Brotherhood of Riders

Yes ... here in the United States the act of extending the left hand in a gesture of greeting is quite common. And the horizontal two fingers is one gesture; an open palm another; just the index finger extended a third. I do it all the time ... it's fun. I also enjoy the camaraderie of chatting up other bikers at gas stations. People are really eager to talk about their bikes. All it takes is a few open-ended questions from me and off they go. :-)

What's interesting about the hand thing is who does not do it ... and when. When I had my Honda Shadow V-Twin, I noticed a lot of Goldwingers wouldn't acknowledge me. Now that I have a Wing, they acknowledge me. I don't find that kind of exclusivity very attractive. Harley riders will frequently gesture, even to me on my Wing. As a class, I've found Harley riders to be quite friendly, both in gesturing and chatting at gas stations. As a class, I've found sport bike riders to be the least communicative.

While I enjoy the casual social interaction of bikers, I'm not really into the "brotherhood of bikers" thing. We just happen to be people who own motorcycles. My motorcycle does not define me, nor does our common bond of a motorcycle open up some special line of communication that wasn't there before. Convenient line of communication, yes; special, no.

* * *
Question: is believing something to be non-falsifiable synonymous with having a closed mind about that particular topic?

I think by definition nothing should be considered non-falsifiable. But, that said, I think there are things a person may choose to consider non-falsifiable simply to avoid engaging in the discussions and debates. Two examples:

• My commitment to my wife is not non-falsifiable. I am perfectly capable of violating the covenant of our marriage. A discussion of the topic would reveal such breaches in my thinking at the least; in my actions quite possibly (excepting physical contact). But that doesn't mean I relish the opportunity to discuss the topic, or dwell on things I'm doing in violation of our marriage covenant. I don't wish to explore how falsifiable my claims of commitment are. I'd rather privately focus on being true and taking my infractions to the Lord, not others.
• Questions of faith ... same logic here: probing the potential for falsification for me is a detrimental process. That's not to say that it's not worthwhile for others who have the capacity for it. But for me, it's counter-productive. So I choose to hold the Bible as inerrant, though rationally I understand that reasonable discussions of the validity of composition and content may take place.

I think a good deal of this is in how the person presents themselves and their position on non-falsification. The Christian who arrogantly and hatefully dismisses someone who sincerely questions the Bible does wrong. The non-Christian who intentionally antagonizes the believer for the sole purpose of upsetting the Christian does wrong. The scientist who betrays the principle of open inquiry does wrong.

* * *
Let's stick with the facts, the first being "we have altered the composition of the Earth's atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels". The debate should be around understanding what this alteration means to the Earth's climate, if anything, both now and in the future."

Fair enough. I forget where I read this ... somewhere ... that when Mt. St. Helens erupted it spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere in one day than all of mankind did in the last 100 years. I don't know if that's strictly true, but it would not surprise me.

* * *
The law of unintended consequences -- with the recent emphasis on ethanol as a replacement for fossil fuels, the profit margin on corn production has gone way up. That has resulted in two things, both not good:

1. Corn prices have sky-rocketed, making a basic staple increasingly difficult to acquire for people of very limited means
2. Much more land is going into corn production, including rain forests which are being razed to make room to grow corn for ethanol production.