Monday, April 30, 2007

Inquisitiveness

Inquisitiveness has got to be one of the most important characteristics of a good scientist or any other person in the natural sciences. This is exactly what causes a person to question the belief that an atom is the smallest particle there is, only to discover that even atoms consists of smaller building blocks. Not being a nuclear physicist I have to allow room for the possibility that my example is too simple, but I am sure there are many things that drives us to continuously ask the big old question: Why?

CS Lewis wrote (I'm paraphrasing) that it is obvious that science cannot answer all questions. Even after science has answered every single question it can reasonably be expected to answer, you will still be able to ask: Why?

As an example, I could explain to you the function of every part of an internal combustion engine, and when I am done, you still won't know why we need an engine in the first place. The answer to the question will also inevitably lie outside the field of engineering, it will instead be the social need to travel from point A to point B in a motor vehicle. It is almost too obvious that there will never be an end to asking why when you deal with the truly inquisitive.

Someone once remarked that whenever they need an atheist for an argument or a debate (at university), they go to the philosophy department, because the physics department doesn't have any good ones. How true such a claim is today is probably debatable, but it is a known phenomenon that many physicists, mathematicians and the like manage to be great scientists while still believing in a God.

This state of affairs is almost unavoidable. Anyone can see that our champion (science) won't conquer all. We know that today, we don't even have to wait until our hero reaches this inevitable point of failure. Not even gap theory covers this one, the big why gap is left wide open. At this point I have to ask the questions: What is a truly inquisitive scientist to do? Doesn't it make sense to consider other possibilities right now? Who are worse off: those who can't see, or those who refuse to look?

It is of course possible that there is no answer to the big why. This possibility is unthinkable to me. The conclusion I come to is that it is no surprise that religious affliction affects so many good scientists. You could even say that you'd expect the really good ones to be religious.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Conclusion of the MP9 saga

So I took the car for it's MP9 reset this morning. It turns out that all my throttle body cleaning over the weekend was for naught. After resetting the computer and attempting to recalibrate the throttle body it logged another error. I had to replace the throttle body anyway.

I learned a lot of interesting things while we were doing this. The most interesting bit is the communication between the fuel injection computer and the immobiliser. When you turn the car on, the fuel injection computer talks to the immobiliser and asks it to authorise this starting attempt. The immobiliser then reads the transponder chip in the key and authorises the request. The scary bit is that you can obtain a replacement ECU without this authorising code straight from the factory. Stealing this car is as easy as swapping out the ECU. At least your average amateur doesn't carry a spare ECU with him.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The MP9 Saga continues

I blogged previously about the software bugs in the 1.4 MP9 fuel injection computer as fitted to the Citigolf (an upgraded mk1 still built and sold in South Africa) 1.4i and the Polo 1.4i. As it goes with these things, since the engine was running fine, it was moved to a back burner.

But recently a couple of weird things started to happen: Sometimes when you start it it would idle quite high (settling down a minute or so later), or it would idle unevenly. These were all signs that the problem is getting worse, so I finally started to do something about it.

First I discussed the problem some more with the auto diagnostic makers in our building. There is another additional issue that owners of these vehicles need to be aware of. This issue is in the throttle body itself. On the side of the throttle body (closest to the firewall) you will find an enclosure that houses the TPS (throttle position sensor) and a Servo motor. This Servo motor's job is to control idle speed. Over time, the gears in the servo motor becomes worn. This makes it very hard for the fuel injection computer to properly control the idle speed and causes the engine to hunt, that is, engine speed fluctuates up and down.

The first step in my repair process was to clean out the throttle body. The MP9 keeps track of the resting position of the throttle, and before you can reset the fuel injection computer you first need to clean out any dirt that might cause the angle (as measured by the TPS) to be higher than the factory default. If you don't, the fuel injection computer will just store this value the next time you turn the car off and the "fix" won't last.

So I drove down to the local Midas and bought a can of carburetor cleaner (as recommended by the Toyota Workshop manual, I figured if it is good for a Toyota, it should be fine for a VW). A couple of minutes later the throttle body was clean as a whistle. The plan is to have the computer reprogrammed to factory defaults on Monday.

In the meantime the car is behaving a little crazy. It idles at 1500 rpm. It hunts a little, but not too bad. It absolutely refuses to be driven slowly (that is, at engine speeds of 1500 to 2000 RPM) for more than a couple of seconds. It seems the throttle body is fine though, as the (somewhat confused) fuel injection computer has no trouble regulating the much higher idle speed.

Word of warning for other DIYers, be very careful if the car has a catalytic converter. Carburetor cleaner is flammable and could damage your CAT. Luckily for us, very few cars have CATs in this country. This will change in 2008 though, when legislation will force all new vehicles to have a CAT. After that, motoring will NEVER be cheap again: replacing a CAT is VERY costly.

Watch this space for details :-)

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Gun Control

Had an argument with a friend today. I think I lost the argument, but as usual it ended up sending me down another wild goose chase of contemplation.

The question is simple: should we allow people (even law abiding salt of the earth good people) to own guns? For the moment, lets restrict that to hand weapons and leave the issue of hunting or sport out of it. My friend says no. Providing a lawful way of acquiring a gun just makes it easier to obtain one illegally. Having a gun increases your chance of getting shot (often with the same gun). All very valid points.

On the other hand, if you're threatened by a criminal who happens to have a gun, I'm sure you'll wish you had one to defend yourself with. Some people find the self-defense excuse ridiculous, and I suppose it is just a little bit too convenient. On the other hand, as long as guns are being used to assault people, there will be a need (real or perceived) to obtain guns for self defense. You cannot argue that the self-defense excuse holds NO water at all.

Personally I'm in favour of a gun free society. But I believe the manner in which we obtain such a society is important. I believe the criminals need to be disarmed first. Think about it, you've seen it in movies: The two opponents have a gun pointed at each other. If the good guy (lets leave the good/bad argument out of it for the moment) disarms first, the bad guy won't think twice about pulling the trigger. Do it the other way round and there is no problem: a good man won't shoot an unarmed man.

We are still faced with a very big problem though: How do you decide if a man is good or bad? How good must a man be to legally own a gun? It certainly is a lot simpler to simply outlaw guns completely and I can understand and even support that position.

It would be naive to forget that we are not even close to such a situation at the moment. Lets compare this with the cold war. America has nukes. Russia has nukes. Neither really wants to use it, but neither can really get rid of it before the other does. Similarly, the criminals have guns, but unlike the cold war situation, they don't mind using them. Wouldn't it be incredibly stupid to expect gun owning citizens to disarm first?

I'm of the opinion that when we work towards a gun free society, all initial effort should go into disarming the criminal. Disarming the law abiding citizen is an easy way to fake a successful campaign, while in reality you've done very little to reduce gun-related crime.

Can guns be outlawed completely? Unless you can get away without an army, or you manage to create an army that is effective with only a baton and some pepper spray, you have a problem. Leaving your country unprotected is not the responsible thing to do. What about warships and planes? For all of these things there are only two solutions: either we all have the same fire power and we end up in a cold war scenario, or none of us have any firepower and we end up strangling each other or slicing throats with sharpened stones.

I really see no solution to this conundrum. My solution would be to allow, but tightly control gun ownership. Limit the number of guns a person is allowed to own. Limit the amount of ammunition. Force them to get training, even retraining. Then go after the illegal gun owners with everything you've got. You might have to repeat this process a few times. Forget the idealistic bullshit. This is not a perfect solution, but I don't think there is one. Not unless we can get everyone to cooperate, something which is most certainly not going to happen.

Finally I have to say that I will probably not buy a gun for self protection. Even killing a man in self defense will probably leave you guilt-stricken and sleepless for months. It is not something you want to subject yourself to. For that reason I will probably invest in another less lethal method of self protection.

You may wonder why I am so comfortable with the idea of having a gun in the house. As a child, there was always a gun in the house. In fact, there was five, ranging from an airgun to a big ol' shotgun. Each had a different purpose of course. But there was one thing my dad taught us about guns: respect. You NEVER point a gun at someone, even if it isn't loaded. If you carry it, you always carry it upright, or you point it at the ground, even if it isn't loaded. You never take a chance with a gun. If there is a bullet in the bore, you regard it as loaded, even if it isn't. There is after all only a bit of gunpowder between yourself and certain death. This is of course another part of the problem: not many people have this sort of respect for a gun.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Manual labour

So what does a sysadmin slash programmer do when he isn't playing root? How about some manual labour? This is what my wife and I have been up to since January.

I'm happy to report that paving work is progressing rather nicely. After several weeks of digging a foundation, building a one brick high "wall", carting in a ton of sand (literally) and cementing some decorative bricks into place, we finally got to the final bit of laying the paving stones. This is the result:



I must say I am very impressed with the results. It also looks like the total cost will be well below the expected cost of getting a "professional" to do it.

Restaurant Review: John Dory's (Somerset West)

What a delightful experience. We arrived at 20:15 for what was supposed to be a 20:00 reservation. Everyone was friendly and our waitress (I think her name was Malie) did a great job. It is so nice to see a waitress enjoy her job and actually smile. The food arrived in a matter of minutes. We asked for medium to well done, and what we got was indeed medium to well done, and very tender. The chocolate mouse dessert could only be described as divine (I know that sounds gay). The only thing I could fault them on (if I wanted to) is that they did not have the Pinotage we wanted. We settled for a Shiraz instead.

Or maybe I was just really hungry :-)

Monday, April 09, 2007

The importance of tact

In the complex where I live there is a certain gentleman who takes it upon himself to send his grievances and ideas in newsletter form to everyone who lives here.

Tonight I found another one in my mailbox. In this issue:


  1. The Board of the HOA (Home owners association) don't do their job properly.

  2. If we put up a volleyball field next to the swimming pool the kids would have something to do

  3. Some advice on how to live more healthily, and an invitation to contact him if you want health advice



Here is the problem as far as I see it: First you get on the wrong side of the Board, then you propose something for which you need the approval of the board, and finally, just in case anyone still takes you seriously, you tell them about this wonderful homeopathic solution they cannot live without.

Resting my case

I rest my case, or to put it differently, I give up. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to argue religion with an Atheist. The playing field isn't level. We don't work with the same building blocks.

The problem is simply that the theist's world is bigger than that of the atheist. By that I mean that the theist accepts the supernatural (that is things outside of nature) as well as the Natural, while the atheist only accepts the latter. Arguments stemming from the supernatural are not accepted by the atheist.

An analogy to this would be to try and argue with someone who don't accept the complex number system that the square root of negative one is not only possible, but is equal to i. I am aware that this analogy is perhaps too simple, even ridiculous, but the point is that the theist has more to work with. Of course we can still argue about the validity of things derived from supernatural principles. We could even argue that accepting the supernatural detracts from proper natural investigation. But neither of these should detract from my argument.

I believe in the current world, very little convincing arguments remain on the Natural side. Whatever remains is suitably explained away by Gap theory or by claiming that science will eventually provide an answer. The supernatural arguments are not admissible. One could say that as far as the atheist goes (those that are convinced of their position), all questions worth asking has either been answered, or can reasonably be expected to be answered in the near future.

As such, the theist has very little to work with when arguing with the atheist. I'd go as far as saying you might as well give up. We will forever be perplexed by the basic believes held by the other group.

There ends my basic argument. One more question, separate from this, would be whether it is at all possible to swing the committed atheist. The answer to this is yes, but it will not be the works of a man. Perhaps the Apostle Paul said this best:I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

More thoughts on Atheism

Those who know me know I suffer from what Richard Dawkins would call religious affliction. I often spend a lot of time thinking about it. After all, 1 Peter 3:15 says we should be ready to answer anyone who asks about it.

Over the weekend my sister read me a short passage from Why I am a Christian. This passage argues that the atheist is an artificial product. No person is born an atheist. There is no nation on earth that has spontaneously evolved into an atheist nation. Atheism is a position held by a small minority of highly educated people. This position is either developed through great effort by themselves or by the actions of their parents.

So I let my mind go on this. It seems to be quite accurate. In Africa, people worship the ancestors, for no reason anyone can think of. The ancient pagans worshiped gods, so did the Romans and the Norse. Everywhere I look I find examples of the opposite happening. It would seem that people are not born atheist, they become atheist. Without a conscious effort everyone else seems to lapse into religion by default.

Some people try to argue the opposite, saying that a little baby certainly isn't religious. This observation in itself is accurate, but an atheist is not defined as someone who doesn't know, but as someone who is already convinced of his position. Others try to argue that the default state is agnosticism, but I think that is wrong too. The definition of agnosticism is someone who claims that we CAN NOT know. Once again the agnostic is convinced of his position. A baby is born in neither of these states, but it will develop certain believes. The atheist blames all of this on indoctrination by the parents. I don't really have a good counter argument to that view, other than that it seems too simplistic and cannot account for religions springing up all over the place, and that atheism itself requires it's share of indoctrination.

The only options that remain is either that there is a God and our intuition is right, or there is no God and we all (or at least most of us, if you insist) suffer from this affliction. This is a logical deduction, one that I'm sure will be refuted by some clever bloke who can think of a third option. Personally I believe the former to be correct.

My mind drifted further on the atheist. From personal experience I find them to be exactly how Hallesby describes them. They are well educated people. The rely on scientific evidence wherever they can. They are generally quite rational. I also find that they are proud, closed minded and intolerant.

Why do I say that they are proud? Their education and the perceived backing of science makes them think they know better. If it isn't "science" it is inadmissible, and their hero (science) is untouchable. Why do I say closed minded? If you try to reason with them, their response amounts to "rubbish" or they call you an "IDiot". Clever use of the acronym "ID" in that one at least. Intolerant? Read the average forum post on Richard Dawkins's official website.

Would you believe it, these guys are pledging to send a copy of The God delusion to every member of the british parliament. The last time we (humanity that is) forcefully tried to get rid of religion (Marxism) we lost.

If nothing else, I think this at least serves as an example that the grass is brown on both sides of the fence. The problem is not religion. The problem, as my friend Jonathan always says, is that people are "kak".