A British study finds a benevolent link between vegetarian diet and cancer. We investigate the report.
Source: The Straits Times, 2/7/9, p.A21
Headline: Vegetarians less likely to get cancer
Quote1
LONDON: Vegetarians are 12 percent less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters and the advantage is particularly marked when it comes to cancers of the blood, British researchers said yesterday. ...
Comment1
This is the news point. Now let's look at the details -- before deciding if we want to suddenly turn vegetarian.
Quote2
The new study, entitled Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, involved more than 60,000 people and it confirmed a lower risk of both stomach and bladder cancer for vegetarians, Reuters reported. ...
Comment2
The study is limited to British vegetarians. It may not apply elsewhere. It has a large sample of 60,000, which increases its generalizability over the population of British vegetarians.
Quote3
The most striking and surprising difference was in cancers of the blood ... where the risk of disease was 45 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters. ...
Comment3
The drop is greatest in blood cancers.
Quote4
The ...effect ... did not seem to stretch to bowel cancer. ... And the study found that the incidence of cervix cancer was two times higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
Comment4
Bowel cancer is unaffected; and it's worse for cervix cancer.
Quote5
Prof Key and his co-authors, from universities in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, followed 61,566 meat eaters and vegetarians for over 12 years, during which 3,350 of the participants were diagnosed with cancer.
Comment5
Of 61,566 persons, 3,350 developed cancer. This is an incidence rate of 5.44 percent -- or one in 18.4 chance, regardless of diet.
Quote6
"At the moment, these findings are not strong enough to ask for particularly large changes in the diets of people following an average balanced diet," Prof Key was quoted as saying by the BBC.
Comment6
Well, here's the bottom line: No need to rush into vegetarian mode -- if you're British.
END
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Is a photograph also a painting?
The recent UOB Painting of the Year contest was won by a set of photographs. Some find this odd, others do not. We investigate.
Source: The Sunday Times, 5/7/9, p.7
Headline: Stir over photo win in painting contest
Quote1
A series of photographs have again won United Overseas Bank's (UOB) Painting of the Year competition. ...
Comment1
This sets the context.
Quote2
Yesterday, art enthusiast Gong Pan Pan, 23, said: "I think the title of the competition becomes very misleading if they keep awarding the top prize of a painting competition to a photograph. If the competition has changed its focus from painting to image in general, it should be renamed." ...
Comment2
The claim is straightforward. A painting competition should be won by a painting. More generally, a word must be correctly applied, or defined.
Quote3
Lecturer and artist Hong Sek Chern, 42, suggested that the term "painting" could be defined simply by its presentation of being hung on a wall. She did not mind the expansion of its definition. She said: "If the judges accept a sculpture hanging on a wall as a painting, it would be fine." "As a painter, I feel that it is very exciting for photography to push the limits of painting." Miss Hong added that this concept of hanging a sculpture on a wall had in fact already been done elsewhere.
Comment3
The suggestion is to define "painting" as "anything presented by being hung on a wall". On this definition, a photograph is a painting if it is hung on a wall. So also a sculpture, which have been done elsewhere. Think of other items that have been hung on walls. Would you consider them paintings too?
Quote4
Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts president Choo Thiam Siew said that the public must accept the changing concept of a traditional painting. ... "Photos are no longer just beautiful pictures of idyllic scenes. Nowadays, they have strong, impactful messages. To me, a photograph becomes a piece of art if it has something to say, brings out an issue, and has the feeling of the artist in it."
Comment4
This suggestion is that (photograph + something to say + brings out an issue + has artist's feelings) is a (piece of art). But is it a painting? We are not told.
Quote5
Indeed, one of the judges, Mr Koichi Yasunaga, ... did note that the painting submissions were not as "impactful" as the photographs. ...
Comment5
"Impact" is now suggested as another criterion -- but for (photograph) or for (piece of art)?
Quote6
Visual artist Michael Lee, 37, ... said: "The photograph won, not because it was a photograph but because it was a critical and innovative expression of the artist's interest."
Comment6
We have more criteria: (critical expression + innovative expression + artist's interest). Again, are these criteria for (painting) or (piece of art)?
Quote7
Pausing, he said that perhaps the name of the competition could be changed to perhaps "2-D Art of the Year" or "Image of the Year". But then he saw how this could be a problem too. He said: "2-D Art of the Year sounds very crude, while some images could be text-based."
Comment7
An alternative to redefining "painting" is to rename the competition -- but both these suggestions also run into problems.
Comment8
Socrates was concerned with discovering the correct definitions of terms. Confucius was concerned with the rectification of names. Ambiguity is the source of much confusion and conflict in life. It behoves us to use language clearly and precisely.
Is this competition intended to be a search for excellence in a specific medium, or a search for artistic excellence in general? Once this is clearly understood, it will be a straightforward matter to give the competition its correct name.
What ought not happen is that this linguistic haze continue to linger.
END
Source: The Sunday Times, 5/7/9, p.7
Headline: Stir over photo win in painting contest
Quote1
A series of photographs have again won United Overseas Bank's (UOB) Painting of the Year competition. ...
Comment1
This sets the context.
Quote2
Yesterday, art enthusiast Gong Pan Pan, 23, said: "I think the title of the competition becomes very misleading if they keep awarding the top prize of a painting competition to a photograph. If the competition has changed its focus from painting to image in general, it should be renamed." ...
Comment2
The claim is straightforward. A painting competition should be won by a painting. More generally, a word must be correctly applied, or defined.
Quote3
Lecturer and artist Hong Sek Chern, 42, suggested that the term "painting" could be defined simply by its presentation of being hung on a wall. She did not mind the expansion of its definition. She said: "If the judges accept a sculpture hanging on a wall as a painting, it would be fine." "As a painter, I feel that it is very exciting for photography to push the limits of painting." Miss Hong added that this concept of hanging a sculpture on a wall had in fact already been done elsewhere.
Comment3
The suggestion is to define "painting" as "anything presented by being hung on a wall". On this definition, a photograph is a painting if it is hung on a wall. So also a sculpture, which have been done elsewhere. Think of other items that have been hung on walls. Would you consider them paintings too?
Quote4
Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts president Choo Thiam Siew said that the public must accept the changing concept of a traditional painting. ... "Photos are no longer just beautiful pictures of idyllic scenes. Nowadays, they have strong, impactful messages. To me, a photograph becomes a piece of art if it has something to say, brings out an issue, and has the feeling of the artist in it."
Comment4
This suggestion is that (photograph + something to say + brings out an issue + has artist's feelings) is a (piece of art). But is it a painting? We are not told.
Quote5
Indeed, one of the judges, Mr Koichi Yasunaga, ... did note that the painting submissions were not as "impactful" as the photographs. ...
Comment5
"Impact" is now suggested as another criterion -- but for (photograph) or for (piece of art)?
Quote6
Visual artist Michael Lee, 37, ... said: "The photograph won, not because it was a photograph but because it was a critical and innovative expression of the artist's interest."
Comment6
We have more criteria: (critical expression + innovative expression + artist's interest). Again, are these criteria for (painting) or (piece of art)?
Quote7
Pausing, he said that perhaps the name of the competition could be changed to perhaps "2-D Art of the Year" or "Image of the Year". But then he saw how this could be a problem too. He said: "2-D Art of the Year sounds very crude, while some images could be text-based."
Comment7
An alternative to redefining "painting" is to rename the competition -- but both these suggestions also run into problems.
Comment8
Socrates was concerned with discovering the correct definitions of terms. Confucius was concerned with the rectification of names. Ambiguity is the source of much confusion and conflict in life. It behoves us to use language clearly and precisely.
Is this competition intended to be a search for excellence in a specific medium, or a search for artistic excellence in general? Once this is clearly understood, it will be a straightforward matter to give the competition its correct name.
What ought not happen is that this linguistic haze continue to linger.
END
Water, water everywhere ... and not a drop to drink
Some diners are upset over some restaurants not offering free tap water to their patrons. Restaurants defend themselves. We analyse the arguments.
Source: The Sunday Times, 12/7/9, p.11
Headline: All stirred up over drinking water in restaurants
Quote1
A blogger, upset that a restaurant would not serve her tap water which she needed to take her medication with, is urging diners to boycott such outlets. Miss Veron Ang -- urged on by some netizens -- went further and posted on her blog a list of 62 restaurants that she claimed do not serve free water. ...
Comment1
This is the context.
Quote2
The managing director of Italian restaurant La Forketta, Ms Gracie Vitalie, said: "Our patrons are serious diners and come for our food, not to taste water. It's the customer with a budget who insists on tap water." She added that, outside Singapore, "nobody really asks for tap water". ...
Comment2
There are two arguments here.
Argument1
Premiss1: If (serious diner), then (not request tap water)
Premiss2: Serious diner
Conclusion1: Hence, (not request tap water) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: If (not request tap water), then (not serve tap water)
Premiss4: Not request tap water [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (not serve tap water)
Both parts of this argument use the Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument form, and hence are valid. If Premisses 1, 2 and 3 are all true, then Conclusion2 will also be true.
Argument2
The statement "nobody outside Singapore really asks for tap water" is an assertion that stands or falls depending on the actual state of the world. If the statement is intended to be a basis for "Hence, people in Singapore should not ask for tap water", then the argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery) and must be rejected.
Quote3
Mr Jack Chin, co-founder of Mad Jack's, said his chain of four restaurants does not serve free water because manpower is needed to refill and wash the glasses. He added: "People who complain are not educated about business costs because nothing is free". ...
Comment3
There are also two arguments here.
Argument3
Premiss1: If (free water), then (more manpower)
Premiss2: Not-(more manpower)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(free water)
This argument has the valid Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P) argument form. If Premisses 1, 2 are true, then the conclusion is also true.
Argument4
Premiss1: If (educated), then (not complain)
Premiss2: Complain = Not-(not complain)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(educated)
This also has the valid Modus Tollens argument form. Premiss2 is true. If Premiss1 is also true, then the conclusion is also true.
Quote4
Sales manager Renee Koh, 32, said: "Serving plain water for free should really be part of the service experience and I find it hard to think that the costs are that high, given that the water served is just chilled tap water."
Comment4
This is a rebuttal of Argument4 Premiss1, suggesting that the educated patron will see free tap water as part of the service, and will complain of poor service if free tap water is not provided.
Quote5
Mr Aun Koh, director of media and lifestyle consultancy Ate Media which published Asia's first restaurant guide The Miele Guide, said: "In Singapore, there is ... no reason other than an attempt to increase revenues for restaurateurs to refuse to offer tap water to their patrons."
Comment5
This is an assertion, and is not offered as part of any argument.
END
Source: The Sunday Times, 12/7/9, p.11
Headline: All stirred up over drinking water in restaurants
Quote1
A blogger, upset that a restaurant would not serve her tap water which she needed to take her medication with, is urging diners to boycott such outlets. Miss Veron Ang -- urged on by some netizens -- went further and posted on her blog a list of 62 restaurants that she claimed do not serve free water. ...
Comment1
This is the context.
Quote2
The managing director of Italian restaurant La Forketta, Ms Gracie Vitalie, said: "Our patrons are serious diners and come for our food, not to taste water. It's the customer with a budget who insists on tap water." She added that, outside Singapore, "nobody really asks for tap water". ...
Comment2
There are two arguments here.
Argument1
Premiss1: If (serious diner), then (not request tap water)
Premiss2: Serious diner
Conclusion1: Hence, (not request tap water) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: If (not request tap water), then (not serve tap water)
Premiss4: Not request tap water [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (not serve tap water)
Both parts of this argument use the Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument form, and hence are valid. If Premisses 1, 2 and 3 are all true, then Conclusion2 will also be true.
Argument2
The statement "nobody outside Singapore really asks for tap water" is an assertion that stands or falls depending on the actual state of the world. If the statement is intended to be a basis for "Hence, people in Singapore should not ask for tap water", then the argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery) and must be rejected.
Quote3
Mr Jack Chin, co-founder of Mad Jack's, said his chain of four restaurants does not serve free water because manpower is needed to refill and wash the glasses. He added: "People who complain are not educated about business costs because nothing is free". ...
Comment3
There are also two arguments here.
Argument3
Premiss1: If (free water), then (more manpower)
Premiss2: Not-(more manpower)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(free water)
This argument has the valid Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P) argument form. If Premisses 1, 2 are true, then the conclusion is also true.
Argument4
Premiss1: If (educated), then (not complain)
Premiss2: Complain = Not-(not complain)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(educated)
This also has the valid Modus Tollens argument form. Premiss2 is true. If Premiss1 is also true, then the conclusion is also true.
Quote4
Sales manager Renee Koh, 32, said: "Serving plain water for free should really be part of the service experience and I find it hard to think that the costs are that high, given that the water served is just chilled tap water."
Comment4
This is a rebuttal of Argument4 Premiss1, suggesting that the educated patron will see free tap water as part of the service, and will complain of poor service if free tap water is not provided.
Quote5
Mr Aun Koh, director of media and lifestyle consultancy Ate Media which published Asia's first restaurant guide The Miele Guide, said: "In Singapore, there is ... no reason other than an attempt to increase revenues for restaurateurs to refuse to offer tap water to their patrons."
Comment5
This is an assertion, and is not offered as part of any argument.
END
Friday, June 19, 2009
What is marriage?
This is the second question that we discuss in my philosophy cafe session of 17 June 2009.
This question is one of definition. We distinguish two types of definition: descriptive vs prescriptive. A descriptive definition says what is the case. A prescriptive definition says what should be the case.
We tackle the descriptive definition first.
A marriage is defined as a legal union of two persons, a man and a woman. No, there are polygamous societies, both in the past and at present. So, a marriage is defined as a legal union of two or more persons. What about the phrase "legal union"? What does that feature? A legal union creates a claim over property, money, children and social recognition.
We move on to the prescriptive description.
There is great controversy here, centred around the gender composition of the union. Some say marriage should be between men and women, that is, heterosexual. Some say marriage should also be allowed between persons of the same gender, be it male-male or female-female. We need to inquire into the reasons behind each prescription.
Man-woman marriage is because of procreation, societal norms, children's legitimacy; as well as for love and sex. Man-man and woman-woman marriage is for love and sex.
But which standard qualifies as an appropriate prescription? That is a meta-ethical question. We decide to end the discussion at this point.
The next philosophy cafe session will be on 15 July 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This question is one of definition. We distinguish two types of definition: descriptive vs prescriptive. A descriptive definition says what is the case. A prescriptive definition says what should be the case.
We tackle the descriptive definition first.
A marriage is defined as a legal union of two persons, a man and a woman. No, there are polygamous societies, both in the past and at present. So, a marriage is defined as a legal union of two or more persons. What about the phrase "legal union"? What does that feature? A legal union creates a claim over property, money, children and social recognition.
We move on to the prescriptive description.
There is great controversy here, centred around the gender composition of the union. Some say marriage should be between men and women, that is, heterosexual. Some say marriage should also be allowed between persons of the same gender, be it male-male or female-female. We need to inquire into the reasons behind each prescription.
Man-woman marriage is because of procreation, societal norms, children's legitimacy; as well as for love and sex. Man-man and woman-woman marriage is for love and sex.
But which standard qualifies as an appropriate prescription? That is a meta-ethical question. We decide to end the discussion at this point.
The next philosophy cafe session will be on 15 July 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
Is capitalism good?
This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 17 June 2009. A popular vote decides the Question of the Evening: Is capitalism good?
We define "good" as "that which promotes the general advancement of mankind".
Capitalism is good because it allows the best to prevail, and having the best prevail advances mankind. Capitalism is good also because it enables a country to work (that is, to not fail). Examples are China and Vietnam. This too advances mankind.
Capitalism is not good, because it promotes elitism and segregation, which do not advance mankind. This is just the flip side of allowing the best to prevail -- some must die out. It is not in the interest of capitalism to kill off the common man -- who are needed as the customers of capitalism. However, the worst will be driven out. This is the price of advancement; it does not mean there is a lack of compassion. To cultivate a garden of roses, it is necessary to remove the weeds. We do not lament: "poor weeds".
But what about the example of the US? It is the foremost capitalist country in the world, and it is also the origin of the current global economic trouble. How is that good? Well, this is a small step in the evolution of mankind. Capitalism does not allow stagnation. The capitalist world will move on, and it will advance. It is good.
We still have time. We take on a second question: What is marriage?
[Please see other post.]
We define "good" as "that which promotes the general advancement of mankind".
Capitalism is good because it allows the best to prevail, and having the best prevail advances mankind. Capitalism is good also because it enables a country to work (that is, to not fail). Examples are China and Vietnam. This too advances mankind.
Capitalism is not good, because it promotes elitism and segregation, which do not advance mankind. This is just the flip side of allowing the best to prevail -- some must die out. It is not in the interest of capitalism to kill off the common man -- who are needed as the customers of capitalism. However, the worst will be driven out. This is the price of advancement; it does not mean there is a lack of compassion. To cultivate a garden of roses, it is necessary to remove the weeds. We do not lament: "poor weeds".
But what about the example of the US? It is the foremost capitalist country in the world, and it is also the origin of the current global economic trouble. How is that good? Well, this is a small step in the evolution of mankind. Capitalism does not allow stagnation. The capitalist world will move on, and it will advance. It is good.
We still have time. We take on a second question: What is marriage?
[Please see other post.]
On workers who "job-hop"
One letter writer comments on a news story about workers from China who change jobs. We analyse the comment.
Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)
Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".
Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.
Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...
Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.
Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...
Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:
Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.
Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.
Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.
Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.
Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.
Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.
Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.
The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.
1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors
These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.
Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 18/6/9, p.A25 (letters)
Headline: Why can't they job-hop?
Writer: Stephanie Chok (Ms)
Quote1
I refer to Tuesday's article, "Quit a job, fly home ... then return to a higher paid one", which describes foreign workers from China embroiled in wage disputes as "job-hoppers".
Comment1
This tells us the topic to be discussed: foreign workers from China who are called "job-hoppers". The writer's position is not revealed.
Quote2
First, the article neglects the underlying push factors workers cite when leaving such exploitative jobs. [A list of push factors follows.] ...
Comment2
Many of these workers leave their jobs because of various push factors. What follows from this piece of information? The argument is not completed. We shall not speculate on the intended thrust.
Quote3
Second, glibly describing foreign workers as "job-hoppers" ignores the fact that the work permit system makes this a difficult and expensive task. [A list of difficulties follows.] ...
Comment3
The phrase "glibly describing" suggests that the intended conclusion is that these workers are not "job-hoppers". We are given a second piece of information: the work permit system makes job-hopping difficult. So, here's the argument:
Reason: The work permit system makes job-hopping difficult.
Conclusion: The foreign workers are not job-hoppers.
Does the reason entail the conclusion? The fact that some action is difficult does not entail that no one can do it. There is nothing in the concept "job-hopper" that says it must have been easily achieved. The reason does not entail the conclusion. The argument fails.
Quote4
When white-collar professionals leave one job for another, whether due to better pay, career enhancement opportunities or greater job fulfulment, this is viewed as pragmatic and reasonable. ... Yet when foreign workers on work permits leave jobs with poor working conditions and low pay to seek better opportunities, this is viewed as unreasonable.
Comment4
A contrast is drawn. The argument is not completed. We pend this.
Quote5
Instead of treating workers fairly and paying them better, companies cite cash flow problems and logistics. While such claims may be true, this should not excuse violations of employment law such as withholding pay.
Comment5
This says that "cash flow problems and logistics" should not excuse "withholding pay". There is no supporting argument for this position. It is not connected to anything else in the letter.
Quote6
Moreover, there is a double standard at work here that requires deeper examination.
Comment6
The "double standard" appears to refer to the contrast drawn in Quote4, and to suggest that the same action (leave jobs) should receive the same evaluation (reasonable or unreasonable). The writer says this needs "deeper examination", but does not provide it. We shall attempt this.
The "double standard" charge relies on the principle of justice that says "equals to be treated equally". Let us compare the two groups. While they are equal in (leave job), they are different in other respects.
1. white collar vs blue collar (?)
2. pull factors vs push factors
These differences are clearly seen in Quote4. They have not been ruled out as irrelevant, nor are they intuitively relevant & significant. Hence, no conclusion can be drawn.
Conclusion
The only argument present is seen in Quote3; and that argument fails.
END
What rules for MPs and companies?
British MPs are caught in an expenses scandal despite a comprehensive code of ethics. What went wrong? We analyse one commentator's view.
Source: Today, 15/6/9, p.B5
Headline: Avoid the KPI trap
Writer: John Bittleston
Quote1
A 72-page guide tells MPs what they may charge the taxpayer. ... Why, then, are so many British MPs and Ministers having to repay money, with several resigning? ...
Comment1
This poses the question. Now for the answer.
Quote2
Seventy-two pages were ... too many. Any rule book incites us to find a way around those rules we do not like. ...
Comment2
Two answers asserted:
1. Too many rules.
2. People seek loopholes.
Quote3
To make measurement work for us ... requires that we know what measures are relevant. ... A frightening example is of an overseas hospital that met its key performance indicators (KPIs) consistently for several years but ... the hospital's KPIs did not include saving life or making patients tolerably comfortable or clean. ...
Comment3
A third answer is proposed:
3. Irrelevant rules (this is illustrated by an example)
Quote4
As soon as you draw up rules, everyone looks for what is missing as well as what is there. ...
Comment4
An earlier answer if re-asserted: People seek loopholes.
Quote5
Not all rules are bad; many are essential. The highway would become a battlefield if the rules of the road were not strictly observed. But no amount of highway codes can replace careful driving.
Comment5
The example if the highway is cited to show that it is essential to have some rules (but not 72 pages of them). Then it is asserted that nothing can replace "careful driving".
Quote6
No books of rules can substitute for a commonsense view of how we should behave.
Comment6
The analogy is completed: "careful driving" translates into "commonsense view of how we should behave". What is propounded here is a "commonsense ethics".
Quote7
Defining the line too clearly between honoured and broken trust is not the way to go. Let each person find the line for himself or herself, and let the courts decide if someone has stepped over it. Then let the penalty for a Breach of Trust be of such deterrence that we all keep well behind the line.
Comment7
"Defining the line too clearly" refers to "having too many rules". This is not the way to go. "Let each person find the line" refers to having a commonsense ethics. Courts should rule on possible transgressions, and penalties should be severe enough to be deterrents.
Notice that the points about irrelevant rules and highway rules do not figure in this solution. The basis of this solution is the analogy with highway rules. Analogies are the weakest type of argument -- and work only so long as the similarity stands. Does the similarity stand?
I have two further questions:
1. How is the court to rule on transgressions if we are to "let each person find the line"?
2. Once we have a collection of court rulings, do we not have a comprehensive set of rules?
END
Source: Today, 15/6/9, p.B5
Headline: Avoid the KPI trap
Writer: John Bittleston
Quote1
A 72-page guide tells MPs what they may charge the taxpayer. ... Why, then, are so many British MPs and Ministers having to repay money, with several resigning? ...
Comment1
This poses the question. Now for the answer.
Quote2
Seventy-two pages were ... too many. Any rule book incites us to find a way around those rules we do not like. ...
Comment2
Two answers asserted:
1. Too many rules.
2. People seek loopholes.
Quote3
To make measurement work for us ... requires that we know what measures are relevant. ... A frightening example is of an overseas hospital that met its key performance indicators (KPIs) consistently for several years but ... the hospital's KPIs did not include saving life or making patients tolerably comfortable or clean. ...
Comment3
A third answer is proposed:
3. Irrelevant rules (this is illustrated by an example)
Quote4
As soon as you draw up rules, everyone looks for what is missing as well as what is there. ...
Comment4
An earlier answer if re-asserted: People seek loopholes.
Quote5
Not all rules are bad; many are essential. The highway would become a battlefield if the rules of the road were not strictly observed. But no amount of highway codes can replace careful driving.
Comment5
The example if the highway is cited to show that it is essential to have some rules (but not 72 pages of them). Then it is asserted that nothing can replace "careful driving".
Quote6
No books of rules can substitute for a commonsense view of how we should behave.
Comment6
The analogy is completed: "careful driving" translates into "commonsense view of how we should behave". What is propounded here is a "commonsense ethics".
Quote7
Defining the line too clearly between honoured and broken trust is not the way to go. Let each person find the line for himself or herself, and let the courts decide if someone has stepped over it. Then let the penalty for a Breach of Trust be of such deterrence that we all keep well behind the line.
Comment7
"Defining the line too clearly" refers to "having too many rules". This is not the way to go. "Let each person find the line" refers to having a commonsense ethics. Courts should rule on possible transgressions, and penalties should be severe enough to be deterrents.
Notice that the points about irrelevant rules and highway rules do not figure in this solution. The basis of this solution is the analogy with highway rules. Analogies are the weakest type of argument -- and work only so long as the similarity stands. Does the similarity stand?
I have two further questions:
1. How is the court to rule on transgressions if we are to "let each person find the line"?
2. Once we have a collection of court rulings, do we not have a comprehensive set of rules?
END
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Invitation to philosophy cafe
What is a philosophy cafe?
Philosophy cafe is an event. The word "cafe" refers to its informal atmosphere (though the event can also be held in an actual cafe, as in this case). It's the "philosophy" part I must explain. Many today see philosophy as "pretentious stuff that nobody understands, or needs to understand". There is some truth in this. Academic philosophy has distanced itself from real people and their concerns. Many philosophers are now actively returning philosophy to the people, for example, through philosophy cafes. Philosophy is also a process, that of rationally and rigorously seeking the truth and right -- the process of clear thought. It is this process that underlies my cafe format (each philosophy cafe is uniquely designed by its philosopher/host).
Our format
I invite participants to suggest questions for discussion. A popular vote decides the Question for the Evening. (I have one taboo topic: Singapore.) Discussion begins. My job is to ensure the discussion is rational and rigorous (though less technical than my argument analyses in this blog -- that requires some training). My own participation is minimal. The session officially ends at 10pm, but participants are welcome to continue discussion, and socialisation. About a week later, I post a summary report on this blog (follow tag: philosophy cafe report).
Who is the host?
Mr Lau Kwong Fook holds an MA in Philosophy from University of Canterbury. His life mission is to promote clear thought.
Who can attend?
All are welcome. The only requirements are competence in English, an open mind, and curiosity.
When, where, how much?
Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Third Wednesday of each month, 8-10pm.
Free admission.
Personal expenses for food & beverage.
Future dates
In 2009: 17 June, 15 July, 19 August, 16 September, 21 October, 18 November, 16 December.
Hope to see you there!
Philosophy cafe is an event. The word "cafe" refers to its informal atmosphere (though the event can also be held in an actual cafe, as in this case). It's the "philosophy" part I must explain. Many today see philosophy as "pretentious stuff that nobody understands, or needs to understand". There is some truth in this. Academic philosophy has distanced itself from real people and their concerns. Many philosophers are now actively returning philosophy to the people, for example, through philosophy cafes. Philosophy is also a process, that of rationally and rigorously seeking the truth and right -- the process of clear thought. It is this process that underlies my cafe format (each philosophy cafe is uniquely designed by its philosopher/host).
Our format
I invite participants to suggest questions for discussion. A popular vote decides the Question for the Evening. (I have one taboo topic: Singapore.) Discussion begins. My job is to ensure the discussion is rational and rigorous (though less technical than my argument analyses in this blog -- that requires some training). My own participation is minimal. The session officially ends at 10pm, but participants are welcome to continue discussion, and socialisation. About a week later, I post a summary report on this blog (follow tag: philosophy cafe report).
Who is the host?
Mr Lau Kwong Fook holds an MA in Philosophy from University of Canterbury. His life mission is to promote clear thought.
Who can attend?
All are welcome. The only requirements are competence in English, an open mind, and curiosity.
When, where, how much?
Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Third Wednesday of each month, 8-10pm.
Free admission.
Personal expenses for food & beverage.
Future dates
In 2009: 17 June, 15 July, 19 August, 16 September, 21 October, 18 November, 16 December.
Hope to see you there!
Are we recovering?
Source: The Straits Times, 29/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Stability returning to US economy: Obama
Quote
Mr Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland, said the Obama administration was overselling the gains from the stimulus. "My feeling is that it hasn't had much of an impact yet. That doesn't mean it won't, but I don't think it'll be very large." -- Reuters.
Comment
"The past does not guarantee the future" is precisely the weakness of the everyday belief that "the future will be like the past", but this belief is necessary for everyday life. We should be aware of this weakness, and be prepared for change -- but should not commit the fallacy of assuming that change will surely occur.
END
Headline: Stability returning to US economy: Obama
Quote
Mr Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland, said the Obama administration was overselling the gains from the stimulus. "My feeling is that it hasn't had much of an impact yet. That doesn't mean it won't, but I don't think it'll be very large." -- Reuters.
Comment
"The past does not guarantee the future" is precisely the weakness of the everyday belief that "the future will be like the past", but this belief is necessary for everyday life. We should be aware of this weakness, and be prepared for change -- but should not commit the fallacy of assuming that change will surely occur.
END
What's the cause of diabetes?
Source: The Straits Times, 29/5/9, p.B14
Headline: Young in Asia more prone to diabetes
Quote
A separate study on the disease in Europe showed that the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children aged under five in Europe is set to double by 2020 over 2005 levels while cases among the under-15s will rise by 70 percent. ... The paper, published online by the British journal The Lancet, said the increase is so dramatic that it cannot be attributed to genes alone. Instead, "modern lifestyle habits" are the likely culprits, it said. -- AP, AFP.
Comment
Here's the formal argument.
Premiss1: If (just genes), then (undramatic rise)
Premiss2: Not-(dramatic rise)
Conclusion1: Hence, not-(just genes) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: Either (just genes) or (lifestyle)
Premiss4: Not-(just genes) [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (lifestyle)
END
Headline: Young in Asia more prone to diabetes
Quote
A separate study on the disease in Europe showed that the incidence of Type 1 diabetes in children aged under five in Europe is set to double by 2020 over 2005 levels while cases among the under-15s will rise by 70 percent. ... The paper, published online by the British journal The Lancet, said the increase is so dramatic that it cannot be attributed to genes alone. Instead, "modern lifestyle habits" are the likely culprits, it said. -- AP, AFP.
Comment
Here's the formal argument.
Premiss1: If (just genes), then (undramatic rise)
Premiss2: Not-(dramatic rise)
Conclusion1: Hence, not-(just genes) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: Either (just genes) or (lifestyle)
Premiss4: Not-(just genes) [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (lifestyle)
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
