tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89948183532547028372024-03-15T00:45:40.617+08:00Physics, philosophy and phantasmagoriaExperiments in intellectual promiscuity.Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-51144258949936654382011-08-15T18:09:00.007+08:002011-08-16T20:45:42.418+08:00Heresy is the Best Policy: Why The World Needs Heretics (Part 2 of 2)<link href="file://localhost/Users/joannatessbarcelona/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List"></link> <style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 232.65pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;">The world needs heretics. If every philosopher, every writer or every artist agrees with what’s generally accepted, society will never progress. If no one dares to be a heretic, there will be no improvement for humanity. The most obvious example is in science: If every scientist simply accepts the established paradigms, no research will take place. So why call yourself a scientist if you do not seek to improve, augment or even challenge the accepted paradigms? Similar questions could be asked for other vocations: Why call yourself a philosopher if all you do is simply swallow and restate the prevailing philosophies? Why call yourself a writer if your main goal is just to appease the powers that be or to elicit a positive reviews? And why call yourself an artist if you are afraid of offending the sensibilities of the public?</span></span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPBQrII40wlWECajPZ3ZD0K0bWSEupe22ubsi_G5M3C6cS5TNLqGQFK5Xz8YO7Pbw3t4MVnPNQ9tjmR_FyAX9DREgNgfabYY7NRsD9J_W2lJ-4YeVjKPMmB1gcRAfXaSyn94u4pqZ5z45m/s1600/phd_in_heresy_basic_t_shirt-p235474766640318642tdh0_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPBQrII40wlWECajPZ3ZD0K0bWSEupe22ubsi_G5M3C6cS5TNLqGQFK5Xz8YO7Pbw3t4MVnPNQ9tjmR_FyAX9DREgNgfabYY7NRsD9J_W2lJ-4YeVjKPMmB1gcRAfXaSyn94u4pqZ5z45m/s320/phd_in_heresy_basic_t_shirt-p235474766640318642tdh0_500.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Any proper PhD is a PhD is heresy.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 232.65pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: small; line-height: 19px;"></span></span><br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">If there is no one around bold enough to disturb people’s minds and sensibilities, people will start to become comfortable with their beliefs and tastes. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Society needs heretics to offend the orthodoxy and rattle the established order. When there is no one around to challenge the prevailing beliefs and tastes, dogma starts to take hold of the minds of the many. But since truth is mainly in the search itself and since to accept dogma is to abandon the search altogether, it is therefore true that to embrace dogma is to forgo truth.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is therefore the duty of heretics – of every true scientist, philosopher, writer or artist – to force people to clean their intellectual and aesthetic consciences and to constantly force them to ask themselves the following questions: “What should I believe in and why should I believe it? Whom should I believe and why should I believe him? What should I value and why should I value it?” The heretic’s role in society is to force everyone to think. In short, his role is to make everyone a heretic like himself. Heresy is a virus; this is why the establishment has always killed heretics.</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is one of the greatest legacies of the Enlightenment to recognize that there is great value in heresy. After all, what are universities, libraries, art museums and theaters if not the breeding ground of heretics? Universities are useless if all of its professors and students simply appease public opinion and art museums are pointless if all its artists simply regurgitate old motifs to please the masses and are scared of offending the public’s sensibilities. It is the responsibility of the professors at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, for example, and of the artists whose works are exhibited at the Cultural Center of the Philippines to disturb us, to disconcert us and even to offend us. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Society funds institutions such as PUP and the CCP because it needs its regular dose of shock and agitation, because it needs it heretics. Institutions hosting heretical professors and offensive artists are supported by public money because these people serve as the gnats of society, reminding its people to be ever-vigilant and thoughtful. Without our heretics, society would be in slumber. That, or we get our money back. Oh yes, I believe we deserve a tax refund due to the fact that <em>Poleteismo </em>was pulled down from CCP. Our tax money is wasted on the CCP if the CCP is not able to exhibit and host “blasphemous” and offensive works of art. The fact that the conservative Catholics won’t understand this argument stems from the fact that they still want to live in the Middle Ages when theocracies were not yet considered evil and when the Enlightenment has not yet introduced the value of heresy. It seems that the conservatives will always fail to comprehend the fact that the freedom of religion and speech is the freedom to become a heretic and to offend.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The conservatives who want society to remain sleeping and silenced naturally hate the heretics who stimulate the people to engage in constant conversation. The sound of dissenting opinion cuts them to the quick. A society in conversation and discussion is their worst nightmare. Perhaps this agoraphobia is proof that they cannot defend their so-called "truths" in the agora of ideas. What more, the powers that be are scared shitless of the heretics because heretics challenge the source of their undeserved power. They will use any means possible – force, the threat of excommunication and eternal damnation, political machinery or obscene stock market wealth – to silence those who disagree. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;"><span data-mce-style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But the heretics – the scientists, philosophers, writers and artists – will not be silenced. This they will say in the face of fierce intolerance: “I think, therefore I am a heretic. I refuse to give up my sacred right to think and to surrender my obligation to offend.”</span></span></div></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-30342827177975247292011-08-14T12:48:00.007+08:002011-08-15T19:05:27.473+08:00Heresy is the Best Policy: The Value of Heresy (Part 1 of 2)<link href="file://localhost/Users/joannatessbarcelona/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List"></link> <style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 2 1 2 1 8 4 8 7 8;
mso-font-charset:2;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 65536 0 -2147483648 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:36.0pt;
mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:230697059;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:454215258 1695734668 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-start-at:0;
mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">The great Clarence Darrow once said, “To think is to differ.” This truth implies that those who cannot disagree cannot think. Independent thinking is the only kind of thinking there is; to unquestioningly embrace opinions handed down <em style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;">ex cathedra </em>is to abdicate one’s sacred right to think.</span></span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span id="more-15419" style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"></span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">More importantly, the fact that thinking is differing implies that those who do not tolerate dissenting opinions do not tolerate thought. If disagreeing against orthodoxy is turned into a wrongdoing then the act of thinking is effectively criminalized. To require a group of people to think in the same way and to have the same opinion on important matters is to stifle their right to think, it is to make intellectual zombies out of them. No matter how intelligent a person is, this intelligence will mean nothing if he will allow himself to be the slave of a hive mind.</span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">We can therefore restate Darrow’s words in the following manner: To think is to be a heretic.</span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">This is perhaps why Roman Catholics who are for the RH Bill are effectively branded by the CBCP as heretics. Apparently, using one’s brain automatically excludes one from the Communion of Saints, if the bishops are to be believed. Perhaps this is also why Filipino secularists are heretics. In a country where the violation of church-state separation is “standard practice”, only those who think on their own manage to see the Catholic clergy’s practices for what they really are – acts of corruption, greed and abuse of undeserved power.</span></div></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">The said facts force upon us the following conclusion: Heresy is the best policy. I therefore urge everyone who values truth to be heretics! In other words, think! After all, everyone worthy of some consideration was a heretic. Only heretics change the world; without heretics, human history would be a never ending Dark Age.</span></div></div></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4u_nUN-Nsl-1vFe5d0ea3oLC3E9gPEhInFCulXkxqFhbkn4YWwEa5iABaduylCtwkITbc6ky2g2KSlLVp0Nt6Jc6zFf6BJt2hya0hDjDjloT38OJU_JtwevffstZi0bBZMIZWufOsKgen/s1600/c_darrow_x.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4u_nUN-Nsl-1vFe5d0ea3oLC3E9gPEhInFCulXkxqFhbkn4YWwEa5iABaduylCtwkITbc6ky2g2KSlLVp0Nt6Jc6zFf6BJt2hya0hDjDjloT38OJU_JtwevffstZi0bBZMIZWufOsKgen/s400/c_darrow_x.jpg" width="316" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Clarence Darrow. What that fierce face is saying: "I want YOU to be a heretic!"</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Being enemies of the Jewish orthodoxy of their time, the prophets of the Old Testament were all heretics; Isaiah and Jeremiah were not known for being popular among the commoners, nor were they ever called “bruddah” by the Jewish high priests. Jesus Christ himself was a heretic who greatly outraged the orthodoxy of his time, and the same can be said of Martin Luther who came after him. I even have the feeling that if Christ were alive today, the bishops who run the CBCP would be the first ones to ask for his head.</span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">The tragedy with the said heretics, however, is that they were turned into orthodoxy; there is no better way to destroy a heretic than to give his words absolute authority. So many great heretics have been ruined in this way. For example, its detractors would have better appreciated Marx’s ideas had the Communists not make a religion out of them. The same can be said of Ayn Rand’s ideas, which are beautiful, and her androids, who worship those ideas blindly. Even Sigmund Freud, a man whose blood is 100% distilled heretic juice, was ruined when generations of psychologists decided to venerate his exquisitely provocative ideas, blindly according to them the status of fact. People frequently miss the point of heretics: What we value in them are their questions, not their answers.</span></div></div></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXA18PFoxYOtkzbrvrpMJBTvVF4DIXolqJJV0rhG8wU5xtKI11YpxrYVtB55XWC4kciz7A4uojCZW7pP24Zd36-l9UyOwrqFMAy363tusf3D0C6jr93Y-TTSpNWKJcVY19P11TP3X40zn_/s1600/Crucif15.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXA18PFoxYOtkzbrvrpMJBTvVF4DIXolqJJV0rhG8wU5xtKI11YpxrYVtB55XWC4kciz7A4uojCZW7pP24Zd36-l9UyOwrqFMAy363tusf3D0C6jr93Y-TTSpNWKJcVY19P11TP3X40zn_/s640/Crucif15.gif" width="432" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">This man was nailed on the cross as a punishment for his heresies.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small; line-height: 18px;">Fortunately, the best heretics have avoided becoming orthodoxy. Socrates is a good example of the consummate heretic; his life and death are proof that to be a philosopher is to be a heretic. Darwin was another a heretic to the bone, and he need not fear being turned into orthodoxy; science will never have its sacred cows. In fact, science thrives on disrespect for authority. As physicist Richard Feynman said, in the world of ideas one must “have no respect whatsoever for authority.” The establishing of orthodoxy is the end of science, a fact many anti-science people fail to grasp. Hence, to think scientifically is to be a heretic. Let me mention but a few more great heretics: Copernicus and Liszt, Giordano Bruno and Voltaire, Leo Tolstoy and Jose Rizal, C.S. Lewis and Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Buber and Salman Rushdie.</span></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiytmETRGzV7pOhvEvAWpZpsSycDwFpWi3zBBzE2Z40KyqCUkzrvT5-4EZb_vm3G-fBn9Kskhl1KHKd6IKB7n0bK3HDgsqXCCVYeftbNYACqEYmw_tn3N5AMC-GGzdOHnb0UuaRqvby-L9M/s1600/noli.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiytmETRGzV7pOhvEvAWpZpsSycDwFpWi3zBBzE2Z40KyqCUkzrvT5-4EZb_vm3G-fBn9Kskhl1KHKd6IKB7n0bK3HDgsqXCCVYeftbNYACqEYmw_tn3N5AMC-GGzdOHnb0UuaRqvby-L9M/s640/noli.jpg" width="441" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">A very heretical book, this one.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small; line-height: 18px;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">I want to make it clear that I am not advocating metaphysical relativism. In many matters, the truth is still the truth, and those who disagree with it, no matter how heretical, must be schooled for their error. But holding something as true and using it as the basis of orthodoxy are leagues apart. When you hold something as true and are confident of its truth, there is no need to silence those who think otherwise. People who are confident of their truths tolerate dissenting opinion.</span></div><div style="border-bottom-width: 0px; border-color: initial; border-left-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-top-width: 0px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 15px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">It must also be noted that not all heretical ideas are golden. In fact, many of them are even more wrong and dangerous than orthodox ideas. We do not value heretical ideas intrinsically; what we value instead is the fact that these heretical ideas can be freely spoken out, listened to and criticized. After all, as any avid truth seeker knows well, the existence of a market place of ideas where philosophies and worldviews can be presented and debated on freely is crucial in the search for truth. As I always like to say, a world without disagreement is a world without truth. All our hard won truths – from philosophical systems to scientific theories, from sociopolitical ideas to mathematical theorems, from theological treatises to criticisms of religion – are all products of the sustained discourse between generations of political thinkers, scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, scholars of theology and advocates of a cause. These truths were the products of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, of proposal, critique and compromise. We would never have enjoyed these truths were it not for the heretics who risked life and limb to battle the fierce orthodoxy.</span></div></div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkg1pY1UBfczqpBd8zrTNmHj9dYThKTdhyQQMboUUm95hWOW2wDrggqjYxSLYpicS1eUOlKqXPJOTz_hrM3aAh2_43Z1UKqo4Qcy9kwY3PGgWRBK3wVmUD4ftf-d9aI2wdnzObWKrAabzD/s1600/Religion-Overthrowing-Heresy-And-Hatred.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="446" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkg1pY1UBfczqpBd8zrTNmHj9dYThKTdhyQQMboUUm95hWOW2wDrggqjYxSLYpicS1eUOlKqXPJOTz_hrM3aAh2_43Z1UKqo4Qcy9kwY3PGgWRBK3wVmUD4ftf-d9aI2wdnzObWKrAabzD/s640/Religion-Overthrowing-Heresy-And-Hatred.jpg" width="640" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">'Religion Overcoming Heresy.' Sad to say, my dear pope, it's the other way around. </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-81231170180340306452011-08-11T19:48:00.004+08:002011-08-15T19:06:10.749+08:00Love as a Candle-bearer<link href="file://localhost/Users/joannatessbarcelona/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml" rel="File-List"></link> <style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page Section1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSWvI6rAuSpOtNW_qrmbmm2EbSBSgGDT6ZQlSKi50yrYwYu5dk2GnUQNhotavE4_mgnTmfYxwVJldYkUhIOpNiRrZATtr504lxAilaB1kr4y_84jX2BOThTHU5OfIN3MkkcPdMBQzu852Q/s1600/Candle-bearer.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><img border="0" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSWvI6rAuSpOtNW_qrmbmm2EbSBSgGDT6ZQlSKi50yrYwYu5dk2GnUQNhotavE4_mgnTmfYxwVJldYkUhIOpNiRrZATtr504lxAilaB1kr4y_84jX2BOThTHU5OfIN3MkkcPdMBQzu852Q/s640/Candle-bearer.png" width="640" /></span></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">If you don’t have anything bad to say about a person, then you don’t have anything to say about him at all. To know a person is to know him in his worst.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">More importantly, you cannot say you love a person until you have seen what is most wretched and ugly in him. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Therefore, to those who love, do not be blind to what is repulsive and despicable in the one you love. They say love is blind; I say love sees everything. And love wants to see everything because to love a person is to love totally. There is no other kind of love. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">And to those who wish to be loved, do not hide from your potential lover what is most repugnant in you. A person cannot love you until you have shown him all the skeletons in your closet. If someone shuns you because of what is worst in you, then that person does not deserve what is best in you. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">But then they also say love is accepting a person for who she is. Again, this is not true. What is love for if it does not make you a better person? It is a worthless love that does not turn your worst weakness into your greatest strength. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">So the next time the candle-bearer that is Love knocks at the door of your skeleton-filled closet, do not bother tidying it up and welcome Love at once! It is, after all, Love’s sacred duty to go to the darkest recess of a one’s heart and flood it with some light. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: small;">Love, like Friendship, can strengthen and empower you in ways you can seldom fathom. </span></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-27415648431370133072011-05-30T13:06:00.001+08:002011-05-30T13:07:01.601+08:00What The Debate About the RH Bill Shouldn’t Be About<div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">There are some laws that a country <em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">should</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"><i> </i></span>pass if it is to make progress into the 21<sup>st</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>century. The Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill) is one of them. But there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the said proposed bill. For this we should congratulate the Catholic Church hierarchy, especially the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), for making a controversy out of something that shouldn’t be controversial at all. (Media sensationalism has its role in this one, too.)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">Debate rages on. Now, that’s supposed to be a good thing. After all, a world without arguments is a world without truth. However, a lot of time has been wasted on discussions that have nothing or little to do with the very real and urgent problem at hand.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">Here are just some of the things that debates on the RH Bill, like the upcoming “Grand Debate” on GMA, shouldn’t be about.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">1. Overpopulation and population control</span></strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">: Even if the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Philippines</st1:place></st1:country-region> were not over populated, the RH Bill should still be passed. Although it is intimately related to the population issue,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">at the heart of the RH Bill is an issue of human rights, not population control</span></strong>. “Do poor people have the right to have state-supported family planning<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">options</span></strong><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">accurate information</span></strong>? Do our young people have the right to<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">scientifically accurate</span></strong><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>and<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">age-appropriate</span></strong><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>sex education?” To oppose the RH Bill is to answer these questions with a no. That is, to oppose the RH Bill is to deny poor women of the right to accessible reproductive health options. To say no to the RH Bill is to say that our young people should not be given correct information regarding their reproductive health and sexuality.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">Don’t get me wrong. Like any rational person, I would like to see the CBCP get creamed in a debate on overpopulation. But time is running out. We can discuss the population issue some other time. For now, we must tackle the heart of the problem, and the heart of the problem is an issue of human rights, not overpopulation.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">After all, the RH Bill is no One Child Policy. The RH Bill, unlike the Catholic hierarchy, will not dictate anything to anyone; it will merely provide options to those who don’t currently have them. The Bill won’t stop people from “going out to the world and multiplying” if they want to. Its goal is to help those who need help. And they need help<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">now</span></strong>.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">2. Artificial contraception</span></strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">: Yes, the RH Bill will make condoms and pills available. But aren’t they already? It’s not like artificial contraceptives are illegal in this country. Bottom line:<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">the RH Bill is not about artificial contraception, it is about the right of the poor, especially of poor women, to have access to the birth control method of their choice</span></strong>. This gets buried in many debates so I will have to stress it again: The RH Bill will give poor women a CHOICE. When the RH Bill becomes law, the government won’t go around forcing women to take birth control pills or sneaking into people’s houses at night and perform vasectomies on sleeping husbands. Unlike the Catholic Church, the RH Bill won’t make the state shove anything down anyone’s throat.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">However, when the RH Bill gets passed, the poor will then have many options suddenly opened to them. So<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">to be anti-RH is not to be anti-contraceptives but to be anti-poor</span></strong>. If you really are anti-contraceptives, why waste your time fight the RH Bill? Why not go fighting the Big Pharma companies that are producing and distributing those “evil” oral contraceptives. Or why not go fight Captain Condom, the super-elastic superhero who can withstand tremendous stress, strain and pressure. And who will stop at nothing to kill those sacred, God-given sperm cells.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">3. Elimination of poverty</span></strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">: No RH Bill proponent or supporter would ever claim that the RH Bill is THE answer to all the woes of Philippine society. However, the RH Bill is an essential part of a program to combat poverty. Once the RH Bill becomes law, poor women will gain control over their fertility. This will increase their social mobility and will therefore increase their capability to contribute to the country’s labor force. This will also allow poor families to better allocate their limited resources to the children they chose to have. The end result is that our country’s young will end up being better taken care of. This translates to more Rizals and Benigno Aquinos. Or, if you want, more Pacquiaos.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">4. Pre-marital sex</span></strong><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">: It is not the state’s duty to endorse much less enforce a particular religious morality. The only morality that government is mandated to enforce is secular morality. This means that as far as the state is concerned, the morality or ethicality of a sexual act has nothing to do with whether priests, pastors or imams have given their go signal. If the bishops want to meddle with the sex lives of their followers, they must not ask the government’s help to do it. (After all, in some areas, especially in those concerning children, they seem to know just how to do it. And they know how to keep it to themselves it as well.)<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">In fact, based on a secular morality,<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><strong><span style="font-family: Georgia;">it is the bishops who are on the immoral side of the issue</span></strong>. Why? Because in the 21<sup>st</sup>century sexual intercourse must be considered ethical only if all the parties directly involved have agreed to the act<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><em><span style="font-family: Georgia;">and</span></em><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>if they possess accurate knowledge of the consequences. This means that opposing the RH Bill because it aims to improve the state of sex education in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Philippines</st1:place></st1:country-region> is immoral, since it will make our citizens ignorant of the consequences and responsibilities that come with having sex. Such ignorance translates to more cases of HIV infections/AIDS and more untimely pregnancies, both of which are truly detrimental to our country’s welfare.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">Now, based on their statements, many enemies of the Bill seem to consider morality as synonymous to ignorance regarding sexual matters. For them, a scienfically-informed awareness of human sexuality is detrimental to the country’s moral health. One is reminded of anti-RH signs saying “Values education, not sex education”. What kind of bankrupt minds can think of such absurd and obviously false dichotomies?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><br />
</div><div style="background: white; line-height: 14.25pt;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 10pt;">Such moral idiocy in the part of the anti-RH camp makes the old Victorians look broad-minded. Given the desire of our country for economic, social and moral progress in the 21<sup>st</sup><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>century, such moral idiocy should not be listened to in the halls of Congress. The RH Bill should be passed, and it should be passed as soon as possible. No time should be wasted on having useless debates that have little or even nothing to do with the very real and pressing problem at hand.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-30156956631691068332011-05-30T12:59:00.008+08:002011-08-15T19:10:27.247+08:00Philosophy and the tragic virtues, or Philosophy as an ode to life<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">All of philosophy originates from two things – burning curiosity and uncompromising honesty. All the other rudiments of good philosophy like eagle-eyed insightfulness, logical rigor and exacting intellectual standards, passionate skepticism, a deep moral and existential concern for matters of life and death and, of course, a teary-eyed wonder, spring from these two wellsprings, these two cardinal virtues.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"> Curiosity, because philosophy is naught without deep reflection, and reflection is impossible without curiosity. But being reflective is not enough. Many people spend all their intellectual energies reflecting on deep questions, but they end up holding on to their comforting beliefs. But such comfort-beliefs are like comfort pillows, nice to hug and cuddle; however, they’re mostly air and won’t stand against a moment of honest scrutiny. So why are they held on to dearly, and not only by the all-too-many, but also by those who are intelligent and reflective? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The reason is that the other pillar of good philosophy, intellectual honesty, is all too often lacking. Intellectual honesty is a requirement of any philosophical search, and when philosophizing is done without honesty – and uncompromising honesty at that – personal predispositions, the irrational desires of our animal selves and that dreaded monster called public prejudice infiltrate our thinking. These infiltrators combine in the end to make up our comfort-beliefs. Comfort-beliefs are, well, comfortable, and people cherish and hold on to them because they supposedly make life bearable. But I can’t see how one could bear living a life centered on a comforting lie.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">“The unexamined life is no life for a man at all.” While often ascribed to Socrates, it is in fact only quoted by Socrates from the great tragedian Sophocles, author of what Aristotle called the perfect tragedy, <i>Oedipus the King</i>. It should be no surprise that such a deep truth should come from the mouth of a tragedian. After all, Oedipus, the uncommonly good man, was also uncommonly honest, and all his woes were caused by his attempt to know himself. But what Sophocles says in <i>Oedipus</i> is not that all acts of soul-searching lead to high tragedy; rather, his message is that when one seeks to know oneself, one needs nothing less than the tragic virtues. The tragic virtues are those which make the tragic hero shine even in his darkest moments, those that elevated him even when he is most downtrodden, and those that imbue his life with the utmost beauty even after he has suffered the ugliest of evils. The tragic virtues are virtues that lend life a tragic dimension. It is this tragic dimension that gives dignity and beauty to Oedipus, to Hamlet, to Madam Bovary.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="tab-stops: 2.0in; text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But why the tragic virtues? This leads us back to the question of honesty, specifically intellectual honesty or what Nietzsche calls the intellectual conscience. Many brilliant minds lack this most important of virtues. As a result, when a line of reasoning leads them to dangerous grounds, they start to falter. Truth, they might reason with their brilliant minds, can’t be so heart-wrenching. Reality, they might argue using high-worded arguments, can’t be as cold as it seems. The masses ought to be right after all because the great majority of mankind can’t be so deluded and mistaken, they might write in big heavy tomes. All these of course to silence that painful whisper of conscience that keeps them awake in the wee hours of the night. They lull themselves back to sleep using philosophy. Oh, how they would rather slumber than face the truth! Truth, after all, is a dreaded monster. Better run away from it rather than face it.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">To be able to face this dreaded monster called truth, the thinker must embody the first tragic virtue – a sense of nobility. What I mean here is not the outmoded nobility that can be inherited from one’s parents. I am talking about nobility that is gained through discipline: a nobility of the spirit. By sense of nobility I mean that desire to distinguish oneself from the common, that determination to rise above the putrid mediocrity of the masses, that sense that mere existence is painfully not enough. The nobility of the spirit is not something that stays with you once you have it – you have to constantly work hard to hold on to it, for it is effortlessly brushed away by the dilly-dally of everyday life and is quickly eroded by the littlest concessions to comfort. To retain this sense of nobility, one has to demand highly of oneself. As a result, one who embodies a sense of nobility will always find herself excelling in one area or another, and in seeking more areas in which to excel. Such is her internal drive towards distinction and merit. And even better, one who embodies a sense of nobility will always find herself in the company of truth, no matter how disconcerting truth is. She is too elevated to tolerate the presence of untruth, no matter how comforting it may seem. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">From a sense of nobility comes out the second tragic virtue – courage. A member of the spiritual nobility will not allow himself to be seen acting in a cowardly manner. And courage is certainly needed in facing the truth, for the most brilliant of minds cower behind comfortable beliefs, established dogma or public opinion for want of it. And since the comfort-loving majority will not tolerate those who question their source of comfort, one who seeks the truth will also need courage to face the terrifying tyranny of public opinion; he should be prepared for isolation. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">But a human person, no matter how noble, cannot survive in complete isolation. For this, the truth-seeker needs the third tragic virtue – deep love and true friendship. The truth-seeker can enjoy the hatred of those whom she hates only if she basks in the passionate love of those whom she loves. And she loves promiscuously; she does not love merely those whom she has met. Her lovers include the great heroes of the past and the great hopes of the future. And for the sake of these loved ones, she will strive to become stronger; she will do her best to deserve their love. And for the sake of her loved ones, she will not tolerate a lie. Brutal honesty is the foundation of her love. Self-knowledge is at the heart of all her relationships. And because of her loved ones, the truth-seeker loves life with a deep kind of love, a love that will not falter no matter what life throws her way.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">This is the thinker’s fourth tragic virtue – love of life. Nietzsche found its best expression in Latin: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">amor fati</i>, the love of fate. The true thinker, the freethinker, loves life too much to be contented with seeing it through a veil. And he is prepared to love truth and life no matter how they will look; reality can never be too beastly for his love. In the face of all the ugliness that comes his way, he will sing odes to life, and he will sing them with all the joy and exuberance of a free songbird. It is in this way more than in any other that his thinking is free; this is why he calls himself a freethinker.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Rare are those who posses the tragic virtues. And hence rare are those who are honest enough to engage in true philosophy. Many will of course think deeply, some will even engage in academic philosophy. But true philosophy is not just logic and deep thought. True philosophy is also musing and mulling over, even wrestling against a problem. And like the songbird he seeks to emulate, the freethinker knows that philosophy is a lot more like singing than those uptight academic philosophers might make it look. True philosophy is an ode to life.</span></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-29933009976261281462011-05-29T23:53:00.005+08:002011-05-29T23:58:33.135+08:00What in the world is laser? (Part 3 of 3)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">PART 3<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The author would like to thank the geniuses behind the new Microsoft Paint for making the figures in this part possible.</i>] <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>How are laser beams produced?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> Laser beams are the product of stimulated emission of light. But what is stimulated emission of light? Before we can answer this question, we must first discuss how matter interacts with light.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Light absorption<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Matter and light interact in two ways: matter can absorb light or it can emit light. When an atom absorbs a photon of light (a photon of light is a quantum of light energy), it takes the energy of that photon and one of its electrons become excited (although not sexually). An electron orbits the nucleus of an atom in one of the possible orbits. Larger orbits (orbits that take the electron farther from the atom) have greater energy. Normally, an electron will orbit the nucleus in the smallest possible orbit. This orbit is called the ground state. When an electron gets excited, it jumps from the ground state to an orbit with a higher energy. Such an orbit is called an “excited state”. An electron is excited when it is on one of the excited states. The excitation of an electron (represented by the symbol e<sup>-</sup>) by a photon is illustrated by Figure 1 below. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dNsWbfq9kDRHfBui9eZDvVePczxwHP2d1Kldits87KAPsQ82MRoBnuojyqycnONwc8D1U3ec_nheGXCkHvAAtjX6ZLrhM2pFcwuTx1DE-kDyCUA6EwZm1MOzQcIFjD0mpFWV6wdW6O3c/s1600/absorption.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="142" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dNsWbfq9kDRHfBui9eZDvVePczxwHP2d1Kldits87KAPsQ82MRoBnuojyqycnONwc8D1U3ec_nheGXCkHvAAtjX6ZLrhM2pFcwuTx1DE-kDyCUA6EwZm1MOzQcIFjD0mpFWV6wdW6O3c/s400/absorption.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 1. A photon of light (red oval with wave inside) is absorbed by an atom, resulting in the excitation of one of its electrons (e<sup>-</sup>, gray dot).</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The ground state and one excited state shown in Figure 6 are just two of the many possible orbits of an electron around the nucleus. From quantum mechanics we know that the possible orbits are quantized. The quantization of electron orbits is important, so let us stray a bit from the main topic to discuss it.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Using the most important equation of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger’s equation, physicist were able to discover that in a given atom, the electron can only have a certain set of energies. This set of energies is called the spectrum of the atom. The possible energies are denoted by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub></i>, <i>E<sub>1</sub></i>, <i>E<sub>2</sub></i>, <i>E<sub>3</sub></i> and so on. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0 </sub></i>is the smallest energy that an electron can possibly have. This is called the ground state energy. Obviously, this is the energy of an electron when it is in the ground state. (Recall that ground state is the smallest possible orbit.) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i> is the energy of the first excited state, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>2</sub> the energy of the second excited state, and so on. The energy of a higher excited state is always greater than the energy of the excited states before it. In other words, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub></i> is less than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i>, which in turn is less than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i>, which again in turn is less than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>3</sub></i> and so on. <span lang="DE">(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub></i> < <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i> < <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i> < <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>3</sub></i> < …) Now, here’s the most important bit. </span>An electron in an atom <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">cannot</i> have energy between <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub> </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i>. It is simply impossible for an electron to have energy greater than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub></i> but less than <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i>. Also, an electron can never have energy between <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i><sub> </sub>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i>, or between <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>3</sub></i>, and so on. The set {<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>0</sub></i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>3</sub></i>, …} gives the only possible energies of the electron.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Now we go back to absorption. Consider an electron initially in the ground state, so that its energy is initially <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>. Suppose then that a photon of light having energy <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>photon</sub> hits the electron. This photon will be absorbed by the atom and its energy will then be added to the original energy of the electron. The new energy of the electron after absorbing the photon will therefore be:<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>new<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></sub>= <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub> + <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>photon</sub>.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">But take note of this very important fact: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>new</sub></i> must be one of the allowed energies of the electron</b>. That is, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>new</sub> <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">must</b> be one of the following: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>1</sub></i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>2</sub></i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E<sub>3</sub></i> and so on. This means that if the energy of the photon, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>photon</sub>, is such that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>new</sub> is not one of the allowed energies of the electron, then the photon will be totally ignored – the atom will not absorb it. An atom will absorb a photon only if it will make <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>new</sub> be one of the allowed energies of the electron. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Figure 2 below illustrates a particular example. The red photon is ignored by the electron because its energy is not enough to make the electron jump to the first energy level. The purple photon, however, was absorbed, because its energy is just right to make the electron jump from the ground state (where energy is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>) to the first excited state (where energy is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>1</sub>). In other words, the sum of the red photon’s energy and the ground state energy (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>red</sub> + <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>) is not equal an allowed energy level, so electron ignores the photon completely. On the other hand, the sum of the energy of the purple photon and the ground state energy (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>purple</sub> + <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>) is exactly equal to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>1</sub>. Since <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>1</sub> is an allowed energy, the electron will absorb the purple photon.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJg5W8KRYe4ni0z4wMBRSEwAGAIkngjvxwRk_wUX-6rmNWRlSLEmvgqQY33fgvXs_6IBYmLMVEL8wsQdItqLrAu6F-a8UZvLA8zrW8l6N1A63qhOzuj8uOF47qOiMqcuXDvKoMZu0XFkFB/s1600/absorbed+photon.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJg5W8KRYe4ni0z4wMBRSEwAGAIkngjvxwRk_wUX-6rmNWRlSLEmvgqQY33fgvXs_6IBYmLMVEL8wsQdItqLrAu6F-a8UZvLA8zrW8l6N1A63qhOzuj8uOF47qOiMqcuXDvKoMZu0XFkFB/s400/absorbed+photon.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 2. (a) A red photon is ignored since the sum of its energy (<i>E</i><sub>red</sub>) and <i>E</i><sub>0</sub> is not equal to an allowed energy. (b) A purple photon is absorbed since the sum of its energy <i>E</i><sub>purple</sub> and <i>E</i><sub>0</sub> is exactly equal to <i>E</i><sub>1</sub>, which is an allowed energy.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Spontaneous Emission</b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The emission of light is just the inverse process of the absorption of light. Here, an electron in a certain energy level (that is, a certain excited state) falls down to a lower energy level (a lower excited state or the ground state). When an electron falls down to a lower energy level, we say that it “relaxes”. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Relaxation is just the inverse process of excitation. (Although this is only true for electrons. In humans, it’s certainly not the case.) When an electron relaxes, it loses energy. The energy lost is of course equal to the difference between the original energy and the new energy. This lost energy becomes the energy of an emitted photon. For example, consider an electron initially in the first excited state. This means that its initial energy is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>1</sub>. Suppose that this electron relaxes to the ground state, so that its final energy is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>. It is not difficult to see that this electron lost energy, and that the lost energy amounts to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>1</sub> – <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">E</i><sub>0</sub>. This energy becomes the energy of the emitted photon.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig9YBUeb-iQVIhoOvXnpH_GIL8HViUrrId73z7at2i0_kriop5HYCAhHpmw4pFlOjl71stnmUvieumuEHdFYLWAik3reALz4VJqwIXRS2BayicPmSlR82-Dure9PV_vPpj2n1_nRaz0rfr/s1600/spontaneous+emission.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEig9YBUeb-iQVIhoOvXnpH_GIL8HViUrrId73z7at2i0_kriop5HYCAhHpmw4pFlOjl71stnmUvieumuEHdFYLWAik3reALz4VJqwIXRS2BayicPmSlR82-Dure9PV_vPpj2n1_nRaz0rfr/s400/spontaneous+emission.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 3. An atom spontaneously emits a photon of light. The energy of the photon is equal to the energy lost by the electron: <i>E</i><sub>1</sub> – <i>E</i><sub>0</sub></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Of course, an electron does not have to come from the first excited state. It may come from the second excited state, or form the third excited state, and so on. The higher the electron falls, the greater the energy of the photon it emits. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b> </b>The situation shown on Figure 3, however, is just one type of emission called spontaneous emission (which does not have to be nocturnal). This is called so because the atom spontaneously emits a photon of light. Most light sources we know produce light by spontaneous emission. In a fluorescent light bulb, for example, electricity is used to excite the electrons of the atoms of a gas (usually the gas is mercury vapor). But the excitations are only momentary, because the electrons spontaneously jump back to the ground state and in the process emit photons of light. (These photons of light, however, are not what we “see” when we look at a fluorescent lamp. The photons produced in the said process have wavelengths in the ultraviolet region. This means that they are invisible to the human eyes. These invisible ultraviolet photons, however, cause the phosphorescent compound coating the inner lining of the lamp to glow. The phosphorescent compound is the white powder that is found inside the bulb.)<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> Laser beams, however, are not produced by spontaneous emission of light but rather by stimulated emission of light, hence the phrase “stimulated emission of radiation”. The very suggestive and juicy term stimulated emission describes the phenomenon where an atom emits light due to the stimulation of another photon. Basically, stimulated emission is just like spontaneous emission, only that it is not spontaneous.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Why Stimulated Emission is Amazing</b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> Stimulated emission has the following remarkable property: when a photon stimulates an atom to emit another photon of light, the emitted photon will have the same wavelength, phase, polarization and direction as the original photon. In short, the emitted photon is just a Doppelganger of the photon that stimulated its emission! <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3xMCfccRqKFv5e4_W_ihrDXtqZiSkUKetwGchN5-sUOEIEyp462IKZya3D5cNSImlOzSGBCSCAKeiAugdHDvOnu-KgX1pwYgl2BFT0txHXkYfNM45s7Fe5mkJSvM52qR8bOXxrllbCYU9/s1600/stimulated+emission.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3xMCfccRqKFv5e4_W_ihrDXtqZiSkUKetwGchN5-sUOEIEyp462IKZya3D5cNSImlOzSGBCSCAKeiAugdHDvOnu-KgX1pwYgl2BFT0txHXkYfNM45s7Fe5mkJSvM52qR8bOXxrllbCYU9/s400/stimulated+emission.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><br />
</b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Figure 4. A photon stimulates an atom with an electron in the excited state to release another photon. The emitted photon has the same wavelength, phase, polarization and direction as the original. One can think of it s a “clone” of the original.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">We can now see that when one has enough atoms with electrons in the excited states, then one can use stimulated emission to greatly increase the intensity of a certain light. This is because light intensity can also be measured through the number of photons in a given beam. The more photons there are, the greater the intensity. But notice that stimulated emission has the ability to practically double the number of photons of the given light source. This is illustrated in Figure 5 below, where three atoms with excited electrons are used to double the number of photons from three to six. This is where the “light amplification” part of LASER comes from. (Recall that laser means “light amplification via stimulated emission of radiation”.) <b><o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjasUlIXMa8vh7SpV-CaWQxVTbkU7Zh0h_ZVGYNotO5zL2M-A0NXJZpfampklDuppCesncW6qau1nSizr9RfPMxSHFPAsOMZ88Yq_-qZh0v4Z61w2L55KdA5Wird1mlmLYHObg6yHFFBKvX/s1600/light+amplification.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjasUlIXMa8vh7SpV-CaWQxVTbkU7Zh0h_ZVGYNotO5zL2M-A0NXJZpfampklDuppCesncW6qau1nSizr9RfPMxSHFPAsOMZ88Yq_-qZh0v4Z61w2L55KdA5Wird1mlmLYHObg6yHFFBKvX/s400/light+amplification.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 5. There are initially three excited atoms and three photons. Due to stimulated emission of radiation, the number of photons has been doubled from three to six. After emission, the electrons of the atoms are already in the ground state.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> But the light is not merely amplified by stimulated emission. The beam produced due to stimulated emission has the remarkable property of being composed to photons with the same wavelength (and therefore color), phase, polarization and direction. This is the reason why laser beams are highly monochromatic and coherent. Remember that to be monochromatic means to be composed of only one color. Since a laser is practically composed of an army of photon clones, a laser beam is very monochromatic indeed. Also, since the emitted photons have the same phase (which can be thought of as the tempo or vibration rhythm of the photon), polarization and direction, a laser beam has very high spatial and temporal coherence. In short, all the remarkable properties of laser beams are derived from a very remarkable property of stimulated emission!<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Laser Devices<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">But now I hear the result-oriented and practically-minded among you say: “But how do we prepare a collection of atoms with excited electrons? Does this not mean that we also need photons to excite these electrons? And does this not mean that we are cancelling the amplifying effect of stimulated emission because we will be using photons to double the number of photons? Isn’t it like investing 500 pesos to gain 500 pesos?” Well, the answer is that light absorption is not the only way to excite electrons. There are many other ways to cause electrons to become excited, like hitting them with electricity or heating to very high temperatures them. There are many different kinds of lasers and each kind uses a different strategy to prepare atoms with excited electrons. But once such atoms are prepared, stimulated emission can then be exploited to double the number of photons from a certain light source, thereby increasing the intensity of the light. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> In fact, in laser devices, the number of photons is not merely doubled, but is increased by several orders of magnitude. This is done by placing the gain medium in an optical resonator, as shown in Figure 6 below. The gain medium is the material that is used to amplify light. An optical resonator is a combination of two mirrors that make light bounce back and forth between them. One of these mirrors is a totally reflective mirror, while the other is a partially reflective and mirror. The partially reflective mirror allows some of the laser beam to pass while it reflects the rest. The beam that is reflected back can again stimulate even more atoms with excited electrons to emit photons. When it reaches the other end, it will be reflected by the totally reflecting mirror, and will then pass through the gain medium again, before reaching the partially reflecting mirror, where the cycle begins again. Notice, however, that once an atom is stimulated to emit radiation, its electron has already relaxed to the ground state. This means that after several rounds of stimulated emission, all the atoms will have ground state electrons only. So that the production of the beam is continuous, a “pumping energy” must be supplied to the gain medium constantly so that the atoms of the gain medium always have excited electrons.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5om-DqOHWORuR1wxh2HkfJt8CJtt5-yNJiM8STP16jmxVy5uK_p_QxzgolVVBUsilz1jLKAuMIAA9xkw1W2UwXbTb0RihBdJ4c-JoySOvdz3K9orxsMIS-tGWk0ZGZtCawiRJbI016L1q/s1600/laser+device.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5om-DqOHWORuR1wxh2HkfJt8CJtt5-yNJiM8STP16jmxVy5uK_p_QxzgolVVBUsilz1jLKAuMIAA9xkw1W2UwXbTb0RihBdJ4c-JoySOvdz3K9orxsMIS-tGWk0ZGZtCawiRJbI016L1q/s400/laser+device.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Figure 6. A simple schematic of a generic laser device.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>Summary</b><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Now let us sum up all that we have discussed in this series. We started this series with a question: What in the world is laser? Well, laser is short for Light Amplification via Stimulated Emission of Radiation. A laser device is a device that produces laser beams via a phenomenon known as stimulated emission. Because of the remarkable properties of stimulated emission, laser beams have the extraordinary property of being monochromatic and coherent. By saying that it is monochromatic, we mean that it only has one wavelength. By saying that it is coherent, we are saying that its photons are oscillating or vibrating “to the same rhythm and beat”. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Now I hear the astute ones among you say, “Wait a minute, I see an inconsistency here. One minute you describe light as being made up of waves; electromagnetic waves, to be precise. But now you are describing them using particle-like entities called photons. What really is light made of, electromagnetic waves or photons?” This is a very good question, and it has a very remarkable answer: Light is made both of electromagnetic waves and photons. But how is that possible?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Now that is a topic for a separate series. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-43058391021264895252011-05-14T21:35:00.007+08:002011-05-14T21:58:41.990+08:00What in the world is laser? (Part 2 of 3)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>What in the world is laser?<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b>PART 2</b><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">What do we mean by “highly coherent, usually monochromatic beam of electromagnetic waves”?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">For the sake of brevity, from now on we will use the word ‘light’ to denote not only visible light (electromagnetic waves our eyes can see) but electromagnetic waves in general. That is, when we say ‘light’ we mean electromagnetic waves, including radio waves, gamma rays and ultraviolet. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Now, a monochromatic ray of light is one in which the waves have the same wavelength or frequency. (The word ‘monochromatic’ came from the Greek words <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mono</i>, meaning one, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">chromos</i>, meaning color.) A ray of white light is not monochromatic since it consists of waves of different wavelengths. In other words, white light is made up of light of different colors. On the other hand, the light emitted by a colored light emitting diode (LED) is usually monochromatic. A blue LED emits only blue light.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The fact that laser beams are highly monochromatic finds use in many scientific and engineering applications, such as spectroscopy. In spectroscopy, laser beams with a very specific wavelength are sent through a sample to be analyzed. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">The next important property of laser beams is their high coherence. (What is certain is that they more coherent than the CBCP or the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Vatican</st1:place></st1:country-region>.) In the language of wave physics, coherence is the property of having waves that oscillate in phase of each other. Coherence comes in two kinds, temporal coherence (coherence in time) and spatial coherence (coherence in space). </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Temporal coherence (coherence in time) would be best explained by an analogy in dance: for two dancers to be able dance the tango well, their stepping must have the same tempo. In other words, dancers performing a ballroom dance must have temporally coherent foot movements. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Temporal coherence is very closely related to monochromaticity. In fact, temporal coherence is used to measure monochromaticity. Another important aspect of temporal coherence is uniform polarization. This gives laser beams their characteristic ‘glare’, which makes them dangerous to the eyes. Sometimes, the glare of laser beams is used by the police or the military to disorient a pursued individual or an enemy.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Spatial coherence, on the other hand, means that a ray of laser light can be focused to a very narrow beam, often called a “pencil beam”. In other words, laser light can be focused to a very small spot. This makes laser beams ideal for applications that require great precision, like reading digital information encoded in a CD, cutting intricate patterns into metal or wood, burning away tumors without destroying neighboring healthy cells, or correcting vision problems without further damaging the patient’s eyesight. In microscopy, lasers are used to obtain blur-free images of very small objects at various depths, and this is possible because laser beams can be very narrow. And do not forget the use of lasers in increasing the chance of a headshot.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeKkwujTFivDqjhOsdkiny7-uFEU512Tt9wbww4mNWPbEhYUxcHjv_sMC7xyNvNrIY23RUP4CWSNPx2N9Lnc6wkc9KaCbKmQzO99zHhKQcyTBFTlwa_dI5Ec7YmeI8r6_dXZYDVjGBXFfu/s1600/Sine_waves.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeKkwujTFivDqjhOsdkiny7-uFEU512Tt9wbww4mNWPbEhYUxcHjv_sMC7xyNvNrIY23RUP4CWSNPx2N9Lnc6wkc9KaCbKmQzO99zHhKQcyTBFTlwa_dI5Ec7YmeI8r6_dXZYDVjGBXFfu/s320/Sine_waves.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Figure 1. An illustration of coherence and monochromaticity. [Image copyright by knowledgerush.com]<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Spatial coherence is also the reason why lasers have high intensity. To understand why, it is important to know what intensity is in physics. Intensity is defined as the power distributed over a given area. In equation form,</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBingdc-UbU9AtdACF5BfrERo50fmgsmi7QbjsXEYzwBPOfKofP7CsIiw7-FNSdFIDgKftZ3tIK7BwYENp_jvk8IV_ZP0mrYJubROs5cb_xALcHf1i12mgCqLSTIs8p2zd8KJQuHsk9DMV/s1600/Intensity+formula.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="63" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjBingdc-UbU9AtdACF5BfrERo50fmgsmi7QbjsXEYzwBPOfKofP7CsIiw7-FNSdFIDgKftZ3tIK7BwYENp_jvk8IV_ZP0mrYJubROs5cb_xALcHf1i12mgCqLSTIs8p2zd8KJQuHsk9DMV/s200/Intensity+formula.png" width="200" /></a></div><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Here, power is the energy delivered by a source of light per second. The more energy a source is releasing in a second, the more power it delivers. Power is measured in watts (W). We are all familiar with the fact that different household appliances have different “power ratings”. The higher the power rating of an appliance, the more energy it delivers per second. In the case of light bulbs, a light bulb with greater power rating delivers more light energy per second than another light bulb with a lower power rating. For example, the light energy released per second by 20-W light bulb is two times more than the light energy released by a 10-W light bulb. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"> But notice that intensity is power <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">over</i> area. If power is distributed over a large area, then the intensity will be low. For this reason, the intensity of light from a normal light bulb dies down quickly as one go away from the source. In a normal light source, light energy is distributed over an area that becomes larger as one goes farther from the source. On the other hand, because of the spatial coherence of light emitted by lasers, the light energy they emit is concentrated in a very small area. This results in a very high intensity beam. The difference between a normal light bulb and a laser is illustrated by Figure 2 below. Figure 2a depicts the light emitted by a normal light source (like the light bulbs used at home). Figure 2b depicts the light emitted by a laser.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDBEuwTyy4IdjzBWiy3_0SNZwVnEchnppzgg399kkwN5vYx447FLoy3QxT1DCgJPYlNh_y5OmQeYMcWcm9GJUkR_niVcKmr5E9dpyBS5t6HnDOKSJZfODODRPOWh0NyM9Xjp6vyIdfY2Q/s1600/Untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDBEuwTyy4IdjzBWiy3_0SNZwVnEchnppzgg399kkwN5vYx447FLoy3QxT1DCgJPYlNh_y5OmQeYMcWcm9GJUkR_niVcKmr5E9dpyBS5t6HnDOKSJZfODODRPOWh0NyM9Xjp6vyIdfY2Q/s400/Untitled.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Figure 2. (a) A commercial light bulb distributes light energy over a large area, so that intensity is less. (b) A laser shoots out a narrow beam, concentrating light energy over a small area, so that intensity can be very high.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Because laser beams are composed of light rays that are concentrated in a very tiny area, they have very great intensity. Any Star Wars fan knows this; in the hands of an evil Empire, the high intensity of lasers can be used to wipe out whole races and destroy entire planets in a single colorful display of lights (all while orchestra music plays in the background, of course).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">Back to the real world, the great intensity of laser beams finds countless industrial applications such as in laser cutting, laser wielding, laser brazing, laser melting and laser bending.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">As with almost all technologies, the limits of laser technology depend only in the imagination of the engineer. In the hands of a very creating engineer (hopefully not an engineer of the Empire), the applications of lasers is limitless. Other current laser applications are laser ranging (using lasers to measure great distances), pollution monitoring, therapeutic skin treatments, holography, and nuclear fusion (where lasers are used to compress a nuclear fuel tight enough to cause a fusion). </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">And can you still imagine using a ball mouse? I can’t. So in summary: lasers rule!</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">We are now ready to address the last question: how are laser beams, with all their amazing properties, produced in the first place? In the last part of this series we will see how.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf_GpuT8ZWJj8JU_aAGFfVAYVUwRCzAdmkh1EfNcxmvBSTquP18ieBVtpKmgR6YV6nGKu7lljajp3TM6iIhjy8CnbqMXUPJrmXnotNb-rd7z1DXZ4yDEB0YhJRlxJfpODLDKinaWsBELDq/s1600/800px-Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf_GpuT8ZWJj8JU_aAGFfVAYVUwRCzAdmkh1EfNcxmvBSTquP18ieBVtpKmgR6YV6nGKu7lljajp3TM6iIhjy8CnbqMXUPJrmXnotNb-rd7z1DXZ4yDEB0YhJRlxJfpODLDKinaWsBELDq/s640/800px-Carbon_Dioxide_Laser_At_The_Laser_Effects_Test_Facility.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Figure 3. A test sample bursts into flames as a laser beam (here invisible to the naked eye) hits it.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><br />
<br />
<b>Part 3: How are laser beams produced?</b><br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">[1] <span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: black;">Hitz, <st1:place w:st="on">Ewing</st1:place> and Hecht, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Introduction to Laser Technology</i>, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed. IEEE Press, 1998.</span></span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">[2] <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Griffiths</st1:city></st1:place>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Introduction to Electrodynamics</i>. Prentice-Hall, 1999.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">[3] Harris, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nonclassical Physics</i>. Addison-Wesley, 1999.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-justify: inter-ideograph;">[4] www.knowledgerush.com<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in; text-justify: inter-ideograph;"><b><br />
</b></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-53903357794606716502010-12-27T12:55:00.014+08:002011-05-14T20:10:19.114+08:00What in the world is laser? (Part 1 of 3)<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[<i>Disclaimer: The author does not own Figures 1-4, nor does he own Yoda, although he certainly wishes that he does.</i>] </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We use them to point at things in a slide presentation; snipers use them to point at heads ready to be shot. They make cool technologies possible, from CDs and grocery store barcode scanners to metal cutters. We often hear that they can cause blindness, but we also know that they are used in surgical methods to correct many vision problems. In science fiction movies they shoot out of space ships, one can engage in duels using swords made of them, and there are ships which can destroy entire planets using them. Laser beams – they are both boon and bane. But what in the world are they?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN3_2q_UiSR09cOPCZg50srouJC0H-ZjmYUwq_B7-osuKsOJCZORrsVAsQIp-pF6lyzXbl2S85_9rJxofbPQ4Uq1jmnjBEoVSm7k29qzO6kaHZaxaPSBW3HYfFwdnYaU_MA9CAwOhPPM6a/s1600/yoda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN3_2q_UiSR09cOPCZg50srouJC0H-ZjmYUwq_B7-osuKsOJCZORrsVAsQIp-pF6lyzXbl2S85_9rJxofbPQ4Uq1jmnjBEoVSm7k29qzO6kaHZaxaPSBW3HYfFwdnYaU_MA9CAwOhPPM6a/s320/yoda.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Laser, what in the world is, hmm?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What in the world is laser?</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> The word laser stands for Light Amplification through the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Originally, ‘laser’ is a term for the light emission mechanism that produces a beam of laser light, or a laser beam. Today, however, ‘laser’ is used to denote devices that use the said mechanism to amplify light via stimulated emission of radiation.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, a laser beam is <b>a beam of highly coherent, often monochromatic electromagnetic waves</b>. And these beams are produced when <b>stimulation emission of electromagnetic waves amplifies light</b>. If you think that these are quite a mouthful, then grieve not, for in this series we will explain what they mean.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What is an electromagnetic wave?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> An electromagnetic wave is an oscillation or vibration in the electromagnetic field in a certain region of space. All the colors of the rainbow our eyes can see are electromagnetic waves of different wavelengths. Among the colors of the rainbow, red has the longest wavelength while violet has the shortest. All the other colors have wavelengths between that of red and violet. Colors closer to red have longer wavelengths while colors closer to violet have shorter wavelengths. White light is the result of the combination of all the colors of the rainbow.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But the colors of the rainbow (or of the LGTB flag) comprise only a sliver of a segment in the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is the continuum of all possible wavelengths (or frequencies) of electromagnetic waves, and the segment of the electromagnetic spectrum comprising the wavelengths visible to our eyes is called the visible light region. Other kinds of electromagnetic waves are invisible to our eyes, such as infrared rays, which have wavelengths that are longer than those of red light, and ultraviolet rays, which have wavelengths that are shorter than those of violet light. Radio waves, the kinds of electromagnetic waves we use to transmit radio signals, have wavelengths even longer than those of infrared light. X-rays and gamma rays, on the other hand, have wavelengths shorter than those of ultraviolet rays. (We can also describe electromagnetic waves using their frequency. Frequency is the inverse of wavelength, so that as wavelength becomes longer frequency decreases, and as frequency increases wavelength becomes shorter.)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNMe2WGclSlhqwJ1ySptQHEuGM3KvzNwNR1fCALt87Pa3Q86X6GGUUMv61tTV0WbUVLNst7LtIIWKcdqAWOHuH3kC1ejfGy-J4jl9aWc5fvWe6Vpnk1EB67boKshEcopVFAPykN3eNRfV/s1600/electromagnetic-spectrum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="221" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguNMe2WGclSlhqwJ1ySptQHEuGM3KvzNwNR1fCALt87Pa3Q86X6GGUUMv61tTV0WbUVLNst7LtIIWKcdqAWOHuH3kC1ejfGy-J4jl9aWc5fvWe6Vpnk1EB67boKshEcopVFAPykN3eNRfV/s320/electromagnetic-spectrum.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Figure 1. The electromagnetic spectrum.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But what is an electromagnetic field? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let us start with electric fields and magnetic fields. An electric field is a force field created by a charged particle or by an object with an excess of charged particles. A magnetic field, on the other hand, is a force field created by a piece of magnetic material or by a steady electric current. The electric field is a vector field specifying the electric force that will be experienced by a particle of unit charge if it were located at a specified point in space, while the magnetic field is a vector field specifying the magnetic force that will be experienced by a unit current if it were located at a specified point in space. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the early 19<sup>th</sup> century, Michel Faraday (an English chap who had nothing better to do but study current-carrying wires and magnets) discovered that a changing magnetic field also creates an electric field. Then in the latter part of the same century, James Clerk Maxwell (another English chap who had nothing better to do than to make mathematical models out of other scientists’ observations) discovered that if the law of the conservation of charges is to be valid, then a changing electric field must also create a magnetic field. This latter discovery by Maxwell led to the famous Maxwell’s equations. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">One profound implication of Maxwell’s equations is that electricity and magnetism turn out to be two facets of the same phenomenon; this phenomenon is known <i>electromagnetism</i>. Because of Maxwell’s discovery, we know that an electric field and a magnetic field are just different manifestations of the same field, the electromagnetic field. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Another equally profound implication of Maxwell’s equations is that visible light is an electromagnetic wave. In short, light is just a vibration in the electromagnetic field in a certain region in space! This realization led to the discovery that there are a host of other electromagnetic waves, all of them invisible to the human eyes. As mentioned, the radio waves we use to transmit radio signals and the X-rays we use in medicine are, like the colors of the LGTB flag, just dancing electromagnetic fields. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQYcX-05IMnEx86dfwoaQE6nsqvX7I2JQBOgd532yO9ljb6xdf_rNFXIyAtp2RjZwa6x-ZBmBRcc65vo55kBMv7dd8kvNft5GtnV0UaZhHkAbphWhwDHLeB7vXvzp8LNE4-X0U_OfK1g1r/s1600/field.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQYcX-05IMnEx86dfwoaQE6nsqvX7I2JQBOgd532yO9ljb6xdf_rNFXIyAtp2RjZwa6x-ZBmBRcc65vo55kBMv7dd8kvNft5GtnV0UaZhHkAbphWhwDHLeB7vXvzp8LNE4-X0U_OfK1g1r/s1600/field.gif" /></span></a></div></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Figure 2. The electromagnetic field lines (blue) near a pair of charged particles. The red lines represent points with the same electric potential.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-QlQ-2X5TO0_lPEf5LMbV94fmuubVCqxBZgguUyj2NbLuTfPZB3qiZiTu9v75XtrTkIW0FQ3QfZ7WZYTx0nkKfIHzsvA0vdlxB_aZK7KbGZReHJbkGFmPfwZupcCDOn0WQANxg6Azg69/s1600/magnetic-field.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip-QlQ-2X5TO0_lPEf5LMbV94fmuubVCqxBZgguUyj2NbLuTfPZB3qiZiTu9v75XtrTkIW0FQ3QfZ7WZYTx0nkKfIHzsvA0vdlxB_aZK7KbGZReHJbkGFmPfwZupcCDOn0WQANxg6Azg69/s320/magnetic-field.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Figure 3. Iron filings lining up near a bar magnet. The pattern of the iron filings reveals the pattern of the invisible magnetic field lines.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3iiPR5Rj631MCyCQ5HofG0d-PA3rLMUcMQzVPLJgXx5YJxMGHs05h_mDBHKJPhi4juFGdPRyGkjlIacCKVyZdPYfLP4R5rKqXt_q0IQs4R9kK_9bgiofeyHJBMYh6Wb5ASoZNi-3WmpNZ/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3iiPR5Rj631MCyCQ5HofG0d-PA3rLMUcMQzVPLJgXx5YJxMGHs05h_mDBHKJPhi4juFGdPRyGkjlIacCKVyZdPYfLP4R5rKqXt_q0IQs4R9kK_9bgiofeyHJBMYh6Wb5ASoZNi-3WmpNZ/s1600/images.jpg" /></span></a></div></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; text-indent: .5in;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Figure 4. Light waves as electromagnetic waves. The oscillations in the magnetic field and in the electric field are shown.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* * *</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">To be continued. Up next:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Part 2: What do we mean by “highly coherent, usually monochromatic beam of electromagnetic waves”?<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Part 3: How are laser beams produced?<b><o:p></o:p></b></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">* * *</span></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">References:</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[1] <span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color: black;">Hitz, <st1:place w:st="on">Ewing</st1:place> and Hecht, <i>Introduction to Laser Technology</i>, 3<sup>rd</sup> ed. IEEE Press, 1998.</span></span><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[2] <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Griffiths</st1:place></st1:city>, <i>Introduction to Electrodynamics</i>. Prentice-Hall, 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[3] Harris, <i>Nonclassical Physics</i>. Addison-Wesley, 1999.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[4] Ask a Mathematician/Ask a Physicist, http://www.askamathematician.com</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[5] <i>Coherence,</i> http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m5/Coherence.htm</span><o:p></o:p></div></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-76827864813320197232010-12-18T23:54:00.000+08:002010-12-18T23:54:13.665+08:00For what more?<div class="MsoNormal">From science, my spirit's wonderment;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From philosophy, my life's meaning;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From reason, my truth;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From my own spirit, my very purpose;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From my humanity, my morality;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From the ones I love, my comfort;</div><div class="MsoNormal">From my children, my hope;</div><div class="MsoNormal">For what more do I need religion?</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-68716984178124341042010-12-12T18:00:00.002+08:002010-12-13T00:46:39.354+08:00Holy Mirth<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Laugh at what is most sacred.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Poke fun at what is most holy. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Joke most about what you revere the most. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Good laughter sanctifies everything. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And evil is that which we cannot laugh at.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">For a god who does not laugh is the devil. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">And a god who cannot be laughed at is doubly so.</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-92099753692847349182010-12-08T11:33:00.003+08:002010-12-13T01:37:58.649+08:00On politeness, truth and laughter<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">18 March 2010</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes, being nice to people is not being nice to the truth. Politeness must never be allowed to trample honesty. Offending by telling the truth is not being rude, keeping the truth from others is.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">***</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Our beliefs are not just our beliefs. We can’t just say, “Well, these are my belief and yours are different. We disagree, but that’s alright. Now, can’t we just all get along and be friends and say everything is fine and dandy?” Our beliefs dictate how we live life and how we view it; they dictate how we treat others and how we want to be treated. Most importantly, our beliefs will, if we are conscientious enough, define how we act in matters of life and death – in other words, in everyday matters. We therefore cannot skirt around our beliefs. In the face of the world, this we must say: “These are my beliefs, and these are my reasons for believing them. If you disagree with them, let us argue that we may see who is in the right.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">***</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">We must learn how to laugh at matters of life and death from time to time, for after all, a good hearty laughter is what makes life worth living. But we must never use laughter to hide the truth. Rather, we must employ laughter to entice the truth. Hence, never must we forget that the truth does not like the dumb laughter of the shallow and dishonest. The laughter that will entice the truth is like the laughter of a warrior: bold, hearty and harsh.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">***</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Fighting for the truth is not defending a conviction to the death. Fighting for the truth is seeking after the truth. We must never argue to win an argument. In any argument, it must be the truth that is the victor, for otherwise, both sides lose. But before we enter any dispute we must never forget this: any argument from which no laughter was derived is a waste of time.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">***</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The truth is a jester and loves only a jester. The truth never comes to him who takes everything with a heavy heart. </div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-2374275255010917552010-08-16T13:54:00.000+08:002010-08-16T13:54:03.958+08:00My Beautiful Contradiction<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">When everything is a dizzying mess of variables you are my stabilizing constant. When everything is stagnation you are my joyful flux, my ecstatic explosion of colors and beat. You anchor my ship to safe havens when the waves below and roar, but when the sun is shining bright you become as the trade wind behind my sails, keeping me out of the doldrums and sailing me on to the farthest shores. You wear me out until I am spent, and then you lay me down to blissful rest.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">You are my danger and my safety, my risk and my security, my battleground and my sanctuary. You are my adventure and the home I come home to after the long journey.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">You, and no one else but you, are my beautiful contradiction. And without you I am naught.</div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-73517029261753258212010-08-15T23:09:00.004+08:002010-08-16T19:40:16.838+08:00Creation as Motherhood<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px;">When a mind bears great promise, we call it pregnant, but when this promise is fulfilled, we almost always call it a father – the father of an idea, of a school of thought, of a science, and so on. The contradiction before us is clear. To be consistent, this we must profess: All creators are mothers. Thus all creation is like giving birth – painful, bloody, and dangerous. And this too we must profess: All creations are like children – they come from one's very bowels, yet after being born they take on a life of their own.</span></span>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-85369509599382315132010-08-08T11:32:00.007+08:002011-07-27T16:10:04.869+08:00Untimely Meditations 211<br />
A world without argument is a world without truth. (July 2008)<br />
<br />
12<br />
A life is a work of art, it is the masterpiece of the soul who lives it. (July 2008)<br />
<br />
13<br />
The ideal individual is one who always seeks to improve herself. The ideal society is the society consisting of such individuals. (July 2008)<br />
<br />
14<br />
Where science is silent, one ought to pass through with caution. Where philosophy is silent, one ought to pass through with fearful respect. Where religion is noisy, one ought to go away from. (August 2008)<br />
<br />
15<br />
Of all the ways of acknowledging the ineffability of things, there is none more powerful than humor. (August 2008)<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
16<br />
The person who does not appreciate the beauties of a secular society has no right to to them.<br />
<br />
17<br />
It is unfortunate that those who know more speak with greater caution while those who know less speak with rabid certainty. (August 2008)<br />
<br />
18<br />
Thinking is the mind dancing. (August 2008)<br />
<br />
19<br />
When we lose the ability to laugh at our selves, we lose ourselves. (August 2008)<br />
<br />
20<br />
If a book has not even one line that disturbed you, then you have wasted your time reading it. (May 2008)Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-344455916071954192010-08-07T03:52:00.005+08:002010-08-09T23:40:55.245+08:00Untimely Meditations 1<b>The mind as a flux</b><br />
The following thoughts and ideas I have believed at one time or another. I may not believe some of them anymore. I may even believe the contrary. But the self, after all, is a history, and the mind is a flux. The thoughts here presented are just snapshots of the author's ever-changing mindscape.<br />
<br />
1<br />
Love is the safety net that catches those who fall trying to walk the tightrope of expectations. (February 2008)<br />
<br />
2<br />
The theologian's trade consists of being certain of things for which no honest human should be certain of. (April 2008)<br />
<br />
3<br />
Our optimism gives us reason to live, our pessimism keeps us alive. (May 2008)<br />
<br />
4<br />
Only a free individual can become a moral individual, for morality is impossible without choice and being moral cannot be forced upon anyone. (May 2008)<br />
<br />
5<br />
There is nothing more damaging to the cause of freedom than the illusion of freedom. (May 2008)<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
6<br />
It is only when you reveal to people who you really are that you give them a chance to love you. (June 2008)<br />
<br />
7<br />
The worst thing about the limits of human knowledge is that we do not know where they lie. (June 2008)<br />
<br />
8<br />
Beware of the person who is full of answers but who lacks questions, for that person has the mark of the worst kind of fool. (June 2008)<br />
<br />
9<br />
I enjoy the hatred of those whom I hate as much as I enjoy the love of those whom I love. (June 2008)<br />
<br />
10<br />
The unjustified worship of human language is the source of all metaphysical claims. (June 2008)Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-70388235533429207332010-04-13T09:59:00.011+08:002010-04-13T11:50:26.360+08:00On Proof and Evidence<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: bold;">Words, words</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Sometimes – actually oftentimes – we can get pretty sloppy and careless in our use of words.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Take the use of the words “proof” and “evidence”. Proof and evidence, like speed and velocity, or theory and guess, have colloquial definitions that often lead to confusion. In order to smooth the progress of communication and avoid misunderstanding, these words have been given technical definitions in science and philosophy. For example, speed is defined as the magnitude of velocity; the latter is a vector, the former is the scalar magnitude of that vector. Also, a scientific theory is not simply a guess; rather, it is a system of ideas constructed from a verified set of generalizations and observations. In the same way, scientists and philosophers use the words proof and evidence to designate two very different things. For example, we prove a mathematical theorem instead of “finding evidences” for its truth, while we accumulate the evidence for a particular scientific theory but we never “prove” a theory.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What’s the difference? The distinction is best illustrated by examples.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> The calculus of pebbles: a rocky example</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The fist example illustrates the nature of scientific evidence. Suppose you are walking on a beach when you decide to pick up exactly two pebbles and put them in your pocket. You then walk a few paces forward before picking up three more pebbles and putting them in the same pocket you put the first two pebbles. Again, you walk several paces forward before you decide to sit on a boulder by the shore. You fish for the pebbles in your pocket and count how many there are, and you find that there are five pebbles all in all. Since you remember that there were initially no pebbles inside your pocket before you picked up the first two, you are led to the hypothesis that two pebbles plus three pebbles will give you five pebbles. You throw the five pebbles and go home. The next day you decide to perform the same experiment: you walk along the same shore as the day before; you pick up two pebbles and put them in your initially empty pocket; you walk a little bit; you pick up three pebbles and put them in your pocket; you then walk a little bit, sit down on the boulder and finally count how many pebbles you end up with. Again, you find that you end up with five pebbles. You do this thing every day for a whole week, even a month, and each time you performed the same damned experiment, the result always confirms your hypothesis that two pebbles plus three pebbles equals five pebbles. You then decide to make the following scientific generalization based on your findings: “Two pebbles plus three pebbles always equals five pebbles.”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This generalization was inspired by the evidence for its truth. But note the ‘always’ that appears in the generalization. This ‘always’ is what makes the generalization risky, and as a consequence interesting and useful. It is interesting because it tells something about the workings of the universe (about the way pebbles add in our universe, for example). And it is useful because whenever an observation seems to contradict this generalization, an interesting problem arises, problems such as: “Why did I end up with one less pebble? Perhaps there’s a hole in my pocket.” You check your pocket and lo and behold, you find the hole that explains the missing pebble.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Notice that the more confirmations of the generalization you get, the more evidence you have of its truth. Notice also that the convincingness of the evidence is increased when it is obtained by someone else other than you and when the beach from which the evidence is obtained is a very different kind of beach from the beach that first inspired the generalization. Using these much more convincing evidence one can then formulate the broader generalization: “Two pebbles plus three pebbles always and everywhere gives five pebbles.” This last generalization is obviously riskier, but is also more interesting and more useful than the former.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Now, after perhaps a thousand such experiments, you get sick and tired of repeating the same wretched experiment that gives the same results over and over again that you say to yourself, “Well, since my generalization seems to be valid always and everywhere, let me give it a more imposing name, say ‘The Law of Pebble Addition’, and let me leave it at that. I have more important things to do with my life than counting pebbles.”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A very wise decision; I would recommend this course of action to anyone. However, the following questions can be asked with justice: How certain are you of the truth of your Law of Pebble Addition? How can you be absolutely sure of its validity, generality and universality? Does it apply today in the Andromeda Galaxy, or in the farthest part of the universe where pebbles are found? Did it apply back in the Precambrian Period, or will it apply five billion years into the future?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If you are honest and careful enough, your answer would be something like this: “No, I am not certain of its truth, because although I have a lot of evidence of it being true, the body evidence is nonetheless finite. I have never been to the Andromeda Galaxy, let alone the farthest part of the universe where pebbles are found. Also, I was not alive during the Precambrian, and I will not be alive five billion years into the future. Consequently, I cannot be certain about the generality and universality of the Law of Pebble Addition.” Of course you should add, “But I have a mountain of evidence that I can marshal to support my Law. And if you want, you can test it in places where I haven’t, perhaps using procedures I haven’t used. That way, you can convince yourself that the Law holds good always and everywhere, although I don’t recommend it to you, since I’ve already done the experiments and I think it’s a waste of your time if you repeat it. But that’s your call.”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">We see from the example given above that evidences are observations that support a particular hypothesis. An empirical generalization or hypothesis, such as the Law of Pebble Addition, is inferred from the given body of evidence using the process of induction. Induction or inductive reasoning works in such a way that the more evidence you can gather to support a particular hypothesis, the greater becomes the probability of that hypothesis being true, which means the more you can bet on it. Some empirical generalizations, such as the conservation of energy, the conservation of angular momentum and the principle of invariance, are probable to the degree that they are often times called “Laws of Nature” (take note of the grave capital letters). Calling them Laws of Nature simply means that they are very, very, very probable. They are so probable, in fact, that we literally bet our lives on them on a daily basis, although perhaps unknowingly. Still, they are never certain, because as the case will always be, the set of evidences supporting them is finite, is obtained from a limited portion of the universe and is gleaned over a limited period of time. In other words, any claim held up by evidence is always merely provisional. For example, before the formulation of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory, Classical Newtonian Mechanics was considered true. However, its truth was merely provisional, and when evidence arose that new theories were needed, and most especially when the required theories were discovered, Newtonian Mechanics had to go. In other words, when we say that the truth of a claim is provisional, what we mean is that the claim is true only as far as the present body of observation is concerned. Since the present body of observation is a finite set – and a finite set it will always be – certainty can never be had in science, hence the scientist’s skepticism and humility.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Full proof: an odd example</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Let us now go to the nature of proof. As with evidence, an example would best explain the concept. Take the proposition “No odd number is divisible by two,” taking note that we are saying it in the context of standard arithmetic. For the sake of convenience, let us call the said proposition p. How do we know p is true? Well, 3 is an odd number and it is not divisible by two. In fact, 3 is a prime number and so it is divisible only by itself and unity. 5 and 7 are similarly odd and prime, so they’re not divisible by 2 as well. How about 9? Nope, 9 is similarly not divisible by 2, although it is divisible by 3. The same goes for 11, 13 and 15 – these bummers are not divisible by 2 either. But how about 17? Or 323,941? Or -5? There are an infinite number of odd integers, and there’s no point testing each of them if they are or are not divisible by 2. After all, proposition p claims that all of the infinitely many odd numbers are not divisible by 2. One could say that it is in the very definition of odd numbers that they are not divisible by 2, but that’s either begging the question or rigging it. A better solution to the problem could be achieved by way of a proof.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">To proceed with the proof, we first note that odd numbers are integers of the form 1+2n, where n is any integer. In other words, odd numbers are what you get when you add twice an integer to the number one – odd numbers are every other integer with respect to the number one. 1+2=3 is an odd number, and so is 1-8 =-7. We now proceed with the proof:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 1. When an integer a is divisible by an integer b, then a÷b is an integer;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 2. Let x=1+2n, where n is any integer;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 3. All odd numbers are of the form x=1+2n;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 4. If x is divisible by 2, then x÷2 is an integer;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 5. From (2) and (4), it follows that x÷2=(1+2n)÷2;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 6. Using the distributive property of division over addition, it follows that (1+2n)÷2 = (1÷2) + (2n÷2);</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 7. Using the rule of cancellation, we know that 2n÷2=n;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 8. Using the definition of fractions, we know that 1÷2=½;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 9. In view of (7) and (8), it follows that (1+2n)÷2=½ + n;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 10. In view of (5), we therefore have x÷2 = ½ + n;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 11. Given (2) and (3), it follows that x is an odd number;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 12. Since n is any integer, and the sum of an integer and a proper fraction is never an integer, it follows that x÷2 is not an integer;</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Therefore: Whenever a number is odd, then it is not divisible by 2.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Given the above example, the following things can be said about a proof. First, a proof is a system of logically linked propositions that show that a conclusion follows necessarily from a given set of premises. In the example given, we have shown by proof that proposition p is necessarily true given that we are working within the context of standard arithmetic – you cannot believe in arithmetic and not believe the truth of p. Second, a million “evidences” for p will not be enough to establish its truth – a million odd numbers indivisible by 2 is not enough to show that p is true. However, a single valid proof, such as the one given above, is enough and is exactly what is needed. Third, not only is the truth of p necessary if we accept arithmetic, the proof above, if it is valid, establishes the truth of p as being absolute, certain and final – the truth of The Law of Pebble Addition can never acquire such attributes. Many philosophers would describe p as being true “in every conceivable universe”. If imaginary universes are not your type, think of the proof above as establishing the truth of p a priori, meaning, without reference to experience. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, proofs are only meaningful within the context of a formal system. A formal system (call it an axiomatic system if you want to impress your audience) is a system of propositions (theorems, lemmas, corollaries) that are logically deduced from the set of axioms and definitions of the system. Arithmetic is an example of a formal system, and the proposition p is an example of a theorem in arithmetic. Among other things, the formal system of arithmetic contains the definition of integers and odd numbers, the definition of addition, the distributive property of division over addition and the many axioms of addition. The proof given above will be meaningless if not taken within the context of arithmetic.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Catching for one’s breath: a brief recap</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Once again, the evidences for a claim increase the probability of its truth while the proof of a claim shows that the claim follows necessarily from the premises. Additionally, the proof of a particular claim makes its truth final while the evidences supporting a claim lend the claim a provisional status. The type of reasoning used in making a formal proof is called deduction, while the type of reasoning used in inferring a conclusion from a body of evidences is called induction. Also, one important thing to remember about proofs is that they are meaningful only within the context of a specified formal system. Examples of formals systems are arithmetic, Euclidian geometry, analytical mechanics, calculus, Boolean logic, Java (the programming language, not the coffee) and chess. In the example we used above, the proof that p is true was made within the formal system of standard arithmetic (that is, using the axioms, definitions, properties and proven theorems of arithmetic). When the formal system is different, the proof of p presented above will no longer be valid or even meaningful.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Full proof 2: association is the key</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">To be able to compare and contrast proof and evidence much better, consider the following statement in arithmetic: “2+3=5”. Let us call this equation q. How do we know that q is true? As with the previous example, a proof is what we need.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 1. 2=1+1;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 2. 3=1+1+1;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 3. 5=1+1+1+1+1;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 4. In view of (1) and (2), we write 2+3=(1+1)+(1+1+1);</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 5. However, addition is associative, so (1+1)+(1+1+1) = 1+1+1+1+1;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 6. In view of (4), we conclude that 2+3=1+1+1+1+1;</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> 7. In view of (3) and (6), we conclude that 5=2+3;</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Therefore: Using the symmetric property of equality, we finally conclude that 2+3=5.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">We have therefore proven q to be true within the context of arithmetic. And because we have used a proof to show q as true, we can then say that q is true certainly, absolutely, eternally and a priori.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Now, compare equation q (“2+3=5”) with the Law of Pebble Addition (“2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles always and everywhere equals 5 pebbles”). Although they look akin to each other, the difference between them is very great. Recall that the Law of Pebble Addition (LPA) is a generalization that is inductively inferred, is merely probable and is provisional. On the other hand, equation q is logically deduced, is absolutely certain and is eternally true. Also, the LPA is supported by empirical evidence (that is, by repeated experience) while equation q is held up by a proof that is valid a priori (that is, without reference to experience).</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">However – and this is a very important however – the LPA is a very good generalization. Also, the generalization can be extended to include not only pebbles but many other things as well – we can formulate a Law of Peanut Addition (provided no one eats the peanuts), or a Law of Fundie Addition (provided the fundies don’t burn each other up on account of heresy) or other addition laws for material objects. We can also expand the generalization so that it will read “x objects plus y objects always and everywhere equals z objects”, granted x+y=z. We can do this because we have evidence to support the supposition that arithmetic addition can be used to model many kinds of material addition. In short, we have very strong reason to believe that pebbles (among many other things) add like integers. This belief, however, is merely provisional. That is, when a day comes when pebbles do not add like integers any more, it does not mean that there is something wrong with arithmetic or with the universe, it just means that pebbles simply do not add like integers any more.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As a matter of fact, many kinds of material addition cannot be modeled by arithmetic addition even today. The addition of moles of a substance is a splendid example. We know from high school chemistry that 1 mole of chloride (Cl-) and 1 mole of sodium ions (Na+) do not add to give 2 moles of table salt (NaCl). Rather, 1 mole of chloride and 1 mole of sodium ions give only 1 mole of NaCl. But is not 1+1=2? Well, yes, 1+1=2 in arithmetic. However, it appears that moles of a substance, unlike pebbles or apples, do not add like integers, so we cannot use arithmetic addition to model the physical operation of addition moles of a substance.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Also, take note that no observation can affect the truth of “1+1=2” or of equation q – these statements are true for all eternity (within the context of arithmetic, of course). Even if, and this is a big if, pebbles do not add like integers (for example, if 2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles gives 6 pebbles instead of 5), equation q (2+3=5) will still be true, and certainly and eternally so. Symmetrically, no empirical generalization can ever inherit the certain and eternal verity of arithmetic; even if “2+3=5” is certainly and eternally true, it does not follow that the LPA (“2 pebbles plus 3 pebbles equals 5 pebbles”) is eternally true. The LPA will always be provisional and merely probable (albeit very, very probable) because it will always be held up by a finite and limited body of evidences.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">We must count ourselves fortunate that pebbles, apples and oranges add like integers. It really could have been otherwise, since the relationship between material addition and arithmetic addition is not one of necessity.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Truth and consequence</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In colloquial language, we often use ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ interchangeably, as in the conversation below.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A: I believe that the world is more than six thousand years old.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">B: You’ve got proof?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A: I’ve got lots of proof. There’s radioactive dating, for one. And there are all sorts of archeological and paleontological proofs, too.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Also consider the statement, “I know God is real, and I have direct proof: I have a personal relationship with him.” And we often hear people speaking about the “proof of evolution” or “the proofs for the existence of God” or “the proofs that my boyfriend/girlfriend loves me”.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Colloquially, all of these uses are acceptable. However, many problems and controversies in philosophy and science, such as the existence of God, can discussed intelligently only using a more carefully structured language. Such a language must be sensitive to the fact that the truth of claims can be established either inductively or deductively. That is, a truth claim can either be supported by evidence or, if it is part of a formal system, it can be proved within the context of that formal system. Much is lost if we lose the distinction between proving a proposition and providing evidence for it. Since the goal of argument and philosophizing is truth – we do not argue or philosophize simply to stroke our ego, to masturbate intellectually – it would behoove us all to adopt a more structured vocabulary.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Now, if we are careful with our use of the words ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’, we find that calling St. Thomas’ Cosmological “Proofs” for the existence of God as proofs is to speak nonsense. The same goes for the Argument from Design, its kin the Fine-Tuned Universe Argument, the Argument from Miracles and the Argument from Religious Experiences– none of these are proofs for the existence of God since none of them are within the context of a specified formal system, and none of them use deductive reasoning. The Cosmological Arguments (the so-called “Five Proofs” of St. Thomas Aquinas), and all the rest, are all bodies of evidences which supposedly support the claim that God exists. This means that if they hold up to scrutiny, then they merely establish God’s existence in a provisional manner. Additionally, the conclusions of these arguments can never be certain because if they are successful, they merely establish the high probability of the existence of God. This means treating the existence of God as a scientific and empirical problem is already the death of religion; simply seeking for evidence that God exists already implies that you can never be certain of the existence of God.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Only two classes of arguments for the existence of God come near to being proofs, and these are the Ontological Proofs and the Transcendental Proofs for the existence of God. The Ontological Proofs and the Transcendental Proofs are arguments that purport to show that God necessarily exists using deductive reasoning and a priori premises. If any of them are valid, then they supposedly show that one cannot be rational and at the same time deny the existence of God. One fatal problem with these arguments is that the formal systems within which they are to be understood are not specified. This means that all their manipulations of ideas and symbols can be easily assailed. Notice that many steps in the proof for p and q cannot be understood if they are not taken in the context of arithmetic. Since arithmetic is a formal system, all symbolic operations, such as addition and its many properties, are well defined. The symbols themselves are rigidly defined and there is no room for ambiguity. The same cannot be said of the operations, symbols and symbolic manipulations of the Ontological and Transcendental Proofs, which is why I said that any step in these arguments can easily be assailed.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Another important consequence of the distinction between proofs and evidence is that science never proves anything; proofs are reserved for mathematicians, logicians and philosophers. I heard theologians were once part of the proving gang, but apparently they’ve been debarred since the Enlightenment. Now, this follows that all the conclusions of science are merely probable, provisional and pragmatically true. We accept the law of conservation of energy, for example, not because we have proven it and are thus certain of it, but because we have enormous evidence for it, and because we go a long way by believing that it is true. The same must be said of the theory of evolution, quantum theory, general relativity, or the theory that your lover is the best lover in the whole universe.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">What’s in a name?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">“What’s in a name?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">That which we call a rose</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">By any other name would smell as sweet”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">-Juliet, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Along the same lines, one might ask, “But what’s the point of bothering with these trivial differences? Indeed, what’s in a name? Will not a proof by any other name be as rigorous? And a body of evidence by any other name be as supportive?”</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Well, first of all, the difference isn’t trivial. It can be subtle sometimes. The examples I gave above are the simple ones. And second, it’s actually important. It’s not mere word game, and it certainly isn’t mere sophistry or pedantry. Many discourses we enter in our daily lives involve the assessment of a proof or the judgment of a body of evidences. Knowing which is which, and applying this knowledge to your daily life, is certainly not a waste of time.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As I have said before, much is lost if we lose sight of the distinction between proof and evidence. So much, in fact, that a lot of debate and discourse regarding the existence of God or the truth of a particular scientific theory will be fruitless, if not nonsense, if we fail to take note of the important distinction.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A rose by any other name would indeed smell as sweet. But call the rose the uwakuka if that sounds fine to you. However, don’t expect people to understand you whenever you proclaim the beauty of the sweet uwakuka. We have the right to invent our very own private language, but it would be to our benefit to use the languages that exist around us, and to use them correctly. After all, what’s at stake is nothing less than the truth.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">* * *</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It is my strong belief that philosophical truth can be attained only through a discourse between intelligent but independent minds. Since such discourse will be at peril if we will not be uncompromising in our linguistic standards, I would argue that the careful use of language is one of the essential ingredients in a fruitful dialogue.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Let the fruitful dialogue continue.</span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family: arial;">References:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">[1] Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy; An Introduction and Survey, Pimlico, 2004.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">[2] Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, Wadsworth, 1984.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">[3] Arthur Danto and Sidney Morgensberger (editors), Philosophy of Science, Meridian, 1964.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">[4] Morton White (editor), The Age of Analysis, Mentor, 1955.</span></span></div>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8994818353254702837.post-60717362921975121402009-09-30T17:38:00.006+08:002010-08-16T19:38:18.335+08:00Ecce homo<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The main motivation of a philosopher for writing her thoughts and ideas should, I believe, be this – so that someone may disagree with it. For a philosopher may exert all the efforts of her mind to doubt her thoughts and to see her most subtle and deep-seated prejudices in an objective light, the fact stands that there will always be biases and predispositions that only another thinking mind will see. As such, it is the duty of every person who thinks, who mulls over, who ponders, and especially of those who claim to worship doubt, to submit their thoughts to the careful scrutiny of others.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: arial;">The above thoughts and the others that will follow, I submit to your scrutiny, dear reader. “Judge, that you may be judged,” said the philosopher Walter Kaufmann. So here I stand under the microscope, ready to be examined. Here I stand in front of the jury, ready to be judged. Ecce homo.</span></div><style>
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
</style>Pecier C. Decierdohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08017356656271277170noreply@blogger.com0