Not Just a Theory

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

No, it’s not just a theory. The word “theory” is one of the most misused words in the English language. This argument stems from the religious argument about evolution, but far too many people, university students alike, throw the word “theory” out there as if it stands on the same ground as “opinion”. My recent column about warfare was not a theory, it was an opinion. I make this statement because as university students and associates of professors and scientists, “theory” must be respected.

The National Academy of Sciences defines “theory” as: “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.”

Merriam-Webster defines it as: “The general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art .”

A theory is the outcome of a successful hypothesis. Saying, “It’s just a hypothesis,” is an acceptable yet cautious statement; saying, “It’s just a theory,” doesn’t even make sense. The order of process of the scientific method is as follows: ask question, do research, create hypothesis, experiment, analyze results. If the results back up the hypothesis and withstands the challenge of scientific peer evaluation, then you have theory; if not, then you must return and reconstruct your hypothesis.

Scientific Method

We have the theory of medicine, the theory of gravity and relativity, and the theory of evolution by natural selection, to name a few examples. A scientific law is not the same thing as a theory — and we certainly do not promote laws from theories. Laws are principles used to substantiate theories. An example of a law would be that of a formula, such as Bernoulli’s Principle of fluid dynamics. Both theories and laws are considered to be scientific fact. For example, Darwinian natural selection is the theory to the law of evolution. Natural selection explains through testable and replicable experimentation and scrutiny the principal fact of evolution.

This falsity of words is so prevalent that it’s even found on biology textbooks. Selman v. Cobb County School District was a 2006 court case involving warning label stickers placed on all biology textbooks. The stickers read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.” The original ruling was that this violated two areas of the constitution, citing religious reasons, but also because it was logically false. The case was appealed and eventually settled out of court in favor of Selman.

As a well-established science and technology institution here at Iowa State, we must pride ourselves on upholding the fundamental underpinnings of the scientific method. Not only is it important in our future careers, but it’s important in everyday understanding of the world with which we live.

While most of the above was an argument against the falsifying of the word “theory,” I also argue that we must be careful how we use it in regular language. It is an important word as far as humanity is concerned, and using it poorly only perpetuates its misconception.

Theories literally are what we know about anything. All knowledge we have about the universe is in theory. Theory is the ultimate goal in science, it is the end game every scientist strives for. Theory is the spire of human intellect continually piercing the atmosphere of knowledge.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/theory
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cobb/selman-v-cobb.html
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=11

Should necrophilia be illegal?

As of 2007 there were nine states that had no explicit law in regards to necrophilia. And as recently as this summer, Illinois pushed a law governing the taboo topic with a vote 114-0 in favor of,  “Creating the offense of abuse of a corpse. Providing that a person commits the offense if he or she intentionally engages in sexual conduct with a corpse or involving a corpse”. The penalty could be up to seven years in prison; it goes into effect January one, 2013.

Interestingly enough there is no current federal law governing the topic either. In other words, the state you live in determines whether you get off the grotesque act scott-free or (in the case of Nevada) spend the rest of your life in jail. In Iowa, the act is a class D felony with a potential five-year jail sentence.

My question is why is this such a polar issue with seemingly unclear punishment? Let alone taboo.

I think the answer lies within the moral philosophy of whether or not dead bodies have “rights”. According to all state laws, acts of sexual deviance are only governed for living bodies that aren’t classified as “human remains”. According to most law, it is a victimless crime. Albeit probably the endgame of insults.

One might state that it is obvious that this should be illegal, but upon closer inspection it becomes more convoluted. The seemingly only “victim” of the act is the unlivable terror that might be caused to the family of the deceased. But should an act of extreme insult be considered criminal? I have even heard people go as far as to say that it’s just another fetish.

Obviously those that are more religious might be more inclined to demand for a greater punishment. Even though the supposed soul of the deceased might no longer be with the body, it still could be taken as a desecration to the soul in heaven. At least that is my assumption on the religious. This sort of logic (thinking?) would be impermissible in the legal system as it is religious. Although, “unnatural intercourse” is illegal in Mississippi — take that as you will.

Dr. John Troyer from the University of Minnesota, specializing in “technologies of the human corpse”, says: “Human corpses and the laws that govern the use of dead bodies are uniquely positioned to cause legal discrepancies since the dead body is a quasi-subject before the law. This creates a constant problem where the deceased body is no longer a living person and therefore not covered by the laws that regulate sexual deviance.”

He goes on to say: “I’m not proscribing more robust law enforcement but it certainly begs the question – how willing are people to examine the legal rights of dead bodies and the sexual desires of individuals deemed ‘human deviants?’” This is the question I pose to you.

My stance on any issue is that insults cannot be criminalized. Offense cannot be given, only taken. I also agree that in the eyes of the law, necrophilia is a victimless crime. But, with emphasis, the amount of psychological damage a family or friend might undertake upon learning of such atrocity to their deceased loved one only warrants some level of punishment — or at least attention.

Minimally, the supposed necrophiliac should undergo psychological evaluation. If this person is found sane, then I believe a hefty fine should be put in place, based on the percentage of their income. Jail time should exist, but only for minimal terms (no more than 5 years) that increases per repeated offense. The sentencing would also include the prohibition from employment at morgues, graveyards, and the like.

Why do I find this topic necessary to talk about? It is because I don’t like the fact that circumstances in America exist where someone could either be put to prison for life or walk the streets only labelled a creep, simply on the basis of where someone lives.

“To legislate against this kind of abject behaviour means acknowledging its existence, which some authorities may find difficult to deal with”, says Dr. Troyer, which means breaking the taboo will allow for public discourse of a seemingly controversial topic.

http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/necro.htm
http://www.huliq.com/34426/us-states-lack-laws-explicitly-outlawing-necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=5122&GAID=11&DocTypeID=HB&SessionID=84&GA=97
http://www.scribd.com/doc/91700435/168/Iowa

Seek danger and adventure in life

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

I was born to die, and so were you. Death is the inexorable disease inseminated upon conception. Fear of death is more compelling than compassion, love, hate, envy and hope.

Value: Where do you think it comes from? Is it from family? Friends? How about religion? Maybe all three. While these may be very important to a lot of people, I could feasibly generate a valuable life even after expelling all three (or in my case just two).

Camp Muir on Mt. Rainier. 10,000 ft of the 14,410 ft mountain.

Universally, life value comes from time. Time is the currency of life — thus, it is because we die that makes life unimaginably worth living.

The adventurers of the world have become more aware of their time spent on Earth. Be it the Alaskan kayaker, the Amazon jungle trekker, the Everest summiteer or the planetary circumnavigator — they all know about imminent death.

Three years ago I committed to attempting the “7-summits” — the tallest mountain on each continent: Aconcagua, Carstensz, Denali, Elbrus, Everest, Kilimanjaro and Vinson Massif. This was a goal of mine in my desire to chase the dangerous.

This summer I successfully summited Mt. Rainier in the state of Washington. Standing in at 14,410 feet, it is the most prominent mountain in the contiguous states and a rite of passage for mountaineers in the world. In late May, I attempted the mountain and was snowed in for five days and never was able to summit. Rescues were made and a ranger even lost his life during those (at the time) winter conditions. Early August I returned, blessed with near perfect weather and summited in two days time.

I have relatively high control over what happens to me on a mountain such as Rainier, aside from avalanches and falls (which has a level of risk analysis). I, however, have little control over natural disasters, violence, vehicular accidents and disease, among other things. It’s rather disconcerting that the act of fearing death simultaneously brings bore to the commons. Tell me this: Would you just as soon prefer a death by death-bed heaving up your own lungs and drowning in body fluid, as death by blowing off a mountain? I believe a serious judgment of character can be made by your answer. Only a boring person would prefer the former; and I claim that statement.

On May 29, 1953, Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first team to successfully make a confirmed summit of Mt. Everest. Nearly 30 years earlier and many deaths accumulated, mountaineer George Mallory was asked by a reporter: “Why climb Everest?” Mallory replied: “Because it’s there.”

Mallory also said: “What we get from this adventure is just sheer joy. And joy is, after all, the end of life. We do not live to eat and make money. We eat and make money to be able to live. That is what life means and what life is for.” Mallory soon perished somewhere near the summit of the 29,029 foot mountain.

Mt. Rainier is just a training wheel in my quest for the “seven summits,” including Everest. Why you too should seek the vulnerable is because it’s only when you lay eyes on fatal departure that you truly feel alive. Experiences and knowledge reveal themselves where they wouldn’t otherwise. Views are made that humans aren’t supposed to make, and as Henry David Thoreau puts it in “Walden”: “I want[ed] to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life.”

Every person has stakes in the game of life. Until you understand that your life value only exists because you will eventually die, then you might as well not have a purpose. Given the option to live forever, I would politely decline. It would suck the value out of the actual living part of existing by removing what might be considered difficult to do within the span of a lifetime.

With unlimited time, there’s the possibility for unlimited achievement and therefore all respect would be expunged. The old adage remains true: “With great risk comes great reward.”

Death is more connected to life than anything else, so live it up, and make yourself worth something — use the time such that when you take your last breath, you’ll be able to look back and say: “Yes, that was worth it.”

Original: http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_01f9857e-ebc3-11e1-b9cb-001a4bcf887a.html

Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/InsanityIsJustAStateOfMind

Iceland’s New Open-Source Constitution

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Iceland leaves no leaf unturned. Iceland rewrites and updates its constitution, open-source, through social media platforms. As your jaw retreats back to its skull, read that again.

This time last year, 25 representative citizens turned in the first draft of a “crowd-sourced” constitution constructed via the internet that would become the new governing document of the nation. This was as a result of the 2008 economic collapse the nation saw that sent them from towering in as one of the richest nations in the world to less than empty pocketed. It was the greatest collapse any nation has suffered (relative to its size) in economic history.

Iceland’s Parliament

In 2010, Iceland decided to start “ný,” or fresh, as we might call it. Upon liberation from Denmark in 1944, Iceland adopted its constitution, a near carbon copy. The only practical alteration was the term “king” that was changed to “president.” Being progressive, Iceland decided to push the boundary of what the rest of the world might consider acceptable politics. Thus, heralding in a new age of government deliberation.

Opening up to the citizens of Iceland online government forums, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other social media platforms, a new constitution was assembled through suggestion and inquisition. Many thousands of people from the small nation contributed, giving their take on exactly what the new constitution would entail. The 25 citizen representatives were to analyze the information and create drafts of the constitution, presenting the drafts live, online. A literal evolution of the document took place, perpetuated by the people.

The result? A perfectly compromised constitution in that it guaranteed freedom and protection of the people, maintained government balance and order and was as close to systemically pleasing as possible.

I am surprised it took me two years to hear about this. I feel like news of this sort is acute to the 21st century and a glimpse to future global government and politics. I recently heard about it because the citizens are making a referendum this October for a number of things: abolishing the state church in favor of separation of church and state, declaring public ownership of natural resources, state provided internet access, among other things.

What we are seeing is a shift in government policy making, at least with Iceland. With the election looming, American citizens and Iowa State’s students alike would benefit from understanding the fundamental ideology Iceland has created. I am too cynical of our citizens to think open-sourcing our constitution would be remotely helpful, we already have a work of art as a constitution. However, I do suggest that we take the idea of open-sourcing and apply it to political discourse and voting. Americans should vote not on the basis of party and/or ideology, but on policy that is best suited for the whole of the nation.

For example, there is a slight yet stark difference between being Republican because you align yourself with the ideologies, and being Republican because it closest fits your own personal ideology. The open-sourced constitution of the Icelandic people removes partisanship association and takes the differing ideologies of each citizen and evolves them into one perfectly compromised set of national law.

You might argue that partisan politics is necessary. What if I told you that we no longer live in an age where either party is ideal? If the winner of the presidential race always was the most well suited for the nation, then each presidential inauguration would come with a seamless continuation or evolution of the previous president, and we don’t see that. Gridlock in decision making has made it nearly impossible to progress in policy making.

Iceland’s open-sourced constitution brings forth the possibility to have politics (as opposed to just constitutional law) always move the nation in the direction most desirable. There would no longer be a constitution tug-of-war across the aisle and instead self-perpetuating compromise between all citizens of the nation.

Voting for a party comes with a catalog of presuppositions, some of which I might be in favor of and others I might not be in favor of, leaving me with a vote toward the lesser of the two evils.

I say we become an open-source society. Leave the constitution be, but allow the citizens of America to debate and “write” future laws into official government practice. Not simply voting, but actual law writing, without the need to lobby and/or strongarm. Oxford psychologist, Dr. Susan Blackmore, has said we are no longer gene machines, but in-fact “meme-machines.” Just as in genetics, the most adaptive society is the most successful society; we need to become as transparent as possible, citizen-sourced.

Warfare is inevitable, modern humanity’s survival of the fittest

 

*Iowa State Daily column by me*

Warfare is inevitable, modern humanity’s survival of the fittest.

Margaret Mead, the late cultural anthropologist said: “When one group enters conflict/war, others must either take it up or be destroyed.” This is quite literally the definition of “survival of the fittest.” While simultaneously she claims warfare to be “only an invention,” to me, this seems to be of slight contradiction. Although I respect her and her achievements in anthropology, I don’t believe warfare is an invention.

In nature, animals fight for survival — their ability to be selfish is literally the difference between life or death. Humans, just like many other species on the planet, are animals. It just so happens our ability to rise to the top of the food chain was our evolved ability to rationally think. We can’t fly; we can’t camouflage; but we can utilize our brains. That is our distinct “trait.” Survival of the fittest is what drives a species, a process called natural selection or Darwinian Evolution.

The real question is whether or not our ability to comprehend and rationalize will overcome our natural instinct to compete for survival. The reason I don’t believe the overcoming of this challenge to be possible is everyone, no matter the era or the mentality, has one common goal — and that is to live. And while we live relatively easily compared to other creatures on Earth, every individual is always looking for their own greener grass. As long as that intrinsic mentality remains, a human-to-human arms race will always exist.

Of course we all would love a world without war. A world that is peaceful wherever you place your latitude and longitude. The only problem is that each and every person in the entire world has a different idea of what a peaceful world would look like, thus, warfare. Each person and their dog has “wants” and/or “needs” that satisfy them to some extent. Their current existence will never be satisfactory until those “wants” and/or “needs” are met. And once they are, new “wants” and “needs” are birthed.

It could be argued future conflict will be resolved through peaceful debate and discussion. I will always agree this is the ideal way to resolve dispute, but to say everyone will always peacefully accept a conflict resolution that does not go their way is to be dense. “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace,” said President George Washington, and it’s for the above reason why his words should be taken seriously.

A distinction between the “is” and the “ought” must be made. I am not advocating we throw a baby out with the bathwater and accept warfare. Striving for global peace is crucial and will only make the world a better place to live — but violent conflict will never be eradicated. Steps can definitely be made to improve the nature and frequency of war, namely religion. The removal of said dogma would have and will take care of many national and international cold and hot wars.

As long as one person of the 7 billion people in this world has a different world view, there will be conflict. Since humans are easily manipulated and prone to influence, there will always be a group out there that will stand up and fight for what it believes in. It has happened since the dawn of human intellect, and it will continue to happen until the extinction of the human species. A conflict free world is a world without life and/or a world run by unthinking robots. If those robots have the ability to think for themselves, they will have conflict just the same.

Warfare is the byproduct of individual thinking. It is the telltale sign we as humans actually can rationalize and comprehend, and it’s because of this that we will always have warfare; it is not because of our brains we will rid the world of conflict.

The best we can live for is to live within a community that has strong barriers but an open heart. The best we can work towards is to accept the fact that different mentalities will always be held within our own and other communities. The best we can hope for is for other communities to do the same.

 

Hit share below. If you liked it enough, feel free to subscribe on the right side of the page. If you have an opinion yourself, don’t hesitate to use the comment box.

Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/InsanityIsJustAStateOfMind

Original Column: http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_3bdfa8cc-db51-11e1-be88-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story