Today's post will continue to build your skill in evaluating arguments and identifying presuppositions.
Whenever you hear someone say something with which you disagree, what do you do? Most people just assume that the other person is stupid or irrational. Some people will even try to convince them that they are wrong. But not many will ask themselves, "What are they presupposing that would make their conclusion rational to them?"
If people are not crazy and are not stupid, but differ from you in their understanding, then they either know something you don't know, or they are presupposing something you are not presupposing.
If you value the relationship with the other person, you should expend the effort to identify the missing information or to elucidate the unidentified presupposition. To not try to find out why you disagree is a sign of arrogance. Such pride is the cause of most arguments that do not get resolved.
The resolution may be that we identify our differing presuppositions and refuse to change our minds, and "agree to disagree." Since presuppositions are accepted by faith and cannot be proved or disproved, we have agreed that we must follow our separate belief systems.
I have one belief system and you have another belief system and those faiths bring us to different conclusions. I am not a better scientist than you and you are not a better scientist than I am. We agree on the facts. That is science. We disagree on the interpretation of the facts, and that is because of our belief systems, not the facts.
All geologists agree that there are similar layers of rocks found worldwide. Each layer contains fossils, predominately fossils that resemble other fossils in the same layer, but are different from those of the layer above, and the layer beneath. Fossils are frequently casts in stone of soft tissue, or the remains of hard body parts such as shells. But they represent plants and animals that had been alive and have died in such a way that their remains formed layers that became lithified due to processes that occurred after their death.
These statements are scientific. They represent the physical evidence that scientists have found, and there is no disagreement as to what the evidence is. There are, however, differences in what geologists say the fossil layers mean.
One will look at the layers and say they demonstrate Evolution, and another will say they obviously are the results of a world-wide flood. Same rocks, same logic processes, but different conclusions!
The instructor for my first course in statistics had been asked to evaluate the entrance requirements for allowing students into Emory University. It was determined that the then-current evaluation criteria were an excellent admissions predictor of success for Emory students. He had to show them that their data had only included current Emory students who had already been chosen by those criteria, and that it was, therefore, not representative of the general population that might apply to Emory. Their data excluded students who might have succeeded at Emory but were rejected by the criteria. This subtle bias was hard for them to accept, because there had been such a high correlation in their results.
The same can be said for people who do not recognize that their own selection bias, i.e. their presuppositions, determine what they see in the data. If a person says, "There is no world-wide flood," as part of his presuppositions, he will not be able to conclude, upon examining the data, that there was a world-wide flood. He will have to come to some other conclusion.
We live in an age of religious fanaticism. Some fanatics are terrorizing the world, killing those who do not agree with them. Other zealous fanatics are trying to force public education systems to exclude scientific possibilities with which they disagree. They only want one possible explanation, i.e., one set of faith principles, to be taught in schools. They do not want children to learn how to evaluate faith principles and how to reach their own conclusions. They want to indoctrinate, not to educate.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Friday, May 04, 2012
I am not crazy and I am not stupid.
Nobody thinks they are crazy or stupid. Everybody thinks he or she is right. We have an innate need to be right. Yet, other people do not give everybody else the same benefit of the doubt that they give themselves.
If I think I am right, and someone contradicts me, I must assume that he or she is wrong. When the other person hears me say he or she is wrong, he/she reacts in kind and says I am the wrong one. This scenario must happen when people are convinced they are right and others contradict them. Our reactions imply that the other person is crazy or stupid.
When the principles of the prior two posts are considered, we can isolate the source of most problems. People are most often looking at the same set of facts. If they are not, they can iterate what they have observed. In the lipstick problem, the wife was not privy to an observation the husband had made, i.e., an encounter with a lipsticked relative. Had he mentioned this encounter when he saw his wife, they both would have had the same facts from which to draw a conclusion.
Assume that two people have iterated the facts and agreed to them, but still disagree on the meaning or interpretation of the facts. Since the rules of logic do not vary based upon who the individual is, the only thing remaining to account for their different conclusions is their presuppositions, i.e., what major premises they have accepted by faith.
My first college degree was in Geology. Geologists have an interesting task similar to that of the historian, viz., how do you understand something that happened in the past, when you only have artifacts and relics from the previous time period, and cannot be an eye-witness, yourself, to the events, themselves? Future historians will be in a much better position than current ones, because of advances in technology. Whereas today's historians are limited to the study of written documents and built environments from the past, tomorrow's historians will be able to view DVD's and other audio/video media that will let them observe the actual happenings from which they will be drawing meaning.
Geologists frequently limit their historical observations to the rocks and fossil records in the rocks, but they could also learn from the historian, and use the collective written records from ancient cultures to augment their understanding. Only a presupposition separates two geologists who come to different conclusions.
If a geologist assumes the rock records were deposited in pre-history, he will not look for verification in historical records. His assumption then colors his conclusion. He will not be able to conclude that the rock layers are related to historical time. The fact that many cultures record stories of great floods will not even be considered in his evaluation of what the rocks mean. His blinders of scientific objectivism keep him from seeing what may be obvious to others. (This is a problem with modern university education: so much specialization means educated people have no knowledge of other specialties.)
Another assumption made by geologists in the last century or so is the rule of Uniformitarianism. This rule states that things have always happened the same way we observe them happening, today. This assumption limits the understanding of things that happened in prehistoric time to the same processes that have happened in historic time. It is a way of saying, "Seeing is believing." If we are not able to see it happen, it can't have happened. This is an arrogant statement for the residents of a miniscule particle of the universe in an instant of the time line to make about a time line of billions of years (in their scheme).
But it is not crazy and it is not stupid. It is merely an argument made using the observations of scientists (the minor premises in the argument) by logically following an assumption (major premise) to its logical conclusion.
Remember that these presuppositions are faith principles. They are accepted and embraced by faith and subjected to scrutiny only when the conclusions lead to contradictions. One faith leads to one conclusion and another faith leads, with the same evidence, to a different conclusion.
Crazy and stupid do not apply. Faith does apply. In argumentation and evaluation of arguments, all faiths are equal. They are only beliefs that are embraced by different people. Those fundamental assertions will lead them to different conclusions.
But are all faiths equal? A question for a later discussion.
If I think I am right, and someone contradicts me, I must assume that he or she is wrong. When the other person hears me say he or she is wrong, he/she reacts in kind and says I am the wrong one. This scenario must happen when people are convinced they are right and others contradict them. Our reactions imply that the other person is crazy or stupid.
When the principles of the prior two posts are considered, we can isolate the source of most problems. People are most often looking at the same set of facts. If they are not, they can iterate what they have observed. In the lipstick problem, the wife was not privy to an observation the husband had made, i.e., an encounter with a lipsticked relative. Had he mentioned this encounter when he saw his wife, they both would have had the same facts from which to draw a conclusion.
Assume that two people have iterated the facts and agreed to them, but still disagree on the meaning or interpretation of the facts. Since the rules of logic do not vary based upon who the individual is, the only thing remaining to account for their different conclusions is their presuppositions, i.e., what major premises they have accepted by faith.
My first college degree was in Geology. Geologists have an interesting task similar to that of the historian, viz., how do you understand something that happened in the past, when you only have artifacts and relics from the previous time period, and cannot be an eye-witness, yourself, to the events, themselves? Future historians will be in a much better position than current ones, because of advances in technology. Whereas today's historians are limited to the study of written documents and built environments from the past, tomorrow's historians will be able to view DVD's and other audio/video media that will let them observe the actual happenings from which they will be drawing meaning.
Geologists frequently limit their historical observations to the rocks and fossil records in the rocks, but they could also learn from the historian, and use the collective written records from ancient cultures to augment their understanding. Only a presupposition separates two geologists who come to different conclusions.
If a geologist assumes the rock records were deposited in pre-history, he will not look for verification in historical records. His assumption then colors his conclusion. He will not be able to conclude that the rock layers are related to historical time. The fact that many cultures record stories of great floods will not even be considered in his evaluation of what the rocks mean. His blinders of scientific objectivism keep him from seeing what may be obvious to others. (This is a problem with modern university education: so much specialization means educated people have no knowledge of other specialties.)
Another assumption made by geologists in the last century or so is the rule of Uniformitarianism. This rule states that things have always happened the same way we observe them happening, today. This assumption limits the understanding of things that happened in prehistoric time to the same processes that have happened in historic time. It is a way of saying, "Seeing is believing." If we are not able to see it happen, it can't have happened. This is an arrogant statement for the residents of a miniscule particle of the universe in an instant of the time line to make about a time line of billions of years (in their scheme).
But it is not crazy and it is not stupid. It is merely an argument made using the observations of scientists (the minor premises in the argument) by logically following an assumption (major premise) to its logical conclusion.
Remember that these presuppositions are faith principles. They are accepted and embraced by faith and subjected to scrutiny only when the conclusions lead to contradictions. One faith leads to one conclusion and another faith leads, with the same evidence, to a different conclusion.
Crazy and stupid do not apply. Faith does apply. In argumentation and evaluation of arguments, all faiths are equal. They are only beliefs that are embraced by different people. Those fundamental assertions will lead them to different conclusions.
But are all faiths equal? A question for a later discussion.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Analyzing an Argument
In the previous post, I suggested that consistency was a key to analyzing an argument.
From studies in formal logic (the form determines the correctness), one form stands out: Modus Ponens.
When I studied it many years ago, the classical form was given like this:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
----------------------
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The first statement is called the Major Premise, and the second is called the Minor Premise. The last statement is the Conclusion.
The full version of the logical statement is as follows:
If the major premise, "All men are mortal," is true and the minor premise, "Socrates is a man," is true, then the conclusion, "Socrates is mortal," is necessarily true.
This form is the heart of deductive reasoning.
Now, let us examine the details of the form. Is it true that "all men are mortal?" Perhaps we can claim it is true by definition. Being a man is being mortal. On the other hand, it does not follow that being mortal is being a man, because we have seen that other things, from dogs to grass, also die.
It may be possible for there to be a man somewhere who is now alive and will never die. The only way I could demonstrate to everybody that all men are mortal is to kill all men. And then, my argument would be proved, but A) there would be no one left alive to be interested in my proof, or B) one of them might spring back to life and my argument would fall on deaf ears, anyway, though it was disproved.
Major premises of this sort fall in the category of statements which are generally accepted by "all men everywhere." By "accepted," we mean "believed to be true." In mathematics, we call these things "axioms," the starting principles that we assume to be true (and don't try to prove), and in theological circles, we call them "faith principles."
Major premises are generally things that are asserted. Minor premises are generally things that can be observed. In Apologetics, we call Major Premises "Presuppositions."
In analyzing a deductive argument, we generally accept the truth of the major premise, because then, we can see where it leads the argument. If a consequence of accepting the truth the major premise leads us to a contradiction, then we challenge the major premise.
In yesterday's blog about consistency, we looked at three different major premises, i.e., three different assumptions made about the Old Testament, the New Testament, and their relationship to each other.
We saw that different denominations start with different major premises; they look at the same Biblical evidence (minor premises), and get different conclusions. They were all logical, i.e., they followed the rules of deductive reasoning. Yet they came to different conclusions, precisely because they started with different major premises, not because one group was more rational than the other.
This is an important point, not only in courses in logic, but also, in any argument that occurs between two people. These arguments frequently occur in family situations, where a husband and wife reach different conclusions about an incident (minor premise) and fail to understand that their difference is in what they are assuming (the major premise) to be true, not in the actual facts they see.
A man comes home with lipstick on his collar. He may not even know it is there. The wife observes the lipstick and concludes the husband has been fooling around with another woman. In this case, the major premise of the wife might be, "I cannot trust my husband." The husband's might be, "I am a trustworthy husband." The minor premise is clear: There is lipstick on the collar. The wife's major premise requires her to conclude her husband was unfaithful.
Note that the husband now thinks the wife is not being logical, because he assumes she has adopted the same major premise he holds, and her conclusion does not logically follow. But she is being logical. She is just holding to a different major premise than he believes.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the husband had run into Aunt Sally (you know, the huggy one who always has her face painted to perfection) at a business luncheon with his male colleagues. He had forgotten all about it.
Here's the issue: The conclusion of a deductive argument is influenced just as much by the major premise as by the minor premise. Anyone familiar with John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" series of books will understand why men and women frequently have different major premises that lead them to different conclusions using the same evidence (minor premises).
It is because our presuppositions (what we believe and accept to be true, but can't prove) determine our conclusions. Obviously, if two people are looking at the same facts and using the same rules of logic, then the only thing that can lead them to different conclusions is their presuppositions.
I have used several words for our relationship to our major premises, assumptions, presuppositions, beliefs, and faith principles. You cannot separate conclusions in deductive arguments from belief. This is not only true for people of faith; it is universally true. Major premises are normally assumed, accepted, believed, etc., to be true, i.e., they are accepted by faith. It doesn't have to be a religious faith. Even an atheist believes there is no God. That is an act of faith.
As I look at all the evidence for belief in God, I conclude that an atheist has a greater amount of blind faith than I do, but that is another lesson.
From studies in formal logic (the form determines the correctness), one form stands out: Modus Ponens.
When I studied it many years ago, the classical form was given like this:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
----------------------
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The first statement is called the Major Premise, and the second is called the Minor Premise. The last statement is the Conclusion.
The full version of the logical statement is as follows:
If the major premise, "All men are mortal," is true and the minor premise, "Socrates is a man," is true, then the conclusion, "Socrates is mortal," is necessarily true.
This form is the heart of deductive reasoning.
Now, let us examine the details of the form. Is it true that "all men are mortal?" Perhaps we can claim it is true by definition. Being a man is being mortal. On the other hand, it does not follow that being mortal is being a man, because we have seen that other things, from dogs to grass, also die.
It may be possible for there to be a man somewhere who is now alive and will never die. The only way I could demonstrate to everybody that all men are mortal is to kill all men. And then, my argument would be proved, but A) there would be no one left alive to be interested in my proof, or B) one of them might spring back to life and my argument would fall on deaf ears, anyway, though it was disproved.
Major premises of this sort fall in the category of statements which are generally accepted by "all men everywhere." By "accepted," we mean "believed to be true." In mathematics, we call these things "axioms," the starting principles that we assume to be true (and don't try to prove), and in theological circles, we call them "faith principles."
Major premises are generally things that are asserted. Minor premises are generally things that can be observed. In Apologetics, we call Major Premises "Presuppositions."
In analyzing a deductive argument, we generally accept the truth of the major premise, because then, we can see where it leads the argument. If a consequence of accepting the truth the major premise leads us to a contradiction, then we challenge the major premise.
In yesterday's blog about consistency, we looked at three different major premises, i.e., three different assumptions made about the Old Testament, the New Testament, and their relationship to each other.
We saw that different denominations start with different major premises; they look at the same Biblical evidence (minor premises), and get different conclusions. They were all logical, i.e., they followed the rules of deductive reasoning. Yet they came to different conclusions, precisely because they started with different major premises, not because one group was more rational than the other.
This is an important point, not only in courses in logic, but also, in any argument that occurs between two people. These arguments frequently occur in family situations, where a husband and wife reach different conclusions about an incident (minor premise) and fail to understand that their difference is in what they are assuming (the major premise) to be true, not in the actual facts they see.
A man comes home with lipstick on his collar. He may not even know it is there. The wife observes the lipstick and concludes the husband has been fooling around with another woman. In this case, the major premise of the wife might be, "I cannot trust my husband." The husband's might be, "I am a trustworthy husband." The minor premise is clear: There is lipstick on the collar. The wife's major premise requires her to conclude her husband was unfaithful.
Note that the husband now thinks the wife is not being logical, because he assumes she has adopted the same major premise he holds, and her conclusion does not logically follow. But she is being logical. She is just holding to a different major premise than he believes.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that the husband had run into Aunt Sally (you know, the huggy one who always has her face painted to perfection) at a business luncheon with his male colleagues. He had forgotten all about it.
Here's the issue: The conclusion of a deductive argument is influenced just as much by the major premise as by the minor premise. Anyone familiar with John Gray's "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" series of books will understand why men and women frequently have different major premises that lead them to different conclusions using the same evidence (minor premises).
It is because our presuppositions (what we believe and accept to be true, but can't prove) determine our conclusions. Obviously, if two people are looking at the same facts and using the same rules of logic, then the only thing that can lead them to different conclusions is their presuppositions.
I have used several words for our relationship to our major premises, assumptions, presuppositions, beliefs, and faith principles. You cannot separate conclusions in deductive arguments from belief. This is not only true for people of faith; it is universally true. Major premises are normally assumed, accepted, believed, etc., to be true, i.e., they are accepted by faith. It doesn't have to be a religious faith. Even an atheist believes there is no God. That is an act of faith.
As I look at all the evidence for belief in God, I conclude that an atheist has a greater amount of blind faith than I do, but that is another lesson.
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Consistency
As I have answered questions from my students, I have come to believe that consistency is a crucial element in a belief system.
For example, I was recently asked why the Church of Christ doesn't use musical instruments, but we (I was teaching in a Baptist church) do? The answer highlights the issue of consistency in Biblical interpretation among different Christian churches and denominations.
The crux of the problem is that the Christian Bible consists of two different sets of historical documents, the Old Testament, originally written in Hebrew (and shared with many faith-families, e.g., Jews, Muslims, and Christians), and the New Testament, originally written in Greek, accepted by all Christian denominations as sacred. [We will ignore the books of uncertain authorship, commonly called the Apocrypha, at this time.]
The problem is that the Old and New Testaments have points of ambiguity, if not outright contradiction, between them. So the issue of understanding comes down to the question of what is the proper principle of interpretation to relate the two testaments to the church in the current age?
The musical instrument question will help explain the issue. The Churches of Christ (and other similar New Testament churches) use a rule of interpretation that the Old Testament is illustrative to the Church, but the New Testament is normative. The Old Testament books give us examples of God's dealings with people in history, but the New Testament is the only rule of faith and practice for the people of God, since the first century.
This rule of interpretation eliminates some problems that divide other Christian denominations, because it is simple and straightforward. If the New Testament, alone, is the rule book for the church, then we eliminate the problems associated with Christians' use of the Old Testament, e.g., what do we do with the passages about the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the position of Israel, etc.?
If the New Testament, alone, regulates the church, then we do what it says; we don't do what it says not to do; and when it is silent about an issue, we err on the side of caution. For example, the New Testament does not speak to the issue of instruments in worship, but it does relate to psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. So don't be alarmed when visiting a Church of Christ that you find no piano, organ, or any other musical instrument you might be familiar with in the church where you grew up. They are trying to be consistent to the principle of interpretation they believe is designed for a New Testament church. They sing a capella.
The mainline churches, including Roman Catholic and Protestant, use a different rule of interpretation for the Old Testament/New Testament dilemma. The main difference between Catholic and Protestant denominations is that the Roman Catholics believe the Church (via Creeds, Councils and Papal edicts) can still write dogma equivalent to the Old and New Testament Scripture, while Protestants believe that the Old and New Testament Scriptures (completed near the end of the first century), alone, are the only rule of faith and practice for the church.
With that (major) distinction, then, these denominations follow a similar rule of interpretation for the Old to New Testament relationship. This rule says that the Old and New Testaments together are regulative for the church. The Old Testament is still normative for the people of God, unless the New Testament makes a clear, definitive change. For example, the Old Testament includes dietary restrictions intended to differentiate the people of God (Israel) from the peoples around them. Jews could not eat pork, or shrimp, for example. The New Testament indicated that the wall separating Jew from Gentile was broken down and the laws intended to differentiate the people of God have been done away, i.e., their purpose has been fulfilled, so they no longer apply.
Certain issues are easy to handle with this rule of interpretation. If the New Testament does not make a change, then the Old Testament principles are still regulative. For example, the Old Testament prohibits murder and the New Testament makes no change, so it is still wrong to murder someone.
We have looked at three basic rules of interpretation of Scripture:
The Old Testament is normative (Jews, Muslims--with additional books, e.g., Talmud, Koran, etc., overriding)
The New Testament is normative (Church of Christ, other New Testament Churches)
The Old and New Testament are normative (mainline Christian Denominations--with New Testament overriding Old Testament, and Roman Catholics with Church overriding the Testaments)
This posting is a gross oversimplification of Biblical interpretation principles, but it will be instructive for those people who wonder why there are differences in the practices of different churches.
They are all trying to be consistent to the fundamental things they believe about the Scriptures, the revelation from God to his called-out people.
You may wonder which principle of interpretation is right, in the absolute sense. That is a different topic. This post is designed to help you examine faith claims, not to demonstrate which ones are right. This post is designed to help you recognize an argument's presuppositions and whether or not an argument is consistent with its presuppositions, not to decide which presuppositions are right.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
New Year's Day is like Groundhog Day, the movie. This is the day when we look at the past, see what we did wrong, and resolve to do it better in the future. Like Bill Murray's character in the movie, we will have to repeat the same scenarios until we learn the lesson and make corrections, before we are allowed to move on.
Unless we love the mess we are in (the pigs my granddaddy raised on the farm liked mud and slop), we are going to have to make changes to get out of the mess.
It is easy to blame our environment or somebody else for our problems. When we give environments or other people the power over us, we lose hope and become their slaves.
To be free, we must do all within our power to get out of that environment we think is bad for us. We must do all in our power to get out from under the influence of those who cause us to react wrongly. We might not have the power to eliminate those influences completely, but we do have some power to make some change. Like muscles, more power will come from the exercise of what power we have.
As in Groundhog Day, one little change repeated regularly has a great effect on the outcome.
There is power in resolutions. Write down one or a few areas where you want to see change in 2012. Keep your list where you can see it. Work on it a little bit, every day. You will be amazed at what you can accomplish when you make up your mind to be free from slavery to bad environments and bad reactions to people.
When you let somebody make you mad, you lose control to them. They become your master. If, instead, you determine in advance what you will do when they say that thing that makes you mad, you will be the master of that situation. You will be free.
This is what being filled with the spirit is like. You have so loaded up your mind and heart with God's word, that you know what is right to do. Then, determine to do it. Spirit-filled living is giving over control of your reactions to the influence of the Holy Spirit as mediated through his word. Do what the Spirit says to do, not what you have always done. Don't be led by the flesh (and the habits you have always had), but be led by the Spirit.
Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sinful, fleshly living. Then he was raised from the dead with power so we can now live new lives. There is nothing holding us back. May 2012 be the year we exercise that power completely and walk by the spirit.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Dog Lessons
We have two dogs. One, Nini, has all the physical features of a Black Labrador Retriever, and the other, Kalena, is golden in color and has the features of a Heinz 57.
Nini's non-Lab features include longer hair and white markings on her chest and feet.
When we go outside, I carry a throwing toy to give them exercise. The funny thing is that Nini does not have the genetic memory (instinct) of a retriever. Nini has never cared whether I throw the toy, or not, but Kalena will eye it and jump up and down and beg me to throw it. Then, the 57 will become the retriever and find the toy and bring it back and dare me to throw it, again.
Nini's behavior, on the other hand, is bizarre. Nini will run interference once Kalena has the ball, and do all in her power to keep Kalena from getting it to me. She will nip at Kalena's legs, try to trip her, and growl and do everything in her power to keep Kalena from bringing me the toy.
Today, it hit me that Nini's hair length and foot markings look like those of a sheepdog we once had. And her behavior with Kalena is similar to Colonel's behavior when he was herding sheep. (Colonel was my son's sheepdog when we raised sheep.)
It saddens me that these unique dogs' traits end here. All their mixed-up ways will never be repeated because the animal shelter required they be neutered before we could adopt them. Neither of them will ever mother a litter of strange and wonderful puppies.
Some people want to do the same thing with humans. The focus of Margaret Sanger (mother of Planned Parenthood) was eugenics, good genetic breeding. (http://bit.ly/nTf5B9) Their goal is to keep the un-productive, un-genetically pure, un-fit, un-loved, and un-perfect from procreating, whether by advance planning (birth prevention) or afterthought (abortion).
The role of a gospel preacher, in contradistinction, is to demonstrate to un-lovely and un-loved people that God loves them and can give them the power to rise above whatever circumstances into which they were born. Our history need not determine our destiny. Our past need not determine our future.
Nobody is so bad that they should not have been born. Everybody is somebody in God's economy, and all can be made perfect through God's power indwelling them through the Spirit of Christ.
Even mixed-up people, like our mixed-up dogs, have their own unique gifts they can share, and all of us benefit from each other's gifts. All of us suffer when some of us aren't given the chance to exist and grow into the potential God can make for them.
The wonderful, mixed-up, joy-giving instincts of Nini and Kalena will die with them, but, in the meantime, I will enjoy their erratic behavior!
Nini's non-Lab features include longer hair and white markings on her chest and feet.
When we go outside, I carry a throwing toy to give them exercise. The funny thing is that Nini does not have the genetic memory (instinct) of a retriever. Nini has never cared whether I throw the toy, or not, but Kalena will eye it and jump up and down and beg me to throw it. Then, the 57 will become the retriever and find the toy and bring it back and dare me to throw it, again.
Nini's behavior, on the other hand, is bizarre. Nini will run interference once Kalena has the ball, and do all in her power to keep Kalena from getting it to me. She will nip at Kalena's legs, try to trip her, and growl and do everything in her power to keep Kalena from bringing me the toy.
Today, it hit me that Nini's hair length and foot markings look like those of a sheepdog we once had. And her behavior with Kalena is similar to Colonel's behavior when he was herding sheep. (Colonel was my son's sheepdog when we raised sheep.)
It saddens me that these unique dogs' traits end here. All their mixed-up ways will never be repeated because the animal shelter required they be neutered before we could adopt them. Neither of them will ever mother a litter of strange and wonderful puppies.
Some people want to do the same thing with humans. The focus of Margaret Sanger (mother of Planned Parenthood) was eugenics, good genetic breeding. (http://bit.ly/nTf5B9) Their goal is to keep the un-productive, un-genetically pure, un-fit, un-loved, and un-perfect from procreating, whether by advance planning (birth prevention) or afterthought (abortion).
The role of a gospel preacher, in contradistinction, is to demonstrate to un-lovely and un-loved people that God loves them and can give them the power to rise above whatever circumstances into which they were born. Our history need not determine our destiny. Our past need not determine our future.
Nobody is so bad that they should not have been born. Everybody is somebody in God's economy, and all can be made perfect through God's power indwelling them through the Spirit of Christ.
Even mixed-up people, like our mixed-up dogs, have their own unique gifts they can share, and all of us benefit from each other's gifts. All of us suffer when some of us aren't given the chance to exist and grow into the potential God can make for them.
The wonderful, mixed-up, joy-giving instincts of Nini and Kalena will die with them, but, in the meantime, I will enjoy their erratic behavior!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Pattern Recognition
One of the technical things I am interested in is called "dimensionality reduction." Some real world problems involve such a large amount of information that it is difficult for computers to process them, either because of their computational complexity or the humongous amount of storage space required to examine the problem.
Hyperspectral Imaging in Remote Sensing is one such problem. A satellite passing over an area of the earth's surface can take pictures and record the information that is in view. Because most of these images are composed of reflected light from the sun, each picture element (pixel) in a picture can measure that reflection with sensors that respond to different wavelengths (colors) of light, including both those that are visible to humans, and also those that are not visible, e.g., ultraviolet, infrared, etc.
When you consider that the pixel represents a small area (depending on the optics of the camera), you can imagine that one small section of the earth's surface as small as one square foot would take an array of thousands of elements to record the reflected wavelengths at each pixel. A similar array of elements would be needed for each pixel in the picture, resulting in millions and billions of data elements, for even a small picture of the earth's surface.
You can view something with Google Earth, for example, to get an idea of the amount of information, but remember that Google Earth just shows points in the visible spectrum. Hyperspectral images represent much more information. Every point on the surface map can be represented as an array of points in another dimension, each representing a different wavelength in the spectrum.
Now, consider the pattern recognition problem. How do we recognize what we are seeing? How do we know when something is a building, a tree, a truck, or a person? In military applications, how do we distinguish between a friend and a foe? And how do we get a computer to do the same thing a human would?
The current state of the art involves training the program with known data, and then testing it with unknown data.
Pattern recognition requires training. We cannot recognize things we have not already learned something about.
Now, why is this issue in a web page focused on epistemology?
The most notable form of pattern recognition for people is fault-finding. We recognize faults in others. Why? Because we are so intimate with those faults in ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't like to acknowledge them in ourselves. Something to think about.
Hyperspectral Imaging in Remote Sensing is one such problem. A satellite passing over an area of the earth's surface can take pictures and record the information that is in view. Because most of these images are composed of reflected light from the sun, each picture element (pixel) in a picture can measure that reflection with sensors that respond to different wavelengths (colors) of light, including both those that are visible to humans, and also those that are not visible, e.g., ultraviolet, infrared, etc.
When you consider that the pixel represents a small area (depending on the optics of the camera), you can imagine that one small section of the earth's surface as small as one square foot would take an array of thousands of elements to record the reflected wavelengths at each pixel. A similar array of elements would be needed for each pixel in the picture, resulting in millions and billions of data elements, for even a small picture of the earth's surface.
You can view something with Google Earth, for example, to get an idea of the amount of information, but remember that Google Earth just shows points in the visible spectrum. Hyperspectral images represent much more information. Every point on the surface map can be represented as an array of points in another dimension, each representing a different wavelength in the spectrum.
Now, consider the pattern recognition problem. How do we recognize what we are seeing? How do we know when something is a building, a tree, a truck, or a person? In military applications, how do we distinguish between a friend and a foe? And how do we get a computer to do the same thing a human would?
The current state of the art involves training the program with known data, and then testing it with unknown data.
Pattern recognition requires training. We cannot recognize things we have not already learned something about.
Now, why is this issue in a web page focused on epistemology?
The most notable form of pattern recognition for people is fault-finding. We recognize faults in others. Why? Because we are so intimate with those faults in ourselves. Unfortunately, we don't like to acknowledge them in ourselves. Something to think about.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Book Review: Plan B by Pete Wilson
I used to follow Pete Wilson on twitter, but the SNR (signal to noise ratio, for you non-engineers) was too low. I grouped him with Chatty Cathy. But I was intrigued by the book's subtitle, "What do you do when God doesn't show up the way you thought He would?" so I agreed to review it.
I needed this book. Pete Wilson has dared to touch a raw spot in most Christians' lives, and he does a great job of helping soothe the hurt. Admitting he doesn't know the answers, he focuses on what he does know, which is how to relate to people's hurts and point them to where to find hope for the hurt.
Be prepared to be confronted with your own self-centeredness and find a fellow traveler who, in this book, will share your burden, and also be prepared to find some comfort for your own suffering.
One drawback was the editorial technique of having short excerpts shown in what I call a magnifying box. This technique is appropriate for a magazine article when the article needs to attract attention to compete for readership with other articles and ads, but is a major distraction when reading a chapter in a book.
Also, I hope the book is out of popularity when his sons are old enough to read it. I don't think I would expose my sons to such ridicule.
Nevertheless, I would rate the book 4.6/5.0. It is really a helpful read.
[Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their Book Review Blogger program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”]
I needed this book. Pete Wilson has dared to touch a raw spot in most Christians' lives, and he does a great job of helping soothe the hurt. Admitting he doesn't know the answers, he focuses on what he does know, which is how to relate to people's hurts and point them to where to find hope for the hurt.
Be prepared to be confronted with your own self-centeredness and find a fellow traveler who, in this book, will share your burden, and also be prepared to find some comfort for your own suffering.
One drawback was the editorial technique of having short excerpts shown in what I call a magnifying box. This technique is appropriate for a magazine article when the article needs to attract attention to compete for readership with other articles and ads, but is a major distraction when reading a chapter in a book.
Also, I hope the book is out of popularity when his sons are old enough to read it. I don't think I would expose my sons to such ridicule.
Nevertheless, I would rate the book 4.6/5.0. It is really a helpful read.
[Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Thomas Nelson Publishers as part of their Book Review Blogger program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”]
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Race and Grace
Response to: It's More About Grace Than Race
Richard Doster, Issue Number 26, January 2010
http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/its-more-about-grace-than-race
I am white. For awhile, concerned with the need for diversity in the church, I asked, "How can we get Blacks to come to our church?" Then one day, it hit me. If I was truly concerned about diversity in Christ's church (not "our" church), then I would have to be the instrument of change, not just wishfully think about getting others to come to us. So I went to a so-called "Black church." Voila! Instant diversity. Added benefit: I learned something of what it really feels like to be a minority. I also learned about the richness of the music and other traditions in "my" new church. Secular life is now integrated. We, Black and White, in the church, are willfully segregated. It is not forced on us. I don't think Jesus is pleased with us.
Richard Doster, Issue Number 26, January 2010
http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-church/its-more-about-grace-than-race
I am white. For awhile, concerned with the need for diversity in the church, I asked, "How can we get Blacks to come to our church?" Then one day, it hit me. If I was truly concerned about diversity in Christ's church (not "our" church), then I would have to be the instrument of change, not just wishfully think about getting others to come to us. So I went to a so-called "Black church." Voila! Instant diversity. Added benefit: I learned something of what it really feels like to be a minority. I also learned about the richness of the music and other traditions in "my" new church. Secular life is now integrated. We, Black and White, in the church, are willfully segregated. It is not forced on us. I don't think Jesus is pleased with us.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Front-wheel drive and hydroplaning safety
With so much water everywhere, it is a good time to warn people about the physics and dangers involved in front-wheel drive vehicles when they run into water puddles.
The drive shaft for the powered wheels (i.e., the ones providing the push) must have a differential that allows the wheels to spin at different rates. For example, when turning, the outside wheel must roll faster than the inside wheel.
The front wheels are the ones in front! Obvious, but that means they are the ones which hit the water puddles first. When wheels hit water, they have a tendency to hydroplane, i.e., float on the surface of the water, rather than clinging to the road's surface. Most roads are built up in the center, so water runs off to the edges. This means that water puddles are likely to be on the right hand side of the road as you drive forwards.
If the right wheel hits the water and begins to hydroplane while the left wheel is still on the pavement, the differential allows (actually causes) the right wheel to start spinning rapidly, because there is no friction on that wheel while it is floating. It only takes a second for the wheel to start spinning extremely fast, especially if the accelerator pedal is being pressed.
Now, consider what happens when you have landed on the other side of the puddle and your right front wheel is spinning at high speed. It will force the vehicle to veer to the left, directly into the on-coming traffic lane. If someone is there, a head-on collision would be unavoidable. Otherwise, it is likely you could spin out of control, especially if you overcompensated and turned the wheel to the right to avoid the collision. If you turn too far to the right too fast, you will skid, and the car will keep going in the direction you were trying to avoid.
Safe driving tips: When your car hydroplanes, remove your foot from the accelerator, and let the vehicle get on the other side of the water before you try to get back up to speed. If you find yourself hydroplaning, in addition to removing your foot from the accelerator, grasp your steering wheel tightly and keep it pointed in your original direction. If you are prepared for the lunge to the left, a steady grip can keep your car under control.
General rule: slow down when there is water standing on the roadway. It is when you are trying to accelerate that the danger is worst.
The drive shaft for the powered wheels (i.e., the ones providing the push) must have a differential that allows the wheels to spin at different rates. For example, when turning, the outside wheel must roll faster than the inside wheel.
The front wheels are the ones in front! Obvious, but that means they are the ones which hit the water puddles first. When wheels hit water, they have a tendency to hydroplane, i.e., float on the surface of the water, rather than clinging to the road's surface. Most roads are built up in the center, so water runs off to the edges. This means that water puddles are likely to be on the right hand side of the road as you drive forwards.
If the right wheel hits the water and begins to hydroplane while the left wheel is still on the pavement, the differential allows (actually causes) the right wheel to start spinning rapidly, because there is no friction on that wheel while it is floating. It only takes a second for the wheel to start spinning extremely fast, especially if the accelerator pedal is being pressed.
Now, consider what happens when you have landed on the other side of the puddle and your right front wheel is spinning at high speed. It will force the vehicle to veer to the left, directly into the on-coming traffic lane. If someone is there, a head-on collision would be unavoidable. Otherwise, it is likely you could spin out of control, especially if you overcompensated and turned the wheel to the right to avoid the collision. If you turn too far to the right too fast, you will skid, and the car will keep going in the direction you were trying to avoid.
Safe driving tips: When your car hydroplanes, remove your foot from the accelerator, and let the vehicle get on the other side of the water before you try to get back up to speed. If you find yourself hydroplaning, in addition to removing your foot from the accelerator, grasp your steering wheel tightly and keep it pointed in your original direction. If you are prepared for the lunge to the left, a steady grip can keep your car under control.
General rule: slow down when there is water standing on the roadway. It is when you are trying to accelerate that the danger is worst.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Racial Matters--Black and White: An Introduction to Southern Culture for International Students
Mississippi: Black and White
Although the State of Mississippi began with a White majority (English and French settlers) and a Black minority (slaves from Africa), today, many areas of the state are predominantly Black. Some sections of the state have large concentrations of Native Americans (Choctaw Indians).
Historically, Whites in Mississippi were farmers and Blacks were slaves imported from Africa to work in the cotton fields. Whites were free and Blacks were treated as property with no rights or freedoms under the law.
During the first 100 years of the American experiment in democracy, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," some states (the South) depended on slavery for their agricultural economy, and slavery was legal. Other states, (the North) opposed slavery.
Civil War
Less than 100 years after the Declaration of Independence (from England), the various states were divided over many issues, notably, the right of states to make their own laws (on issues like slavery) vs. states following the laws of the Federated Union of States, i.e., the United States. Thirteen states (the South) voted to secede from the Union and joined together to form the Confederate States of America. The northern states opposed this division of the United States, and war was declared, the North vs. the South.
It was a bitter war, often dividing families who fought against each other, and it involved many casualties. The North won, and forced the southern states to rejoin the union. To this day, there are influences of this division between Yankees (North) and Rebels (South).
Remnants of the War
After the Civil War, all slaves were given their freedom. Unfortunately, most of them were ill-prepared for the responsibilities of freedom, and their former masters, struggling to regain their own economic strength without the workers who were taken from them by force, were not able to assist the former slaves in their quest for freedom and the American dream, even if they had a desire to do so.
As a result, White and Black Southerners have separate identities and allegiances, even though they have shared the same region for two hundred years. The South developed into a divided culture focused on resentment.
The Whites resented the North for forcing them to accept a federal government, and for taking their livelihood from them. They resented their former slaves for lack of loyalty to them. The Blacks resented their former Masters for their years of Slavery. The result was a segregated society.
The Civil Rights Act
Almost 100 years after the Civil War began, Blacks in the United States began to make public protests over the inequalities that a segregated South perpetuated. Under the "Separate but Equal" moniker, the South had developed a culture of duplication (and duplicity). There were separate entrances to public places for Blacks and Whites, separate sections of public transportation, and separate school systems for Blacks and Whites, even separate water fountains and restrooms! The Black schools and facilities were notably worse than their White counterparts.
In the early 1960's, the US Government responded to the situation with new laws giving Blacks real equality with Whites. Naturally, Whites in the South resented more Federal intervention into their way of life, but the Civil Rights Act has been enforced and the South now embraces Integration and Diversity, for the most part.
Public vs. Private
The public life in the South is one of diversity, but, in their private lives, both Blacks and Whites voluntarily practice segregation, as most people do. People tend to group themselves with others who are similar to them.
Most of you in my audience, as Chinese students, do not look like most of us (Southerners). You will find there is no discrimination against you because of your skin color or national origin. Americans will be friendly and accepting of you in all public arenas. But you must take the initiative to desegregate yourselves; i.e., you must intentionally get out of your “comfort zone." You must make concerted efforts to speak English and to spend time with Americans. You must avoid spending large amounts of time with others of your same nationality and language.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Praise the Lord for Cancer Freedom
It has been ten years since my prostate cancer diagnosis. At that time, I was given the following options: surgical removal, radiological burning by beams or by radioactive pellets, castration (physical or chemical), or "watchful waiting."
One urologist indicated I wouldn't make it six years if I didn't follow his recommendations.
But I read my Bible and came to the conclusion that I would rather be in the hand of God than of men, and determined to trust God and learn all I could do to be consistent with trusting Him.
That meant that prayer, mine and everybody I could get to pray with me, was the first line of treatment.
After several months of research and being on Internet groups, I found the following fact: No matter what treatment plan people take, the average survival time is ten years. The major difference in treatment modalities was not the treatment, per se, but the side effects of the treatment.
The treatment with the best side effect profile was doing nothing.
I thank God for my ten years and look forward to the next twenty!
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
What I Learned from a GPS
We just returned from a 3000 mile driving vacation where we relied on a GPS to get us to our various stopping points along the way.
The Magellan we used only contained maps of the United States and part of our trip was in Canada, so we learned our first lesson when we crossed the border in Detroit: Make sure your GPS actually contains maps to your destination! :)
In real life, we sometimes change directions. Sometimes, we intentionally veer from the course we know is right, and sometimes, we just make mistakes.
The GPS' second lesson comes from taking a wrong turn: "Recalculating route!" That is all there is to it. Not, "Hey, you screwed up; you went the wrong way; you failed!" None of that. Just, "Recalculating route," i.e., how do we get to our destination from where we are now?
I love my GPS. She never shouts at me and never tells me I messed up. She just lets me know she will help me recover my direction. "Recalculating route!"
What else can you do, anyway, when something tragic happens in your life, or you make poor choices that mess up your life and the lives of those around you? I have tried the guilt trip. It doesn't work. My GPS tells me, "Recalculating route," i.e., remember your destination, remember your goal, and figure out how to get there from where you are, now. Nothing else will propel you to where you should be.
Recalculate your route, and get on with the trip.
The Magellan we used only contained maps of the United States and part of our trip was in Canada, so we learned our first lesson when we crossed the border in Detroit: Make sure your GPS actually contains maps to your destination! :)
In real life, we sometimes change directions. Sometimes, we intentionally veer from the course we know is right, and sometimes, we just make mistakes.
The GPS' second lesson comes from taking a wrong turn: "Recalculating route!" That is all there is to it. Not, "Hey, you screwed up; you went the wrong way; you failed!" None of that. Just, "Recalculating route," i.e., how do we get to our destination from where we are now?
I love my GPS. She never shouts at me and never tells me I messed up. She just lets me know she will help me recover my direction. "Recalculating route!"
What else can you do, anyway, when something tragic happens in your life, or you make poor choices that mess up your life and the lives of those around you? I have tried the guilt trip. It doesn't work. My GPS tells me, "Recalculating route," i.e., remember your destination, remember your goal, and figure out how to get there from where you are, now. Nothing else will propel you to where you should be.
Recalculate your route, and get on with the trip.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Google Voice Transcription
Here is one of my first Google Voice transcriptions.
i'm using the local voice compose this blog to describe my first experience was using google voice as the transcription machine so far it seems wonderful i have my office phone forwarded to my cellphone and then i have my crew over the phone number forwarded to my office phone that way i can both yet and have tran scott message is for various reasons the transcription it's very very fast i've been involved with speech processing at the end of this is 50 state university institute for signal and information processing for several years and seeing how complicated and complex the test of speech recognition is the groom translation pants your chin does not do 100% but they promised that it's going to get better actually belch and like everything else moving i suspect that would be true the transcription so for the same to post no limits the battery on your cellphone may go up before you were possibility since have a message automatically terminated calling well that's the first try let's see what happens
i'm using the local voice compose this blog to describe my first experience was using google voice as the transcription machine so far it seems wonderful i have my office phone forwarded to my cellphone and then i have my crew over the phone number forwarded to my office phone that way i can both yet and have tran scott message is for various reasons the transcription it's very very fast i've been involved with speech processing at the end of this is 50 state university institute for signal and information processing for several years and seeing how complicated and complex the test of speech recognition is the groom translation pants your chin does not do 100% but they promised that it's going to get better actually belch and like everything else moving i suspect that would be true the transcription so for the same to post no limits the battery on your cellphone may go up before you were possibility since have a message automatically terminated calling well that's the first try let's see what happens
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
End of Life Decisions
He was only a dog, but Fraggles taught us some important lessons that can also be applied to humans. Face it. Sometimes, unexpected things happen. Perhaps you will be a patient in the hospital leaving your loved ones to face the difficult decisions on your behalf, because you are unable to make them for yourself.
It may be difficult to talk about these things, because you don't want to think something tragic can happen to you. The obvious question is, "Why not you?"
Maybe you will not be able to talk about it to another person. Maybe you will have to just write your thoughts down, all by yourself. These instructions are termed a "living will" or "advanced directive," or something similar.
Based on our experience with our pet, I have some ideas. The first is, Don't go to a research or university hospital, if you have the choice. There are many reasons for this, but the basic one is that they exist partly to help and partly to learn, i.e., the patient is partly an experiment to help them gain knowledge about what treatments may work. Another reason to avoid the researchers is that many of the physicians are students or interns, still in their learning phase. Let them learn stuff on other people!
Another major decision we had to make with the dog was whether or not to have them resuscitate the patient if his heart stopped. With an animal, the decision-makers can not know what choice the patient would make for himself, and that puts a lot of emotional stress on the loved ones.
One woman in my Bible study group commented that her mother had told the family, "Don't let them put that tube down my throat. That thing hurt me so much when they did it, before." The family knew the mother's choice when the need arose the next time, and chose to honor her wishes.
The third major decision that needs to be made is financial. Dogs don't have Medicare or Medicaid, and most owners don't think about health/accident insurance for their pets (but it is available). Before every procedure, the Veterinarian would let my wife and me know the charge that would be involved. Three hundred dollars for a blood transfusion didn't appear too unreasonable, if it would give Fraggles a fighting chance. Resuscitation would be more than one thousand dollars. Beyond it all was the surgeries that would be needed to repair the broken bones, if he survived to that point, and those would also be in the thousands.
When one applies this logic to a human patient, the costs can erase all the family assets and leave the family penniless.
The other important issue for the family is the pain question. Is he in pain? For dogs, you just trust the Vet and hope. For humans, there is a tradeoff between being sedated and being cognitive. Is there something you would want to communicate to your loved ones? If he is overly sedated, the patient may not be able to tell you something important, but if he is under sedated, he may experience pain.
There you have some important lessons the death of our beloved Fraggles taught us about hospitalization.
For me, I know where I am going, next, so I don't want you to do something that will unnecessarily keep me here. For me, I don't want to have any experimental treatment, especially any treatments not covered by insurance. For me, experiencing quality time with family members is more important than minimizing pain.
What about you? Tell your loved ones.
It may be difficult to talk about these things, because you don't want to think something tragic can happen to you. The obvious question is, "Why not you?"
Maybe you will not be able to talk about it to another person. Maybe you will have to just write your thoughts down, all by yourself. These instructions are termed a "living will" or "advanced directive," or something similar.
Based on our experience with our pet, I have some ideas. The first is, Don't go to a research or university hospital, if you have the choice. There are many reasons for this, but the basic one is that they exist partly to help and partly to learn, i.e., the patient is partly an experiment to help them gain knowledge about what treatments may work. Another reason to avoid the researchers is that many of the physicians are students or interns, still in their learning phase. Let them learn stuff on other people!
Another major decision we had to make with the dog was whether or not to have them resuscitate the patient if his heart stopped. With an animal, the decision-makers can not know what choice the patient would make for himself, and that puts a lot of emotional stress on the loved ones.
One woman in my Bible study group commented that her mother had told the family, "Don't let them put that tube down my throat. That thing hurt me so much when they did it, before." The family knew the mother's choice when the need arose the next time, and chose to honor her wishes.
The third major decision that needs to be made is financial. Dogs don't have Medicare or Medicaid, and most owners don't think about health/accident insurance for their pets (but it is available). Before every procedure, the Veterinarian would let my wife and me know the charge that would be involved. Three hundred dollars for a blood transfusion didn't appear too unreasonable, if it would give Fraggles a fighting chance. Resuscitation would be more than one thousand dollars. Beyond it all was the surgeries that would be needed to repair the broken bones, if he survived to that point, and those would also be in the thousands.
When one applies this logic to a human patient, the costs can erase all the family assets and leave the family penniless.
The other important issue for the family is the pain question. Is he in pain? For dogs, you just trust the Vet and hope. For humans, there is a tradeoff between being sedated and being cognitive. Is there something you would want to communicate to your loved ones? If he is overly sedated, the patient may not be able to tell you something important, but if he is under sedated, he may experience pain.
There you have some important lessons the death of our beloved Fraggles taught us about hospitalization.
For me, I know where I am going, next, so I don't want you to do something that will unnecessarily keep me here. For me, I don't want to have any experimental treatment, especially any treatments not covered by insurance. For me, experiencing quality time with family members is more important than minimizing pain.
What about you? Tell your loved ones.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Book Review: The Noticer by Andy Andrews
I have trouble telling people things I think they don't want to hear, so I am uncomfortable writing this review of The Noticer by Andy Andrews. But I made a commitment to the publisher to write a review in my blog, so I will bite the bullet and write the thing.
As far as a work of fiction goes, the book was an enjoyable read and contained a little food for thought. Each chapter seemed take a concept and illustrate it, much in the style of Aesop's Fables.
Substantive content was lacking, except for the dozen or so unrelated, moralistic statements that seemed to form the skeleton of his work. If they came from any particular source, it appeared to be a collection of currently popular books, pop culture and e-mail chain letters. For example, Google searchs on some of his few pithy statements resulted in more than four hundred thousand hits. In short, there was nothing new in the book.
Andrews' unifying theme for his otherwise unrelated extended illustrations was a mystical character named Jones, from whose role the book's title was coined. Jones' role was to apply the pithy statements to various life situations and help the characters notice that the context of their situations was greater than their own selfcentered focus would allow them to see. Jones' identity was vaporous enough for the reader to apply his own interpretation of who he is. He could be a Humanist, an angel, a Shaolin monk, Jesus, Buddha, Jiminy Cricket, or any other self-effacing do-gooder of the reader's experience or imagination. Perhaps that is why the book normally receives such good reviews: the reader sees what he wants to see and thinks Andrews put it there. [Ambiguity may be the key to popularity.]
A preacher could value this book as a source of sermon illustrations. Andrews' ability to put flesh on the bones of his ideas is his strength. Each chapter of the book appears to come from his taking a moral, stating it clearly, applying it to a difficult life situation, and putting it into Jones' mouth.
In a culture that has lost its ties to the Bible, the book has some value, but it should not be considered a Christian book; it does not point people to the Bible or to Jesus. I give the experience three stars.
As far as a work of fiction goes, the book was an enjoyable read and contained a little food for thought. Each chapter seemed take a concept and illustrate it, much in the style of Aesop's Fables.
Substantive content was lacking, except for the dozen or so unrelated, moralistic statements that seemed to form the skeleton of his work. If they came from any particular source, it appeared to be a collection of currently popular books, pop culture and e-mail chain letters. For example, Google searchs on some of his few pithy statements resulted in more than four hundred thousand hits. In short, there was nothing new in the book.
Andrews' unifying theme for his otherwise unrelated extended illustrations was a mystical character named Jones, from whose role the book's title was coined. Jones' role was to apply the pithy statements to various life situations and help the characters notice that the context of their situations was greater than their own selfcentered focus would allow them to see. Jones' identity was vaporous enough for the reader to apply his own interpretation of who he is. He could be a Humanist, an angel, a Shaolin monk, Jesus, Buddha, Jiminy Cricket, or any other self-effacing do-gooder of the reader's experience or imagination. Perhaps that is why the book normally receives such good reviews: the reader sees what he wants to see and thinks Andrews put it there. [Ambiguity may be the key to popularity.]
A preacher could value this book as a source of sermon illustrations. Andrews' ability to put flesh on the bones of his ideas is his strength. Each chapter of the book appears to come from his taking a moral, stating it clearly, applying it to a difficult life situation, and putting it into Jones' mouth.
In a culture that has lost its ties to the Bible, the book has some value, but it should not be considered a Christian book; it does not point people to the Bible or to Jesus. I give the experience three stars.
Monday, June 08, 2009
Dog Death Distinction
When Fraggles died, we went through (are still going through) the Kubler-Ross grief stages. He was only a dog, but he was our dog.
In our case, the hardest part has been dealing with the guilt of responsibility. We were supposed to take care of him--we should have built a fence or kept him tethered. On the other hand, we also recalled that he loved his freedom and did not like being tied down, so we didn't have the heart to restrict his wanderlust. We live in the county; there are no leash laws. His playmates came and went, unrestricted. He would be the only dog in the neighborhood who was kept up. How would he feel about that?
It is much like God's giving Adam a free will: Adam's test would not have been a real test if his freedom to make choices was fatalistically determined, i.e., if his choice could have been only one of the two alternatives: to sin, or not to sin. That freedom to choose either alternative allowed Adam to sin and bring the death sentence on him and his posterity, just as Fraggles' freedom allowed him to wander to the wrong place at the wrong time, and get hit by the passing car and suffer death for himself. (His posterity had already been taken care of, before he came to us from the dog pound.)
During his brief time on this earth, Fraggles did teach us some things about relationships to a master. He depended on us to feed him and he always showed his gratitude with a wagging tail. He guarded our stuff and his territory. He showed devotion to a master, and even though he didn't always understand, he trusted us.
He demonstrated kindness and compassion. He shared his food with other dogs. He showed devotion, loyalty, fidelity and trust. As he related to us, his masters, it occurred to me that we could learn ways to approach our Master.
He was a good dog!
In our case, the hardest part has been dealing with the guilt of responsibility. We were supposed to take care of him--we should have built a fence or kept him tethered. On the other hand, we also recalled that he loved his freedom and did not like being tied down, so we didn't have the heart to restrict his wanderlust. We live in the county; there are no leash laws. His playmates came and went, unrestricted. He would be the only dog in the neighborhood who was kept up. How would he feel about that?
It is much like God's giving Adam a free will: Adam's test would not have been a real test if his freedom to make choices was fatalistically determined, i.e., if his choice could have been only one of the two alternatives: to sin, or not to sin. That freedom to choose either alternative allowed Adam to sin and bring the death sentence on him and his posterity, just as Fraggles' freedom allowed him to wander to the wrong place at the wrong time, and get hit by the passing car and suffer death for himself. (His posterity had already been taken care of, before he came to us from the dog pound.)
During his brief time on this earth, Fraggles did teach us some things about relationships to a master. He depended on us to feed him and he always showed his gratitude with a wagging tail. He guarded our stuff and his territory. He showed devotion to a master, and even though he didn't always understand, he trusted us.
He demonstrated kindness and compassion. He shared his food with other dogs. He showed devotion, loyalty, fidelity and trust. As he related to us, his masters, it occurred to me that we could learn ways to approach our Master.
He was a good dog!
Monday, June 01, 2009
Emergency Room Dog Story (updated)
A crisis! Unexpected hospitalization. May be terminal. This is what we are going through. Our family pet has been hit by a car. He is only a dog, but the emotions and practical considerations for family preparedness are as real as if he had been a human family member.
The first things we thought of were spiritual. Why is God mad at us? Have we paid all our tithe? What have we done wrong?
Then, there were financial considerations. How much is a mutt worth? He had been rescued from the dog pound. He apparently wasn't worth much to his original owner. The pound charges for shots and spaying, and you have to feed him, take care of his parasites, have him clipped, and treat his normal scrapes and strains. But the dog emergency room at the teaching veterinary hospital was estimated to cost us at least two thousand dollars, and up to four thousand, if heroic measures were needed.
I am sorry to admit that, when I heard those amounts, my inclination was to put him out of his misery. :( Another confession is that I don't have feelings. (Someone said I am not in touch with my feelings.) My Myers-Briggs personality type is INTJ. I made a logical choice and was ready to do what was logically necessary.
But all these other considerations paled into insignificance when a mother's love came into the picture. My wife does have feelings. Fraggles is really her brother's dog, but we adopted him when her brother took a job in Canada. Her brother also has feelings. She called him. Mr. Spock (what some people call me) just knows that all this sentiment over a dog is irrational. It does not compute. It is expensive.
Logic and emotion came to a compromise. We said, "Let him have a fighting chance--let him stay in the Emergency Room, tonight." Kaching! $1500. (I wonder if there are medical insurance policies for dogs.) "If his heart stops, should we intubate?" Illogically, we said, "Yes."
The phone rang. "He needs a transfusion," the voice on the other end of the line said, "It is $300." Kaching! He had internal bleeding, broken ribs, a broken leg and hip. "He is only a dog," I said to myself, but not out loud.
Another call just before midnight told us his heart had stopped and they had inserted the breathing tube and resuscitated him. We visited him. The vet was hopeful they had acted quickly enough to avoid brain damage. Fraggles lay there, panting and struggling against the breathing tube in his throat. He was alive. My wife rubbed his head and whispered sweet nothings into his ear. We were home again by 2:00am.
My wife answered the telephone the next morning about 8:00 am. They wanted permission to put him out of his misery. She asked for a call back in 15 minutes so she could discuss it with me. We prayed, but came to the conclusion that if they had asked, it must be serious, so we decided to give permission for euthanasia.
My wife said that Fraggles must have overheard the vet's and her discussing him, because when the vet called back, she was amazed that Fraggles had had an amazing recovery in those fifteen minutes. I keep telling her that Fraggles does not understand those big Greek words, but she is convinced the dog angel must have translated for him!
He is swollen because of the internal bleeding. The transfusion had enabled enough red blood cells to enter his system to keep the oxygen getting to his cells. He has a fighting chance. So we tell them to stay the execution. The Governor has said, "Clemency."
Are we allowed to pray for dogs? Do dogs have souls? My wife is full of questions. We pray as if the answers are affirmative. More telephone calls, more visits, and another transfusion. Kaching!
It has now been 48 hours. He is alive. He has been moved from the examination table to a cage where he is sleeping on a comfortable pad. He raised his head when my wife called his name. The doctor confessed she had never seen a dog whose heart had stopped, recover. Some had come back for a little while, but didn't make the full journey back to life.
Logic tells emotion she must be prepared to let him go. He insists if it were he, and not the dog, he would want to go on. But he didn't know if there was a heaven awaiting the dog. Mentally, he was writing in his living will, "DNR (do not resuscitate). Don't do anything insurance doesn't cover. Don't take me to a teaching hospital. (They might want to learn about a new procedure.)" Kaching!
Emotion uses some logic and calls a friend who has a back hoe. He listens to her tears and digs a nice hole in the cool spot under the trees where Fraggles likes to spend hot days. She says we can plant a memorial bush there if he makes it. The friend will not take payment for his services. Emotion is prepared for the worst.
We visit again, almost 48 hours from the time of the accident. Fraggles lifts his head when he hears Mama's voice. He is not so swollen as before. He may make it!
Another two days have now passed, and Fraggles is still hanging on, eating and improving.
-----------------
Another emergency call: He may have a blood clot in his brain. Pray!
-----------------
Fraggles was placed on a ventilator with 100% oxygen. He showed no improvement. He went to doggie heaven a little after 8:00 pm.
We will miss him!
The first things we thought of were spiritual. Why is God mad at us? Have we paid all our tithe? What have we done wrong?
Then, there were financial considerations. How much is a mutt worth? He had been rescued from the dog pound. He apparently wasn't worth much to his original owner. The pound charges for shots and spaying, and you have to feed him, take care of his parasites, have him clipped, and treat his normal scrapes and strains. But the dog emergency room at the teaching veterinary hospital was estimated to cost us at least two thousand dollars, and up to four thousand, if heroic measures were needed.
I am sorry to admit that, when I heard those amounts, my inclination was to put him out of his misery. :( Another confession is that I don't have feelings. (Someone said I am not in touch with my feelings.) My Myers-Briggs personality type is INTJ. I made a logical choice and was ready to do what was logically necessary.
But all these other considerations paled into insignificance when a mother's love came into the picture. My wife does have feelings. Fraggles is really her brother's dog, but we adopted him when her brother took a job in Canada. Her brother also has feelings. She called him. Mr. Spock (what some people call me) just knows that all this sentiment over a dog is irrational. It does not compute. It is expensive.
Logic and emotion came to a compromise. We said, "Let him have a fighting chance--let him stay in the Emergency Room, tonight." Kaching! $1500. (I wonder if there are medical insurance policies for dogs.) "If his heart stops, should we intubate?" Illogically, we said, "Yes."
The phone rang. "He needs a transfusion," the voice on the other end of the line said, "It is $300." Kaching! He had internal bleeding, broken ribs, a broken leg and hip. "He is only a dog," I said to myself, but not out loud.
Another call just before midnight told us his heart had stopped and they had inserted the breathing tube and resuscitated him. We visited him. The vet was hopeful they had acted quickly enough to avoid brain damage. Fraggles lay there, panting and struggling against the breathing tube in his throat. He was alive. My wife rubbed his head and whispered sweet nothings into his ear. We were home again by 2:00am.
My wife answered the telephone the next morning about 8:00 am. They wanted permission to put him out of his misery. She asked for a call back in 15 minutes so she could discuss it with me. We prayed, but came to the conclusion that if they had asked, it must be serious, so we decided to give permission for euthanasia.
My wife said that Fraggles must have overheard the vet's and her discussing him, because when the vet called back, she was amazed that Fraggles had had an amazing recovery in those fifteen minutes. I keep telling her that Fraggles does not understand those big Greek words, but she is convinced the dog angel must have translated for him!
He is swollen because of the internal bleeding. The transfusion had enabled enough red blood cells to enter his system to keep the oxygen getting to his cells. He has a fighting chance. So we tell them to stay the execution. The Governor has said, "Clemency."
Are we allowed to pray for dogs? Do dogs have souls? My wife is full of questions. We pray as if the answers are affirmative. More telephone calls, more visits, and another transfusion. Kaching!
It has now been 48 hours. He is alive. He has been moved from the examination table to a cage where he is sleeping on a comfortable pad. He raised his head when my wife called his name. The doctor confessed she had never seen a dog whose heart had stopped, recover. Some had come back for a little while, but didn't make the full journey back to life.
Logic tells emotion she must be prepared to let him go. He insists if it were he, and not the dog, he would want to go on. But he didn't know if there was a heaven awaiting the dog. Mentally, he was writing in his living will, "DNR (do not resuscitate). Don't do anything insurance doesn't cover. Don't take me to a teaching hospital. (They might want to learn about a new procedure.)" Kaching!
Emotion uses some logic and calls a friend who has a back hoe. He listens to her tears and digs a nice hole in the cool spot under the trees where Fraggles likes to spend hot days. She says we can plant a memorial bush there if he makes it. The friend will not take payment for his services. Emotion is prepared for the worst.
We visit again, almost 48 hours from the time of the accident. Fraggles lifts his head when he hears Mama's voice. He is not so swollen as before. He may make it!
Another two days have now passed, and Fraggles is still hanging on, eating and improving.
-----------------
Another emergency call: He may have a blood clot in his brain. Pray!
-----------------
Fraggles was placed on a ventilator with 100% oxygen. He showed no improvement. He went to doggie heaven a little after 8:00 pm.
We will miss him!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
How to lose an argument even if you win it.
There are three mindsets with which people enter an argument.
1. I am going to show the other person the Truth.
2. I am going to find out the the other person's perspective.
3. I am going to let the other person know what my perspective is.
In the first case, you only have "winning" in mind. You are selfish, inflexible and arrogant. You demonstrate that your neither care that there may be another point of view, and you show that you do not value the relationship between you and the other person. You don't even listen to him or her. You immediately attack the other person before he or she has finished giving their opinion, showing your disregard and disrespect.
In the latter two cases, even though you believe in true truth, you also acknowledge that your understanding of it may be incomplete or flawed.
In the second case, you realize that point-of-view and perspective affect the understanding of a matter, so you value the other person's point-of-view and want to be certain you understand the other person's understanding of the matter. You value the relationship, so you give them time to fully express their point, without taking offense or "getting your feelings hurt."
You are able to separate your feelings from your argument even though feelings may be closely attached to the thoughts. You understand that it is possible for you to be wrong, and you are OK with changing your mind.
The third case was put third on purpose, because doing so shows that you respect the other person and it earns respect back from him or her.
If you only use the first case, you lose the argument, even if you win it, because you damage the relationship to the other person.
1. I am going to show the other person the Truth.
2. I am going to find out the the other person's perspective.
3. I am going to let the other person know what my perspective is.
In the first case, you only have "winning" in mind. You are selfish, inflexible and arrogant. You demonstrate that your neither care that there may be another point of view, and you show that you do not value the relationship between you and the other person. You don't even listen to him or her. You immediately attack the other person before he or she has finished giving their opinion, showing your disregard and disrespect.
In the latter two cases, even though you believe in true truth, you also acknowledge that your understanding of it may be incomplete or flawed.
In the second case, you realize that point-of-view and perspective affect the understanding of a matter, so you value the other person's point-of-view and want to be certain you understand the other person's understanding of the matter. You value the relationship, so you give them time to fully express their point, without taking offense or "getting your feelings hurt."
You are able to separate your feelings from your argument even though feelings may be closely attached to the thoughts. You understand that it is possible for you to be wrong, and you are OK with changing your mind.
The third case was put third on purpose, because doing so shows that you respect the other person and it earns respect back from him or her.
If you only use the first case, you lose the argument, even if you win it, because you damage the relationship to the other person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)