It’s a sunny Tuesday afternoon here in Sauk Centre, Minnesota.
It’s 8°F outside, -13°C.
At that temperature, water is a mineral. Which is normal for this time of year here in central Minnesota.
The sun is setting, which again is normal for this time of place, day and year.
That picture is from my webcam: “Webcam: Sauk Centre MN.” It’s not, admittedly, the most dramatic or catchy title ever. But it’s descriptive and accurate. It’s also working more often than not these days. The webcam, I mean.
And my news feed is clogged with headlines about today’s American president, and the chap who will become president tomorrow. Which may or may not be normal. But it’s pretty much what I expected.
On the other hand, I’m not sure what I expect in headline news after the inauguration.
America’s 2020 presidential election is over. Its aggravation isn’t.
I’m one of the many folks who opted to vote by mail. Election results weren’t entirely good or bad news from my viewpoint.
This month’s news hasn’t been all bad.
Even my corner of social media has simmered down a bit.
I still see expressions of angst and anger over the fascists and/or pawns of the New World Order, but nowhere near as often.
But an item in this month’s news was disturbing.
Storming the Capitol: Dealing With Uncertainty
Nearly two weeks later, I’m still not sure what happened during the “2021 storming of the United States Capitol.” Not in detail.
I’m pretty sure that someone planned the incident. What America’s traditional news media describes does not seem like the actions of a disorganized “mob.”
And I’m quite sure that several folks were killed during the incident. Maybe by the “mob,” by Capitol security, or by others.
And I’m pretty sure that eventually we’ll learn more of the what and who. And maybe even the why of that incident.
For the moment, America’s traditional news media assures me that the current president’s supporters planned and executed the attack.
And that it’s the current president’s fault.
Assorted folks on social media have their own ‘what-who-why.’
As for me, I think that I don’t have enough data to form a reasoned opinion. And that what I do know is disturbing. More disturbing, in a way, than traditional news media’s version.
I talked about that, weekend before last:
“…Other possibly-significant results include at least two social media services banning the American president. And, maybe, the start of a renewed and urgent discussion of restrictions for non-traditional news services.
“I gather that these actions are intended to defend democracy. By silencing folks who lack sufficient enthusiasm for my country’s proper rulers.
“Not that anyone’s been quite that blunt about it….”
(January 9, 2021)
I remember when stopping dissent in the name of ‘national security’ was in vogue.
I didn’t like it then.
Maybe ‘defending democracy’ will become the new ‘national security.’ I hope not.
Serenity, Reason, Respect — and Present Reality
Ideally, folks who don’t agree would discuss their differences. Calmly, reasonably and with mutual respect.
We don’t live in an ideal world. I keep saying that, and that’s — you guessed it — another topic.
I was going somewhere with this. Let me think. Presidential election. Voting by mail. Sound and fury. Traditional news media and insufficient data. Right.
I’m not entirely happy the 2020 state and national election results. But I’m not entirely unhappy with them.
“…A Yardstick for Lunatics….”
“…Beatniks and politics, nothin’ is new
A yardstick for lunatics, one point of view….”
(“Incense and Peppermints,” Strawberry Alarm Clock (1967) via Genius.com)
I’m even less wildly enthusiastic about my country’s big political parties.
The small ones, too, for that matter.
A couple years back, I took several of those political online quizzes.
Compiling the results was — interesting.
I learned that I’m a right-wing liberal libertarian. 😉 Which isn’t surprising. Over the decades, I’ve become more and more unimpressed with politics and politicos.
But Timothy Leary’s “…drop out” advice isn’t an option. It doesn’t make sense. It didn’t, to me, when I was young. Maybe I’ll get back to that.
Back, briefly, to those quizzes. Each had maybe 20 questions. That’s not nearly enough to be thorough. So each quiz sampled a different slice through my beliefs.
I’ve been called “some conservative guy.” That’s accurate. If “conservative” means not being on the same page as today’s American establishment. But if it means desperate yesteryearning for a ‘good old days’ that never existed? And that’s yet another topic.
Next, why I don’t simply ignore politics.
Basically, it’s because I’m a Catholic. And a convert who has been learning what the Church has been saying.
Love of Country — Within Reason
Being patriotic is a good idea. That may take some explaining.
Back in the Sixties, I associated “patriot” with folks whose blind devotion to their views was equaled only by their hatred of commies, Catholicism and rock music.
They helped me learn to love rock and roll, and that’s yet again another topic.
Dictionaries give several definitions of “patriot,” including —
“a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion” Dictionary.com
I’m also obliged to do what’s possible in public life. That includes recognizing humanity’s solidarity and respecting authority. Within reason. (Catechism, 1778, 1915, 1897–1917, 1939–1942, 2199, 2238–2243)
I should also love my country. Within reason. But letting love of country slop over into worship of country is a bad idea. A very bad idea. (Catechism, 2112–2114, 2199, 2239)
I like being an American, so maintaining a ‘love of country’ isn’t hard. Usually.
But there are times when it takes effort. And reminding myself that there’s more to America than jingoistic chauvinists and folks who enjoy thinking that they’re in charge.
“Something Isn’t Working”
(From Vatican Media, via Catholic News Agency, used w/o permission.)
(“Pope Francis gives his general audience via livestream June 17, 2020.”
“Pope Francis has said he was surprised by the news of the incursion of pro-Donald Trump protestors into the U.S. Capitol Building this week, and has encouraged people to learn from the event in order to heal.
“‘I was astonished, because they are a people so disciplined in democracy, right? But it’s a reality,’…
“….’Something isn’t working,’…”
“Pope Francis prayed Sunday for the United States, asking the Immaculate Virgin Mary to help foster a ‘culture of encounter’ after the recent violence at the U.S. Capitol Building.
“‘…I pray for those who lost their lives, five lost in those dramatic moments,’ …
“…’…violence is always self-destructive. … I urge the authority of the state and the entire population to maintain a high sense of responsibility in order to calm the spirits, promote national reconciliation and protect the democratic values rooted in American society,’ the pope said….”
“Following the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, and reports of an FBI bulletin warning of ‘armed protests’ in state capitals and Washington, DC, in the coming week, … Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, urged peace.
“The full statement is as follows….”
I think the Pope’s right.
“Something isn’t working.”
America’s going through a rough patch.
We’ve been through worse. Like the War Between the States. (June 1, 2018)
A civil war could happen again. I hope it doesn’t. War breaks things and kills people. Sometimes it’s unavoidable, and I’ve talked about that before. (May 23, 2020)
I’m pretty sure we’re not at a point where our only option is mass homicide.
I also think I can do something besides wait for the next debacle. So I’ll keep praying. And reading, writing — and doing my best to make sense:
That’s the time God called Samuel. Several times. Finally, on call number three, Samuel said “Speak, for your servant is listening.” (1 Samuel 3:10)
So, what’s that to me? I’m not “young Samuel,” like it says in 1 Samuel 1. I’m not young anyone, and haven’t been for decades. God hasn’t called three times in one night.
And I’m living in 21st century American, not back when Israel was transitioning from judges to having a monarchy; like everyone else. That’s touched on in 1 Samuel 8.
On the other hand, Samuel’s homeland and mine aren’t entirely unlike —
“…the word of the LORD was scarce and vision infrequent.”
(1 Samuel 3:1)
If you’re expecting a rant, relax. This isn’t about politics, the pandemic or why my problems are someone else’s fault.
It is, partly, about paying attention and deciding who I listen to.
Here’s what got me started writing today:
Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon: “God Is Speaking—But Are We Ready to Listen?”
“God Is Speaking—But Are We Ready to Listen?”
Bishop Barron’s Sunday Sermon (January 17, 2021) on YouTube
Again, I won’t rant.
And I won’t say something like “thus saith the Lord,” and pronounce judgement upon folks who aren’t like me.
For one thing, I don’t think playing fire and brimstone prophet of doom and gloom do much — if any — good.
But mainly, God hasn’t saithed any such thing to me. And I sure don’t want to try explaining to the our Lord why I thought misrepresenting God was a good idea.
So not ranting strikes me as a good idea.
That’s something I can not do. But deciding to not rant doesn’t necessarily point me toward what I should be doing.
Backing up to what Bishop Barron said, being ready to listen to what God says sounds like a good idea. Problem is, I haven’t had one of those unambiguously visionary experiences.
I could sit on my hands, waiting for God to give me a flashy call to prophecy, prominence and maybe even a syndicated TV show.
I’ve got free will, so I could do that. But I won’t. I think that’d be a bad idea on several levels.
Instead, I figure I’ll keep doing what I have been doing: using skills I came equipped with, which I decided to develop.
Using them. I was going somewhere with that. Right!
Using them to share what I’ve noticed about the wonders and beauty of God’s creation and what we’re learning about them, suggesting that paying attention to this marvelous universe is a good idea. And that paying attention to what God’s been saying is, too.
I’m not Samuel. But I’m someone with talents, and I’m afraid to use them. 😉
“Belief in extraterrestrial life varies dramatically by religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Of those who identify as atheist or agnostic, 55% affirm a belief in extraterrestrial life compared to only 32% of Christians, meaning atheists and agnostics are 76% more likely than Christians to believe in the existence of life beyond our planet….”
“Sacrilege” means violation or misuse something that’s seen as sacred. I’ve also heard it used, along with “blasphemy,” as a label meaning “I don’t like/understand this.”
Maybe that’s the author’s experience, too, since he talked about “reconciling” religion and “a belief in extraterrestrial life.”
Then there’s the “belief” thing.
I don’t “believe in” extraterrestrial life. But I don’t “not believe in” extraterrestrial life.
I’m quite sure that we will find life on other worlds. Or that we won’t.
If we do, I’m pretty sure that some folks — including brittle Christians — will be upset.
But their displeasure won’t change reality.
God’s God, I’m Not, and That’s Okay
I’m a Christian, a Catholic.
I’m “not sure” whether there’s life anywhere but on Earth: or not.
I can’t ‘believe in’ or ‘not believe in’ extraterrestrial life. I don’t have enough data to form a reasoned opinion.
And because I’m a Christian and a Catholic, I sure won’t proclaim that there must be or can’t be life on other worlds.
That’s a God-level design decision, one I’m not qualified to make. Not even close. And I’m not about to try forcing God to accept my preferences. Or claim that I’ve got kind of clout.
But I see no reason why I shouldn’t wonder what’s in this universe. And learn what I can.
I think doing so is a good idea.
We can learn about God by noticing the order and beauty in this universe. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 31–32, 319)
St. Bonaventure said that the universe communicates God’s glory. St. Thomas Aquinas said that the Almighty creates because God is good and loving. (Catechism, 293)
I think they’re right. I also think science and religion, faith and reason, get along. Or should. I’ve talked about that before:
Finding microbes on another world, microbes that hadn’t hitched a ride from Earth, would be a huge discovery.
And, as I said before, would likely give at least a few folks conniptions.
But what if we found extraterrestrial life who could — in principle — talk with us?
Finding unambiguous evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence — physical creatures who are persons, but not human — would be an even bigger paradigm shift than finding fossil microbes.
We may have already found fossilized extraterrestrial microbes.
Or maybe we haven’t. I’ll get back to that in another installment.
But clear, obvious, indisputable evidence that we’ve got neighbors? I strongly suspect that would give even more folks conniptions. Particularly, perhaps, if they found us. I’ll get back to that, too. Eventually. Probably.
Science and Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Last Year’s News
“Is there anyone out there? This is an age-old question that researchers have now shed new light on with a study that calculates there could be more than 30 intelligent civilizations throughout our Galaxy. This is an enormous advance over previous estimates which spanned from zero to billions.
“One of the biggest and longest-standing questions in the history of human thought is whether there are other intelligent life forms within our Universe. Obtaining good estimates of the number of possible extraterrestrial civilizations has however been very challenging….”
“Very challenging” may be an understatement.
So far, we’ve discovered no evidence that we have neighbors: people who are more or less like us, free-will creatures with physical bodies, but not human.
“Is there anyone out there” wouldn’t be a question if someone with an ‘alien abduction’ story had been wearing the ET equivalent of a tracking collar. Or a wrecked extraterrestrial spaceship was really being stored in Area 51.
No solid evidence.
No evidence that’s taken seriously outside society’s ‘UFO believers’ fringe, that is.
On the other hand, there’s no shortage of ambiguous or embroidered evidence.
Konig’s Baghdad Thingummy
The so-called Baghdad battery is real enough.
But I’m quite sure that it is not proof that ancient astronauts visited folks living where Sippar used to be and Baghdad would be. That’d make a good story, though. And has.
I’ll give Sumerians credit for being as smart and practical as we are. Or can be. And at least as inventive. Let’s remember that our achievements are built on foundations laid by folks living in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Huang He valley and elsewhere.
Anyway, archaeologist Wilhelm Konig found his controversial gadget at the Khujut Rabu site near Baghdad in 1938.
The “Baghdad battery” is a small clay pot, about five inches tall.Inside the pot was a copper cylinder. Inside the cylinder was an iron rod. A bit of bitumen kept the rod from touching the cylinder.
The metal pieces were corroded. Hardly surprising, since the pot and its contents had been buried for two millennia, give or take a few centuries.
The Baghdad thingummy wouldn’t be a mystery, if Wilhelm Konig had found it while remodeling his basement.
Assumptions, Archaeologists and Allesandro Volta’s Invention
In that case, it would look like someone’s homemade battery: a battery that was nowhere near as efficient as the ones you can buy at Walmart or Sears. Maybe left over from some kid’s science project.
Problem is, the Konig object really is about two millennia old.
The first electrical batteries weren’t invented until just over two centuries back.
Alessandro Volta wrote about his voltaic pile, the first electrical battery, in 1791.
Folks like Daniell, Poggendorff and Leclanché made the first wet and dry cell batteries in the 19th century.
So the Baghdad battery couldn’t be a battery, because batteries hadn’t been invented yet.
Less snarkily, Konig’s thing lacks extensions that we’d identify as electrical connections. And it looks like other objects that archaeologists say were scroll holders for sacred texts.
My opinion is that the Baghdad doohicky looks like a battery, but might be something else. And that archaeologists would be well-advised to read Robert Nathan’s “The Weans.”
Getting back to the Baghdad thing. Folks have made replicas and shown that it could have worked like a battery. Not a particularly effective one. Not compared to contemporary off-the-shelf tech. But it could have generated a slight current.1
Maybe it was a sacred scroll holder. That just happens to look like a battery. And could have, when it was new, generated a light current.
Maybe it was a Persian joy buzzer.
Or space-alien technology we haven’t (re-) learned about yet, reverse-engineered and manufactured by one of Earth’s natives.
No, I don’t think so. But — again — that might make a good story.
A Face that Wasn’t There
I’d love to say that Viking 1’s image 035A72 was our first look at extraterrestrial architecture or sculpture.
But I think scientists are right.
What we’re looking at is a comparatively low-resolution image, taken when lighting was just right.
Plus, the image’s best-known versions have been digitally enhanced.
The Cydonian face may be today’s best-known example of pareidolia: humanity’s knack for seeing faces that aren’t there.2 (October 13, 2017)
The Salzburg Lump
Then there’s the Wolfsegg Iron AKA Salzburg Cube. It’s been billed as a perfect steel cube with a machined groove that miners found in a coal vein.
That story’s almost true.
The Wolfsegg Iron was found in a lignite mine.
It’s at least partly iron. Not steel. And it’s a vaguely squarish lump with a groove. Not even close to cubical.
I gather that the Salzburg lump’s fame started in 1886, when a geologist said it was a meteorite that someone had reshaped. And that it was millions of years old.3
By the time I first read about it, around 1970, enthusiastic retellings had turned it into a precision-machined steel cube.
Folks who aren’t UFO buffs have said it’s a chunk of meteoric iron.
Or, more likely, iron ballast from ca. 19th century mining machinery that got mixed in with the coal. I very strongly suspect that the ‘mining machinery’ folks right. Or on the right track.
But, a hypothetical ufologist might counter, the truth is out there! And “they” are keeping it a secret. “They” being the government, Illuminati, Freemasons, David Icke’s lizard-men, or whoever.
Appealing as conspiracy theories are, I think the odds of Area 51 and/or alien abduction conspiracies being real are barely greater than zero.
I also figure that the Salzburg lump currently on display in the Heimathaus Museum, Vöcklabruck, Austria, isn’t a fake: planted by space-aliens to deceive the uninitiated. 🙄
Extraterrestrial Life, Intelligence: Estimating the Odds
(From Amanda Carden, via Phys.org, used w/o permission.)
(“A new study uses Bayesian statistics to weigh the likelihood of life and intelligence beyond our solar system.” (Phys.org News))
“Humans have been wondering whether we alone in the universe since antiquity….
“…But despite knowing when life first appeared on Earth, scientists still do not understand how life occurred, which has important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.
“In a new paper published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences today, David Kipping, an assistant professor in Columbia’s Department of Astronomy, shows how an analysis using a statistical technique called Bayesian inference could shed light on how complex extraterrestrial life might evolve in alien worlds….”
As the fellow said — there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Someone coined that quip, we aren’t sure who, and that’s another topic.4
On the ‘up’ side, “damned lies and statistics” warns against unfounded assertions with statistical trimmings.
The ‘down’ side is that frequent repetition of “damned lies and statistics” might encourage the assumption that all statistics are bogus.
Me? I see thinking as preferable to rejecting rational analysis, statistical or otherwise.
I also figure that the Columbia Department of Astronomy, and National Academy of Sciences, aren’t run by crackpots. And doesn’t make a habit of publishing crackpot opinion pieces.
Dealing with Incomplete Data: Bayesian Statistics
(From Gnathan87, via Wikimedia Commons, used w/o permission.)
(Results for an archaeological simulation, an example of Bayesian inference.)
Bayesian statistics grew out of Bayes’ Theorem, an 18th century Presbyterian minister’s solution to a problem of inverse probability.
Basically, it gives us the odds that something will happen, based on facts that might be related to the event. It can be useful when we don’t know everything about what we’re studying.5 Which is, arguably, always the case.
Recapping — We know more about planets, stars and this galaxy than we did a century back. We haven’t learned everything. And we have mathematical tools for dealing with incomplete data.
The Columbia Department of Astronomy’s David Kipping used one of those tools, Beysian inference, to estimate the odds for our having neighbors.
He published what he found in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) — and that’s what I’ll talk about next.
Are We Alone? Good Question
Kipping looked at only four possibilities. For his analysis, he assumed that life is:
And often develops intelligence
But often develops intelligence
But rarely develops intelligence
And rarely develops intelligence
His conclusion was that there’s better than three to one odds that abiogenesis — life starting on a planet like Earth — happens fast. When it happens. If it happened anywhere except Earth.
And three to two odds that intelligent life may be rare.
That’s based on data from the only known example of a planet with intelligent life: Earth. And what we’re learning about other planets.6
Kipping’s recent paper builds on Spiegel and Turner’s 2012 “Bayesian analysis of the astrobiological implications of life’s early emergence on Earth.” Other scientists will almost certainly respond with their own analyses and conclusions.
And I’m quite sure that Kipping is right. “We don’t know” is the only reasonable answer to the “are we alone” question. Today.
I also think Kipping makes a good point in his paper’s conclusion. Given what we know, the odds of finding biosignatures make looking for them worthwhile.
“…Overall, our work supports an optimistic outlook for future searches for biosignatures (4–7). The slight preference for a rare intelligence scenario is consistent with a straightforward resolution to the Fermi paradox. However, our work says nothing about the lifetime of civilizations, and indeed the weight of evidence in favor of this scenario is sufficiently weak that searches for technosignatures should certainly be a component in observational campaigns seeking to resolve this grand mystery.”
I figure you know or can guess what biosignatures and technosignatures are.
But I’m a recovering English teacher, so I’ll define them anyway.
Any measurable phenomenon that indicates the presence of life
A marker that a particular technology is/was used by a particular society
Oxygen in a planet’s atmosphere is a biosignature. Or could be.
Life on Earth includes critters that get energy from sunlight and release oxygen as a byproduct. That’s why our atmosphere is about one-fifth oxygen by volume.
That’s also why Earth’s most obvious biosignature is probably the oxygen in our home’s atmosphere.
But non-biological chemical reactions can release oxygen. Reactions like those could put oxygen in a lifeless planet’s atmosphere.
And, although we need oxygen to live, some critters can live without oxygen. Or die when exposed to the gas.
Even so, learning that a rocky planet’s atmosphere is 20 percent oxygen would suggest that there might be life there.
I’m pretty sure scientists would want samples from the planet’s surface. Even then, we might not know whether or not anything lived there.
Technosignatures: They’re Obvious, But Maybe Not So Much
Science fiction technosignatures are often obvious: modulated electromagnetic radiation, for example.
The story’s EM radiation’s frequency is between 30 hertz and 300 gigahertz.
The signal is obviously non-random.
Details depend on the author’s imagination and the story’s needs.
Maybe our first evidence that we have neighbors will be an obviously-artificial signal.
A signal using technology that we developed over the last century or so. And modulated in a way that’s consistent with International Telecommunication Union standards.7
A Sky Full of New Worlds
My high school science textbooks briefly mentioned the possibility of planets orbiting other stars, along with a quick overview of stellar and planetary formation hypotheses.
Back then, scientists agreed that maybe planets often formed around other stars.
Or that maybe planets could form only in wildly improbable scenarios.
If the ‘often formed’ view was right, we might eventually find a few planets orbiting other stars. If the ‘wildly improbable’ view reflected reality, we might, maybe, if we were lucky, find a few other planetary systems. Eventually.
Fast-forward about a half-century. We’ve catalogued thousands of planets orbiting other stars, and can be very nearly certain that there are many million more waiting to be found.
We’ve found old planetary systems, and very young ones that don’t quite have planets yet.
But we still haven’t found a planet quite like Earth. And we’re not sure whether there’s life on other worlds: or, maybe, people.
I’ll be looking at what we’re learning about those ‘strange new worlds,’ and how I see the possibilities of ‘new life and new civilizations.’
I'm a sixty-something married guy with four kids in a small central Minnesota town. One of the kids graduated from college in December, 2008, and is helping her husband run a business and raise my granddaughter; another is a cartoonist and artist; #3 daughter is a writer; my son is developing a digital game with #3 and #1 daughters.
"The Princess and the Goblin" is a classic - at least in the sense that it's been re-published many times since 1871, with enough folks buying the reprints to justify yet another reprinting.
The story can be, and has been, described as ...
science-fiction-and-fantasy and faith-belief-religion
Barron's book is an intelligent, informed look at Catholicism's first two millennia.
"Catholicicsm" is "A Journey to the Heart of the Faith" in the sense that Barron touches on the core, the basics, of what the Catholic Church is and ha...
If you've seen the 1997 Derek Jacobi Central Independent Television/ITV screen adaptation of this Ellis Peters novel, you know the setting and general plot.
The mystery is set in England's Shrewsbury region, during what folks started ca...
This blog's header image is from NASA Photo ID ISS011-E-5487, taken 188 nautical miles, 348 kilometers, above 17.6° N, 2.8° E: available from Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit, NASA Johnson Space Center.
The opinions expressed in this blog are my own. As a Catholic layman, I make an effort to be informed about the teachings of the Church, and will repeat what I have found. For more 'official' statements, I suggest that you talk to a priest or deacon in your area. Or check out the 'Official' websites on my Blogroll page.
I make an effort to select meaningful and qualified information for the external links I create. However, I have no control over websites or blogs other than mine, and cannot be held responsible for their contents.
I have very limited control over advertisements and video links appearing on this blog. I do not necessarily endorse any of them.