God shows off his impressive knowledge of pi
Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
In Defense of Gossip
This is a response to In Defense of Jesse James by John DeVore. In case you don't feel like reading DeVore's piece, it can be summarized as follows:
- "Moral vigilantism" is bad
- "He who points a finger has three pointed back at him"
- "Leave Jesse James alone!"
Although I think DeVore's article is very well written, I disagree with him on basically every point. I think that public spectacle, for lack of a better term, is a good thing. Public spectacle is beneficial for the same reason as greek plays. It shows our morality. It allows us a society, to decide what our standards are and sends a visible message to the rest of the society on what is permissible and what's not. There are a lot of cultures that do the opposite. In Korea, if a man cheats and the wife says anything; she's the one shunned. Silence is valued over monogamy. What's the result? Men cheat, and women suck it up or are punished. Make no mistake about it, silence favors the man.
So let the world know. Let them vent, let them threaten and point fingers. Maybe it'll keep some other man to control his impulses. Keep some other family together. Some men will always cheat, some never will--but most men are somewhere in between those two poles and society can sway them one way or another. This is precisely why we need the public drama of Jesse James to play out to show the consequences. I'd like to think that most people, men and women, look at Jesse James and think, "what a poor decision." Any maybe some man will consider that the costs of an affair may far outpace the benefits.
I think it's important that people recognize social reprecussions as one of the consequences of cheating. People LIKE you less. The tragedy of the Tiger Woods story is that despite running around town with every woman with a pulse, he's no less of a golfer. But Jesse James is an entertainer--he makes his money off a profession that is taste-based. There's a lesson to be learned there. Personally, I'm interested in seeing the rehabilitation aspect, "can these guys stop cheating now?" or will they just get better at covering their tracks? or neither? That's important for people to get a sense of, in case they should ever catch a cheating spouse. For every Jesse James or Tiger Woods, there's a million non-celebrity cheaters you don't hear about. Not to mention, a million small-town wives, who I hope that hearing these stories gives them a sense that they're not alone and maybe helps them find the strength to leave a bad relationship.
- "Moral vigilantism" is bad
- "He who points a finger has three pointed back at him"
- "Leave Jesse James alone!"
Although I think DeVore's article is very well written, I disagree with him on basically every point. I think that public spectacle, for lack of a better term, is a good thing. Public spectacle is beneficial for the same reason as greek plays. It shows our morality. It allows us a society, to decide what our standards are and sends a visible message to the rest of the society on what is permissible and what's not. There are a lot of cultures that do the opposite. In Korea, if a man cheats and the wife says anything; she's the one shunned. Silence is valued over monogamy. What's the result? Men cheat, and women suck it up or are punished. Make no mistake about it, silence favors the man.
So let the world know. Let them vent, let them threaten and point fingers. Maybe it'll keep some other man to control his impulses. Keep some other family together. Some men will always cheat, some never will--but most men are somewhere in between those two poles and society can sway them one way or another. This is precisely why we need the public drama of Jesse James to play out to show the consequences. I'd like to think that most people, men and women, look at Jesse James and think, "what a poor decision." Any maybe some man will consider that the costs of an affair may far outpace the benefits.
I think it's important that people recognize social reprecussions as one of the consequences of cheating. People LIKE you less. The tragedy of the Tiger Woods story is that despite running around town with every woman with a pulse, he's no less of a golfer. But Jesse James is an entertainer--he makes his money off a profession that is taste-based. There's a lesson to be learned there. Personally, I'm interested in seeing the rehabilitation aspect, "can these guys stop cheating now?" or will they just get better at covering their tracks? or neither? That's important for people to get a sense of, in case they should ever catch a cheating spouse. For every Jesse James or Tiger Woods, there's a million non-celebrity cheaters you don't hear about. Not to mention, a million small-town wives, who I hope that hearing these stories gives them a sense that they're not alone and maybe helps them find the strength to leave a bad relationship.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Moral Luck
Moral luck is a phenomenon whereby an agent is assigned moral blame or praise for an action or its consequences even though it is clear that said agent did not have full control over either the action or its consequences. This problem is perhaps best illustrated by an example that many moral luck philosophers employ – that of a traffic accident.
There are two people driving cars, Driver A, and Driver B. They are alike in every way. Driver A is driving down a road, and, in a second of inattention, runs a red light as an old lady is crossing the street. Driver A slams the brakes, swerves, in short, does everything to try to avoid hitting the woman – alas, he hits the woman and kills her. Driver B, in the meantime, also runs a red light, but since no woman is crossing, he gets a traffic ticket, but nothing more.
If a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to expect him to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B. After all, her course of action resulted in a death, whereas the course of action taken by Driver B was quite uneventful. However, there are absolutely no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is that in the case of Driver A, an external uncontrollable event occurred, whereas it did not in the case of Driver B. The external uncontrollable event, of course, is the woman crossing the street. In other words, there is no difference at all in what the two of them could have done – however, one seems clearly more to blame than the other.
This is the problem of moral luck. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally, or praised equally, as may be the case. At the same time, this is at least intuitively problematic, as – whatever the external circumstances are – one situation resulted in an unfortunate death, and the other did not.
There are two people driving cars, Driver A, and Driver B. They are alike in every way. Driver A is driving down a road, and, in a second of inattention, runs a red light as an old lady is crossing the street. Driver A slams the brakes, swerves, in short, does everything to try to avoid hitting the woman – alas, he hits the woman and kills her. Driver B, in the meantime, also runs a red light, but since no woman is crossing, he gets a traffic ticket, but nothing more.
If a bystander were asked to morally evaluate Drivers A and B, there is very good reason to expect him to say that Driver A is due more moral blame than Driver B. After all, her course of action resulted in a death, whereas the course of action taken by Driver B was quite uneventful. However, there are absolutely no differences in the controllable actions performed by Drivers A and B. The only disparity is that in the case of Driver A, an external uncontrollable event occurred, whereas it did not in the case of Driver B. The external uncontrollable event, of course, is the woman crossing the street. In other words, there is no difference at all in what the two of them could have done – however, one seems clearly more to blame than the other.
This is the problem of moral luck. If it is given that moral responsibility should only be relevant when the agent voluntarily performed or failed to perform some action, Drivers A and B should be blamed equally, or praised equally, as may be the case. At the same time, this is at least intuitively problematic, as – whatever the external circumstances are – one situation resulted in an unfortunate death, and the other did not.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
No, your Sink doesn't Drain Clockwise based on Hemisphere
This is a myth in need of busting. The erroneous bit of folk wisdom says that water always drains in a clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere, and in a counterclockwise direction in the Northern Hemisphere. The explanation is the fabled Coriolis effect. The Coriolis effect explains why big things such as hurricanes rotate in a clockwise direction in the Southern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere. However, when you get down to small phenomena such as the water draining out of your bathtub, the Coriolis effect is insignificant.
This was demonstrated in 1962 by Ascher Shapiro, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shapiro filled a circular tank six feet in diameter and six inches high in such a way that the water swirled in a clockwise direction. (The Coriolis forces in the Northern Hemisphere act in a counterclockwise direction.) Shapiro covered the tank with a plastic sheet, kept the temperature constant, and waited for two hours hours. When he pulled the plug, the water went down the drain clockwise, presumably because it still retained some clockwise motion from filling.
On the other hand, if Shapiro pulled the plug after waiting a full 24 hours, the draining water spiraled counterclockwise, indicating that the motion from filling had subsided enough for the Coriolis effect to take over. When the plug was pulled after four to five hours, the water started draining clockwise, then gradually slowed down and finally started swirling in the opposite direction. Needless to say, most people do not wait 24 hours (or even 4-5 hours) to drain a sink. Hence the influence of the Coriolis effect may be safely described as slight to insignificant.
This was demonstrated in 1962 by Ascher Shapiro, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Shapiro filled a circular tank six feet in diameter and six inches high in such a way that the water swirled in a clockwise direction. (The Coriolis forces in the Northern Hemisphere act in a counterclockwise direction.) Shapiro covered the tank with a plastic sheet, kept the temperature constant, and waited for two hours hours. When he pulled the plug, the water went down the drain clockwise, presumably because it still retained some clockwise motion from filling.
On the other hand, if Shapiro pulled the plug after waiting a full 24 hours, the draining water spiraled counterclockwise, indicating that the motion from filling had subsided enough for the Coriolis effect to take over. When the plug was pulled after four to five hours, the water started draining clockwise, then gradually slowed down and finally started swirling in the opposite direction. Needless to say, most people do not wait 24 hours (or even 4-5 hours) to drain a sink. Hence the influence of the Coriolis effect may be safely described as slight to insignificant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)