Studies confirm what has been obvious to everyone paying attention:
On average, kids at the ages 8-18 are devoting 7 hours a day to media devices, such as T.V, texting, video games, computer, etc.
Its true, based on my experience, if you go to a teenage rich environment, I can almost guarantee that 30+% of those kids are burying their heads in their metaphorical texting inbox. American kids are just not qualified for rebuilding our civilization. That's all there is to it. Circumstances are becoming as demanding as ever, and these kids won't be able to handle them. On top of that, our government has been winning its war against the nuclear family by including more single mothers into wealthfare, acting as their collective beta provider. In turn producing ever more ill-equipped children unable to handle their future responsibilities.
For those that took the PSAT in both 2008 and 2009 and noticed that overall scores were slightly less competitive in the latter year, your not alone - despite the fact that my math scores were the same, I was placed a percentage point better in 2009 than 2008. So not only are kids not becoming more motivated academically despite the turmoil of our times, they are less motivated. This speaks volumes about the short-sightedness of youth - and speaks encyclopedias about the culture that worships it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the outside pressures of depression and degeneration are an impetus for me to bust backside. I still await my scores that I get for this years PSAT, but rest secure that I improved dramatically from last year.
But moving on, I can't see fit to complain, it just makes my job that much easier.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
A new name for myself
Just as the differences between a public schooler and homeschooler are readily apparent, so are the differences between the different breeds of homeschoolers. There are two primary types:
1. Those that are homeschooled but follow a rigid curriculum and often times take many outside classes.
2. Those that are home, hardly take any outside courses, not many tests, no recognizable curriculum, and are motivated not by external rewards, such as grades, but for the sake of learning. Intrinsic versus extrinsic.
The majority happen to fallen under the first category, I on the other hand, fall into the second. Once these differences became apparent to me, I took upon myself to give the latter category a name: A freelance student.
So the next time someone asks me what I do for my schooling, I will now have a specific answer.
As should be obvious, the first category is much more akin to the publicschool system. Superior for certain, but its break from it is not a complete one. Most of the homeschoolers I know participate in many "co-op" classes, which in my opinion is just a repeat of the same mistakes the public school makes; the kids and the environment are better, but collective learning via a classroom is an outdated system of education. Granted that I take a chemistry course at a local community college - which is the only outside class I'm taking, by the way -, but that is a hard science that requires feedback and laboratory work. There are exceptions. But then again, taking English there wasn't exactly an educational marvel.
The main problem with the public school and some homeschool breeds is the same one that faces every centrally planned economy in a socialist commonwealth: coercion. Coercion butchers curiosity and the will to learn. It has been known for literal centuries that men tend to gravitate toward their own ideas as opposed to someone else's. Volition is a self-perpetuating machine that fosters in its victim a far stronger avidity than coercion ever can.
What I am proposing - and what human nature is testifying - is not that school should be a completely lawless activity, but rather one that fosters independence and a will to learn through one's own volition. This is not easy, it takes a whole more energy and intelligence than resorting to force. Remember, force is the refuge of the weak man who doesn't have the brains to handle a situation.
So the logic firmly holds water, but how about the empirical and anecdotal evidence? A quick study of the greatest inventors and innovators should suffice to demonstrate that it was not external rewards like fame and money that motivated geniuses, but the satisfaction of learning and creating for its own sake.
An an anecdotal level, I for example may be considered uneducated by a firm credentialist. And that may be true, but then again, I note with no little amusement that Wikipedia felt it important enough to mention that Ben Bernanke taught himself Calculus in the absence of school support, which of course is exactly what I am doing, as a Junior no less.
I also happen to know more about economics than over 90% of adults; conversation and this blog should suffice to prove this.
I am not apprising you of this because of I want to pronounce my egoism - in fact, I try to evaluate my knowledge on absolute instead of relative terms. But rather, I am spelling this out to provide you with a better understanding behind a better educational process.
But from now on, I am, and for the rest of my time in this world, a freelance student.
1. Those that are homeschooled but follow a rigid curriculum and often times take many outside classes.
2. Those that are home, hardly take any outside courses, not many tests, no recognizable curriculum, and are motivated not by external rewards, such as grades, but for the sake of learning. Intrinsic versus extrinsic.
The majority happen to fallen under the first category, I on the other hand, fall into the second. Once these differences became apparent to me, I took upon myself to give the latter category a name: A freelance student.
So the next time someone asks me what I do for my schooling, I will now have a specific answer.
As should be obvious, the first category is much more akin to the publicschool system. Superior for certain, but its break from it is not a complete one. Most of the homeschoolers I know participate in many "co-op" classes, which in my opinion is just a repeat of the same mistakes the public school makes; the kids and the environment are better, but collective learning via a classroom is an outdated system of education. Granted that I take a chemistry course at a local community college - which is the only outside class I'm taking, by the way -, but that is a hard science that requires feedback and laboratory work. There are exceptions. But then again, taking English there wasn't exactly an educational marvel.
The main problem with the public school and some homeschool breeds is the same one that faces every centrally planned economy in a socialist commonwealth: coercion. Coercion butchers curiosity and the will to learn. It has been known for literal centuries that men tend to gravitate toward their own ideas as opposed to someone else's. Volition is a self-perpetuating machine that fosters in its victim a far stronger avidity than coercion ever can.
What I am proposing - and what human nature is testifying - is not that school should be a completely lawless activity, but rather one that fosters independence and a will to learn through one's own volition. This is not easy, it takes a whole more energy and intelligence than resorting to force. Remember, force is the refuge of the weak man who doesn't have the brains to handle a situation.
So the logic firmly holds water, but how about the empirical and anecdotal evidence? A quick study of the greatest inventors and innovators should suffice to demonstrate that it was not external rewards like fame and money that motivated geniuses, but the satisfaction of learning and creating for its own sake.
An an anecdotal level, I for example may be considered uneducated by a firm credentialist. And that may be true, but then again, I note with no little amusement that Wikipedia felt it important enough to mention that Ben Bernanke taught himself Calculus in the absence of school support, which of course is exactly what I am doing, as a Junior no less.
I also happen to know more about economics than over 90% of adults; conversation and this blog should suffice to prove this.
I am not apprising you of this because of I want to pronounce my egoism - in fact, I try to evaluate my knowledge on absolute instead of relative terms. But rather, I am spelling this out to provide you with a better understanding behind a better educational process.
But from now on, I am, and for the rest of my time in this world, a freelance student.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
"Talent is Overated"
A little over a week ago when I was at the Houston airport awaiting my flight to Baltimore, I picked up the book "Talent is overrated" by Geoff Colvin. I finished it last friday.
Before I start my review it must be noted that his definition of talent is what most people call "natural talent." So his thesis is not that ability and aptitude themselves are overrated, it is that the natural component of what makes talent is dramatized.
What I found interesting about this book is that his conclusions and his way of thinking are very similar the ones that I have been formulating since I have given the matter a thought.
For example, his categorization of the different models of talent are "sports model," "music model," and "business model," which is in accordance with my own thoughts.
His thesis about what really separates the truly talented with the mediocre too, bears a no small resemblance to my own formulations. He contends that it is not natural aptitude that determines greatness, but nor is it just plain old hard work; it is what he calls "deliberate practice." Practice that demands concentration, that is harder each time, that gets one out of his comfort zone, and is "not inherently enjoyable." Practice that incorporates specific, short term goals within a framework of a long term goal. Practice that is expertly designed and gives constant feedback.
Colver gives plenty of examples of what deliberate practice is and real life examples of how it was done, revealing that its the sort of practice that we seldom do.
The author places a special emphasis on the business stars, spelling out the stories of some of America's top C.E.O's.
After delving into the essence of deliberate practice, Colver then proceeds to outline how it can be applied to organizations in making the individuals and teams into a higher caliber. G.E, for example, spends millions of dollars and devotes thousands of work hours for employee development programs.
There is more to the book, of course, and with the conclusion of this review, I will gladly let the reader find out for himself.
Before I start my review it must be noted that his definition of talent is what most people call "natural talent." So his thesis is not that ability and aptitude themselves are overrated, it is that the natural component of what makes talent is dramatized.
What I found interesting about this book is that his conclusions and his way of thinking are very similar the ones that I have been formulating since I have given the matter a thought.
For example, his categorization of the different models of talent are "sports model," "music model," and "business model," which is in accordance with my own thoughts.
His thesis about what really separates the truly talented with the mediocre too, bears a no small resemblance to my own formulations. He contends that it is not natural aptitude that determines greatness, but nor is it just plain old hard work; it is what he calls "deliberate practice." Practice that demands concentration, that is harder each time, that gets one out of his comfort zone, and is "not inherently enjoyable." Practice that incorporates specific, short term goals within a framework of a long term goal. Practice that is expertly designed and gives constant feedback.
Colver gives plenty of examples of what deliberate practice is and real life examples of how it was done, revealing that its the sort of practice that we seldom do.
The author places a special emphasis on the business stars, spelling out the stories of some of America's top C.E.O's.
After delving into the essence of deliberate practice, Colver then proceeds to outline how it can be applied to organizations in making the individuals and teams into a higher caliber. G.E, for example, spends millions of dollars and devotes thousands of work hours for employee development programs.
There is more to the book, of course, and with the conclusion of this review, I will gladly let the reader find out for himself.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The implications of Free Trade
Sometimes there are just those moments when, whatever you are doing, you find yourself in awe of the shattered visage of what used to be your seemingly self-evident preconceptions. Whats obvious is not always right. In fact, it more often than not seems as if the two have an inverse relationship.
One such moment occurred after reading Vox Day's excellent post on the implications of free trade. The Austrian School of Economics, of which both Vox and I for the most part subscribe to, states that free trade is both necessary for economic liberty and economic prosperity. This seemed to be fairly reasonable, which is why it has remained largely unquestioned. But as the empirical evidence is being garnered, many have raised their voices in pronouncing their skepticism of the merits of free trade.
When the observable facts are in agreement with your assumptions, the logic behind those assumptions goes relatively unquestioned, but as the empirical world obliterates those rationales, then the reasoning behind those beliefs undergo a more rigorous examination. Not only has the empirical evidence gone against free trade theory, but its logical foundation in Ricardo's comparative advantage is flawed.
Moreover, it is not just economic prosperity that suffers from free-trade. Economic freedom takes a ruthless beating as well. Nationalism may have its flaws, but it is an absolutely necessary gambit for a country to preserve its freedom. What many do not understand is if free-trade is implemented in its most pure form, then labor and services can also be traded freely in and out of the Country. This is why traditional Libertarians have espoused open borders.
What Vox's post demonstrates is that not only is this economically unsound, it is disastrous for human freedom. Any student of history will know that immigration can transform a country, for the better or (more often) than worse. There are various reasons that immigration - or at least mass immigration - will usually inflict detrimental results to a country, but the primary reason is what I call the equilibrium principle. To illustrate, if a room has one side that is cold and the other side that is hot, over time heat will naturally flow into the colder areas until the temperature throughout the room is homogeneous. In like manner, the prosperous countries, like the USA, attracts foreigners who don't have it so well in their homeland like a donut shop attract a cop, and in doing so, brings his culture. A conflict ensues as the cultures clash, and the society is transformed, usually leaving less freedoms for the people.
So in keeping with libertarian principles, it makes perfect sense to direct a vigilant eye towards open immigration, and, by extension, free trade.
Over two hundred years ago, the founding fathers understood the importance of tariffs in maintaining a strong industrial base. Events have again confirmed their wisdom, as 50 years of Free Trade has eviscerated the America's manufacturing base. Leaving us and our freedoms more dependent and susceptible to other countries.
Free Trade definitely has its merits, and for some countries, particularly developing ones, it is a good economic policy. However, for a service driven economy such as the USA, it is not only an economic ill, but can be disastrous for human liberty. It has already been proven in real time that universal suffrage is directly incompatible with freedom, more often than not will free trade undergo a similar process. Whats obvious is not always correct.
One such moment occurred after reading Vox Day's excellent post on the implications of free trade. The Austrian School of Economics, of which both Vox and I for the most part subscribe to, states that free trade is both necessary for economic liberty and economic prosperity. This seemed to be fairly reasonable, which is why it has remained largely unquestioned. But as the empirical evidence is being garnered, many have raised their voices in pronouncing their skepticism of the merits of free trade.
When the observable facts are in agreement with your assumptions, the logic behind those assumptions goes relatively unquestioned, but as the empirical world obliterates those rationales, then the reasoning behind those beliefs undergo a more rigorous examination. Not only has the empirical evidence gone against free trade theory, but its logical foundation in Ricardo's comparative advantage is flawed.
Moreover, it is not just economic prosperity that suffers from free-trade. Economic freedom takes a ruthless beating as well. Nationalism may have its flaws, but it is an absolutely necessary gambit for a country to preserve its freedom. What many do not understand is if free-trade is implemented in its most pure form, then labor and services can also be traded freely in and out of the Country. This is why traditional Libertarians have espoused open borders.
What Vox's post demonstrates is that not only is this economically unsound, it is disastrous for human freedom. Any student of history will know that immigration can transform a country, for the better or (more often) than worse. There are various reasons that immigration - or at least mass immigration - will usually inflict detrimental results to a country, but the primary reason is what I call the equilibrium principle. To illustrate, if a room has one side that is cold and the other side that is hot, over time heat will naturally flow into the colder areas until the temperature throughout the room is homogeneous. In like manner, the prosperous countries, like the USA, attracts foreigners who don't have it so well in their homeland like a donut shop attract a cop, and in doing so, brings his culture. A conflict ensues as the cultures clash, and the society is transformed, usually leaving less freedoms for the people.
So in keeping with libertarian principles, it makes perfect sense to direct a vigilant eye towards open immigration, and, by extension, free trade.
Over two hundred years ago, the founding fathers understood the importance of tariffs in maintaining a strong industrial base. Events have again confirmed their wisdom, as 50 years of Free Trade has eviscerated the America's manufacturing base. Leaving us and our freedoms more dependent and susceptible to other countries.
Free Trade definitely has its merits, and for some countries, particularly developing ones, it is a good economic policy. However, for a service driven economy such as the USA, it is not only an economic ill, but can be disastrous for human liberty. It has already been proven in real time that universal suffrage is directly incompatible with freedom, more often than not will free trade undergo a similar process. Whats obvious is not always correct.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
The Utopian Nightmare
Reading the various anti-utopian novels got me thinking about the similarities between those fictional stories and the cultural and societal trends that are occurring in western civilization, and which ones provide an accurate model for the future days of America and Europe. The relevant novels that I read were Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. There are also the books Anthem and Animal Farm, but since they were too brief to sketch a sufficiently complex utopia and overlapped to a great degree with the others, I have elected to exclude them in this post.
1984, Description: A world where societal and economic freedoms have been eradicated, a government that is never wrong, contradictions are intellectually viable whenever convenient, and the peoples' thought process are controlled by the limited vocabulary that is regulated by the state.
Verdict: Much of this is happening right now. While private property hasn't been completely been abolished, it is heavily regulated. In England, video cameras are constantly monitoring the streets, much like the telescreen concept expounded by Orwell. We have demagogues that take advantage of the hip words to move the masses, and the popular conception of words such as "fascism" have been completely reversed in meaning while relativism, cultural and moral, has divested the weak masses of all rational thought. As for the infallibility of the Government, the evidence tends to suggest that from their dodgy revisions of the GDP and U3/U6 unemployment numbers, they view themselves as definers of reality.
Virgil's prediction: Individual freedoms will continue to be stripped from the people. The negation of the constitutional right of free association will be expanded beyond the domains of race and sex will most surely happen, while the government will devise policies to create gender and racial parity in all things. Female equalists have already infected academia with their destructive agenda, and now they are setting their eyes on the scientific establishment.
Universal suffrage and third world immigration will no doubt also ensure the ascendancy of government power, and the ongoing economic depression will create the ashes from which a huge phoenix, most likely in the form of big government, will arise from. I don't think State power will rise quite to the degree in 1984, bit it is well within the realm of possibility that something similar, if less extreme, could happen. It has occurred in other countries, after all.
Brave New World Description: A sophisticated and technologically advanced form of eugenics, where instead of weeding the unfit from the population through genocidal means, the state actively modifies the genetic material of a pre-born fetus. It differs from classical eugenics in that it seeks to create different but necessary types of people, hence the alphas, gammas, epsilons etc, who play different roles in society, from the dust sweeper to the CEO. Whereas the classical variant endeavors to form a race where everyone is good and superior.
Because the state realizes that some jobs are hell, it fine tunes the genetics of the chosen individual to enjoy the activity that it has been predestined to do. For example, someone who has to work in the heat is designed to tolerate it, or even actively seeking it. Since the state manages the cultivation of every human being, in and out of the incubator, motherhood is an outdated concept.
Verdict: Eugenics, both positive and negative, has already occurred in abundant proportions. The urge for it has slowed down recently as its credibility was scathed in the 20th century, but unsustainable population levels have caused figures such as Bill Gates to reopen the discussion. And as Western Civilization de-Christianizes itself into embracing secular and pagan moralities, the ethical objection to eugenics that Christianity poses will swiftly fall into obscurity. This is not difficult, let alone impossible, to conceive given how religion and morality have been driven out of the ongoing euthanasia and abortion debates.
As for motherhood, Feminism has already declared war on it. Less and less kids are getting the maternal nurturing they need from their mothers because they are either in school or in day care, both sound strangely reminiscent of brave new world.
Virgil's prediction: Eugenics will again be taken seriously as the failure of its policies will be forgotten and the population will reach levels that the planet cannot sustain, although that problem may very easily be solve be either mass genocide, famine or war. Science and technology will continue to evolve that will make the eugenics more similar to brave new world, although I have my doubts that it will ever reach the point describe the aforementioned novel.
I also have my doubts that genetics and material environment can define Man in his entirety. Due to the Christian notion of the dualistic nature of Man, and also the supernatural beings that influence human behavior, and most importantly, the Fallen nature of Man, I am skeptical that material means can exert that much dominance on individual human beings. So label me dubious for theological reasons, if not practical ones. But overall, I believe that many of the books' aspects have some predictive utility. Mothers will always exist, but the growing feminist movement will ensure that fewer kids will be able be blessed with an active one.
Fahrenheit 451 Description: Information via books is not so much regulated as it is banned. Once the State realizes that you are in possession of a book, it immediately confiscates them to set it in flames. The government has to do this in order to maintain its power, for it cannot allow those pesky ideas of liberty and freedom to soak into the minds of the masses.
Verdict: This resembles more of ancient and medieval times than modern. I don't think its very plausible nowadays, particularly with the inception of the internet. Although, heavily regulated information is not only possible, but probable. We are already seeing figures such as Hillary Clinton pushing for a ban on talk radio, or a parity of opposing information outlets or whatever. So regardless of its impracticalities, tightly managed information will still be attempted by the state, and may even work.
Virgil's prediction: Leftists will try to eradicate the right of free speech for the same reason they have warred against other freedoms -- it hinders their agenda. It will work to some degree, but will be limited. However, they are already controlling most of peoples education through the public school system, which will continue to be a big part of their plan.
Much of these predictions are not meant to be long term ones. If you are appalled by my pessimism, rest secure in the knowledge that just like bad times have followed good ones, so will good times follow bad ones. Empires will rise and fall, and new ones will take their place.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, according to Newtons famous law. And once these predictions come true, so then will the seeds be sown for an even greater movement to counter act it. Revolutions will follow, and people will again appreciate their freedoms. But lets just hope that next time, the people will heed to the warnings laid out by these three books.
1984, Description: A world where societal and economic freedoms have been eradicated, a government that is never wrong, contradictions are intellectually viable whenever convenient, and the peoples' thought process are controlled by the limited vocabulary that is regulated by the state.
Verdict: Much of this is happening right now. While private property hasn't been completely been abolished, it is heavily regulated. In England, video cameras are constantly monitoring the streets, much like the telescreen concept expounded by Orwell. We have demagogues that take advantage of the hip words to move the masses, and the popular conception of words such as "fascism" have been completely reversed in meaning while relativism, cultural and moral, has divested the weak masses of all rational thought. As for the infallibility of the Government, the evidence tends to suggest that from their dodgy revisions of the GDP and U3/U6 unemployment numbers, they view themselves as definers of reality.
Virgil's prediction: Individual freedoms will continue to be stripped from the people. The negation of the constitutional right of free association will be expanded beyond the domains of race and sex will most surely happen, while the government will devise policies to create gender and racial parity in all things. Female equalists have already infected academia with their destructive agenda, and now they are setting their eyes on the scientific establishment.
Universal suffrage and third world immigration will no doubt also ensure the ascendancy of government power, and the ongoing economic depression will create the ashes from which a huge phoenix, most likely in the form of big government, will arise from. I don't think State power will rise quite to the degree in 1984, bit it is well within the realm of possibility that something similar, if less extreme, could happen. It has occurred in other countries, after all.
Brave New World Description: A sophisticated and technologically advanced form of eugenics, where instead of weeding the unfit from the population through genocidal means, the state actively modifies the genetic material of a pre-born fetus. It differs from classical eugenics in that it seeks to create different but necessary types of people, hence the alphas, gammas, epsilons etc, who play different roles in society, from the dust sweeper to the CEO. Whereas the classical variant endeavors to form a race where everyone is good and superior.
Because the state realizes that some jobs are hell, it fine tunes the genetics of the chosen individual to enjoy the activity that it has been predestined to do. For example, someone who has to work in the heat is designed to tolerate it, or even actively seeking it. Since the state manages the cultivation of every human being, in and out of the incubator, motherhood is an outdated concept.
Verdict: Eugenics, both positive and negative, has already occurred in abundant proportions. The urge for it has slowed down recently as its credibility was scathed in the 20th century, but unsustainable population levels have caused figures such as Bill Gates to reopen the discussion. And as Western Civilization de-Christianizes itself into embracing secular and pagan moralities, the ethical objection to eugenics that Christianity poses will swiftly fall into obscurity. This is not difficult, let alone impossible, to conceive given how religion and morality have been driven out of the ongoing euthanasia and abortion debates.
As for motherhood, Feminism has already declared war on it. Less and less kids are getting the maternal nurturing they need from their mothers because they are either in school or in day care, both sound strangely reminiscent of brave new world.
Virgil's prediction: Eugenics will again be taken seriously as the failure of its policies will be forgotten and the population will reach levels that the planet cannot sustain, although that problem may very easily be solve be either mass genocide, famine or war. Science and technology will continue to evolve that will make the eugenics more similar to brave new world, although I have my doubts that it will ever reach the point describe the aforementioned novel.
I also have my doubts that genetics and material environment can define Man in his entirety. Due to the Christian notion of the dualistic nature of Man, and also the supernatural beings that influence human behavior, and most importantly, the Fallen nature of Man, I am skeptical that material means can exert that much dominance on individual human beings. So label me dubious for theological reasons, if not practical ones. But overall, I believe that many of the books' aspects have some predictive utility. Mothers will always exist, but the growing feminist movement will ensure that fewer kids will be able be blessed with an active one.
Fahrenheit 451 Description: Information via books is not so much regulated as it is banned. Once the State realizes that you are in possession of a book, it immediately confiscates them to set it in flames. The government has to do this in order to maintain its power, for it cannot allow those pesky ideas of liberty and freedom to soak into the minds of the masses.
Verdict: This resembles more of ancient and medieval times than modern. I don't think its very plausible nowadays, particularly with the inception of the internet. Although, heavily regulated information is not only possible, but probable. We are already seeing figures such as Hillary Clinton pushing for a ban on talk radio, or a parity of opposing information outlets or whatever. So regardless of its impracticalities, tightly managed information will still be attempted by the state, and may even work.
Virgil's prediction: Leftists will try to eradicate the right of free speech for the same reason they have warred against other freedoms -- it hinders their agenda. It will work to some degree, but will be limited. However, they are already controlling most of peoples education through the public school system, which will continue to be a big part of their plan.
Much of these predictions are not meant to be long term ones. If you are appalled by my pessimism, rest secure in the knowledge that just like bad times have followed good ones, so will good times follow bad ones. Empires will rise and fall, and new ones will take their place.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, according to Newtons famous law. And once these predictions come true, so then will the seeds be sown for an even greater movement to counter act it. Revolutions will follow, and people will again appreciate their freedoms. But lets just hope that next time, the people will heed to the warnings laid out by these three books.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Canticle for Leibowitz -- A Review
Acquaintances of mine will recall that I was highly impressed with the classic science fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz. My Dad handed it to me as a recommendation, so I decided to give it a shot, and I am not disappointed that I did. There were many aspects of it that I appreciated. First, it was well written. The style was eminently enjoyable to read, and had enough high-level vocabulary words and intellectual concepts to keep me intrigued. Second, the conversations and the monkish atmosphere of the book was an interesting twist for a nominally Sci-Fi novel. And third, it contained several valuable messages that could shed some prophetic light.
The book consists of three parts, the first takes place 600 years after Civilization has destroyed itself via science, where brother Francis, a monk of an isolated abbey that is trying to recover the lost knowledge of advance civilization through textual criticism, stumbles across some remnants of the great Saint Leibowitz. This discovery, if valid, would have grand implications for the canonization of the Saint.
The second part, which takes place some 700 years after, centers around the confrontation between the abbey and one of the most brilliant secular thinkers, who is also attempting to salvage the knowledge that is still lost from 1300 years earlier. This part is my favorite out of the book, as I found the dialogue and plot compelling.
The third part, roughly 2000 years after the previous civilization's self destruction, is where the technology and knowledge base has returned to its historic levels, and thus threatening society in a similar manner. The third parts' primary concern is the abbey's conflict not with a secular scholar, but instead with the morality of the secular world, particularly its custom of euthanasia.
When bombs have been set off resulting in the death and injury of millions, the abbey becomes a place where the medical authorities use to take in the injured people. And because of the excruciating pain that the victims are going through, the medical team seeks to solve this through euthanasia. This is emphatically prohibited by the head monk on moral grounds, and a conflict subsequently followed.
Anyhow, out of the many books I have read this year, this one would certainly be on or near the top on my recommendation list.
The book consists of three parts, the first takes place 600 years after Civilization has destroyed itself via science, where brother Francis, a monk of an isolated abbey that is trying to recover the lost knowledge of advance civilization through textual criticism, stumbles across some remnants of the great Saint Leibowitz. This discovery, if valid, would have grand implications for the canonization of the Saint.
The second part, which takes place some 700 years after, centers around the confrontation between the abbey and one of the most brilliant secular thinkers, who is also attempting to salvage the knowledge that is still lost from 1300 years earlier. This part is my favorite out of the book, as I found the dialogue and plot compelling.
The third part, roughly 2000 years after the previous civilization's self destruction, is where the technology and knowledge base has returned to its historic levels, and thus threatening society in a similar manner. The third parts' primary concern is the abbey's conflict not with a secular scholar, but instead with the morality of the secular world, particularly its custom of euthanasia.
When bombs have been set off resulting in the death and injury of millions, the abbey becomes a place where the medical authorities use to take in the injured people. And because of the excruciating pain that the victims are going through, the medical team seeks to solve this through euthanasia. This is emphatically prohibited by the head monk on moral grounds, and a conflict subsequently followed.
Anyhow, out of the many books I have read this year, this one would certainly be on or near the top on my recommendation list.
Reading list: Semptember 2010- June 2010 Non-Fiction edition
After ripping through a whole bunch of Fiction during the summer, I decided that I needed to reorient myself in studying some more non-fiction, which has been somewhat lacking in the previous months. Here is my non-fiction reading list for this school year, in their respective categories:
The Federalist Papers -- Political Theory
The Road to Serfdom, F.A Hayek -- Economics
The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant -- Philosophy
The Story of Science vol. 1-3, Joy Hakim -- Science
After Tamerlane, John Darwin -- History
The Inferno, Dante -- Theology
The Art of War, Sun Tzu -- Warfare
The History of Warfare, John keegan -- Warfare
The Federalist Papers -- Political Theory
The Road to Serfdom, F.A Hayek -- Economics
The Story of Philosophy, Will Durant -- Philosophy
The Story of Science vol. 1-3, Joy Hakim -- Science
After Tamerlane, John Darwin -- History
The Inferno, Dante -- Theology
The Art of War, Sun Tzu -- Warfare
The History of Warfare, John keegan -- Warfare
Thursday, September 2, 2010
The book.... its good
I finished Lord of flies earlier this afternoon. It took me longer to read than I initially anticipated, but it sure was one heck of a book. What I found to be be particularly interesting was its resemblance with the TV show Lost, and how the latter drew heavily from the former. There undoubtedly were differences in the two scenarios, but there were enough similarities so as to be noticeable, and more, I may I add, than just the obvious fact that both the cases concerned being stranded on an island. The fact that the two experienced divisions within their party and the subsequent in group/out group enmity that followed was in my opinion the most intriguing example.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
No better example
Jeffrey Sachs, known for his profoundly unscientific beliefs in Global Warming and the ability to end world poverty, has written his final and Faraway column for Scientific American. And in it, he puts digs himself into logical hole of epic proportions:
Poor Jeff simply doesn't understand what the previous century has demonstrated countless amount of times. Public property and its means of production is a trainwreck of an idea from an efficiency standpoint, a horror in the mass slaughters it has engaged in, and in the suppression of true manhood.
The most telling bit of his entire article however, is that it provides the perfect proof of the link between the Environmental Movement and Totalitarianism. Private property is the only -- the ONLY -- defense mechanism the people have against a ruthless totalitarian government that the twentieth century produced in no short order.
Sachs' rants would be amusing, if it weren't for the fact that so many people taking his musings seriously. I would say powned, but that may not even suffice to describe Sachs' intellectual downfall sufficiently.
In the beginning of the 1st Century, Jesus Christ had to suffer with many deluded fools. He did not treat them lightly, He chastised them, nor did He tolerate them. He repeatedly criticized the "wise" men of the world for their arrogant incompetence and misunderstandings. Our time is no different, and although we have 2000 more years of history upon which to draw, there is still as much folly running rampant in the intellectual air that we breath. For proof of this, one need look further than Jeffrey Sachs and others like him. And like our Lord and Savior, we should not tolerate it.
What a pathetic, petty, little diatribe. Mr. Sachs, you desperately need to have a reality check. Private property as the American delusion? Try the American dream.
This goal was not even remotely achieved. Indeed, it was barely even noticed by Americans: The U.S signed the convention in 1992 but never ratified it.Ratification feel victim to the uniquely American delusion that virtually all of nature should be subdivided into parcels of private property, within which owners should have their own way.
Poor Jeff simply doesn't understand what the previous century has demonstrated countless amount of times. Public property and its means of production is a trainwreck of an idea from an efficiency standpoint, a horror in the mass slaughters it has engaged in, and in the suppression of true manhood.
The most telling bit of his entire article however, is that it provides the perfect proof of the link between the Environmental Movement and Totalitarianism. Private property is the only -- the ONLY -- defense mechanism the people have against a ruthless totalitarian government that the twentieth century produced in no short order.
Sachs' rants would be amusing, if it weren't for the fact that so many people taking his musings seriously. I would say powned, but that may not even suffice to describe Sachs' intellectual downfall sufficiently.
In the beginning of the 1st Century, Jesus Christ had to suffer with many deluded fools. He did not treat them lightly, He chastised them, nor did He tolerate them. He repeatedly criticized the "wise" men of the world for their arrogant incompetence and misunderstandings. Our time is no different, and although we have 2000 more years of history upon which to draw, there is still as much folly running rampant in the intellectual air that we breath. For proof of this, one need look further than Jeffrey Sachs and others like him. And like our Lord and Savior, we should not tolerate it.
Monday, August 23, 2010
The perfect Curriculum
It being the first day of school, I found myself thinking about what the most important aspects of education are, and how to obtain a solid knowledge base revolving around those aspects.
Now then, it is no secret that I loathe being lectured to; I asked my mother to pull me out of the school system when I was still in second grade because of the inevitable boredom that it wrought. Looking back at 17, I have to say that I do not regret that transition. Moreover, my conviction that one can obtain a superior education by self-learning is as strong as it has ever been. It was always obvious on a theoretical level, but now, at least for myself, it has proven to be empirically undeniable. What these years of self-education has also taught me is that while textbooks are necessary for some subjects, such as math and science, they are demonstrably not as useful has many books and blogs written by ordinary authors. One can reliably obtain the appropriate knowledge of politics, economics, social behavior, game theory, polemic argumentation, and all the big ideas that moved the world by reading Dale Carnegie, Vox Day, Roissy, and the Mises Intstitute.
Much this knowledge, useful knowledge, is seldom taught in the school system, public or private -- I very much doubt that one could go to a local high school, or even college, and find someone that knows what either Social Game Theory or Austrian economics are.
The problem with writing is easily solved: open a blog just like this one. Write about the books you read. And because you not drooling on your desk listening to a teacher for 7 hours a day, you will have sufficient time to read plenty of books.
People are starting to recognize the benefits. The ongoing Homeschool revolution, and the superior tests scores by homeschoolers, are merely providing empirical support from what was always obvious on a theoretical level. And that is to put the responsibility of your education into your own - and your parents'- hands.
Now then, it is no secret that I loathe being lectured to; I asked my mother to pull me out of the school system when I was still in second grade because of the inevitable boredom that it wrought. Looking back at 17, I have to say that I do not regret that transition. Moreover, my conviction that one can obtain a superior education by self-learning is as strong as it has ever been. It was always obvious on a theoretical level, but now, at least for myself, it has proven to be empirically undeniable. What these years of self-education has also taught me is that while textbooks are necessary for some subjects, such as math and science, they are demonstrably not as useful has many books and blogs written by ordinary authors. One can reliably obtain the appropriate knowledge of politics, economics, social behavior, game theory, polemic argumentation, and all the big ideas that moved the world by reading Dale Carnegie, Vox Day, Roissy, and the Mises Intstitute.
Much this knowledge, useful knowledge, is seldom taught in the school system, public or private -- I very much doubt that one could go to a local high school, or even college, and find someone that knows what either Social Game Theory or Austrian economics are.
The problem with writing is easily solved: open a blog just like this one. Write about the books you read. And because you not drooling on your desk listening to a teacher for 7 hours a day, you will have sufficient time to read plenty of books.
People are starting to recognize the benefits. The ongoing Homeschool revolution, and the superior tests scores by homeschoolers, are merely providing empirical support from what was always obvious on a theoretical level. And that is to put the responsibility of your education into your own - and your parents'- hands.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The childish problem of evil
You know that there is not a single valid atheist argument out there when you hear infidels regurgitating the silly and irrelevant problem of evil, especially when they apply it to the Christian God.
Moreover, this avoids the Biblically-supported doctrine that the significant ruler of this world, at least for the time being, is a malicious being seeking the damnation of every soul. The Bible refers to him has lucifer, or satan. When God created the earth, He gave the race of Man dominion over it. But Man foolishly gave it away when Adam and Eve gave into the temptation to eat the apple, because they "wanted to be like gods". This in turn, allowed satan to usurp Man's dominion over this world into his own hands. This explains why Paul refers to him as “the god of this age” and how satan was able to tempt Jesus Christ by giving him the entire world if He were only to worship him.
It is clear that while the so-called problem of evil is convincing to the atheist who seeks to rationalize his disbelief, it is not so convincing to anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Bible and the orthodox interpretations of it.
But when we look at the world around us, we find prevalent instances of apparently gratuitous evil—pointless evils from which no greater good seems to result. According to proponents, the existence of apparently gratuitous evil provides strong evidence that God (as traditionally defined) does not exist (e.g., William Rowe)By far, the problem of evil is the most ignorant, childish, and irrelevant argument against the Christians religion. And while many theologians have concocted their various complex theodicies on how the evil that exists in this world in all part of God's plan, the answer is actually much more simple. Christianity requires the existence of evil, it is predicated on it, for both logical and documentary reasons. Without evil, Man is not fallen, there is no need for a Savior, and the Christian worldview would be demolished. For if there is one single person, man or women, that leads a life devoid of evil, then you can dismiss Christianity once and for all.
Moreover, this avoids the Biblically-supported doctrine that the significant ruler of this world, at least for the time being, is a malicious being seeking the damnation of every soul. The Bible refers to him has lucifer, or satan. When God created the earth, He gave the race of Man dominion over it. But Man foolishly gave it away when Adam and Eve gave into the temptation to eat the apple, because they "wanted to be like gods". This in turn, allowed satan to usurp Man's dominion over this world into his own hands. This explains why Paul refers to him as “the god of this age” and how satan was able to tempt Jesus Christ by giving him the entire world if He were only to worship him.
It is clear that while the so-called problem of evil is convincing to the atheist who seeks to rationalize his disbelief, it is not so convincing to anyone who has even a basic understanding of the Bible and the orthodox interpretations of it.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Some thoughts this Summer
Its been a little quiet here at the alpha anomaly lately as I spent two weeks up in Canada and New York in July. That, and admittedly, my writing faculties have been suffering a stroke of laziness that sweeps through once and a while. What I have not been lazy in, however, is my reading. My reading has picked up this summer, and I am going at the fastest reading rate in my all of my 17 years of existence. I am currently reading A Canticle for Leibowitz, one heck of a book by the way, one in which I will surely be writing a book review once I finish it in its entirety. Additionally, I have been contemplating an idea that I could use to write my first novel. It is my intention to place the setting in a dark age, where leftist ideology has dominated all aspects of life, the engines that drive the world are absent, and where the knowledge of those engines have been completely stamped out. Its not total ignorance of the people, its just all Marx, Freud, Darwin, and Keynes. There is no freedom of thought or speech, and there are none that know the secrets of capitalism and the scientific method. Until one day....
Well, lets just say that I don't have the story completely mapped out, but I hope to add some interesting aspects to it that I hope will make it somewhat original .
Well, lets just say that I don't have the story completely mapped out, but I hope to add some interesting aspects to it that I hope will make it somewhat original .
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The problem with Washington
Many have expressed their dismay with regards to the behavior of the politicians in Washington. This of course is a perfectly justifiable position; most politicians are frauds, their inability to understand basic principles of economics and human nature is laughable, and they seldom act within the general public interest.
There are several reasons why the folks at Washington are such a hapless bunch. First, most politicians are not the selfless, humble servants determined to advance the common welfare of the people that they make themselves out to be, but rather egotistical individuals that are motivated by extreme personal ambition. They are motivated by Power and Position, and of course, the perks that come with it. However, since we live in a democracy, or more specifically, a quasi- representative democratic republic, one must make a good public impression if one wishes to maintain their position. This invariably leads to actions that seek to rack up numbers in the voting polls. This explains the contradictory and hypocritical actions of politicians, which of course, was obvious to anyone who has half the wit to figure out that not everyone tells the truth, and that there is sometimes a monster behind that sweet talking young demagogue .
Second, is that they are human beings, and are just as corrupted by power as anyone else, arguably even more so. Since most of them do not view the people as individual human beings, but rather as a mass sea of faces, they tend to put their personal interests ahead of the people. They ease their consciousness that tells them they are in the wrong by concocting rationalizations for their corrupt behavior. Many academic disciplines are literally ruined because politicians only hear the theories that their ears want to hear.
The reason why Keynes general economic theory became such a widely held paradigm was not because of its intellectual veracity, but because it informed the politicians that their wasteful government programs and corrupt behavior was not only harmless, but beneficial to the economy. The general acceptance of the Global Warming fraud had a similar story.
The third reason is that politicians, like most everyone else, fall into functional idiocy. They may have P.H.D's from all the elite schools, but if they haven't bothered to use their intelligence to analyze many of their assumptions, then you will find even the most "educated" minds believing what the thinking man knows to be fairytales.
I don't believe that this explains all of the mysteries and idiosycracies of the Washington elite, but I hope that it will clear up some confusions with regards to the egregious blunders made by the people that run this country.
P.S It may appear by my terminology that I am lumping up every single politician together, even though this is not my intention. I recognize that are many good politicians, however the problem is that most of them demonstrably are not, these are the ones I was critiquing in my post.
There are several reasons why the folks at Washington are such a hapless bunch. First, most politicians are not the selfless, humble servants determined to advance the common welfare of the people that they make themselves out to be, but rather egotistical individuals that are motivated by extreme personal ambition. They are motivated by Power and Position, and of course, the perks that come with it. However, since we live in a democracy, or more specifically, a quasi- representative democratic republic, one must make a good public impression if one wishes to maintain their position. This invariably leads to actions that seek to rack up numbers in the voting polls. This explains the contradictory and hypocritical actions of politicians, which of course, was obvious to anyone who has half the wit to figure out that not everyone tells the truth, and that there is sometimes a monster behind that sweet talking young demagogue .
Second, is that they are human beings, and are just as corrupted by power as anyone else, arguably even more so. Since most of them do not view the people as individual human beings, but rather as a mass sea of faces, they tend to put their personal interests ahead of the people. They ease their consciousness that tells them they are in the wrong by concocting rationalizations for their corrupt behavior. Many academic disciplines are literally ruined because politicians only hear the theories that their ears want to hear.
The reason why Keynes general economic theory became such a widely held paradigm was not because of its intellectual veracity, but because it informed the politicians that their wasteful government programs and corrupt behavior was not only harmless, but beneficial to the economy. The general acceptance of the Global Warming fraud had a similar story.
The third reason is that politicians, like most everyone else, fall into functional idiocy. They may have P.H.D's from all the elite schools, but if they haven't bothered to use their intelligence to analyze many of their assumptions, then you will find even the most "educated" minds believing what the thinking man knows to be fairytales.
I don't believe that this explains all of the mysteries and idiosycracies of the Washington elite, but I hope that it will clear up some confusions with regards to the egregious blunders made by the people that run this country.
P.S It may appear by my terminology that I am lumping up every single politician together, even though this is not my intention. I recognize that are many good politicians, however the problem is that most of them demonstrably are not, these are the ones I was critiquing in my post.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
To find the right balance
There are two primary methods of argumentation; one is to make use of the observable and empirical facts, which is called empiricism, the other is to solely rely on ontological reasoning and a priori logic, which is what I will call Medieval logic, because that was the method that the philosophers and theologians of the Medieval ages used. To give an example of each of these methods being utilized, I will present a hypothesis and will support it with just empiricism and then with just ontological reasoning.
My Hypothesis is this: Creating the Federal Reserve, contrary to its initial purposes, has created more monetary instability and inflation than would otherwise be the case if it were never established. Now then, if I were to take an empirical approach in demonstrating my case, I would make use of the facts and inflation statistics since its establishment in 1913, which show tremendous inflation and several boom-bust cycles, then I would juxtapose that data with what happened at a time where there was no central bank. If the observable facts show that there was more inflation with a central bank than there was with a gold standard, for example, then my argument is sound from an empirical approach.
But if I were to try to prove my hypothesis through logical means, then I would say that that is exactly what a central bank does, it prints money, and that if money is not connected to gold or silver or whatever, then inflation is bound to happen.
As it happens, both approaches lead to the same conclusion. But sometimes it is not always that simple. To give a recent example, conservatives rightly concluded the Obama stimulus package failed because it didn't bring unemployment down to its intended levels. Paul Krugman, however, has not let the observable facts get in the way with his philosophical pre-conceptions, as he has invariably stated that the stimulus package was "too small" and wasn't "applied properly," which is why it didn't work. This is why Murray Rothbard has argued that only logic can reliably test an economic theory, which explains the Austrian distaste for empiricism and emphasis on arguing by first principles and fundamental axioms (more on that later).
But sometimes just relying on philosophical reasoning can also lead to wrong conclusions. This is especially true with regards to human behavior. Because human action is seldom rational, and thus not easily predictable, taking a logical approach is bound to produce wildly inaccurate results.
For these reasons, it is shaky to solely base an argument on one or the other. And that the most effective argument is the one that utilizes both methods.
A perfect example is the case against Socialism. In 1922, Ludwig von Mises published a paper in which he argued that Socialism precluded rational economic calculation. Capitalism solves this through a price point, which is determined by supply and demand. But where the government owns the means of production, there can be no price point, and thus no room for economic calculation. This was a sound philosophical thesis, but it was only when the mass of observable failures in the countries where Socialism was enacted was the theory largely abandoned.
So while it is true that the proper balance between philosophical reasoning and empiricism differs from field to field, it is almost surely wise to be makes of both methods; to cite the relevant facts and then explain logically why this should be the case.
My Hypothesis is this: Creating the Federal Reserve, contrary to its initial purposes, has created more monetary instability and inflation than would otherwise be the case if it were never established. Now then, if I were to take an empirical approach in demonstrating my case, I would make use of the facts and inflation statistics since its establishment in 1913, which show tremendous inflation and several boom-bust cycles, then I would juxtapose that data with what happened at a time where there was no central bank. If the observable facts show that there was more inflation with a central bank than there was with a gold standard, for example, then my argument is sound from an empirical approach.
But if I were to try to prove my hypothesis through logical means, then I would say that that is exactly what a central bank does, it prints money, and that if money is not connected to gold or silver or whatever, then inflation is bound to happen.
As it happens, both approaches lead to the same conclusion. But sometimes it is not always that simple. To give a recent example, conservatives rightly concluded the Obama stimulus package failed because it didn't bring unemployment down to its intended levels. Paul Krugman, however, has not let the observable facts get in the way with his philosophical pre-conceptions, as he has invariably stated that the stimulus package was "too small" and wasn't "applied properly," which is why it didn't work. This is why Murray Rothbard has argued that only logic can reliably test an economic theory, which explains the Austrian distaste for empiricism and emphasis on arguing by first principles and fundamental axioms (more on that later).
But sometimes just relying on philosophical reasoning can also lead to wrong conclusions. This is especially true with regards to human behavior. Because human action is seldom rational, and thus not easily predictable, taking a logical approach is bound to produce wildly inaccurate results.
For these reasons, it is shaky to solely base an argument on one or the other. And that the most effective argument is the one that utilizes both methods.
A perfect example is the case against Socialism. In 1922, Ludwig von Mises published a paper in which he argued that Socialism precluded rational economic calculation. Capitalism solves this through a price point, which is determined by supply and demand. But where the government owns the means of production, there can be no price point, and thus no room for economic calculation. This was a sound philosophical thesis, but it was only when the mass of observable failures in the countries where Socialism was enacted was the theory largely abandoned.
So while it is true that the proper balance between philosophical reasoning and empiricism differs from field to field, it is almost surely wise to be makes of both methods; to cite the relevant facts and then explain logically why this should be the case.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Find a better lexicon
During my various internet skirmishes, I have had the great fortune of finding some very talented and rigorous writers. But they are rare, as I have also come across more writers that really need to sharpen their debating skills. Or, more specifically, there ability to use the right words in the proper context. Consider the following statement by a Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman:
Mr. Krugman, you desperately need to find a better word than *bad*. There are two possible explanations for why he is unable to come up with a better term.
1. His vocabulary just doesn't stretch that far. He uses the word *bad* because there is no other word contained in his cranium. Kind of like that 4th grader that I ran into yesterday.
2. Krugman uses the word *bad* because he wants to convey the weakness of Hayek's theory about the Great Depression, but doesn't know WHY or HOW it is weak, so he unspecifically says that it is bad.
Now then, for all the flack that I would like to give Krugman for how willfully obtuse he is , there is plenty of evidence that he has a vocabulary that surpasses a fourth grader. So the second explanation seems to be the likely one, and that he really has no idea how to correctly describe the flaws in Hayek's argument because he doesn't he can't identify them.
Let me elaborate further; if I were to describe an opponents argument, I wouldn't simply say it is *bad*, I would use terms that specifically relate to why exactly the argument is wrong. For example, I would describe the secular argument that the founding fathers were mostly influenced by the enlightenment as demonstrably false that relies on many factual inaccuracies, because that is why argument is bad. Additionally, I would describe the Euthyphro dilemma as logically invalid, Keynesian economics to be intrinsically flawed, and Marx's labor theory of value as outdated.
All of these terms have different meanings; they are not different words to describe the same thing. It is readily apparent that the reason Krugman says that Hayek's hypothesis is bad is because he doesn't know why it is bad. Is it empirically false? Contradictory? Specious? Outdated? Circular?
In the same vein, P.Z Myers, in a recent email exchange I had with him, calls Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist *awful*. So P.Z, in what way is the book awful? To this P.Z has nothing to say because he doesn't know. The problem is not that he can't back up his assertions, it is that he cannot even properly characterize an argument beyond simply calling it *awful*. Dear Paul and P.Z, you guys truly need to step up your lexicon and intellectual rigor if you really want to be taken seriously; because dismissing an argument as *bad* or *awful* simply will not fly. The only purpose that that serves is to demonstrate your complete inability to discern the mistakes of you opponents as well as discrediting your intellectual honesty because it shows how you dismiss arguments that you don't like out of hand.
I ask you, dear skeptical reader, would you really takes theses writers' poorly constructed cliches at face value? I cannot say that this is a universal law, but it has proven to be a rather useful B.S filter when examining an authors writing ability.
First, Hayek was as bad on the Depression as I thought. The claim that “many of the troubles of the world at the present time are due to imprudent borrowing and spending on the part of the public authorities” — in 1932! — is bizarre.
Mr. Krugman, you desperately need to find a better word than *bad*. There are two possible explanations for why he is unable to come up with a better term.
1. His vocabulary just doesn't stretch that far. He uses the word *bad* because there is no other word contained in his cranium. Kind of like that 4th grader that I ran into yesterday.
2. Krugman uses the word *bad* because he wants to convey the weakness of Hayek's theory about the Great Depression, but doesn't know WHY or HOW it is weak, so he unspecifically says that it is bad.
Now then, for all the flack that I would like to give Krugman for how willfully obtuse he is , there is plenty of evidence that he has a vocabulary that surpasses a fourth grader. So the second explanation seems to be the likely one, and that he really has no idea how to correctly describe the flaws in Hayek's argument because he doesn't he can't identify them.
Let me elaborate further; if I were to describe an opponents argument, I wouldn't simply say it is *bad*, I would use terms that specifically relate to why exactly the argument is wrong. For example, I would describe the secular argument that the founding fathers were mostly influenced by the enlightenment as demonstrably false that relies on many factual inaccuracies, because that is why argument is bad. Additionally, I would describe the Euthyphro dilemma as logically invalid, Keynesian economics to be intrinsically flawed, and Marx's labor theory of value as outdated.
All of these terms have different meanings; they are not different words to describe the same thing. It is readily apparent that the reason Krugman says that Hayek's hypothesis is bad is because he doesn't know why it is bad. Is it empirically false? Contradictory? Specious? Outdated? Circular?
In the same vein, P.Z Myers, in a recent email exchange I had with him, calls Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist *awful*. So P.Z, in what way is the book awful? To this P.Z has nothing to say because he doesn't know. The problem is not that he can't back up his assertions, it is that he cannot even properly characterize an argument beyond simply calling it *awful*. Dear Paul and P.Z, you guys truly need to step up your lexicon and intellectual rigor if you really want to be taken seriously; because dismissing an argument as *bad* or *awful* simply will not fly. The only purpose that that serves is to demonstrate your complete inability to discern the mistakes of you opponents as well as discrediting your intellectual honesty because it shows how you dismiss arguments that you don't like out of hand.
I ask you, dear skeptical reader, would you really takes theses writers' poorly constructed cliches at face value? I cannot say that this is a universal law, but it has proven to be a rather useful B.S filter when examining an authors writing ability.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
How to argue like a champion
In my experience with internet and blogospheric debate, I have picked up some rather useful advice in constructing a coherent and convincing argument. I hope you will receive these tips of wisdom in the manner that I humbly present them.
1. Always share with others your personal stories and preferences, they don't even have to relate to the specific case you are making, because everyone is so interested in what you happen to think about the matter. You define reality, not observe it.
2. To add on to that, do make sure that you provide personal anecdotes in lieu of actual statistical data. Because a micro exception always trumps the macro rule.
3. Once you have demonstrated that a certain authority is in accordance with your views, openly declare the debate to be settled because the authorities are never, ever, wrong. Their pratfall performance regarding the issues of global warming, Socialism, Keynesianism, and String theory notwithstanding.
4. When examining the arguments of your opponent, the best way to refute him is by looking at his motives. If there are any signs that he may have any biases, promptly proclaim that his arguments don't merit discussion because he is [insert derogatory term here]
5. Openly declare that you will present a rebuttal to a certain book/article/speech before you actually dive into it and know what it actually says. You know, because you're so open-minded that regardless of what happens to be in those articles of information, you won't change your mind.
6. Regard any accusation of racism or sexism as an immediate victory on your part. Because any view conflicting with the egalitarian aspects of mankind is evil of the worst sort.
7. If somebody makes a factual inaccuracy that is only tangentially related to the argument and not the foundation of it, concentrate solely on that inaccuracy while completely ignoring the larger and more important part of the argument that is actually relevant to its validity. Example: "Our national debt is 12 trillion, we need to stop government spending." Rebuttal: "No! Our national debt is 11 trillion, therefore we need to keep spending!"
There you go. With those precious gems of wisdom, you will forever be an unbeatable debate champion.
1. Always share with others your personal stories and preferences, they don't even have to relate to the specific case you are making, because everyone is so interested in what you happen to think about the matter. You define reality, not observe it.
2. To add on to that, do make sure that you provide personal anecdotes in lieu of actual statistical data. Because a micro exception always trumps the macro rule.
3. Once you have demonstrated that a certain authority is in accordance with your views, openly declare the debate to be settled because the authorities are never, ever, wrong. Their pratfall performance regarding the issues of global warming, Socialism, Keynesianism, and String theory notwithstanding.
4. When examining the arguments of your opponent, the best way to refute him is by looking at his motives. If there are any signs that he may have any biases, promptly proclaim that his arguments don't merit discussion because he is [insert derogatory term here]
5. Openly declare that you will present a rebuttal to a certain book/article/speech before you actually dive into it and know what it actually says. You know, because you're so open-minded that regardless of what happens to be in those articles of information, you won't change your mind.
6. Regard any accusation of racism or sexism as an immediate victory on your part. Because any view conflicting with the egalitarian aspects of mankind is evil of the worst sort.
7. If somebody makes a factual inaccuracy that is only tangentially related to the argument and not the foundation of it, concentrate solely on that inaccuracy while completely ignoring the larger and more important part of the argument that is actually relevant to its validity. Example: "Our national debt is 12 trillion, we need to stop government spending." Rebuttal: "No! Our national debt is 11 trillion, therefore we need to keep spending!"
There you go. With those precious gems of wisdom, you will forever be an unbeatable debate champion.
Fearless violaters of logic
Lest you have any doubts about the total economic ignorance that pervades the internet, this should remove any doubts. Consider the following comments that were made by several brilliant men on a certain internet thread.
Still, it's pretty hard to argue with the fact that a wartime command economy putting people back to work like crazy was one of the most instructive case for keynesianism.
I'm a liberal and I'm fairly certain WWII is what got us out of the Depression. Because a whole bunch of jobs opened up all of a sudden, and the unemployed and the technically-not-unemployed ( or did labor stats back then include 'sick of expending effort looking for jobs that either aren't out there or won't hire me'?) became the employed. If we could duplicate that without putting a bunch of people in uniform to go shoot people, we might be getting somewhere.
"The war" was massive government spending, public employment, and even industrial control boards, hardly an indictment of government interventionism.
There you have it, words of wisdom from the intellectually super powered. Now all we have to do is get everyone to dig holes and then fill them up again and we'll get ourselves out of our present economic predicament! I don't have a PHD in economics or anything, but something tells me that that is not how a real economy actually functions.
What these illiterate morons have trouble grasping is that employment is not synonymous with wealth. The two are not totally unrelated, but they are far from the same. Employing millions of people to fire darts at a target purposelessly doesn't improve the economy, it impoverishes it. Government stimulus -- war is a so called stimulus -- is a parasite that diverts resources and human capital away from productive sectors to useless ones. War is an extreme form of parasitism, it only builds to destroy.
Ironically, however, is that even though their reasoning is laughably baseless, their conclusion regarding the historical remedy of the Great Depression is nevertheless sound.
WW2 really did get the U.s economy going, though for an entirely different reason than these clowns would have it. It wasn't the fact that the government employed millions of people during the war time that stimulated the U.S economy, it was the fact that we wiped out the industrial base of Europe and Japan. Our manufacturing industry grew exponentially during the post-war years because we rebuilt Europe's infrastructure for them.
Now that wasn't so hard, was it?
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Fallacy of Christian Socialism
The idea that production can be solely owned and run by the public apparatus, i.e Socialism, has been refuted time and time again both by its numerous historical failures and its inherent logical contradictions. There is, however, another fall-back position that many desperate Socialists have retreated to, the idea that Socialism is a moral imperative under the precepts of Christianity. It is claimed that because Jesus commanded us to care for the poor, programs such as welfare are mandated under the Judeo-Christian ethic.
There are several problems with this. First, legality is not morality; issuing a moral command is not tantamount to advocating a legal demand for it. For example, saying that it is wrong to smoke is not synonymous with urging a legal ban on ciggaretes. In a similar manner, exhorting one to help like the good Samaritan is not the same thing as demanding that everyone do so lest they be arrested by the police.
But even if we grant this intellectual cri de coeur the benefit of veracity, the problem still remains because Socialism demonstrably does not help the poor better than its antithesis: Capitalism. The poor enjoy a tremendously higher standard in Capitalist societies than those in Centrally planned ones. Moreover, because under the Judeo-Christian ethic Man is also obliged to work hard to give glory to God. And there is no other system that fosters such a work ethic than Capitalism.
Christian Socialism is an absurdity, its emphasis over moral imperatives instead of reason and logic is the only way that it stands, however infirmly, on its feet. But even from a moral standpoint it is a monstrosity. If a Christian truly desires to fulfill his ethical duties to his Lord and Savior, then I suggest he use his God-given intelligence by rejecting that one train-wreck of an idea that is Socialism.
There are several problems with this. First, legality is not morality; issuing a moral command is not tantamount to advocating a legal demand for it. For example, saying that it is wrong to smoke is not synonymous with urging a legal ban on ciggaretes. In a similar manner, exhorting one to help like the good Samaritan is not the same thing as demanding that everyone do so lest they be arrested by the police.
But even if we grant this intellectual cri de coeur the benefit of veracity, the problem still remains because Socialism demonstrably does not help the poor better than its antithesis: Capitalism. The poor enjoy a tremendously higher standard in Capitalist societies than those in Centrally planned ones. Moreover, because under the Judeo-Christian ethic Man is also obliged to work hard to give glory to God. And there is no other system that fosters such a work ethic than Capitalism.
Christian Socialism is an absurdity, its emphasis over moral imperatives instead of reason and logic is the only way that it stands, however infirmly, on its feet. But even from a moral standpoint it is a monstrosity. If a Christian truly desires to fulfill his ethical duties to his Lord and Savior, then I suggest he use his God-given intelligence by rejecting that one train-wreck of an idea that is Socialism.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Relevance of George Orwell
George Orwell, known for his anti-totalitarian novels 1984 and Animal Farm, has been deservedly regarded as a prophet of our times for describing with striking realism the horrors that an overly expansive government can be responsible for. His reputation as a prophet is not ill-founded. The twentieth century totalitarian regimes demonstrated that his conjectures are not simply a fictitious figment of the imagination, but an empirical reality. This is incontrovertible. But because words such as fascism and totalitarianism are often confused with just murderous governments of the past, and not its fundamental nature, most people fail to understand why Totalitarianism holds such an appeal. So appealing is the Totalitarian temptation that even in the predominantly capitalist West we see unmistakable signs of it.
To give an example, George Orwell described the world in which 1984 took place in as a global struggle between 3 superpowers, Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastasia. They warred with each other with the cryptic purpose of keeping each other in a permanent slump, where they produce the machine without raising the standard of living. This allowed the State to keep its citizens in an everlasting state of slavery and serfdom, keeping them dependent. There was no military purpose for the war; the only effect it had was to keep the people in an ever-patriotic state and gave the State and excuse to control them.
Fortunately, such a despicable idea has not pervaded the thoughts of our elected officials, but there is something that is almost as contemptible which runs rampart within our intellectual circles: that war is an inherent stimulant to the economy because employment is synonymous with wealth. This is typical Keynesian -- which is the model that guides most mainstream economists. Another similarity between Orwell's fiction and the West can be seen with the application of omnipresent monitor technology. In 1984, Orwell posited telegrams everywhere in the land that censored people for thought crimes and any suspicious behavior. But now not only are many hate crimes against the government banned, but in England there are actually cameras being placed almost everywhere, just like in 1984.
Orwell also talks about the concept of double speak or double think, where one can say something out of one side of his mouth and something contradictory out of the other. This sort of behavior is reminiscent of the relativism movement, where objective truth is abandoned in favor of subjective feelings.
And if one still harbors any doubts about Orwell's relevance, then his depiction of the revolutionary movement in Animal Farm should kill it off for good.
After the farm animals took over the farm from their human owner they set up 7 specific rules of abidance:
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes up four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal
All animals are equal.
Over the course the story these commandments eventually mutated into:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.
One only has to know about the constant revisions that the U.S Constitution has undergone and the various pleas for further revision to realize how much of a parody this is.
But what is a more brilliant theme, however, is how Orwell depicts the revolutionary process. The animals overthrow a seemingly brutal dictator - the human. And then a leader of the revolution takes over and establishes an even crueler tyranny, a theme taken straight out of the historic horrors of the French Revolution to be sure.
So finely did Orwell depict the totalitarian tendencies of human nature, and so cruel have they been manifested, that it is unfortunate in how we have continually neglected to learn the lessons explicated by this great author.
To give an example, George Orwell described the world in which 1984 took place in as a global struggle between 3 superpowers, Eurasia, Oceania, and Eastasia. They warred with each other with the cryptic purpose of keeping each other in a permanent slump, where they produce the machine without raising the standard of living. This allowed the State to keep its citizens in an everlasting state of slavery and serfdom, keeping them dependent. There was no military purpose for the war; the only effect it had was to keep the people in an ever-patriotic state and gave the State and excuse to control them.
Fortunately, such a despicable idea has not pervaded the thoughts of our elected officials, but there is something that is almost as contemptible which runs rampart within our intellectual circles: that war is an inherent stimulant to the economy because employment is synonymous with wealth. This is typical Keynesian -- which is the model that guides most mainstream economists. Another similarity between Orwell's fiction and the West can be seen with the application of omnipresent monitor technology. In 1984, Orwell posited telegrams everywhere in the land that censored people for thought crimes and any suspicious behavior. But now not only are many hate crimes against the government banned, but in England there are actually cameras being placed almost everywhere, just like in 1984.
Orwell also talks about the concept of double speak or double think, where one can say something out of one side of his mouth and something contradictory out of the other. This sort of behavior is reminiscent of the relativism movement, where objective truth is abandoned in favor of subjective feelings.
And if one still harbors any doubts about Orwell's relevance, then his depiction of the revolutionary movement in Animal Farm should kill it off for good.
After the farm animals took over the farm from their human owner they set up 7 specific rules of abidance:
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes up four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal
All animals are equal.
Over the course the story these commandments eventually mutated into:
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
All animals are equal. But some are more equal than others.
One only has to know about the constant revisions that the U.S Constitution has undergone and the various pleas for further revision to realize how much of a parody this is.
But what is a more brilliant theme, however, is how Orwell depicts the revolutionary process. The animals overthrow a seemingly brutal dictator - the human. And then a leader of the revolution takes over and establishes an even crueler tyranny, a theme taken straight out of the historic horrors of the French Revolution to be sure.
So finely did Orwell depict the totalitarian tendencies of human nature, and so cruel have they been manifested, that it is unfortunate in how we have continually neglected to learn the lessons explicated by this great author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
