Fortunately, most people here in New Zealand*** have probably never heard of Jordan Peterson. But over the past few years he seems to have become quite the big name in North America.
Sadly, what he is telling people is both wrong and dangerously bad. Don't let him fool you.
This article by Bernard Schiff is very informative.
Also, P Z Myers has lately been addressing the specific factual errors in Peterson's work. He's got a video showing Peterson's confusion over lobsters, and another on maps without meaning.
(***It is unclear whether Matt Heath, who occasionally writes opinion pieces at the NZ Herald, has been fooled by Peterson or is writing a deeply ironic article. I hope it is the latter, though I suspect it is the former.)
UPDATE 6/6/2018: This and this are also useful about Peterson.
Sunday 27 May 2018
Wednesday 23 May 2018
Saturday 12 May 2018
Harry Potter #2
Yesterday, I finished reading aloud the second Harry Potter book to Mulan and Miya (that is, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets).
This was a read-aloud for Miya (it was about Mulan's sixth time to hear/read it). Back in 2014, I reviewed the book here, when Mulan and I both read it for the first time.
Miya has decided that she is not ready for the third book (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) just yet.Mulan waited until she was 8, so Miya will probably do the same.
Our next read-aloud will be for Mulan. We are thinking we will try Tom Sawyer.
***Correction, I wrote here that Mulan finished the third book when she was about 7 1/2, and she read the fourth book around her 9th birthday.
This was a read-aloud for Miya (it was about Mulan's sixth time to hear/read it). Back in 2014, I reviewed the book here, when Mulan and I both read it for the first time.
Miya has decided that she is not ready for the third book (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) just yet.
Our next read-aloud will be for Mulan. We are thinking we will try Tom Sawyer.
***Correction, I wrote here that Mulan finished the third book when she was about 7 1/2, and she read the fourth book around her 9th birthday.
Friday 11 May 2018
Nuclear problems
It is a toss-up trying to decide which is our biggest existential threat (that it, which problem is most likely to kill off humanity). Climate change is up there, but as is a nuclear "accident", as explained here.
I kinda suspected that nuclear was not a great idea, but apparently there have been thousands of near misses as ridiculous as these:
It looks like it is just dumb luck that we are still alive (for now).
I kinda suspected that nuclear was not a great idea, but apparently there have been thousands of near misses as ridiculous as these:
- A USAF F-86 jet fighter collided with a USAF B-47 bomber over the American state of Georgia on February 5, 1958. The bomber dropped a nuclear bomb rated at 3.8 megatons (that is roughly 45 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima). It had apparently not been properly maintained and did not function as it should have. It did not explode. Had it exploded, it would have incinerated an area as large as the center of New York City – 23rd-59th streets, river to river. And, of course, it could as easily have been dropped accidentally on New York as on Georgia.
- A USAF B-52 carrying two 4-megaton bombs (that is a total of 100 times the size of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima) broke apart in mid-air over North Carolina on January 24, 1961. One of the two bombs (in the words of the report) "behaved precisely as a nuclear weapon was designed to behave in warfare: its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage."
- On January 17, 1966, a B-52 collided with a tanker aircraft near the Spanish fishing village of Palomares. The tanker exploded and the bomber broke up, dropping 4 nuclear bombs. The non-nuclear explosives (the "triggers" for the nuclear bombs) detonated on impact but failed to ignite the nuclear fuel. If they had functioned, as they were supposed to do, they would have obliterated a large part of Spain. One bomb did not detonate at all, and the fourth bomb apparently floated out to sea under its parachute and was never recovered.
- At Thule, Greenland on January 23, 1968, a bomber with 4 nuclear weapons aboard crashed; the "trigger" (a conventional bomb) exploded but did not detonate the nuclear material. It luckily malfunctioned. One bomb was never recovered.
Thursday 10 May 2018
Book review: The Seasons Alter
A few days ago, I finished reading The Seasons Alter: How to Save Our Planet in Six Acts, by Philip Kitcher and Evelyn Fox Keller. In case it isn't obvious, its subject matter is climate change.
I read the book because, as I said here, it was mentioned in an interview and sounded interesting.
If you have read the interview with Kitcher that I linked to, it should come as no surprise that this book is not a primer on climate science. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is to help us non-climate scientists to structure and clarify our thoughts on how to understand the social and political issues relating to climate science, and to be more informed participants in the discussion. A bit of an understanding of climate science is necessary, but just as important is getting our heads clearer about the social environment surrounding the science data, and what (if anything) we should be doing about it.
We can treat it like a division of labour. To get up to speed on climate science would take a person years of detailed study. Some people do it, and good on them. But we don't all need to do it. We don't all need to know the detailed scientific data to be able to be good public citizens and get involved in the issues.
So, this book is about how we, as informed public citizens, can take responsibility for our part, without becoming climate scientists ourselves.
The book is structured as a series of six dialogues. This is because one of the recurring themes throughout the book is the need for continued conversation. It is not about a small group of people talking at the rest of us and dictating what is to be done (or not done). It is about everyone, from all different backgrounds, getting together and talking together, figuring things out as we go along.
In each dialogue, we see the fictional characters of Jo and Joe chatting together in a friendly way. They often disagree with each other, but they listen to each other and build on each other's ideas in a productive way. They acknowledge doubts in their own views as well as strengths in the other's views, and try to work together towards a better understanding, if not agreement. The dialogues are sometimes pretty corny and idealised, but they are meant to be a model of how people who disagree on a subject can nonetheless do so politely but also substantively. Polite conversation need not be empty, and tackling the tough questions need not be a competitive battle.
The first dialogue is probably the most predictable. It is the chapter that sets out the climate science. The book was published in 2017, so it is fairly up on the the current information. In the dialogue, Jo takes the view that climate change is real, humans caused it, and it is going to continue. Joe is the sceptic. This allows us to step through the back and forth of the overall structure of the scientific evidential debate -- what the evidence is, and what it tells us. We get some good examples of the key concepts and methodologies for climate science data gathering and interpretation. We also get the current best evidence, which largely supports Jo's view.
But in this chapter we also get into the question of what counts as expertise and who can we trust when we are not climate scientists ourselves and so cannot check all the data. How do we deal with imperfect evidence in a non-ideal world? The book nicely steps us through the reasoning of how we, as non-experts, can still fairly assess the evidence to make reasoned judgments one way or the other. It explains why we don't need to think sitting on the fence is the only reasonable position, even when we hear all those talking heads disagreeing in the media.
The next five chapters follow on from the work done in chapter 1. That is, they take it that the best evidence and reasoning shows us that we non-experts should believe that climate change is real, humans caused it, and it is going to continue.
These five chapters then step us through a series of follow-up questions, and how we should go about answering them. These include:
I read the book because, as I said here, it was mentioned in an interview and sounded interesting.
If you have read the interview with Kitcher that I linked to, it should come as no surprise that this book is not a primer on climate science. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is to help us non-climate scientists to structure and clarify our thoughts on how to understand the social and political issues relating to climate science, and to be more informed participants in the discussion. A bit of an understanding of climate science is necessary, but just as important is getting our heads clearer about the social environment surrounding the science data, and what (if anything) we should be doing about it.
We can treat it like a division of labour. To get up to speed on climate science would take a person years of detailed study. Some people do it, and good on them. But we don't all need to do it. We don't all need to know the detailed scientific data to be able to be good public citizens and get involved in the issues.
So, this book is about how we, as informed public citizens, can take responsibility for our part, without becoming climate scientists ourselves.
The book is structured as a series of six dialogues. This is because one of the recurring themes throughout the book is the need for continued conversation. It is not about a small group of people talking at the rest of us and dictating what is to be done (or not done). It is about everyone, from all different backgrounds, getting together and talking together, figuring things out as we go along.
In each dialogue, we see the fictional characters of Jo and Joe chatting together in a friendly way. They often disagree with each other, but they listen to each other and build on each other's ideas in a productive way. They acknowledge doubts in their own views as well as strengths in the other's views, and try to work together towards a better understanding, if not agreement. The dialogues are sometimes pretty corny and idealised, but they are meant to be a model of how people who disagree on a subject can nonetheless do so politely but also substantively. Polite conversation need not be empty, and tackling the tough questions need not be a competitive battle.
The first dialogue is probably the most predictable. It is the chapter that sets out the climate science. The book was published in 2017, so it is fairly up on the the current information. In the dialogue, Jo takes the view that climate change is real, humans caused it, and it is going to continue. Joe is the sceptic. This allows us to step through the back and forth of the overall structure of the scientific evidential debate -- what the evidence is, and what it tells us. We get some good examples of the key concepts and methodologies for climate science data gathering and interpretation. We also get the current best evidence, which largely supports Jo's view.
But in this chapter we also get into the question of what counts as expertise and who can we trust when we are not climate scientists ourselves and so cannot check all the data. How do we deal with imperfect evidence in a non-ideal world? The book nicely steps us through the reasoning of how we, as non-experts, can still fairly assess the evidence to make reasoned judgments one way or the other. It explains why we don't need to think sitting on the fence is the only reasonable position, even when we hear all those talking heads disagreeing in the media.
The next five chapters follow on from the work done in chapter 1. That is, they take it that the best evidence and reasoning shows us that we non-experts should believe that climate change is real, humans caused it, and it is going to continue.
These five chapters then step us through a series of follow-up questions, and how we should go about answering them. These include:
- how serious climate change is, compared with other global concerns such as poverty, disease, etc,
- why we, as individuals, should care, and how to weigh its importance against our own personal cares, such as family,
- what can be done, physically, to improve things to reduce the bad effects of climate change,
- who should pay, and
- what sorts of (global and local) political decision-making structures might work best.
Wednesday 9 May 2018
Happy belated 200th
I'm late, again.
On Saturday (5th) it was Karl Marx's 200th birthday.
Like most people, I haven't read a lot of Marx's actual writings. (Though I've probably read a little more than most people.)
But also, like most people, that doesn't stop me from having opinions on Marx. (Those who read this blog will know I occasionally post Marx-related stuff.)
But that is probably where my likeness with other people stops (at least with respect to Marx). I suspect my opinions on Marx are a little different from that of most people.
For one thing, I don't think that universities are a hotbed of Marxist thought. At least in my experience they were certainly not. In my ten years at the University of Auckland, I barely heard Marx mentioned at all. I think my biggest university encounter with Marx was when, as a graduate student, I tutored a first year undergraduate course on Theories of Human Nature. We briefly taught a cartoon Marx, bundled in with Hegel, and I quickly read up enough to satisfy the simple needs of the youngsters. And in my five years at two universities in China, I don't think I ever heard Marx mentioned once. For the most part, Marx, apparently, is not seen as relevant.
For another thing, I tend not to equate Marx with the horrific evils in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and so on. It is quite clear in Marx's writings that that is not at all what he was talking about. Soviet Russia, et al, were oppressive regimes that used the language of Marx for propaganda purposes to solidify the power of the few in charge. And the Western countries, equally for propaganda reasons, used anti-Marxist language to fight those powers. Sadly, Marx's ideas themselves got caught in the crossfire. When people rightly criticise Soviet Russia, el al, they wrongly criticise Marx.
My current understanding of Marx has come about in the past five years or so, mostly based on reading (and watching) Robert Paul Wolff and Brian Leiter. Wolff, especially, has helped me to break out of the cartoon Marx mentality, and appreciate something of the depth of Marx's insights.
I'm still struggling with the ideas, and I hope I am right to say what follows. (Corrections welcome!)
Marx was an economist in the tradition of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, engaging with their work in a similar style, with similar assumptions, and on similar topics. But he went further than they did, to some extent completing their work and, significantly, solving a huge problem that they saw but couldn't resolve. But he also saw a deeper problem that they didn't even recognise. Most of Marx's mature work was an attempt to explain and solve this bigger problem, which has to do with understanding the fundamental nature and structures of capitalism. What he wrote is as relevant today as it was back then in the 1860s. While Marx got a few things wrong, his analysis has stood up remarkably well.
But perhaps unfortunately, in his main work, Capital, Marx chose to frequently write in an ironic tone of voice, that too often has gone over the heads of his readers. He was trying to get across multiple layers of complexity, and thought a more literary style would do the trick better than the dry economist-style prose he used elsewhere in his writings. When these multiple ideas are unpacked, his writing is illuminating and pleasurable, but without careful unpacking they can be, and often are, misused and misunderstood.
Wolff's books, Moneybags Must Be So Lucky and Understanding Marx, are a very readable explanation of Marx's key ideas. Or, for more visual people, his recent seven-part YouTube series (first part here) covers the essentials.
I hope a few more people take the time to read/watch. A bit of quiet, mature thought surely beats the bluster and rage that seems to pop up at the mere mention of Marx.
On Saturday (5th) it was Karl Marx's 200th birthday.
Like most people, I haven't read a lot of Marx's actual writings. (Though I've probably read a little more than most people.)
But also, like most people, that doesn't stop me from having opinions on Marx. (Those who read this blog will know I occasionally post Marx-related stuff.)
But that is probably where my likeness with other people stops (at least with respect to Marx). I suspect my opinions on Marx are a little different from that of most people.
For one thing, I don't think that universities are a hotbed of Marxist thought. At least in my experience they were certainly not. In my ten years at the University of Auckland, I barely heard Marx mentioned at all. I think my biggest university encounter with Marx was when, as a graduate student, I tutored a first year undergraduate course on Theories of Human Nature. We briefly taught a cartoon Marx, bundled in with Hegel, and I quickly read up enough to satisfy the simple needs of the youngsters. And in my five years at two universities in China, I don't think I ever heard Marx mentioned once. For the most part, Marx, apparently, is not seen as relevant.
For another thing, I tend not to equate Marx with the horrific evils in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and so on. It is quite clear in Marx's writings that that is not at all what he was talking about. Soviet Russia, et al, were oppressive regimes that used the language of Marx for propaganda purposes to solidify the power of the few in charge. And the Western countries, equally for propaganda reasons, used anti-Marxist language to fight those powers. Sadly, Marx's ideas themselves got caught in the crossfire. When people rightly criticise Soviet Russia, el al, they wrongly criticise Marx.
My current understanding of Marx has come about in the past five years or so, mostly based on reading (and watching) Robert Paul Wolff and Brian Leiter. Wolff, especially, has helped me to break out of the cartoon Marx mentality, and appreciate something of the depth of Marx's insights.
I'm still struggling with the ideas, and I hope I am right to say what follows. (Corrections welcome!)
Marx was an economist in the tradition of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, engaging with their work in a similar style, with similar assumptions, and on similar topics. But he went further than they did, to some extent completing their work and, significantly, solving a huge problem that they saw but couldn't resolve. But he also saw a deeper problem that they didn't even recognise. Most of Marx's mature work was an attempt to explain and solve this bigger problem, which has to do with understanding the fundamental nature and structures of capitalism. What he wrote is as relevant today as it was back then in the 1860s. While Marx got a few things wrong, his analysis has stood up remarkably well.
But perhaps unfortunately, in his main work, Capital, Marx chose to frequently write in an ironic tone of voice, that too often has gone over the heads of his readers. He was trying to get across multiple layers of complexity, and thought a more literary style would do the trick better than the dry economist-style prose he used elsewhere in his writings. When these multiple ideas are unpacked, his writing is illuminating and pleasurable, but without careful unpacking they can be, and often are, misused and misunderstood.
Wolff's books, Moneybags Must Be So Lucky and Understanding Marx, are a very readable explanation of Marx's key ideas. Or, for more visual people, his recent seven-part YouTube series (first part here) covers the essentials.
I hope a few more people take the time to read/watch. A bit of quiet, mature thought surely beats the bluster and rage that seems to pop up at the mere mention of Marx.
Saturday 5 May 2018
May the force ...
I'm late. I was busy.
Yesterday was the 4th of May. I mean, May the 4th.
It only works in that crazy, mixed-up way the USers do their dates, but yesterday, May the 4th, was Star Wars day -- may the fourth be with you.
I've never been that much of a fan of Star Wars. I mean, the Star Wars idea is grand and exciting, with exotic places and people, and I wanted to like it. But I always found the movie stories kinda bland and boring. The poor storytelling killed most of my interest in it.
But while it didn't catch my interest in a big way, I never really thought there was anything especially bad or wrong about the Star Wars creation.
That is, until I watched this YouTube video by Jonathan McIntosh. The heart of the criticism starts five minutes into the video. I warmly encourage you to watch it.
Any attempted explanation by me is only going to be a poor second to McIntosh's excellently clear and sensitive account. But in brief, McIntosh points out the dangerously wrong beliefs (and their actions) that the Jedi have regarding emotions and raising children. The Jedi have the best of intentions, but nonetheless cause huge amounts of pain and suffering because their understanding of people is so badly wrong.
This video is not merely some intellectual exercise nitpicking an imaginary movie world. It is also directly relevant to our modern world -- how we interact with each other and how we raise our children. There are plenty of excellent observations and good advice.
McIntosh has a good number of other thoughtful videos at Pop Culture Detective. It is well worth watching his other videos there, too.
Yesterday was the 4th of May. I mean, May the 4th.
It only works in that crazy, mixed-up way the USers do their dates, but yesterday, May the 4th, was Star Wars day -- may the fourth be with you.
I've never been that much of a fan of Star Wars. I mean, the Star Wars idea is grand and exciting, with exotic places and people, and I wanted to like it. But I always found the movie stories kinda bland and boring. The poor storytelling killed most of my interest in it.
But while it didn't catch my interest in a big way, I never really thought there was anything especially bad or wrong about the Star Wars creation.
That is, until I watched this YouTube video by Jonathan McIntosh. The heart of the criticism starts five minutes into the video. I warmly encourage you to watch it.
Any attempted explanation by me is only going to be a poor second to McIntosh's excellently clear and sensitive account. But in brief, McIntosh points out the dangerously wrong beliefs (and their actions) that the Jedi have regarding emotions and raising children. The Jedi have the best of intentions, but nonetheless cause huge amounts of pain and suffering because their understanding of people is so badly wrong.
This video is not merely some intellectual exercise nitpicking an imaginary movie world. It is also directly relevant to our modern world -- how we interact with each other and how we raise our children. There are plenty of excellent observations and good advice.
McIntosh has a good number of other thoughtful videos at Pop Culture Detective. It is well worth watching his other videos there, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)