I wonder if it will take several disasters on the scale of Katrina -- I mean on the US territory -- for the Bush (or the next) administration to finally face the problem of global warming. Let us not kid ourselves, this sort of catastrophes are one of the consequences of the (very likely human-induced) changes to our climate.
Contrary to popular belief, global "warming" isn't simply about making every place on earth hotter. The warming up of the earth's atmosphere has complex consequences, including the manifestation of more extreme weather patterns (both in the high and the low ranges of temperature, depending on latitude and other geographical characteristics).
But of course, if the catastrophe happens somewhere in east Asia, the average American will only be mildly affected, both emotionally and economically. On the other hand, the sight of a major American city (New Orleans) under water, the most recent estimate of possibly thousands of deaths, and especially the price of gas hitting almost $4 a gallon, well that's a different story.
Far from hoping for more catastrophes, I do however realize that this is typical of the history of humanity: for all our self-pride in being the "rational" animal, we seem to only respond to emergencies that affect us directly. Well, Bush and other warming-deniers may have a series of 'em coming up in the next few years.
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
On death
This is actually part of my "In Praise of Idleness" series, but since the other postings are getting few responses, possibly because people think they all related to the idle topic of idleness, I'm trying a different strategy. Surely people are interested in death? :-)
Anyway, Russell wrote an essay (in 1928) entitled "Stoicism and mental health," in which he tackles the issue of death and how to deal with it (I wrote a longer essay on the same issue, using another piece of writing by Russell as the starting point. My essay was published by the University of Tennessee Library, together with a companion piece that looks at death from the point of view of a religious believer. Both essays are available from yours truly as pdf.)
Russell suggests that there are three common attitudes toward death, all of them problematic. (1) Don't think about it. But as he points out, we know from basic psychology that avoiding to think about emotionally charged issues (e.g., sex) isn't either healthy or successful. (2) Think about it all the time. Not psychologically healthy either, since it turns into an obsession, and because we can't really do much about the issue at hand (we can act as to postpone death as much as possible, but so far nobody has managed to avoid it completely). (3) We can try to believe that death isn't really death, just the beginning of something better. According to Russell, while this is the most common take, most people don't really believe it. He reports a story by F.W.H. Myers, who asked someone during a dinner conversation what he thought would happen to him after death. Eventually, the other answered: "Oh well, I suppose I shall inherit eternal bliss, but I wish you wouldn't talk about such unpleasant subjects." (I'd like to add that genuine belief in the afterlife can, although of course doesn't have to, lead to a rather callous attitude toward life -- including acceptance of injustice in view of a future reward, or even the willingness to give up one's own life by slamming airplanes into skyscrapers, etc.)
What then? Being a philosopher, Russell suggests that the best approach to the issue is the same that one ought to use with any such delicate matter (such as pain, reversals of fortune, etc.): stoicism. As Bertrand puts it, "It is best to think with a certain stoicism, deliberately and calmly, not attempting to minimise its importance, but feeling a certain pride in rising above it." Not an easy path, but then again, who said life was going to be easy?
Anyway, Russell wrote an essay (in 1928) entitled "Stoicism and mental health," in which he tackles the issue of death and how to deal with it (I wrote a longer essay on the same issue, using another piece of writing by Russell as the starting point. My essay was published by the University of Tennessee Library, together with a companion piece that looks at death from the point of view of a religious believer. Both essays are available from yours truly as pdf.)
Russell suggests that there are three common attitudes toward death, all of them problematic. (1) Don't think about it. But as he points out, we know from basic psychology that avoiding to think about emotionally charged issues (e.g., sex) isn't either healthy or successful. (2) Think about it all the time. Not psychologically healthy either, since it turns into an obsession, and because we can't really do much about the issue at hand (we can act as to postpone death as much as possible, but so far nobody has managed to avoid it completely). (3) We can try to believe that death isn't really death, just the beginning of something better. According to Russell, while this is the most common take, most people don't really believe it. He reports a story by F.W.H. Myers, who asked someone during a dinner conversation what he thought would happen to him after death. Eventually, the other answered: "Oh well, I suppose I shall inherit eternal bliss, but I wish you wouldn't talk about such unpleasant subjects." (I'd like to add that genuine belief in the afterlife can, although of course doesn't have to, lead to a rather callous attitude toward life -- including acceptance of injustice in view of a future reward, or even the willingness to give up one's own life by slamming airplanes into skyscrapers, etc.)
What then? Being a philosopher, Russell suggests that the best approach to the issue is the same that one ought to use with any such delicate matter (such as pain, reversals of fortune, etc.): stoicism. As Bertrand puts it, "It is best to think with a certain stoicism, deliberately and calmly, not attempting to minimise its importance, but feeling a certain pride in rising above it." Not an easy path, but then again, who said life was going to be easy?
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
In Praise of Idleness-V
One more about Bertrand Russell's collection of essays. In a short chapter entitled "Education and Discipline," Bertrand asks what sort of educational theory one ought to consider. He replies by saying that it must consist of two parts: "A conception of the ends of life, and a science of psychological dynamics." In other words, when we think about education, we should first ask ourselves what its goals should be in terms of the life of the individuals we wish to educate, and then pose the question of what methods are most efficacious to achieve our educational goals.
What I'd like to focus on here is Russell's elaboration on the first part of the answer, regarding the best conception of the ends of life. The British philosopher goes on to suggest that there are three components to this answer:
1) We want to stimulate our students' intellectual qualities, including a certain amount of knowledge to understand the world, technical/practical skills, and (I would say especially) "a habit of forming opinions on evidence" (i.e., what today we call critical thinking).
2) Also, we need to improve students' morality, i.e. we want them to be kind, impartial, and capable of self-control.
3) Finally, says Russell, we somehow need to instill in our students a zest and joy of life (though try not to kill their natural one might do as well).
It seems to me that Russell covered pretty much all the bases, although he quickly admits that psychology (in the 1930s, but this is pretty much still true today) is far from telling us how to best achieve such goals. Moreover, parents often get inevitably in the way of good education of their children (controversies about the teaching of evolution, sexual education, etc. quickly come to mind). Nonetheless, it helps to have clear in mind what educators ought to strive for.
What I'd like to focus on here is Russell's elaboration on the first part of the answer, regarding the best conception of the ends of life. The British philosopher goes on to suggest that there are three components to this answer:
1) We want to stimulate our students' intellectual qualities, including a certain amount of knowledge to understand the world, technical/practical skills, and (I would say especially) "a habit of forming opinions on evidence" (i.e., what today we call critical thinking).
2) Also, we need to improve students' morality, i.e. we want them to be kind, impartial, and capable of self-control.
3) Finally, says Russell, we somehow need to instill in our students a zest and joy of life (though try not to kill their natural one might do as well).
It seems to me that Russell covered pretty much all the bases, although he quickly admits that psychology (in the 1930s, but this is pretty much still true today) is far from telling us how to best achieve such goals. Moreover, parents often get inevitably in the way of good education of their children (controversies about the teaching of evolution, sexual education, etc. quickly come to mind). Nonetheless, it helps to have clear in mind what educators ought to strive for.
Abortion and the case of the desperate violinist
A second interesting "thought experiment" from Cohen's book. The idea was proposed by Judith Jarvis Thompson, and it consists of imagining that you are kidnapped by a group which calls itself the Society for Music Lovers (SML). A great violinist's life is in danger, and SML members are going to connect your internal organs to the violinist to save him. All you have to do is to stay that way for about nine months, until the violinist will be able to survive on its own.
The question, obviously, is how you consider this situation from a moral perspective. Does the SML have the right to do this to you? Suppose that, once hooked up to the violinist, you have the choice to disconnect yourself (of course, the grat musician will die as a result): what would you do?
The idea is to put in sharp relief some of the ethical issues surrounding abortion, where you play the part of the mother (say, in the case of a pregnancy induced by rape), the violinist is the baby, and the SML is the government. Pretty though, eh? That's the hallmark of a good thought experiment!
Of course unborn fetuses are not fully conscious human beings, as the hypotethical violinist, but that -- according to Cohen -- is one of the advantages of the thought experiment, it takes our attention away from one issue (awareness or lack thereof) and focuses it on the issue of the degree to which we are morally responsible for someone else's life. To say the least, Thompson's experiment clearly makes the point that the responsibility for the decision ought to rest with you (the mother), not with the SML (the government). Wow.
The question, obviously, is how you consider this situation from a moral perspective. Does the SML have the right to do this to you? Suppose that, once hooked up to the violinist, you have the choice to disconnect yourself (of course, the grat musician will die as a result): what would you do?
The idea is to put in sharp relief some of the ethical issues surrounding abortion, where you play the part of the mother (say, in the case of a pregnancy induced by rape), the violinist is the baby, and the SML is the government. Pretty though, eh? That's the hallmark of a good thought experiment!
Of course unborn fetuses are not fully conscious human beings, as the hypotethical violinist, but that -- according to Cohen -- is one of the advantages of the thought experiment, it takes our attention away from one issue (awareness or lack thereof) and focuses it on the issue of the degree to which we are morally responsible for someone else's life. To say the least, Thompson's experiment clearly makes the point that the responsibility for the decision ought to rest with you (the mother), not with the SML (the government). Wow.
Monday, August 29, 2005
The case of the Catholic cannibal
I'm reading Martin Cohen's "Wittgenstein's Beetle, and Other Classic Thought Experiments," a lively little book that I recommend for a rainy afternoon, or a long flight.
Anyway, one of the thought experiments concerns the consequences of considering a Catholic cannibal, and was originally advanced by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Contra Gentiles." The problem is this: if the cannibal eats only human flesh, every physical part of his body "belongs" to someone else; if so, what happens to the latter person, as well as the cannibal, when the end of time comes, and -- according to most Christians -- there will be a bodily resurrection of everyone (including the damned, since they need a body to enjoy the torments of Hell)?
Indeed, as Cohen points out, this is a serious problem because it isn't limited to the rather extreme case of cannibals. Since we now know (while Aquinas didn't) that human beings are part of the complex terrestrial ecosystem, all our bodies are in fact made of "recycled" materials, many of which have passed through other people's bodies before!
Aquinas "solved" the problem by stating that the resurrection of the body doesn't depend on bodily matter, but this surely opens the way to even more theological trouble (what kind of "body" would we then have at resurrection? Made of what? And why bother with a body if it isn't the original thing?). Origen suggested that perhaps we can have our resurrection and eat it too, so to speak, because what we need is a body with the exact same structure, not one made of the same particles. This is possible because Origen espouses the Socratic-Platonic view that the soul's existence is independent of the body. But the third member of the original philosophical "dream team," Aristotle (a student of Plato, who in turn was a student of Socrates), rejected this possibility -- essentially agreeing with most modern philosophers of mind who stick to the "no ectoplasm" clause: whatever consciousness (the modern term for soul?) is, no body/brain means no consciousness. After all, when was the last time you saw a disembodied soul walking around? Or do we have to wait until resurrection time for that?
Anyway, one of the thought experiments concerns the consequences of considering a Catholic cannibal, and was originally advanced by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Contra Gentiles." The problem is this: if the cannibal eats only human flesh, every physical part of his body "belongs" to someone else; if so, what happens to the latter person, as well as the cannibal, when the end of time comes, and -- according to most Christians -- there will be a bodily resurrection of everyone (including the damned, since they need a body to enjoy the torments of Hell)?
Indeed, as Cohen points out, this is a serious problem because it isn't limited to the rather extreme case of cannibals. Since we now know (while Aquinas didn't) that human beings are part of the complex terrestrial ecosystem, all our bodies are in fact made of "recycled" materials, many of which have passed through other people's bodies before!
Aquinas "solved" the problem by stating that the resurrection of the body doesn't depend on bodily matter, but this surely opens the way to even more theological trouble (what kind of "body" would we then have at resurrection? Made of what? And why bother with a body if it isn't the original thing?). Origen suggested that perhaps we can have our resurrection and eat it too, so to speak, because what we need is a body with the exact same structure, not one made of the same particles. This is possible because Origen espouses the Socratic-Platonic view that the soul's existence is independent of the body. But the third member of the original philosophical "dream team," Aristotle (a student of Plato, who in turn was a student of Socrates), rejected this possibility -- essentially agreeing with most modern philosophers of mind who stick to the "no ectoplasm" clause: whatever consciousness (the modern term for soul?) is, no body/brain means no consciousness. After all, when was the last time you saw a disembodied soul walking around? Or do we have to wait until resurrection time for that?
Abortion: so much for science and rational discourse
Here we go again, another example of how science -- which cannot solve ethical problems, but ought certainly to contribute to our understanding of the facts relevant to ethical dilemmas -- gets ignored in a cavalier way by partizan ideologues.
I'm referring to the recent study showing that fetuses do not feel pain even as late as 29 weeks (i.e., well into the period covered by the so-called "late term abortions"). This is not because the fetus doens't have the brain apparatus, but simply because the proper neural connections aren't functional yet. This, incidentally, makes perfect sense in terms of evolution: why being capable of feeling pain if one lives in an environment (the womb) in which such information is useless? (Similarly, adult brains don't have pain receptors, presumably because natural selection found out long ago that if you get to the point of having your brain case open, feeling pain isn't going to improve your chances of survival -- remember, there were no brain surgeons in the Pleistocene!)
But the science isn't stopping the rhetoric, of course! According to an article in the New York Times by Denise Grady, the overwhelming evidence of lack of pain capability in the late fetus produced by a large study published recently in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association is being met by vague counter-remarks by abortion opponents. For example, Dr. K. S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said, "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." Pretty much as vague as it gets. What evidence? Published were? How does it square with the JAMA paper?
Anand adds: "I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt." In the absence of absolute proof? What does this guy think science is, a mathematical theorem? There is no such thing as "absolute proof" in the real world, and with that policy humanity would have been stuck in the stone age (or earlier)!
Politicians, of course, don't fare much better. According to the Times' article, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, in 2004 and again this year proposed the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" (note the rhetorical framing of the issue). The good senator (who has no scientific training) included wording to the effect that "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain." Oh well, if the Congress of the US says that the earth is flat, who the hell are scientists to object, right?
I'm referring to the recent study showing that fetuses do not feel pain even as late as 29 weeks (i.e., well into the period covered by the so-called "late term abortions"). This is not because the fetus doens't have the brain apparatus, but simply because the proper neural connections aren't functional yet. This, incidentally, makes perfect sense in terms of evolution: why being capable of feeling pain if one lives in an environment (the womb) in which such information is useless? (Similarly, adult brains don't have pain receptors, presumably because natural selection found out long ago that if you get to the point of having your brain case open, feeling pain isn't going to improve your chances of survival -- remember, there were no brain surgeons in the Pleistocene!)
But the science isn't stopping the rhetoric, of course! According to an article in the New York Times by Denise Grady, the overwhelming evidence of lack of pain capability in the late fetus produced by a large study published recently in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association is being met by vague counter-remarks by abortion opponents. For example, Dr. K. S. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said, "There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that pain occurs in the fetus." Pretty much as vague as it gets. What evidence? Published were? How does it square with the JAMA paper?
Anand adds: "I would argue that in the absence of absolute proof we should give the fetus the benefit of the doubt." In the absence of absolute proof? What does this guy think science is, a mathematical theorem? There is no such thing as "absolute proof" in the real world, and with that policy humanity would have been stuck in the stone age (or earlier)!
Politicians, of course, don't fare much better. According to the Times' article, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, in 2004 and again this year proposed the "Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act" (note the rhetorical framing of the issue). The good senator (who has no scientific training) included wording to the effect that "The Congress of the United States has determined that at this stage of development, an unborn child has the physical structures necessary to experience pain." Oh well, if the Congress of the US says that the earth is flat, who the hell are scientists to object, right?
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Isn't 'Intelligent Design' just a theory?
Whenever I'm confronted by a creationist, sooner or later I face the question: evolution is 'just' a theory, and it shouldn't be taught as fact in public schools. To do otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest, and it clearly leads us to the road of perdition and to the collapse of our country.
Patiently, I try to explain that evolution is both a fact and a theory (or, rather, a body of facts and theories). Just like there is a fact of, say, gravity, as well as a scientific explanation for that fact, so there is a fact of evolution (living beings really have changed and continue to change through time) and a theory of how this happens (by natural selection and other processes).
But the thought recently occurred to me, partly because all of the clamour about Bush and Intelligent Design: isn't it fair to ask the same question about ID? Isn't ID 'just' a theory? In fact, it is worse: intelligent design is not even a (scientific) theory, it's a generic idea that used to have some philosophical valence in pre-scientific times (let's say from Plato in the 4th century BCE to William Paley in the 19th century CE), but is clearly dead now (as science, regardless of how many Americans may think otherwise -- let's not forget that a sizable percentage of Americans believes in haunted houses, but that doesn't make ghosts a serious possibility...).
So, ironically, ID is 'just' a theory precisely in the derogative sense typically reserved by creationists for evolution: not only it's not a fact, not only it isn't a scientific theory, it's just the unsubstantiated hunch of irreducibly superstitious and insecure people who really can't stand the thought of a universe where they are not the center of all the attention.
Patiently, I try to explain that evolution is both a fact and a theory (or, rather, a body of facts and theories). Just like there is a fact of, say, gravity, as well as a scientific explanation for that fact, so there is a fact of evolution (living beings really have changed and continue to change through time) and a theory of how this happens (by natural selection and other processes).
But the thought recently occurred to me, partly because all of the clamour about Bush and Intelligent Design: isn't it fair to ask the same question about ID? Isn't ID 'just' a theory? In fact, it is worse: intelligent design is not even a (scientific) theory, it's a generic idea that used to have some philosophical valence in pre-scientific times (let's say from Plato in the 4th century BCE to William Paley in the 19th century CE), but is clearly dead now (as science, regardless of how many Americans may think otherwise -- let's not forget that a sizable percentage of Americans believes in haunted houses, but that doesn't make ghosts a serious possibility...).
So, ironically, ID is 'just' a theory precisely in the derogative sense typically reserved by creationists for evolution: not only it's not a fact, not only it isn't a scientific theory, it's just the unsubstantiated hunch of irreducibly superstitious and insecure people who really can't stand the thought of a universe where they are not the center of all the attention.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Sadly, only Sharon could have done it
It has been fascinating (and a bit sickening) to watch the minute-by-minute coverage of the Israeli forced evacuation of the Gaza settlements. On the one hand, it is wrenching to see the pain of the families involved, people who genuinely (if deludedly) believe God gave them that land, and who have spent twenty years working hard to "strengthen" the very nation that is now "betraying" them with the forced repatriation.
On the other hand, one feels a sense of (belated) justice in the Israeli government finally seeing the foolishness and arrogance of its multi-decade attempt to force Palestinians out of their land. Billions of unwisely spent dollars (some of which paid up by American taxtpayers) are going to be buried by bulldozers, and rightly so.
But the most ironic thing of them all is that the man who finally had the "courage" of orchestrating all of this, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is also the same person who was instrumental in pushing the Israeli government to start the settlement to begin with. Moreover, it is astonishing that it is this man, who in some quarters is known as "the butcher of Sabra & Shatila" (from the name of two Palestinian villages in Beirut were people were killed and raped by Israeli troops under Sharon's command) who will finally bring some justice and balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Let us hope he won't get nominated for the Peace Nobel Prize!)
Why did it take someone like Sharon? Because, for all the clamor on the Israeli extreme right, they really can't argue that he is a soft-hearted liberal! Had a liberal government attempted this, it would have never worked because it would have rallied all of the opposition in a strong unified front. But as it is, the Israeli right is too divided about their own leader, and progress is being made.
I wonder what that tells us about human reason (or lack thereof), and more importantly national and international politics. Perhaps we need a figure like Sharon in the White House to pass a national health reform? Hmm, anybody can suggest a candidate I can vote for in 2008?
On the other hand, one feels a sense of (belated) justice in the Israeli government finally seeing the foolishness and arrogance of its multi-decade attempt to force Palestinians out of their land. Billions of unwisely spent dollars (some of which paid up by American taxtpayers) are going to be buried by bulldozers, and rightly so.
But the most ironic thing of them all is that the man who finally had the "courage" of orchestrating all of this, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is also the same person who was instrumental in pushing the Israeli government to start the settlement to begin with. Moreover, it is astonishing that it is this man, who in some quarters is known as "the butcher of Sabra & Shatila" (from the name of two Palestinian villages in Beirut were people were killed and raped by Israeli troops under Sharon's command) who will finally bring some justice and balance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (Let us hope he won't get nominated for the Peace Nobel Prize!)
Why did it take someone like Sharon? Because, for all the clamor on the Israeli extreme right, they really can't argue that he is a soft-hearted liberal! Had a liberal government attempted this, it would have never worked because it would have rallied all of the opposition in a strong unified front. But as it is, the Israeli right is too divided about their own leader, and progress is being made.
I wonder what that tells us about human reason (or lack thereof), and more importantly national and international politics. Perhaps we need a figure like Sharon in the White House to pass a national health reform? Hmm, anybody can suggest a candidate I can vote for in 2008?
Friday, August 19, 2005
Socrates' seven "commandments"
Again from Gross' "Socrates' Way," here is what one might call his (Socrates') seven "commandments," though most surely the Greek philosopher would never have used that term. Compare them to the (in)famous decalogue from the Old Testament to get a flavor of the difference between real wisdom and divinely-inspired fluff. I have added quotes from Socrates, taken from the book, referring to the appropriate Platonic dialogue.
1 - Know Thyself. "The unexamined life is not worth living." (from "Apology")
2 - Ask great questions. "My way toward the truth is to ask the right questions." (from "Protagoras")
3 - Think for yourself. "Do not be convinced by me. Be convinced by the truth." (from Symposium")
4 - Challenge convention. "When one is freed and gets on his feet and turns his head and walks toward the light -- all he has seen till now was false and a trick, but now he sees more truly." (from "Republic")
5 - Grow with your friends. "When a group of friends have enjoyed fine conversation together, you will find that suddenly something extraordinary happens. As they are speaking, it's as if a spark ignites, passing from one speaker to another, and as it travels, it gathers strength, building into a warm and illuminating flame of mutual understanding which none of them could have achieved alone." (from "Critias")
6 - Speak the truth. "It has been my fixed principle to speak the truth." (from "Apology")
7 - Strengthen your soul. "We should strive to gain more intelligence, arrive at more knowledge of truth, and develop finer character." (from "Apology")
1 - Know Thyself. "The unexamined life is not worth living." (from "Apology")
2 - Ask great questions. "My way toward the truth is to ask the right questions." (from "Protagoras")
3 - Think for yourself. "Do not be convinced by me. Be convinced by the truth." (from Symposium")
4 - Challenge convention. "When one is freed and gets on his feet and turns his head and walks toward the light -- all he has seen till now was false and a trick, but now he sees more truly." (from "Republic")
5 - Grow with your friends. "When a group of friends have enjoyed fine conversation together, you will find that suddenly something extraordinary happens. As they are speaking, it's as if a spark ignites, passing from one speaker to another, and as it travels, it gathers strength, building into a warm and illuminating flame of mutual understanding which none of them could have achieved alone." (from "Critias")
6 - Speak the truth. "It has been my fixed principle to speak the truth." (from "Apology")
7 - Strengthen your soul. "We should strive to gain more intelligence, arrive at more knowledge of truth, and develop finer character." (from "Apology")
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Socrates vs. Jesus
I have been reading Ronald Gross' Socrates' Way, a philosophical self-help book. Though rather simple, it actually is a good introduction to both Socratic thought and methods, as well as ways in which philosophy can help in everyday life -- just as Socrates meant. Anyway, probably more on the book in the future.
Right now I just wanted to share the following thought. The book occasionally compares Socrates to Jesus. This has been done before (indeed, some of the early Church fathers considered Socrates a pre-Christian saint, whatever that may mean), but it does bother me.
True, the two teachers do share some (though by no means all) their ethical precepts. So do many other great figures of the past (Buddha, for example), and of course so do many contemporary thinkers. Moreover, those precepts are rather generic and quite obvious from the point of view of a workable society (e.g., there wouldn't be much of a society if people felt it were ok to go around randomly killing each other). Hence, the similarity there is superficial.
The difference, on the other hand, is huge. Jesus -- for all we know (since he didn't actually write anything down, another superficial similarity with Socrates) -- claimed to be divine (hence inherently superior to his disciples) and taught by (divine) authority. Socrates claimed to be just a humble person trying to figure things out, and encouraged people to use reason, not faith, to understand what life is about. The Socratic dictum was the same found at the entrance of the oracle at Delphi: Know Thyself, not "got Jesus?"
I can't imagine a sharper difference between the two figures, and in my book Socrates beats Jesus hands down. Next time you face an ethical dilemma, it would make much more sense if you asked yourself: "What Would Socrates Do?"
Right now I just wanted to share the following thought. The book occasionally compares Socrates to Jesus. This has been done before (indeed, some of the early Church fathers considered Socrates a pre-Christian saint, whatever that may mean), but it does bother me.
True, the two teachers do share some (though by no means all) their ethical precepts. So do many other great figures of the past (Buddha, for example), and of course so do many contemporary thinkers. Moreover, those precepts are rather generic and quite obvious from the point of view of a workable society (e.g., there wouldn't be much of a society if people felt it were ok to go around randomly killing each other). Hence, the similarity there is superficial.
The difference, on the other hand, is huge. Jesus -- for all we know (since he didn't actually write anything down, another superficial similarity with Socrates) -- claimed to be divine (hence inherently superior to his disciples) and taught by (divine) authority. Socrates claimed to be just a humble person trying to figure things out, and encouraged people to use reason, not faith, to understand what life is about. The Socratic dictum was the same found at the entrance of the oracle at Delphi: Know Thyself, not "got Jesus?"
I can't imagine a sharper difference between the two figures, and in my book Socrates beats Jesus hands down. Next time you face an ethical dilemma, it would make much more sense if you asked yourself: "What Would Socrates Do?"
The most important question ever
So, during the past few days I was on a short vacation with my daughter to Yellowstone national park (if you haven't been there, GO RIGHT NOW!). At one point, while driving from geyser country to our lodge, I made the comment that we had been driving about 100 miles that day. To which Caley immediately answered: "How do you know that?"
YES! My daughter is getting the idea that whenever someone pronounces a truth, big or small, the best question you can ask is "how do you know?," or, in scientific terms, "what's the evidence?"
A few hours later I got my chance to use her same tactic on her. At dinner, she asked me to imitate some Marx Brothers routines (don't ask!), and one of her favorites is the scene from A Night at the Opera in which Groucho and Chico are arguing over the details of a contract. At one point, Groucho lists a standard clause, to which he refers to as the "sanity clause." Of course, Chico answers (approximately), "Oh no, you no fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause."
Good, so that let me to ask Caley (who is 8) whether she still believes in Santa Claus, which she does. I then asked her the magical question: "well, how do you know he exists?" That led to a fascinating round of claim and counter-claim on the possible pertinent evidence ("he ate my cookies and milk"; "how do you know it was him who ate your cookies and milk?", etc.). At last, she ran out of reasonable "evidence" to butress her case (all of this, mind you, while laughing and joking -- she wasn't traumatized by the experience of having dinner with a skeptical daddy!). So, I repeated my initial question, "why, then, do you believe in Santa?" "Because I want to" was the frank answer, delivered with the most disarming smile. If only most adults were that clear on which of their beliefs are rational and which are just wishful thinking!
YES! My daughter is getting the idea that whenever someone pronounces a truth, big or small, the best question you can ask is "how do you know?," or, in scientific terms, "what's the evidence?"
A few hours later I got my chance to use her same tactic on her. At dinner, she asked me to imitate some Marx Brothers routines (don't ask!), and one of her favorites is the scene from A Night at the Opera in which Groucho and Chico are arguing over the details of a contract. At one point, Groucho lists a standard clause, to which he refers to as the "sanity clause." Of course, Chico answers (approximately), "Oh no, you no fool me, there ain't no Sanity Clause."
Good, so that let me to ask Caley (who is 8) whether she still believes in Santa Claus, which she does. I then asked her the magical question: "well, how do you know he exists?" That led to a fascinating round of claim and counter-claim on the possible pertinent evidence ("he ate my cookies and milk"; "how do you know it was him who ate your cookies and milk?", etc.). At last, she ran out of reasonable "evidence" to butress her case (all of this, mind you, while laughing and joking -- she wasn't traumatized by the experience of having dinner with a skeptical daddy!). So, I repeated my initial question, "why, then, do you believe in Santa?" "Because I want to" was the frank answer, delivered with the most disarming smile. If only most adults were that clear on which of their beliefs are rational and which are just wishful thinking!
Friday, August 12, 2005
Four types of design, intelligent or not
In reponse to a request posted on this blog, I'm posting a link to an old lecture of mine about intelligent design vs. evolution. The second part of the lecture discusses the fact that there really are four kinds of "design" that could be logically distinguished:
1- Non intelligent, natural: this is the result of natural selection and other natural mechanisms that produced the biological world on earth as we know it;
2- Intelligent, natural: such as artifacts produced by human beings, or by possible extra-terrestrial civilizations;
3- Intelligent, supernatural, sloppy: such as could be the result of the action of a "minor" god (like Plato's famous Demiurge, who did the best he could for the universe with the materials available);
4- Intelligent, supernatural, perfect: as in what Christian and similar mythologies tell us the universe is.
My point in the lecture was that we have evidence only of the first two kinds, which are readily explainable. The third kind couldn't be distinguished from type 2 (as pointed out years ago by Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- the products of a sufficiently advanced civilization cannot be distinguished from magic). As for n. 4, I don't see any evidence of "perfection" in the world, whatever that means...
1- Non intelligent, natural: this is the result of natural selection and other natural mechanisms that produced the biological world on earth as we know it;
2- Intelligent, natural: such as artifacts produced by human beings, or by possible extra-terrestrial civilizations;
3- Intelligent, supernatural, sloppy: such as could be the result of the action of a "minor" god (like Plato's famous Demiurge, who did the best he could for the universe with the materials available);
4- Intelligent, supernatural, perfect: as in what Christian and similar mythologies tell us the universe is.
My point in the lecture was that we have evidence only of the first two kinds, which are readily explainable. The third kind couldn't be distinguished from type 2 (as pointed out years ago by Arthur C. Clarke, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- the products of a sufficiently advanced civilization cannot be distinguished from magic). As for n. 4, I don't see any evidence of "perfection" in the world, whatever that means...
Thursday, August 11, 2005
UFO abductions like religious experiences?
A new book, due out in October, "Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens," by Susan Clancy (Harvard University Press) draws a direct parallel between experiences of alien abduction and religious experiences, according to a recent article in the New York Times which features an interview with the author.
Indeed, that suggestion has been made several times in the skeptical literature, but it is now becoming part of mainstream science (even though of a "soft" science such as psychology), thanks to the work of Dr. Clancy. Clancy and her group did not set out explicitly to compare abductions and religion, and in fact they neglected -- unfortunately -- to ask their subjects about their religious beliefs. But by the end of their research, the parallels were simply too strong to ignore, something that hopefully will prompt a follow-up study addressing the abduction-religion connection more directly.
Among the interesting findings of Clancy's group are the fact that abductees are more prone to recall false memories (demonstrated under laboratory conditions), that they are more likely to be interested in the paranormal and UFOs to begin with, and -- most tellingly -- that they have a tendency to interpret their experiences in quasi-religious terms. For example, one of the subjects interviewed by Clancy said: "You know, they do walk among us on earth. They have to transform first into a physical body, which is very painful for them. But they do it out of love. They are here to tell us that we're all interconnected in some way. Everything is." That ain't that different from people who claim they have heard directly from God.
Benedict Carey, the NYT reporter, begins the article suggesting that abductees are neither daft nor psychotic, and that Clancy's work implies that their experiences "should be taken as seriously as any strongly held exotic beliefs." Right, except that the same study clearly hints at the fact that such "experiences" are entirely in the minds of the people who have them, not likely to be a reflection of things really out there.
Clearly, we ought to take the delusions of some people (religious fanatics like Bin Laden and George Bush come to mind) very seriously, because they have consequences for all of us (9/11 and the Iraq war, in case you were wondering). But that's most certainly not the way in which these people wish "to be taken seriously." No, they really want us to believe that what they are experiencing is as real as the pasta and fagioli I had last night for dinner. Or did I?
Indeed, that suggestion has been made several times in the skeptical literature, but it is now becoming part of mainstream science (even though of a "soft" science such as psychology), thanks to the work of Dr. Clancy. Clancy and her group did not set out explicitly to compare abductions and religion, and in fact they neglected -- unfortunately -- to ask their subjects about their religious beliefs. But by the end of their research, the parallels were simply too strong to ignore, something that hopefully will prompt a follow-up study addressing the abduction-religion connection more directly.
Among the interesting findings of Clancy's group are the fact that abductees are more prone to recall false memories (demonstrated under laboratory conditions), that they are more likely to be interested in the paranormal and UFOs to begin with, and -- most tellingly -- that they have a tendency to interpret their experiences in quasi-religious terms. For example, one of the subjects interviewed by Clancy said: "You know, they do walk among us on earth. They have to transform first into a physical body, which is very painful for them. But they do it out of love. They are here to tell us that we're all interconnected in some way. Everything is." That ain't that different from people who claim they have heard directly from God.
Benedict Carey, the NYT reporter, begins the article suggesting that abductees are neither daft nor psychotic, and that Clancy's work implies that their experiences "should be taken as seriously as any strongly held exotic beliefs." Right, except that the same study clearly hints at the fact that such "experiences" are entirely in the minds of the people who have them, not likely to be a reflection of things really out there.
Clearly, we ought to take the delusions of some people (religious fanatics like Bin Laden and George Bush come to mind) very seriously, because they have consequences for all of us (9/11 and the Iraq war, in case you were wondering). But that's most certainly not the way in which these people wish "to be taken seriously." No, they really want us to believe that what they are experiencing is as real as the pasta and fagioli I had last night for dinner. Or did I?
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
In Praise of Idleness-IV
Russell, talking about the ascent of fascism in Europe before WWII:
"The decay of reason in politics is a product of two factors: on the one hand, there are classes and types of individuals to whom the world as it is offers no scope, but who see no hope in Socialism because they are not wage-earners; on the other hand, there are able and powerful men whose interests are opposed to those of the community at large, and who, therefore, can best retain their influence by promoting various kinds of hysteria."
Well, if we substitute the current American middle-class, with its disaffection from labor (see the recent troubles within the labor movement) for Russell's classes with "no scope" and "no hope," and the dominating political and economic class in the US for those whose interest is to promote "various kinds of hysteria," the picture isn't that different.
Now, I don't want to jump to what I think is the rather extreme claim that the Bush administration has inaugurated fascism in the US. Fascism is a hell of a lot worse than what Bush-II and his cronies have managed to do. But it is equally difficult to argue that we have seen a dramatic shift not only toward conservatism, but toward an increased role of Government in areas of private life where it doesn't belong (e.g., a lot -- though not all -- of the "security measures" implemented after 9/11). And this with a Republican administration! Remember? The Reps are supposed to be in favor of less government control, but apparently that only applies to financial matters and big corporations, not to the sex life of individual citizens (see the idiocy surrounding the idea of gay marriages, for example).
Interestingly, Russell makes the link between nationalistic fever and the cult of unreason in a nation. The US ' national politial discourse has in fact been quite unreasonable and nationalistic of late (though one could argue that such tendency has always been either just below the surface or clearly above it throughout American history).
According to Russell, "the two things the world needs most are Socialism and peace, but both are contrary to the interests of the most powerful men of our time." Indeed.
"The decay of reason in politics is a product of two factors: on the one hand, there are classes and types of individuals to whom the world as it is offers no scope, but who see no hope in Socialism because they are not wage-earners; on the other hand, there are able and powerful men whose interests are opposed to those of the community at large, and who, therefore, can best retain their influence by promoting various kinds of hysteria."
Well, if we substitute the current American middle-class, with its disaffection from labor (see the recent troubles within the labor movement) for Russell's classes with "no scope" and "no hope," and the dominating political and economic class in the US for those whose interest is to promote "various kinds of hysteria," the picture isn't that different.
Now, I don't want to jump to what I think is the rather extreme claim that the Bush administration has inaugurated fascism in the US. Fascism is a hell of a lot worse than what Bush-II and his cronies have managed to do. But it is equally difficult to argue that we have seen a dramatic shift not only toward conservatism, but toward an increased role of Government in areas of private life where it doesn't belong (e.g., a lot -- though not all -- of the "security measures" implemented after 9/11). And this with a Republican administration! Remember? The Reps are supposed to be in favor of less government control, but apparently that only applies to financial matters and big corporations, not to the sex life of individual citizens (see the idiocy surrounding the idea of gay marriages, for example).
Interestingly, Russell makes the link between nationalistic fever and the cult of unreason in a nation. The US ' national politial discourse has in fact been quite unreasonable and nationalistic of late (though one could argue that such tendency has always been either just below the surface or clearly above it throughout American history).
According to Russell, "the two things the world needs most are Socialism and peace, but both are contrary to the interests of the most powerful men of our time." Indeed.
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Geography of Thought
Richard Nisbett's book, The Geography of Thought, is about whether, and why, Westerners and Asians think differently. And, if so, what the consequences are for cognitive psychology as well as for politics and the near future of humanity.
Before anybody gets all worked up about a simplistic approach based on categorizing entire groups and ignoring differences among individuals, stop it right there. The premise is sound, and empirically based. Of course there are differences among individual Westerners and Asians. Moreover, as Nisbett himself shows through his research, there are different kinds of "Westerners" and of "Asians" (e.g., Europeans like French, Italian and Spanish behave significantly differently from, say, English, when compared to Americans as a reference group). But individual differences don't necessarily negate the existence of group differences, and it is on the latter that Nisbett focuses.
I can't possibly do justice to the entire book here (which is, however, rather short and very easy to read, so go ahead, put it on your list). Nonetheless, the picture emerging from it, based largely on comparative cross-cultural studies, is that Westerners do in fact think differently from Asians; indeed, the two literally "see" the world in different fashions. Westerners tend to focus on the role of individuals, adopting strongly causal views of history, relying on formal logic... and building a society in which lawyers far outnumber engineers (at least in the US)! Asians pay more attention to the environment in which individuals live, with its diffuse causal connections, have never developed a formal philosophy or logical system, and (in Japan at least) have far more engineers than lawyers.
Nisbett suggests that there is much good in both approaches. Science would not have been possible without the Western tradition of thought, tracing back to Aristotle. On the other hand, Asians have never seen religious wars, partly as a consequence of their tendency to try to diffuse in-group conflict (this is distinct from inter-group warfare, apparently that's an almost human universal).
In the end, there are three models of the near future: Francis Fukuyama's famous "end of history," in which the West's hegemony will become complete, and capitalism and democracy (which, of course, ain't exactly -- or even approximately -- the same thing) will prevail. Or Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations," in which the two systems of thought will collide (are colliding already? Though we are not talking here about the Middle East, which is a third, and distinct, cultural group). Or Nisbett's third way, a convergence where future humans will pick the best of each culture's contributions and discard the rest.
My own preference is for Nisbett's third way, of course, though the current trend seems to be a combination of Fukuyama's and Huntington's. It is up to each of us to attempt to steer the way, and a better understanding of the differences, pluses and minuses, of the various options is necessary to guide us. Nisbett's book certainly helps in that direction.
Before anybody gets all worked up about a simplistic approach based on categorizing entire groups and ignoring differences among individuals, stop it right there. The premise is sound, and empirically based. Of course there are differences among individual Westerners and Asians. Moreover, as Nisbett himself shows through his research, there are different kinds of "Westerners" and of "Asians" (e.g., Europeans like French, Italian and Spanish behave significantly differently from, say, English, when compared to Americans as a reference group). But individual differences don't necessarily negate the existence of group differences, and it is on the latter that Nisbett focuses.
I can't possibly do justice to the entire book here (which is, however, rather short and very easy to read, so go ahead, put it on your list). Nonetheless, the picture emerging from it, based largely on comparative cross-cultural studies, is that Westerners do in fact think differently from Asians; indeed, the two literally "see" the world in different fashions. Westerners tend to focus on the role of individuals, adopting strongly causal views of history, relying on formal logic... and building a society in which lawyers far outnumber engineers (at least in the US)! Asians pay more attention to the environment in which individuals live, with its diffuse causal connections, have never developed a formal philosophy or logical system, and (in Japan at least) have far more engineers than lawyers.
Nisbett suggests that there is much good in both approaches. Science would not have been possible without the Western tradition of thought, tracing back to Aristotle. On the other hand, Asians have never seen religious wars, partly as a consequence of their tendency to try to diffuse in-group conflict (this is distinct from inter-group warfare, apparently that's an almost human universal).
In the end, there are three models of the near future: Francis Fukuyama's famous "end of history," in which the West's hegemony will become complete, and capitalism and democracy (which, of course, ain't exactly -- or even approximately -- the same thing) will prevail. Or Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations," in which the two systems of thought will collide (are colliding already? Though we are not talking here about the Middle East, which is a third, and distinct, cultural group). Or Nisbett's third way, a convergence where future humans will pick the best of each culture's contributions and discard the rest.
My own preference is for Nisbett's third way, of course, though the current trend seems to be a combination of Fukuyama's and Huntington's. It is up to each of us to attempt to steer the way, and a better understanding of the differences, pluses and minuses, of the various options is necessary to guide us. Nisbett's book certainly helps in that direction.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
In Praise of Idleness-III
In the chapter/essay on "The modern Midas," Russell discusses the differences and connections between finance and industry. As he puts it:
"Finance is more powerful than industry when both are independent, but the interests of industry more nearly coincide with those of the community than do the interests of finance."
This is exactly the sort of problem that brought us -- 70 years after Russell wrote -- Enron and the whole Wall Street mess. The idea is that capitalism, if it has to work, has to be based on certain rules ("managed capitalism," they call it in Europe). One of these rules is a tight coupling between investments (capital) and the products of the industry one is investing on. In turn, this means that things like day trading and other short-term "investments" are not investments at all (because there is no time for the industry to actually use that capital and deliver a product), they are speculation. And speculaton is gambling pure and simple.
We now live in a society in which, for some bizarre reason, it has become normal to accept the idea that people can "make a kill" on the market and become millionaires overnight. Usually, of course, on the skin of thousands of others who either lose their money or their jobs. This is nonsense on stilts of the highest order.
The solution, of course, is pretty simple: regulate stock trading in a way similar to, say, government bonds: you can't sell before a certain minimum period of time, and if you do you incur a penalty. This sort of measures would reconnect, as Russell puts it, finance and industry, and would greatly benefit the welfare of the majority of people. Alas, the American public has been sold on the idea that anybody can become instantly rich, and this hope dazzles and blinds us into acquiescence to a system that makes most people's lives worse than they could be. Just think of the fact that the richest country in the world (and the self-professed best democracy on the planet) still has the shame of having tens of millions of its citizens and children without health care. But that's another story...
"Finance is more powerful than industry when both are independent, but the interests of industry more nearly coincide with those of the community than do the interests of finance."
This is exactly the sort of problem that brought us -- 70 years after Russell wrote -- Enron and the whole Wall Street mess. The idea is that capitalism, if it has to work, has to be based on certain rules ("managed capitalism," they call it in Europe). One of these rules is a tight coupling between investments (capital) and the products of the industry one is investing on. In turn, this means that things like day trading and other short-term "investments" are not investments at all (because there is no time for the industry to actually use that capital and deliver a product), they are speculation. And speculaton is gambling pure and simple.
We now live in a society in which, for some bizarre reason, it has become normal to accept the idea that people can "make a kill" on the market and become millionaires overnight. Usually, of course, on the skin of thousands of others who either lose their money or their jobs. This is nonsense on stilts of the highest order.
The solution, of course, is pretty simple: regulate stock trading in a way similar to, say, government bonds: you can't sell before a certain minimum period of time, and if you do you incur a penalty. This sort of measures would reconnect, as Russell puts it, finance and industry, and would greatly benefit the welfare of the majority of people. Alas, the American public has been sold on the idea that anybody can become instantly rich, and this hope dazzles and blinds us into acquiescence to a system that makes most people's lives worse than they could be. Just think of the fact that the richest country in the world (and the self-professed best democracy on the planet) still has the shame of having tens of millions of its citizens and children without health care. But that's another story...
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Thank God for Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman has recently published an op-ed in the New York Times in which he tackles so-called "intelligent design theory," and the controversy over the teaching of evolution. However, unlike many scientists who insists in thinking that this is a matter of science, or at most of education policy, Krugman hits the nail on the head and puts the problem in the broadest context.
Krugman maintains that the strategy of advocates of intelligent design is the same as that of critics of global warming, or of enthusiasts of supply-side economics. To wit, attack the science in the public area, exploit the few dissenting voices within the scientific community (which, after all, is made of human beings with all their frailties, including the search for fame and money), and present your manouvers as a genuine push to contribute to the "market of ideas."
The result, in both the cases of supply-side economics and global warming, has been that a large sector of the public is now confused about what scientists actually think, with a lingering feeling that the jury really is out there (in the case of global warming, the jury has come back long ago: it's happening, and humans have at least something to do with it; in the case of supply-side economics, there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to show that tax cuts are economically beneficial).
Krugman suggests that the same is happening to the "controversy" between creationism and evolution, because intelligent design (unlike standard young-earth creationism) is fuzzy enough, and makes apparently "reasonable"enough claims, to serve the purpose.
A colleague of mine told me of a very effective way to show to students that something isn't a scientific controversy. He walks into his introductory college-level class with a pitcher full of water, and puts some ice in it. He then asks his students to predict what will happen once the ice melts. About 9 out of 10 of them say that the water will overflow from the pitcher. This, of course, doesn't happen, because of the density properties of water. My colleague then turns to the class and says: "See? There is no scientific controversy about the physical properties of ice. The fact that the majority of you predicted the overflow simply means that you are ignorant of basic physics." Ouch. Similarly, there is no scientific controversy about the evolutionary theory, but the demagogues that support intelligent design want you to believe there is one. Are you going to allow them to make a monkey out of you?
Krugman maintains that the strategy of advocates of intelligent design is the same as that of critics of global warming, or of enthusiasts of supply-side economics. To wit, attack the science in the public area, exploit the few dissenting voices within the scientific community (which, after all, is made of human beings with all their frailties, including the search for fame and money), and present your manouvers as a genuine push to contribute to the "market of ideas."
The result, in both the cases of supply-side economics and global warming, has been that a large sector of the public is now confused about what scientists actually think, with a lingering feeling that the jury really is out there (in the case of global warming, the jury has come back long ago: it's happening, and humans have at least something to do with it; in the case of supply-side economics, there isn't a shred of empirical evidence to show that tax cuts are economically beneficial).
Krugman suggests that the same is happening to the "controversy" between creationism and evolution, because intelligent design (unlike standard young-earth creationism) is fuzzy enough, and makes apparently "reasonable"enough claims, to serve the purpose.
A colleague of mine told me of a very effective way to show to students that something isn't a scientific controversy. He walks into his introductory college-level class with a pitcher full of water, and puts some ice in it. He then asks his students to predict what will happen once the ice melts. About 9 out of 10 of them say that the water will overflow from the pitcher. This, of course, doesn't happen, because of the density properties of water. My colleague then turns to the class and says: "See? There is no scientific controversy about the physical properties of ice. The fact that the majority of you predicted the overflow simply means that you are ignorant of basic physics." Ouch. Similarly, there is no scientific controversy about the evolutionary theory, but the demagogues that support intelligent design want you to believe there is one. Are you going to allow them to make a monkey out of you?
Friday, August 05, 2005
In Praise of Idleness-II
Bertrand Russell, in his collection of essays entitled "In Praise of Idleness," goes on to discuss the role of "useless" knowledge in our society. By this he means knowledge that is valued for its own sake, regardless of any particular practical application (in a way, similar to the way we value art for its own sake, regardless of how much money we may make by selling that Picasso we all have in our attic).
"Learning, in the renaissance, was part of the joie de vivre, just as much as drinking or love-making." Interesting comparisons there, no? Indeed, one can get -- in a metaphorical sense -- inebriated by intellectual pursuits (even drunk, perhaps?), and certainly the sudden joy of discovery can be compared to love-making (though usually the sensation of release isn't quite that overwhelming...).
Russell becomes very worried about the tendency of modern society (he was writing in the 1930s) to reduce the size of its vocabulary, to make language more "practical." One consequence of this, he argues, is the potential loss of literary flourishing and of a sense of style in writing and reading. But of course, as Orwell magisterially pointed out in "1984," a much more dangerous result is the inability of people to think about certain thoughts -- especially those that are dangerous to the establishment -- because of a lack of appropriate words. Words and concepts are closely related, one can hardly have the latter without mastering of the former.
Russell, of course, isn't saying that practical knowledge isn't, well, useful! On the contrary. But there is no need why that has somehow to be seen as opposite to theoretical knowledge: culture isn't a zero sum game, and the more the better.
Most importantly, Russell points out that too much focus on practical results often leads to nervous breakdowns, or at least to unpleasant levels of stress; moreover, lack of culture affects human behavior in a most decidedly negative manner, including that of children. As he puts it: "The bully in a school is seldom a boy whose proficiency in learning is up to the average. When a lynching takes place, the ring-leaders are almost invariably ignorant men." I wonder if it is because of Bush's ignorance and sense of insecurity that we got into the Iraq mess...
"Learning, in the renaissance, was part of the joie de vivre, just as much as drinking or love-making." Interesting comparisons there, no? Indeed, one can get -- in a metaphorical sense -- inebriated by intellectual pursuits (even drunk, perhaps?), and certainly the sudden joy of discovery can be compared to love-making (though usually the sensation of release isn't quite that overwhelming...).
Russell becomes very worried about the tendency of modern society (he was writing in the 1930s) to reduce the size of its vocabulary, to make language more "practical." One consequence of this, he argues, is the potential loss of literary flourishing and of a sense of style in writing and reading. But of course, as Orwell magisterially pointed out in "1984," a much more dangerous result is the inability of people to think about certain thoughts -- especially those that are dangerous to the establishment -- because of a lack of appropriate words. Words and concepts are closely related, one can hardly have the latter without mastering of the former.
Russell, of course, isn't saying that practical knowledge isn't, well, useful! On the contrary. But there is no need why that has somehow to be seen as opposite to theoretical knowledge: culture isn't a zero sum game, and the more the better.
Most importantly, Russell points out that too much focus on practical results often leads to nervous breakdowns, or at least to unpleasant levels of stress; moreover, lack of culture affects human behavior in a most decidedly negative manner, including that of children. As he puts it: "The bully in a school is seldom a boy whose proficiency in learning is up to the average. When a lynching takes place, the ring-leaders are almost invariably ignorant men." I wonder if it is because of Bush's ignorance and sense of insecurity that we got into the Iraq mess...
In Praise of Idleness-I
I'm reading Bertrand Russell's collection of essays, "In Praise of Idleness," an intriguing idea (the praise, not the collection of essays) for modern Western society, especially the American one, where idleness -- as Russell remarks -- is frowned upon as a waste of "productive" time.
Among the radical ideas Russell puts forth is that we have the technology that would enable us to work about four hour a day, and employ the rest in relaxation and cultural activities, or in volunteer work. But, he quickly points out, we are raised in a society for which something like that would be unthinkable, because the people at the top of the economic ladder have never liked those below to have leisure time, and even less to improve their lot. You never know, educated people might start thinking critically, which may lead to dire consequences for the establishment.
Some of my favorite quotes from the British philosopher, from the first essay of the book (the one that gives it its title):
"I think that there is far too much work done in the world."
"The road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work."
"[Work] is emphatically not one of the ends of human life."
"The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake."
"The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy."
Pretti revolutionary stuff, for being written in 1932, eh?
Among the radical ideas Russell puts forth is that we have the technology that would enable us to work about four hour a day, and employ the rest in relaxation and cultural activities, or in volunteer work. But, he quickly points out, we are raised in a society for which something like that would be unthinkable, because the people at the top of the economic ladder have never liked those below to have leisure time, and even less to improve their lot. You never know, educated people might start thinking critically, which may lead to dire consequences for the establishment.
Some of my favorite quotes from the British philosopher, from the first essay of the book (the one that gives it its title):
"I think that there is far too much work done in the world."
"The road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work."
"[Work] is emphatically not one of the ends of human life."
"The modern man thinks that everything ought to be done for the sake of something else, and never for its own sake."
"The notion that the desirable activities are those that bring a profit has made everything topsy-turvy."
Pretti revolutionary stuff, for being written in 1932, eh?
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Bill (Gates) wants it all
Bill Gates and Microsoft want it all, while at the same time blatantly denying the status of quasi-monopoly that they obviously have. The New York Times reported that the software giant has filed applications for thousands of patents on minute details of their software algorithms, unhappy that their products are protected "only" by copyright law.
To patent an algorithm makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, it stifles innovation by other companies for decades. Second, algorithms -- like genes -- ought more properly be thought of as being discovered, not invented. Imagine if someone were allowed to patent the procedures for, say, extract a square root from a number. (I know, nowadays genes can be patented, but that makes no sense either.)
Thomas Jefferson was the first overseer of the US Patent Office, and he thought that patents should be granted only on rare instances, precisely to balance the necessity for an economic incentive to inventors against the possibility of a monopoly of ideas and, consequently, of products. Exactly what Microsoft is attempting to establish.
Gates' company has recently even resorted to scare tacticts to discourage corporate users to switch to open source software, hinting that they would be more vulnerable to piracy -- an assertion for which, of course, there is no empirical evidence.
Please, consider helping to limit Microsoft's power. Go to OpenOffice and download their excellent, free, software, perfectly equivalent to MS's products. And while you are it, get a Mac...
To patent an algorithm makes no sense for a variety of reasons. First, it stifles innovation by other companies for decades. Second, algorithms -- like genes -- ought more properly be thought of as being discovered, not invented. Imagine if someone were allowed to patent the procedures for, say, extract a square root from a number. (I know, nowadays genes can be patented, but that makes no sense either.)
Thomas Jefferson was the first overseer of the US Patent Office, and he thought that patents should be granted only on rare instances, precisely to balance the necessity for an economic incentive to inventors against the possibility of a monopoly of ideas and, consequently, of products. Exactly what Microsoft is attempting to establish.
Gates' company has recently even resorted to scare tacticts to discourage corporate users to switch to open source software, hinting that they would be more vulnerable to piracy -- an assertion for which, of course, there is no empirical evidence.
Please, consider helping to limit Microsoft's power. Go to OpenOffice and download their excellent, free, software, perfectly equivalent to MS's products. And while you are it, get a Mac...
"Lookism" about fat people??
OK, this is close to my heart because I used to be overweight, so I know first-hand the problem and the emotional experience. But for ABC's Good Morning America to have a feature dedicated to "discrimination" against fat people, it seems to me to overreach in the area of political correctness.
First off, the segment presented an informal survey done in the streets of New York. ABC's people went around showing three photos of a woman -- same head but different bodies (average, slightly overweight, obese). Ah, the pleasures of image-enhancing software! They asked men how they rated the three "women." Big surprise, the ratings were highest for the average body, less good for the overweight, and decidedly low for the obese. The comment was that this was evidence of "lookism," i.e. of discrimination based on looks. My (non fat) ass! It would have been discrimination if the interviewed people were about to hire somebody for a job that wasn't obviously related to physical appearance (such as model for Victoria's Secret). But the survey simply told us what we already knew, and moreover what's perfectly normal: fat and obese people are not attractive!
That, of course, doesn't mean that overweight people shouldn't do anything in their power to feel better about themselves, though by far the best thing they could do is to eat less and exercise more (again, I speak for personal experience here). But to accuse the rest of society of discrimination based on aesthetic standards, c'mon!
The segment became even more ridiculous when it showed a beauty pageant for fat women, featuring a special section on lingerie. A beauty pageant? Talk about political correctness. Have these people not considered that it is the concept of a beauty contest that is demeaning to women in general, not just fat ones? And I'm sorry, I tried to see the featured models as sexy and beautiful (as the voiceover shouted they really are), but I still prefer Victoria's...
To top it all off, the segment ended with the anchor asking the obvious question to the overweight guest: what about health? Isn't it true that being overweight carries health risks? The implication being, isn't it a bit dangerous to extol the virtues of being obese? The answer was astounding: first, the guest argued, just because the majority of overweight people have health problems it doesn't mean that everyone will. Duh, would be Homer Simpson's insightful comment. Second, she said, it's all about your body: exercise and take care of it, and you'll be fine. Right, you would also be less fat...
First off, the segment presented an informal survey done in the streets of New York. ABC's people went around showing three photos of a woman -- same head but different bodies (average, slightly overweight, obese). Ah, the pleasures of image-enhancing software! They asked men how they rated the three "women." Big surprise, the ratings were highest for the average body, less good for the overweight, and decidedly low for the obese. The comment was that this was evidence of "lookism," i.e. of discrimination based on looks. My (non fat) ass! It would have been discrimination if the interviewed people were about to hire somebody for a job that wasn't obviously related to physical appearance (such as model for Victoria's Secret). But the survey simply told us what we already knew, and moreover what's perfectly normal: fat and obese people are not attractive!
That, of course, doesn't mean that overweight people shouldn't do anything in their power to feel better about themselves, though by far the best thing they could do is to eat less and exercise more (again, I speak for personal experience here). But to accuse the rest of society of discrimination based on aesthetic standards, c'mon!
The segment became even more ridiculous when it showed a beauty pageant for fat women, featuring a special section on lingerie. A beauty pageant? Talk about political correctness. Have these people not considered that it is the concept of a beauty contest that is demeaning to women in general, not just fat ones? And I'm sorry, I tried to see the featured models as sexy and beautiful (as the voiceover shouted they really are), but I still prefer Victoria's...
To top it all off, the segment ended with the anchor asking the obvious question to the overweight guest: what about health? Isn't it true that being overweight carries health risks? The implication being, isn't it a bit dangerous to extol the virtues of being obese? The answer was astounding: first, the guest argued, just because the majority of overweight people have health problems it doesn't mean that everyone will. Duh, would be Homer Simpson's insightful comment. Second, she said, it's all about your body: exercise and take care of it, and you'll be fine. Right, you would also be less fat...
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Six simple answers about Iraq
(see this morning's posting about the Six Simple Questions...)
1. We attacked Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia in part because Bush-II wanted to even the score and finish the job with Saddam Hussein on behalf of his father, and because the Bushes have been in the pockets of the Saudis for a long time.
2. There was no pre-war link between Hussen and Bin Laden.
3. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
4. Candidate Bush was against nation building, which shows that he is a flip-flopper.
5. We are not really concerned with the proliferation of WMDs. In fact, we like it, as long as we can control it and benefit from it. We just don't like certain nations to have them.
6. We are not really concerned about the spread of democracy, it just sounds good. What we care about his our own economic and political interests.
See? I told you it was pretty simple...
1. We attacked Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia in part because Bush-II wanted to even the score and finish the job with Saddam Hussein on behalf of his father, and because the Bushes have been in the pockets of the Saudis for a long time.
2. There was no pre-war link between Hussen and Bin Laden.
3. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
4. Candidate Bush was against nation building, which shows that he is a flip-flopper.
5. We are not really concerned with the proliferation of WMDs. In fact, we like it, as long as we can control it and benefit from it. We just don't like certain nations to have them.
6. We are not really concerned about the spread of democracy, it just sounds good. What we care about his our own economic and political interests.
See? I told you it was pretty simple...
More on Bush and intelligent design
So, what did Mr. Bush really mean yesterday, when -- referring to teaching intelligent design "theory" in public schools -- he said that "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought; you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes"?
According to his own science advisor, John H. Marburger 3rd, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Marburger said people should not over-interpret Bush's statement, since what he meant was that ID should be discussed as part of the social context in science classes.
Hmm, apparently some of Bush's own supporters have a different interpretation in mind. Richard Land, president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that "it's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing, [evolution] is too often taught as fact; if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."
What this "other theory" allegedly supported by "most" scientists might be is hard to guess. Surely Mr. Land could not have been referring to creationism, in any of its various and equally misguided forms.
And please stop this silly stuff about evolution being "just" a theory! Of course it is. Any scientific theory is a theory: gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, atomic, quantum mechanical, etc. But this does not imply that it is on equal footing with such nonsense on stilts as intelligent design or young-earth creationism. A scientific theory isn't a hunch, it is a coherent body of (often mathematical) statements about how the world works, used to intepret a wealth of solid empirical evidence (otherwise known as scientific facts).
Where is the evidence for intelligent design, please?
According to his own science advisor, John H. Marburger 3rd, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Marburger said people should not over-interpret Bush's statement, since what he meant was that ID should be discussed as part of the social context in science classes.
Hmm, apparently some of Bush's own supporters have a different interpretation in mind. Richard Land, president of the ethics and religious liberties commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, said that "it's what I've been pushing, it's what a lot of us have been pushing, [evolution] is too often taught as fact; if you're going to teach the Darwinian theory as evolution, teach it as theory. And then teach another theory that has the most support among scientists."
What this "other theory" allegedly supported by "most" scientists might be is hard to guess. Surely Mr. Land could not have been referring to creationism, in any of its various and equally misguided forms.
And please stop this silly stuff about evolution being "just" a theory! Of course it is. Any scientific theory is a theory: gravity, relativity, thermodynamics, atomic, quantum mechanical, etc. But this does not imply that it is on equal footing with such nonsense on stilts as intelligent design or young-earth creationism. A scientific theory isn't a hunch, it is a coherent body of (often mathematical) statements about how the world works, used to intepret a wealth of solid empirical evidence (otherwise known as scientific facts).
Where is the evidence for intelligent design, please?
Six simple questions about Iraq
1. Since most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, why did we attack Iraq?
2. What exactly was the pre-war link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden?
3. Once again, where are these damn weapons of mass destruction?
4. Oh, now it's about spreading democracy. But didn't candidate Bush repeatedly criticize the United Nations for attempting "nation building"?
5. If the concern is WMD proliferation, why are we still building them, and why don't we get serious with nations we know for sure have them? (Pakistan comes to mind, though Israel is up there too...)
6. If we are so concerned about tyrants and undemocratic regimes, why have we been supporting scores of them in the past (including Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador...), and why aren't we attacking the mother of all undemocratic nations, China?
2. What exactly was the pre-war link between Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden?
3. Once again, where are these damn weapons of mass destruction?
4. Oh, now it's about spreading democracy. But didn't candidate Bush repeatedly criticize the United Nations for attempting "nation building"?
5. If the concern is WMD proliferation, why are we still building them, and why don't we get serious with nations we know for sure have them? (Pakistan comes to mind, though Israel is up there too...)
6. If we are so concerned about tyrants and undemocratic regimes, why have we been supporting scores of them in the past (including Iraq, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador...), and why aren't we attacking the mother of all undemocratic nations, China?
Ape to monkey??
The History Channel is about to broadcast a documentary on human evolution, premiering Sunday, August 7th at 9pm Eastern Time.
The web site of the program looks fine, if a bit on the Dysney side of things. There is an accurate time line of human evolution (can you believe it? They actually claim that the story began 5 million years ago!), and a "missing link" interactive challenge, in which the visitor can play paleo-anthropologist.
Of course, I haven't seen the program, but we surely need good science on TV, especially about evolution, and particularly on human evolution. What bugs me is the title of and advertisement for the show: "Ape to Man: Has Evolution Made a Monkey Out of You?", accompanied by a poster showing an image similar to Michelangelo's famous Sistine Chapel painting, where God's hand almost touches Adam's. Except that in the History Channel version, "Adam" has the harm of a monkey. (Notice the confusion in the title vs. subtitle of apes and monkeys, which are pretty different kinds of primates...)
Why? Why peddling to the so-called controversy over evolution? I understand that commercial channels have to attract audiences, and the competition is fierce (especially from all those ludicruous "reality" shows that are so popular nowadays), but couldn't the people in charge of the advertisement campaign for "Ape to Monkey" be a bit more creative and equally effective?
By the way, we most certainly did not come from monkeys (or apes). We share a common ancestor with them. That would be like saying that you descend from your cousin. You don't, although you do have some of the same genes because you share some of the people on your family tree.
The web site of the program looks fine, if a bit on the Dysney side of things. There is an accurate time line of human evolution (can you believe it? They actually claim that the story began 5 million years ago!), and a "missing link" interactive challenge, in which the visitor can play paleo-anthropologist.
Of course, I haven't seen the program, but we surely need good science on TV, especially about evolution, and particularly on human evolution. What bugs me is the title of and advertisement for the show: "Ape to Man: Has Evolution Made a Monkey Out of You?", accompanied by a poster showing an image similar to Michelangelo's famous Sistine Chapel painting, where God's hand almost touches Adam's. Except that in the History Channel version, "Adam" has the harm of a monkey. (Notice the confusion in the title vs. subtitle of apes and monkeys, which are pretty different kinds of primates...)
Why? Why peddling to the so-called controversy over evolution? I understand that commercial channels have to attract audiences, and the competition is fierce (especially from all those ludicruous "reality" shows that are so popular nowadays), but couldn't the people in charge of the advertisement campaign for "Ape to Monkey" be a bit more creative and equally effective?
By the way, we most certainly did not come from monkeys (or apes). We share a common ancestor with them. That would be like saying that you descend from your cousin. You don't, although you do have some of the same genes because you share some of the people on your family tree.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Bush says schools should teach "Intelligent Design"
Of course he would. Frankly, I'm surprised it took him this long to "come out of the closet," so to speak. President Bush-II said "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.''
This, of course, from a leader who has done as much damage to public education as anybody in recent memory (see his so-called "no child left behind" idiocy), not to mention the extreme degree of secrecy his administration has adopted since the beginning, I guess to favor the exposure of people to different ideas in the absence of facts.
Intelligent Design, of course, is a thinly veiled form of creationism, it isn't science, it isn't philosophy, and it is even pretty bad theology. But never mind that, we now have it from the top man in the country that different ideas ought to be taught, regardless of how wacky they actually are.
This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the need Bush and his associates have to retain as much support from the religious right as possible, in view of the upcoming mid-term election, could it? Well, yes and no. I'm sure political gain does enter into this, but I also bet that Bush really is as simple-minded as he often comes across to be in media interviews. He probably does honestly believe that ID is a good alternative to the science of evolution, and all those political cartoons portraying him as a monkey don't help either. Though they are pretty funny...
This, of course, from a leader who has done as much damage to public education as anybody in recent memory (see his so-called "no child left behind" idiocy), not to mention the extreme degree of secrecy his administration has adopted since the beginning, I guess to favor the exposure of people to different ideas in the absence of facts.
Intelligent Design, of course, is a thinly veiled form of creationism, it isn't science, it isn't philosophy, and it is even pretty bad theology. But never mind that, we now have it from the top man in the country that different ideas ought to be taught, regardless of how wacky they actually are.
This couldn't possibly have anything to do with the need Bush and his associates have to retain as much support from the religious right as possible, in view of the upcoming mid-term election, could it? Well, yes and no. I'm sure political gain does enter into this, but I also bet that Bush really is as simple-minded as he often comes across to be in media interviews. He probably does honestly believe that ID is a good alternative to the science of evolution, and all those political cartoons portraying him as a monkey don't help either. Though they are pretty funny...
What the devil is wrong with NASA?
Now NASA tells us that they have to do an unprecedented space walk to repair damage to the exterior of the Shuttle, trying to avoid a third disaster in the Shuttle program, which would certainly terminate it (it is already dying of lack of commitment from the Bush administration anyhow).
It's reasonable to ask: what is wrong with NASA? Where are the brave and smart people who brought us on the Moon, avoided the Apollo 13 disaster, and landed the Viking probes on Mars? A reasonable answer was actually fictionally forecasted in the 1978 movie "Capricorn One," where NASA was so embattled with fund cuts that it decided that a planned manned mission to Mars was just too dangerous, so they fake it in a TV studio!
In recent years, NASA's most spectacular failures have included the loss of two shuttles, and a botched mission to Mars that missed the red planet altogether, apparently because engineers working on the project didn't think of clearing with each other whether they were using the metric or the "British" system of measurements (why is the US the only industrialized nation still measuring things in inches, anyway?).
The most likely factor accounting for NASA's problems is that several years ago they made the bold move (again to convince Congress to keep supporting them) to re-engineer the space program along the lines of "faster, better, safer." As any optimazation analyst would tell you, pick any two...
It's reasonable to ask: what is wrong with NASA? Where are the brave and smart people who brought us on the Moon, avoided the Apollo 13 disaster, and landed the Viking probes on Mars? A reasonable answer was actually fictionally forecasted in the 1978 movie "Capricorn One," where NASA was so embattled with fund cuts that it decided that a planned manned mission to Mars was just too dangerous, so they fake it in a TV studio!
In recent years, NASA's most spectacular failures have included the loss of two shuttles, and a botched mission to Mars that missed the red planet altogether, apparently because engineers working on the project didn't think of clearing with each other whether they were using the metric or the "British" system of measurements (why is the US the only industrialized nation still measuring things in inches, anyway?).
The most likely factor accounting for NASA's problems is that several years ago they made the bold move (again to convince Congress to keep supporting them) to re-engineer the space program along the lines of "faster, better, safer." As any optimazation analyst would tell you, pick any two...
Monday, August 01, 2005
Atkins: the fad, the bankruptcy
Well, it has happened: Atkins -- the company named after the man who invented the low-carb high-protein diet, has filed for bankruptcy. Apparently, after sending several small bread and pasta companies to the same fate, Americans are now fed up, so to speak, with red meat too!
This isn't really surprising, as the American public is infamous for diet fads that last a season, or slightly longer than the average dieter's ability to actually stick to any health-conscious regime. As a commentator put it today on National Public Radio, people figured out that life without bread and pasta is just not as much fun. As an Italian (with no weight problem, at the moment!) I couldn't agree more.
The thing abot the Atkins (or, for that matter, many other popular diets), is that there is little -- if any -- scientific research to back up its claims of effectiveness, and especially of long-term health (you may lose some weight in the beginning, but is your heart going to be ok with all the cholesterol you keep gulping down in large portions?). This, of course, hasn't stopped even some of my more skeptical friends to embrace it, either because somebody told them it worked (science by anectode -- never fails), or because it just felt good to suddenly be free to eat a lot of formerly "forbidden" meat (I guess not many vegetarians takers).
There are two rather obvious, and yet so often overlooked, things about dieting. First, there is no magic bullet, no single-chemical or simple solution to what is, after all, a complex methabolic problem. Like many things in life, there is a way to do it, but it ain't painless and straightforward. Second, the "secret" to lose weight is (but don't tell anyone!): eat less and move your butt more. Or, to put it more scientifically: it's a matter of thermodynamics, baby, if you want to lose weight, increase your ouptut and decrease your input. Believe me, it works, I've done it! (And it's backed by the most solid principle in science: the second law of thermodynamics.)
This isn't really surprising, as the American public is infamous for diet fads that last a season, or slightly longer than the average dieter's ability to actually stick to any health-conscious regime. As a commentator put it today on National Public Radio, people figured out that life without bread and pasta is just not as much fun. As an Italian (with no weight problem, at the moment!) I couldn't agree more.
The thing abot the Atkins (or, for that matter, many other popular diets), is that there is little -- if any -- scientific research to back up its claims of effectiveness, and especially of long-term health (you may lose some weight in the beginning, but is your heart going to be ok with all the cholesterol you keep gulping down in large portions?). This, of course, hasn't stopped even some of my more skeptical friends to embrace it, either because somebody told them it worked (science by anectode -- never fails), or because it just felt good to suddenly be free to eat a lot of formerly "forbidden" meat (I guess not many vegetarians takers).
There are two rather obvious, and yet so often overlooked, things about dieting. First, there is no magic bullet, no single-chemical or simple solution to what is, after all, a complex methabolic problem. Like many things in life, there is a way to do it, but it ain't painless and straightforward. Second, the "secret" to lose weight is (but don't tell anyone!): eat less and move your butt more. Or, to put it more scientifically: it's a matter of thermodynamics, baby, if you want to lose weight, increase your ouptut and decrease your input. Believe me, it works, I've done it! (And it's backed by the most solid principle in science: the second law of thermodynamics.)
Media bias, liberal or conservative?
There is much talk about liberal bias (the complaint of the right wing) or about the fact that the media are in the pockets of big business and blackmailed by a quasi-fascist government (the complaint of liberals).
A much needed balanced view of the controversy appeared recently in the New York Times, by Richard Posner (a Judge on the US Court of Appeals and a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School).
There are a couple of things I found particularly interesting about Posner's piece. First, it points out the results of recent research showing that 65% of Americans think news organizations would try to cover up a mistake they made, and that 79% of the public thinks the media are under too much corporate control. This is interesting because it is often said (by liberals, largely) that the American public isn't skeptical enough, that people are completely bamboozled by what they read, watch or hear from the media. Hmm, 79% is a high level of skepticism. Could it be that the reality is a bit more complicated than simple-minded criticism of the media might suggest?
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Posner points out that bias is actually a good thing! Given that human beings are by nature hardly objective, the public -- the idea goes -- is much better served by a cacophony of contrasting views expressed by a variety of media outlets (including, and foremost, the Internet and the blogosphere). If you want to be informed, you can; if you want to read contrasting opinions on the same subject matter, you can. (Of course, whether people have sufficient time or inclination to do so is another matter.)
This view of balance emerging not from the objectivity of individual reporters or commentators, but from the continuous checks and balances offered by a community of views, is actually very similar to the way philosopher Helen Longino of Princeton explained (in her book, "Science as Social Knowledge") the astounding (though not perfect) degree of objectivity in science. It isn't that individual scientists are particularly objective, unbiased observers of the world. Rather, it is the continuous process of peer review that -- in the long run -- eliminates the crap and leaves the good stuff in clear view.
Of course, in the case of news the process is more complicated because it isn't just the facts that matter; people can hold genuine and respectable -- but different -- opinions about the same facts. Nonetheless, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of a large community involved in volunteering opinions. As Posner points out in his article, at least people who blog and comment on other people's blogs spend part of their time thinking and writing, rather than being couch potatoes...
A much needed balanced view of the controversy appeared recently in the New York Times, by Richard Posner (a Judge on the US Court of Appeals and a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School).
There are a couple of things I found particularly interesting about Posner's piece. First, it points out the results of recent research showing that 65% of Americans think news organizations would try to cover up a mistake they made, and that 79% of the public thinks the media are under too much corporate control. This is interesting because it is often said (by liberals, largely) that the American public isn't skeptical enough, that people are completely bamboozled by what they read, watch or hear from the media. Hmm, 79% is a high level of skepticism. Could it be that the reality is a bit more complicated than simple-minded criticism of the media might suggest?
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Posner points out that bias is actually a good thing! Given that human beings are by nature hardly objective, the public -- the idea goes -- is much better served by a cacophony of contrasting views expressed by a variety of media outlets (including, and foremost, the Internet and the blogosphere). If you want to be informed, you can; if you want to read contrasting opinions on the same subject matter, you can. (Of course, whether people have sufficient time or inclination to do so is another matter.)
This view of balance emerging not from the objectivity of individual reporters or commentators, but from the continuous checks and balances offered by a community of views, is actually very similar to the way philosopher Helen Longino of Princeton explained (in her book, "Science as Social Knowledge") the astounding (though not perfect) degree of objectivity in science. It isn't that individual scientists are particularly objective, unbiased observers of the world. Rather, it is the continuous process of peer review that -- in the long run -- eliminates the crap and leaves the good stuff in clear view.
Of course, in the case of news the process is more complicated because it isn't just the facts that matter; people can hold genuine and respectable -- but different -- opinions about the same facts. Nonetheless, there is tremendous appeal to the idea of a large community involved in volunteering opinions. As Posner points out in his article, at least people who blog and comment on other people's blogs spend part of their time thinking and writing, rather than being couch potatoes...
Welcome, everyone!
Hello there,
welcome to my new blog, about politics, science, religion, philosophy, and every other conceivable application of that most rare of human abilities -- critical thinking!
This thing started several years ago (August 2000, to be precise) as a monthly Internet column, published on my main web site as well as on dozens of other mirror sites across the globe. But the Internet changes, and the blogosphere is here now. So, starting today, just about five years after the beginning of the column, Rationally Speaking becomes a blog.
For those interested in my other writings, of course check out my main web site, as well as my regular columns on Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry and Philosophy Now. You may also be interested in some of my books, like Tales of the Rational, or Denying Evolution. If you are curious about what I do for a living, go to my lab's site.
I'll be back soon with the first actual posting to get us started!
welcome to my new blog, about politics, science, religion, philosophy, and every other conceivable application of that most rare of human abilities -- critical thinking!
This thing started several years ago (August 2000, to be precise) as a monthly Internet column, published on my main web site as well as on dozens of other mirror sites across the globe. But the Internet changes, and the blogosphere is here now. So, starting today, just about five years after the beginning of the column, Rationally Speaking becomes a blog.
For those interested in my other writings, of course check out my main web site, as well as my regular columns on Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry and Philosophy Now. You may also be interested in some of my books, like Tales of the Rational, or Denying Evolution. If you are curious about what I do for a living, go to my lab's site.
I'll be back soon with the first actual posting to get us started!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)