This is a report of the philosophy café session on 16 December 2009. The topic for the evening is: What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?
Is “cheating” only physical? We cannot separate the physical from the non-physical. The thought of cheating is already cheating. Let’s be specific, thoughts of what? Thoughts of dinner, dating, sex – are these all physical?
Our first try at defining “cheating”: It is the undermining of the exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
Is a relationship confined to two persons? No, it can be more than two.
Exclusiveness is a state of mind, the thought of being exclusive, of belonging to the group (may be two, or more). Belonging means not having any intimate physical relationship outside the group. Intimate physical relationship means touch, including sex and holding hands; but not flirting (because no touch involved).
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship.
What if a couple uses a third person to have a child?
One husband is allowed to have extramarital sex provided he uses condoms, pays for the sex, and is home by 7am the next day. This arrangement is with the wife’s agreement – even though she is unhappy about it.
Is agreement important in cheating? If there is agreement, then the relationship is not undermined. Therefore, there is no cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without agreement from the group.
Some Hong Kong millionaires maintain several mistresses, with their wives’ agreement. It is economic circumstances that force the wives to agree. It is not a freely granted agreement.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group.
Is knowledge of the act important? If the other persons in the group know about it, then it is not cheating. It is cheating only if the other persons in the group do not know about the alleged cheating act.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, and without the other persons in the group knowing about it.
What about intention to start another relationship? Yes, if there is such an intention, then it is cheating; if there is not such an intention, then it is not cheating.
Cheating is the undermining of the tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about people who engage in wife swapping? There is freely granted agreement, there is knowledge, and there is no intention to start a new relationship. Is such wife swapping arrangements cases of cheating? On the present definition, it is not cheating.
What about colleagues who like, even “love”, each other, but who never touch each other? Is this cheating? On our present definition, it is not cheating.
What if a member of the group gets raped? Has she (or he) cheated? We run through the criteria. There is touch, it is with someone outside the group, there is no freely granted agreement, the group do not know about it, and there is no intention to start another relationship. By the current definition, the rape victim is guilty of cheating.
We are aghast at this result. The definition needs to be further improved, specifically the criterion of touch (captured in the criterion of exclusivity).
It is not cheating if the touch is forced upon the person being touched.
Cheating is the undermining of the unforced tactile exclusiveness of a romantic relationship without freely granted agreement from the group, without the other persons in the group knowing about it, and with the intention to start another relationship.
What about internet liaisons? There is no touch involved. It is not cheating.
But it is cheating! We have to change the “touch” criterion. Exclusivity should be defined as “behaviours or thoughts that fulfill romantic or sexual desires”. This will make internet liaisons instances of cheating.
This definition will also make cheating include the reading of romantic novels, having crushes on someone, becoming fanatical over movie characters in films like Twilight, and even autoeroticism.
This result is absurd! This amendment must be rejected.
It is 10pm. Discussion stops here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. I define philosophy as "the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth". Participants choose the topic by a popular vote. There is no prerequisite, educational or otherwise -- except for that of a curious mind. It's free admission, with personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome. Our next philosophy cafe session is on 20 January 2010. I hope to see you there.
Friday, 18 December 2009
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Should laws on Federal Reserve be changed?
US Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke and others comment on proposed legislation covering the central bank. We analyse the comments.
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Headline: Fed fix flawed: Bernanke
Source: Today, 30/11/9
Quote1
WASHINGTON: In a commentary in the Washington Post yesterday, he [chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben S Bernanke] sharply criticised a Senate provision that he said "would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers" and a House provision to repeal a 30-year-old law "to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence". "A number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions," he said. The measures "would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US". ...
Comment1
We here see the start of a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument.
Argument A
If (pass new laws), then the following consequences:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions
4. seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US
The unsaid part of the argument is that these consequences are all undesirable, and hence the proposed laws should not be passed. The problem now is that even when these are said, the argument is still incomplete. A complete teleological argument must consider all consequences to all affected parties, and only then should a decision be made, based on the nett benefit or pain caused by the proposed action (in this case passing the new laws).
Quote2
The 55-year-old Fed chairman has presided over the most expansive use of Fed powers since the Great Depression. While he has averted a financial meltdown, lawmakers and voters have voiced concern about taxpayer-sponsored bailouts and proposed the most sweeping dismantling of Fed authority since the creation of the institution in 1913. ...
Comment2
It turns out that the proposed laws are precisely designed to dismantle Fed authority. This being the case, Consequences 1, 2, 3 identified by Bernanke in Quote1 above are precisely the intended consequences. All Bernanke has achieved with his comments is confirm that the proposed laws will achieve their aims. What he needed to do was show that these three consequences are undesirable, and this he has not done. However, Bernanke's alleged Consequence 4 (seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the US) is not affected.
Quote3
"Now more than ever, America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation," he [Bernanke] argued.
Comment3a
Now Bernanke strongly implies that the above Consequences 1, 2, 3 are undesirable. Since "America needs a strong, non-political and independent central bank", we clearly cannot:
1. strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers
2. un-protect monetary policy from short-term political influence
3. significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.
Comment3b
But this raises a philosophical question: If the central bank is to be "non-political", then to whom is it answerable? Surely a central bank must answer to the government, and a government must, by definition, be political.
Quote4
Senate Banking Committee [sic] Christopher Dodd and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank have, however, criticised the Fed for lax supervision and want to create a single bank regulator -- a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Comment4
We have a new argument:
Argument B
Premiss1: If (Fed performs lax supervision), then (create new agency)
Premiss2: Fed performs lax supervision
Conclusion: Therefore, create new agency
This is a Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument. It is valid. All that remains is to prove the two premisses true. No proof to this effect is offered.
Quote5
As economist Allan Meltzer, a Fed historian and professor at Carnegie Mellon University, said in an interview: "Congress has a lot of public support for an attack on the Fed ... They bailed out everybody in sight."
Comment5
"Public support" boils down to popularity. This is not an issue that should be settled by popularity. Here there should be a consideration of right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Hence, the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum has been committed, and this argument should be rejected.
Quote6
However, Mr James Glassman, senior economist ad JPMorgan Chase noted that while "the political pressure on the Fed is out there", the Fed "has done a very remarkable job managing the financial crisis and the recovery of the financial markets is a testimony to that. Of all the things to 'fix', why would we tamper with the one that actually has worked well?" -- The New York Times, Bloomberg.
Comment6a
"The political pressure on the Fed is out there" again refers to popularity, and is correctly ignored.
Comment6b
Here is the next argument:
Argument C
Premiss1: If (Fed is done a good job), then (no need to change laws)
Premiss2: Fed has done a good job [from Conclusion2]
Conclusion1: Hence, no need to change laws.
Premiss3: If (financial markets recover), then (Fed has done a good job)
Premiss4: Financial markets recover
Conclusion2: Hence, Fed has done a good job [to Premise2]
Both arguments have the Modus Ponens form, and are therefore valid. The premisses seem intuitively to be true. The arguments are sound, and therefore succeed.
Case analysis
Argument A: Consequences 1, 2, 3 rebutted. Consequence 4 stands. But the argument is incomplete, and raises the philosophical question of to whom should a central bank be answerable. In limbo.
Argument B: The argument is valid, but premisses not shown to be true. In limbo.
Quote5 commits the Argumentum ad Populum. Rejected.
Argument C succeeds.
Verdict: No need to change Federal Reserve laws.
END
Saturday, 21 November 2009
What is marriage?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 18 November 2009.
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Marriage is defined as "a union of two persons who have decided to live their lives together for various reasons". This definition is not challenged. The discussion immediately shifts to the reasons for marriage.
Humans invented marriage -- to regulate procreation, lineage and inheritance; and to pass on values. All these are to keep social order. Also, the incest taboo is to prevent genetic defects in children.
Marriage is selfish, possessive and competitive. There is an urge to declare to the world: "This is my spouse." Along the same lines, marriage is invented so that beta males can have a chance to mate. Were it not for marriage, all the women would go to the alpha males. No, it also benefits the beta females, who otherwise would lose all the men to the alpha females.
Gender imbalance also plays a part. Polygamy emerges in societies where there is great gender imbalance; whereas where the genders are in rough equivalence, monogamy prevails.
But variety is also important. An US experiment with bulls and cows found that when a bull and a cow were "married", after a time the bull lost interest in mating, and the cow stopped producing milk. When the bull and cow were "divorced", they soon resumed mating interest and milk production respectively. But this need not transfer to human beings.
Marriage is about being kings and queens -- albeit of just a family. It's about acquiring power, albeit only over spouse and children. This is as a sort of consolation prize after being unable to grasp real power as real kings, queens, and other types of rulers.
One can also get married to acquire a companion for life, to cohabit (at a time when this is socially disapproved if done outside marriage), to make parents happy, to grow up, to have someone see you grow up.
The definitive question to be answered is: what specifically does marriage produce, that otherwise cannot be produced?
In the old days, these were permission to have sex, and to produce children. But today, these are no longer exclusive to marriage. Sex between unmarried consenting adults is acceptable, as is single parenthood.
In closing, we conclude that marriage is a man-made construct, with no intrinsic value or function.
The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 16 December 2009. Place and time: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free, with personal expense for food and drink. All are welcome. No prior knowledge of philosophy is required. Just bring along curiosity and a rational mind (this is more difficult to achieve than you may imagine).
Monday, 26 October 2009
Is it fair to pay bankers more than road sweepers?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 21 October 2009.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Bankers get paid more than road sweepers because of scarcity, that is, supply and demand. But what about hardship (the road sweeper is in the sun all day)? What about education (the banker is better educated)? Both these factors feed into scarcity.
We amend the question: Is it fair to pay bankers so much more than road sweepers?
We again mention hardship. Bankers suffer mental hardship, which often includes sleep deprivation (working overnight on big deals). Road sweepers suffer physical hardship. As a comparison, which would one choose to be: A $28,000 road sweeper, or a $850 banker. Everyone chooses the road sweeper.
How do we establish a fair dollar difference?
It is established on the basis of hardship, industry structure, talent and skill. But all these again boil down to scarcity: how many will endure the hardship, how many vacancies does the industry have, how many have the required talents and skills.
There is also a social issue involved here: How should a person live? How should a person be treated? This brings us to the question of a minimum wage.
Many oppose the idea of a minimum wage because it makes things difficult for companies, and even governments. But there is the nagging idea that people, as persons, are entitled to a minimum level of comfort in life.
Suppose we establish a floor salary to meet this minimum comfort, and allow any salary increase from this floor to be decided by scarcity (ie. market forces)? How can such a floor salary be established?
By referendum. Poll the entire population, and take the modal answer as the floor salary.
This is harder than it sounds. Everyone will respond with some huge number. Where will the money come from to meet this minimum? Will industry still be efficient if it has to pay such salaries? How often should the referendum be refreshed? Who will be eligible to vote?
Yet it is not impossible. There are countries with minimum wage systems -- and high tax rates.
Discussion ends here.
Philosophy cafe sessions are held every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All are welcome. Admission is free, with individual expenses for food & drink. The only prerequisites for participation are curiosity and an open & rational mind. Our next session will be on 18 November 2009. We hope to see you there.
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Am I meant to be here?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 16 September 2009. The question of the night is "Am I meant to be here?"
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Questions from a reader
I was just doing some housekeeping of this blog, when I saw an old response to a post. David asks some very interesting questions, which I will try to address.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
What should be done about those swimsuits?
Recently, "super" swimsuits were used in international swim meets, and world records tumbled. Many competitors and swim coaches complained about an "unfair advantage".
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Announcement to readers
Dear readers,
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 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 time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 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 time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Can we ever blame a doctor?
A recent study finds Singapore-trained doctors "more lenient" on peers' ethics. One person responds. We study this response.
Source: The Straits Times, 25/7/9, p.A45 (letters)
Headline: Two views on doctors' views
Writer: Dr Yik Keng Yeong
Quote1
Once past the prime considerations of patient welfare, professional competence and civil law infraction, tolerance of minor indiscretion and misdemeanour is but recognition of man's and doctor's fallibility. ...
Comment1
The position taken here is one of "tolerance" and "recognition of fallibility". Notice its scope. The "prime considerations" are specifically excluded, and only what is "minor" is specifically included. It follows by definition that what is minor can (or even should) be tolerated.
Quote2
Doctors are ... inclined to be cognisant of their own human foibles and frailties, ... especially so as the practice of medicine is so fraught with daily pitfalls that only he who has not sinned can cast the first stone.
Comment2
If a kettle is black, even a black pot can truthfully say "The kettle is black." The claim that a pot cannot call the kettle black commits the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy, and must be rejected.
Quote3
If doctors take to heart the sapient Chinese proverb ... (We should forgive wherever we can), ... the last cynical conclusion we should draw is that there is a conspiracy of tolerance. ...
Comment3
This is a conditional statement: "If doctors ..., (then) the last... tolerance". This is not an argument. No conclusion or position is drawn from it.
Quote4
Even where discipline is required, everyone deserves a second chance.
Comment4
What do we do on the third incident?
Quote5
Where intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffices, advocation of further craconian measures serves no purpose but to tar reputations and destroy careers. ...
Comment5
Note the word "suffices". It follows by definition that no further action is warranted. The question is when do intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffice, especially bearing in mind Quote3 above?
Quote6
Perhaps many of them [foreign trained doctors], provisionally registered with the Singapore Medical Council,will treat any survey with undue suspicion and offer politically correct answers they feel will not jeopardise their chances of re-registration with the council, nothwithstanding the assurance that all data collected is private and confidential.
Comment6
This says that the foreign-trained doctors circumstances have biased their responses. The argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial (Appeal to the person, circumstantial), and must be rejected.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 25/7/9, p.A45 (letters)
Headline: Two views on doctors' views
Writer: Dr Yik Keng Yeong
Quote1
Once past the prime considerations of patient welfare, professional competence and civil law infraction, tolerance of minor indiscretion and misdemeanour is but recognition of man's and doctor's fallibility. ...
Comment1
The position taken here is one of "tolerance" and "recognition of fallibility". Notice its scope. The "prime considerations" are specifically excluded, and only what is "minor" is specifically included. It follows by definition that what is minor can (or even should) be tolerated.
Quote2
Doctors are ... inclined to be cognisant of their own human foibles and frailties, ... especially so as the practice of medicine is so fraught with daily pitfalls that only he who has not sinned can cast the first stone.
Comment2
If a kettle is black, even a black pot can truthfully say "The kettle is black." The claim that a pot cannot call the kettle black commits the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy, and must be rejected.
Quote3
If doctors take to heart the sapient Chinese proverb ... (We should forgive wherever we can), ... the last cynical conclusion we should draw is that there is a conspiracy of tolerance. ...
Comment3
This is a conditional statement: "If doctors ..., (then) the last... tolerance". This is not an argument. No conclusion or position is drawn from it.
Quote4
Even where discipline is required, everyone deserves a second chance.
Comment4
What do we do on the third incident?
Quote5
Where intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffices, advocation of further craconian measures serves no purpose but to tar reputations and destroy careers. ...
Comment5
Note the word "suffices". It follows by definition that no further action is warranted. The question is when do intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffice, especially bearing in mind Quote3 above?
Quote6
Perhaps many of them [foreign trained doctors], provisionally registered with the Singapore Medical Council,will treat any survey with undue suspicion and offer politically correct answers they feel will not jeopardise their chances of re-registration with the council, nothwithstanding the assurance that all data collected is private and confidential.
Comment6
This says that the foreign-trained doctors circumstances have biased their responses. The argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial (Appeal to the person, circumstantial), and must be rejected.
END
Can we accept a fat Doctor-in-Chief?
Obama's nominee for US Surgeon-general is overweight. Critics object to it. We look at the argument.
Source: Today, 24/7/9, p.22
Headline: Too big for the role?
Quote1
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's nomination of Ms Regina Benjamin as America's surgeon-general has faced a barrage of criticism frommedics who claimshe is setting a bad example because of her weight. ...
Comment1
A pot accuses a kettle of being black. The kettle retorts: "So are you!" This does not result in the kettle no longer being black. The truth of an accusation does not depend upon the accuser being free of the same charge. An argument of this nature is known as the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. In this case, a person does not have to be a picture of perfect health in order to be a surgeon-general.
Quote2
Said Dr Lillie Shockney, director of the Johns Hopkins Avon Breast Centre: ... "I want an image of wellness, because young people will hear her better if she is practising what we expect her to preach." ...
Comment2
This is a psychological effect. Listeners should learn to ignore the image of the speaker and focus on the substance of what is said. The more we cater to fallacies and irrelevancies, the more they will perpetuate, and the longer we will remain in confused thought.
Quote3
The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance said: "Despite exceptional qualifications, the criticism focuses on her weight!"
Comment3
Even if Ms Benjamin did not have "exceptional qualifications", the objection is still a fallacy.
Quote4
Others have pointed out that previous male surgeon-generals have not been pictures of slimness. -- The Daily Telegraph
Comment4
The thrust of this comment needs to be spelt out. In this unclear state, any of the following could be a response:
1. Only female surgeon-generals have to be slim.
2. Those past appointments were wrong.
3. Yes, slimness is not a requirement in a surgeon-general.
END
Source: Today, 24/7/9, p.22
Headline: Too big for the role?
Quote1
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's nomination of Ms Regina Benjamin as America's surgeon-general has faced a barrage of criticism frommedics who claimshe is setting a bad example because of her weight. ...
Comment1
A pot accuses a kettle of being black. The kettle retorts: "So are you!" This does not result in the kettle no longer being black. The truth of an accusation does not depend upon the accuser being free of the same charge. An argument of this nature is known as the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. In this case, a person does not have to be a picture of perfect health in order to be a surgeon-general.
Quote2
Said Dr Lillie Shockney, director of the Johns Hopkins Avon Breast Centre: ... "I want an image of wellness, because young people will hear her better if she is practising what we expect her to preach." ...
Comment2
This is a psychological effect. Listeners should learn to ignore the image of the speaker and focus on the substance of what is said. The more we cater to fallacies and irrelevancies, the more they will perpetuate, and the longer we will remain in confused thought.
Quote3
The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance said: "Despite exceptional qualifications, the criticism focuses on her weight!"
Comment3
Even if Ms Benjamin did not have "exceptional qualifications", the objection is still a fallacy.
Quote4
Others have pointed out that previous male surgeon-generals have not been pictures of slimness. -- The Daily Telegraph
Comment4
The thrust of this comment needs to be spelt out. In this unclear state, any of the following could be a response:
1. Only female surgeon-generals have to be slim.
2. Those past appointments were wrong.
3. Yes, slimness is not a requirement in a surgeon-general.
END
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Are things finally looking up?
One analyst says the end of the tunnel is in sight. We examine the commentary piece.
Source: Today, 15/7/9, p.B8
Headline: Reflation, liquidity the way to go
Writer: By Bob Doll
Quote1
Global equity markets have been volatile this year. After sinking sharply in January and February, ... global equities went on a tear in the next couple of months -- but now it seems the rally that started in early March has run out of steam. ... Since the bear market began in earnest last September, ... there have been several global equity rallies that failed to take hold. ...
Comment1
These are assertions, with no supporting argument.
Quote2
The rally that started in March was different. That rally which, from trough to peak, has resulted in global price advances of around 30 percent, was based on a combination of technically oversold conditions, aggressive global policy actions and a general sense that the global economic recession was moving past its period of greatest weakness.
Comment2
Here is a claim of a different rally. The difference? A 30 percent advance, as contrasted with "rallies that failed to take hold". There is no explicit statement that the "combination" caused the rally.
Quote3
The extent to which equities are able to continue to advance will depend largely on the degree to which the global economy is able to recover. ...
Comment3
This sounds like it is true by definition.
Quote4
The massive policy initiatives around the world have begun to bear some fruit. The dramatic increase rate cuts, spending increases, tax cuts, capital injections, bank rescues and plethora of new government programmes have all helped to combat ongoing credit-related deflation risks.
Comment4
What are listed are the "massive policy initiatives". What are the "fruit"? We are not told.
Quote5
We believe the fourth quarter.... We expect a small gain.... We also expect to see modestly positive.... We believe equities are entering a correction phase.... We believe this correction will be marked....
Comment5
Here are more predictive assertions -- again with no supporting argument.
Quote6
We think it is extremely unlikely that prices will retreat back to their early March levels. Typically, such corrections result in a give-back of between one-third to one-half of recent gains which, in the US, would result in a short-term drop to between 800 and 850 for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. ...
Comment6
Here's the argument:
Reason: Typically, less than full corrections.
Conclusion: Hence, no full retreat to early March levels.
The success of this argument depends on the future being like the past.
Quote7
We expect improving economic conditions.... We believe that stocks will outperform....
Bob Doll is vice-chairman and global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock.
Comment7
More predictive assertions -- and no supporting argument.
Comment8
The issue under discussion is one on which there are many differing expert opinions, unlike on the question of how long an object will take to fall 20 storeys. In this case, expert opinion alone is insufficient. Arguments must be provided (see Quote6 above).
END
Source: Today, 15/7/9, p.B8
Headline: Reflation, liquidity the way to go
Writer: By Bob Doll
Quote1
Global equity markets have been volatile this year. After sinking sharply in January and February, ... global equities went on a tear in the next couple of months -- but now it seems the rally that started in early March has run out of steam. ... Since the bear market began in earnest last September, ... there have been several global equity rallies that failed to take hold. ...
Comment1
These are assertions, with no supporting argument.
Quote2
The rally that started in March was different. That rally which, from trough to peak, has resulted in global price advances of around 30 percent, was based on a combination of technically oversold conditions, aggressive global policy actions and a general sense that the global economic recession was moving past its period of greatest weakness.
Comment2
Here is a claim of a different rally. The difference? A 30 percent advance, as contrasted with "rallies that failed to take hold". There is no explicit statement that the "combination" caused the rally.
Quote3
The extent to which equities are able to continue to advance will depend largely on the degree to which the global economy is able to recover. ...
Comment3
This sounds like it is true by definition.
Quote4
The massive policy initiatives around the world have begun to bear some fruit. The dramatic increase rate cuts, spending increases, tax cuts, capital injections, bank rescues and plethora of new government programmes have all helped to combat ongoing credit-related deflation risks.
Comment4
What are listed are the "massive policy initiatives". What are the "fruit"? We are not told.
Quote5
We believe the fourth quarter.... We expect a small gain.... We also expect to see modestly positive.... We believe equities are entering a correction phase.... We believe this correction will be marked....
Comment5
Here are more predictive assertions -- again with no supporting argument.
Quote6
We think it is extremely unlikely that prices will retreat back to their early March levels. Typically, such corrections result in a give-back of between one-third to one-half of recent gains which, in the US, would result in a short-term drop to between 800 and 850 for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. ...
Comment6
Here's the argument:
Reason: Typically, less than full corrections.
Conclusion: Hence, no full retreat to early March levels.
The success of this argument depends on the future being like the past.
Quote7
We expect improving economic conditions.... We believe that stocks will outperform....
Bob Doll is vice-chairman and global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock.
Comment7
More predictive assertions -- and no supporting argument.
Comment8
The issue under discussion is one on which there are many differing expert opinions, unlike on the question of how long an object will take to fall 20 storeys. In this case, expert opinion alone is insufficient. Arguments must be provided (see Quote6 above).
END
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Should we turn vegetarian?
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
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
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, 19 June 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, 2 June 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
On childcare centres
Source: Today, 29/5/9, p.32 (letters)
Headline: You want less time with your kids?
Quote
I disagree with the letters calling for the extension of childcare centre operating hours. ... I have two young children of my own and I do not see any problems. -- Lydiawati
Comment
This is a case of hasty generalisation. It goes from one (or a few) case to all cases. More often, we find letter writers arguing from "I have this problem" to "therefore thousands of others also have this problem". Both are fallacious arguments, and must be rejected.
END
Headline: You want less time with your kids?
Quote
I disagree with the letters calling for the extension of childcare centre operating hours. ... I have two young children of my own and I do not see any problems. -- Lydiawati
Comment
This is a case of hasty generalisation. It goes from one (or a few) case to all cases. More often, we find letter writers arguing from "I have this problem" to "therefore thousands of others also have this problem". Both are fallacious arguments, and must be rejected.
END
Why so much?
Source: Today, 29/5/9, p.18
Headline: Made in China clothing unsafe
Quote
"The main reason for the excessive content of formaldehyde and heavy metals is the use of substandard raw materials and paints," Mr Lin Ruixi, spokesman for the province's product safety administration, was quoted as saying. -- AFP.
Comment
Is this an informative explanation? That depends on the definition of the term "substandard".If the standard stipulates a maximum level of formaldehyde and heavy metals, then saying it is substandard is merely saying there is excessive content. In such a case, the explanation is not informative.
Headline: Made in China clothing unsafe
Quote
"The main reason for the excessive content of formaldehyde and heavy metals is the use of substandard raw materials and paints," Mr Lin Ruixi, spokesman for the province's product safety administration, was quoted as saying. -- AFP.
Comment
Is this an informative explanation? That depends on the definition of the term "substandard".If the standard stipulates a maximum level of formaldehyde and heavy metals, then saying it is substandard is merely saying there is excessive content. In such a case, the explanation is not informative.
Life's little nuisances -- or blessings?
Things do not always go according to plan. Should we be mad, or glad? One writer expresses his opinion. We analyse the argument.
Source: My Paper, 28/5/9, p.A6
Headline: Running late? It might be a blessing
Writer: Geoff Tan
Quote
It was just a simple text message entitled "The Little Things". The piece ... referred to the Sept 11 incident. ... It cited incidents involving "little things" that happened on the morning of the tragedy in 2001 which resulted in the people involved being spared a horrific death -- from an alarm that didn't go off on time, to missing the bus; from a car that wouldn't start, to not being able to flag down a taxi; from having to go back home to change a soiled shirt, to stopping to answer a telephone call. ... The email on "little things" has certainly put a whole new perspective on how I view less-than-perfect circumstances in my daily life. ... The next time I encounter similar situations, I am going to take it that that was where I was meant to be at that time. And to believe that positive outcomes would continue to emerge as a result of the inconveniences.
Comment
The writer is free to "take" and "believe" anything he wishes. The question is: Does the conclusion follow from the reason?
Little things prevented many people from being in the buildings when they were hit and collapsed. Can we then conclude that little (inconvenient)things always lead to blessings -- and thus adopt this as our attitude in life?
A little reflection quickly tells us that little things could also have kept many people in the buildings when they would otherwise have left them. Little things like a car that wouldn't start (in the car park), a soiled shirt (spilt coffee in the office pantry), stopping to answer a telephone call etc.
The same reason is compatible with a different conclusion. Hence, the conclusion does not follow from the reason.
END
Source: My Paper, 28/5/9, p.A6
Headline: Running late? It might be a blessing
Writer: Geoff Tan
Quote
It was just a simple text message entitled "The Little Things". The piece ... referred to the Sept 11 incident. ... It cited incidents involving "little things" that happened on the morning of the tragedy in 2001 which resulted in the people involved being spared a horrific death -- from an alarm that didn't go off on time, to missing the bus; from a car that wouldn't start, to not being able to flag down a taxi; from having to go back home to change a soiled shirt, to stopping to answer a telephone call. ... The email on "little things" has certainly put a whole new perspective on how I view less-than-perfect circumstances in my daily life. ... The next time I encounter similar situations, I am going to take it that that was where I was meant to be at that time. And to believe that positive outcomes would continue to emerge as a result of the inconveniences.
Comment
The writer is free to "take" and "believe" anything he wishes. The question is: Does the conclusion follow from the reason?
Little things prevented many people from being in the buildings when they were hit and collapsed. Can we then conclude that little (inconvenient)things always lead to blessings -- and thus adopt this as our attitude in life?
A little reflection quickly tells us that little things could also have kept many people in the buildings when they would otherwise have left them. Little things like a car that wouldn't start (in the car park), a soiled shirt (spilt coffee in the office pantry), stopping to answer a telephone call etc.
The same reason is compatible with a different conclusion. Hence, the conclusion does not follow from the reason.
END
Thursday, 28 May 2009
What makes a good CEO?
That was the headline of a recent comment piece. But that is not the real thrust of the article. We examine the piece.
Source: Today, 23/5/9, p.28
Headline: What makes a good CEO?
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1
...Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen recently completed a study called Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter? ... They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good CEO. ... What mattered ... were execution and organisational skills. ...
Comment1
Well, that is the finding of one study. But is this the general case? We need corroboration.
Quote2
These results are consistent with a lot of work that's been done over the past few decades. In 2001, Jim Collins published a best-selling study called Good to Great. He found that the best CEOs were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found the thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. That same year Murray Barrick, Michael Mount and Timothy Judge surveyed a century's worth of research into business leadership. They too found that extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not correlate well with CEO success. Instead, what mattered was emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness -- which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them. ...
Comment2
We have other studies with similar findings. We are ready to generalise.
Quote3
What these traits do add up to is a certain ideal personality type. The CEOs that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit uni-dimensional. ...
Comment3
This is the generalisation. But what is important for the real argument in this comment piece is what is not well correlated with the successful CEO: strong people skills, flamboyant visionaries, extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience.
Quote4
For [this] reason, business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents -- charisma, charm, personal skills -- that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution. ...
Comment4
Political talents are precisely those that make for less-than-successful CEOs.
Quote5
We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. ... When Washington is a profit centre, CEOs are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge. -- NYT.
Comment5
Finally, we come to the real argument of this comment piece.
Premiss1: If (politicians interpose in management), then (CEOs adopt political traits)
Premiss2: If (CEOs adopt political traits), then (less successful CEOs)
Premiss3: If (less successful CEOs), then (nation loses competitive edge)
Conclusion1: Hence, If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [To Premiss4]
Premiss4: If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: Not-(nation loses competitive edge) [suppressed]
Conclusion2: Hence, Not-(politicians interpose in management) [suppressed]
The real, but unstated, thrust of this comment piece is that politicians should not interpose themselves in industry management.
END
Source: Today, 23/5/9, p.28
Headline: What makes a good CEO?
Writer: David Brooks
Quote1
...Steven Kaplan, Mark Klebanov and Morten Sorensen recently completed a study called Which CEO Characteristics and Abilities Matter? ... They found that strong people skills correlate loosely or not at all with being a good CEO. ... What mattered ... were execution and organisational skills. ...
Comment1
Well, that is the finding of one study. But is this the general case? We need corroboration.
Quote2
These results are consistent with a lot of work that's been done over the past few decades. In 2001, Jim Collins published a best-selling study called Good to Great. He found that the best CEOs were not the flamboyant visionaries. They were humble, self-effacing, diligent and resolute souls who found the thing they were really good at and did it over and over again. That same year Murray Barrick, Michael Mount and Timothy Judge surveyed a century's worth of research into business leadership. They too found that extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience did not correlate well with CEO success. Instead, what mattered was emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness -- which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them. ...
Comment2
We have other studies with similar findings. We are ready to generalise.
Quote3
What these traits do add up to is a certain ideal personality type. The CEOs that are most likely to succeed are humble, diffident, relentless and a bit uni-dimensional. ...
Comment3
This is the generalisation. But what is important for the real argument in this comment piece is what is not well correlated with the successful CEO: strong people skills, flamboyant visionaries, extroversion, agreeableness and openness to new experience.
Quote4
For [this] reason, business and politics do not blend well. Business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents -- charisma, charm, personal skills -- that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution. ...
Comment4
Political talents are precisely those that make for less-than-successful CEOs.
Quote5
We now have an administration freely interposing itself in the management culture of industry after industry. ... When Washington is a profit centre, CEOs are forced to adopt the traits of politicians. That is the insidious way that other nations have lost their competitive edge. -- NYT.
Comment5
Finally, we come to the real argument of this comment piece.
Premiss1: If (politicians interpose in management), then (CEOs adopt political traits)
Premiss2: If (CEOs adopt political traits), then (less successful CEOs)
Premiss3: If (less successful CEOs), then (nation loses competitive edge)
Conclusion1: Hence, If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [To Premiss4]
Premiss4: If (politicians interpose in management), then (nation loses competitive edge) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: Not-(nation loses competitive edge) [suppressed]
Conclusion2: Hence, Not-(politicians interpose in management) [suppressed]
The real, but unstated, thrust of this comment piece is that politicians should not interpose themselves in industry management.
END
Monday, 25 May 2009
Medical treatment and the law
Two recent cases highlight the question of the grounds for enforcing or refusing medical treatment.
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B11
Headline: Hunt for mum, sick boy who is avoiding chemo
Quote1
SLEEPY EYE (Minnesota): A nationwide police hunt is under way in the United States for a mother [Colleen Hauser] who fled with her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son [Daniel] rather than consent to chemotherapy they say violates their religious beliefs. ...
Comment1
The premiss here is that religious beliefs take precedence over medical advice.
Quote2
The Hausers had been ordered to appear before a judge on Tuesday for a hearing to consider chemotherapy. A warrant was issued for Colleen Hauser's arrest when she and her son failed to show up. ... AP, AFP.
Comment2
Note that the court hearing is to consider chemotherapy. The court has not yet made its decision. Hence, the warrant is for the Hausers to attend the hearing, and not for them to submit to treatment.
BUT in another case, the court did make a decision.
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B8
Headline: Korean court upholds 'right to die'
Quote3
SEOUL: The Supreme Court ... supported a request by the family of [brain-dead and comatose] 76-year-old Kim Ok Kyung that she be allowed to die with dignity. ... In the majority decision released yesterday, Chief Justice Lee Yong Hoon said ... treatment could be stopped by making a presumption about the wishes of the patient. Maintaining a patient in a brain-dead state damaged human dignity when there was no chance of recovery. ...
Comment3
It is important here to discern the logical links.
If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)
But what about the patient's wishes?
Quote4
In the current case, he noted, the woman had told her family she did not want to be kept alive artificially if her hospital treatment ran into problems. "We must respect the patient's will because forced life-sustaining treatment may damage human dignity." ... AFP, Reuters, AP.
Comment4
The patient had expressed her wish to be not on life support. The remaining logical links are:
If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)
We can now assemble the whole argument:
Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient))
Conclusion1: Hence, (damage human dignity) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)
Premiss4: (damage human dignity) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: (patient declines life support)
Conclusion2: Hence, (stop life support)
We have a problem. We have (maintain patient) in Premiss2, and (stop life support) in Conclusion2. This is a contradiction. The argument is faulty. We must reformulate the links.
Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support)), then (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity))
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support))
Conclusion1: Hence, (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [to Premiss3]
Premiss3: If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss4: Not-(damage human dignity)
Conclusion2: Hence, not-(maintain patient) [=(stop life support)]
The argument is now clear.
Note that in both cases, we do not have the doctors' arguments available for analysis.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B11
Headline: Hunt for mum, sick boy who is avoiding chemo
Quote1
SLEEPY EYE (Minnesota): A nationwide police hunt is under way in the United States for a mother [Colleen Hauser] who fled with her cancer-stricken 13-year-old son [Daniel] rather than consent to chemotherapy they say violates their religious beliefs. ...
Comment1
The premiss here is that religious beliefs take precedence over medical advice.
Quote2
The Hausers had been ordered to appear before a judge on Tuesday for a hearing to consider chemotherapy. A warrant was issued for Colleen Hauser's arrest when she and her son failed to show up. ... AP, AFP.
Comment2
Note that the court hearing is to consider chemotherapy. The court has not yet made its decision. Hence, the warrant is for the Hausers to attend the hearing, and not for them to submit to treatment.
BUT in another case, the court did make a decision.
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.B8
Headline: Korean court upholds 'right to die'
Quote3
SEOUL: The Supreme Court ... supported a request by the family of [brain-dead and comatose] 76-year-old Kim Ok Kyung that she be allowed to die with dignity. ... In the majority decision released yesterday, Chief Justice Lee Yong Hoon said ... treatment could be stopped by making a presumption about the wishes of the patient. Maintaining a patient in a brain-dead state damaged human dignity when there was no chance of recovery. ...
Comment3
It is important here to discern the logical links.
If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)
But what about the patient's wishes?
Quote4
In the current case, he noted, the woman had told her family she did not want to be kept alive artificially if her hospital treatment ran into problems. "We must respect the patient's will because forced life-sustaining treatment may damage human dignity." ... AFP, Reuters, AP.
Comment4
The patient had expressed her wish to be not on life support. The remaining logical links are:
If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)
We can now assemble the whole argument:
Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient)),
then (damage human dignity)
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (maintain patient))
Conclusion1: Hence, (damage human dignity) [to Premiss4]
Premiss3: If ((damage human dignity) & (patient declines life support)), then (stop life support)
Premiss4: (damage human dignity) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss5: (patient declines life support)
Conclusion2: Hence, (stop life support)
We have a problem. We have (maintain patient) in Premiss2, and (stop life support) in Conclusion2. This is a contradiction. The argument is faulty. We must reformulate the links.
Premiss1: If ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support)), then (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity))
Premiss2: ((patient brain dead) & (no chance of recovery) & (patient declines life support))
Conclusion1: Hence, (If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [to Premiss3]
Premiss3: If (maintain patient), then (damage human dignity)) [from Conclusion1]
Premiss4: Not-(damage human dignity)
Conclusion2: Hence, not-(maintain patient) [=(stop life support)]
The argument is now clear.
Note that in both cases, we do not have the doctors' arguments available for analysis.
END
What does the new revolution need?
One writer says that round table revolutions must be accompanied by truth commissions. We look for his argument.
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Round tables and truth commissions
Writer: Timothy Garton Ash
Quote1
WARSAW: [Poland's] pioneering round table talks in early 1989 [was] the first in communist Europe. ... [A] large bagel shaped [table] is the symbol of the new kind of peaceful, negotiated revolution which in 1989 superseded the old, violent style of 1789. The round table replaces the guillotine. ... The new anti-Jacobin model of revolution, with its surreal encounters of former prisoners and their former jailers and torturers, requires painful, morally distasteful compromise. There is no great moment of revolutionary catharsis. The line between bad past and good future is necessarily blurred. ... Because that is so, the problems of the past come back to haunt you. ...
Comment1
The "surreal encounters" of this new model of revolution has two consequences:
1. painful, morally distasteful compromise
2. blur line between bad past and good future
These two consequences produce a third consequence:
3. problems of the past return
Quote2
That is why, 20 years on, I am more than ever convinced that the necessary complement to a round table is a truth commission. ...
Comment2
"I am more than ever convinced" is a declaration of intense belief. One can intensely believe something false eg. holding hands cause pregnancy. This declaration is not an argument.
Why is a truth commission a "necessary complement" to a round table? How does "problems of the past return" lead to this? We await the arguments.
Quote3
Where, as a result of the negotiated model of revolution, you cannot get justice, you can at least ask for truth. ...
Comment3
Truth is sought as an inferior alternative to justice. This does not explain why a truth commission is a "necessary complement" to a round table. Intuitively, an inferior alternative is not the same thing as a necessary complement. The inferior alternative view also does not explain how "problems of the past return" leads to a "necessary complement".
Summary & Conclusion
The intended aim is to call for truth commissions to accompany round table revolutions. There is no clear argument for this position.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 22/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Round tables and truth commissions
Writer: Timothy Garton Ash
Quote1
WARSAW: [Poland's] pioneering round table talks in early 1989 [was] the first in communist Europe. ... [A] large bagel shaped [table] is the symbol of the new kind of peaceful, negotiated revolution which in 1989 superseded the old, violent style of 1789. The round table replaces the guillotine. ... The new anti-Jacobin model of revolution, with its surreal encounters of former prisoners and their former jailers and torturers, requires painful, morally distasteful compromise. There is no great moment of revolutionary catharsis. The line between bad past and good future is necessarily blurred. ... Because that is so, the problems of the past come back to haunt you. ...
Comment1
The "surreal encounters" of this new model of revolution has two consequences:
1. painful, morally distasteful compromise
2. blur line between bad past and good future
These two consequences produce a third consequence:
3. problems of the past return
Quote2
That is why, 20 years on, I am more than ever convinced that the necessary complement to a round table is a truth commission. ...
Comment2
"I am more than ever convinced" is a declaration of intense belief. One can intensely believe something false eg. holding hands cause pregnancy. This declaration is not an argument.
Why is a truth commission a "necessary complement" to a round table? How does "problems of the past return" lead to this? We await the arguments.
Quote3
Where, as a result of the negotiated model of revolution, you cannot get justice, you can at least ask for truth. ...
Comment3
Truth is sought as an inferior alternative to justice. This does not explain why a truth commission is a "necessary complement" to a round table. Intuitively, an inferior alternative is not the same thing as a necessary complement. The inferior alternative view also does not explain how "problems of the past return" leads to a "necessary complement".
Summary & Conclusion
The intended aim is to call for truth commissions to accompany round table revolutions. There is no clear argument for this position.
END
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
Where is the US dollar heading?
The US dollar is currently the world's major reserve currency. Can it hang on to this status? We examine the writer's argument.
Source: The Straits Times, 15/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Losing purchase: Greenback's future
Writer: By Nouriel Roubini
Quote1
Traditionally, empires that hold the global reserve currency are also net foreign creditors and net lenders. The British Empire declined -- and the pound lost its status as the main global reserve currency -- when Britain became a net debtor and a net borrower during World War II. The US is in a similar position today. It is running huge budget and trade deficits. ... The resulting downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time.
Comment1
Here is the argument:
Reason: Britain net debtor, pound stops as reserve currency. US becoming net debtor.
Conclusion: Hence, US dollar will stop as reserve currency.
This is an argument from similarity, and will hold only up to the point of dissimilarity. There is no indication of dissimilarity. The argument holds.
Quote2
But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high.The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the yuan. ...
Comment2
All alternatives to the yuan are not suited to be a reserve currency -- for vaious reasons. That leaves the yuan. This is a negative argument, that is, by elimination.
Quote3
China is a creditor country with large current account surpluses, a small budget deficit, much lower public debt as a share of gross domestic product than the US, and solid growth. ...
Comment3
China is a creditor country. That follows the argument from similarity in Comment1. The other factors mentioned here are not obviously relevant to the argument. This is a positive argument for the yuan becoming a reserve currency.
Quote4
At the moment, though, the yuan is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the yuan to become a reserve currency. ...
Comment4
There are other necessary conditions to be met before the yuan can be a reserve currency. These necessary conditions are asserted, not argued for. [Meanwhile, the US dollar remains the only major reserve currency.]
Quote5
This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if the Americans do not get their financial house in order. The US must rein in spending and borrowing, and pursue growth that is not based on asset and credit bubbles. Americans need to shift their priorities. This will entail investing in their crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital -- rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only wayto slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain America's influence in global affairs. ... NYT.
Comment5
"Rein in spending and borrowing" seems in line with making US less of a debtor nation, which follows the model in Comment1. All the other measures do not seem to follow this model. No other argument is offered to support them -- they are merely asserted. Thus, it is left to the reader to simply agree or disagree.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 15/5/9, p.A18
Headline: Losing purchase: Greenback's future
Writer: By Nouriel Roubini
Quote1
Traditionally, empires that hold the global reserve currency are also net foreign creditors and net lenders. The British Empire declined -- and the pound lost its status as the main global reserve currency -- when Britain became a net debtor and a net borrower during World War II. The US is in a similar position today. It is running huge budget and trade deficits. ... The resulting downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time.
Comment1
Here is the argument:
Reason: Britain net debtor, pound stops as reserve currency. US becoming net debtor.
Conclusion: Hence, US dollar will stop as reserve currency.
This is an argument from similarity, and will hold only up to the point of dissimilarity. There is no indication of dissimilarity. The argument holds.
Quote2
But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high.The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the yuan. ...
Comment2
All alternatives to the yuan are not suited to be a reserve currency -- for vaious reasons. That leaves the yuan. This is a negative argument, that is, by elimination.
Quote3
China is a creditor country with large current account surpluses, a small budget deficit, much lower public debt as a share of gross domestic product than the US, and solid growth. ...
Comment3
China is a creditor country. That follows the argument from similarity in Comment1. The other factors mentioned here are not obviously relevant to the argument. This is a positive argument for the yuan becoming a reserve currency.
Quote4
At the moment, though, the yuan is far from ready to achieve reserve currency status. China would first have to ease restrictions on money entering and leaving the country, make its currency fully convertible for such transactions, continue its domestic financial reforms and make its bond markets more liquid. It would take a long time for the yuan to become a reserve currency. ...
Comment4
There are other necessary conditions to be met before the yuan can be a reserve currency. These necessary conditions are asserted, not argued for. [Meanwhile, the US dollar remains the only major reserve currency.]
Quote5
This decline of the dollar might take more than a decade, but it could happen even sooner if the Americans do not get their financial house in order. The US must rein in spending and borrowing, and pursue growth that is not based on asset and credit bubbles. Americans need to shift their priorities. This will entail investing in their crumbling infrastructure, alternative and renewable resources and productive human capital -- rather than in unnecessary housing and toxic financial innovation. This will be the only wayto slow down the decline of the dollar, and sustain America's influence in global affairs. ... NYT.
Comment5
"Rein in spending and borrowing" seems in line with making US less of a debtor nation, which follows the model in Comment1. All the other measures do not seem to follow this model. No other argument is offered to support them -- they are merely asserted. Thus, it is left to the reader to simply agree or disagree.
END
Whence Asian property stocks?
Are Asian property stocks expected to rise or fall? We examine the arguments.
Source: Today, 15/5/9, p.B7
Headline: Amid the signs of recovery ... Is now the time to invest in Asian property stocks?
Writer: By Frederick Lim
Quote1
The 20- to 30-percent rally in Asian property stocks in the past few months is not sustainable, say experts. ...
Comment1
An assertion is made that there has been a rally in Asian property stocks. This is a statement of fact. We take this as true. But experts say this rally is not sustainable. We want to know why.
Quote2
"In the physical property market, values are clearly falling in most, if not all, markets," said Mr Patrick Sumner, head of Property Securities at Henderson Global Investors. ...
Comment2
This is a comment on the values in the physical property market, rather than the values in property stocks. No explicit link between physical property value and property stock value is provided. We shall not speculate as to any such link.
Quote3
According to Henderson, the recent rally in property securities has been driven by positive sentiment in the equity markets. ...
Comment3
This explains the rally in property stocks, but does not address the question of sustainability.
Quote4
Yanlord, a high-end property developer based in China, said certain segments of the Chinese real estate market are showing signs of recovery. "We have seen our transaction volumes increase from about 200 million yuan in November and December last year to 1 billion yuan ($215 million) in March this year," said Ms Michelle Sze, head of Investor Relations at Yanlord. ...
Comment4
The intended argument here is inductive:
Reason: Transaction volumes have risen
Conclusion: Hence, transaction volumes will continue to rise [suppressed]
Again, this relates to the physical property market, not property stocks. Again, we will not speculate as to any link.
Quote5
Mr Justin Chiu, executive director of Hong Kong developer Cheung Kong Holdings, said ... "As real estate fluctuates in tandem with economic cycles, the current downtrend in Asia has opened up opportunities for favourable entry." ...
Comment5
Here's the argument:
Premiss1: If (economy down), then (real estate down)
Premiss2: (economy down)
Conclusion: Hence, (real estate down)
The argument form is the valid Modus Ponens. Premiss2 is a well-known fact. Is Premiss1 true? In any case, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Quote6
"Singapore aims to become a global city focusing on wealth management, high-end talent and lifestyle. Does this strategy have legs? I, for one, am very confident," said Mr Olivier Lim, group chief financial officer at CapitaLand.
Comment6
Again, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Summary & Conclusion
No clear argument has been offered to support the claim that the rally in Asian property stocks is not sustainable. Even assuming a positive correlation between physical property value and property stock value, Comments 2 and 5 are pessismistic, while Comments 4 and 6 are optimistic. The experts do not agree.
END
Source: Today, 15/5/9, p.B7
Headline: Amid the signs of recovery ... Is now the time to invest in Asian property stocks?
Writer: By Frederick Lim
Quote1
The 20- to 30-percent rally in Asian property stocks in the past few months is not sustainable, say experts. ...
Comment1
An assertion is made that there has been a rally in Asian property stocks. This is a statement of fact. We take this as true. But experts say this rally is not sustainable. We want to know why.
Quote2
"In the physical property market, values are clearly falling in most, if not all, markets," said Mr Patrick Sumner, head of Property Securities at Henderson Global Investors. ...
Comment2
This is a comment on the values in the physical property market, rather than the values in property stocks. No explicit link between physical property value and property stock value is provided. We shall not speculate as to any such link.
Quote3
According to Henderson, the recent rally in property securities has been driven by positive sentiment in the equity markets. ...
Comment3
This explains the rally in property stocks, but does not address the question of sustainability.
Quote4
Yanlord, a high-end property developer based in China, said certain segments of the Chinese real estate market are showing signs of recovery. "We have seen our transaction volumes increase from about 200 million yuan in November and December last year to 1 billion yuan ($215 million) in March this year," said Ms Michelle Sze, head of Investor Relations at Yanlord. ...
Comment4
The intended argument here is inductive:
Reason: Transaction volumes have risen
Conclusion: Hence, transaction volumes will continue to rise [suppressed]
Again, this relates to the physical property market, not property stocks. Again, we will not speculate as to any link.
Quote5
Mr Justin Chiu, executive director of Hong Kong developer Cheung Kong Holdings, said ... "As real estate fluctuates in tandem with economic cycles, the current downtrend in Asia has opened up opportunities for favourable entry." ...
Comment5
Here's the argument:
Premiss1: If (economy down), then (real estate down)
Premiss2: (economy down)
Conclusion: Hence, (real estate down)
The argument form is the valid Modus Ponens. Premiss2 is a well-known fact. Is Premiss1 true? In any case, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Quote6
"Singapore aims to become a global city focusing on wealth management, high-end talent and lifestyle. Does this strategy have legs? I, for one, am very confident," said Mr Olivier Lim, group chief financial officer at CapitaLand.
Comment6
Again, it is not clear whether physical property or property stocks are referred to.
Summary & Conclusion
No clear argument has been offered to support the claim that the rally in Asian property stocks is not sustainable. Even assuming a positive correlation between physical property value and property stock value, Comments 2 and 5 are pessismistic, while Comments 4 and 6 are optimistic. The experts do not agree.
END
Should sex theme park in China exist?
China's first sex theme park is slated to open in October. Objections are raised, as are defences. We examine the arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 16/5/9, p.C8
Headline: Chinese sex theme park exposes raw nerve
Quote1
BEIJING: A sex theme park in south-west China ... exhibits sculptures of the human body and of giant genitals, as well as boasts a sex technique workshop. ... "Love Land", billed as China's first-ever sex theme park, is slated to open in Chongqing municipality in October, but detractors hope the project will never see the light of day. ...
Comment1
This theme park is the point of controversy. Should it exist?
Quote2
Manager Lu Xiaoqing said: "We are building the park for the good of the public ... to help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life. Sex is a taboo subject in China, but people really need to have more access to information about it."
Comment2
We have here an appeal to consequences, a teleological approach. Two benefits are listed:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex
Quote3
The announcement of the park's official opening elicited numerous comments from Internet users, with the majority voicing opposition to it.
Comment3
Acquiescing to a majority opinion commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery). The majority can be wrong (eg. at one time most people believed slavery was alright.) We must reject this argument.
Quote4
"These vulgar sex instalments will only make people sick," one netizen wrote. "These things are too exposed," Chongqing police officer Liu Daiwei said. "I will feel uncomfortable to look at them when other people are around." -- AFP, China Daily, Asia News Network.
Comment4
The appeal to consequences continues, this time harmful consequences:
3. Sickens some people
We can now collate the consequences:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex
3. Sickens some people
Finally, we ask if there is a nett benefit or nett harm. If there is a nett benefit, the theme park should exist. If there is a nett harm, the theme park should not exist.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 16/5/9, p.C8
Headline: Chinese sex theme park exposes raw nerve
Quote1
BEIJING: A sex theme park in south-west China ... exhibits sculptures of the human body and of giant genitals, as well as boasts a sex technique workshop. ... "Love Land", billed as China's first-ever sex theme park, is slated to open in Chongqing municipality in October, but detractors hope the project will never see the light of day. ...
Comment1
This theme park is the point of controversy. Should it exist?
Quote2
Manager Lu Xiaoqing said: "We are building the park for the good of the public ... to help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life. Sex is a taboo subject in China, but people really need to have more access to information about it."
Comment2
We have here an appeal to consequences, a teleological approach. Two benefits are listed:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex
Quote3
The announcement of the park's official opening elicited numerous comments from Internet users, with the majority voicing opposition to it.
Comment3
Acquiescing to a majority opinion commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery). The majority can be wrong (eg. at one time most people believed slavery was alright.) We must reject this argument.
Quote4
"These vulgar sex instalments will only make people sick," one netizen wrote. "These things are too exposed," Chongqing police officer Liu Daiwei said. "I will feel uncomfortable to look at them when other people are around." -- AFP, China Daily, Asia News Network.
Comment4
The appeal to consequences continues, this time harmful consequences:
3. Sickens some people
We can now collate the consequences:
1. Help adults enjoy a harmonious sex life
2. Give people access to information about sex
3. Sickens some people
Finally, we ask if there is a nett benefit or nett harm. If there is a nett benefit, the theme park should exist. If there is a nett harm, the theme park should not exist.
END
Friday, 15 May 2009
What should the F&B sector do?
In a downturn, the F&B sector instinctively wants to cut costs. But experts advise against the obvious measures. We examine the arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Don't swallow big discounts, F&B sector told
Writer: Linette Lai
Quote1
When a slowdown hits, F&B operators tend to react by trimming staff, reducing the quality of ingredients to save costs, and offering discounts to attract customers. But experts stressed that although these solutions seem to work in the short run, they are detrimental to the business over time. ...
Comment1
The conclusion is that these are the wrong measures to take. But why?
Quote2
"I think that drastic discounts are a vicious circle," said Mr Ang Kiam Meng, president of the Restaurant Association of Singapore. "When you don't have the discount any longer, your business will not be good again. ... If everyone decides to do this, the whole market decides to do this, we will sink deeper and deeper and there will be no turning back." Mr Ang added that he felt retrenchment was a big blow to the workers involved, and decreasing quality would simply affect a firm's reputation. ...
Comment2
The argument is teleological, that is, an appeal to consequences. They are:
1. If (discounts), then (no turning back)
2. If (retrenchment), then (blow to workers)
3. If (cut quality), then (damage reputation)
Unstated, but clearly intended, the three measures also have the benefit of saving costs.
Considering all the consequences, the harms outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the three measures should not be used.
Quote3
Mr Cheong Hai Poh, president of the Food and Beverage Managers' Association, felt that innovation was the key: "The most unique and challenging question ... is, 'How do you innovate?' Innovation will make your company stand out from the rest." Mr Ang felt that it was important to improve the quality of food and service, especially now as "it is an opportunity to increase customer loyalty".
Comment3
Having rejected some measures, we now turn to recommending some other measures. Again, the argument is teleological. Here are the consequences:
4. If (innovate), then (stand out)
5. If (improve quality), then (increase loyalty)
An unstated but clearly possible consequence of these measures is that costs will be incurred. Will the benefits outweigh the harm?
I am pleased to advise readers that the next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 May at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (but personal expenses for food and drink). All are welcome. (For more information on what a philosophy cafe is, please visit my website via the link on the left.)
END
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.B18
Headline: Don't swallow big discounts, F&B sector told
Writer: Linette Lai
Quote1
When a slowdown hits, F&B operators tend to react by trimming staff, reducing the quality of ingredients to save costs, and offering discounts to attract customers. But experts stressed that although these solutions seem to work in the short run, they are detrimental to the business over time. ...
Comment1
The conclusion is that these are the wrong measures to take. But why?
Quote2
"I think that drastic discounts are a vicious circle," said Mr Ang Kiam Meng, president of the Restaurant Association of Singapore. "When you don't have the discount any longer, your business will not be good again. ... If everyone decides to do this, the whole market decides to do this, we will sink deeper and deeper and there will be no turning back." Mr Ang added that he felt retrenchment was a big blow to the workers involved, and decreasing quality would simply affect a firm's reputation. ...
Comment2
The argument is teleological, that is, an appeal to consequences. They are:
1. If (discounts), then (no turning back)
2. If (retrenchment), then (blow to workers)
3. If (cut quality), then (damage reputation)
Unstated, but clearly intended, the three measures also have the benefit of saving costs.
Considering all the consequences, the harms outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the three measures should not be used.
Quote3
Mr Cheong Hai Poh, president of the Food and Beverage Managers' Association, felt that innovation was the key: "The most unique and challenging question ... is, 'How do you innovate?' Innovation will make your company stand out from the rest." Mr Ang felt that it was important to improve the quality of food and service, especially now as "it is an opportunity to increase customer loyalty".
Comment3
Having rejected some measures, we now turn to recommending some other measures. Again, the argument is teleological. Here are the consequences:
4. If (innovate), then (stand out)
5. If (improve quality), then (increase loyalty)
An unstated but clearly possible consequence of these measures is that costs will be incurred. Will the benefits outweigh the harm?
I am pleased to advise readers that the next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 May at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (but personal expenses for food and drink). All are welcome. (For more information on what a philosophy cafe is, please visit my website via the link on the left.)
END
Should schools allow gender debates?
One newspaper reader replies to a letter calling for a suspension of sex education in schools. We analyse the writer's arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.A18 (letters)
Headline: Instilling values a complex task
Writer: Warren Mark Liew
Quote1
I read with concern last Saturday's letter supporting the suspension of all sexuality education programmes offered by external agencies. ...
Comment
This identifies the topic of discussion.
Quote2
Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education's (MOE) push for critical thinking.
Comment2
Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premiss1: If (censor all), then (contrary to MOE)
Premiss2: Not-(contrary to MOE) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(censor all) [suppressed]
This is an enthymeme, a partial argument. We complete it above, supplying the suppressed portions as well.
The argument structure is the special case of the Modus Tollens known as reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity). Censoring all alternative views has the consequence of being contrary to MOE's policy (Premiss1). This consequence is absurd, so we reject it (Premiss2). This leads us to the inevitable conclusion of rejecting (censor all).
Quote3
If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?
Comment3
The question at the end of this quote is a rhetorical question, meaning it should be read as a statement: "this balanced approach should be similarly extended ...". In general, I advise against using rhetorical questions, as we cannot be sure the reader will understand its intention as a statement. Better to just make the statement.
This is an argument urging consistency (Premiss1):
Premiss1: If (abortion debate), then (gender debate)
Premiss2: (abortion debate)
Conclusion: Hence, (gender debate)
The argument structure is a Modus Ponens, hence valid. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. Premiss1 is the statement of consistency. If Premiss1 is held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Quote4
A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore's society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well researched knowledge and information.
Comment4
This argument is premissed upon an understanding of what comprises a (mature curriculum), and on our desire for such.
Premiss1: If (mature curriculum), then (reflect all views)
Premiss2: (mature curriculum) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (reflect all views) [suppressed]
The argument form (technical term for argument structure) is the valid Modus Ponens. If the two premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Quote5
Perhaps, MOE would be wise to consult students for their views on what ought to be included in a 21st century sexuality education curriculum. Our children are often more precocious than we give them credit for.
Comment5
Premiss1: If (children precocious), then (consult students) [suppressed]
Premiss2: (children precocious)
Conclusion: Hence, (consult students)
Quote6
Silencing their views in favour of the dominant conservatism is itself a kind of prejudice against the ability of young people to think for themselves.
Comment6
This argument is, like that in Comment2, a Modus Tollens -- except that it is not the special case of reduction ad absurdum. Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premiss1: If (silence children), then (prejudice)
Premiss2: Not-(prejudice) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(silence children) [suppressed]
The argument is valid. If the premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Comment7
Note the different thrusts of the various arguments.
Comment2: Do not censor all views.
Comment3, 4: Allow gender debate, reflect all views.
Comment5: Consult children
Comment6: Do not silence children
Note also that 2, 3, 4 may not be compatible with 5, 6. It is logically possible (though highly unlikely) for the children to desire censorship.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 13/5/9, p.A18 (letters)
Headline: Instilling values a complex task
Writer: Warren Mark Liew
Quote1
I read with concern last Saturday's letter supporting the suspension of all sexuality education programmes offered by external agencies. ...
Comment
This identifies the topic of discussion.
Quote2
Censoring all alternative views would be contrary to the Ministry of Education's (MOE) push for critical thinking.
Comment2
Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premiss1: If (censor all), then (contrary to MOE)
Premiss2: Not-(contrary to MOE) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(censor all) [suppressed]
This is an enthymeme, a partial argument. We complete it above, supplying the suppressed portions as well.
The argument structure is the special case of the Modus Tollens known as reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity). Censoring all alternative views has the consequence of being contrary to MOE's policy (Premiss1). This consequence is absurd, so we reject it (Premiss2). This leads us to the inevitable conclusion of rejecting (censor all).
Quote3
If argumentative essays at the secondary and junior college levels can encourage students to engage both sides of the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" abortion debate, why should not this balanced approach be similarly extended to the controversial topics of gender roles and sexual orientation?
Comment3
The question at the end of this quote is a rhetorical question, meaning it should be read as a statement: "this balanced approach should be similarly extended ...". In general, I advise against using rhetorical questions, as we cannot be sure the reader will understand its intention as a statement. Better to just make the statement.
This is an argument urging consistency (Premiss1):
Premiss1: If (abortion debate), then (gender debate)
Premiss2: (abortion debate)
Conclusion: Hence, (gender debate)
The argument structure is a Modus Ponens, hence valid. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. Premiss1 is the statement of consistency. If Premiss1 is held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Quote4
A mature curriculum for sexuality education should reflect not only the mainstream views and values of Singapore's society but also an educated awareness of alternative views based on well researched knowledge and information.
Comment4
This argument is premissed upon an understanding of what comprises a (mature curriculum), and on our desire for such.
Premiss1: If (mature curriculum), then (reflect all views)
Premiss2: (mature curriculum) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (reflect all views) [suppressed]
The argument form (technical term for argument structure) is the valid Modus Ponens. If the two premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Quote5
Perhaps, MOE would be wise to consult students for their views on what ought to be included in a 21st century sexuality education curriculum. Our children are often more precocious than we give them credit for.
Comment5
Premiss1: If (children precocious), then (consult students) [suppressed]
Premiss2: (children precocious)
Conclusion: Hence, (consult students)
Quote6
Silencing their views in favour of the dominant conservatism is itself a kind of prejudice against the ability of young people to think for themselves.
Comment6
This argument is, like that in Comment2, a Modus Tollens -- except that it is not the special case of reduction ad absurdum. Here is the argument, formally presented:
Premiss1: If (silence children), then (prejudice)
Premiss2: Not-(prejudice) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(silence children) [suppressed]
The argument is valid. If the premisses are held to be true, the conclusion follows.
Comment7
Note the different thrusts of the various arguments.
Comment2: Do not censor all views.
Comment3, 4: Allow gender debate, reflect all views.
Comment5: Consult children
Comment6: Do not silence children
Note also that 2, 3, 4 may not be compatible with 5, 6. It is logically possible (though highly unlikely) for the children to desire censorship.
END
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Who would hire an argumentologist?
The other evening, a new acquaintance, upon inspecting my name card, asked: "Just what is an argumentologist? Who would engage your services?" These are both questions deserving of a considered answer.
I coined the word "argumentologist" -- but it is not a frivolous or careless coinage.
The "argument" portion comes from logic, where it refers to the combination of reason and position, taken together.
The "ologist" portion of the word "argumentologist" carries the meaning "student of", as is also the case in the words "psychologist", "etymologist", "entomologist", "oncologist", "anthropologist" etc.
Thus, an argumentologist is a student of arguments. His expertise is analysing and evaluating arguments. He learns to differentiate between bad and good arguments.
Now for the second question: Who would engage an argumentologist's services?
A manager receives proposals for competing new directions or actions. He may need help with the corresponding arguments.
Two disputing parties hurl arguments at each other, making no headway in either direction. They may need help to assess who has the stronger case.
Someone is on the verge of a major life decision, and is confused by all the pros and cons of each option. He may need help to weigh the options, and to decide from among them.
A parent agonises over his work-life balance. He may need help finding the middle ground.
A student can't decide whether his teacher's or his parent's views on sex are correct. He may need help to analyse and evaluate the various arguments.
All these people, and many others, can benefit from engaging an argumentologist's services -- either to perform the analyses and evaluation for them, or to teach them how to do it for themselves.
Knowing why one believes and does what one believes and does is the only path to living a conscious life. (Caveat: One is, of course, free to live an unconscious life.)
Finally, to all those still sceptical of the benefits of engaging an argumentologist's services, let me just ask this: What are the tests for a good arguments?
I coined the word "argumentologist" -- but it is not a frivolous or careless coinage.
The "argument" portion comes from logic, where it refers to the combination of reason and position, taken together.
The "ologist" portion of the word "argumentologist" carries the meaning "student of", as is also the case in the words "psychologist", "etymologist", "entomologist", "oncologist", "anthropologist" etc.
Thus, an argumentologist is a student of arguments. His expertise is analysing and evaluating arguments. He learns to differentiate between bad and good arguments.
Now for the second question: Who would engage an argumentologist's services?
A manager receives proposals for competing new directions or actions. He may need help with the corresponding arguments.
Two disputing parties hurl arguments at each other, making no headway in either direction. They may need help to assess who has the stronger case.
Someone is on the verge of a major life decision, and is confused by all the pros and cons of each option. He may need help to weigh the options, and to decide from among them.
A parent agonises over his work-life balance. He may need help finding the middle ground.
A student can't decide whether his teacher's or his parent's views on sex are correct. He may need help to analyse and evaluate the various arguments.
All these people, and many others, can benefit from engaging an argumentologist's services -- either to perform the analyses and evaluation for them, or to teach them how to do it for themselves.
Knowing why one believes and does what one believes and does is the only path to living a conscious life. (Caveat: One is, of course, free to live an unconscious life.)
Finally, to all those still sceptical of the benefits of engaging an argumentologist's services, let me just ask this: What are the tests for a good arguments?
Should big bras cost more?
Marks & Spencer recently changed its pricing policy on big bras. We examine the reasons.
Source: The Straits Times, 9/5/9, p.C25
Headline: Marks & Spencer scraps 'big boobs' bra surcharge after revolt
Quote1
LONDON: Britain's largest clothing retailer, Marks & Spencer (M&S), has backed down on its incendiary policy of charging a two pound (S$4.45) surcharge for bras that are DD or larger. ...
Comment1
This is the decision. Let's look at the reasons.
Quote2
Some 14,000 women had lent their names to a Facebook campaign aimed at eliminating the big boob penalty. ... The group, which grew exponentially in the last few days, had vowed to challenge [CEO] Mr Rose and other M&S executives at the company's annual meeting this summer. ... "They're didn't want a lot of big-breasted women storming their meeting," said Ms [Becky] Mount, 19, [who co-founded the Busts 4 Justice Facebook group].
Comment2
This is a threat of force. We do not accept it when the robber waves his gun at the victim, and it should not be accepted here. This fallacy carries the name Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick).
Quote3
The new policy brings M&S into line with other major retailers in Britain, who decline to pass the higher cost of designing and manufacturing large-size bras on to the consumer.
Comment3
This describes the situation after the M&S decision, and was not offered as a reason. Had it been offered as a reason, the argument would have been:
Reason: Other stores charge the same price for all bras.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should charge the same price for all bras.
This is an appeal to popular sentiment -- which could be wrong (think slavery in the 18th century). Consider if no shop could offer a discount unless every shop offers a discount. This argument carries the name Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery), and must be rejected.
Quote4
[Buyer] Ms [Nicky] Clayton said M&S probably ran into trouble because its lingerie price policy differed from the strategy used for other items. ... AP.
Comment4
Here's the argument:
Reason: M&S practises one-price-all-sizes for all other items.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should practise one-price-all-sizes for its bras.
This is an appeal to consistency -- always a powerful call in logic. Indeed, it fits one definition of justice: that similar things should be treated similarly, and different things should be treated differently. In this case, the similar things are items of clothing, and the similar treatment is one-price-all-sizes.
Source: The Straits Times, 9/5/9, p.C25
Headline: Marks & Spencer scraps 'big boobs' bra surcharge after revolt
Quote1
LONDON: Britain's largest clothing retailer, Marks & Spencer (M&S), has backed down on its incendiary policy of charging a two pound (S$4.45) surcharge for bras that are DD or larger. ...
Comment1
This is the decision. Let's look at the reasons.
Quote2
Some 14,000 women had lent their names to a Facebook campaign aimed at eliminating the big boob penalty. ... The group, which grew exponentially in the last few days, had vowed to challenge [CEO] Mr Rose and other M&S executives at the company's annual meeting this summer. ... "They're didn't want a lot of big-breasted women storming their meeting," said Ms [Becky] Mount, 19, [who co-founded the Busts 4 Justice Facebook group].
Comment2
This is a threat of force. We do not accept it when the robber waves his gun at the victim, and it should not be accepted here. This fallacy carries the name Argumentum ad Baculum (appeal to the stick).
Quote3
The new policy brings M&S into line with other major retailers in Britain, who decline to pass the higher cost of designing and manufacturing large-size bras on to the consumer.
Comment3
This describes the situation after the M&S decision, and was not offered as a reason. Had it been offered as a reason, the argument would have been:
Reason: Other stores charge the same price for all bras.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should charge the same price for all bras.
This is an appeal to popular sentiment -- which could be wrong (think slavery in the 18th century). Consider if no shop could offer a discount unless every shop offers a discount. This argument carries the name Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery), and must be rejected.
Quote4
[Buyer] Ms [Nicky] Clayton said M&S probably ran into trouble because its lingerie price policy differed from the strategy used for other items. ... AP.
Comment4
Here's the argument:
Reason: M&S practises one-price-all-sizes for all other items.
Conclusion: Hence, M&S should practise one-price-all-sizes for its bras.
This is an appeal to consistency -- always a powerful call in logic. Indeed, it fits one definition of justice: that similar things should be treated similarly, and different things should be treated differently. In this case, the similar things are items of clothing, and the similar treatment is one-price-all-sizes.
Where is the Singapore economy headed?
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently forecast a dire immediate future for the Singapore economy. But others disagree. We analyse the arguments.
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Singapore economy may shrink 10%: IMF
Writer: By Fiona Chan
Quote1
The IMF has slashed its forecast for Singapore's growth this year, saying the economy could decline 10 percent to end up as the worst performer in Asia. ... These dire forecasts were released in the IMF's latest regional economic outlook, launched yesterday at the MAS Building. ... Singapore saw the biggest downward revision, said IMF representative Joshua Felman: ...
"If you look around the region, what you see is the countries that have been hit hardest in the crisis have two characteristics: They are the most open economies and they are the ones that specialise in manufacturing. ... Singapore fits well under both categories, and that's why we expect that the decline in output this year is really going to be quite sizeable." ...
Comment1
This is an example of J S Mill's Method of Agreement. Several instances of the phenomenon (hard hit economy) are examined for preceding factors. Common factors are identified: (open economy) and (manufacturing). These are claimed to be the causes. Singapore has both factors. Hence, Singapore will have the effect (hard hit economy).
Quote2
Dr Chua Hak Bin of Citigroup, who spoke in a panel discussion at the IMF event, ... noted that Asia's historical experience has shown that recessions tend to be followed by V-shaped recoveries, especially in small open economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Comment2
This is an inductive argument:
Reason: In the past, recessions followed by V recoveries (esp. in small, open economies)
Conclusion: Hence, this recession will be followed by V recovery.
Note that this conclusion does not contradict the conclusion in Comment1. It is logically possible for a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery.
Quote3
Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng, who was also at yesterday's launch, said ... "The IMF forecast does not seem to square with the indicators that we are seeing, including the fact that exports are rebounding quite smartly in month-on-month terms."
Comment3
We complete the argument:
Premiss1: Exports rebound month-on-month
Premiss2: If (exports rebound month-on-month), then (not-(hard hit economy)) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (not-(hard hit economy))
This conclusion does contradict the conclusion in Comment1. The question lies with Premiss2: How much of a rebound is needed to bring about the consequence of (not-(hard hit economy))?
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Economy's openness 'to ensure quicker rebound'
Writer: By Robin Chan
Quote4
But this openness will mean a quicker rebound when a global recovery kicks in, Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) deputy managing director Ong Chong Tee told a business seminar yesterday at the Ritz-Carlton Millenia. This openness and trade dependency makes the economy "more susceptible to global headwinds."
Comment4
This returns us to the argument in Comment1. It wants to revise Premiss1 to:
If (open economy), then (greater susceptibility)
This would allow a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery -- provided the rest of the world recovers first.
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Singapore economy may shrink 10%: IMF
Writer: By Fiona Chan
Quote1
The IMF has slashed its forecast for Singapore's growth this year, saying the economy could decline 10 percent to end up as the worst performer in Asia. ... These dire forecasts were released in the IMF's latest regional economic outlook, launched yesterday at the MAS Building. ... Singapore saw the biggest downward revision, said IMF representative Joshua Felman: ...
"If you look around the region, what you see is the countries that have been hit hardest in the crisis have two characteristics: They are the most open economies and they are the ones that specialise in manufacturing. ... Singapore fits well under both categories, and that's why we expect that the decline in output this year is really going to be quite sizeable." ...
Comment1
This is an example of J S Mill's Method of Agreement. Several instances of the phenomenon (hard hit economy) are examined for preceding factors. Common factors are identified: (open economy) and (manufacturing). These are claimed to be the causes. Singapore has both factors. Hence, Singapore will have the effect (hard hit economy).
Quote2
Dr Chua Hak Bin of Citigroup, who spoke in a panel discussion at the IMF event, ... noted that Asia's historical experience has shown that recessions tend to be followed by V-shaped recoveries, especially in small open economies such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
Comment2
This is an inductive argument:
Reason: In the past, recessions followed by V recoveries (esp. in small, open economies)
Conclusion: Hence, this recession will be followed by V recovery.
Note that this conclusion does not contradict the conclusion in Comment1. It is logically possible for a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery.
Quote3
Citigroup economist Kit Wei Zheng, who was also at yesterday's launch, said ... "The IMF forecast does not seem to square with the indicators that we are seeing, including the fact that exports are rebounding quite smartly in month-on-month terms."
Comment3
We complete the argument:
Premiss1: Exports rebound month-on-month
Premiss2: If (exports rebound month-on-month), then (not-(hard hit economy)) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (not-(hard hit economy))
This conclusion does contradict the conclusion in Comment1. The question lies with Premiss2: How much of a rebound is needed to bring about the consequence of (not-(hard hit economy))?
Source: The Straits Times, 7/5/9, p.B15
Headline: Economy's openness 'to ensure quicker rebound'
Writer: By Robin Chan
Quote4
But this openness will mean a quicker rebound when a global recovery kicks in, Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS) deputy managing director Ong Chong Tee told a business seminar yesterday at the Ritz-Carlton Millenia. This openness and trade dependency makes the economy "more susceptible to global headwinds."
Comment4
This returns us to the argument in Comment1. It wants to revise Premiss1 to:
If (open economy), then (greater susceptibility)
This would allow a hard hit economy to have a V-shaped recovery -- provided the rest of the world recovers first.
Are Singapore made goods safe?
My Paper, 6/5/9, p. A6
Singapore voted 2nd-safest manufacturing centre in Asia
By Cheryl Lim
Quote1:
Singapore has been voted the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia ... in a consumer perception survey by ... The Research Pacific Group. ... Ms Koh Wan Lyn, a senior research analyst at Research Pacific ... said that the poll was "designed to understand consumer attitudes towards a product's country of origin."
Comment1:
This clarification is significant. It is consumer attitudes that are being measured here, and not actual product/service safety.
Quote2:
Explaining Singapore's commendable ranking in the poll, she said: "Singapore has a very clean track record when it comes to its products because of its regulating agencies. They ensure that its manufacturers comply with international standards and adhere to strict safety regulations."
Comment2:
I am sceptical if regulating agencies, international standards and safety regulations are things that the average consumer is familiar with. These causal factors seem more likely to explain actual product/service safety rather than consumers' perceived product/service safety. In short, these do not explain the poll results.
Quote3:
The airline and medical sectors were two categories in which Singapore scored well. Ms Koh attributed this to the "good reputation of Singapore Airlines, and the medical and research infrastructure provided by organisations like A*Star."
Comment3:
Attributing consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety to "good reputation" is akin to saying "He is fat because he is overweight" -- it's just saying the same thing in different words. As for "medical and research infrastructure", they too go towards explaining actual product/service safety rather than consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety.
Summary & Conclusion:
The poll shows that consumers regard Singapore as the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. This is not the same as saying that Singapore is actually the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. We have not been offered any good explanation for the favourable perception.
Singapore voted 2nd-safest manufacturing centre in Asia
By Cheryl Lim
Quote1:
Singapore has been voted the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia ... in a consumer perception survey by ... The Research Pacific Group. ... Ms Koh Wan Lyn, a senior research analyst at Research Pacific ... said that the poll was "designed to understand consumer attitudes towards a product's country of origin."
Comment1:
This clarification is significant. It is consumer attitudes that are being measured here, and not actual product/service safety.
Quote2:
Explaining Singapore's commendable ranking in the poll, she said: "Singapore has a very clean track record when it comes to its products because of its regulating agencies. They ensure that its manufacturers comply with international standards and adhere to strict safety regulations."
Comment2:
I am sceptical if regulating agencies, international standards and safety regulations are things that the average consumer is familiar with. These causal factors seem more likely to explain actual product/service safety rather than consumers' perceived product/service safety. In short, these do not explain the poll results.
Quote3:
The airline and medical sectors were two categories in which Singapore scored well. Ms Koh attributed this to the "good reputation of Singapore Airlines, and the medical and research infrastructure provided by organisations like A*Star."
Comment3:
Attributing consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety to "good reputation" is akin to saying "He is fat because he is overweight" -- it's just saying the same thing in different words. As for "medical and research infrastructure", they too go towards explaining actual product/service safety rather than consumers' favourable perceived product/service safety.
Summary & Conclusion:
The poll shows that consumers regard Singapore as the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. This is not the same as saying that Singapore is actually the second-safest manufacturing centre in Asia. We have not been offered any good explanation for the favourable perception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)