I'm going to post something here that may get me yelled it, but it's something I believe.

This was inspired by a story I just heard on the radio about how some kids in Hannibal, MO got lost in a cave and were never found. It described how they went off on their own and no one was concerned until they didn't come home for dinner, and how that would never happen today. It would be considered child neglect.

long and somewhat incendiary comment inside )
I have a philosophical question that I'd like to pose as a hypothetical. This is strictly a thought experiment and it's not intended to refer to any real person and certainly not to any identifiable group of real Americans.

Suppose there is an able bodied person. They have no physical limitations and no diagnosable mental health issues. They have no kids. They don't do unpaid work (such as assisting family or volunteering). They are simply unwilling to work in any way.

What obligation does society have to that person? Is it ethically appropriate to leave them to starve in the gutter? If not, what level of support must society provide? If the answer is "it depends", how would you define what it depends on how the obligation varies with that?

In particular, what is the obligation in a prosperous modern Western democracy?


May. 14th, 2017 07:27 pm
I was listening to the radio this morning and there was some discussion about the connection between facts and truth. The person on the radio contended that while facts can be checked and verified and reasonably be shown to be correct, but truth is more subjective and hard to pin down. This inspired a train of thought.

I believe in science as a way of understanding the world. Science approaches a problem by forming a hypothesis and collecting facts to see how well it fits. If most of the facts align, the hypothesis is strenthened. If there are facts that don't fit and there's a pattern to those facts, it points to a way to refine the hypothsis, or possibly even throw it out and start over. But in most sets of data, there are a few outliers -- measurements that are way outside the range of most of the data. If the data can be graphed on a scatter plot, there's a very heavy concentration of points along the expected line, but there are just a few apparently randomly around the graph. If there are few enough outliers, we consider the hypothesis valid despite these outliers.

In politics, on the other hand, we focus much more on the outliers rather than going with the general trend. If a debater can present a single fact that disagrees with an opponent's point of view, and that fact is verified, it's considered a valid argument (at least to one side of the question). There is little attempt to see the general pattern and ignore the outliers.

This problem is very much driven by the way the media work. Ordinary events -- those in the main blob of data points on the scatter plot -- aren't newsworthy because they're common. Outliers, because they are novel, receive far more attention than they generally deserve; and this tends to reinforce extreme viewpoints by reinforcing them with outlier examples. For example, consider how many people worry about how dangerous air travel is but never pay attention to how dangerous car travel is. This happens because plane crashes are so rare that every one is going to get media attention, while car crashes are so common that they're hardly ever mentioned.

Truth is somewhat subjective and squishy, but a reasonable view of the truth should be formed by considering the ordinary majority of the facts rather than concentrating on the outliers.

Gun Control

May. 8th, 2017 12:11 pm
When you are holding a gun, everything looks like a target. Responsible gun ownership means recognizing this tendency and controlling it.

I mean this seriously, not humorously. I do not mean no one should have guns. Everyone I know who has guns is responsible by this metric. Responsible owners are still human and can make mistakes, but I assert that most of the gun crime we hear about is caused by irresponsible owners who should not have guns. The real issue of gun control is how to keep the irresponsible from having guns without taking away the rights of the responsible.
I do not normally read The Oatmeal, but a friend pointed me to this strip. I find it thought provoking and worth reading. Be warned that it is very long, despite being called a comic, and (as the first part imprecates) you need to read the whole thing.



August 2017

2021 2223242526


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags