ALS Update: Sleep medicine and cutting my nails

I have four more falls to report.  Two scared the dickens out my whole family, even me.  One worried them.  The other was an annoyance and a reminder.  I also purchased special nail clippers, an electric toothbrush, and interdental brushes due to increasing loss of dexterity in my hands.

The first fall was under the influence of sleep medicine.  I was having trouble sleeping with the collar and I used the oxycodone I as prescribed to compensate, but I didn't want to renew it for that purpose.  So, my wife picked up two different sleep medications, and I chose to use the Diphenhydramine HCl, based on it saying it was not habit forming and fewer contraindications.  I took the standard dose the first night, and when I awoke for my nightly potty run, I was completely disoriented and fell out of the bed, hitting my head on the open closet door.  Even worse, I tried five times to stand up without success from an all-fours crawling position, once when my eldest son tried to offer me a hand.  My wife and kids were frantic.  Finally, I managed to face the bed, get my hands on the top of the mattress, and use my arms to lift me.  We now have a small bed rail with handles to keep this from happening again.  After that, I only used a half-dose of sleep medication, which was sufficient.

The second time I was alone in the bathroom, and was trying to sit on the toilet, when I slid to the left and landed on my rear upon the floor.  I was able to use the bathtub to lift myself up.  It was a good reminder to always use a hand on something to guide my descent.

The third time I was trying to use a cane on a supposedly short shopping trip.  The trip became longer and longer, sand I broke off from the family to sit and rest.  After they checked out, they came to collect me.  I made the mistake of not using the shopping cart as a walker and of not waiting by the door for the car to be driven around for me.  Five feet from the car, I fell backwards, landing flat.  I was helped up by three people, two sons and a passing stranger.  The back of my head was bleeding, so we went to the ER.  A CT scan revealed there was no fracture, no brain bleed, nothing serious.  I didn't even get a stitch nor a staple, all they found were abrasions.  Still, my wife very wisely purchased a wheelchair for me.

The most recent time was simple carelessness.  I was using a walker and rushing to get out the door.  A walker leg was entangled in a cord from a recliner, and I felt the entanglement, but could not slow down in time, and I took the walker down with me.  I was able to use the chair with the cord to right myself.

Each time, the Miami J collar protected my neck, and there was no additional damage to it in yesterday's x-rays.  Further I was healed sufficiently to be declared fit for work with no restrictions and was told I no longer needed the collar.  After we went home, my wife suggested that I wear the collar anyhow when using the walker or the stairs, and I agreed it was a promising idea.

I can operate standard fingernail clippers, but it is extremely hard to do with my left hand.  So, I purchased clippers designed for people with arthritis.  They turned out to be toenail-sized, and I wound bleeding in five of my fingers trying to use them (they were very good on my toes).  I have ordered a set that includes finger-sized clippers.  I have also been having trouble brushing and flossing, so I ordered an electric toothbrush and interdental brushes for flossing.  My wife has been reading other people's experiences with ALS, and she has described what she read as every time you make an adjustment, you lose another ability and must adjust again.  The description fits what I am going through.

Read more!

ALS Update: I fall and need a bib

I am doing two months worth of updates.  I don't have much good news to share.  I fell six times during the month of December (four within the space of a week), and I think my strength is starting to fade faster than from age alone, but it seems to vary day-to-day.  My typing us slowing down, but that doesn't affect my day job significantly.  On the plus side, I am still doing all my daily routine, including the chores for the family, and I am still eating a pretty sizeable amount.

That update was intended for the end of December.  Things have changed since then. 

The first fall happened December 3rd when I was putting on my pants, and I pulled my leg out from under me rather than lifting and then pulling.  I had just been advised to be intentional and deliberate in everything I do, and I completely ignored that.  Fortunately, the landing area was soft, and there was no damage.

I fell again on December 5.  I was walking upstairs in my home, and my momentum carried me forward.  Again, there was no damage (I didn't have far to fall before hitting the steps).

Next, I fell on December 10.  I was going down the stairs outside the back door, and hurrying again.  This time I aggravated an old weakness in my right knee.  It's been painful ever since, for some reason being worse in the morning after I sleep, and gradually improving over the course of the day (usually).  Every fall since has involved my right knee buckling at some point.

The last fall of that week was on December 11.  I was carrying three bags of games out to my car, and a bag hit my knee, with the predictable result.  None of the games were scattered externally, but several were scrambled inside the box.

The morning of Christmas Eve, I scored two falls the the same morning.  The first was within the first four steps out of bed, I just dropped to my left knee, which is much better shape.  The second as I was taking my laundry downstairs, where I was at least able to arrange to fall backwards, basically sitting down hard on the stairs. 

Two more falls were on January 7.  Again, my right knee just buckled right after getting up.  The second fall was in the evening, when I tripped over a case of soda cans while not paying attention.  No damage either time.  I fell forward Jan 11, as I was trying to get back into bed after a urine trip to the bathroom, the only damage being a mild scratch on my thigh from the bed frame corner.  A second fall occurred that night, as my foot caught on the sleeve of a shirt I didn't pick up; there was no damage.

The last fall, so far, was on January 17.  I was walking down a dark hallway and not paying attention, and wound up careening off a fixture and falling frontwards.  Again, no injuries.  That's an even dozen including the fall in October, so I guess I'm done falling until I turn 62.  That's how it works, right?

Apparently not, and the 13th fall was the doozy.  I started trying out a knee brace on January 20, and it threw my balance off even while it helped my knee.  The morning of the 21st,  I started doing laundry.  Even though I knew my balance was off, I was carrying laundry down the stairs.  I went from the second floor to the first awkwardly but successfully, thought to myself I should ask for help, but decided not to.  I went down two steps to the basement, turned to close the door, lost my balance and fell the wrong way down.  Based on my injuries I did a full somersault down the 9 remaining steps before smacking my face into the wall.  I had two cracked thoracic vertebrae (initially the trauma team thought it was 3, but only were listed on the x-ray report), 2 more of the cervical variety, and lacerations on the top of my head and face.  There doesn't seem to be other damage, so my legs, arms, etc. have nothing more than scrapes.

I  was admitted to the hospital on the 21st, and discharged to home on the 26th.  I have a swanky MiamiJ neck brace, another brace for showering, and am on very limited mobility at home.  I have another x-ray on the 28th, which I hope will get this brace off and approve me going back to work.  My family has gone above-and-beyond taking care of me, especially my wife.  Outside of personal maintenance, I don't do any chores at all for now.  I expect to make a full recovery.

To end with a little bit of a lighter note, I started wearing bibs in December.  My wife purchased six amazing blue, terrycloth, adult-sized bibs.  They are splendid.  Everyone should get one.

Read more!

Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 2

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  I discussed the first part of the post earlier, so now I'll move on.  As before, I will use "woke" in quotes when talking about how right-wingers use the term, and remove the quotes when using the term as I would.

Feser goes to list characteristics of his claimed "woke" mindset that are indicative of some psychological disorders (later identified as "depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders", still later referred to as "delusional paranoia", and compared to the full-blown schizophrenia of John Nash).  He has assembled quite a list of traits.  Amusingly, he succumbs to every item he accuses the "woke" of.

• emotional reasoning, or letting our feelings determine how we interpret reality rather than letting reality determine whether our feelings are the appropriate ones; -- Feser has a strong emotional reaction to depictions of homosexual or trans people, to the degree he can't stand having children exposed to the concepts, much less studying them
• catastrophizing, or focusing obsessively on the imagined worst possible outcome rather than on what the evidence shows are more likely outcomes; -- I really don't have to look further than identifying the mindset of "woke" people as "delusional paranoia", but I can do even better, such as when he refers to protestors as "tyrants" because they resist being tear-gassed, pull down statues dedicated for countering civil rights, feel free to protest vocally, and criticize people on the internet 
• overgeneralizing, or jumping to sweeping conclusions on the basis of one or a few incidents; I didn't find an example here, but neither did Feser describe "woke" people of suffering from this.
• dichotomous thinking, or seeing things in either-or terms when a more sober analysis would reveal more possibilities; Feser, when disagreeing with the existence of microaggressions, offers an either-or explanation when the reality is the effects combine (see part 1 for slightly more detail)
• mind reading, or jumping to conclusions about what other people are thinking; Feser's entire post is an exercise in mind-reading, and he misses the mark widely
• labeling, or slapping a simplistic description on some person or phenomenon that papers over its complexity; Feser's use of the term "woke"
• negative filtering and discounting positives, or looking only for confirming evidence for some pessimistic assumption while denying or downplaying confirming evidence that things are not in fact so bad; Feser's ignoring decades of research on racism is due to negative filtering
• blaming, or focusing on others as the sources of one’s negative feelings rather than taking responsibility for them oneself.  Feser projects his own negative feelings onto the "woke"

To paraphrase Feser, looking at the world through his ideas about "woke" leads him to be blind to oppression and injustice even where they do exist, to feel strongly aggrieved at the woke who point out this oppression and injustice, and then to treat the narrative of grievance that results as if it were confirming evidence of the unreality of the very real oppression and injustice.  It distorts his reality.

In the next paragraph, he refers to the confidence of the woke (not surprising given the decades of studies), but also refers to their supposed tendency to attack critics, apparently not realizing that Feser and his ilk are doing the attacking.  When you deny the reality of the trans existence or deny the daily, lived experience of another as some sort of delusion, that is an attack on a fundamental part of someone's identity, a part that they already suffer oppression from. 

Ironically, Feser opines:  Hence it would, for example, be unjust for a government to protect the lives, liberties, and property rights of citizens of one race while not doing the same for citizens of other races.  This would be a clear case of an unjust inequity.  Again, Feser ignores decades of studies that citizens of different races do not receive equitable protection of their life, liberty, and property.

Again, Feser opines:  What I am calling hyper-egalitarian is the tendency to suspect all inequalities of being per se unjust – for example, to suppose that if 10% of the population of a country is of a certain race yet less than 10% of the stockbrokers in that country are of that race, this amounts to a “racist” inequity that cannot be given an innocent explanation and must somehow be eliminated by governmental policy.  Feser does not present an alternative explanation, for example, that Hispanic people are over 12% of the population but less than 6% of stockbrokers.  With over 43,000 stockbrokers, The probability of this being due to random chance is effectively zero.  Feser needs to offer an explanation not rooted in racism to make his point effectively. 

To paraphrase Feser again, I am not saying that Feser is as insane as the John Nash.  Nor is Feser even as shrill as commentariat.  Like other forms of delusional paranoia, denial of oppression comes in degrees.  But if you think that views like Critical Race Theory, Gender Theory, etc. are so obviously wrong that no decent and well-informed person could possibly support them, and find it at least difficult calmly and rationally to engage with anyone who thinks otherwise, you in denial.  And precisely because you find it difficult calmly and rationally to entertain the possibility that you are part of the problem, your attitude is paradigmatically irrational.
Read more!

ALS Update: I aspirate and I drop things

I will be updating my decline every month or so, towards the end of the month (here, my timing is prompted by a doctor's appointment the day after tomorrow).  I have the results of a test to discuss, something formerly rare but currently commonplace to discuss, and a couple of new things.  To get the usual concerns out of the way:  I have no new falls to report, I am still taking care of my basic needs, I still eat a large amount of food, and I am maintaining my raw strength, as far as I can tell, though my coordination is declining.

First off, I took a swallow test with a barium solution.  They found that I am getting some of what I swallow in my lungs.  It varied with the consistency of the mix (thinner is worse), volume (more is worse), and chin position (lower is worse).  The main risk is getting pneumonia.  I have been offered a gastric tube, but don't plan on getting one yet.  However, I am planning on taking other measures.  I have a medications that needs to be taken in a cup of water twice a day, so I gave that some thought.  I have a few cups that allow me to restrict the flow of the liquids into my mouth, and I'm using them to keep a limited flow (reducing the volume), with the added benefit I can keep my chin up while drinking.  I have a few cups like this everywhere I tend to drink.  They also detected degeneration in my C6-C7 spinal disk, but I'm not in pain and I'll be happy to live long enough that it becomes a problem.

I've been dropping things occasionally for years, a couple of time a year.  It might have been a plate of food or a book.  Now, I drop things a few times a day.  I take six pills in the evening, and more often than not I'll drop one of them while getting them out of the bottle.  I drop forks, game tokens, anything light and small.  I haven't been dropping heavier items, except once a glass mixing bowl full of brownie batter, shattering a lasagna pan under it (that was a bad morning), so I'm pretty sure this is coordination and not strength.

I drool heavily.  My neurologist in Illinois has prescribed a suppressant (atropine, a common ingredient in eye drops), where I am supposed to put one drop under my tongue. If I put two drops in, that will slow down my saliva to the point I can keep it in my mouth most of the time.  I use it when in class or on game days. I also wear a mask when cooking or baking, which send the drool down my neck nstead of dripping off my chin.

I have a pair of sandals with no heel strap, designed for beaches, waterparks, etc.  I like to wear them at home when I'm not planning on going out much.  Lately, this past week-end especially, I'm noticing that the lack of a heel strap means my foot will not always come down squarely on the heel, particularly when I'm walking a little sideways.  This has caused me to stumble (but not fall) a couple of times.  I might to get a pair with heel straps.

That's all I have for now.  Feel free to ask questions to get more details, if you want.
Read more!

Dr. Feser defines "woke" out of existence, part 1

In a not-so-recent post on his blog, Dr. Feser attempted to define the term "woke".  Unsurprisingly, he made several mischaracterizations, of which I will address a few.

We can begin in the very first sentence:  A common talking point among the woke is the claim that “woke” is just a term of abuse that has no clear meaning.  The correction would be:  “Woke” is just a term of abuse among right-wing commentators that has no clear meaning, but refers to any policies/facts/lesson plans about minorities that they don't like.  Feser proves the latter to be true in his attempt to defend the former.

I will use "woke" in quotes when talking about how right-wingers use the term, and remove the quotes when using the term as I would, which would be something like:  recognition that there are many ways, some not obvious, that oppression can manifest itself.  

It would be unfair to not include his definition:  "Wokeness" is a paranoid delusional hyper-egalitarian mindset that tends to see oppression and injustice where they do not exist or greatly to exaggerate them where they do exist. By this definition, no straight, while, cis, etc., male (such as me) can be "woke" because, regardless of how much we agree that society is fundamentally racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc., it favors me.  Feser would consider me pronoid instead, meaning I can't be "woke".  It's  a measure of Feser's privilege that he seems to think everyone who shares some common characteristics with him must agree with him.

Next, he gives  several examples of "wokeness", all of which are laughable. 

• Characterizing as racist “microaggressions” behaviors that in fact are either perfectly innocuous or at worst just ordinary rudeness; -- people exhibit much more "ordinary rudeness" to those they consider (perhaps subconsciously) of a lower social status, and in particular toward black people.  It's both day-to-day rudeness and racism working in tandem.
• condemning some economic outcome as a racist “inequity” despite there being no empirical evidence whatsoever that it is due to racism; -- to offer one example, racism dictates and has dictated where we live, with all the differences that creates in the ability to generate wealth through home ownership, environmental pollution, educational quality, availability of good food, etc.  where we live affects every facet of our life, hence, racism does by this facet alone.
• condemning as “transphobic” recognition of the commonsense and scientific fact that sex is binary; -- any time Feser can't justify a position, he calls it "common sense" as he does here, when the scientific fact is that there are multiple ways to specify sex, and any combination can be present in any individual; however, Feser seems confused by multi-factored analysis (as can be seen in his linear notion of causation, e.g., his hand-stick-stone argument for a first cause, when causes are more like lattices).
• condemning as “racist” the view that public policy should be color-blind and that racial discrimination is wrong whatever the race of the persons being discriminated against; -- Feser seems unaware that this claim is used by people who want to engage in de facto racism while maintaining de jure equality.
• condemning as “antigay” the view that it is not appropriate for grade schools to address matters of sexuality in the classroom without parental consent; -- matters of heterosexuality are discussed all the time in grade school classrooms, and Feser would eagerly join any protest if all depictions of heterosexual couples were banned, but he chooses not to be honest about others expecting equal treatment.

Feser does not adress address the scholarship behind these concepts.  By failing to do so, he renders his attacks on the people who know the scholaship irrelevant, and those who acknowledge the scholarly consensus are neither delusional nor paranoid.  Feser's definition of "wokeness" has no greater correspondence to reality than the definition of a jackalope; his definition of "wokeness" has no existence.

Feser nevertheless goes on to slur "wokeness" for a couple of paragraphs.  He touts two books, one his, one by two other conservatives, none of whom are trained in the study of sociology.  I guess when conservative lawyers pass for experts on evolution or climate change, this is right in line with the trust conservatives place in ignorance of the topic at hand.

I think this is a good stopping point.  In part 2, we'll see how Feser accuses the "woke" of several habits of poor thought, but succumbs to everyone one of them, a case of the pot accusing the table of being soot-stained.
Read more!

I have ALS

 My family, workmates, and board-gaming associates all know I have ALS (more specifically bulbar-onset ALS), so it is about time I announced it on here.  There are a couple of people who have asked about my status (and more who probably want to know), so I'll use this blog as a way of checking in every month or so.

I remember the evening of my first symptom.  It was just shy of a year ago, on 2022-NOV-16, a fine Wednesday evening.  I was teaching a calculus class, and tripped over the word "statistics", for what I thought was no particular reason at the time.  By Christmas, even though I was still fully intelligible, it was obvious something was going on.  As ALS usually goes, I have gotten progressively worse over the year.

If you ask how I’m doing emotionally, that changes day-to-day.  I flit between four of the five stages of grief (denial, anger, depression, and acceptance; somehow, I never seem to be bargaining), sometimes going through multiple in a single day, sometimes fixated on one for a single event.  My father’s only remaining sibling recently died, and I could not summon words of compassion or condolence for him, because every time I tried, I would get depressed about my own mortality.  My wife and children are firmly convinced I’m going to beat the odds and live into my 70s, and when I’m with them I believe it too.  I have always kept my anger on a leash, but lately I need to express more (through dark humor or sometimes just punching something).  Then, I have days where life is pleasant and death is seen as an inevitable, but comfortable state.

Physically, my tongue, lips, and cheeks are all slowly responding less to my will.  I have two neurologists (one at an Illinois hospital and one where I work).  The Illinois neurologist has given me plenty of encouragement, but I think he thinks I’m more disabled than I am.  The last visit he was talking about taking small bites when I eat, which I am not ready to do yet.  It is partly pride, partly the satisfaction that I have always felt with taking large bites, and partly to stop from biting my cheeks (the left or the right, often neither, never both).  He is worried about my choking, but I’ve never choked on food yet.  I have choked twice on a soft-gel pill that got caught in my epiglottis, but was able to expel them.  No more soft-gels for me!  I’ve also choked on my own mucus a couple of times (another thing to thank my allergies for).  But, while I sometimes cough from my food (small, loose pieces like vegetables are especially troublesome), bite my cheek horrendously trying to chew it, and struggle to position it in between my teeth, I don’t choke.

As for the rest of me, I feel a strangeness in my arms, especially the triceps.  I am clumsier that I was, but I don’t think I have lost more strength than is normal for a man of 61.  I have fallen once (I tripped over an ottoman on Oct. 14, a fall I would not have taken a year earlier).  I cry rivers at the slightest sentimental thing, even when I’ve seen the show times before and know what’s coming (never at just random stuff, but I didn’t cry at the show the first four times I saw it; the doctors say random crying/laughing is another symptom, but this seems an edge case).  I rarely stop salivating.  

On the other hand, I still can cook, drive, address my own hygiene, lift things if I take my time and get good balance, chew through any food that gets between my teeth, etc.  After almost a year, I think I’m behind the usual progression, which is a good thing.

I’m on two medications, and relatively old, generic one called riluzole, and brand-new Relyvrio.  The first is covered by my insurance and, on the mean, increases life expectancy by about a month.  The second is not covered by my insurance and costs a few hundred every week, and increases life expectancy six whole months.  Fortunately, the drug company has enrolled me in a program where I get it free.

I have an appointment later this month where I should get the results of my genetic testing.  I don’t want to have to tell my brothers or sons that they might suffer this too, but I think it’s better to know.  I’m seeing more doctors and other specialists, taking more tests, etc., than I know what to do with.

Well, that's enough for this post. I’ll try to keep this updated every month or so.
Read more!

Layer upon layer of wrongness

In my effort to better understand our nations conservatives, I spent some time recently over at The Scratching Post, one of the shrinking number of amateur conservative blogs that don't spit invective toward liberals every paragraph. They accepted my contributions for a while, then the blogger (K T Cat) asked me to leave (nothing new there, very few people want to be questioned about everything). What's more interesting is that in the same post, he managed to show how conservatives use multiple layers of misinformation to not only draw the wrong conclusions, but ask the wrong questions.

In the post in question, an affirmation of a post by Ohioan@Heart on their blog, what we see is the continuation of a conversation from a claim I made that there have been no good studies that support the efficacy of ivermectin against covid19 (and to my knowledge, this continues to be true). One of K T Cat's old friends tried to find a couple of positive studies, and could only find a meta-analysis that relied on a retracted study for it's positive outcome, and a pre-print that hasn't been published in over 6 months. However, that's not the point of this post.

Notice that K T Cat makes/affirms a number of conclusions after starting with "I don't understand it at all, so I need to buy some time".

• First, Google is hiding the research.
• "... the wokesters ... take a side on Ivermectin"
• "The wokesters" would reflexively ban anything Trump promoted.

When I don't understand something, I try to avoid stating a bunch of conclusions, particularly those that lead to further jumps in logic. This is doubly true when you can easily research something.

So, from the first bullet (B1), what would be the best explanation for ivermectin not being listed in the first few pages? First, you should check out (from a non-Google source) how Google normally ranks its pages, and see if these are a sufficient explanation. Among other conditions, we find:

A site’s authority is determined by a number of factors, including the perceived value of the site’s content and the number of sites that link back to the site as a reputable source of information.

So before we can talk about Google putting their thumb on the scale, we should check whether the studies under discussion have perceived value for scientists and would get a lot of links back to them in other papers. Here, the answer is a resounding "no". One paper is a meta-analysis that used a fraudulent study (as in, the study was withdrawn for making up data and plagiarism), while the other is a pre-print that has been languishing for six months. These studies are far back in the list of studies because they don't deserve broader recognition.

Do "the wokesters" take a side against ivermectin (B2)? Well, you don't get more "wokester" that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who supports just about every genuine political position K T Cat seems to dislike. If you check out Kennedy's website, it's pretty clear he's pro-ivermectin, all the way.

As far as whether "the wokesters" (since K T Cat's not a "wokester", I suppose he's a 'sleeper') ban anything Trump promoted (B3), you don't really have to look any further than the covid19 vaccines to see a counter-example. However, maybe that's not enough for a 'sleeper' to see. So, lets look at some of the items in a summary by Politico, a slightly left-leaning publication.

• Strategy -- Trump refocused national security on great power competition
• Cannabis -- Legal marijuana spreads across most of the country
• Shell companies -- Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering
• Defense spending -- Trump made it possible to follow the Pentagon's money

So, unless you think the "wokesters" are opposed to the vaccine, focusing security on major threats, legal cannabis, the rich having their wealth exposed, and more openness in defense spending, it's clear they don't hate everything Trump did.

With the preliminaries out of the way, let's look at the main point: how these falsehoods build upon each other and create a narrative that means you can't even ask a good question. His "something to ponder" is whether the rejection of ivermectin is based on Trump (using B3), layered over a notion that ivermectin is political in nature (B2), layered still further over this is the reason any positive papers are not prominent, as opposed to other reasons (B1). We have a top-level discussion point based on a totally false foundation. How can you have a reasonable discussion with position based on so many falsehoods, if a person does not wish to discuss the lower-level errors? I'll let you know if I ever find out.
Read more!

Graph on the effects of the Corona virus spread

I'm working right now on reports tracking this for my employer. What a difference 6 days made.

Read more!

Heard on a train

I hate driving. About two years ago, I changed jobs to from working at a Metro East hospital to working for the WashU School of Medicine, which is on the other side of the river from me. Since my day job is more than a half-hour drive from where I live (we moved from O'Fallon to Belleville late last year, but it didn't help), I ride the train to work. It's a great way to catch up on my sleep (I have alarms set to wake me before my stop). So, yesterday afternoon I was on the train as usual, when suddenly there was some loud banging along the bottom of the carriage, between the Memorial Hospital and Swansea stops.

I never found out what caused the banging, but it damaged the train, which almost immediately came to a hard stop. The operator tried to get it moving a couple of times, but the train only went a couple of feet, shuddered slightly, and stopped again. A couple of passengers muttered about getting out and walking, but I knew that was not going to happen (Metro St. Louis would never allow it). The conductor got out and looked under the train. A few minutes later, the train going in the other direction passed us in the tracks for the opposite direction. Then, after a few minutes more, a train going in our direction also passed us on those tracks. I wasn't watching the clock, but since the trains come every 12 minutes, and there would be delays from cross-tracking, I knew we had been stuck for at least 15 minutes.

Then a woman walked by me, talking about how her three-year-old might get stuck at home by themself. I believe she was the only one who actually asked the conductor to be let off so she go get to her child, but she was told no. She walked back to her seat.

The conductor went to the back of our car to try something, and we moved backwards a little, but that was it. She returned to the front. Another Metro employee appeared on the walking path a few yards from the train, on the other side of the fence. She couldn't reach us, of course, but she and the conductor exchanged a few words. Two more trains passed us, one in each direction. It had been close to half an hour now.

The mother of the three-year-old walked by me again, and I heard groans and sighs of aggravation from a few passengers around me. The mother again asked to be let off the train, and the argument was briefly heated. The mother again returned to her seat, accompanied by a couple of more groans, disparaging comments whispered to neighbors, and stares.

Finally, a train pulled up on the opposite-direction tracks, and stopped. We were evacuated onto the second train, and finally on our way again. The relief and anger on the mothers face as she got off at Swansea was easily visible.

I rarely see such a lack of sympathy toward a worried parent. I wonder if it was, at least in part, due to her being black.


Read more!

A response on the nature of science, denialism, and global warming

Lately, I have been engaging in discussions on a site called The DiploMad, which is a very right-wing site run by former employee of the US State Department. So, far, I haven't seen it touch much on science, but there was one recent exchange on that subject. Since the comment I am responding to is already very long, and my response will be even longer, I thought it best to create a new blog post for the purpose of responding.

First, for the sake of context, I will present the exchange up through the comment to which I am responding. I will edit what was two posted comments into one (they were obviously split for reasons of length), and put the pseudonym of the commentator (reader #1482) up front, but make no other textual changes, in the exchange block-quoted, and after that I will be fisking the last comment (by reader #1482). I am copying from this post.

LBascom February 26, 2018 at 2:38 PM
One little quibble sir; I think the "biggest political hoax in the history of the Republic" still remains the whole global warming scam.

Other than that, spot on.


DiploMad February 26, 2018 at 5:33 PM
I stand corrected, shame-faced and glancing downward at my sneakers . . . .


One Brow February 26, 2018 at 6:14 PM
Why is conservatism so closely connected with hating science and distrusting expertise?


dearieme February 26, 2018 at 7:48 PM
In the case of global warming it's more a case of hating a junk science scam. As for expertise, so much stuff passed off as expertise is mere fraud. As Galbraith (was it?) said, economic forecasting was invented to give astrology a good name.


reader #1482 February 26, 2018 at 8:00 PM
There's nothing here about hating science. I'm not going to speculate on distrust of expertise.

At the heart of it, the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. At this time, there is no scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis. Without falsifiability, it's hard to consider it a scientific pursuit. This is as opposed to atmospheric science in general, which scientifically studies features and phenomena of the earth's atmosphere.

What global warming *is*, is a mathematical pursuit, much like the statistics of baseball or election forecasting like that done at the fairly-decent 'Fivethirtyeight' blog (while they threw pielke under the bus for financial expediency, they also were one of the few to admit that they and other journalism outlets have a clear liberal bias). But there is no prospective experimental validation in global warming, it is purely statistical fitting.

Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that global warming isn't happening? No. Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that mankind has had anything other than 'at least non-zero' impact on the global temperature of the earth? I don't think so either. There's simply a *very* complex system, not much evidence, and no mechanism of experimenting in a controlled fashion. I can say with some certainty that at least 95% of atmospheric science researchers are honest and dedicated scientists, I met quite a few in graduate school. But the biggest 'science activists' in global warming aren't atmospheric science researchers.

I've watched this change... I was first introduced to the greenhouse effect in 1991 in Kittel's Thermal Physics as an undergrad... and remarkably, physics college texts even as recently as 2012 (last time I taught a physics course at a university) showed remarkably appropriately couched remarks considering the scientific side of the question. But little has actually changed in twenty years in regards to global warming. We still have one planet under study, and only an additional 20 years of data, much of it having been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted. While I can find reasoning behind said adjustments, it's a warning sign that these adjustments were made because the measurements did not match expectations. In *any* scientific field, when that happens, everything is extensively redone to verify new assumptions. But with very limited data sets (satellites are expensive), it's pretty catastrophic to have to go back and rework your experimental data after the fact.

But compare it to LLNL's NIF. Huge laser, best laser and plasma physicists in the world, hands down, and it's a dud. I assume everybody knows this? Well lay people might not, because there is a stream of announcements coming out of it regarding 'energy gain' and 'neutron yields'. But it's a dud because the intent was 'ignition', the 'I' in the name, which never happened. And this is from an experiment with a testable hypothesis.

Billions of dollars and thousands of world class scientists can be wrong about an experiment that was actually be performed. How much veracity should I put into pronouncements from far less qualified scientists with no hope of producing an experiment in the next two hundred years?

Global warming cannot be experimentally verified, therefore it requires belief based upon faith, rather than experimental verification. It is a religion. Former IPCC head Pachouri's remarks were apropos when he stated that global warming was his religion in his leaving remarks.

There is pretty much *no* other discipline near the hard sciences in which I have a conflict with popular opinion.

We just don't know, and no amount of hyperventilation and alarm about the possible consequences of making the wrong prediction will change that. We're not comfortable with not *knowing* everything, because humanity has had a fantastic streak in pushing back the borders of the unknown. It certainly must seem unconscionable that there could still be something in this world that defies rigorous scientific study, so the answer has been to redefine rigorous scientific study to fit the desired answer.

So, let's look at individual pieces of this argument, and the various distortions it makes.

At the heart of it, the global warming hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. At this time, there is no scientifically valid way of testing this hypothesis.

Actually, global warming is a measurement. It is a difference in calculated temperatures between time A and time B. That makes it a fact. Now, there are different ways of averaging temperatures, and when you do that, you can get different numbers for the amount of change. However, any analysis that takes in the globe as whole finds an increase in global temperatures over the last 100+ years.

However, perhaps reader #1482 was referring to the notion that human activities have contributed global warming. That is a hypothesis, but far from being untestable, it is one that has been tested and retested. The tests consist of looking at the individual effects of different atmospheric particulates, and making predictions based them of both what will see in the future and what we have seen in the past.

Not to mention you can conduct small-scale tests that verify how much light is reflected, heat is retained, etc., in a laboratory environment, using a few liters of atmosphere. So, there are laboratory experiments that can be and have been done.

But there is no prospective experimental validation in global warming, it is purely statistical fitting.

The validation is in the predictive ability of future events.

Can anybody here tell you with scientific certainty that global warming isn't happening?

This question contains an oxymoron. I am not referring to the joking oxymorons like 'military intelligence', but rather a contradiction of basic definitions, such as 'married bachelor'. In this case, the oxymoron is "scientific certainty". Certainty is anathema to the scientific process. Everything in science can be questioned, and anything can be cast into doubt with the right kind of evidence. Science can be reliable, demonstrated, validated, and explanatory, but it is never certain (nor proven).

However, as I pointed out above, in this case it is not a question of science, but of measurement. It's like asking about the "scientific" status of the temperature in a room, or the height of a person. Measurements do come with their own form of uncertainty, but that is not from some scientific status.

We still have one planet under study, and only an additional 20 years of data, much of it having been constantly adjusted and re-adjusted.

I might ask how many years would be required (the "additional 20" means something like 150 years), but the truth has often been 'more than we have', regardless of the number of years. As for the count of planets, I can't see how information from any other planet would be relevant to making predictions on this planet. That would just be meaningless noise. It would be nice to see a standard prescribed for the number of years, but usually the people who take this position are not interested in setting standards, but denying the findings regardless.

Also, this description in "years" obscures the number of data points. Temperatures are measured several times a day; a year's data represents thousands of individual measurements. By contrast, warming is something better measured in decades. A year is both too large and too small.

Further, the raw data is the raw data; it does not change. Adjustments can be made to determine a better average, but that is not changing the data, it is changing the process.

But the biggest 'science activists' in global warming aren't atmospheric science researchers.

If reader #1482 here refers to politicians, I agree, but so what? If not, I wish he could be more specific about who he means and why he thinks said person is not qualified. For example, while James Hansen has a Ph. D. in physics instead of atmospheric sciences, his first position seems to have been studying atmospheric conditions for NASA. You would certainly learn enough to be an atmospheric science researcher in that position, regardless of the title of your doctorate. After all, science is not some heavily slotted field where anything you learn in one discipline is completely useless in another. Chemistry uses physics (and vice-versa), biology uses both, etc. In addition, a doctorate in the physics of, say, the interaction of gasses would have considerable overlap with atmospheric sciences. Sans name and credentials, this is an empty criticism.

While I can find reasoning behind said adjustments, it's a warning sign that these adjustments were made because the measurements did not match expectations. In *any* scientific field, when that happens, everything is extensively redone to verify new assumptions. But with very limited data sets (satellites are expensive), it's pretty catastrophic to have to go back and rework your experimental data after the fact.

All you need to do is see if the new model is predictive of the past observations. Of course, this can have it's own pitfalls. One of the common issues in statistics is the inclusion of too many variables for the size of the data sets, which improves the matching of past performance while adding no predictive accuracy, so you do have to be careful there.

Global warming cannot be experimentally verified, therefore it requires belief based upon faith, rather than experimental verification. It is a religion. ... There is pretty much *no* other discipline near the hard sciences in which I have a conflict with popular opinion.

I have already pointed out that warming is verifiable. I find this an interesting standard, though. I have to wonder about experimentally verified hypotheses in the not-"near the hard" ('soft' ?) sciences; are these considered reliable or not? Does reader #1482 have a conflict with them? If so, why a difference?

Is evolutionary theory not "near the hard" sciences? Geology? Sociology? Epidemiology? All of them have theories that are not directly testable (geology even more so than climatology). All of them have models that are constantly being re-evaluated and improved. Are they all based on faith?

But compare it to LLNL's NIF. Huge laser, ... it's a dud because the intent was 'ignition', the 'I' in the name, which never happened. And this is from an experiment with a testable hypothesis.

That means new models will be created, and there will be new hypotheses to test. If this happens in a "hard" science, and you generally accept the results of this hard science, why doubt the results of climatology?

Billions of dollars and thousands of world class scientists can be wrong about ... pronouncements from far less qualified scientists ...

Again, why only apply this to climatology? Also, this is rank snobbery. Further, it's not as if there is some great divide of opinion between whoever you consider to the a genuine atmospheric science researcher and whoever you consider to be a science activist.

We just don't know, and no amount of hyperventilation and alarm about the possible consequences of making the wrong prediction will change that. We're not comfortable with not *knowing* everything, because humanity has had a fantastic streak in pushing back the borders of the unknown.

We will never know everything. If epidemiologists took that position, there would be no new vaccines. If geologists took that position, there would be no Theory of Plate Tectonics. If physicists took that position, there would be no Theory of Relativity. All of these theories have real-world consequences, and we act on these theories because they provide the best explanations we have for how the world works. Climatology should not be different; especially not when there are many other benefits of reducing emissions, and the harms of reduction have been greatly exaggerated by denialists.

It certainly must seem unconscionable that there could still be something in this world that defies rigorous scientific study, so the answer has been to redefine rigorous scientific study to fit the desired answer.

This has nothing to do with climatology, since the climate is subject to rigorous scientific study.


Read more!

Ten Years (and counting)

Ten years ago today I started this blog. I don't remember if I thought I could change anyone's mind, but I don't think I ever did. At least I had some interesting conversations. I have not posted much lately. I did learn a great deal about why so many philosophers are atheists.



I looked into many arguments over the years. A thirteen-part review of Feser's book, a weekly review of Kant's Ethics (never finished, due to disappointment with the contents), responses to various blog posts. So many supposedly serious arguments, all built on straw and bluster.

I don't what the future of this blog is, but one day, I will figure that out and post regularly again.

Read more!

"I thought she was going to stab me"

There was a disagreement at our worksite at the end of the day. People my company hired to clean up some leaves were blowing onto a smallish vacant lot across the street, and the people next to the lot were highly annoyed.

The neighbors were dressed in worked clothes; perfectly normal people who were angry. However, they were black. Therefore, the white workers were apparently scared the whole time. One of them told me afterward that when the first neighbor left her house, "I thought she was going to stab me".

I'm sure the worker doesn't believe he is racist. He just thinks every angry black person is likely to stab him.

Read more!

You can't tell a relativistic rest frame from measurements

So, after a year-and-a-half of no posts, and something like four years since my last post on relativity crankery, here we go again. Below the fold, I'm going to discuss whether seeing a smaller number on one clock versus another is an indication of which clock really moved in an LR interpretation. To do so, I'll use three scenarios, each with three clocks. The scenarios will be set up so that the clock which is "really at rest" changes between each scenario, but otherwise they will behave identically.



There are three clocks at rest on a planetoid, we will label them A1, B2, and C3. By whatever method you think applies, we'll say these three clocks ar all in the LR rest frame. They are close enough to synchronize without meaningful light-speed delay, and they do so. After synchronizing, they ignore each other, with A1 interacting with clocks B1 and C1, B2 interacting with clocks A2 and C2, and C3 interacting with clocks A3 and B3.


Scenario 1

From the viewpoint of A1, B1 passes by A1 (spacetime point S1) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C1 is traveling at .5c directly toward A1 along a path very close to B1 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B1 and C1 pass each other (spacetime point R1) and synchronize. B1 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S1 and R1, so click C1, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C1 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R1 and the point where it compares itself with A1 (spacetime point Q1), while A1 ticks off another 20. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds, A1 reads 40. Since B1 and C1 ticks at the same rate, B1 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.

From the viewpoint of B1, A1 passes by B1 (S1) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C1 is traveling at .8c directly toward B1 along a path very close to A1 in the same direction. A1 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C1 passes B1 (R1). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C1 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C1 passes A1, and they compare times (Q1). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C1 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A1 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A1 reads 40. B1 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.

From the viewpoint of C1, B1 passes by A1 (S1) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B1 is coming toward C1 at a speed of .8c, and both A1 and B1 set themselves to 0 at S1. A1 is traveling at .5c directly toward C1 along a path very close to B1 in the same direction. B1 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C1 (R1), and C1 then synchronizes to the B1's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A1 passes C1, and they compare times (Q1). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A1 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C1 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R1. Meanwhile, B1 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C1 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A1 reads 40. B1 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B1 is many light-seconds away from Q1, it can not be directly compared to A1 and C1.


Scenario 2

From the viewpoint of A2, B2 passes by A2 (spacetime point S2) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C2 is traveling at .5c directly toward A2 along a path very close to B2 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B2 and C2 pass each other (spacetime point R2) and synchronize. B2 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S2 and R2, so click C2, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C2 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R2 and the point where it compares itself with A2 (spacetime point Q2), while A2 ticks off another 20. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds, A2 reads 40. Since B2 and C2 ticks at the same rate, B2 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.

From the viewpoint of B2, A2 passes by B2 (S2) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C2 is traveling at .8c directly toward B2 along a path very close to A2 in the same direction. A2 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C2 passes B2 (R2). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C2 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C2 passes A2, and they compare times (Q2). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C2 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A2 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A2 reads 40. B2 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.

From the viewpoint of C2, B2 passes by A2 (S2) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B2 is coming toward C2 at a speed of .8c, and both A2 and B2 set themselves to 0 at S2. A2 is traveling at .5c directly toward C2 along a path very close to B2 in the same direction. B2 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C2 (R2), and C2 then synchronizes to the B2's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A2 passes C2, and they compare times (Q2). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A2 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C2 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R2. Meanwhile, B2 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C2 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A2 reads 40. B2 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B2 is many light-seconds away from Q2, it can not be directly compared to A2 and C2.


Scenario 3

From the viewpoint of A3, B3 passes by A3 (spacetime point S3) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C3 is traveling at .5c directly toward A3 along a path very close to B3 in the opposite direction. After traveling 10 ls (light-seconds) at this speed, B3 and C3 pass each other (spacetime point R3) and synchronize. B3 traveled for 20 seconds, and ticked off 17.32 seconds, between S3 and R3, so click C3, which has clicked through 17.32 seconds in this time, will also read 17.32 because of this synchronization. C3 ticks off 17.32 more seconds on the trip between R3 and the point where it compares itself with A3 (spacetime point Q3), while A3 ticks off another 20. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds, A3 reads 40. Since B3 and C3 ticks at the same rate, B3 also reads 34.64 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

From the viewpoint of B3, A3 passes by B3 (S3) going at .5c; both set themselves to 0. C3 is traveling at .8c directly toward B3 along a path very close to A3 in the same direction. A3 travels 8.66 ls in 17.32 seconds before C3 passes B3 (R3). Even though it has only clicked through 10.39 seconds, C3 synchronizes to the 17.32 seconds on B. In another 28.86 seconds (the solution to .8t = .5t + 8.66), C3 passes A3, and they compare times (Q3). In traveling 28.86 seconds at .8c, C3 has ticked off another 17.32 seconds, and reads 34.64. Meanwhile, A3 has traveled at .5c for 46.18 seconds (for a total distance of 23.09 ls), and reads 40. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds (despite having clicked through only 27.71), A3 reads 40. B3 reads 46.18 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

From the viewpoint of C3, B3 passes by A3 (S3) at a distance of 23.09ls away, B3 is coming toward C3 at a speed of .8c, and both A3 and B3 set themselves to 0 at S3. A3 is traveling at .5c directly toward C3 along a path very close to B3 in the same direction. B3 travels 23.09 ls in 28.86 seconds before it passes C3 (R3), and C3 then synchronizes to the B3's reading of 17.32 seconds. In another 17.32 seconds, A3 passes C3, and they compare times (Q3). In traveling 46.18 seconds at .5c, A3 has ticked off 40 seconds, and C3 reads 34.64 because of the synchronization at R3. Meanwhile, B3 has traveled at .8c for 46.18 seconds, and reads 27.71 seconds. So, C3 reads 34.64 seconds even though it ticked off 46.18, A3 reads 40. B3 reads 27.71 seconds, but since B3 is many light-seconds away from Q3, it can not be directly compared to A3 and C3.

Conclusion

In scenario 1, where A1 was at rest, A1 read 40 seconds while C1 read 34.64 at Q1. In scenario 2, where B2 was at rest, A2 read 40 seconds while C2 read 34.64 at Q2. In scenario 3, where C3 was at rest, A3 read 40 seconds while C3 read 34.64 at Q3. Among the three clocks, it doesn't matter which clock you think is at rest. They always read the same. This is how SR (and LR for that matter)works. To do comparisons, you always have to pick a single rest frame for your calculations, but SR allows you to choose any single inertial frame, by any standard or by a purely arbitrary choice.

LR insists that one particular frame is the correct frame, and different versions of LR choose different frames. Despite choosing frames differently, every version of LR works, because every version of LR is actually SR (a working theory) with a predetermined method for choosing a frame.



Read more!

Quote of the week, 2014-02-18

Today I'm quoting from a post on ~"Passage...Messenger...Passenger..."~, a blog by an interesting young writer named Benny Liew.

Let's just say...

"Every morning we all wake up and make our own routine...working perhaps for us adults nor studying at school and gain knowledge...but is it a routine we all wanted anyway?"

Not really necessary to take it as a routine.In many cases I've learn about bored is not we are bored,its because we can't fulfill anything and there is nothing to do about it since we are already bored.

~"To Catch the Wind..."~

The equivalence of routine to boredom is a curious one. Routines can be boring, but they can also be comforting while providing a great deal of stimulation.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-02-11

It is inevitable for human nature that man a should wish and seek for happiness, that is, satisfaction with his condition, with certainty of the continuance of this satisfaction. But for this very reason it is not an end that is also a duty. ... It is not directly a duty to seek a competence for one's self; but indirectly it may be so; namely, in order to guard against poverty which is a great temptation to vice. But then it is not my happiness but my morality, to maintain which in its integrity is at once my end and my duty

B. HAPPINESS OF OTHERS, V. Explanation of these two Notions, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

Kant comes from a time that, to my understanding, had no appreciation of psychological addiction. I don't know that he personally ever had the experience of following a routine that you hated, and hating yourself for following that routine, while you are following it. As a person who has had that experience, I can assure you that there is nothing in human nature that makes a search for happiness inevitable. Sometimes humans seek out respite, comfort, or even just fall into routines that we know are injurious to our happiness, but whose allure is overpowering for other reasons.

Kant does make a reasonable argument that seeking personal happiness is not an end which is also a duty in and of itself, but rather, an end which is in service to other ends, and I agree this still holds for things like reducing addictions and altering the behaviors that lead to them. We don't cut back on the metaphorical drinking because the drinking is evil, but because it prevents us from achieving more important things in our life and from having a fuller life.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-02-04

I'm not making light of what happened to Trayvon by any means, but after you read this, count how many people you personally know who has murdered or been murdered via Black on Black. If Zimmerman was black, would most of us know about this? Exactly. God have mercy on all of us.

Black on Black crimes "Cultral Bias?", 1 Husband's Advice, by C. L. Chabert



I though I would take break from looking at Kant this week. I have a grad total of 13 followers, so I am thinking about looking at one of their blogs every other week or so, alternating with Kant.

I don't know why Mr. Chabert would be following me. He follows three other blogs, all religious, and is quite religious himself. I don't recall him ever posting a comment. I'm not sure if it is a compliment or an accident.

In this case, Mr. Chabert is raising the old bugaboo of black-on-black crime. There is no mention of the comparable white-on-white crime rate; when you adjust for social status, whites victimize each other just about as frequently. Yet, you don't find people worrying about these crime rates. Is there a good reason for this discrepancy? I can only come up with plain racism.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-01-28

Consequently, it can be nothing else than the cultivation of one's power (or natural capacity) and also of one's will (moral disposition) to satisfy the requirement of duty in general. The supreme element in the former (the power) is the understanding, it being the faculty of concepts, and, therefore, also of those concepts which refer to duty. First it is his duty to labour to raise himself out of the rudeness of his nature, out of his animal nature more and more to humanity, by which alone he is capable of setting before him ends to supply the defects of his ignorance by instruction, and to correct his errors; he is not merely counselled to do this by reason as technically practical, with a view to his purposes of other kinds (as art), but reason, as morally practical, absolutely commands him to do it, and makes this end his duty, in order that he may be worthy of the humanity that dwells in him.

A. OUR OWN PERFECTION, V. Explanation of these two Notions, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

This notion of some distinction between our animal (presumably, this refers to properties we seen in many animals that are not human, as well as humans) nature and our humanity (presumably, this refers to we seen in humans, but not at all or to a limited degree in other animals) does a disservice to both concepts. Our humanity is bound into our animal nature, part and parcel, not truly distinguishable, and both types of properties benefit from this relationship.

Our love of our fellow human (admittedly not universally present) and our social nature is a direct result of our animal nature, since we are social animals. Our ability to organize in large groups is the primary reason we dominate other large predators, and we would not organize into such groups were we not social.

Our ability to create and communicate abstract notions is a direct result of this social need. Every social animal uses social signaling. With our animal nature, our intelligence would lay fallow, having neither exercise nor purpose.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-01-21

It is likewise a contradiction to make the perfection of another my end, and to regard myself as in duty bound to promote it. For it is just in this that the perfection of another man as a person consists, namely, that he is able of himself to set before him his own end according to his own notions of duty; and it is a contradiction to require (to make it a duty for me) that I should do something which no other but himself can do.

IV. What are the Ends which are also Duties?, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

So long as another person can set his goals before himself according to what he believes is his duty, he will be perfected? I can think of a few ways that this is insufficient, and in many of these ways, people can be assisted to their own perfection, and it is quite reasonable to make assisting such people a duty.

First, some notions of duty are harmful. Feeling duty to an evil government is harmful. Feeling duty to social conventions that degrade people are harmful. Feeling duty to purely toxic family members is harmful. There is no contradiction in taking, as one of our own ends, the convincing of another person that they have chosen duties that are harmful, and to assist them in the ability to discriminate between harmful and helpful duties. This would be a duty we had toward the perfection of other people.

Second, people can not rationally choose duties to follow without learning to think rationally. It's not enough to say have a duty that is helpful, we need to understand how to advance such a duty in our lives, and which of our behaviors tends to support that duty. This instruction would also be a valid duty to undertake to support the perfection of another.

Thirdly, parents have a duty to raise their children in a fashion to help their children to their own perfection.

I could go on, but I think these examples suffice to point out that the perfection of others can be, and often is, a duty of ours.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-01-14

We cannot invert these and make on one side our own happiness, and on the other the perfection of others, ends which should be in themselves duties for the same person.

For one's own happiness is, no doubt, an end that all men have (by virtue of the impulse of their nature), but this end cannot without contradiction be regarded as a duty. What a man of himself inevitably wills does not come under the notion of duty, for this is a constraint to an end reluctantly adopted. It is, therefore, a contradiction to say that a man is in duty bound to advance his own happiness with all his power.

IV. What are the Ends which are also Duties?, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

People don't inevitably will happiness of themself. Some seem determined to undermine their happiness; others pursue lives through habits that bring them no pleasure. At the very least, each person has a duty to themself to determine what will bring happiness, and allow themself the habit of acting in such a fashion from time to time. This quote seems to positively disregard human behavior.

Read more!

Quote of the Week, 2015-01-07

Here, therefore, we treat not of ends which man actually makes to himself in accordance with the sensible impulses of his nature, but of objects of the free elective will under its own laws- objects which he ought to make his end. We may call the former technical (subjective), properly pragmatical, including the rules of prudence in the choice of its ends; but the latter we must call the moral (objective) doctrine of ends. This distinction is, however, superfluous here, since moral philosophy already by its very notion is clearly separated from the doctrine of physical nature (in the present instance, anthropology). The latter resting on empirical principles, whereas the moral doctrine of ends which treats of duties rests on principles given a priori in pure practical reason.

III. Of the Reason for conceiving an End which is also a Duty, The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, by Immanuel Kant

Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

Retrieved from Project Gutenberg

There is no such thing as "pure practical reason", unless we include reasoning whose beginning is based in empirical knowledge. By itself, reasoning is manipulating hypotheses into conclusions. It offers no guarantee of the truth of these hypotheses, just the occasional ability to possibly discover that certain combination of hypotheses can't be true at the same time. Even that is not a reliable occurrence.

Read more!