Why Science Requires Consistent and Absolute Morality (Why Secular Ethics Aren't)

A common fantasy I see virtually everywhere today is that there is no need for moral behavior: no absolute right or wrong.  Everything is "relative" in the character and morality department.

So can this actually be true?

Well, lets explore this a bit.

A common argument is that religion, a common "carrier" of morality, is unnecessary in today's world of advanced science, engineering and evolution.

After all, man evolved from "scratch" through whatever means and was not created, right?  Therefore any religion man may have is simply some sort of "artifact" of that process.

While one can claim a position like this unfortunately it is, by definition, simply fantasy.

And here's why...

Science is a human process created by man to extract information from the world at large.  To separate fact from fiction.  To create repeatable examples of processes, study and activities that illuminate the actual processes we see in the world for what they are.

In order to do this, i.e., in order to have a repeatable experiment, moral and ethical integrity is required.

Without it you would see what you see today: "US Scientific Medical Studies: A 1 in 20 Accuracy Rate?"

Very simply if someone is the slightest bit dishonest in their scientific research the research is flawed and unusable.

The process of science is not about having to tease shreds of truth from a melange of hocus pocus, ranting, falsified data, and politically or ideologically motivated thinking.

The idea of science is about simplicity and honesty: I did X, I collected X' in terms of data, I concluded X''.

So what is science with morality and ethics?

Basically nothing but noise. 

Noise that distracts those attempting to produce honest results from their efforts.

Noise that distracts society from other, more important matters.

So can ethics and morality exist alone outside of some other, divine or otherwise, context?

Well, human secularism accepts as a basic idea that you must "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live."

So, underlying an human secular (non-religious) morality and ethics is this basic concept.

Upon this concept humans have built a variety of complex areligious sets of secular ethics (see this for an example).

Unfortunately there is a very simple problem with this model.

It relies on "consensus" to determine its moral basis.   A society may, as a group, chose to treat a subset of its members in a particular way.  The problem is that in this context a majority (in terms of wealth, vocal ability, power, etc.) always enforces its will upon the minority.

A very simple example of how this can "go wrong" would be this:  A terrible disease is rapidly overtaking a population.  It is determined that a few experiments, possibly with fatal outcomes, on small children will yield results that could save the entire population.

So the "do unto others" clause becomes problematic.  Who is doing what to whom?  Is the obligation of science to the society as a whole or to the individuals which may die during the scientific process?

Its easy to see how this makes science a squishy, amorphous humanist endeavor.

As a scientist I am certain that such and such will do good for society but my data does not quite show what it needs to in order for this to be true.  So I falsify some to ensure it does.  Or perhaps my politically correct associates pass my research on because they have a similar belief.

In the end the such and such does only a mediocre job of helping anyone - perhaps causing more harm than good.

Was society helped by this?

I argue that very simply the answer is no, and not just no for this case but no in any case where there is not an absolute morality dictating behavior.

A notion of absolute right and wrong.

Without it ambiguity is always possible - and even with it.

However, a consistent overall absolute model of right and wrong ensures that all societal decisions regarding a given matter will be based on consistent terms.  Without it there is always the danger that a majority motivated by their own ideals will sway the outcome in their favor.

Money Changers in the Temple: The Debt Fantasy

Another horrific fantasy today is the "debt fantasy."

When you are young at some point you probably are offered a credit card.  No doubt with high interest. 

The "idea," of course, is that you will learn how to use it responsibly.  But, because you are new to the world of "big finance" you get a 29% interest rate and a small credit limit.

Like heroin, the idea is not to get you to try the credit card, the idea is to addict you.  So plenty of free samples are provided.

(In 2009 according to this USA Today article the average undergraduate credit card debt was $3,100 USD.)

The fantasy here, of course, is that you can "have" what you can't afford to have.

If it's too good to be true it probably is, and that's certainly true for debt.

Well, at least for college students you can always get your credit card debt discharged in bankruptcy.

But this fantasy extends well beyond college kids.

Our president tells children how they must have an education - every last one - to be "successful."

What is not provided is a means to "afford" that education so silently most of our children follow him, like the pied piper, into crippling debt along with a useless college degree.

And since this kind of "debt lifestyle" is so common these same children vote for elected officials that operate our cities, states, and government like a credit-card-crazed college freshman running up further debt - in fact debt to pay the interest in more debt.

We are today a nation of debtors.

With no collateral to back it up (can you return your college degree to retire you debt?)

As a nation we spend around $4 billion USD a day and we borrow almost half of that each day.

The other day I saw this little cartoon on Facebook:

Now in this particular biblical story Christ feeds the masses with a few loaves and fish.  This is accomplished via a miracle - an event attributed to divine intervention.  The loaves and fish replicate themselves until everyone has their fill.

One imagines that with divine intervention involved it matters little how many people are involved or whether they honestly need the food.

But our government is not divine (contrary to what you might have seen and heard in the past).  Its unable to simply manufacture food from nothing.  Yet, like Christ, it intends to feed everyone who shows up asking for food.

So how does it accomplish this?

Through a governmental "miracle" that does not involve divine intervention but instead involves debt intervention.

To many debt intervention is like divine intervention.  You don't see how it actually works but the results give you immediate gratification for what you crave right now - in this case food.

The only problem is that you are really not feeding the poor if you rely on debt.

Since you could not afford to feed the poor in the first place you are merely delaying the consequences of being broke to some future point, i.e., while the food will be acquired and distributed today at some point you will be unable to continue with the fantasy that you can afford to do this and will no longer be able to borrow money to do it.

At that point people will actually begin to starve.

So are the people better off being tricked into believing they are being support by someone or something that is simply delaying the inevitable?

This is the difference between debt intervention and divine intervention. 

Divine intervention does not incur or involve debt.

But there is yet another fantasy involved here. 

Those that pretend to be divine when faced with a crisis like the masses on the hill who are hungry.

Now I cannot speak for Christ unlike the cartoons authors, but biblically speaking least (interesting that Google cannot spellcheck "biblically"), one has a hard time imagining Christ sending a couple of folks over to the money changers in the Temple (or going himself) to borrow money (take on debt) to pay for fishes and loaves.

Lucky for him he could use divine intervention to accomplish this miracle.

But today's politicians are not divine so they pretend to be Christ-like by borrowing money to make it appear as if they are and can provide fish and loaves in the same way.

Of course, creating this fantasy also involves lying about what's happening.

This is, of course, because we are borrowing the money from the very community which we are feeding.  Basically leaving empty I.O.U.'s in exchange for money today.

Money changers in the Temple.

But what happens when the money changers run out of money to lend?  I doubt they could rely on divine intervention either...

So here we are today - the money changers tables are empty.

The Temple is empty too.

The masses on the hill have eaten all the food our borrowed money can provide.

Do we think we can rely on a divine miracle to save us?

How the "Porn Fantasy" Affects Women

I've notice something interesting lately.  The line between fantasy and reality seems to be blurring considerably in an number of areas of society:

The "free" dictionary has, for the definition of fantasy, two apropos definitions (out of several others): "An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need." and "An unrealistic or improbable supposition."

As I mentioned a few posts ago in "The Power of Video: Hard Core Pornography and Climate Change" young males in our culture are strongly influenced by video.

But what's even more interesting is why they are looking at so much pornography in the first place.

In the past, say twenty years ago, young men were strongly influenced by something else: young women.

Now over the last many millenium this was the way of the world - there was nothing else for a young man to think about save for young women as he grew up.  Society supported this by requiring young people to choose spouses (for the most part) and raise families.

The reason for this, though apparently not obvious to today's youth, was to build a strong society.

Now if young women were interested in young men it would seem that the young men wouldn't need pornography - one imagines that having that having an actual relationship would trump a session with a porno queen.

Certainly there are plenty of images of women for young men to see - in advertising in particular, on video, and so on.

But one has to believe that if there were women interested in men the men would be busy with the women instead of the pornography.

But this is apparently not the case.

Women have come to believe somehow that waiting a long time to find a partner is somehow better than finding one when they are young.  (See "Women are Insane, Men are Stupid: Where have all the good men gone...")

So today women are apparently busy with other things besides men until their thirties - which means the men are left with nothing to do as I wrote in the link above.

Later in life women seem to have a rekindled interest in men but complain that the men are all useless.

The point of the post is that because women no longer expect men to act like men, i.e., supporting children, providing, they don't.

And this is fantasy as well: that men will somehow simply wait around for the women to need them and magically (fantastically) "grow up" to be the men the women feel should be available to them.

But the men, idle, simply spend time watching porn and wasting time.

So both men and women today, particularly younger men and women, seem to be lost in parallel fantasies about life: men left to porn and video games by women busy doing other things.  Later in life the women find that the porn and video games have not made the men good men.

So why are women living in this particular fantasy.

In the recent past, say only a few decades ago, women knew that having a good man was important: regardless of whether they stayed home and had children or whether they went out and worked - a good man was simply a good man.

And what was a good man (for those that don't know)?

Someone with character, a good work ethic, a reliable person, a caring father and husband, someone who is supportive, someone who is respectful, and on and on.

If a woman had a man like this, and conversely if a man had a woman with the same attributes, everything would work out.

But no longer...

So today we live in a world where largely the men no longer have these attributes - mostly because they are raised by women because their fathers have long ago left their mothers.  Of course there are remarriages and so forth but the strength of family has been violated by fantasy.

This fantasy is reenforced in a variety of common entertainment media: you see no traditional families, only unlikely and bizarre collections of individuals and perhaps children struggling for some unclear goal of happiness and wonder which they never reach.

Of course modern business is populated today largely by women, as is the US educational system (some 60% of the workers are women according to this US Dept of Labor site).

So could men be propagating the idea that women should no longer be focused on men?

I doubt it as there are simply not enough men in the workforce to do this today.  While nearly half of older women are married another quarter live alone or are heads of households.  Again, since more women than men work women dominate the financial picture.

So it seems as if women are creating these fantasy worlds where women live and where women are unhappy.  Yet they are the ones complaining.

And they should complain.

Women who head households or dominate the financial aspects of a marriage have to do more work: not only raising children and taking responsibility for much of the household work but also for working.

Effectively double duty.

You have to ask are we, as a society better off?

Certainly as men in a world where women expect far less of them I would guess the simple, unthoughout answer is yes.

All men have to do is live in the basement with video games, porn and weed and loaf all day.

Women, on the other hand, have to go to college - there are far more today in college than men - and take on the debt and pay it off while raising children and working.

One imagines that they are becoming increasingly responsible for the vast trillion dollar educational debt out society is saddled with.

And, I suppose, also are demeaned into acting like porn actresses in the bedroom when the day is done.  (At least that would be what any men they would find would expect - because that's all the men know.)

So to me it seems as if the women are forced into the same fantasy world as the men - accept that this one seems far worse than that of males.

Of course you can argue that the women are "free" today of men - free to pursue lives of their own choosing (is living under a massive debt freedom?)

But is today's situation really better?

Certainly not from my perspective as a father - my working daughters have to work far harder than those that do not work outside their homes.

As a society we are making very foolish choices and choosing to believe that the life we see on TV, internet and video - the life manufactured for us by actors and writers and filmmakers - is the one we should believe we are living.

I guess as long as we continue to "believe" this we will be okay...

Warp Drive or Warped Experimental Results?

Dr. Martin Tajmar

About fifteen or twenty years ago I had a buddy named Frank.  Frank was my landlord and he had a problem with inertial rotation.

We would often talk about physics; Einstein's ideas in particular.  A favorite topic was the notion that Einstein had said that standing on the surface of planet was, from the perspective of gravity, the same as riding in an elevator rising at a constant speed.

So what is it that "sticks" you to the surface of the planet in the first place?

Gravity, of course.  But little is really known about the details of the physics behind the operation gravity and, to this point, no one has figured out how to manipulate gravity.

At the same time, most of us have experienced riding in a high-speed elevator.  You get in at floor one or two and ride up to floor sixty.  Usually these elevators, at least the new ones, are pretty fast so as they accelerate from a stop you feel "squashed down" as if you weigh more; which from the perspective of you mass in the elevator is true while the elevator accelerates.

So Einstein basically said that from your perspective standing on the earth or riding in an infinite elevator at a constant 1g (gravity) treats you the same - you feel the effect of one gravity.

But we also talked about rotation.

Most people have seen images of space stations where there is a central core with spokes out to the rim and the "living quarters" along the outside rim.  (This is also the case with the old Larry Niven "Ringworld.").  The idea here is that the rotation of the space station creates a force that wants to launch you off tangentially.  But since the rim is smooth and continuous the effect on you is that you "stick" to the floor - just as with the case of the elevator.

On these things Frank and I always agreed.

But Frank never liked the idea that the rotation itself relative to the gravity was given a "pass."  That is, something like the space station, or a bicycle wheel, should be creating some sort gravitational interaction (outside the basic tangential effect of centripieal force).

At the time Frank was never able to convince me that there was a problem - not that his arguments weren't persuasive - just that there was no physical evidence to back him up.

Today, however, things are somewhat different.

In 2007 an Austrian physicist named Martin Tajmar describe what is today known as the Tajmar effect:  The idea of placing an electronic gyroscope over a rotating supercold ring and noting that the gyroscope is affected by the the rotating supercold ring.   This effect was not duplicated until recently (2011).

(Note: So far there is not a lot to convince me that these are not "unreproducible results" I have written about before, e.g., cold fusion and all the rest on the medical side.  Sadly, to read much about this you have to pay for access to documents you tax dollars funded which I am not about to do until this blog can generate enough revenue to cover the cost.  Please click on ads if you'd like this to happen.

It often seems like someone discovers an "effect" and rather than reproduce it people begin to extrapolate what the effect might mean before reproducing it.)

But, as far as Frank and his problems with inertial rotation it would seem that were the Tajmar effect real the supercold rotation ring would have to be somehow "dragging" space-time, i.e., the fabric of space, around to some degree with its rotation in order to affect the nearby laser gyroscope.

So, the extrapolation goes, if the rotating ring is dragging space-time around with it (imagine this kind of like an electronic mixer - as the mixer spins around the bowl containing the cake mix, if on a set of loose bearings, will begin to rotation along with the contents of the bowl) then we can talk about warping space-time.

In the case of the mixer/cake mix the rotational energy of the blades is transferred via the cake mix to the bowl.  For the rotating supercold ring the cakemix is replaced by Unruh radiation, at least according to the theory described here.

So if we imagine beings living on the blades of the mixer (like us living on the surface of a rotating earth) we would not perceive any motion.  And being living on the bowl would also not perceive rotation.

But relative to each other (and instead living on the supercold rotating ring or "inside" the gyroscope we would perceive a twisting or spinning of space-time.

Now note that we are not somehow transferring rotational force  but actually rotating space-time.  So each relative observer would not notice that they are being rotated but in effect would be to an outside observer.

Which brings us to warp drives.

The Tajmar effect claims to effectively be warping space near the rotation of the supercold ring.

So, while the speed of light is constant within space-time theoretically we could move space-time (as in the case around the ring) so that the light moving within that space-time plus the movement of the space time would result in an observable movement showing the light moving from point A to point B faster that the speed of light in an non-moving space-time frame.

Which all leads to article like this and this.

Is it possible this is all true?

I suppose that depends on the reproducibility of the Tajmar effect which seems suspect to me (though there are claims it has been reproduce (Droscher & Hauser) there are others who are unable).

It seems that such an effect would have a dramatic impact on physics so one imagines that it would be important to determine if its real.  Something I would think well within the capabilities of many university-level physics labs.

At the same time its quite possible that Tajmar's effect is simply one of the 19 in 20 "failed to reproduce" experiments that happen all the time.

However, given such a flimsy set of proof, why are Fox News and other sites releasing information on possible "warp drives?"

One imagines this is because there is nothing else interesting to write about...

Richard Feynman once said that understanding the "two-slit" experiment was really all you needed to grasp what quantum mechanics was about.

It would seem this effect would be as profound were it true.

(Note: There are other things like the "Cashmir effect" which are also mysterious and offer such consequences are unlimited energy from "nothing.")

So who knows...

Agile Cyberweapons, Genesis 2:19

I have been reading about Flame, another middle Eastern-targeted computer virus along the lines of STUXNET.

Since I wrote about STUXNET the NY Times has reported that STUXNET was the product of a US-Israeli collaboration to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Flame, apparently, is related to STUXNET according to this post.  The claim is there is common DLL code shared between the two as well as other aspects of operation, e.g., similar temp-file names and similar mutex names.

All-and-all pretty convincing evidence that the at some level the two shared common authors.

Using this analysis researchers have concluded that its likely Flame was created first and possibly used to gain information about how to build and target STUXNET.

There are some interesting side elements to these stories.

For one, the fact that Iran stole Siemens controller software (Windows-based) to drive their centrifuges.

Two, that government cyberweapon developers made use of a two-phase approach using standard Windows exploits, e.g., various 0-day exploits and exploits to use USB-drives to spread the virus, to attack these systems.

Now what do these points imply?

For one, Iran is unable or unwilling to develop their own controls for centrifuges.  I think this is an interesting point.

Clearly they are off on their own developing nuclear capabilities.  But they are not really doing so independently.  They have to rely on standard US cyber infrastructure technology to do it.

So just what else might be going on inside Iran using computers that are not home-grown and hence vulnerable to attack by the west?

Missile guidance software, command and control (mission control) software, software for calculating targeting and flight plans?

Viruses like Flame seem to be designed to capture what people working on these types of systems might be doing - surfing the internet to US sites to find key information (hence the ability of Flame to snapshot screen surfing to .gov-class sites).

So is Iran simply stealing these critical technologies from US?

Its hard to say.  But it certainly seems like Windows is the common element to all of this - both on the side of the attackee (Iran) and the attacker (US).

One imagines, for example, the their missile guidance software cannot be 100% home grown - clearly their missiles must be made from standardized parts to some degree - otherwise it would take too long to develop.  Look at how long it took the Germans and the US (Goddard) to develop reliable launch systems.

While I think its unlikely that Windows is flying along on these missiles my guess is that the software used to build, test, and simulate flight control is probably Windows based and therefore a likely target to something like Flame.

I think its also likely that there is exposure inside Iran to the outside world via the internet, e.g., Flame returning data to its controllers via internet connections.

So one imagines engineering folks inside Iran basically Googling for technical information from western web sites.

My, but don't we all rely on the internet a bit too much....??

Flame is basically a tool for visualizing the computational infrastructure inside Iran.

And with the knowledge it brings it allows US to devise counterattacks...

So given this kind of knowledge and tools one wonders how software is developed and tested in Iran?

My guess is that they use modern Agile-like techniques to work with stolen technologies.  Clearly they are stuck at least in part developing from scratch in areas where they cannot buy or steal components - both hardware and software.

But clearly even I could find a substantial amount of rocket science (as I have posted here) freely available.  No doubt with a bit more effort I could find substantial software and technical data freely available.

A state like Iran probably has its own cyberweapons coders who could likely penetrate US and western rocket sites to capture more design and technical data.

My guess is that Israel does not feel that this alone is sufficient to stop Iran.  Certainly they can slow them down and cost them a lot of money in purchasing replacement centrifuges (STUXNET was designed to damage centrifuges beyond repair while displaying GUI information indicating that everything was working at 100% of capacity).

It probably gives them and US a precise tools for viewing their progress.

So why is there no action?

In the region only Israel is a nuclear power currently and I believe they plan to keep it that way.

A nuclear Iran is a very scary scenario that I believe no one wants to see - at least no one rational.

But sadly our US policy seems more or less ambivalent and perhaps too reliant on high-tech spook tools.

Cyberweapons are not a substitute for actual weapons or military superiority.

However the current administration seems to believe otherwise.

Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Iran's president, seems quite focused on creating another Holocaust in response to the biblical exploits of Abraham, Jacob and Ishmael (Genesis 2:19).

Its a wonder that this conflict is still today at the forefront of the best technical minds in Iran and is the basis for mass destruction.

Its also a wonder that the US administration seems at best distracted from campaigning by this issue.  One which, if improperly handled, will change forever the face of the plant.

Mother May I... (Sugar Drinks, Foreign Riots)

"Mother" - Pink Floyd - The Wall

As children we played a game called "Mother May I..."  The idea was simple: you found a large area, like a playground or turnaround on a driveway.  One person was designated "Mother."  Mother turned her back and all the rest, the "children" lined up at the starting line.

In turn each child would ask "Mother may I ____" where the ____ was "take two steps forward" or something like that.  Mother would agree or disagree and the "child" would have to follow along.

Periodically Mother could survey the children to see if any were cheating by moving more than Mother allowed.

When someone reached Mother they then became Mother.

As the Nanny state Mother of all New York City Michael Bloomberg declared today no one is to purchase a sweetened soda drink of more than 16 oz.

This is like saying we'll no longer sell cigarettes to minors - it sounds good but it doesn't stop minors from smoking.  Now drinking larger quantities of soda will become enticing simply because its forbidden.

I suppose that NYC will have to hire "drink police" to come around and measure everyone's serving size.  For example, in a bar if I order, say, a "Captain and Coke" will I be allowed to have a large glass?

Mother may I have a large glass of an adult beverage?

Free speech is also moving into the realm of "Mother May I..."

Apparently this YouTube video trailer for "Innocence of Muslim's" by "Sam Baclile" has caused the deaths of US Ambassador to Libya along with several people in his entourage.  The real filmmaker is thought to be Nakoula Basseley Nakoula according to this article.

Who ever the producer and director are of this film we know it was produced in the United States.

This fact makes it an expression of free speech.

Just like other anti-religious, satirical films such as Monty Python's "The Life of Brian."  In 1979 this was considered by Christians as a religious outrage and even blasphemous.

Yet no riots ensued after its release in the US (it was produced in the UK).

No members of the UK's US embassy were murdered in cold blood.

However, yesterday it was revealed that the US government is "looking into" the affairs of Mr. Bacile/Nakoula in this WSJ article.

According to this article Mr. Bacile/Nakoula is a convicted (2009) felon (no, not for making movies) for defrauding banks.  He served about 21 months in prison.

Part of his parole agreement is that he may not use the internet.  So the US seeks to punish Mr. Bacile/Nakoula by using indirect legal means to silence him and his film: basically by showing that in order to make the film he used the internet and hence violated parole.

Mother May I make a satire?

Satire has been a mainstay of American journalism for hundreds of years and is explicitly protected by the US Constitution (Amendment I): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now some have made the argument that a movie like this is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  However, in this case, as with many other unpleasant forms of speech (such as that of Klansmen and various white supremacy groups) the government can only suppress it in very specific circumstances, e.g., the incitement of an illegal overthrow of the government.

The quality of this trailer (I have not seen the entire movie) as comical.  The quality is what you might expect from a student satire film.

And certainly free speech in the US is not bound by the laws of other countries nor is there (or at least in the past there was not) any limit on films against violent regimes.  For example, here is a list of several dozen anti-Nazi films produced in the US.

Apparently according to various articles Mr. Bacile/Nakoula is a Coptic Christian.

A religious group which in Egypt is noted by Human Rights Watch as targeted for "growing religious intolerance."

Perhaps US officials should investigate Human Rights Watch?

Mother May I cover up the lack of security at my Embassies?

The embassy attack was known to the US administration at least 48 hours in advance.

More than likely all of this noise about this film in the US is to simply cover up that fact that Embassies have poor defenses, e.g., no ammo loaded into their guns, as a result of US State department or other current US leadership bumbling.

Mother May We ALL take two steps backward.

Climate and Financial "Models" - The New Pornography?

Yesterday I wrote about pornography and climate change.

One of the often cited reasons that we should all "believe" is that the climate models tell us things are our fault.  (This aside from the fact that the mere fact climate disaster is presented in video form is suspect.)

Climate models are computer programs into which people put all the data they have as well as various computational rules to apply to that data.  The model then produces "predictions" based on the data.

These models are always present to the great unwashed as "supremely accurate" in their predictions.

But are they?

It turns out they are not as accurate as we might think or believe.

First off there are many climate models, in 2007 as many as twenty or more.

Secondly, and more importantly, there are questions being raised about the accuracy of these models (see this as an example).

From this site for example:

and

Now these types of plots showing the discrepancy between the model's prediction and reality have been around for some time.

Yesterday I found this interesting quote: "...that models can capture all necessary information and then accurately predict future risk."

However, this is not from a climate discussion but from a financial discussion (see this).

It turns out that government uses models for other things besides the climate.  In this case predicting the soundness of financial institutions.

In a discussion about the Basil II banking standards designed to protect investors and the public from bank failures the notion of "models" is discussed: "A deadly flaw in financial regulation is the assumption that a few years or even a few decades of market data can allow models to accurately predict worst-case scenarios. The authors suggest that hundreds or even a thousand years of data might be needed before we could trust the Basel machinery."

Now financial markets are not as complex and planetary weather.  After all, at least theoretically one could capture (in today's computer driven trading world) every transaction associated with a given market.

However, my guess is that government regulators cannot manage this amount of data, nor can industry provide it.

So instead, like climate scientists, they use a model.

A flawed model.

Why is it flawed?  Who knows.

But the issue is that the modeling process is a failure: To wit, the investment bank Bear Stearns, which was in compliance with all regulatory models, failed during the financial crisis of 2008.

Now a financial system has a finite number of data points, unlike a climate system which has an infinite number.  Similarly since all the trading transactions occur on computers one imagines that there is a complete set of written rules to describe that system.

A planetary climate system, on the other hand, has an unmeasurable number of interactive rules and elements: plants, animals, humans, the sun, the orbit of the planet, gravity, the makeup of the planet, the atmosphere, solar flares, and on and on.

And these things do not occur in one spot where they can be accurately measured.  Instead there are some 510 million square kilometers of earth surface to think about and measure.

So even measuring each thing once per square kilometer requires 510 million measurements.

Take each measurement once per hour and you have 12 billion measurements per day.

But we don't have sensors all over the ocean, for example, so we can't accurately do even this much.

So we have to estimate.

No doubt like they have to do on the financial side...

And things break down.

But today's folks get locked into "believing in the model" - whether it works or not apparently.

Why?

Like pornography the model creates a focus point where believers can find comfort.  It takes their minds away from the reality that have a real scientific theory of weather with measurable prediction is well beyond what humanity is capable of at this point.

But models, like pornography, appear to be nice substitutes for the "real thing" that are easy for people to believe in.

The only problem would appear to be that they don't always work...