Bartender Geek

I can think of at least four different standards of proof:

1) Mathematical Proof: if you have proven something mathematically, it's true. At least, it's true under the framework of the starting conditions you are working from and the definition of the operators you are working with. But, within the defined framework, it is true, full stop. You gat get all sorts of interesting effects by changing the framework ("Given a line and a point not on the line, only one line can be drawn through the point parallel to the line." What happens if we assume that arbitrarily many lines can be drawn through the point parallel to the line? Hey! We've discovered Reimannian manifolds!), but, within the framework, that which is proven is true.

2) Scientific Proof: this is not as rigid as mathematical proof, because it is always open to reexamination and reinterpretation, but it's damned close. If you have an idea that you can make predictions with, and the predictions come true, then either your idea is true, or something really close to your idea is true, or something genuinely interesting is happening. By the time that a scientific idea gets enough evidence behind it to be called a theory, you can pretty much take it to the bank. Oh, you can certainly make new discoveries, and changes, and find more details and refinements, but, by the time it's called a "theory", it's within spitting distance of reality.

3) American Criminal Standard of Proof: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This is a weird one. Because it contains at least one critical undefined -- and, frankly, undefinable -- term: "reasonable." Any definition of "reasonable doubt" that is, um, reasonable, gets uselessly circular immediately.

Still, we can make some assumptions about it. We discount alternative explanations that are vanishingly unlikely, such as "I didn't rob the bank, it was my evil twin," unless other evidence is presented which makes that explanation less unlikely -- such as if the person can present evidence that they actually HAVE an evil twin.

Something is proven to the American Criminal Standard of Proof if we can NOT construct an alternate explanation of the facts which we believe is at least vaguely plausible.

4) American Civil Standard of Proof: Preponderance of Evidence. In the American system, we've got completely different standards of proof for criminal and civil matters. For civil matters, the standard of proof is simply that "the thing we're trying to prove seems more likely than not." A 51% chance of being true is good enough for the civil standard of proof.

What standard of proof should we insist on for various sorts of things?

In general, I think that, if you're going to suggest that a public figure has done something wrong, you don't need to be able to manage a #3 standard of proof, but you ought to be able to manage better than #4.

However -- I think we're at the point where, if your thesis is, "The Bush administration is fucking with us, trying to manipulate the news media, trying to distract folks from their screwups, and give money to their buddies," I think it's fair, at this point, to go with definition #4.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that, while the right to privacy IS a vitally important issue, there's a more fundamental right that Roe v. Wade protects -- the right to control one's own body.

There is quite literally no right more fundamental than the right to do what you want to do with your own body, to the extent that it doesn't infringe on other people. And that sentence, right there, sums up the whole abortion debate in one sentence. If you think a fetus is a person, then restricting access to abortion is potentially justifiable, because you're weighing the rights of two people against each other.

However, f you think a blastocyst is in no reasonable sense a human being, as I, for instance, feel, then a restriction of access to abortion is simply an example of an abrogation of the most fundamental right a person can have -- the right to their own body.

Restricting access to abortion to a woman who wants one is therefore a way of forcing her to work on behalf of a third party -- the fetus (who may or may not have legal standing.)

Could you make an argument based on the 13th Amendment therefore?

For what it's worth: I think that that any law in reference to abortion is inherently a stopgap measure. The only reasonable solution is technological: artificial wombs.

Fundamentally, what should happen is that any woman who doesn't want to have her body used as an incubator for a parasite, for whatever reason, should be allowed to have that fetus removed and placed into an artificial womb in which it could grow to term.

If a fetus does have any sort of legal standing, such a step would protect its hypothetical right to existence, without removing the mother's non-hypothetical right to control of her own person.

Okay. That has got to be the best subject header I've ever put on a LJ post. Pity the body isn't going to quite live up to it.
( Read more... )

Some things that just sort of popped into my head this morning in the shower:

Intelligence is the ability to figure out how to do things.
Wisdom is the ability to figure out what to do.

In other words, "intelligence" lets you figure out the means, "wisdom" lets you figure out the ends.

Philosophy is a discipline which is effectively a "virtual machine" which allows you emulate wisdom using intelligence.

However, you need at least a certain amount of wisdom to "aim" the virtual machine of philosophy in order to get useful results. Without a smidgeon of wisdom, philosophy can just end up with useless wanking that doesn't actually do anything particularly useful. But, properly aimed, philosophy allows you to get much more wisdom out than just wisdom alone.

"Ethics" is related to philosophy, in that it's a "white box" in which you place a situation, apply intelligence, and you get to watch the gears crank, and out comes an answer which tells you what to do in the situation.

"Morality" is a "black box" in which you place a situation, apply wisdom, and you CAN'T see the gears crank, and out comes an answer which tells you what to do in the situation.

Because "ethics" is a "white box", and "morality" is a "black box". it's much easier for "morality" to lead people horribly wrong. You can get wrong answers out of either ethics or morality, but because you can see how "ethics" works, someone else can point out where the gears are slipping and coming out with a wrong answer. But you can't do that with morality.

The amount of fear humans in large groups experience is inversely proportional to the actual danger they're in.

She makes a number of good points. And it's clear from reading her books that she loves, for instance, the character of The Fool, a character who she's written who has HUGE amounts of story still to tell, vast mystery, and she clearly feels very protective of him (or her), and doesn't want other people messing with the character.

And I can respect that.

However, she's crap at putting together an argument.

To use an analogy, we look at the Mona Lisa and wonder. Each of us draws his own conclusions about her elusive smile. We don’t draw eyebrows on her to make her look surprised, or put a balloon caption over her head.
( Read more... )

Actually, no, I don't really believe that human nature is perfectable, or even significantly improvable. At least not on the timescale that we're talking. I think that people are motivated today by the same things that they were motivated by a hundred thousand years ago, and, a hundred thousand years from now, they will still be motivated by the same things.

I do rather hope I'm wrong. But it seems to me that there will always be a certain fraction of people who are more motivated by a desire to do good for themselves, and their close kin, than by a desire to do well by the society as a whole. And I think that, if you did create a society in which virtually everybody was motivated primarily by what was best for the society, or the world, as a whole, those people who were motivated by a desire to do well by themselves could game the system well, and amass a disproportionate amount of power.

At which point, no matter what the cosmetic dressing on the outside is, you're still in fundamentally the same position that your high-minded and noble ideas are attempting to change.

There are systems that have been set up to attempt to mitigate this, while working within the constraints of what people really, fundamentally, are. The American Constitution is, in fact, not a bad one. It's just. . . it's rare for such systems to really hold together for more than a couple hundred years at a shot.

I don't really think that we are going to create a lasting societal setup that will do all the things we want it to.

But, y'know, coming up with a system that will make life better for a lot of people for a couple hundred years -- that's a pretty damn good accomplishment. And a worthwhile one.

I just don't think that we'll ever became to come up with a system that will do that for more than a couple hundred years, not until Moshiach comes.

And I do think that the American system, which has worked well so far, is starting to show cracks and top-heavy instability.

It will collapse. And something else will be created. There's actually a pretty good chance that the thing which is created will be pretty good, and may last another couple hundred years. But there's a DAMN good chance that the process of collapse and new creation is going to be incredibly messy and nasty . . .

Lis has made a very good point, every once in a while. One Cassandra realized that nobody was listening to her, what she SHOULD have done was get the fuck out of Troy. You do what you can to save the society, and then, when it's clear that you can't save the society, you just try to get yourself out of the way.

I'm actually reasonably comfortable being part of a species that has wonderful qualities and self-destructive qualities. I don't believe human nature is greatly improvable, and that really doesn't bother me very much. I accept that I have a responsiblity to help the world as a whole, and, when that becomes impossible, to help my society specifically, and, when that fails, to help my friends and family and myself.

I think that a point comes where you just accept that your society is going to come crashing down around you, and you make sure that you and your family aren't there when it happens.

I do, in fact, hope I'm wrong, and I would love it if your ideas about how technology will make people better people were real. I just don't think they are.

T and Nelson were talking. T said that his best year was when he was seventeen. Nelson thought about it, and said that his best year had been when he was twenty-three. Nelson then looked over and said, "How about you, Ian? What was your best year -- the year that women were falling all over you, or everything was just going right, or you had lots of money?"

I thought about it, and said, "Twenty-nine."

I thought some more, and said, "But I'm hoping thirty will be even better."

Nelson nodded -- and then he got it, and he grinned. "That's really wise," he said. "Why not focus on the present?"

"Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."

And they've just passed a law requiring all Texan children to recite it.

I wish I could ask a question of Senator Jeff Wentworth, who wrote the law. I wish I could ask, "Senator, do you think that these children should have the right to move to another state when they grow up, if they want to? Or would you rather that they be forced to stay in Texas for their entire lives, whether they want to or not?"

I suspect that he'd have to say that he'd want them to have the right, as Americans, to move to other states.

Then I'd ask him, "So you want these children to ignore their vows? You don't care about promises?"

It infuriates me. And I'm noticing more and more that right-wingers (as opposed to "conservatives") generally don't care about what they promise, or what they vow, or what they pledge. They just don't care. They don't even THINK that oaths, and vows, and swearing MEANS anything, so they're fine making people pledge things, because they don't really think that those pledges have real effects.

They don't think them through, because they don't care, because they don't think they're real.

A friend of mine is doing some musing about forgivness in his livejournal -- it's friends-only, so I won't mention who it is, or link to it. It was triggered by this essay.

I had some realizations about forgivness, which I copy here in order to have in my own livejournal, for my own reference.

1. "Forgiveness" is the process of cutting away the importance of something. You can forgive an action, which means that you have cut away the emotional resonance and the importance of the action. You can forgive a person, which means that you have cut away the emotional resonance and the importance of the person. This is why I generally forgive actions, not people. . .


2. "Forgiveness" does, therefore, involve "letting someone off the hook" for something they did, or for something they are. This may seem unfair, and unjust. It is unjust. It is merciful. "Mercy" is the opposite of "justice", and the world needs both, balanced, in order to survive.


3. "Mercy" is never deserved. If it was deserved, it would be justice, not mercy.

Some things I am still pondering: is "mercy" always unjust? It is clear that the converse is not true.