A List Called "Things I Know"

Samples:


37. The first time someone asks you a question and then interrupts during the answer — from that point onward, you are best off smiling, nodding, and suddenly remembering you have something you need to go away and do.

65. Against all expectations, one of my most reliable ways for picking out “independent thinkers” in a world where so many desire that distinction, is this: They blaze their own trail only when it makes sense to do so. Others seem to want to build a better mousetrap whenever they’re being watched.

78. If someone is constantly criticizing you and seems to want to cut you down, you should allow for the possibility that they love you and have a large vision for you. If the criticism is dealt before an audience, you can safely exclude that as a possibility because the sonofabitch is out to burn you after all.



Worth a look.

In this case, it is the Women's Christian Temperance Union, with its program to abolish all alcohol use....Oops, I mean it is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which is actively pushing to make the use of alcohol illegal. In other words, it is becoming the secular clone of the WCTU.

You know, if they keep this up, I'm not inviting them to my next cocktail party. So there.

I believe in God, and therefore my occasional, but quite real, problem is to deal with evil and suffering and its place in God's creation. Dennis Prager said yesterday that while I have to account for that, atheists have to account for everything else -- why is there something, rather than nothing -- how does such intricate interlacing come to be -- and on and on, as well as the problems of beauty, goodness, relationships, and justice.

But I'd suggest that the atheist has to account for any value placed on his objection to suffering, and any value placed on his assertion that certain things are evil.

Elephant trainers know the value of example: they put young elephants in with older elephants who have proved cooperative. If you are good with elephants, it means that you know how to look for signs that the elephant is dangerous, and take appropriate precautions.

Just so for people. Associate with those who can improve you (Ch. 16). And keep an eye out for those who will cause you trouble (CLXVII), treating them with appropriate precautions.

And example of the latter comes from this paper online:

So it is of considerable real-world significance that the correlation between anti-authority attitudes and low IQ was quite substantial. Let me therefore spell out exactly what the correlation means. It means that people who say things such as the following are not too bright:

* Most people who are leaders in the world today got there by crooked or sneaky means.
* There isn't really very much your parents or older people can tell you that will help you get along in the world nowadays.
* The best school system is one that is democratic and treats all the pupils exactly alike.
* Complete freedom is the best way to bring up a child if you want it to be free and active.
* Most so-called "juvenile delinquency" is really just "youthful exuberance" and should not be punished.
* One of the best attitudes a young person can learn is that "nothing is sacred."

There are other things that would jump out, of course. It is always a good question to consider: Do I want to be like the people I'm around all the time?

And, yes, in response to an email, I know that the author of that paper and Steven Den Beste had a problem. I'd merely suggest that perhaps it isn't relevant in this case, and suggest that appropriate precautions be taken.

Why do we need an alternative to the precautionary principle?

The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by:

1. assuming worst-case scenarios
2. distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks
3. assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative
4. ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favoring nature over humanity
5. illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavorably positioning the proponent of the activity
6. conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm.


So what's the alternative? How about this?

People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity. This implies a range of responsibilities for those considering whether and how to develop, deploy, or restrict new technologies. Assess risks and opportunities using an objective, open, and comprehensive, yet simple decision process based on science rather than collective emotional reactions. Account for the costs of restrictions and lost opportunities as fully as direct effects. Favor measures that are proportionate to the probability and magnitude of impacts, and that have the highest payoff relative to their costs. Give a high priority to people’s freedom to learn, innovate, and advance.


It comes with a name barbarously formed: the "proactionary principle". I'd suggest a new name would be helpful in promoting it. I'm not sure that "expected value principle" is catchy, but it's closer to the meaning. Any suggestions?

Yes, I know that the reversibility principle also has advocates: but I don't know of any time that it would have worked. Here it is, though:

When considering the development or deployment of beneficial technologies with uncertain, but potentially significant, negative results, any decision should be made with a strong bias towards the ability to step back and reverse the decision should harmful outcomes become more likely. The determination of possible harmful results must be grounded in science but recognize the potential for people to use the technology in unintended ways, must include a consideration of benefits lost by choosing not to move forward with the technology, and must address the possibility of serious problems coming from the interaction of the new technology with existing systems and conditions. This consideration of reversibility should not cease upon the initial decision to go forward to hold back, but should be revisited as additional relevant information emerges.

Any thoughts?

A short trip into philosophy can show many rewarding insights.

This one has several: I like the note in the introduction.

Muir used the phrase "indoor philosophy" to explain why Bostonians in the company of Emerson refused to let the old man join in one of Muir's wild treks.

"He seemed as serene as a sequoia, his head in the empyrean; and forgetting his age, plans, duties, ties of every sort, I proposed an immeasurable camping trip back in the heart of the mountains. He seemed anxious to go, but considerately mentioned his party. I said: "Never mind. The mountains are calling; run away, and let plans and parties and dragging lowland duties all gang tapsal-teerie. We'll go up a cañon singing your own song, "Good-by, proud world! I'm going home, in divine earnest. Up there lies a new heaven and a new earth; let us go to the show." But alas, it was too late,—too near the sundown of his life. The shadows were growing long, and he leaned on his friends. His party, full of indoor philosophy, failed to see the natural beauty and fullness of promise of my wild plan, and laughed at it in good-natured ignorance, as if it were necessarily amusing to imagine that Boston people might be led to accept Sierra manifestations of God at the price of rough camping."

Abbey took the phrase and used it as a weapon. "In metaphysics, the notion that earth and all that's on it is a mental construct is the product of people who spend their lives inside rooms," he said. "It is an indoor philosophy."


But don't stop reading there. Keep going.

Plaigerism

It's not a crime. It's not even a legal matter.

What is it? Let's find out.

From my prior recommendation, the blog Overcoming Bias, a question about how you evaluate suggestions:

Imagine you are walking in the wild and come across what looks like a big rock painted with the following words:

I may look like an ordinary painted rock, but I'm actually a conscious mind. I know about you and your life, and I want to tell you: from the point of view of your values, you should commit suicide. You may have good arguments against your suicide, and I will listen to any arguments you offer, but I know of very good arguments in favor of suicide. I will listen, but if these words have not changed, then my conclusion has not changed.

You may think you are smarter or know more about this topic than a rock, even a rock that can paint words. And I admit that is true of most rocks. But I am not a random rock. I am a honest rock that tries hard not to be overconfident, and that understands how your opinion embodies information that I cannot see directly. I would not say this to most people. I have carefully considered the possibility that you may be right, and yet I remain confident that your best choice is suicide.

This seems to me a clear case of justified disagreement; it is very unlikely that coming across this rock should make you change your opinion on suicide. You have strong reasons to think this is just a painted rock; while the person who painted it probably had a full mind, the rock itself is not listening. Yes, we are biased to dismiss minds that disagree with us so that we can justify our disagreement, but even if we really liked what the rock had to say, we would still think it was just a rock. And so would almost anyone whose opinion your had any respect for.


What variations would make you more persuaded by the rock? What if it talked about the facts of your life?

Favorite Response? From Cobb, who said, I destroy the rock.

I take it as axiomatic that humans best understand humans because humans experience life as humans do. Rocks do not. No matter how you might embed a rock with consciousness, it cannot be human consciousness - only rock consciousness which must be held inferior.

I would thus see in the rock some alien intelligence whose purpose is to incite people to self-destruction without a human capacity to empathize. It is therefore a threat to humanity. As such, I destroy the rock.


Being a little bit more primitive in my analogies, I'd respond, "Hello, demon." Then I'd try and get the paint off.

From here

The Rev. Ron Carlson, a popular author and lecturer, sometimes presents his audience with two stories and asks them whether it matters which one is true.

In the secular account, "You are the descendant of a tiny cell of primordial protoplasm washed up on an empty beach 3 1/2 billion years ago. You are a mere grab bag of atomic particles, a conglomeration of genetic substance. You exist on a tiny planet in a minute solar system in an empty corner of a meaningless universe. You came from nothing and are going nowhere."

In the Christian view, by contrast, "You are the special creation of a good and all-powerful God. You are the climax of His creation. Not only is your kind unique, but you are unique among your kind. Your Creator loves you so much and so intensely desires your companionship and affection that He gave the life of His only son that you might spend eternity with him."

Now imagine two groups of people -- let's call them the Secular Tribe and the Religious Tribe -- who subscribe to one of these two views. Which of the two is more likely to survive, prosper and multiply?

What are you optimistic about?

Right off the bat, you see that it is a modern question, using a new word, "optimistic". For those of us from older cultures, what they are trying to capture is the meaning of the word "hope" while preventing God from peeking in.

I've been struck by a phenomenon that has hit Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists -- all those denominations whose protestant Christianity defined most religion in America (hence the "mainstream denominations") -- and their common failure.

It's not hard to define. Each of them has recently sheltered two religions under their banner: one, recognizable from the past, and a recent one with radically different answers to the basic questions.

What are the basic questions?

Who is Jesus Christ?

What is the authority of the Bible for belief and practice of being a Christian?

How should people respond to God's call to live a holy life?

I'd recommend these questions to anyone who wants to explore the fault line. You will find two distinctily different sets of answers out there. In addition, you will find those who know that there are two religions sharing space and who decline to make a choice between truth and falsehood. You know that the church is failing once the keynotes become "dialogue" and "shared experience" -- neither of which is oriented toward truth, the basic job of the church. I've previously been "tolerated out" of places (don't mistake toleration for allowing diverse opinions to debate if you want to stay "in"), and I know what it does to congregations.

The main stream is drying up, folks. Time to find another source of water. God always supplies it.

"Reading is Fundamental" -- that's what the poster says at my daughter's school.

It is foundational to a number of other academic subjects. But here's the key: all written words are capable of being interpreted ambiguously if you want to. Among those who want to are the widely-read, frequently published author Jerome Corsi, whose wide reading has done him the disservice of miring him deeper and deeper into his warped view of the world (on which, by the way, he refuses to pay attention to his own sources.) He is, in other words, the conservative answer to this site, which also contains a large collection of "facts" without betraying anything close to understanding. I'm waiting for someone to say that the "Amero" has been printed and is awaiting distribution: it would be the next logical step in his fantasy world.

This is the difference between learning how to read and learning how to understand. Aristotle understood that when you read a text, you give the author the benefit of the doubt: the author meant to say something true. Mr. Corsi and the Downing Street Mob also mean to say something true: but they don't think anyone who disagrees with them does, but they are dependent on those who disagree with them for the facts to make their case. This curious dependence means that they must take what people say and, using an agenda attributed to these people, "interpret" it for the rest of us. What takes a moment to understand is that the "agenda" is theirs, not that of those on whom they report.

I've been subject to mobs like this myself, and I found it one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. If you say something that doesn't reflect their view of you, they interpret it. If you say something supportive, they take it literally. If you say something they don't understand, whole new vistas of conspiratorial knowledge open up to them. Hearing, they do not hear.

FOLLOWUP: The reliable John Hawkins has created a list of questions conspiracy theorists need to ask themselves.. Sample:

Do you have ready answers for the obvious questions?: Let's look at a conspiracy that was floating around after 9/11 -- that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, not a plane. Well in that case, what happened to the plane that was hijacked? How could it be that various people WATCHED the plane flying towards the Pentagon? Is it possible that the hundreds of firefighters and military personnel who must have known the truth were somehow silenced? Why would anyone go through such an elaborate charade? If you can't convincingly answer the most basic questions about a conspiracy, then it's tough for the theory you're supporting to hold any water.

One of my greatest pleasures has been reading the Discourses of Epictetus. For those who would like a complete copy online, click here.

But my favorite version is the fairly literal translation in two volumes from Loeb Classical Library: here is volume 1 and here is volume 2. The translation is quite effective, and it contains the handbook in volume 2.

For those who need a bit of help with Epictetus, I recommend this book by AA Long, a UCal Berkeley professor who writes well, despite not himself being able to accept Epictetus's worldview. It contains helpful information about authors and cultural references that Epictetus makes.

Finally, I recommend some exposure to Xenophon's Socrates, because most people who have read Plato have him a bit too firmly in Plato's image. Finally, those who haven't read Homer are going to find a lot of references skating past them. For the Odyssey, I recommend Richmond Lattimore's translation, because it has the virtues of being fairly literal while retaining the poetic structure that the Greek had, and the same for the Iliad. For Homeric Hymns, the Loeb Classical Library again: it's not that available otherwise.

With these books in hand, you'll have a fairly complete understanding of Epictetus in a reasonably short time. Applying what he says takes longer, but is also worth it. For those with a taste for combining Stoicism with Christianity, that, too has a long history, and contributions can be made in many ways. Personally, I've found echoes of Epictetus most strongly in the book of Habakuk,
in the Old Testament, particularly in this verse, after considering the justice and injustice of all that the prophet sees:

17 Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,

18 yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.


which reflects quite neatly the idea that good and evil do not consist in what happens to you, but in your responses.

From Ruben Navarette, San Diego:

I'm an American because I love and appreciate freedom, and I want people around the world to have the chance to experience it firsthand. When liberty is threatened, or when a tyrant preys upon the weak and defenseless, I favor sending in the troops to set things right.

I'm an American because I don't believe in isolationism or disengaging from the rest of the world. I agree with those who say the United States is the world's one indispensable nation, and that it's our solemn responsibility to be -- not "the world's policeman'' -- but its role model and defender.

I'm an American because my sympathies lie with the little guy (especially when he is being pushed around by the big guy) and because I won't stomach bullies, foreign or domestic. The country is most righteous when it defends the underdog and shows the world how to be tough and compassionate at the same time.

I'm an American because I reject protectionism. If we don't run and hide from foreign armies, why should we run and hide from foreign trade? Whether our competitors come from India or China or Latin America, if we produce unique and quality merchandise, we'll outsell anyone -- even if our prices are higher because our labor costs are higher.

I'm an American because I'm convinced that U.S. law exists to protect the rights of minorities -- racial, religious, those with a particular sexual preference, etc. -- because the majority can protect itself. And because I believe that institutions, if left unwatched, would often roll back hard-earned gains in civil rights.

I'm an American because I believe the U.S. government can't run roughshod over civil liberties and simply lock up people and throw away the key. And because I think that due process, including the right to counsel and to a speedy trial, should not be a casualty of the war on terror.

I'm an American because I believe in the power of public education to change the lives and destinies of individuals and entire families. Of course, the process only works if there are high standards, strict accountability for both teachers and students, and an end to excuses and low expectations.

I'm an American because I believe that, with personal rights come personal responsibilities -- to yourself, your family, your community and your country. And because I think that if more people owned up to their responsibilities, many of society's problems would disappear.

I'm an American because I believe that the future belongs to the bold, the optimistic and the hardworking. And because I'm convinced that -- despite the insistence by some that sinister forces are undermining America's poor and middle class -- the direction of our lives is in our own hands.

And I'm an American because I believe that immigrants are our most valuable import and that we should welcome as many as possible -- as long as they come legally. Contrary to those who get worked up over changes in culture and language, I see this kind of change as not spoiling America but illustrating the whole point of America. And because I'm not afraid to say that the real dangers are the familiar toxins of racism and xenophobia, and the arrogant claim that the immigrants of today are inferior to those of years gone by.


Three cheers for America! Follow the link to read the original article (complete with key point at the end, not copied above), and send it to as many people as you can (there is an email link there).

Support Oriana Fallaci by signing the letter on this site.

Buy The Force of Reason and listen to an involved, passionate voice object to bad policy and worse execution in modern Europe.

I'd sign it. I know she has cancer, and therefore has little chance to attend the trial and represent her own views: but there are moments when it is right to intervene in the silliness that passes for a judicial process.

I have signed it. Join me.

From National Review:

The human body is not a possession; it is - to use the theological term - an incarnation. It is a subject, the focus and source of personal love, and not a mere object to be used. A woman doesn't own her body, any more than she owns herself. She is inextricably mingled with it, and what is done to her body is done to her. If she sells her body for sex, it is not sex that she is selling. For sex can be sincerely offered only if it is sincerely wanted by the one who offers it. Both prostitute and client are therefore engaged in an elaborate deception, each cheating the other, one by pretending to sell sex, the other by pretending to buy it. Sex and contempt are adjacent regions in the psyche of the typical client; and a prostitute must willingly accept that she is being spat upon.

Roger Scruton makes several very interesting points here. The context was in the blosssoming of the profession of prostitution in Europe, with all these new countries to kidnap young girls from and sell them in metropolitan Western Europe. But I find the reasoning he uses oddly resonant with my many conversations with other people, both about their own lives and their town.

Anyone else think he's on to something?

It used to be a diocese by diocese thing: a bishop, like Spong, would deny all the doctrine of the faith, declaring that this meant that he had an open mind and was therefore better, smarter, and more in tune with reality than all those people who didn't deny it. Those within that diocese would chafe at the stupidity coming from the pulpit, and rejoice in the fact that the sermon was a small part of the service, and that at least the rest bore some relation to reality.

Now, however, with the election of the new presiding bishop, all bets are off. Those incapable of thinking (yes, I mean precisely that) are going to revise the prayerbook again. Those who had every intention of flouting the Windsor report are playing with words so that they don't have to say they are going to ignore it, they can just do it. And, finally, those who are still orthodox, who present even the slightest version of that to the convention, are dismissed out of hand.

In my local parish, there is a contingent of wolves let in the door, and they continue to look to others to satisfy their warped desires, rather than praying that these desires be shaped normally. No one says anything to them. I have a child, and I don't want that to be her experience of what church is like, nor do I want her to be ravished as a castoff of someone else's failure to do so. As it turns out, once you lose the guilt of sinning, instead of leaping into a realm of freedom and happiness, you become numb to sin instead: and in that state, you want to do it again just to see if you feel something this time. That is otherwise properly called the institutionalization of deviance, and that is what we have here.

That does not represent Christ as presented in the Bible, who spoke about eternal punishment for those who had rejected their own best insights. That does not represent the God presented in the Bible, whose response to sin is not, "Hey dude, I love you, so, like, whatever!"

I have to note that while Christ said that we were to be the salt of the earth, I'm not sure he meant that we were to be the salt of the parish: somewhere, we had to be reminded of that saltiness for which we were to be useful in the first place. That, as it turns out, is soon not to be your local Episcopal parish, which has just changed into a mission field. I encourage all those who are able to meet, and get to know these lost sheep, and respectfully guide them to an understanding of Christianity. This may take a while: but you have the advantage that you know what the words they repeat out of the prayerbook mean, and they may become fascinated by the idea that they meant what they were saying.

Don't bother much about your feelings. When they are humble, loving, and brave, give thanks for them; when they are conceited, selfish, and cowardly, ask to have them altered. In neither case are they YOU -- but only a thing that happens to you. What matters are your intentions and your behavior. C. S. Lewis.

Though there the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fail and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. The sovereign Lord is my strength, he makes my feet like the feet of a deer, he enables me to go to the heights. Habakkuk 3: 17-19

Every now and again, you realize that there are Episcopal ministers who do know something, despite the efforts of the seminaries. This was a little pontificating overheard on the patio after someone had enquired about the DaVinci Code:

"You know, I've been asked about that before. As a novel, I liked it a lot: it was fast paced, good fiction, and I like action novels. However, you've reminded me of what I wrote a couple of years ago in the parish bulletin in response to a similar enquiry -- I've got a copy of it here.

"In response to the man who wish to tell me of the latest archeological/biological/manuscript discovery which does not jibe with orthodox Christianity, I've decided to cut to the chase. Our discussion will begin with this question: 'What aspect of the Christian life is hard for you right now?' We need to discuss that, because it is the real driver for your passion behind this recondite discovery. There are a few of you who would object that it is not: I can only say that my experience with many people over the years has been otherwise. If the true issue as stated above was not dealt with, they would seize on the next discovery that had not been debunked yet (as they all are eventually) and repeat the same conclusions as if they came from that discovery. Once you know that the conclusions are not related to the discoveries, it saves time to address them directly.

That being said, let's begin with the DaVinci Code. What aspect of Christian life makes you uncomfortable right now?

I think I've had quite enough discussion about ethics for the year.

Frequently, people say, "Let's have a code of ethics."  They then propose something that sounds nice, and whose effects are to legitimize the behavior of the profession at its worst. 

All ethics worth the name are deductions from three axioms:

1. Prudence: on the whole, I ought to promote my own good.
2. Benevolence: on the whole, I ought to regard a larger good for society as of more intrinsic value than a lesser good.
3. Equity: One man's good is of as much intrinsic value as any other man's.

Sigwick showed this in the 1880s.  We haven't even gotten this far yet in society.

Bertrand Russell said,"Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize until you have tried to make it precise, and everything precise is so remote from anything we normally think, that you cannot for a moment suppose that is what we really mean when we say what we think."

I think he's right. Any attempt to break down a statement into "atomic" facts invariably assumes too much about the facts, and not enough about their relationship with each other.

But, on the other hand, "It may be true that everything ends in confusion, but it is wise not to be confused too soon."

It is important to pay attention to the relationships of necessity within facts (Hume would dispute that these exist, but be unable to assert any reason for me to change my behavior in response to his explanation, so I can disregard it.) and the structure of the facts themselves.