Our old friend Piercello, whom some of you may remember for his three-factor theory of human nature and his theory of aesthetics, dropped by to ask for some thoughts on a new theory that successful argumentation depends on consensus. It's a short argument if you want to read it.
I have some things to say about it.
1) The kind of argument he is describing is deductive logic. There are other kinds of arguments, but I think they are even more susceptible to the charge he is bringing. Non-logical forms of argument, for example persuasion by appeal to emotion, are even more dependent on 'a consensus about how things should be done' than deduction. I don't actually have to share your feelings -- certainly I don't have to experience them -- to appeal to them. But I do have to understand how you feel in order to frame an argument that will successfully motivate you to action in the way I desire. Induction is already a problematic form of argument, really more a form of guesswork than a proper proof, but that makes it also more subject to consensus about what kinds of guesses we're allowed to make. (Usually: "It's a proper inductive proof if and only if it is based on a random sample from a proper set; if and only if it is repeatable from a number of randomly selected elements from the set," etc. But this still depends on a consensus idea of what 'a proper set' entails, a question that is easy in mathematics or strict logic, but quite hard in practical reality.)
2) Deduction is a limited form of argument, though, because it is incapable of discovering anything. What deduction allows you to do is to prove that since you know X, you also know Y. It's a form of realization, in other words, rather than discovery of new facts about reality. The most classic example of a deductive proof is this one:
Assumption: Socrates is a man.
Assumption: All men are mortal.
∴ Socrates is mortal.
If the assumptions are true, the conclusion follows. The reason it follows isn't actually the one, Piercello, that you're suggesting. It's not that I have chosen a methodology that you agree is valid, based on a standard that you agree is reasonable, which was chosen by method... etc. The reason it follows is that the truth is contained in the assumptions. What the deduction is doing is helping us realize that we know the conclusion because we know the facts in the assumptions. Nothing new is really being added. Something new is being recognized.
Now if your point is rhetorical, it may be that you're correct about the necessity of consensus. In other words, if the argument is that I can only convince you of the conclusion if you agree to the methodology of deductive logic, that might be right. If the point is not rhetorical but logical, however, it is not right. Because deduction is only recognition of the truths I also know from what I already know, the argument is valid whether or not I like it or agree to it.
Notice by the way that the classic syllogism isn't really subject to the third line of attack you mention ("You've cherry-picked your evidence"). Assuming those two assumptions turn out to be factually accurate, the conclusion follows no matter what new assumptions you add to the pot. The only new information that could alter the conclusion is information that invalidates one of the assumptions (e.g., "Socrates is not a man but a god"). Otherwise, the conclusion holds whatever else you add ("All ravens are black"; "Some men are very long-lived"; etc).
There you go.
Well, I Appreciate Your Honesty
Headline: “We Can't Have a Feminist Future Without Abolishing the Family.”
That does clarify things. Now we just have to sort out whether feminism or the family is of greater value. I imagine that even if we left the decision entirely to women, family would come out easily on top.
That does clarify things. Now we just have to sort out whether feminism or the family is of greater value. I imagine that even if we left the decision entirely to women, family would come out easily on top.
Mauhuffer Filmed a Commercial
Oddly enough, since I just mentioned the place, they are pushing out a test commercial to see if people think it might draw business. They wisely picked a night when the band was 50s+, which gives the place a veneer of harmlessness as you watch the similarly-aged dancers.
Here is a bit from a night I might have almost been present, except that it was in November and I left after the summer. But I heard this band do this song, which is a better take on an old Waylon Jennings song than Waylon ever did himself. Sadly the recording is substandard, but it would have been hard to record under the best of circumstances. Watch the neon beer signs vibrate under the weight of the sound.
Here is a bit from a night I might have almost been present, except that it was in November and I left after the summer. But I heard this band do this song, which is a better take on an old Waylon Jennings song than Waylon ever did himself. Sadly the recording is substandard, but it would have been hard to record under the best of circumstances. Watch the neon beer signs vibrate under the weight of the sound.
Trans Purge in UK
It's just the Labour Party, which is at its smallest size in a generation so why not purge some of the few 'remain'ing members?
A Ridiculous Overreaction?
The Chinese authorities continue to treat the virus as a serious problem:
...when we got to Starbucks, the employees wouldn’t let us in. Instead, we were told to order our drinks through the Starbucks app from outside the store. While we waited for our lattes, the employees took our temperatures and recorded our information at the door....
The following week the restrictions grew tighter and it wasn’t as easy for us to get out of our neighborhood.... Then roadblocks went up on main thoroughfares....
Then walls were put up. They were on all the side streets of our neighborhood, blocking every way out except for two main entrances.... At about the same time the walls were put up, a curfew was imposed: no one in or out from midnight to 6 a.m....
Then a few days ago, everyone in the neighborhood had to register with a local committee and get a special pass that we now must show to get into our neighborhood. If you don’t have a pass, you cannot get in....
Everything we read and hear maintains that the virus is not an imminent threat to us. Relative to the millions of people in our city, a tiny number of people have gotten sick; far fewer have died. But our effort to be rational about the threat does not really help. The scale of the response seems like an overreaction — or it suggests that things are much worse than we are being told. We have a lot of time on our hands to wonder which it is.
Good News from Oklahoma
An attempt to impose new gun carry licenses fails there. So far the lines are holding imperfectly, but much better than might have been expected in the wake of the 2018 election.
The Sin of the Angels
Wretchard today:
[T]here is in this ruthless idealism the danger of what St Augustine called the sin of angels. "It was pride that changed angels into devils; it is humility that makes men as angels." Pride makes failure the world's fault rather than a defect in the perfect plan. Pride removes the possibility of error under the guise of good intentions. While most doctors, engineers or a developers know that failure means a bug or flaw somewhere -- and back to the drawing board that's not how ideology works. Ideology works by an imposition of the will legitimized by the purity of intention. A perfect plan is rejected only be because the public is unworthy of it.
Yeah, Sure
"Russia backs Trump's re-election, according to classified briefing to lawmakers."
Yeah, I'm sure they definitely want four more years of Trump bankrupting their energy industry, when they could have any of the Democrats shut down fracking and oil exports. Probably they're excited to re-elect the guy who gave Ukraine Javelin missiles to foil their tanks, too. No doubt that's exactly what those clever Russians are banking on getting themselves more of this year.
Yeah, I'm sure they definitely want four more years of Trump bankrupting their energy industry, when they could have any of the Democrats shut down fracking and oil exports. Probably they're excited to re-elect the guy who gave Ukraine Javelin missiles to foil their tanks, too. No doubt that's exactly what those clever Russians are banking on getting themselves more of this year.
Happy "Vet Girls" RISE Day!
Actually, apparently it was yesterday. I only heard about it today because of some very angry female veterans I know who don't much like the name.
But it's definitely the "Vet Girls" thing that bugs the, uh, ladies.
On February 19, National Vet Girls RISE Day recognizes the immense dedication of the nearly 2 million U.S. veteran women.To me the weirdest thing about the name is the completely unexplained all-caps "RISE." Is that an acronym? If so, for what? If not, what's it doing there?
On National Vet Girls RISE Day, not only is it a day to recognize women veterans, but it’s a day for women veterans to support one another and to share resources, build relationships and spread awareness concerning the needs of women veterans.
But it's definitely the "Vet Girls" thing that bugs the, uh, ladies.
Human nature?
Why is it that we consider predators our closest companions? I'm speaking primarily of cats and dogs. Oh sure, some people have a pet rat, or rabbit, or bird. And some people love their horses, I don't dispute it. But for our companion animals, the ones we give free rein in our own homes, people mainly turn to hunters. I wonder (as I certainly do not know) if it's because we can see ourselves in them, identify with them on some level, or if it's something else. Maybe it originally was because they managed the pests we cannot hunt ourselves, and helped up hunt the prey we can. But I can't help but wonder if there's something more there. We never bonded with goats, sheep, oxen, cows, chickens, or even pigs (as intelligent and full of personality as they are) in the way we did with cats and dogs.
I have to believe there was something that took them from "just another domesticated animal" to "furry family members". And I honestly cannot shake the feeling that their carnivorous/predatory nature has something to do with it. So I'd really like to hear the Hall's thoughts on the matter.
I have to believe there was something that took them from "just another domesticated animal" to "furry family members". And I honestly cannot shake the feeling that their carnivorous/predatory nature has something to do with it. So I'd really like to hear the Hall's thoughts on the matter.
Behind the look
But enough about Bloomberg's debate performance, which at least featured a much-needed rejection of communism. The real problem with this nanny-state bully is his history, not just of seedy personal relations but of political philosophy and policies backed by whatever political power he could amass:
In order to (inconsistently) enforce this labyrinth of red tape, Bloomberg effectively turned the police into a task force on petty vice, sending them to write up people for harmless offenses (a move their union loudly protested). In a 2004 piece for Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens set out on a crime spree across New York where he tried to break as many of these enforced regulations as possible. This meant not just lighting up in a bar, but sitting on a milk crate ($105 fine for a Bronx man), feeding pigeons (summons for an 86-year-old), and riding a bike without both feet on the pedals. Strangely, though considered crimes against humanity in Bloombergistan, these particular infractions had nothing to do with public health. What they did have to do with was fines, which were then used to fill city coffers, authoritarianism in the service of deficit cutting. This enabled Bloomberg to boast about his fiscal responsibility even as he presided over a hefty expansion of the city’s budget.
And it’s here that we approach the heart of the Bloomberg ethos, as well as a crucial distinction in our politics. Bloomberg is the opposite of a libertarian, yet he defines himself as a “fiscal conservative and social liberal.” Often confused, these two terms are fundamentally different. Libertarianism is concerned with the liberty and dignity of the individual, whereas “fiscal conservative and social liberal” has less philosophical connective tissue. Under its shotgun marriage of terms, “social liberal” can mean, as Bloomberg once told a pregnant subordinate, “kill it,” while “fiscal conservative” can mean reducing people to piggy banks in order to feed finances. What links them is the flowchart. Children are bad for efficiency; so are smokers, drinkers, and fast food diners. This is the ideology of the corporate boardroom. It’s dehumanizing, in that it flattens people into mere budget figures and values of life expectancy.
Not a good look
From Jim Gerraghty on last night's debate:
The former mayor got a little better as the night went on and mostly bad debate performances can be wiped away with another $400 million or so in television ads. But the bottom line of last night is that Bloomberg is what his critics charge: a billionaire who’s been so used to running everything around him for so long that he freezes when someone challenges him and gets in his face. On top of that, he’s a cold fish. He radiates the warmth and empathy of the head of a DMV office. Bloomberg’s convinced he never did anything wrong regarding any of his female employees, and he can’t understand why anyone would think otherwise.
Good News in Washington State
Gun control bills fail in both chambers. Raven should be happier today.
REH Was Right: Ancient Civilization in Ukraine
This time it’s a kind of city perhaps six thousand years old, before the rise of even the most ancient known religions.
Nobody Cares if Nobody Likes You
All right, you asked for it. Here's the first cut I've managed to work out.
You'll notice there are four-line verses and a five-line chorus. The chorus is meant to be sung to the part of the DAC tune that begins "My long hair just can't cover up my red neck." The four-line verses are meant to be sung to the part of the tune that opens it, "Country DJs all think I'm an outlaw..." but it's shorter, so you just swap to the chorus part when you get there. Definitely imagine a steel guitar twanging in the background.
As a side note, the DAC tune is deceptively sophisticated. There are about six things going on there musically, even though on the surface it's just a song about 'bikers staring at cowboys, who are laughing at the hippies, who are praying they'll get out of here alive.' Supposedly it's a song about an unsophisticated redneck, and DAC clearly scared the other Outlaw Country singers with his approach to life, but in fact the tune shows a great deal of skill. I do feel better that he admits having stolen part of the tune himself, in that recording, from Tom T. Hall. I first heard it in a dive bar near Tampa called Mauhuffers, which was the perfect place for this particular song.
Park your bike and walk into the old barUPDATE: It occurs to me that I should tell you how to sing it. This is my first attempt at writing a song that wasn't meant to entertain children (or to amuse a girl, when I was younger). I set it to David Allan Coe's basic approach, but it's not a straight theft of his tune; in my head different parts of the song are employed in different lines. Here's the song again.
Breaking bread with brothers over brew,
Some politician's up there on the TV
Thinks he's gonna tell us what to do.
Hey! Nobody cares if nobody likes you,
You want no guns, no booze, and lots of tax?
We don't know you, and we do not like you
Free men don't have to heed, and that's a fact.
Yeah, nobody cares, if nobody likes you.
Now some guy comes round and wants to butt in
And you know, I think that you just won't.
You're loud and proud and you are uninvited,
So why not remove yourself so that we don't?
Yeah, nobody cares, if nobody likes you.
I did not come here to make new friends.
We don't know you, and we do not like you,
So best that you accept that's how it ends.
Cause nobody cares if nobody likes you.
Now that guy goes down to hit on women,
And down the bar it looks the same as well.
They're too polite to say, else too frightened,
But you can see that they wish he'd go to hell.
Buddy! Nobody cares if nobody likes you.
Those women don't owe you any time.
They don't know you, and they do not like you.
Back off of them and let them drink their wine.
Yeah, nobody cares if nobody likes you.
You know not all those ladies really like me either,
Some do not approve of knives and bikes;
They're free to pick, but I did not ask them,
I live my life exactly how I like.
I don't really care if no one likes us.
We don't ask advice from those who don't;
You're free to disapprove, it's just not for you.
Don't try to make us change, because we won't.
And nobody cares if we do not like you.
It's a big old country, and we don't have to be friends;
We can just leave one another be.
You go your way, my road will take me onward,
There's room for each of us to go on free.
So nobody cares if nobody likes you,
You'll have to earn whatever friends you trust.
It's no one's problem if you don't prove worthy,
You'll have to make that right just how you must.
Nobody cares if nobody likes you.
You'll notice there are four-line verses and a five-line chorus. The chorus is meant to be sung to the part of the DAC tune that begins "My long hair just can't cover up my red neck." The four-line verses are meant to be sung to the part of the tune that opens it, "Country DJs all think I'm an outlaw..." but it's shorter, so you just swap to the chorus part when you get there. Definitely imagine a steel guitar twanging in the background.
As a side note, the DAC tune is deceptively sophisticated. There are about six things going on there musically, even though on the surface it's just a song about 'bikers staring at cowboys, who are laughing at the hippies, who are praying they'll get out of here alive.' Supposedly it's a song about an unsophisticated redneck, and DAC clearly scared the other Outlaw Country singers with his approach to life, but in fact the tune shows a great deal of skill. I do feel better that he admits having stolen part of the tune himself, in that recording, from Tom T. Hall. I first heard it in a dive bar near Tampa called Mauhuffers, which was the perfect place for this particular song.
Election time
March 3 is the Texas primary. In my little county, the focus isn't on the presidential contest--a foregone conclusion in this deep-red community--or even on the state races, most of which are not realistically contested at the primary level, at least on the Republican side. The focus is on a handful of county races, which in this county are decided at the primary stage given the small local Democratic party's habit of not fielding any candidates. When November comes around, we almost never have any contested races for county positions.
This makes for a brief election season, kicked off in December with the filing deadline and finishing up in early March or, at the latest, in May with the run-offs. This spring it's all two-person races, so we'll be spared a run-off.
The big political event for us this year is that we have at long last a chance to express a view about our County Attorney, who also is our only prosecutor. In August 2017 she got into a feud with the police force for the county's only town of any size, which led her to boycott prosecuting any of their cases for years. Recently she's begun to prosecute a few, but given her tendency to announce "not ready for trial" repeatedly, then to dismiss cases, it's not meaning that much to us.
For reasons known only to herself, within the last couple of months she picked a fight with the Sheriff's office. Now, it was one thing to feud with the city police department, because the city officials, for some reason, are not really tied into the county's old-guard establishment. The Sheriff is another story. I don't know the guy well, but he seems to be a fairly regular guy with considerable integrity. Certainly he's got better credibility than the County Attorney--not that you couldn't say that of most people. Anyway, it looks as though she finally picked a fight she was unlikely to win. A week and a half ago she threatened to indict him, in public, at a large gathering. She's turned coy now and said she won't answer questions about it, because it would be improper to comment publicly on a potential indictment. That's rich considering the public nature of the threat.
I'm watching the whole thing with unusual interest. My interest is piqued in part because I really think we deserve a better prosecutor, and we went to a lot of trouble to line up a good challenger and unite behind her. It's also because there are a couple of good challengers for two seats on the 5-member Commissioners Court. My life on the court will be more pleasant if I have a couple of allies who will be reliable support on issues of transparency in government.
A fourth race is a peculiar one. Our soon-to-retire Tax Assessor-Collector has endorsed her chief deputy clerk as successor. Normally this would be a no-brainer for me, as I know nothing against either the current official or her designated successor. On the other hand, the successor is a perfectly ordinary bureaucrat, whereas a good friend chose to run against her on an eccentric and rather inspiring platform. He knows, of course, that the tax office is mostly ministerial and has next to no policy leeway. Nevertheless, he wants to follow a growing trend among Texas tax offices in pushing citizen education about tax and appraisal issues, especially in deciphering the appraisal protest and exemption processes.
I've been thinking about why his candidacy appeals to me so much, wondering if it's just because he's a friend. I think it's that he's a dedicated and thoughtful libertarian who puts endless effort into going door to door in every election trying to engage people in a very interesting political debate. There's an idealism there I don't see often. He has faith in people and doesn't fear rejection, even when rejection hurts.
I'm pretty sure what I'm connecting with is an echo of the old Borderlands Scots-Irish culture. If the Nazis were coming over the hill, this certainly would be the guy you wanted to stand with. Should he be running the tax office? Well, all I can say is I'd like to see more people like him in government. Citizens of courage are the only real bulwark between us and even the petty variety of tyranny.
This makes for a brief election season, kicked off in December with the filing deadline and finishing up in early March or, at the latest, in May with the run-offs. This spring it's all two-person races, so we'll be spared a run-off.
The big political event for us this year is that we have at long last a chance to express a view about our County Attorney, who also is our only prosecutor. In August 2017 she got into a feud with the police force for the county's only town of any size, which led her to boycott prosecuting any of their cases for years. Recently she's begun to prosecute a few, but given her tendency to announce "not ready for trial" repeatedly, then to dismiss cases, it's not meaning that much to us.
For reasons known only to herself, within the last couple of months she picked a fight with the Sheriff's office. Now, it was one thing to feud with the city police department, because the city officials, for some reason, are not really tied into the county's old-guard establishment. The Sheriff is another story. I don't know the guy well, but he seems to be a fairly regular guy with considerable integrity. Certainly he's got better credibility than the County Attorney--not that you couldn't say that of most people. Anyway, it looks as though she finally picked a fight she was unlikely to win. A week and a half ago she threatened to indict him, in public, at a large gathering. She's turned coy now and said she won't answer questions about it, because it would be improper to comment publicly on a potential indictment. That's rich considering the public nature of the threat.
I'm watching the whole thing with unusual interest. My interest is piqued in part because I really think we deserve a better prosecutor, and we went to a lot of trouble to line up a good challenger and unite behind her. It's also because there are a couple of good challengers for two seats on the 5-member Commissioners Court. My life on the court will be more pleasant if I have a couple of allies who will be reliable support on issues of transparency in government.
A fourth race is a peculiar one. Our soon-to-retire Tax Assessor-Collector has endorsed her chief deputy clerk as successor. Normally this would be a no-brainer for me, as I know nothing against either the current official or her designated successor. On the other hand, the successor is a perfectly ordinary bureaucrat, whereas a good friend chose to run against her on an eccentric and rather inspiring platform. He knows, of course, that the tax office is mostly ministerial and has next to no policy leeway. Nevertheless, he wants to follow a growing trend among Texas tax offices in pushing citizen education about tax and appraisal issues, especially in deciphering the appraisal protest and exemption processes.
I've been thinking about why his candidacy appeals to me so much, wondering if it's just because he's a friend. I think it's that he's a dedicated and thoughtful libertarian who puts endless effort into going door to door in every election trying to engage people in a very interesting political debate. There's an idealism there I don't see often. He has faith in people and doesn't fear rejection, even when rejection hurts.
I'm pretty sure what I'm connecting with is an echo of the old Borderlands Scots-Irish culture. If the Nazis were coming over the hill, this certainly would be the guy you wanted to stand with. Should he be running the tax office? Well, all I can say is I'd like to see more people like him in government. Citizens of courage are the only real bulwark between us and even the petty variety of tyranny.
Forgiveness not Permission
A USMC pilot dies and is remembered for the time he was almost courtmartialed.
A Mild Rebuke
In the High Court this morning, Mr Justice Julian Knowles ruled that the police had been disproportionate in the action they took against Harry Miller, a former police officer and a shareholder in a plant and machinery company in Lincolnshire, when they recorded as a “non crime hate incident” a series of disobliging comments he had tweeted about transgender issues.
A New Candidate for Beserkergang
The most well-attested candidate in the literature is ergot, but another option is being floated in the media today: herbal tea.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)