It's out! Harry Potter and Philosophy is now available. I haven't yet seen it my local Borders yet, but the online bookstores Amazon and BN.com have it. And you can get it from the publisher: Open Court
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Harry Potter and Philosophy
It's out! Harry Potter and Philosophy is now available. I haven't yet seen it my local Borders yet, but the online bookstores Amazon and BN.com have it. And you can get it from the publisher: Open Court
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Paul Hamm and the Gold
I am deeply frustrated by this whole debacle. I see it as really quite simply. Paul Hamm won the gold medal fair and square and all this talk about him giving back the gold is absurd. The FIG,the South Korean team, and the media should stop their haranging of this tremendous and heroic athlete.
I don't know about gymnastic judging or the specific rules, and so can only go by what I hear commentators say. But from what I understand, yes, the judges miscalculated the starting valuing of the South Korean's parallel bars. However, they also didn't take two mandatory deductions. The miscalculation would have added a 1/10 th to his score, but the deductions would have subtracted 2/10ths, leaving the South Korean with a score 1/10 lower. I am not sure, but given the closeness of the competition, this might have even dropped him from the bronze. So, the last person who should want a review of the tapes and re-scoring should be the South Korean!
Moreover, whose to say that even if the South Korean's score was adjusted up 1/10th in the parallel bars, he would have won the gold? He very well might have, but he might also have relaxed a bit too much thinking he had a good lead, and that could have caused him to do worse on the high bar. Or he might have tightened up or got more anxious realizing he was up for the gold, and this could have caused him to do worse on the high bar. Other competitors could have entered the high bar rotation with different expectations and competited differently, resulting in a different scores.
The point is that once play resumes, a call can't be changed. The call is one factor that determines later results and can't be changed without negating those results. This is why Football doesn't allow instant replay once play resumes. And why the Court of Arbitration rarely rules on field-of-play decisions. Going back and changing a call in the middle of game is not fair or right because we can't know the repercussions on the game or competition had that call been made differently on the field-of-play.
There was an appeal procedure available to the South Korean team during play. They should have checked the scoreboard before the next competitor and protested then. That's fair, and that's the place for it. The next day is just being a spoiled sport.
All this talk of showing good sportsmanship should be directed at the South Koreans, not Paul Hamm. He is a great sportsman, competiting hard and great when the chips are down. (Let's not forget how well the South Korean Young did under the stress of a booing crowd after the disputed Russian score on the high bar!)
Paul Hamm earned the gold and deserves the gold.
I don't know about gymnastic judging or the specific rules, and so can only go by what I hear commentators say. But from what I understand, yes, the judges miscalculated the starting valuing of the South Korean's parallel bars. However, they also didn't take two mandatory deductions. The miscalculation would have added a 1/10 th to his score, but the deductions would have subtracted 2/10ths, leaving the South Korean with a score 1/10 lower. I am not sure, but given the closeness of the competition, this might have even dropped him from the bronze. So, the last person who should want a review of the tapes and re-scoring should be the South Korean!
Moreover, whose to say that even if the South Korean's score was adjusted up 1/10th in the parallel bars, he would have won the gold? He very well might have, but he might also have relaxed a bit too much thinking he had a good lead, and that could have caused him to do worse on the high bar. Or he might have tightened up or got more anxious realizing he was up for the gold, and this could have caused him to do worse on the high bar. Other competitors could have entered the high bar rotation with different expectations and competited differently, resulting in a different scores.
The point is that once play resumes, a call can't be changed. The call is one factor that determines later results and can't be changed without negating those results. This is why Football doesn't allow instant replay once play resumes. And why the Court of Arbitration rarely rules on field-of-play decisions. Going back and changing a call in the middle of game is not fair or right because we can't know the repercussions on the game or competition had that call been made differently on the field-of-play.
There was an appeal procedure available to the South Korean team during play. They should have checked the scoreboard before the next competitor and protested then. That's fair, and that's the place for it. The next day is just being a spoiled sport.
All this talk of showing good sportsmanship should be directed at the South Koreans, not Paul Hamm. He is a great sportsman, competiting hard and great when the chips are down. (Let's not forget how well the South Korean Young did under the stress of a booing crowd after the disputed Russian score on the high bar!)
Paul Hamm earned the gold and deserves the gold.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
How Voters Vote
The New Yorker has an interesting article on how voters vote: The Unpolitical Animal.
Some of the theories about what motivates (if anything) individuals to vote for whom is quite scary. The most striking idea discussed is that only about 10% of the electorate actually have anything close to a coherent political philosophy. And about 20% hardly have what one could call political views and make their voting decisions on gut.
The article also discusses how many voters have little understanding of the views they do hold--that they don't see how some views like being in favor of lower taxes excludes other views like increased social services or that when the polling question is rephrased the answer given is often in contradiction with the previous answer.
Roger is right!
Some of the theories about what motivates (if anything) individuals to vote for whom is quite scary. The most striking idea discussed is that only about 10% of the electorate actually have anything close to a coherent political philosophy. And about 20% hardly have what one could call political views and make their voting decisions on gut.
The article also discusses how many voters have little understanding of the views they do hold--that they don't see how some views like being in favor of lower taxes excludes other views like increased social services or that when the polling question is rephrased the answer given is often in contradiction with the previous answer.
Roger is right!
Monday, August 09, 2004
Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism
Here's a quick review I posted at Amazon.com for Stephen Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism
When speaking with a colleague about this book, he was surprised to find out that Postmodernism has such a storied history including the likes of Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. And many readers also will be surprised to see the intellectual pedigree that Postmodernism boasts. Of course, Dr. Hicks isn't arguing that Kant or Russell were Postmodernists--but what he does in this quick and highly readable book is to show how Postmodernism evolved out of the ideas and historical trends of the last few hundred years in philosophy. Tracing the development of various ideas in epistemology and politics, Hicks finds the roots of Postmodernism in Kant, Rousseau, and other Counter-Enlightenment thinkers. The primary thesis of this book is that "the failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary." The history of modern epistemology has, by and large, failed at defending reason as one's means of knowing the world. The failure of socialism, both economically and morally, lead to, as Hicks calls it, a "crisis of faith" among many in the Left. In order to maintain their belief in the superiority of socialism over capitalism, many theorists used the failures of epistemology to eschew reason, reality, and truth. One now no longer has to deal with the evidence that shows the superiority of capitalism. Thus, we end up with the nihilistic, skeptical, and relativistic Postmodernism dominating much of academia and the political left.
Dr. Hicks is able to condense abstract and complicated ideas for a non-philosopher to understand without losing the essence of the ideas. He competently and clearly presents the ideas and positions without ever degenerating into ad hominem or resorting to polemics. As such, I highly recommend this wonderfully written and highly readable work to anyone--philosopher or not--with an interest in the history of ideas or an interest in understanding postmodernism.
When speaking with a colleague about this book, he was surprised to find out that Postmodernism has such a storied history including the likes of Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. And many readers also will be surprised to see the intellectual pedigree that Postmodernism boasts. Of course, Dr. Hicks isn't arguing that Kant or Russell were Postmodernists--but what he does in this quick and highly readable book is to show how Postmodernism evolved out of the ideas and historical trends of the last few hundred years in philosophy. Tracing the development of various ideas in epistemology and politics, Hicks finds the roots of Postmodernism in Kant, Rousseau, and other Counter-Enlightenment thinkers. The primary thesis of this book is that "the failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary." The history of modern epistemology has, by and large, failed at defending reason as one's means of knowing the world. The failure of socialism, both economically and morally, lead to, as Hicks calls it, a "crisis of faith" among many in the Left. In order to maintain their belief in the superiority of socialism over capitalism, many theorists used the failures of epistemology to eschew reason, reality, and truth. One now no longer has to deal with the evidence that shows the superiority of capitalism. Thus, we end up with the nihilistic, skeptical, and relativistic Postmodernism dominating much of academia and the political left.
Dr. Hicks is able to condense abstract and complicated ideas for a non-philosopher to understand without losing the essence of the ideas. He competently and clearly presents the ideas and positions without ever degenerating into ad hominem or resorting to polemics. As such, I highly recommend this wonderfully written and highly readable work to anyone--philosopher or not--with an interest in the history of ideas or an interest in understanding postmodernism.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
It happens, occassionally
I am as shocked as you are, but I just read a great Op-ed in the NY Times. Thomas Friedman occasionally comes out with a well-reasoned op-ed that has a terrific point. In this op-ed, 30 Little Turtles, Friedman defends globalization. His essential point is that by outsourcing low-wage, call-center jobs to countries like India and Pakistan, we are improving the world.
His best example is when he goes through the comments of several of the Indians in this training center. They want to be entrepenuers, they are learning self-confidence and independence. They admire Bill Gates. And Then he writes:
Friedman's ultimate point is that through allowing globalization and a free market (my words, not his), " we make not only a more prosperous world, but a safer world for our own 20-year-olds. "
His best example is when he goes through the comments of several of the Indians in this training center. They want to be entrepenuers, they are learning self-confidence and independence. They admire Bill Gates. And Then he writes:
I was in Ramallah, on the West Bank, talking to three young Palestinian men, also in their 20's, one of whom was studying engineering. Their hero was Yasir Arafat. They talked about having no hope, no jobs and no dignity, and they each nodded when one of them said they were all "suicide bombers in waiting."
Friedman's ultimate point is that through allowing globalization and a free market (my words, not his), " we make not only a more prosperous world, but a safer world for our own 20-year-olds. "
Friday, February 27, 2004
Good News
I received some excellent news today: I was admitted in to the Ph.d program at ASU to complete my doctorate in philosophy. This is very exciting!
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Marriage Amendment
Foxnews: Bush Backs Amendment Banning Gay Marriage.
1) I don't think marriage is the "most fundamental institution of civilization." I'm not sure what I'd say was, but this is not my primary objection to this movement for an amendment.
2) I see no need to give the federal goverment, or any more local government, any further power to ban consenting actions between adults. I don't think the government should be in the business of dealing with marriage anyway. This is is private matter and the government's role should just be enforcing aspects of the union between individuals. E.g. a contract enforcer.
I just don't get why this is such a big deal. Two people love each other and want to committ to each other -- why should the particular form of their sex and gender matter?
President Bush said Tuesday that the Constitution must be amended to bar gay marriage because he said the nation must defend "the most fundamental institution of civilization."
1) I don't think marriage is the "most fundamental institution of civilization." I'm not sure what I'd say was, but this is not my primary objection to this movement for an amendment.
2) I see no need to give the federal goverment, or any more local government, any further power to ban consenting actions between adults. I don't think the government should be in the business of dealing with marriage anyway. This is is private matter and the government's role should just be enforcing aspects of the union between individuals. E.g. a contract enforcer.
I just don't get why this is such a big deal. Two people love each other and want to committ to each other -- why should the particular form of their sex and gender matter?
Sunday, January 11, 2004
Once again, I am trying to get into this blogging thing. In that spirit, I've changed the template on the site. I am just using one of the templates that blogger supplies.
I am also starting to do some blogging at The Altasphere as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
