Book Review: Java EE6 Pocket Guide by Arun Gupta

A good programming book should cover three things: what the technology is, how the technology is used, and the why of the "what" and "how". As a pocket guide, Arun Gupta's Java EE 6 Pocket Guide could never have been more than just a brief overview on what is a sizable and extensive framework, the book does admirably in condensing down key features explaining what they are as well as demonstrations of their basic use. Gupta writes with clarity and with understanding.

The lack of depth does start to show with the illustrations of examples. They are merely snapshots of the various components in action. Combined with the well-written explanations, this might constitute a sufficient overview for someone trying to make sense of unfamiliar code (we've all been there), but it would be hard to see the practicality of such examples beyond that.

To give an indication of the content, I'll summarise one section where I'm quite familiar with the API (EJB). The Stateful Session Beans, it first gives a brief overview of what they are, then drops into a coding example of how to define them. Then there's another paragraph that goes through the relevant points from the code. After which there's further highlighting of other relevant annotations, then how to access them from the client.

The two areas I could see this book being useful is first for people who are trying to come at a Java EE system without prior familiarity with the language. Java developers making the professional crossover would fit into this category. This could also apply for people familiar with some aspects of the Java EE architecture who are needing to venture into unfamiliar territory. The other area would be as a cheat sheet for Java EE for those not wanting to rely on Google to get specific information on specific components.

This book will not teach you Java EE, but it will help those looking for a nice practical overview of unfamiliar features. And as a reference guide, it might be helpful for quick information about specific features written in an accessible and no-nonsense way.

---

This book was given freely as part of the O'Reilly Reader Review Program. The book can be purchased here.

Evolution and the God Debates

One of the most important aspects of any debate over a scientific issue is to separate out the science from the implications of the science. As non-experts, we aren't in a vantage point to comment on the scientific validity of certain propositions, as we lack the relevant expertise that would allow us to adequately assess the science. Thus any debate where we as non-experts try to comment on scientific validity is going to be a distraction from the real issues associated with the debate.

As non-experts on evolutionary biology, most of us aren't really affected by the debate over how natural selection works, or whether genetic drift is influential in the divergences between related species. Likewise, whether stochastic factors drive speciation doesn't matter to how we perceive evolutionary theory. Those are issues for experts to fight over in the peer review literature, and even if we think that we know the answer, our musings are not going to make a bit of difference because we are not part of the conversation biologists and philosophers are having with regards to evolution.

What we are interested in, however, and what we can have a say on, is how these facts fit into particular conceptions of how the world works.

It's easy to conflate the truth of evolution with the perceived implications of evolution, but it would be wrong to do so. As far as any debate ought to be concerned, it's only with the latter that we should concern ourselves with. If those particular implications are unpalatable, then too damn bad. I personally don't like the implications of what Nazism says about the human condition, but that doesn't give me recourse to deny the holocaust! And if I were to then deny the holocaust, people should rightly point out that my prejudices are seeping into my assessment of the history. As disturbing as I find the notion of genocide, it's a fact I have to live with*.

In terms of the god debates, arguments over evolution have been part of the conversation. I think there are three main reasons for this. The first is sociological, that there are many biologists who are also atheists taking part in the discussion. So there's the temptation to see the battle over evolution as being between atheists and theists, rather than as being an issue of science. Supporting this is that evolution-accepting biologists who are also theists such as Ken Miller and Francis Collins are attacked by other theists as being atheists themselves. In terms of ID, Philip Johnson's Wedge Strategy is built around changing the debate over evolution to a debate over the existence of God, though I wouldn't presume the strategy is a product of that line of thinking rather than causing that line of thinking.

The second issue would be a matter of theology, that evolution directly contradicts certain interpretations of creation accounts. It wouldn't matter in this case what the science says, because the supposition is that the biblical account of creation would be God's truth as opposed to the fallible truth of Man. There are a number of interpretations of the creation of man on this account, but what they all have in common is that they are based on scripture and have mankind as a special creation of God.

The final issue would be the philosophical inference to design, that without recourse to a particular theology, we would still have philosophical grounds for making an inference from the appearance of design in life to the cause of that design being the foresight and actions of a designer. We see a watch, we (reasonably) infer a watchmaker. We see something analogous to a watch in the natural world, so why wouldn't we then infer something analogous to a watchmaker as bringing about that order? Conversely, an atheist could argue that processes don't require a designer at all. Evolution by brute fact is one such process. So if evolution is true, then any designer would be superfluous.

With each of these three reasons, it's important to remember that such arguments are largely (if not wholly) tangential to the question of the science of evolution. In the first case, Philip Johnson and other ID proponents argue that science has been hijacked by philosophical naturalism, and thus biasing science away from design explanations. It's not a question of the validity of the science of evolution, but a question of the scientific enterprise itself. There are problems with Johnson's argument, but I won't go into detail here. In the case of theological issues, what the science says can be of no consequence to that view since Genesis is not a scientific text. It's only with the philosophical analogy to design that there's some overlap, namely whether the science has a coherence to it. And to that, again it's the science that would drive the arguments rather than the arguments driving the science.

What we are after, in effect, is a means of understanding the science in light of propositions in the god debates. If one is after a defeater argument for theism or atheism, then the science will prove a disappointment. The science may be able to rule on specific proposition (such as the age of the earth), but it requires further arguments beyond the scope of the science to make any sort of forceful point. The science of evolution does not imply atheism, just as the overturning of evolutionary theory does not imply theism. For both propositions, further argument beyond the science is required. The science itself should be left to the scientists.

---

*Some people take exception to analogies between holocaust denial and evolution denial on the grounds that the holocaust is morally repugnant, and its that moral repugnance the evolution-proponent is trying to capitalise on. But that would be missing the point that's being made. Holocaust denial is a view that is supported by a minority of scholars, and there are more scholars in the historical community who deny there was a holocaust than there are biologists who deny evolution. In each case it's a tiny minority, but the point would stand about non-experts trying to take a stance on the issue left for experts. On what grounds would we have, beyond our own prejudices, for favouring the extreme minority view among scholars?

Santa Apologetics

At this time of year, we are reminded that there's a war on Christmas. Belief in Santa, although prevalent in children, is seen as something irrational for an adult to believe in. Lots of effort goes into maintaining the belief for children, but there's marginalisation and persecution of adults who believe in the Jolly Fatman.

So I'm here to defend belief in Santa.

A rational enterprise?
People call a belief in Santa irrational, but they are missing the point of what a belief in Santa is. Santa is a nonrational proposition, so it would be making a category error to assess belief in Santa by rational grounds.

Reasons to believe?
Yet there are reasons to believe that Santa exists. The first argument is the moral argument for the existence of Santa, as concepts like naughty and nice wouldn't make sense without Santa to be able to determine what naughty and nice are. A materialist worldview can give subjective definitions of naughty and nice, but Santa is needed to make the enterprise objective - as they clearly are.

Personal testimony is another reason to believe. There are numerous sightings of Santa from all around the world. Legends are written about him, and those stories match the experiences individuals have. Of all the descriptions that could be given of Santa, they fit the same pattern.

Children around the world see Santa's hand when presents are left. Each year on Christmas, children wake up to presents that were not there the night before. The idea that parents are doing this violates occam's razor as only one entity is needed if Santa really does deliver presents.

But most of all, Santa is a properly basic belief. That is, if one experiences Santa, they have acquired knowledge of Santa. If we were to dismiss this, we would dismiss the grounds we have to experience the external world.

But how does Santa visit all the houses in the world in one night? Flying reindeer are absurd!
This question assumes that Santa is a natural being, yet Santa is supernatural. So applying naturalist assumptions is a sign of being closed-minded. No-one believes that natural reindeer fly, so of course they have to be supernatural! Flying reindeer aren't a species of reindeer, but analogous to reindeer.

Is it naughty because Santa deems it naughty, or because it is naughty?
Santa deems it naughty, but because Santa's nature by definition is the judge of naughty / nice, Santa's decisions are necessarily right. If Santa says it's naughty, it's naughty, as Santa cannot violate his own nature.

Why doesn't Santa fairly distribute gifts?
Santa's decisions may seem arbitrary and capricious, but we only make that judgement because we are finite beings incapable of seeing the reasons behind Santa's perfect judgements. We don't expect a dog to comprehend Moby Dick, let alone what a book is, so why should we expect our imperfect assessment of fairness impugn Santa's perfect fairness capacity?

But I saw my presents in my parent's closet!
Santa works in mysterious ways. There's nothing to say that Santa cannot work through natural means to achieve his ends. Who are you to limit how Santa does his work?

If Santa is real, then why doesn't he show himself?
But Santa does show himself, as many can attest to. Are you suggesting that all those sightings around the world, all on Christmas eve and of the same thing, could be mistaken? Even if some were genuinely mistaken, you cannot prove that all are. The weight of testimony weighs in favour of belief.

The personal testimonies differ!
Of course they will differ in fine details. Each person has their own fallible view, shaped by their personal experiences and cultures. But there is a core of the story that is common enough among all Santa sightings to see a common thread. That common thread is Santa. If there was no Santa to give those shared commonalities, then the accounts would vary more than they do. Santa testimony has just the right amount of variation.

Why is the belief lost in adulthood?
There's a concerted campaign among aSantaists to discredit belief in Santa, as part of their War on Christmas. They hate Santa and want to see Santa purged from our society, and they brainwash people into not believing in Santa through their so-called education system. Children start believing in Santa, go to school, then come out as a Santaists. Children also have an innocence about them where their belief is pure, and untainted by cultural forces. They are the only effective judges in a society that has taught itself to reason Santa out of existence.

If Santa is a perfect judge, then it makes no difference whether I believe.
A belief in Santa won't affect Santa's assessment, but it will affect on how you look at your behaviour. If you take Santa into your heart, you'll be more mindful of being nice and avoiding being naughty. Hence a belief where naughtiness isn't punished will lead to more people being naughty, so it is better for society to have the belief. Without a belief in Santa, we are personally and societally worse off.

A matter of faith?
While there are reasons to believe in Santa, and in my view they are better than the reasons not to believe, it still takes a leap of faith. Seeking the reasons to believe in Santa is reasonable so long as it accords with the faith. But when reason fails, that's where faith takes over. But I contend it's a much smaller leap of faith to believe in Santa than not, because the aSantaists have to explain how all of it happens by accident without the intervention of supernatural beings. Christmas without Santa would be a bigger miracle than Christmas with Santa.

World War 2 Didn't Happen!

I used to think that one should do history by facts. Much of history as I was taught it featured the worst in human cruelty, of bloodshed and warfare. This narrative didn't fit into my view of human nature, of politics, of our species' place in a grander historical narrative.

That Germany could seek to eradicate the Jewish peoples, or Russia would send soldiers over the front lines without weapons, or that people would do anything to harm the beautiful countryside of Europe is just awful. That Japan would seek to invade Australia, or that the US would built nuclear weapons - these are the facts I resented but thought I had to believe on the basis of them being fact.

But no more! Thanks to Virginia Heffernan, I am free from those pesky facts, and can choose the narrative of my liking. As she explains:

All the while, the first books of the Bible are still hanging around. I guess I don’t “believe” that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics, and it’s certainly a livelier tale. As “Life of Pi” author Yann Martel once put it, summarizing his page-turner novel: “1) Life is a story. 2) You can choose your story. 3) A story with God is the better story.”

Now it seems as plausible to me that world war is just a propaganda vehicle of modern day nationalists, who use fictional imagery to distract from the issue at hand. The idea that nations would actually go to war, sacrifice millions of people for pointless ends, and unleash devastating weapons that could potentially destroy the world - that's just not as compelling as one where this is merely a fiction on our society.

It's simply a matter of aesthetics that I choose to believe that war is a fiction. Life is a story, I can choose my own story, and a story without war / genocide is the better story. I'm not bound at all to pesky things like evidence and reason, or have to believe on the basis of fact and theory. Belief is an aesthetic, and believing a story that doesn't involve the slaughter of Jews, the building of the atomic bomb, and my own grandfather signing up as a teenager to help protect Australia is my choice.

It's also how I'm a billionaire, and president of Earth.

Why Aren't There More Deists?

Imagine an argument that went as follows:

How could you not consider that there may be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? There's no reason to think that it's impossible since life appeared on earth. With there being 10^23 stars in the universe, with planets being found everywhere we look, it wouldn't be absurd to think that the conditions that allowed for intelligence life on this planet may exist elsewhere. And that's only taking into consideration intelligent life as we know it. Although more speculative, we don't have reason to exclude other paths to intelligent life under very different conditions. The range of possibilities and the vastness of the universe are strong indicators that we are not alone as intelligent life in this universe.

And then followed up with:

So UFO sightings ought to be taken as being caused by extra-terrestrial intelligence, crop circles being marks of these extra terrestrial intelligences, and alien abductions being authentic experience of these aliens.

If you weren't already convinced of the reality of alien interference on this planet, would you find the argument convincing? I'd wager not, as the original argument does little to establish the reality of interfering aliens. In other words, there's a gap between the premise and the conclusion.

This might sound like a contrived example, but it's the kind of argument I see all too often from theists. Just substitute in the cosmological or design argument on the premise, and the conclusion being the interventionist deity they happen to already believe in.

It's not just that the arguments don't validate their particular theism, it's that they don't validate any form of theism! There's a huge gap between the arguments and the conclusion, with much left resting on assumptions that are snuck in with the individual's prior belief.

What strikes me as curious is that there aren't more deists around. If one were to follow the arguments, deism would be the most parsimonious conclusion, yet deism isn't the view defended with such arguments.

Now I am fully aware that the human mind isn't completely logical, and that arguments are more justifications of an existing position than something followed to their logical ends. Even so, it does surprise me that there isn't more of a spread among believers. The range seems to be from externalising to internalising the personal god, rather than from a personal to an impersonal one.