Sunday, August 9, 2015
This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “Why don't people believe science?" with guest Dan. M. Kahan. You can hear the episode here.
For most of human history, people have believed that if we could only reveal the truth about things, agreement would quickly follow. This has been the case for religion; Paul on the road to Damascus, Mohammad in the Cave of Hira, and Moses on Mount Sinai all believed that everyone should and would be moved by revelation. But this has also been true for what used to be called natural philosophy, what we now call science. This kind of knowledge was supposed to replace superstition with fact, it was supposed to improve everyone, regardless of who they were or what they believed.
Nature—physis, in Greek (as in the word 'physics')—is the object science seeks to uncover. By discovering the principles that govern matter and energy, the laws of motion that move the stars and planets, and the innumerable forces that direct agriculture, natural scientists aimed to expose the reality behind the curtain of everyday experience. This, they argued, would allow us to predict and harness nature, and to cultivate health and goodness. It would make humans a stronger, healthier, dominant, and more ethical race. If we only followed the dictates of discovery, we would finally be in control of our own destiny because we would understand how the universe actually operated. It is not a coincidence that both Buddha and Kant wanted people to reach enlightenment. Unfortunately, human history had other plans.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Why? Radio is live this Sunday at 5 p.m. central.
Send us your comments now or during the show.
Send us your comments now or during the show.
"Why don’t people believe in science?"
Guest: Dan M. Kahan
Sunday, August 9 at 5 p.m. central.
Listen live from anywhere in the world at http://www.whyradioshow.org/ and in North Dakota at 89.3 (Grand Forks), 91.9 (Fargo), 90.5 (Bismarck), and on Prairie Public radio stations across the state.
Monday, July 27, 2015
A few years ago, I complained to a friend who worked in the Dean of Students office because there were bounce houses at the university’s opening weekend celebration. They were the most notable attraction in an elaborate fair designed to occupy the new students during their first few days in the dorm. His response: “we are doing everything we can to stop them from drinking.”
Helping to curb self-destructive behavior isn’t a bad thing, but infantilizing people to do it only makes matter worse. These are 18-year olds at a university. If they can’t fend for themselves, they could be doing college-related things: getting tours, taking orientation courses, learning the basics of cooking and financial management (our students do not know how to balance a checkbook, let alone how to make a simple pasta sauce), reading an important essay and discussing it en masse, participating in mock archeological digs, getting etiquette lessons and dressing up for a formal welcome banquet, visiting an observatory or a laboratory, write something and publish it using old-fashioned printing press, perhaps even exploring the campus by doing some public service. These kind of events would have set a tone of maturity for the coming year. They would have announced that college is a place for work, study, self-exploration, and social commitment, and that growing-up involves expanding the pastimes one should find interesting and enjoyable. Instead, the wants university to portray itself as “fun” and puts on a carnival. The fact is, most students never recover. They never grasp that learning can be pleasurable and that taking responsibility for their own actions is the prerequisite for freedom. At least if they do, they don’t do it while enrolled at UND.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Mad Max: Fury Road is a very very bad movie. (And what makes a good movie plot anyway?) [A philosopher goes to the movies]
People are going to tell you that Mad Max: Fury Road is a non-stop adrenaline thrill-ride with strong female characters and an excellent reboot of a beloved franchise whose time has come again. They are going to exclaim that it is an action-movie game changer that gives filmmakers permission to revel in the art of car chases and non-CGI stunts. They are wrong. It is a video game disguised as a movie, a terrible, terrible movie that doesn’t meet the minimal standards of science fiction. The female characters are neither strong nor feminist, and the story makes no sense, even on its own terms.
There is an important difference between good and popular, and while I can’t argue that this film won’t make lots of money, I can explore its lack of quality. Ultimately then, what I offer here is a meditation on what makes a defensible movie plot. I’m going to focus on four criteria: the plot must serve its purpose in the genre, be consistent in the world in sets up, be well-crafted, and respect its characters. These are not the only requirements for a good movie, of course—acting and cinematography are tremendously important, too—but plot is complicated enough of a subject for one blog post.
Friday, July 17, 2015
This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “How do Muslims, Christians and Jews see each other?” with guest David Nirenberg. To listen, click here. It is worth noting that while this monologue does not address the main question of the episode, it is preparatory. We can’t see how others see us if we don’t explore how we see ourselves. We must all explore how each of us committed to what we believe.
There’s an old adage that everyone in New York is a little bit Jewish. Anyone who lives there understands this. With the ubiquity of Yiddish phrases, deli cuisine, and wise-cracking argument, sometimes it seems like the whole city is just one big Beastie Boys video.
But if it’s true that everyone is a little bit Jewish, then it must also be true that the Jews who live there have to work harder to distinguish themselves from the crowd. When being Jewish is no big deal, it’s also no effort, and it isn’t until Jews leave the city that they understand exactly what is and isn’t theirs.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Last week, the following letter to the editor appeared in the Grand Forks Herald, my local newspaper:
Is free speech still 'free' if it can be punished?
I'm in need of a philosopher/ethicist. The Constitution guarantees "free speech." It is an extraordinarily important right that promotes diversity of opinion and is an antidote to dictatorship.Having said that, how is it that whenever someone says something outre or unpopular, say Donald Trump for example, individuals are "allowed" to disenfranchise from him?How does withdrawing from a golf tournament either support free speech or do other than implicitly condone punishing it?
If "free speech" which is allowable, is also allowed to be punished, how does this differ from not having "free speech"?
It is easy to make what is technically called "the error of assumed essence"; if a person is, say, "gay," this error happens when everything they do is tied to this "gayness."
Thank heavens Trump doesn't have a children's charity from which critics can withdraw because of his new "taint."
Seeing as the author asked for a response from a philosopher/ethicist, I felt an obligation to write back. Here is my answer. It was published this morning under the headline "Reactions give free speech its meaning and power."
Thursday, July 9, 2015
Why? Radio is live this Sunday! Listen and participate during the show!
"How do Muslims, Christians, and Jews see each other?"
Guest: David Nirenberg
Sunday, July 12 at 5 p.m. central.
Listen live from anywhere in the world at www.whyradioshow.org and in North Dakota at 89.3 (Grand Forks), 91.9 (Fargo), 90.5 (Bismarck), and on Prairie Public radio stations across the state.
Send you comments to email@example.com
Friday, July 3, 2015
The new issue of the philosophy journal Cosmos + Taxis features a full-length symposium on Adam Smith’s Pluralism, PQED’s author Jack Russell Weinstein’s most recent book. It contains six essays inspired by the book and Jack’s response.
The issue will be of more interest to philosophy professionals, but some of the essays, especially the introduction and Jack’s response are suitable for non-academic audiences.
The issue is free and can be downloaded here. The contents are as follows:
Friday, June 26, 2015
Today is a day of many emotions in the United States. We celebrate the recognition of gay marriage as we mourn the loss of nine innocent murder victims. Being jubilant for one feels disrespectful to the other, and being despondent in the name of grief seems to eradicate the deserved victory of those who have earned their day in the sun. How should we feel about it all? What should we say? What should we do?
Americans are used to crying different tears out of each eye. In this country, weeping with joy is almost always accompanied by lamentation. Equality is a road of violence, bigotry, and exclusion. Movement towards justice rarely comes fast enough and it always seems slowest to the people whom the injustices back into a corner. A good American recognizes that we are each members of multiple communities, each with as much right to exist as the other. Sometimes we look towards the government to help, sometimes we look towards the population as a whole, and sometimes we go to ground, surrounding ourselves with the people whom we are most like, who understand better than anyone else what we need, how we feel, and how to surround and protect us.
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
The folks at Tom's Guide have asked me to weigh-in on a controversy: is using an ad blocker stealing, or more generally, is it immoral? For me, this is just an interesting diversion, but for them, it’s about their livelihood. As most everyone knows, advertising revenue is the backbone of many Internet services. By blocking ads, viewers are directly impacting people’s income.
Those who claim that ad blockers are theft argue that blocking ads takes money out of people’s mouths, that ads are the price we pay to view content, and that people who use ad blockers are either snobs or sociopaths. But none of these ring true.
Monday, June 15, 2015
My article and video “How should people respond to open-carry gun-rights activists?” started making the rounds again. And yet again, I received a deluge of responses from gun-rights advocates who complained about my position, calling me a traitor and an idiot, and claiming that I didn’t have the right to my opinion. Never mind that I wasn’t actually advocating for gun control or limiting anyone’s freedom. The mere suggestion that a gun owner can’t do anything he or she wants, at any time, in any place, appears to be enough to inspire the ire of a very vocal segment of the population.
There is one frequent comment that baffles me more than any others. It is the repeated claim that since I did not get all of the technicalities right, my opinion is irrelevant. The video I made (in one take, by the way) mistakenly identified semi-automatic guns as automatic, so lots of people have told me that since I don’t know anything about guns, I should shut the hell up. The first part is mostly true. I know comparatively little about guns. I’m not as inexperienced as some and I have fired both rifles and shotguns, but I’m willing to stipulate that, for all intents and purposes, I know nothing. And you know what? It shouldn’t matter.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “The Moral Argument for Revenge” with guest Thane Rosenbaum. To listen, click here.
I have a colleague who has been awful to me since the day I came to UND. This person has bullied me, tried to undermine my work, and lied about me to others. Lots of people know this, but my years of complaints have led to nothing. Administrators simply don’t care about faculty, and my other colleagues, even my friends, wave it away. As best as I can figure it, they think that since I’m a blunt New Yorker, I can “take care of myself,” and that no hostile workplace would ever affect me negatively. They’re wrong.
I long for the day that this person leaves, but I know that even then I won’t be satisfied, because the years of abuse, manipulation, and brute incompetence will fade away unacknowledged. Instead, I want my fourteen years in a hostile workplace recognized publicly. I want apologies from the guilty party and the administration that turns the other cheek, and I want this person punished. If you had asked me how to summarize my desires before today I would have said that I wanted justice. But after preparing for today’s show, I have to deal with the fact that I might want something else. I might also want revenge.
Monday, May 25, 2015
This is the monologue for the most recent episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “How should we think about dance?” with our guest Helanius Wilkins. To listen, click here.
I suppose I ought to begin today’s show by admitting I know very little about dance. I enjoy watching it, but I only have emotional reactions. I rarely understand what the choreographer intended, and I’d be hard pressed to offer any kind of philosophical explanation for what makes one performance better or more interesting than another.
Sunday, April 12, 2015
This is the monologue for the latest episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “Cuisine and Empire: What does food tells us about culture?” with our guest, Rachel Laudan. To listen, click here.
So, there’s this thing called New York pizza. It’s unlike Chicago pizza, favoring thin crust rather than thick, and it’s different than pizza in Italy because it’s meant to be served in slices and eaten with your hands. There are many people who think that it’s the best pizza in the world, but that is, ultimately, a matter of taste. What interests me more is that there is a New York pizza at all, that something so Italian, can be made so American without any sense of compromise or irony.
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Why? Radio, PQED, and The Institute for Philosophy in Public Life are looking for social-network and marketing interns
|Get a PDF of this poster by clicking here.|
Why? Radio, PQED, and The Institute for Philosophy in Public Life are looking for thoughtful, creative, tech-savvy interns to manage our social-network presence, and our online and offline marketing during for the 2015-2016 school year. We have an international presence with thousands of followers on Facebook, and Twitter and Instagram accounts that need cultivating and promotion. The radio show has over 30,000 listeners in 116 countries, and has been featured in national publications.
Interns receive course credit. Students from any university may apply, but if they are not from The University of North Dakota, they will have to work with the IPPL Director to arrange credit at their local institution. Non-students may also apply, but unfortunately, we cannot pay interns at this time. Students will likely be given priority.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
This is the monologue for the latest episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “The Rise of Writing: What happens when more people write than read?” To listen, click here.
Here is all the writing I did yesterday: I wrote this monologue. I edited and wrote comments on a colleague’s law review article. I responded to comments on Why? Radio’s blog and to comments on Facebook. I wrote a recommendation letter for a student and some emails about that recommendation letter. I also wrote a handful of emails about a Pakistani scholar who I am bringing to the US and a few more about changing the server that Why? Radio’s webpage is on. I wrote things on my to-do list and notes in the book I read for today’s discussion. I sent lots of text messages to my wife.
I probably wrote for four hours yesterday, but almost none of the things I listed would be considered as writing by most people, they were just…work. Certainly, none of them made me feel like a writer and the one piece I didn’t get to spend any time on was the one I most wanted to, a scholarly article that I’ve been trying to finish for months. I know it sounds contradictory, but I spend so much time writing yesterday that I never got the chance to write.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Why the current email controversy is evidence that Hillary Clinton will be president. (Or, some thoughts on political argument).
Hillary Clinton is the single most qualified presidential candidate in the 2016 election cycle. In fact, she is one of the most qualified people to ever run for president, period. Only a few candidates have ever had eight years’ experience in the white house, only six presidents have been Secretary of State, and her time as Senator of New York, combined with her understanding of rural politics in Arkansas, means that she understands better than almost anyone what it means to govern America. Her doing all of this as a woman only makes her achievements more impressive. Women are not treated well by the American political process.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
There were other incidents—this was not a one-time thing—and the upshot is that she’s 21 years old and paying her own college bills. Her parents cut her off because they disapprove of her moral choices, even though she is an outstanding student, bright and, as far as I could tell, a kind, curious, and likeable person.
Before I reveal my advice to her, I want like to point out that the word “racist” no longer serves its purpose. It is antiseptic and lacks emotional power. It does indeed denote a cluster of bigoted behaviors and attitudes, but it doesn’t identify any causes or predict any consequences. “Racist” sounds more like a profession to me—“John is a doctor, Sally is a scientist, and Billy is a racist”—I can’t imagine any actual racists being upset by its use, especially since so many of them are so proud of their perverse point of view
Monday, February 9, 2015
I've never done a Twitter chat before, but the good folks at Palgrave MacMillan asked me to join them for a discussion on Adam Smith. The occasion is the publication of the new book Propriety and Prosperity: New Studies on the Philosophy of Adam Smith edited by David Hardwick and Leslie Marsh. I wrote a chapter in it called: "What My Dog Can Do: On the Effect of The Wealth of Nations I.ii.2." In it, I argue that Adam Smith was wrong when he argued that animals were not capable of exchange, but that it doesn't matter. His work is affected by his mistake.
So, in honor of the chat, I'm going to try to have a live feed here, so people can follow it if they don't have a Twitter account. If you do have one, please follow me at @whyradioshow. If not, you should be able to read the posts here.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
This is the monologue for the latest episode of Why? Radio. The topic was “Equality and Dialogue in American High Schools” To listen, click here.
Everyone in America has an opinion on education policy; we all have the ways in which we want schools to change and improve. This is democracy at work and a good thing. But in the midst of all the debate and politics, one simple fact has been ignored. Almost all of us have only experienced school from one perspective: the student.
Think about what you remember from your schooldays, the friends, the teachers, a handful of meaningful, sometimes traumatic events, but how many of the individual hours do you recall and how many of the lessons? Very little for twelve years’ worth of schooling.