Will Somebody Read A Book, Please....

read this book

2010-01-11T09:35:00.000-08:00

Dear amateur (and not-so-amateur) scientists: please stop discrediting my profession.

Once you get over yourselves and your "unbiased experimentation" please read Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Or, maybe read it *now* so that you will get over yourselves.

Sorry for the snark but here's why it's out with claws: In the last month I've had three conversations - and been informed of a fourth - with scientists who either completely ignore the social and cultural aspects of our reality in their argumentation or - worse - dismiss social and cultural theory as "opinion" when the issue is raised by the humanities major in the conversation (me! or..that other person).

Example 1: A scientist from an unnamed ivy league school told me that absolute free-marketism will necessarily eradicate all social and cultural bias. From what I can figure this is mainly because it's all about the money and personal gain and if, for example, one refused to hire anyone other than a white person it would detrimentally affect their hiring pool, they wouldn't hire the best person for the job, and their profits would go down (over time, of course, presumably with many more illadvised-white-person hirings) so the company would stop those hiring practices. The other argument was that people would find out about said hiring practices, stop consumer-ing at that location because of said hiring practices, therefore the company would stop those hiring practices. This seems like it would work in a perfect world where all human interaction isn't already based on, and inseparable from, centuries-old cultural and social biases so ingrained in most practitioners that the latter aren't even aware they're participating in something not entirely natural. But, we don't live in that universe. There are more arguments I could give in refutation of this hideously naive idea, but I shall move on.

Example 2: A beloved friend and a beloved father both told me that social theory (my father specifically mentioned gender studies) is just people's opinions, implying that said theories have no real weight and can easily be refuted merely by holding a different opinion. First off, thanks. Yes, I do take personal offense to your ignorance in this case. Second, I'm glad you have such faith in education that you presume hundreds of thousands of books have been published and decades of social practice and ideas have infiltrated popular culture and academia merely on the whims and opinions of people who found the time to write them down. If it's so easy and unfounded please: go write a social theory yourself. I'll be happy to read it. Third, and maybe most importantly, I feel these arguments were ultimately made because popular culture has leveed scientific experimentation as the only way to truly obtain facts. Thusly, if he can't be proven with "concrete evidence" then it's not true, or, it's only true if you agree with it. This is humorous for many reasons, not the least of which that people, ironically, use this same argument to "disprove" scientific things like the Big Bang theory and evolution.

Humor aside, this manner of thinking - as Kuhn so rightly points out - excludes the "human" component of scientific experimentation. Scientific experiementation may be rigorous, but it is conducted by human beings who minds are, ultimately, ruled by the social and cultural constructs and beliefs of their time. Therefore, though the evidence and experiment results may be foolproof, the human interpretation of the evidence and experiment results is not. Human beings, even the god-like scientist, cannot fully escape their constructed mental environments.

Read:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas S. Kuhn

The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronony in the Development of Western Thought - Thomas S. Kuhn

An article

2010-01-04T10:26:00.000-08:00

I can't decide whether to be sympathetic or critical of the people featured in and the angle of this NYT article.

Yes, I get its overall point(s): 1) The recession has hit a lot of people really hard and 2) the food stamp program needs to be overhauled (along with 239408230948 other government benefit programs - my aside). The three pages of prose are relatively skimpy on the food stamp program's history, which leads me to believe they aren't really aiming to educate us on its finer points. The statistics on food stamp usage highlight areas particularly hit by the recession, which reminds us that it is still very much going on despite news media's relentless efforts to tell us that things are looking up.

While the latter is a worthwhile endeavor, the statistics aren't the meat of the article. Most of it is eaten up with heart-wrenching stories about people whose "only reported income" is food stamps. Here is where my loyalties become confused. Do I stay in touch with my "bleeding heart liberal" side that feels bad for these people (just like the article wants me to) and hence champions food stamp program change and continues to chide the asshole executives who got us into this recessive mess? Or, do I look in between the lines at the lives of the people discussed in the article and stick to my logical (though still bleeding heart) side that tells me most of them are kind of suckers, made poor choices, and don't really have it that badly when compared to the people in this country who are homeless and outside of society, recession or not; the people who can't get food stamps because of beauracracy even though they desperately need them.

Particularly obnoxious is Isabel Bermudez, our rags to riches and back to rags story, who made $180,000 a year and now is on food stamps. We're supposed to feel shocked, feel how the mighty have fallen (even those involved with the villan: real estate), but all I really feel is annoyance. Okay, you've been out of full time work for three years, that's a long time to live off savings. But, I'm sorry, the article says you were still living in your giant house when you woke up and realized you couldn't feed your kids. Does this not drive anyone else crazy?! WTF are you doing in your giant house??!!?!! I understand you loved it, and maybe couldn't have sold it. But, I don't see any mention of you *trying* to sell it. A two bedroom apartment eats up savings a lot more slowly then a giant-fucking-house. Oh, and your other giant-fucking-investment-property-house.

Then there's grandma. She lives with her children and is roomies with her grandkid. Granted, not an ideal situation. But, lets review: Are the children on welfare/food stamps? No, they have jobs. Oh, so you're saying grandma's $320 a month in food stamps his *her* only income, but not the household's? And, she still has a decent roof over her head? Gee, yeah. That must suck. I'm sure all the elderly homeless people out there would love to listen to your sob story.

I could go on. But, I won't. Mainly because I feel like an asshole for criticizing these people. But, I can't help it. I get that the recession is bad. The government should probably try to do more about it in ways that help the average people and not just keep dumping trillons of dollars into keeping companies afloat. We all know this and we all wonder what is taking them so long given that they have pretty good precendent in FDR's programs (American historians feel free to shoot that down). BUT I also think that true poverty is a genuinely ignored issue in this country and now we have even more reason to shove it under the rug. And, shame on you NYT for catering to emotional journalism. I thought you were better than that.

Inglorious Bastards...in the courtroom

2009-11-30T16:12:00.000-08:00

John Demjanjuk is going to trial. Again. This time for the much-less-flashy accusation that he was a minor level figure at Sobibor death camp. (Previously he was accused of being Ivan the Terrible from Treblinka but was subsequently found innocent.) The BBC has an interesting article that I think touches, albeit briefly, on a lot of the issues surrounding Holocaust retribution.

It's obvious the guy's old and sick. What's the point of giving him a 15-year-sentance that a) he probably wouldn't live out even if he was healthy and b) is tantamount to a death sentence now? Is it okay to take out retribution on an elderly man? Point taken. Even one of the Nazi-hunters (yes, sort of a la Inglorious Bastards except they work for recognized groups and organizations and probably don't tote guns around) working on the trial admits his condition makes the situation a "little disappointing." But, let's be frank here. Did the Nazis care about elderly, sick men? Um....no. I'm pretty sure they worked them to death in the labor camps, sent them to the gas chambers straight off trains, or marched them to death in the snow, regardless. If you want to go for the whole not-really-in-the-Bible, eye-for-an-eye thing...to the clanker!

Less vengefully, the legal system doesn't make exceptions for age and physical health. There have been several precedents set in the United States (Green River killer, anyone?) where elderly men were tried and accused of heinous murders long after they were committed and there wasn't a peep out of anyone that these men shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. This begs the question: why, when it comes to one of the most heinous crimes ever committed, do we suddenly *care* about the current state of its perpetrators? Is there some deeper reason that we want to let Demjanjuk off so easily? We don't necessarily want to let him off morally, though by sympathizing with illness we certainly make him more likable, but we *do* want to let him off legally. This suggests that the international community still has a lot of issues in dealing with these types of crimes. It also possibly hints at a the international community's deeper desire to avoid dealing with their own roles in the Holocaust or to avoid dredging up "bygones."

On a purely legal basis, however, the trial has its faults. As the BBC article points out, there are no living witnesses to back up any claims against Demjanjuk. I assume there is some other evidence against him but the case is made a lot weaker but the fact that no one can pinpoint him. No one can say I was at Sobibor and that man was also there. Can we really prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this man is a killer? I guess the European legal system, where you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are *not* a killer, makes the whole scenario a little easier, but it still is unsettling to the American legal conscience. More complicatedly it brings up more questions as to what exactly this trial represents. Is part of the reason we can be so squeamish about sending a sick man to jail because we don't actually care about the legal accuracy of the trial or the subsequent legal consequences of its findings? Really, do we want to use a courtroom trial as a front for a public moral trial that we more desire but for which we have no outlet?

I definitely have more I could say on this issue - even from hinted at issues in the BBC article - but I am going to stop for now. If you want more Holocaust retribution talk - lemme know and I'll make another article on another issue!

It is also 1:30 in the morning and I don't feel like getting out of bed to find the exact titles and authors of the Suggested Reading I have in mind so I promise that I will update the post in the next day or two with those links.

Okay - the stars of the show!!:

Lower Taxes = More Spending?

2009-11-16T05:49:00.000-08:00

I was in New Hampshire this weekend and participated in a fervent discussion during which my conversation partner insisted that raising taxes for those with more money would actually hamper efforts to boost the economy. According to this person, upper middle class people are the people who keep the economy going by purchasing high-ticket items more regularly: a new tractor-mower, a nicer (Ford!) truck, re-doing their houses, etc. etc. If taxes are raised, these people will be less likely to purchase these items, thus decreasing consumer spending. I argued that anyone who feels their financial situation is secure spends money and contributes to the economy on a regular basis. Additionally, I said that I was suspect of her example, that I did not feel all upper middle class people reconsidered their spending when taxes increased because they had enough of a safety net to be able to legitimately afford those bigger purchases.

On the tax side of the issue, this person was arguing that you should tax everyone the same; richer people shouldn't be taxed at a higher percentage rate. If taxes are 3%, you will get more out of a person with more income because, obviously, 3% of 100,000 is more than 3% of 20,000.

On an economic side, she was arguing that higher taxes decreased consumer spending, which is something we desperately need to try to jump start ourselves out of the "recession" (which, I think even definitionally is no longer a valid term, but whatever makes us feel better, right?).

The first statement makes sense, but what do you do when that's not enough money? The second statement, I really don't agree with. I am hard pressed to believe that merely consumer spending is going to get us out of the depression. I also am a fan of higher taxes for richer people, who won't *really* notice the difference, or for all people, if it results in legitimate, necessary services (like...I dunno...healthcare?).

I really don't know much about economics, though. So, discuss. All two of you who are reading this.... :)

Maybe we need a little Marx...

2009-11-05T21:07:00.000-08:00

This post was prompted by a photo accompanying a New York Times article covering the protests in D.C. over the healthcare bill that was just passed in the House. The part of the photo I'm concerned about is this: MARX with a circle and slash through it. What does Karl Marx have to do with healthcare?!

My immediate reaction? Poor Karl Marx. The guy gets dragged out for fear mongering on a regular basis in this country. Unfortunately, it's usually for yet another misinformed analogy. Here we are again. Conservatives are calling Obama a socialist and Marx's name has reappeared. Then I got to thinking...why?

Let's begin with the different connotations Marx usually carries for your average American. First, there's the continuing obsession with the once looming specter of Soviet Communism. Second, there's the disapproval of the post-WWII European welfare state. Lastly, there's Marx's actual philosophy: human beings should not be alienated from four things: the object of their labor, their species-being (or, simply, the fact that they're human), themselves, and their fellow men. According to Marx, capitalism causes all four types of alienation.

For the purposes of this article, let's skip over the first two. Neither association is very factually correct and more importantly, neither of them deals directly with Marx and his ideas which is primarily what I want to discuss.

As David McLellan says in his biography of Karl Marx, individual rights lead men to see other men as limitations. Therefore, they are not free together but are in competition for freedom. This, it seems to me, is the foundation of pro-universal-healthcare arguments. Our Declaration of Independence does not say that men should compete for freedom so that those who are smarter, better, or more manipulative will get a greater share of freedom than others. It says that all men should be free and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It implies that a person's freedom ends when he or she begins to infringe on another's freedom. We happily honor this mantra when it comes to murder, stealing, etc. Why do we cut if off when it comes to healthcare?

When someone doesn't have healthcare and is thusly stripped of the ability to fully care for their person properly, they no longer have as much freedom as their neighbor. It's as simple as that. When insurance companies, doctors, and employers decide to put their own profit above universal healthcare, they are deciding that their freedom to make money is more important than someone else's freedom to care for his or herself.