Accidental Blogger

A general interest blog

  • It seems Alvin Plantinga has written a popular account of his evolutionary argument against naturalism, viz. that evolution selects beliefs for survival value, not truth, so that while our beliefs may be useful we've no reason to think them true. I've nothing much to say about the argument itself…lots of people have written about it, and there's a plentiful academic literature in any case. [I do note that in this popularization at least, he follows up with some pretty trippy math that suggests that if our prior probability that one useful belief is true is a half, that the probability that a set of one hundred beliefs is true is one over two to the googol'th power. Such assumptions of total independence between utility and truth, between the truths of related beliefs, such maximally in-coherentist ideas seem more than a bit dubious to me. Incidentally, a surprising number of iffy probabilistic arguments seem to involve assumptions of independence followed by simple multiplication. Break thee free man, of the tyranny of the product sign! Rejoice, for not all probabilistic reasoning needs sixth grade maths!]

    What puzzles me about Plantinga is not the extent to which he doubts naturalistic reason, though I don't think he sufficiently respects the resources a naturalist has. What surprises me is his sense that his own beliefs do – or should – give him a strong degree of extra confidence in his accounts of nature:

    Clearly this doubt arises for naturalists or atheists, but not for those who believe in God. That is because if God has created us in his image, then even if he fashioned us by some evolutionary means, he would presumably want us to resemble him in being able to know; but then most of what we believe might be true even if our minds have developed from those of the lower animals. On the other hand, there is a real problem here for the evolutionary naturalist.

    Let us not here get into tediously evaluating these religious beliefs for plausibility. Indeed, let us grant Plantinga all he'd hope for, a God in heaven and several larks and snails squishing about. Going from even there to a strong confidence in beliefs about the world seems to me like an odd path for a Christian to follow. From this outsider's perspective, one of the most striking aspects of that belief system is its keen appreciation of our finitude and fallibility – sin disorders minds, and distance from God causes error. Nor does accepting Christ make you intellectually or ethically more than human. Christians are not perfect, just forgiven, as they say. The dark glass remains, all that good stuff.

    Indeed, that we get things wrong, that we make mistakes, that our cognition is error prone, that we fuck things up, that in our Rumsfeldian world we face each of known and unknown knowns and unknowns, this is as close to being a brute fact as anything I can think of. If your metaphysics can't admit to the possibility of error, so much the worse for it. No well-represented philosophy I've come across tries to sell that snake oil. Even traditions marking a less stark separation between man and God, between the circumscribed and the limitless, all have the sense to stay away from such ideas. After you gain enlightenment you must still chop wood and carry water. Whether or not you know that you are that, you must listen to the mahout when he yells at you to get away from the mad elephant. It is just especially strange coming from a Christian. I'm reminded of that cute thing Chesterton said:

    If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

    Anyhow. On the off-chance that you've not seen it already, I think this is in the coolest video (and child) on youtube. Maybe it's me, but when I see it I keep thinking of Basil Fawlty yelling 'fire' in his hotel…the same helpless inability to convince others to take one seriously.

  • Last month, Alex Ross contributed a worthy and encouraging account of Salonen's long career with the LA Philharmonic and his recent departure from the musical leadership of the orchestra. Salonen really is a marvelous musician, composer, and conductor, but as Ross' story suggests, his decision to end an era was perfectly timed and exquisitely executed. I rarely attended full-on LAP performances, but I made it to several Green Umbrella programs over the years while it was "a sparsely attended specialty offering" at the Japan America Theater in Little Tokyo. The JAT has to be one of the best musical venues for small and chamber ensembles in the world. I appreciated its pristine acoustics and the intimacy of the house and stage. When Salonen performed there, sometimes featuring his own compositions, I could tell he was as eager to explore challenging new (experimental, avant-garde, noisy…) music as the attendees were to hear the result.

    He'd hang out with the audience during breaks. In fact, the GU series was a wonderful opportunity for an amateur to rub elbows with masters of contemporary music. I recall hearing a world premiere of a piece by Harrison Birtwistle, at which the British composer was in attendance, seated directly behind me. Once Betty Freeman, patron of the arts and dedicatee of John Cage's impossible and intense Freeman Etudes, thought she recognized me and asked if I had recently attended such-and-such a party. "Uh, no, I think you've mistaken me for somebody else." But the music was enthralling and it kept us renewing our subscriptions.

    I no longer live in LA, but while Salonen remained at the helm I suspect the GU was not compromised, despite its growing popularity. I hope the program continues to flourish during Dudamel's tenure with the orchestra. Still, I'm no special fan of Disney Hall as an architectural design–Gehry's late work is gaudy–and I can't speak to its acoustics. Ross complains of the sound system, which was not an issue at JAT. I think I'm finding myself happy for Ross' recognition of LA's longstanding contributions to contemporary classical music, while at the same time I'm missing the good old days of new music.

  • I will be posting very infrequently in the month of June. Unless my co-bloggers find the time to write, there will be little new material on the blog until the middle of July.

  • From the Indychannel:

    Patrick Roth uses a fully electric car to take his daughter to school and run errands, 6News' Jennifer Carmack reported.The
    car may look like any ordinary Ford Escort, but a closer look reveals
    that it's anything but. Roth didn't buy the car that way. He built it
    himself

    Here's a step by step link to how he did it, all at the cost of about $13,000, including the car.

    Now again, why did GM kill the electric car?

  • Vince Young, the (currently backup) quarterback for the Tennessee Titans, recently said in a radio interview that he wants to start, and if he's not going to remain on the bench for the Titans, maybe it would be best for his career to move on to a team that wants him to play. Paul Kuharsky, an ESPN.com NFL blogger, had this to say:

    I'm guessing he doesn't realize that recent comments to a Baltimore TV
    station will cause a big stir, or maybe he intended for them to. Either
    way, it's already under way.

    Yes, those are the two options: he either knew, or did not know, that his comments would cause some sort of local media controversy. Quite the guess there, Paul. Way to really go out on a limb and guess that it was either one or the other, when it had to be one or the other. (To be fair, though, it's not clear exactly what is supposed to now be underway. "It." The "big stir," which Kuharsky seems to be in the process of creating?)

    Seriously, ESPN (and Sports Illustrated; I don't discriminate), I'm pretty sure I can do a better job for you — and at a lower salary — than some of the people you're currently employing. You know where to find me when you want to start negotiating.

  • I want a to-do list on my Windows desktop.  Creating a Word/Notepad/etc. document that I have to open is no good; for much the same reason, anything web-based (e.g. something like Google Calendar) won't really work.

    I really just want to be able to write, "Look for plane tickets," "Send thank-you card," "Buy groceries," "Find a copy of Abbey Road,"1 and "Consider studying for the bar," and have it stay on my desktop.  I need a reminder that's there, not one that I have to look for.

    Suggestions?


    1 – Why aren't the Beatles on iTunes?  This is odd.  And not a good business strategy — I would've paid my $9.99 to download it yesterday, but it's not there, and while I don't plan on violating any copyrights (and, um, if I did I wouldn't admit it publicly), this has to mean lost revenue.

  • So, you know, he was killed today by some anti-choice nut.  (Sad, etc.)  Actually, in this case, let's call the person who killed Tiller a "pro-life" nut — it's more ironic than usual.

    "Abortion doctor" — don't we have a better label than this?  I've seen this term used in CNN and NYT headlines.  It's better than "abortionist," I suppose, but it's still on the disrespectful/demeaning end of things.

    We have oncologists and dermatologists and orthopedic surgeons, not cancer doctors and skin doctors and bone-setters.  We have to be able to do better than abortion doctors.

    Do a Google News search — no one is calling him an obstetrician, or an OB-GYN.  I haven't done my fact-checking (as was pointed out in the comments on one of Ruchira's posts, we're not journalists here), so it's possible there's some reason that term doesn't fit, but in that case wouldn't even "abortion provider" be better?

  • I don't doubt that some of the "Judge Sotomayor just isn't smart enough to be a justice" criticism is racially tinged. It's probably sexist, too. But I'm not writing to defend Sonia Sotomayor — I'm writing to defend Clarence Thomas (who I am distinctly not a fan of).

    Because, of course, on the left — and in the rush to defend Sotomayor — there is crap like this at the Huffington Post:

    Speaking of Thomas, I find it interesting that Republicans talk a great
    game about picking only the best and ignoring racial considerations.
    Eighteen years ago, Thomas was considered by many to be a lightweight
    who only got in because Thurgood Marshall was leaving, and Republicans
    wanted credit for appointing an African American to replace him. They
    denied this, of course, and said Thomas would go on to greatness. Two
    decades later, we're still waiting for the guy to ask a question,
    author a memorable opinion, or be anything other than Antonin Scalia's
    sidekick.

    First, point out that Justice Thomas was appointed because he's black, wrongly suggesting that this means he was appointed only because he's black, i.e. that his race was his sole qualification.

    Second, mock his silence at oral arguments. I'm actually more concerned with judges — especially judges with the tremendous resources that SCOTUS Justices have — changing their minds based on which side has the more articulate litigator at oral arguments, but that's just me. In any event, no one has ever suggested a plausible theory on how Thomas's lack of questions at oral arguments is meaningfully probative of his intelligence, and I'd be surprised by a compelling argument in favor of it revealing anything about his quality as a judge. Cubias (the HuffPo author) certainly doesn't give us anything along those lines here. Just point it out condescendingly, hope the reader understands the meaning.

    Third, well, obviously he must be Nino's stupid sidekick. They're both conservative after all, but Scalia was there first and he's snarky at oral arguments and has written lots of sarcastic and angry dissents in which he is lauded for his style (by lawyers who are terrible writers and have probably never read a word of Atwood or Conrad) for his overuse of italics to emphasize lots of phrases. Scalia is just so damn glib! Plus Scalia's the white one. Ignore all those times where Thomas has disagreed with Scalia. Ignore all those times where Thomas has gotten it substantially more right than Scalia. From what I've seen, Thomas is actually more consistent, which means that he's also more intellectually honest on the bench, if you care about those things. I'd also note here that with respect to this nonsense about "memorable opinions," this disparity isn't really there from a lawyer's perspective, and from a non-lawyer's perspective no one on the current Court wrote Roe, Brown, or Miranda (Kennedy did give us Lawrence, but his talent for getting the juicy opinions lies more with his supermedian-justice status).

    Fourth? Okay, Cubias only did one through three. But I want to put as four here, "Look like a racist." This is really a cumulative thing: 1 + 2 + 3 = 4. This line of attack on Justice Thomas is a fiction designed to discredit or trivialize him, and I'm sick of seeing it.

    It would be nice, as liberals seek to defend Sonia Sotomayor from unfounded attacks, if they wouldn't rehash the unfounded, racist attacks on Clarence Thomas.

  • No, this is not a trip down the memory lane to West Side Story but an instance of another irate Republican putting his foot in the mouth regarding Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick for the US Supreme Court. Mike Huckabee, one of the GOP presidential contenders of 2008, railed that Maria Sotomayor, coming from the "far left" would turn the Supreme Court into a version of the "Extreme Court." Huckabee called the judge "Maria" – her name is Sonia. What was he thinking?  Was he merely inattentive to the news reports about Sotomayor or does he think that all Hispanic women are named Maria? (What happened to Lupe, Juanita, Teresa or even J. Lo?) 

    Huckabee is not alone in making a fool of himself over Sotomayor's nomination. With future elections weighing on their minds most Republican senators are being cautiously cryptic about their opinion of Sotomayor lest they offend Hispanic voters with their rude and injudicious comments. But right wing commentators, erstwhile leaders of the Republican Party and some GOP House members are shooting their mouths off with abandon, calling Sotomayor a racist, ultra leftist activist and intellectual light weight. And all this from some who wanted Harriet Miers, a tsunami force of legal scholarship, on the Supreme Court and some others who broke US laws by writing illegal torture memos.

    The story of the life of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, reads much like his own. Judge Sotomayor grew up in a public housing project in the South Bronx, her father passed away when she was nine, and her mother raised her while working as a nurse.

    She was valedictorian of her high school class, and won a scholarship to Princeton where she graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. From there she went to Yale Law School and was editor of the Yale Law Review.

    Since then she has been an Assistant District Attorney, a corporate litigator, a District Court judge, and in 1998 was nominated by President Clinton to her current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    Sounds like the American dream and a person eminently qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, right? Not so says the vocal Republican opposition.

    GOP leader Rush Limbaughcalled Judge Sotomayor a “horrible pick,” the “antithesis of a judge,” a “hack,” a “racist,” an “extreme left-wing radical,” an “anti-Constitutionalist” and said that she would be “a disaster on the Court.”

    Karl Rove said Judge Sotomayor lacked “intellectual power.”

    Senator James Inhofesaid he is concerned that Judge Sotomayor might be unduly influenced by “her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.” I wonder if Sen. Inhofe had those same concerns about Samuel Alito and John Roberts? Probably not.

    Former Arkansas Governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said “Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the Extreme Court that could mark a major shift.” That was after he finally got her name right.

    Pat Buchanan said, "She is not that intelligent."

    Former Congressman Tom Tancredo agreed with Chairman Limbaugh, “I'm telling you, she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context.”

    But the piece de resistance comes from John Yoo, yes THAT John Yoo, who questioned Judge Sotomayor’s “excellence” and “intellect.” For that statement Mr. Yoo is the unanimous winner of the Brass ‘You Know What’ Award for 2009.

    Meanwhile a friend forwarded me a list of Judge Sotomayor's more notable professional credentials:

    (more…)

  • Apparently lamb is a particularly bad (i.e. high-carbon) food because sheep burp a lot of methane. They're actually worse than cows.

    On the other hand, lamb is delicious. And I can't stop laughing at the thought of choosing food based on how much methane it burps.

  • 3 Quarks Daily, a blog that I read regularly and where I have made many friends, has announced an  exiciting event - recognizing bloggers with cash prizes for the best writing. Please follow the link and find out the details. If you can remember a blog post in any of the four categories that you feel deserves the recognition, this may be a good opportunity to show your support. The first category to be judged is science and the deadline is approaching fast.  

    Trophy