There are people who do bad things, and there are evil people. While these two populations overlap, inclusion in the former does not necessarily result in inclusion in the latter.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with Michael Vick. Vick is a former pro football player who was convicted of running a dog-fighting ring. He financed it and had facilities at his home to breed, train, and fight the dogs. This is an ugly business. Aside from the actual fighting and dying (which is wagered on by the spectators), the breeding involves something called "rape tables" (or something akin) where the female dogs are basically strapped down so the alpha dogs (literally) can impregnate them. I can only wonder if there is any wagering going on during those encounters. After getting caught, Vick did about 2 years in federal prison. He was recently released.
Dante Stallworth is another pro football player who has had legal problems. Stallworth got drunk, hit and killed someone with his car, then fled the scene. He was later caught and confessed. He know faces a variety of charges, the most serious of which is one for vehicular manslaughter.
People are debating about how Vick and Stallworth should be treated with respect to one another by the NFL. Vick recently was suspended for 4 games. Stallworth (I think) has been suspended for the entire season. Many believe that Vick shouldn't face any sort of suspension since he has "done his time" and "paid his debt to society".
Let me make this clear. There is a huge difference between what these two guys did. Both and certainly regrettable. Many argue that what Stallworth did is worse because it resulted in the loss of a human life. Fair enough. When I am trying to weigh the moral value of an action (or lack thereof), I tend to focus on the intent of the actor. What Stallworth did was reckless and insensitive. People can go out and drink all they want, but they should do it without taking the wheel afterwwards. Someone with Stallworth's resources could have easily had a driver to cart him around. Vick, however, is on an entirely different level than Stallworth. Stallworth got drunk, made a bad decision, and the result was horrible. But Stallworth didn't intend to kill anyone. In fact, I doubt that he gave it much thought at all. Vick, on the other hand, was instrumental in planning and financing the dog fighting operation. He was involved in this for years. He knew exactly what the results were going to be (a bunch of mutilated animals) because THAT WAS THE RESULT HE WANTED.
Stallowrth was stupid, irresponsible, weak, ignorant and impulsive. A bunch of common human frailties ganged up on him all at once and, as a result, someone else died. Vick was calculated, cold, and unfeeling. He orchestrated the pain and death of other living creatures for his own entertainment. That isn't just human weakness mainfesting itself. That's evil. Everyone has certain character shortcomings. Vick certainly has his. But he is also evil. No amount of time in prison will change that about him. It is impossible for him to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation requires the acquisition of some new insight, or skill, that will enable someone to avoid past mistakes. I doubt that the federal prison system has a class called "killing dogs is bad". Vick may not re-offend, but only to avoid going back to prison. I guarantee you that he would love to fight dogs again.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Irony of Science
Isaac Newton is one of the mongo figures of history. He described the three basic laws of motion, probably invented calculus, and revamped the entire way that scientists think about the world. With Newton, science's drive to explain objective reality took off. Motion could be described through mathematical equations. We take that for granted, but in Newton's time that was a huge deal.
The idea arose that science, through measurement, experimentation and mathematics, could understand everything about nature. Predictions could be made with amazing accuracy. Seemingly, the only limitations to what science could predict were the accuracy of the equipment being used and the existence of the right kinds of math to employ.
By the end of the 19th century, scientists had the sense that everything was pretty much figured out. The only thing left was to iron out the details. An obscure scientist named Max Planck was doing some uninteresting work with light, but no one paid much attention.
Then Einstein came along. In 1905, he wrote three papers that were all landmarks in the advancement of science. One of those papers was on the photoelectric effect. It had to do with the way that light is absorbed by certain materials. He realized that the work Planck had done was far more revolutionary than Planck had ever imagined.
Other scientists jumped on board this area of science which became known as "quantum mechanics". People like Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg made remarkable discoveries concerning the nature of the sub-atomic world.
Sub-atomic particles can be in two places at the same time.
Information can be transferred between sub-atomic particles at faster than the speed of light.
Theoretically, a cat can be dead or alive, depending on whether anyone is looking at it.
Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.
Photons know when we are "looking" at them and change their behavior accordingly.
Eventually, Heisenberg came up with his famous "Uncertainty Principle". It basically states that you can never know with absolute certainty two complimentary characteristics of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. For example, momentum and direction are complimentary. The more accurately you measure momentum, the more inexact your knowledge of direction will be for whatever you are measuring (and vice-versa). So one can never predict with complete accuracy where an electron is going to end up after a certain amount of time passes.
Initially, it was believed that this uncertainty came from the measurement being made. To "see" an electron, you have to "shine" light on it. The light was thought to affect the movement of the electron somehow, thus changing its ultimate destination beyond our ability to know. However, later scientists determined that it WASN'T the measurement that was causing the problems. It was nature itself. The reason why we can't determine the exact momentum or direction of a sub-atomic particle is because THEY DON'T HAVE CERTAIN MOMENTUMS OR DIRECTIONS. At best, they only have a POSSIBILITY of having a certain value for those characteristics.
Here is what this comes down to. To use one of Einstein's phrases, God "plays dice" with the universe. There is a certain degree of unpredictable randomness built into the most fundamental building blocks of the universe that we can NEVER crack. No machine, or mathematical theory, regardless of its power of accuracy, will ever get past that. Things happen, essentially, for no reason at all at the sub-atomic level. There is no objective way to reach certainty about anything.
The great goal of science was to objectify everything and make everything predictable. The irony is that in this endeavor, science determined that the UNIVERSE ITSELF is not entirely objective, thus making certainty about anything an impossibility. Now, some things are so likely that we may as well treat them as "definite", but that is because we "round up". Even a 99.999999999999% chance of something leaves room for something else. To me, that is like the universe is telling us that subjective "certainty" needs something more than pure objective measurement. Some people might call that something more "faith", but that begs the question - faith in what? That is the subject for another blog.
If anyone is insane enough to find this as interesting as I do, read "In Search of Shrodinger's Cat". It is quantum mechanics for the lay person. It kept me awake at night.
The idea arose that science, through measurement, experimentation and mathematics, could understand everything about nature. Predictions could be made with amazing accuracy. Seemingly, the only limitations to what science could predict were the accuracy of the equipment being used and the existence of the right kinds of math to employ.
By the end of the 19th century, scientists had the sense that everything was pretty much figured out. The only thing left was to iron out the details. An obscure scientist named Max Planck was doing some uninteresting work with light, but no one paid much attention.
Then Einstein came along. In 1905, he wrote three papers that were all landmarks in the advancement of science. One of those papers was on the photoelectric effect. It had to do with the way that light is absorbed by certain materials. He realized that the work Planck had done was far more revolutionary than Planck had ever imagined.
Other scientists jumped on board this area of science which became known as "quantum mechanics". People like Bohr, Schrodinger and Heisenberg made remarkable discoveries concerning the nature of the sub-atomic world.
Sub-atomic particles can be in two places at the same time.
Information can be transferred between sub-atomic particles at faster than the speed of light.
Theoretically, a cat can be dead or alive, depending on whether anyone is looking at it.
Light is both a particle and a wave at the same time.
Photons know when we are "looking" at them and change their behavior accordingly.
Eventually, Heisenberg came up with his famous "Uncertainty Principle". It basically states that you can never know with absolute certainty two complimentary characteristics of a sub-atomic particle at the same time. For example, momentum and direction are complimentary. The more accurately you measure momentum, the more inexact your knowledge of direction will be for whatever you are measuring (and vice-versa). So one can never predict with complete accuracy where an electron is going to end up after a certain amount of time passes.
Initially, it was believed that this uncertainty came from the measurement being made. To "see" an electron, you have to "shine" light on it. The light was thought to affect the movement of the electron somehow, thus changing its ultimate destination beyond our ability to know. However, later scientists determined that it WASN'T the measurement that was causing the problems. It was nature itself. The reason why we can't determine the exact momentum or direction of a sub-atomic particle is because THEY DON'T HAVE CERTAIN MOMENTUMS OR DIRECTIONS. At best, they only have a POSSIBILITY of having a certain value for those characteristics.
Here is what this comes down to. To use one of Einstein's phrases, God "plays dice" with the universe. There is a certain degree of unpredictable randomness built into the most fundamental building blocks of the universe that we can NEVER crack. No machine, or mathematical theory, regardless of its power of accuracy, will ever get past that. Things happen, essentially, for no reason at all at the sub-atomic level. There is no objective way to reach certainty about anything.
The great goal of science was to objectify everything and make everything predictable. The irony is that in this endeavor, science determined that the UNIVERSE ITSELF is not entirely objective, thus making certainty about anything an impossibility. Now, some things are so likely that we may as well treat them as "definite", but that is because we "round up". Even a 99.999999999999% chance of something leaves room for something else. To me, that is like the universe is telling us that subjective "certainty" needs something more than pure objective measurement. Some people might call that something more "faith", but that begs the question - faith in what? That is the subject for another blog.
If anyone is insane enough to find this as interesting as I do, read "In Search of Shrodinger's Cat". It is quantum mechanics for the lay person. It kept me awake at night.
Who I am, What I do
I have hopes that this blogging thing will go in a certain direction. Before I get going, I thought it would be best to explain a little about who I am and what I hope to blog about.
I am a 41 year-old lawyer. My interests include history, religion, sports, science and literature. I love learning new things and try to keep an open mind to unfamiliar ideas. I think I am fairly well-read. I am not a news hound, but I try to maintain a certain sense of what is going on in the world.
I find that the process of writing forces me to focus and organize my thoughts. Blogging will be primarily a mental exercise for me. However, I hope that anyone who decides to read any of my blogs will comment. Challenges are always welcome. Wisdom and insight can come from just about anywhere.
The topics will be broad. I like to tackle the "big stuff". God, religion, right, wrong, government, ethics, etc. will all be on the table. Current events will likely be thrown in. I usually find pop culture to be sort of. . . . . silly . . . . but the reactions other people have to current pop culture events can be interesting. So, now I just have to decide where to start.
I am a 41 year-old lawyer. My interests include history, religion, sports, science and literature. I love learning new things and try to keep an open mind to unfamiliar ideas. I think I am fairly well-read. I am not a news hound, but I try to maintain a certain sense of what is going on in the world.
I find that the process of writing forces me to focus and organize my thoughts. Blogging will be primarily a mental exercise for me. However, I hope that anyone who decides to read any of my blogs will comment. Challenges are always welcome. Wisdom and insight can come from just about anywhere.
The topics will be broad. I like to tackle the "big stuff". God, religion, right, wrong, government, ethics, etc. will all be on the table. Current events will likely be thrown in. I usually find pop culture to be sort of. . . . . silly . . . . but the reactions other people have to current pop culture events can be interesting. So, now I just have to decide where to start.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Let's Roll
I need a hobby. I like to read, think, discuss, etc. so I thought "why not a blog"? Hopefully, this will run the gamut from deep to silly to everything inbetween. Feel free to jump in whenever you want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)