A reductio ad absurdum means, a reduction to absurdity. It means that if a proposition is taken to it's logical conclusion and that conclusion is absurd, then the proposition cannot possibly be true.
The usefulness of a reductio ad absurdum has been diminished by people who want to use it as a "reductio ad radical" or reduction to the radical. The definition of absurd is not appreciated by these people. Absurd means meaningless, cannot exist, or in contradiction. A reduction to the radical is not absurd. It just means that a proposition can be taken to a radical conclusion. In response to a reductio ad radical, one might say, "I am prepared to accept that conclusion".
A simple example is that libertarianism might taken to the logical conclusion of anarchy, or atheism to nihilism, or the belief that zoos are oppressive to animals because we're trapping them to the logical conclusion that we should also not have pets.
While a reductio ad radical is never a knock-down argument, or a tool which reveals proof, it is rhetorically persuasive. One that doesn't want to take the entire journey, might be persuaded not to travel the first mile. Because when they do, consistency demands of them to explain, why not travel another mile? And another? And another?
Such intellectual journey's are not for people who are averse to cognitive strain.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
"Right and wrong are relative, and propaganda is bad"
A smart friend on facebook insists,
"Right and wrong are relative, and all propaganda is bad, as it deceives."
I wonder if he would be satisfied in saying that because all propaganda is bad, that it is wrong to use it.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Glass Steagall and it's irrelevance
I've been reading about the financial crisis today. More particularly, about the role of regulation in the financial crisis. A lot of people blame deregulation for what happened, but they aren't able to explain to me what was deregulated that would have prevented the crisis. The ones who do, usually point to the Glass Steagall Act, but aren't able to explain to me what it did that would have prevented the crisis. One movie with Matt Damon, Inside Job, advocates of this idea. Moreover, I've heard no serious thinking people blame the crisis on Glass Steagall, even the ones that believe very strongly in regulation and intervention. This has always indicated to me that it's really not really worthy of my time.
Today I ran into an article that explain the Glass Steagall Act's lack of relationship with the financial crisis, and that got me reading some other articles, including a 2009 one from Reason, and one from Business Insider. I decided to Google Scholar the subject and it brought up some interesting reading material. One is an overview of the financial crisis, what he thinks it's primary causes were, and weren't. I'm interested to see if Paul Krugman might have come up with a connection between Glass Steagall and the financial crisis. I hate to dismiss the issue without hearing from the other side, but honestly, I can't find an informed person taking that side of the issue. I only find political journalists, conspiracy theory websites, and left wing thinktanks. And their rhetoric seems to be, "Glass Steagall had something to do with risk, crisis was caused by risk, therefore, Glass Steagall caused crisis." It's a pretty easy argument for politics, people rally around simple ideas that confirm their biases, but it's pretty poor for academics.
Glass Steagall separated commercial banking from investment banking. It told banks that they could not to both. Did interaction between commercial banking and investment banking cause the crisis? Bear Sterns had nothing to do with commercial banking, and neither did Lehman Brothers, Merill Lynch, American International Group, Fannie May or Freddie Mac. I'm having a terrible time making a connection between the two.
You could say that the repeal of Glass Steagall allowed for banks to get larger, and that's true, and that's a problem if you're worried that some banks become too big to fail. But it certainly wouldn't have prevented the crisis. And the ironic thing is, letting banks do both commercial banking and investment banking allows them to diversify, and reduce risk that way.
The repeal of Glass Steagall very clearly had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Deregulation could have, but I don't find much substance behind that claim. A lack of regulation that never existed in the first place I find very possible. In fact, I would say that some perfect form of a regulatory apparatus certainly would have prevented the crisis. The problem is, trying to get it or anything close to it is a pipe dream. There will always be holes in the regulatory apparatus and the financial sector will always be able to find them. But if you just give good incentives in the first place, they won't have any reason for banks to all of the sudden, all at the same time, make terrible decisions. That's the realistic solution. Otherwise, you're just trusting politicians, the median voter, and economists to know more about the financial sector than the people making money in the financial sector, and that's just not going to happen.
Today I ran into an article that explain the Glass Steagall Act's lack of relationship with the financial crisis, and that got me reading some other articles, including a 2009 one from Reason, and one from Business Insider. I decided to Google Scholar the subject and it brought up some interesting reading material. One is an overview of the financial crisis, what he thinks it's primary causes were, and weren't. I'm interested to see if Paul Krugman might have come up with a connection between Glass Steagall and the financial crisis. I hate to dismiss the issue without hearing from the other side, but honestly, I can't find an informed person taking that side of the issue. I only find political journalists, conspiracy theory websites, and left wing thinktanks. And their rhetoric seems to be, "Glass Steagall had something to do with risk, crisis was caused by risk, therefore, Glass Steagall caused crisis." It's a pretty easy argument for politics, people rally around simple ideas that confirm their biases, but it's pretty poor for academics.
Glass Steagall separated commercial banking from investment banking. It told banks that they could not to both. Did interaction between commercial banking and investment banking cause the crisis? Bear Sterns had nothing to do with commercial banking, and neither did Lehman Brothers, Merill Lynch, American International Group, Fannie May or Freddie Mac. I'm having a terrible time making a connection between the two.
You could say that the repeal of Glass Steagall allowed for banks to get larger, and that's true, and that's a problem if you're worried that some banks become too big to fail. But it certainly wouldn't have prevented the crisis. And the ironic thing is, letting banks do both commercial banking and investment banking allows them to diversify, and reduce risk that way.
The repeal of Glass Steagall very clearly had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Deregulation could have, but I don't find much substance behind that claim. A lack of regulation that never existed in the first place I find very possible. In fact, I would say that some perfect form of a regulatory apparatus certainly would have prevented the crisis. The problem is, trying to get it or anything close to it is a pipe dream. There will always be holes in the regulatory apparatus and the financial sector will always be able to find them. But if you just give good incentives in the first place, they won't have any reason for banks to all of the sudden, all at the same time, make terrible decisions. That's the realistic solution. Otherwise, you're just trusting politicians, the median voter, and economists to know more about the financial sector than the people making money in the financial sector, and that's just not going to happen.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Christians should be anti-government
It seems like it would be easy to convince a Christian of libertarianism, if the Christian had concern for consistency. How many times did the New Testament command us to live in peace with all men? Not just some men, but all men. It says it several times, and gives no exception.
This peace theme really does go on and on throughout the New Testament. "Resist not evil"it says, and gives no exception.
The next step is to say what should be clear. Legislation and taxation is enforced by violence. Is violence peace? No. It is not. Can we call an institution like government but does not tax or legislate a government anymore? No, we can't.
It doesn't take the Christian to the logical conclusion of some moderate libertarianism, but full fledged anarchism and radical pacifism. (Especially when you take in Jesus' command not to condemn, in it's true original meaning, not the version you learn in church which means do say mean words about others.)
Of course, there are a dozen ways the Christian can squeak and squirm out of something that is perfectly clear. They usually have to say some whacky stuff in order to avoid true consistency.
They have to say that when Jesus said "all men" he meant, "some men", and then didn't go on to distinguish the difference between the men that we ought to treat peaceably and the ones which we should not. He might as well of said, "The men you should be peaceable to, be peaceable to them. And the men whom you should not be peaceable, do not be peaceable to them. I leave it to you to decide which is which." Seriously? Or is it possible that Jesus meant exactly what he said?
They have to say that the commands given by the new testament do not apply to government. Jesus, apparently, without saying so, gave all governments the moral exception. Lawmakers and law enforcers live in a different sphere of morality. The exact same actions that for us is sin, for them is appropriate, sometimes even virtuous. I group of people 250 years ago wrote down on a peace of paper that Congress shall have the power to tax, and forevermore congress shall tax without infringing on morality. Where is the justification? Why should this be believed instead of the perfectly clear interpretation that there is no exception.
Or they say that Jesus did say so, you know, that time when he said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That means, that Caesar is allowed not to live peaceably with all men. Caesar is allowed to resist evil, even initiate it. Basically everything Jesus said does not apply to politics. Politics is sacred and resides in a different, unmentioned realm of morality. Nothing in the universe stretches so far as this meaning without breaking.
They have to say that taxation and legislation is not enforced with violence, that they are enforced peacefully. If a cop can hand me a speeding ticket, and I say, "not thanks", then that's not violence. If marijuana laws are enforced with some guy coming to your door and reprimanding you verbally, then that's not violence either. If laws are made with only the threat of violence, and are without credibility, then we have no contradiction. But if taxation and legislation are, and we all know they are, enforced with guns, then this is obviously in stark contradiction with peace.
They have to say that we ourselves ought to live peaceably, but should advocate others, like our lawmakers and law enforcers, to do so. I'm sorry, which New Testament advocates telling your brother to sin? Ah, the one that doesn't exist.
They have to say that Jesus really meant was to resist not evil, only if others also resist not evil. But until everybody in the world agrees not to take advantage of the peaceful, we should resist evil. And not even "resist" most of the time, but initiate! We should initiate violence against prostitutes, or tax evaders, or an unlicensed barber. Do they really believe peace enforces these laws?
These are real positions some Christians take. I once took some of them because I wasn't concerned with the truth, I was concerned with feeding my biases. I was concerned with relieving my cognitive dissonance by making up stories of compatibility and hiding them where they're not vulnerable. I hid them from my own critical thinking and from others.
Christians follow two conflicting laws, the constitution, and the New Testament's Law of God. Those two laws are not comparable. One says Congress shall have the power to tax, and the other says to live peacefully with others. One says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress, and the other says God's legislation is to be followed, and it commands to resist not evil, and to live peaceably with all people.
They pledge allegiance to both God and a flag, but these allegiances are not in harmony with one another. In word, Christians devote themselves to both. In action, they devote themselves to only the flag; to government as highest authority.
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
Matthew 5:39-40
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But
I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good
to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and
persecute you"
Matthew 5:43-44
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord"
Hebrews 12:14
Hebrews 12:14
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."
Romans 12:18
The next step is to say what should be clear. Legislation and taxation is enforced by violence. Is violence peace? No. It is not. Can we call an institution like government but does not tax or legislate a government anymore? No, we can't.
It doesn't take the Christian to the logical conclusion of some moderate libertarianism, but full fledged anarchism and radical pacifism. (Especially when you take in Jesus' command not to condemn, in it's true original meaning, not the version you learn in church which means do say mean words about others.)
Of course, there are a dozen ways the Christian can squeak and squirm out of something that is perfectly clear. They usually have to say some whacky stuff in order to avoid true consistency.
They have to say that when Jesus said "all men" he meant, "some men", and then didn't go on to distinguish the difference between the men that we ought to treat peaceably and the ones which we should not. He might as well of said, "The men you should be peaceable to, be peaceable to them. And the men whom you should not be peaceable, do not be peaceable to them. I leave it to you to decide which is which." Seriously? Or is it possible that Jesus meant exactly what he said?
They have to say that the commands given by the new testament do not apply to government. Jesus, apparently, without saying so, gave all governments the moral exception. Lawmakers and law enforcers live in a different sphere of morality. The exact same actions that for us is sin, for them is appropriate, sometimes even virtuous. I group of people 250 years ago wrote down on a peace of paper that Congress shall have the power to tax, and forevermore congress shall tax without infringing on morality. Where is the justification? Why should this be believed instead of the perfectly clear interpretation that there is no exception.
Or they say that Jesus did say so, you know, that time when he said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That means, that Caesar is allowed not to live peaceably with all men. Caesar is allowed to resist evil, even initiate it. Basically everything Jesus said does not apply to politics. Politics is sacred and resides in a different, unmentioned realm of morality. Nothing in the universe stretches so far as this meaning without breaking.
They have to say that taxation and legislation is not enforced with violence, that they are enforced peacefully. If a cop can hand me a speeding ticket, and I say, "not thanks", then that's not violence. If marijuana laws are enforced with some guy coming to your door and reprimanding you verbally, then that's not violence either. If laws are made with only the threat of violence, and are without credibility, then we have no contradiction. But if taxation and legislation are, and we all know they are, enforced with guns, then this is obviously in stark contradiction with peace.
They have to say that we ourselves ought to live peaceably, but should advocate others, like our lawmakers and law enforcers, to do so. I'm sorry, which New Testament advocates telling your brother to sin? Ah, the one that doesn't exist.
They have to say that Jesus really meant was to resist not evil, only if others also resist not evil. But until everybody in the world agrees not to take advantage of the peaceful, we should resist evil. And not even "resist" most of the time, but initiate! We should initiate violence against prostitutes, or tax evaders, or an unlicensed barber. Do they really believe peace enforces these laws?
These are real positions some Christians take. I once took some of them because I wasn't concerned with the truth, I was concerned with feeding my biases. I was concerned with relieving my cognitive dissonance by making up stories of compatibility and hiding them where they're not vulnerable. I hid them from my own critical thinking and from others.
Christians follow two conflicting laws, the constitution, and the New Testament's Law of God. Those two laws are not comparable. One says Congress shall have the power to tax, and the other says to live peacefully with others. One says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress, and the other says God's legislation is to be followed, and it commands to resist not evil, and to live peaceably with all people.
They pledge allegiance to both God and a flag, but these allegiances are not in harmony with one another. In word, Christians devote themselves to both. In action, they devote themselves to only the flag; to government as highest authority.
Monday, May 21, 2012
What is economics?
I once asked my brother, a graduate student in physics, what the definitions of physics was. "The study of everything" was his initial response, but we both found it unsatisfying. It took us some time before we got to the point where we could give even a modestly adequate definition of the study of physics.
So too, economics is defined in many different ways. Some of these ways have a lot of overlap, some of them are merely saying the same thing in different ways. But trying to define economics is not easy.
Non-economists usually think of economics as having something to do with money. Because of this, they oftentimes confuse economics and finance. It's not that the two don't have anything in common. Finance is just one particular market which economics is concerned with, and a very important one. But it's a very narrow definition for a much broader reaching area of study.
Tyler Cowen once defined it, "the science of the logic of choice." This definition is pretty good, but it's muddled a bit to the passive listener, and calling it a science isn't quite right. Science, it seems, requires repeatable experiments in controllable environments. Economics does not have that. This is not to put economics down. The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, world history, philosophy, psychology, astrology, and fortune telling, are not scientific by this definition. And some are certainly serious areas of study where human knowledge has been furthered. Some even call mathematics, not science because math is entirely conceptual, and therefore cannot be tested by something outside of our own minds.
The second part of Tyler Cowen's definition, is that "the science/study of the logic of choice", is a bit muddled if you don't think about it the right way. The logic of choice? What does that mean? Well, it simply means that people make choices according to some system, and we study that system. We can use the study of that system to make predictions about the future and the effects of institutions and rules set by governments and markets. Though these predictions cannot be too specific because human behavior is not perfectly predictable, lots of human behavior averages out in a predictable way.
Russel Roberts likes to define economics as, "the study of how to get more out of life". This strikes me as a more romantic way of simply saying, "the study of efficiency". Life is made up of resources which are finite, and because they're all finite, we have to make tradeoffs between them. We want to organize those tradeoffs, those finite resources, in the best way possible. We want to organize them such that we have the lowest cost means combined with the highest valued ends, also known as, efficiency. Although efficiency sounds cold, it is not that way when understood. Efficiency can mean spending more time with your children or your spouse, feeding people in starving countries, more medical care for more people, more books cinema literature and art, as well as more sex drugs and rock & Roll. While many think of these things as good, so lets get them, or bad so lets not get them, economists rightly identify the relevant question, what do we have to give up to have them? Or what do we have to lose to get rid of them? These are the questions of efficiency. Everything has a tradeoff. There is always a price to be paid.
So too, economics is defined in many different ways. Some of these ways have a lot of overlap, some of them are merely saying the same thing in different ways. But trying to define economics is not easy.
Non-economists usually think of economics as having something to do with money. Because of this, they oftentimes confuse economics and finance. It's not that the two don't have anything in common. Finance is just one particular market which economics is concerned with, and a very important one. But it's a very narrow definition for a much broader reaching area of study.
Tyler Cowen once defined it, "the science of the logic of choice." This definition is pretty good, but it's muddled a bit to the passive listener, and calling it a science isn't quite right. Science, it seems, requires repeatable experiments in controllable environments. Economics does not have that. This is not to put economics down. The theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, world history, philosophy, psychology, astrology, and fortune telling, are not scientific by this definition. And some are certainly serious areas of study where human knowledge has been furthered. Some even call mathematics, not science because math is entirely conceptual, and therefore cannot be tested by something outside of our own minds.
The second part of Tyler Cowen's definition, is that "the science/study of the logic of choice", is a bit muddled if you don't think about it the right way. The logic of choice? What does that mean? Well, it simply means that people make choices according to some system, and we study that system. We can use the study of that system to make predictions about the future and the effects of institutions and rules set by governments and markets. Though these predictions cannot be too specific because human behavior is not perfectly predictable, lots of human behavior averages out in a predictable way.
Russel Roberts likes to define economics as, "the study of how to get more out of life". This strikes me as a more romantic way of simply saying, "the study of efficiency". Life is made up of resources which are finite, and because they're all finite, we have to make tradeoffs between them. We want to organize those tradeoffs, those finite resources, in the best way possible. We want to organize them such that we have the lowest cost means combined with the highest valued ends, also known as, efficiency. Although efficiency sounds cold, it is not that way when understood. Efficiency can mean spending more time with your children or your spouse, feeding people in starving countries, more medical care for more people, more books cinema literature and art, as well as more sex drugs and rock & Roll. While many think of these things as good, so lets get them, or bad so lets not get them, economists rightly identify the relevant question, what do we have to give up to have them? Or what do we have to lose to get rid of them? These are the questions of efficiency. Everything has a tradeoff. There is always a price to be paid.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Costs of believing certain kinds of stories
Lots of talk and text about being suspicious of stories. Tyler Cowen outlines three costs of telling stories
1) Stories are too simple: Good versus evil stories, conspiracies, have to get tough stories.
2) Stories end up serving dual and conflicting purposes: We get tied up into stories and aren't able to let go after the story has served it's purpose. We aren't able to even acknowledge facts that don't fit into the story we're telling ourselves.
3) Markets and politicians don't always send us the right stories: Advertising, the liberal media story, the George Bush did it story.
It seems he's not actually critiquing stories per se, but certain kinds of stories. All of the problems come from analyzing the truth content of a story based on whether or not it is good, or we like the story, or find the story inspiring or rewarding, rather than whether the story is necessary or likely to be true. We are seduced by good stories rather than true stories or stories that reveal true lessons.
1) Stories are too simple: Good versus evil stories, conspiracies, have to get tough stories.
2) Stories end up serving dual and conflicting purposes: We get tied up into stories and aren't able to let go after the story has served it's purpose. We aren't able to even acknowledge facts that don't fit into the story we're telling ourselves.
3) Markets and politicians don't always send us the right stories: Advertising, the liberal media story, the George Bush did it story.
It seems he's not actually critiquing stories per se, but certain kinds of stories. All of the problems come from analyzing the truth content of a story based on whether or not it is good, or we like the story, or find the story inspiring or rewarding, rather than whether the story is necessary or likely to be true. We are seduced by good stories rather than true stories or stories that reveal true lessons.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
