Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The Beauty and Power of Science

David:
We've touched on "science" here and there throughout the blog. Before we start an in-depth discussion on some things that are heavy on data, like global warming, I thought we might discuss the limitations and strengths of studies, and what we can know versus what is simply speculation. In other words, what is science, really.




Doug:
Ok, but you already sound like you are headed into politics. As a good friend of mine would often say: science is the process designed to get things "less wrong." Science doesn't make a distinction between "speculation" and "truth"... everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data.

(We also need to be careful with language: for example, the word "theory" in science is not the same word that people use in everyday language. That can be confusing and lead people to have misguided ideas about science. For example, evolution and gravity are both theories.)



David:
Believe me, politics and science do not have much in common. I've seen elected officials look at a study, which clearly indicated the correct path to accomplish their stated goal, and vote against a bill based on that study and ones that supported it.

Doug:
And of course there are politics in science, like all human endeavors. But we hope that over time, human bias will be ferreted out of science.

David:
I absolutely agree. But sometimes, it can take a considerable amount of time for the data to overcome the politics. Just ask Copernicus. Or Galileo.

Continuing with your theme, let's define our terms. 


The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:
"The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."
Since you've already chosen gravity and evolution, let's stick with those. As you received your first undergrad degree in anthropology, I assume we may have a slight difference of opinion on evolution.

Doug:
I'm not sure why you would assume that. I don't have any special beliefs about evolution, other than it is one of the most import theories developed, ever.

David:
That sounds like a "special belief" to me.  My assumption was a theory. I made a prediction based on the facts I had assembled about you, and voila. We disagree. I love it when my theories are proven true.

Doug:
You got confused already between the different uses of the word "theory." Assumptions are not theories, and you can't prove them.

David:
But I believe you have said that many things in science can't be "proven" either. It's easy to get confused with the terms, so let's try to sort it out. Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found.

Doug:
In science, we try not to use vague words like "matches up," or "relatively small numbers." Theories explain data, or they don't. In science, we would say that evolution explains all known fossils, and makes predictions about some of those that we haven't yet found.

David:
"Science" encompasses many fields, and many fields of science are littered with vague words and assumptions. As your wise friend noted,  we continue to modify what we know and become more precise as we move forward.

Evolution can be tested on a micro scale. In other words, we can see that a colony of bacteria can be changed by outward influences (like antibiotics) to change the entire colony. All of the bacteria that are susceptible to the antibiotic are killed off, and those that have a mutation that allows them to survive, divide to populate a new antibiotic-resistant strain.

However, the bacteria does not become a new species (speciation). Evolution theory fails in this aspect. No new species have been formed, even when bacterial colonies (which can reproduce in hours, and multiply thousands of times in mere days) have been subjected to all forms of environmental conditions for years at a time. They experience micro-evolution, but not the macro-evolution that Darwin envisioned, which states that environmental pressures cause changes that result in new species.

Doug:
Science is a process, a method of working through a problem. You can't state that something will never become a new species. You can make a hypothesis that it will never. But then you have to test your hypothesis forever. How to test if two organisms belong to two different species? One way is that if the two strains of organisms can no longer produce viable offspring, then we would say that we have two species. It isn't hard to see that if these dog breeds continue to diverge, they won't be able to interbreed:



David:
You breed something a billion times, or a trillion times,  or a hundred trillion times, subjecting it to all types of mutation-creating environmental exposures, and it still remains the same species. That argues against your theory. It doesn't prove it wrong, but argues against it.

Doug:
No, that is not how evolution works. It works over time, on a population. Evolution doesn't say anything about the size of a population. (Actually, it does, but not in this context. For example, small populations can actually evolve faster.)

David:
And to say "It isn't hard to see" that something could happen is not the same as something actually happening.

Doug:
I agree. I'm trying to appeal to basic logic that if small things can happen over a small amount of time (a few thousands of years), bigger things can happen over huge amounts of time (millions of years).

David:
You say I can't state something will never become a new species, and yet your hypothesis claims that something (dogs) will surely become a new species. Your hypothesis holds no more weight than mine, and I would argue (based on the bacteria example), it has less evidence to support it.

Doug:
My point is that dogs are becoming more and more different over time. They all started out the same (as wolves) and we used selective breeding to develop different breeds. It seems possible, even likely, that over a much larger timespan, they continue this process.

David:
Sure. We'll have even more breeds of dogs. But, they will all still be dogs. Hmmmm, I wonder: If you bred a miniature great dane, would it still be "great"?

Doug:
You can't prove that something will never happen. Such a hypothesis will require you to keep checking forever. That is a bit hard to prove. On the other hand, once two breeds can no longer produce viable offspring, you can stop testing.

David:
So, we agree. Evolution makes predictions that can never be proven or disproven, because of the time-line that is necessary. (By the way, we're using the word "prove" again...)

With evolution, it's the same moving forward and back. There really is no experiment that can demonstrate that we all came from one cell or organism.

Doug:
Oh, that sounds like a different hypothesis from that of the theory of natural selection. But science doesn't require that you replicate evolving an entire organism from a single cell to confirm it.

David:
So, you'd like to keep the discussion of evolution to just natural selection? Although evolution does propose that all life comes from a single common ancestor, we can leave it at that for this discussion, especially if we ever want to move on to gravity...

The biggest problem with the theory of evolution is that it has not made any predictions that we have seen to be true. The original definition of "theory" indicates that this aspect needs to be present for a viable theory.

Doug:
That is far from true. Darwin described his theory before genetics were even discovered. Evolution explains so much. It is why we don't see new species appear spontaneously, but does explain how small changes, over time, can create new species.

David:
To be accurate, it "hypothesizes" that small changes, over time, can create new species. And yet, we can't induce anything (not even bacteria) to become a new species.

So I guess we won't get into the fact no one has yet been able to create anything that even closely resembles "life", from which we are all descended from?

Doug:
You should probably state the theory that you are referring. I don't believe that Darwin wrote scientifically about "abiogenesis", life from non-life. So that wasn't part of his theory. And depending on how you define "life" there may be things that do resemble it. For example, there is an area of study called "Artificial Life" that is related to my own research.

David:
Darwin didn't use a lot of the words we use now in the fields of evolution, genetics, etc.

Doug:
...because they weren't discovered yet!

David:
But that doesn't mean he didn't ascribe to the ideas, or that these ideas aren't part of a bigger evolutionary picture.

Evolution is not just about moving forward in time. The theory is based on looking back through the fossil record, to a common ancestor, who came from....where? The discussion of evolution invariably returns to a starting point.

Doug:
I think you got confused between theories. Evolution is theory about how species evolve over time, not about generating life from non-life. But surely you believe in evolution, right? You are not saying that you are medical doctor in the year 2015 that doesn't believe in one of the central tenets of biology? You know the Earth is older than 6,000 years, right? Even all of the Popes (well, at least the last 4 Popes) believe in evolution and that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

David:
You misunderstand my points. I'm not saying that evolution is wrong. I'm saying that it fails key components we established for a viable theory: prediction and experimentation. It explains the data, but predictions have not, or perhaps can not, be realized. And experiments that should have yielded predicted results, have not provided any evidence that supports it. That leaves evolution as a hypothesis at best, but not a "theory" as defined by the United States National Academy of Science.

Doug:
Evolution is a theory, explains all of biology, and has not been shown to be wrong. Stating otherwise is holding evolution to different criteria than, say, gravity. In fact, the definition of theory above from the US National Academy of Sciences also states that "the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact."

David:
If evolution explained all of biology, we wouldn't have biology. It would just be evolution! Perhaps you forget that my undergrad degree was in.....biology.

Doug:
It does explain biology, but there are biological systems that can be studied independently of where they came from. Evolution is the science of studying of where organisms came from and how they change.

David:
So now you do agree that evolution is the study of where things came from. A minute ago you argued that idea was a completely different theory. You must be getting your argument coaching from Hillary Clinton. "Say whatever you have to say, whether it's consistent or not..."

Doug:
Evolution doesn't say anything about the originating forms. For example, there are competing theories on originating life forms, including panspermia and abiogenesis. Evolution can be considered independently.

David:
If one theory doesn't meet the requirements to be considered a theory, and another theory does, then, they are different. One is a theory (gravity), the other is a hypothesis (evolution), by definition, and by using the same criteria.

Doug:
No, there is no such distinction between these theories.

David:
The United States National Academy of Science disagrees with you.  Perhaps you should go back and re-read their definition.

Doug:
From the definition you cited: "...scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact." How much more clear could they be?

David:
But you have excluded the first part of that quote. "In science, a 'fact' typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances." They admit that evolution does not function in this way, but that it is only used as an explanation for known facts. It cannot be tested as other theories can.

Doug:
They didn't say that it can't be tested! They said that in science, the idea of a "fact" also includes well-established theories like evolution.

David:
It doesn't surprise me to see you go on a personal attack earlier in this blog,  Dr. Alinski. You claim, "everything is just a working hypothesis until we find a better theory and supporting data", but then mock anyone who would point out problems they find with the theory.

Doug:
I haven't seen any "problems." If you have found a problem, tell us! You will be world famous! That is how science works. You can't say that it "fails key components" and then dismiss one of the most important scientific discoveries ever. If you can do that, then the whole endeavor of "science" is meaningless.

David:
You refuse to acknowledge that evolution fails to meet the requirements of the definition of a theory.

Doug:
Interesting argument... if you can't find a problem with a theory, you argue that it isn't even a theory!

David:
I thought you wanted to be precise in our terms? Oh, that was only until your argument started to break down. I see.

Stating something has not been shown to be wrong, is not the same as making predictions that are valid or being able to test the theory. It may be right, but without a mechanism to test it, you can't conclude is is the absolute, correct theory.

Doug:
I thought I already described science as not about truth, or correctness, but about getting things less wrong.

David:
And "proving" them. Wait, we're confusing our terms again.  Now we're not using definitions or finding truth? 

A theory isn't a discovery, it's a theory. And, as evolution fails to meet the definition of a theory, it is a hypothesis. It's a working hypothesis, but a hypothesis all the same.

Doug:
I think it is completely reasonable for me to ask if you believe in evolution. Or if you believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. Because if you do, then that says a lot about your world view. It says a lot about what you can believe in.

I would think that someone might be interested in the idea of artificial life. But you don't even want to know what it is?

David:
Of course you think it's reasonable. You're trying to shift the discussion from scientific definitions to individual beliefs, because  your argument is failing in it's current form. So, you're devolving to typical leftist, grade-school taunts: "You must be a denier!"

Doug:
If you think that the world is 6,000 years old and God can create the world and all animals as-is, then what need is there for science? And I'd be glad to continue to discuss evolution; for example, what fossils can evolution not explain?

David:
Focus a little bit. I know your flustered, but I actually said that evolution does explain the fossil record. Let's keep moving forward.

Doug:
You said: "Evolution is a theory that matches up with a relatively small number of fossils that have been found." But you now concede that it explains the entire fossil record. Ok, forward we go.

David:
Let me explain. The vast, vast majority of fossils are all the same undersea creatures. Thousands and thousands of these fossils have been found. But, the number of differing species is relatively small in comparison. How many complete hominid fossils have been found?

Doug:
Yes, the number of species is far fewer than the number of individuals. But evolution explains that, and all known found fossils.

How is the number of hominid fossils found relevant to any claim?

David:
Just that the number is very, very, very small.

Doug:
They are rare finds, and I guess it makes sense that there are so few since there were such small populations of individuals over the millennia. Here is a list of human, and proto-human fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

David:
By definition, artificial life is, well, artificial; A mere copy of something natural.

Doug:
Is artificial life more like an artificial flower, or is it more like artificial flight (e.g., an airplane)? That would be interesting to explore. I'd be glad to tell you about artificial life. I have papers published in that area.

David:
Perhaps. I'd say the two examples are the same. A copy of something natural. Might be the makings of a future blog.

Doug:
Artificial Life is based on the ideas from Artificial Intelligence (AI). The idea that computers can make intelligent decision is no longer science fiction. So, it isn't crazy to consider that the essence of life, too, could be captured by computer programs. I look forward to those topics to discuss.

David:
And coming full circle, the nexus of artificial intelligence is found in the politics of Washington, D.C...

Now, moving on to a theory with a bit more, um, weight: Gravity.

Gravity is still a theory in flux in the sense we are still developing ideas on "how" it works. But, unlike some "other" scientific theories, it can be tested, and you can make predictions, that work. It meets all of the criteria laid out for a theory to be considered "valid".

Doug:
All theories are still subject to refinement on "how" they work. There is no theory that is considered sacred, or beyond correction.

David:
Right.  Except, apparently, evolution.

Doug:
Evolutionary theories are being refined every year; there is still much work to be done to understand all aspects of how evolution works.

But I would be equally perplexed if you claimed that there are some key problems with gravity. Disproving a theory that has stood up to decades of testing will take a brilliant new theory. You can say you don't like a theory, but that is not how science weighs evidence. You have to be specific about what is wrong, and then propose an alternate theory. Is your contention that "there are some things that are wrong about evolution", so, "God done it"? If so, then you are out of the realm of science.

David:
You made a few mighty leaps, there. The definition of a theory notes that you must be able to experiment and make predictions within the hypothesis, and those experiments and predictions need to play out in favor of the theory. Again, evolution fails that test.

Doug:
Evolution does not fail any predictive testing. We can look at a variety of evidence. We can look at DNA over time and see how much they sequences have changed. We can make predictions about how much an organism's DNA can change, and see if we are correct. We can make predictions between known fossils, and see if we can find intermediary forms. That has been done, and confirms evolution.

David:
And, conveniently, if something does not fit the evolutionary storyline, it is deemed an "evolutionary dead-end". It's written off as a branch of the tree that just didn't make it. No further explanation needed. All of our expectations are met to the evolutionist's satisfaction. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Again, micro-evolution occurs. Macro-evolution doesn't, at least not in any confirmed way. You're using the terms interchangeably, when they are not the same. Evolution confirms micro-evolution, as I mentioned earlier. It does not confirm macro-evolution (Speciation).

Doug:
I'm seriously trying to understand your points. So, you claim:
  1. Micro-evolution is not only a theory, but is a fact.
  2. Macro-evolution is not even a theory.
Is that right? And if one breed of dog can no longer breed with another breed, then we can consider those two breeds different species. And that then makes Macro-evolution now a theory, and makes it a fact as well?

David:
You are confused. On that we can agree.

Organisms change: true. Species can become a different species: hypothesis.

Doug:
And as soon as two breeds can no longer breed with each other, then they must be two different species, by definition.

David:
It has nothing to do with liking or disliking anything.  I don't have to provide another, alternate hypothesis to say that evolution does not meet the definition of a valid theory. You're grasping at straws to claim that evolution is better than it is, just because you don't want it to fail the definition of a theory. And when that doesn't work, you attack the messenger. Not a very scientific approach.

And how did the inability to pro-create become the marker of a new species? I guess by that loose definition, an infertile couple is now a new species. Remarkable.

Doug:
I'm not attacking you. Whether you believe in evolution or not has no bearing on the validity of the science. But you have to understand that if I claimed that I did not believe in gravity, that would make you question my scientific understandings.

David:
I'm already questioning your understandings. You seem to be emotionally attached to evolution.

Doug:
I am emotionally attached to the theory of evolution about as much as I am attached to the theory of gravity. That is to say, if you said you had doubts about either being a theory, I'd be very perplexed.

David:
Once again, I have not stated any disbelief in evolution. I've said multiple times that fits the data, but doesn't fit the definition of a theory. But it certainly is a hypothesis. 

Doug:
So let me get this straight: you believe in evolution, but don't believe it is testable because it happens on long timescale? You must have a problem with plate tectonics, and galaxy formations, too.

What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory?

David:
Every theory must meet the definitions of a theory. It's that simple. (Your argument is shifting back to personal beliefs...)

I also like the way you insinuate that someone who believes in God doesn't use grammar correctly.

Doug:
I don't know what you are talking about now.

David:
"God done it"? Obviously, to you, a Christian is a backwoods hick, who can't understand scientific principles. Einstein, who fundamentally transformed our understanding of gravity and physics, believed in a higher, guiding power.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/06/14/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-god-or-not/

Doug:
I was just quoting Christians saying "God done it." Darwin was religious and a Christian. His theory really caused himself some grief. What is your point?

David:
You're choosing disparaging language in an attempt to belittle Christians as ignorant. Once again, you attack the messengers, when the debate doesn't go your way. That's my point.

Doug:
Ok, so we can get back to the issue at hand without distracting you, imagine that the above is "God did it." There. Now, the question at hand is: What would it take for you to consider evolution a theory? And, what is your point that scientists can also hold religious views?

David:
I have no problems with gravity being defined as a theory, because it meets and exceeds the necessary requirements that define a valid one.

As soon as evolution meet the definition of a theory, it becomes a defined theory. You're making this too hard.

And,  many brilliant scientists (and even average folks out on the street) believe that God may have something to do with who we are, and how things around us work. No need to insinuate that religion is for uneducated illiterates.

Doug:
Luckily, science doesn't need you to put your personal stamp of approval on a theory for it to be valid. I'm here to tell you that evolution is a theory as well. But don't take my word for it: listen to the US National Academy of Sciences. Whether or not "you have a problem" with a theory has no bearing on a theory's validity. That is the beauty and power of science.

David:
Well, now you're using the word "theory" interchangeably with "science". Science is the process of sorting out all of the hypotheses and theories. It's the process of assembling data and collecting more, through experimentation and theorizing. And I agree. It is beautiful.

However, a theory's predictive value, and the inability to experiment, does have some bearing on it's validity.

Doug:
Ironically, at the basis of understanding of gravity is another theory called "string theory." It is a theory, but some might not consider it science. At least not yet. But this is very different from evolution (or Micro-evolution, if you wish). Even string theory is still a theory.

David:
We continue to learn new things and find new sub-atomic particles that interact to create what we call gravity. But gravity in the real world can be demonstrated, and experiments can be recreated with the same results over and over. We can make predictions. Even on vehicles we send into the far reaches of space, we can calculate their trajectory and the results are just as we predict. We can land folks on the moon and bring them back home, thanks to the theory of gravity. That's why we say gravity is a "law" of physics.

Some science is much "less wrong" than others, it would seem.

Doug:
We continue to find new aspects about all sciences. Hopefully, we continue to get it all less wrong.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Christmas for Atheists

David:
It seems that for years now, atheists have attacked the Christmas holiday.

Doug:
What? No one told me at the weekly atheist meeting! Oh, right, we don't have any meetings. Most atheists that I know celebrate Christmas. Why would they attack it? Maybe the color of Starbucks' cups are wrong?

David:
Exactly my point. Most atheists do celebrate Christmas with family and friends. There's plenty for the non-Christian to enjoy: Frosty, Santa, elves, trees, and all of the gifts. And yet, atheists have sued to eliminate the word "Christmas" from our lexicon (Usually suing small school districts who don't have the resources to fight such a suit, as they would rather educate children).


Doug:
I didn't know that you can sue to eliminate words from lexicons. Who do you sue, Webster? I don't think small schools districts control the lexicon.

David:
Ah. So you're arguing the ACLU and atheists should let school districts, and anyone else, continue to have "Christmas" vacation on their calanders?

Doug:
Lexicons, now calendars? What are you talking about?

David:
Their lawsuits have expressly been to eliminate the word, "Christmas".  Lexicon means "the words of a particular language".

Doug:
If a local school district didn't put Christmas on their little school calendar, then we wouldn't know when to celebrate it! War on Christmas! It is pretty easy to list all of the major religious holidays on a calendar (I do it every year for our family calendar that I send to you, and the rest of the family.) Of course a school district should not assume that everyone in their district is Christian. So, if they were going to list one religious holiday, they should do them all.

David:
Listing "Christmas" on a calendar doesn't mean that the district assumes everyone is a Christian. But the holiday is called Christmas, which is a secular holiday these days as much as it is religious. Maybe that's why you want to ban the word. You think if it's on a school calendar, it will make you a Christian?

Doug:
I don't want to ban any words from the lexicon. But you should agree that the government should not put one religion over another. Don't be afraid that you will turn Muslim just because the word "Ramadan" appears on the calendar. It doesn't take that much effort to be inclusive.

David:
But, the atheists are not suing to have the word "Ramadan" removed from the school calendar, only the word "Christmas". Interesting.

Doug:
That's because "Ramadan" isn't on the calendar. This isn't that interesting: put all of the major holidays all on the calendar, or leave them all off. But the Christians in charge don't want to do that. Interesting.

David:
The beginning of Ramadan is marked on our calendar. So is Hanukkah, another word that atheists don't seem to have a problem with.  Maybe you should get a better quality calendar.

If atheists can celebrate Christmas, and studies indicate more than 80% do, why don't they just celebrate the secular aspects, and let Christmas be Christmas for the rest of us?  Richard Dawkins thinks you can:

https://richarddawkins.net/2012/12/a-very-atheist-christmas/

Doug:
I wouldn't be in the field I am had it not been for Richard Dawkins. I read "The Blind Watchmaker" in 1986. A nice bridge from Anthropology to Computer Science, which was my path. You agree with Dawkins? Great!

I don't know why "they" don't celebrate Christmas. Maybe they celebrate lots of holidays, including Christmas? All of the atheists that I know are very sensitive to making sure that each and every religion can be celebrated in whatever way people want, and that the religions are all treated equally by the government.

David:
Except for Christians and Christmas.

Doug:
No, I just said: "treat them all equally by the government." No exceptions.

David:
Since we've already established that "they" do celebrate the holiday....

Doug:
Some atheists celebrate Christmas... some celebrate Hanukkah, or nothing.

Please don't tell me what atheists do and don't do. You can ask me, and I'd be glad to tell you.

David:
I'm afraid to find out what you do.

Doug:
Don't be afraid---most atheists that I have met are very thoughtful people.

David:
As are all of the Christians I know.

But surveys indicate 80% of atheists celebrate Christmas, and enjoy the time off from work that the holiday provides for them. So why do they insist on being so insensitive to Christians? Why try to remove Christ from our religious holiday? Go eat your fruitcake, Ebenezer, and I'll go to a candlelight service at my church. See, now everyone's happy.

Doug:
I have no idea why you think someone is trying to remove something from you. You have your guns, Christmas, religious freedom. Why do you also have paranoia that someone is trying to take your stuff from you? Atheists are not your enemy. They don't care how you spend your winter break. They might even sing a song with you, or drink a cup of eggnog with you, if you quit claiming that they are attacking your holiday and trying to steal your stuff.

I would rather blog about how people can come together (at this time of year, or any other) and make something great, rather than accuse a group of people of attacking my stuff. But that is just me and my atheistic ways.

David:
Some atheists do care, not just about Christmas, but winter holidays in general:

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/a-cnn/item/82-atheist-group-to-sue-retail-stores-over-happy-holidays

Doug:
And some Christians want to kill doctors, and some Muslims want to kill Christians. All of these groups are diverse groups of people. Some atheists can have as wacky ideas as any group.

David:
Once again, your biases are showing. You apparently believe that Christians are all carrying guns and are paranoid we're being robbed. You're the only one in this blog spouting about folks stealing stuff. I just want you to let us all call December 25th, "Christmas", which it is.

Since most Americans celebrate Christmas, whether Christian or not, let's agree to call it what it is: Christmas. You can ascribe whatever beliefs you want to to the word. But, you should be thankful for the holiday that gives you eggnog, Christmas trees, Santa and his elves, carols, and any gifts you might get on that very special day.

Doug:
You said that atheists were trying to remove "Christmas" from the lexicon. I think you are paranoid, and should quit blaming the atheists. Now, I have to go celebrate Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, and that one that I can never remember because my local school district removed it from the calendar...

David:
Right, the calendar that says "2015", based on the birth of Jesus.  

Doug:
That is 2015 B.C.E (Before the Common Era). And we have 12 months because of the Zodiac.

David:
Right. And what started the"common era" roughly 2015 years ago? A baby in a manger. Even Linus and Charlie Brown know that. And the zodiac is made up of constellations of stars in the natural world.

I think Rudolph is "processing" your Christmas present right now.

Have a Merry Christmas, and.....don't shoot your eye out.

Doug:
Happy holidays to all, and to all a good night!

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Let the Wookie win

David:
The newest installment in the Star Wars franchise comes out this week. Here's an interesting article about "life-lessons" we can learn from the characters. What do you think about some of these? Are there other lessons to be learned?

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/life-lessons-from-star-wars/


  1. "Let the Wookie win."
  2. Looks don't last forever. "When 900 years old you are....look as good you will not"
  3. "Don't get cocky."
  4. "There's always a bigger fish."
  5. Evil leads to unnatural abilities.
  6. "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."
  7. "...the Force will be with you....always."
  8. "Impossible to see, the future is."
  9. Sometimes, the odds are ugly.
  10. "Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is."
  11. Hate and anger are powerful tools.


Doug:
Meh. Yes, I will be first in line to see the new movie. Yes, I just watched all 6 (in the order they were created). But my tastes have changed over the years---they didn't stand up too well to me over time. But I am looking forward to seeing what JJ Abrams does with it. I liked the last Star Trek movies that he did. But, it is just a movie. And the commercialization this holiday season! Wow. Here is a list of Star Wars fruits and vegetables:

http://www.techinsider.io/star-wars-fruits-and-vegetables-are-not-the-droids-youre-looking-for-2015-12



David:
Maybe you can build your own little droid from the oranges?

Doug:
As far as life lessons from Star Wars, I enjoyed this article more that the CBS News clickbait:

http://www.themarysue.com/i-never-wanted-to-be-leia-what-han-solo-taught-two-women-about-gender-and-sexuality/

I enjoyed the complexity of how characters can be received by the audience differently from how they were designed. And still enjoyed by all.

David:
Of course, you need to introduce a gender controversy, even in a discussion of Star Wars. That particular blog simply illustrates that folks with gender confusion feel it in everything they deal with, even a fictional movie. No news there. But the larger lesson is that there are heroes. It doesn't matter who they are. When someone steps up and saves the day, we can all cheer, and aspire to be the hero no matter their race, gender, or even species. We all want to believe that we can be that person.

Doug:
I didn't see that as a "gender controversy", only a person coming to understand a character in their own way. I appreciate that. I thought it was more insightful and thoughtful than "Life Lessons from Star Wars" with lots of pictures. I like challenging my understanding and learning new ways to see familiar things.

David:
Then, you'll surely enjoy this piece about the moral and spiritual issues in Star Wars:

http://decentfilms.com/articles/starwarsissues

Doug:
I did enjoy that---it was very funny! Was it supposed to be funny? I like the idea that lying and "Jedi mind tricks" are problematic. Wouldn't that be a strange world if people really thought that lying was that terrible? And if people really thought that much about lying, I'm sure that killing anyone---or anything---would require some serious verbiage. But not even a mention over "Han shot first"?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first



That has to be the most morally questionable action of all of the movies. To recap, there are at least three versions of that scene:
  1. Originally, Han shot first
  2. Edited to make it so that Greedo shot first
  3. Edited again to show that they shoot at the same time
I like the fact that in the original, Han was a cold-blooded killer. He was more complex; had a secret. But they whitewashed him, made him a less interesting character.

David:
We'd better be careful. Our nerdliness is showing....again. I actually enjoyed the South Park episode where they mercilessly mock George Lucas for perpetually going back and modifying his movies for "new and improved" releases.

Like you, I also liked it better when Han shot first. He's not all cookies and ice cream. But he isn't a "cold-blooded killer". He's defending himself, as he has a gun pointed at his head and facing certain death.

At least it should have been certain death. Apparently, this must be Greedo's first bounty mission (or he forgot his glasses), because he's a terrible shot.

Doug:
If Han shot first, then I think legally and philosophically you would have to say it was murder. If Greedo had killed Han, that would have been murder? Greedo was just defending himself, too. I'm no fan of any "pre-emptive strike" in real life. No, if Han had shot first, he would be a cold-blooded killer, and slightly less 1-dimensional.

David:
Without straying too far into the legal weeds:  If I walk up to you and shoot you with a gun, I'd be committing murder. If I walk up to you, aim a gun at your head and tell you I'm going to shoot you, and you pull out a gun and shoot me first, you are defending yourself. That's not murder. It's not a crime at all. Apparently, your leftward leanings have led you to believe that every gun-related death is automatically murder. Legally, that is not the case. Sorry to pop your simplistic bubble.

Doug:
Wow, you saw a different scene than I did. Greedo did none of those things. If he had done what you say, I would agree with you. But Greedo did not.

David:
Here's an interesting clip (made by someone who may be more nerdish than us) with both scenes, side-by-side. Greedo has a gun pointed at Han's head throughout the scene. Decide for yourself if the dialogue suggests he's about to shoot Han.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKxOEUhRMt0

I, too, am looking forward to a new episode with very little Lucas involvement. When you go back a view the originals (and, having 4 young boys, I've seen them....... a lot!), the acting is pretty poor, and the dialogue is worse. But, the story is good and supports the other failings. You know that it's George Lucas that's at fault, because the same actors have produced great acting while working in other projects, with different directors.

Will this movie revive the series? Will it live up to the hype? Will the ghosts of Yoda and Christmas past return? Is Luke going to go over to the Dark Side?

Doug:
Well, I can answer one of those: it can't live up to the hype. And as you watch the new movie, remember that your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. Especially the left one.

David:
You're certainly right there. However, even if it's a bad movie, we can bet the farm there will be sequels.  If this one is terrible, we'll still go see the next one to find out if they can salvage the wreckage. And if it's pretty good, well, the only question is how many films they'll make. So, Yoda is wrong. The future isn't so hard to see.

After all, the Avengers films are taking on an entire industry unto themselves. I missed the last film, and probably will need to see it to understand all of the inter-connections between the films to stay with the ever more complicated storyline.

Perhaps Star Wars, and other films, will follow this lead? "When 900 Star Wars films you have seen...... look as good you will not!"

I'll let you have the last word to fulfill C-3PO's instructions: "Let the Wookie win!"

Doug:
Wait, am I the Wookie? I win?!

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Real and Hypothetical Crimes

David:
For many of our blogs, I can almost predict the positions you'll take. The only question is how far left will you take it? But sometimes you surprise me. This might be one of those times.

Recently, A pregnant woman was shot and killed during a home break-in just 2 blocks from our house. The suspect, a young, black male between 5'4" and 5'9" is still at large. In Indiana, in addition to a murder charge, the perpetrator may also be charged with additional crimes due to the fact the victim was pregnant.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/surveillance-images-released-killing-indiana-pastors-wife-n464591

My question today: If someone injures a pregnant woman, and the attack leads to a miscarriage, is there more to the crime than just assault and battery? Does the pregnancy count for anything in your opinion?

Doug:
Interesting that you provide the race of the suspect in your description, but not the race of the victim. Also, the news link that you provided doesn't say anything about the race of the suspect.

David:
It's a local story, and they have video of the suspect. The police are searching for someone who matches the description I provided. I also didn't mention the height of the victim, but I did for the suspect. Does that make me a Heightist? The description of the suspect is a part of the investigation, and perhaps one of our readers might see or hear something.

Doug:
Be on the lookout for a 5'4" to 5'9" black male? Seriously?

David:
Someone here in Indy might hear something that could contribute to the case. I don't think that's a ridiculous hope. There is a reward for any information leading to an arrest.


Doug:
This is a terrible story. But what a strange headline: "...Killing of Indiana Pastor's Wife." The headline refers to the dead woman as the "Pastor's Wife"? How did the Pastor get into the story? I better not be referred to as "Teacher's Husband" in my obituary!

David:
More likely, you'll be "Dave Blank's amusing sidekick". You should start wearing a cape and mask...

Doug:
Even worse. But you see that my point wasn't a joke? The woman was defined by her relationship to her husband. Wait, this is a national news story? Surely (and sadly) this type of crime happens often, but let's not talk about handgun violence. Ah, I see beautiful white people, blonde woman, pregnant, and a pastor. Ok, I get it. No doubt that this is a tragic, senseless death. And also an interesting case-study into what can become a national news story and what doesn't.

David:
Since you see racism behind every comment or action, it does not surprise me your take is the reporting is racist.

Doug:
Another possibility is that racism (and sexism) really does permeate our culture.

David:
Here's another interpretation:
Whenever you wish to differentiate between two similar people, you will describe them by their differences. For example, if there is a crowd wearing red shirts, and you're wearing a blue one, and someone wanted to point you out, they would say, "He's the guy in the blue shirt". That isn't to say he's a red-shirt hater. It's what sets you apart in the crowd.

Since there was more than one murder in the past few weeks, if a reporter wanted to differentiate one from another, he would look for a unique qualifier. In this case, the fact that she was a pastor's wife was a singular qualifier. They did not say she was white, or beautiful, or anything else about her. She became "the pastor's wife" because that separated her from other homicide victims, so this case won't be confused with others. That's how it is in journalism, particularly if you cannot use the person's name as the qualifier.

To prove the point, now that the woman's name has been released, headlines are now using her name as the unique qualifier.

Doug:
A new term: "brothersplaining." In any event, your question isn't about that crime at all, but about a hypothetical heinous attack on a pregnant woman, which leads to a miscarriage. I would think that an attack that caused a miscarriage could be treated like an attack that caused the loss of an organ, such as the appendix. So, yes, it "counts." How could it not? But I don't know if it should be treated as an additional crime, just evidence to the seriousness of the battery.

David:
I believe it is the pregnancy itself, and the potential legal ramifications of that fact that make this a national story.

Doug:
I am sure you do believe that.

David:
And my question is about this case directly: should the perpetrator face additional charges for killing the unborn baby?

In your analysis, if an ex-husband kicks his 9-month-pregnant ex-wife in the abdomen, specifically with the intent to cause a subsequent miscarriage, that's the same as getting into a bar fight, and someone damages their...appendix?

Doug:
In science we usually only vary one variable at a time, not all of them. So, to make this clearer for you, the situations should be:

  Situation 1: two people get into a bar fight, and someone damages their appendix.
  Situation 2: two people get into a bar fight, and someone has a miscarriage.

or, if you prefer:

  Situation 3: an ex-husband kicks his 9-month-pregnant ex-wife in the abdomen, specifically with intent to cause a miscarriage.
  Situation 4: an ex-husband kicks his 9-month-pregnant ex-wife in the abdomen, specifically with intent to rupture her appendix.

In my analysis, 1 and 2 sound about the same, right?

David:
Not at all. Number two is manslaughter. Number one isn't. Your appendix is part of you. A baby growing inside of you is a separate person, with their own civil and guaranteed rights under the law.

Doug:
Ah, no. I see Situation 3 is worse than Situation 4, because that pregnancy could end up becoming a child, and the intent was shown. It isn't a child yet, so it can't be murder. But it could be considered, as I said, as evidence as to the seriousness of the crime.

For me, the real loss is about potential. Here is another pair to compare:

  Situation 5: a woman is attacked, and must have a hysterectomy. She was planning on trying to have three kids.
  Situation 6: a woman is attacked, and has a miscarriage.

Both terrible. Which is worse?

David:
Um, we seem to have a situation....of too many situations!

At least you have agreed that someone injuring a mother, intending to cause a miscarriage is worse than causing injury to an organ. We're making progress.

Doug:
You tend to get lost in the details. I don't see much of a different between Situation 1 and 2.

David:
I was talking about your comments on 3 and 4.

Doug:
I see. Some would call this "cherry picking" the parts you agree with, and ignoring the rest. Sometimes the world is not so black and white. At least others may not see it that way.

David:
You have 6 different scenarios now, and you're complaining that I chose two to make a point? That's using 30% of the available information. Hardly "cherry picking".

Doug:
That is the definition of cherry picking!

David:
No, cherry-picking is selecting out a specific fact from the mass of data, and ignoring the rest to make a point. (Or, here in Indiana, hanging out under the basketball hoop to make an easy transition basket...) Using 30% of the information is using a fairly large chunk. Hardly the same.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cherry-pick

Situation 3 is now a homicide, as there was intent to kill the baby. Situation 4 is likely a felony, as there was intent to cause bodily harm, not just a simple assault. Situation 5 is also a felony, similar to 4, and, of course, situation 6 is manslaughter at a minimum, as the actions led to the death of the baby.

Doug:
You keep forgetting that fetuses aren't legally considered people, so it isn't "killing" or "murder". Considering that that is the law, then one has to look at other criteria. I think "potential life" is an idea that we could both agree is a valid concept, and therefore losing many potential lives is worse than losing one.

David:
Yes, which is why this case is potentially different. If you are charged differently because an unborn baby is killed (or, a potential life is lost), that could lead to new and unbroken legal ground.

I'm glad we're making some headway in this discussion.

Doug:
I think the only way you could see headway is if you pretend I'm saying something other than what I am saying. This could be an interesting discussion about the subtle consequences of harm and potentials. Or you can just say "unborn babies are people" and that is the end of the discussion.

If "potential life" is the measure, then losing a womb (Situation 5) is worse than losing a fetus (Situation 6), right?

David:
Loosing the organ that makes a baby is worse than loosing the actual baby? No.

Doug:
It is a fetus. It doesn't just make a baby---it can make a bunch of babies. Surely you would rather have a miscarriage than a hysterectomy? That is just logical.

David:
I think most women would consider all of your situations to be terrible.

Doug:
Focus, David. Yes, all of those are terrible. But some are worse than others. To the original crime, your point appears to be "there are two murders, not one." But that seems to be moot anyway. Should it really matter in this case? Shouldn't the punishment for a single death be the maximum penalty, life in prison?

David:
So killing 20 people is the same as killing one? No, we charge killers with all of their crimes, so if they beat the rap on one count, they'll still be responsible for the majority of their crimes.

Doug:
Focus, David. Those fetuses are not alive. It is not a crime to have an abortion. It cannot be murder if it is not alive.

David:
On a related note, the Supreme Court is going to review Texas laws that require a physician performing abortions to have staff privileges at the closest hospital, and clinics offering abortions to have the same certification as an outpatient surgery center. As you clearly believe a miscarriage (and abortion, since it involves a medical practitioner)  is just like loosing an organ, these requirements are certainly reasonable.

Doug:
You clearly don't understand what I clearly believe. It doesn't look like there is much of a chance that that law will be found constitutional:

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/25/9801108/anti-abortion-scott-walker-defeat

"The Wisconsin law is similar to the Texas law that's about to spark the biggest Supreme Court ruling on abortion in 25 years. And the federal judge who struck down Wisconsin's law had absolutely nothing good to say about the arguments for upholding it. Judge Richard Posner makes a persuasive case that admitting privileges have no medical benefit for women and no purpose other than to close abortion clinics."

David:
Interesting article. I'd suggest everyone read it for a moment, before we continue.

Right, then. Let's discuss the arguments from this judge.

Apparently, as long as someone else is on the hook to take care of your mistakes (ER doctors) you have no obligation to take care of the young woman to which you caused "an emergency condition". Nice. Perform a procedure, collect your fees, and tell her to call an ambulance if she has problems. Someone else will deal with the fallout.

Doug:
Those poor ER doctors! I hadn't really taken the time to consider the plight of the ER doctors. Maybe a forced ultrasound would help calm them.

David:
That's because you don't pay malpractice insurance. 

Doug:
I am sure we all pay for it in the cost of our healthcare.

David:
Yes, you do. And then complain about the high cost of healthcare.

And you don't understand the medical necessity of performing an ultrasound before a procedure like this. If a woman came to the hospital, she would get an ultrasound as the standard of care. But in an abortion clinic, it's somehow a forced and unnecessary insult to a woman.

Doug:
It may be necessary, or maybe not. How about we let the doctor and patient decide, like we do all other medical procedures! I just don't understand why in this one case you want the government in your pants.

David:
I saw multiple patients on a routine basis (which means we saw 6-8 patients per month) when I worked in Bloomington, Indiana, from the local abortion clinic. The patient had no idea which procedure the doctor used for her abortion, nor if there were any potential complications. When I'd call the clinic, they would not put me in touch with the provider, or even tell me who did the procedure. No one carried pagers, and they were always "unavailable", even if it was 11AM.
Our OB/GYNs got hooked into multiple malpractice cases because they were the doctor on-call, but had nothing to do with the problems created by someone else. They got stuck because the abortion doctor was nowhere to be found. It did put the patients at greater risk, because we had to sort things out from scratch. No where else in medicine does such an exclusion exist.
When the patient is admitted under the on-call OB/GYN, the original doctor who performed the abortion does not have his name attached to the case at the hospital. So, who knows how many complications he actually has? There is usually no mechanism to assign blame to that provider. These laws fill that hole.

Doug:
Oh, I thought that they were there to protect the women having the procedure? They are really there to assign blame in case of complications. Ok, just making sure we have our priorities straight.

David:
If malpractice is involved, blame belongs with the physician who committed the malpractice, not with the doctor who repairs the damage. I guess your priority is to make sure abortion providers have no responsibility to their patients? Because in my experience, there were many women who suffered from poor abortion clinic care.

It's like that time when I got blamed for you spilling the green paint. Or did I spill the paint, and you got blamed? Whatever. I'm sure you were responsible for something ...

The fact that women still do well, is a testament to the hard working hospital staff that pick up the pieces from a botched abortion. But, that doesn't mean that all is well, or that things shouldn't be done differently. The doctor who did the procedure should continue to care for his patient.
To argue that keeping a clinic open is more important than making it safe, is a travesty of judicial over reach. The judge decided that if these laws are maintained, some clinics would close, because their doctors can't get on staff at a real hospital. The judge decided that is less acceptable than increasing safety. So much for making women safe.

Now, here's an article about the same court decision from a slightly less biased source:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/federal-court-rules-wisconsin-abortion-law-unconstitutional-35379491


"Judge David Manion was the lone dissenter, saying the law protects women's health and doesn't amount to an undue constitutional burden. "The solution to the plaintiffs' problems is that they find more qualified doctors, not that the state relax — or that we strike down as unconstitutional — precautions taken by the state to protect the health and safety of pregnant women who have chosen to end their pregnancies," Manion wrote.
Doug:
So, you would happy with the hospitals doing the abortions? And no need to make the process any more expensive than it needs to be, right?

David:
Why would those things suddenly change? 

Doug:
I thought your point was that hospitals were safer than clinics? We can just do the abortions in hospitals. Good idea!

David:
Abortions would still be done in the very clinics they are performed in now, and at the same cost. But, the equipment would be the same equipment that is standard in any outpatient surgery center, and the doctor would be available to handle his own complications. For practitioners that are currently getting a free ride from their mistakes, they might brush up on their skills a bit if they were now to be accountable when things go wrong.

So far, everything the government has done with healthcare has made it more expensive. It hasn't stopped them in any aspect of Obamacare. 

Doug:
If you say it enough times, it will make it true, right?

David:
But, suddenly, now you care about costs over safety.

Doug:
No. But you didn't deny that it will indeed cost more, for no additional benefit. If it doesn't cost more, and it provided additional safety, count me in! I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy. You clearly believe in keeping the government out of things that they have no business in. Letting the government be involved where they should not: that would be a Real Crime. 

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

The War on Terror

Stephanie:
Hi Uncle David, it's Stephanie here. I hear a lot about these debates that occur between my dad and you, and I've always been interested in the topics brought up, so I thought I could finally contribute to the blog! I wanted to know what your thoughts are on the recent terrorist attacks committed by Daesh (ISIS) and the idea of Syrian refugees coming to the United States.


David:
Welcome Steph! So, you're the one person who reads the blog!

Good topic. One of my favorite sayings is, "It's not that simple". And when it comes to the Middle East, it couldn't be more true. People (especially politicians) like to have simple sound-bite answers to problems. But, as your dad and I have illustrated, the answers are often more complicated or nuanced.

The Paris attacks, coupled with the downing of the Russian aircraft, appears to have galvanized a lot of different players around the globe to join together against ISIS. They may have pushed things too hard, and now will face a backlash from all sides. Those who live by the sword...

The refugees have become an issue that is a bit political grandstanding mixed with some legitimate security concerns. The refugees that are re-located to the US are unlikely to ever find their way back to Syria or Libya. They will likely be here to stay, mainly for logistical reasons. And that's fine. Our country is made up of folks from all over the world, blended into the fabric of the country. But, would it be better to create a space for these people in or near their homeland? We need to have a broader discussion with all of the countries throughout the Middle East, including the refugees themselves.

After all, one of the attackers in Paris, was a Syrian refugee, and also an ISIS terrorist. It is not an unreasonable position to take to welcome refugees, but only if you can screen them to the best of your ability.

Would you agree?

Stephanie:
I'm a big supporter of the blog! I completely agree with you about this issue not being simple whatsoever. One of my friends said, "It isn't going to be a one sentence answer, but there is a solution."

I cannot answer you on whether it would be more beneficial to have refugees closer to their home, but at the current time I think that they are just running from the absolute mess that is Syria and trying to find somewhere, anywhere, to stay.

I think it is understandable that certain politicians want to screen refugees. but you have to wonder who to screen, and who not to screen. Although it is true that one of the Paris attackers was posing as a Syrian refugee, there were many of the attackers who were homegrown (I believe one was from Belgium). So, the question is, should we show the same apprehensiveness to Syrians coming into our country as, say, the French?

David:
To answer your question, let me first pose a question. If the police are chasing a caucasian crime suspect, and he runs into a crowded building completely occupied by a crowd of African-Americans, should the police have to stop each and every African-American for questioning, or can they just hone in on the single, white person in the room?

Stephanie:
I don't understand the analogy because terrorists can be white, black, middle-eastern, muslim, christian, jewish, female, male, gay, straight, and every other thing you can think of. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes, and colors, so I ask again.. who should we be screening? Syrians are not the only people who were found to be terrorists, anyone can be, and many different people have been. So what should we do about this? We can't reject just Syrian refugees who come into America and yet there is no specific person we should be rejecting because no type of person falls under the category of "terrorist."

David:
The reason you don't understand the analogy is you're approaching this from the paradigm that anyone "could" be a terrorist. The reality is that certain people "are" terrorists. And, they fit into a nice little subgroup that can be identified. Even Hillary Clinton ascribes to this reality. Work with me. Please answer the question, as it expands into a larger picture.

Stephanie:
To be fair you never answered my question, but I'll be cooperative... I'm just wondering why you think that "certain people" are terrorists when yeah certain people are terrorists, white people are terrorists, non-muslims are terrorists... why is no one in our country trying to keep out the French, who had members of their country specifically identified as terrorists??

David:
I answered your question with a question, which you still have not answered. You likely fear the question is a trap, which it is. I'm posing a series of questions designed to illustrate illogical thinking. I'll walk you through it, if you'd like. Or, we can move on to sort this out in a different way.

You see, you claim that non-muslims are ISIS terrorists, and yet that isn't true. Some of the ISIS terrorists were Belgium citizens, but they were still radical Islamic jihadists. None were Christian. None were Jewish. None were Hindu.

Stephanie:
ISIS works under the system of converting people and roping them in and convincing them to join their group, this includes isolated, non-muslim, people in America or other places around the world.

David:
Right. They convince them to become radical Islamic terrorists. You have to drink their brand of Kool-aid to join the club.

Stephanie:
Last week in my Journalism class, we watched a video about a teenager in the middle of the US who lived on a farm and wanted to learn more about ISIS, because she genuinely did not understand the situation. A man who lived in England contacted her via Twitter and became her "friend." This man had been arrested many times and bomb manuals were found in his apartment. The girl said that she would like to visit him, but she could not fathom being away from her family, and that is why she did not go. The point is that it is so easy for people anywhere around the world to be manipulated by potential terrorists if they feel isolated and unconnected from the people and the world around them. So if anyone around the world can become terrorists, then why are we only scared of Syrian refugees, who are simply fleeing the same thing that America is so afraid of: ISIS. It is a risk to let the refugees in. but it is a simple fact that you cannot prevent terror. You cannot prevent people from being violent and terrorizing others. These kinds of people can be found everywhere, no matter what their gender, skin tone, religious affiliation, age, etc.

David:
It isn't refugees we are concerned about. It's terrorists. Unfortunately, ISIS has already made it clear they are planning to infiltrate refugee groups to enter countries they could not get into easily using other methods. And so far, all of the terrorists of ISIS have been radical Islamist. You are wrong in saying that religious affiliation does not matter.

Stephanie:
Why does religious affiliation matter? ISIS does not represent all of muslims. There are 1.3 billion muslims in the world, so are we to assume they are affiliated with ISIS because they belong to the Islamic religion? But my main point of the story was that there is absolutely no point from keeping out refugees or even muslims even if they have been infiltrated, there are already terrorists in America.

David:
You're assuming (or alleging)  that anyone who wants to screen refugees a bit closer is unable to delineate a small radical group from the larger Islamic community. Which means you have already assumed that anyone who disagrees with your point must be stupid. None of that is true. All of the followers of Islam are certainly not terrorists. However, all of the terrorists appear to have been radical Islamic jihadists. It is the one thing that drives them. It's the ideology that is the cause they are fighting for. To understand them, to fight them, we need to acknowledge the facts.

Stephanie:
Well okay I never said anyone who disagrees with my point must be stupid just to make that completely clear.. never said that. I see your point, but this is true with any extremists, right? Not all Christians are murderers; however, all members of the KKK are Christian.

David:
In the same sense, I never said that you used the word "stupid". You inferred the idea.

I'm not sure why you assume that anyone in the KKK is a Christian. The KKK is definitely not a Christian group.  In fact, they were attacking Catholics at the height of their terror in the early 20th century. They certainly don't exhibit any characteristics of the Christian faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Stephanie:
The thing is, you could say the same exact thing about ISIS!! Here, the KKK leader claims to be a Christian group:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/virginia-kkk-fliers_n_5008647.html
But in the completely credible wikipedia link you posted, it says that "virtually every Christian denomination denounced the KKK." So, why can we not think of ISIS the same way? Yes, ISIS claims to be an Islamic organization, but any Muslim person can tell you that the Islamic religion is one of peace and does not promote the things that ISIS is doing. Again, it's how a person individually interprets a religion, so the KKK leader or other members interpret their version of Christianity in a violent way because they are violent people and the members of ISIS interpret their version of Islam in a violent way because they, too, are violent people.

David:
But back to the discussion, since anyone could become a criminal, should you not take any precautions to prevent becoming a victim of crime? If you know criminals are planning to use a certain ruse to break into your home, say, as a door-to-door salesman, shouldn't you take extra precaution in answering your door for a door-to-door salesman?

Stephanie:
That's a nice idea, but imagine ISIS plans an attack using terrorists posing as Roman Catholics and 300 people are killed in, I don't know, the Vatican. So what do you do now, ban all Roman Catholics from coming into America even though they're fleeing from the same thing that we are so afraid of? That's the first question and if the answer is yes to banning roman catholics, then you have to wonder, how do you identify someone as roman catholic or not?

David:
A radical Islamic terrorist posing as a Roman Catholic is still a radical Islamic terrorist. The wolf does not become a sheep by putting on sheep's clothes. So, the hunt is not for Catholics (or the French), but remains a hunt for radical Islamic terrorist, no matter how they appear, or what role they assume. It is likely they will modify their strategies at some point, and it will be important for intelligence agencies to continue to watch for this.

Stephanie:
Well, I have to ask again, how do you identify a person of Islamic faith, let alone a radical Islamic terrorist? Also I have to wonder why we even stick the word "Islamic" in there? Yes, ISIS claims to be working for the justice of their religion, but the ideals they hold are not the same as most other Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace, just like all other religions, so despite ISIS' own claims, I always wonder why we don't just call them radical terrorists instead of giving the entire Islamic religion a terrible name. No one calls those who shoot up abortion clinics radical Christian terrorists do they?

David:
The security threat of importing refugees from Syria is real. The president has belittled and mocked Republicans who have created legislation for screening refugees, but the problem for him is the large number of Democrats in Congress who also hold these same views.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-obama-unloads-gop-candidates-over-refugee-refusal-n465461

Stephanie:
To be fair, Obama was calling out certain politicians' obvious islamophobia. Jeb Bush said that we should only let in Christian refugees... Why? Because muslims=terrorists? I think the screening of the refugees is a controversial issue, but our president had good reason to call out those politicians. There's a difference between being islamophobic and having other reasons and concerns behind not allowing Syrians into our country.

David:
Jeb Bush does not equal all Republicans. You might mention to the President that he should not paint with such a large brush.

I don't believe any candidate from either party has advocated not allowing Syrian refugees into the country (although Dr. Carson has noted from his visit to Jordan that none of the refugees really want to leave the region). A bipartisan majority of Congress has passed a bill asking for additional scrutiny of refugees, before they come into the country. Each of them represents constituents back in their home districts. Are they all "obvious Islamophobes"?  Because that would include a majority of Americans.  If I said President Obama obviously hated Christians because he hasn't done anything to stop their genocide at the hands of ISIS, I would hope you would point out that one does not equal the other.  The majority of the terrorists have been radical muslim men between the ages of 18-50.  Could other demographics be terrorists? Sure. But subjecting this particular group to extra scrutiny would likely catch most of the bad actors. That doesn't equal a hatred or fear of ALL muslims. One doesn't equal the other, you see.

Stephanie:
First of all, how do you prove if someone is Muslim or not?! Second of all, genocide means "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Not to disrupt your view or anything, but there is no genocide of Christians occurring... ISIS is actually targeting Shi'ia Muslims as well as anyone else who is not following their particular version of Sunni Islam.

David:
CNN disagrees with you. Christians are being specifically targeted for death.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/world/terrorists-attacks-on-christianity/

Stephanie:
I have to disagree with you despite the article. I mean, did you even read it? It says, "Of course, Christians aren't the only ones who have suffered at the hands of such organizations. For example, most victims of ISIS are fellow Muslims who refuse to go along with the ISIS worldview and ruthless tactics." I would hardly call that genocide of Christians. While Christians fit under my previously mentioned category of "anyone else who is not following their particular version of Sunni Islam," I'm not inclined to believe an article who's only evidence is politicians saying "I think." That isn't solid proof for me.

David:
I'll give you a quick example from history: During WW II, The Nazis were at war with everyone but the Italians and the Japanese. They were killing millions of people all across Europe. Yet, during this same war, they were also targeting the Jews for extermination. You can commit genocide against a minority group while waging a larger war against others. The fact that ISIS is killing other Muslims doesn't change the fact they are specifically targeting Christians for death. Did you not see the following story?

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/251741-isis-terrorists/

Stephanie:
They are killing Christians, I agreed with you there, but I, again, would hardly call that genocide.

David:
You do realize that the final "S" in ISIS stands for "Syria" don't you?  Their own name tells you where they're coming from.

Stephanie:
I think the name means a bit more than that, and again, I reiterate, I, personally, feel as though we should move away from using that name. But I just wanted to point out that it's not as simple as saying S stands for Syria:

http://www.infowars.com/what-does-isis-really-stand-for/

David:
Although this article is interesting, I'm surprised you're a subscriber to "InfoWars.com". 

Stephanie:
Not a subscriber, just did a little googling!

David:
The article points out the historical territories of the ancient world, but I'm pointing out that within the current boundaries of Syria is where ISIS themselves have said they plan to establish their caliphate. And, it's the location where all of their recruits, both here and abroad, are trying to reach for training. They are spreading throughout the Middle-East, but their base is Syria.

Stephanie:
And by the way Bush saying that he would only let in Christian Syrians is Islamaphobic because how do you prove if someone is Christian vs. Muslim???? and even though the majority of the terrorists have been Muslim men between the ages of 18-50 there are still terrorists who are not Muslim, not men, and ages 0-17 and 50+... so you will always be letting in terrorists even if you do refuse to let in Muslim men between the ages of 18-50 (which I, again, remind you, is impossible to tell the religion of someone by looking or even asking).

David:
Jeb Bush is in the unenviable position of being the early front-runner who has disappointed all expectations. Utterly. He is likely trying to gain some traction, any traction, by saying something to get some attention. These words will likely return to haunt him, if he stays in the race past the initial primaries.

Now, if 98/100 terrorists are young, male, radical Islamic jihadists, and 2 are not, should you not still remain focused on the likelihood that the next terror threat is going to be perpetrated by a young, male, radical Islamic jihadist? You'd be foolish to fail to keep that as your focus.

And how do you tell what someone's beliefs are? Most of us (and the majority of the terrorists) have left a long trail through the internet, their associations, and their phone records. By looking through my social media, you can tell a great deal about my interests and beliefs. Same for you. It's the same for radical jihadis, who use social media to recruit new members.  That's why it is imperative that our intelligence continue to monitor suspects, suspected groups, and social media.

President Obama has a goal of making this a political issue. He has stated Republicans are as bad (or worse) than terrorist. But in this instance, it's members of his own party who are on the side of Republicans and cautious people everywhere in the country.

Stephanie:
Well, is this not a political issue? Also, Obama did not say Republicans=terrorists. Obama said that the GOP is doing the terrorist's job for them. Let me simplify this. This means that the terrorist's job is to instill terror into American's hearts. By refusing refugees, we are admitting that we are afraid to let, not just terrorists, but anybody into our country. By doing this we are doing their job for them. We cannot fight terrorism with fear or with these bizarre ways to "protect" ourselves (which aren't actually protecting us from anything!!).

David:
National security should not be a political issue. Again, no one (Democrat or Republican) has refused refugees. Creating a policy to screen refugees to the best of our ability before we let them in is common sense. A bipartisan majority in Congress agrees with that plan, as well as a majority of Americans. It's just that simple.

Keeping terrorists out of the country doesn't seem that bizarre, and seems a very effective way of protecting ourselves.

Stephanie:
The thing is, we already screen refugees! I'm confused as to how you would increase that screening? Everyone agrees that national security is extremely important, but whether to allow (specifically Syrian) refugees in or ban them from entering is a political issue that everyone (Democrat, Republican, and everyone in between) has been discussing.

David:
You can read the  bipartisan bill that passed the House to see how the screening can be improved.

As to President Obama, he and his staff have compared Republicans to terrorists on more than one occasion. That isn't the type of rhetoric that leads to compromise or progress.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/26/white-house-compares-gop-terrorists-government-shu/

Stephanie:
Again, I see no direct quotes of Pfeiffer comparing Republicans to terrorists?? I need direct proof accompanying such a wild accusation. You try over and over again to say "Obama thinks Republicans are terrorists" and yet I still see nothing that supports this claim.

David:
If you can't see that describing someone having a "bomb strapped to their chest" is analogous to a suicide bomber, then nothing I can say will convince you.

Stephanie:
Maybe I didn't understand the article, but I didn't see the context for that quote or whether or not it was about Republicans... You can keep slipping in Obama's name in this, but I have yet to see evidence that he himself has made these comparisons. One member of his staff who had 2 strokes recently is not enough to convince me that "President Obama and his staff" are comparing Republicans to terrorists.

David:
If you try to simplify President Obama's rhetoric any further, you'd have to write in crayon.

And now Hillary Clinton has listed Republicans as her "enemy". Not ISIS, but Republicans. But I'm sure she'll apologize and work hard with them if she were to become president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/10/20/what-hillarys-claim-that-republicans-are-her-enemies-is-really-about/

Deciding who is really our enemy, and doing what needs to be done to protect Americans from them, may ultimately be the deciding factor for who gets to be the next POTUS.

Stephanie:
To be fair, Clinton seemed to be joking at this little remark, and I'm sure there are many GOP candidates who would make similar seemingly meaningless claims.

David:
She certainly does make a lot of meaningless claims, to be sure.

So, do we agree that we should screen refugees as well as we possibly can before we bring them into the country? Do we agree that ISIS is an enemy of civilized folks the world over? Will we do another blog together? And will your dad get coal for Christmas again this year?

Stephanie:
My rhetorical question is: what does "as well as we possibly can" mean? We do agree that ISIS is a threat to most people who do not agree with their brand of Sunni Islam. We should do another blog together, maybe one I know more about, I'm pretty ignorant on most things involving the middle-east. And yes, I have informed Santa to send lots of coal this year!