Thursday, December 23, 2010 ~ Have your say...

5 More Incredible Optical Illusions

The mind can play tricks on the best of us, and this particularly evident when viewing optical illusions. Take a look at these five incredible optical illusions, and then read on to see why optical illusions have anything to do with being skeptical... Click on the images to see larger versions.

1)  Stare at the optical illusion below. Do you see the center portion of it moving?

2)  Sit at a comfortable distance and then move forward and back toward the center of the figure. You should perceive a notable change in brightness. As you move your head forward and back, the brightness will “change”…

3)  In the image below, the dancers are the exact same color, even though one appears to be more black and one appears to be more white...

4)  Do you see the face in the beans? Once you find it, you won’t be able to not see it!

5)  Although this image is comprised of simple purple and green squares outlined in black, it looks like it is bulging out in the center…

How do optical illusions have anything to do with critical thought and skepticism?

They teach us that even the most critical of minds can be fooled. Verify the images above - they are static - there's no animation going on, but in all cases, most people will see things that aren't really there. Human beings are pattern-seeking - we have evolved this way so that we can understand the world around us. But just because we are good at identifying patterns, it doesn't mean there's always a real patter there.

For more incredible optical illusions, visit Illusion-Optical.com.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Questions for Theists, God, and Religion

This is a list of questions for theists, believers, faith, God, and religion.  They apply to all religions, though you will note that they are more Christian-centric only because this is the religion I am most familiar with. 

These questions are asked with the assumption that God exists and the text in the bible is true.  If these assumptions are false, then all of the questions become irrelevant.  To attempt to answer these myself would be a formidable task, so I shall leave the answers to you, the readers...


If there is one God and one religion, what happens to the rest of the people who do not belong to that religion?  Do they go to hell?  Why should they suffer if they were raised in an area which did not expose them to the “one true religion”?  For example, there are 1.2 billion Catholics.  What happens to the 5.6 billion people who are not Catholic?  What happened to the people who died prior to the organized religion or the concept of God – default to eternal damnation?

If God is all powerful, why does he not just destroy Satan, once and for all?  Why is Satan allowed to tempt humans?  Why would God even allow the creation of Hell? 

Do only humans go to heaven?  What happens to young humans who die and go to heaven?  What happens to a baby (assuming it’s baptized) – are they in heaven as a baby, permanently?  How then, do they communicate, with the others in heaven, since they haven’t had a chance to learn anything in life, or develop their own personality?

Why does a perfect God – who is all powerful and has all knowledge – require us to praise Him by going to Sabbath?  Should it not be sufficient for people to thank/praise the God in their own way?  Why does He require praise at all?  Why do only humans need to praise Him, while other species are off the hook?

If God created the Earth and all species that populate it, then why would God wait roughly 4.5 billion years before making humans on Earth.  Worse still, why wait roughly 13.2 billion years, the age of the universe, before creating life as we know it?

If humans are special, and the Earth is the only planet with intelligent life (at least as intelligent as humans), then why go to the trouble of creating the cosmos?  Why bother creating hundreds of billions of galaxies, and thousands of billions of stars? 

 "Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us? (5()"
— Michael Shermer (Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design)

If the Universe came to be in two ways:  from natural processes, or from God.  Theists will say “But what was there before the Big Bang?”.  The answer?  Scientists don’t really know, yet – but they are working on it.  But atheists can ask the same question, “What was there before God created the universe?”… to which theists will reply “God always was, and always will be!”.  Well that’s not very fair now, is it?  Circular reasoning is impermissible as evidence for truth.

If the Bible (or any other religious text) is “truth” and “law” – then is it not strange that humans are accepting laws written by men, and that there are many different versions seen from different perspectives?  Which one is correct?

Why is it acceptable to join a religion that was created by a single man?  For example, King Henry created the Church of England.  How do we know if God approves this religion?  How do we know that any religion is approved?  Why is it acceptable for religions to evolve?  Various religions have changed over time due to cultural pressures – how to we know these changes are “authorized”?  (Don’t get me wrong – it’s a good thing that religions evolve)

Why is there often contempt for those who question religion?  If humans were given the gift of intelligence and the freedom of choice, why should they be punished for using it?  Why is there continuous conflict between different religions, and between those who believe, and those who don’t?  How can anyone know if they are correct? 

Why is the universe, Earth, and life so imperfect?  Why would a god create a world where there is so much... wrong?  Neil Degrasse Tyson says it best in his speech, where he describes how it seems much more likely that our univere was put together by chance, rather than by design.  

For example, in our universe, most planet orbits are unstable; less than 3% of a gas cloud actually makes a star;  most places kill life instantly via heat, radiation, or cold;  galaxy orbits brings can bring us perilously close to a supernova;, and it appears that we live in a one-way universe that will wind down to oblivion.  

On Earth, we have earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis that ravage cities and villages; 2/3 of the surface of the Earth is uninhabitable by humans; mass extinctions occur from  disease, climate change, or asteroids;  90% of all life that ever lived is now extinct; and it took roughly 3.5 billions years before multicellular life arose.  

In humans, diseases are common:  childhood lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Parkinsons, ALS, birth defects;, we succumb to vision loss with age, our teeth fall out, we get Alzeimers, cancer, and a host of other age related diseases;  our energy system is inefficient - we exhale most of the Oxygen we inhale;  since we are warm-blooded, must eat constantly compared to reptiles; we are practically comatose for 1/3 of our lives while we sleep; we can't detect dangerous magnetic fields, ionizing radiation fields, Radon, CO, CH4, CO2, and a host of other poisonous materials.  A perfect design?  An intelligent design?  It sure doesn't appear to be.  It's full of mistakes.

How should one respond?

There must be some rules to answering these questions…

Rule # 1:  Any response should be refutable; otherwise we’re no further ahead.  For example, “God always was and always will be.” or “God works in mysterious ways…”  or “There’s miracles everyday…”  are not acceptable answers– because it’s impossible to prove or disprove any of them.  It’s fine to believe in unfalsifiable theories, but you must recognize that the idea is then based on faith and not science.  The two should not be confused.

Rule #2:  Legitimate evidence should be provided for any claims.  Remember, the burden of proof rests on those making extraordinary claims, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Rule #3:  When presenting a claim, avoid using any common logical fallacies.





References:



Thursday, December 9, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Should You Believe In God? A Look At Pascal's Wager

Do you believe in God?  Should you believe in God? 

In the seventeenth century, the mathematician Blaise Pascal presented an argument for the belief in God, which is as follows:
  1. If you erroneously believe in God, then when you die, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end and there is eternal “nothingness”);
  2. If you correctly believe in God, then when you die, you gain everything (a heavenly, infinite existence);
  3. If you correctly disbelieve in God, then when you die, you gain nothing (death is absolute and ends all)
  4. If you erroneously disbelieve in God, then when you die, you lose everything (eternal damnation).
PASCAL’S WAGER
IF GOD EXISTS…
IF GOD DOESN’T EXIST…
IF I BELIEVE IN GOD…
(A) Go to Heaven
(B) Nothing happens
IF I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD…
(D) Go to Hell
(C) Nothing happens

Now place your wager:  how will you bet?

Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no potential reward, and that your best bet is to accept the existence of God, because you at least have a chance of some positive gain.

There are several clear objections to Pascal’s wager, which, once analyzed, render it invalid:
  1. Assuming God is omniscient (all-knowing), He would not reward belief in Him based solely on your bet that He exists (that is, He’d know that you’re just gambling you way into Heaven and eternal bliss, and that you don’t really believe);
  2. A person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him;
  3. The wager must apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the gambler no further ahead;
In response to a girl asking, “What if you’re wrong?” about Pascal’s Wager to Richard Dawkin’s, he replied:
"Well, what if I'm wrong, I mean... anybody could be wrong. We could all be wrong about the flying spaghetti monster and the pink unicorn and the flying tea pot. Uhm, you happen to have been brought up, I would presume, in the Christian faith. You know what it's like to not believe in a particular faith because you're not a Muslim. You're not a Hindu. Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happen to have been brought up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in Indu- in India, you'd be a Hindu. If you had been brought up in... in uh.. Denmark in the time of the Vikings you'd be believing in Wotan and Thor. If you were brought up in classical Greece you'd be believing in, in Zeus. If you were brought up in central Africa you'd be believing in the great Ju-Ju up the mountain. There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian god, in which by the sheerest accident you happen to have been brought up and, and ask me the question, "What if I'm wrong?" What if you're wrong about the great Ju-Ju at the bottom of the sea?"
How will you bet on Pascal’s Wager?  Will you even play?

Thursday, December 2, 2010 ~ Have your say...

Why is the sky blue in the day and black at night?

"Why is the sky blue?" is probably one of the first questions a child asks their parent, followed by, "So why is the sky it dark at night?" Both questions have tricky answers, and the latter is famously known as "Olber's Paradox".

Why is the sky blue?

In general, light travels in a straight line unless if it is either reflected, bent, or scattered. White light from the Sun reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by gases (composed mainly of nitrogen and oxygen) and particles in the air. The light interacts with the molecules and particles and the blue light is scattered. So when you look up into the atmosphere, you are actually looking up at the scattered blue light.

When you look out to the horizon, the sky fades to a lighter blue (or even white) because the Sun's light is low in the sky and has passed through even more atmosphere than the sunlight reaching your eyes from overhead. When you look more-or-less directly at the Sun, the light you are seeing has had most of its blue light scattered, leaving the light you are seeing yellowish in color (so the Sun itself appears yellow).

At sunrise or sunset, the light treavels though the atmosphere at a low angle and passes through much more atmosphere, so the only light that gets through is red - the colors of light with shorter wavelengths are scattered. If there is lots of dust in the atmosphere, then there are more particles in the atmosphere to scatter the light so the sunsets appear even more red.

In space, there are no air molecules or dust particles to scatter the different colors in light, so the Sun looks white and the 'sky' looks black. This is why images from the space station or shuttle always show the sky as "black", and the Sun "white".

So why does blue light scatter?

Blue light scatters more easily because it has a much shorter wavelength than, say, red light. The other colors have wavelengths in between. Red light's wavelength is significantly longer than the size of the particles and molecules in the atmosphere. Imagine a small post in a harbor and an ocean swell with a long wavelength coming in: the post will be too small to make much of a reflection (the difference in wave height between the two edges of the post is tiny so there is little to reflect). However, if there is a much smaller wave coming in to the harbor (a "blue" wave) with a short wavelength that is close to the size of the post, then there will be a much greater reflection.  Going back to our sunrise/sunset example, it follows that since red light has the longest wavelength of the visible colors, it has the greatest chance to be "seen" after passing through the most atmosphere (see diagram above), giving sunrise/sunset their red colors.


Why is the sky black at night?

This question is actually much more complicated than it seems. Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers is known for proposing this question in the 1820's. His question is known as Olber's Paradox: if the universe is endless (infinite) and is full of bright stars, then every line of sight must end at the surface of a star, and the sky should be completely bright with white light. But, it isn't - the sky is dark at night, almost black.

The answer is not trivial, and it was only with the advent of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and Hubble's discovery that objects in the universe are moving away from one another, that scientists were able to propose a reasonable solution.

Perhaps dust scattered throughout the universe is obscuring the light? This is not correct because any dust in the path of the light would eventually re-radiate and heat up, producing light, and making the night sky bright.

Perhaps the light is lost due to the extreme distances to the stars? This is not correct either, because we know that although the amount of light to reach us from each star decreases with distance (by 1/d^2), the number of stars in each layer increases, effectively balancing out the distance effect.

So what's the deal? Most modern cosmologists have settled on two theories to account for the darkness.

The first one states that an object's red shift - a doppler-like effect that tells us objects are moving away from us - indicates that space itself is expanding, and thus decreases the amount of light reaching our eyes.

The most generally accepted theory is that the universe is not infinitely old - it has a beginning point. If the universe were infinitely old, the sky would in fact be infinitely bright, because light from every point in the universe would have had an infinite amount of time to travel to every other point. But this is clearly not the case. So it is therefore the finite age of the universe limits how much light we see, and why the sky is dark at night.

Confused?  Well, you're certainly not the only one!


References:

~ Have your say...

NASA's Big Press Release... Impacting the Search for Evidence of Extraterrestrial Life?

At 2pm, on Thursday, December 2nd, NASA will hold a news conference. NASA has said the conference will "discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life."

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so skeptical.

I would have liked to believe that they would announce "Life on Mars!" or "Life on some moon in our Solar System!"... but unfortunately, I believe the announcement will literally "impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life".

Perhaps the finding will include a new condition where life could exist, and perhaps that condition has been found somewhere, but my hunch is that the announcement will be a letdown for the general public. It will be interesting and newsworthy for scientists, astronomers, and astrobiologists, but I think the public will be generally disappointed.

We'll have to wait and see... 

..UPDATE..

We now have the scoop... and around my workplace there was a collective, disappointing "sigh".  But it's still pretty cool.  Researchers have discovered the first known microorganism on Earth that is able to reproduce using arsenic instead of phosphorus.  

What's the big deal?  Well, it was assumed that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and  sulphur were the six basic building blocks for life on Earth.  Now, that has expanded.  When looking for life outside of Earth, the horizon just broadened substantially.  For example, we can't assume there's no life on a planet that lacks phosphorus... and if something here on Earth can do something so unexpected, there's sure to be more surprises on Earth and beyond.

"The definition of life has just expanded," said Ed Weiler, NASA's associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington. "As we pursue our efforts to seek signs of life in the solar system, we have to think more broadly, more diversely and consider life as we do not know it."
Read the article its entirety on NASA's website.  This certainly is an exciting day in astrobiology and for NASA.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...