No God, No Dice? May 13, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Current Events, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Science.15 comments
The Internet is full of Albert Einstein today: A Jan.3, 1954 letter from Einstein to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, being sold in London on Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions, states that
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
What happened to famous Einstein quotes such as “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” (1941) and “God does not play dice with the universe” (1926)? As far as the last one goes, that was never meant to be a comment on God, according to Einstein scholars. Einstein was worried about the scientific implications of his own theory of quantum mechanics. Besides, there are two versions of it. Here’s the original: Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht (1921). Loosely translated as “God is subtle, but he isn’t malicious.” Later, Einstein claimed that God doesn’t throw dice. And “Science without religion is lame”? For one thing, there’s a little translation problem: “Wissenscaft ist lahm” doesn’t mean that “science is lame,” but that “science is paralyzed.” And the meaning itself? According to some, it is evidence of Einstein’s feeling of cosmic spirituality and admiration for the structure of the universe. But this is nothing new—Einstein didn’t want to declare himself an atheist or a pantheist, but it was common knowledge that he didn’t believe in a personal god.
So why does this matter? If anything, it is a testimony to our preoccupation with classifications, sound bites, and neat explanations. But of course today’s debate about whether Einstein was religious or not is also symptomatic of what many perceive as a cultural divide between two world views, one with and one without religion. Everybody would love to claim Einstein as one of “theirs”—theists as well as atheists. And he has been perceived as a bridge between these two views, with his awe of the universe. But for the sake of our own conviction, one way or another, will it make us feel better if we can pin him down on one idea once and for all? Will that validate our own conviction?
Justice or Mercy? The Walsh/LeFevre Case May 2, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.21 comments
Our esteemed colleague and my good friend Professor Larry Hinman from University of San Diego was interviewed in the San Diego U-T yesterday about the arrest of former drug dealer, now Carmel Valley wife-of-executive Marie Walsh. Walsh, then Susan Marie LeFevre, ran away from a Michigan prison and a 10-20 year sentence for selling heroin in 1974, and vanished into thin air. Now it turns out that for 32 years she’s been living a decent and productive life on the right side of the law. So what does this mean? Should she have to go back and serve the rest of her time, plus the added charges for being a fugitive, or should her obviously rehabilitated 32 years make a difference?
USD’s Hinman said it’s easy for people to feel so much empathy for LeFevre.
“It sounds like she’s led a good life, maybe even an exemplary life since then, and we feel that should count for something,” he said. “And she was young when she committed these crimes . . . and what she did is not the same thing as shooting someone or stabbing someone.
“On some level, we want to believe our judgments are accurate because we can all imagine her as one of our neighbors. And if this is true, what does that say about our judgments about our neighbors? Could we be mistaken about them, too?”
I’ll bet Hinman said a lot more, which SDUT didn’t print—such as how well this case illustrates the fundamental difference between a consequentialist and a deontological world view: If you are a utilitarian/consequentialist, you will of course want her time behind bars minimized, maybe to a few years of probation, or perhaps simply reduced to “time served” (which was one year), because no good consequences will come of dragging her back to prison, away from her family and her community, since she is no threat to anybody, and she has so thoroughly redeemed herself. On the other hand, the deontologists among us will point out that (1) she committed a crime and was sentenced for it, and all the good behavior in the world isn’t going to nullify that, so her punishment should fit her crime; and (2) she has not been rehabilitated inasmuch as she has lied about her past to everybody, which shows fundamental disrespect for other people (treating them as merely a means to an end); and (3) we can’t universalize letting her off the hook—especially since others caught after escaping, who aren’t living in nice neighborhoods with wealthy spouses, will indeed be held accountable. Not that our opinion will have any great impact—she is headed back to Michigan to serve at least 6 ½ years, maybe with an additional 5 ½ years, according to the SDUT, and nobody is asking us. But it makes for a good philosophical discussion of justice, redemption and clemency—and it fuels the ongoing discussion about the relevance of rational vs. emotional arguments…
The Concept of Evil, and Joseph Duncan April 30, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Criminal Justice, Current Events, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.19 comments
Consider Duncan as he is now fighting for his life in court—do we want to call him evil? Might we want to reserve the term “evil” for his actions, but not apply it to him as a person—under the assumption that he is somehow redeemable? Or would you feel better if we didn’t use the term evil at all? Let me add the latest twist to the story: The court had tried to work out a deal so Shasta would not have to face her tormentor in court, since her testimony is already videotaped. But now Duncan has fired his lawyers and petitioned to represent himself in court—which he has a constitutional right to do. He will have to undergo an additional psychiatric evaluation, but if he is found to be sane, Shasta may find herself in the horrific situation of being cross-examined on the stand by the man who raped her and murdered her family. Now some would say that these are the unforeseeable twists and turns of a legal system that, on the whole, is fair and equitable. For others, it is morally repugnant that this can even be an option. Is Duncan trying to manipulate the system in order to have a last face-to-face confrontation with Shasta? Is he trying to appear as a sympathetic victim of circumstances—the determinism defense? Is he creating grounds for an appeal later? Or does he have a death wish? These are complex questions. But for the purpose of our discussion here, I want to ask you, does this make you more or less likely to label Duncan evil? He knows what he is doing—there is no doubt about that. He was released from prison by a judge whom he had fooled into thinking that he was rehabilitated, immediately before going on his killing spree. Duncan may not be sane in the manner of most of us, but he is very much aware of what he is doing.
Our First Year! April 21, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Administration, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.3 comments
On April 22, 2007, Dwight Furrow launched this blog, and within our first year we have had over 12,200 hits, over 100 posts, and close to 450 comments. Not exactly a WordPress superblog like CNN Political Ticker, Lolcats, Loldogs, or Gretawire (which all serve significantly different purposes than ours), but still a decent Internet presence. So congratulations to us, thank you to Dwight who made it happen, to our frequent and occasional contributors, to our frequent and occasional guests commenting on the posts, and to all of you who visit us daily or from time to time!
Is Sensitivity Always Preferable? April 15, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Teaching.14 comments
L.A. Times had an op-ed debate April 15 you may find interesting: Do students have a right not to be offended in college? Or should the college experience be challenging to the students’ preconceived notions? Greg Lukianoff (a constitutional lawyer and a blogger at the Huffington Post) and Michael Shermer (the publisher of Skeptic magazine) explore the issue: Lukianoff cites a number of cases where professors and students have been disciplined for “offensive” speech and actions, and concludes,
If you limit speech to only that which students and administrators find “comfortable” (a category that seems to get smaller daily), academic freedom and free speech on campus will die. If colleges and universities have any “customer service” obligation, it is to expose students to diverse views, not to censor them. Higher education’s function is to serve as a forum for serious debate, discussion and intellectual innovation. Done correctly, feelings will be hurt, beliefs will be challenged, and sacred cows will be barbecued. Being offended is what happens when you have your deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college without ever having been offended, you should ask for your money back.
Shermer, on the other hand, argues that colleges and universities are marketplaces with the right to set up their own rules and speech codes:
I will make a free-market case for treating universities and colleges as corporations that offer products and services (education and diplomas) to potential customers (students). As such, each academic corporation sets up a mission statement about what it stands for, what it offers and especially what it expects from its customers when they are on company property; that is, its rules.
But is this telling the whole story? I think not. Marketplace dynamics is one thing—but what Lukianoff is talking about is not the right of colleges to shape their own standards, it is a questioning of a trend throughout all higher learning institutions today. I’d be curious to hear from our students: Many of your instructors have syllabi which prohibit offensive speech and actions in class (such as my own syllabi), and most of your instructors are mindful of the sensitivities of students. Do you favor this trend, or do you long for the old days of less politically correct speech on campus? Do you see those days as intellectually challenging, or simply offensive?
(The op-ed debate for April 14 was about political bias on campuses—no less interesting! Maybe we can return to that topic.)
Bright Future for Philosophy Students! April 7, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy, Philosophy Profession.6 comments
I’m often asked by my students what they’ll be able to do with philosophy as a major. The latest answer, according to the New York Times and The Guardian, is, anything you want! Philosophy has emerged as the latest fad major, not for the first time, but this time around it actually appears as if there is some solid reasoning going on, not just in the minds of philosophy students, but in the minds of employers. According to The Guardian,
“Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency show philosophy graduates, once derided as unemployable layabouts, are in growing demand from employers. The number of all graduates in full-time and part-time work six months after graduation has risen by 9% between 2002-03 and 2005-06; for philosophy graduates it has gone up by 13%.
It is in the fields of finance, property development, health, social work and the nebulous category of “business” that those versed in Plato and Kant are most sought after. In “business”, property development, renting and research, 76% more philosophy graduates were employed in 2005-06 than in 2002-03. In health and social work, 9% more….
…Fiona Czerniawska, director of the Management Consultancies Association’s think tank, says: “A philosophy degree has trained the individual’s brain and given them the ability to provide management-consulting firms with the sort of skills that they require and clients demand. These skills can include the ability to be very analytical, provide clear and innovative thinking, and question assumptions.”"
This is, of course, what we philosophy instructors have been saying for years, but we’ve generally considered it a nice bonus added to the major benefit of actually enjoying doing philosophy. And according to the New York Times, it is a lot of fun—and it is also useful (hmmmmm):
“Jenna Schaal-O’Connor, a 20-year-old sophomore who is majoring in cognitive science and linguistics, said philosophy had other perks. She said she found many male philosophy majors interesting and sensitive. “That whole deep existential torment,” she said. “It’s good for getting girlfriends.””
Who is John Galt? Clay, or Pitt? March 29, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Culture, Film, Nina Rosenstand's Posts.4 comments
You may have seen bumper stickers around the country—not as many now as in previous decades, but I think we are likely to see more of them: “Who is John Galt?” Some of you will know that John Galt is one of the main characters in Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s novel from 1957, and in the novel the question of John Galt’s identity is increasingly important as the plot develops. And perhaps, after more than 50 years, we will actually get to see a film based on Atlas Shrugged! Amazingly, this American classic hasn’t been officially visualized yet, but it isn’t for lack of trying: According to Wikipedia, attempts to boil the mammoth novel down to movie size have been underway since 1972, and Rand herself was working on the screenplay when she died ten years later. And now Lionsgate is striving to bring it to a theater near you in 2009, with (possibly) Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart. Can Jolie portray a literary hero of mythical stature? We shall see. I’d probably prefer someone else as Dagny, but I’ll watch it, and I plan on being magnanimous and ready to welcome an even partially good film. Reading about the production on the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) website made me curious: the elusive but all-important character of John Galt has two actors listed: Brad Pitt (“rumored,” it says), and an unknown, Jamie Clay. Now it isn’t likely that John Galt will be portrayed by two people, so what’s up? It turns out to be a prank: Jamie Clay is not an actor, but he is an Ayn Rand fan with friends who have a sense of humor, and they posted his name on IMDB as the new incarnation of John Galt. In this (supposedly authentic) letter posted on the Ayn Rand website The Atlasphere Clay tells the story, and claims they’d have to torture him to play John Galt. Apparently IMDB was informed that it was a prank, and the name disappeared, only to reappear again.
Now why is this worth blogging about? Because it is, in a sense, completely in the spirit of Ayn Rand, and Atlas Shrugged. In the novel the identity of John Galt is a mystery to all but a select few, and now the movie hype is reviving the Galt mystery, apparently inadvertently. In Old Hollywood of 50 years ago, such a mystery would have been created on purpose as part of the hype, and the tabloids would have been guessing as to the actor’s identity. Today the Internet picks up a story and it acquires a life of its own—free advertising for Lionsgate. Even so, it amuses this mostly cynical heart of mine; in a universe of conspiracies, I think Jamie Clay would probably be John Galt: Double disinformation. For those who really care, some Ayn Rand fans would rather see Christian Bale than Brad Pitt as John Galt…
Story-telling against Absurdity March 22, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Current Events, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy.4 comments
In Spokane, WA a trial has just ended with a Not Guilty verdict: One night in November 2005 a motorist, Clifford Helm, was driving on the wrong side of the road and plowed into a car with a father and his five children; all five children died in the crash. Since Helm refused to talk to the police, there was suspicion of drugs or alcohol being involved, but that was apparently not the case. At trial, the prosecution claimed he was on the cellphone, having an argument with his wife; the defense claimed he’d had a coughing spell and fainted. There was no medical evidence of a fainting spell, and the cellphone records were deleted by mistake by the prosecution, so it came down to whether the jury believed that this was vehicular homicide or an accident. They went with “accident” (involuntary manslaughter was apparently not an option), and Helm and his cellphone are free to drive on.
That’s the short version of the story. What I would like to share with you is a newspaper column/blog about the case, written by Spokesman-Review columnist Rebecca Mack. In her column, “Still seeking explanation for tragedy,” Mack analyzes the underlying reasons why this case has been occupying the minds of the community, and continues to do so: She says that it isn’t so much that people are unhappy with the verdict because they want revenge or retribution for the five little children—they just want to understand, so that the same thing will not happen to them or their kids, on some dark road, and the verdict (and the driver’s reticence) doesn’t offer anyone that comfort. In philosophical terms, the case reveals the absurdity and enormity of unpredictable life, and the powerlessness of every one of us when trying to take all the preventive measures that will keep us alive. Sometimes we can, but not all the time. Essentially, what Mack has uncovered is our narrative urge, the need to tell stories that make sense, so we are not overwhelmed by the meaninglessness of the universe. And (in case you now think that I think everything is meaningless) then it is up to us to create the meaning, maybe a partial little meaning, within our own little sector of reality. Many of us do that, anyway, and sometimes even appropriately, casting blame on (perhaps) the county’s failure in ensuring that the signage was sufficient, or on cellphone companies that endanger the public. Some of us are attracted to the concept of karma; some of us choose to think that there is a higher meaning which will be revealed to us at some point when we are no longer part of this reality. Some of us just hug our loved ones—people and pets—and hope for the best. The surviving parents who lost their five children are Mennonites, and have invited the driver into their midst, having forgiven him for the pain he has caused—because they have a Narrative that works for them. It probably isn’t a narrative that works for most of us, and that is why the story of the driver who killed the five children is so disturbing—it is complete in its incompleteness, so to speak. There is no illusion of comfort in the verdict; if we want comfort, we have to seek and find it ourselves.
Hard Determinism, anyone? March 5, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Philosophy.3 comments
Fun discussion over at “The Garden of Forking Paths” about new studies concerning hard determinism. If I can extricate myself from grading papers, I’ll put a post together about it–in the meantime, enjoy this link: http://gfp.typepad.com/the_garden_of_forking_pat/2008/02/why-reading-def.html
Robot Cheaters and Heroes February 12, 2008
Posted by Nina Rosenstand in Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, Nina Rosenstand's Posts, Science.10 comments
It took 50 generations of robots evolving from basic light-sensitive wheeled mechanisms to something much more sophisticated—but now the Laboratory of Intelligent Systems at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology can boast of having created four groups of robots who have evolved into light-consuming and communicating entities. Three out of the four groups will alert the other robots when they “find food.” The final group has developed robots who will lie about the food source, telling the others that it is poison, and then eat it all themselves. And if that isn’t enough, some robots have evolved into heroes who will alert others to danger and die saving the others. In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) calls human altruism a “precious Darwinian mistake.” So does this mean that any evolving, communicating entity will travel along the same path as we humans have? Here is a quote from the original report summary:
“We conducted repeated trials of experimental evolution with robots that could produce visual signals to provide information on food location. We found that communication readily evolves when colonies consist of genetically similar individuals and when selection acts at the colony level. We identified several distinct communication systems that differed in their efficiency…. Under individual selection, the ability to produce visual signals resulted in the evolution of deceptive communication strategies in colonies of unrelated robots and a concomitant decrease in colony performance. This study generates predictions about the evolutionary conditions conducive to the emergence of communication and provides guidelines for designing artificial evolutionary systems displaying spontaneous communication.”
So the “liars” were unrelated to the others, while communication went smoothly if the individuals were genetically similar. Without having read the entire report I will jump to the conclusion that the “heroes” came from the genetically similar groups. But does this prove that Dawkins is right (Moriae, weigh in!), or that this is no “mistake” at all—that self-sacrifice will happen, because being a member of a colony fosters genuine selflessness? Then again, maybe the researchers at the Swiss lab have merely reinvented an ant hill…
