singaporephilosopher

Whom shall we vote for president? Part 3

2011-08-22T00:31:00.006+08:00

A dreadful thought just occurred to me: We must not cast a negative vote -- it may become self-defeating. Let me explain.

There are four presidential candidates. Let us call them A, B, C and D. We decide we do not want A to be president. Hence, we decide to not vote for A. This is what I call a negative vote -- a vote we will not cast. We then randomly cast our vote for one of the other three candidates. Our positive votes therefore will be split among B, C and D. In this way, the result can be A: 30%, B: 25%, C: 25%, D: 20%. Even though A polls a mere 30%, A becomes president! Instead of ensuring that A does not become president, this way of voting could positively make him president! Our negative vote has become self-defeating.

There may be some who would say a candidate garnering such a low percentage of the valid votes does not have the mandate of the population. I disagree. The mandate of the population arises from the fact that the entire population was polled, and not from the percentage of the polled population which voted for the candidate. A winner with 30% of the valid votes does have the mandate of the population.

Thus, we must instead cast a positive vote. We must vote for the candidate whom we think will best be able to block any (in his view) bad decisions of the PAP government -- at least those within his power to veto. (I specify the PAP government only because that happens to be the present government. In principle, it could be government by any political party.) I have in my first post on this topic specified the questions we should ask and answer in determining our personal best candidates.

Let us all cast positive votes, not negative ones.

END

Whom shall we vote for president? Part 2

2011-08-19T10:43:00.004+08:00

I said in my previous post on this topic: "The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters."

Veto power is a negative power, a blocking power. It is the power to prevent something from happening -- quite different from the power to make something happen.

The candidates' respective campaigns are underway. Some candidates are telling us what they would do if they are elected president. These are indications of how they would exercise positive power, creative power. These are not indications of how they would exercise veto power.

What we need to hear from the respective candidates are what they would block the PAP government from doing should they feel such initiatives inappropriate or unwise. We need to hear from the respective candidates how they are prepared to exercise negative power should the need arise.

So far as I recall, only one candidate has said he is prepared to exercise negative power. But he has not yet indicated the kind of government initiatives he is prepared to veto. (Note that no initiative is in principle precluded from a veto, since reserves may be drawn upon for any purpose.)

In the days to follow, I shall be listening out for the respective candidates' thoughts on their prospective use of veto power. And so should every voter.

END

Whom shall we vote for president?

2011-08-16T17:50:00.005+08:00

I have some thoughts on Singapore's upcoming election for president.

The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters. We in Singapore call this the "second key". It is to confer such a mandate that the president is nationally elected. Following from the originating principle, the electorate should therefore choose someone who has the nerve to defy the government should the need arise. Would a candidate who had risen to the top in the PAP government have the nerve? Would a candidate with close ties to the PAP have the nerve? Would a candidate from outside the PAP have the nerve? Is nerve a function of party affiliation? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.

Second, on the matter of a "silent" president. Let us assume that a day comes when the president deems a government proposal worthy of a veto. Should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Perhaps Singapore's Constitution does allow the president to speak on the certain specified matters listed in the Constitution. But the present debate focuses on matters outside this list. Should the president remain silent on those other matters?

Let us modify the above scenario. Let us assume that the government makes a proposal to draw on the reserves for a purpose outside the certain matters specified in the Constitution as pertaining to the role of the president. In such a case, should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Should the president remain silent on such matters until a related draw on the reserves is proposed? Should the president speak up as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable about some policy directions? Which candidate can best keep silent or speak up? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.

Third, on the matter of institutional support for candidates. Institutions and organisations do not have a vote in the election for president. No person, organisation or institution can instruct anyone how to vote in the election. Our votes are secret. Given these, "institutional support" is an oxymoron.

Finally, I have heard some people say they will vote for so-and-so because he is their relation or friend. Of course, people do behave in this way. This is the wrong way. We must vote for whomever among the candidates we think will do the job best.

These are my thoughts on our upcoming election. I hope we choose the best person from among the candidates.

END

What death do you prefer?

2011-08-15T15:38:00.000+08:00

Recently, I helped facilitate a philosophy dialogue at a local secondary school. The students were given the following scenario. Count Dracula makes an offer to a man: Remain mortal (and someday die) or remain at his present age immortally.

The discussion came down to a choice between length of life and meaning of life. Clearly, there are four combinations: a long and meaningful life, a short and meaningful life, a long and meaningless life, or a short and meaningless life. I asked the students to rank these four combinations. The first and last came readily. The most preferred is a long and meaningful life, and the least preferred is a short and meaningless life. I expected there to be vigorous debate over positions two and three. To my surprise, that did not happen. The unanimous preference was a short and meaningful life at position two, then a long and meaningless life at position three. Thus, we drew the philosophical conclusion that meaning in life is more important than longevity of life.

On another occasion, I encountered someone soliciting pledges for a cancer charity. I told this person that while it is good to try to help others in need, we must accept that people will die. The only questions are when and how – never whether.

Which brings us to another ranking, that of the manner of death. I rank (and I think most people would agree with me here) the top three as:

1. To die in one’s sleep.
2. To die under general anesthesia.
3. To die as a result of sudden trauma eg. an airplane crash, gunshot.

After these come the combinations of time, pain, debilitation, and dependence. There are 16 combinations. Readers are invited to ponder how to rank them.

But beware: Today’s society considers such a ranking exercise as politically incorrect – and hence irrelevant.

END

Should we take the morality pill?

2011-07-13T15:02:00.002+08:00

Headline: The moral dilemma
Author: Guy Kahane
Source: The Sunday Times, 10 July 2011

Quote1
Scientists have not only identified some of the brain pathways that shape our ethical decisions, but also the chemical substances that modulate this neural activity. … Of course, no one is developing a “moral pill” that will transform us into saints. But the research is advancing fast, and it is almost certain to suggest new ways to shape our moral intuitions, sentiments, and motivations.

Comment1
This sets out the background for what follows.

Quote2
Should we use our growing scientific understanding of the basis of human morality to try to make people morally better? …

Comment2
This presents the philosophically interesting question.

Quote3
Many will agree … that our ability to distinguish right from wrong is something precious that we should safeguard, not a broken clock that scientists should fix. …

Comment3
This is a premise in an incompletely presented argument (an enthymeme). Here is the complete argument:

Premise1: If (use science to make people morally better) then (we treat morality as a broken clock)
Premise2: Not-(we treat morality as a broken clock)
Conclusion: Hence, Not-(use science to make people morally better)

This is a Modus Tollens, a valid argument form. The only question then is: Are the premises true?

Quote4
Even in the most advanced and affluent societies, a vast concentrated effort is needed to preserve even minimal decency: think of locks, security alarms, police, courts and prisons. …

Comment4
This denies Premise2 in Comment3: We do treat morality as a broken clock – and we do try to fix it. The argument is rebutted. However, it does not follow from this that the conclusion is false. It is only that this conclusion cannot be reached via this argument.

Quote5
Humans are born with the capacity to be moral, but it is a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world.

Comment5
This makes a general statement, which I expect will be the premise to an argument. However, no argument is offered to support this general statement. We are left with intuition. I am not prepared to intuitively accept that “humans are born with the capacity to be moral”. I am also not prepared to intuitively accept that the human capacity to be moral is “a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world”.

Quote6
For thousands of years, humans have relied on education, persuasion, social institutions and the threat of real (or supernatural) punishment to make people behave decently. We could all be morally better, but it is clear that this traditional approach cannot take us further. It is not as if people would suddenly begin to behave better if we just gave them more facts and statistics, or better arguments.

Comment6
This is a different claim from Quote5. This says we have exhausted all the traditional ways of making people behave decently. This makes no claim on a limited congenital capacity for morality. This is also not yet an argument.

Quote7
So we should not be too quick to dismiss the suggestion that science might help – in the first instance, by helping us design more effective institutions, more inspiring moral education, or more persuasive ethical arguments.

Comment7
This contradicts Quote6, which said “education, persuasion … [and] institutions … cannot take us further”.

Quote8
But science might also offer more direct ways of influencing our brains. …

Comment8
Following from Quote6, if all the traditional means have been exhausted, science offers a new alternative. Should this alternative be taken? This repeats the question presented in Quote2.

Quote9
Governments must not be given the power to control its citizens’ moral code – we know that if they had such power, they would misuse it. …

Comment9
This scientific alternative cannot be presented to the government, because it would abuse the instrument. This is a modus tollens argument. Can the alternative then be presented to the people?

Quote10
It is not so obvious that people would really want to take pills that would make them morally better. It is not clear that people really want to be morally better. …

Comment10
Well, we cannot count on people to voluntarily take the scientific alternative.

Quote11
We do not yet know what is possible. But it is better to begin the ethical discussion too early than too late.

Comment11
The question remains open. But let’s talk about it (even if the traditional method of discussion has been exhausted?)

END

What is the role of a company board?

2011-06-27T13:36:00.000+08:00

Headline: Hard for board to be brake and accelerator
Author: Lawrence Loh
Source: The Straits Times, 18 June 2011

Quote1:
The proposals in the Consultation Paper on revisions to the Code of Corporate Governance … drill down to the very mechanics of corporate supervision. … One issue that bears more discussion is the philosophical one of what the role of a company board is, in the context of corporate governance. …

Comment1:
This sets the context for the ensuing discussion, and pinpoints the matter of interest – the philosophical issue of the appropriate role of a company board. This falls clearly into the area of philosophy known as Business Ethics or Philosophy of Business.

Quote2:
In an entrepreneurial context, the board is often a vanguard, a torchbearer and a scout for the company. … The board assumes a key business function and helps to create value for the company. … But the worry is that boards may be constituted too much for control functions, and too little for value creation. …

Comment2:
This introduces the disjunction (an either-or situation) between a “value creation function” and a “control function” for the company’s board of directors. With reference to Quote1, the philosophical issue is clearly the relation between these two functions.

Quote3:
At its heart, there is an underlying tension in conceptions of the role of a company board. Is it meant as a control function (like a watchdog) or as a value creation function (to drive business)? A watchdog board will provide checks and balances on the management. … But there is a risk that this may impede agility that drives responsiveness and success. …

Comment3:
The disjunction is now clearly stated: Either (control) or (value creation). The stated risk suggests that the disjunction is exclusive (they cannot be both adopted). We now expect to see arguments for and against each disjunct.

Quote4:
No thanks to the recent spate of financial crises, the pendulum may have swung more towards control rather than value creation. Whether this is desirable is debatable. …

Comment4:
The disjunction, and the philosophical issue, is once again stated.

Quote5:
It will be hard to have a two-in-one role. It is like a car. It will be hard for a board to be both a brake and an accelerator at the same time.

Comment5:
The exclusive nature of the disjunction is repeated. It is a case of “either but not both”.

Quote6:
I am not advocating that we disregard the need for codes of governance in their current forms and thus throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Comment6:
The author does not completely reject the control function. Some control (the baby) is still needed. No explicit argument is presented for this. However, we can intuitively see that a company with no control function is untenable.

Quote7:
The more important consideration is to promote a code purposefully without losing sight of the essence of the business corporation. A code should not be so stifling as to kill the goose – the company – that lays the golden eggs.

Comment7:
On the other hand, ignoring the value creation function will result in the collapse of the company, and hence obviate any role for the board. This is an argumentum ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity), leading to the conclusion that the value creation function must also be served. So we need some control (Quote6), and some value creation (Quote7). How much of each?

Quote8:
There may not necessarily be a conflict of interest between the control and value roles of any board in itself.

Comment8:
In Quote3, the author says there is an “underlying tension” between the two roles. In Quote5, he says “it will be hard to have a two-in-one role”. Now we learn that this tension and difficulty is not necessarily so. Now it turns out that the disjunction is inclusive (either and possibly both).

Quote9:
The tradeoff has to be weighed intelligently and justified by its context, for any company to define the posture of the board.

Comment9:
It is possible to have both roles present, but they have a “zero sum” (tradeoff) relation. More of one will mean less of the other. Certainly the optimum must be sought intelligently. I am, however, perplexed by the phrase “justified by its context”. If each company’s optimum (between the board’s control and value roles) is particular to each company, then there is not much that a Code of Corporate Governance can specify.

Quote10:
The best prescription for companies is to do more with less, and create more value with less control.

Comment10:
The author’s philosophical position is now made clear: Boards of directors should play more of a value creation role than a control role. Given Quote9, the specific optimum point for each company is particular to that company. While the philosophical position is now clear, what about the supporting arguments? We have intuited an argument for the control role (Comment6). We have seen an argument for the value role (Comment7). We have not seen any argument supporting the claim that there is a tradeoff between the control and value roles. We have not seen any argument for the value role superceding the control role. The philosophical discussion is incomplete.

END

Should we seek or lose our selves?

2011-06-22T14:21:00.001+08:00

Headline: Losing yourself in the pursuit of life
Author: David Brooks
Source: The Straits Times,1 June 2011

Quote1:
If you sample some of the commencement addresses … these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture. But, of course, this mantra misleads on nearly every front.

Comment1:
This is Brooks’ thesis: that the mantra misleads. His argument is inductive – it takes the form of several examples. We consider each in turn.

Quote2:
College graduates are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to.

Comment2:
The mantra says “limitless possibilities” whilst the reality is “seriously tie oneself down”. What is a possibility? The word “possible” means “it can happen”, not “it is very likely to happen”. Thus, while the statistical probability is that new graduates will quickly begin to “seriously tie oneself down”, it can still happen that others will pursue their “limitless possibilities” – and some will succeed in their pursuit.

Quote3:
Today's graduates are also told to … find themselves first and then … live their quest. But … most people … are called by a problem, and the self is constructed gradually by their calling.

Comment3:
The mantra says “find self, then live” whilst the reality is “live, then find self”. Brooks says most people are called by a problem. Problems are neutral. Any given problem will call some people, and not others. Who feels called by a problem is a function of the person’s self, not a function of the problem.

Quote4:
The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But … when you read a biography of someone you admire, it's rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness.… It's excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.

Comment4:
The mantra says “seek happiness” whilst the reality is “we admire excellence, not happiness.” This reminds me of the hedonic paradox: that happiness cannot be pursued directly, only indirectly. Perhaps excellence is an indirect way of achieving happiness. Surely we cannot take the quote to mean that these people that we admire went actively in search of unhappiness – and that excellence was a by-product of that search.

Quote5:
Finally, graduates are told to be independent-minded and to express their inner spirit. But … doing your job well often means suppressing yourself. … Being a good doctor often means being part of a team.

Comment5:
The mantra says “be independent minded” while the reality is “don’t”. Progress is possible only if initiated by people sufficiently independently minded to go against the wisdom of the day. Witness Galileo, Edison, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs etc.

Quote6:
Today’s graduates enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the centre of a life. But … they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the centre. Fulfilment is a by-product of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly. … Life comes to a point only in those moments when the self dissolves into some task. The purpose in life is not to find yourself. It’s to lose yourself. -- New York Times.

Comment6:
The mantra says “self at centre of life” whilst the reality is “dissolve self into task”. Workaholism is a huge contributor to mid-life crises – when people suddenly realize they do not really know what they have been doing with their lives.

Comment7:
Taking an overall view, we must note that this is an inductive argument. It says that because the mantra misleads in so many cases, the mantra therefore misleads in general. I have considered the examples, and I am not convinced the mantra seriously misleads in these cases. But even if it did seriously mislead in these cases, there can still be uncited examples where the mantra does not mislead. What is needed in this argument is the additional premise that the cited examples cover the entire span of the mantra. However, such an additional premise is not provided.

END

Patriotism and a political dilemma

2011-05-04T11:23:00.003+08:00

Someone recently asked me what patriotism is in the context of a general elections. I answered that it is voting in the interest of the nation. This is in contrast to a commonly held view of voting in one's own interest. Voting in this latter way results in the interest of the majority being served, which is not necessarily identical with the interest of the nation being served. One key difference is that minority interests may be ignored or sidelined -- which is not in the nation's interest.

Now we come to the political dilemma.

When one is caught on the horns of a dilemma, one has to choose between two undesirable options. This is true by definition. There are several ways of dealing with a dilemma. One can show that one of the two options is not undesirable (swallow a horn), or one can find a third option (go between the horns).

The presented dilemma is: Some voters have to choose between "losing a capable minister" and "having no opposition in parliament".

Swallowing the first horn can take the form of "the capable minister can be profitably re-deployed". Swallowing the second horn can take the form of "there can be alternative non-ruling-party members of parliament". Taking either route will render that option no longer undesirable, and hence may be chosen without discomfort.

Going between the horns can take the form of spoiling one's vote. Unfortunately, this means dropping out of the political process, as spoilt votes are not counted towards any candidate winning a seat.

There is a final way to deal with a dilemma -- choose the less of the two evils. Here, the voter has to ask himself or herself which option is less undesirable in the nation's interest: "losing a capable minister" or "having no opposition in parliament" -- then vote accordingly.

END

Can consent be withdrawn?

2011-04-29T13:21:00.007+08:00

Headline: The purse on the park bench
Author: Ong Soh Chin
Source: The Straits Times, 14 April 2011

Quote1
In her 1991 essay, Rape and the Modern Sex War, controversial feminist writer Camille Paglia infamously blamed women for rape, citing the now well-known analogy of the purse on a park bench: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. Likewise, if a woman decides to get stonking drunk, wears a skimpy outfit or flirts excessively with a man, she should not be surprised if she gets assaulted.

Comment1
This is an argument by analogy, the weakest form of argument there is. It is based on similarity, and will break down once similarity no longer obtains. The relevant question of logic here is: Does the similarity hold up long enough to arrive at the desired conclusion?

Quote2
In 2008, actress Helen Mirren ... added that if a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, she still had the right to say "no", but that if a man ignored that request it should not be considered rape. Mirren said: "I don't think she can take that man to court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the man/woman relationship that have to be negotiated and worked out between them."

Comment2
Mirren makes a hypothetical (if-then) statement: If ((a woman voluntarily enters a man's bedroom) & (she engages in sexual activity)), then (the man cannot be accused of rape). We are not told of any argument supporting this statement. However, we are told that Mirren also simultaneously says this is a negotiable understanding between the woman and the man. Thus, no moral rule is laid down.

Quote3
While women should definitely exercise plain common sense when dating -- like not getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger -- a purse left on a park bench in a truly civilised society should be returned undisturbed to its rightful owner. I once left a shopping bag in a Tokyo department store for five hours. When I finally returned, it was still there, leaning against the pillar where I had left it. We should aspire to a moral universe benchmarked by Japan and not by some unruly cowboy town.

Comment3a
What makes a society "truly civilised"? If we answer "it is a society that leaves intact purses on park benches", then this becomes a circular argument -- one where the conclusion is contained in the premise. The argument would go: "In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, purses left on park benches will not be touched". I do not see that the author offers any other definition of a "truly civilised society".

Comment3b
In a society that leaves intact purses on park benches, there should be no reason for a woman to worry about "getting so drunk that she goes home with a stranger". The purse will by definition not be touched.

Quote4
What has not changed, however, are deep-rooted prejudices, chief of which is the notion that the woman is ultimately to blame. ... This line of reasoning is dangerous because it tacitly absolves men of their responsibility to practise self-restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control. This does a disservice to the many men out there who do treat women with respect.

Comment4
Here is the argument, formally presented:

Premise1: If (we say the woman is ultimately to blame), then (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control).

Premise2: If (we absolve men of responsibility for restraint, tarring them as brutes with no self-control), then (we do a disservice to men who treat women with respect).

Premise3 (implicit): "Disservice to men who treat women with respect" is an overwhelmingly undesirable consequence.

Conclusion (implicit): Hence, (by utilitarian ethics) we must not "say the woman is ultimately to blame".

This argument is a valid utilitarian argument: we should not adopt any course of action (or attitude) which leads to overwhelmingly undesirable consequences. Hence, we should examine the premises for truth, or the lack of it.

Consider Premise1. More simply expressed, it says: "If (we blame women), then (we say men need not hold back, cannot hold back)". But just because a man need not hold back does not mean he cannot hold back. The consequent (then portion) is false, making Premise1 false.

A sound argument must have every premise true. Since Premise1 is false, the argument fails.

Quote5
Men should be treated as people with the ability and desire for respectful behaviour to women. Rape prevention should include educating men that "no" means No. One should not fixate only on how women behave or dress.

Comment5
We need to recall Paglia's analogy: One would not leave a purse unattended and expect it not to be stolen. It is not a purse still hidden in the woman's handbag. We need to also recall Mirren's statement: If a woman voluntarily ended up in a man's bedroom and engaged in sexual activity, ... it should not be considered rape. She is not a woman who is merely walking along the street. The context of their views is significant and important. The woman had given every indication of interest and consent. It is in this context that she is "blamed" for what happens. Given this context, the question becomes: Can consent be withdrawn? Mirren clearly suggests the answer is "no, consent cannot be withdrawn". The author says men should be taught that "no" means No -- presumably even after having said "yes". In which case, the real question becomes: How is a respectful man in a civilised society to know when a woman's "yes" means Yes?

END

To regulate synthetic biology?

2010-12-17T18:53:00.002+08:00

Here’s a news item that caught my eye on 17 December 2010.

Quote1
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- A White House panel said on Thursday the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed. … The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues “concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks. … Future developments may raise further objections, but the commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time.” …

Comment1
This is a standard utilitarian approach to ethics: to consider the nett of pleasures and pains (in modern terms benefits and costs) when deciding if an act is moral. What is lacking here is anticipation – looking ahead to foresee that pleasures and pains could emerge from this new science, and then deciding which to permit or forbid. By the time the deed is done, it would be too late to forbid its doing. Ethics must stay ahead of technology, not bring up the rear when the genie is out of the bottle.

Quote2
The 13-member panel of scientists, ethicists and public policy experts was created by [US President Barack] Obama last year. Its first order of business was to consider the issue of synthetic biology after the J. Craig Venter Institute announced in May it had developed the first self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome. Those opposed to Venter's techniques said the discovery was tantamount to “playing God.” … Announcing the creation of the “first synthetic cell,” lead researcher Craig Venter said at the time it “certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works.” But the commission said Venter’s team had not actually created life, since the work mainly involved altering an already existing life form. …

Comment2
What is life? That is one question. The commission discounts “altering an existing life form” as creating life. Venter does not say what his new view of life is. Nor are we told what are the implications of "life".

Comment3
A second question arising from this quote is: What is the meaning of the phrase “playing God?” Life is created by God. So goes the Judaeo-Christian belief. Thus, if man can create life, then man has done something that thus far has been done only by God. Is there also a claim that only God can create life? Or can the status “God” be claimed by any entity that can create life?

Quote3
“We are disappointed that ‘business as usual’ has won out over precaution in the commission’s report,” said Eric Hoffman, biotechnology policy campaigner for Friends of the Earth and of the signatories. “Self-regulation equates to no regulation.”

Comment4
Generally, we trust individuals to regulate their own moral behaviour. We do not consider this to be “no regulation”. Thus, the claim that “self-regulation equates to no regulation” is simply not true. The question here is: Can scientists self-regulate? Or do they believe science is an amoral activity, and therefore exempt from regulation of any kind?

END

A new insight for philosophy cafe

2010-12-07T12:22:00.003+08:00

I recently completed my best work to date: the formulation of an instrument to address any question whatsoever. Here's the basic concept. All questions fall into one or more of seven generic question forms, each of which can be addressed with an algorithm. The set of seven question forms and their associated algorithms enable us to address any question whatsoever.

Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.

The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.

I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.

This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.

The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?

END

A new life form found

2010-12-07T11:54:00.003+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 4 December 2010, p.A18
Headline: Bacterium in US lake unlike any other known life form

Quote1
WASHINGTON: All life on Earth ... requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components. But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that ... has replaced phosphorus with its toxic cousin, arsenic. "What we've found is a microbe doing something new," said scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, ... who made the ground-breaking discovery at California's Mono Lake. ... "We've cracked open the door to what's possible for life elsewhere in the universe. And that's profound," [said Dr Wolfe-Simon]. ...

Comment1
A single incident of X is sufficient to prove that X is possible -- because it has happened. A single incident on earth implies nothing for the rest of the universe. It is not profound.

Quote2
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies [said]: "It defies logic to think she [Dr Wolfe-Simon] found the only example of this kind of unusual life. Quite clearly, this is the tip of a huge iceberg." ...

Comment2
Someone enters a darkened room 1,000 times and each time emerges with a white ball. These experiences lead him to declare that all balls are white. On the 1,001st expedition into the darkened room, he emerges with a black ball. It is logical to then declare: "A ball is possibly black." It is not logical therefrom to declare: "There is here a roomful of black balls." Doing that would commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation.

Quote3
The discovery could also have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterise life on earth. Scientists are now asking if the searches should be widened. -- Washington Post, AFP, NYT.

Comment3
Up until this discovery, all life on earth has had six essential components, including phosphorus. From this observation, we concluded that these six components are necessary for life, even equivalent to life -- which is why the hunt for extra-terrestrial life involved searching for these "elements and reactions". This new discovery presents one instance of one element (phosphorus) being not necessary. The necessity of the other five components is still intact. Hence, any widening should go only as far as to include arsenic as a seventh essential component. No further.

END

PIQUE

2010-11-09T13:55:00.002+08:00

In this wondrous land of acronyms, here's one I thought up recently.

PIQUE stands for Philosophically Interesting Questions for You to Examine.

I think it's quite nice.

END

Philosophy of religion

2010-11-09T13:29:00.003+08:00

The cartoon strip "Non Sequitur" in The Straits Times of 6 November 2010 has Danae setting up her own church. She says: "I'm taking the doctrines from all the mainstream religions into one church to end all the fighting over who has the most peaceful religion."

It's a nice thought. Her strategy is that if all the main ideas from the mainstream religions are all incorporated into a single religion, then there will be no more reason for dispute -- since everyone would now agree on everything.

It's a fashionable thing to say these days: that all religions basically teach the same thing. It's nice diplomacy. Is it good philosophy?

I do not see how it is possible to integrate the various doctrines of a single God (eg. in the Judaeo-Christian tradition), multiple gods (eg. in Hinduism) and no god (eg. Buddhism). Or the various doctrines of going to a single place after death, returning to this earth in another life form after death, and passing into oblivion after death. These doctrines are mutually contradictory.

The mind is a voluntary organ. We let into it, or keep out of it, whatever ideas we choose. Those who wish to believe in a God or gods or no-god are free to do so. Those who wish to believe in a great posthumous reward or punishment, or reincarnation, or oblivion are also free to do so. Whether by reason of argument, faith or revelation, they are free to believe whatever they will.

The trouble begins when three additional steps are taken:

1. The religious doctrines I believe in are true.
2. You must also believe in the same doctrines that I believe in.
3. You must behave as my beliefs say you should believe.

Avoid these three additional steps, and Danae's ambition of peaceful religions can be realised.

END

When billionaires give to charity

2010-08-10T15:30:00.003+08:00

Recently, several billionaires started a campaign to get other billionaires to pledge their wealth to charitable causes. This, of course, made the headlines.

When ordinary folk pledge their spare cash to charities, that is one thing. But when people whose individual wealth dwarfs the GNP of some countries want to give billions to charities, that is another thing.

In principle, it is the responsibility of a nation's government to look after the its poor, its illiterate, and its homeless. A government should not (but many do) abdicate this responsibility, leaving it to various charities to perform this function. If wealth of such magnitude becomes easily available to charities, that makes it so much easier for governments to ignore their responsibility.

More importantly, individuals do not have the political mandate to set the national agenda; only governments have that mandate. If these billionaires must give their money away, they should hand it over to the respective governments to dispense to their poor, illiterate and homeless citizens.

But there is a more basic question to ponder: Why must one become so rich?

Every person has the right to make a living, but this should not extend to crowding all others out of the jungle in the process. One should leave room for others to exercise their right to make a living as well. But, somehow, the quest for wealth recognises no limit.

Now some are perhaps finding their immense wealth a tad embarrassing. It's about time.

END

Investigating Inception

2010-07-30T17:57:00.005+08:00

Here's a quick post on the movie that so many commentators are raving about: Inception.

It's a great action movie, set in five different locales: Reality, and four increasingly deeper dream levels, each identified by a different physical setting (airplane, van, hotel, ice, beach). The dream levels are achieved by the simple plot device of declaring it to be so. Inception is really no different from any typical James Bond action movie set in several exotic parts of the world. The only difference is that instead of storyboarding the shifts as travelling across the globe, it is storyboarded such that the shift is achieved by entering a deeper level of dream. Neat trick.

Now for the dreams. The characters in the movie enter a shared dream in a location designed by an architect. We have no ordinary experience of people sharing dreams, but I suppose we can stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered).

However, we do experience solo dreams, and even occasionally a dream in a dream. But notice that our (unconscious) attention is always on only one level of dream at any one time. When we are in the first level of dream, we are not aware we are tossing and turning in our beds. When we are in our dream within a dream, we are not aware that we are already in a dream -- we are engrossed in the third reality. In short, we do not dream simultaneously at several levels -- but that is what happens in the movie. Well, perhaps we can also stipulate that this is possible with some (undefined) technology (which the characters in the movie have somehow mastered -- but I do wonder how the "victim" has also mastered this skill).

What really caught my attention is the movie's initial premiss: that the only way to plant an idea in someone's mind is through inception -- invading someone's subconscious via his dreams.

This is just not true.

Pedagogues and demagogues have always known how to plant ideas in others' minds. They do it through newspapers, magazines, books, television, speeches, pictures, conversations, hints, satires, plays, novels; indeed, through any medium they can find -- even movies. There is absolutely no need to resort to anything so mysterious, difficult and complex as inception.

It may be claimed that only inception will work if we want the victim to think that his new idea is original to him. This again is not necessary. In our ordinary experience, we come up with many ideas that we believe originate with us, but it's just that we do not know where the seeds of these ideas come from. It could easily be from any one or more of the media mentioned above.

In conclusion, Inception is not a masterpiece (as so many say it is). It is an ingeniously disguised action movie. We have been inceived.

END

Philosophy cafe still interrupted

2010-07-13T14:38:00.003+08:00

I have received some (not many) enquiries about philosophy cafe. My thanks to the enquirers.

I am currently working on a new format for the philosophy cafe. Also, I have not yet found a suitable new location to hold the sessions. (This is not the same as there is no suitable location to be found.)

When these two conditions have been met, I will inform readers as to the new location of my philosophy cafe sessions. As they say, please keep watching this space.

Thank you for your interest.

Should Julie abort the baby?

2010-07-12T14:03:00.003+08:00

This is my first post in a long time. I have been busy.

Last weekend, I took part in Raffles Institution's annual Inter-school Philosophy Dialogue as a facilitator. The group whose discussion I facilitated considered the following scenario.

Mariah is married to Johnny. Due to a gynecological problem, Mariah is unable to carry a foetus. The couple persuades Julie to be a surrogate mother for them. Julie agrees, as Mariah had once saved her daughter's life. The surrogacy procedure is successful. Julie becomes pregnant.

Four months later, a well-known Korean researcher discovers that foetuses develop binding unions with their prospective mothers while still in the womb. Alarmed by this, Mariah wants Julie to abort.

My group proposes several questions to discuss. By a popular vote, we decide on: Who has the right to decide whether to abort?

The case does not say if the couple's surrogacy contract (this necessarily exists) with Julie covers abortion, though it must necessarily cover birth delivery and handing over to Johnny and Mariah. We stipulate that the contract does not cover this contingency -- since if it does, then all we need to do is follow the contract terms.

We suggest that Mariah has the right to decide whether to abort, for two reasons. First, the foetus's DNA partly comes from her -- and not from Julie. Second, Mariah is the "employer" in the surrogacy contract -- which therefore gives her the right to make this decision.

It is suggested that Julie has the right to decide whether to abort, because of the binding union with the foetus. But has the union already formed? The case does not specify. Again, in a popular vote, we stipulate that the binding union between foetus and mother has not formed. Since no such union currently exists, Julie has no ground on which to claim the right to decide. Mariah has the right to decide whether to abort.

We consider the other branch: the bond has formed. There is nothing to say that a child is capable of forming only one binding union. Indeed, it is common knowledge that people (including adoptive children) are well capable of forming multiple binding unions. So, again, Julie does not have an overwhelming right to decide whether to abort. Mariah has the right to decide whether to abort.

We have answered the question -- through rational consideration. This is philosophy.

I ask the group (particularly the girls) if they are happy with the decision. Several say: That depends on whether I am in Mariah's situation or Julie's situation. I make the point that philosophy does not work like that. Rational thought does not guarantee outcomes that make the thinker happy -- or sad. Just right.

As we leave the discussion room (and proceed to lunch), I make another point: Nobody had even suggested that Johnny has any say in the matter. It's only about the women.

Now, isn't that interesting?

Beauty has no function in life?

2010-05-14T15:25:00.001+08:00

This is a report of a philosophy café session held on 13 May 2010 in conjunction with date agency champagnejsg, at Tea Cosy in Plaza Singapura from 7.45pm onwards.

As usual, we choose our topic for the night by a popular vote. The topic is: Beauty has no function in life.

Often, we use the word “beautiful” to refer to things that are good or important. The claim here is that true beauty should exist for itself, rather than to serve some purpose. Beauty describes some ideal, such as a sunset.

Beauty can make one happy. Beauty can also be monetized eg. by models, actresses.

What if a depressed person sees a sunset? Would he or she consider the sunset beautiful? What if a loving couple see the same sunset? Would that sunset be beautiful? And not beautiful at the same time? What if there is a sunset which nobody sees? It makes nobody happy, can it be beautiful?

These questions are misleading. We are not asking if making one happy makes something beautiful. We are asking if being beautiful performs any function. Well, it does. It can make someone happy, it can be monetized. Beauty has a function.

The question is answered.

Regrettably, the question is answered too soon. There is not enough interesting discussion. The mistake is mine. I did not vet the question carefully enough to ensure it is a “rich vein” for philosophical discussion. In future, I must ensure the question for the night satisfies my three criteria of a philosophical question:

1. Science has not yet answered the question.
2. The question cannot be empirically answered.
3. The question must initially allow of several possible answers.

Oh well, live and learn.

Postscript for my regular philosophy café sessions: I have no update on the status of Nook café. So, temporarily, my philosophy café sessions will take a break, while I look around for a second venue. Please visit this blog for further news.

Ip Man 2 and philosophy

2010-04-30T14:17:00.003+08:00

I have just finished watching Ip Man 2. It is a great action movie. The plot is thinnner than rice paper, but it's a great action movie.

English boxer Twister disparages Chinese martial artists as dancers rather than fighters, and scornfully challenges them to duels. Master Hung accepts the challenge. Twister beats Master Hung to a pulp. Master Hung refuses to surrender, saying that he cannot allow Chinese martial arts be insulted. The fight continues -- until Master Hung dies in the boxing ring.

After the funeral, Master Ip challenges Twister. He beats Twister to a pulp. At the post-fight interview, Master Ip says: "I did not fight Twister to prove that Chinese martial arts are superior to Western boxing. I did it to prove that even though people are not equal in social status, we are equal in deserving of respect." These philosophical words were greeted with a standing ovation -- by both Chinese and English members of the audience.

I have questions.

Master Hung fights to protest the insult to Chinese martial arts. Look around the world today. Many use violence to protest what they perceive as insults to them. The rest of the world calls the violent protesters names, which are seen as further insults, to be replied to with more violence. Is violence the correct answer to insults?

Master Ip said his philosophical words after he had beaten Twister to a pulp. Suppose Twister had beaten Master Ip to a pulp, or even killed him the way he had earlier killed Master Hung. I doubt then that the same philosophical words would have evoked the same emotional response, the same moral approval. It appears that the outcome of the fight is relevant to the truth of those words. Can this be?

People do generally say that respect is not freely given, but must be earned and deserved. One does not respect those not deserving of it. This directly contradicts the claim that all people are equal in deserving of respect. (Social status is irrelevant to this consideration.) Are Master Ip's philosophical words, emotionally evocative as they were in the given context, upon cold examination after all not true?

Enjoy the movie -- then think about it.

Philosophy cafe interrupted?

2010-04-30T14:02:00.002+08:00

When I went to Nook on 21 April (third Wed of the month), I found it closed. There was a blackboard notice saying it is closed for normal business but available for special bookings. My apologies to anyone who went there and found it closed.

I do not know if the situation is temporary or permanent. I shall find out and update readers accordingly.

I have been running this philosophy cafe since October 2003. Some participants have suggested I conduct it at a more convenient venue. I have so far resisted the suggestion. I had two reasons. The relatively isolated and quiet venue of Nook is more conducive for philosophical discussion. More importantly, I was not confident I had found the right format for my philosophy cafe sessions. Now, after trying many formats over the past six years, I am at last confident of my format. So perhaps it is time to expand.

Philosophy cafe is not a fixed place. It is a concept and an event. Therefore, it is portable. If anyone knows of a suitable place, please let me know. If anyone has a group which would like to experience philosophising, please let me know. I can be contacted via comments on this blog, or through my email (link is on the left margin of this blog).

Please visit this blog again for updates on philosophy cafe sessions -- and other interesting posts.

Does the Internet worsen polarisation?

2010-04-27T16:18:00.002+08:00

Headline: Mad Max public square on the Internet
Writer: David Brooks
Source: The Straits Times, 21/4/10

Quote1
In 2001, Mr Cass R. Sunstein, ... a professor at the University of Chicago, ... raised the possibility that the Internet may be harming the public square.

Comment1
The conclusion is "the Internet harms the public square". What is the argument?

Quote2
In the mid-20th century, Americans got most of their news through a few big networks and mass-market magazines. People were forced to encounter political viewpoints different from their own. ... Mr Sunstein wondered whether the Internet was undermining all this. The new media, he noted, allow you to personalise your newspapers so you see only the stories that already interest you. You can visit only those websites tht confirm your prejudices. Instead of a public square, we could end up with a collection of information cocoons.

Comment2
We are told there is a change from "force-fed information" to "self-selected information" -- and that this can lead to "information cocoons". Here is the argument, formally presented:

P1: If (self-selected information), then (information cocoons)
P2: (self-selected information)
C1: Hence, (information cocoons)

The argument has the valid Modus Ponens (If P then Q / P / Hence, Q) argument form. P2 is true, as a matter of general knowledge. Is P1 also true?

Quote3
Mr Sunstein ... has done ... work ... about our cognitive biases. We like hearing evidence that confirms our suppositions. We filter out evidence that challenges them. We have a ntural tilt towards polarised views. People are prone to gather in like-minded groups.

Comment3
Right. Here is the link that supports P1.

P3: If (self-selected information), then (similar information) [cognitive bias]
P4: If (similar information), then (information cocoons)
C2: Hence, if (self-selected information), then (information cocoons)
C2 = P1

This has the valid Hypothetical Syllogism (If P then Q / If Q then R // Hence, If P then R) argument form. P3 is what Sunstein has found in his work on cognitive bias. P4 is true by definition. The argument is sound. P1 is true.

We return to the argument in Comment2. The argument form is valid. P2 is true. Now, P1 is also true. The argument (P1 / P2 // hence C1) is sound. Therefore, C1 is true -- we will develop information cocoons.

Quote4
Once in them (like-minded groups), they (people) drive one another to even greater extremes. ... Mr Sunstein's fear was that the Internet might lead to a more ghettoised, polarised and insular electorate.

Comment4
Thus, information cocoons in turn lead to greater polarisation:

If (information cocoons), then (greater polarisation)

Quote5
Yet new research complicates this picture. Mr Matthew Gentzkow and Mr Jesse Shapiro, both of the Unviersity Chicago Booth School of Business, have measured ideological segregation on the Internet. ... But the core finding is that most Internet users do not stay within their communities. Most people spend a lot of time on a few giant sites with politically integrated audiences, like Yahoo! News. But even when they leave these integrated sites, they often go into areas where most visitors are not like themselves. ...

Comment5
This is not a complication. This is a direct refutation of P3. This says that when people self-select information, they do not go for similar information. It says P3 is false. This makes argument (P3 / P4 // hence, C2 = P1) unsound. P1 is not proven true. Hence, argument (P1 / P2 // hence, C1) fails.

Quote6
This does not mean they are not polarised.

Comment6
This quote relates to argument (P3 / P4 // hence C2) in Comment3. The word "this" in Quote6 refers to the denial of:

P3: If (self-selected information), then (similar information)

This denial does not lead to a denial of (information cocoons) and hence polarisation.

Here is the whole argument.

P3: If (self-selected information), then (similar information)
P4: If (similar information), then (information cocoons)
P2: (self-selected information)
C1: Hence, (information cocoons)

P5: (information cocoons) [from C1]
P6: If (information cocoons), then (greater polarisation) [from Comment4]
C3: Hence, (greater polarisation)

We deny P3. To go from (not-P3) to (not-C3) will commit the Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent (If P then Q / not-P // hence, not-Q). So we cannot deny (greater polarisation). At the same time, we also cannot assert (greater polarisation), since we denied P3 in Comment3. Result: We do not know about polarisation.

Quote7
Looking at a site says nothing about how you process it or the character of attention you bring to it. It could be people spend a lot of time at their home sites and then go off on forays looking for things to hate. ...

Comment7
This illustrates why Denying the Antecedent is a fallacy. Denying one cause of a phenomenon does not preclude other causes of the same phenomenon.

Quote8
The study also suggests that if there is increased polarisation (and there is), it is probably not the Internet that is causing it.

Comment8
We have not been presented with any argument supporting the claim that there is increased polarisation. This is just the writer's assertion.

From Quote6 and Comment6, we saw that people not visiting confirmatory sites does not lead to any firm conclusion about polarisation. In Quote7, the writer says people could "go off on forays looking for things to hate".

Given these, I do not see how we can arrive at the conclusion that "it is probably not the Internet that is causing it [increased polarisation]."

END

Is Obama serious about Mars?

2010-04-27T15:26:00.002+08:00

US President Obama has announced his space programme of a manned trip to Mars. Writer Gwynne Dyer is sceptical. We examine the arguments.

Headline: Obama's Martian odyssey more a charade?
Source: The Straits Times, 22/4/10
Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Quote1
In the real world, the United States is giving up on space, although it is trying hard to conceal its retreat.

Comment1
As in most essays, the conclusion is placed right up front. What is the argument for this conclusion?

Quote2
Last week, three Americans with a very special status -- they have all commanded missions to the Moon -- made their dismay public. In an open letter, Mr Neil Armstrong, the first human being to walk on the Moon, Mr Jim Lovell, commander of Apollo 13, and Mr Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17, condemned President Barack Obama's plans for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) as the beginning of a "long downhill slide to mediocrity" for the US.

Comment2
These three persons are offered as authorities. They are astronauts, occupying a special niche in the US space programme. That does not give them an overview of the programme. This is a case of Argumentum ad Verecundiam -- appeal to false authority.

Quote3
The letter was timed to coincide with Mr Obama's visit to Cape Canaveral to defend his new policy, which abandons the goal of returning to the Moon by 2020, or indeed ever.

Comment3
If the new policy explicitly "abandons the goal of returning to the Moon by 2020", then the case is made that the US has given up on the Moon -- but not necessarily also the rest of space.

Quote4
Mr Obama insists that this sacrifice will allow the US to pursue a more ambitious goal, but his plan to send Americans to Mars by the late 2030s has the distinct political advantage of not needing really heavy investment while he is still in office -- even if he wins a second term. ...

Comment4
It is implied that the "political advantage" is the aim of the new policy. No proof is offered that this is so. It remains logically open for the "political advantage" to be just a byproduct of the new policy, and not its sinister aim.

Quote5
Those are indeed ambitious goals, and they would require heavy-lift rockets that do not yet exist. But the "vigorous new technology development" programme that might lead to those rockets will get only US$600m annually (the price of four F22 fighters) for the next five years, and actual work on building such rockets would probably not begin until 2015. ...

Comment5
At last we have an argument for the conclusion "give up on space" (GUOS). Here it is, formally presented:

P1: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015), then (GUOS)
P2: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015)
C1: Hence, (GUOS)

This argument form is the valid Modus Ponens (If P then Q/P//hence Q). We take P2 as an empirically true fact. However, P1 is not intuitively true -- starting work in 2015 suggests a resumption of space exploration, not "giving up on space".

Quote6
[Meanwhile, the US] will essentially be a hitch-hiker on other countries' space programmes. Mr Obama suggests that this embarrassment will be avoided because private enterprise will come up with cheap and efficient "space taxis". ...

Comment6
The notion of "space taxis" changes the argument presented in Comment5:

P3: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015 & space taxis), then (not-GUOS)
P4: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015 & space taxis)
C2: Hence, (not-GUOS)

This is a valid Modus Ponens. If P3 and P4 are true, then the conclusion must follow.

Quote7
No doubt they will get various vehicles up there. But if they can build something by 2020 that can lift as much as the ancient Shuttles into a comparable orbit, let along something bigger that can go higher, I will eat my hat. Space technology eats up capital almost as fast as weapons technology, and these entrepreneurs have no more than tens of billions at most.

Comment7
The "eat my hat" remark is a rhetorical device that rides on the valid Modus Tollens (If P then Q/not-Q//hence, not-P) argument form:

P5: If (lift Shuttles), then (eat hat)
P6: Not-(eat hat) [because impossible]
C3: Hence, not-(lift Shuttles)

Now for the real argument:

P7: If (lift Shuttles), then (cost more than tens of billions)
P8: Not-(cost more than tens of billions) [entrepreneurs don't have such wealth]
C4: Hence, not-(lift Shuttles)

Remember that (lift Shuttles) refers to the capacity of the "space taxis". So:

not-(lift Shuttles) = not-(space taxis)

This denies the truth of P4 in Comment6. The conclusion (not-GUOS) then cannot follow. GUOS remains possible.

Quote8
Does Mr Obama know this? Very probably, yes.

Comment8
The word "this" refers to "space taxis are not possible". This returns us to the argument in Comment5, which I reproduce here:

P1: If (US$600m a year & work starts 2015), then (GUOS)
P2: (US$600m a year & work starts 2015)
C1: Hence, (GUOS)

This argument goes only so far as to conclude GUOS. But there is a further claim (see Quote1) of "trying hard to conceal its retreat". No argument has yet been put forward to support this further claim.

Quote9
One suspects that he [Mr Obama] would actually be cutting Nasa's budget, not very slightly raising it, if its centre of gravity (and employment) were not in the swing state of Florida, where he cannot afford to lose any votes.

Comment9
Here is a hinted (it is not explicitly stated) argument for "trying hard to conceal its retreat". Here is a reasonable construction:

P9: If (tell truth), then (lose Florida votes)
P10: If (lose Florida votes), then (lose US elections) [because Florida is a swing state]
P11: Not-(lose US elections)
C5: Hence, not-(tell truth)

This is a Hypothetical Syllogism (If P then Q / If Q then R / Hence, If P then R) combined with a Modus Tollens. It is a valid argument form. The three premisses can be taken to be true. The argument is sound. We have a case for "trying hard to conceal its retreat".

Quote10
What is going on here is a charade.

Comment10
So we arrive at the final conclusion. The Martian odyssey programme is a charade.

That there is no real odyssey is argued for in Comment5, and repeated in Comment8. That there is a false front being put up is argued for in Comment9. The Martian odyssey programme is a charade.

END

Does a lover have rights?

2010-03-18T15:46:00.002+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy café session on 17 March 2010.

Our question for the evening is “Does a lover have rights?” After some vigorous efforts to define “lover” in its various versions, we decided we were better off rephrasing the question. And so the question for the evening became “Does a participant of an affair have the right to expose the affair?”

We perceive two interpretations of the word “right”. The first is a “freedom to do”, as in freedom to expose the affair. There is nothing in the law to say that a participant of an affair cannot expose his or her affair. Hence, he or she has the right to expose the affair.

The second interpretation of the word “right” is in the sense of “right” as opposed to “wrong”, that is, “morally right”. This leads to a highly productive discussion.

A lover (participant of an affair) has a duty to keep silent about it. Exposing the affair is a breach of this duty. Hence, it is morally wrong for a lover to expose the affair.

Telling the truth is a morally right thing to do. Exposing the affair is an instantiation of telling the truth. Hence, it is morally right for a lover to expose the affair.

However, this so-called telling the truth may not be done out of an intention to tell the truth, but rather done out of malice eg. to get back at the partner for some perceived transgression. Acting out of malice is a morally wrong act. Hence, if a lover exposes the affair out of malice, then that is a morally wrong act.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant says a morally right act is one that can be applied to everyone (the technical word is “universalized”) without self-contradiction. (That’s one of Kant’s definitions.) We apply this test to the question. What if every lover advertises his or her affair? Does any self-contradiction arise? We note that France is reputed to be one country where dalliances are a common and known occurrence – and French society has not fallen apart as a result of it. Our question seems to pass Kant’s test. Hence, it is morally right for a lover to expose the affair.

Showing remorse for an immoral act is a moral thing to do. Exposing an affair can be part of the act of showing remorse for having had the affair. Hence, if a lover exposes the affair out of the desire to show remorse for having had the affair, then that is a morally right act.

Having tested the question with Kant’s deontological (rule-based) ethics, we feel philosophically obliged to test the question also against Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian (consequence-based) ethics. If the benefits of a lover exposing the affair outweigh the harms of doing so, then the act is a morally right one. If the harms of a lover exposing the affair outweigh the benefits of doing so, then the act is a morally wrong one.

There are too many situations to make this computation. It cannot be done. Yes, it can. There are two versions of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism considers the consequences of single acts. Rule utilitarianism considers the consequences of types of acts. We can consider “a lover exposing his or her affair” as a type of act, and compute the consequences.

Well, in general, if silence is maintained and everyone else is kept in the dark, then normal life just keeps rolling along and nobody is any the worse for it. On the other hand, it the lover exposes the affair, then many people become upset and great harm may be caused. Hence, in general, maintaining silence results in more benefits over harm, and exposing the affair results in more harm over benefits. Therefore, it is morally wrong for a lover to expose the affair.

We have three arguments for “morally wrong” and three arguments for “morally right”. The only way to resolve this is to more deeply examine each argument to see if they are sound. However, the hour is late. We decide to stop the discussion here.

It has been a good discussion.

END

Philosophy cafe sessions are held on the third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, Singapore, from 8-10pm. Parking and admission are free (but personal expense for food and drink), and all are welcome (just bring an enquiring mind). The next session will be on 21 April 2010. Hope to see you there.

Is patience a waste of time?

2010-02-18T15:48:00.003+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy café session on 17 February 2010. The question for the evening is: “Is patience a waste of time?”

What is patience? An online dictionary defines it as: “suffering delay, pain, irritation etc quietly and without complaint”. What is waste? The definition is: “fail to use [blank: which we fill with the word “time”] fully or in the correct or most useful way.”

Consider gardening. We cannot do anything but wait for the plants to grow. Not true, we have to add fertilizer, water the plants etc. Consider construction. Things must move according to a determined timeline, waiting for events to move according to this timeline cannot be considered “waste”.

So it is not waste if there is a result. If there is no delay, patience is not called for.

What about patience as a virtue? Even if there is no result, character building can occur. This makes patience not a waste of time.

Hence:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time); and
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time)

Patience is considered a virtue because we do not know the future eg. a farmer waiting for his plants to grow. Anything can happen.

We suggest a metaphor. We lean a ladder against a tree (apple, pear etc) to pluck its fruits. If we lean it against the correct tree, and get the fruits, it is not a waste of time. If we lean it against the wrong tree, and do not get the fruits, it is a waste of time. But what if we carry the ladder into an orchard, and do not know which is the right tree, leaving us no choice but to try many trees, is that a waste of time? Well, in the same way as Edison discovered many ways in which electricity cannot generate light, we gain knowledge by climbing up many wrong trees. Since our patience in climbing many wrong trees allows us to gain knowledge, it is not a waste of time.

Gaining knowledge is not character building. It is a result.

What about doomsday cults waiting for the end of the world? The end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future. Is their patience then a waste of time? Well, we do not know that the end of the world is an event not likely to happen anytime in the near future.

Waiting in ignorance is a waste of time. No, because the future is always unknown, so it is not a waste of time. Thus, because the future is always unknown, it is not the case that:
If not-(either result or character building), then (waste of time).

We had earlier established that:
If (either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)

We now establish that:
If not-(either result or character building), then not-(waste of time)

But, it must be either:
(either result or character building) or not-(either result or character building)

Thus, patience is never a waste of time.

We can say the future is never known only when we look ahead in time. However, when we engage hindsight, we are able to say that “there is no result, or there is a bad result, or no character development occurred”, and hence that “patience was a waste of time”.

What if we had pessimistic foresight? This yields only an anticipated waste of time, rather than an actual waste of time.

We refer back to the definition of patience. It involves complaint. If we have a pessimistic foresight, and we complain about it, we do not have patience. The question dissolves. If we have pessimistic foresight and we do not complain about it, we are patient, but we are still dealing with anticipated waste of time rather than actual waste of time.

The word “patience” is used only in foresight. Judgement is exercised only in hindsight. In foresight, patience is never a waste of time. Hence, patience is not a waste of time.

What about procrastination? So far, we have been discussing patience in terms of passively waiting for some event to occur. Procrastination is also a kind of patience, waiting to perform some action.

We note the pejorative flavour of the word “procrastination”, which will bias the discussion. We decide to ignore this pejorative flavour, and focus only on the literal meaning of the word: “to delay action”.

Is procrastination (as a form of patience) a waste of time?

If procrastination leads to a result, then it is not a waste of time. But this is known only in hindsight. When we procrastinate, we are necessarily looking ahead, but because the future is always unknown, such patience is never a waste of time.

In conclusion, however we look at it, patience is never a waste of time.

It has been an extremely productive discussion.

Philosophy cafe sessions are held on every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. All enquiring minds are welcome, there is no other prerequisite. It's free parking and free admission, with personal expense for food and drink. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 March 2010. Hope to see you there.

Is having a child important in a marriage?

2010-02-13T11:44:00.002+08:00

This is a report of the second question attempted at philosophy cafe's first commercial outing -- on 12 February 2010 -- as an event organised by a dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).

Only if one is prepared to be responsible for a child should one have a child.

Whether or not this is true, the claim does not address the question, which is about the importance of a child in a marriage.

Marriage is defined as heterosexual marriage, for the simple reason that this is the only kind of marriage that can produce children.

What does the word "important" mean? It means "to produce children". No, that would mean that a childless couple in their 80s are then by definition not married. That cannot be right. This understanding of the word "important" does not work.

What is marriage? It's a question discussed in the philosophy cafe session of 18 November 2009. It so happens I have the notes from that evening with me. We take the conclusion from that evening's discussion. Marriage is a man-made construct with no intrinsic value. This means that marriage has no value in and of itself. This does not mean that marriage has no value at all. It remains possible for individuals or couples to impose value upon it. Having a child can be one such imposed value.

Perhaps the preposition in the question is important. Is there a difference between asking "Is having a child important in a marriage" and "Is having a child important to a marriage"?

Phrased with an "in", the question relates to the species, as "does the species find it important?" Whereas, phrased with a "to", the question relates to a specific couple, as "does this, or any, couple (but not species) find it important?"

We run out of time. Discussion of this question ends here.

END

Can we change to be different?

2010-02-13T11:29:00.002+08:00

Philosophy cafe has its first commercial outing on 12 February 2010, on the eve of the eve of Chinese New Year. It is used as an event in the calendar of a local dating agency (www.champagnejsg.com).

The question for the evening is, as usual, suggested and chosen by the participants in a popular vote. It is: "Can we change to be different?"

"Different" is defined as "not alike in character or quality". This definition is obtained from an online dictionary. Definition via dictionary is, in philosophy, known as "lexical definition". [This is an effective but little used method of definition in philosophy, with many philosophers preferring to write entire books on "The meaning of difference" etc.]

What is the "we" in the question? It refers to some basic nature, some essence. This is to be distinguished from an attribute eg. someone wearing a red or grey shirt.

Someone offers this argument: "I do not observe that my basic nature has changed, nor do I observe that my nephews' basic nature has changed. Therefore, basic nature does not change. We cannot change to be different." We point out that just a few individuals do not constitute a representative sample. We cannot generalise from this.

We need to exclude the natural maturity process from the word "change". This is because if we do not do this, then the question becomes entirely trivial: We all of us undergo the natural maturing process as part of growing up. We cannot not change.

An analogy from physics applies. An object continues in motion unless acted upon by an external force. This is from Newton's laws of motion. In the same way, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience (external force) causes a change in us. For example, a patient hears a diagnosis of cancer, and a bleak prognosis for his expected remaining lifespan. This big experience can cause a change in the patient to the point of being different.

But there are instances also of criminals who enter and leave prison many times with no change in their criminal tendencies. This recidivism shows that so-called big experiences may not cause change.

The question is: "Can we change to be different?", not "Must we change to be different?" The fact of hardcore criminals does not detract from the fact that big experiences can change people to be different.

A different slant on the question: Can people change by choice to be different?, as opposed to some big experience forcing a change upon them?

We return to the cancer patient and the bleak prognosis. The bleak prognosis cannot be said to inevitably cause a change to a more depressed attitude towards life. It is possible that such news may provoke the patient into consciously choosing to grab life by the horns instead. Or, more mundanely, one can choose to stop smoking, lose weight etc.

To sum up: The answer to the evening's question is: Yes, we can change to be different. We can think of two ways in which this occurs. One, we continue on our natural trajectory unless some big experience causes us to change to be different. Two, we consciously choose the manner of our difference, and then work towards that.

We have answered the question for the evening.

The event still has some time to run. We decide to embark on our second choice question for the evening: Is having a child important in a marriage? [See other post]

END

What makes a question philosophical?

2010-01-27T13:51:00.004+08:00

A regular visitor to my philosophy cafe asked me this question after a session, saying knowing this will help him formulate questions to offer at future philosophy cafe sessions. Coincidentally, I had also thought about this very question during my Introduction to Philosophy course last year. Here is the answer I came up with.

A question is philosophical if it satisfies three conditions:

1. The question has not yet been answered by science.
2. There is more than one possible answer.
3. The question cannot be answered by conducting an experiment.

However, it does not follow from this that every philosophical question will be philosophically addressed. A very common practice is to immediately jump to an answer, and to tightly hold on to it against all objections. To philosophically address a question, one must:

1. Assume that the question can be answered.
2. Examine only the argument offered to support any proposed answer.
3. Separate the argument from the arguer.

I hope this will help all future participants of my philosophy cafe -- as well as everyone attempting clear thought.

END

Do beer ladies need a career path?

2010-01-22T15:29:00.001+08:00

This is a report of my philosophy café session on 20 January 2010.

The question of the evening, selected as usual by a popular vote, is: “Do beer ladies need a career path?”

We begin by recognizing that the phrase “beer lady” does not refer to a specific person or job, but rather is a representative of a type of job, namely one whose shelf life is in concept limited by certain generally well known parameters. Another example of this type of job is “child star”. In both cases, the parameter is age.

Next, we define “career path” as “a set of jobs in a logical progression within the same industry or profession”.

Finally, we define “need”. A person needs a job when he or she would, if deprived of that job, languish in a state of despair.

Consider an entrepreneur. This job has a short shelf life, even though the entrepreneur cannot be fired from the job. If the business fails, the entrepreneur is no more. If the business succeeds, the entrepreneur becomes a manager. In either case, the entrepreneur has reached the end of his or her shelf life. There is no possible career path. Hence, the question must refer to an employee.

Employment occurs in an organization with a hierarchy, which makes career paths possible.

What about a lateral movement? Does it count as movement along a career path? Generally it does not, since there is no progression. However, if the lateral movements are part of a management plan for the given employee, then it is a career path.

An organizational hierarchy is needed to provide a rank, which is what enables an employee to do his or her job.

An employee needs a career path to provide motivation.

Beer ladies are not part of a hierarchy, hence they have no motivation. Not so.

First, in certain establishments, even beer ladies can be part of a hierarchy. They can become senior beer ladies, or even managers of beer ladies. We have in mind especially F&B establishments.

Second, it is possible to have motivation without a hierarchy. Increased cash revenue is also a strong motivator. Hence, a hierarchy is not needed; a career path is not needed.

So, where do beer ladies go when they hit their job parameters? They can take advantage of unplanned opportunities. There is no set path for them to follow; instead they travel a flexible path that responds to the moment in time.

Beer ladies do not need a career path; a series of jobs will serve them just as well.

Our question is answered.

Philosophy café sessions are held every third Wednesday of each month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. All persons with enquiring minds are welcome. It’s free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. Oh, also free parking. Our next philosophy café session will be on 17 February 2010.

What does it mean to be cheating in a relationship?

2009-12-18T16:35:00.003+08:00

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.

Should laws on Federal Reserve be changed?

2009-12-01T12:17:00.004+08:00

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

What is marriage?

2009-11-21T17:54:00.004+08:00

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).

Is it fair to pay bankers more than road sweepers?

2009-10-26T14:31:00.003+08:00

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.

Am I meant to be here?

2009-09-17T13:00:00.002+08:00

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.

Questions from a reader

2009-08-24T14:35:00.003+08:00

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.

What should be done about those swimsuits?

2009-08-20T15:07:00.002+08:00

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.

Announcement to readers

2009-08-17T14:27:00.002+08:00

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.

Can we ever blame a doctor?

2009-07-29T12:52:00.002+08:00

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

Can we accept a fat Doctor-in-Chief?

2009-07-29T12:43:00.002+08:00

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

Are things finally looking up?

2009-07-23T18:20:00.002+08:00

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

Should we turn vegetarian?

2009-07-14T16:57:00.002+08:00

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

Is a photograph also a painting?

2009-07-14T16:36:00.002+08:00

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

Water, water everywhere ... and not a drop to drink

2009-07-14T16:15:00.002+08:00

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

What is marriage?

2009-06-19T17:17:00.002+08:00

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.]

Is capitalism good?

2009-06-19T17:07:00.002+08:00

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.]

On workers who "job-hop"

2009-06-19T16:48:00.002+08:00

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

What rules for MPs and companies?

2009-06-19T16:31:00.002+08:00

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

Invitation to philosophy cafe

2009-06-02T12:28:00.003+08:00

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!

Are we recovering?

2009-06-02T12:24:00.003+08:00

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

What's the cause of diabetes?

2009-06-02T12:17:00.003+08:00

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

On childcare centres

2009-06-02T12:13:00.002+08:00

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

Why so much?

2009-06-02T12:10:00.001+08:00

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.

Life's little nuisances -- or blessings?

2009-06-02T12:00:00.003+08:00

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

What makes a good CEO?

2009-05-28T17:31:00.002+08:00

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

Medical treatment and the law

2009-05-25T12:58:00.003+08:00

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

What does the new revolution need?

2009-05-25T12:46:00.002+08:00

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

Where is the US dollar heading?

2009-05-19T13:58:00.002+08:00

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

Whence Asian property stocks?

2009-05-19T13:42:00.003+08:00

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

Should sex theme park in China exist?

2009-05-19T13:30:00.002+08:00

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

What should the F&B sector do?

2009-05-15T11:56:00.003+08:00

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

Should schools allow gender debates?

2009-05-15T11:33:00.002+08:00

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

Who would hire an argumentologist?

2009-05-12T14:45:00.002+08:00

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?

Should big bras cost more?

2009-05-12T14:26:00.002+08:00

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.

Where is the Singapore economy headed?

2009-05-12T14:04:00.003+08:00

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.

Are Singapore made goods safe?

2009-05-12T13:53:00.002+08:00

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.

How serious will the new flu outbreak be?

2009-05-07T12:22:00.002+08:00

One commentary specifically addresses this question. We analyse the commentary.

Source: The Straits Times, 1/5/9, p.A25
Headline: Keeping the big picture in sight
Writer: Michael Richardson

Quote1:
The World Health Organisation has warned that a global influenza outbreak is imminent. How serious will it be?

Comment1:
The question is posed. Now for the arguments.

Quote2:
There were three flu pandemics in the last century. By far the worst was the so-called Spanish flu of 1918-1919. ... An estimated 25 percent to 30 percent of the world population fell ill and at least 40 million people died. The toll was many times higher than the 8.3 million who perished in the fighting. In the US, the flu mortality rate was around 3 percent of those infected. In Singapore, more than 2,870 people died, a death rate of under 2 percent. ...

Comment2:
From these numbers and percentages, what can we infer to be the case this time around? We are not told. There is no argument to that effect.

Quote3:
The US Centres for Disease Control has identified the pathogen as a unique version of the H1N1 strain of the influenza A virus, the only type of flu virus that can cause a pandemic. H1N1 is also the same strain that causes seasonal outbreaks of flu in humans. But this latest subtype is different from both the Spanish flu and seasonal flu. It is believed to be a hybrid containing genetic material from flu viruses in pigs in North America, Europe and Asia. It also contains genetic segments from North American human flu and bird flu. ... Although the bug may have evolved from or in pigs, it has not been shown to cause disease in them. The World Organisation for Animal Health ... called for urgent scientific research to determine the susceptibility of animals to the pathogen. ... We do not yet know how quickly or how far the new virus will spread among humans or whether it will trigger severe respiratory illness in large numbers of people, causing many to die. ...

Comment3:
To summarise, we do not know the danger this virus posses to animals or humans.

Quote4:
The 1918-1919 outbreak occurred in two waves. ... [The] first wave was highly contagious but not especially deadly. So when the second wave hit in August 1918, no country was prepared for the explosive outbreaks and a tenfold rise in the death rate. ...

Comment4:
Should we expect wave attacks again? Should we expect the second wave to be stronger? We are not told. There is no argument for or against these effects.

Quote5:
The 1918-1919 outbreaks had characteristics that were not seen before or since. Deaths from flu, whether during seasonal epidemics or pandemics, usually occur in the very young or very old. In the case of the Spanish flu, most deaths were among those aged 15 to 35, a prime-of-life group normally resistant to illness.

Comment5:
Based on that one-time age demographic, should we expect the same vulnerability this time around? We are not told. There is no argument either way.

Quote6:
Latest research on the 1918-1919 pandemic indicates that most of the deaths were not from primary viral pneumonia. They were the result of bacterial infections in weakened respiratory systems. ... Science and health care have certainly made major advances since 1918. But the world's population is also much bigger and vast numbers of people ... lack the resources that could help protect them from pandemic flu. Concerns ... have strengthened international defences, putting surveillance and reaction mechanisms in place. ... Many countries and the WHO have also stockpiled antiviral drugs. ... Governments must ensure that such drugs are used, ... not ... hoarded. ...

Comment6:
Will medical advance and supply overcome increased population and poor distribution? We are not told. There is no argument.

Quote7:
With luck, the virulence of this one will be relatively low.

Comment7:
Luck, by definition, is unpredictable.

Comment8:
The question has not been answered.

Does chewing gum improve maths grades?

2009-05-07T12:09:00.002+08:00

Source: My Paper, 29/4/9, p.A9
Headline: Chewing gum boosts maths scores, says study funded by Wrigley

Quote1:
The study was funded by chewing-gum maker Wrigley. ...

Comment1:
The temptation here is to discount the study because of Wrigley's vested interests in the result. This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (circumstantial) -- appeal to one's circumstances -- and must be rejected. We need to look at the merits of the study.

Quote2:
Researchers at Baylor [College of Medicine] studied four maths classes with 108 students aged between 13 and 16 years old ... Half received free sugar-free gum to chew during class and tests, and while doing homework. ... The other half went without.

Comment2:
The half that received the gum is known as the experimental group. The half that did not receive the gum is known as the control group. This model of scientific study is based on the logic of English philosopher John Stuart Mill's Method of Difference. The proposed cause (chewing gum) is applied to one group (the experimental group), and not applied to another group (the control group). Then we watch to see if they show any difference in the alleged effect.

Quote3:
After 14 weeks. the gum chewers had a 3 percent increase in their maths scores on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills achievement test -- a statistically significant change, said the researchers. ... The gum chewers also got better final grades in their classes.

Comment3:
It turns out that there is a difference. The phrase "statistically significant" means that the difference is greater than could have occurred by chance. We now have initial grounds to say chewing gum improves maths grades. To confirm this, we repeat the experiment.

Quote4:
The researchers found no difference in maths scores between the two groups in another test called the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement.

Comment4:
The same difference is created between the control and experimental groups, but a different math test is applied. No difference in the alleged effect is found. The initial finding is not replicated. This reduces our confidence in the causal connection.

Comment5:
Note that the study is discounted on its merits, instead of resorting to an ad hominem argument.

END

Marketing in a recession

2009-04-30T15:37:00.003+08:00

Today newspaper speaks to three marketers about whether and how to market in a recession. The marketers are Professor John Quelch (Harvard Business School), Mr Frank van den Driest and Ms Roxanne Aquino (both EffectBrands). We analyse their comments.

Source: Today, 28/4/9, p.B5
Headline: Don't be penny wise, pound foolish
Writer: Shermaine Wong

Quote1:
It is one of the biggest and one of the worst mistakes companies make during a recession. The blunder in point, according to three experts: Panicking and slashing marketing budgets to cut costs. ...

Comment1:
This sets the scene. We must resist the temptation to discount everything on the basis of "marketers will surely defend their turf". This commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem (Circumstantial), or appealing to the person's circumstances. Instead, we must consider their arguments on their own merits.

Quote2:
Mr van den Driest cautioned: "The returns on marketing spending take time to show. Gaining market share is as big a KPI as generating sales. If companies trim marketing budgets to cut costs, they'll suffer in the long term."

Comment2:
Here is the argument:

Premiss1: Either (spend on marketing) or (cut marketing spend) [suppressed]
Premiss2: If (spend on marketing), then (gain market share)
Premiss3: If (cut marketing spend), then (lose market share) [suppressed]
Conclusion: Hence, (spend on marketing)

This is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument, where we choose the most beneficial (or least harmful) of available options.

Quote3:
Mr van den Driest said companies should focus on their most important marketing projects instead of funding a bevy of them.

Comment3:
Given that not all projects can be funded (this is self-evident), the most important by definition should be retained. The problem here is that the word "important" is vague. We do not know what makes a project important. Further elaboration is needed.

Quote4:
Ms Aquino added: "Spend smart -- do fewer things well instead of trying to do many things simultaneously." ...

Comment4:
What if the "fewer things" are not the important things?

Quote5:
Mr van den Driest feels the recession might be a "blessing in disguise" as it forces marketers to return to basics to satisfy customers' needs. Mr van den Driest added: "Back to basics means solving customers' problems rather than just talking about your own brand."

Comment5:
Are "return to basics" and "satisfy customers' needs" elaborations of "important" in Quote3? If not, then which should companies focus on? Note that these are all assertions, not supported by any argument. It is up to the reader simply to agree or disagree with the assertions.

Quote6:
While marketers might be tempted to solely use new media like the Internet as it may be cheaper than TV or print, all three experts caution against abandoning traditional media completely. Prof Quelch maintains there needs to be a good mix between traditional and non-traditional forms of advertising.

Comment6:
The word "good" automatically implies adoption. This "true by definition" argument is called a petitio (pronounced "per-ti-shi-o"). It is not informative. Note the observation that using the Internet is cheap.

Quote7:
One advantage of advertising in print that the Internet cannot offer, according to Prof Quelch, is that advertisers can associate their product with the publication's strong brand image. Similarly, TV advertising will continue to appeal to luxury goods retailers, said Mr van den Driest, as the medium can "create that world of sensory emotions".

Comment7:
Again, there is an appeal to consequences:

1. If Internet, cheap.
2. If print, publication image.
3. If TV, emotions.

... and the relative costs.

Quote8:
Ms Aquino said: ... "Marketing is an investment and those who spend smartly with a medium term outlook will reap benefits."

Comment8:
Here is a conditional statement in the vein of the argument in Comment2:

If (spend on marketing), then (medium term benefits)

When combined with that argument, (spend on marketing) becomes clearly the option with the most beneficial consequences -- and hence should be chosen.

Summary & Conclusion:
We have a teleological argument in favour of continued marketing spending (Comments 2, 8), some idea of which projects to undertake (but no supporting argument) (Comments 3, 4, 5), and an idea of the benefits of respective media (Comments 6, 7).

END

Should we separate conjoined twins?

2009-04-30T15:15:00.002+08:00

Singapore neurosurgeon Dr Keith Goh has undertaken several controversial operations to separate conjoined twins. In a recent interview, he made some philosophically interesting remarks.

Source: The Sunday Times, 26/4/9, p.35
Headline: Surgeon takes flak in his stride
Writer: Nur Dianah Suhaimi

Quote1:
He [Dr Goh] does not think he should walk away from a tough medical case out of fear. "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. In life, we can't win 100 percent approval all the time. [a] But I always believe that we should give patients the benefit of the doubt and give them a thorough evaluation before saying no. [b] If these were my children, I would want them to be helped, not turned away without being given a chance [c]," he said.

Comment1:
[a] How much approval should we seek? Whose approval should we seek?
[b] Do patients lie? Is "evaluation" to verify patients' claims?
[c] Can we always generalise from a personal preference?

Quote2:
Having observed three pairs of conjoined twins, he is convinced their lives are far from normal. "It is a freakish life. People laugh at you, ridicule you. Plus it is so uncomfortable. Some of them become objects of fear in their society. Life like that is not life at all."

Comment2:
Do these conditions separately or jointly amount to "not life at all"? Is "not life at all" therefore deserving of possibly fatal surgery?

Quote3:
However, he stressed that in the end, the decision whether or not to go ahead with the surgery is not his to make alone. In the previous operations, while the ultimate decision lay with the patients and their parents, there were also many other doctors who had given the go-ahead.

Comment3:
Who should be involved in making the decision, and in what degrees?

Quote4:
He compared himself to Dr Christian Bernard, who pioneered heart transplants. Even though many of his patients died soon after their operations initially, he had persevered. Heart transplants have now become routine in medical practice. "In the course of medical history, many doctors have tried on different cases where the initial results have failed. But we must be brave and cannot give up," said Dr Goh.

Comment4:
Here we have an argument by analogy. Here's the analogue: Dr Bernard had initial failures, but persevered, and now heart transplants are routine. So also will be the case with conjoined twins.

Analogies work on similarity, and are derailed by serious dissimilarities. One such that I can think of is that hearts are straightforwardedly connected to the other body parts by arteries and veins; whereas conjoined twins are connected to each other in far more complex ways.

Also, surely medical history offers also many cases of procedures being abandoned after serious failures. The offered generality may not be general.

Quote5:
But he maintains that he is not too disturbed by what others may think. "At the end of the day, what matters most is that I have been true to my principles and am able to sleep well at night with my decisions."

Comment5:
If every individual lived true only to his or her principles, would society still be possible or viable?

END

What is the secret of success?

2009-04-30T15:03:00.002+08:00

Today, 25/4/9, p.10
Failure + rebellion = success
By Esther Ng

Quote1:
Chief judge Tim Hunt treated those present with his rousing and humorous speech ... at the Singapore Science and Engineering Fair (SSEF) Awards and A*STAR Talent Search (ATS). ... The 2001 Nobel Laureate for physiology or medicine had some unconventional views on success for budding scientists here. "It might be better to be a loser than a winner in the long run because it will make you try harder in the future," said Professor Hunt, on the difficulty of picking a winner because the quality of the competition was very high. ...

Comment1:
It strikes me as odd to say that it is better to be a loser in the long run. Also, in the long run, there is no more future. The sentence is poorly constructed, thus leading to this odd meaning. This is an instance of amphiboly, where poor sentence structure adversely affects meaning. A clearer construction is: "It might be better in the long run to be a loser now than a winner because it will make you try harder."

Quote2:
Being a successful scientist is also being a rebel at times, he added. ... "Singapore [is] very conformist. ... I just wonder whether that strand ... militates against real excellence in science, where you need to rebel against what other people think and be prepared to be an outcast and suffer failure for a while," he said. ...

Comment2:
The danger here is to read rebellion as a sufficient condition for success. Consider this sentence: "A real fire needs a plentiful supply of oxygen." It states a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Excellence must endure being outcast, but not all outcasts are excellent. That is the correct reading.

Quote3:
Nicholas Chen's work on micromagnetics and improving data storage earned him gold in the SSEF and first prize in the ATS. ... [He said:] "Like Professor Hunt, my heart sank when I learnt that I had to understand Schrodingers Equation. But I actually motivated myself to learn the math and the physics on my own because if you don't take the risk to enter a tiger's den to take its cubs, you won't know whether you'll succeed." His efforts have paid off -- he will be heading to the United States next month to represent Singapore in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.

Comment3:
The danger here is to read risk as a sufficient condition for success. Entering a tiger's den can also result in the brave soul becoming the tiger's dinner. This is the same argument that lies behind sales pitches for structured financial products: "Risk big, win big". Remember that "risk big" can also end in "lose big". Nicholas Chen's risk paid off; yours may not.

What caused the economic crisis?

2009-04-30T14:41:00.002+08:00

The Straits Times, 25/4/9, p.A24
The treason of the economists
By Robert Skidelsky

Quote1:
All epoch defining events are the result of conjunctures -- the correlation of normally unconnected events that jolt humanity out of a rut.

Comment1:
The author states a general rule.

Quote2:
The prosperity of the first age of globalisation before 1914, for example, resulted from a successful constellation of developments: falling transport and communication costs [etc]. ... By contrast, the poisonous international politics of the interwar years combined with global economic imbalances to create the Great Depression and World War II.

Comment2:
These are two examples of the general rule. Note that examples are not proof. Examples are offered only to illustrate.

Quote3:
Now consider the recent financial innovations. On the back of the new computer and telecommunications technology, a giant market for derivative instruments was built. ... What made the spread of derivatives possible was the ease with which the volume of debt for a given set of assets could be expanded. This scalability was magnified by the use of credit default swaps (CDSs). ... But financial intermediation would never have brought disaster ... save for the global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits, financed to a large extent by Chinese savings. ... The financial crisis of 2008 was the start of a highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging.

Comment3:
The author applies the general rule to the current financial crisis. He identifies the crucial events as: "new computer and telecommunications technology", "giant market for derivative instruments", ease of debt expansion, "credit default swaps", "global imbalances arising from America's twin trade and budget deficits", and "Chinese savings". What is happening now is the "highly painful, but inevitable, process of deleveraging".

Quote4:
This [conjuncture] interpretation of the origins of the present slump is disputed by the "money glut" school. In their view, there was one cause, and one cause only of the crisis: the excessive credit creation that took place under Mr Alan Greenspan's Federal Reserve.

Comment4:
The manner of this dispute is to offer an alternative and contradictory (meaning: impossible for both to be true) theory. The contradiction is located in the conjunctive theory requiring several causal events, and the money glut theory requiring only one cause.

Quote5:
This line of reasoning assumes that markets are perfectly efficient. If they go wrong, it must be because of mistakes in policy.

Comment5:
This is intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school, but serves only to elaborate the view -- because the author offers nothing to say markets are not perfectly efficient.

Quote6:
This view is also self-contradictory: If market participants are perfectly rational and perfectly informed, they would not have been fooled by a policy of making money cheaper than it really was. ...

Comment6:
This is also intended as a rebuttal of the "money glut" school. The "money glut" school says market participants would not be fooled by cheap money, and also that the only cause of the crisis is excessive credit creation [that is, they were fooled: Quote4]. These are contradictory claims. If a theory leads to contradictory positions, the theory must be wrong. Hence, the "money glut" view is wrong. The rebuttal succeeds. Note that this rebuttal of the money glut view does not prove the conjuncture view is correct. It is logically possible for both to be wrong.

Quote7:
This suggests a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis: The dominance of the Chicago school of economics, with its belief in the self-regulating properties of unfettered markets. This belief justified, or rationalised, the deregulation of financial markets in the name of the "efficient market hypothesis". ... Most of today's ... economists ... continue to work in the idological vicinity of Chicago. Their assumptions should be ruthlessly exposed, for they have close to destroying our world.

Comment7:
I am baffled by this end to the article. The "money glut" view has been rebutted. Hence, the "money glut" view is not the explanation for the economic crisis. Consequently, it does not seem reasonable to say that "a more fundamental reason for the economic crisis [is] the dominance of the Chicago school of economics".

END

Practical Guide to Clear Thought Ep.13

2009-04-23T16:23:00.002+08:00

How do we evaluate a deductive argument?
For a deductive argument, the criteria are truth, validity and soundness.

What is truth?
A statement is true when its claim corresponds to reality. For example, the statement "snow is white" is true because in reality snow is indeed white. However, the statement "the moon is made of green cheese" is false because in reality the moon is not made of green cheese. Note that truth and falsity apply only to statements (as opposed to arguments).

What is validity?
A deductive argument is valid when its premisses entail (lead to) its conclusion, that is, when it is not possible for its premisses to be true and its conclusion false. For example: "All heavenly bodies made of green cheese are bright. The moon is a heavenly body made of green cheese. Therefore the moon is bright." Two things must be noted here. First, this criterion does not require the premisses to be true; it is enough that they would lead to the conclusion if they were true. Second, validity applies only to arguments, as opposed to statements. (Note that the word for a handicapped person is also spelt "invalid". The pronunciation, however, is different. The word for a handicapped person is pronounced "IN-ver-lid", while the word for a deductive argument where the premisses do not lead to the conclusion is pronounced "in-VAIR-lid".)

Does this mean we cannot say a statement is valid?
The word "valid" is commonly used as meaning "true" (as in "it's valid to say the moon is a heavenly body"), but this is technically wrong. "True" and "false" apply to statements. "Valid" and "invalid" apply to arguments.

Next: What is soundness?

Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see Profile in left margin).

Is it time to suck up to the boss?

2009-04-23T16:03:00.002+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 15/4/9, p.A17
Headline: Hard times = time to suck up to boss

Quote1:
NEW YORK: Experts say ingratiating behaviour is bound to be on the rise in the workplace as workers fret about keeping their jobs in tough economic times. ...

Comment1:
The phenomenon is noted: sucking up. One reason is offered: worry about keeping their jobs.

Quote2:
"They really want to make sure people are noticing what they are doing," said Mr Max Caldwell, an expert in workforce effectiveness at Towers Perrin management consultants. ... Said organisational behaviour professor Jennifer Chatman of the University of California at Berkeley: "It's what we do when we feel ourselves vulnerable or susceptible to the decisions of others." ...

Comment2:
These elaborate the same point. All are aimed at explaining the behaviour -- but do not amount to justifying it.

Quote3:
"It can be bad for business, keeping the yea-sayers around," [says Prof Chatman.]

Comment3:
This is one possible harmful consequence of sucking up.

Quote4:
But according to some researchers, sucking up works. Challenging a chief executive less, complimenting him more and doing him a personal favour increased the likelihood of being appointed to a corporate board by 64 percent, a University of Texas study found.

Comment4:
Another consequence is identified: board appointment. In this context, we can probably extend the benefit to cover job protection. Note that the harmful consequence in Comment3 accrues to the business, and that the beneficial consequence here accrues to the individual.

Quote5:
It's nothing to be ashamed of, said Ms Frances Cole Jones, a professional coach and author of How To Wow. ... "In times like these, the smart thing to do is to 'suck up' - or, perhaps, 're-commit," she added. ...

Comment5:
The phrase "nothing to be ashamed of" indicates the first evaluation in this discussion. It is a denial -- not shameful. It denies an objection to sucking up; it does not support sucking up. Note that there is no elaboration of why it is not shameful.

Quote6:
But there are others like Mr bill Hanover, author of No Sucking Up, who rule out ingratiating behaviour altogether. "If you value self-respect, the respect of your peers and leaders, then sucking up or faking your way to a promotion will leave you ashamed and wanting," he wrote. -- Reuters.

Comment6:
Here are more harmful consequences: shame and want. Note that there is no explicit elaboration of why one will feel shame. The mention of respect from self, peers and leaders only hints at a link, but does not make it explicit.

This directly contradicts Quote5's "nothing to be ashamed of". Further argument on both sides is required, but not provided.

Comment7:
Here are the undisputed consequences of sucking up:

1. can be bad for business [harm to business]
2. provides job protection [benefit to workers]

The correct decision hangs on: Whose interest should the worker serve (since it is the worker who has to decide whether to suck up or not)?

END

Morality vs Philosophy

2009-04-14T12:35:00.002+08:00

How do we make moral decisions: rationally or emotionally?

Source: The Straits Times, 10/4/9, p.A29
Headline: The end of philosophy
Writer: David Brooks

Quote1:
Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy ... is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.

Comment1:
This sets out Socrates' position: Moral thinking is a matter of reason. Let us capture this as (moral reason).

Quote2:
One problem with this kind of approach to morality, as Michael Gazzaniga writes in his 2008 book, Human, is that "it has been hard to find any correlation between moral reasoning and proactive moral behaviour, such as helping other people. In fact, in most studies, none has been found". ...

Comment2:
Here's an objection. It takes the form of a Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P):

Premiss1: If (moral reason), then (correlation)
Premiss2: Not-(correlation)
Conclusions: Hence, not-(moral reason) [suppressed]

The argument is valid, meaning the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss1 is necessarily true. Premiss2 is a statement of fact. The argument is sound. We must accept it. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason.

Quote3:
Moral judgements are ... rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion processing parts of the brain.

Comment3:
This is the alternative position, which we shall capture as (moral emotion). What is the argument for this position?

Quote4:
Most of us make snap moral judgements about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can't explain to ourselves why something feels wrong. In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it. ...

Comment4:
The argument offered is a common and typical experience all of us have had. Therefore, this common and typical experience is the way it is: (moral emotion). This appeal to a common and typical experience is often used in philosophy -- and is usually accepted.

Quote5:
The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there's an increasing appreciation that evolution isn't just about competition. It's also about cooperation within groups. ... The first nice thing about this evolutionary approach to morality is that it emphasises the social nature of moral intuition. ... The second nice thing is that it entails a warmer view of human nature. ... The third nice thing is that it explains the haphazard way most of us lead our lives without destroying dignity and choice. ...

Comment5:
This pushes the enquiry one step back: Whence (moral emotions)? The three "nice things" describes the flavour of this view. The fact of (moral emotions) is not challenged.

Quote6:
The rise and now dominance of this emotional approach to morality is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people.

Comment6:
This pushes the enquiry one step forward: So what? So it challenges the "bookish way" of philosophy -- which is a reference to the primacy of reason usually adopted by philosophy and philosophers. Again, the fact of (moral emotion) is not challenged.

Comment7:
So we return to the arguments found in Comment2 and Comment4. It is not the case that moral thinking is a matter of reason. What we practise is (moral emotion).

The writer does not pose the obvious objection: But we do not all have the same moral emotions -- as seen in the controversies that rage over issues like abortion, euthanasia, corporate responsibility etc. How then are we to decide what is the moral thing to do? Surely the resort must be to reason and deliberation -- the Socratic approach.

How does this square with Quote1?

We need to make the is vs ought distinction. It is the case that we practise (moral emotion). It ought to be the case that we practise (moral reason).

END

Practical Guide to Clear Thought Ep.12

2009-04-08T13:54:00.002+08:00

How is an argument horizontally developed into a case?
An argument is horizontally developed into a case when we seek further proof of the conclusion. New premisses must then be provided, to form new arguments with the same conclusion. This collection of several arguments leading to the same conclusion makes up a case. Notice that the basic anatomy of premisses and conclusion is maintained.

If the basic anatomy is maintained, are arguments similarly evaluated?
Yes, with one distinction. How we evaluate an argument depends on whether it is a deductive argument or an inductive argument.

What is a deductive argument?
A deductive argument is when we argue from the general (all cases) to the particular (one or a few cases). Here's an example: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal."

What is an inductive argument?
An inductive argument is when we argue from the particular (one or a few cases) to the general (all cases). For example: "Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are mortal."

Next: How do we evaluate a deductive argument?

Thank you for visiting this blog. The writer is a freelance argumentologist, philosopher and trainer, specialising in the science and art of clear thought. For more information on his services, please visit his website (link provided) or email him (see profile on left).

What caused surge in births?

2009-04-08T13:37:00.002+08:00

Georgia experiences a surge in births after church partriarch's promise. Was the promise the cause? Or was it economics?

Source: The Straits Times, 27/3/9, p.A23
Headline: Church leader sparks baby boom in Georgia

Quote1:
TBILISI: Georgia's birth rate has increased sharply over the past year, a development many attribute to the influential head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, BBC has reported. ... After Partriarch Ilia II promised at the end of 2007 to personally baptise any child born to parents of more than two children, the number of babies born jumped by nearly 20 percent last year.

Comment1:
The observation is:

At time t1: Partriarch makes promise
At time t2: Births increase

Cause must precede effect, and effect must follow cause. This does not mean that any event at time t1, and any event at time t2 are related as cause and effect. To argue this way is to commit the fallacy Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Latin for: after this therefore because this.

Quote2:
Mrs Pati Bluashvili, who with her husband Giorgi just had a fourth child, a boy named Giviko, said: "When he announced that he would baptise any child born to parents with at least two children already, we could not resist the opportunity to have another baby. To have a child baptised by the Partriarch is so very special."

Comment2:
To show causation, a mechanism must be identified. In this case:

If (baby), then (Partriarch baptism)

The mechanism is a teleological (appeal to consequences) argument. The benefit of (Partriarch baptism) overwhelm all possible consequential harms, hence leading to the conclusion (decision) to have a baby. But this is just one couple. Is this couple's thinking typical of all Georgian couples?

Quote3:
Mr Giorgi Vashadze, the head of Georgia's civil registry, said the Partriarch's incentive probably did play a part in the jump from 48,000 babies born in 2007 to 57,000 last year, but the rise in average household incomes was undoubtedly a significant factor as well. "Who is now creating families? People who five years ago were out of work," he told BBC. "Previously, they had no income. They could not get married. Today, they are working. They have salaries. ... So I think this is a major factor."

Comment3:
Another explanation is proposed: higher incomes, which make a baby affordable. So:

If (baby), then (affordable)

(Affordable) is proposed as the major benefit resulting in the decision to have a baby.

Quote4:
"Faith is getting stronger," Church spokesman Irakli Kadagishvili told BBC. "(The Partriarch's incentive) was the only stimulus most parents needed if they were already thinking about having more children."

Comment4:
The (Patriarch baptism) thesis is generalised as a "tipping point" factor. Can this account for an increase of 9,000 births? Note that the (affordable) factor is not rebutted.

How to be a leader

2009-04-08T13:17:00.003+08:00

An experienced political pollster discusses the traits of successful leadership.

Source: The Straits Times, 26/3/9, p.A23
Headline: A primer on leadership
Writer: Thomas L. Friedman

Quote1:
Stan Greenberg, one of America's most experienced pollsters, sums up the key lesson he learned polling for Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela, Ehud Barak and Tony Blair: "Bold leaders in tumultuous times always have at least one crash." ... What distinguishes the best leaders, he says, is that they learn from their crashes, adjust, persist and succeed.

Comment1:
To say that the best leaders succeed is a truism -- it is true by definition. It is not informative. What is of interest is what did these people learn from their crashes that helped them succeed as leaders.

Quote2:
One of his most vivid memories was trying to judge how voters would react to Mr Clinton breaking his oft-stated promise to cut middle class taxes, right after his 1992 election. They held focus groups in New Jersey. ... "They didn't care about his specific promises," said Mr Greenberg. "They wanted the new president to act in the long term economic interests of the country. They wanted to make sure everyone was part of the solution. ... Lesson: "Don't be too literal about campaign promises," said Mr Greenberg. "There is a lot of scope for governing, if the people think you're acting in the country's long term interests, and that you're working for them."

Comment2:
The conclusion (lesson) is a generalisation. The reason is focus groups in New Jersey. Is this sufficient grounds?

Quote3:
Labour had been out of power for 18 years. It got back in thanks to Mr Blair's ability to assure voters they could trust Labour to be fiscally prudent and, simultaneously, to upgrade Britain's decrepit government hospitals and schools. ... Three years into his term, the lack of new investment became obvious. ... Mr Blair crashed on the issue of trust. ... Lesson: Be honest with the public early on when facing huge challenges. They will let you off the hook on a literal campaign promise -- if you level with them early about the difficulties and how long it will take to see progress.

Comment3:
Story No. 2; generalised lesson No. 2. Is this sufficient grounds?

Quote4:
Mr Ehud Barak became Israel's premier in 1999, and a pillar of his campaign was that Jerusalem must remain Israel's eternal, undivided capital. Yet, at Camp David with President Clinton in 2000, Mr Barak offered the Palestinians a division of Jerusalem. What was most striking, said Mr Greenberg, was how readily the Israeli public accepted that shift. ... Lesson: "Nothing," said Mr Greenberg, "is off the table for a leader who wants to make a bold move" in the fundamental interest of the country.

Comment4:
Story No. 3; generalised lesson No. 3. Is this sufficient grounds?

Quote5:
Finally, Mr Nelson Mandela. Four years after he became South Africa's president in 1994, "people were demoralised about the lack of change and felt that the African National Congress (ANC) had betrayed its promise," said Mr Greenberg. ... That was hard for liberation movement leaders to swallow, but the humble citizens wanted their now remote leaders to acknowledge their plight. Lesson: Mr Mandela was humble enough to say that we haven't brought enough change -- that even he was disappointed -- without threatening ANC's claim to govern. -- NYT.

Comment5:
Story No. 4; generalised lesson No. 4.

Human behaviour is notoriously fickle. We should not take four instances, and from those generalise over time and place. It would commit the fallacy Hasty Generalisation.

Even if many instances show the same feature, there is still another, greater, fallacy being committed. Every cancer patient drinks water. Is water then the cause of cancer? By the above logic, yes. Yet we know it is not -- because we know lots of water drinkers who do not have cancer. We need to also survey people with these alleged leadership traits -- to see if they become successful leaders.

END

Practical Guide To Clear Thought Ep.11

2009-03-27T15:32:00.002+08:00

How is an argument vertically enlarged?

An argument is vertically enlarged when we either seek proof if its premisses, or use its conclusion in further arguments. In the first case, the premisses then become the conclusions of further arguments, for which new premisses must be provided. In the second case, the conclusions then become the premisses of further arguments. And so on -- to form a mega-argument. One caveat: The backward enlargement cannot go on indefinitely. Arguments cannot be allowed to regress forever. It must stop at some assumptions.

Why can't we allow infinite regress?

We cannot allow infinite regress because that would mean we can never return to the present argument and conclusion. We will never be able to prove anything. So at some point premisses must be assumed to be true.

Does this mean all arguments ultimately rest on quicksand?

No, because these ultimate assumptions are made only when we reach the limit of our scepticism, so we can be confident it does not rest on quicksand.

But everything can be questioned!

Of course, we can persevere and demand ever further proof, but it would not serve any useful purpose. The point of asking a question is to answer it, and not to raise interminably more questions.

Next: How is an argument horizontally developed into a case?

Readers are invited to pose questions (use comment feature to do this) to move this course along -- and to check out my website for details of the course (NOUS: A Practical Guide to Clear Thought) that I conduct on this subject.

Do we still need ideology today?

2009-03-27T14:24:00.003+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 20/3/9, p.A24
Headline: The case for ideology
Writer: By Anu Saksena

Quote1
Questions have been asked once again about the relevance of ideology, understood as a coherent set of ideas about the existing socio-economic order and offering a blueprint of the future. ...

Comment1
The topic is introduced. The term ideology is defined.

Quote2
In 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell argued in his seminal work End Of Ideology that ideology was dead, at least in the advanced, industrialised societies of the West. ... In part, this belief came naturally to a generation that had lived through World War II and the holocaust and had concluded that ideological politics was at the root of all misery.

Comment2
The Holocaust experience led many to conclude that ideology is a necessary and sufficient cause of all misery. In formal terms:

(have ideology) = (misery)

This permits Argument #1

Argument #1
Premiss1: (have ideology) = (misery)
Premiss2: reject-(misery)
Conclusion: Hence, reject-(have ideology)

We have one argument for rejecting ideology.

Quote3
In some ways, the "end of ideology" debate was based on a highly limited understanding of "ideology". It was viewed as an indication of an intolerant and limited perspective. ...

Comment3
We have a second argument.

Argument #2
Premiss1: If (have ideology), then (intolerant and limited)
Premiss2: Reject-(intolerant and limited)
Conclusion: hence, reject-(have ideology)

This argument also rejects ideology.

Quote4
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the thesis was revived in Francis Fukuyama's End Of History. The term "end of history" ... means ... that one set of ideas -- Western liberalism, in particular -- had triumphed, thus bringing to a conclusion the historical contestation of ideas.

Comment4
This argument has a slightly different thrust.

Argument #3
Premiss1: If (one ideology triumphs), then (ideology contest ends)
Premiss2: One ideology triumphs
ConclusionL Hence, ideology contest ends

Quote5
The 21st century, however, has witnessed the revival ... of religious fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism. Also, environmentalism or ecologism has emerged as the most cross-cutting ideology in the world today.

Comment5
Other ideologies are revived. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is no longer true. Argument #3 collapses.

Quote6
All ideologies are the result of crises of one kind or another. The crisis that looms largest today is the global economic recession. ... It has raised fundamental questions about free market capitalism and the role of government in the economy.

Comment6
The global economic crisis raised fundamental questions. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is again no longer true. Argument #3 again collapses.

Quote7
There is a need to reorient the existing liberal capitalist model. In the past it has responded to the changing needs of time in a dynamic manner. ...

Comment7
The conclusion is (need to reorient existing liberal capitalist model). The argument for this conclusion is complex, hidden behind the simple second sentence. Let me try to present the complex argument formally (this being the clearest way to present an argument).

Argument #4
Premiss1: If (no proof ideology contest end), then (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
Premiss2: (No proof ideology contest end) [from Comment5 and Comment6]
Conclusion: Hence, (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)

This opens the door for Argument #5.

Argument #5A
Reason: In past, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Sentence2 in Quote7]
Conclusion: Hence, now, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [to #5C,P1]

Argument #5B
Premiss1: If (fundamentalism & economic recession), then (changing needs) [implied]
Premiss2: Fundamentalism & economic recession [from Quote5 and Quote6]
Conclusion: (changing needs) [to #5C, P2]

Argument #5C
Premiss1: If ((changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Argument #5A]
Premiss2: (changing needs) [Argument #5B]
Conclusion: Then (reorient liberal capitalist model)

The first problem in Argument #5 arises in #5A. Just because something has been a certain way in the past does not imply that it must continue to be that way in the present or future. Examples: Foot-binding, slavery. To argue this way commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (Tradition). Such an argument must be rejected.

The second problem in Argument #5 is in #5C, P1. All that Argument #4 had shown was (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model), it did not compel it. Back to Argument #5C: it remains possible that the current liberal capitalist model continues to be adequate to the ideological contest with (fundamentalism & economic recession).

Argument #5 fails.

Quote8
No one knows when the current crises will end and what the future holds for us, but we can be quite certain that ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world. We need ideologies to make sense of the complex world we live in. ...

Comment8
A position is taken that "ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world". The argument offered is one of necessity.

Argument #6
Premiss1: If (make sense of world), then (need ideology)
Premiss2: Make sense of world
Conclusion: Hence, need ideology

Quote9
Far from shying away from ideological debates, we should embrace them for they can offer us different visions of a changing world and how best to cope with it.

Comment9
(Need ideology) [from Argument #6] does not entail (embrace ideology debate) [position in Quote9]. That requires the further steps of saying:

1. We wish to have the best ideology.
2. Having the best ideology allows us to best cope with the changing world.
3. Ideology debate results in the best ideology.

These steps are not taken.

Also, Argument #1 and Argument #2 for rejecting ideology have not been rebutted. They still stand.

Conclusion
Ideology is something we need [Argument #6], but should not have [Argument #1, Argument #2].

Is Joanne Peh for real?

2009-03-27T13:50:00.002+08:00

Singapore actress Joanne Peh claims her bust size increase is natural. Experts comment.

Source: The Sunday Times, 22/3/9, p.10
Headline: Busted

Quote1:
Local actress Joanne Peh has caused a storm in a D-cup after claiming that her breasts always swell up by one whole cup size at that time of the month, ... claiming that her mammaries usually become bigger when she is having her period due to hormones.

Comment1:
This is the claim: Menstrual hormones cause cup-size increase.

Quote2:
Dr Beh Suan Tiong, an obstetrician and gynaecologist at Thomson Medical Centre, said: "There is usually some fluid retention when a woman has her period due to hromonal changes. This fluid retention will make her breasts bigger."

Comment2:
One expert confirms that the claimed cause can indeed lead to swollen breasts.

Quote3:
But he was adamant when he said: "Having their breasts increase by a cup size during their period does not happen for most women. The change would not be so drastic.

Comment3:
The problem is the degree of swelling. Here is the argument.

Argument #1
Reason: For most women, no cup-size swelling
Conclusion: Hence, for Ms Peh, no cup-size swelling

This argument is inductive, which means the conclusion is less than certain. From (most women), we can conclude only (likely also Ms Peh) -- but not (certainly Ms Peh). She could be the exception to the rule. Ms Peh's claim is not ruled out as impossible.

Quote4:
"Otherwise, they [most women] would need to have two different sets of bras with different cup sizes."

Comment4:
Now a deductive argument is offered.

Argument #2
Premiss1: If (cup-size increase), then (two bra sets)
Premiss2: Not-(two bra sets)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(cup-size increase)

This argument has the valid Modus Tollens structure (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P). Premiss1 can be accepted as intuitively true. It is intended that the consequent (two bra sets) be rejected as absurd in Premiss2. This would make the argument the special case of Modus Tollens known as Reductio ad Absurdum (reduce to absurdity). But the consequent (two bra sets) is not absurd. A lazy dieter, for example, will also have a wardrobe of various size clothes. Since Premiss2 cannot be taken as true, Argument #2 must be rejected. Ms Peh's claim is again not ruled out as impossible.

Quote5:
Dr Christopher Chong, who owns Chris Chong Women and Urogynae Clinic at Gleneagles Hospital, agreed: "For a woman's breasts to be significantly enlarged during her period is very unusual.

Comment5:
This is Argument #1 repeated -- with the same evaluation.

Quote6:
"My patients have not complained of their breasts increasing by one cup size before."

Comment6:
This is also Argument #1, but this time the inference is from a smaller group -- his patients. Is this a representative sample of women in general? Is a cup-size increase something that would drive a woman to consult her gynaecologist? The great number of advertisements offering cup-size increase treatments would suggest not.

Conclusion:
Ms Peh's claim is not rebutted.

The prose version of this post
Ms Joanne Peh claims that her breasts enlarge due to hormonal changes during menstruation. Dr Beh says that while menstrual hormonal changes do cause fluid retention and thereby enlarge breasts, in most women this enlargement does not occur to the extent of a cup-size increase. Well, "most women" does not mean "all women". Ms Peh could be the exception to the general rule. Dr Beh also says that a woman who has a cup-size breast enlargement will need two sets of bras, and implies that this is an absurd situation, thereby refuting the claim of a cup-size increase. But, in the same way as a lazy dieter has a wardrobe of various sized clothes, it is not absurd for a woman to have two sets of bras. Dr Chong repeats the "most women are not like this" argument. The same objection applies. Secondly, Dr Chong says his patients don't complain of cup-size increases. We wonder if a woman with a cup-size increase will see it as a problem, and consult a gynaecologist. The great number of advertisement offering precisely such treatments suggest that women do not see this as a problem requiring medical attention.

Is keeping wild animals in captivity a good idea?

2009-03-27T13:34:00.002+08:00

This is the report of a special philosophy cafe session on 25/3/9.

Many answers (positions) are proposed.

Yes, it is a good idea, because:
1. It makes possible scientific research.
2. Visitors can see those animals. This produces commercial benefit. This allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
3. The animals are safer in captivity than in the wild.

No, it is not a good idea, because:
4. It is inhumane.
5. Animals lose their freedom.
6. It encourages people to collect animals (like stamps).

We make some brief comments on some of these arguments.

Argument #1
Yes, keeping wild animals in captivity makes possible scientific research. It is also possible to do animal research in the wild. This does not refute the argument (that research in captivity is possible).

Argument #4
It is inhumane to keep wild animals in captivity. This relates to the idea of animal rights. But animals do not claim these rights; it is we humans who give animals these rights. Animals don't know about these rights.

Argument #5
Animals lose their freedom. Are animals aware of this?

We decide to test an argument. We pick Argument #2, specifically the second version.

Argument #2
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity allows people to form compassionate links with the animals.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is a good idea.

We apply the first test: Does reason imply conclusion?

We agree that it does. The argument passes the first test.

We apply the second test: Is the reason true?

We decide that some people do form compassionate links, and some people do not. The argument passes the second test in a weakened form.

We next turn our attention to Argument #4.

Argument #4
Reason: Keeping wild animals in captivity is inhumane.
Conclusion: Therefore, keeping wild animals in captivity is not a good idea.

We apply the first test: Does the reason imply the conclusion? We answer "yes".

We apply the second test: Is the reason true? Is keeping wild animals in captivity indeed inhumane?

We decide we need to define captivity before we can answer this.

Here we experience some difficulty, considering various examples and counterexamples eg. cages, zoos, nature reserves, parks. We arrive at:

Captivity =df. roam freely in man-made constrained space that simulates their [animals'] natural environment.

We are not entirely satisfied with this. We are bothered by cases of eagles and Artic terns -- which in nature uses more space than man can ever provide.

But we run out of time. We end the discussion. It has been an excellent session.

Readers who are interested to engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. Prior knowledge of philosophy is not required. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 15 April 2009.

Does technology affect the quality of a relationship?

2009-03-20T16:21:00.002+08:00

Good news. Philosophy cafe has been reborn. The new format works. Participants are given a short primer on the dynamics of argument, then let loose on the question for the night. I step in only when discussion stymies or goes haywire. Here is a summary of the evening's answer. (The point of asking a question is to answer it, not to generate endless other questions.)

Technology is defined as telecommunication media eg. telephone, Internet, morse code, telegram, Skype.

Affect is defined as change, both for the better and for the worse.

Quality is defined as the way a relationship works eg. degree of honesty, time invested.

Relationship is defined as non-business human relationship, with an emotional stake.

Technology removes the need for face-to-face interaction. This has positive effect eg. allowing people half a world apart to keep in easy contact. This also has negative effect eg. office neighbours communicate via Messenger. The answer to our question is yes.

Technology is a distraction. Positive effect eg. incoming message interrupts a quarrel. Negative effect: the same interrupts a conversation. The answer is yes.

Technology is an obsession or compulsion. Clearly a negative effect. The answer is yes.

This is not an inevitable answer. The answer can also be no.

Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned consciously decide to hold priorities that supercede technology eg. by switching off all communication devices while enjoying a candlelight dinner.

Technology will not affect the quality of a relationship if the persons concerned are unaware of the technology eg. if we observe a primitive tribe only via satellite.

Answer: Technology can be absent or ignored, in which cases it does not affect the quality of a relationship. Otherwise, it can have positive and negative effects.

Note to readers: This answer appears to be obvious when so clearly stated. But did you know this answer when you read just the heading to this post?

Enthusiastic first-time participants requested another session in a week's time. So the next philosophy cafe session is on Wednesday, 25/3/9, 8-10pm at Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. All are welcome.

Philosophy cafe reborn

2009-03-16T13:56:00.002+08:00

I have been conducting philosophy cafe sessions for the past five years at Gone Fishing Cafe. Over these five years, I have been trying to refine my format for conducting these discussions. Just as I was settling on a workable format, Gone Fishing Cafe underwent a change of management.

Today, I am glad to announce that I have managed to obtain permission from the new management of the cafe to continue conducting my philosophy cafe sessions at the venue. The cafe has had a change of name. It is now called Nook. Here are the logistical details.

Venue: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road.
Time: Every third Wednesday of the month, from 8-10pm (next session: 18 March 2009)
Charges: Free admission. Individual expenses on food and drink.
Topic: To be decided by participants. All are welcome (no prerequisite).

Interested readers can refer to "Philosophy cafe reports" to read summaries of previous sessions. Hope to see you there.

Bank boss bonuses?

2009-02-17T15:56:00.002+08:00

Source: Today, 16/2/9, p.B1
Headline: The big bonus debate

Quote1:
From Britain to the US and France, political leaders are clamping down on the bankers' bonus culture, which has been singled out as a cause of the financial crisis. ... However, taking too tough a line with banks could have unintended consequences for taxpayers, according to academics and insiders, who say the risks include banks losing their best staff and their share prices falling even lower to the dismay of the taxpayer ultimately.

Comment1:
Here is the objectors' argument:

Premiss1: If (cap bonus), then (lose best staff)
Premiss2: If (lose best staff), then (share price fall)
Premiss3: If (share price fall), then (taxpayer dismay)
Premiss4: Reject (taxpayer dismay)
Conclusion: Hence, reject (cap bonus)

This is a Modus Tollens rollback. It is a valid argument structure. The only way this argument can fail is if any premiss is false.

Quote2:
Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd ... dismissed such fears. ... "The current job market should deter employees from leaving, and if they do, there are many qualified replacements."

Comment2:
"The current ... from leaving" rebuts Premiss1, by asserting that a cap is not sufficient to result in "lose best staff". There is another factor at play, namely "current job market". "If they do ... replacements" rebuts Premiss2, by asserting that lost staff will be replaced by qualified people, and hence that share prices will not fall due to reduction in qualified staff. These two rebuttals block the objectors' argument.

Property bottoming out in 2010?

2009-02-17T15:43:00.003+08:00

Source: My Paper, 10/2/9, p.A8
Headline: Property bottoming out in 2010?

Quote1:
Mr Phil Anderson, who calls himself a renegade economist, ... confidently calls a property market bottom next year. ...

Comment1:
The conclusion is set out: Property bottom in 2010. What is the supporting argument?

Quote2:
Mr Anderson bases his prediction on an 18-year cycle which he says has manifested itself in the US since 1800.

Comment2:
The supporting argument is an 18-year cycle in the US. What is the supporting argument for the 18-year cycle?

Quote3:
Since then, there had been peaks in land sales or real estate speculation in 1818, 1836, 1854, 1888, 1908, 1926 and 1944. The peaks were followed by downturns or depressions, typically lasting four years. World War II disrupted the pattern. But the cycle resumed in 1955. The real estate market in the US again peaked in 1989 and bottomed in 1991. And 18 years later, in 2006-7, it hit another high. According to Mr Anderson, the market is now into the third year of downturn, so by next year it should bottom.

Comment3:
The supporting argument is inductive: a series of peaks at 18-year intervals, followed by four year downturns. An inductive argument says that if the past is X, the future will also be X. But look at the years. The intervals 1854-88 and 1888-1908 were not 18-year intervals. We have no information on the downturns.

Quote4:
The next boom, peaking around 2024, will be huge because hundreds of millions of Chinese will enter the market for the first time, he said.

Comment4:
The inductively observed pattern occurs in the US. No reason is given for extending it to China in 2024, nor is such an extension intuitively true.

Quote5:
Mr Anderson is confident the cycle will repeat itself as long as land is tradeable and in private hands.

Comment5:
"Land is tradeable and in private hands" leads intuitively to market ups and downs; but not to 18-year cycles. That needs additional argument.

Japan's biggest scam

2009-02-10T13:33:00.002+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 6/2/9, p.A10
Headline: Man accused of Japan's biggest scam arrested

Quote:
TOKYO: For a man accused of engineering one of Japan's biggest scams, Kazutsugi Nami looked calm and collected when police arrested him yesterday morning. ... Despite being hounded by the media in the past week amid speculation of this impending arrest, ... he appeared on television almost every day, protesting his innocence. ... "It is not a scam because we have a business plan," he said repeatedly.

Comment:
Mr Kazutsugi Nami's argument, when formally stated, says:

Premiss1: If (business plan), then (not scam)
Premiss2: Business plan
Conclusion: Hence, not scam

This argument has the valid Modus Ponens argument form. Premiss1 cannot be accepted as true. Having a business plan is not a sufficient condition for an enterprise to be not a scam. Indeed, the business plan could be precisely to con gullible people into parting with their money. The argument fails.

When to re-assign work or cut pay?

2009-01-14T15:22:00.004+08:00

Source: Today, 13/1/9, p.16 (letters)
Headline: Still good at 62
Author: By Rick Lim Say Kiong

Quote1:
Employers should also consider productivity as a factor when it comes to negotiating re-employment terms and conditions, especially in job scope and pay.

Comment1:
This states the writer's position.

Quote2:
Why shouldn't a 62-year-old employee continue in his job with the same pay if he has been and will be productive in his current job?

Comment2:
This is another statement of the same position, as applied to a 62-year-old employee. The statement's being presented as a question is a literary device known as a rhetorical question. There is an inherent risk in using this device: a reader may not recognise that it is intended to be a statement and not a question. It is best not to use rhetorical questions. Just make the statement.

Quote3:
The moment an older worker reaches the age of 62, is he suddenly undependable, weak and inefficient in his work? If not, why is it deemed necessary for him to be allocated to another job scope to suit his "capabilities" or for him to take a pay cut?

Comment3:
Here, we have more than a rhetorical question fronting for a statement; we have two rhetorical questions fronting for an argument:

Premiss1: If and only if (undependable, weak & inefficient), then (change job scope or cut pay)
Premiss2: Not-(undependable, weak & inefficient)[at 62]
Conclusion: Hence, not-(change job scope or cut pay)[at 62]

Premiss1 states a biconditional relation; where both terms are simultaneously true or false. Premiss2 states that the first term (undependable, weak & inefficient) is not true. The conclusion completes the argument by stating that we should not (change job scope or cut pay).

This argument form is valid, meaning that the premisses do entail the conclusion. Premiss2 is intuitively true: in general, one does not suddenly become (undependable, weak & inefficient) upon reaching age 62. That leaves Premiss1. Is Premiss1 true? Is (undependable, weak & inefficient) the only reason for (change job scope or cut pay)?

Quote4:
Many employers are keen to use the statutory retirement age [62] as a reason to cut pay or even to demean employees to the point of resignation.

Comment4:
This says that some employers think (age 62) is another reason for (cut pay). Resignation is a new point, not mentioned in the argument.

Quote5:
But in a market where experienced, dedicated and still-productive workers are difficult to come by, losing a long-serving employee is not of any benefit to the company.

Comment5:
This addresses the new point of "demean employees to the point of resignation", which is a point not mentioned in the argument.

END

The Shinjuku dilemma

2009-01-14T15:11:00.002+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 10/1/9, p.E22
Headline: No China date for Jackie film

Quote1:
HONGKONG: Emperor Motion Pictures has announced the Asian release dates for Jackie Chan's new film [The Shinjuku Incident] -- except in China, where its subject matter may have raised flags for the country's censors. ... In an interview with China's Nanfang Daily, the film's co-producer, Henry Fong, said he and [Director Derek] Yee had given up the mainland market.

Comment1:
Conclusion: Not-(mainland market)

What's the argument that leads to this conclusion?

Quote2:
Fong was quoted as saying: "If we make big changes at the mainland censors' requests, then the movie won't be interesting. If we don't make changes, it won't be passed."

Comment2:
We have a dilemma: two options, each with unpleasant consequences.

1. If (big changes), then (movie not interesting)
2. If (no change), then (movie won't be passed)

They consider the strategy of "going between the horns", that is, of discovering a third option.

Quote3:
"If we change it to two versions, one for the mainland, one for Hongkong, then we will be breaking the rules." The film is a Hongkong-China co-production. Producers are known to release one version of a movie for China and another version for Hongkong. But the practice is not permitted for Hongkong-Chinese co-productions. -- AP.

Comment3:
Here is Option 3:

3. If (two versions), then (break rules)

This third option is not viable.

We return to the original two options. they choose the less of two evils: movie won't be passed. This means the movie will not be released in the mainland market.

Hence, the conclusion: Not-(mainland market).

END

On the Satyam scandal

2009-01-14T14:47:00.002+08:00

Source: My Paper, 9/1/9, p.A10
Headline: Satyam scandal will feed fears

Quote1:
The [Satyam] scandal underscores the risks of investing in a market with insufficient regulatory oversight and protections.

Comment1:
The word "insufficient" guarantees that some calamity will occur -- by definition. This feature in logic is known as a tautology, or a petitio.

Quote2:
Said Mr Geoffrey Coll, co-head of law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf's India practice group: "When you are dealing with riskier regulatory environments like India or other emerging markets, there are real risks that the companies are being held to lower standards by their own internal regulators than companies in the West." -- Reuters.

Comment2:
"Riskier regulatory environments" by definition means "real risks [of] ... lower standards". No new information is provided. This is another tautology or petitio.

END

What should be the aim of education?

2008-12-24T14:18:00.002+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 December 2008.

We have two newcomers, so I open with a preamble:

"Welcome to philosophy cafe. This is an event where participants engage in the rational and rigorous pursuit of truth and right. This is unlike ordinary discussions, where people jump to the first answer they can think of; and unlike academic philosophy discussions, where people refuse to come to any answer at all. Our discussions are aimed at arriving at answers, and we achieve rationality and rigour by adhering to a simple algorithm that I've created -- and call Automated Thought Machine."

A popular vote decides the evening's topic: "What should be the aim of education?"

Three answers are proposed:
1. To liberally open the individual's mind.
2. To prepare people for society (a simulation for actual life).
3. To subjugate the masses into one world order.

We activate Automated Thought Machine.

Ask question.
What should be the aim of education?

State position.
To liberally open the individual's mind.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing).

Do reasons imply conclusion (position)?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
It is a good (thing) for the individual, but not always good for society.

We decide to narrow the reason to: Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a good (thing) for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
We decide we cannot answer this unless we define "good". We define "good" as "maximum happiness". So, our reason becomes: Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum happiness for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
A counterexample is offered. Introduction of endorphins into the body (eg. via consuming dark chocolate) can cause a greater happiness than that caused by liberal mindedness. So, the answer to this question is "no".

We try to save the argument by confining the term "happiness" to Aristotelian eudaimonia -- a uniquely human happiness achieved through the exercise of reason. This obviates endorphins as a counterexample, since it is incapable of causing eudaimonia.

The reason now is: Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

Provide reasons.
Liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

Do reasons imply conclusion?
Yes.

Are reasons true?
Yes.

Accept position.

The argument has passed both tests of a good argument. We accept the argument.

The aim of education should be to liberally open the individual's mind, because liberal mindedness is a maximum eudaimonia for the individual.

We have an answer (it is not impossible for education to have several aims) to the evening's question.

We have no time to consider the other two proposed answers. Discussion ends. It has been a good session.

Readers interested to engage in philosophical discussions are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session is on 21 January 2009. [If Gone Fishing Cafe happens to be closed, look for the bearded Chinese guy at the nearby Al Ameen Restaurant.]

Will Tokyo's new package work?

2008-12-16T15:43:00.002+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 13/12/8, p.A5
Headline: Tokyo unveils new help package

Quote1:
TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso yesterday announced a new stimulus package to shore up his country's economy. ... The additional package ... "may help slow the pace of a worsening economy but it doesn't have enough power to buoy the economy," said Mr Mamoru Yamazaki, chief Japan economist at RBS Securities Japan in Tokyo.

Comment1:
Mr Yamazaki has made an assertion, but offers no argument (at least none is reported) to support it. We are told one credential, that he is chief economist at RBS Securities Japan. That's all we have to go on. Is that enough?

Quote2:
"This is a desperate attempt by Mr Aso to recover support," said Mr Minoru Morita, an independent political analyst and author of a book on Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party. "He's falling deeper into a quagmire by announcing various measures that aren't backed up by budgets." -- AP, Bloomberg.

Comment2a:
The charge of "desperate attempt" offers a psychological cause or political motive behind Mr Aso's announcement of a new stimulus package. It does not amount to saying the package will be ineffective. It is logically possible for a desperate attempt to nonetheless be effective.

Comment2b:
We are told two credentials: "independent political analyst" and "author of a book on Japan's ruling LDP". Are they enough?

Comment2c:
An enthymeme (partial argument) is offered. We complete the argument, providing the hidden parts in square brackets.

Premiss1: [If (measures not backed up by budgets), then (fall deeper into quagmire)]
Premiss2: Measures not backed up by budgets
Conclusion: Hence, fall deeper into quagmire

The argument has the form Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q), which is valid. We accept Premiss2 as a statement of fact. The remaining test is whether Premiss1 is true. Intuitively, it is not. The fact of a measure not being backed up by budgets does not seem sufficient on its own to guarantee an economy falling deeper into quagmire. Since the argument fails this final test, we must reject the argument.

The World Bank predicts ...

2008-12-16T15:24:00.002+08:00

Source: My Paper, 11/12/8, p.A8
Headline: East Asia will suffer less than other regions

Quote:
WASHINGTON: Mr Vikram Nehru, World Bank's chief economist for East Asia and Pacific Region, warned that downside risks to the region's growth remained, citing the fallout from the global financial crisis. "The situation is changing so rapidly, literally from day to day," he said at a news conference in Tokyo. "Things could very easily get worse than we projected, and the slowdown could last longer." -- AFP, Reuters.

Comment:
What does the word "could" in "could very easily get worse" and "could last longer" mean? It certainly must mean "not impossible", as in "not impossible to get worse" and "not impossible to last longer". It does not mean "impossible to get better". It does not mean "impossible to be shorter". Most important, the word "could" must not be read as "definitely will happen". That is, we must not read "things could very easily get worse" as "things definitely will get worse", or read "the slowdown could last longer" as "the slowdown definitely will last longer".

Is consistency good?

2008-11-20T15:30:00.003+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 19 November 2008. We have a record turnout of 10 persons. A popular vote decides our question for the evening: Is consistency good?

We begin by defining the key words:

Consistency =df. The same action or thought in the same person, in the same context, in the same life.

Good =df. Desirable by society and the individual. (Here, we decide that it cannot be desirable only by the individual, as that would reduce everything to pure subjectivity, and thereby obviate all discussion.)

Desirable =df. Ought to be desired.

A first suggestion is that consistency is not good because it would make the world boring. We object that it will not make the world boring -- for two reasons. The first reason is that one can be consistently creative, and hence be not boring. The second reason is that while our definition of consistency specifies the same action or thought in the same person, our definition does allow variety across individuals -- thus making the world not boring. This first suggestion is defeated.

The second argument is two-pronged. First, if one is consistently good eg. being kind, then that is a good thing. Second, if one is cosistently evil, there can still be some eventual good. For example, if a serial rapist commits the crime evey full moon, that consistency of action allows women to know to stay indoors each full moon, and allows the police to know to be alert for him each full moon (and eventually capture him). So, since both possibilities are covered, we can conclude that consistency is good, even if only eventually.

We object that we can just as easily find examples to show that consistency is bad. If poker players consistently fold when they get dealt a poor hand, there will be no poker games. If all similar movies have consistently similar endings, and never any surprise twist endings, then movies would be extremely boring.

We wonder if constantly conjuring up examples pro and con is the way to approach this question. We wonder if we can address the question without using examples.

We come up with a "Kantian" suggestion, making use of his famous Categorical Imperative.

[Some background is needed here for readers not acquainted with academic philosophy. According to the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804), a rule qualifies as a moral rule if and only if it can be applied to everyone without self-contradiction. The rule "always tell the truth" satisfies this test, and is a moral rule. The rule "always tell a lie" would, if extended to everyone, result in social chaos -- and thus does not satisfy this test, making it nor a moral rule. This test for a moral rule is known as Kant's Categorial Imperative.]

Here's the argument:

1. The Categorical Imperative is needed to create a moral world.
2. The Categorical Imperative requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.

We notice that this argument can be expanded to morality in general, making the argument more powerful.

1. Morality is needed to create a moral world.
2. Morality requires consistency.
3. Therefore, consistency is good.

Then, disturbingly, we notice that egoism is also a recognised system of morality. Egoism is the principle that what is good is what is good for each subjective "me" regardless of any or all others. But this cannot be desirable by society, and hence by our definition is not good.

We end our discussion here. It has been a fantastic session.

Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome (prior knowledge of philosophy is not required). The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 17 December 2008. See you there!

Should religion be separated from the state?

2008-09-22T14:35:00.003+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 17 September 2008.

This problem arises in a heterogeneous society. Religion should be separated from the state for two reasons. First, to prevent conflict between the different religions. Second, because we can't be sure which religious claim is true.

No, we want to put this position on KIV status until we consider other alternatives on which to base the state.

How about culture? Well, culture is not clearly defined. Also, people differ on how much importance to place on different parts of culture. No, culture cannot be the base for the state.

How about history? That what has worked, or failed to work, in the past be the base for the state. Well, history can change with context. What has worked previously may no longer work, and vice versa. This context sensitivity can apply to both time and place. Also, history is variously recorded; there is no single authoritative version. So, we can't use history as the base for the state.

How about pragmatism? What is pragmatism? It is a method, a matter of things that work. How do we judge if something works? By reference to some truth or values. But what truth or values? Whatever truth or values that the majority find acceptable.

This is a viable alternative base for the state. So we can reject religion as the base.

Conclusion: Religion should be separated from the state.

Our next philosophy cafe session is on 15 October 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.

The great illusion

2008-08-27T16:23:00.002+08:00

Source: The Straits Times, 18/8/8, p.A17
Headline: The great illusion
Author: Paul Krugman

Comment:
This article presents a negative thesis: that something is not the case. What is this something?

Quote:
Shortly before World War I another British author, Norman Angell, published a famous book titled The Great Illusion, in which he argued that war had become obsolete, that in the modern industrial era even military victors lose far more than they gain. ...

Comment:
The thesis to be disproved is: Globalisation prevents wars.

Quote:
But war kept happening anyway.

Comment:
This is disproof by counterexample. Just as we disprove "All swans are white" by producing a single black swan, we disprove "globalisation prevents wars" by citing examples where wars [in particular, World War I] occur despite globalisation. Faced with a counterexample, we must draw the conclusion: not-(globalisation prevents wars).

Quote:
So are the foundations of the second global economy [what we have now, as compared to before WWI] any more solid than those of the first? In some ways, yes.

Comment:
This is an attempted reply to the counterexample. The reply is by way of making a [not explicitly stated] distinction between today's "more solid" globalisation and the globalisation of before WWI. What's the difference?

Quote:
For example, war among the nations of Western Europe really does seem inconceivable now, not so much because of economic ties as because of shared democratic values.

Comment:
Today's globalisation is stronger because of shared democratic values.

Quote:
Much of the world, however, including nations that play a key role in the global economy, doesn't share those values. ...

Comment:
This difference between today's globalisation and pre-WWI globalisation cannot be sustained. Therefore, the two globalisations are not different. Therefore, the counterexample stands -- and the thesis falls.

Quote:
... the belief that economic rationality always prevents wars is an equally great illusion.

Comment:
To capture the argument:

Thesis: Globalisation prevents wars.
Counterexample: World War I occured despite globalisation.
Conclusion: Therefore, not-(globalisation prevents wars)

An eclectic conversation II

2008-08-21T14:48:00.002+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 20 August 2008.

There was no single question used for discussion. Instead, an eclectic conversation ensued. Here are two highlights.

SEXY YOUNG GIRLS
Some parents doll up their young daughters, even as young as under 10 years of age, for singing, dancing and other contests. Often, these girls are physically similar to older girls. Thus, to an onlooker, they appear to be sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women, with their real ages becoming apparent only if identity documents are checked. Say some man responds to this presentation in a sexual way; has he done anything wrong? The immediate response is "paedophile!" Consider an alternative response. Parents voluntarily, willingly and deliberately present their young daughters to the world, sometimes even on national television, as sexually attractive (and sometimes mature) young women; this invites a sexual response -- and it's only natural to get such a response. Our discussion of this question stops here.

RESIGNATION BEHAVIOUR
An employee is badly treated by his employer. His talents and contributions are neither recognised nor rewarded. He decides to resign. The question is how should he behave while serving out his period of notice? One response: He should continue to do his work conscientiously, even making sure to do a proper handover to the person taking over his job. For two reasons. First, he is a professional. Second, if he is derelict, the market will speak ill of him, and this will adversely affect his prospects at other companies. Another response: The company has mistreated him; there is no reason to continue to be good to his company. He is entitled to return the favour. Just do nothing and sit tight till the final day. There is no intelligence network in the market. There is no third response: Nobody suggests doing criminal acts.

Our next philosophy cafe session is on 17 September 2008. Venue: Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission. All are welcome.

What makes a question important?

2008-07-18T14:05:00.003+08:00

This is a report of my philosophy cafe session on 16 July 2008.

Our question for the evening is "What makes a question important?"

This immediately raises the question: "What is importance?" We turn to the dictionary for help (this is a tool much neglected by philosophers). Our dictionary tells us that something is important when (a) it makes a big difference or influence in our lives; or (b) we care a lot about it.

What sort of disjunction (or function) is this? We reflect on it, and decide that it is an inclusive disjunction. This means that the two conditions may be true at the same time, but they don't have to be. So long as one condition is met, the matter at hand is important.

Do the two conditions exhaust the possibilities? Can something be important on a third criterion? How do we know we have covered the ground?

We apply the test of counterexample. That is, we try to think of something that is important, but which does not fall under either of the two criteria. We cannot. Does this mean we have indeed covered the ground? Or not? We can't be sure either way. We can go only as far as our imagination and intelligence takes us. This is the best we have so far. This is what we will work with.

What about apparent importance? Can we think something important when it is not? Intuitively, there is this distinction. But what's the difference? How do we establish true importance?

We suggest that true importance is when an event further propels one towards one's goals without the influence of any external factor. The part about an event further propelling one towards one's goals seems to fall under criteria (a) and (b) above -- it makes a big difference or influence, and we care about it. So the distinguishing feature must be that there's no influence from external factors. But we cannot be under no influence from external factors. Even Robinson Crusoe has memories of people, events and beliefs from when he was surrounded by external factors. So this third condition is nullified.

Thus, we return to the difference between apparent importance and true importance. Unable to find a difference, we can only say they are the same.

Someone suggests that what is important is up to the individual to decide. This is open to two elaborations.

The first elaboration is that each person is existentially responsible for his own beliefs and actions -- and for what he considers important. There is no dispute on this elaboration.

The second elaboration is that each person is correct in his assessment of importance. This raises two questions. Assuming this elaboration to be the case, why do we hold discussions? We can just let it be that each person is correct in his view. Also, on this elaboration, how do we make communal decisions about anything? We make such decisions on the basis of true and false, right and wrong. But if what every person says is the truth and the right, how can we decide anything?

Time forces us to end the discussion here. It has been a good session.

Readers who are interested to engage in the rational pursuit of truth and right (which is how I define philosophy) are cordially invited to attend Singapore's first and only philosophy cafe, which I host every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, from 8-10pm. Admission is free, and all are welcome. For more information, kindly visit my website at http://philocafesg.tripod.com/. The next philosophy cafe session will be held on 20 August 2008.

Anselm: Does God exist?

2008-07-04T13:10:00.003+08:00

St. Anselm (1033-1109) put forward a fairly straightforward argument in answer to the question: Does God exist? It is one of the classical arguments in Western philosophy. Just follow the cues to discover what his argument is.

1.
Start. Go to 2, 3, 4.

2. (from 1)
When an artist plans a work, the work exists in his understanding. When the artist executes his plan, the work exists in reality.
Go to 5.

3. (from 1)
God is a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". [conceived = thought]
Combine with 5, go to 6. Also go weakly to 8.

4. (from 1)
A being that cannot be thought not to exist is greater than a being that can be thought not to exist.
Combine with 7, go to 8.

5. (from 2)
[Therefore] There is a difference between an object being in the understanding, and an object being in existence.
Combine with 3, go to 6.

6. (from 3 & 5)
Once one hears and comprehends this, God exists in the understanding.
Go to 7.

7. (from 6)
If God exists only in the understanding, then it is possible to think of a being that exists also in reality.
Combine with 4, go to 8.

8. (from 4 & 7)
This makes God not a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived". This is impossible (by hypothesis in 3).
Go to 9.

9. (from 8)
Therefore, a being "than which nothing greater can be conceived" must exist both in the understanding and in reality. This is God. God exists.
Go to 10.

10. (from 9)
End.

Primary source:
"Saint Anselm of Canterbury: The Ontological Argument" in Nicholas Capaldi (ed) et al, Journeys Through Philosophy, Prometheus Books, 1982, pp. 369-70.
[St. Anselm was the Italian-born Archbishop of Canterbury.]

Postscript on method
Most philosophy is written in prose. While this makes for fluent reading, it also makes the argument extremely opaque in both content and flow. Presenting the argument in syllogisms is fully transparent, but is extremely tedious both to write and read. This is my compromise mode of presentation. I call it "programmed philosophy".

An eclectic conversation

2008-05-22T17:08:00.003+08:00

This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 21 May 2008.

Philosophy cafe sessions are held on the third Wednesday of each month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road. Participation is free of charge. All are welcome. The next philosophy cafe session will be on June 18.

The great misfortune of the evening is that it clashed with the "Final 2" of American Idol. Attendance is minimal. So we just had an eclectic conversation. Here are some snippets.

Near death experiences
"I trust my aunts. And they've had near death experiences, where they saw white lights, people calling out to them etc."

"Have you considered the possibility that their interpretation of their experiences is a function of their beliefs? And now they're using these experiences as proof of their beliefs? It's all rather circular. Also, what about revelatory experiences of people of other belief systems?"

"But in one such experience, one of the visions said he was God. Surely God does not lie?"

"How do you define God? Do you define God as Someone who always tells the truth? If so, then any vision calling itself God will be accepted as God. On the other hand, if God is not defined as Someone who always tells the truth, then certainly God can tell a lie. For example, Zeus is a god, and Zeus can tell lies."

Materialism vs Idealism
"Is materialism or idealism true?

"What are these?"

"Materialism is the belief that everything is matter; whereas idealism is the belief that everything is ideas."

"If everything is matter, than what is an idea? Neurons and electrical impulses? We are looking at this cup. Do we have the exact same electrical impulses firing?"

"Seems rather hard to believe. Then it's idealism? But where do ideas exist?"

"Plato says ideas exist in the World of Being; whereas we exist in the world of Becoming. We have ideas when we remember the World of Being and the perfect Forms that exist there."

Scientific disproof
"What does it mean to say science works by disproof?"

"That is based on the argument form known as Modus Tollens. Say we have a Theory P. From this theory, we derive some experimental implication Q. We perform the experiment. The results are not as expected. We conclude that Theory P is false. This is what is meant by science works by disproof. This view of science was first put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper.

Should childbirth be outsourced?

2008-04-21T15:38:00.003+08:00

This is a report of philosophy cafe session #51 on 16 April 2008.

The question for the night is as in the heading: Should childbirth be outsourced?

No, it should not be outsourced, because pregnancy is a joy and a privilege. But this is a selfish reason. Selfishness is ok, so long as it benefits me.

No, it should not be outsourced, because then there will be no bonding of mother and child. This is also the case in adoption, so this is not a good reason. Indeed, in the case of adoption, the case is even further removed, as there is no genetic heritage.

Yes, it should be outsourced, because it is more convenient for the couple. Indeed, many other events should also be outsourced, such a birthdays, schooling, bedtime stories. Then why have a child? For tax reasons.

An observation: Adoption is also oursourcing of childbirth, except that it occurs after the fact. The difference in outsourcing childbirth here is the child takes its genetic heritage from its adoptive parents. So outsourcing childbirth (that is, surrogacy) is better than adoption.

Yes, childbirth should be outsourced, as it provides employment for the surrogate mothers (clinically referred to as incubators).

No, childbirth should not be outsourced, as this will make the husband respect the wife less. The comparison is with a layabout husband, who is then not fulfilling his duty of bringing home the bacon.

Post-cafe reflection
The temptation here is to consider the above as three arguments against outsourcing childbirth, and two arguments in favour of it. This is the wrong perspective. In evaluating moral questions teleologically (by reference to its consequences), the correct approach is to consider all the consequences, and to judge if there is a nett of benefits over harms. If there is a nett of benefits over harms, it is a moral act; if there is a nett of harms over benefits, it is an immoral act.

Philosophy cafe is held every third Wednesday of the month at Gone Fishing Cafe, 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Admission is free (and so is parking). All are welcome. (For more information, please follow link to my website.) The next philosophy cafe session will be on 21 May 2008.