Disclaimer


The content on this blog is my personal opinion and does not reflect the views of the Department of Defense or the US Navy in any way.


Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Spreading and Changing Ideas

Honestly, I could care less about the various bits and pieces of writing mentioned in this editorial from the NYT. I don't think they're really that popular, I doubt they're anything I would be particularly interested in, and I frankly think that most of us are better off just ignoring them.

What I do care more about is how the ideas in them and the ideas that motivated their authors to write them spread from those people onward. Whenever the left starts talking about racism or white supremacists, one of the nearly inevitable responses is that there just aren't that many of them and that they aren't actually that influential (or sometimes that they wouldn't be influential if we would all just ignore them). I've never really agreed with that notion; partly, this is because I think the mere presence of people as extreme as the ones portrayed in this article shifts everyone's perception of where the center is and what a reasonable person on each side of the line looks like.

However, the other part of it is that I don't think they have as little influence on the ideas we talk about as we might hope. The story at the end of the article - about how someone inspired by one of these novels started talking in a certain way, convinced some less extreme people to mimic him, and finally got similar language closer to the center of the right wing - is exactly why I think so. Those ideas are changed and moderated a little bit as they work their way through the different parts of the right wing, but they still end up being a lot closer to the extreme right than any of us might wish.

I don't necessarily think that makes anyone in the center who ends up repeating something borrowed from the extremes a hopeless racist, though. Nor would I bother wasting my time trying to convince the originators of such thoughts that they're wrong. If anything, I think we need to focus on the people in between those two; where they are simply slapping enough of a cover over extreme ideas to make them appear acceptable, they should not be tolerated or listened to, but where they legitimately are trying to alter what's being suggested into a format that's more acceptable and less flawed, they're doing something useful.

Telling the difference is not an easy task, given the thin line separating those two methods, but I think it's a necessary one.

Monday, July 30, 2018

Predicting the Future

Two of the New York Times' columnists came up with some interesting possibilities for what they might be writing following the next presidential election. It's not quite an exercise in prediction; neither of them goes so far as to say they think this is the result they're going to see. It's more of an exercise in explaining what the possible outcomes are, and how they might come about. Both versions have their own good points and shortcomings, of course.

The version in which President Trump wins re-election quite sensibly points out that a strong economy can cover a lot of sins. Of course, I think its brief mention that there's more to public perception of the economy than the Dow or GDP doesn't really deal with the possibility that slow wage growth or rising prices could affect people's votes. I think its suggestion that the president's supporters will use whatever successes they can find as an excuse to ignore anything the other side says about his failings is also well taken, much as I might wish it wasn't.

The version in which the president loses, among other things, makes exactly the point I mentioned above about the economy. (That is, of course, where I got that idea.) I don't think I agree with its assessment of what tactics the Democrats are likely to use; I don't think they are going to focus on corruption and ignore the rest. (I seem to be predicting the worst out of both sides today...) That said, its point about the president's popularity is also well taken.

... In the end, I think we'll just have to wait and see. It turns out I don't actually like committing to a prediction of the future all that much.

Friday, July 27, 2018

Science and Contraception

One of the best ways to justify one's beliefs is to call them scientific and use the trust that most people place in science and knowledge to bolster one's case.

However, even if we manage to avoid calling outright fantasies by a label they don't deserve, calling something scientific isn't always a useful label.

Take, for example, this editorial from the Wall Street Journal. It's written by a Catholic person defending "Humane Vitae", the papal encyclical which is most well known for the ban on contraception which it mandates for Catholics. Among other points, it notes that natural family planning (also known as the rhythm method) is based in good science. Frankly, I can agree with that! It takes a fair bit of understanding how fertility works to make certain no mistakes are made, and the knowledge we've gained makes it a lot more reliable than it was in the past. 

Unfortunately, "scientific" in this case doesn't necessarily mean "effective"... certainly not in comparison with condoms, hormonal birth control, or an IUD. If the woman writing this editorial is willing to accept a method that's less effective, whatever her reason, I have no problem with that. When she and her fellow believers are part of an organization that has zero problem with making it hard for anyone, whether they agree with the religious beliefs or not, from obtaining contraception, then I have a very serious problem with them. 

Worse yet, the editorial is also an excellent lesson in how one scientific point doesn't mean all the rest of your points are scientific as well. Labeling everything other than the rhythm method "potentially harmful" ignores just about every bit of nuance possible regarding the risks or benefits of other types of birth control, and trying to connect the increase in contraceptive use with the sexual assault rate is basically unsupported by any evidence at all.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Game Review: Contagion VR

... Okay, it's not much of a review, since I have yet to play much more than the demo.

A large part of what attracted me to this was the good experience I had with the original Contagion. It's a great mix of exploration, stealth, and FPS action that creates a great horror game, yet also gives you the tools you need to survive - if you're very good, very lucky, or ideally both. I don't like the sort of horror game that relies on jump scares and hopelessly deadly monsters chasing you, but the sort of creeping dread that Contagion creates from not knowing when the next door you're going to open or the next shot you're going to fire is going to attract a lot of zombies or not is something I... well enjoy is probably not the right word either.

Based on the five to ten minute runs through the demo, I'd say the VR version is going to be just as good. The fact that the inventory management system is moving the objects to where holsters or pockets would reasonably be located is a great touch all by itself, and jumping back and forth in real life to kite away from the zombies and then go back in to hit them with a melee weapon is a lot more adrenaline-inducing than kiting zombies in the original Contagion was. So it's making great use of the possibilities VR provides.

It will probably fall victim to some of the motion sickness flaws I've seen people complaining about, unfortunately. I haven't played it for long enough to have that problem, but I have played one or two other games where the difference between what my eyes were telling me and what my inner ear was telling me started to make me feel a bit nauseous. Still, I don't think I'm going to want to play this one for long stretches of time anyway.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Republican Standards

There's a great reminder in this article from FiveThirtyEight for all the Democrats out there that are wondering why some of President Trump's opponents in his own party aren't doing more to stop him:

Just because they don't like their own president doesn't mean Senators Flake or Collins or any of the others have stopped being Republicans. They're not going to stand in the way of tax cuts, or repealing the ACA, or confirming conservative originalist judges, just because the person leading the charge is someone they don't personally like; these are all things they've wanted for longer than President Trump has been the Republicans' standard-bearer.

That doesn't mean their support is harmless - the end of the article points out that handing the president policy wins helps to bring the rest of the GOP together behind him - but it is still quite understandable. They may not be limiting the president as much as Democrats might want, but I'll take what we can get - and if the Democrats want more than that, well, they'll just have to win as much as they can in the midterms.

Monday, July 23, 2018

The Evidence for Charter Schools

I'll lead with this: I am not a big fan of basically any idea that involves privatizing our school system, whether that is voucher programs for private schools or charter schools. I am aware of the problems our current system faces, but I tend to believe that voucher or charter programs simply replace those problems with a different set.

More specifically, trying to take advantage of the free market to improve our schools is going to result in the same problem that shows up in any number of ways throughout a capitalist system: What makes the most money is not always the same as what accomplishes the desired goal, whether that is building a good product, providing a good service, or (to use this specific case) educating kids. Without some form of regulation or other government control to enforce a minimum standard, some people will misjudge the quality of the school they select - or simply not care about quality as they search for a good deal - and end up providing something that doesn't deserve to be called a proper education.

That said, there are opinion writers I respect writing pieces like this one, so I may have to admit that charter schools, at least, aren't such a bad idea. In my defense, systems like the one he describes do involve the government enforcing certain standards even as it hands control over to individual operators of the various charter schools, which is a lot closer to the sort of system I like than the complete lack of government involvement that characterizes most voucher programs and some charter programs.

In the end, we'll just have to follow where the facts lead us. So far, that looks like charters can succeed if they're held to the right standard.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Gun Control Hypocrisy

Charges of hypocrisy on the part of both sides of the gun control debate are quite common (just like every other political debate, frankly). 

The typical version that gets used on gun control advocates is to call anyone who supports gun control and is still willing to rely on support from armed guards or police for their security a hypocrite. After all, shouldn't they be more worried about the potential consequences of having more guns around than they are about the increased risk that would come from not having the security?

Of course, I'd argue that most gun control advocates have less of a problem than one would expect with a limited number of guns being in the hands of people who are very well trained. This is generally the purpose of the restrictions they argue for, after all. Only a gun control advocate who believed guns have no benefits at all could be a hypocrite in this way - and most of the ones who believe that strongly won't be using armed guards anyway.

Then the version that gets used on gun rights advocates is that many of them perfectly willing to create gun-free zones if it benefits their security, as in stories like the one from this blog post. Shouldn't they feel that allowing everyone around them to carry guns would only make them and everyone else around them safer?

I've never heard a gun rights advocate defend that idea, but I'm sure one probably could try to argue that there are situations where the objective is the security of a specific person that demand more caution than should be the norm. I'm curious if anyone has a better idea, though.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Evidence of Regression

The one detail that stayed with me from this article is how the owners of the old castle it refers to were able to tell that hard times had once fallen on its inhabitants in the distant past because they could see the point in the walls where the stonework became much less professional and well-made.

Out of all the different ways we could talk about how society can go backwards as well as forwards, it's quite a little thing, but somehow I feel like that sort of concrete example really makes the point more memorable than anything else might.

And while the article doesn't specifically call it out, there's another point that comes to mind - along with the loss of knowledge about how the successes of a previous era were created often comes the loss of knowledge about why we fought for them in the first place. Many of the things we regard as integral to modern society only became that way because there were people that advocated for them. It's a point we'd do well to remember as we criticize that same advocacy today.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

Capitalist Influence

It's probably a bit uncharitable of me to lead with an oversimplified summary (probably a strawman, at that) of the editorials I read in the Wall Street Journal... but somehow, all I could think of when I was reading this one was to wonder how on earth we're supposed to create a capitalist society that can't be negatively influenced by people who have money.

To be entirely fair, some of what they're talking about does involve removing government regulations that make it easier for small shareholders of companies to make resolutions and influence the company that they own stock in. If companies want to change the rules about who can ask for changes and what sort of changes they can ask for, I don't think I care all that much.

Where things get a bit stranger is where the editorial starts talking about how index funds often own more stock than other stockholders, and that this gives their managers and proxies power to introduce resolutions and changes but doesn't require them to listen to the investors that are actually paying for the fund to have all that stock. This, apparently, means that some of those funds might start acting in ways that are more in line with the whims or specific interests of those managers and proxies rather than the investors themselves. Given my liberal distrust for the notion that capitalism always produces the best result for the individual consumer, this comes as absolutely no surprise to me, although somehow it's only apparent to the writers of this editorial once those whims and interests line up with liberal talking points instead of conservative interests.

What I don't understand, then, is how a proper small-government conservative or libertarian is supposed to justify government rules that would limit how fund managers would use that influence. As I understand their position regarding the free market, if I don't like the way a trading company is managing my money, the proper recourse is to find a different one, not have the government make a rule about exactly what benefits the trading company in question is allowed to ask for. Of course, I don't mind the idea of the government creating such rules, but then, I'd also define what is in the investors' best interest somewhat more broadly than this editorial wants to.

In the end, this editorial just seems to be annoyed that some investors have the power to force companies to manage their people and operations in a specific way. Unfortunately for them, the only way to stop that is a government powerful enough to make rules about how investors and trading companies can use their money, and I don't think they'll like that precedent any more than they like the current state of affairs.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Partisan Positions

Reading lines like this one from a FiveThirtyEight article is a great way to lose one's faith in humanity:

"As ever, don’t underestimate the intractability of people who have dug into their partisan trenches."

Not that it's even remotely surprising that the Russia investigation is causing both sides to dig in and stay there. Irritating and depressing, sure, but not surprising. There's not a whole lot that can be done about it, as far as I can tell, beyond hoping that whatever final report Mueller comes out with has enough evidence and solid reasoning supporting either complete exoneration or damning guilt to break through our tendency to focus only on what we want to hear.

... Of course, I tend to believe that reality is never quite so nice as to sit all the way out at an extreme for us, so I'm not exactly hoping for that. I don't think there's any chance we get anything other than a rather nuanced report, which will give both sides more than enough ammunition to keep sniping at each other. I guess we'll see when the investigation ends.

Monday, July 16, 2018

Time-Tested Solutions

I suppose I shouldn't make too much of a habit of putting Elon Musk down, but his contribution to the recent cave rescue in Thailand hits a lot of the same points that I had problems with the last time I mentioned him in my blog. Nor am I the only one who thinks so, given the editorial I found about it.

To be entirely fair, I don't have a problem with the attempt to provide a mini-sub. When you're in a desperate situation, any idea is worth at least considering, and Musk deserves a lot of credit for being willing to put his ideas forward and to put so much of his own time and money behind them. That's something that a lot of people won't do even when they should, and so that deserves a lot of praise.

However, I do feel like any experienced innovator or inventor should realize that not all their ideas will necessarily work straight off. Some of Musk's reactions to being told that the mini-sub wasn't suitable for the cave rescue don't exactly give me the impression he knows that. In fact, they look like the sort of defensive reactions I'd expect out of someone who is too distracted by a shiny new idea to stop and think critically about it. That's considerably less good, because those shiny new ideas aren't always going to be what works best.

Let me use an example: I've been playing a particularly challenging platforming game lately, one that often requires me to figure out how to jump and move in order to get through the various levels. Sometimes, it's greatly to my benefit to take a step back and try a different path through the level when the one I'm trying is failing repeatedly; I've discovered quite a few better options by experimenting a bit when my first attempt isn't working. But it's also often true that I'm already on the right course, and simply need to practice with my current solution until I can execute it with the required speed and precision; spending extra time to experiment with other options is wasted time and effort in those situations.

A lot of innovators like Musk are very good at the first option, but not so good at the latter. I'm not sure I'd call knowing when each option is best a different kind of ingenuity or creativity, as the editorial I linked does... but it is still its own form of wisdom, and it is still quite necessary in order for us to build a better world. So while I'll take people who are too aggressive about experimentation and innovation over people who aren't aggressive enough, given my choice I want people who can strike the right balance between new ideas and time-tested ones.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

Silent Evidence

On one hand, I'm happy to see some debate partners that previously would have just kept throwing anecdotes at me actually try to use data to support their points.

On the other hand, they still haven't quite grasped that proving a point can be a bit more complicated than lining up all the evidence they need to support it.

Don't get me wrong; failing to have enough evidence to prove that something can be true is still more likely to sink a given argument than almost anything else, and I certainly don't want anyone to think it's not worth their time to try. My goal in mentioning the above point is to remind people that a good argument has to account for all of the available evidence; using specific examples to prove a point only works if we have a good reason to believe those specific examples properly represent the entire body of evidence available. If there's silent evidence out there - something that's not being spotted because of poor sampling or confirmation bias - even a point that seems quite well supported can turn out to be quite wrong.

Some of the skeptic blogs I follow call this problem the toupee fallacy, after the specific example of trying to prove all toupees look fake by pointing out all the fake toupees one sees. It's fairly obvious that more realistic toupees will be excluded from those examples by default, since they won't be easily spotted, which creates the false impression that most toupees are fake. 

The best way I know to avoid this problem is to carefully think about what counter arguments can be made against your argument, and actively look for evidence that might disprove your argument as well as evidence that can be used to prove it correct.

Friday, July 13, 2018

Other People's Troubles

It's good to be reminded every once in a while that it's difficult for us to know what the other people around us are going through, or why they're going through it, or what will best help them get through it.

One of the best ways to avoid falling victim to any assumptions, particularly when one would prefer to believe that the people around them are just idiots, is to ask myself whether I've done anything similar, and if so to ask myself why I did that something similar and what reasons I had. Even if I haven't done anything similar, trying to think of reasons why I might do something similar can have the same effect. Doing this often enough will make it a more natural pattern of thought - I'm not quite there yet, myself, but I'd like to be.

I think that sort of empathy is an important habit to get into. There are situations where it still needs to be tempered with pragmatism, certainly. But when the only consequence it's going to have is whether you are viewing the others around you in a positive light or a negative light, I think the former is a much better way to be.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Welfare Problems, Free Market Problems

Anyone care to guess what sort of tax rate you'll be paying to live in a welfare state with a lot of benefits?

I ask because I happened across an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that helpfully informed me that Sweden's personal income tax rate is over 61% - rather high compared to what most of us Americans deal with, but then it pays for a lot of nice benefits.

Of course, the editorial in question goes on to talk about the various problems that are created as a result. It focuses quite heavily on how both men and women end up in the work force in order to make a useful amount of take-home pay and how benefits such as subsidized day care create a situation in which women who might want to spend more time with their children can't - because taking themselves out of the work force to spend time with their kids is a significant penalty to their income that can't be made up in other ways (unless you're rich enough to eat the cost).

What surprises me about it is the implication that a free market system or lower tax rates wouldn't create this problem. There are plenty of working class families in the US that don't get to spend time with their children because both parents are working two or three jobs just to survive - and those families have no option other than to leave the kids on their own or find jobs that don't mind having children along, since they don't have day care options they can afford.

In the end, the whole question is a matter of which disadvantage one thinks is more likely or more severe. Unfortunately, most debate I see on the issue tends to focus on one side's disadvantages and ignores any effort to determine which problem is actually worse.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Moderate Politics

While I don't think the Democrats' slide further towards the left has been as rapid or has become as extreme as the rightward drift we've seen out of the Republicans in the last decade, I'm still not exactly happy to see it. In fact, I think some of the lessons we supposedly learned from the 2016 election about what left wing ideas get people fired up and about the value (or lack thereof) of compromise aren't actually going to serve us very well in the long run.

That means I'm very happy to see stories like this one from NPR. I don't necessarily think it's important for some of the more strident progressives to lose, because I think the Democrats are going to need a lot of that energy in order to win elections. But the fact that we're also nominating and selecting more moderate candidates, particularly for the closer races, is a good sign of our ability to balance the enthusiasm of the left wing with the ability to compromise the moderates bring.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether the Democrats will continue to slide to the left, or what a Democratic government that promised single payer healthcare and fully funded college will actually be able to do along those lines. I certainly could see Democratic populism disappointing me in the future... but for now, I'm satisfied with our current direction.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Cause and Effect: Violent Games

Normally the American Humanist Association's magazine is smarter than this, but I suppose everyone makes mistakes sometimes. The current edition put out an article connecting some of our recent mass shootings to violent video games and the military's use of such things as recruiting and training tools.

As I understand the article's point, it points to the military's use of such things for training and recruitment to underscore how realistic the games are and how they can be used to train people how to kill. It stops short of calling for bans, but does fairly clearly argue that the US should pay more attention to obsessions with gaming and treat it as an illness to be corrected.

I don't think this is correctly understanding the cause and effect relationship here, though.

A large part of the reason why is that the two mass shooters the article cites are far from the only obsessive gamers in the world; there are many others that are avid fans of realistic first person shooters. And yet out of all those people, only this tiny number have a serious problem. I think that says there's more here than just the video games.

Monday, July 9, 2018

Nominations and Deals

I've been eagerly awaiting the word on who President Trump will nominate to the Supreme Court - not necessarily because I'm expecting to like the person in question, of course. Honestly, I'm not quite sure why I'm paying as much attention to the topic as I am. 

Given the current list of finalists, I'm guessing most of them would get confirmed, with or without any Democratic support. So there's not much chance that paying attention to the issue or being active will have much effect on the outcome, unless one happens to be someone who the president or critical senators trust enough to listen to. But it is interesting to look at how both the right and left are reacting to the impending nomination; the Wall Street Journal is calling for someone with an impeccable conservative record, whereas the New York Times is arguing that the stronger candidates are the ones that the WSJ likes the least.

It will be interesting to see which way the president goes - potentially easier to nominate, but less of a concrete record (e.g. Hardiman), or best possible record but more chance of unhappiness from Democrats (e.g. Kavanaugh)? Given the lack of any filibuster and the Republican majority, it's hard to see why he wouldn't go for the latter and avoid any risk of a nominee turning out like former justice Souter. Then again, I certainly wouldn't complain if he didn't, nor would I be particularly surprised.

Saturday, July 7, 2018

Offensive Behavior

I have generally been lucky with the various groups of friends I hang out with. I've never really been in a situation where someone was acting like a complete asshole to my other friends, and certainly not to the point where I felt compelled to intervene.

Of course, that doesn't mean it never happens, as stories like this one demonstrate. For that matter, it's certainly possible I simply failed to notice such things going on around me in the past.

That particular blog post is quite long, and it links to other pieces (the five Geek Social Fallacies and the Missing Stair post) which are a good idea to read first, but all of it is worth a read. It's got a lot of great points about how to react to people who are being offensive or creepy - or how to avoid being at the same events as them in the first place (arranging your own events if necessary) and how to explain that decision to others.

I particularly like how it covers several different ways in which people try to defend offensive behavior or avoid calling it out, and why those justifications are wrong.

There are plenty of people who will happily argue that they hate this sort of behavior and don't want it to continue... but the instant calling people out causes any discomfort or awkwardness, they'd rather shut down the discussion, even if that means the person who originally spoke out can't do anything about their discomfort.

There are even more people who will refuse to believe anything bad about their friends - who refuse to believe there's even the slight possibility of a problem - until they see it themselves... no matter how many trustworthy people attest to the existence of those problems.

In the end, we all need to be willing to hold the people around us to a proper standard, and be willing to address the situation if that standard isn't met.

Friday, July 6, 2018

Costs of Medical Care

Earlier this week we were treated to a rather depressing example of the flaws in our particular health care system: someone unwilling to seek treatment for injuries sustained in an accident because they knew they weren't able to pay for treatment.

This is the problem with leaving health care to the free market - in order for it to work, people will occasionally have to choose not to purchase services that are too expensive. Lower demand then forces providers to lower prices in order to win customers back... if they are able or willing to provide that service at a lower price at all. This is one thing when the goods or services in question are luxuries, but it's considerably less acceptable when one is asking people to go without treatment for health conditions.

Of course, this is usually the point at which opponents of single payer systems will start trotting out stories of deaths due to shortages of providers or delays which most of the single payer systems can't quite seem to get rid of. I can point out the flaws in our current system all day, but without a better idea, what good is it going to do?

The short answer is that I don't have a perfect solution... but that's not going to stop us from having to choose which set of flaws we find more acceptable or easier to deal with. I think that looks a lot more like a single payer system, or at the very least aggressive efforts to subsidize health care for those that can't afford it.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

Game review: Celeste

Celeste is an extremely challenging platformer about climbing a mountain.

How challenging? Well, clearing the main story took me about five and a half hours, and I racked up 1118 deaths in that time - just over three deaths per minute, in other words. This is definitely the sort of game that takes practice and learning its challenges the hard way, as well as a fair bit of patience (or perhaps stubbornness) to keep trying in the face of defeat.

One of the things that kept me going was the story... because to be honest, I don't think this game is really about climbing a mountain at all. The mountain is merely a convenient place for the heroine to face her inner demons, and the challenges her own head throws at her would apply equally well to any task she chose. Her struggle, and the way she and the other characters react to it, is portrayed incredibly well and will be quite familiar to anyone who has ever dealt with anxiety or depression. In the end, even the game's own difficulty and the feeling of overcoming a major challenge plays into the story's message; it is neither easy nor simple to see things improve, but it is still possible.

Honestly, I'm not sure I can recommend the game to anyone who isn't at least somewhat of a hardcore gamer, because the difficulty is just ridiculous (although there is an option for an assist mode, which I'm told is easier, but I don't know how much easier since I've never used it). That said, though, like every other game that I truly love, this one's story is well worth the trouble.

Wednesday, July 4, 2018

Patriotism's Meaning

I wonder how many people aren't really celebrating the 4th of July this year because they think their country no longer deserves the praise?

On one hand, I won't be doing the same; whatever else I may be, I'm still a patriot, I believe in the US, and I want us to keep doing well and growing stronger. On the other hand, that doesn't obligate me to agree with everything our country does or refrain from criticizing our decisions when I believe it's justified.

In fact, I think a true patriot has to avoid frantically trying to justify everything we do in order to avoid admitting error on our part. Wanting the best for our country and engaging in the sort of motivated reasoning necessary to avoid admitting error are contradictory, because the distorted view of reality the latter builds will interfere with any effort to actually improve the country and realize that dream of a just, virtuous, and powerful country. And that dream isn't something we can ever slap a "mission accomplished" label onto and then just rest on our laurels; it's something that will always be based on the effort we're currently putting into making our country great, how we're reacting to our errors, and how we're continuing to improve.

So I'll keep working to make sure we can do that, even as I recognize our country for the good we've done.

Happy 4th of July, everyone.

Tuesday, July 3, 2018

Philosophical Discussion

While I did study a bit of philosophy and ethics in college, I don't exactly follow the field that closely; I can't name any more interesting philosophers than the average person. So I don't really know the person that this piece from the New York Times is memorializing.

Then again, the article does highlight why I do pay quite a bit of attention when something about philosophy makes its way into my news feed - because simply reading it was surprisingly thought-provoking.

I'm not sure I even want to try summarizing it, or picking out just one point, because I don't think that would do it justice. However, I'm not confident it's something that most people will want to read all the way through (something that makes one think often takes more time and effort to comprehend, of course), so I'll go ahead and share the one point near the end which I found the most interesting. Specifically, it was this line: "This lesson is politically consequential, Cavell stresses, because it implies that thinking is an activity we can’t outsource to others."

My first reaction was actually not positive - mostly because I've always thought that expertise in finding, analyzing, and expressing information is something that can be outsourced in the same way we hire experts to do all number of tasks that we can't do ourselves. I can't fix a car, rewire a light fixture, or build anything besides a impossibly simple shelter, but I can ask someone else to do these things for me. And if I don't have time to analyze events around the world, determine their importance, and remember the most important ones all on my own, well, that was why I was reading the Times in the first place.

After some thought, though, I think I understand the point. What is true about it is that how I react to what I read, and how I choose to share that reaction, is still my own, unless I choose not to think about it. We're all better off if those reactions are based on thought, and not on unthinking copies of what others have said or want.

Monday, July 2, 2018

Purpose of the Justice System

Hardly the first time I've posted about the criminal justice system, but then, it's a topic that I think deserves a lot of attention. The ways in which it doesn't really produce fair or desirable results are myriad and fairly well documented, but discussions on the topic tend to founder on exactly who's responsible, why they're doing it, and whether doing something about it will make us less safe.

This post about what reasonable doubt means (the entire series is good, by the way) includes one particular point that I think is extremely relevant: "A justice system should want one thing and one thing only: the prevention of more people becoming victims of crime." This question of exactly what we want our justice system to do can have a significant impact on how we design it and where we spend our time and money.

There are a lot of people who argue that the proper purpose of the justice system is to ensure that criminals are captured and punished, but I think that's incomplete, at best. It's tempting to argue that some great ideal should drive us to ensure that those who do good in the world are rewarded and those who do evil should be punished, but if we really wanted to do that, there'd be a lot of other ways we'd be spending our time and money besides just designing a system to accomplish the latter. The other option is to justify the system's existence in utilitarian terms... which basically requires it to actually have a positive effect like reducing crime.