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
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Friday, 27 March 2009
Practical Guide To Clear Thought Ep.11
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.
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?
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].
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Does technology affect the quality of a relationship?
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.
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.
Monday, 16 March 2009
Philosophy cafe reborn
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.
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.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Bank boss bonuses?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Japan's biggest scam
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)