Saturday, October 07, 2006
The competition for the NCAEFA
The North Country Academy for the Excruciatingly Fine Arts has some serious competition in Singapore. (which is also where I got the Nietzsche Family Circus link)
New Research Statement
I'm getting ready for the job market, updating my CV and research portfolio. Below is a new research statement, reflecting my new publications and plans. So if any of the teeming multitudes who arrives here via a search for "Monkey orgasm" have a job to offer me, check this out and give me a call. The full portfolio and new CV are on the sidebar
Research Statement
My research is in environmental and medical ethics. These interests are not really distinct. Both areas are places where the philosophy of science intersects with practical, and often the same set of epistemic norms and ethical values are at stake in each. Indeed one of my main interests is in tracing issues as they cross from the human world of medical ethics to the nonhuman world of environmental ethics. Right now I have two published papers about genetic engineering, a topic that comes up in both medical and environmental contexts. The first paper, published in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal makes a direct comparison between the environmental and the medical arena, arguing that the difference in levels of caution we exercise regarding genetic engineering in these two areas is unjustified. The second paper, forthcoming in the volume Ethical issues is the Life Sciences, argues that in the case of agricultural genetic engineering, the real motivation is not attitudes toward caution at all, but attitudes toward economic liberty.
My thinking about environmental ethics has led me to publish some in environmental aesthetics. My first work there was an article for Philosophy and the Contemporary World on efforts to place environmental ethics on the foundation of environmental aesthetics. Here too, there is an analogy between the human and nonhuman world, because I argue for the superficiality of the aesthetics of the environment using an analogy to the aesthetics of human beings. This paper led to a book review in Environmental Ethics of models of the appreciation of natural environments, and now an essay which has been conditionally accepted to Environmental Values, which adds a new model to the discussion of nature appreciation, drawn from Buddhist thinking, which I label the Theregāthā model.
My immediate plans are to make the alterations to the paper on the Theragāthā model that have been requested by the publishers before they accept the paper. After that I want to return to the issue of genetic enhancement. I just reviewed a recent book by law professor Maxwell Mehlman which advocated an elaborate, draconian regime to enforce regulation on human genetic enhancement. I plan to expand the review, which appeared in Metapsychology Online, into a full defense of the right to genetic enhancement. My argument would come largely from the right to control of your body and doctor patient confidentiality, with additional support coming from an examination of just how intrusive any attempt to regulate one’s genes would be. I hope to get this piece into a top rank journal like Ethics or The Journal of Philosophy.
In the longer term, I hope to keep my efforts in environmental ethics focused on agricultural ethics and resource management. The debate over the moral status of wild nature, while it has produced much of theoretical interest, has proven to be largely irrelevant to the most important environmental issues. Global climate change, for instance, is clearly the most pressing issue of the day, but all that can be said about it from the standpoint of wild nature is that there can be no more wild nature. I do see more hope for the discussion of moral status in medical ethics, and I actually believe that theoretical work can be illuminating here. The stem cell debate has shown dire need for understanding how conflicting ideas about moral status should affect public policy. Here again, I think it would be nice to look at human issues in the context of the nonhuman. What we need, and what I hope to contribute to developing, is a theory of moral status that uses a unified system of standards to judge humans at all stages of life, animals, plants, ecosystems, nations, and even hypothetical entities like intelligent computers or space aliens.
Research Statement
My research is in environmental and medical ethics. These interests are not really distinct. Both areas are places where the philosophy of science intersects with practical, and often the same set of epistemic norms and ethical values are at stake in each. Indeed one of my main interests is in tracing issues as they cross from the human world of medical ethics to the nonhuman world of environmental ethics. Right now I have two published papers about genetic engineering, a topic that comes up in both medical and environmental contexts. The first paper, published in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal makes a direct comparison between the environmental and the medical arena, arguing that the difference in levels of caution we exercise regarding genetic engineering in these two areas is unjustified. The second paper, forthcoming in the volume Ethical issues is the Life Sciences, argues that in the case of agricultural genetic engineering, the real motivation is not attitudes toward caution at all, but attitudes toward economic liberty.
My thinking about environmental ethics has led me to publish some in environmental aesthetics. My first work there was an article for Philosophy and the Contemporary World on efforts to place environmental ethics on the foundation of environmental aesthetics. Here too, there is an analogy between the human and nonhuman world, because I argue for the superficiality of the aesthetics of the environment using an analogy to the aesthetics of human beings. This paper led to a book review in Environmental Ethics of models of the appreciation of natural environments, and now an essay which has been conditionally accepted to Environmental Values, which adds a new model to the discussion of nature appreciation, drawn from Buddhist thinking, which I label the Theregāthā model.
My immediate plans are to make the alterations to the paper on the Theragāthā model that have been requested by the publishers before they accept the paper. After that I want to return to the issue of genetic enhancement. I just reviewed a recent book by law professor Maxwell Mehlman which advocated an elaborate, draconian regime to enforce regulation on human genetic enhancement. I plan to expand the review, which appeared in Metapsychology Online, into a full defense of the right to genetic enhancement. My argument would come largely from the right to control of your body and doctor patient confidentiality, with additional support coming from an examination of just how intrusive any attempt to regulate one’s genes would be. I hope to get this piece into a top rank journal like Ethics or The Journal of Philosophy.
In the longer term, I hope to keep my efforts in environmental ethics focused on agricultural ethics and resource management. The debate over the moral status of wild nature, while it has produced much of theoretical interest, has proven to be largely irrelevant to the most important environmental issues. Global climate change, for instance, is clearly the most pressing issue of the day, but all that can be said about it from the standpoint of wild nature is that there can be no more wild nature. I do see more hope for the discussion of moral status in medical ethics, and I actually believe that theoretical work can be illuminating here. The stem cell debate has shown dire need for understanding how conflicting ideas about moral status should affect public policy. Here again, I think it would be nice to look at human issues in the context of the nonhuman. What we need, and what I hope to contribute to developing, is a theory of moral status that uses a unified system of standards to judge humans at all stages of life, animals, plants, ecosystems, nations, and even hypothetical entities like intelligent computers or space aliens.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Nietzsche Family Circus
The cartoon generator is here.
I'm really impressed by how often the aphorism and the picture actually work together.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Schonberg on your newly restricted rights
From the SLU listserv comes this comment by Prof. Karl Schonberg. Karl looks closely at the language of the law and its consequences for the rights of US citizens.
Under this law, civilian U.S. citizens can potentially be tried before military courts. Some of the language in this law refers only to “aliens,” but the definition of “unlawful enemy combatants” does not. Section 3(948a)(1)(A) states that “the term `unlawful enemy combatant' means… a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States…” Section 3(948d)(c) specifies that the President or Secretary of Defense will choose tribunals to determine who is an unlawful enemy combatant, and the findings of these tribunals will be "dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission." On this issue see also Yale law/political science professor Bruce Ackerman's essay in the L.A. Times. Military commissions can assign sentences up to and including death (3(948d)(d)).
In these military courts not all of the protections guaranteed to U.S. citizens under the Constitution will apply. For example:
Evidence seized without a warrant will be admissible: “Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization” (3(949a)(2)(B)).
Evidence gained through coercion will sometimes be admissible: “A statement of the accused that is otherwise admissible shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on grounds of alleged coercion or compulsory self-incrimination…” (3(949a)(C)).
Hearsay evidence will sometimes be admissible: “…hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission…” (3(949a)(b)(2)(E)(i)).
Military judges are also given wide latitude in deciding, among other things, what evidence defendants will be able to see (3(949d)(f)), and whether there will be public access to trials (3(949d)(2)).
Rules governing defense counsel’s right to bring witnesses and evidence are to be “provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense” (3(949j)(a)). The Secretary of Defense and Attorney General also have the power to determine “pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including elements and modes of proof…” (3(949a)(a)).
Non-U.S. citizens, including legal residents, may be jailed indefinitely without charge: “7(e)(1) No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus [or any other action, 7(e)(2)] led by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States [as an enemy combatant].”
The president will decide when and how the Geneva Conventions apply, if at all: “ …the President has the authority for the United States to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions…” (6(a)(3)A).
To say that I find this language troubling would be a vast understatement. I will be at the meeting next week to discuss these issues and our response to them.
Blog upgrade
Well, I upgraded to the new version of blogger right away, even though it is still in beta, because (1) I really really wanted labels and (2) I'm an early adopter.
I've decided not to reinstall Haloscan comments, mostly so that I can use word verification. Also, with the old Blogger comments visible, everyone can now see that the first comment on this blog was from everyone's blog crush, Bitch, Ph.D. If I can find a way to selectively reopen the halo threads for earlier posts I will.
Added: I was going to justify the time I spent today fussing with the new template by signing up for adsense and actually making money from the blog. But adsense is no longer there. Does anyone know what is up, or have any comments/experience with adsense?
I've decided not to reinstall Haloscan comments, mostly so that I can use word verification. Also, with the old Blogger comments visible, everyone can now see that the first comment on this blog was from everyone's blog crush, Bitch, Ph.D. If I can find a way to selectively reopen the halo threads for earlier posts I will.
Added: I was going to justify the time I spent today fussing with the new template by signing up for adsense and actually making money from the blog. But adsense is no longer there. Does anyone know what is up, or have any comments/experience with adsense?
Not gonna be a dupe for the RCP
"We get to show and what do we see
Banners and flyers for the RCP.
I found the man who had spoke to me
He said I was a dupe for the RCP" ---MDC
World Can't Wait, a group that is organizing protests against the war on terror today, has links to the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. My colleague Natalia is organizing a rally today, and at my urging, she has not registered our rally with World Can't Wait.
The RCP are not run of the mill Marxists. They openly embrace some of the most heinous positions imaginable, including the bizarre idea that Mao's Cultural Revolution was the truest expression of a workers utopia. They align themselves with ultra-violent rebel groups in Peru and Nepal. These fuckers are bad news.
Essentially, the RCP is to the left what the Moonies are to the right. First of all, they are really a cult of personality around one Bob Avakian. (The Party apparently prefers the term "culture of appreciation") Second they slip into the left's actions the way the Moonies slip into the right. People form coalitions with them because they are well funded and organized, and appear to share your agenda. But really they don't share one iota of agenda with us. We are marching against the war on terror because we value peace and civil liberties. The Maoists care for neither of these things. A while back the Reverend Moon ordained himself God at a ceremony in Washington DC attended by a couple Republican congressmen. I imagine their reaction was much like the reaction of many people who have worked with the RCP: "Dum de dum, I'm just forming a coalition, this is ordinary politics---holy shit!"
Actually, the thing that troubles me most about the RCP is the way they behave in coalitions. They push groups toward unproductive confrontational actions and are not upfront about their agenda. Dave from MDC's experience, told in the song "I was a Dupe for the RCP," of being lied to about the sponsorship of a concert is par for the course. The weirdest thing about RCP members is the way they talk. They engage in soundbite politics and stay on message really well. The language, though, is not just militant, it is militaristic. It is really frightening. Admittedly, it has been 20 years since I shared a car ride from DC to NYC to attend a Stop the City demonstration with a woman from the RCP. But I still have strong memories of it. At the end of the ride she said "I have enjoyed struggling with you." Struggling? I thought we were talking. "Struggling" turned out to be a big RCP word at the time. I've decided not to turn everything into a struggle.
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
--Lennon/McCartney (really just Lennon)
Banners and flyers for the RCP.
I found the man who had spoke to me
He said I was a dupe for the RCP" ---MDC
World Can't Wait, a group that is organizing protests against the war on terror today, has links to the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. My colleague Natalia is organizing a rally today, and at my urging, she has not registered our rally with World Can't Wait.
The RCP are not run of the mill Marxists. They openly embrace some of the most heinous positions imaginable, including the bizarre idea that Mao's Cultural Revolution was the truest expression of a workers utopia. They align themselves with ultra-violent rebel groups in Peru and Nepal. These fuckers are bad news.
Essentially, the RCP is to the left what the Moonies are to the right. First of all, they are really a cult of personality around one Bob Avakian. (The Party apparently prefers the term "culture of appreciation") Second they slip into the left's actions the way the Moonies slip into the right. People form coalitions with them because they are well funded and organized, and appear to share your agenda. But really they don't share one iota of agenda with us. We are marching against the war on terror because we value peace and civil liberties. The Maoists care for neither of these things. A while back the Reverend Moon ordained himself God at a ceremony in Washington DC attended by a couple Republican congressmen. I imagine their reaction was much like the reaction of many people who have worked with the RCP: "Dum de dum, I'm just forming a coalition, this is ordinary politics---holy shit!"
Actually, the thing that troubles me most about the RCP is the way they behave in coalitions. They push groups toward unproductive confrontational actions and are not upfront about their agenda. Dave from MDC's experience, told in the song "I was a Dupe for the RCP," of being lied to about the sponsorship of a concert is par for the course. The weirdest thing about RCP members is the way they talk. They engage in soundbite politics and stay on message really well. The language, though, is not just militant, it is militaristic. It is really frightening. Admittedly, it has been 20 years since I shared a car ride from DC to NYC to attend a Stop the City demonstration with a woman from the RCP. But I still have strong memories of it. At the end of the ride she said "I have enjoyed struggling with you." Struggling? I thought we were talking. "Struggling" turned out to be a big RCP word at the time. I've decided not to turn everything into a struggle.
"If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow."
--Lennon/McCartney (really just Lennon)
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
"First they came for the douchebags"
Jesus McQueen, at Unfogged, on Ryan Bird's stunt at the Milwaukee airport.
The guy does seem like a douchebag, but, you know, "First they came for the douchebags, and I did not speak out because I was not a douchebag."
Monday, October 02, 2006
A (gentle) defense of an epistemic rule of thumb
Wendy the psycho therapist expressed doubt about an epistemic rule of thumb I suggested. The rule of thumb is: "When unorthodox methods lead to unorthodox conclusions, you should doubt the methods, rather than embracing the conclusion."
This is really a simple corollary to the skeptic’s principle, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” with the elaboration that “extraordinary evidence” doesn’t mean unusual evidence, but evidence that is very hard to dispute.
Wendy worries, “What are you considering "unorthodox" and who/what is making this determination?” Context would help here. The rule came to my mind while I was reading a student paper on the death penalty. The student reported roughly that a doctor so-and-so using “new statistical methods” was able to show that seven lives were saved for every one person executed. My first thought was “Wow, that’s quite a claim, those had better be some good methods.” I suspect, though, that these new methods were simply invented for the purpose of justifying the death penalty and that there is no independent evidence for their reliability. In fact, this smacks so much of pseudo-science that I don’t even want to waste time investigating it.
So what am I counting as unorthodox? I am assuming a roughly scientific context, where there are some agreed upon methods that have yielded agreed upon results, and some other methods and results that are debated. I think most human knowledge can be well characterized this way, although the size of the agreeing communities may vary. My experience has been that good epistemology is actually profoundly conservative. At the epistemological level, I am practically Edmund Burke. We are born into believing communities, and when those believe systems are dysfunctional, we try to repair them with minimal changes, lest we find ourselves lost. Paradigm shifts are painful, and should be postponed, until it is clear that only the most ad hoc changes can keep the old paradigm afloat.
Wendy also said “IMHO experiences exist which cannot be easily or readily quantified, reproduced, expressed and/or explained and validity and reliability, orthodoxy and unorthodoxy are rendered moot.” I am aware of those experiences, too. But if expression is difficult, and reliability moot, what else is there to say?
This is really a simple corollary to the skeptic’s principle, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” with the elaboration that “extraordinary evidence” doesn’t mean unusual evidence, but evidence that is very hard to dispute.
Wendy worries, “What are you considering "unorthodox" and who/what is making this determination?” Context would help here. The rule came to my mind while I was reading a student paper on the death penalty. The student reported roughly that a doctor so-and-so using “new statistical methods” was able to show that seven lives were saved for every one person executed. My first thought was “Wow, that’s quite a claim, those had better be some good methods.” I suspect, though, that these new methods were simply invented for the purpose of justifying the death penalty and that there is no independent evidence for their reliability. In fact, this smacks so much of pseudo-science that I don’t even want to waste time investigating it.
So what am I counting as unorthodox? I am assuming a roughly scientific context, where there are some agreed upon methods that have yielded agreed upon results, and some other methods and results that are debated. I think most human knowledge can be well characterized this way, although the size of the agreeing communities may vary. My experience has been that good epistemology is actually profoundly conservative. At the epistemological level, I am practically Edmund Burke. We are born into believing communities, and when those believe systems are dysfunctional, we try to repair them with minimal changes, lest we find ourselves lost. Paradigm shifts are painful, and should be postponed, until it is clear that only the most ad hoc changes can keep the old paradigm afloat.
Wendy also said “IMHO experiences exist which cannot be easily or readily quantified, reproduced, expressed and/or explained and validity and reliability, orthodoxy and unorthodoxy are rendered moot.” I am aware of those experiences, too. But if expression is difficult, and reliability moot, what else is there to say?
Gus diZerega's list of torture posts
Below is a list from Gus diZerega of good posts on torture and the death of Habeas Corpus
I list below some of the best of the pieces that have appeared in the blogosphere, especially when you follow up on links (as I did to list the LA Times piece).
If you find my list useful I encourage you to pass it on to others.
Glenn Greenwald, a first amendment attorney, has at least four excellent pieces:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/mark-steyn-and-hugh-hewitt-reveal-true.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/george-bushs-vast-new-powers-of.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/legalization-of-torture-an_115945829460324274.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/democrats-and-torture-bill.html
-------------
Hullabaloo, a very good essay-oriented blog, has several good ones:
You’re your Place
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115959192826264610
Who Cares What the Supreme Court Says?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115961125995896230
It’s Getting Hot in Here
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115957779617326390
Rogue Presidency
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115944912295724580
Trusting Huck
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115939774685941073
------------
From FireDog Lake, another blog, whose over-seer, Jane Hamsher, is an attorney and former prosecutor.
Late nite FDL: Torture Doesn’t Work
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/28/late-nite-fdl-because-torture-doesnt-work/
Well Here’s a Question (on Constitution and habeus corpus)
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/28/well-heres-a-question/#more-4708
----------
Eschaton (Atrios), one of the best moderate progressive blogs, listed the contents of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama's speeches against the legislation. I particularly liked Clinton comparing this crowd with George Washington.
Hillary Clinton’s speech on the torture bill (it’s good)
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_24_atrios_archive.html#115947389727117828
Obama’s speech on the bill
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_24_atrios_archive.html#115947158222373263
----------
Mark Kleiman, a very sharp scholar at UCLA hosts The Reality- based Community
Lies, secrets and Torture, part 153
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/torture_/2006/09/lies_secrets_and_torture_part_153.php
-----------
I discovered Bruce Ackerman's piece in the LA Times via the blogosphere
The White House Warden
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ackerman28sep28,0,619852.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
-------------
From Obsidian Wings:
We Can All Be Enemy Combatants
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/09/we_can_all_be_e.html
-------------
And some conservatives still remember that their care for the constitution and genuine values amounts to more than pretty packaging. See John Cole, an intelligent conservative Republican at Balloon Juice
Just a Refresher
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=7389
Sunday, October 01, 2006
"Kip Hawley is an idiot"
Ryan Bird wrote "Kip Hawley is an idiot" on a zip lock bag holding the toiletries he was taking through airport security. Kip Hawley is the head to the Transportation Security Administration. Check out what happened. Also check out the official "Kip Hawley is an idiot" website, and the ruling which apparently says the first amendment does apply in airports. (Lawyers will no doubt say the issue is complicated.)
More on press releases as scientific communication
So I'm having my students track the flow of information from scientific journal articles to newspapers, and already I've found a case of mistakes in transmission. The students were supposed to start with a secondary source (i.e., a newspaper article.) Many brought in this New York Times piece or this Reuters piece, both of which are based on this article by Josefino Comiso, forthcoming in Geophysical Research Letters. As I reported earlier, none of my students made it to this primary source.
Fortunately, the CJR is doing their homework for them. This post at the CJR blog explains how different news outlets interpreted the story. Comiso's basic finding was that the peak extent of winter arctic sea ice has been declining two years in a row. Unfortunately, the AP and the Sf Chronicle took this information and reported that the arctic sea ice is continuing to melt all winter long, which is just silly. The AP story is down, but the Chronicle story is still here. The CJR blames this misreporting on a bad press release, and links to this corrected press release. Is this right? Here is what I take to be the original press release. Note that both the Chronicle story and the press release take the "what does this mean for polar bears" angle. This New Scientist article, which has nearly the same bad lede as the Chronicle article, also goes with the polar bear angle.
CJR congratulates this Post story and this Atlanta Journal Constitution story for getting it right. Next assignment for the students. Compare as many statements of Cosimo's finding as you can and decide where the error in transmission took place.
Fortunately, the CJR is doing their homework for them. This post at the CJR blog explains how different news outlets interpreted the story. Comiso's basic finding was that the peak extent of winter arctic sea ice has been declining two years in a row. Unfortunately, the AP and the Sf Chronicle took this information and reported that the arctic sea ice is continuing to melt all winter long, which is just silly. The AP story is down, but the Chronicle story is still here. The CJR blames this misreporting on a bad press release, and links to this corrected press release. Is this right? Here is what I take to be the original press release. Note that both the Chronicle story and the press release take the "what does this mean for polar bears" angle. This New Scientist article, which has nearly the same bad lede as the Chronicle article, also goes with the polar bear angle.
CJR congratulates this Post story and this Atlanta Journal Constitution story for getting it right. Next assignment for the students. Compare as many statements of Cosimo's finding as you can and decide where the error in transmission took place.
a black program
a black program
Originally uploaded by rob helpychalk.
The latest from the North Country Academy for the Excruciatingly Fine Arts. Caroline now saunters up to the computer, opens paint, and produces great work like this. She also titles them and can even type most of the name, with a little coaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
