Apr 02

A: Does it matter.  That’s the first a question a pragmatist asks.

Over the weekend I started reading William James’s Pragmatism and so far I find it positively fascinating.  (Enough so, in fact, that I’m not sure why I haven’t read a formal philosophical work in a while.  My wife is somewhat less enthused. :-/)  The central premises, as I understand them, are these: that we ought to determine the truth of a matter based solely on its practical consequences, but only insofar as that determination satisfies the constraints of empirical phenomena; that we ought to dispatch without consideration matters in which we can find, after thorough investigation, no practical consequence; that we ought to study in detail the physical world, for there is no other way of knowing it; and that among alternatives we ought to accept as true that one for which the practical consequences offer the greatest good.

These ideas are not new to me.  I’ve often spoken in support of pragmatism, and the pragmatic method is the sharpest tool I have for thinking about worldly matters.  What is new to me, though, is the formal application of that method to metaphysical matters, such as the argument from design and the existence of God.  The former, James concludes, is irrelevant.  The world is as it is, and it operates as it operates, indefinitely.  Whether it was designed to do so, or whether it simply does, is not worth the time required to ponder the question, for there is no practical consequence for the future of things.  We ought to spend more time understanding the workings of the universe, and less time arguing the origin of it.

The latter, namely the matter of God’s existence, James ascribes great weight to, as it has momentous practical importance.  Accept the existence of God, with its guarantee of an absolute, of a final destination, of a grander purpose, and James tells us that not only can we rest comfortable in the knowledge that life is not without meaning, but also that we may be relieved from the overwhelming burden of responsibility, that we may take a “moral holiday”.  Deny his existence and empiricism tells us that all things are relative, that there is no ultimate end, that purpose is an illusion, as all that is will one day become cold and dark and empty.  Faced with these two alternatives, and with a matter about which empiricism is mute, man’s existential desires can only be satisfied by the former. Let it be so!

Very fascinating.  Fascinating, but flawed, as we know from that uncomfortable feeling in the pit of the stomach.  In James formulation of pragmatism there seem to me to be two bones (more, actually, but who has the time?) that we can’t help but pick.  First, cleverly (or perhaps not so much so) hidden from view, is James’s assumption that we are able to accurately assess consequence.  Such a feat requires nothing short of clairvoyance.  Now, I hear some of you saying that you just do the best with what you have, that you make an educated guess, and that you revise that guess as you become more learned.  But here we run into a pointed issue: in order to learn of the world, you must study it, but how can you assess the practical consequences of such study?  It gave us the atomic bomb!  A conceivable consequence of empiricism is self-destruction!  How can we weigh the threat of non-existence, of infinite risk, against the promise of technology, of finite gain?  It seems to me that the infinite always trumps the finite, and that empiricism is then its own undoing.  Accept this, and the pragmatist will find his feet embedded in concrete, unable to take a step forward for fear of falling from a cliff.

Second, what is the “greatest good”.  Greatest good for whom?  For me?  For my family?  For humanity?  This question is paramount, for experience tells us that these possibilities are often in conflict.  We can be certain that Madoff thought his deviance wonderful for himself, but for those who lost their fortunes there was no good in his deeds.  It seems James has left us swimming in a sea of mud!  “Wait,” you say, “let us evaluate this matter pragmatically.”  We may try, but we will not get far, for it seems to me that the question of the good is always a question of values, and in the land of values, pragmatism is blind.

Despite this criticism, we cannot conclude pragmatism is without merit.  It provides us with a framework, hopefully one among many, to which we may subject our beliefs and our opinions in the everlasting pursuit of truth.  Imagine a world in which each of took a step back and calmly, without emotion, pondered the practical consequences before reaching for anger, hate, and the multitude of other human vices.  James was right, I think, about one thing: many of the issues that divide us would cease to do so.

Aug 21

When it comes to education, we’ve all heard about how the U.S. is falling behind China and other countries, especially in the so-called STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).  Both the federal and municipal governments are involved in costly STEM initiatives designed to improve the competitiveness of U.S. educational institutions.  So far there appear to be many signs that the initiatives are working.

Yet I find myself wondering if the issues that underlie the failings of the U.S educational system are more fundamental than a lack of emphasis on the STEM disciplines.  We can argue long and hard about the debilitating effects that the breakdown of social constructs have on student performance (as I believe they almost certainly do).  But I think another issue with primary and secondary education, for which the STEM initiatives are themselves partly to blame, is that they have become too abstract.  What good is calculus if you don’t understand how to balance a checkbook?  Is quantum mechanics helpful when you’re trying to prepare dinner?  What primary and secondary education really needs to convey is essential skills that we all use almost every day of our lives, something I would argue it fails, abysmally, to do.  That’s why I think we need to incorporate a few mandatory courses into the mix.

Personal Finance and Accounting: An annual survey performed by the federal reserve indicates that teens answer questions about financial matters correctly slightly over 50% of the time.  Maybe these results help explain why the average credit card debt is approaching $7,500 per household (though, thanks to the recession, that’s actually down a bit from the peak) and why college seniors graduate with an average of more than $4,000 in credit card debt.  It might also help to explain why people, whether manipulated or just ignorant, found themselves so heavily overleveraged in the housing bust.  A little mandatory financial education may go a long way toward solving these problems, and may also put the country on a more stable long-term economic path in the future.

Culinary Arts and Nutrition: Nearly two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obeseMany people can’t understand nutrition labelsFast food consumption is growing rapidlyThe percentage of meals cooked in the home is declining just as rapidly.  With facts like those it’s no wonder that the U.S. faces an obesity epidemic, one for which the annual costs are approaching $300 billion per year.  Call me crazy, but I’m betting that mandatory courses on nutrition and food preparation might help alleviate these startling trends.  They might even pay for themselves by reducing future healthcare expenses.

Informal Logic: Informal logic, a.k.a. critical thinking, is an important tenet of democracy.  Democracy relies on the masses to make reasoned, informed choices about the policies that its government pursues.  When people are no longer able to reason critically, democracy devolves into kakistocracy – rule by the mob.  I personally believe that an inability to reason critically is a significant reason for today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere.  People simply do not take politicians to task for their rhetoric.  As an example, consider Warren Buffett’s recent editorial in the New York Times in which he urges the government to stop coddling the rich with unreasonably favorable policies.  What were the responses to his plea?  Michele Bachmann said that Buffett should pay more in taxes if he wants to.  Robert Holmes questions Buffett’s motives.  Both of these arguments are likely to be successful with the right wing electorate, and both of them are based on an ad hominem logical fallacy.  Both Bachmann and Holmes go after Buffett’s character, which of course has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his argument.  I would hope people would be smart enough to realize that.  A course on informal logic would certainly help.

My point: let’s get back to the basics.  We can worry about STEM once we halt our political and financial descent to ruin.

Feb 18

Aren't happy cows cute?

I recently finished reading both Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer and The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.  If it isn’t obvious from the title, both books deal with food, and they begin similarly enough: as the authors’ quests to find out where their food comes from.  The books cover a lot of the same ground – factory farming, sustainable agriculture, etc – but there are important differences.

Foer’s book strikes a more personal note from the start.  The first chapters are devoted to stories about the role of food in the author’s childhood, stories to which he returns often throughout the book when discussing his personal relationship with food.  Soon, though, Foer launches into a vicious indictment of factory farming of livestock.  He focuses primarily on animal welfare and demonstrates vividly how factory farming fails to meet the standard of any definition of that term.  The examples are nauseating to say the least – cows knee deep in shit, pigs sodomized with electrodes, chickens with bones broken under their own weight – and it’s hard to imagine actually wanting to eat meat produced the way he describes.  By the time you reach the end of the book you know that what you’ve read is more than a polemic; it’s a battle cry against the unethical treatment of animals, and, according to Foer, the greatest weapon you wield is vegetarianism.

For everything Foer does well – his presentation of pieces written by advocates of all sides of the argument is especially prescient – there’s something unsatisfying, or perhaps disingenuous, about his conclusion.  As I mentioned above, his concern with factory farms is centered on unethical treatment of animals, but his comments about environmental concerns throughout the book suggests his antipathy is not limited strictly to the realm of quadrupeds.  Thus his failure to comment on the environmental degradation caused by industrial crops somewhat weakens his argument for vegetarianism and leaves the reader pondering what it is he is really trying to say.

This is where Pollan shines.  While The Omnivore’s Dilemma more or less gives a pass to the industry with respect to animal welfare, but it presents a more holistic view of agriculture.  It takes on the issues of monoculture and leech fields.  It lets you know that simple vegetarianism is not a solution.  Sure, it saves energy, but eating food produced on the other side of the equator cannot really be considered sustainable, nor can the dead zones the size of New Jersey that result from agricultural runoff.  Pollan’s argument is less prescriptive than Foer’s; while he certainly pursues an agenda, he doesn’t tell you what to do.  Rather, he presents you with several options, and ultimately with the burden of choice without the cover of excuses.

Thus we arrive at what for me is the real crux of the matter.  It’s not about vegan vs. vegetarian.  It’s not about meat vs. no meat.  It’s not even about organic vs. non-organic.  It’s about choice.  It’s about responsibility.  It’s about respect.  Choosing to eat meat produced in a way that ignores the suffering of animals and encourages human depravity is not respectful.  Choosing to eat crops produced in a way that destroys ecosystems and poisons the planet is not responsible.   The choice of that or something better should not a be a choice at all.

preload preload preload