Daniel Goldman

Archives for August 2017

Ixalan and Beyond: Legendary Planeswalkers and More

By vasshu Leave a Comment Aug 30

With Ixalan, planeswalkers have now become legendary. The decision to eliminate the planeswalker rule and replace it with the legend rule was an interesting one with a number of consequences.

Ixalan spoilers have been coming out for a while. And when the article about the errata for planeswalkers came out, people started buying up certain cards. Aside from running this blog, I also do some investing and trading, so I find price fluctuation in trading cards fascinating. As cards move out of rotation or new synnergies are created, the price of a single card may fluctuate considerably. This is happening with Mirror Gallery, a card that allows the player to ignore the legend rule. Outside of Kamigawa block, a block full of legendary cards, Mirror Gallery was a fairly niche card. But now that planeswalkers are legendary permanents, Mirror Gallery affects them, allowing a player to have more than one of the exact same planeswalker out on the field at once. This has caused the price of the card to double on tcgplayer.com. Given the newfound utility of the card, I would not be too surprised to see a reprint at some point, especially with Iconic Masters on its way and more so the return of core sets, a change for which I am ecstatic.

The change has also helped some other planeswalker decks. As anyone who has read my article Hour of Devastation God Synergy knows, I like to find neat combinations. I am more interested in constructing decks than I am playing them. When Gideon of the Trials came out, I immediately started working on a Gideon “tribal” deck, “Giddy Gideons.” The rule change has given this deck a huge boost. Making sure that a Gideon remained on the field was a bit difficult until this rule change. Now it is fairly straight forward, and there has been a change in price for Gideon of the Trials because of this boost.

While the change in the planeswalker rule may be the most prominent addition by Ixalan, there are a number of useful cards as well, this is especially true if you are a fan of tribal decks. There are two tribes in this set: dinosaurs and pirates. And as we all know, “everything’s better with pirates” (Line from The Gamers: Dorkness Rising). There is also a watered down version of Cavern of Souls. While it does not protect creature spells you cast, it is an uncommon. Arcane Adaptation is going to be useful in any tribal deck that splashes blue. One of the biggest issues that I have with constructing tribal decks is the inclusion of helper creatures which are from a different tribe. With Arcane Adaption, those cards become part of the tribe. What is really nice is that the creature type is added to all creatures you own, not just creatures on the battlefield. The tribal heavy tone of Ixalan also lends itself well to Commander 2017, which is highly tribal.

Overall, I am interested to see how the rule changes affect gameplay and prices. Since I am a fan of tribal decks, the additional cards in Ixalan should be quite fun, although sometimes the synergy just does not work out as well as I think it should.

The post Ixalan and Beyond: Legendary Planeswalkers and More appeared first on Geekers' Keep.

Religion is an Illness and Evolution is Wrong (Not)

By alcanthro Leave a Comment Aug 19

Religion is not an illness. This short discussion provides one of many arguments as to why this is the case.It is true that a lot of members of our, and most other species, suffer from cancer, but it is still not ubiquitous nor does it exist throughout the individual’s life. If a species existed, in which all, or almost all of its members suffered from the same pathology, and that pathology showed up and existed throughout the organism’s life, and this pathology has always existed within the species, that violate natural selection enough to consider the current body of theory of evolution falsified.

To be clear, it is recognized that natural selection is not the only process which occurs during evolution, but it is pretty safe to say that enough of our body of theory on evolution rests with the validity of natural selection that if natural selection were falsified, so would the body as a whole, and we would need to rework our theories.

Consider what is said in Evolutionary dynamics in structured populations.

An evolving population consists of reproducing individuals, which are information carriers. When they reproduce, they pass on information. New mutants arise if this process involves mistakes. Natural selection emerges if mutants reproduce at different rates and compete for limiting resources.

In other words, evolutionary dynamics implies natural selection. A violation of natural selection therefore would make the current theory on evolutionary dynamics less likely. Now, it could be that other processes are so powerful that they completely override natural selection, but to find a species in which natural selection has totally failed to weed out a near universal illness should present a problem for current evolutionary theory. This is how science works. If an observation is unlikely, under the assumption that a theory is true, then we consider the theory to be unlikely.

Now, it has been claim by some, including Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, that religion is a mental illness. Consider one of his tweets from 2014. I have included an archive of the tweet here, in case it is ever deleted. But in stating this notion, he argues against evolution itself, as religion is nearly ubiquitous. It exists in almost every member of the species, and has since the dawn of anatomically modern humans. It is found, in members of the population, from childhood until death. This condition would be very unlikely, if natural selection was in operation. And therefore, if we assume that Dawkins’ statement is true, we must conclude that evolutionary theory, as we view it now, is unlikely.

Interestingly, we can also define “illness” in terms of evolutionary theory: a collection of traits is an illness if it reduces the ability for that collection of trait to be passed on in future generations. This is a simplistic version, as traits interact with one another. But it is still useful. If a collection of traits increases the overall fertility and lifespan of an organism, and decreases infant mortality, it would be hard to argue that it can be an illness. When it comes to religion, the theory that religious affiliation improves fertility and life expectancy, while decreasing infant mortality, is consistent with available data, at least in the case of developing nations.

In Religion, Fertility and Genes: a Dual Inheritance Model, Robert Rowthorn addresses findings on the increase in fertility in religiously affiliated groups. Rowthorn looks at the genetic aspect of religiosity and fertility. He argues that, given multiple groups, “the genes associated with the high-fertility group may eventually predominate in the overall gene pool.” In this case, those genes are those which result in a predisposition towards religion. Overall the idea is that predisposition to religiosity and the religiosity of a group have a positive interplay on fertility, thus perpetuating the genetic predisposition and the religious group. This view is consistent with he models constructed by Rowthorn and his comparison to empirical data. (Rowthorn 2011) Meanwhile, in Religious attendance: more cost-effective than lipitor? DE Hall shows that religious affiliation seems to have a significant impact on life expectancy, with an approximate number of years gained ranging from two to three years, roughly consistent with the gain from exercise and statin related medications (Hall DE 2006). Meanwhile, according to Religious Affiliation and Under-five Mortality in Mozambique, religious affiliation, regardless of the religion, had a positive outcome on reducing under-five infant mortality. One of the potential mechanisms for this effect was theorized to be increase access to healthcare services through certain religious affiliations. Furthermore, “while the survival chances of children of Catholics/mainline Protestant and Apostolics were significantly higher than those of children of non-affiliated women, the differences among religious denominations were not statistically significant after controlling for other factors. (Boaventura M. Cau et. al. 2012)

The three studies, combined, show that findings are consistent with the view that religiosity, or at least religious affiliation, increases life expectancy and fertility, while decreasing infant mortality. The findings are inconsistent with the idea that religiosity or religious affiliation has a negative impact on these conditions. As a result, if the definition of illness mentioned above is to be accepted, then the notion that religion is an illness, of any sort, must be rejected. Furthermore, unless there was some other evolutionary mechanism that was powerful enough to override natural selection for hundreds of thousands of years, either religion is not an illness or our view of evolution must be flawed. Therefore it can be concluded, with a reasonable level of justification, that religion is not an illness.

Further Reading

  • A Unified Psychological and Anthropological Model of Religion
  • Rebuttal to Faith and Belief: Remnants of Our Ancestry Used to Enslave Our Minds

The post Religion is an Illness and Evolution is Wrong (Not) appeared first on The Spiritual Anthropologist.

Rebuttal to Faith and Belief: Remnants of Our Ancestry Used to Enslave Our Minds

By alcanthro Leave a Comment Aug 11

Faith and Belief: Remnants of Our Ancestry Used to Enslave Our Minds, by Glen Vickers, attempts to look at the evolutionary psychology of religion, but fails miserably. It had the potential to be a solid work, however it could have benefited from better fact checking, a more skilled copy editor, and the reliance on citation. It also suffers from clear biases against religion, expressed by the author, rather than scientific objectivity. 

If the author pushed himself to use citation to back up his material, he may not have made so many errors. As it stands, this book is largely a perpetuation of pseudoscience and pseudohistory and is also an example of blatant plagiarism. If the content were at least decent, I could get past the poor quality of writing: the spelling errors, use of incorrect homophones, sentence fragments, run on sentences, and more. After all, I admit that I am not the best writer. However, the content of Faith and Belief does not make up for the poor writing. The following is an overall review and rebuttal of the work. I want to start with the structural issues of the book.

The most glaring issue is the repeated contradictions within the text. Even someone who is not familiar with the topic should be able to pick up on these inconsistencies. The the beginning of the book, the author states that “religion is defined as the belief in a higher power.” But then on the very next page, he asserts that “the literal definition of religion is the belief in a deity or to have a set doctrine.” (pp. 15 – 16) When discussing monotheistic religions, he first claims that “the Jewish faith is the oldest known monotheistic faith on current records.” He follows this with a the assertion: “[Judaism was] not the first monotheistic religion to document their belief and create holy books which claim to be written by the prophets of god.” He then continues on by suggesting that “archeological findings on early civilizations suggest that all religions began as a monotheistic tradition.” (pp. 96 – 90)

Finally, the author seems to want to claim that there is no universal objective morality (pp. 34- 35). And admittedly the existence of one has not been well argued. But he then continues to address the topic of rape and other related actions as immoral, and seems to do so in a way that suggests that such actions are inherently, objectively, and universally immoral.

If the author had provided citations for the last point, I might buy it, but either way, the chain of reasoning is contradictory. If monotheistic traditions preceded polytheistic ones, then either Judaism was the first religion or was not the first monotheistic one. This back and forth continues for the next few pages. The lack of citations is ironic, considering this following point that the author made.

You can trust the delivery of knowledge from a person as much as you can trust the delivery of knowledge from the written word. Claims can be made by both the written word and the spoken word. The difference between the deliveries does not matter as much as the source of the knowledge and the evidence to support the You can trust the delivery of knowledge from a person as much as you can trust the delivery of knowledge from the written word. Claims can be made by both the written word and the spoken word. The difference between the deliveries does not matter as much as the source of the knowledge and the evidence to support the knowledge. (pp. 103 – 104)

The author recognizes the importance of the source of the knowledge and the evidence to “support” it, but fails to provide citations. Of less significance is the repeated issues with grammar and spelling. There are numerous sentence fragments and run on sentences. One of many examples is as follows: “It seems that the only species that makes moral decisions for survival of a species is humans. At least on this planet, we can’t speak for any other life in the universe.” (pg. 29) There are also misused homophones, such as the use of manor rather than manner (pg. 93). Again, if the content made up for the poor quality of writing, I would not mind. But that is not the case.

The most important failure of the text is the presence of scientifically and historically inaccurate information. This includes the perpetuation of the historically inaccurate view that Medieval Europe viewed the Earth as flat. More importantly the author has a poor understanding of early human development. Finally there is a similar misrepresentation of the history of the development of religion and literalist vs interpretationist stances on the bible.

Starting with the most benign misconception, according to the author, it has “been less than 600 years since we discovered that our earth was not flat” (pg. 14). However, according to current historical understanding, this was not the case. In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Burton Russell tears apart the historically falsified myth that the medieval world thought the Earth was flat. He also explains how the argument that Columbus set out to settle was not whether the Earth was flat or round, but rather how big it was. Modern history books no longer include this myth, but it is likely that the author was taking classes before the corrections occurred in the 80s.

Later on, the author claims that “religion existed when we lived in caves” (pg. 33). While according to current theory religion did exist during the paleolithic period (citation needed) the view that humans lived in caves is not an archaeologically valid statement. With a few exceptions, early humans did not live in caves. They did engage in certain rituals involving caves, but that was generally the extent of their interaction with the environment. (A Caveman’s Home was Not a Cave). This view of early human brings me to another related point. The author repeatedly uses the word “primitive.” I will try to add further citation later, but a Reddit AskAnthropology Q&A does a fairly good job of explaining the issue: “primitive” is a poorly defined term which, in terms of looking at groups of people, was developed as a way to expressing a false sense of superiority over other groups. (Reddit AskAnthropology)

The author’s lack of understanding of early humans creates other issues. Part way through the second chapter, the author invokes the concept of the alpha male, saying that if a person survived and became the alpha male, he is now the leader of the tribe (pg 73). There are a number of issues with this position. The existence of alpha males in humans is not well accepted and is not part of the current body of scientific theory. The are a number of sources which address the topic, including Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Limited Wants, Unlimited Means, “Are Alpha Males Myth or Reality,” “The myth of the alpha male,” and “Play as a Foundation of Hunter-Gatherer Social Existence.” The final source is quick to point out that early human populations were not tribal but rather exited in mobile bands with fluid membership. Overall, when it comes to the development of modern humans, I think the author would benefit from reviewing a basic anthropology textbook. Transition from a fluid collection of small bands to complex societies with leaders is even addressed in intro anthropology texts like Principles of Archaeology.

I touched on the issue of the author’s lack of understanding and clarity on the development of religion, when I mentioned the repeated contradictions in his discussion of monotheism and polytheism. Another issue is that the author seems to view interpretationist policy of the bible as a rather new development. However, Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis gives us a solid example of opposition to literal interpretations of the bible, which far predates modern thought. Ælfric of Eynsham was a monk and writer.  He was asked to translate the bible from Latin into Old English, as very few could read Latin, in England, by that point in time. (The Ælfric of Eynsham Project: An Introduction) However, Ælfric was cautious about engaging in such an act. While he could not disobey the king’s request, he provided a preface to his translation. Within the phrase, Ælfric writes the following: “we also said before that the book is very profoundly spiritual in understanding and we will write no more than the naked narrative. Then it seems to the unlearned that all that meaning is locked up in the simple narrative, but it is very far from it.” This is a recognition that a purely literal understanding of the “naked word” is not enough. (Ælfric’s Preface to Genesis: A Translation)

Overall, I am glad that I picked up a copy of this book, not because it was informative in terms of the evolution and function of religion, but rather it gives me additional insight into the minds of people like Dr. Glen Vickers. It also allowed me to touch on some common misconceptions about human evolutionary history, the evolution of religion, and other falsified “secular” myths that are still perpetuated by some members of the population.

Further Reading

The following are a few texts which are related to the topics mentioned in this article. Many of the books have been useful to me in the past.

  • Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
  • Archaeological Laboratory Methods
  • Ecclesiastical History of the English People
  • Towards Being Secular

The post Rebuttal to Faith and Belief: Remnants of Our Ancestry Used to Enslave Our Minds appeared first on The Spiritual Anthropologist.

Recent Posts

  • Musings on Thermodynamics, Complexity, and Evolution
  • A Reply to Gina Rippon’s Commentary on Sex Based Differences in The Brain
  • A Reply to Gina Rippon’s Commentary on Sex Based Differences in The Brain
  • Plants vs Animals
  • Skeptical Tawny Frogmouth

Recent Comments

  • Πάνος Μάντζαρης on Musings on Thermodynamics, Complexity, and Evolution

Archives

  • January 2020
  • September 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • December 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015

Categories

  • Anthropology/Sociology
  • Graphic Novel
  • Health & Medicine
  • Hobbies
  • Living
  • New Research
  • penguinism
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Academics
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Politics
  • Rebuttals
  • Recent News
  • Religion
  • Risk Appetite
  • Roseanne Barr
  • Site News
  • Special Editorial
  • Stock Picks
  • Technical Analysis
  • TV Show
  • Twitter Response
  • Uncategorized
  • Video

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
Daniel Goldman
Copyright © 2022 Daniel Goldman · (in)SPYR Theme by Genesis Developer: SPYR Media