Archive for February, 2007
The Art of Debate
I was listening to public radio the other day when a caller from Germany offered a very astute observation: we in the U.S. don’t know how to disagree. I’ve been frustrated by politics and popular political media coverage for some time, but I had a hard time succinctly capturing why I felt so frustrated. The German’s insight is dead-on. We don’t know how to disagree, and by extension we are incapable of real debate.
”But of course we know how to disagree! We disagree all the time!”
While it is certainly true that we disagree constantly in politics and in the media, we don’t do it well. Or gracefully. Or productively. This is a problem.
Instead, we only argue and fight. We call each other names and demonize the opposing viewpoint. Rarely (never?) do we stop to really analyze all the angles of the given topic. It is assumed that there are two and only two sides to every story. Black or white. You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists. You get the idea. The talking-head media pundits are the worst offenders. For some reason it is considered entertaining or enlightening to hear two people tell you why the other one is wrong.
The two major political parties are no better. It’s easy to forget that we’re all on the same team by the way they treat one another.
I’ve seen this first hand. The global climate debate I referenced a few posts down has been completely derailed. I never knew it would be so hard to host a debate while leaving the political baggage at the door. I’ve been told that I exhibit an elitist air by referring to peer-reviewed scientific papers. I’ve been likened to Al Gore and other liberal extremists. I’ve been loosely grouped with proponents for eugenics. It’s been incredibly discouraging.
We live in a great democracy. If we can’t figure out how to host a civil debate, I fear greatly for the health of our nation.
Filed under politics : Comments (0) : Feb 27th, 2007
New look
I decided to bite the bullet and make the move to Wordpress. My home-brew CMS just wasn’t cutting the mustard any longer. I hope you enjoy the new features:
- Better archiving
- Pretty HTML/CSS
- Categories for posts
- RSS feed
- Robust comment engine
I think I like how it looks, though I miss the quaint early-00’s vibe of the old site. What do you think?
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (7) : Feb 26th, 2007
Global Climate Change
I’ve been in an ongoing debate about global climate change with a friend of mine, and I decided to try to summarize my position in a succicnt set of arguments. I encouraged him, and I encourage you the reader, to identify which points (if any) you disagree with. Put your comments in the response section.
Argument I
A. The scientific method is the best method we have found thus far to explain the natural world. It is based on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments, so it removes personal bias from the equation.
B. The peer review process is the best method we have found thus far to validate scientific research papers and ensure that they follow the spirit of the scientific method.
C. There are hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers that conclude that the earth is experiencing a period of significant climate change.
D. Of these papers, many go further to conclude that human influence is causing this climate change.
E. There are zero peer reviewed scientific papers that explicitly conclude that humans do not have an influence on this observed climate change.
THEREFORE As an academic, I find the overwhelming evidence in support of anthropogenic global climate change compelling and believe it to be the best theory to date.
Argument II
A. The scientific method is the best method we have found thus far to explain the natural world. It is based on empirical evidence and repeatable experiments, so it removes personal bias from the equation.
B. The IPCC is a composed of scientists from around the world tasked with developing scientific consensus on global climate change.
C. The IPCC recently released the summary for policy makers based on their soon to be published full report.
D. This summary concluded that global climate change is very real and it is 90% likely that it is caused by humans.
E. The IPCC has no motivation to mislead people with their reports or, more importantly, their summary for policy makers. (No one benefits from global climate change.)
F. There is no evidence to suggest that the IPCC is engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to mislead or obfuscate the truth.
THEREFORE I accept the conclusions drawn by the IPCC and it’s latest report.
Argument III
A. Global climate change is a very big problem to deal with.
B. We (the scientific community) may be completely wrong about global warming. We’ve been wrong before.
C. The longer we wait to develop strategies to deal with global climate change, the larger the problem grows.
D. If we are not wrong about global climate change, it is very very foolish to ignore the problem (as the problem will continue to grow).
E. Responding to the problem of global climate change does not necessarily lead to economic slow-down.
F. There are many ways we can respond, each with an economic cost. Some estimates actually suggest an economic advantage to responding to global climate change. (i.e. building wind farms adds more jobs per MW than coal plants, at approximately equal cost to the customer.)
THEREFORE since we will never be 100% certain, we must act on the best available evidence and respond to global climate change.
Argument IV
A. We live in a complex and globally interdependent civilization.
B. There are some problems that are too large in scope to be dealt with on an person by person basis. (National defense being a great example).
C. Global climate change is one such problem. It is too large a problem to be dealt with exclusively by individuals.
THEREFORE we must act globally to respond to the problem of global climate change.
. . .
There you have it. My position on global climate neatly summed up in 4 short arguments.
Filed under climate change : Comments (1) : Feb 22nd, 2007
War time sacrifice
We are currently in the midst of two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and, frighteningly, moving in the direction of a third (Iran). These are, of course, in addition to the conceptual and eternal war against the English language (in particular, the word “terror”). This last war is generally referred to as “the war on terror” but I like to break it apart to remind everyone of the absurdity of the rhetoric. But I digress.
The politicians who have made a career of war (these are primarily, but not exclusively, members of the Republican Party) are very fond of reminding the American citizenry of the fact that we are “at war”. Never mind the inconvenient fact that war was never actually declared by the U.S. Congress (declaring war is so passe). Although it has changed somewhat since the 2006 elections, one need not search very hard to find some public policy (or invasion of personal liberties) justified by our “at war” status. This is very powerful rhetoric, and it is often emphasized by suggesting correlations to the last Great War in which the U.S. and allies bravely defended Freedom from the attack ofFascism.
What I find amazing and grossly disturbing is the disconnect between these constant “we are at war” rhetoric and the total lack of “therefore we need to sacrifice”. Quite the opposite, the only people asked to sacrifice during this time of “war” are the [under equipped and over extended] soldiers and the Iraqi &Afghanistan people whose cities, lives, and countries have been more or less destroyed. The rest of us at home are encouraged to continue our happy-go-lucky, cheap-gas-easy-motoring,ignorant-of-the-world-outside-our-borders lifestyle.
Look back to WWII. Food was rationed. Women were asked to join the workforce. People stopped buying new autos as the industrial capacity was recommitted to producing tanks, planes, and ships. Everyone knew we were “at war” because everyone’s life was impacted in some way. Today, if it weren’t for sensational (but academically vacant) news reports, the average U.S. citizen could easily forget that we are busy killing men & women half a world away (while our own men & women suffer the same fate). Instead of financing the war with war bonds, we finance it with ourchildrens’ debt. This disgusts me.
If this “war on terror” is truly vital to the continuation of a free civilization, than it is surely worthy of some sacrifice by the American citizenry. If such sacrifice would be impossible to justify politically (as I believe it would) than I dare say we may be fighting a “war” based on false pretense.
Filed under politics : Comments (0) : Feb 21st, 2007
Introducing the book
Suffer through the bi-lingual sub-titles. Well worth it.
Filed under culture, technology : Comments (1) : Feb 18th, 2007
New phone, meet old phone
I just got a new cell phone. It has some nice features, such as the ability to make calls from inside my house. (A feature that my old phone lacked due to a gaping hole where the antenna once belonged.)
Since the old phone still worked (more or less), I decided to re-purpose it for a good use: 911 car phone. In case you didn’t know, any cell phone that can get a signal, even if it doesn’t have a plan associate with it, can be used to dial 911. I already had a car charger for the ol’ Sammy 660, so I’m just going to leave it in my glove box in case of emergency.
To avoid confusion, I blacked-out the keys that are no longer necessary:
This is the second 911-only phone I’ve released into the wild. The first may still be in the glove box of a mid 90’s purple Mercury Sable somewhere in central Wisconsin.
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (1) : Feb 5th, 2007
The Burg
In yet another installment of I-love-the-internet-and-its-transformative-impact-on-the-arts-and-culture, I wanted to share an internet TV show that I’m really enjoying: The Burg.
I’m impressed by the level of writing and video production for the no-budget show. It’s not as polished as its professionally produced competitors, but in no way does this detract from the experience. It reminds me of another low-budget show that actually made it to cable, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Only better.
As a proud disowner of a television (translation: I don’t have a TV), I get all my video entertainment down the tubes of the internet. This arrangement has been working out quite well for me, and I’m pleased to report that I watch far less television than I did when I had a boob-tube. Between Comedy Central’s Daily Show clips, iTunes downloads, and internet TV like The Burg (oh, and the less-than-legal stuff), my media needs are met.
And my bank account appreciates the $2000 I’m not spending on an HDTV and the $600 I’m not spending on cable each year. Bonus.
Filed under culture, sites i like : Comments (0) : Feb 4th, 2007
IPCC
The IPCC just released its fourth assessment of global climate change. In the 6 years since their last assessment was released, scientists around the world have developed a much better understanding of the subject.
As a responsible citizen, please take a moment to read the report so you can make informed decisions and help inform your fellow man. For your convenience, here is a link to the summary for lawmakers [PDF] that provides the important points without getting too bogged down in details.
In a nutshell, we are far past the point of questioning whether global climate change is happening. It is. So too are we past the point of questioning whether humans are causing it. We are. Now we need to think long and hard about what actions we can take and policies we can adopt to mitigate this potentially catastrophic global change.
This must be at the forefront of policy debate as we swing into the election season. It’s too important to ignore or pass on to the next generation.
Filed under climate change : Comments (0) : Feb 2nd, 2007
