New PJ Harvey album next month.
Just thought I'd remind you.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Philosophy & Science From A Scientist & A Philosopher
I haven't had much motivation to write lately. Not sure why. I have, however, had plenty motivation to read. Among the books I've been reading are Richard Feynman's The Meaning of It All and Paul Feyerabend's Against Method.
I've read three or four of Feynman's books before. This one is a collection of three lectures on science, religion, and philosophy. The lectures are transcriptions. And it shows; they're not very well written. But there are lots of Feynman's always-interesting anecdotes used to illustrate abstract ideas. I like this argument style a lot--although I can follow abstract arguments, I don't have a lot of faith in them to demonstrate anything important. Only when they're woven together with concrete examples do I really pay attention to the conclusions. Like Feynman, my allegiance lies with empiricism, not rationalism.
The book itself is most interesting for its exposition of science and scientific thinking. The main idea is that there's... not a method, exactly, but a set of values intrinsic to scientific thinking. These values are crucially important for truth-seeking, and they ought to be better respected, but truth-seeking isn't the only important thing in the world. Values themselves, for example, can't be discovered by the scientist. And values, of course, are valuable. Feynman, by his own admission, is not a philosopher, and some of his arguments are dubious, but they're all thought-provoking.
Feyerbend's book is a polemic on the philosophy of science, written by a philosopher. The thesis is interesting: Feyerbend argues for methodological "anarchy" in epistemology and science. The actual evidence to support the thesis isn't very impressive, however. There are too many controversial claims with too few--or zero!--specific citations to back them up. For that reason, it's hard to accept the claims of a philosopher about science over the views of an actual physicist--and a highly respected one at that. But don't take my word for it. Feynman wouldn't want you to.
I've read three or four of Feynman's books before. This one is a collection of three lectures on science, religion, and philosophy. The lectures are transcriptions. And it shows; they're not very well written. But there are lots of Feynman's always-interesting anecdotes used to illustrate abstract ideas. I like this argument style a lot--although I can follow abstract arguments, I don't have a lot of faith in them to demonstrate anything important. Only when they're woven together with concrete examples do I really pay attention to the conclusions. Like Feynman, my allegiance lies with empiricism, not rationalism.
The book itself is most interesting for its exposition of science and scientific thinking. The main idea is that there's... not a method, exactly, but a set of values intrinsic to scientific thinking. These values are crucially important for truth-seeking, and they ought to be better respected, but truth-seeking isn't the only important thing in the world. Values themselves, for example, can't be discovered by the scientist. And values, of course, are valuable. Feynman, by his own admission, is not a philosopher, and some of his arguments are dubious, but they're all thought-provoking.
Feyerbend's book is a polemic on the philosophy of science, written by a philosopher. The thesis is interesting: Feyerbend argues for methodological "anarchy" in epistemology and science. The actual evidence to support the thesis isn't very impressive, however. There are too many controversial claims with too few--or zero!--specific citations to back them up. For that reason, it's hard to accept the claims of a philosopher about science over the views of an actual physicist--and a highly respected one at that. But don't take my word for it. Feynman wouldn't want you to.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Grad School
If I had had upwards of $100,000 at the start of my undergrad, I would have applied for admission at St. John's College. The Great Books curriculum appeals to me, and I strongly prefer the seminar-based pedagogy.
I don't regret the route I took, not least because I managed to graduate debt-free, and that gives me a lot more freedom today. But even though I've graduated, I've not given up on attending St. John's College. The Graduate Institute at Santa Fe is one of the ways I might spend my savings from my time teaching abroad. I'd have to teach for a couple of years to save enough to pay for it, but I could do that, and it's one of the few routes through grad school that would excite and interest me. I've read a lot of the Western Classics already--still not enough to satisfy me!--but everything in the Eastern Classics program would be new to me. Plus, I could do the degree in a year.
I don't regret the route I took, not least because I managed to graduate debt-free, and that gives me a lot more freedom today. But even though I've graduated, I've not given up on attending St. John's College. The Graduate Institute at Santa Fe is one of the ways I might spend my savings from my time teaching abroad. I'd have to teach for a couple of years to save enough to pay for it, but I could do that, and it's one of the few routes through grad school that would excite and interest me. I've read a lot of the Western Classics already--still not enough to satisfy me!--but everything in the Eastern Classics program would be new to me. Plus, I could do the degree in a year.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Prologue
I haven't read many books this summer (by my standards), but I've decided to make up for it by reading the Bible in its entirety. In most cases, of course, this means reading books and chapters I've already read, often many times over; in other cases, however, I've not read the material since I was a child, or, perhaps, I've never read it at all.
I read the Gospels and several Pauline Epistles two years ago in Oxford's New Revised Standard Version and every now and again I read a book or a chapter from that translation. This time, however, I'll be using my leatherbound copy of the King James Version, and I'll start at the beginning. The KJV is hardly the most accurate translation available, but it's the cornerstone of Western culture and I'll be using it for that reason. I'll post my thoughts here after each book, which will hopefully motivate me to slog through the not-so-exciting books (Numbers, Leviticus) to get to the gold (Ecclesiastes, Job).
And although I said I'd start at the beginning, I'll say this right now so that it's out of the way. It's called Revelation. Not Revelations. I can't tell you how annoyed I get when I see irreligious, educated people talk about how much they loved/hated "Revelations." It's like when creationists talk about "Origin of the Species." Reading about a book is not the same as actually reading it.
I read the Gospels and several Pauline Epistles two years ago in Oxford's New Revised Standard Version and every now and again I read a book or a chapter from that translation. This time, however, I'll be using my leatherbound copy of the King James Version, and I'll start at the beginning. The KJV is hardly the most accurate translation available, but it's the cornerstone of Western culture and I'll be using it for that reason. I'll post my thoughts here after each book, which will hopefully motivate me to slog through the not-so-exciting books (Numbers, Leviticus) to get to the gold (Ecclesiastes, Job).
And although I said I'd start at the beginning, I'll say this right now so that it's out of the way. It's called Revelation. Not Revelations. I can't tell you how annoyed I get when I see irreligious, educated people talk about how much they loved/hated "Revelations." It's like when creationists talk about "Origin of the Species." Reading about a book is not the same as actually reading it.
Look At Me! Look At Me!
The Last Psychiatrist is one to watch, folks. The whole blog is engrossing, but the posts on narcissism are very, very interesting. Is narcissism "the disease of our times," as the doc claims? Or has he read too many existentialist philosophers?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Moral Failure Over A Cup Of Coke
An incident at work tonight bugged me enough that I felt I had to write about it. A couple came in to bowl with their two children. I'd put the kids at about 12 years old. They were friendly people, and they didn't appear to have any problems with the pinsetters or anything like that. A minor scoring problem arose, due to their error, but we fixed it promptly. So here's what happened that made their stay noteworthy.
One of the kids ordered a drink, which he spilled as he ran back to his lane. He asked if he could get another one. I told him that he could, but that he'd have to pay for it. He looked annoyed, but he went back to his lane, presumably because he didn't have enough money. Moments later, however, his mother approached the counter with her son. She was obviously annoyed: "My son spilled his drink. He'd like another one." It was a demand. "Of course," I said, in my customer-service voice. "That'll be three dollars." She wasn't impressed with my response: "But he didn't get any of the first one!" I couldn't hear her properly over the background noise, so I apologized, and I asked her to repeat what she had said. She did, but this time she mocked my attempts to be polite.
It's worth saying that, at this point, she completely erased any inclination I might have had to meet her halfway--let alone to meet her all the way, which I might have done, depending on the circumstances. It's only a drink, after all. But I don't respond well to rude and unreasonable people. I get snarky.
I acknowledged that her son dropped his drink almost immediately after he got it, and that he did it accidentally, but I pointed out that we couldn't be responsible for such things, as they're out of our control. I didn't spill his drink. She said, "So, what are you responsible for?" There was more than a hint of derision in her voice. Sarcasm crept into mine, "I'm sorry, I don't follow." "We get chintzed out of the drink and the bowling." Now I was annoyed: "You didn't get 'chintzed' out of the drink. Your son dropped it. As for the bowling, what problems have you had?" She mentioned the scoring problem, and she said that it had happened again. She was obviously grasping at straws. I told her that if she had told us about it, we could have helped her, just as we did the first time. With that, she stormed off.
Rudeness and stupidity don't bother me all that much. Normally, I shrug off these sorts of people. This one bothered me, and I couldn't figure out why. Near as I could tell, there were three failures in moral reasoning at work: 1) She had failed to learn one of the basic lessons of adulthood, namely, that other people are not responsible for one's own actions; 2) She offered a bad-faith excuse for her behavior when she mentioned the scoring problem, which wasn't a problem until she required one--and, anyway, it was caused by her actions; 3) She was rude and insulting.
Still, these people don't bother me after the fact. Usually, I complain about them with my coworkers and we laugh at how ridiculous they are. Another customer, with whom I had been having a friendly conversation at the counter before the boy's mother interrupted us, expressed her amazement at the woman's behavior. I dismissed it, "Eh, she's a bitch." But it still bugged me. Then, about an hour later, it hit me. I realized why her behavior bothered me as much as it did.
She behaved this way in front of her son. She was telling her son that it's alright to blame others for his mistakes and to do whatever it takes to get others to pay for them, even if rudeness and dishonesty are the means to that end. Once I realized this, I imagined myself in the mother's situation. The correct way to handle this, I thought, would be to explain to my son that, although he dropped his drink accidentally, and that accidents happen, he's not entitled to another one. Then I might have given him some more money to buy one--or not, depending on whether I wanted to emphasize the "accidents happen" or the "you're responsible for your actions" part of the lesson. I would not have done what she did.
One of the kids ordered a drink, which he spilled as he ran back to his lane. He asked if he could get another one. I told him that he could, but that he'd have to pay for it. He looked annoyed, but he went back to his lane, presumably because he didn't have enough money. Moments later, however, his mother approached the counter with her son. She was obviously annoyed: "My son spilled his drink. He'd like another one." It was a demand. "Of course," I said, in my customer-service voice. "That'll be three dollars." She wasn't impressed with my response: "But he didn't get any of the first one!" I couldn't hear her properly over the background noise, so I apologized, and I asked her to repeat what she had said. She did, but this time she mocked my attempts to be polite.
It's worth saying that, at this point, she completely erased any inclination I might have had to meet her halfway--let alone to meet her all the way, which I might have done, depending on the circumstances. It's only a drink, after all. But I don't respond well to rude and unreasonable people. I get snarky.
I acknowledged that her son dropped his drink almost immediately after he got it, and that he did it accidentally, but I pointed out that we couldn't be responsible for such things, as they're out of our control. I didn't spill his drink. She said, "So, what are you responsible for?" There was more than a hint of derision in her voice. Sarcasm crept into mine, "I'm sorry, I don't follow." "We get chintzed out of the drink and the bowling." Now I was annoyed: "You didn't get 'chintzed' out of the drink. Your son dropped it. As for the bowling, what problems have you had?" She mentioned the scoring problem, and she said that it had happened again. She was obviously grasping at straws. I told her that if she had told us about it, we could have helped her, just as we did the first time. With that, she stormed off.
Rudeness and stupidity don't bother me all that much. Normally, I shrug off these sorts of people. This one bothered me, and I couldn't figure out why. Near as I could tell, there were three failures in moral reasoning at work: 1) She had failed to learn one of the basic lessons of adulthood, namely, that other people are not responsible for one's own actions; 2) She offered a bad-faith excuse for her behavior when she mentioned the scoring problem, which wasn't a problem until she required one--and, anyway, it was caused by her actions; 3) She was rude and insulting.
Still, these people don't bother me after the fact. Usually, I complain about them with my coworkers and we laugh at how ridiculous they are. Another customer, with whom I had been having a friendly conversation at the counter before the boy's mother interrupted us, expressed her amazement at the woman's behavior. I dismissed it, "Eh, she's a bitch." But it still bugged me. Then, about an hour later, it hit me. I realized why her behavior bothered me as much as it did.
She behaved this way in front of her son. She was telling her son that it's alright to blame others for his mistakes and to do whatever it takes to get others to pay for them, even if rudeness and dishonesty are the means to that end. Once I realized this, I imagined myself in the mother's situation. The correct way to handle this, I thought, would be to explain to my son that, although he dropped his drink accidentally, and that accidents happen, he's not entitled to another one. Then I might have given him some more money to buy one--or not, depending on whether I wanted to emphasize the "accidents happen" or the "you're responsible for your actions" part of the lesson. I would not have done what she did.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Double Feature
I'm old enough to remember the old Transformers cartoons, so the prospect of a feature film stirred powerful feelings of nostalgia within me. I saw it last week, and I'm happy to report that the film itself left me thoroughly satisfied. For what it is, it works well. An online acquaintance likened the experience to Batman Begins and The Matrix. I think that's about right, as far as these things go.
The only movie I was more excited about this summer was released on Friday. That would be the Bourne Ultimatum. Matt Damon does a fantastic job in the first two Bourne movies of playing the too-cool title character, and both Identity and Supremacy are extraordinarily well directed; the third installment, it seems, only improves on its predecessors. What's more, the estimable Roger Ebert--whose recovery and return to the Chicago Sun-Times is another welcome development--heartily recommends it.
The only movie I was more excited about this summer was released on Friday. That would be the Bourne Ultimatum. Matt Damon does a fantastic job in the first two Bourne movies of playing the too-cool title character, and both Identity and Supremacy are extraordinarily well directed; the third installment, it seems, only improves on its predecessors. What's more, the estimable Roger Ebert--whose recovery and return to the Chicago Sun-Times is another welcome development--heartily recommends it.
Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat
"Courts don't make law; legislatures do." This is false, although lots of people believe otherwise. And no wonder, since apparently you don't even need to have heard about the difference between statutory law and case law in order to become a conservative talk show host. In fact, if you're a conservative talk show host, you can talk about all sorts of things about which you know nothing. Witness, for example, this candid exchange between least-worst Republican candidate Mitt Romney and know-nothing Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson on Mormonism and abortion.
I'm not convinced that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the United States, was rightly decided, but I have a couple of arguments to support that position, and at least I know the first thing about the law. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that I could opine at least as ignorantly about Mormonism as Jan Mickelson. Give me a radio show!
I'm not convinced that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion in the United States, was rightly decided, but I have a couple of arguments to support that position, and at least I know the first thing about the law. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that I could opine at least as ignorantly about Mormonism as Jan Mickelson. Give me a radio show!
Friday, August 3, 2007
Bring Back PBO!
I spent some time tonight reading through old entries in my online journal, which I've kept since 2002. (Apologies to any would-be stalkers. It's private.) One thing I noticed--aside from the writing itself, which isn't bad, exactly, but it calls way too much attention to itself--was a lot of obsessing over Puzzle Bobble Online. No doubt you've seen or played Puzzle Bobble in its Western incarnation, Bust-A-Move. It's the arcade game with the arrow and the colored bubbles. Connect enough like-colored bubbles and they disappear, along with any other bubbles that are hanging from them. Fail to clear them before they pass below the bottom of the screen and you lose.
Puzzle Bobble Online was an online multiplayer version of the game. It never received a legitimate release. The only Westerners who played PBO had to stumble through Japanese language websites to play a test--beta--version of the game. After the beta period ended, Westerners were shut out altogether. Shortly after this, the game disappeared.
The reason why is a mystery. It's also a shame. I'd pay to play, and I remember lots of my fellow addicts were equally willing to do so. This might have something to do with the fact that I was one of the best players. This isn't me being dishonest, either, although perhaps it's immodest and indecorous for me to say so. Nevertheless, I was capable of winning 1-on-5 matches; I rarely lost matches with better odds, unless I was facing the very best players, against whom I could compete competently, given 3-on-3 teams. It was a lot of fun. You'd think Taito, the company responsible for the Puzzle Bobble games, would allow people like me to give them money.
Puzzle Bobble Online was an online multiplayer version of the game. It never received a legitimate release. The only Westerners who played PBO had to stumble through Japanese language websites to play a test--beta--version of the game. After the beta period ended, Westerners were shut out altogether. Shortly after this, the game disappeared.
The reason why is a mystery. It's also a shame. I'd pay to play, and I remember lots of my fellow addicts were equally willing to do so. This might have something to do with the fact that I was one of the best players. This isn't me being dishonest, either, although perhaps it's immodest and indecorous for me to say so. Nevertheless, I was capable of winning 1-on-5 matches; I rarely lost matches with better odds, unless I was facing the very best players, against whom I could compete competently, given 3-on-3 teams. It was a lot of fun. You'd think Taito, the company responsible for the Puzzle Bobble games, would allow people like me to give them money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
