--
"The most important things about beliefs are whether they are true. The most important thing about motives is whether they are good. But motives don’t tell us whether beliefs are true." ― J. Budziszewski
And beliefs don't tell us whether motives are good.
- That's true, but IIRC, the official "marketing" material is guilty of the same thing. I may be misremembering, though.
- Stop being an obnoxious pest.
What would be the point? Any example given will be met with some snarky and ignorant remark. Veit Stoss's Krakow triptych? Gentile da Fabriano's "Adoration of the Magi"? Byzantine art, like Monreale Cathedral? The Christ Pantocrator icon from St. Catherine's Monastery? Romanesque and gothic cathedrals? Ornate illuminated manuscripts? Shall I continue? You don't have to like medieval art, but claiming it "sucks" is not only generalizing (your very accusation in this thread), but it is boorish and ignorant. You've already gotten more "discussion" out of this topic than you deserve.
So, go troll somewhere else.
- You're missing the point.
Obviously, there is no sharp line. That is too trivial to mention. But the distinction is made, because it captures something about the characteristic spirit of an age.
In the received black legends of whig history, the Renaissance is typically presented as some kind of enlightened rift with and rebellion against the supposedly dark and evil Middle Ages, but in some sense, it is more accurate to view it as a culmination of the Middle Ages or something continuous with it.
You will find great rifts later on with the rise of modernism.
- Ressentiment is like this. Steeped in envy and vindictiveness, rather than looking for ways to save the situation, it wills the destruction of others.
It has always exited, but its overt forms are very much in vogue today and even celebrated publicly.
- The Renaissance is really the tail end of the Middle Ages historically, and the name is a bit of propaganda, just like "Enlightenment".
People flatter themselves.
- Your exposure to medieval art must be very limited. I have seen some very magnificent pieces of medieval art personally. And paintings are a small part of what falls under "medieval art". Include those in the category, please.
And there is another element to consider, which is the purpose of the art. Medieval art was not concerned so much with realism, but with the symbolic.
I wonder: do you think Byzantine icons "suck"? I suspect you do.
- Borderline deception is a bad way to correct inaccurate knowledge.
And frankly, if I wanted to ridicule the ancients and flatter my own age, I could think of no better way than to make the old stuff look bad.
I would much rather have an exhibit that showed the bare marble, then a conservative reconstruction based on what direct evidence merits (to the degree possible, noting that it is not a complete reconstruction), then more liberal but reasonable reconstructions based on indirect evidence.
- He makes a valid distinction, in a very specific sense. As long as we understand a program correctly, then we understand its behavior completely [0]. The same cannot be said of spherical cows (which, btw, can be modeled by computers, which means programs inherit the problems of the model, in some sense, and all programs model something).
However, that "as long as" is doing quite a bit of work. In practice, we rarely have a perfect grasp of a real world program. In practice, there is divergence between what we think a program does and what it actually does, gaps in our knowledge, and so on. Naturally, this problem also afflicts mathematical approximations of physical systems.
[0] And even this is not entirely true. Think of a concurrent program. Race conditions can produce all sorts of weird results that are unpredictable. Perfect knowledge of the program will not tell you what the result will be.
- Well, the failure in question is not the part failing to do what it is objectively defined to do, it is a failure to perform as we expect it to. Meaning, the failure is ours. Inductively, for `x` to FAIL means that either we failed to define `x` properly, or the `y` that simulates `x` (compiler, whatever...) has FAILed.
Of course, the notion of "failure" itself presupposes a purpose. It is a normative notion, and there is no normativity without an aim or a goal.
So, sure, where human artifacts are concerned, we cannot talk about a part failing per se, because unlike natural kinds (like us, where the norm is intrinsic to us, hence why heart failure is an objective failure), the "should" or "ought" of an artifact is a matter of external human intention and expectation.
And as it turns out, a "role in a system" is precisely a teleological view. The system has an overall purpose (one we assign to it), and the role or function of any part is defined in terms of - and in service to - the overall goal. If the system goes from `a->d`, and one part goes from `a->b`, another `b->c`, and still another `c->d`, then the composition of these gives us the system. The meaning of the part comes from the meaning of the whole.
- One relevant distinction: those who follow the rules, and those who discover them. Or the theory builders and the problem solvers.
Consider something like set theory. When set theory entered a period of crisis in the early 20th century, there were those who mathematicians, logicians, and philosophers who tried to determine what a good formalization of the notion of set is. Russell and Leśniewski come to mind, for example. Naturally, this isn't just a matter of coming up with any collection of axioms. It involves analyzing the concept of "set".
This is different from the Erdos's of the world.
- > I suspect there may be some correlation between High IQ, fast thinking, fast learning and suggestibility (meaning insufficient scrutiny of learned information). What if fast learning comes at the expense of scrutiny? What if fast thinking is tested for as a proxy for fast learning?
Precisely. Speaking from experience, in school, every claim that I was supposed to accept and reproduce on an exam or in homework was met with a gut response: "Is this really true? Is so, why? How do you know?". I wanted to verify the information and know the justification for believing it, the reason something was true. What's more, I had trouble with the coherence of the claims being made. The physics we are taught in school, for example, raises very serious metaphysical questions. This produced in me a spirit of rebellion. I felt a certain vague disgust for the way things were taught that frustrated my motivation. In some sense, it didn't feel like truth was being treated seriously. The ceremony of education, with all its trappings, is all that was treated seriously. "Getting the grade", not understanding something was what it was all about. It felt like an acrobatics contest and a game of one-upmanship.
Now, sometimes, the justification for a claim was obvious, at least given certain premises (these are often left tacitly assumed, often implied: the danger), but that's not always or perhaps even usually the case. Even in math, a science that can be done from the armchair, we are given formulas and methods that are supposed to be taken on faith and simply used. Through repetition, we are supposed to become better at identifying situations in which we can apply them. But where do these formulas and methods come from? What do they tell us, and how do we know?
And I emphasize "faith": there is no way the valedictorian has verified everything he or she was taught or knows the justification for them. A "good student" keeps up, and since scrutiny and analysis take time and skill - time no student is given especially as the workload piles up, and skill no student possesses - a faithful student, a student who obediently accepts what he or she is being told. You can imagine that blind faith would produce the "perfect student". (Curiously, we are simultaneously commanded to "question everything" - except questioning everything, of course - but then required not to actually practice that advice.)
Now, you could argue that students are too young to understand the justifications for the claims being made, and in practice, we are always relying on faith in some authority. Few people realize how much faith we rely on in our lives. Society entails a certain epistemic deference, even if merely practical or perfunctory. In practice, it is unrealistic not to rely on faith. Faith has its proper place.
Someone might also say that students could be bracketing the information they are receiving. They may simply be entertaining it as a possibility in good faith and playing with it, until verification becomes possible or necessary. Maybe. But given the intellectual immaturity of students, and the obedience at the top, I suspect there is at least a superficial assent given to what they are taught. Otherwise, school is a game to be played, one that, we are told, is an instrument for climbing the ladder of social status. The content doesn't matter. What matters is that you play by the rules of the game and that you play by them well. When you do that, the kingmakers and status granters will throw you a few golden chips and elevate you in the eyes of society. You will be in.
Sounds cynical. After all, wouldn't an institution that wants to select for wisdom also create barriers? Of course, regardless of how effective they are. But the differences cannot be ignored. The intent and purpose are different, for one. The means of selection are another. Education is bureaucratized. We think that bureaucracy will create a "level playing field", eliminating the biases and favoritism that "personal judgement" is bound to entail. But who designs the bureaucracy? What does it actually select for? And does it not often commit the fallacy of confusing features of the method for features of the real?
We're obsessed with rank, and bureaucratic methods make us obsessively so. We imagine there is a sharper slope and a smaller peak than there really is. There is a slope, to be sure. I am no egalitarian. But come on.
Anyway, for all that rambling, what are some of the morals here?
I suppose my first point is that education ought to be focused on first principles first. It ought to be focused on understanding and truth and learning the competence of being able to get there, as that is the whole point. The trivium and quadrivium of old did this. People think of the Middle Ages as some kind period hostile to education. They think it was like the Prussian-style of education (from which modern education gets a lot of its ideas), oriented toward mindless obedience and unquestioned submission to the state. Nothing could be further from the truth. Universities were renowned for open discussion and debate, perhaps most famously in the form of the disputation. The Scholastics were famous for intellectual rigor, a rigor that puts to shame the pompous pretensions of the so-called Enlightenment that never missed the opportunity to erect straw men of the Medievals to ridicule.
Second, rewards and penalties are selection mechanisms. We get the behavior we reward and we get less of the kind we punish. Habits are like this, too: indulging a habit of overeating reinforces and magnifies the habit, while restraint has the opposite effect. What does our education system feed? What does it starve? We should ask this question ceaselessly.
- Festina lente.
- > This really doesn't explain why particular places and times in history have much higher crime levels.
This is neither here nor there. As I said, temptations can arise that make things more attractive to certain people given their conditioning and the habituation of their desires. But ultimately, at the end of the day, we can refuse to indulge even strong desires. To the degree that we are in possession of our wits, we are culpable.
> If what you said was true then rule of law would have been the standard throughout history
I have no idea how this is supposed to follow, or even what this means.
- > if we don't trust law enforcement [...], then how do we enforce laws?
Indeed.
Abusus non tollit usum.
To elaborate on the general problem, I am not claiming that abuse cannot occur, or that it doesn't occur, as some people seem to think I have (and for which I was no doubt downvoted). I am not naive. My family lived behind the Iron Curtain where the police were significantly more brutal than what we have in the US. I am also aware, more than most, how methods of control in democratic states operate (tl;dr. they need to be more sophisticated, relying more on information control and psychological techniques than physical brutality, in order to shape the "consent" needed to legitimize rule). I am the last to deny that power can be abused and that it can be an awful thing.
But I do find the liberal tradition of obsessive paranoia tiresome. Yes, governments can go wrong, and they do. Anyone who denies that is a fool. But that doesn't mean they go wrong all the time and it doesn't mean that abolishing imperfect institutions or rendering them impotent is a solution. Yes, you must be prudent about such things, but you aren't left with a better situation through institutional castration or by creating institutional Mexican standoffs. Justice doesn't just materialize or emerge magically without intention, because we have created a separation of powers (a common myth unsupported by the actual evidence). Justice requires authority, that is to say, the marriage of justice with power. When authority is abolished, we are left with naked power. Naked power is what is destructive, but it is also self-destructive. You need at least the appearance of authority to keep up that ruse.
We can see how things actually work in the current arrangement. We have separate institutions (intended to limit institutional power through some alchemy of opposition), but nothing in principle prevents them from colluding, and because there is a considerable gap between institutional interest and personal interest, what you are actually left with is partisan jockeying for power.
Instead of operating from some kind of anabaptist or Quaker presumption of corruption, it is better to presume virtue on the part of an institution and deal with corruption as it occurs, as instances of shameful failure. The advantage is that this presumption sets a norm and an expectation against which the people in that institution are judged. They stand to disappoint us, as it were. To quote Baldus, “No authority whether of the emperor or the senate can make the emperor other than a rational and mortal animal, or free him from the law of nature or from the dictates of right reason or the eternal law. Nothing is presumed to please the emperor except what is just and true." This isn't some New Right brand of nihilism that believes that might makes right or that justice is meaningless or merely a mask for power. No, the presumption of the "emperor's" virtue is just that: a presumption. That, by itself, is a psychologically and socially powerful force, as we can see in the examples of Vespasian, Henry V, or Louis IX, sophistic, dissolute, or ill-tempered in their youth before assuming the throne.
Lord Acton's famous quip that power corrupts as some kind of rule is not actually borne out by the evidence. Maybe sometimes it does, and certainly corrupt people are more likely to seek out power, but power itself does not systematically corrupt.
- Yes, and no. Relevant details. If the formalism bogs you down in tangential or irrelevant stuff, it means it's a poor fit.
But I don't think that's the case here. Most programmers don't have much experience with specs, and much less experience with formalized specs, especially if they come from an imperative background. I think those from declarative backgrounds will be much more at home with TLA+. The imperative style causes people to obsess over the "how", while the declarative style focuses more on the "what", and specs are more of a matter of "what" than "how".
- > if you come from traditional programming languages, is quite harsh
This may be the result of failing to adequately distinguish between the spec and the implementation. PlusCal, as I understand it, is an attempt to bridge this gap for programmers who don't yet have a good grasp of this distinction. So where in TLA+ you would model the observable behavior of a system in terms of transitions in a state machine, PlusCal gives users a language that looks more like implementation. (Frankly, I find the PlusCal approach more distracting and opaque, but I'm also a more abstract thinker than most.)
- Imperfections aside, the article is hitting on something quite real. If only we had been studying the received wisdom of the ages instead of warping it into dismissible caricatures and smearing it with black legends, we would have learned about things like virtue and natural law. We would have understood the nature of sin and immorality, and conversely, the moral and the good life. We would have looked at the vacuous and empty temptations of "the world" with contempt and disdain, as vain things beneath human dignity.
Instead, we convinced ourselves that "morality" is a prison, that "freedom" is the ability to do whatever we please, that "happiness" is to be found in degrading and perverse gratification, worthless trivialities, and illusion. We laughed at the straw men that we erected of our forefathers to justify our depravity, calling them "prude" or "square". We embraced meaninglessness and gave it the veneer of intellectual respectability, because if life is meaningless, then what does it matter that I "get off" or how I do so? And when meaninglessness wore us down and left us empty and feeling like rubbish, we convinced ourselves that we are gods, that we can pull meaning out of a hat. "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven!" we declare. The stronger among us became practicing tyrants. "Submit to me and I will give you your meaning! I am your god now!" In overtly brutal regimes, those who didn't submit kept quiet or else perished making their refusal known.
So we consume and consume and consume. We consume to fill a void that consumption cannot fill. We consume, because we are small souls terrorized by the opinions of others in this race of material acquisition. We worship consumption, destroying all that is human and noble and good in the process. As the blog post notes, we are richer than ever. And yet, having children is now deemed "too expensive". Indeed, if consumption is your god - your ultimate imperative - then children are indeed "too expensive". They will always be "too expensive", as children eat into the resources that you could otherwise be using to consume. They are competitors eating into your advantage!
And careerism? The means. The middle classes suffer from this one the most, as the poor don't have careers and the rich don't need them. The careerist toils endlessly and fritters away his life so that he can consume, and consume, and consume...
And what about debt? Debt, especially at our scale, is the result of not being able to live within our means, of consumption taken up a notch. To "keep up", to "have" more than we can afford, we go into debt, and the usurers are more than happy to oblige. No one saves anymore, few really invest. We live in terror of losing our jobs, because without them, that monster of debt will get us. It will come for us, that is to say, it will come to collect those things that truly belong to it but in terms of which we have defined ourselves. We are lead back to careerism, to which debt chains us with relish and verve.
Everything is commercial. Everything is commoditized. Relationships are no exception; they are now commodities as well. Sex is transactional, a service, an infertile and sterile exchange of selfish gratification. When a spouse is now deemed useless, when the voracious hunger returns and torments us once again, demanding satisfaction, we reach for divorce, and a whole industry stands ready to assist us in expediting this process, for a price. People are disposable. People are things. People are up for auction.
And when we prideful, slothful, lustful, gluttonous, greedy creatures don't get what we want...envy and wrath rear their ugly heads to complete the magnificent seven. Our idolatry of consumption is finally crowned with hatred, fear, and despair.
Someone once asked: what is the difference between Christ and a vampire? The answer: Christ sacrifices his blood for your good. The vampire, on the other hand, sacrifices your blood for his good.
We are vampires.
- There are two extremes that rash people tend to fall into.
The first is the person who has no concern for surveillance. He believes that if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. You see more of these people in older generations, when institutional trust was irrationally high.
The second is the person who responds rabidly to any form or application of surveillance. This is the sort of person who believes that all surveillance is abused, public or private, and if it isn't, that it inevitably will be. Slippery slope fallacy is his motto.
A reasonable range of opinion can exist on the subject between those two extremes.
Personally, I have no problem with traffic cameras per se. First, we are in a public space where recordings are generally permitted. Second, no one is being stalked or harassed by a fixed camera. Third, there are problems that only surveillance can reasonably solve (loud cars, dangerous speeding).
My concerns would have to do with the following.
1) Unauthorized access to accumulated data. You should have to have some kind of legal permission to access the data and to do so in very specific ways. For example, if you neighborhood is being disrupted by loud cars, you can use complaints to get permission to query for footage and license plates of cars identified as loud. Each access is logged for audit purposes.
2) Data fusion. You should not be able to combine datasets without permission either. And when such combination occurs, it should also be scoped appropriately. Queries should then be subject to (1).
3) Indefinite hold. Data should have an expiration date. That is, we should not be able to sequester and store data for indefinite periods of time.
4) Private ownership. The collection of certain kinds of surveillance data should belong only to the public and fall under the strict controls above.
The non-specific and general fear of abuse is not a good counterargument.
- > It's likely caused by the very same thing that causes human beings to
We’re not billiard balls. We have agency. Nothing causes a human being to choose to commit immoral acts vs. immoral acts. A human being may be put in a situation that may entice that person’s corrupt desires (we used to call this temptation), and responsibility while mitigating culpability is possible when someone’s rational faculties are overwhelmed, but the choice remains.
Blaming systems for theft is scapegoating and an evasion of responsibility. (To make this clearer by distinction: a starving man taking bread from an overstocked warehouse during a famine is not choosing to commit an immoral act; he isn’t stealing in the first place, as some share of that bread is his).
Ever hear of moral integrity?
Unless the penalty is unjust (say, execution for a minor crime), a just man will confess and accept his punishment as right as just. He himself will want justice to be done and will want to pay for his crime.
A remorseful murderer knows he deserves death. He might ask for mercy, but failing that, he will accept the penalty with dignity and grace.