In learning to play go, one of the most elusive concepts has been good shape. Bad shape, on the other hand..well, just look at this game I played today. If the groups with the triangle and the square make you feel uneasy or even nauseated, you understand bad shape.
Incidentally, I'm white, and it's my turn.
My continually growing affection for the Pittsburgh department notwithstanding, I graduated college a year too early.
Kenan Seminar: Empirical Moral Psychology (Phil 805) (305) - Joshua Knobe & Jesse Prinz
Recent philosophical work on moral psychology has taken an interdisciplinary turn. Philosophers have been calling on empirical findings to assess traditional theories, and psychologists have been exploring questions that emerged within philosophy. What role do emotions play in moral judgment? Is morality an evolved capacity? Could there be a faculty of moral intuition? What is the empirical viability of Aristotelian virtue ethics? How do notions of freedom and responsibility hold up in light of recent research on mind and brain? In this seminar, we will read articles addressing such questions, and, through the generous support of the Kenan foundation, we will also have the opportunity to engage in intensive discussion with some of the leading authors in the field. Visitors will include (at least) philosophers John Doris, Shaun Nichols, and Walter Sinnott- Armstrong, as well as psychologists Daniel Gilbert, Liane Young and Fiery Cushman.
This course will meet on Wednesday from 4:00-6:30. (Chapel Hill graduate seminars)
I should also note that I don't have class on Wednesdays this coming semester...
I've already resolved not to go out of my apartment tomorrow.
Update: Well shit! This policy only made sense when the forecast said Friday would be warmer than Monday.
So, I finally broke down and installed Invisibility Cloak which blocks time-wasting websites. More precisely, you list the worst offenders and it prevents them from loading prior to a certain time of day. I had previously resisted the software based on the important principle that I really enjoy wasting time.
The script exhibited a sad lack of professionalism: it has a built in variable specifying the time of day after which the cloaking stops taking effect, but no opposite variable. Perhaps they assumed that anyone who is awake after midnight is just too degenerate to embrace this sort of productivity enhancing tool. As a result, I was forced to alter the code so that I won't be stripped of my diversions after midnight. Since I've never even previously looked at javascript, the chances of this failing are approximately 100%.
A more insightful post than this would have noted how this hack is really just another instance of applying a high-powered technical solution to avoid applying any concept of personal responsibility, but I'm too lazy for that.
There has been some chatter about a security flaw in Safari, though as of yet there's no malware in the wild. You can fix the most serious issue by going to preferences and stop having Safari automatically open “safe” files. Even to my uninformed eyes, this looks like an atrociously bad feature, but it's the default setting. Given that Gruber was writing about this feature back in 2004, and again in 2006 it seems time to start entertaining the thesis that all the (extra) protection Apple has going for it is security through obscurity.
Update: it may be that the dmg problem doesn't actually pose a threat beyond forcing you to restart. That's reassuring, but doesn't change the badness of Safari's presets.
If there is a database of driver's license data in the first act, it will be hacked in the second.
I went to a go tournament in D.C. this weekend, but I'll reserve comment until later, as it only sets the stage. While driving back to Pittsburgh on I-76, I was behind a pickup with a bumper sticker reading Gun Control Is Racist. Several hours later, I still don't get it.
Vernon Robinson is no more. Brad Miller beat him 96,842–55,308 or 64 to 36 percent. Both Vernon's political hopes and half of my traffic have now gone the way of the dodo.
Related News:
GOP FEARS ELECTION “NOT CLOSE ENOUGH TO THROW”
It's almost exactly a year since I last posted a harrowing schedule of my activities for the upcoming several weeks, so for tradition's sake, I might as well let you know what's happening.
The two saving graces are that the philosophy of science papers are usually just 1000 words, and I have a topic for cognitive science that is quite exciting. I'm writing on Stich's argument that the simulation theory blocks arguments for eliminativism. For that paper, I'm looking at his books From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science and Mindreading (with Sean Nichols), the latter of which is an all-time favorite. Nevertheless, this hurts.
I give in. I really want to know why are people doing google searches for poll data on Vernon Robinson all of a sudden? And would any of them mind telling me how things stand in that race? I'm still left choosing between the principles "the American people would never elect someone so obviously insane" and "the American people would elect only someone that insane."
From Daily Kos, I get that Vernon Robinson is inching up against Miller, implying that he is behind. I also find out that his ads random substituted a picture of a Palestinian man for a Mexican man. Another advertisement (SFW) reads “Brad Miller even spent your tax dollars to pay teenage girls to watch pornographic movies with probes connected to their genitalia,” but I think we're all better off if I don't joke about that.
If you are the BBC and someone produces a report for the Bravo television channel claiming that the human race will split in two, much as in H.G. Wells' The Time Traveler, you should:
Everytime I find myself getting optimistic about the elections, I have to remind myself that while voters seem ready to elect Democrats, the factor which goes unmentioned is that the other side is going to be cheating. A lot. If things go well enough, it won't matter, because elections in this country are still more or less democratic—you don't win them without a hell of a lot of people voting for you. Once that requirement is met, however, we have very little to do with the matter.
One university professor writes that he suspects as many as 25–30% of the graduating seniors at his university were guilty of some form of cheating. I'm a bit put off by his emphasis on Wikipedia as a source of cheating—though I don't doubt that it's often the source of plagiarized material, that's just because of its prominence as a source of information. The tone just strikes me as typical “blame Wikipedia!” style hysteria. The comments are also excellent in an entirely different fashion: somehow the cheating problem is the professor's fault, because they are either failing to engage the students, assigning too much work, or the assignments fail to require student creativity, facilitating plagiarism. Also, fantasy-land is an excellent place which you should visit! The only serious complaint is that many students get in trouble because no one has done a good job explaining citations to them, meaning that they are merely dense instead of scum.
In any case, he raises the point that sites such as Student of Fortune, which offer answers to questions on an as needed basis, and provide all original content thereby make it much harder for professors to catch cheaters.* I'm tempted by the idea of a legal mandate to give universities access to these sorts of sites, so that the written content would be searchable just like what's on wikipedia. Obviously, there is both a demarcation problem in terms of identifying the sites which would be subject to the law, and a matter of the political impossibility of passing such legislation, but I suspect this is a decent idea in principle.
(*)(I think it's irrelevant that one has to question Student of Fortune's impact, given that its top earner has made $43.50 so far. There are other sites that offer original content and do greater business.)
I move saturday, and this will completely destroy my ability to concentrate or exercise my willpower for the time being. So don't come here looking for posts. If I catch you checking for new posts, I will give you a stern talking-to. Sometime between saturday the 19th and monday the 21st, I will post something about Pittsburgh. Then and only then can you look at this blog. Got it?
Guy on cell: I'm only calling because I have to walk ten blocks, and I can't stand to be alone with my own thoughts. overheardinnewyork
It sounds a bit like Busch Gardens.
Note: I am not that guy. I do not have a retarded fascination with Japan which centers around anime and guffawing over inventions such as shoes with umbrellas on them. These recent posts are just coincidences based on cute overload and gmail presenting me with links.
The Washington State Supreme Court case concerning gay marriage is not an unmitigated disaster if this bit from the Times is accurate:
The decision seemed to invite targeted constitutional challenges to the denial of equal treatment to homosexual couples.
Also intriguing is the Times's choice of quotations
“Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Justice Barbara A. Madsen wrote in that opinion, “furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”
While it's true that reading that probably won't embarass the people that it should, it's pretty embarassing, and all that really needs to be said is “do you really believe that?” I was couldn't decide whether the writer included that quote partially in order to make Madsen look stupid, but the article also relays that the dissenting judges described the majority opinion as relying “on speculation and circular reasoning to endorse discrimination.” No defense is given. Though that could be an accidental feature of the article, I'm inclined to read it as reflecting the opinion of the author that no credible defense to the charge has been offered.
If that's so, it's an interesting demonstration of what can be done within the limitations of journalistic objectivity—it doesn't even break the “he said, she said” mold that everyone sensible complains about. The difficulty is that I really don't know how to find out whether it's accidental or not. I suspect that my own opinions render me an unreliable reader when it comes to questions about intent such as this one.
Enlighten me?
I'm not really exploiting the new media opportunities for instantaneous commentary about the breaking news that are afforded by blogging, as this story is already old. I might as well publish a newspaper as have a blog!
Anyway, watch the video. Toribia-no-Izumi, the Japanese trivia show (as if I can distinguish one Japanese trivia show from another), subjects a group of cats to ever more grueling tasks of fish-carrying in order to determine the maximum weight of fish that a cat can carry.
The excitable commentary by the judges and dramatic music is the best part. Also, I swear I heard one judge say 'sensei.' Since I don't speak Japanese, I can continue to hope that he was referring to the cat.
..but you really ought to visit the CSS Zen Garden. Despite my glee, I'm compelled to point out that the Mozart design is downright ugly.
For people who know more than I do: does Vernon Robinson have a snowball's chance in hell of beating Brad Miller? I can't find any polls on the subject, and it would pretty much be an unmitigated disaster if Robinson was elected. So please, tell me what I need to hear in order to sleep at night.
Update: My parents, who I think are in the 13th district, have the attitude that Miller is safe, but while they're generally well-informed, they didn't hear about polls or anything similar.
I'm less sour on evolutionary psychology than I used to be, largely because of mild increases in my familiarity with it, but I still often run into something where it simply hurts me to read it. The latest is a model which purports to explain suicide (look for “Evolutionary Explanations” and apply all necessary disclaimers since Wikipedia is my source). Is there any more obvious time to stand up and yell “pleiotropism” or “spandrel?” Seriously, suicide is very heavily linked to severe mood disorders. Is there an explanation of them in terms of evolutionary psychology which doesn't treat them as spandrels?
Oh dear. They've done it. (No idea how reputable those folks are.)
While in California, I represented the younger, newer, more hip generation to Jason and Jeanine, who quizzed me about my use of blogs. In particular, I had cause to reflect on the status of blogs run by graduate students and their probable effects on the reputation of those kids. If I were better at finding old things, I'd like to a post where many people who interact with job search committees concluded that it would probably hurt these kids. Instead, I'll just assure you that they said this.
I'm happy with most of what I write about non-philosophical topics on here. It's usually not too stupid, even though my writing style still fails to exist. But if this is to be my public face as a philosopher, I need to write better philosophy or less of it. So I think I'm taking the easy option. I'll try to take up the slack with personal posts, but unincriminating ones. So here's what you can expect from me in the future:
“Moved to Pittsburgh three months ago. It is very cold. I am eating Ramen.”The summer is not going so well. I haven't even started studying logic in preparation for the exam I'll be taking at the beginning of next semester, nor have I done any work on the Brutal Composition paper, or my stab at Simples. I try to reason that it's the summer before I enter grad school, and that I can afford to postpone serious work until I arrive there, but it still makes me hate summer.
Somebody thinks it's the worst, most pretentious, etc., but in polls it ranks second to the Bible as one of the most inspiring books ever written. Don't take a leftist's word for it. Read it and see what you think.Oh my.
"When I came to Texas, my main two goals were to get started on earning my degree and to have the opportunity to play in the NBA," Aldridge said. "I've accomplished both of those and the opportunity is there for me right now to begin the next stage of my basketball career."I tip my hat to Aldridge--the kid has got style, vaguely tipping his hat to the ideal of the scholar athelete while obviously not giving a shit.
In the fishes' forward fins, the scientists found evidence of limbs in the making. There are the beginnings of digits, proto-wrists, elbows and shoulders. The fish also had a flat skull resembling a crocodile's, a neck, ribs and other parts that were similar to four-legged land animals known as tetrapods.So the fossils appear to be one of the best examples of a transitional form discovered to date. This should be bad news for creationists, and to a lesser extent, proponents of intelligent design.
(If it didn't happen in '93, one of the greatest years ever for college basketball, it might never happen. The only No. 1 to miss the party was Indiana, which might have had the best team in the country until Alan Henderson hurt his knee late in the year. The Hoosiers were beaten in the regional final in St. Louis by No. 2 seed Kansas.)That's true. With the four teams in the sweet sixteen, the chances that they'll all make the final four are still pretty bad. But unless one of the teams is mis-seeded (sup, Memphis?) the chances they'll make are as good as, or better than the teams that end up there.
So the odds are stacked heavily against Duke, Connecticut, Villanova and Memphis advancing en masse to Indy. Don't count on seeing it. Pat Forde.
Do you disagree with Dave’s contention that society is not a race, a but a cooperative productive endeavor?I'm unsure what he could be asserting. Descriptively, there's a problem with Darwin. As an ideal, it sounds weird coming from a libertarian (I don't find his post particularly bothersome though).
It's almost impossible to overstate how bad the reaction in the Muslim world is. It is seriously scary that such a large number of people in these various countries are capable of reacting in this way, and certainly when it comes down to it, it is necessary to defend ourselves against people whose actions follow this pattern.The other thing to add is that taking the long view, the retribution which will be enacted against the Islamic world for this incident will dwarf the damage that the rioting has done.
But characterizing this as a simple case of free speech vs. ignorant heathens is missing the point by a long-shot. Muslims in the EU are subject to pretty vicious racism. These cartoons are just another episode in a dominant group doing everything it can to remind others that they are seen as inferior. There's an analogy with spoiled children who provoke an animal until it lashes out (usually in a more violent fashion than what the children were doing) and then the parents respond by putting the animal down, because it's hurt their poor innocent child.
Put this in a context where thousands of muslims (many of whom we have found out were innocent) are being abused in detainment camps, with religious humiliation being one of the primary tools used. Then consider that the same paper refused to publish cartoons of christ a few years ago on the grounds that they would offend people, and this looks less like an issue of free speech, and more about people who are interested in furthering a war between Christianity and Islam. Note that Andrew Sullivan is using a commentator who advocates deporting Muslims from Europe as an encouraging sign about the hard thought that people on the left are engaging in. The people who wrote these cartoons are in the business of ensuring that we spend the next 50 years at War with the Muslim world. They're no better than any other political leader who uses war as a convenient tool. If they get that war, yes, we better hope that our nations win, but for those of us who are atheists, apatheists, or just uninterested in having our politics governed by religion, there's more than one reason to be scared of what's going on here.
1. Recite statisticsThey do a pretty good job of two(three) of those things. But would it really kill us to require our sportscasters to have some notion that the law of small numbers doesn't exist? I'm not asking that they be doing 2-way-anovas before every statement they make, and I'm fine if the vast majority of the things they say have little to no statistical significance, but can we please not try to make predictions based on the free throw percentage of a kid who has taken 12 free-throws during the entire season?
2. Make inane non-mathematical statements about the players
(2a. Make homoerotic comments about Sean May's "big soft hands")
3. Reminisce about when they played basketball
Absolute statistical genius: "Wes Miller is 10 for 15 from the line this year, so he's not very good, but that's probably because he's been to the line so rarely."Within a single comment, the announcer asserts that these 15 shots are enough to verify a stable level of free throw shooting ability, which is also so ephemeral that another 20 trips to the line or so could've erased it. Rarely have "p" and "not-p" been so rapidly asserted by the same person.
Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction by Michael Loux. This should mostly provoke the response that I've seen this before, and I'm just jogging my memory.After those, I'll probably hit up Jason for suggestions, and possibly look at the syllabus for his summer course.
Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings by Michael Loux. This should be a bit more novel.
The Bible by David Lewis.
Kripke delivered the John Locke Lectures in philosophy at Oxford in 1973. Titled Reference and Existence, they are in many respects a continuation of Naming and Necessity, and deal with the subjects of fictional names and perceptual error. They have never been published and the transcript is officially available only in a reading copy in the university library, which cannot be copied or cited without Kripke's permission. In fact many copies are informally circulated among philosophers. Its influence, though considerable, is thus difficult to trace.I find it slightly odd that a philosopher can deliver a seven part series of public lectures and then control the transcript so that others are technically (if not actually) prohibited from even mentioning it in print. There's such a thing as speaking off the record, but surely this isn't it (for contrast, most of the John Locke lectures for the past decade and at least a large number of those before then have been published as books).
Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain knows that that's not true—as all Iraqis do, for example. The United States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading Iraq, not anything else.I think Chomsky is slightly off on his analysis of the 'rigid doctrine': I think you were perfectly able to admit in civilized discourse that part of the reason we invaded Iraq was its oil reserves, you just can't do that while maintaining that this fact has any moral relevance. This isn't really based on any detailed thought about the situation, I just feel like I heard a lot of people (even within the media) talk about how we were involved in part because of the oil, but I agree with Chomsky that you never heard anyone prominent act as if that made any difference to the justification of the invasion.
The court argues that ID does not follow the ground rules of science because it is not “testable” or “falsifiable.” Like most writers on the subject, the court invokes the image of science associated with Karl Popper – a view still endorsed by many scientists but rejected for good reason by most philosophers of science. W. V. Quine (and before him Pierre Duhem) showed that paradigm-preserving explanations are always available. New data never require the abandonment of a particular belief when we are willing to sacrifice other beliefs. In that sense, no scientific proposition is ever falsifiable.This summary of 20th century philosophy of science would be poor by the standards of an undergraduate paper, while the apparent inference to rejecting any demand for falsifiability is simply appalling.
