Now where did that damned White Rabbit go?

Postscript Would it break their spirits to say “the hypothetical mysterious influence driving the expansion of the universe” or the mysterious influence conjectured to be driving the expansion of the universe”? Scientists do tend to talk about hypotheticals as if they were real because everyone in their audience knew what was what. (“Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean?”) but this is wildly inappropriate for things written for lay audience. What were their editors thinking?

Compact Yet Weird

I am taking about the English language. Consider Exhibit One (see photo below):

This is the back cover of a box a manual bread slicer was shipped in. There is marketing stuff in six different languages: German (upper left), English (lower left), French (upper middle), Italian (lower middle), Spanish (upper right) and Dutch (I think—lower right). All say the same thing, at least to the best of my ability to discern that.

And relax, I don’t expect you to be able to read the texts, I just want you to consider the amount of space they take up. The English version takes up the least space, German the most and the others in between. I discovered this interesting fact, that English is a compact language, but a bitch to learn I am told (too many weird grammatical rules, irregular verbs, and weird spellings).

I learned this when we got the brazen idea to publish our archery magazine, Archery Focus, in four European languages. The magazine sold all over the world but only to an English-reading audience. And, for example, archery is way more popular in France than it is in the U.S. and also popular in Spain, Germany, and Italy (less so). So we hooked up with a European partner who arranged for the translations. As soon as the text of the magazine was available, I emailed it off to our partner, who then directed it to his translators, then the translations came back to me and I had to lay them out, make PDF versions, and post them to our website. In the masterplan we were to seek out adverts from archery suppliers in those countries but we never got that far. The biggest problem we had were basically unreliable translators (or they weren’t being paid enough to direct their full attention).

So, some versions got made, others did not. We also immediately had subscription problems, mostly in a country I won’t mention (Italy). Our software shut down a subscriber when three or more people logged in simultaneously using the same pass codes. The first subscription sold in Italy set a record in having eleven people logging in within hours, using the same pass codes.

We tried a great many things to promote the success of that magazine. Maybe the time wasn’t right. Maybe we weren’t the right people to do it. Maybe the idea was bad. I don’t know.

What I learned is that each of these languages needs different amounts of space to post an article. And you can ask any layout artist whether they can just shove a larger amount of text into a small space and make it fit by adjusting line spacing, letter spacing, the font used, etc. and they will tell you, sure … but I won’t do it. Such practices go under the heading of “Stealing Sheep,” I believe in New Zealand and are generally frowned upon.

I had to move things around, even add pages from time to time, which is a luxury we couldn’t do in the old days when magazines were only printed on paper. You couldn’t add just a single page, you had to add a signature, usually eight pages, because of the way pages were printed, folded, stitched, and stapled, etc. But with electronic publishing, add a page? Sure, no problem.

I spent many an hour sweating bullets fitting the type in place. And then, well proofreading was almost impossible. Proofreaders should be native language speakers, well educated in the topic being read as well. Hell, even mainstream publishers can’t afford proofreaders now, relying on copy editors and spellcheckers instead (which is why so many typos show up in the books and magazines you read). The only proofreader we could afford was me and thank goodness, the layout software I was using, Quark XPress, was designed for multilingual publishing and had dictionaries available in all of those languages. Of course, many of the specialized terms that applied only to archery were not in those dictionaries and so I had to go chase them down, creating my own archery concordance. (The International Archery Federation was once sited in Geneva, Switzerland and they produced an English-French archery dictionary because that organization was bilingual (like Quebec in Canada), but that was the only one. Long after this experiment died, I finally managed to acquire a copy of that dictionary, but I gave it to a French author as an enticement fro her to write for us. I regret not having a copy and maybe should have Xeroxed it before I mailed it to her, but that is also “stealing sheep” as it is still under copyright.)

Why Is This Necessary?

I was reading a post on Medium.com and the author began with this “caution:”

Disclaimer: This article discusses sensitive topics that may trigger difficult memories for those who have experienced severe trauma. Please proceed only if you feel prepared and comfortable.

Now the title of this piece was “Christians Struggle to Justify Hell and Shift the Blame.” If this topic was something that would “trigger” me, why would I read it? If the same article had a title “Chocolate Bunnies Taste Great!” I might need a warning, but. . . .

Do people with peanut allergies really need a warning . . . on jars of peanut butter . . . that says “Contains peanuts! If you are allergic. . . .” Every drug advertised has a warning to not take the drug if you are allergic to it. Really?

All of these sound like cautions recommended by lawyers so they can say in court, “But, Your Honor, it clearly states of the label “Contains Peanuts.” Are lawyers in charge of our commercial communications? And obviously this has bled over into academic discourse. As a college teacher, I was offended by those suggesting that I should warn students that they may feel uncomfortable from various things being taught. How the Hell does one learn without feeling confused, or mentally uncomfortable. It is my job to stretch their thinking, no? I wanted them uncomfortable, bewildered, no.

Are we to warn students in a weight training class that their muscles might be stressed? In cooking classes do we start with “stoves can get hot, so be careful” and “watch out for knives, they are sharp?”

If you, as a reader, have experienced severe trauma, shouldn’t you be your own gatekeeper? Who knows better than you whether something you are reading is making you too uncomfortable to continue? And “Please proceed only if you feel prepared and comfortable.” Fuck that! I want to be challenged. I want my assumptions to be exposed and examined. I want to learn and I can’t do that hiding behind my fears. Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me?”

The Miracle of AI

The only appliance I can equate to Chatbots is a trash compactor. Most writers can recognize the output of Chatbots and that is because they have been programmed to produce output that seems erudite. So, they tend to use long sentences, polysyllabic words, unnecessary verbiage, etc.

I call it Chatbot window dressing. The bot skims something they think is relevant from the Internet and then smears its window dressing on it to make it sound like it knows what it is writing about and making it larger than it need be but then compressing it to fit into the space required. I think it was Mark Twain who suggested that we “never use a $5 word when a fifty-cent word will do” (This is from memory so it may not be perfectly accurate. And I think Hemingway was fond of quoting Twain on this, but his version, again from memory, was “never use a $5 word when a two bit word will do.”) Chatbots do the reverse. They never use a fifty-cent word when a $5 word is available.

And, as usual, Cory Doctorow can say it much better than I:

“Maybe you’ve had the experience of following a commentator and admiring their knowledge of subjects you’re unfamiliar with, only have them cover something you’re an expert in and find them making a bunch of errors (this is basically the experience of using an LLM (Large Language Model), which can give you authoritative seeming answers when the subject is one you’re unfamiliar with, but which reveals itself to be a Bullshit Machine as soon as you ask it about something whose lore you know backwards and forwards).”

It’s a Start

I mentioned I might want to write an atheist’s handbook. A quick survey of Amazon.com offerings shows many books in this vein, but few of them (none I could see) are taking my tack: how to be a good atheist. So, like Boy/Girl Scout manuals, the focus is not on the history of atheism, or the politics of atheism (although they will get mentioned), this will be about being a good atheist.

As with all my writing projects, I make a list of topics I might include and then I pick one that might get my juices going and begin. Below is an excerpt of my first draft for your perusal. I do have a question: am I wasting my time (and yours) or should I keep going?

PS Those of you who offered suggestions may notice them in this segment.

* * * *

An Excerpt from . . . The Atheist’s Handbook
<sub> AKA How to Be a Good Atheist

Questions Atheists Get Asked

Atheists are often asked questions, questions which to us seem strange but the questioner often comes from a community in which atheists are about as common as outer space aliens, so be gentle.

Here are some common questions you may encounter and helpful answers you might want to use.

Do Atheists worship Satan?
No, we worship no gods, especially not demi-gods created by gods we are unconvinced are real in the first place.

Can atheism answer the “Big Questions”?
No, but neither can anyone else. Often these questions, for example, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and “Where did we come from?” and “How did we get here?” plus “Are we alone in the Universe?” are inventions of bright people who know there are no answers to such questions (yet), but they can foster stimulating discussions. More often, though, we are asked these by theists who think their religions can answer these questions. But just because they offer answers to such questions doesn’t make them right.

For example, they might answer “How did we get here?” with “God created you.” But I might answer that “the Whifflegump created you.” How do you tell which of our answers is valid? A theist might respond with “There is no such thing as a Whifflegump, you just made that up.” to which I can answer “There is no such thing as God, you just made that up.” How do you tell which of our answers is valid?

What happens after death for atheists?
Nothing. Life goes on, but it no longer involves us. I especially like to refer to the time before they were born by asking “Do you recall what it was like before you were born?” And when they look puzzled or answer “no,” I continue “It is just like that.”

Do atheists have a code word or special handshake?
No, but maybe we should. I will ask the Council to look into it.

Why do atheists hate God?
Atheists do not hate any god, as an atheist cannot hate that which is non existent. Well we could try, but why would we? Atheists do hate things that the religious do in the name of their gods, horrible, detestable things. But the gods themselves? Hating imaginary beings is a recipe for a stay in a mental health facility.

Do atheists eat babies?
This is such an insulting question that I am inclined to respond with jokes and insults, but often these are Christians who have been told these lies and they may not understand the nuances of such responses. (Early Christians were accused of cannibalism because they “ate the body and drank the blood of Christ” in a ritual. So, they may be a little sensitive. But these very same people claim that “the Jews” killed Christ, when Jesus and his followers were all practicing Jews and the people who actually killed Jesus were Roman pagans, at least according to their own scriptures. From this we can conclude that they do not think clearly about such issues.)

The suggested response is to be mildly to aggressively outraged. Mild outrage might be expressed as being offended. Aggressive outrage might be along the lines of “Who told you this lie? Was it your pastor? I will contact my lawyer and we will sue him for defamation of character.”

Where do atheists worship?
“By their questions, ye shall know them.” (Atheist’s Credo)

Obviously this is a stupid question, but pointing that out is not winning a point. People are theists for one reason: to feel special. To point out that they ask stupid questions would clash with that belief and you would lose their attention.

So, you might ask “worship what?” Or more simply state, “we don’t worship.”

Do you atheists know you are going to Hell?
Yes, this is another insulting question, but again, nothing is probably to be gained by being snarky or cheeky.

One common response is “We don’t believe in the existence of Hell.” If you are feeling feisty, you might say “Going to Hell is something only Christians and Muslims do and since we are neither, we don’t ever go there.”

Again, for the umpteenth time, these people are told these silly things and their faith actively discourages critical thinking, so they are hardly to blame for what they have been taught.

If Atheists aren’t evil, why do polls show that no one would vote for one in a U.S. presidential election?
Well, they are right about the polls. People are more likely to vote for a terrorist than an atheist. But that tells us about what they have been taught, not what we are.

The U.S. Constitution forbids “religious tests” for office, so they can’t ask you straight out about your “religion,” but the do and they will, so it is probably not a good idea to run for president if you are an atheist. Donald Trump did, but he avoided the trap by lying through his teeth all the way into office and we can’t recommend that.

This, of course, is another common cognitive fallacy, called the Bandwagon Fallacy (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad Populum): the fallacy of arguing that because “everyone,” “the people,” or “a majority” (or someone in power who has widespread backing) supposedly thinks or does something, it must therefore be true and right. But since theists are actively discouraged from thinking critically, we expect them to display many of these common cognitive fallacies.

Why are Atheists constantly trying to undermine my faith?
This question commonly crops up on Internet forums in which atheists are asked “gotcha” questions. The questioners are virtue signally to others as a “defender of the faith” by doing so (we guess).

Our recommended response is “Atheists do not proselytize.” (Atheist’s Credo) and we might add “But we do answer questions . . . and you did ask this question on a forum for atheists, . . . so . . .”

Note—There is no “Council” or Atheist’s Credo . . . yet . . . and I may continue referring to it, even if it does not exist.

The Atheist’s Handbook

I made yet another reference to “The Atheist’s Handbook” in a snarky reply to a theist. This gave me the idea that someone needed to write such a thing, so it sounding like fun, I began.

I do need help, however. What items would you expect to see in the Table of Contents of that book? What points would you like to be made in that book? All contributions will be acknowledged (let me know if you do not want your name to appear).

I have done some searches and there are all kinds of books incorporating similar themes. Most seem to diatribes against religion, whilst others are trying to explain atheism, but I am thinking more along the lines of the Boy Scout’s Handbooks, focusing on how to be a good atheist. Lots of how to’s and not so much “fuck the theists” screeds.

Character Analyses from the Wheel of Time

I am grinding my way through the Wheel of Time series . . . again. And I am recognizing more than just a spirited story. I am recognizing the author’s shortcomings and biases. We see these in the character traits of the main characters in these 14 books.

The author of the Wheel of Time books . . . which may explain a lot.

The Aes Sedai The main characteristic of the Aes Sedai, which in the Old Tongue means “Servant of All” is that they are servants of none. They lord it over everyone they meet and brag about how kings and queens tremble in their presence. Humility is not a trait anywhere in evidence. Their predominant exposition is of an overbearing Matron who insists on receiving all of the niceties but balks at giving any of them. And they judge social standing in their little club by how powerful each sister is, because, well, might makes right, no?

The Ta’veren The three main characters, all male, grew up in the same village and have the same stupid traits. While the characteristic of being ta’veren means that they “modify” (in uncontrollable ways) the fates of all of those around them, their main characteristic is their infantile maleness. There main fear is not being able to protect the women around them. All three basically swear to never kill or even hurt a woman, even though their major most powerful enemies, the Forsaken/Chosen, include a number of women, all out to kill or enslave them.

The Minor Female Characters All of the female characters seem to believe that males would die stupid deaths while young if females didn’t guide them onto correct paths. And I thought men were arrogant. These women make men look like pikers in the Game of Arrogance.

The Seanchan These folks used to live in the lands of the Wheel of Time, but they left on a wild goose chase and now are returning, with more than a small claim to rule the lands under discussion. They are a matriarchy, which makes sense since the males who could wield the One Power among them went crazy because of the poisoning of the One Power by the Dark Lord. So, men who could wield the one Power had been weeded out and the women who could wield the One Power were not to be trusted, so they were put on leashes. Clearly these are the Republicans of this story. While not misogynists like our Republicans, putting powerful women on leashes is a wet dream in GOP circles.

Sadly, if the Seanchan were a little more democratic, they might have tried to explain their case and be given a way to earn a place back on this continent, maybe by cleaning out all of the Trollocs and Fades from the Blight, thus making empty land for them to occupy, but no, they stomp in, demand people swear fealty to their leaders, and lord it over every one they meet, or at least try to lord it over them. They, like all the rest, have an honor culture that demands that the elites kill those who insult them, like by not lowering their eyes enough when passing by. Sheesh.

The Dark Lord Clearly this character is misunderstood. Represented by flawed characters because of his incarceration, his actions are painted black from the get go. When trapped, as he was for millennia, it would drive any of us a bit mad and lead us to taint the male half of the One Power.

The One Power The author must be a Christian because the One Power is clearly two magical powers. The female version requires practitioners to yield to the One Power to get it to do their will. Call that the New Testament half. The male version requires the practitioners to battle it and force it to do their will. That is, obviously, the Old Testament half. How are these the same power? Plus, the Forsaken/Chosen have access to the True Power giving us a trinity of magical power sources, thus making this a truly Christian work.

Reread Much?

I am an avid reader, not fast just persistent. I enjoy greatly fantasy and science fiction works and I learned early on a simple lesson: don’t start a multi-volume work until they are all available. I learned this in college. I acquired a copy of The Fellowship of the Ring (the infamous Ace Paperback version) and while I had trouble getting going once I did, I stayed up quite late for several nights only to learn that it was the first volume of a trilogy. Like a maniac I drove to my favorite bookstore and was able to get The Two Towers, but they had run out of the third volume. So, I searched avidly as I tore through the second volume, finding the third volume just in time.

I followed this rule for a long time. I also broke that rule because several of may favorite authors wrote trilogies of trilogies, sometimes more. One of my favorites, C.J. Cherryh, has written 21 volumes in her Foreigner series (putting her on a path to a trilogy of trilogies of trilogies). I read each one when it comes out; they are just too good. (This series is like an old movie serial short, each book starts up where the previous one left off . . . and I have read all of her other works, too, many, many dozens of them.)

I did make a mistake, however, when I was sucked into the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. The author warned us that he planned on the thing to be 12 volumes. And if you look at the publication history (see below), you can see that the final 14 volumes took almost 23 years to publish. The problem with this kind of work is that it may never be finished. (Will George R.R. Martin ever finish Game of Thrones?) In the case of Robert Jordan, he died before the series was finished! But he left copious notes and Brandon Sanderson was hired to finish/write the last three volumes (which he did brilliantly).

Each book averages 306,277 words and 702 pages, which was good because there was like 21 months to wait for the next volume (on average). But I don’t read that slowly so when the next volume came around, it was many months since I finished the last one.

The Wheel of Time Publication Schedule

The Eye of the World  January 15, 1990
The Great Hunt           November 15, 1990
The Dragon Reborn    October 15, 1991
The Shadow Rising      September 15, 1992
The Fires of Heaven    October 15, 1993
Lord of Chaos             October 15, 1994
A Crown of Swords     May 15, 1996
The Path of Daggers    October 20, 1998
Winter’s Heart             November 7, 2000
Crossroads of Twilight January 7, 2003
Knife of Dreams          October 11, 2005
The Gathering Storm   October 27, 2009
Towers of Midnight     November 2, 2010
A Memory of Light      January 8, 2013
Totals   11,898pp (PB) / 10,173pp (HB)           4,410,036 words            19d 5h 25m reading time

So, for my last birthday, I gave myself a gift. I had since given away my hardbound copies of the Wheel of Time books, so I purchased the Kindle versions and I am re-reading the series. I am currently in volume six. And I am frankly amazed.

I wonder if this is how people with Alzheimer’s disease feel. It is as if I am reading this for the first time. I do remember most of the main characters, but much of the details about them I remembered incorrectly or not at all.

And I love long books. I have read Tolkien’s trilogy many times (as well as listening to the audio versions several times (while commuting). But the number of characters and storylines in this work borders upon the bizarre. And, like many male authors, I find his characterizations of his female characters shallow. I have to ask myself whether half of the characters and storylines advance the narrative at all and we would be better off without them. One count lists 2,782 characters in the series, 148 of which are point of view characters at one point or another. I wish Jordan had followed the Rule of Parsimony, like Jack Vance, say, and trimmed this down to six or seven volumes.

I find myself skipping through parts that drag, being able to pick up the narrative fairly easily down the road. And, yes, things are always more complicated than we think, but this is supposed to be an entertainment, not a lesson in realpolitik.

I am enjoying the effort but find myself shifting to another book for a while when the plot drags. On my eBook reader, another book is just a tap away and I, as usual, have several dozen “in progress.”

Science and Truth

I was reading a work of philosophy and the author objected to the categories of writing: fiction and nonfiction, in that “fiction” implied imaginary and so not true and non-fiction implies fact-based and therefore true. He had many interesting things to say, but they were mostly based upon this false interpretation.

When I read a work of non-fiction, I accept that the author tried to get the facts straight but I know how bleeding hard that is, so I don’t expect it to be 100% “factual” and certainly not a “true account” whatever that is. Writers of fiction often display more insight into things like the human condition than “fact-based” writers. When I read a work of fiction, I don’t expect it to be fact-based, so if a dragon shows up, I am okay with that. The two categories say something about how the authors went about creating their work, but nothing whatsoever about their veracity.

The problem here is with the word “truth.”

Truths are absolutes, and therefore, as far as I am concerned, they are mythical. I have written about absolutes before, so I won’t dwell on that topic, just to say they are extensions of things we see beyond any evidence for their existence.

I have often read that science cannot discover “the truth,” often by religious apologists, and this is obviously true as a statement. Science, in fact, is not looking for truths and never pronounces things as truths. We are smarter than that because what we think might be true today can be found to be false tomorrow. This is why all scientific findings are provisional. Scientists know this as it is beaten into them, but the lay public, looking over scientists shoulders, is often disturbed when scientists change their minds. What scientists think is a virtue, adapting to new data, the public finds alarming. This is because the public believes in the existence of absolutes, like truths, and when scientists announce a “discovery” the public think it is pronouncement of a new truth.

The best thing we could do educationally is to drum this into the minds of all citizens. Scientists are looking for what might work now so that they can continue to learn things, even though those new things may contradict what they have found previously. We in science call that progress. Religionists call that heresy. The public needs to learn to distinguish their religions from scientific “reality.”

As to what is “real,” just don’t get me started.

I Am So Spoiled . . .

I am spoiled because of the spellchecker in Microsoft Word. Now I know the limitations of spellcheckers, e.g. they only find 60% of misspellings, etc. But Microsoft Word’s checker is one of the best, if not the best, and I learned this quite some time ago. (So, one thing Microsoft managed to not fuck up.)

So, I was typing a response to a comment one of my posts attracted and typed “stupic” rather than “stupid.” The c and d keys are adjacent, you see, and I am a hunt-and-peck typist. So, the WordPress spell checker caught this typo and offered the following possibly correct spellings: stoic, stupa, and stupas. WTF? A stupa is a dome-shaped structure erected as a Buddhist shrine. How many times do you think that comes up in blog post comments? Sheesh. (So much so that Word flagged stupa and stupas as being possible misspellings!)

In typing this out in Word, Word caught the stupic typo and offered two possibly correct spellings: stupid and stoic. As a matter of course, when I spell check even long documents, the correct spelling for my typos is in Word’s top five suggestions, at least 95% of the time and the #1 suggestion is often the one I wanted. I also write a lot on odd topics: philosophy, archery, etc. which use considerable jargon.

So, spoiled I am.