I think we can acknowledge that experiments, and the experimental method, have been of great benefit to humanity. Most of us have a basic understanding of what experiments comprise. Experiments typically address things; there is a physical subject matter (however complicated or indefinite) involved in the process. There is a problem to be resolved, or a question to be answered through the experiment. There is a hypothesis, and its validity or invalidity is established, wholly or partly, through the experiment. Certain steps are taken, certain results are observed.
"Thought experiments" as I understand them are imaginary exercises, engaged in purportedly to investigate things which are not imaginary. I'm not sure where the phrase comes from or when it first came into use. It smacks of jargon, though, so I suspect we began to use it in the late 19th century or sometime in the 20th century. This would seem to make sense as it was in that period that the non-scientific disciplines, and those who were not scientists, began to emulate the scientific or experimental method. That method had been so successful that those in the humanities and in professions such as the law sought to share in that success, or at least appear to have the same claim to veracity.
I find the phrase puzzling, though. Imaginary exercises and devices seem quite unrelated to experiments and the experimental method. I don't see how an imaginary device can be considered remotely similar to an experiment, as commonly understood. "Thought experiments" seems almost an oxymoron.
It's clear enough that thoughts always accompany experiments. But the subject matter of experiments are not imaginary, and in order to accomplish an experiment certain acts are required, acts which take place in "real life." The use of the phrase, and the claim that one is engaged in a "thought experiment" therefore seem to be in the nature of a pretense, i.e. it is pretentious to claim one is carrying out a "thought experiment." One is pretending to apply the experimental or scientific methods, to be scientific, to be a scientist. However, what is actually taking place is an excursion into "Imagination Land" (not the one in South Park, though). There is nothing wrong with taking such a trip; we do so often, and such trips can be beneficial. But it would seem less pretentious, and certainly more honest, to simply say that we are considering in our imaginations something which is not the case, in the effort to learn something regarding what is the case.
Clearly those who perform actual experiments use their imaginations and speculate. They may wonder, for example, whether a certain act or element will resolve a problem, or a certain explanation will adequately address a question. However, they then proceed to do something. They do not merely imagine and speculate; they do more than think. They subject their speculation to the test of the experiment, and determine thereby whether the speculation usefully meets the test.
There is no experiment available to test "thought experiments" however. The imagining does not end, unless it is abandoned. It may be abandoned for a reason; for example, those doing the imagining may come to the conclusion that the thought experiment is so hypothetical, so remote from the real, so convoluted as to be silly or incredible. But the hypothesis being bandied about in "Imagination Land" cannot be tested in the sense that a hypothesis can be tested, or a course of action or judgment regarding real life can be tested by application to real life problems and questions.
Some of the less incredible "thought experiments" may be useful in the sense that they get us thinking. But I think it is foolish to believe they are of any more than minimal use in understanding the universe, ourselves or others. The best way to address and resolve the problems we encounter in life is by addressing them in real life, not exclusively in the imagination.
There is a limit to the extent imagining things can effect the way in which we react to things that actually happen. For one thing, as a general rule, our imaginations are lacking. We usually find a way to leave something "real" out of our imaginary scenarios; they are not compelling because they are so clearly unreal. For another, imaginary problems and situations simply do not induce the kind of thinking and acting we do when we encounter actual problems. Particularly in emergency situations we do things unthinkingly, and no amount of philosophical imaginary training will provide us with any guidance.
We should not put much faith in, or grant much credence to the "results" of, "thought experiments." They have no outcome, and where there is no outcome nothing is achieved.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
Deus Vult!
It seems the United States is not the exclusive residence of the violently pretentious, fanatic and self-righteous who live among us these days. Certainly Europe has had its share of such killers in the past, some of them true paragons of the type; but one has come to expect that their domicile of choice for the present is this Great Republic. That there is at least one of these creatures in Norway seems somehow surprising.
One can only feel grateful that the Norwegian court presiding over him has not so far been inclined to give him the opportunity to "explain" his conduct and why he feels he is not a criminal. He has already done this in detail courtesy of the Internet, it seems, and it is doubtful he has anything more enlightening, let alone intelligent, to say at this time.
I don't know the situation in Norway or greater Scandinavia, or in Europe for that matter, adequately for me to comment on the extent to which "multiculturalism" (whatever that may mean) predominates in those places. I know there have been those European politicians who have commented that it is a failure, and that nationalism is evidently once more a factor in European politics, at least accordingly to the ostensibly concerned media. Let us assume that it does predominate. If it does, that is obviously no reason to kill people, and only the fanatic could believe otherwise.
Preposterous fantasies involving militant Christian religious orders which expired long ago, or the reference to a crusade of some kind, or the employment of a modern version of "blood and soil", are what we may expect from the European (and American) fanatic. These are people who are convinced that how they live, what they do and what they think are right and proper, and that while those who agree with them may be tolerable, for the most part, those who do not are certainly intolerable in the sense that they cannot be allowed to live among them. Provided they live elsewhere, they may be allowed to exist, but once they encroach upon us, they presumptively threaten us, and must be dealt with, firmly. This kind of fanaticism is the result of twisted self-righteousness fed by mystical or religious beliefs, i.e. the irrational in us.
That said, we should note that it is apparently true that there are those who feel threatened by what some who are inclined to grandiose rhetoric would no doubt call "otherness", this being simply the unsurprising fact that people from different nations, of different cultures and religions, act and think differently than "we" do. Also, we should note that there are those who feel that the street they live on need not and should not be Sesame Street, and that there are many who feel that way, some of whom are eager to do something about it.
If they do something about it through the use of the guns we are so fond of here in the Land of the Free, or explosives, or generally through the use of violence, that is one thing. If they do so through nonviolent means, using established law and the political system, that may be another.
I for one believe that if I decided to move to and live in a foreign country, it would be the height of silly self-regard for me to believe that the government of that country, and its people, should accommodate me in every respect. I would not think that they should treat my language as an official language, for example, or provide me with translations of legal document and signs. I would not think they should alter their laws to conform to my beliefs regarding what the laws should be. I would not expect them to treat me any differently than they would treat any other citizen of that country, however; in other words, I believe they should neither discriminate in my favor or to my detriment. To the extent "multiculturalism" provides otherwise, I think it is problematic.
I think that those who long for a global government and those who fear it are equally deluded. We are tribal creatures, and will be tribal until such time as we learn to know and control ourselves and understand and appreciate that we cannot know and control everyone else, and it is not clear to me that we will ever achieve that level of wisdom.
One can only feel grateful that the Norwegian court presiding over him has not so far been inclined to give him the opportunity to "explain" his conduct and why he feels he is not a criminal. He has already done this in detail courtesy of the Internet, it seems, and it is doubtful he has anything more enlightening, let alone intelligent, to say at this time.
I don't know the situation in Norway or greater Scandinavia, or in Europe for that matter, adequately for me to comment on the extent to which "multiculturalism" (whatever that may mean) predominates in those places. I know there have been those European politicians who have commented that it is a failure, and that nationalism is evidently once more a factor in European politics, at least accordingly to the ostensibly concerned media. Let us assume that it does predominate. If it does, that is obviously no reason to kill people, and only the fanatic could believe otherwise.
Preposterous fantasies involving militant Christian religious orders which expired long ago, or the reference to a crusade of some kind, or the employment of a modern version of "blood and soil", are what we may expect from the European (and American) fanatic. These are people who are convinced that how they live, what they do and what they think are right and proper, and that while those who agree with them may be tolerable, for the most part, those who do not are certainly intolerable in the sense that they cannot be allowed to live among them. Provided they live elsewhere, they may be allowed to exist, but once they encroach upon us, they presumptively threaten us, and must be dealt with, firmly. This kind of fanaticism is the result of twisted self-righteousness fed by mystical or religious beliefs, i.e. the irrational in us.
That said, we should note that it is apparently true that there are those who feel threatened by what some who are inclined to grandiose rhetoric would no doubt call "otherness", this being simply the unsurprising fact that people from different nations, of different cultures and religions, act and think differently than "we" do. Also, we should note that there are those who feel that the street they live on need not and should not be Sesame Street, and that there are many who feel that way, some of whom are eager to do something about it.
If they do something about it through the use of the guns we are so fond of here in the Land of the Free, or explosives, or generally through the use of violence, that is one thing. If they do so through nonviolent means, using established law and the political system, that may be another.
I for one believe that if I decided to move to and live in a foreign country, it would be the height of silly self-regard for me to believe that the government of that country, and its people, should accommodate me in every respect. I would not think that they should treat my language as an official language, for example, or provide me with translations of legal document and signs. I would not think they should alter their laws to conform to my beliefs regarding what the laws should be. I would not expect them to treat me any differently than they would treat any other citizen of that country, however; in other words, I believe they should neither discriminate in my favor or to my detriment. To the extent "multiculturalism" provides otherwise, I think it is problematic.
I think that those who long for a global government and those who fear it are equally deluded. We are tribal creatures, and will be tribal until such time as we learn to know and control ourselves and understand and appreciate that we cannot know and control everyone else, and it is not clear to me that we will ever achieve that level of wisdom.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Ambrose Bierce, the Law, and Lawyers
I can't help but enjoy reading most anything by Ambrose Bierce. "Bitter" Bierce, as he was justly called, strenuously criticized and lampooned everything, so far as I can tell, and this is an endearing trait as far as I'm concerned. In The Shadow on the Dial and Other Essays he targets the legal profession, among other things.
He writes what one would expect him to write, generally speaking. To a certain extent, what he writes is unsurprising; but, we are a hundred or so years down the road from when he wrote, so perhaps his excoriation of the profession was original in its time.
He focuses for the most part on particular areas of the practice of law which presumably most irked him--criminal, domestic (divorce) and estates, and I haven't had much exposure to any of those areas, though I've had enough involvement in wills, will contests and estates to know I'd rather not be involved in them any further if it all possible. I suspect this is the case because these areas are what would primarily attract the attention of a newspaper man back then (and perhaps now), or perhaps it is more correct to say are what a newspaper man would have been compelled to cover.
His suggestion that criminal defense attorneys be subject to cross-examination regarding their vested interest in their clients' success regardless of guilt or innocence is amusing, though I suspect no juror, then or now, would find this surprising (I personally find it surprising that such a renowned cynic as Bierce apparently found this worth noting). More interesting to me, though, is the fact that he seems to assume that criminal defendants are virtually always--if not always--guilty of the crimes of which they are accused.
One might maintain that such an attitude should be expected from a cynic. That may be so, but one would also expect a cynic would have a healthy scepticism regarding the ability of the state to locate and honestly prosecute someone actually guilty for a crime. I find Bierce's furious denunciation of the fact that defendants are protected against self-incrimination to be somewhat baffling, as a result. If all men are criminals, then it would seem prosecutors would have criminal inclinations as well as defendants--and of course their lawyers. Prosecutors, though, don't seem to be subject to his wrath.
The law of divorce seems to have been so strange at the time he wrote I have trouble understanding it. However, he makes an interesting argument against the rights of testators to determine who receives their estate and how they receive it, which is to say that for the most part he vilifies these rights and in some cases those who exercise them.
It is understandable that parents would want their children to receive what assets they have at the time of their deaths. I suppose that just as a person may make whatever gifts they decide to make while alive, they may decide how their assets are to be disposed of after they can no longer gift. But there is something disturbing and unseemly, and perhaps even macabre, about the dead excluding specific persons from having the use of assets after they have become what Bierce might call worms-meat because of some real or perceived slight in life or because they were disappointed in them while living for what may not have been good reason. Placing conditions on access to assets after death--the dead can reach out from the grave to control the assets they once owned--can be disturbing for the same reason. Nevertheless, the law holds wills and trusts to be controlling.
Nothing can be quite as disgusting, or depressing, as the spectacle of children fighting tooth and nail (a wonderfully evocative phrase) over the leavings of their parents. Perhaps it would be better for the law to simply provide that assets be disbursed on death in a particular manner, regardless of the wishes of the deceased.
But such a law, and the repeal of laws protecting defendants, would have deprived "Bitter" Bierce of a good deal of what he found despicable in the human race, and so would in some respects have deprived us of the pleasure of reading him as he ranted against our many failings.
He writes what one would expect him to write, generally speaking. To a certain extent, what he writes is unsurprising; but, we are a hundred or so years down the road from when he wrote, so perhaps his excoriation of the profession was original in its time.
He focuses for the most part on particular areas of the practice of law which presumably most irked him--criminal, domestic (divorce) and estates, and I haven't had much exposure to any of those areas, though I've had enough involvement in wills, will contests and estates to know I'd rather not be involved in them any further if it all possible. I suspect this is the case because these areas are what would primarily attract the attention of a newspaper man back then (and perhaps now), or perhaps it is more correct to say are what a newspaper man would have been compelled to cover.
His suggestion that criminal defense attorneys be subject to cross-examination regarding their vested interest in their clients' success regardless of guilt or innocence is amusing, though I suspect no juror, then or now, would find this surprising (I personally find it surprising that such a renowned cynic as Bierce apparently found this worth noting). More interesting to me, though, is the fact that he seems to assume that criminal defendants are virtually always--if not always--guilty of the crimes of which they are accused.
One might maintain that such an attitude should be expected from a cynic. That may be so, but one would also expect a cynic would have a healthy scepticism regarding the ability of the state to locate and honestly prosecute someone actually guilty for a crime. I find Bierce's furious denunciation of the fact that defendants are protected against self-incrimination to be somewhat baffling, as a result. If all men are criminals, then it would seem prosecutors would have criminal inclinations as well as defendants--and of course their lawyers. Prosecutors, though, don't seem to be subject to his wrath.
The law of divorce seems to have been so strange at the time he wrote I have trouble understanding it. However, he makes an interesting argument against the rights of testators to determine who receives their estate and how they receive it, which is to say that for the most part he vilifies these rights and in some cases those who exercise them.
It is understandable that parents would want their children to receive what assets they have at the time of their deaths. I suppose that just as a person may make whatever gifts they decide to make while alive, they may decide how their assets are to be disposed of after they can no longer gift. But there is something disturbing and unseemly, and perhaps even macabre, about the dead excluding specific persons from having the use of assets after they have become what Bierce might call worms-meat because of some real or perceived slight in life or because they were disappointed in them while living for what may not have been good reason. Placing conditions on access to assets after death--the dead can reach out from the grave to control the assets they once owned--can be disturbing for the same reason. Nevertheless, the law holds wills and trusts to be controlling.
Nothing can be quite as disgusting, or depressing, as the spectacle of children fighting tooth and nail (a wonderfully evocative phrase) over the leavings of their parents. Perhaps it would be better for the law to simply provide that assets be disbursed on death in a particular manner, regardless of the wishes of the deceased.
But such a law, and the repeal of laws protecting defendants, would have deprived "Bitter" Bierce of a good deal of what he found despicable in the human race, and so would in some respects have deprived us of the pleasure of reading him as he ranted against our many failings.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Crime and Astonishment
The latest great legal circus has ended, and has left many of us amazed, or so it seems. "Seems" because appearance is of fundamental importance here, and because what was shock was almost immediately transformed into something else, generally blame.
Those who felt a conviction was assured blame the prosecutors, or the jurors. I haven't heard the judge condemned yet, but that will likely happen. All of the Anthonys, who certainly seem an oddly disturbing family, are blamed. All perhaps deserve blame.
The trial of Casey Anthony was doomed to be a circus from the start, of course, due in large part to the attention drawn to the case by such as the remarkable Nancy Grace, who was busily milking it for all it was worth for years before it came to trial. What reputation she has is built on the creation of controversy, but this in itself doesn't make her unusual. Such aggrandizement and exploitation is what makes the world go 'round, particularly on TV, and particularly in what passes for journalism in these dark times.
There is always some expert at hand to be pumped by some complaisant anchor or other media minion, of course. There is nothing wrong with the fact they are consulted and displayed for us like trophies in and of itself. We should of course treat them with a degree of scepticism, but there is nothing essentially wrong with them, or their role. There is something very wrong, though, when they come to believe themselves to be something more than what they are, which is at most a part of the show, not the show itself, and a worst a kind of shill for someone, or something, else.
Grace appears to have managed to delude herself to the extent that there is something wrong. Her opinion regarding what was to occur turned out to be wrong, of course, which is surprising only because she tried so hard to assure that the outcome would meet with her expectation. Her reaction to the outcome, so shrill, so angrily maudlin, so rife with self-indulgent pathos, was down-right disturbing. Her self-pitying reaction to criticism being made is merely irritating.
The lesson we should take from this is only indirectly connected to the antics of Grace and other pundits, however. What this should teach us is that the experts, no matter how loudly and passionately they proclaim and pontificate, often don't know a damn thing about what has and will happen or what is happening.
I think this is particularly true where the law is concerned, and where a trial is at issue. Any lawyer who has spent time in a courtroom knows that strange things can happen there, especially when a jury is involved. Any lawyer should know the difference between morality and the law, and justice and the law, and when they profess otherwise it is likely they are being disingenuous or simply are not very good, or experienced, lawyers.
There is something especially reprehensible about a lawyer who is not involved in a case engaging in the kind of posturing engaged in by Grace and others in this instance. Lawyers are advocates, of course, as part of their profession, but they are advocates for their clients. That is the nature of the system. The lawyer who goes out of his/her way to advocate for or against another lawyer's clients in the midst of a trial which could effect life or death, and does so on a global stage, is not a being professional and so is not professional. Such a lawyer is being unprofessional, almost by definition.
We live in an age where we know something, and are told about it by various people, competent or incompetent, knowledgeable or ignorant, instantly. We are able to react instantly to what we know about or are told, and being able to react we react. Our technology and society encourages action without thought. Worse yet, it encourages reaction without thought. Instant analysis will generally be inadequate analysis, and instant analysis is what is being provided to us. We should treat it accordingly.
Those who felt a conviction was assured blame the prosecutors, or the jurors. I haven't heard the judge condemned yet, but that will likely happen. All of the Anthonys, who certainly seem an oddly disturbing family, are blamed. All perhaps deserve blame.
The trial of Casey Anthony was doomed to be a circus from the start, of course, due in large part to the attention drawn to the case by such as the remarkable Nancy Grace, who was busily milking it for all it was worth for years before it came to trial. What reputation she has is built on the creation of controversy, but this in itself doesn't make her unusual. Such aggrandizement and exploitation is what makes the world go 'round, particularly on TV, and particularly in what passes for journalism in these dark times.
There is always some expert at hand to be pumped by some complaisant anchor or other media minion, of course. There is nothing wrong with the fact they are consulted and displayed for us like trophies in and of itself. We should of course treat them with a degree of scepticism, but there is nothing essentially wrong with them, or their role. There is something very wrong, though, when they come to believe themselves to be something more than what they are, which is at most a part of the show, not the show itself, and a worst a kind of shill for someone, or something, else.
Grace appears to have managed to delude herself to the extent that there is something wrong. Her opinion regarding what was to occur turned out to be wrong, of course, which is surprising only because she tried so hard to assure that the outcome would meet with her expectation. Her reaction to the outcome, so shrill, so angrily maudlin, so rife with self-indulgent pathos, was down-right disturbing. Her self-pitying reaction to criticism being made is merely irritating.
The lesson we should take from this is only indirectly connected to the antics of Grace and other pundits, however. What this should teach us is that the experts, no matter how loudly and passionately they proclaim and pontificate, often don't know a damn thing about what has and will happen or what is happening.
I think this is particularly true where the law is concerned, and where a trial is at issue. Any lawyer who has spent time in a courtroom knows that strange things can happen there, especially when a jury is involved. Any lawyer should know the difference between morality and the law, and justice and the law, and when they profess otherwise it is likely they are being disingenuous or simply are not very good, or experienced, lawyers.
There is something especially reprehensible about a lawyer who is not involved in a case engaging in the kind of posturing engaged in by Grace and others in this instance. Lawyers are advocates, of course, as part of their profession, but they are advocates for their clients. That is the nature of the system. The lawyer who goes out of his/her way to advocate for or against another lawyer's clients in the midst of a trial which could effect life or death, and does so on a global stage, is not a being professional and so is not professional. Such a lawyer is being unprofessional, almost by definition.
We live in an age where we know something, and are told about it by various people, competent or incompetent, knowledgeable or ignorant, instantly. We are able to react instantly to what we know about or are told, and being able to react we react. Our technology and society encourages action without thought. Worse yet, it encourages reaction without thought. Instant analysis will generally be inadequate analysis, and instant analysis is what is being provided to us. We should treat it accordingly.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Sweet Home Chicago
Whenever I visit The Great American City, my birthplace, I find myself happy, regardless of the weather, regardless of the reason for the visit. This certainly isn't the first time I've been in Chicago for the Glorious Fourth of July, but it was the first time I decided to attend Taste of Chicago, and I confess I was less than impressed. I've been to so many enjoyable restaurants there, and none of them were represented. What was available for tasting was rather much what one may expect to see at any similar event. Although the Billy Goat Tavern was represented, the charm of the Billy Goat lies in its location and ambiance on lower Michigan Avenue. Seeing its pale, characterless ghost on Navy Pier was bad enough; seeing it masquerading as a food stand among others in Grant Park was nearly intolerable. Add to this the oppressive humidity and the gargantuan crowd, and I almost despaired.
Almost, but not quite. I was heartened by enjoying some London Pride at the Elephant & Castle on Wabash and Lake (I acquired a fondness for Fuller beers during my visit to Londinium). I went to a wine bar I hadn't been to previously, and there downed several kick-ass reds, all the while snacking on Stilton cheese and olives. The older I get, the more I enjoy good food and drink, it seems.
But above all, I was impressed and cheered, once again, by the proud brazenness of Chicago's downtown. South Michigan Avenue and the park to its east with its statutes and monuments has a kind of Roman character, as does the Loop. North Michigan and the River North area boasts spectacular architecture, and its skyline is continually changing. Even the new Trump monstrosity seems somehow appropriate, as an expression of pride. Chicago's downtown is not subtle. It doesn't whisper words of power. It roars them. It isn't smug or satisfied. The city is still young, and exuberant.
It provides a kind of tonic to this middle-aged man, and makes him wonder whether he can ever be a proper stoic. But stoicism properly considered does not prohibit joy, it merely prepares us to live without it with tranquility if that is necessary. As long as I can visit Chicago, that clearly is not necessary, yet.
Almost, but not quite. I was heartened by enjoying some London Pride at the Elephant & Castle on Wabash and Lake (I acquired a fondness for Fuller beers during my visit to Londinium). I went to a wine bar I hadn't been to previously, and there downed several kick-ass reds, all the while snacking on Stilton cheese and olives. The older I get, the more I enjoy good food and drink, it seems.
But above all, I was impressed and cheered, once again, by the proud brazenness of Chicago's downtown. South Michigan Avenue and the park to its east with its statutes and monuments has a kind of Roman character, as does the Loop. North Michigan and the River North area boasts spectacular architecture, and its skyline is continually changing. Even the new Trump monstrosity seems somehow appropriate, as an expression of pride. Chicago's downtown is not subtle. It doesn't whisper words of power. It roars them. It isn't smug or satisfied. The city is still young, and exuberant.
It provides a kind of tonic to this middle-aged man, and makes him wonder whether he can ever be a proper stoic. But stoicism properly considered does not prohibit joy, it merely prepares us to live without it with tranquility if that is necessary. As long as I can visit Chicago, that clearly is not necessary, yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)