Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Right and wrong are entirely constructs of the human will (except when I am talking to someone on the opposite side of political spectrum, who is morally reprehensible).
Good and evil are entirely constructs of the human will (except when I am talking to someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum, who is the embodiment of evil).
Sexual proclivities and behaviors are not at all constructs of the human will, but gender is entirely a construct of the human will.
No one has the right to judge anyone else (except for me, when I judge that you should never judge anyone else).
There is no ultimate truth (except for this statement, which is an ultimate truth).
All religions are equally good.
All religions are equally bad.
All religions are the same.
Religion is absolutely nothing more than an attempt to control people. Done. Next!
Beauty is entirely a construct of the human will (unless you like something that disgusts me, in which case beauty is more than merely a construct of the human will).
There is no self (although ‘I’ have no idea to ‘whom’ ‘I’ am speaking when ‘I’ say this).
There is a Higher Energy (although I really don’t know exactly what I mean by this).
We are on the verge of destroying the Earth (even though the twelve-mile wide rock from space sixty-five million years ago that wiped out the dinosaurs failed to destroy it, as we can see by looking out the window right now).
Human beings are a virus (I don’t know what this means outside of being an acceptable way to express misanthropy and self-hatred).
Everyone is out to get you (maybe you’re right if you’re that important, which you probably aren’t).
Violence is always wrong (even when we’re dealing with murderers).
We should have radical diversity (unless it is of viewpoints).
Killing human fetuses is a sacred and inviolable choice, but the state should outlaw incandescent light bulbs.
Pretty much everything is racist, unless you are of the opinion that white people are uniquely racist, which is not racist at all.
Having children is selfish (can you believe the nerve of your parents?!).
Humans are nothing more than animals. Snore.
There is no meaning to life (but I would never kill myself--not sure why not).
All we need is love.
Among others. Wish to dispute my take on them? Wish to add something to my list? Please do!
I am not so sure that we have re-defined marriage so much as completely un-defined it. We simply do not know as a culture what marriage is any longer. We think we do, but we really don’t. I will show that this is the case in what follows.
This is the proposition that is currently guiding this debate:
L1: People who love each other ought to be able to marry.
The claim is that anyone who denies this is a hateful bigot.
It is obvious that L1 is hopelessly flawed. First and most obviously, we wish to exclude children from marrying adults. This is generally understood, but for clarity, let’s introduce L2:
L2: Only adults who love each other ought to be able to marry.
Now, let’s think seriously for a second. Are you ok with the United States government officially recognizing polygamous unions? This would inevitably happen with some Mormon break-away sects and with Muslims. Maybe you are fine with polygamy. Do you have a limit on how many husbands I can have? Is four too many? Ten? Thirty? Drawing a line beyond one partner has a strong ring of arbitrariness about it, so maybe we ought to abandon polygamy. Let’s propose:
L3: Only two adults who love each other ought to be able to marry.
If you like L3, know that you will be accused of religious bigotry, Islamophobia, and imposing your beliefs onto others. But let’s continue. You know that it will happen that a brother and sister wish to marry. Would you allow it? Perhaps not. We propose:
L4: Only two unrelated adults who love each other ought to be able to marry.
But why deny this to the siblings? Perhaps you worry that they will produce strange offspring. But they have sterilized themselves to parry precisely this objection. Are you now imposing your arbitrary prejudices onto them? You find it repulsive, but does that mean that you would deny them their rights? What if two brothers wished to marry? A father and son? A mother and daughter? Don’t laugh! Don’t think that mockery gets us out of this mess. You know that truth is stranger than fiction and that there are principles that we must clarify.
My point here is this: Unless you abandon the entire notion of marriage altogether, you are required to formulate a principle of marriage. And I guarantee you, when you commit to one, you will be accused of closed-mindedness, bigotry, and forcing your values onto somebody else. But now that you have read this post, you can no longer avoid this issue unless you abandon intellectual integrity itself.
The general insight that emerges is that we have not replaced the traditional understanding of marriage with something else; rather, we simply eliminated that understanding, and we are currently hoping that nobody notices and that nobody causes any trouble. But somebody will cause trouble, and we will have to have an answer.
We can no longer dismiss people simply for drawing some kind of a line now that we know that we have to draw one, as well. So who’s in, and who’s out?
Monday, July 21, 2014
The truth is that some matters require thinking in terms of black and white, and some require thinking in terms of shades of gray. In logic, the first kind of thinking is called ‘deductive’ reasoning, and the second is called ‘inductive’ reasoning.
A deductive argument could be this: Mike owns a Sportster. All Sportsters are Harleys. Therefore, Mike owns a Harley. This argument has perfect form, so we call it ‘valid.’ Validity is like pregnancy—it’s there, or it isn’t. There is no sliding scale.
An inductive argument could be this: No shark of which I am aware from every source of knowledge in my life has ever been able to fly. Therefore, no sharks can fly. These arguments can be strong or weak, and there is a sliding scale of strength, hence shades of grey.
I have noticed two tendencies among people who claim to think in terms of only shades of gray. The first is a blatant hypocrisy—it is inevitable that this gray-thinking interlocutor has starkly black-and-white thinking on a wide variety of issues, and sees everyone on the other sides of those issues as evil/stupid/mistaken/dangerous/etc. It’s just that on the issue under discussion at the moment, it is convenient to assert the gray-thought admonition. The second is obscurantist thinking—it creates a fuzzy target to deflect intellectual criticism of one’s position. I conclude that thinking in only these gray terms is both unethical and anti-intellectual.
This is the correct advice: Think in terms of shades of grey at the appropriate times, and think in terms of black and white at the appropriate times. That is the real wisdom for the accomplished mind. Now sign up for my fall semester logic class!
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Countless people have asserted the following proposition to me:
F: It is always morally wrong to force one’s beliefs onto someone else.
I will argue that F is false.
Consider the following:
W: It is always morally wrong to rape, torture, and kill children solely for the sake of one’s personal sexual enjoyment.
You almost certainly agree with me that W is true. If you do not, there is nothing I can say to you.
Because of the moral seriousness of the behavior described in W, if W is true, then the following two propositions are true:
P: It is obligatory to prevent—forcefully, if necessary—people from raping, torturing, and killing children solely for the sake of their personal enjoyment.
S: It is obligatory to serve punishment—forcefully, if necessary—to people who rape, torture, and kill children solely for the sake of their own sexual enjoyment.
Now: If F is true, then P and S are false, since both P and S are instances of forcing one’s beliefs onto someone else. Since P and S follow reasonably from W, then the affirmation of F is also the denial of W. The consequence of all this is that, if you affirm F, then you are also affirming not-W:
Not-W: It is not the case that it is always morally wrong to rape, torture, and kill children solely for the sake of one’s personal enjoyment.
So, if you accept W, then you must reject F.
But what if you really like F? What to do? Perhaps you may deny either P or S. As long as you affirm at least one of them, however, then my conclusion follows, since only one of either P or S will save the inference.
Perhaps you may deny both P and S. Yet the moves from W to P and S are eminently reasonable, and denying both of them would require some extraordinary argumentation. Perhaps you can give it.
You could deny W, but it is most implausible to affirm F and deny W. This is because both F and W make moral claims, and the moral claim in W is in a far more certain position than the one in F.
You could argue that rejecting F would lead to all kinds of abuses. That is irrelevant, since the abuse of a principle does not condemn the principle itself to falsehood.
So I conclude that F is obviously false, and that therefore its opposite is clearly true:
Not-F: It is not the case that it is always wrong to force one’s beliefs onto someone else.
Indeed, sometimes morality requires that you do so.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
In recent years, an enormous number of my students have been claiming to believe in a Higher Power and affirm that they are spiritual, but not religious. Here I share some thoughts on the object of their belief.
‘Power’ is the ability to do work, or possession of control or command over others. It can mean authority or ascendency.
‘Higher’ is a comparative, and as such is a relation. Relations require at least two relata (things about which the relation is to hold).
Let H stand for, ‘A Higher Power exists.’
Most people who assert H mean to distinguish it clearly from the following:
G: God exists.
The first thing to notice is that since ‘higher’ is a comparative, H is really incomplete, and so the question arises, “Higher than what?” It would be like saying, “Mike is taller.” Taller than he was in the past? Taller than you? We need more information.
Let’s take the relata of ‘higher’ to be the power in question, on the one hand, and humans on the other. This is what I believe most people mean when they affirm H. Then we are affirming:
H2: A power higher than humans exists.
If ‘power’ is used in the sense of ‘the ability to do work,’ then we are saying that an ability to do work higher than humans exists.
This is ambiguous. It could mean:
H2A: An ability to do work exists that is higher than any human ability to do work.
Or it could mean:
H2B: An ability to do work exists that is higher than human beings are.
H2A is a meaningful sentence, but is trivially true. No one disputes it. H2B, on the other hand, isn’t true (and it isn’t false, either) because it possesses no clear meaning. There is no clear sense of ‘higher’ that makes sense of saying that an ability is higher than a human being. It would be much like saying that yellow is taller than Bob.
The dilemma: If H2 is what is meant by ‘a Higher Power exists,’ then ‘a Higher Power exists’ is either trivially true or meaningless.
Sometimes by ‘power’ people mean to say ‘energy.’ Energy is the exertion of power. Then we are saying that an exertion of power higher than humans exists. Again, if this makes sense, then it is trivially true. Everyone, without exception, already believes that there are powers in existence greater than any powers that humans can exert. Indeed, there is nothing at all incompatible between this claim and a thorough-going and consistent atheism. And, similar to the above, if one cannot properly compare an exertion of power to a human being in terms of higher and lower, then it is meaningless.
If ‘power’ means ‘possession of command over others’ or ‘authority,’ then we have:
H3: An Authority exists that is higher than human beings.
H3A: An Authority exists that is higher than any authority that humans possess.
H3B: An Authority exists that is higher than any human.
H3A is meaningful and not at all trivially true. It is therefore a significant claim; however, if H3A is true, what is to prevent a person from simply affirming G? Maybe he is averse to monotheism. One could affirm instead:
G2: God exists or Gods exist.
That would avoid the problem. Certainly most, although not all, who affirm H do not wish to affirm G2.
H3B is meaningless for the same reason that H2B is.
So here is the dilemma: If one takes ‘Higher Power’ to mean ‘an Authority higher than humans,’ then the statement will lead either to some form of theism, or it will be meaningless.
And now, my ultimate conclusion:
When someone affirms that a Higher Power exists, that person is doing one of the following three things:
1) He is affirming a triviality.
2) He is actually affirming some form of theism.
3) He is saying something meaningless.
My suggestion: If you are truly committed to the existence of a Higher Power then, in order to avoid triviality and meaninglessness, affirm some form of theism. There is a variety of theisms out there, including monotheism, deism, polytheism, and so on. That is your next adventure. On the other hand, you could stop affirming that there is a Higher Power and adopt a form of atheism. I am of the opinion that you will have to make some kind of a decision here, because without some form of commitment, you are left in an intellectually untenable position.
What motivates this Higher Power movement? I believe that it represents a reluctance to make a commitment. Many people are horrified to commit to the existence of a God for whatever reasons. They are also horrified to commit to the idea that there is no God. Both theism and atheism scare them, yet they don’t adopt agnosticism, either. The Higher Power allows people to appear as if they are making a commitment without their having to make an actual commitment that subjects them to intellectual criticism, since no one knows exactly what they are affirming in any case. The benefit of this strategy is either that you will always be right, or that you will never be wrong. The cost of this strategy is either that you will be affirming a triviality, or that you will be affirming something that is meaningless.
The picture that has developed in my mind over the years of talking to people about this Higher Power is that of what I call the “God-blob.” The God-blob is kind of like a smiling, fluffy cloud. It doesn’t judge people. It just loves people. It never criticizes anybody. It feels really good, and likes to make us feel really good. And then we die, and then we just enter its happy fluffiness like the teddy bear jumping into a pile of dryer sheets.
Our ideas should not be unnecessarily fluffy. They should be as clear as possible. This is why I am intellectually dissatisfied with merely ‘a Higher Power exists.’
My solution: Affirm God’s existence. The Supreme Being exists, and is not a God-blob. Worship God and adopt both a spiritual AND a religious attitude toward our Creator.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
A few negatives: The cam-drive system has had some problems, as the very small tensioners pressing against the little drive chains in the gear-case can wear and sometimes fail, although this problem has been addressed to some extent. Switching over to a gear system requires an exquisitely small pinion shaft run-out specification that can be difficult to achieve. If the run-out is too great, the wobbling against the gear teeth can be dangerous, which is why Harley uses a chain in the first place, since a chain can accommodate much greater run-out.
Also, as the air-cooled TC has gotten ever larger during the displacement wars, the heat stress has become a major problem for the exhaust valves, which are getting so hot that they can burn up. Also, the temperature difference between the intake and exhaust sides of the head can become so radical that the aluminum head itself can actually distort, causing head gasket failure. Harley is now offering the “Wet-Head” engine on some of its touring bikes, which is actually running coolant through little radiators in the fairing lowers and then up through passages in the heads that surround the exhaust valves. The other models still have to make due without this cooling.
The TC bikes have separate engines, primary drives, and transmissions, all of which have to be bolted together. This increases the number of gaskets, seals, and o-rings required for oil control. This gives the bike more opportunities for leaks.
The final-drive pulley is sandwiched between the primary drive and the transmission, making the belts, which cannot be split and reconnected, a major operation to replace. The primary drive must be separated from the engine and transmission to access the belt. Most riders don’t have the tools, skills, or knowledge to dive into this particular mess, so they’ll have to open their wallets on that one!
With all that said, I would argue that the TC is a fine engine overall. The positives: The TC has a legacy, a look, and a soul that no other engine possesses. It is butter smooth, torquey as hell, and sounds like no other engine on earth. I adore the BT transmissions—they are incredibly smooth to operate and shifting them is a joy.
The Harley-Davidson Evolution Sportster Engine (XL): Another Harley icon. Rubber-mounted in the frame since 2004. The XL was once the hottest motorcycle engine on earth. Well, no longer, but its legacy cannot be questioned. I have owned an XL since 1995. I love it now more than ever. Here are my thoughts on the XL:
A few negatives: Older XLs, like mine, were mounted directly to the frame. They will make your fillings hop out of your teeth. The newer, rubber-mounted XLs are much smoother, but the frame became significantly heavier, affecting the power-to-weight ratio. Older XLs feel lighter, narrower, and more nimble than the new ones, although the vibrations are the price for that.
Whereas the older XLs had a “cartridge” transmission, allowing the tranny to be removed from the engine without splitting the cases, the newer ones require case splitting. I am fortunate to have the older design.
Older XLs had a major problem with rocker-cover-gasket leaks, although the gaskets have gotten better and the newer XLs have a different design, thereby minimizing the problem.
A few positives: The XL has straight push-rods, unlike the angled push-rods of the BTs, making for a sturdy valve train. The gear-case uses only gears without chains, and it has been bullet-proof for decades. The engine is a unit construction, eliminating the need to fasten three systems together, making for a strong unit with fewer leak opportunities. The drive belt is off to the right side of the engine, making belt changes far simpler. XLs have not suffered from the heat stresses of the TCs, but that is simply because they are smaller (74 vs. 103 cubic inches). Instead of the long, double-row chain of the BT, the XL uses a shorter, triple-row chain, making for a primary drive that never dies (mine has gone for 110,000 miles and shows no signs of stopping).
I have great appreciation for the TC engine, but I prefer the XL engine myself. If the XL engine were simply enlarged to the size of the TC, well, buh-bye Big Twin! The sheer design of the XL is vastly superior and Harley hit a home run when they designed it.
The Victory Freedom V-Twin Engine (VIC): Victory has existed since 1998 and has made unbelievable progress in a short period of time. Here are my thoughts on the VIC:
A few negatives: Well, it’s another big v-twin engine. Nothing too radical there. And for people accustomed to push-rods, it might look a little off. The older VICs were fugley. I mean FUGLEY. I find the newer VICs to be quite attractive, however. The trannys on Victorys have always been clunky. I mean CLUNK! No one will miss when you click into first at the light. Due to the unit construction, tranny work requires case splitting, and this is a major operation on the massive engine of the Victory, which is 106 cubic inches and weighs somewhere around 250 pounds. Luckily, Victory engineers have made some frame mods to simplify engine work, but it still won’t be as easy as it is with a Harley.
A few positives: Four valves per head makes for an excellent flow of gasses. The single-overhead cam allows for hydraulically adjusted valve trains (which BTs and XLs also enjoy with their push-rod designs), making for a no-maintenance valve train. Oil passages for cooling (the oil pump has a pump for lubrication and one for cooling) in the cylinders and heads allow for a degree of cooling that air-cooled engines cannot achieve, and without the need for a different fluid. Long cam-chain tensioners ensure a long tensioner life. Unit construction is very similar to the XL, with a direct-drive transmission that exits the right side of the engine, making belts easier to change. Gear-driven counter-balancers in the crankcase manage excessive vibration without the need for rubber mounts (some TCs also do this). The primary drive is entirely gear driven, eliminating any need to adjust a primary chain.
So here is my overall take on these three fine engines. My heart belongs to the XL. It was my first bike, which I bought new in 1995, and it is still my daily rider. Why is it STILL a daily rider? Because it’s a freaking XL, and the XL design is awesome!
If I bought a brand-new bike today, what would it be? The Victory. The VIC engine is a masterpiece of engine design, and my experience with my own Victory has proven that the engine is stupidly reliable and oil tight. My 2004 Victory TC lives in the desert, has a sidecar on it, toured the country twice, has 50K on it, and has neither leaked a drop of oil nor required any engine or transmission repairs of any kind.
Although I appreciate the TC, I wouldn’t buy one, personally. The soul of Harley lives in my XL perfectly well. The XL is, in fact, the longest-running continuously manufactured motorcycle in history. Talk about a legacy! So I will keep my XL forever and buy new Victorys.
And then came Indian… Indian, manufactured by Polaris (as is Victory), now has a 111 cubic inch v-twin push-rod engine. Its under-square design guarantees broad, massive torque. I do not have sufficient experience to opine much on this topic, so we’ll have to see what happens. Having studied the design features of the Indian engine, I am still convinced that the Victory engine is ultimately the best design, but then, not everything depends entirely on the engine! You must choose the bike that speaks to your soul! Happy riding!
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Some predictable results of Michelle Obama's campaign against food of which she doesn't approve.
I am so glad I grew up when I did. I really liked our school lunches. Chocolate milk, chicken nuggets, salisbury steak, and turkey stackers were among my favorites. Very few of us were obese, and those who were had issues at home, not at school.
It would be great if people ate this and that--whatever we approved. But they don't. And they never will. So we need to get over it. Wait a second--you don't eat bacon? Are you nuts?! I'll MAKE you eat bacon!
They only way to make other people eat as we demand is to force feed them what we wish and force their mouths shut otherwise. But that's the way of the paternalist nanny state, whose very success produces ever more intrusive and insulting regulations. Bliss is always just one regulation away!
Luckily, for NOW, we adults have the liberty to eat whatever we want to eat (in most places untouched by Nanny Bloomberg), and it's time for JACK IN THE BOX! And I'll smoke an e-cigarette on the way! And ride my motorcycle without their DOT helmet! And the do-gooders will not stop me!