Tag Archives: debate

Relative Absence of Constructive Criticism in Polite Society

Posted on by
Reply

constructive-criticismPeople are polite, in general. I find that it’s very rare to get criticism from friends and co-workers on work I do that relates to a field they have some expertise in. The feedback I gather up usually has to be from indirect cues. What I get is a stream of compliments of various degrees of sincerity and it’s my job to decipher the actual state of the person’s mind. I guess that’s the way of the polite world, but I wish it was was more direct and clear. Constructive criticism is an art form that most people are not very good at (including myself). It’s hard to tell someone what essentially is just one opinion when that opinion has a potential of hurting their feelings.

My close friends will tell me when I’m full of shit, but there’s not enough of that. I don’t mean that I would change my actions based on people’s criticism, but I would like to be aware when I’m swimming with the stream of opinion or when I’m swimming against it. In the latter case, I would need to put a little more effort into the swimming.

The internet, as it evolves, is changing all that. As people are putting their real identities online, platforms for providing critical feedback are popping up all over the place. Facebook is one example, but their are more niche sites like StackExchange where experts can gather to disagree in a constructive (albeit heated form) while backing their comments with their real-world identity.

Anyway, this is an official notarized request for people to call me out on things I say that may be stupid, ignorant, misinformed, or just confusing, and I’ll try to return the favor.

I Don’t Know, I Want to Know, and When I Know, I Might Be Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

“I don’t know” is the best first answer to any question. Not out of apathy, but out of awe in the face of the immense complexity of the world around us.

I am distinctly aware of the criticism sometimes thrown in my direction that I’m at times afraid to  ”pick sides” in an argument because I’m afraid of being disliked by the person I’m arguing with. There is certainly a grain of truth to that criticism. I think a lot of us avoid confrontation when the cost outweighs the benefit. And how we evaluate the costs and the benefits varies from person to person.

Still, I find it counter-productive for my own development and learning to be too blunt about my current stance on an issue. I’ve learned (sadly) that taking a stance often means that you drive away people that disagree with you and attract people that agree with you. The truth is: I learn more from intelligent people that disagree with me, so I’d like them to stick around. Talking to them is an exercise in patience, but it motivates asking the hard questions of myself in the hours, days, weeks, and months after we talk.

Anyway, much like in science, I think the best way to approach life is as a student. I try to approach every heated conversation with the feeling that:

  1. I don’t know enough about it.
  2. I want to learn more about it.
  3. No matter, how much I learn, I’m open to the possibility of changing my mind.

Of course, I don’t approach every subject like this. I’m only human with a pretty damn big ego, and so often I’ll be stubborn and irrational as hell. And like most people, I can only stand so much s*** being flung at me, before I disengage or even return the favor. But usually, staying quiet and instead opting for a nap fixes most problems.

Don’t Draw Muhammad But Defend The Right of Anyone To Do It

Posted on by
Reply

It would be funny if it weren’t true, but a publication of yet another cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad in a mocking manner is stirring international protest. This time it’s a cartoon from a French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Here’s the NY Time story on it: French Magazine Runs Cartoons That Mock Muhammad.

The cartoon (on the cover) shown on the left has a Muslim man and an Orthodox Jew saying: “You must not mock us!”

I have grown increasingly aware of the fear that many people in the media have of showing such cartoons. I personally think that the cartoons are distasteful and their importance lies solely in the violent protests they arouse.

I think this has to be used as an opportunity to say again, over and over, Evelyn Hall’s eloquent description of the principle of freedom of speech: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” 

As the following debate states: “Free speech is the grievance procedure of the democratic process”.

Freedom of speech is arguably the most fundamental right on which civilized society can evolve, improve, and flourish. But it’s not just the legal declaration of the right that’s important. What’s most important is that we, as Americans, must stand behind this  principle in the face of violent opposition.

So, don’t draw Muhammad, but speak up in defense of the right of any individual or publication to do so. If any freedom is worth fighting for, this one is at the top of the list.

Fortunately, freedom of expression has the world’s most brilliant writers and thinkers behind it. Here’s an example from 2006 with Christopher Hitchens:

Presidential Candidates in a Nutshell

Posted on by
1

Prior to president Obama’s speech on “jobs” tonight, I thought I’d jot down the most representative cynical statement that pops to mind about each of the candidates for president in 2012.

barack-obamaBarack Obama:

Compromise means you have to be willing to sacrifice all of your core beliefs.

rich-perryRick Perry:

Social security is a Ponzi scheme. PS: Jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs!

ron-paulRon Paul:

Heroin should be legalized. PS: Gold, gold, gold!

 

Mitt-RomneyMitt Romney:

My views may change based on who I’m speaking to, but my hair is always unchangeably perfect.

michelle-bachmannMichele Bachmann:

Sarah Palin without the charm. Ron Paul without the intellect.
PS: Two dollar gas if I’m president!

Jon-HuntsmanJon Huntsman:

I hold the radical belief that maybe possibly there’s a chance that science could be right on something.

herman_cainHerman Cain:

I have a plan with a catchy name for every problem in America. PS: Muslims, muslims, muslims, muslims!

newt-gingrichNewt Gingrich:

I agree with everyone here. Now I’m heading off to the Bahamas. Email me if I win.

rick-santorumRick Santorum:

I am genuinely surprised to be included in this blog post.

 

gary-johnsonGary Johnson:

I climbed Mount Everest. I am an actual small-government libertarian governor. But just listen to me talk for a minute. I’m obviously insane.

Sorry to present the field as a circus, but I’ve been quite cynical about the theater of it all. Intelligent debate is all but gone from the presidential campaigning process. I would love to see a 2-3 hour debate/conversation between Obama and a reasonable republican like Colin Powell or even Jon Huntsman. But that’s not happening…

A Climate of Urgency Makes Drastic Decisions Seem Justified

Posted on by
Reply

I’m starting to see a trend in the way our government operates:

Step 1: Do nothing for a few months.

Step 2: Recognize a looming problem. Sell it as a crisis that is the biggest threat to our well-being ever.

Step 3: Rush through legislation which has drastic fundamental consquences on the future of our country without much deliberation, public discussion, debate, or any kind of open forum for ideas.

Step 4: Use the successful or failed (both are claimed to be true) resolution of the “crisis” in the next election to raise money.

Wars (like Iraq and Afghanistan) are an especially clear example of this, however, the current debt ceiling crisis is another tragic example. I don’t yet know the outcome of the private meetings between Obama and the key political figures involved, but I do know that the lives of millions of Americans will be affected by the inevitable cuts in treasured programs and the inevitable tax reform.

These are important and difficult public policy questions, and yet the American people are not involved in any real sense, because the span of time over which options are weighed is weeks (even days), not years.

Morality by Consensus

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been listening to a lot of lectures and debates recently on questions of religion. It’s quite remarkable that scholars representing the theist worldview are willing to engage in debate on scientific grounds. In other words, they argue for the existence and goodness of a supernatural being based on “evidence”, or at least their conception of what makes convincing evidence. To me, this is a losing battle, as religion and rationality just don’t mix. The fundamental concept of religion is faith, and by definition, faith is an irrational acceptance of beliefs as fact.

For that reason, I don’t find these debates very interesting, outside the fact that they inspire me to think about (at times unanswerable) questions of existence, meaning, morality, etc.

And that’s what I wanted to say in this note, as highlighted in the below video of a debate about the role of religion in fine-tuning our moral compass. The question is whether there is such a thing as objective morality, and how it comes about (creationism vs evolution). How do we know (and feel) that it’s wrong to kill? How do we account for the fact that in some cultures it is considered just to abuse women and in other cultures such abuse is fundamentally immoral?

Like many scientists, I don’t believe in the possibility objective morality: a set of absolute rules about what is good and what is evil. I’m referring to a relatively well-defined set of moral laws of the kind that most major religions provide in their holy texts. I believe our conception of what is good comes from social norms, from a kind of a democracy of ideas. We evolve slowly, together, generally in the direction of greater respect for individual rights, freedoms, etc.

Real Debate with Real Questions and Plenty of Time for Real Answers

Posted on by
Reply

I may be naive or “elitist” or some wonderful mixture of both, but I have a dream that one day U.S. politicians, especially ones running for president, will engage each other or perhaps other great thinkers in a number of real debates, each focused on a specific topic.

I draw inspiration for this dream from the following debate between prime minister Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddsz9XBhrYA

The balls that Tony Blair, a head of state, has to go into a debate against Christopher Hitchens on the topic that the latter is a world renowned expert on are enormous. Why do we not see such debates between presidential candidates and other representative scholars such as Hitchens?

The answer is probably that our presidential candidates, even ones that can hold their own in such a debate (few though they might be), see little benefit in it, but see a huge potential cost if a damaging sound bite can be extracted from it. The culprit here is the 24-hour “news” media channels that have made the game of politics into a game show.

Sarah Palin can win a game show, but certainly not a debate against Christopher Hitchens.

A candidate that can argue intelligently for 2 hours about a topic that they care about deeply is a leader our nation desperately needs, to look up to, to learn from, to follow.

Einstein’s Brain

Posted on by
4

I was listening to The Skeptics Guide to the Universe which is a laid-back podcast that preaches the value of the scientific method.

They briefly mentioned a quote from Stephen Jay Gould:

“I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”

There wasn’t any discussion of the quote but it got me thinking about the old nature vs nurture debate, given my recent reading of Mountains Beyond Mountains and the realization of just how dire the living conditions are for most of the world’s population. My intuition on this debate is that both your genetics and your upbringing contribute to what you accomplish as a member of society, but the circumstance of the upbringing is much more important. Genetics, I think, can provide a ceiling, but for most of us that ceiling is so high that it does not prevent us from changing the world through brilliant ideas or exceptional productivity.

To me, genetics provides the ability for an individual to be consumed by a goal, a passion for an idea. Our parents, our surroundings, and the minuscule details of our upbringing determine if that passion is able to flourish.

At the time of writing this, I am a progressive, a liberal, in that I believe in a government’s utilitarian value to society. However, effective “nurture” requires an unabashed respect for individual accomplishment. In other words, give a liberal $100 and 2 school kids, and he’ll give $50 to each to buy school books, lunch, transportation to and from school. This is what I believe is morally right. However, it is not most effective at developing either of the kids into Einstein. In my opinion, the more effective policy is to run a contest for the two kids. Give them one week to come up with a good idea, and whoever comes up with a better idea, gets the whole $100. It’s not about money, it’s about valuing the elite. It’s what the objectivists preach as their ideal. It’s unjust in my view, but a little of that individualistic spirit is needed to serve as a catalyst for the development of genius in our education system.