FAIRNESS
"Fairness" has assumed a prominent role in economic and political discussions lately. Pundits and politicians compare varous economic schemes as though fairness were a commodity in itself. I propose here though, that fairness is given too much deference. I submit that an economic plan that leads to the production of wealth, but that is perceived as unfair is better than a fair plan that leads to stagnation.
Fairness is often used as a synonym for justice. This confusion may be deliberate or not, but it is definitely unhelpful. Fairness is an attribute of a process, not an outcome, and is specifically refers to whether such a process is free from bias or improper influence. The outcome of a process may be just or unjust regardless of whether the process was fair. It is seemingly unfair that some basketball teams have players that are taller and more talented than others, yet if the game is played according to the rules free from bias or manipulation, the outcome, even if a foregone conclusion cannot be considered unjust. It may seem unjust that one person takes an entire jackpot for himself, but if the process is the result of a blind lottery or the flip of a fair coin, there seems to be no valid grounds for complaint.
The veneration of fairness as an end rather than as a desirable attribute of a means is the result a common oversight: desirable attributes are desirable first and foremost because they are useful. Fair processes are presumed to produce better results than biased ones, and fair competitions are presumed to produce more worthy winners than those that are rigged. Democracy, for example, accomplishes its purposes more readily when elections are fair than when they are not.
There are many experiences in life that are not fair, simply because there is no benefit of fairness in them. It is not fair that a model citizen develops cancer, while a criminal does not. The purposes and processes of biology are independent of social merit. Likewise, it may seem unfair that the daughter of an industry magnate has certain advantages over the son of a laborer, but this only become true if the latter proves himself more deserving of an outcome that he is then denied.
Fair processes are more likely to lead to just outcomes. Imposing fairness in outcomes is likely to produce only a moribund equilibrium, where no one dares much nor accomplishes much, because results are divorced from merit. And that is not only ultimately unfair, it is unjust.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
FANTASY
Fantasy is the seed and root of every progressive movement. This is self-evident to some degree, since progressives strive for a condition that does not exist and has never existed, except in the fantasies of the most devout.
Some of these fantasies are meant to be inspirational, like the virtuous proletariat marching arm in arm toward socialist utopia, or the ummah living in Islamic tranquility. Most of these fantasies tend to be fantasies of abstraction, like "fairness" or "justice" or "equality." The abstraction takes the world of the progressive and dessicates it until there is nothing left but the fantastic and unobtainable ideal. But a world that is so narrowly focused ceases to be a world. All progressive movements and their associated fantasies inevitably degenerate into a unitary vision, a homogenizing monotony that is at odds not only with human history, but with the human spirit.
The problem with adopting a fantasy as a world view, is that fantasist often becomes the fanatic, believing not only that his fantasy is desirable to himself but necessary for others. Then, whether it is the degenerate religious fantasies of al Qaeda, or the political fantasies of the Khmer Rouge, or the racial fantasies of the National Socialists, human catastrophe follows.
Fantasy is part of every healthy human mind, but the ability to make the key distinction between fantasy and real life is a necessary part of leaving childish things behind.
Fantasy is the seed and root of every progressive movement. This is self-evident to some degree, since progressives strive for a condition that does not exist and has never existed, except in the fantasies of the most devout.
Some of these fantasies are meant to be inspirational, like the virtuous proletariat marching arm in arm toward socialist utopia, or the ummah living in Islamic tranquility. Most of these fantasies tend to be fantasies of abstraction, like "fairness" or "justice" or "equality." The abstraction takes the world of the progressive and dessicates it until there is nothing left but the fantastic and unobtainable ideal. But a world that is so narrowly focused ceases to be a world. All progressive movements and their associated fantasies inevitably degenerate into a unitary vision, a homogenizing monotony that is at odds not only with human history, but with the human spirit.
The problem with adopting a fantasy as a world view, is that fantasist often becomes the fanatic, believing not only that his fantasy is desirable to himself but necessary for others. Then, whether it is the degenerate religious fantasies of al Qaeda, or the political fantasies of the Khmer Rouge, or the racial fantasies of the National Socialists, human catastrophe follows.
Fantasy is part of every healthy human mind, but the ability to make the key distinction between fantasy and real life is a necessary part of leaving childish things behind.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
EMOTIONS
Emotions are notoriously bad counselors. The heat of passion is much more likely to produce regret than glory. It should be remembered that animals have emotions, but this fact does not seem to have contributed much to the collective achievements of the animal kingdom. One typically looks first to the level-headed for direction in a crisis; likewise, chldren are apt to have their conduct directed by emotional wants, a trait that necessitates the involvement of grown-ups in the more crucial decisions.
The pursuit of emotional satisfaction far too often leads to folly and pain, yet a great deal of political discourse targetss emotional chords. This is particularly true in the present campaign, where such airy and vacant themes of change and hope are the center of the debate. It is not cynical to observe that that the vilification of Sarah Palin, the visceral hatred of all things Bush, and the irrational platitudes goading class warfare are appeals to emotion rather than thought. This is not likely to turn out well.
The politics of the moment seek to apply the formidable intellectual, economic and cultural resources of the United States to the ultimate end that persons who share a particular ideology will feel good about themselves. We really aren't being courted by "Change we can believe in" as much as "Change we can feel good about."
Just as the president has very little control over economic cycles (the NASDAQ lost 45% of its value under President Clinton), a president (at least with due respect for the Constitution) can't really deliver on promises of self esteem, or ensure that the emotional tantrums of an ideological fringe will have better uutcomes than the emotional tantrums of preschoolers.
There is a segment of the American Left that wants war-crimes trials, that wants Wall Street executives frog marched on the evening news for the sheer schadenfreud of it. They want to name sewage plants ofter George W. Bush, and "ban" the military from their communities because they think that childish emotions must lead to eternal truths. Of course, those that look to a "progressive" government for progress and emotional satisfaction will be disappointed. The world is too complex and too dangerous to allow serious leaders to accede to the emotional outbursts of angry and unhappy people.
Emotions are notoriously bad counselors. The heat of passion is much more likely to produce regret than glory. It should be remembered that animals have emotions, but this fact does not seem to have contributed much to the collective achievements of the animal kingdom. One typically looks first to the level-headed for direction in a crisis; likewise, chldren are apt to have their conduct directed by emotional wants, a trait that necessitates the involvement of grown-ups in the more crucial decisions.
The pursuit of emotional satisfaction far too often leads to folly and pain, yet a great deal of political discourse targetss emotional chords. This is particularly true in the present campaign, where such airy and vacant themes of change and hope are the center of the debate. It is not cynical to observe that that the vilification of Sarah Palin, the visceral hatred of all things Bush, and the irrational platitudes goading class warfare are appeals to emotion rather than thought. This is not likely to turn out well.
The politics of the moment seek to apply the formidable intellectual, economic and cultural resources of the United States to the ultimate end that persons who share a particular ideology will feel good about themselves. We really aren't being courted by "Change we can believe in" as much as "Change we can feel good about."
Just as the president has very little control over economic cycles (the NASDAQ lost 45% of its value under President Clinton), a president (at least with due respect for the Constitution) can't really deliver on promises of self esteem, or ensure that the emotional tantrums of an ideological fringe will have better uutcomes than the emotional tantrums of preschoolers.
There is a segment of the American Left that wants war-crimes trials, that wants Wall Street executives frog marched on the evening news for the sheer schadenfreud of it. They want to name sewage plants ofter George W. Bush, and "ban" the military from their communities because they think that childish emotions must lead to eternal truths. Of course, those that look to a "progressive" government for progress and emotional satisfaction will be disappointed. The world is too complex and too dangerous to allow serious leaders to accede to the emotional outbursts of angry and unhappy people.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
SELF DEFENSE
How about this as an academic argument:
The key phrase of the Second Amendment is found in the preamble, but not the militia part. The key phrase is "necessary to the security of a free state." Why the adjective? The flip answer is that a state that bans the possession and use of arms by the "people" is not as free as one that does not. But there is a more mechanical aspect that supports a right to self defense.
A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. This lessens the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny, but also impedes their ability to defend the life and safety of individual citizens. Unless the people are willing to accommodate an oppressive police presence in the interest of public safety (airline security lines notwithstanding) the citizen of a free state (i.e. one in which government force is restrained in the interest of individual liberties) must be allowed the right and means to provide their own defense.
As an aside, I think that probing whether English common law protects a right of self defense is largely unhelpful. It is my understanding (quite possibly wrong, but...) that people living in England were subjects, and that the King owned some sort of interest in his subjects' lives beyond humanitarian or humanistic ones. Killing one of the King's subjects was almost as bad as killing one of the King's cows. People living under the U.S. Constitution however are not subjects in that sense, and are not afflicted by the disabilities imposed by monarchical abstractions.
To sum up: "Free" implies limitations on the state's ability to provide an arbitrary level of security, this necessarily implies a degree of self reliance on the part of the free citizen to protect his life in the setting of such limitations. If the Constitution prevents the policeman from looking in the trunk of the speeding hit man's car when he is on the way to kill you, the Constitution impliedly allows you to rectify that by dispatching the miscreant when the choice comes down to you or him.
How about this as an academic argument:
The key phrase of the Second Amendment is found in the preamble, but not the militia part. The key phrase is "necessary to the security of a free state." Why the adjective? The flip answer is that a state that bans the possession and use of arms by the "people" is not as free as one that does not. But there is a more mechanical aspect that supports a right to self defense.
A free state implies necessary restraints on the armed agencies of government that are vested with the authority to use force. This lessens the risk that such entities will become agents of tyranny, but also impedes their ability to defend the life and safety of individual citizens. Unless the people are willing to accommodate an oppressive police presence in the interest of public safety (airline security lines notwithstanding) the citizen of a free state (i.e. one in which government force is restrained in the interest of individual liberties) must be allowed the right and means to provide their own defense.
As an aside, I think that probing whether English common law protects a right of self defense is largely unhelpful. It is my understanding (quite possibly wrong, but...) that people living in England were subjects, and that the King owned some sort of interest in his subjects' lives beyond humanitarian or humanistic ones. Killing one of the King's subjects was almost as bad as killing one of the King's cows. People living under the U.S. Constitution however are not subjects in that sense, and are not afflicted by the disabilities imposed by monarchical abstractions.
To sum up: "Free" implies limitations on the state's ability to provide an arbitrary level of security, this necessarily implies a degree of self reliance on the part of the free citizen to protect his life in the setting of such limitations. If the Constitution prevents the policeman from looking in the trunk of the speeding hit man's car when he is on the way to kill you, the Constitution impliedly allows you to rectify that by dispatching the miscreant when the choice comes down to you or him.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
REDISTRIBUTION
One of the problems with the progressive notion of redistribution is that it is anti-progressive. Redistribution is an end rather than a means, and it is rather a dead-end. Redistribution is the process by which the loaves are divvied up rather than by which they are created. There is nothing industrious about redistribution. It is a policy that assumes that the distributed goods are the final fruits of effort and merit rather than the seeds of further progress.
One of the problems with the progressive notion of redistribution is that it is anti-progressive. Redistribution is an end rather than a means, and it is rather a dead-end. Redistribution is the process by which the loaves are divvied up rather than by which they are created. There is nothing industrious about redistribution. It is a policy that assumes that the distributed goods are the final fruits of effort and merit rather than the seeds of further progress.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
LAW
The recently completed United States Supreme Court term has generated a gread deal of internet comment and analysis. Websites such as the Volokh Conspiracy are loaded with critiques and discussions as to what the various opinions mean and argue over the legal principles that are either vindicated or violated by these decisions.
What is interesting about these discussions is that very smart people disagree sharply over the legal principles, interpretations and construction of the law. They also argue over history and legal philosophy, supporting wildly varying conclusions. In reading these discussions, one can make the following observations:
a soc
There are a number of philosphies of law, each of which presupposes the existence of some definite thing, such as a divine law giver, a state of nature, a social compact, or natural order. The position taken in these abstract legal arguments depends largely on what one presupposes as the foundation of law. TO understand the arguments, it might be helpful to fully understand the different theories by reading Aristotle's Rhetoric or Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws or Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, but in understanding how the controversies in law arise, it is helpful to presume, not a particular fundamental principle, such as the social contract, but merely to accept that legal reasoning presumes such a principle, regardless of what that is.
Legal reasoning tends to be fairly consistent: specific observations and historical data are analyzed to try, using inductive reasoning, to identify the underlying principle that will resolve the dispute. Deductive reasoning then applies this principle to the specific facts to the case at issue. This is true whether one is an originalist or legal positivist or utilitarian, or whatever. This process is subject to the limitations and quirks of human cognition. Very smart people reach different conclusions based on the same data becase the cognitive processes that are used are not deterministic.
When a person analyzes facts and data and legal precedent, and uses them to distill an underlying legal principle, he is using the cognitive process of pattern recognition. This process has a sensitivity and specificity associated with it. Someone who is very adept at recognizing recurrent patterns and readily identify the common principle in disparate facts is also likely to find patterns where none exist. This is a natural consequence of pattern recognition in human cognitive processes and is responsible for the phenomenon of apophenia, the experience of seeing patterns in random data. This potential lsource of "false-positive" error affects not only legal reasoning, but all forms of cognitive analysis where pattern recognition is necessary, such as interpreting electrocardiograms. In order to increase the liklihood that a doctor will correctly identify the subtle patterns associated with particular types of cardiac pathology, he will have to accept the risk of identifying that pathology when none is actually there. He trades off false positive interpratations as the price of minimizing false negatives.
In the legal context, this apophenia phenomenon leads legal scholars on jurists to find patterns in factual scenarios, legal precedents and modern culture that appears to fit with a certain principle. Sometimes they derive a useful rule or concept, but they also will occasionally be fooled into thinking that they have identified an underlying truth that really isn't there.
The recently completed United States Supreme Court term has generated a gread deal of internet comment and analysis. Websites such as the Volokh Conspiracy are loaded with critiques and discussions as to what the various opinions mean and argue over the legal principles that are either vindicated or violated by these decisions.
What is interesting about these discussions is that very smart people disagree sharply over the legal principles, interpretations and construction of the law. They also argue over history and legal philosophy, supporting wildly varying conclusions. In reading these discussions, one can make the following observations:
a soc
There are a number of philosphies of law, each of which presupposes the existence of some definite thing, such as a divine law giver, a state of nature, a social compact, or natural order. The position taken in these abstract legal arguments depends largely on what one presupposes as the foundation of law. TO understand the arguments, it might be helpful to fully understand the different theories by reading Aristotle's Rhetoric or Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws or Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica, but in understanding how the controversies in law arise, it is helpful to presume, not a particular fundamental principle, such as the social contract, but merely to accept that legal reasoning presumes such a principle, regardless of what that is.
Legal reasoning tends to be fairly consistent: specific observations and historical data are analyzed to try, using inductive reasoning, to identify the underlying principle that will resolve the dispute. Deductive reasoning then applies this principle to the specific facts to the case at issue. This is true whether one is an originalist or legal positivist or utilitarian, or whatever. This process is subject to the limitations and quirks of human cognition. Very smart people reach different conclusions based on the same data becase the cognitive processes that are used are not deterministic.
When a person analyzes facts and data and legal precedent, and uses them to distill an underlying legal principle, he is using the cognitive process of pattern recognition. This process has a sensitivity and specificity associated with it. Someone who is very adept at recognizing recurrent patterns and readily identify the common principle in disparate facts is also likely to find patterns where none exist. This is a natural consequence of pattern recognition in human cognitive processes and is responsible for the phenomenon of apophenia, the experience of seeing patterns in random data. This potential lsource of "false-positive" error affects not only legal reasoning, but all forms of cognitive analysis where pattern recognition is necessary, such as interpreting electrocardiograms. In order to increase the liklihood that a doctor will correctly identify the subtle patterns associated with particular types of cardiac pathology, he will have to accept the risk of identifying that pathology when none is actually there. He trades off false positive interpratations as the price of minimizing false negatives.
In the legal context, this apophenia phenomenon leads legal scholars on jurists to find patterns in factual scenarios, legal precedents and modern culture that appears to fit with a certain principle. Sometimes they derive a useful rule or concept, but they also will occasionally be fooled into thinking that they have identified an underlying truth that really isn't there.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
HOMOSEXUALITY
Homosexuality is an expected consequence of nature using sexual reproduction as a method of providing genetic diversity.
There would be little diversity resulting from all males being attracted to the same trait, and all females doing likewise. In the extreme case, not only would all males be attracted to the same type of female, they would be attracted to a single individual. This would frustrate the purpose of genetic diversity, which would negate the benefits of sexual reproduction. Thus, "normal" males (to focus on this portion of the species) are attracted to a variety of different female attributes; some men prefer thin females, other more sturdy shapes, some prefer large breasts, others not, different men are attracted preferentially to different body parts, etc. Nature endows the male inventory with a bell curve of sexual appetites, and as we move from the norm, we encounter all types of paraphilias that are not ultimately character defects, but the statistical and anomalous consequences of nature's quest for genetic diversity within the species. Nature has decided that it is OK to have a small percentage of the population have sexual orientations that incline away from reproduction as price to keep stirring the genetic pot. This may explain why there is no true homosexuality gene. If all sexual appetites were genetically determined, all types of genetic traits would cluster in discrete populations, and once again, the goal of genetic diversity would be frustrated.
Homosexuality is an expected consequence of nature using sexual reproduction as a method of providing genetic diversity.
There would be little diversity resulting from all males being attracted to the same trait, and all females doing likewise. In the extreme case, not only would all males be attracted to the same type of female, they would be attracted to a single individual. This would frustrate the purpose of genetic diversity, which would negate the benefits of sexual reproduction. Thus, "normal" males (to focus on this portion of the species) are attracted to a variety of different female attributes; some men prefer thin females, other more sturdy shapes, some prefer large breasts, others not, different men are attracted preferentially to different body parts, etc. Nature endows the male inventory with a bell curve of sexual appetites, and as we move from the norm, we encounter all types of paraphilias that are not ultimately character defects, but the statistical and anomalous consequences of nature's quest for genetic diversity within the species. Nature has decided that it is OK to have a small percentage of the population have sexual orientations that incline away from reproduction as price to keep stirring the genetic pot. This may explain why there is no true homosexuality gene. If all sexual appetites were genetically determined, all types of genetic traits would cluster in discrete populations, and once again, the goal of genetic diversity would be frustrated.
Monday, June 23, 2008
PRIVACY
The current debate over acquisition of foreign intelligence takes many things for granted, so much so that many key concepts are neglected. Aong these are:
1.) The nature of privacy. The notion of privacy is given great deference in national security debates, so much so that it nears divine reverence. What is lost in this treatment, is the fact that privacy has a purpose. Citizens of a free society need to have some measure of control over their own reputation. It is necessary for the orderly interactions that are necessary to living with one another. This is why English common law allowed actions for libel and slander, and why the common virtue of minding ones own business has survivied as an element of good manners. A reputation is no small matter in any community, and respecting privacy makes it easier for one to defend against scurrilous acusations or other stains upon an individuals honor. Society should therefore respect privacy because it benefits the society to do so, not because it is an absolute virtue. A society is not required to allow plots, even by its own citizens, to advance in darkness, simply because "privacy" is beneficial in other respects.
There is no benefit to American society in allowing non-citizens outside of national borders to transact any business, no mater how innocuous, in secrecy. Respect for the privacy of such transactions is not a matter that affects the orderly business of this society, and there is no infringement on any right by simply slistening on on what there is to hear. The right of privacy inherent in the fourth amendment is a compact between a government and the free people that consent to it, not a capitulation of a universally recognized human right.
2.) "Expectations of privacy." Even in American criminal law, privacy rights are subject to the common sense limitation that there is no privacy where none would be expected. Two non-citizens outside of the United States cannot reasonably expect that a communication that passes through the U.S. would not be scrutinized by a government that is trying to protect its people from nefarious schemes and terrorist atrocities.
3.) The concept of penetration in terror attacks. When terrorists plot an operation, one of the most difficult elements is to determine how to penetrate the vigilance of the target to accomplish the deed. This is an element of all terrorist operations, from the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, to the attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher, to the attack on the USS Cole, to the attacks of 9/11. Penetration is the most tenuous element in a terrorist plot, as can be seen in foiling the Millennium plot. Thus, this is where terror plots are most vulnerable, and where surveillance is most useful. Surveillance is a very efficient way to defeat the ruses and stealth used by terrorists to penetrate their targets.
The current debate over acquisition of foreign intelligence takes many things for granted, so much so that many key concepts are neglected. Aong these are:
1.) The nature of privacy. The notion of privacy is given great deference in national security debates, so much so that it nears divine reverence. What is lost in this treatment, is the fact that privacy has a purpose. Citizens of a free society need to have some measure of control over their own reputation. It is necessary for the orderly interactions that are necessary to living with one another. This is why English common law allowed actions for libel and slander, and why the common virtue of minding ones own business has survivied as an element of good manners. A reputation is no small matter in any community, and respecting privacy makes it easier for one to defend against scurrilous acusations or other stains upon an individuals honor. Society should therefore respect privacy because it benefits the society to do so, not because it is an absolute virtue. A society is not required to allow plots, even by its own citizens, to advance in darkness, simply because "privacy" is beneficial in other respects.
There is no benefit to American society in allowing non-citizens outside of national borders to transact any business, no mater how innocuous, in secrecy. Respect for the privacy of such transactions is not a matter that affects the orderly business of this society, and there is no infringement on any right by simply slistening on on what there is to hear. The right of privacy inherent in the fourth amendment is a compact between a government and the free people that consent to it, not a capitulation of a universally recognized human right.
2.) "Expectations of privacy." Even in American criminal law, privacy rights are subject to the common sense limitation that there is no privacy where none would be expected. Two non-citizens outside of the United States cannot reasonably expect that a communication that passes through the U.S. would not be scrutinized by a government that is trying to protect its people from nefarious schemes and terrorist atrocities.
3.) The concept of penetration in terror attacks. When terrorists plot an operation, one of the most difficult elements is to determine how to penetrate the vigilance of the target to accomplish the deed. This is an element of all terrorist operations, from the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, to the attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher, to the attack on the USS Cole, to the attacks of 9/11. Penetration is the most tenuous element in a terrorist plot, as can be seen in foiling the Millennium plot. Thus, this is where terror plots are most vulnerable, and where surveillance is most useful. Surveillance is a very efficient way to defeat the ruses and stealth used by terrorists to penetrate their targets.
Friday, June 20, 2008
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
I believe that the current controversies regarding "intelligent design" are best understood in light of Aristotle's theory of the four causes. He concluded that there are 4 types of cause: formal, material, efficient and final. The formal cause of something is the pattern, design, or archetype that determines the final form of the thing. The architectural plan for a house or blueprint of a machine are examples. The substance that actually makes up the thing, the bricks and mortar of the house or metal of the machine is the material cause. The efficient cause is the factual production of the thing; the building of the house or assembling of the machine, and the final cause is the reason why the enterprise was undertaken in the first place, e.g. somebody needed a house or the machine was thought to be useful.
The contemplation of the biological origin of man also demonstrates each of Aristotle's four causes. Genes are the formal cause of homo sapiens, ribonucleic acids are the material cause, evolution or natural selection is the efficient cause. These observations seem to involve little controversy. The issue arises when people consider the final cause, the "why?"
The final cause (in the Aristotelian sense) creates contention when included in scientific thought because it is not science. It is irrelevant to understanding the other three types of causes, and is not amenable of scientific investigation. Those who wish to introduce an "Intelligent Designer" as the final cause of man conflate philospohical and religious yearning with scientific empiricism, ending up with something that is neither intellectually or spiritually fulfilling.
People search for a final cause of their existence, not because it is scientifically necessary, but because it is emotionally comforting. Piety would be so much easier if the objects of our devotion could be accessed by more familiar forms of reasoning. Faith would be much easier if it didn't require so much faith.
Ultimately, intelligent design will be found irrelevant to both the science of biology and the destination of a true spiritual journey.
I believe that the current controversies regarding "intelligent design" are best understood in light of Aristotle's theory of the four causes. He concluded that there are 4 types of cause: formal, material, efficient and final. The formal cause of something is the pattern, design, or archetype that determines the final form of the thing. The architectural plan for a house or blueprint of a machine are examples. The substance that actually makes up the thing, the bricks and mortar of the house or metal of the machine is the material cause. The efficient cause is the factual production of the thing; the building of the house or assembling of the machine, and the final cause is the reason why the enterprise was undertaken in the first place, e.g. somebody needed a house or the machine was thought to be useful.
The contemplation of the biological origin of man also demonstrates each of Aristotle's four causes. Genes are the formal cause of homo sapiens, ribonucleic acids are the material cause, evolution or natural selection is the efficient cause. These observations seem to involve little controversy. The issue arises when people consider the final cause, the "why?"
The final cause (in the Aristotelian sense) creates contention when included in scientific thought because it is not science. It is irrelevant to understanding the other three types of causes, and is not amenable of scientific investigation. Those who wish to introduce an "Intelligent Designer" as the final cause of man conflate philospohical and religious yearning with scientific empiricism, ending up with something that is neither intellectually or spiritually fulfilling.
People search for a final cause of their existence, not because it is scientifically necessary, but because it is emotionally comforting. Piety would be so much easier if the objects of our devotion could be accessed by more familiar forms of reasoning. Faith would be much easier if it didn't require so much faith.
Ultimately, intelligent design will be found irrelevant to both the science of biology and the destination of a true spiritual journey.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
AUDIENCES
It seems to be common sense that most objections to free speech that someone finds "offensive" are complained of simply because someone's feelings are hurt. The real objection to speech is that it may be potentially pursuasive and contrary to the broader interests of those who take offense.
One of the notable aspects about the rhetoric of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and others who "speak truth to power" is that they seldom speak anything controversial apart from cheering and sympathetic crowds. One suspects that those such as Rev. Wright speak as they do, not because of the change they seek, but because of the reaction they receive. Not all showmen are courageous.
A better example of someone who exercised her right of speech out of conviction is Sacheen Littlefeather, who was booed at the Academy Awards for explaining why Marlon Brando was refusing the Best Actor Oscar for The Godfather. As to why Brando didn't explain in person...
It seems to be common sense that most objections to free speech that someone finds "offensive" are complained of simply because someone's feelings are hurt. The real objection to speech is that it may be potentially pursuasive and contrary to the broader interests of those who take offense.
One of the notable aspects about the rhetoric of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and others who "speak truth to power" is that they seldom speak anything controversial apart from cheering and sympathetic crowds. One suspects that those such as Rev. Wright speak as they do, not because of the change they seek, but because of the reaction they receive. Not all showmen are courageous.
A better example of someone who exercised her right of speech out of conviction is Sacheen Littlefeather, who was booed at the Academy Awards for explaining why Marlon Brando was refusing the Best Actor Oscar for The Godfather. As to why Brando didn't explain in person...
Friday, June 06, 2008
WIZARDS
The present political fixation with the allegedly unique attributes of Barack Obama is merely another instance of the human trait of seeking out supermen, masterminds and saviors. This activity actually happens every year in national sports, and the phenomenon is particularly prevalent in college football. Every year coaches resign and are fired, and fans of the affected team denigrate one candidate or another, thinking that merely accomplished mortals stand in the way of the team finding teh "wizard."
Presently, there are a few coaches that bear the Wizard mantle, with Pete Carroll being the most obvious. Larry Coker, Bob Stoops, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban and Jim Tressel have also ehld the title at one time or another. The fact is though, that there are no wizards. There is no one who has figured out something or who has some intangible gift that delvers success beyond that which can be explained by competence, experience, hard work and a little luck. Agood football coach will lose one out of every five times he takes the field. An exceptional coah will lose one out of every six. And that is not one out of five or six games against top ten opponents; it is against all-comers.
Every coach gets outcoached, has bad days and is beaten by inferior opponents. There are no Wizards in college football, or in world leaders. Great men like Churchill and Lincoln had their blunders, off days and fiascos. Every year some anointed coaching mastermind, who has let expectaions rise to an undefeated national championship, will lose a game that leaves fans wondering if maybe it's not time for a change. We can expect the same thoughts about our political leaders every election as well.
The present political fixation with the allegedly unique attributes of Barack Obama is merely another instance of the human trait of seeking out supermen, masterminds and saviors. This activity actually happens every year in national sports, and the phenomenon is particularly prevalent in college football. Every year coaches resign and are fired, and fans of the affected team denigrate one candidate or another, thinking that merely accomplished mortals stand in the way of the team finding teh "wizard."
Presently, there are a few coaches that bear the Wizard mantle, with Pete Carroll being the most obvious. Larry Coker, Bob Stoops, Bobby Petrino, Nick Saban and Jim Tressel have also ehld the title at one time or another. The fact is though, that there are no wizards. There is no one who has figured out something or who has some intangible gift that delvers success beyond that which can be explained by competence, experience, hard work and a little luck. Agood football coach will lose one out of every five times he takes the field. An exceptional coah will lose one out of every six. And that is not one out of five or six games against top ten opponents; it is against all-comers.
Every coach gets outcoached, has bad days and is beaten by inferior opponents. There are no Wizards in college football, or in world leaders. Great men like Churchill and Lincoln had their blunders, off days and fiascos. Every year some anointed coaching mastermind, who has let expectaions rise to an undefeated national championship, will lose a game that leaves fans wondering if maybe it's not time for a change. We can expect the same thoughts about our political leaders every election as well.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
TYRANNY
History holds many examples of political philosophies that have been put into practice with varying degrees of success. Many ideologies that sounded benign in concept have left bloody ruins when put into practice. Whether this is the result of a psychological quirk or cynical political expedience, many ideologies of the past several hundred years have led to slaughter.
The unfortunate fantasy of many political visionaries is to be able to eliminate people they find inconvenient. This is not limited to the underlying philosphies of the left or right, but rather seems to grow out conviction that hardens into fanaticism. Apologists often lament the death of innocents while opining that such deaths are somehow necessary to a better future. This "break some eggs to make an omelet" approach to human life afflicts the values of utopians, communists, fascists, socialists, capitalists, religionists, and nearly everyone else who thinks with sufficient conviction that he or she knows how others must live.
The concept that some people are impediments to a better life for others led to the excesses of the French revolution, the Ukranian harvest of shame, the Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, and places in the world to this day where some people think that a political idea justifies the death of another. The true totalitarian fantasy is to eliminate innocent people with impunity because it is justified by an intellectual abstraction.
The more we are given to tolerate these homicides, the easier it is to accept that sometimes innocent people can be sacrificed, not for some debatable greater good, but simply to satisfy our subjective wants.
History holds many examples of political philosophies that have been put into practice with varying degrees of success. Many ideologies that sounded benign in concept have left bloody ruins when put into practice. Whether this is the result of a psychological quirk or cynical political expedience, many ideologies of the past several hundred years have led to slaughter.
The unfortunate fantasy of many political visionaries is to be able to eliminate people they find inconvenient. This is not limited to the underlying philosphies of the left or right, but rather seems to grow out conviction that hardens into fanaticism. Apologists often lament the death of innocents while opining that such deaths are somehow necessary to a better future. This "break some eggs to make an omelet" approach to human life afflicts the values of utopians, communists, fascists, socialists, capitalists, religionists, and nearly everyone else who thinks with sufficient conviction that he or she knows how others must live.
The concept that some people are impediments to a better life for others led to the excesses of the French revolution, the Ukranian harvest of shame, the Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, and places in the world to this day where some people think that a political idea justifies the death of another. The true totalitarian fantasy is to eliminate innocent people with impunity because it is justified by an intellectual abstraction.
The more we are given to tolerate these homicides, the easier it is to accept that sometimes innocent people can be sacrificed, not for some debatable greater good, but simply to satisfy our subjective wants.
Friday, May 16, 2008
NATURE
In the physical sciences, something is considered abnormal if it varies from the norm. The trend in the social sciences however is to regard something as abnormal if it varies from the ideal, even if the ideal is unobtainable. Further, there is a reliable tendency to ascribe the variation from the ideal to someone’s bad character. In modern thought, to alter nature is an abomination; to alter man, a necessity, as though there is no such thing as human nature.
In the physical sciences, something is considered abnormal if it varies from the norm. The trend in the social sciences however is to regard something as abnormal if it varies from the ideal, even if the ideal is unobtainable. Further, there is a reliable tendency to ascribe the variation from the ideal to someone’s bad character. In modern thought, to alter nature is an abomination; to alter man, a necessity, as though there is no such thing as human nature.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
RACISM
Much has been made of the assertion that race is an element in many votes that will be cast against Barak Obama this year. A fair question may be asked as to whether this is a reflection of a deeply ingrained racism, or if there is at least the possibility that race is an incidental factor in a more general concern.
If some people are moved to vote for anyone but Obama because his father was black, a decent curiosity would prompt one to ask "Why?" It may be, of course, that some people distrust, hate, or fear anyone of African appearance. That this is in fact the case is supposedly illustrated by the hypothetical "If Obama were to choose an African American as a running mate he would be less likey to be elected, and this is because Americans are too racist to vote for an all-black ticket, regardless of the qualities of the individuals." In fact, if Obama were to select a black running mate, he would be less likely to be elected, but not because people simply do not want a black person to be president.
The issue is not one of race, as much as the perception that a candidate will advance a narrow agenda. This is the reason that John F. Kennedy had to clarify the role that his Catholicism would play in executive decisions. The reason that his speech to Baptist ministers was effective was because the issue was not whether he was Catholic or not, it was whether he would pursue Catholic interests as president.
The public does not want an executive whose priorities lie in a narrow, insular agenda. Consider if a ticket composed of Hillary Clinton and Madelein ALbright ran against a ticket of Patricia Ireland and Kate Michelman. Who do you think would win? How about if Tom Tancredo ran with Pat Buchanan? The odd fact is that single issue voters will vote for politicians that agree with them on a given issue, but few people will vote for single issue candidates.
Barak Obama must contend with the suspicion that he harbors a narrow, black-centered agenda. This is part of the fallout from his association with Jeremiah Wright, who has been explicit in advocating for such an agenda. If Obama were to pick an African-American running mate who is associated with the same views, Obama will be viewed with the same suspicions that John Kennedy faced regarding his religion. Unfortunately, Obama probably would not be given the benefit of the doubt, even if he chose a black running mate with less activist background, such a Colin Powell. People who might otherwise vote for Obama might become suspicious that he thinks race is important, and on that basis decide that his motivations are to narrow for President of the United States. It may not be fair, and it may not be old-time bigotry, but it is part of the politics of perception.
Much has been made of the assertion that race is an element in many votes that will be cast against Barak Obama this year. A fair question may be asked as to whether this is a reflection of a deeply ingrained racism, or if there is at least the possibility that race is an incidental factor in a more general concern.
If some people are moved to vote for anyone but Obama because his father was black, a decent curiosity would prompt one to ask "Why?" It may be, of course, that some people distrust, hate, or fear anyone of African appearance. That this is in fact the case is supposedly illustrated by the hypothetical "If Obama were to choose an African American as a running mate he would be less likey to be elected, and this is because Americans are too racist to vote for an all-black ticket, regardless of the qualities of the individuals." In fact, if Obama were to select a black running mate, he would be less likely to be elected, but not because people simply do not want a black person to be president.
The issue is not one of race, as much as the perception that a candidate will advance a narrow agenda. This is the reason that John F. Kennedy had to clarify the role that his Catholicism would play in executive decisions. The reason that his speech to Baptist ministers was effective was because the issue was not whether he was Catholic or not, it was whether he would pursue Catholic interests as president.
The public does not want an executive whose priorities lie in a narrow, insular agenda. Consider if a ticket composed of Hillary Clinton and Madelein ALbright ran against a ticket of Patricia Ireland and Kate Michelman. Who do you think would win? How about if Tom Tancredo ran with Pat Buchanan? The odd fact is that single issue voters will vote for politicians that agree with them on a given issue, but few people will vote for single issue candidates.
Barak Obama must contend with the suspicion that he harbors a narrow, black-centered agenda. This is part of the fallout from his association with Jeremiah Wright, who has been explicit in advocating for such an agenda. If Obama were to pick an African-American running mate who is associated with the same views, Obama will be viewed with the same suspicions that John Kennedy faced regarding his religion. Unfortunately, Obama probably would not be given the benefit of the doubt, even if he chose a black running mate with less activist background, such a Colin Powell. People who might otherwise vote for Obama might become suspicious that he thinks race is important, and on that basis decide that his motivations are to narrow for President of the United States. It may not be fair, and it may not be old-time bigotry, but it is part of the politics of perception.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
HEALTHCARE ILLUSIONS
One of the reasons that healthcare in the United States is so expensive is that a significant portion of healthcare expenditures is, in effect, a tax we pay pay to maintain certain illusions. We willingly pay millions of dollars to maintain the illusion that nonagenarians who have suffered massive strokes might somehow completely recover. We pay to sustain the illusion that our healthcare policy is concerned primarily with what is best for the patient. We fund the illusions that self-destructive behaviors are just bad luck, that all people access the system only for health-realted reasons, rather than a small portion who do so for secondary gains. We pay to accommodate the fashions that various forms of quackery are therapeutic, that the natural course of many objectively terminal diseases is cure rather than death, and that a hospital that looks like a hotel is somehow better than one that does not. One of the reasons that the American healthcare system is so expensive is that there is little seriousness about making it otherwise, because we like our illusions and are willing to have "the system" pay for them.
There is a contradiction regarding the quality of the American healthcare system, in that it is sometimes described as the best in the world and othertimes derided as being the most expensive but inferior to most of the developed world. The resolution of this anomaly lies in acknowledging that both views are correct. The fact is that the American healthcare system is designed to achieve different goals than those of other countries. If the goal of the U. S. system is limited to providing universal preventive care, it could probably do that quite efficiently. If its focus is limited to provide a catastrophic safety net it could probably do that as well. But the American healthcare system is intended to fulfill many roles, which have the effect of benefitting the rest of the world. The American system advances the state of the art, and is to a large degree resonsible for much of the progress of the art of medicine worldwide. The American system encourages access to technologies that are not always economically beneficial (there are probably way more CT scans performed here than need to be) but which may make the underlying technologies more economically available in the future. In addition, there is a large sociological component to the delivery of healthcare that would go unnoticed if the goal were simply to queue people up to receive their alloted share of services. Part of this is because American society is more diverse than say, Japan or Cuba. We have expenditures for artificial joints in octogenarians, which would be unlikely to be priorities in a more "efficient" system.
There are many ways that the American healthcare system can be improved, but first we have to realize that not all of the problems are due to greed or the bad character of "them." A lot of it is due to choices that we make, and interests that we protect.
One of the reasons that healthcare in the United States is so expensive is that a significant portion of healthcare expenditures is, in effect, a tax we pay pay to maintain certain illusions. We willingly pay millions of dollars to maintain the illusion that nonagenarians who have suffered massive strokes might somehow completely recover. We pay to sustain the illusion that our healthcare policy is concerned primarily with what is best for the patient. We fund the illusions that self-destructive behaviors are just bad luck, that all people access the system only for health-realted reasons, rather than a small portion who do so for secondary gains. We pay to accommodate the fashions that various forms of quackery are therapeutic, that the natural course of many objectively terminal diseases is cure rather than death, and that a hospital that looks like a hotel is somehow better than one that does not. One of the reasons that the American healthcare system is so expensive is that there is little seriousness about making it otherwise, because we like our illusions and are willing to have "the system" pay for them.
There is a contradiction regarding the quality of the American healthcare system, in that it is sometimes described as the best in the world and othertimes derided as being the most expensive but inferior to most of the developed world. The resolution of this anomaly lies in acknowledging that both views are correct. The fact is that the American healthcare system is designed to achieve different goals than those of other countries. If the goal of the U. S. system is limited to providing universal preventive care, it could probably do that quite efficiently. If its focus is limited to provide a catastrophic safety net it could probably do that as well. But the American healthcare system is intended to fulfill many roles, which have the effect of benefitting the rest of the world. The American system advances the state of the art, and is to a large degree resonsible for much of the progress of the art of medicine worldwide. The American system encourages access to technologies that are not always economically beneficial (there are probably way more CT scans performed here than need to be) but which may make the underlying technologies more economically available in the future. In addition, there is a large sociological component to the delivery of healthcare that would go unnoticed if the goal were simply to queue people up to receive their alloted share of services. Part of this is because American society is more diverse than say, Japan or Cuba. We have expenditures for artificial joints in octogenarians, which would be unlikely to be priorities in a more "efficient" system.
There are many ways that the American healthcare system can be improved, but first we have to realize that not all of the problems are due to greed or the bad character of "them." A lot of it is due to choices that we make, and interests that we protect.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
HEALTHCARE
All healthcare systems involve some form of rationing. This is an inescapable reality that arises from the fact that healthcare is not an abstract right, it is a service that must be provided from a limited supply of resources.
Different system use different criteria upon which to make rationing decisions. Sometimes these are explicit, as in the Oregon Medicaid system, and sometimes they are inherent, such as the Canadian practice of rationing by queues. In the United States, there is a patchwork of rationing, varying by region of the country, medical condition of the patient, and socio-economic factors.
Reform of our healthcare system should start with selecting and designing an appropriate rationing criterion. As a foundational step, it should begin by constraining the definition of "healthcare." It would be next to impossible to design and implement a viable healthcare system if it includes practices of limited application and dubious merit. The first step in overhauling healthcare should thus be to define healthcare as "those practices and interventions that have been shown by rigorous scientific study to have a cost-effective benefit in management of acute and chronic health conditions." For purposes of this definition, "cost effective" would mean the amount of therapeutic benefit per unit of resources expended. Cost-effectiveness would be determined by market mechanisms; i.e. competition among various therapies with those yielding the most benefit per unit cost survivng, and those
This approach would be exactly counter to present practice, which is to take an entitlement and expand the definition of it to ensure that it not so much grows as metastasizes.
All healthcare systems involve some form of rationing. This is an inescapable reality that arises from the fact that healthcare is not an abstract right, it is a service that must be provided from a limited supply of resources.
Different system use different criteria upon which to make rationing decisions. Sometimes these are explicit, as in the Oregon Medicaid system, and sometimes they are inherent, such as the Canadian practice of rationing by queues. In the United States, there is a patchwork of rationing, varying by region of the country, medical condition of the patient, and socio-economic factors.
Reform of our healthcare system should start with selecting and designing an appropriate rationing criterion. As a foundational step, it should begin by constraining the definition of "healthcare." It would be next to impossible to design and implement a viable healthcare system if it includes practices of limited application and dubious merit. The first step in overhauling healthcare should thus be to define healthcare as "those practices and interventions that have been shown by rigorous scientific study to have a cost-effective benefit in management of acute and chronic health conditions." For purposes of this definition, "cost effective" would mean the amount of therapeutic benefit per unit of resources expended. Cost-effectiveness would be determined by market mechanisms; i.e. competition among various therapies with those yielding the most benefit per unit cost survivng, and those
This approach would be exactly counter to present practice, which is to take an entitlement and expand the definition of it to ensure that it not so much grows as metastasizes.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
CONSTRAINTS
There are many factors that make private enterprise more efficient than government in providing a particular service or accomplishing a particular task. One such factor is that government is constrained by things that need not necesssarily inhibit the private sector. For some reason having to do with the quirks of politics, a major impediment to government efficiency is that it is effectively not allowed to undertake activities in a manner which hurts anyone's feelings. Government must maintain the most ludicrous of facades to appear sensitive, inclusive and "fair." Even when providing services that few would argue should be the province of government, such as law enforcement, malignant sensitivity and pandering to grievance politics not only impairs efficiency, it sometimes defeats the purpose of undertaking those activities at all.
There are many factors that make private enterprise more efficient than government in providing a particular service or accomplishing a particular task. One such factor is that government is constrained by things that need not necesssarily inhibit the private sector. For some reason having to do with the quirks of politics, a major impediment to government efficiency is that it is effectively not allowed to undertake activities in a manner which hurts anyone's feelings. Government must maintain the most ludicrous of facades to appear sensitive, inclusive and "fair." Even when providing services that few would argue should be the province of government, such as law enforcement, malignant sensitivity and pandering to grievance politics not only impairs efficiency, it sometimes defeats the purpose of undertaking those activities at all.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
TRADITION
All successful societies develop traditions, and in fact traditions are a marker of societal achievement. Tradition serves many purposes: it acts as a repository of experience; it serves as a reminder of past achievements and worthy enterprises; it provides a frame of reference for future endeavors; it provides recognition of virtues and other admirable qualities; and it supplies some measure of structure for more intricate and complex organization.
Tradition is necessary to futrure enterprises because, regardless of the form it assumes, or how it formally exists in society, it helps provide one element essential to progress: predictability.
Predicatability is an indispensible element of human progress. The reason why scientists and engineers can use scientific principles for technological advancement is that the principles of science are predictable. It would be impossible to have electric lights if a conductor moving in an electric field produced an electric potential some times, but not others; it would be impossible to travel by air if lift prodiced on a wing occurred randomly, instead of following well-behaved realtionships between air density, velocity and pressure. The same princle applies to social progress. If laws had no predictable application, there would be no point in having laws, and it should be noted that frequently in human history, tradition formed the basis of legal systems. The Anglo-American concept of stare decisis is simply a principle which promotes predictability in a system vulnerable to caprice in individual cases.
A society that eschews tradition, in the name of enlightenment, or fashion, or even progress does not simply discard its past. To a real extent, it corrupts its future as well.
All successful societies develop traditions, and in fact traditions are a marker of societal achievement. Tradition serves many purposes: it acts as a repository of experience; it serves as a reminder of past achievements and worthy enterprises; it provides a frame of reference for future endeavors; it provides recognition of virtues and other admirable qualities; and it supplies some measure of structure for more intricate and complex organization.
Tradition is necessary to futrure enterprises because, regardless of the form it assumes, or how it formally exists in society, it helps provide one element essential to progress: predictability.
Predicatability is an indispensible element of human progress. The reason why scientists and engineers can use scientific principles for technological advancement is that the principles of science are predictable. It would be impossible to have electric lights if a conductor moving in an electric field produced an electric potential some times, but not others; it would be impossible to travel by air if lift prodiced on a wing occurred randomly, instead of following well-behaved realtionships between air density, velocity and pressure. The same princle applies to social progress. If laws had no predictable application, there would be no point in having laws, and it should be noted that frequently in human history, tradition formed the basis of legal systems. The Anglo-American concept of stare decisis is simply a principle which promotes predictability in a system vulnerable to caprice in individual cases.
A society that eschews tradition, in the name of enlightenment, or fashion, or even progress does not simply discard its past. To a real extent, it corrupts its future as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)