Mr. Grouchypants

If you have me bookmarked for some reason, be sure to update your link.

It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

C.S. Lewis - Mere Christianity

Most of the groups were able to successfully communicate enough information to solve the game, some doing so in a manner of minutes. What caught my interest was the following excerpt:

One strength of Dr Galantucci’s experiment that does not exist in the real world, however, is that he is able to interview his subjects afterwards. What is striking, he says, is that a pair can be successful even if a symbol represents something quite different in the virtual world to each player—as long as they agree on what they should do when confronted by it. In other words, people only need to convey a small amount of information to communicate effectively, and they can do so while holding fundamentally different ideas about how their language describes the world.

When I read this, I immediately though of Searle’s Chinese Room argument which emphasizes semantics over syntax. In the Yale experiment, semantics did not seem as important as syntax judging from the quoted passage. The participants could have at least a rudimentary understanding of their messages without agreeing on the semantics of the particular symbols. I’m not sure that this has any important implications for Searle’s argument, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

(Via GeekPress)

Update: Added clever-ish title.

I have no problems with people claiming that the scientific method is the most reliable tool we have for learning about the world around us. That assertion can be supported by appealing to the success of various physical sciences. However, claims that science is the only way to learn about the world seem to me to be self-referentially incoherent. You can’t, after all, show scientifically that science is the only way to gain knowledge.

What I find particularly annoying, however, is the notion that science will eventually provide an explanation for everything. That is just hubris, especially since we can’t be certain that we are even capable of asking all the necessary questions required for an understanding of the universe. We are finite creatures with finite capacities, just like other animals. Chimps don’t understand algebra. They aren’t even aware that they don’t understand algebra. What reason do we have to assume that our brains are not limited in a similar fashion?

I can’t think of any, but I suppose that could just be due to the inherent limitations of my finite brain.

(Article via AnalPhilosopher)

(Via LifeHacker)

I hear the ancient footsteps like the motion of the sea
Sometimes I turn, there’s someone there, other times it’s only me.

Bob Dylan - “Every Grain of Sand”

The first reason he gives is:

“ID will win because it’s a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.”

“Ewww…intelligent design people! They’re just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who’re trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads.”

While I’m sympathetic to the argument, I’m not convinced that ID will win out. There are an awful lot of politics involved in the scientific community. And ID theory doesn’t have a great deal of political clout at the moment. But they do have the advantage of opponents who seem to have a tin ear when it comes to selling their view to the public.

(Article via email from my brother)

There certainly isn’t a shortage of blogs, so I don’t think there is any particular void this site fills. I’m not getting paid to do this either. So why bother?

I suppose that simple narcissism is part of my motivation. I would like to think that I’m above that sort of thing, but that might me narcissistic too. I do think you have to be at least a bit stuck on yourself to publish a blog though. Otherwise, why would one expect people over the globe to drop by and read your thoughts?

But there is more going on here than simple egotism. We also have complex egotism, but that involves irrational numbers or irrational self esteem or something like that. So I’ll just skip that and move on to some other motivations.

One reason I started this site was to provide myself with a regular writing exercise. For me writing is a lot like working out. I will put both of them off, and I am frequently uncomfortable while doing them, but I’m always glad to have done them (unless I pull a muscle or write too many run-on sentences). So this blog is a creative writing outlet, or maybe a not-so-creative writing outlet depending on your point of view. Either way, it does provide me with some needed motivation to write some thoughts down from time to time since I know that at least one person checks the site everyday (Hi, Honey!).

Finally, I write about topics to help sort out my thoughts on them. Trying to come up with even a short post requires me to put forth some effort and analyze my position on whatever I happen to be writing about. This is especially helpful when it comes to issues on which I haven’t reached any firm conclusions, such as theism and consciousness.

So those are my primary motivations for inflicting this site on the world. I’ll try to make it worthwhile to someone other than myself, but I’m not making any promises.

It seems like the tobacco industry serves as a kind of stalking horse at times. When the government sued Big Tobacco to recoup money spent on the health related costs of smoking, most people supported the action. After all, tobacco companies had lied about their knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking. So not too many people shed any tears over the companies getting hit with a huge settlement. They didn’t consider that the ruling in those lawsuits would lead to similar lawsuits in other industries. But, sure enough, suits were brought against gun manufacturers for the damage caused by their products. And soon McDonalds was sued for making kids fat.

The question is, “what’s next?”. So far, none of the fast food lawsuits have gotten anywhere. But that was true of the tobacco lawsuits for years as well. But if one of them is successful in the future, will the health advocates be satisfied and leave it at that? I don’t find that very likely. Such a success would only embolden them to pursue other methods for changing people’s behavior, such as a “twinkie tax” on junk food. And if the tax doesn’t change our eating habits enough, why not simply ban some forms of junk food? It might seem crazy, but a few years ago it would have sounded crazy to suggest suing McDonalds for your weight gain.

From this the Stoics concluded that, just as no external is of value to you, so also nothing can hurt you, except you yourself. What you are is entirely up to you.

It has been a while since I looked at Taylor’s Metaphysics, but if the quote reflects his feelings, then I must have misunderstood his discussion of fatalism. I will probably revisit the book to check on that since it is such an interesting piece of work. It is a bit of a downer in places since Taylor seemed to have a low opinion of people in some regards. If I remember correctly, he felt that you were wasting your life in some way if you weren’t creating something. That jarred me when I read it and probably acted as part of the impetus for me to start this site. Generating blog posts here and there isn’t much, but it is a start. I’ll try to post some thoughts on the book as I read sections of it. (Sort of an online book report)

As Galston and Kamarck observe, religion and the social-issue controversies it raises have been “the overriding factor” in the realignment of the parties - or, to put it more bluntly, the shrinkage of the Democratic Party. The authors regret this shrinking but don’t see a reversal so long as their party is seen as anti-religious.

The perception of anti-religious sentiment is particularly bothersome for the Democrats considering the large numbers of religious voters in the country. Now it is certainly not the case that all or even most Democrats are hostile to religion. However, there are enough instances of anti-religious rhetoric from Democrats and liberals to cause problems for the party. A good example of this is Mark Morford’s column belittling an Arkansas couple who have 16 children.

Now most people would find the Duggar family at least a little odd. I saw a documentary on them which was filmed while they were expecting their 15th bundle of joy. And I found myself wondering what the couple was smoking multiple times throughout the show. I don’t understand why someone would want to have a family so large that it required the older children to “buddy up” with a younger sibling just to keep things running smoothly. But I finally decided that if the couple could provide for all the kids and they were content, it really wasn’t any of my business.

But Mr. Morford doesn’t have as much of a “live and let live” attitude about it. In fact, he seems downright offended that Mrs. Duggar has chosen to exercise her reproductive choice this way. And while attacking the Duggars, he repeatedly makes references to religion, describing them as “18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable people with alarmingly bad hair”. Later he asks, “Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the Midwest?” He seems troubled by the fact that there isn’t a counterweight to families such as the Duggers and asks, “Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side?”. (Seems like you have to be pretty pro-sex to have 16 kids.)

While there are anti-religious Republicans as well, one is far more likely to see snarky attitudes about a “massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots” from liberals. And religious voters notice, non-religious voters too. That is why only 29% of Americans see the Democratic party as religion-friendly compared to the 55% who see the Republicans as such.

(Morford column via LaShawn Barber)

To learn more about the war from a real soldiers, visit Paul Rieckhoff’s organization, Operation Truth. Paul — who served for ten months in Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader in the 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions — tells me that Operation Truth works on behalf of ordinary enlisted soldiers to amplify their voice in our nation’s decisions regarding the military. His Website is an outlet for many who see their efforts and concerns being misrepresented by mainstream media.

So Murphy isn’t even a real soldier. It’s no wonder that the anti-war crowd has to constantly tell people that they support the troops. Perhaps they should be a little clearer and tell us that they support the troops that express the correct opinions.

(Via The Huffington Post)

The mystery masked man was smart
He got himself a Tonto
‘Cause Tonto did the dirty work for free
But Tonto he was smarter
And one day said kemo sabe
Kiss my ass I bought a boat
I’m going out to sea

Lyle Lovett - “If I Had a Boat”

But do we really need to have Bible study in public schools? Couldn’t teachers use this as an excuse to force their religious views on their students? While there is certainly the chance that the class could be abused by zealous teachers, I don’t think the risk is large enough to outweigh the potential benefit. Religious implications aside, the Bible is the single most influential book EVER. Period. The idea that a child could be considered educated without being exposed to the Bible is absurd.

So I think that some sort of Bible study should be a mandatory part of a high school English curriculum. Otherwise we will be graduating students who will be severely handicapped in their cultural literacy (and appreciation of U2 lyrics). Will some religious parents object to the notion of looking at the Bible as a literary work? Sure, but if they want their children to view the Bible as a divinely inspired creation, they can instruct their children in that at home. That is part of their job as parents anyway, right?

The article provides some interesting info on Watterson who seems to be as much of a recluse as Vangelis. It also confirms a suspicion I had concerning the origin of the name of Calvin’s teacher, Ms. Wormwood. The name was, in fact, drawn from The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

(Via Arts & Letters Daily)

Cllr Mahbubur Rahman is in favour of the blanket pig crackdown. “It is a good thing, it is a tolerance and acceptance of their beliefs and understanding,” he said.

So there you have it. In the name of “tolerance and understanding” one employee is allowed to impose the strictures of his religion on everyone else. That certainly doesn’t look like tolerance. It looks like someone being bullied.

(Via Mangen by way of Maverick Philosopher)

Now I doubt that Americans would be very receptive to the idea of polygamous marriage. It would likely garner even less support than gay marriage. But that wouldn’t matter from a legal standpoint. If marriage could be redefined to include gay couples, why not include unions of three people? I have not seen any good reasons why one would be allowed but not the other. In fact, what I usually see is for the person defending gay marriage to simply declare that a marriage has to be between two people. That is no different than a gay marriage opponent stating that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. The polygamy objection seems to me to be a legitimate criticism of the proposal to redefine marriage. So gay marriage advocates need to develop arguments which defend gay marriage but exclude polygamy. If someone isn’t prepared to take that obejction seriously in light of the events in the Netherlands, then why should anyone take his arguments seriously?

(Via AnalPhilosopher)

Intelligence is a trait which can be used for a variety of actions. And not all of those actions are virtuous. Serial killers illustrate this point quite well. In this regard, intelligence is no different than physical strength and charisma. All three are good traits to have, and all three can be used for good actions. But they can just as easily be used for nefarious goals. So, at best, intelligence is neutral when it comes to virtue.

How do I deal with it you ask? Ok, even if you don’t ask I’ll still give an answer. Well, I can’t really give much in the way of an answer, because I don’t really have one. That’s probably why part of me can’t completely shake the idea of theism. Because of the suffering I see in the world, I want theism to be true even with all the logical difficulties that come with it. Theism provides the possibility for some recompense for the suffering in this world. Without that, I don’t see any realistic reaction to the problem of evil other than concluding that the world as a whole is a bad place. So for the time being, all I can do is hope that I am wrong about God.

However, I found that most of the people I met were not very interested in discussing their religion. And it wasn’t that I was being hostile when discussing God with them. I always tried to be respectful, yet I rarely found people willing to talk about it at any length. This has always struck me as odd. Supposedly one’s religion is fundamental to one’s life. If something is that important to you, shouldn’t you want to talk about it? At the very least, shouldn’t you be able to talk about it without appearing uncomfortable?

I suspect that most people don’t talk much about their religion simply because they don’t think about it very much. If one views religion as something you do rather than as an intellectual exercise, this is understandable to a degree. On the other hand, religion does involve a lot of ideas, some of which aren’t particularly trivial. So why not reflect on those ideas from time to time?

And I have considered the possibility that they simply didn’t want to discuss religion with ME. I just don’t think that can explain all of it. And who wouldn’t want to talk to me anyway? I do it all the time and rarely get on my nerves.

(Via The Inkwell)

(Via the Huffington Post)

You can find it at Elderly Instruments New Musical Instruments and start rockin’ on with your bad self.

(Via Engadget)

I don’t have anything to add to it, so just read his post.

First there’s this:

In Slate.com, legal correspondent Dahlia Lithwick finds that even if the feminist ideas Roberts criticized were bad, it doesn’t get him off the hook because he criticized them in a disrespectful tone.

So even if he was right, he was still wrong. Got it. But it gets better.

In Lithwick’s view, Roberts may be nothing less than ‘’a woman-hater.” Her smoking gun? An article he once wrote opposing the gender integration of an all-boy Catholic school, which included a sexist joke about giggling and blushing blondes in the classroom. This article was written in 1972, when Roberts was a 17-year-old high school junior. Maybe some intrepid reporter will dig deeper and find out what he said about girls in kindergarten.

That’s real horror show stuff folks. Roberts had better pray that no one uncovers any remarks he might have made about girls and cooties when he was in grammar school.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

Sarcasm aside, this type of behavior will not come as a shock to anyone who has worked in a gas station. I’m sure the rising costs are increasing the tensions, but people have been abusive to cashiers for years. When I was working at a Hell Shell station ten years ago, I averaged about one jackass a day. Some people seem to think that convenience store clerks are their personal whipping boys. No doubt these same people would scream bloody murder if people came to their place of work and harrassed them about something which was out of their control.

The chickenhawk argument is likewise unpersuasive. But I’ll make a deal: only people with military experience can discuss matters of national security, and only people who grew up in North Dakota can judge the movie “Fargo.” I know what you’re saying: “Fargo” took place almost entirely in Minnesota. Why are you trying to stifle my dissent?

(Via Conservative Grapevine)

They’re not children in Iraq; they’re grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America’s all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as “children.” If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that’s her decision and her parents shouldn’t get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton’s Oval Office, she’s a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he’s a wee “child” who isn’t really old enough to know what he’s doing.

Further on he says:

The infantilization of the military promoted by the left is deeply insulting to America’s warriors but it suits the anti-war crowd’s purposes. It enables them to drone ceaselessly that “of course” they “support our troops,” because they want to stop these poor confused moppets from being exploited by the Bush war machine.

This highlights the flaw with the “why doesn’t Bush send his daughters to fight?” line of attack. It is not Bush’s place to send his daughters, just as it isn’t the place of any parent to send their son or daughter to fight. The armed forces are voluntary. The men and women that choose to serve are just that, “men and women”. But that’s not how the anti-war crowd sees it. To them all of the soldiers and marines in Iraq are a bunch of children. With condescending views such as this in the Democratic party, it’s no wonder that the military vote trends Republican.

(Via Instapundit)

I don’t doubt the sincerity of the driver though. I’m sure that he/she is completely convinced that only people that share his/her viewpoint are really “free thinkers”. And I’m sure that all his/her “free thinking” buddies feel exactly the same way.

So where is that Democratic Party concern for the “little guy” we’ve heard so much about? Subsumed by paranoia about the right. “The Kelo backlash is tempting, but it’s wrong,” warned Alyssa Katz in American Prospect Online. “In seeking to limit public power over urban planning, well-meaning community activists are lending strength to [the] conservative movement.”

I imagine the additional tax revenues generated by the new malls and Wal-Marts also influence the thinking of some of the politicians.

I think Democrats just don’t get it because they come from a very different place than the Republicans. The moral center of the GOP is in big business, small business and churches. The moral core of the Democratic Party is in academia, unions and the groups - the NARALS et al. The unions are disintegrating, the academy is the very definition of “out of touch,” and the groups are hermetically sealed parallel universes inhabited by lawyers, flacks and giant, bloated Senators.

The insular nature of much of the base of the Democratic party makes it much more difficult for the party to connect with average voters. NARAL’s ad attacking John Roberts demonstrates how tone deaf the party can sound at times. Reynolds offers some advice that I believe the party would be advised to take.

If you want to talk to people — people who do not already agree with everything you have to say, professor — you have to actually know some people. Some of those people you need to know will drive SUV’s. Some will own jet skis. Many will attend churches where people sing a lot. They will not necessarily dine on a small green salad with lo-fat dressing on the side. They will not know or care who Noam Chomsky is. And here is what is vitally important for Democrats to understand: although these people will not necessarily be part of your all-Angelou book club, they will be at least as smart as you are.

To communicate with people, understand people. To understand people, listen to people. Fire the consultants. Fire the gurus. Fire the pollsters. Fire the lawyers. Get back into the real world. Send forth your minions, Democrats, scatter them to the winds with instructions to go forth into the McDonalds and the Wal-Marts and the churches, to boldly engage fat women in spandex, and skinny guys in pick-up trucks, to speak without sneering to the local businessman, to talk on equal terms with the minister and the insurance salesman and the cook and the fisherman and the clerk. Watch TV. (No, not PBS. Not HBO, either.) Read bestsellers. Shoot a gun. Ride a speedboat. Drive a big old gas hog across west Texas at ninety miles an hour. (It’s fun. Even more fun than composing briefs or conducting a focus group.) Smile at other people’s kids. Talk to teachers - not their union reps.

He saves the most useful suggestion for last though:

And by the way, when I say “talk to” I mean, “shut the f**k up and listen.”

And by “useful”, I mean “likely to be ignored”. It is much easier to simply assume that voters vote for GOP candidates because they just don’t know what’s good for them.

Incidentally, Professor Burgess-Jackson’s title refers to the fact that he is an analytic philosopher and anal-retentive. It’s not one of those philosophy/porn sites that are all the rage these days.

I think that part of the problem is that liberals are as overcome by anger towards Bush as conservatives were with Clinton. It didn’t help the conservatives that much, and it probably won’t help liberals either. I suppose they will console themselves with the thought that they are fighting the good fight, just like lots of other true believers do.

Like right now for instance.

Do they have everything they need to win over Middle America? Let’s see. They have an actress with lots of baggage from her Vietnam protest days protesting the war while promoting her recent book. And she is going across the country Merry Prankster style in a bus because people can’t get enough hippie nostalgia. And as an added bonus, the bus runs on vegetable oil. That’s right, vegetable oil. What’s not to love?

This tour is going to stink in more ways than one.

Hopefully the recent interest in property rights will prevent Super Wal-Marts and other stores from pushing homeowners off their land. And it’s nice to see the politics in my home state of Alabama making the news for something other than Ten Commandments monuments.

(Via Instapundit)

Her basic problem boils down to this:

But she still lacks a key quality that a politician can’t achieve through hard work: likability. As hard as she tries, Hillary has little facility for connecting with ordinary folk, for making them feel that she understands, identifies, and is at some level one of them.

This is not a minor issue either. While one would hope that voters would mature once they leave high school, popularity is still a motivating factor with voters. If voters don’t like you, it makes it difficult to convince them to give you their support.

(Via GeekPress)

(Via GeekPress)

(Via Drudge)

Read the whole thing here.

(Via Instapundit)

Read the post here.

Read the article here.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

Read the whole thing.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

(Via GeekPress)

Read Applebaum’s column here.

(Via RealClearPolitics)

Hayes also manages to touch on a issue that a friend and I were discussing recently. Why is it that shooting lightning out of your fingers is evil while using Jedi mind tricks isn’t. While frying someone with your fingertips is really quite rude, it is hardly any worse than chopping someone’s limbs off with a lightsaber. Subverting someone’s free will is quite a violation. Having that kind of power over people would be more corrupting than the lightning (even though the lightning is pretty cool).

Search your feelings … you know it to be true.

Here’s why.

(Via Ektopos)

(From Oscar Wilde’s Wit and Wisdom)

(Via Lifehacker)

I can’t deny the intuitive force of the argument since it is what ultimately led me away from theism. It is very powerful, but the bulk of its force comes from its emotional appeal. It is a rational argument, but you ultimately find yourself being swayed by your emotions rather than reason. As an illustration, a famous version of the argument dealing with gratuitous evil uses as an example the suffering of a young deer. The fawn is badly burned in a forest fire and lingers several days before dying. This example packs quite a punch. But does the argument have as much force if one doesn’t appeal to the suffering of Bambi to make the point?

I don’t think it does. Just imagine the argument except with an iguana or some other less cuddly animal. The effectiveness of the argument is, at least to a degree, dependent upon the listener’s non-rational response to it. Now I don’t think this invalidates the argument (otherwise I would be a theist), but it does make me a little less comfortable with my reaction to it.

(From Oscar Wilde’s Wit and Wisdom)

“I wouldn’t say, uh, it’s healthier than tap water. I mean, uh, it’s both, they both provide, uh, water.”

You certainly can’t argue with that.

(Also from Jewish World Review)

(Via Jewish World Review)

However, I’m pretty sure that they many of them do feel insulted by Democrats. Just look at the way that Democrats phrase the problem. They basically start from the assumption that there must be something wrong with working Americans if they don’t vote for the Democrats. They then proceed to try to analyze the voters to discover what could be the cause of their ignorance at the voting booth. Just look at the subtitle of the Noah piece, “Are Bush Supporters Literally Insane?”. He does at least conclude that they are not in fact insane. But the fact that the question is even posed is a problem for the Democrats. The majority of voters are not insane. They are also not stupid, and I’m pretty sure that they pick up on the condescension behind the Dems fretting over why they can’t get enough voters to wise up and vote for them.

Sure the GOP loves rich people. Both parties do. And I imagine that lots of times the Republicans are just paying lip service to issues that working people care about. But at least they are paying lip service to them. The Democrats seem to expect the voters to accept the patronizing attitude from the Dems and vote for them anyway. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like an insane way to win voters over.

(Via Geekpress)

(Via Arts & Letters Daily)

Update: A dissenting view on the intellectual merits of TV viewing can be found here. Mr. Scheske’s commentary seems on target (I wish I had thought to write it, actually), and he gets a reference to Tony Orlando and Dawn in there for good measure.

— Fred Rogers