Monday, July 7, 2008
Okay, I started a new blog, hopefully this time it sticks!
Hi everyone, if anyone actually is checking this blog at all. I've started a new blog, hopefully I don't flake out this time. Click on the below link to check it out:
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Oops, I got a little busy and forgot to post.
It occurred to me that it's been longer than a week since I posted my last entry. That being the case, I thought I should write a little something-something for you all. This week classes started again so I've been a little occupied getting some reading done to prepare so I haven't been paying attention to the news so this isn't going to much of a substantive post. Indeed, it's more of a what's new in my life sort of post.
Actually, not all that much is new. I'm, as always, sort of plodding along doing my work. Which this quarter is focussed primarily upon learning a little more about how plant-animal interactions work to shape various ecological regions. Particularly, it seems that this quarter I'll be learning a lot about the interaction between insects and plants and the effects of those interactions upon the relative success of various plant species in comparison to others. This should be pretty interesting given my personal interest in invasive species and how their effects should be taken into consideration when developing conservation policy.
Indeed, not to toot my own horn, I was given the opportunity to talk about just that topic at the University of Exeter this summer at the ISHPSSB conference. That being the case, this class should go a long way in helping me with what I believe will eventually turn out to be my doctoral dissertation project. Also, I believe that in this class we'll be doing a fair amount of field work. It'll be nice to get out of the dusty old library to romp around in the woods gathering samples.
The other class I'm taking should be pretty edifying as well, though for different reasons. It's a class with Rob Skipper (the author of hpb, etc) on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science. At least, that's what I suspect it's about given the reading list. While my other class will be professionally useful, this class should be personally quite rewarding. One of the issues that I've personally thought about quite a bit, despite the fact that I've written nearly nothing about it, is whether scientific theories should be considered literally true and whether theoretical entities posited to make various theories work such as electrons, species, and morphospace should be considered actual objects.
On one side of the debate, the anti-realist or instrumentalist side, the classical arguments are that historically scientific theories tend to be eventually replaced and some element of those theories are usually tossed out as being either inadequate or inaccurate and that evidence often underdetermines theory. In other words, for any particular body of evidence there can be any number of theories that is supported by that evidence and as such we should not consider any particular theory to be privileged.
On the other side of the debate, the realist side, there's the "No Miracles" argument. Or the argument that the success of science in helping us do things would be miraculous or magical if it was the case that scientific theories are in some important manner false or if the entities they posit were fictional.
While there are a number of reasons to think that the arguments presented by either side of the debate are inadequate, I've always found myself at various times thinking that both sides of the debate must be right. As such, it's an issue that I've always wanted more resolution to.
Now, given that I tend to be agnostic when it comes to the realism/instrumentalism debate, preferring to take a more pragmatic approach (or in other words, I tend to try to dance around making ontological commitments when I write) the resolution of this debate would unlikely affect my work that much. However, personally, I would love for one side or the other to come up with a good argument so that we can decide whether we should treat theories as truth or as useful fictions.
Actually, not all that much is new. I'm, as always, sort of plodding along doing my work. Which this quarter is focussed primarily upon learning a little more about how plant-animal interactions work to shape various ecological regions. Particularly, it seems that this quarter I'll be learning a lot about the interaction between insects and plants and the effects of those interactions upon the relative success of various plant species in comparison to others. This should be pretty interesting given my personal interest in invasive species and how their effects should be taken into consideration when developing conservation policy.
Indeed, not to toot my own horn, I was given the opportunity to talk about just that topic at the University of Exeter this summer at the ISHPSSB conference. That being the case, this class should go a long way in helping me with what I believe will eventually turn out to be my doctoral dissertation project. Also, I believe that in this class we'll be doing a fair amount of field work. It'll be nice to get out of the dusty old library to romp around in the woods gathering samples.
The other class I'm taking should be pretty edifying as well, though for different reasons. It's a class with Rob Skipper (the author of hpb, etc) on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science. At least, that's what I suspect it's about given the reading list. While my other class will be professionally useful, this class should be personally quite rewarding. One of the issues that I've personally thought about quite a bit, despite the fact that I've written nearly nothing about it, is whether scientific theories should be considered literally true and whether theoretical entities posited to make various theories work such as electrons, species, and morphospace should be considered actual objects.
On one side of the debate, the anti-realist or instrumentalist side, the classical arguments are that historically scientific theories tend to be eventually replaced and some element of those theories are usually tossed out as being either inadequate or inaccurate and that evidence often underdetermines theory. In other words, for any particular body of evidence there can be any number of theories that is supported by that evidence and as such we should not consider any particular theory to be privileged.
On the other side of the debate, the realist side, there's the "No Miracles" argument. Or the argument that the success of science in helping us do things would be miraculous or magical if it was the case that scientific theories are in some important manner false or if the entities they posit were fictional.
While there are a number of reasons to think that the arguments presented by either side of the debate are inadequate, I've always found myself at various times thinking that both sides of the debate must be right. As such, it's an issue that I've always wanted more resolution to.
Now, given that I tend to be agnostic when it comes to the realism/instrumentalism debate, preferring to take a more pragmatic approach (or in other words, I tend to try to dance around making ontological commitments when I write) the resolution of this debate would unlikely affect my work that much. However, personally, I would love for one side or the other to come up with a good argument so that we can decide whether we should treat theories as truth or as useful fictions.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Does anyone else think the Liberal Party of Canada is a misnomer?
I must admit that since I've moved to the US I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the political goings on in Canada as I should have. I guess my general disgust with the two big political parties has led me to become a little apathetic in the last year. However, I read something the other day that really made me want to comment on how much I dislike the Liberal party as being liberal in name only. Well maybe they're classical liberals but that's not what people mean by "liberal" anymore.
More particularly it was an article regarding the comments made by Stephane Dion at “Competitive Strength: Building and Attracting Global Leaders” conference suggesting that the Liberal Party would cut taxes to make Canada more competitive in the global market.
Since when was Canada not competitive?
Given that healthcare, education, and apparently child poverty continue to be major issues. Shouldn't tax cuts be the last thing that a "left leaning" party be concerned with? Seriously, the more I hear from the LPC the less I understand why people vote for them.
More particularly it was an article regarding the comments made by Stephane Dion at “Competitive Strength: Building and Attracting Global Leaders” conference suggesting that the Liberal Party would cut taxes to make Canada more competitive in the global market.
Since when was Canada not competitive?
Given that healthcare, education, and apparently child poverty continue to be major issues. Shouldn't tax cuts be the last thing that a "left leaning" party be concerned with? Seriously, the more I hear from the LPC the less I understand why people vote for them.
A quick thought about the Patraeus report.
I'm not actually going to comment much about the report and question period with General Patraeus and Ambassador Cocker. Really, from what I listened to on NPR it seemed like it really was just a lot of political grandstanding and platitudes. Neither of which are particularly interesting if you ask me.
However, there was one thing that struck as actually being worth some consideration. Namely, the fact that despite being pressed for an answer several times neither Patraeus nor Cocker were able to say anything about what would be appropriate exit conditions for US troops in Iraq.
Throughout the history of the war in Iraq I haven't really strongly come down on one side or the other. It seems to me that there are decent arguments that can be made either for or against US and British military action in Iraq. Yet, that said, as the conflict in that area draws on, I find myself increasingly convinced that the debate regarding the war has been concerned about the wrong issues.
It seems to me that the majority of the debate is about whether US troops should be pulled out and the time line regarding that pull-out. But, it seems to me at least, that the question really should be: under what conditions would the reduction in US forces be well advised? In other words, it seems remarkable to me that there is no notion of what should be the goals or end conditions for this war. If that sort of question isn't answered, I can't really see any good reasons (perhaps other than moral arguments against war generally) to push any sort of argument either for against the immediate or near immediate withdrawal of troops.
Those who argue for troops remaining should provide some notion of what they think the troops need to achieve before they should be pulled out. And those who oppose continued US involvement in Iraq should have so notion of what they think the troops have already achieved or some notion of what they think will be impossible for the troops to achieve. Though that said, given that war is generally an ill advised venture, or an action of last resort, perhaps there is more of a onus on those who support the war to suggest what it is they think needs to happen before the draw down of US forces should be considered.
However, there was one thing that struck as actually being worth some consideration. Namely, the fact that despite being pressed for an answer several times neither Patraeus nor Cocker were able to say anything about what would be appropriate exit conditions for US troops in Iraq.
Throughout the history of the war in Iraq I haven't really strongly come down on one side or the other. It seems to me that there are decent arguments that can be made either for or against US and British military action in Iraq. Yet, that said, as the conflict in that area draws on, I find myself increasingly convinced that the debate regarding the war has been concerned about the wrong issues.
It seems to me that the majority of the debate is about whether US troops should be pulled out and the time line regarding that pull-out. But, it seems to me at least, that the question really should be: under what conditions would the reduction in US forces be well advised? In other words, it seems remarkable to me that there is no notion of what should be the goals or end conditions for this war. If that sort of question isn't answered, I can't really see any good reasons (perhaps other than moral arguments against war generally) to push any sort of argument either for against the immediate or near immediate withdrawal of troops.
Those who argue for troops remaining should provide some notion of what they think the troops need to achieve before they should be pulled out. And those who oppose continued US involvement in Iraq should have so notion of what they think the troops have already achieved or some notion of what they think will be impossible for the troops to achieve. Though that said, given that war is generally an ill advised venture, or an action of last resort, perhaps there is more of a onus on those who support the war to suggest what it is they think needs to happen before the draw down of US forces should be considered.
Monday, September 10, 2007
When in doubt, list.
I figured I need to take it easy before I start seriously blogging again, so I thought what's easier than making up a list! I love lists! Some people have suggested that I'm a bit obsessive-compulsive when it comes to making up lists of random things but whatever, who really cares what other people think. Not me apparently.
Anyhow, I thought I would write up a list of 5 things that I just can't understand no matter how hard I try. As always, the items on the list are in no particular order.
1. Why neo-conservatives think that the big-bang approach will lead to a lasting solution to the middle-east powder keg.
For those of you who don't know what the big-bang approach to dealing with the middle-east is, it's a strategy that's endorsed by folks like PNAC. It's the notion that the best way to achieve stability in the middle-east is through a large enough war. I suppose they looked at 19th and early to mid-20th century Europe as a model and figured that if WWI and WWII were able to bring about a lasting peace in western Europe that it could bring about a lasting peace in the middle-east. I guess they might think that one of the problems with the middle-eastern region is that there isn't a stable balance of power or something like that and that a large enough conflict will be able to restore the balance or maybe eliminate the will to fight between various parties that don't get along.
However, that said, I'm not sure at all why one would suppose that post industrial-revolution Europe serves as a good analogy to the middle-east. For example, prior to the world wars it wasn't traditional sectarian and ethnic strife that led to the various conflicts in Europe. It was conflicting colonial interests and disputes about territorial boundaries. The British didn't fight the French and the Spanish because there was a deep abiding hatred between the groups. The Germans didn't constantly invade Poland because the Germans and the Poles thought of each other as heretics. Furthermore, the sides in the conflict weren't determined by socio-cultural differences, instead they were defined by common colonial interests for example, one finds that alliances included such different nations as Russia and France.
On the other hand, if one looks at the major conflicts in the middle-east the sides are defined along ethnic and religious lines. One has the Israelis, the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds as major groups that don't get along with other groups. The dispute isn't merely a political one but one based far more on sectarian and ethnic conflict.
Such being the case, I'm not sure why neo-cons think that the solution to the tensions in the middle-east can be resolved in the same manner as the tensions in Europe were.
2. Why kids dress the way they do nowadays.
It must be a sign that I'm getting older but I just don't understand how young people dress now. The other day I saw a young woman wearing Daisy-Dukes with rubber boots. I don't get that. Not at all. Rubber boots? I think there must be a problem with the current generation of kids approaching adulthood. I must admit in my youth I had a penchant for combat boots, which might have been ill-advised but Daisy-Dukes with rubber boots? Seriously.
3. Why Canadian and American political views are so different.
Now that I've been living in the US for a year plus a month, one would suppose that I would start understanding why the American political system works the way it does. However, this hasn't happened at all. The thing is, Americans and Canadians, on a day to day basis, aren't that different. All the people I've met wandering around down here are quite similar to people I used to meet wandering around back home in Canada.
People tend to have the same concerns and want the same sort of things more generally but people have way different views on the role of government and so I really have no idea what's going on. I've had numerous conversations with various people I've met and I've taught or tutored for several classes on politics and so I've had the opportunity to talk about policy, legislation, and social programs with a large number of my students who have various political views and I've found what seems to me to be a rather large disconnect with what people would like the government to do for them and what they want the government to do more generally (this is true of people all along the political spectrum).
Now, I must admit this apparent disconnect that I've seen in the views of people that I've met down here might be more of an artifact of me thinking about politics like a Canadian and Americans in Canada might think that Canadians approach politics in equally strange ways. However, that said, I think that speaks a lot to my original inability to understand why Americans and Canadians approach politics and their political views in such different manners.
4. Why Dennis Kucinich has no chance in winning the election.
Again, this might be the Canadian in me speaking but I really don't get why Kucinich has no real chance in winning a Presidential election in the US. I must admit that despite my conviction that the Republicans can do very little that's palatable to my political sensibilities that I have a deep running disdain for the Democratic party down here. One of the reasons why this is the case is that Dennis Kucinich has no real hope in winning the Democratic Presidential nomination.
When I look at the front runners for the Democrats, people like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, I can't help but think that there is absolutely no substance in their views. All you get are platitudes, and often platitudes that make absolutely no sense. However, others, such as Kucinich and Christopher Dodd, who actually seem like they have some meat to their views and furthermore seem to have some plan as to how to achieve their goals are not taken nearly as seriously.
This is something I don't get. It seems to me that if one really does support more left leaning political approaches and are interested in actual political reform one should be inclined to support someone who might actually do something substantive when they're elected. Yet, it seems to me that the Democratic party is hellbent on being ineffectual. This is something that I'm inviting my American readers who support the Democrats to explain to me. I really would like to support the Democratic party, and I would really like someone to give me a reason to do so.
5. Why it's so god-damned humid in southern Ohio.
We're nowhere near any large bodies of water. Why is it so humid down here? I mean my towel doesn't dry off unless I hang it beside my air-conditioner. Someone who knows something about meteorology explain to me why Cincinnati is more humid than the frickin' Amazon basin during summer? I really love this city but I really hate the weather down here. I hate it so bad.
Anyhow, I thought I would write up a list of 5 things that I just can't understand no matter how hard I try. As always, the items on the list are in no particular order.
1. Why neo-conservatives think that the big-bang approach will lead to a lasting solution to the middle-east powder keg.
For those of you who don't know what the big-bang approach to dealing with the middle-east is, it's a strategy that's endorsed by folks like PNAC. It's the notion that the best way to achieve stability in the middle-east is through a large enough war. I suppose they looked at 19th and early to mid-20th century Europe as a model and figured that if WWI and WWII were able to bring about a lasting peace in western Europe that it could bring about a lasting peace in the middle-east. I guess they might think that one of the problems with the middle-eastern region is that there isn't a stable balance of power or something like that and that a large enough conflict will be able to restore the balance or maybe eliminate the will to fight between various parties that don't get along.
However, that said, I'm not sure at all why one would suppose that post industrial-revolution Europe serves as a good analogy to the middle-east. For example, prior to the world wars it wasn't traditional sectarian and ethnic strife that led to the various conflicts in Europe. It was conflicting colonial interests and disputes about territorial boundaries. The British didn't fight the French and the Spanish because there was a deep abiding hatred between the groups. The Germans didn't constantly invade Poland because the Germans and the Poles thought of each other as heretics. Furthermore, the sides in the conflict weren't determined by socio-cultural differences, instead they were defined by common colonial interests for example, one finds that alliances included such different nations as Russia and France.
On the other hand, if one looks at the major conflicts in the middle-east the sides are defined along ethnic and religious lines. One has the Israelis, the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds as major groups that don't get along with other groups. The dispute isn't merely a political one but one based far more on sectarian and ethnic conflict.
Such being the case, I'm not sure why neo-cons think that the solution to the tensions in the middle-east can be resolved in the same manner as the tensions in Europe were.
2. Why kids dress the way they do nowadays.
It must be a sign that I'm getting older but I just don't understand how young people dress now. The other day I saw a young woman wearing Daisy-Dukes with rubber boots. I don't get that. Not at all. Rubber boots? I think there must be a problem with the current generation of kids approaching adulthood. I must admit in my youth I had a penchant for combat boots, which might have been ill-advised but Daisy-Dukes with rubber boots? Seriously.
3. Why Canadian and American political views are so different.
Now that I've been living in the US for a year plus a month, one would suppose that I would start understanding why the American political system works the way it does. However, this hasn't happened at all. The thing is, Americans and Canadians, on a day to day basis, aren't that different. All the people I've met wandering around down here are quite similar to people I used to meet wandering around back home in Canada.
People tend to have the same concerns and want the same sort of things more generally but people have way different views on the role of government and so I really have no idea what's going on. I've had numerous conversations with various people I've met and I've taught or tutored for several classes on politics and so I've had the opportunity to talk about policy, legislation, and social programs with a large number of my students who have various political views and I've found what seems to me to be a rather large disconnect with what people would like the government to do for them and what they want the government to do more generally (this is true of people all along the political spectrum).
Now, I must admit this apparent disconnect that I've seen in the views of people that I've met down here might be more of an artifact of me thinking about politics like a Canadian and Americans in Canada might think that Canadians approach politics in equally strange ways. However, that said, I think that speaks a lot to my original inability to understand why Americans and Canadians approach politics and their political views in such different manners.
4. Why Dennis Kucinich has no chance in winning the election.
Again, this might be the Canadian in me speaking but I really don't get why Kucinich has no real chance in winning a Presidential election in the US. I must admit that despite my conviction that the Republicans can do very little that's palatable to my political sensibilities that I have a deep running disdain for the Democratic party down here. One of the reasons why this is the case is that Dennis Kucinich has no real hope in winning the Democratic Presidential nomination.
When I look at the front runners for the Democrats, people like Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, I can't help but think that there is absolutely no substance in their views. All you get are platitudes, and often platitudes that make absolutely no sense. However, others, such as Kucinich and Christopher Dodd, who actually seem like they have some meat to their views and furthermore seem to have some plan as to how to achieve their goals are not taken nearly as seriously.
This is something I don't get. It seems to me that if one really does support more left leaning political approaches and are interested in actual political reform one should be inclined to support someone who might actually do something substantive when they're elected. Yet, it seems to me that the Democratic party is hellbent on being ineffectual. This is something that I'm inviting my American readers who support the Democrats to explain to me. I really would like to support the Democratic party, and I would really like someone to give me a reason to do so.
5. Why it's so god-damned humid in southern Ohio.
We're nowhere near any large bodies of water. Why is it so humid down here? I mean my towel doesn't dry off unless I hang it beside my air-conditioner. Someone who knows something about meteorology explain to me why Cincinnati is more humid than the frickin' Amazon basin during summer? I really love this city but I really hate the weather down here. I hate it so bad.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Back from hiatus with a new blog.
It's been near a year since I've regularly posted anything on my old blog Capitalist Pig vs. Socialist Swine and I figured it might be time that I started blogging again. However, I've decided that since I have far less time than I used to, I will no longer be maintaining a site that's primarily driven by social and political commentary. It takes a lot of time and effort to do that well and I suspect that time and effort are both scarce resources for me nowadays.
That said, I expect to, from time to time, get a little engaged in political debate. That's something that I doubt that I could totally avoid. However, I think this blog might be a little lighter fare than what one might have expected from my past efforts but maybe with the lighter fare you folks will get more posts out of me (knock on wood).
I think for my next few posts I'll probably just go about catching people up on what I've been up to and perhaps go on a few rants about various things that have caught my eye (ranting is something that will definitely be preserved from my last blog, that's something that I can't give up either, nor would I ever want to!).
That all said, I don't really have all that much to say at the moment and I really have some stuff I should do, so here's the blogger formerly known as Socialist Swine signing-off.
That said, I expect to, from time to time, get a little engaged in political debate. That's something that I doubt that I could totally avoid. However, I think this blog might be a little lighter fare than what one might have expected from my past efforts but maybe with the lighter fare you folks will get more posts out of me (knock on wood).
I think for my next few posts I'll probably just go about catching people up on what I've been up to and perhaps go on a few rants about various things that have caught my eye (ranting is something that will definitely be preserved from my last blog, that's something that I can't give up either, nor would I ever want to!).
That all said, I don't really have all that much to say at the moment and I really have some stuff I should do, so here's the blogger formerly known as Socialist Swine signing-off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
