Dade, on his lovely blog, has strayed into the dark realm of philosophy, epistemology, in fact. For me this is like a red flag to a bull. The essence of the post is that metaphor is more true than empirical knowledge, "metaphor is as close to eternal truths as humanity can conceive." This is supported by the claim that empirical knowledge is imperfect and incomplete because our brains are finite, yet because metaphor requires interpretation it evolves as knowledge advances.
It's pretty easy to destroy this right off the bat, the argument against empirical knowledge is that it is imperfect and changes over time, while the argument for metaphoric knowledge is that it changes over time based on the changing of our knowledge. I hope you can see that the argument against one form of knowledge is the same as the argument for the other form of knowledge.
However, I am sure that this refutation is unsatisfactory to many people who generally find scientific explanation incomprehensible (unless explained through metaphor), or not interesting, or doesn't speak to their heart.
Let's start this bit then with a definition of truth. I think it easy to sum up all of these relevant definitions as "in accordance with reality" something is true if it matches reality. Therefore, the more something matches with reality, the more true it is. This requires two parts, a statement that can be measured against reality, and a reality to measure it against.
What is metaphor? The essential nature of metaphor is to use one thing to represent a different thing. While saying something is like something, it requires that the thing that it is like is not completely like something. Metaphor requires dissimilarity. In Dade's blog it specifically says that " Metaphor, by its nature, must be interpreted." This means that a metaphorical truth, by Dade's definition, must be able to be thought of differently by different people.
What is empirical knowledge? Empirical knowledge is knowledge based on observation, and in the scientific arena knowledge that can be verified or disproved. Unless observation is false, the knowledge from empirical sources requires being entirely true or incomplete, you can't have bits of the observed entity be true sometimes, or bits of it not be true, or it wouldn't be empirical. Everyone must see the same thing.
It seems to me that both sorts of knowledge require observation. To claim that something is like something else you must at least observe what to what it is compared. So, we have two methods of describing truth, one that varies over time and according to the individual,and one that remains the same and is the same for all individuals. It seems to me that the second accords with reality to a much greater extent.
This might now seem much of anything, but there is a problem here of not knowing, not understanding, or simply rejecting scientific knowledge. Dade makes the claim that, "empirical truth is short-lived and imperfect" while one of the basic assumptions of science is actually that truth discovered empirically is consistent over time and space. It is assumed (and testable, and confirmed) that gravity worked the same way billions of years before humans understood anything through metaphor, and the way it worked (at least in everything between molecules and close to the speed of light) is precisely the way it works now. If humans know anything that is long-lived and perfectly understood, it is empirical truth.
Why is this a problem? It is a problem because people who think that scientific knowledge is generally wrong, and will be overturned at some point in the future, can then feel comfortable in the belief that their method of determining truth is superior to the results of actual data. This results in attempts to put creationism in science classes, the denial of climate change, the support of the success of "trickle down" economics, and on and on. Such a method of determining truth has very real, very dire consequences. It literally kills people. It is absolutely necessarily when trying to improve our lives on this planet to start with the best understanding of what actually exists and how it works. This way of thinking literally frightens me.
Why do people believe in their methods of knowledge over empirical knowledge? Why do people think that Shakespeare is more true about the motivations of people than cognitive scientists, or that God is good over the fact of childhood leukemia? The first reason is that all thought is based on metaphor (Lakoff, Philosophy in the Flesh) arising from basic biological functions, so we literally use the same processes of thinking about an argument as we do about a journey. So, to an extent, all our knowledge is metaphorical. We are more comfortable describing things in everyday metaphors than in deeply embedded metaphors (such as mathematics). The second reason is that we enormously prefer, and value, our areas of expertise over other areas. An artist will think that art tells us more about human nature than linguistics to a linguistics professor, and vice versa.
The assertion that metaphoric knowledge provides more eternal truth than scientific , empirical knowledge is the most pure example of "truthiness" that I have seen in a while. Truthiness is defined as, "a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1] "
Metaphor is a fabulous tool for communication, something basic to our way of understanding the world around us, perhaps the best tool for communication we have. But being a useful tool of communication doesn't make something more true, it makes it easier to explain.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
There Is No Pain I Am Receding.
Down here in Houston I have had a very large amount of my social interaction take place online. This actually works to a large extent. It isn't the same as sitting across from someone and seeing their expression and listening to the tones of their voice but it is adequate to feel like you are communicating with a person. It can elicit emotions, ad that's what social interaction is about.
The places I have been going to for several years to either pass the time or to get this social interaction have been internet forums. These are places (for those who don't know) where groups of people can sign on to talk about a particular subject, for me these have largely been sports teams, but I have spent quite some time in the fascinating world of religion forums (in which atheists are hugely over-represented.) You can have a conversation in something approximating real time, and after a bunch of these conversations you develop an understanding of other people's personalities within the forum. One of my good friends I actually met through one of these forums.
These conversations have a lot in common with your regular conversations, information is passed on, likes and dislikes are expressed, and arguments based on different opinions are common. There are some crucial differences and these are the problems with the internet. The first problem is that in a face-to-face conversation, when someone agrees with you they probably won't say much but will still provide a positive response, such as smiling or nodding their head. On a forum people don't go around replying with "I agree" anywhere near as much. Another problem is that there are no consequences for someone being a jackass, the anonymity and physical distance removes the social consequences, and so large amounts of jackassery ensues. Finally, you don't get to control who is in the group with whom you are talking as you do with your friends, it's as if you are in a coffee shop and anyone can just stroll up and argue with you.
What results are generally arguments, and what we know about arguments is that they often provoke strong emotions, and almost no-one is ever convinced. The other sneaky thing about arguments is that you never want the other guy to have the last word, it seems as if they have "won" when you are certain that you are right. On internet forums this can lead to an addiction, going back to check over and over again an intransigent argument t make sure you get in the last word. As someone who argues at the core of my being, this can be especially problematic.
So, if there has been something that has pissed me off more than anything else in the last couple of years it is probably internet forums. On the other hand they have done a lot for preventing loneliness.
With my magic blue pills I am far less vulnerable to mood problems, I am simply not going to get as lonely. However, I can still get pissed off. As a result I have made the decision to stop arguing on these forums, or actually simply not going to them. It is interesting how addictive they are, the pull and temptation to return is quite strong.
This is all part of a general movement of mine I am labeling as "receding." Perhaps it is the internet, media, political machines, but people all seem extremely opinionated, upset, dogmatic, argumentative, outraged and pessimistic. It is just to easy to get caught up in arguing, forgetting that what you really want are discussions with interesting, good-hearted people. While there is not one single shred of doubt about whether I have been a part of this I believe I am getting to the point where I am recognizing it for what it is.
I am receding from the news. I am receding from politics. I am receding from indignation and anger. I am receding from the need to convince others, to correct what I perceive to be their false opinions. I am consciously receding to a place that is comfortably numb, a place without pain. I am going to a place where I realize that sitting in a park with a book is worth a hundred internet arguments.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
People Can't Have It All
There is an article in the Atlantic entitled Why Women Still Can't Have It All. It's a good article and comes to what I think is the sensible and prosaic conclusion. Unless you are some superwoman you cannot raise children in the manner you would wish and become a professional at the very top level (and often substantially below this.) The basic premise is that there simply isn't enough time and effort available to do both. You can't simultaneously work late into the night on a regular basis and be at home for dinner every night. I am glad that this basic fact is beginning to sink into the consciousness of serious feminists because it means that there is a chance that practical things can be done to make this situation easier.
My problem with the article is it comes from the assumption that "having it all" is an exclusively female desire. In the article it explicitly states that it is easier for men to have it all than it is for women. I think this claim is spurious. Do men not want children? Do they not want to spend time with their children? Do they not want a career? Is it somehow easier for men to both spend time with their families and work very long hours? I think that generally men want all of these things and don't have an easier way of achieving them. The article simply says that men don't want these things as much as women.
I wrote a post in which I declared that I was a feminist. In it I basically said that if women want a fair shake in employment and politics with regard to men, they have to behave like men, at least until they have enough people in charge to require all the men to behave like women. In it I also declared myself a masculist in which I declared that men should have equal opportunity to pursue a stereotypically female path in life, but would have to do behave like women to do so.
Why is there in the article this assumption that this discussion is about women? It is because the driving force of social change in this area has been women demanding equal opportunities (good for women!) Forty years ago the default position was for men to go out and work and women to stay home (and work differently, but you get what I mean.) This is no longer the default position for women, but it is for men. It is still an assumption that men will go to work and not doing so is weird. What has happened is that the feminist movement has achieved great things but there has not been close to an equivalent masculist movement.
The article does a fine job of suggesting ways that the difficulties of having it all can be ameliorated. Changing school hours to match work hours. Working from home. Changing the culture of working success from how hard you work to how well you work. Reducing the force of the idea that success means getting to the top as soon as possible. These are all great ideas. It is possible to make life better, happier by simply taking some simple steps. Why companies pay rent for a large building so that people can drive to the building and sit in front of a computer all day when everyone could work from home and do the same job baffles me. Think how much less people would have to be paid if they could work in pajamas at home and live anywhere they wanted? The thing is that all of these suggestions work just as well for men as for women.
You cant have it all, no-one can. Men have known this all along, to such an extent that they don't think about it much as a concept, you just have to make choices. Women, traditionally oppressed and devoid of these choices, have worked wonders to get to this point where they can now reasonably realize that you can't have it all. Women will now be a catalyst for a movement that I truly wish for very deeply, a movement that makes work/life balance the important thing, that values wellness and joy as much as money and power. What I wish is that this movement includes men as much as women. Let us have male and female professionals working from home, sharing the raising of children and the search for happiness
My problem with the article is it comes from the assumption that "having it all" is an exclusively female desire. In the article it explicitly states that it is easier for men to have it all than it is for women. I think this claim is spurious. Do men not want children? Do they not want to spend time with their children? Do they not want a career? Is it somehow easier for men to both spend time with their families and work very long hours? I think that generally men want all of these things and don't have an easier way of achieving them. The article simply says that men don't want these things as much as women.
I wrote a post in which I declared that I was a feminist. In it I basically said that if women want a fair shake in employment and politics with regard to men, they have to behave like men, at least until they have enough people in charge to require all the men to behave like women. In it I also declared myself a masculist in which I declared that men should have equal opportunity to pursue a stereotypically female path in life, but would have to do behave like women to do so.
Why is there in the article this assumption that this discussion is about women? It is because the driving force of social change in this area has been women demanding equal opportunities (good for women!) Forty years ago the default position was for men to go out and work and women to stay home (and work differently, but you get what I mean.) This is no longer the default position for women, but it is for men. It is still an assumption that men will go to work and not doing so is weird. What has happened is that the feminist movement has achieved great things but there has not been close to an equivalent masculist movement.
The article does a fine job of suggesting ways that the difficulties of having it all can be ameliorated. Changing school hours to match work hours. Working from home. Changing the culture of working success from how hard you work to how well you work. Reducing the force of the idea that success means getting to the top as soon as possible. These are all great ideas. It is possible to make life better, happier by simply taking some simple steps. Why companies pay rent for a large building so that people can drive to the building and sit in front of a computer all day when everyone could work from home and do the same job baffles me. Think how much less people would have to be paid if they could work in pajamas at home and live anywhere they wanted? The thing is that all of these suggestions work just as well for men as for women.
You cant have it all, no-one can. Men have known this all along, to such an extent that they don't think about it much as a concept, you just have to make choices. Women, traditionally oppressed and devoid of these choices, have worked wonders to get to this point where they can now reasonably realize that you can't have it all. Women will now be a catalyst for a movement that I truly wish for very deeply, a movement that makes work/life balance the important thing, that values wellness and joy as much as money and power. What I wish is that this movement includes men as much as women. Let us have male and female professionals working from home, sharing the raising of children and the search for happiness
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Tribalism
People naturally form tribes, myself included. The tribes pretty much universally have some quality in common, beliefs, location. The thing that am interested here is not whether we should stop tribes from happening (impossible) but what being in a tribe means with regard to how people behave and think.
If you want the clearest example of tribalism spend some time observing English (or other) soccer. Originally started by local groups of working class people, often employees from the same factory, soccer clubs quickly solidified a collective idea around which people, often from a variety of rural areas, could coalesce. Once a collective had been formed it was natural that other collectives would be in opposition, after all a sport without a winner and loser isn't really sport. Each team has its colours, its flag, its crest. It is without doubt a tribe.
There are good things about tribes. We like to feel part of something, we require social contact, and we like our beliefs to be supported. It is fun to be part of a group all cheering for the same thing. There are bad things about tribes in that other tribes are demonized, sometimes to the extent that physical violence can take place. In the 1980's in England these different soccer tribes demonized each other to the point that severe violence was common. However, without distinguishing colours or remarks most of these members of the tribes would be quite comfortable walking down the street or having conversations in the pub. It is the very fact that these people identified with a tribe that enabled them to think of other people in a different way.
This severe change in behavior is easy to see for yourself in a simple experiment. Pick any group with a set of ideas (say a church or a political group) and go be a part of it. At the start try to say the least amount possible about what brings the group together. I bet you are treated pleasantly. Then, express a differing opinion and see what happens, it will be substantially less pleasant with little relationship to how directly a difference of opinion changes their lives. In-group good, out group bad. There's a wonderful commercial on the soccer channel here in the USA. It shows two different people from the same town talking about how awful it would be to support the other team in town. They look the same, live in the same sort of area, have the same sort of job, girlfriend, etc.. It finishes with "It's not crazy, it's sport."
While I think questioning group think and mentality is important when it starts to cross over to the point of demonizing other people that is not the area I am most interested in today. I am interested in that belonging to a tribe literally changes your idea of reality. Have a conversation with someone of a different political view and try to show the other person the support for your position. The chances of them dismissing that support is very high, regardless of the source. In a health care debate I have stated the simple facts that in Europe and Japan people live longer that those in the USA, everyone gets healthcare, and their healthcare costs about half the amount per capita as in the USA. These are facts that can be easily checked. I have had responses ranging from these numbers being lies, to terrible care as a result, to socialized medicine being an attempt to control the population. Tell liberals that the middle class average income has increased since the introduction of Reaganomics and they will find every way they can to make this untrue. I am certain that I do this sort of stuff too.
Why am I writing about this today? I am a Liverpool football club fan. I want that team to win more than other teams based on pretty arbitrary reasons. I put money and time and emotional capital into hoping I can watch them win. A a result I go to an internet site of fellow fans, my sporting tribe. This week there was an incident in which a Liverpool player scored a goal that was allowed to stand by the referee, which involved a contact between ball and hand. The rules are that if you deliberately touch the ball it is not allowed, but if the ball just hits your hand it is allowed. Here is the video of the incident., about one minute of your time.
It looks like to me (and the announcer) as if it was deliberate. It isn't a clear cut situation, but I would suggest that an independent viewer would at least grant that thinking it was deliberate is a reasonable position to have. I expressed my opinion that deliberately breaking the rules is cheating, he cheated, and that the morally right thing to do would be to try and make it up to the opposition (the consequences of which would be Liverpool play another game against the team and the other team gets money enough to run their near amateur team for several years and has the most memorable soccer memory of their life.)
The response from those on the forum was not only near universal dismay, but also anger, contempt, and the removal of the post. The reason given? Because it was completely, unequivocally wrong to think that it was deliberate. The words used were "brainless, ignorant, wrong, 99% disagree, worse from one of our own." I believe they actually saw what they thought they saw, but what you see is not necessarily what actually happened. We change the truth and believe we haven't, and this is much stronger and more likely when it is done as part of a group.
If you want the clearest example of tribalism spend some time observing English (or other) soccer. Originally started by local groups of working class people, often employees from the same factory, soccer clubs quickly solidified a collective idea around which people, often from a variety of rural areas, could coalesce. Once a collective had been formed it was natural that other collectives would be in opposition, after all a sport without a winner and loser isn't really sport. Each team has its colours, its flag, its crest. It is without doubt a tribe.
There are good things about tribes. We like to feel part of something, we require social contact, and we like our beliefs to be supported. It is fun to be part of a group all cheering for the same thing. There are bad things about tribes in that other tribes are demonized, sometimes to the extent that physical violence can take place. In the 1980's in England these different soccer tribes demonized each other to the point that severe violence was common. However, without distinguishing colours or remarks most of these members of the tribes would be quite comfortable walking down the street or having conversations in the pub. It is the very fact that these people identified with a tribe that enabled them to think of other people in a different way.
This severe change in behavior is easy to see for yourself in a simple experiment. Pick any group with a set of ideas (say a church or a political group) and go be a part of it. At the start try to say the least amount possible about what brings the group together. I bet you are treated pleasantly. Then, express a differing opinion and see what happens, it will be substantially less pleasant with little relationship to how directly a difference of opinion changes their lives. In-group good, out group bad. There's a wonderful commercial on the soccer channel here in the USA. It shows two different people from the same town talking about how awful it would be to support the other team in town. They look the same, live in the same sort of area, have the same sort of job, girlfriend, etc.. It finishes with "It's not crazy, it's sport."
While I think questioning group think and mentality is important when it starts to cross over to the point of demonizing other people that is not the area I am most interested in today. I am interested in that belonging to a tribe literally changes your idea of reality. Have a conversation with someone of a different political view and try to show the other person the support for your position. The chances of them dismissing that support is very high, regardless of the source. In a health care debate I have stated the simple facts that in Europe and Japan people live longer that those in the USA, everyone gets healthcare, and their healthcare costs about half the amount per capita as in the USA. These are facts that can be easily checked. I have had responses ranging from these numbers being lies, to terrible care as a result, to socialized medicine being an attempt to control the population. Tell liberals that the middle class average income has increased since the introduction of Reaganomics and they will find every way they can to make this untrue. I am certain that I do this sort of stuff too.
Why am I writing about this today? I am a Liverpool football club fan. I want that team to win more than other teams based on pretty arbitrary reasons. I put money and time and emotional capital into hoping I can watch them win. A a result I go to an internet site of fellow fans, my sporting tribe. This week there was an incident in which a Liverpool player scored a goal that was allowed to stand by the referee, which involved a contact between ball and hand. The rules are that if you deliberately touch the ball it is not allowed, but if the ball just hits your hand it is allowed. Here is the video of the incident., about one minute of your time.
It looks like to me (and the announcer) as if it was deliberate. It isn't a clear cut situation, but I would suggest that an independent viewer would at least grant that thinking it was deliberate is a reasonable position to have. I expressed my opinion that deliberately breaking the rules is cheating, he cheated, and that the morally right thing to do would be to try and make it up to the opposition (the consequences of which would be Liverpool play another game against the team and the other team gets money enough to run their near amateur team for several years and has the most memorable soccer memory of their life.)
The response from those on the forum was not only near universal dismay, but also anger, contempt, and the removal of the post. The reason given? Because it was completely, unequivocally wrong to think that it was deliberate. The words used were "brainless, ignorant, wrong, 99% disagree, worse from one of our own." I believe they actually saw what they thought they saw, but what you see is not necessarily what actually happened. We change the truth and believe we haven't, and this is much stronger and more likely when it is done as part of a group.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Worrying the Bone
Perhaps the thing I least like about me is how much time I spend thinking about moments of perceived injustice against me, and imagining entire conversations about what I should have said or would say if I could. The reliving of such moments increases my stress, can make me indignant, angry, resentful. At such times I am essentially rehearsing for a stressful situation that will never come. This is bad.
The only good I can see coming from this tendency is behaving differently in the future in such situations. The rehearsal of past events is like practicing for future events. This would be the only reason I could see why any of us would have this tendency at all. I can see how rehearsing dangerous situations do goes way beyond that.
There are times when I am reminded of moments from years ago, with people I will never meet again, and I can worry at that bone for days. There is nothing new there, no new experience, no new insight, nothing but this churning over the same moment, the same injustice. These slights can be trivial too. My latest example illustrates the idiocy of this whole thing quite well.
I was walking my dog off leash on a trail used primarily by mountain bikers, but also by joggers, families and people walking their dogs. I have walked along this trail hundreds of times and the great majority of my interactions with bikers has been good. The trail is often narrow enough that when a bike comes it is necessary to step off the trail to let them by, and I do this as well as I can on a wooded trail with a dog. On this occasion I heard the bell of a biker from behind, called TFOE and tried to get off the path. When the biker got there I was holding TFOE but hadn't got him completely off the path. The biker had to slow down quickly but got around us without danger or needing to stop. As he peddled away he shook his head. I have been thinking off and on for two days about this incident. How silly is that?
What do I think about? I think about how unjust it was that he would think I was doing something wrong. I think of confrontations and arguments to the point where I can feel the adrenalin start to pump. I think of retorts like, "What if I was a six year old kid?" and "It's a trail on which people can bike, not a biking trail." None of this does any good, I don't want to think about it, but the thoughts return repeatedly. It's wasting stress on triviality.
I have the strong suspicion that I am not alone in this, rather that it is something that almost everyone does.
What to do? I don't seem to be able to stop it, so I will go with identifying the silliness of what I am doing and divert my attention to something immediate and here. Or at least I will try to do so for a bit.
The only good I can see coming from this tendency is behaving differently in the future in such situations. The rehearsal of past events is like practicing for future events. This would be the only reason I could see why any of us would have this tendency at all. I can see how rehearsing dangerous situations do goes way beyond that.
There are times when I am reminded of moments from years ago, with people I will never meet again, and I can worry at that bone for days. There is nothing new there, no new experience, no new insight, nothing but this churning over the same moment, the same injustice. These slights can be trivial too. My latest example illustrates the idiocy of this whole thing quite well.
I was walking my dog off leash on a trail used primarily by mountain bikers, but also by joggers, families and people walking their dogs. I have walked along this trail hundreds of times and the great majority of my interactions with bikers has been good. The trail is often narrow enough that when a bike comes it is necessary to step off the trail to let them by, and I do this as well as I can on a wooded trail with a dog. On this occasion I heard the bell of a biker from behind, called TFOE and tried to get off the path. When the biker got there I was holding TFOE but hadn't got him completely off the path. The biker had to slow down quickly but got around us without danger or needing to stop. As he peddled away he shook his head. I have been thinking off and on for two days about this incident. How silly is that?
What do I think about? I think about how unjust it was that he would think I was doing something wrong. I think of confrontations and arguments to the point where I can feel the adrenalin start to pump. I think of retorts like, "What if I was a six year old kid?" and "It's a trail on which people can bike, not a biking trail." None of this does any good, I don't want to think about it, but the thoughts return repeatedly. It's wasting stress on triviality.
I have the strong suspicion that I am not alone in this, rather that it is something that almost everyone does.
What to do? I don't seem to be able to stop it, so I will go with identifying the silliness of what I am doing and divert my attention to something immediate and here. Or at least I will try to do so for a bit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)