| Monday, April 28, 2008 |
 |
Self-Defense on Campus
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM   
On April 15th, the Colorado Springs Gazette published my letter to the editor in response to its excellent editorial advocating concealed carry at CU in Colorado Springs. Here's my letter:
I want to thank The Gazette for its editorial advocating concealed carry on campus ("UCCS students want their guns," Our View, April 13).
I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.
If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.
CU's anti-gun policy is wrong. It ought to be changed, not just in Colorado Springs, but in Boulder, too.
I applaud the efforts of the UCCS chapter of Concealed Carry on Campus.
Such efforts are just starting at Boulder, too. Students and parents wanting to advocate concealed carry at CU Boulder should contact Jim Manley at james.m.manley@colorado.edu.
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia On April 22nd, I participated in the "Empty Holster Protest" at CU Boulder. It was sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. As for the importance of concealed carry on campus, John Lott recently published an op-ed on the dangers posed by gun-free zones like college campuses.
Many Objectivists are lukewarm on gun rights, particularly on concealed carry. If you're one of them, you might wish to read these essays:
Thanks to political activism by gun rights advocates over past 25 years, 36 states in the US now have laws mandating "shall issue" concealed carry permits -- meaning that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training can obtain a permit, without any further permission from local law enforcement. (I've had a concealed carry permit since 2001.) Contrary to the frantic cries of anti-gun liberals, the streets have not run with blood -- precisely because concealed carry permit holders are not criminals but rather responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in emergency situations to defend themselves from criminals.Labels: Guns, Politics
|
| |
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
| Saturday, April 26, 2008 |
|
Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?
By Paul Hsieh @ 11:23 AM
This question is one of the topics in the upcoming June 2008 issue of the European Mathematical Society Newsletter. As Science News reports, this subject "has provided fodder for arguments among mathematicians and philosophers" for thousands of years, with no seeming resolution.
On one hand, there are Platonists who believe this:...[A] mathematician discovers timeless truths independent of human observation and free of the transient nature of physical reality. "The abstract realm in which a mathematician works is by dint of prolonged intimacy more concrete to him than the chair he happens to sit on," says Ulf Persson of Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, a self-described Platonist. But the Platonists are forced to deal with some tricky implications of their views:Those who espouse discovery note that mathematical statements are true or false regardless of personal beliefs, suggesting that they have some external reality. But this leads to some odd notions. Where, exactly, do these mathematical truths exist? Can a mathematical truth really exist before anyone has ever imagined it? In contrast, there are those who believe that such talk of an abstract realm is just mystical hogwash:Brian Davies, a mathematician at King's College London, writes that Platonism "has more in common with mystical religions than with modern science." And modern science, he believes, provides evidence to show that the Platonic view is just plain wrong. He titled his article "Let Platonism Die."
...Reuben Hersh of the University of New Mexico ...rejects the Platonic view, arguing instead that mathematics is a product of human culture, not fundamentally different from other human creations like music or law or money. But the latter school is faced with a different set of intractable questions:On the other hand, if math is invented, then why can't a mathematician legitimately invent that 2 + 2 = 5?
...The challenge, [Hersh] admits, is to explain why it is that mathematical statements can be definitively true or false, not subject to taste or whim. The solution to this millenia-old argument is to abandon both the intrisicist approach of the Platonists and the subjectivist approach of their opponents. Instead, mathematical concepts (like all concepts) are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective. It is in debates like this where the Objectivist approach to epistemology and concept formation prove their value -- in being able to cut through the errors made over the centuries by struggling philosophers and mathematicians.
Of course, properly applying Rand's theory of concept formation to the philosophy of mathematics is a non-trivial task. Concepts of number are both seemingly self-evident, but also represent feats of tremendous abstraction. But scholars such as Dr. Pat Corvini have made a good start. Her course at the 2007 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That", was on precisely that topic -- namely how to apply the Objectivist theory of concept formation to concepts of number:The concept of number as used in science today is one of man's greatest achievements: a grand-scale integration capping centuries of effort and enabling a vastly expanded efficacy in all areas of life. But the growth in complexity of the number system has rendered the meaning of number ever more mysterious; number is seen both as a touchstone of certainty and as an arbitrary human construct whose applicability to the real world is a deep mystery. This is because the nature of number has not been properly identified; and as Ayn Rand pointed out, that imprecision is dangerous.
This course clarifies the meaning of "number" by examining it in the light of Miss Rand's theory of concepts. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving both historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole—further reinforcing the value of Objectivist epistemology. She is also offering a follow-up course at this year's 2008 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel":Science shelves of bookstores are today awash in accounts of modern extensions of the idea of number, including infinity and the continuum, set theory, transfinite numbers, and the like. Many of these ideas, and the "mysteries" that proceed from them, figure prominently in modern philosophy and in popular discussion of the nature and limits of reason.
In this course, Dr. Corvini explains and evaluates some of the most influential of these ideas, using as a frame of reference both their historical context and the view of number as objective developed in her earlier courses. By identifying the fundamental nature of the ideas and of the errors involved, we see again the importance of a proper theory of concepts, and clarify the differences between an objective approach to mathematics and the more traditional views. I have long had an interest in those topics such as foundations of set theory, the nature of the concept "infinity", etc. Hence, if her 2008 course is as good as her 2007 course, then it promises to be a real treat. Diana and I have already signed up for it.
Although I have a degree in mathematics (B.S., MIT, 1984), her courses do not require any advanced math background. Dr. Corvini is a very clear and engaging lecturer, and she is excellent at explaining the relevant mathematical concepts to a general audience. If you can count to 10 and you are a normal intelligent adult, then you can follow her lectures.
So if you want to see how the power of the Objectivist theory of concepts can resolve questions that have stumped some of history's greatest minds for thousands of years, check out her courses!
(I don't believe that her 2007 course is available yet through the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I expect that it will be eventually. It was available for purchase by 2007 conference attendees as part of the usual post-conference package, and hence I think it will eventually make it to the main bookstore listing.)Labels: Objectivism, Philosophy, Science
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [12] (New Page)
|
|
| Thursday, April 24, 2008 |
|
For the Record: Phoenix Objectivists
By Diana Hsieh @ 6:21 AM
This post is simply "for the record," in light of the distortions of the facts posted elsewhere.
Last Sunday, I was perusing that Branden-worshipping cesspool of a discussion forum known as "Objectivist Living." I noticed the following announcement in a thread entitled Phoenix Objectivists start new lecture series:
Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 19 2008, 01:47 PM:
When: Thursday, April 24th, 2008 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: Black Bear Diner
2410 West Bell Road
Phoenix, AZ
Admission: Attendees must buy something to eat.
Event Description: For our first meeting at our new location and the last of the month, we will listen to the first in a six-part pre-recorded lecture series done by Diana Mertz-Hsieh titled: Objectivism 101 which was a lecture Mrs. Hsieh gave at The Atlas Society's Summer Seminar in 2003.
Ayn Rand's novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be challenging. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Mertz Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics.
She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, free will as the choice to think or not, the integration of mind and body, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism as the only moral social system, and much more.
Mrs. Hsieh is a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. I was more than a bit surprised to learn that I was to be the lecture series! I'd not been contacted by anyone about playing my lectures at this meeting.
By way of background, the six-lecture series was given at the last Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center I attended. While I'm still reasonably proud of those lectures, precisely because I worked hard to clearly and accurately present Ayn Rand's Objectivism, I'm sure that I'd find all kinds of problems with them if I listened to them now. So as a general matter, I'm not too keen on the idea of anyone playing them before a group, particularly not without some strong warning that I do not vouch for the content and that I've disassociated myself from The Objectivist Center (today, The Atlas Society).
After some inquiries to Arizona friends, I was pointed to the web site for the Phoenix Objectivists. (That's not the same group as the Arizona Objectivists, a group that I've had nothing but good dealings with in the past.) Any possible willingness to allow my lectures to be played at the Phoenix Objectivists disappeared when I saw its page of links: it's a "Who's Who" list of dishonest pseudo-Objectivists, without a single link to anything associated with or supportive of the Ayn Rand Institute. It even lists "ARI Watch" (!!). Basically, I don't wish to provide any kind of value to the very people so invested in attacking me and mine. (I also saw from other web surfing that the group's leader Mike Renzulli is actively involved with the Libertarian Party.)
So I wrote the following letter to the e-mail address for the group listed on the web site.
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:49:56 -0600
To:
Subject: My Objectivism 101 Lectures
Mike --
I recently saw your announcement to Objectivist Living about your forthcoming event(s) featuring my Objectivism 101 lectures. You should know that those lectures are copyrighted -- and that the copyright is held by me. (TOC's copyright expired after two years.) So you cannot play them before an audience without my permission.
Given what I've seen on the Phoenix Objectivists web site, I am not willing to grant you permission. You might be a decent fellow, but I do not wish to be associated the promotion of destructive and dishonest critics of Ayn Rand and Objectivism -- as found on your web site. (If you wish to know my reasons for those judgments, you are welcome to peruse the many essays I've written at http://www.dianahsieh.com/misc/toc.html.)
If you choose to go ahead with your plans, I won't stop you. However, you should know that you would be violating my property rights. The moral wrong of that should be obvious.
You are welcome to forward this letter to anyone you please.
-- DMH In response, he asked for documentation of my claims. Meanwhile, he began a thread on Objectivist Living entitled Diana Mertz-Hsieh nasty gram (!!) with the following:
Posted by Mike Renzulli on Apr 21 2008, 05:48 PM
Well Folks,
Diana Mertz-Hsieh has struck again. As it turns out, she just sent me an e-mail stating that she doesn't give me permission to play her Objectivism 101 lectures for my group's meeting coming up this Thursday.
Hsieh says that she holds the copyright for it, that TAS's copyright for her lectures has expired and, while she will not stop me, she states that my doing so would be stealing her intellectual property.
I already have a call into Ed Hudgins at TAS to see if what she is saying is accurate. I may have to bag using the lectures until the legalities of doing so are cleared up unless someone on these boards knows otherwise.
Regardless if she is right or not, its one more feather in her cap of making an ass out of herself. As you might imagine from that "OL" crowd, the replies were even worse. (Note that Mike didn't actually see fit to post my actual e-mail, as I expressly gave him permission to do.) So, feeling less than generous at that point, I replied to his request for documentation as follows:
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:40:31 -0600
To: M Renzulli
Subject: Re: My Objectivism 101 Lectures
You should have done your homework before you scheduled the event, e.g. by e-mailing me to inquire about any required permission. The fact that you failed to do so doesn't oblige me to rush to get you the documentation at the last minute. I'm certainly not going to do so while you and your friends on Objectivist Living are attacking me left and right for the mere assertion of my rights and other imaginary moral evils.
So here's what I'll say:
(1) My TOC contract was standard: the rights reverted to me after two years, if TOC didn't publish the lectures in some form other than "TOC Live.". TOC didn't do that, so the copyright is now held by me. You can inquire with TOC about that.
(2) The difference between listening rights and performance rights is well-established in copyright law. You're playing my lecture at a public event in a public venue, advertised on the web to anyone and everyone, not at a private party for friends. You can inquire with a lawyer about that.
-- DMH Since then, Mike has begun a new OL thread solely devoted to wild speculations about my psychology, without the slightest bit of concern for my actual and stated reasons for rejecting The Objectivist Center, condemning people like Nathaniel Branden and Chris Sciabarra, and now endorsing the Ayn Rand Institute. He likens me to a religious dogmatist and a communist enforcer. He claims that I've sold my soul for the cause. He claims that I'm seeking to appease the ARI hierarchy for the sake of publication venues and job opportunities. Um, okay.
Mike also sent me two further e-mails. He told me that he expects an apology from me if I'm wrong in my legal claims. He said he'll do the same if he's wrong, but given his absolutely libelous personal attacks on me on OL, that's of no value whatsoever. He's also suggested that I just ask him nicely not to play the lectures. Fat chance of that: I shouldn't have to ask nicely for him to respect my rights, particularly not while he spits in my face. (Do I need to ask a car thief to please not take my car?!?)
In any case, yesterday afternoon, I finally dug up my old "Speaker's Agreements" with The Objectivist Center. The following e-mail to the relevant folks at The Atlas Society explains the exact terms of the contract:
From: Diana Hsieh
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:44:43 -0600
To: Gene Holloway , Ed Hudgins
Conversation: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Subject: Termination of Rights to Lecture Recordings
Ed and Gene --
Due to the plans of Mike Renzulli to play one of my past TOC lectures at a public event this week despite my protests, I recently reviewed my speaker's agreements with TOC for lectures given in 2001, 2002, and 2003. (I could not find my contract for my 2000 lecture.)
Before I reviewed the contracts, my recollection was that all rights to the recording automatically reverted to me after two years, provided that TOC didn't publish an official recording (as opposed to a "TOC Live" tape). However, that's not quite accurate, as you can see from the following quoted clause:
"If TOC fails to produce or arrange the production of the Recording for use as a permanent product carried by The Objectivism Store within 24 months following the delivery of the Work, either party has the right to terminate this portion of the agreement. In case of termination of this agreement under this clause, all rights to the Recording, except the right of TOC to maintain a copy for archival purposes, revert to Speaker."
(The same basic clause is found in my 2001 and 2002 contracts. I presume that it is also in my 2000 contract.)
So: I hereby terminate all of TOC's (or The Atlas Society's) rights to recordings of my past lectures, except the right to maintain a copy for archival purposes.
Obviously, I can't imagine that you'd ever want to do anything with my past lectures for TOC, but I did wish to officially terminate your rights to them, in case such a strange situation ever arises again.
Also, I should mention that as far as I understand the contract, TOC has never had any right to license the work to be played in public. (As far as I know, you've not done that with Mike Renzulli.)
I have attached a scan of the relevant page of the 2003 contract.
Finally, please confirm your receipt of this e-mail and acknowledge the termination of rights.
Thank you,
Diana Mertz Hsieh As for the question of rights to public performance, Paul found this handy summary of the relevant law (and this one and this one and this one and this one) for me. It's very clear that an event open to the public, held in a public venue, and advertised on public message boards and web sites does not qualify as a private performance on par with inviting friends over to watch a movie.
Also, I should mention that I've spoken repeatedly with two lawyers about this matters over the past few days. Both of them used to speak at TOC, and so they are familiar with TOC's "Speaker's Agreements." On both legal and moral grounds, they wholly support my right to refuse permission to play these lectures.
I don't expect any further troubles on this issue -- except more of the usual crap from OL -- but I did wish to set the record straight. To put it bluntly, Mike Renzulli hasn't a legal or moral leg to stand on. He doesn't have the right to play my lectures before an audience just because he bought the tapes. I don't have any obligation to assist a man who actively subverts my values. He's also behaved in a less than gentleman-like fashion, without any provocation. Still, I won't hold my breath waiting for that apology.Labels: False Friends of Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [22] (New Page)
|
|
|
Upcoming Events
By Diana Hsieh @ 7:08 AM
Here are some upcoming events of interest:
Three panel discussions on totalitarian Islam:
- "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at UC Berkeley with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Victor Davis Hanson on Tuesday, April 29, 2008. More info...
- "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at NYU with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Flemming Rose on Monday, May 5, 2008. More info...
- "The Threat of Totalitarian Islam," a panel discussion at Harvard with Yaron Brook, Daniel Pipes, and Robert Spencer on Tuesday, May 6, 2008. More info...
Yaron Brook will speak at Ford Hall Forum on "Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right" at Ford Hall Forum in Boston on May 8th. More info...
Excellent news: Leonard Peikoff will host a special Q&A session at OCON this summer!Labels: Announcements
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Tuesday, April 22, 2008 |
|
Leonard Peikoff’s Podcasts
By Diana Hsieh @ 1:21 PM
Back in January, I finally listened to Leonard Peikoff's first six podcasts. He has posted a bunch more since then, but I've not yet heard those. While I knew I'd find them interesting, I didn't listen to them sooner because I'm on mostly break from studying Objectivism while writing my dissertation. They are definitely worth a listen or two, as the questions are almost always well-chosen and well-answered.
In the sixth podcast, Dr. Peikoff discusses the pitfalls of discussing Objectivism in online discussion forums. I won't repeat his comments here, but I largely agree with his concerns that such online debates risk divorcing a person's ideas from his values and promote disintegrated examination of ideas in isolation. It's also true that many self-described Objectivists arguing with confidence online are completely clueless, rationalistic, or even outright dishonest.
I would add a few points, based on extensive experience reading and posting to such discussion forums over the course of about 15 years. (For the record, the only public discussion forum that I regard as remotely Objectivist is ObjectivismOnline. The contributors can be far better than found elsewhere, but I still think the forum suffers from the standard problems of that medium.)
First, thoughtful and productive discussion is a rarity on most discussion boards, whether supposedly Objectivist or not. Mostly, the threads consist of discombobulated streams of unjustified assertions, ill-considered opinions, nasty remarks, ignorant assumptions, and outright dishonesty. To participate in those discussions is, at best, a huge waste of time. The fact that someone has said something particularly stupid in some online debate is not a good reason to spend hours arguing with that person and his fellows.
Second, the capacity to beat the pants off some random opponent in online debate doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about, that you're thinking clearly, or that you're right. Unfortunately, people often suppose that argumentative might makes right. And so they seek the thrill of victory in online debate with all the fervor of a crack addict. In fact:
If you wish to seriously test your ideas in debate, the proper approach is to carefully study and think about some issue of personal interest to you, then discuss it in private with someone whose knowledge and judgment you trust, whether in person or e-mail.
Third, if Objectivists want to change the culture for the better, they ought not waste their time and energy by arguing with other Objectivists -- even on the better forums. To actually change the culture, Objectivists need to present their ideas to people unfamiliar with them. That's often harder -- but far more rewarding in the long run. (That's precisely why I created my OActivists mailing list.)
However, even with people unfamiliar with Objectivist ideas, lengthy online debates will likely be a waste of time. (If the person is someone known to you in real life, then the situation is somewhat different. Then long-running debates can have some value.) With strangers, the goal should be to clearly and briefly make a point or two that might intrigue an reasonable reader and perhaps point him in a new direction. That's often all that the better people require.
In general, with any protracted online debate, I recommend asking oneself: Could I be spending my time in a more productive or enjoyable way? If so, then do go that other thing! If not, then get a life! And yes, that includes protracted arguments in the NoodleFood comments.Labels: Activism, Objectivism
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [16] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, April 21, 2008 |
|
The Morality of Pornography
By Diana Hsieh @ 8:02 AM
An interesting question for NoodleFood, again on sex:
I was intrigued by your posting on the psychology of prostitution. I haven't followed the Spitzer case all that closely, but I read Paul's posting and Ari Armstrong's essay with much agreement.
In the past you've suggested that we might ask questions related to Objectivism, and Ari's writing brought to mind the question of pornography. Especially when he writes:
"Prostitution is a vice for the same reason that indiscriminate sex is a vice: sex properly involves a connection of consciousness as well as bodies between two people who genuinely admire one another. Purely physical sex undermines the distinctly human dimension of it."
Now, I'm no prude and I have no desire to see adult pornography censored by the government. On the other hand, I've often been disgusted by the squalid nature of what passes for erotica.
And so... where is the proper place of pornography in the Objectivist ethics?
A couple years ago I listened to Peikoff's recording on love and sex, and don't recall his directly addressing the subject. Of course I know Rand did address the subject (In "Censorship: Local and Express"), but always felt her comments to be a reflection of personal taste and context and not necessarily part of her ethics.
What do you think?
On the one hand, the visual and auditory depiction of consensual sexual activity in itself certainly doesn't seem to violate Rand's fundamental virtues. On the other hand, as Ari writes above, I can't see a follower of Rand sanctioning the quick intercourse (for pay) of two actors who hardly know each other.
I'd be interested in your thoughts or any advice on Objectivist writings that address the issue. In fact, Leonard Peikoff does discuss pornography in his "Love, Sex, and Romance" lecture. So that's a good place to start.
I would like to distinguish two related moral questions about pornography:
- When is it moral to watch pornography, if ever? Can it serve a legitimate purpose in a healthy person's sex life or in a healthy couple's sex life?
- When is it moral to create pornography, if ever? Is the production of pornography (e.g. as actor, director, distributor) a proper career?
I have my own thoughts on these matters, but since time is tight for me right now, I think I'll just open the floor for comments.Labels: Ethics, Love/Sex
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [23] (New Page)
|
|
|
Honoring an Author’s Last Wishes?
By Paul Hsieh @ 12:11 AM
The controversy of whether Vladimir Nabokov's last novel should be published against his wishes has apparently been resolved. Nabokov's son Dmitri has reportedly decided to disregard his father's explicit last wish that his final novel The Original of Laura be destroyed. The literary community is deeply divided on this issue, with some saying that the novel should be published for posterity's sake, and others arguing that the author's last wishes should respected.
I haven't read any Nabokov, so I can't comment on the merits of his work. But if he made his wishes clear in a legally binding document (such as a will), then they should be obeyed. On the other hand, if he expressed it as a nonbinding preference to his son (but didn't formally put it in his will), then it's the son's decision.
Even in the latter case, I would still be inclined to honor the author's preference even if I thought the world might be losing an incalculable piece of literary genius. The only exception would be if I had good reason to believe that the author's expressed preferences didn't actually reflect his genuine preferences (i.e., he was joking or suffering from dementia). But my default would be to go with the author's wishes, unless there was a compelling reason to act otherwise.
(If the case of Nabokov isn't sufficiently compelling, suppose that it was 1982 and you were the executor of Ayn Rand's estate, and she had left similar instructions to burn the pages of her last unpublished novel. Although I can understand the temptation to publish it, I would hope that I would have enough integrity to respect her wishes.)Labels: Ethics, Law
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [0] (New Page)
|
|
| Sunday, April 20, 2008 |
|
Nick and Abe
By Diana Hsieh @ 3:31 PM
Yesterday, Paul and I had the pleasure of lunching with Nick Provenzo of Rule of Reason, then walking and talking around DC with him for a few hours. The company was delightful and the weather was lovely, but the sights were a mixed bag.
I particularly wanted to visit the Lincoln Memorial, as I've grown to admire Lincoln intensely, despite some significant disagreements with his policies, in my study of the Civil War over the past few months. That was excellent, despite the throng of people. It's an absolutely fantastic statue of Lincoln.
We also visited the new World War Two Memorial. That was worse than I expected in its utter lack of meaning. Blech.
Happily, we also stopped by the statue of William Tecumseh Sherman near Lafayette Square. I'd also like to see the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial, so that I can pay my respects to him. I should be able to do that tomorrow before I head home.Labels: History, Personal
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [8] (New Page)
|
|
|
Animal Minds
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:44 AM
The March 2008 issue of National Geographic recently published an interesting article on research into animal minds. If the reported facts are reliable, then animals may have some ability to isolate similarities and differences between percepts. Here is an excerpt from the article on scientist Irene Pepperberg and her parrot Alex:...[B]ecause Alex was able to produce a close approximation of the sounds of some English words, Pepperberg could ask him questions about a bird's basic understanding of the world. She couldn't ask him what he was thinking about, but she could ask him about his knowledge of numbers, shapes, and colors. To demonstrate, Pepperberg carried Alex on her arm to a tall wooden perch in the middle of the room. She then retrieved a green key and a small green cup from a basket on a shelf. She held up the two items to Alex's eye.
"What's same?" she asked.
Without hesitation, Alex's beak opened: "Co-lor."
"What's different?" Pepperberg asked.
"Shape," Alex said. His voice had the digitized sound of a cartoon character. Since parrots lack lips (another reason it was difficult for Alex to pronounce some sounds, such as ba), the words seemed to come from the air around him, as if a ventriloquist were speaking. But the words—and what can only be called the thoughts—were entirely his.
For the next 20 minutes, Alex ran through his tests, distinguishing colors, shapes, sizes, and materials (wool versus wood versus metal). He did some simple arithmetic, such as counting the yellow toy blocks among a pile of mixed hues. Of course, researchers have to be extremely careful not to anthropomorphize when interpreting such results. And even if animals are able to perform this sort of mental integration and differentiation of their percepts, this is not the same as being able to reason in the human sense. Hence, this post should not be construed as endorsing any form of "animal rights".
But it is plausible from an evolutionary perspective that the human mental abilities that allow us engage in concept formation and reasoning would have primitive precursors in some of the higher animals, and that human cognition has a foundation based on those pre-existing building blocks. Hence, the exact abilities of various animal minds is a fascinating scientific subject worthy of study, even if it may not have any primary philosophical import.
(I've been told that some Objectivists believe that animals are essentially automatons without any feeling or consciousness, like rocks or plants. In my opinion, this is untrue, and data such as this is further evidence against that erroneous position.)Labels: Science
|
| |
E-mail Paul Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [5] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, April 18, 2008 |
|
Elevators
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:09 AM
You'll learn more about elevators than you ever wanted to know in this New Yorker article: Up and Then Down. The article includes the story of Nicholas White, who was trapped for 41 hours without any food or water in an elevator. It's pretty horrific, if you concretely imagine what that would be like. You can even help your imagination by watching this time-lapse video of him stuck in the elevator.
I ride the elevators at CU Boulder pretty frequently. Kate accompanies me teach my classes at CU Boulder every Tuesday and Thursday. (She's perfectly well-behaved, she needs the exercise, and she loves to come with me.) She's too old and creaky to go up and down the stairs, so we take the elevators. After reading that article, though, I'll never ride an elevator again without a working cell phone!Labels: Personal, Technology
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [1] (New Page)
|
|
| Wednesday, April 16, 2008 |
|
Business Regulation, Consumer Protection?
By Diana Hsieh @ 11:17 PM
In my recent letter to various public officials opposing proposed legislation on mandatory insurance, I wrote:
If your goal is to fix the genuine problems in our health care system, then you MUST advocate FREE MARKET reforms. Eliminate the tax incentive for employer-provided health care. Eliminate all mandates and other regulations on health insurance. Eliminate regulations on medical providers. Gradually eliminate welfare programs. A few days ago, I received the following e-mail inquiry about the implications of that paragraph in particular. It said:
Do you advocate eliminating most or all business and financial regulations in addition to the medical regulations mentioned above? If objectivism and the business/economic beliefs of Ayn Rand were to be law of the land, for lack of a better phrase, how would such a government prevent abuses by businesses and protect the consumer's rights from being trampled on? Those are excellent questions. I'll answer them briefly here, and I hope that others will chime in with more in-depth analysis in the comments.
Yes, I do advocate the repeal of all business and financial regulations. However, that does not imply that the law has no proper function to serve in markets. In the purely capitalist economy that I advocate, the legal system serves an indispensable role: it protects the rights of all people, particularly the rights of property and contract. If a business engages in false advertising, fails to deliver the contracted-for goods, or knowingly sells dangerously defective products, then individuals should be able to resort to the courts to remedy the violation of their rights.
In contrast, when the government establishes regulations "prevent abuses by business" and "protect consumer's rights," then it is actually violating the rights of both producers and consumers, not protecting them. Regulations violate everyone's rights to acquire, use, and dispose of their property as they see fit. Regulations violate everyone's rights to contract for mutually agreeable terms. In essence, regulations use government force to prevent people from acting according to their own best judgment. That's morally wrong and practically disastrous.
If I'm dying of cancer with three months to live, the FDA forbids me from taking a promising experimental drug because it's not yet been proven "safe" and "effective." As if that matters: I'm dying! Supposedly, FDA regulations exist to protect me, the consumer.
If I lack work experience, minimum wage laws forbid a business from hiring me except for more than I'm actually worth. So I'm forced into unemployment, even though I'd be happy to gain experience and reputation as a good worker by working for less than minimum wage for a time. Supposedly, minimum wage laws exist to protect me, the worker.
If I'm a good cook looking to start a small catering business, I would be stopped dead in my tracks by the myriad regulations required to serve food and liquor. So my potential consumers have to pay more for their catering because the cost of entering the market is so high, even if they'd rather hire me. Supposedly, those health regulations exist to protect my consumers.
Government regulations of business preemptively punish all producers as would-be criminals. They treat all consumers as helpless dolts unable to choose wisely. They grant government bureaucrats unlimited power over our lives. That's not good, to say the least.
The proper approach is to (1) punish only actual instances of force and fraud in the market, (2) treat adults like the rational creatures they are, (3) limit government power to only protecting individual rights. To do that would require eliminating all government regulation of business -- and that's why I advocate doing so.Labels: Business, Politics
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [23] (New Page)
|
|
|
