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.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Thursday, 17 September 2009
Am I meant to be here?
This is a report of the philosophy cafe session on 16 September 2009. The question of the night is "Am I meant to be here?"
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
What do we mean by the word "meant"? We take it to mean "do I have a choice". So the question becomes: Do I have a choice in being here? How can this question be addressed? The only way we can answer this question is if we know about the I before here. But we do not know this. So there is no way for us to address this question. All we can do is accept the fact that we are here.
And so, we reinterpret the question to be asking whether we are controlled or free.
Are we controlled by God, by emotion, by logic? We decide not to open any discussion on God. Emotion and logic are internal to us. We decide to focus on external controls.
We are subject to physical laws of nature, such as gravity and the need for nutrition. This is not disputed. There is no controversy here. What we want to discuss is freedom in our actions.
It is suggested that just as there are laws of physical nature, there are also laws of psychological nature. Our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, decisions (and hence actions) too are subject to the law of cause and effect, just as physical events are subject to laws of cause and effect.
In which case, why then should we ever reward or punish anyone? Everything he or she thinks, says and does is determined. There is nothing that comes from him or her. Analogically, if a machine were built that could compute its own decisions and actions, we could consider that machine "free" too -- but it is still subject to cause and effect.
Well, we can reward or punish someone just because it is precisely he or she who thinks, says and acts that way. It's not about original contribution; it's just about identity.
In this case, should I feel happy? What is happy? Happy is a chemical reaction in the body. It can be triggered by, for example, consuming dark chocolate (and certain drugs). We reward ourselves by releasing these chemicals eg. serotonin, endorphin. This too is subject to cause and effect.
So, we cannot speak of whether we should or should not be happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc. We simply are happy, sad, angry, frustrated etc.
The discussion ends.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Questions from a reader
I was just doing some housekeeping of this blog, when I saw an old response to a post. David asks some very interesting questions, which I will try to address.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
So much talking about thought or clear thought (mental activity), so what's the seed of "thought"? And what's "mental activity" do you mean here?
Indeed. I have an experience of "thought". The French philosopher Rene Descartes based his entire philosophy on his "clear and distinct" experience of thought. But what exactly is thought? The philosophy debate rages. The idealists (read as idea-lists) say it is a separate realm entirely from the material world; whereas the materialists (not in the sense of money-mad) say it is just some form of brain activity (electrical impulses etc.). I am not addressing that debate here. All I refer to is our subjective experience of thought -- which I analogically presume that others experience too.
When you say thought is "clear", what does it mean to you with the word clear in respect to your thought?
My use of the word "clear" is mainly to contrast it with "muddy" or "confused".
Why do human beings have thoughts?
Well, this is another fascinating question. Are thoughts merely a result of our more complex (as compared to other species) brains? Do other species also have thoughts (which they cannot communicate to us?) And again, back to the first question: are thoughts real?
Does thought(s) has/have its/their limitation?
Definitely. The limit of our thoughts is our intuitions. We cannot go further back than that.
What is TRUTH or REALITY? Are you talking about "relative truth" here? Is TRUTH within our human being language communicative expression?
Here, again the philosophy debate rages. Is there absolute truth, or are all truth relative? Platonists believe there is absolute truth (for example, in the World of Forms). Kantians believe that our access to truth is limited by our physical and mental capacities; that there is a truth (the noumemal world) that we can never know. Wittgenstein says our expression of the truth is indeed limited by our communication capacities.
What's basic nature of human being?
Here again the philosophy debate rages. Aristotle says the basic human nature is our ability to think. Confucius says basic human nature is good. Hobbes and Hsun Tsu say basic human nature is evil. I think basic human nature is laziness, both physical and mental.
Thank you, David, for your questions. I hope other readers also find such philosophical questions interesting. We can also discuss such questions at my philosophy cafe sessions.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
What should be done about those swimsuits?
Recently, "super" swimsuits were used in international swim meets, and world records tumbled. Many competitors and swim coaches complained about an "unfair advantage".
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
We posed the question "what should be done about these swimsuits?" at our philosophy cafe session on 19 August 2009. This is a brief report of our discussion.
Why are these swimsuits considered as an "unfair advantage"?
Because it enabled its wearers to obliterate the competition.
But everyone is free to wear one of these suits. It is not unfair.
Not true, some swimmers are bound by sponsorship contracts to use only their sponsors' suits -- which happen to be not "super".
Well, they entered into these sponsorship contracts of their own free will, and they are free to change sponsor once their contracts expire.
Let's approach this from the other direction: what is fair competition?
A fair competition is where the winner is the one who is physically superior to all the others; not where the winner is the one using the best equipment.
All sports use equipment, and not all equipment are equal.
Surely it is possible to standardise the equipment, so that the competition is fair.
No, specifying using only one brand of equipment is not fair to other equipment makers.
We can rotate equipment makers among the various sports meets.
This will make records set specific to those equipment makers. We will have "100m freestyle Brand A", "100m freestyle Brand B" -- which is ridiculous.
We can equalise the competition by returning to the original Olympic format, where all competitors are nude.
This is even more absurd. Competing in the nude is today a non-starter, never mind how it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, while this is physically possible in swimming, it is even conceptually impossible in sports where equipment is required eg. in archery.
We can specify the features of the equipment used. For example, in swimming, we can specify the swimsuit material, the buoyancy level, the drag, the coverage of the body etc. This will equalise the competition.
Discussion ends here. It has been a good discussion.
The next philosophy cafe session is on 16 September 2009. The venue: Nook (cafe), 15 Chu Lin Road, 8-10pm. Free parking and admission. Personal expense for food and drink. Prior to the event, I will post on this blog possible topics for discussion at the philosophy cafe session. I hope to see you there.
Monday, 17 August 2009
Announcement to readers
Dear readers,
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Thank you for visiting this blog. If you like what you read, please tell others about it.
I will soon again be teaching Critical Thinking, and also Introduction to Philosophy. These engagements will keep me very busy, and I expect that my rate of posts will drastically drop. Rest assured, however, that I fully intend to resume active posting after the teaching engagement ends. In the meantime, I will continue to post as and when I find the inspiration and time.
My philosophy cafe sessions will continue as usual. The next philosophy cafe session will be on 19 August 2009. Place: Nook, 15 Chu Lin Road. Time: 8-10pm. Free admission, but personal expenses for food and drink. All are welcome; just bring an open mind. [In general, we meet every third Wednesday of the month, same time and place.]
This time, I would like to try something new. I want to try fixing the topic ahead of time. So, on 19 August, I propose to address the controversy on the new-fangled swimsuits that are breaking world swim records all over the world. Should they be allowed, or banned? And why?
See you at on the 19th.
Cheers,
Singaporephilosopher.
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Can we ever blame a doctor?
A recent study finds Singapore-trained doctors "more lenient" on peers' ethics. One person responds. We study this response.
Source: The Straits Times, 25/7/9, p.A45 (letters)
Headline: Two views on doctors' views
Writer: Dr Yik Keng Yeong
Quote1
Once past the prime considerations of patient welfare, professional competence and civil law infraction, tolerance of minor indiscretion and misdemeanour is but recognition of man's and doctor's fallibility. ...
Comment1
The position taken here is one of "tolerance" and "recognition of fallibility". Notice its scope. The "prime considerations" are specifically excluded, and only what is "minor" is specifically included. It follows by definition that what is minor can (or even should) be tolerated.
Quote2
Doctors are ... inclined to be cognisant of their own human foibles and frailties, ... especially so as the practice of medicine is so fraught with daily pitfalls that only he who has not sinned can cast the first stone.
Comment2
If a kettle is black, even a black pot can truthfully say "The kettle is black." The claim that a pot cannot call the kettle black commits the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy, and must be rejected.
Quote3
If doctors take to heart the sapient Chinese proverb ... (We should forgive wherever we can), ... the last cynical conclusion we should draw is that there is a conspiracy of tolerance. ...
Comment3
This is a conditional statement: "If doctors ..., (then) the last... tolerance". This is not an argument. No conclusion or position is drawn from it.
Quote4
Even where discipline is required, everyone deserves a second chance.
Comment4
What do we do on the third incident?
Quote5
Where intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffices, advocation of further craconian measures serves no purpose but to tar reputations and destroy careers. ...
Comment5
Note the word "suffices". It follows by definition that no further action is warranted. The question is when do intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffice, especially bearing in mind Quote3 above?
Quote6
Perhaps many of them [foreign trained doctors], provisionally registered with the Singapore Medical Council,will treat any survey with undue suspicion and offer politically correct answers they feel will not jeopardise their chances of re-registration with the council, nothwithstanding the assurance that all data collected is private and confidential.
Comment6
This says that the foreign-trained doctors circumstances have biased their responses. The argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial (Appeal to the person, circumstantial), and must be rejected.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 25/7/9, p.A45 (letters)
Headline: Two views on doctors' views
Writer: Dr Yik Keng Yeong
Quote1
Once past the prime considerations of patient welfare, professional competence and civil law infraction, tolerance of minor indiscretion and misdemeanour is but recognition of man's and doctor's fallibility. ...
Comment1
The position taken here is one of "tolerance" and "recognition of fallibility". Notice its scope. The "prime considerations" are specifically excluded, and only what is "minor" is specifically included. It follows by definition that what is minor can (or even should) be tolerated.
Quote2
Doctors are ... inclined to be cognisant of their own human foibles and frailties, ... especially so as the practice of medicine is so fraught with daily pitfalls that only he who has not sinned can cast the first stone.
Comment2
If a kettle is black, even a black pot can truthfully say "The kettle is black." The claim that a pot cannot call the kettle black commits the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy, and must be rejected.
Quote3
If doctors take to heart the sapient Chinese proverb ... (We should forgive wherever we can), ... the last cynical conclusion we should draw is that there is a conspiracy of tolerance. ...
Comment3
This is a conditional statement: "If doctors ..., (then) the last... tolerance". This is not an argument. No conclusion or position is drawn from it.
Quote4
Even where discipline is required, everyone deserves a second chance.
Comment4
What do we do on the third incident?
Quote5
Where intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffices, advocation of further craconian measures serves no purpose but to tar reputations and destroy careers. ...
Comment5
Note the word "suffices". It follows by definition that no further action is warranted. The question is when do intra- or inter-departmental punishment suffice, especially bearing in mind Quote3 above?
Quote6
Perhaps many of them [foreign trained doctors], provisionally registered with the Singapore Medical Council,will treat any survey with undue suspicion and offer politically correct answers they feel will not jeopardise their chances of re-registration with the council, nothwithstanding the assurance that all data collected is private and confidential.
Comment6
This says that the foreign-trained doctors circumstances have biased their responses. The argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial (Appeal to the person, circumstantial), and must be rejected.
END
Can we accept a fat Doctor-in-Chief?
Obama's nominee for US Surgeon-general is overweight. Critics object to it. We look at the argument.
Source: Today, 24/7/9, p.22
Headline: Too big for the role?
Quote1
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's nomination of Ms Regina Benjamin as America's surgeon-general has faced a barrage of criticism frommedics who claimshe is setting a bad example because of her weight. ...
Comment1
A pot accuses a kettle of being black. The kettle retorts: "So are you!" This does not result in the kettle no longer being black. The truth of an accusation does not depend upon the accuser being free of the same charge. An argument of this nature is known as the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. In this case, a person does not have to be a picture of perfect health in order to be a surgeon-general.
Quote2
Said Dr Lillie Shockney, director of the Johns Hopkins Avon Breast Centre: ... "I want an image of wellness, because young people will hear her better if she is practising what we expect her to preach." ...
Comment2
This is a psychological effect. Listeners should learn to ignore the image of the speaker and focus on the substance of what is said. The more we cater to fallacies and irrelevancies, the more they will perpetuate, and the longer we will remain in confused thought.
Quote3
The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance said: "Despite exceptional qualifications, the criticism focuses on her weight!"
Comment3
Even if Ms Benjamin did not have "exceptional qualifications", the objection is still a fallacy.
Quote4
Others have pointed out that previous male surgeon-generals have not been pictures of slimness. -- The Daily Telegraph
Comment4
The thrust of this comment needs to be spelt out. In this unclear state, any of the following could be a response:
1. Only female surgeon-generals have to be slim.
2. Those past appointments were wrong.
3. Yes, slimness is not a requirement in a surgeon-general.
END
Source: Today, 24/7/9, p.22
Headline: Too big for the role?
Quote1
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama's nomination of Ms Regina Benjamin as America's surgeon-general has faced a barrage of criticism frommedics who claimshe is setting a bad example because of her weight. ...
Comment1
A pot accuses a kettle of being black. The kettle retorts: "So are you!" This does not result in the kettle no longer being black. The truth of an accusation does not depend upon the accuser being free of the same charge. An argument of this nature is known as the Tu Quoque (you too) fallacy. In this case, a person does not have to be a picture of perfect health in order to be a surgeon-general.
Quote2
Said Dr Lillie Shockney, director of the Johns Hopkins Avon Breast Centre: ... "I want an image of wellness, because young people will hear her better if she is practising what we expect her to preach." ...
Comment2
This is a psychological effect. Listeners should learn to ignore the image of the speaker and focus on the substance of what is said. The more we cater to fallacies and irrelevancies, the more they will perpetuate, and the longer we will remain in confused thought.
Quote3
The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance said: "Despite exceptional qualifications, the criticism focuses on her weight!"
Comment3
Even if Ms Benjamin did not have "exceptional qualifications", the objection is still a fallacy.
Quote4
Others have pointed out that previous male surgeon-generals have not been pictures of slimness. -- The Daily Telegraph
Comment4
The thrust of this comment needs to be spelt out. In this unclear state, any of the following could be a response:
1. Only female surgeon-generals have to be slim.
2. Those past appointments were wrong.
3. Yes, slimness is not a requirement in a surgeon-general.
END
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Are things finally looking up?
One analyst says the end of the tunnel is in sight. We examine the commentary piece.
Source: Today, 15/7/9, p.B8
Headline: Reflation, liquidity the way to go
Writer: By Bob Doll
Quote1
Global equity markets have been volatile this year. After sinking sharply in January and February, ... global equities went on a tear in the next couple of months -- but now it seems the rally that started in early March has run out of steam. ... Since the bear market began in earnest last September, ... there have been several global equity rallies that failed to take hold. ...
Comment1
These are assertions, with no supporting argument.
Quote2
The rally that started in March was different. That rally which, from trough to peak, has resulted in global price advances of around 30 percent, was based on a combination of technically oversold conditions, aggressive global policy actions and a general sense that the global economic recession was moving past its period of greatest weakness.
Comment2
Here is a claim of a different rally. The difference? A 30 percent advance, as contrasted with "rallies that failed to take hold". There is no explicit statement that the "combination" caused the rally.
Quote3
The extent to which equities are able to continue to advance will depend largely on the degree to which the global economy is able to recover. ...
Comment3
This sounds like it is true by definition.
Quote4
The massive policy initiatives around the world have begun to bear some fruit. The dramatic increase rate cuts, spending increases, tax cuts, capital injections, bank rescues and plethora of new government programmes have all helped to combat ongoing credit-related deflation risks.
Comment4
What are listed are the "massive policy initiatives". What are the "fruit"? We are not told.
Quote5
We believe the fourth quarter.... We expect a small gain.... We also expect to see modestly positive.... We believe equities are entering a correction phase.... We believe this correction will be marked....
Comment5
Here are more predictive assertions -- again with no supporting argument.
Quote6
We think it is extremely unlikely that prices will retreat back to their early March levels. Typically, such corrections result in a give-back of between one-third to one-half of recent gains which, in the US, would result in a short-term drop to between 800 and 850 for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. ...
Comment6
Here's the argument:
Reason: Typically, less than full corrections.
Conclusion: Hence, no full retreat to early March levels.
The success of this argument depends on the future being like the past.
Quote7
We expect improving economic conditions.... We believe that stocks will outperform....
Bob Doll is vice-chairman and global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock.
Comment7
More predictive assertions -- and no supporting argument.
Comment8
The issue under discussion is one on which there are many differing expert opinions, unlike on the question of how long an object will take to fall 20 storeys. In this case, expert opinion alone is insufficient. Arguments must be provided (see Quote6 above).
END
Source: Today, 15/7/9, p.B8
Headline: Reflation, liquidity the way to go
Writer: By Bob Doll
Quote1
Global equity markets have been volatile this year. After sinking sharply in January and February, ... global equities went on a tear in the next couple of months -- but now it seems the rally that started in early March has run out of steam. ... Since the bear market began in earnest last September, ... there have been several global equity rallies that failed to take hold. ...
Comment1
These are assertions, with no supporting argument.
Quote2
The rally that started in March was different. That rally which, from trough to peak, has resulted in global price advances of around 30 percent, was based on a combination of technically oversold conditions, aggressive global policy actions and a general sense that the global economic recession was moving past its period of greatest weakness.
Comment2
Here is a claim of a different rally. The difference? A 30 percent advance, as contrasted with "rallies that failed to take hold". There is no explicit statement that the "combination" caused the rally.
Quote3
The extent to which equities are able to continue to advance will depend largely on the degree to which the global economy is able to recover. ...
Comment3
This sounds like it is true by definition.
Quote4
The massive policy initiatives around the world have begun to bear some fruit. The dramatic increase rate cuts, spending increases, tax cuts, capital injections, bank rescues and plethora of new government programmes have all helped to combat ongoing credit-related deflation risks.
Comment4
What are listed are the "massive policy initiatives". What are the "fruit"? We are not told.
Quote5
We believe the fourth quarter.... We expect a small gain.... We also expect to see modestly positive.... We believe equities are entering a correction phase.... We believe this correction will be marked....
Comment5
Here are more predictive assertions -- again with no supporting argument.
Quote6
We think it is extremely unlikely that prices will retreat back to their early March levels. Typically, such corrections result in a give-back of between one-third to one-half of recent gains which, in the US, would result in a short-term drop to between 800 and 850 for the Standard & Poor's 500 index. ...
Comment6
Here's the argument:
Reason: Typically, less than full corrections.
Conclusion: Hence, no full retreat to early March levels.
The success of this argument depends on the future being like the past.
Quote7
We expect improving economic conditions.... We believe that stocks will outperform....
Bob Doll is vice-chairman and global chief investment officer of equities at BlackRock.
Comment7
More predictive assertions -- and no supporting argument.
Comment8
The issue under discussion is one on which there are many differing expert opinions, unlike on the question of how long an object will take to fall 20 storeys. In this case, expert opinion alone is insufficient. Arguments must be provided (see Quote6 above).
END
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Should we turn vegetarian?
A British study finds a benevolent link between vegetarian diet and cancer. We investigate the report.
Source: The Straits Times, 2/7/9, p.A21
Headline: Vegetarians less likely to get cancer
Quote1
LONDON: Vegetarians are 12 percent less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters and the advantage is particularly marked when it comes to cancers of the blood, British researchers said yesterday. ...
Comment1
This is the news point. Now let's look at the details -- before deciding if we want to suddenly turn vegetarian.
Quote2
The new study, entitled Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, involved more than 60,000 people and it confirmed a lower risk of both stomach and bladder cancer for vegetarians, Reuters reported. ...
Comment2
The study is limited to British vegetarians. It may not apply elsewhere. It has a large sample of 60,000, which increases its generalizability over the population of British vegetarians.
Quote3
The most striking and surprising difference was in cancers of the blood ... where the risk of disease was 45 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters. ...
Comment3
The drop is greatest in blood cancers.
Quote4
The ...effect ... did not seem to stretch to bowel cancer. ... And the study found that the incidence of cervix cancer was two times higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
Comment4
Bowel cancer is unaffected; and it's worse for cervix cancer.
Quote5
Prof Key and his co-authors, from universities in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, followed 61,566 meat eaters and vegetarians for over 12 years, during which 3,350 of the participants were diagnosed with cancer.
Comment5
Of 61,566 persons, 3,350 developed cancer. This is an incidence rate of 5.44 percent -- or one in 18.4 chance, regardless of diet.
Quote6
"At the moment, these findings are not strong enough to ask for particularly large changes in the diets of people following an average balanced diet," Prof Key was quoted as saying by the BBC.
Comment6
Well, here's the bottom line: No need to rush into vegetarian mode -- if you're British.
END
Source: The Straits Times, 2/7/9, p.A21
Headline: Vegetarians less likely to get cancer
Quote1
LONDON: Vegetarians are 12 percent less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters and the advantage is particularly marked when it comes to cancers of the blood, British researchers said yesterday. ...
Comment1
This is the news point. Now let's look at the details -- before deciding if we want to suddenly turn vegetarian.
Quote2
The new study, entitled Cancer Incidence in British Vegetarians, involved more than 60,000 people and it confirmed a lower risk of both stomach and bladder cancer for vegetarians, Reuters reported. ...
Comment2
The study is limited to British vegetarians. It may not apply elsewhere. It has a large sample of 60,000, which increases its generalizability over the population of British vegetarians.
Quote3
The most striking and surprising difference was in cancers of the blood ... where the risk of disease was 45 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat eaters. ...
Comment3
The drop is greatest in blood cancers.
Quote4
The ...effect ... did not seem to stretch to bowel cancer. ... And the study found that the incidence of cervix cancer was two times higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
Comment4
Bowel cancer is unaffected; and it's worse for cervix cancer.
Quote5
Prof Key and his co-authors, from universities in the United Kingdom and New Zealand, followed 61,566 meat eaters and vegetarians for over 12 years, during which 3,350 of the participants were diagnosed with cancer.
Comment5
Of 61,566 persons, 3,350 developed cancer. This is an incidence rate of 5.44 percent -- or one in 18.4 chance, regardless of diet.
Quote6
"At the moment, these findings are not strong enough to ask for particularly large changes in the diets of people following an average balanced diet," Prof Key was quoted as saying by the BBC.
Comment6
Well, here's the bottom line: No need to rush into vegetarian mode -- if you're British.
END
Is a photograph also a painting?
The recent UOB Painting of the Year contest was won by a set of photographs. Some find this odd, others do not. We investigate.
Source: The Sunday Times, 5/7/9, p.7
Headline: Stir over photo win in painting contest
Quote1
A series of photographs have again won United Overseas Bank's (UOB) Painting of the Year competition. ...
Comment1
This sets the context.
Quote2
Yesterday, art enthusiast Gong Pan Pan, 23, said: "I think the title of the competition becomes very misleading if they keep awarding the top prize of a painting competition to a photograph. If the competition has changed its focus from painting to image in general, it should be renamed." ...
Comment2
The claim is straightforward. A painting competition should be won by a painting. More generally, a word must be correctly applied, or defined.
Quote3
Lecturer and artist Hong Sek Chern, 42, suggested that the term "painting" could be defined simply by its presentation of being hung on a wall. She did not mind the expansion of its definition. She said: "If the judges accept a sculpture hanging on a wall as a painting, it would be fine." "As a painter, I feel that it is very exciting for photography to push the limits of painting." Miss Hong added that this concept of hanging a sculpture on a wall had in fact already been done elsewhere.
Comment3
The suggestion is to define "painting" as "anything presented by being hung on a wall". On this definition, a photograph is a painting if it is hung on a wall. So also a sculpture, which have been done elsewhere. Think of other items that have been hung on walls. Would you consider them paintings too?
Quote4
Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts president Choo Thiam Siew said that the public must accept the changing concept of a traditional painting. ... "Photos are no longer just beautiful pictures of idyllic scenes. Nowadays, they have strong, impactful messages. To me, a photograph becomes a piece of art if it has something to say, brings out an issue, and has the feeling of the artist in it."
Comment4
This suggestion is that (photograph + something to say + brings out an issue + has artist's feelings) is a (piece of art). But is it a painting? We are not told.
Quote5
Indeed, one of the judges, Mr Koichi Yasunaga, ... did note that the painting submissions were not as "impactful" as the photographs. ...
Comment5
"Impact" is now suggested as another criterion -- but for (photograph) or for (piece of art)?
Quote6
Visual artist Michael Lee, 37, ... said: "The photograph won, not because it was a photograph but because it was a critical and innovative expression of the artist's interest."
Comment6
We have more criteria: (critical expression + innovative expression + artist's interest). Again, are these criteria for (painting) or (piece of art)?
Quote7
Pausing, he said that perhaps the name of the competition could be changed to perhaps "2-D Art of the Year" or "Image of the Year". But then he saw how this could be a problem too. He said: "2-D Art of the Year sounds very crude, while some images could be text-based."
Comment7
An alternative to redefining "painting" is to rename the competition -- but both these suggestions also run into problems.
Comment8
Socrates was concerned with discovering the correct definitions of terms. Confucius was concerned with the rectification of names. Ambiguity is the source of much confusion and conflict in life. It behoves us to use language clearly and precisely.
Is this competition intended to be a search for excellence in a specific medium, or a search for artistic excellence in general? Once this is clearly understood, it will be a straightforward matter to give the competition its correct name.
What ought not happen is that this linguistic haze continue to linger.
END
Source: The Sunday Times, 5/7/9, p.7
Headline: Stir over photo win in painting contest
Quote1
A series of photographs have again won United Overseas Bank's (UOB) Painting of the Year competition. ...
Comment1
This sets the context.
Quote2
Yesterday, art enthusiast Gong Pan Pan, 23, said: "I think the title of the competition becomes very misleading if they keep awarding the top prize of a painting competition to a photograph. If the competition has changed its focus from painting to image in general, it should be renamed." ...
Comment2
The claim is straightforward. A painting competition should be won by a painting. More generally, a word must be correctly applied, or defined.
Quote3
Lecturer and artist Hong Sek Chern, 42, suggested that the term "painting" could be defined simply by its presentation of being hung on a wall. She did not mind the expansion of its definition. She said: "If the judges accept a sculpture hanging on a wall as a painting, it would be fine." "As a painter, I feel that it is very exciting for photography to push the limits of painting." Miss Hong added that this concept of hanging a sculpture on a wall had in fact already been done elsewhere.
Comment3
The suggestion is to define "painting" as "anything presented by being hung on a wall". On this definition, a photograph is a painting if it is hung on a wall. So also a sculpture, which have been done elsewhere. Think of other items that have been hung on walls. Would you consider them paintings too?
Quote4
Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts president Choo Thiam Siew said that the public must accept the changing concept of a traditional painting. ... "Photos are no longer just beautiful pictures of idyllic scenes. Nowadays, they have strong, impactful messages. To me, a photograph becomes a piece of art if it has something to say, brings out an issue, and has the feeling of the artist in it."
Comment4
This suggestion is that (photograph + something to say + brings out an issue + has artist's feelings) is a (piece of art). But is it a painting? We are not told.
Quote5
Indeed, one of the judges, Mr Koichi Yasunaga, ... did note that the painting submissions were not as "impactful" as the photographs. ...
Comment5
"Impact" is now suggested as another criterion -- but for (photograph) or for (piece of art)?
Quote6
Visual artist Michael Lee, 37, ... said: "The photograph won, not because it was a photograph but because it was a critical and innovative expression of the artist's interest."
Comment6
We have more criteria: (critical expression + innovative expression + artist's interest). Again, are these criteria for (painting) or (piece of art)?
Quote7
Pausing, he said that perhaps the name of the competition could be changed to perhaps "2-D Art of the Year" or "Image of the Year". But then he saw how this could be a problem too. He said: "2-D Art of the Year sounds very crude, while some images could be text-based."
Comment7
An alternative to redefining "painting" is to rename the competition -- but both these suggestions also run into problems.
Comment8
Socrates was concerned with discovering the correct definitions of terms. Confucius was concerned with the rectification of names. Ambiguity is the source of much confusion and conflict in life. It behoves us to use language clearly and precisely.
Is this competition intended to be a search for excellence in a specific medium, or a search for artistic excellence in general? Once this is clearly understood, it will be a straightforward matter to give the competition its correct name.
What ought not happen is that this linguistic haze continue to linger.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)