Hiking is a Modern Invention

  • The idea of hiking was not a thing until relatively recently;
  • How Trump is stifling free speech;
  • Brief items about hurricanes and methane;
  • Nice Brucker 6 performance by Myung-Whun Chung.
– – –

First, a think piece. About how the things we take for granted today have not always been so.

Washington Post, opinion by Dominic Pino, today: A hike through the woods feels natural. It’s anything but, subtitled “The industrial revolution provided the impetus, the income and the time to do it.”

A few weeks ago, I went on a hike with some friends in the mountains in Colorado. The weather was perfect, the lakes and trees were gorgeous and we even saw a moose.

As I took in the views and breathed the fresh air, I also appreciated what has made hiking possible: industrialization. Hiking is often seen as a natural activity, but there’s nothing natural about it, and almost nobody did it before the industrial revolution.

Commenting as I read. I can anticipate some of this. Before the Industrial Revolution (and mostly before the past century), there were no mechanisms for even daily transportation. No planes, trains, cars. Maybe you had a horse. In town, maybe you took a horse-drawn cab. But otherwise, people walked everywhere. And here we go:

Before the industrial revolution, the great outdoors was most people’s workplace. They were out there from dawn to dusk in all kinds of weather, doing grueling manual labor, or else they starved. It was only the richest of the rich who could stay inside and partake in such hedonistic extravagances as eating a varied diet or learning how to read. Today we can enjoy the great outdoors because we do it on our own terms.

And this next is significant. This is the kind of understanding of how ancient ways of living in an unknown world gave rise to so many myths, and misapprehensions about the world.

But back then, wandering around outside could be dangerous. The medieval Norse word skóggangr, a formal punishment for very serious crimes, translates to “going to the woods.” People who received that sentence were cut off from Norse society, leaving them with nowhere to go but the forest, where they eventually died.

Fear of the woods is also evident in old fairy tales, where the forest was commonly portrayed as a scary place because the rules of society didn’t apply there. Now, with the professional management of park services and the aid of mass-produced gear, people can enjoy a break from society even with small children in tow.

And this point, which I anticipated:

As for walking, for most of human history, it wasn’t recreation. It was the primary mode of transportation. The idea of walking purely for pleasure began as a Romantic-era reaction to the beginning of industrialization, with its sooty smokestacks and unventilated indoor workplaces.

But that still wasn’t anything like hiking as we know it today. Walking in the woods didn’t really take off until it could be done with pre-marked paths, backpacks full of snacks and comfortable clothes and hiking boots made from synthetic materials in factories in Asia.

The irony.

Nowadays, countless Americans get in their personal cars to drive to the airport to fly across the country to rent another car to drive partway up a mountain to go for a walk. Only in a rich, industrialized society can people afford to do that.

And that’s because, these days, we have so much more free time. Concluding:

As the weather cools and the leaves change color, take in the beauty of Earth while getting some exercise if you’re able. Just don’t be under the illusion that you’re rebelling against modernity. Hiking is fun only because of the industrial revolution.

\\\

Front page today. How do he and his supporters pretend they honor the Constitution?

NY Times, news analysis by Jim Rutenberg and Maggie Haberman, today: How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech, subtitled “President Trump has harnessed agencies across the government to curtail press freedoms, a sweeping campaign that free speech advocates say will have lasting effects.”

My take: Well, because by MAGA definition everything Trump says is right and true, so anyone saying “Oh wait, actually the Constitution says…” must be wrong and therefore deserves to be suppressed.

(Some of this goes back to the Patriot Act passed after 9/11, to make that tie.)

The Justice Department has sent F.B.I. agents to reporters’ homes to serve subpoenas and, in at least one case, flashed a warrant to seize devices. The Pentagon has fired the editor and publisher of its traditionally independent newspaper, Stars and Stripes, and blocked access to other journalists who refused to sign pledges that would limit their reporting.

Regulatory agencies are using their powers to pressure media organizations over their content. The administration has stripped funding from public television and radio. Angry over stories he does not like, President Trump has sued major news organizations and the White House has taken control of the previously independent press pool that tracks the president, deciding which outlets can participate.

Almost 20 months into Mr. Trump’s second term, his long-running media clashes have grown into a sweeping campaign to control speech in America that stands out for applying so many levers, so fast, all at once.

Driven by personal pique, fury over leaks and a determination to shape the political narrative to his advantage, Mr. Trump is deploying the might of the federal government and filing personal lawsuits — targeting not just journalists and liberal critics, but also comedians and talk show hosts, and the corporate entities behind them.

What the defenders say.

To the president and his allies, he is simply demanding accountability for what he casts as biased, unfair and sometimes inaccurate coverage and criticism — an effort that has been welcomed by longtime conservative press critics like those at the Media Research Center.

Again, pointing out that Trump is wrong is “biased reporting.”

Free speech advocates say the president’s intent is apparent: to punish, intimidate and silence dissenters.

“There’s not a week that goes by where they’re not taking a new step to curtail press freedom in the country,” said Clayton Weimers, the executive director of the North America division of Reporters Without Borders. “We have measured a substantial diminishment of press freedoms.”

When challenged in court, the president and the administration have frequently lost, confronted with strongly worded rulings from judges affirming First Amendment rights.

And Trump’s tactics go back decades. Long article.

\\

Short items about the current administration.

\\\

Another clean (no ads), multi-perspective video of a major symphony: Bruckner’s 6th. Myung-Whun Chung.

A brief, deep, introspective passage begins at 19:35. Though this performance takes it a tad slower than most others. It happens again just after 27:00. These are the passages that make me pause…

Posted in Culture, Human Nature, Music, Politics | Leave a comment

How the Terrorists Won, in a Sense

Not many say this, but a few always have, especially when passing through the airport security checks involving magnetometers, physical carry-on bag searches, removal of belts and shoes. “The terrorists won.” Look what they’ve made us do. Look how they’ve degraded our society.

It’s not so much the inconvenience and tedium of these procedures; it’s the entire air of suspicion and paranoia, the feeling that at any moment some new evildoer (to use Bush’s simplistic term) is waiting in the wings to set off a bomb or hijack a plane, and the need therefore for eternal vigilance and mistrust of everyone not in your immediate circle. You can cite any number of statistics about the ineffectiveness of terrorism — e.g. how the number of people they kill is actually a tiny fraction of deaths by violence in any given year, and how terrorist movements generally dissolve without achieving any of their goals (Pinker makes these points) — but that doesn’t remove the social impact of their terrorists attacks.

It occurs to me that this was likely a key issue in the rise of conservative paranoia in the 21st century, and to the rise of MAGA and Trump, with their deep hatred of immigrants and Islam, quite exceeding any rational calculation of costs and risks, or self-awareness (about their own religious goals).

Ironically, the 9/11 terrorists managed to energize the forces of Christian nationalism, a rival religion, in the United States.

Let’s look at this.

The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last, yesterday: Sometimes Terrorism Works, subtitled “The hardest lesson of 9/11.”

The United States is on the verge of being chased out of the Middle East. Israel, which had been close to normalizing relations with its neighbors, is an international pariah state. The Islamic Republic of Iran now controls the Strait of Hormuz and will soon be the dominant power in the region.

In a fashion, these outcomes match some of al Qaeda’s goals from twenty-five years ago. Today I want to talk about an idea that isn’t very nice: Sometimes terrorism works.

Two big caveats before we start:

Correlation is not causation. Just because B follows A does not mean that A caused B.

Complex systems are ultimately opaque. A complex system has so many inputs that even if you can say that A contributed to causing B, there are always many other factors at play—some known and some unknown.

Keep those in mind as we talk.

What were Osama bin Laden’s goals?

  • Weaken the U.S. financial system.
  • Resulting in the American military being driven out of the Middle East.
  • Thus causing the collapse of the American-aligned regimes in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain.
  • To be replaced with regimes friendly to al Qaeda.
  • And eventually leading to the destruction of Israel and a unified Muslim ummah.

I’m going to mention again that these goals are largely or entirely driven by *religion*, and in terms of social control are not that much different from the goals of Christian nationalists. (Google AI: “Ummah is an Arabic word that means ‘community’ or ‘nation’ and refers to the worldwide family of Muslims united by their shared Islamic faith.”) Islam and Christianity, it seems to me, are just two different flavors of the same tribal instinct to conquer or impose one’s own (religious) culture on other tribes. There is nothing rational about either one. It’s not about truth, or reality. It’s about tribal domination.

The writer goes on in some detail about how bin Laden did not get what he wanted. The US is still in the Middle East. The entire world has not become Muslim. And so on. And yet.

What are the lessons here?

In part, there’s a cautionary tale for liberal societies about how they respond to terrorism. Terrorism cannot be countenanced and must be opposed. But the nature of the response carries its own dangers.

I don’t have a grand unified theory of what a wise response to terrorism looks like. Every case is different. And while you might be able to draw some sort of line from, say, 9/11 to Iran’s defeat of America, it’s not a straight line. The election of Trump was due in part to disillusionment about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were responses to 9/11.

But we’re talking about a complex system and there were many, many off-ramps for America. It didn’t have to be this way.

In the end I can only offer one big lesson: Terrorism is intensely destabilizing.

They succeeded in destabilizing the American order, by causing so much panic in the American right that they would elect someone like Donald Trump.

If you have a stable order—especially a stable liberal order—terrorism can throw it into chaos. And once chaos happens, many outcomes that were previously closed become possible.

That’s what terrorism is: a chaos button. And when terrorists press it they know that they may not get what they want, but that the existing order will be destabilized, and in that maelstrom there will be opportunities.

That’s why, as I’ve said, progress is fragile, and easily overturned by primal forces of human nature.

\\\

For the record.

NY Times, yesterday: Contractor Blames Its Own Repairs, Not Vandals, for Reflecting Pool Failure

Subtitled: The contractor said the pool’s new blue liner peeled and tore because of “human oversight” and a flawed plan that involved layering two incompatible chemicals, documents show.

Of course there were no vandals. Who believed that for a moment?

\

Similarly.

NY Times, Jonathan Chait, today: Trump Will Never Mail the $5,000 Checks, subtitled “Deconstructing a policy proposal that makes no sense on any level”

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. MAGA doesn’t seem to be aware of getting fooled over and over and over.

\

And this. Trump and MAGA live in a fantasy world.

The Atlantic, David Graham, yesterday: Everything Trump Wants to Do Causes Inflation, subtitled “Does he not understand, or does he just not care?”

My answer: he doesn’t understand, and he doesn’t care. Nor does MAGA, who will believe anything Trump claims to the contrary.

\\\

Capturing this one because there are no ads, it’s a close-up view of the conductor and orchestral performers, and it’s Bruckner’s most popular symphony. It has many beautiful moments. Though I ultimately prefer the 8th and 9th.

Posted in Human Nature, Human Progress, Movies, Music, Religion | Leave a comment

Tribalists, Bribes, 9/11 and Tyranny, Fear, and Cheating

So now I’m reading David Pakman’s book from last year (this one) after several months of seeing his clips on Facebook of commentary about daily politics. The first chapter aligns neatly with Heather Cox Richardson’s history of 20th century American politics, though Pakman begins his account in the early 1950s, the era MAGA apparently thinks was the golden age, and shows how conservative resistance to civil rights (especially) triggered the trend through Ronald Reagan and Gingrich to Trump. Will report more when I finish the book.

It reminds me that my attention to daily politics in this blog is about the same thing, but in a grander sense: the sense of how warring factions of human nature are seesawing us back and forth for dominance throughout history. Currently the tribalists (Trump and MAGA) are reigning in America. Given the potential existential threats humanity faces, if the tribalists prevail, humanity is doomed.

\\\

Salon, Brian Karem, today: Trump wants to bribe voters. This is how far we’ve fallen in 25 years, subtitled “Our president’s attempts to play emperor now seem normal. It might be the worst result of the 9/11 era”

Donald Trump offered every adult American a bribe Wednesday night. If the Republicans keep the House and Senate during the midterm elections, Trump said, “I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.” He proudly shouted this from the Dallas podium during the sparsely attended Republican midterm convention.

\

I do have a tie to 9/11 here. (I’ve probably recounted where I was when it happened, before, and I have no new comments I might not already have mentioned.)

NY Times, Radley Balko, yesterday: Civil Libertarians Knew This Would Happen. We Should Have Listened.

The title in print this morning was “After 9/11, America Created the Conditions for a Tyrant”

I think many Americans would now admit that many of the security provisions put into place after 9/11 were over-reactions, especially since they were never repealed. (Only a little bit: I don’t have to take my shoes off at the airport every time. But that rule was in reaction to a non-9/11 event.)

Six weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act. The vote was 357 to 66 in the House and 98 to 1 in the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, the chamber’s lone dissenter, said later that many of his colleagues hadn’t bothered to read it.

The law granted sweeping powers to the federal government. It gave agents new authority to use secret search warrants on Americans and made it easier to monitor them around the clock. It authorized the widespread collection of citizens’ digital information without any warrant at all, and made it a crime for service providers to tell anyone what the federal government was doing. It also allowed the government to detain some foreigners indefinitely without ever giving them a trial.

The point here is that all those provisions are now being used by Trump to be tyrannical. Also, the vote for that “Patriot Act” was rote, with many congress-critters not bothering to read it. It was, in my view, an over-reaction by conservatives, who tend to be more frightened and paranoid about the world than other people.

\\

Case in point.

NY Times, yesterday: Down in the Polls, Republicans Embrace a Familiar Tool: Fear, subtitled “At an unusual midterm gathering, President Trump and his allies painted Democrats as dangerously un-American.”

The photos plastered in the hallways were all of President Trump. Jackets were bedazzled with his name. And the red hats dotting the audience on the floor of the convention hall were embroidered with MAGA, his indelible political slogan.

And yet, at a gathering that fans and foes alike had nicknamed the “Trump-a-palooza,” the president and his Republican allies spent more time whipping up fears about the specter of socialism, communism and even anarchy than they did trumpeting the successes of his administration.

One point is that they’re simply *lying* about what Democrats want or would do. They repeat the same scare-words over and over, words their audience has only the vaguest idea about, except that they’re Bad Things.

Democrats running for Congress were “evil.” They were “communists and anarchists.” And they wanted to turn the country into “a socialist hellscape.”

I call it the Bolshevik Revolution in the Democratic Party,” said Representative Steve Scalise, the House majority leader. “Let’s make sure that when we wake up the morning after Election Day we know we did everything we could to defeat socialism.”

President Trump has long been a master of the politics of fear, regularly stoking anxiety about immigration and crime.

A second point is that from my perspective it is the Republicans who are increasingly anti-American, with policies and projects that subvert the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution. Do they not hear themselves?

\\

Do they not hear what Trump says to them?

The New Republic, today: Trump Makes Crowd Swear Pledge to “Cheat Like Hell” This Election, subtitled “Donald Trump led the audience at the Republican midterm convention in a chilling oath.”

Actually, he said

I don’t care if I’m registered or not, I’m gonna try and cheat like hell like they do, there’s never been bigger cheaters, they don’t care.

Because apparently accusing the other side of cheating (without evidence) justifies your naked intention to cheat.

\\\

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Human Nature, Morality, Politics | Leave a comment

Jamie Whyte: CRIMES AGAINST LOGIC

Subtitled: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders

(UK 2003 as Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking; US edition here McGraw-Hill, 2005, xi + 157pp; no index)


Here’s a small book from the mid-2000s that overlaps with numerous books I’ve read on psychological biases, but cast them rather as matters of logical flaws.

Key points:

  • People don’t have a ‘right’ to an opinion, but they’d rather believe what they’d like to be true, rather than what is true.
  • Exposing the motive for someone’s opinion doesn’t invalidate that opinion.
  • Parents and experts might be authorities in limited circumstances, but most claims of authority, by ‘the people’ or politicians, or celebrities, are fallacies.
  • Defenses of opinions as mysteries that cannot be understood, as requiring faith, by playing the odds, by citing weird ideas not understood, hedging, or claiming something is evident, are used when no actual evidence is available, and can be used to justify any conclusion at all.
  • Telling people to shut up, because they’re unqualified or boring or sound like Hitler, is not a refutation of their claims.
  • Beware jargon, weasel words, generalities like ‘justice,’ ‘freedom,’ and ‘education,’ and quotation marks, all of which tend to obscure rather than explain.
  • Beware contrary and contradictory statements, which people often make via implied generalizations, weird new-agey ideas, or redefining words.
  • Equivocation occurs when people use words in slippery ways, confusing common definitions with specific ones.
  • Begging the question occurs when things are assumed to be intolerable (abortion, Islamic fundamentalism), without explaining why.
  • Some people invent elaborate explanations for events (sports, finance, healing) that are simply coincidences.
  • Many statistics can be misleading, or even wrong, often due to sample bias, or because most people have no sense of scale for big or small numbers.
  • Claims that what’s wicked is false, what’s beneficial is true, why the oppressed have moral authority, or how someone argues sincerely, are signs of morality fever, and are not about understanding the world as it actually is.

*

Detailed Notes

1, The Right to Your Opinion

People believe they have all sorts of rights, including the right to your own opinion. But it isn’t true.

When people say “I have a right to my opinion” in an argument—as if in answer to some point—it’s irrelevant; a fallacy. Because holding an opinion has nothing to do with whether the opinion is true or not.

It helps to understand that rights entail duties. A right IS the duty that it entails upon others. A right to life is the duty of others not to kill you. Saying people have a right to be healthy makes no sense, because no one can guarantee your health (everyone dies eventually).

What duties would a right to an opinion entail?

That I should agree with it? No. To listen to you? No, there isn’t time to listen to everyone.

To let you keep your opinion? This is what most people mean. But this can’t be right either, because of cases where it would be dangerous not to point out a truth contrary to their opinion (about the safety of a situation, say).

The fallacy exists because in many cases people don’t care about believing the ‘truth’; as with religion, e.g., believed because it would be nice if it were true.

2, Motives

The Motive Fallacy is to suppose that by exposing the motive for someone expressing an opinion, you show their opinion to be false. Obviously this can’t be true in legal cases where paid lawyers argue opposite opinions. But it’s a popular subject in interpersonal situations. It’s a problem when the subject of motives obscures the importance of what is being discussed—as in politics. Political discussion is almost never about actual policy; it’s about the motives of one side or the other in making this or that proposal or criticism. It’s easier to dismiss a think tank’s white paper by implying a motive by calling it a right or left wing think tank—than to actually read the paper and evaluate its content.

Clue for spotting the fallacy: “you’re just saying that”; why ‘just’?

3, Authority

The Authority Fallacy occurs when we’re told something is true ‘because I say so’. Sometimes this is true; parents do indeed determine their children’s bedtimes. In other cases, an ‘expert’ is more likely to have an opinion that is true than a nonexpert. The fallacy occurs when someone claims something about which they have no scope or authority. It’s not up to parents whether or not Mary was a virgin.

These days there are fewer old-fashioned ‘authorities’, but the fallacy routinely occurs with reference to The People, the majority of the population, whose votes do indeed determine certain things, but whose collective opinion is no more likely to be true because of that. Yet politicians cite the will of the people all the time to justify their policies (and get re-elected).

Some things are not ‘matters of opinion’. If a child doesn’t like vegetables and his mother does, it’s not a difference of opinion about whether vegetables are bad or good; it’s a matter of taste, rather than opinion.

Other authority fallacies: victims of tragedies, whose personal interest is taken as if some special authority (in determining safety standards, e.g.), and of course celebrity endorsements, usually of politicians. The fallacy occurs whenever anyone’s opinion is offered in an area in which they have no expertise. Even Einstein wasn’t an expert on everything.

4, Prejudice in Fancy Dress

Various ways people try to defend opinions for which they have no evidence—

Mystery. If something cannot be understood, just declare it a mystery that cannot be understood, like the Trinity of the Catholic Church. Genuine mysteries abound, local or universal, but they are matters of ignorance, not licenses to believe whatever you like.

Faith. Declare something to be a matter of faith, and no evidence is required; you admit, actually, that no evidence exists.

Odds On. Pascal’s wager claims that one might as well be a Christian, just in case. But the same is true for any religion, even a made up one.

Weird Science. Claiming that science is unreliable or bankrupt gives no evidence to the idea that rubbing mud on yourself cures cancer. A frequent ploy is to cite quantum mechanics, as if such a weird idea makes any other weird idea just as respectable. Author quotes opening of a book by Lyall Watson…

But Still. Racists and others cite evidence for one view then claim the opposite as if it were self-evident; “but still…”

Tis Evident. If something is claimed to be self-evident, why does it need to be said? Most such things aren’t, including the words about ‘equal’ in the Declaration of Independence.

What’s common in all these ploys is that they can equally be applied to any conclusion at all. And often are accompanied by moral positioning, the suggestion that such issues can’t be discussed in polite society without inciting offense.

5, Shut Up!

Various ways of telling someone they have no right to speak is abuse, not refutation.

Shut up—you’re not allowed to speak. E.g., a critic of the Turner Prize for art was told that his own drawing wasn’t any better. Maybe true or not, but irrelevant. “You can hardly talk”, pot calling the kettle black. In contrast, on racial issues certain opinions are valued just because they come from a member of a certain race, e.g. black politicians opining about affirmative action.

Shut up—you’re boring. It’s also irrelevant when someone cites an argument that’s overly familiar, or to be expected given their viewpoint. The arguments may still be true. Relativists have this problem; it doesn’t bother their ideas to point out that, really, the earth has always circled the sun, no matter what people once thought.

Shut up—You sound like Hitler. Refutation by association; your idea is just what Hitler would have thought. Or religious fundamentalists, etc. Similarly there is a widespread gang membership to belief; many hold ideas common among their peers, without having thought about each one itself, e.g. among leftist college students.

6, Empty Words

Academic seminars are famous for offering incomprehensible summaries of their topics, using language that obscures rather than explains.

Jargon. Terminology appropriate to a field can clarify and aid precision, but some use it to obscure, especially management consultants, who dotes on words like leverage and moving forward; their messages would never be worth what they charge if stated in plain language.

Weasel words. Some people couch opinions in qualifiers that deprive their statements of any useful information. Could, believed to be, possible; these are typical of financial advisors and even some scientists with political agendas.

Hooray and boo words. Everyone wants justice, and freedom, but what do these words mean when used by a particular speaker? Tony Blair emphasizes ‘education’ without explaining what he means.

Quotation marks. They can be used to express skepticism of a claim, but when overused they amount to ‘sneer quotes’ that obscure the actual meaning of the words. Examples in academic writing…

7, Inconsistency

Statements can be contrary if at least one has to be false but both may be; contradictory if only one can possible be true.

Some people are blatantly inconsistent without realizing it – author’s father stating that all people eat in Britain is such and such (a different example each day). Evil exists, and God is all-powerful and good. Governments should cut taxes, and spend more on programs.

Implied generalizations. More often people make statements that imply contradictions because they don’t examine the implications of what they say. Homosexuality should be illegal, because the Bible condemns it. But the Bible condemns many other things; should they be illegal? No. Tony Blair comes out against fox-hunting, but not hunting in general, without explaining the difference. Maybe these behaviors are pragmatic, but they are still illogical.

Weird Ideas. That is, the new-agey stuff: astrology, reincarnation, homeopathy, etc. The problem with these is that they contradict well-established principles of science, our understanding of the laws of nature; to believe in them would require abandoning those laws. But many adherents not only don’t see the contradictions, they cling to the laws anyway! E.g. homeopathy, in which water from different sources is presumed to have different effects.

Real contradictions. Some thinkers think contradiction means merely conflict, or being opposed; the Dialectal Materialists, e.g. Mao, spoke in this way. They are redefining the words. Goblins don’t exist just because you call birds goblins.

8, Equivocation

Are Christians good? The problem is not what ‘good’ means, but what is meant by Christian—someone who believes in Jesus’ divinity; someone who does good things; etc. Slipping between meanings in an argument is to equivocate.

Sometimes this captures a sort of truth—boy will be boys (obviously the word means different things each time). But when government statistics about poverty were announced, they depended on a very special statistical meaning of the term – 35%, those more than 60% < median income. The alarm came from the common definition of poverty, which had nothing to do with the reality of the people in Britain.

Similarly, Marx adopted loaded words as technical terms in his discussions of economics—exploitation, alienation—thereby condemning capitalism by definition.

The UK government increased university attendance simply by redefining technical colleges as universities! Euphemisms involve similar redefinitions, but eventually they undermine themselves; the target meaning tarnishes the replacement words.

9, Begging the Question

A newspaper editor’s rejection of evangelical Christian objection to a column about Egyptian gods, asking them to be tolerant, missed the point—to the Christians, the column was intolerable. Begging the question assume what is in contention; it doesn’t get to the root of the issue.

Tolerance is often asked of anti-abortionists, missing the point that if abortion is murder, it’s intolerable. The issue should be whether abortion is murder, not about being tolerant.

Similarly intolerance about victimless crimes, drugs etc., assumes that such things are to be avoided, without explaining why. In fact, the motive to take drugs—to feed good—is often left out of the equation altogether.

Political questions may appear pragmatic but actually do depend on ideology. Thus, western politicians reject Islamic fundamentalism, without coming out and stating that they don’t believe that Allah’s word is the end all. Oddly, people say they ‘respect’ other religions even though they would never defend their content.

Some assumptions are disguised, as when calling tax cuts ‘giveaways’, or asking if you’ve stopped beating your wife, or calling a nuclear disarmament group the ‘Peace Movement’.

10, Coincidence

Some people just don’t believe in coincidence, even though they should. People invent elaborate explanations for sports statistics or financial behavior, when all that’s necessary is simple coincidence.

What you’d expect. Simple statistics explains why some traders score big wins, some of the time. Yet financial institutions reward them with bonuses and lure them away with big bucks, without wondering if their performance was due to skill or luck. They might as well pay lotto winners to buy more lotto tickets.

Coincidental healing. People attribute cures to homeopathy, say, based on anecdotal claims, without doing controlled studies of test vs control groups. If it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work for ‘some people’, a circular argument. Any such effect can be tested.

Thank you Lord…  Improbability does not by itself prove anything, such as that God exists. Any particular person or circumstance is unlikely…

11, Shocking Statistics

Statistics can be misleading, and they can also be wrong. The poverty measure above would be better measured by actual consumption, rather than income. Examples about whether someone would switch banks, or whether they smoked dope with their Dad, suffered from sample bias, and that people lie in surveys, which is why politicians ignore protest marchers and other fanatics—they’re not representative of the larger population. The popular statistics about homosexuals being 10% of the population resulted from sample bias—prisoners—whereas subsequent studies show it to be more like 4%.

Big numbers. An obviously off-based statistic about the number of girls who die from anorexia reveals that people have no sense of scale, for big or small numbers. Results that sound incredible may be quite reasonable when averaged out to the person, or the day, rather than summed for an entire year.

12, Morality Fever

Explaining that someone is bad because of such and such doesn’t refute the claim that they are bad; it’s an example of morality fever.

What’s wicked is false. Arguments against homosexuality claim it should be illegal because it’s unnatural. Proponents accept the structure of the argument, reverse the conclusion, than back up to argue that homosexuality isn’t unnatural – when what should be the issue is why that should determine its legality. Similarly, results about IQ are simply rejected because they would appease racists, which is taken to be bad.

What’s beneficial is true. If believing in God makes people feel better, then God must exist? But the belief would work, even if it weren’t true. Just because the wrong-headed poverty statistic raised the issue to a high level, doesn’t mean it’s a good statistic.

Meek shall inherit the truth. A debate about touring South Africa needn’t depend on the opinions of blacks in South Africa; just because they’re the oppressed doesn’t given them moral authority, or infallibility. Cultural relativism has similar issues.

Be Serious. Just because someone argues sincerely, doesn’t make him rational. There may be reasons people give in to the fallacies described in this book, but if one really cares about reality, about the welfare of others (including their children), then they should try to understand how the world actually is.

\\

Posted in Book Notes, Philosophy, Psychology | Leave a comment

Rejecting Reality, and Truth

Salon, Troy Farah, today: Our world map is wrong. MAGA likes it that way, subtitled “Because the US rejects reality, it voted against the UN’s Correct the Map plan”

Excerpts:

Perhaps this resolution wasn’t as minor as it seemed at first glance. In fact, it could be that the Mercator map explains President Donald Trump’s strange obsession with seizing Greenland. Maybe he really does think it’s that gigantic? Of course, ignorance isn’t Trump’s only possible motivation — knowing Greenland’s presumed vast troves of natural minerals, some of it comes down to plain old greed.

And

But that probably isn’t why the U.S. voted no. It seems to be more about childish opposition to anything positive the U.N. might do, no matter how inconsequential, in an effort to delegitimize the body, which has been the target of Republican attacks since its founding. Anti-U.N. sentiment has been a broad part of Trump’s agenda since his first term, from abandoning the organization’s bodies like the World Health Organization and the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Trump has tried to recreate his own U.N., ironically called the “Board of Peace,” even though it supports Israel’s ongoing bombing of Gaza and the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. A vote to reject objective reality — the size of continents on maps — verges on pure flat-earther nonsense, existing in the same realm as anti-vaccine rhetoric and the denial of climate change caused by humans. In other words, it fits right into the MAGA worldview, which thrives on A.I. slop and disinformation. It’s also a less-than-subtle nod toward the “glory days” of racist colonialism.

Finishing:

[Stunts like this] work to make the U.S. look even more unserious — and, ironically, smaller — on the world stage. If 164 other countries can’t even expect the U.S. to acknowledge basic geography, what does it say about our ability to lead on far more consequential matters? You don’t need a map to see that this is leading nowhere good.

Included here is that map that shows how the African continent could comfortably hold the US, China, India, and some of Europe. Just look at a globe.

I still don’t care for the new map. The relative sizes are better, but the shapes are distorted, the farther out they are from the center. I still like the Goode homolosine projection, which reduces the distortion, and also makes it clear that the map is a flattening of a global area.

\\\

More and more I’m placing political items like this into the box of evidence about the limitations of human cognition.

NY Times, Katie Rogers, today: Pleading for Votes, Trump Tries a New Spin on an Old Promise: Free Money, subtitled “In his convention speech, the president floated the idea of a $5,000 ‘Trump Dividend’ for every adult American if Republicans keep control of Congress. The idea, like many others, may not come to pass.”

Who believes this will ever happen? Presumably Trump thinks MAGA does.

In several cases, the money Mr. Trump has promised in the past has not materialized. He has proposed $2,000 checks based on tariff revenues (in an interview with The New York Times in January, he said that money could arrive by the end of this year). He has also floated the idea of $5,000 payments from money saved by eliminating thousands of federal jobs, and assorted payments to Americans from government health care subsidies.

And

But Mr. Trump’s latest notion would be exorbitantly expensive.

It would cost more than $1.3 trillion to send $5,000 checks to each of the roughly 270 million adults in the U.S., making such a plan almost prohibitively costly for a country with a $40 trillion national debt.

Mr. Trump said that the money would come with just one caveat: It must be spent in the United States.

And how would that be enforced?

\

More lies.

\

What’s frightening is how so many people do not see this.

Robert Reich, yesterday: Trump is Totally, Utterly, and Completely Bonkers, subtitled “The question is when, if, and how Congress will stop him”

He’s not just an old crazy ego-maniac. He’s now clearly looney-tunes, out of his head, stark-raving mad.

Lake America? New America (because New Mexico is a “cheating state” he didn’t carry)? “we own the moon”? the Arc de Trump? …

Maybe lots of people are now laughing at him, but I’m not. There used to be guardrails, but now there are none.

If the crazy SOB says let the missiles fly, I honestly fear that those two idiots Hegseth and Caine will do it.

Either every last Republican at the federal level is treasonously irresponsible (which I really don’t want to believe) or they’re trying to ride things out until the election, and then they’ll take action.

They’re afraid that if they do something to Trump now, the MAGA hordes will stay home on Election Day and they’ll all lose their jobs. So they wait until the election, for better or for worse, and then they join the Dems in invoking the 25th, or in impeachment and conviction.

And he appends this NYT piece by Peter Baker: 60 Posts in 10 Hours: How Trump’s Social Media Reflects His Version of Reality

It describes many of the AI slop images posted on Trump Social last weekend. Which I’m guessing Fox News is too smart to show, and so most MAGAites will never see them. Except for the very hardcore.

\\\

But there’s more. Heather Cox Richardson describes some of the more:

Letters from an American, yesterday: September 9, 2026

Yesterday, at a White House event honoring those who sacrificed their lives on 9/11, President Donald Trump went off script and claimed he had taken a crew downtown “right after this happened. They were, they had no hesitation. Everybody went down with me. We went down as a big group of people. Wasn’t too much we could do, I’ll be honest. It was raw. Nobody’s seen anything like it ever. We had other buildings. United States Steel Building was creaking. Really creaking. And we thought it was going to fall down. The truth is it creaked a lot. It creaked. It still creaks, but uh, it never came down. And uh, I’ll never forget two firemen. We thought it was coming down on top of us and two firemen—big strong guys, and I’m not the smallest guy in the world—they grabbed me under the arm, said, ‘Got to get out of here.’ And they literally lifted me up. This is not easy to do. I’m big. They lifted me up and they started running with me. I said, ‘Fellas, I can run myself.’ But they were amazing. But they thought it was coming down. It didn’t come down, U.S. Steel.”

In fact, as CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale reported, there is no evidence for any of this story.

He just makes stuff up, and his MAGA fans eat it up.

\

One more.

Slate, Fred Kaplan, today: This Trump Speech Sent a Dangerous Message to Iran‍—and the Rest of the World, subtitled “Even he should know better than to say things like this out loud.”

About nuclear bombs.

\

And this. Which seems to happen regularly at such events.

JMG, from AlterNet, today: REPORT: Grindr Sees Outage During GOP Convention

Grindr, you understand, is a gay hookup app.

Posted in conservatives, Politics, reality | Leave a comment

Neil deGrasse Tyson with James Trefil: COSMIC QUERIES

Subtitled: StarTalk’s Guide to Who We Are, How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going

(National Geographic, 2021, 311pp, including 22pp acknowledgements, further reading, illustrations credits, index, and about the authors.)

Like Tyson’s one-year later book, TO INFINITY AND BEYOND (reviewed here), this is a heavily illustrated book published by National Geographic and associated with his podcast StarTalk (https://startalkmedia.com/) which I only see snippets of on Facebook. The coauthors of the two books are different; the later one was Lindsey Nyx Walker, this one is the rather more prominent James Trefil, an author of books and photography books himself.

This one is more fundamental that the 2023 book, focusing on the basic big questions about humanity, our place in the universe, the size and age of the universe, and its past and future. My notes here are a little sketchy, but they should provide the gist.

The book is in a sense admirably concise in summarizing our current state of knowledge on a range of topics, and is more up-to-date on certain issues than similar books in my library. Rather than a list of key points, I’ll just list the ten topics that the book explores;

  1. Our place in the universe
  2. How we know what we know
  3. How the universe got to be this way
  4. How old the universe is
  5. What the universe is made of
  6. What life is
  7. Whether we’re alone in the universe
  8. How it all began
  9. How it will end
  10. What nothingness actually is

*

Detailed Notes

1, What Is Our Place in the Universe?

About Newton & Aristotle; epicycles; the Almagest; the shape and size of the Earth; Eratosthenes. Parallax; the distance ladder, first rung. Hipparchus. Galileo, 1610, telescope. Size of solar system. Next rung: Henrietta Leavitt and Cepheid variables.

By the early 20th c, the Milky Way was known to be 100,000 light years across. Spiral nebulae were know, without knowing what they were. Mount Wilson telescope found Cepheid variables in the Andromeda Nebula; thus the spiral nebulae were other galaxies, and the Milky Way was just one galaxy among many. Types classified. Hubble discovered galaxies were hurtling away from one another. Redshift of light from a galaxy indicates its distance from the Milky Way. By late 20th, some hundred billion galaxies were know.

Darwin and Freud also removed humanity from the center of creation. By same point, we can assume the laws of nature are true everywhere.

2, How do we know what we know?

How the night sky looked. About archaeoastronomy, the recent study of how ancient peoples understood the sky, via artifacts like Stonehenge.

Astronomy was a naked-eye science for millennia. Tycho and others used long tubes to make measurements of objects’ positions more accurate. Then Galileo pointed the telescope; what he saw, p50.

How visible light is part of the EM (electromagnetic) spectrum; all of it but visible light and radio are blocked by our atmosphere, 54-55. So we can use radio astronomy to search for ETs.

Sciences go through phases: astronomy plus spectography became astrophysics. Two Germans; putting telescopes in space, at the LaGrange points. Sending spacecraft to other planets.

Now we use neutrinos and gravitational waves.

About the big observatories: Maui, Chile. Hubble went up in 1980. The Webb and ELT under construction, p70

3, How did the universe get to be this way?

Hubble discovered the redshift, and thus the expansion of the universe. And from that the Big Bang was deduced. The Doppler effect provided the speed of the expansion.

The history of the universe has six phase changes: melting, freezing, vaporization, condensation, sublimation, deposition.

Consider the expanding universe from an age of one minute. By this time elementary particles have been formed. By age 3 minutes protons and neutrons can bond; this is a phase transition. Hydrogen, helium, lithium, but after 45 seconds these become too far apart for more collisions to occur. This was the fourth state of matter, plasma.

By 380,000 years old atoms formed that were able to remain stable. Then galaxies and stars began to form. Radiation escaped (to be cosmic background) and the universe became transparent. Like sugar dissolving in iced tea.

How particles spread so far apart that they were able to clump into matter was solved by the discovery of dark matter. It has gravity but doesn’t interact with EM. Gravity pulls together objects like stars and planets. They heat; fusion begins, giving off energy.

The first stars appeared at around 300 million years. Stars end as white dwarfs or neutron stars (the result of a supernova explosion) or black holes.

Laplace developed the nebula hypothesis for the formation of solar systems. With rocky planets closer in, gaseous ones farther out. The ‘frost line’ in between.

But not everything is so simple. Dozens of early bodies in the inner solar system likely collided with each other, some becoming rogue planets, until only a few were left. Possibly many of them.

The outer planets too likely caromed around the solar system. P93. Shuffling around the inner planets. Triggering a reign of comets that perhaps provided all the water on Earth.

Beyond the planets, the Kuiper belt. Eris, only slightly smaller than Pluto. Beyond them, the Oort cloud.

Ch4, How old is the universe?

Arranged as 6 surprises.

The common answer now is 13.8 billion years. But while that light traveled to us, it has still been expanding; thus it’s now about 45 billion years ly in every direction. How much of the actual universe can we perceive?

Surprise #1: cosmic background radiation. Objects above absolute zero radiate EM waves: the hotter the object, the shorter the wavelength. The 1964 discovery of the CMB (cosmic microwave background) was direct evidence for the big bang.

Surprise #2: the message in the microwaves. The consistency of the CMB indicates the universe hadn’t expanded much. This is the horizon problem.

Surprise #3: the inflationary universe. This relies on the study of elementary particles. Alan Guth’s idea was when the universe was a tiny fraction of a second old, it froze. It was so small uniformity of temperature was easy.

Surprise #4: temperature differences in the CMB. Measurements give us an age for the universe at 13.8b.

The astronomical distance ladder. The large-scale structure of the universe. Recall parallax, then Cepheid variables. They work out to about 100 million ly.

Surprise #5: dark energy. The next rung in the ladder is a Type 1A supernova. White dwarfs in binary star systems. Studying these led to discovery that expansion of the universe is speeding up, not slowing down. The force doing this was dubbed “dark energy.” And this study led to a 12.5bya universe. But this disagrees with the other estimate.

The tension. Our measurements aren’t perfect. So maybe we’re measuring the wrong thing, 117b. Sometimes equipment is to blame. Other reasons; accuracy versus precision. The two measurements have both become more precise over the years.

Surprise #6: dark matter. Dubbed to explain gravitation movements of galaxies. Perhaps should be called dark gravity.

Formations of the universe. Having now plotted positions of more than a million galaxies, we can see they’re not evenly spaced. There are pockets, like those in a sponge. The largest structure known is the ‘Great Wall’, p125.

[[ never heard the term ‘frozen’ w/respect to the early universe. Also how they mapped the larger universe—by measuring distances to over a million galaxies. ]]

Ch5, What is the universe made of?

It seems the world is made up of zillions of different materials. Consider a library, or a book. Books are made of words, with rules about sentences, paragraphs, and so on; different words indicate the existence of languages; they’re made up of letters. And so on: very complex.

In the Middle Ages was alchemy. By the 18th century it became chemistry. The idea of elements. In 1776 only 22 pure elements were known; the ancients had known of 12 of these. The law of multiple proportions was seen.

Where did the elements come from, beyond hydrogen, helium, and lithium? Recall the formation of the solar system. The sun can fuse elements up to carbon. More massive stars, up to iron. When a star collapses into a supernova, elements up to uranium are generated. Heavier elements can be generated only in labs.

John Dalton introduced modern atomic theory in 1808. Mendeleev developed the periodic table, though no one knew how it worked.

The simplicity of this theory began to unravel in 1897 when electrons were discovered. Showing that atoms were not indivisible. Rutherford shot particles at gold in 1911, and only 1/10 of 1% bounced back. Thus ‘proton’ and nucleus. And predicted the neutron. So the universe was made up of just three particles…

Until cosmic rays were detected. Experiments with them turned up the positron, the muon. And more. Most of them short-lived.

Then came particle accelerators. The cyclotron. Berkeley. Synchrotron. Now the LHC.

By the 1960s things were getting complex, with so many new particles. They were explained in terms of more elementary particles, the quarks. Which can’t be pulled apart. Is there another layer down? Glossary p147.

Are there more layers? Two ideas: string theory and loop quantum gravity. The first entails 10 or 26 dimensions. In the latter, space itself is a weave of interlocking loops. They explain how the various particles are related to one another, but there’s no actual evidence for either theory.

Ch6, What is life?

No clear definition. Three ways: by list; by history; by thermodynamics.

A list might include cells, ability to reproduce, and so on. By history: having evolved by natural selection. Or, a system maintained by a flow of energy.

By the end of the 19th century it was understood that life arose from life. But how did it originate?

The experiment that changed everything was in 1952, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. Some of their details were wrong but the experiment has been repeated many times with wide varieties of conditions.

Then there are meteorites falling on earth. They contain amino acids. The 2007 Stardust mission visited a comet, also containing organic particles.

RNA poses a chicken and egg problem; which came first? In the 1980s an experiment found that RNA could act as the enzymes necessary…

Once the first cell appeared, natural selection took over. Which drives biodiversity. The process would work everywhere, but different planets would have different results.

It took two billion years for symbiosis to lead to the complexity of life we see today. Around 800 million years ago came multi-celled life. Complexity grew just as the interstate highway system grew from simple beginnings.

Technology is an outcome of intelligence. Yet it doesn’t take much of a brain to produce complex behavior. Does intelligence always lead to technology?

Is synthetic life possible? Moore’s law. Paperclips. Kurzweil. Quantum computing. If machines outperformed humans we might encounter the singularity. Authors consider von Neumann probes the likeliest artificial life form we might encounter.

Life on earth mostly inhabits areas between the freezing and boiling points of water. Chemical reactions slow down by half as the temp dropped 10c. Life on Titan would take months for what an organism on earth would take a minute. At the opposite extreme we don’t expect to find organisms in molten lava. Still, there are microbes that exist in boiling water: extremophiles, like tube worms, discovered in 1977. Tardigrades.

Ch7, Are we alone in the universe?

We are limited to the kinds of life we know. Once there were plants and animals. Now we know four other branches of life (fungi, etc). but they are all carbon-based. Alien life might look like nothing on earth.

Life not like us might be based on another element, e.g. silicon. Or it could arise in a liquid environment other than water, e.g. Titan. Or a lava planet.

Humans have long imagined other forms of life, even in the sun p187 or in the moon. Or in the rings of Saturn. There are many spherical worlds, but only one form of life known. And so we presume other life would be carbon based in liquid water, because that’s all we know. Biases p191: carbon; water; surface; stellar; chemical. [[ obviously sf writers have challenged all of these. ]]

Searching for ET life is distinct from SETI (intelligence). What Earth was like over its history, p195. We search for signals; but this limits how long earth has been ‘visible’.

Drake equation. Example values yield various results.

Is technology inevitable? (Sidebar about the ‘wow’ signal in 1977 p201). Maybe not; the dinosaurs didn’t.

SETI. Began in 1959. Where to look, and for what? Nearby sunlike stars; hydrogen signals. SETI@home began in the late 1990s. but no evidence has been found. But the search must go on.

Every star has a continuously inhabitable zone, or Goldilocks zone. This presumes liquid water is required.

Fermi paradox, p206. Known for doing quick estimates. Various answers: there aren’t any; we’re in a zoo; earthlike planets are rare; or civilizations wipe themselves out.

In 1963 Kardashev proposed a scale of three Types of civilizations, p210. If Type 2 or 3 civilizations existed, how would we see them?

Ch8, How did it all begin?

The earliest events in the history of the universe require understanding cosmology and elementary particle physics. See timeline below.

The bricks of ordinary matter are six quarks and six leptons. And just four forces operate on them. Less familiar are the strong and weak force. Strong holds protons together. Weak triggers radioactivity.

The inside of atoms is the study of quantum mechanics. Heinsenberg uncertainty. Virtual particles. The exchange of virtual particles generates forces. Three such particles correspond to three of the forces; gravity is the missing one.

Things were simpler in the early universe. So were the four forces originally just a single force? This is the unified field theory. The increase in temperature unified the forces.

Next, quark confinement at 10^-5 second. Forces between quarks increase the farther away they get.

At 10^-10 sec, the forces unified. Before this point, there were three forces: strong, gravity, and electroweak. After this time the third became electromagnetic and weak. We’ve seen this in the Large Hadron Collider. Earlier than this we cannot test.

Then, back to 10^-35. The six quarks and six leptons showed up. We have no theory about what happened earlier than that. Before this time there were only two forces: gravity, and the strong unified with electroweak.

There are ideas: e.g. that final unification occurred at 10^-43. The Planck time. Before this the entire universe was tiny enough to be controlled by quantum mechanics.

Why is there matter at all? All the antimatter is gone.

Grand scenario p232-3.

14by: age of universe

10^-43: before this time, just one force; afterward, two forces, gravity, strong/electroweak.

10^-35: expansion; slightly more matter than antimatter; three forces: gravity, strong, electroweak.

10^-10: now all four forces.

10^-5 sec: quarks form elementary particles; no quarks exist on their own.

3m later: nuclei of atoms survive, up to lithium; then Hubble expansion spreads them too far apart to build heavier nuclei.

380,000 later: plasma cooled for atoms to form; universe becomes transparent; matter clumps to stars and galaxies (where dark matter is found)

That’s all we know so far. Questions remain: what happened earlier than 10^-43? How does gravity resolve with QM? And what was the nature of the initial event?

Ch9, How will it all end?

First we think about the sun: at equilibrium for billions of years, balancing gravity with energy from fusion. In another 5by the hydrogen for fusion will run out. Then will follow nuclear reactions that turn the helium ash to carbon, and burning of the unfused hydrogen around the core. It will turn into a red giant, engulfing Mercury and Venus at least. Then gravity will compress what’s left, until countered by the outward pressure of leftover electrons, and the sun will become a white dwarf.

The sun has gradually been brightening all the while. How will that affect earth? Ice ages will come and go. Continents will continue to shift, reuniting in just another 250my.

A billion yrs from now the planet’s average temp will be higher than our body temp. Greenhouse effect. Continents will lock into place. Eventually the rocky surface will liquefy into a lava ocean. And so on.

An unpredictable doomsday is volcanoes. Vast supervolcanoes. There are 20 in the world; the most familiar is the one in Yellowstone.

Another activity is igneous provinces, e.g. the Deccan Traps, and Siberian Traps; their timing matches two mass extinctions.

Another: Impact. Meteor Crater in Arizona, 50,000 years ago. The worst we know of was the event 65mya—another mass extinction.

There are NASA program to detect Earth-threatening objects.

Occasionally galaxies collide; ours and Andromeda will collide in a few billion years. Though galaxies are mostly empty space. eventually the two will settle down into one jumbo galaxy.

Is the Hubble expansion open, closed, or flat? All the evidence points to a flat universe.

What is the composition of the universe? Baryonic matter, 5%. Dark matter: 27%. Dark energy: 68%. There are two theoretical contenders for the last of these: the energy of empty space; or something called “quintessence.”

If dark energy is finite, expansion will slow but never end.

But if it increases, expansion will accelerate, leading to the Big Rip in some 22by. Stars will separate, then solar systems, then atoms, leaving only elementary particles.

This is the end of our theoretical knowledge.

What would an observer see? Two timelines, 261, with or without the Big Rip.

Ch10, What does nothing have to do with everything?

We need to understand the existence of nothing.  Aristotle considers it absence of air. Theologians considered it absence of God. In 1654 a German scientist demonstrated the existence of a vacuum.

Until QM, vacuum was thought to be a region of space with nothing in it. The uncertainty principle changed that. Virtual particles. So now a vacuum is full of particles that pop in and out of existence. With no gain or loss of net energy.

Perhaps the entire universe is a quantum fluctuation. How could such a massive thing as the universe last? But you can create energy and also negative energy.

Cosmogenesis is the idea that the universe began with the quantum vacuum. Like a ball rolling down a hill, p274. Energy stored in a false vacuum triggers the big bang.

Before the big bang. What existed before? Maybe the question is nonsense, like the north pole question. Or maybe the answer is, the quantum vacuum. How would we tell? What can we measure?

The multiverse is like a large collection of bubbles that never touch each other. Each with its own laws of physics and constants of nature. This would explain the fine-tuning problem. A very narrow range of possible values allows life to exist. Recall the Texas sharp-shooter fallacy.

Max Tegmark defined four categories of multiverses.

Level 1: like scattered ships at sea. Like science fiction’s parallel universes.

Level 2: a multiverse contains bubble universes, with slightly different laws and constants.

Level 3: many worlds hypothesis.

Level 4: all the multiverses associated with all possible mathematical structures. E.g. like time running backward.

Is this really science? Ockham’s razor. How can we test any of this? Proponents say existing theories imply the multiverses, even if there’s much we can’t verify.

Keep asking questions, and keep looking up.

\\

Posted in Astronomy, Book Notes, Cosmology, Science | Leave a comment

The Battle

Heather Cox Richardson has told this story. (See my review.)

NY Times, Jonathan Kaufman, today: Blame Ronald Reagan

Richardson told of a so-called “liberal consensus” arising out of the post-World War II era that was steadily attacked by conservatives, especially racists and religious right, in the 1960s. This writer finds another key moment.

Often portrayed as a prosperous interlude between the social movements of the 1960s and our anxious, polarized world, the 1980s live on in even more ways than many Americans recognize. When I covered the corporate boardrooms, economic upheavals and political campaigns back then, I thought I was witnessing a temporary political correction. Decades later, when I returned to investigate key moments, I realized how profound the changes were.

We’re not living after the 1980s. We’re living in them, trapped in the invisible architecture built by a clutch of executives, politicians and conservative advocacy groups (that was later abetted by a generation of business-friendly Democrats).

This small group of conservatives, dismayed by the chaos and upheavals of the 1960s and disappointed by the failure of 1970s politicians to roll back big government programs, had carefully planned their attack. Moving beyond their grasp is going to require the same strategic thinking, organizing and patience that these men used so effectively 45 years ago.

Inaugurated in 1981, President Ronald Reagan, aided by conservative Democrats in Congress, devoted two terms to slashing corporate taxes and deregulating industries. This was no standard shift in administration; Mr. Reagan was following a highly coordinated, yearslong blueprint drawn by a network of conservative intellectuals to systematically dismantle the New Deal consensus.

With discussion of C.E.O.s behind the scenes (like GE’s Jack Welch). As Trump is doing now, Reagan dismantled regulations on business and on the news media, notably the Fairness Doctrine, which led to hyper-partisan media like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. And right-wing Ivy League law students that led to the Federalist society and today’s right-wing Supreme Court.

Even some of the original architects of the 1980s believe things have gone too far. Mr. Welch conceded in 2009 that the single-minded pursuit of profit and shareholder value as a strategy was “the dumbest idea in the world.” Mr. Fowler acknowledges that today’s tech monopolies and social media platforms like Meta and X should be subject to government scrutiny and antitrust laws.

The trend is to advantage the wealthy. (WWJD?)

For liberals and Democrats to wrest this country from the grip of the 1980s, they need to learn from four decades of conservative success.

Namely: rebuild needed protections; support organized labor; reign in social media; play the long game. An example of the last being Gay activists who spent 30 years legalizing same-sex marriage.

Conservatives will cry: free speech! Fewer regulations so that the wealthy can become wealthier! Freedom! But most defenders of the Reagan/Trump world order, it seems to me, simply don’t realize what’s going on outside their daily experience. The world is not getting better for them.

\\\

Quite a day for conservative dissembly, i.e. lying. Apparently they think they can’t succeed on their policies. Or: politics isn’t about telling the truth, or acknowledging reality; it’s about appealing to tribal values.

\\\

 

Posted in Human Nature, Politics | Leave a comment

Adam Kirsch: THE REVOLT AGAINST HUMANITY

Subtitled: Imagining a Future Without Us
(Columbia Global Reports, 2023, 100pp, including 2pp of further reading.)

Here’s a small book with some provocative ideas I didn’t anticipate from the title. It’s from a publishing imprint of Columbia University called Columbia Global Reports, and indeed it reads like a survey of ideas, citing many particular writers and books, more than it reads like a thesis by the writer. And he’s read a lot more books than I have, and he’s summarizing them. The author is described as a poet and literary critic.

The gist is the conflict between two visions of humanity that both entail the coming nonexistence of the race as we know it: Anthropocene antihumanism, that says our climate is doomed and humanity should welcome its own extinction, and Transhumanism, that looks forward to how genetic engineering and AI will lead to new forms of life superior to humans. Obviously these aren’t the only possible fates of humanity, but both of these are increasingly plausible.

*

Key Points

  • He defines the two positions I described above.
  • Discusses how these ideas have emerged, citing books and films.
  • This is the marshmallow test; can we reign in our impulses to save ourselves? Some would have us return to a agrarian past. But even that past destroyed the large animals on the planet. How can we ever stop?
  • So consider the idea that humans are not at the center of everything. Try to connect with other creatures. The disappearance of humanity won’t be noticed by the universe at large; to think otherwise is metaphysical arrogance. The humanist era is already passing away.
  • Discussion of Toby Ord, Nick Bostrum, Michio Kaku, Ray Kurzweil, et al. Some of their ideas are deeply conservative, resulting from revulsion.
  • Transhumanists are serene about humanity’s disappearance, as long as it doesn’t happen too soon. They’re concerned about existential risks, but hope minds might transfer to computers, or a ‘connectome,’ or virtual reality. The metaverse. We could create minds more complex than ours. AI. The singularity. The risk is such AI might take over. Perhaps we shouldn’t mind.
  • We’ve had such long-term perspectives ever since the 19th century, with discoveries in geology and evolution. The answers of religion no longer suffice. Some would retreat to them anyway, sacrificing the rationalist worldview in return for meaning. Otherwise some kind of human self-limitation is necessary. Thus our culture war, between liberalism and populism, traditionalists and posthumanists. It’s the traditional humanists who will lose.

Comments

  • The lesson I take from this is that change happens, and neither the traditionalists (who deny reality) or the liberals/humanists will have their way. If we don’t extinguish ourselves, technology will happen and replace us anyway. It’s only a matter of time.
  • Bigger: there is no ‘external’ meaning to humanity’s existence, nothing or nobody to care whether the species continues or not. Why are humans better than trees? Only because *we* are humans.
  • And this goes to the underlying problem with the idea of “humanism,” as in “secular humanism,” as the alternative to religious deference to supernatural beings. Humanism is self-referential, implying only humans matter in the cosmos. Really? That’s it? What might a greater meaning or purpose be, that humans might facilitate? Here’s where the philosophers, and some science fiction writers, speculate.

*

Detailed Description

Introduction

Quotes Foucault about how our modern ideas are inventions, e.g. “man” in the 18th century. And that one day “man who be erased.” Ideas aren’t fixed; they can be reconfigured. Postmodernism. But such thinkers never thought of actual extinction. Until recent years. That man’s reign may end, and perhaps we should welcome it. This book aims to outline those key ideas. By people who are not all aligned. There seem to be two ways of thinking. One is Anthropocene antihumanism. We’re out of tune with nature, and are destroying it. Our self-destruction has been brought on ourselves. Another is transhumanism, with the potential to create new forms of intelligent life. New creatures, or AI. In both cases humans will disappear. It’s a spiritual development. Informed by poets, novelists, and philosophers.

How could we drink up the sea?, p14

Recalls the 2006 film Children of Men and the idea of imminent extinction. In 2019 such an activist group did disrupt London. XR. Warning the world of climate change. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was also 2006. Roger Hallam of XR updated Common Sense for the 21st century. David Wallace-Wells in 2019. Their warnings can sound apocalyptic, complete with target dates. The idea of mass extinction, and Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction. The idea of extinction by nuclear war has already been around for a while. Humans are motivated by a sort of zero-sum competition: be fruitful and multiply, but don’t kill the planet. Now we have the concept of the Anthropocene. Humans are now taking center stage, away from the natural world. Jedediah Purdy, After Nature. We could redefine evolution. The survival of what are useful to humans. (Humans as a selection force.) The sublime, vs the beautiful. Edward Burke. 21.7 [[ yes here’s the idea of awe again ]] Terror. [[ thus the connection to horror ]] The ocean. Darwin spoke of it. Now we pity what we are destroying. Bill McKibben. The idea of killing off nature. Like Nietzsche and God. His idea of the superman, beyond good and evil. The death of nature now required the creation of the posthuman. We have the power to remake ourselves.

Now it’s too late to change, p25

This is a species-level marshmallow test. We try to set numerical limits. But they were nonbinding. Such goals tie environmental degradation to economic inequality. Naomi Klein. Purdy. Do we renounce growth? How do we give up bad habits? Cast it as a sacrifice. Wilson, Biophilia. Nature is comprehensible, the opposite of as in myth, 28t. Later, Half-Earth. But our desire to know isn’t pure. And we’d need even more technology to achieve such goals. Paul Kingsnorth stopped thinking of himself as an environmentalist, and thinks humans are the problem. He published a book with Dougald Hine [sic]. They want a return to the unpopulated landscapes of their childhood. Their views recall those of Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber. Others have found human wanting. Wordsworth. Whiteman. Robinson Jeffers. Anticipating Greta Thunberg.

[[ Hold on – the Bible of course endorses human’s dominion of the earth. Surely that’s part of the problem. But what’s the solution? Something besides extinction? How would other intelligent species handle this? Some current big thinkers propose: reverse entropy. ]]

The most committed antihumanists include Michael Boulter, in his book Extinction. Even herding damaged the natural world. Large animals were hunted to extinction, by about 21,000ya. Then in North America after 11,000ya. Given this behavior, why should we stop now? We can’t change. Roy Scranton, an Iraq War vet, came to the same conclusion. We need to prepare for death. Or do they just want humanity to start over? Noah’s ark again. Maybe it’s culture we need to destroy. Protagoras, 5th c bc.

[[ This echoes the problem with the ‘humanist’ movement. The target has to be something greater than just our particular race, or we’ll destroy ourselves and some other race will get to try. ]]

P37, Humans are not the point

We need to revoke the Bible’s injunction for humans to have dominion over everything. How then do we think about the world. Start with the philosophers and storytellers.  But we can’t think outside of human cognition. Timothy Morton, Humankind. No pronouns. A solidarity with nonhuman people. There are no sharp boundaries between us and other kinds of being. Many creatures live within us. Alienation; the Severing. Overthrow the assumption that human thought is unique. Kant. How do ever know the things themselves? Object-oriented ontology, Graham Harman. Similar themes in Jane Bennett, vibrant matter. These ideas support environmental goals: we are less likely destroy other matter. Still, it’s natural to value life over nonlife, humans over other living things. Then there’s Patricia MacCormack, The Ahuman Manifesto. Stop reproducing, allow suicide and euthanasia. Humanity as a “parasitic, detrimental species.” She would welcome human annihilation, to liberate the natural world from oppression. Then there’s David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been in 2006. Leaven unborn humans that way.

The intuition is that the disappearance of humanity wouldn’t deprive the universe of anything unique or valuable. [[ It occurs to me that white supremacy is analogous to human supremacy, the idea that only humans matter. ]] This is a metaphysical arrogance, that only humans can create meaning or value. Yet a gradual winding down would be tragic for the last generation. As in Children of Men. The real horror is existential. We do know that humanity is going to disappear. We only doubt the time frame. Claire Colebrook. The humanist era is already passing away. We’re increasingly aware of human brutality and life-destructiveness. Or perhaps it will be due to population decline. The rate of growth is already slowing. The prediction is the population will peak at about 10 billion in 2064, and then fall. That will be good for the planet. And it will be self-reinforcing. Part of the reason is fear about the future. Powers’ The Overstory was about the idea that trees are morally superior to humans. Ecological activists seek to stop logging in Oregon.

Fashion yourself in the form you may prefer, p52

Do we turn back to a simpler age? Toby Ord, The Precipice. About the odds of destroying ourselves in the 21st century: about 1 in 6. He’s a transhumanist, who believes we can keep going forward. The future is immense. The problem is our ability to keep progressing. Transhumanism agrees that our race will disappear, but that it will be placed by something else. They issued a Declaration in 1998. Technology can overcome ‘involuntary suffering’, increasing our lifespan, our senses, our intellects. Nick Bostrum. Aspirations. Silicon Valley—Peter Thiel, et al. Tegmark, Life 3.0. Kaku, The Future of Humanity. Nanotech. Effective immortality. Kurzweil. All in parallel with recognition of the Anthropocene. Yet everything is two decades away. CRISPR. It was used to design a baby, and the designer was sentenced to prison. Then there’s Leon Kass, with a 2002 book. Conservative. Defends revulsion as a valid response. “The wisdom of repugnance.” Which was applied to racial mixing and homosexuality too. But Kass would decline rational scrutiny. He fears a loss of ‘human dignity.’ He’s defending the value of striving. Transhumanists would defend personal choice. Those who decline such enhancements are free to do so. Anders Sandberg emphasizes rights and bodily autonomy. Recalling ‘cyborg’ and a 1985 essay by Donna Haraway. Now they’ve become banal. Like IVF. And GNR technology. Bodily modification might extend to adornment and self-expression. Transhumanism rejects the very idea of fixed human nature. Beyond evolution. Harari in Homo Deus. We have the power to change ourselves. A 1496 Oration. Our need to change. Perhaps an authentic human thing.

A throwing away of all the human rules, p66

Transhumanists anticipate humanity’s disappearance with serenity, as long as it doesn’t happen too soon. Yet they’re skeptical about ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence). They worry about existential risks: Bostrom in 2002, Ord in The Precipice, looking forward to vast potential. Harari calls this Dataism. Kurzweil too, for whom a ‘patternist’ views patterns of information as the fundamental reality. Bostrom does some calculations. The universe as a giant mind. Yet we’re limited by our human bodies. But disembodiment may be coming soon. The mind is materialist. A computer made of organic tissue. Moore’s Law. Eventually we can upload a human mind into a ‘connectome.’ Living in virtual reality. Hans Moravec, Mark Zuckerberg. The metaverse. Themes in science fiction: Black Mirror. Upload. Substrate-independent minds, SIMs. Kaku: translate SIMs to photos and you conquer space. Laser porting. Bostrom is more concerned about AI. Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind from 1996 aligns consciousness with information states. Perhaps experience is ubiquitous. Then could we create a mind more complex than ours? If AIs are better than us at everything, why should we continue to exist? The goal is AGI, artificial general intelligence. It would keep improving itself. This prospect is the ‘singularity’, after Vernor Vinge. Unlike perpetual motion, this is not an impossible fantasy. Estimates range from 2040 to 2075. The problem is that such an AI might think for itself. Examples. Paper clips. Bostrom, Tegmark. Keep it boxed; but it might ‘break out.’ The problem of other minds. The Turing test. Would boxing an AI be immoral? Ian McEwan imagined this in Machines Like Me, 2019. Description. We need to ask why humanity deserves to prevail. Ideas about meaning, 82m: is existence without consciousness meaningful? Tegmark thinks not. Yet the consciousness doesn’t have to be human. McEwan suggests that AI minds might bring even more meaning.

The sphere of spiritual warfare, p84

These ideas are hard to contemplate. What if all these prophecies never come to pass? But they get us to thinking. These modern ideas suggest that the extinction of humanity will change nothing. Such thinking began in the 19th century, with geology and evolution. Wells. The final vision of the time traveler. Nietzsche saw this new knowledge as the advent of nihilism. We no longer have the answers of religion. All we know is how we came to exist. The religious resist this conclusion. Increasingly. They need something to live for. In the last decade conservatives have concluded the modern order is incapable of offering such a purpose, and is therefore doomed to fail. 2018, Why Liberalism Failed. (88t) The Catholic idea of natural law. [[ We need to account for all these; are they wrong? If so why? A vestige of a primitive past? ]] [[ Well, the trouble is, it’s based on supernatural claims that aren’t true. It might still be a remnant of base human nature. ]] Many belief systems require sacrifice. Enlightenment deprives us of the motive for sacrifice.  What are the rewards for sacrifice in the rationalist worldview? Conservatives see a retreat to a religious past to restore purpose, 89b. This revolt against humanity might be such a sacrifice. The sacrifice of humanity in order to move the universe in the direction of good. That would be the meaning of human existence. Those opposing worldviews have something in common: human self-limitation. Recall Foucault, History of Sexuality. These ideas will affect biopolitical debates, e.g. about falling birthrates. Climate change. Maybe incentives to grow and have children will change. And so on. Both sides might support reducing the population. How this revolt maps onto the division between liberalism and populism, 93.6. The former more likely to accept limits. The latter to resist them. The culture war between traditionalists and posthumanists. It’s the traditional humanists who will lose. They gave us liberal democracy, and humanistic culture. What do humanists do? The traditional art forms are in crisis. Last line: “We can only hope that we don’t have the bad luck to be born into the last generation, the one that sees humanity as we have known it disappear.”

\\

Posted in Book Notes, Human Nature, Human Progress, Meaning | Leave a comment

Star Trek at 60

NPR, today: 60 years later, ‘Star Trek’ continues to ‘live long and prosper’

and

LA Times, today: ‘Star Trek’ is celebrating its 60th anniversary. Why its optimistic vision of the future endures

  • As “Star Trek” marks 60 years, the creatives, stars and fans of the franchise reflect on its lasting influence and enduring legacy.
  • The original series used diverse crews and allegorical storytelling to champion inclusion, collaboration and optimism — tenents that continue today.

I see today is the 60th anniversary of the premiere of the original Star Trek show, back in 1966. While I’ve no doubt discussed Trek from time to time on this blog, (and have an entire section from some 9 years ago when I rewatched the first season in some detail) I see that I did not note the anniversary 10 years ago, in 2016, nor 20 years ago, in 2006. So perhaps I’ll note a few things about watching the original show, and later ones.

  • I’m fairly certain I saw the premiere episode, “The Man Trap” (in retrospect not a very good episode) when it first aired. The show had gotten a lot of publicity, particularly to contrast it from “kiddie” shows like Lost in Space, which had debuted the year before. “The first adult science fiction show,” I think the ads ran.
  • Though I don’t think anyone else in my family much cared for it, I managed to watch the majority of the 79 original episodes when first aired. (I specifically recall watching “The Cloud Minders” in early 1969 while I was in the hospital recovering from an appendectomy.) After the first run the show immediately went into syndication, which means it became available to local TV stations in various cities to rerun as often as they liked, which typically meant five times a week, e.g. weekdays at 5pm. It was a thrill to finally see the eight or ten episodes I’d missed on original broadcast, even though I’d already read the adaptations by James Blish of some of them. (See that section.)
  • But we only had a black & white TV. It was years later before I saw any of the episodes in color.
  • As I’ve noted in that section, the syndicated episodes were trimmed by the local stations to allow for added commercial time. Typically some 5 minutes per episode. No rule against doing so. At the same time, when some 16 weeks had passed and the series cycled back to the beginning, the station editors would often take out a *different* 5 minutes. For some years I kept notes while watching these reruns, trying to piece together the entire stories. Yet, oddly, to this day, even though I watched the first season on DVD nine years ago (but not yet the second and third seasons), I’m not certain I’ve seen every scene in every episode. There might be scenes in those second and third season episodes that were cut every time, and so which I’ve never seen.
  • Stepping out. I was 11 years old when Trek debuted, and though I’d already read a few science fiction books, Trek established the foundation of what science fiction meant to me. I came to understand, soon enough, that Trek was derivative of many earlier works of written science fiction, and Trek indulged in many science fiction fantasies (warp speed, the transporter, a human/alien hybrid) that did not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
  • At the same time — there was an idealism to Trek that has not widely survived to this day. The early stories were about encountering genuinely alien races, and not simply destroying them as monsters (as in most of the 1950s skiffy flix); they involved a multi-racial crew, a meritocracy; and they involved an openness to exploration and expanding knowledge. This was its lasting legacy.
  • Compare that to where we are today.
  • After the original series, I did watch Star Trek: The Next Generation devotedly, from 1987 to 1994. I saw the movies as they came out, beginning with Star Trek The Motion Picture in 1979, and the later ones. But I never rewatched them; I’d moved on.
  • I think Star Trek, in the later movies and shows, turned into a cultural phenomenon that steadily played to audience tastes, and played down to them. As I’ve said, the later series were more often about military battles with Klingons and Romulans and other villains, than encountering strange aliens or weird phenomena and trying to understand them. The movies increasingly valued spectacle (how many times was the Enterprise destroyed?). This kind of diminution from an original idea to an idea better accepted by mass audience has happened throughout the history of popular culture, from Frankenstein to Tarzan to Trek. The originals have been watered down to be more popular. That’s how they survive.
  • (That’s why true “classics,” whether books or movies, seem odd to contemporary sensibilities. They were classics not because they did something familiar better than anything prior; they were classics because they did something completely new. Same applies to music.)

\\\

Quick takes.

  • Scientific American, today: AI may have just solved a million-dollar math problem. The field will never be the same
  • Subtitled: A mathematician compared the feat to the history-making chess competition in which IBM’s Deep Blue computer beat Garry Kasparov in 1997
  • So many people are worried about AI, while many others anticipate it.
  • My comment: I’ve been discussing the limits of human cognition lately. AI seems poised to surpass the limits of human cognition.

\

  • Trump is dumb as a rock. He doesn’t understand what “trade” means. He thinks spending money on trade means losing money. That he’s being taken advantage of. Trump and his MAGA supporters are an example of what I just said above about the limits of human cognition. Those limits vary widely among different people.
  • NY Times, today: Trump Hits Back as Canada Imposes New Tariffs on U.S. Goods, subtitled “Canada’s decision to retaliate against President Trump’s recent tariffs has triggered another front in the trade war.”

\

And, he’s insane. More maps. Also, he claimed the Moon.

\

\

  • Bless your hearts.
  • JMG, today (from NOTUS): Hegseth: US Base Guards Can Use Christian Greetings
  • Like “Have a blessed day” or “God bless you”.
  • If I visited a store or facility that spoke to me that way, I would feel vaguely creeped out. I wouldn’t go back. What kind of creepy fantasy world do they think they’re living in? Grow up.
Posted in Personal history, Star Trek | Leave a comment

Is the World Becoming Too Complex for Ordinary Human Cognition?

Here’s more about the new book about the so-called “time tax.”

The Atlantic, Adam Harris, today: How the Government Wastes Our Time, subtitled “What do we lose in the hours spent filling out paperwork?”

Americans are bogged down in paperwork for reasons that are sometimes necessary, sometimes thoughtless—and, at times, nefarious. In her new book, The Time Tax: How the Government Wastes Our Time—And How to Fix It, my colleague Annie Lowrey looks at all those hours spent looking for tax documents or trying to certify income for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or the FAFSA and finds that things don’t have to be this way.

A time tax is an infliction of “paperwork, effort, delay, and aggravation” that Americans suffer to get the rights they are guaranteed. We have the right to vote in a democracy; a time tax creates obstacles to those rights and makes realizing them cumbersome: They show up as extra identification requirements, when voter fraud is incredibly rare—or, in Jim Crow, as literacy tests.

Tax documents, DMV lines, government programs. I don’t know; I’m skeptical. Am I privileged or advantaged somehow? I spend a couple hours each April filling in my section of our tax returns. (My partner then fills his section in.) I don’t need days to find obscure evidence; I just keep track of my stuff. I’ve had to visit the DMV only a couple mornings in the past decade, and that was to re-register an out-of-state car I inherited so I could sell it. Everything else DMV is done online. I’m not the beneficiary of any government programs (well, except for social security, which doesn’t require ongoing paperwork chases).

But I’m going to step back and wonder if the broader theme here isn’t the increasing — and unavoidable — complexity of society. Which dovetails with what I’ve suggested as being the limitations of human cognition. How does society get everything done it needs to do without accountability, which comes from citizens supplying evidence of their situations? The dimwit MAGA folks blame the “deep state” and would simply trash it, as Trump is doing to every institution he can’t simply rename after America or himself, without realizing the consequences. Their vision is anarchy, but they don’t realize it.

Will think more on this.

\\\

What is actual education, as opposed to inculcation, for?

OnlySky, Rick Snedeker, today: The enduring value of liberal education, subtitled “Higher education should challenge personal beliefs, not blindly reaffirm them. That’s why conservatives hate and fear it.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and his large family are the hosts of a new reality TV series on YouTube, The Great American Road Trip, in which, among many inauthentic, scripted moments, Duffy authentically dad-’splains to his skeptical teenage daughter Paloma that studying at Harvard would damage the integrity of her young mind.

*Nothing* should damage the integrity of anyone’s mind; people can accept or reject new information without becoming damaged. I think the fear comes family and community who see children being swayed away from their social traditions, and perceive this as “damage.” It’s not; it’s growing up.

What he’s saying is that he’s afraid she would learn things at Harvard that would cancel out the conservative, religious values she learned at home growing up. Duffy, a conservative Trump acolyte, is also implying he doesn’t think his daughter may be capable of synthesizing new knowledge intelligently because of Harvard’s supposed skill and intent in brainwashing kids in liberal ideology.

Familiar themes, that will never go away. Expose kids to everything. Let them figure it out.

Posted in Education, Human Nature | Leave a comment