After rereading my last post on racial profiling and doing some thinking I realized that the issue of racial profiling in the context of airport security is a much more complex issue to which there is probably no clear correct answer. No matter what position we take, we are going to have to compromise on some of our (commonly) held values. Also, coincidentally about a month ago on NPR there was a very interesting panel debate with some of the top experts in the world on the subject, which got me to figuin'. I'm going to recap the main themes of some the arguments and give some of my own thoughts. By the by, here's the link to the debate if you're interested:
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/24/131575316/should-airports-use-racial-and-religious-profiling
There are 3 main issues that I find interesting: the legality of racial profiling; the "human" aspect of profiling; and the efficacy aspect.
The legal issue
Lets look at the legality of racial profiling in the context of airport security. I find it interesting that in the mainstream media you don't hear too much about this. Maybe it will be mentioned indirectly in conjunction with the human aspect but I've never read (maybe I just haven't looked hard enough) an article devoted exclusively to legal considerations. So, being the US constitutional scholar that I am, I will endeavour to fill this void.
The legal argument revolves around the 4th amendment. For those of you aren't rabid libertarians or don't have wikipedia on hand, the amendment concerns search and seizure without probable cause. Off the top of my head (not lifted from wikipedia, I just like to pepper my writing with the occasional blue) the 4th amendment
"guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a 'probable cause' to believe a crime has been committed."
So, from this perspective it seems a legal argument against profiling might have legs. There doesn't seem to be much probable cause. However, there is more to the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment regarding search and seizure without a warrent or probable cause is generally directed at actions occurring within someone's domicile. For this reasons there are some important exceptions that are relevant to our investigation, and as a long time constitutional legal scholar specializing in the 4th amendment article on wikipedia.org I can cut and paste the additional information for you:
Searches conducted at the United States border or the equivalent of the border (such as an international airport) may be conducted without a warrant or probable cause subject to the "border-search" exception.[68] Most border searches may be conducted entirely at random, without any level of suspicion, pursuant to U.S. Customs and Border Protection plenary search authority. However, searches that intrude upon a traveler's personal dignity and privacy interests, such as strip and body cavity searches, must be supported by "reasonable suspicion."[69] The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth circuits have ruled that information on a traveler's electronic materials, including personal files on a laptop computer, may be searched at random, without suspicion.[70]
So, like it or not, it seems that there is a general legal argument for search without warrant and probable cause in airports. An interesting issue does arise however: wikipedia tells us that "border searches may be conducted entirely at random". Does that mean, that they don't have to be at random? That is to say, they can be carried out "unrandomly"? I don't feel like clicking on the link to "US Customs and Border Protection" to read all the specifics so I'm just going to hypothesize that, who is searched is up to each border officer.
Tangential but relevant to all this is the interpretation of "probable cause":
the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that “the term probable cause...means less than evidence that would justify condemnation[,]”
So where do we stand with the legal argument? Basically, it seems that in international airports the US government has a legal right to search individuals with or without probable cause. I have not found anything on the wikipedia 4th amendment page concerning biasing "random" searches toward certain groups; therefore, information regarding this matter does not exist. Were I a betting man, I wager there's probably another wikipedia page about another amendment that could indirectly support the no profiling position.
On the other hand, any 1st year philosophy or political science student can tell you that pretty much the only role of government all people of all political stripes agree on (excluding anarchists, of course) is that of national defence. If the populace, right or wrong, feels that the government is failing in this regard, that government is fair game for overthrow. This means that given conflicting legal principles the government, and probably most segments of the population will lean toward the interpretation that favours (perceived) national security rather than violation of civil rights (profiling).
Conclusion? Racial profiling in US international airports in probably legal.
The "Human" Issue
I'm going to do something I don't usually do. I'm going to appeal to anecdotal emotional arguments to illustrate the issues here. First a story about a family friend
I have a friend who is Egyptian-Canadian. He is quite successful and holds an executive position for a very large US firm, in the US. As part of his job he has to fly all over the US. After the airports reopened after 9-11, naturally he had to fly all over the US for business meetings. On one of his first post-9/11 flights he got up from his seat in the business section to use the lavatory. As he was making his way to the lavatory the stewardess yelled at him "you better sit your ass down or I'm gonna tackle yer ass!"
There are so many things wrong with this scene it's hard to know where to begin. The basic issue is this, when you paint everybody from one group with the same brush, you end up with injustice to those who are innocent of any wrong doing. Do we really want to live in a society in which this occurs? What if, by chance, holding our personalities constant, those of us who have almost no pigment in our skins were born with higher levels of pigment? And/or were born into a family that believed in one set of beliefs (Islam) rather than other? To put it poetically, that would suck.
But I'd like to counter this anecdotal argument with one of my own. When I lived in Japan, I lived in small and mid sized cities. In the non-cosmopolitan parts of Japan some business won't serve foreigners, apartments won't rent to you, and even video stores won't give you a membership. I'm not making this up. I lived it. But there were some instances where I felt this profiling was justified, and I even begrudgingly approved of it.
In one of the towns where I lived there was only one night club, so if you wanted to go out, your options were limited. This night club would not let foreign men in without a Japanese friend that would "vouch" for you. At the door, you'd give your Foreigner ID card number and your Japanese friend would give his name. Sounds a bit much, doesn't it? The Japanese love of protocol and bureaucracy notwithstanding, what was this all about?
Well, since the first foreigners came to Japan, they have for the most part acted like savages by drinking and fighting and abusing the women. The latest culprits are Brazilian imported labourers and US military personnel. If anyone has spent a night in Roppongi (the foreigners' nightclub district in Tokyo) you could not blame the Japanese for their policy. Roppongi is notorious for fights and drunken debauchery. I lived and worked in Roppongi for a year, at not once did I see a fight, or problem that involved a Japanese national, but I didn't observe a shortage of instances involving foreigners, especially US military.
The was also a foreigners' bar in that same aforementioned mid-sized town. I saw plenty of fights there, all between foreigners.
So, to wrap it up, I don't blame the Japanese for painting us white devils all with the same brush. Could I reasonably expect them, at a glance, to identify me as one of the "good" ones? In fact, when I went to the Japanese club with my Japanese friends I never had to worry about fights and drunken slobs. The atmosphere was much more pleasant, and even though it was a bit more trouble for me to get in, I benefited from the profiling. So, in an indirect way, this is an argument for profiling.
There are of course many objections that can be raised. People don't have to go to night clubs but may have to travel for their business and livelihood; Japan is 97% ethic Japanese, US and A is not ethnically homogenous, and so on. This is true, but I only seek to illustrate a principle.
So, is racial profiling ugly? Yup. But should national security policy be based on the "yuck" factor? Probably not. Have I lost the thread of my argument? Yup.
I guess the human issue comes down to values. If racial profiling can be shown to be more effective than not in airport security, should we adopt it regardless of the undesirable consequences to a segment of the population? Or, phrased other way, do the negative consequences to a segment of the population outweigh potential increases in security efficacy?
Lets use another anecdote to illustrate the point. The man who sold the tickets to some of the terrorists on one of the 911 flights felt suspicious about them. Something to do with the fact they they were wearing "poor man's shoes" but they had bought 1st class tickets, and of course they looked middle eastern. The three factors converged to raise the man's suspicions. Normally, in such a case, he'd walk the passengers over to security and give the security guys a signal to select them for a "random" security check. But on that day he didn't. He said he didn't because he didn't want people to think he was a racist. If his account is true, this man lives with the knowledge that he might have stopped a terrorist act.
So where do we stand now? Having been subject to profiling (although, not as a terrorist, just as a barbarian) myself, given the history and other considerations I understood the why. On the other hand, my heart goes out to my friend. I certainly don't want anyone to have to go endure physical threats every time they get up to go to the bathroom. But that was an extreme case. No one is going around to Muslims now saying they are going to "tackle their ass". They are being pulled out of line to be searched more thoroughly. Annoying, yes. Humiliating and hateful? I'm not sure.
Ok, this entry is getting too long to be a blog entry. I'm going to stop here and do a part 3, regarding empirical evidence of efficacy of methods later. Ta!ta!
By the by, I'd love to hear what y'all think about this. I think it's a really interesting issue.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Update and New Year's Resolution
Updayyt
Oh! My poor blog, how I have neglected thee! This time it was not out of pure laziness; I've actually been working my butt off. First order of bi'nis.
My semester at ASU:
Man! I will start by saying this. That was a lot more difficult than I expected. I did not admit this at the time but after the 2nd week I was seriously considering dropping out and choosing a different path. After going on a long hike and then talking to my Mom (thank you, Mom!), I talked myself off the ledge and decided to stick it out. Actually, she helped soothe my self-doubt several times over the semester.
I have never wanted to quit anything. If anything, I continue doing things purely out of spite long after it becomes apparent that no positive results will emerge. I've always believed that if other human beings can do something, so can I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. So many "I"s=bad writing. Startng now, the person wrtng ths wll stop usng so many eyes. Ok, maybe a few won't hurt.
Long story short, as the semester progressed, my brain slowly "remembered" how to function at a decent level and I ended up with some respectable grades. Nevertheless, I feel like I'm at least a semester away from where I'd like to be in terms of my ability to grasp concepts. With that in mind I have made a reading list and study plan for myself so I can be better prepared for next fall when I hopefully get accepted into a program that doesn't get it's funding pulled 6 weeks before classes start.
GRE/Grad Skoo
In my typical style I made plans that were overly ambitious and oblivious the realities of the world. My plan was to rewrite the GRE in the first week of January AND get all 12 or so applications done for Grad skoo, and do it all over the holidays when everyone else around me is relaxing and laughing and telling me to come out to this and that, and family dinners. HA! (that's reality laughing in my face). Not to say I haven't tried to do all I set out to do. I've studied every night except one and I haven't gone out with the exception of NYE and family dinners.
I finished my last term paper sometime in the afternoon around the 15th of December after a 48 hour marathon. I took a nap then woke up and started studying for the GRE. So far so good.
I initially wrote it the GRE in Sept. 2009. I figured 2 weeks this time should be fine. Well, not really. At least this time I remembered what the math concepts were, although I didn't get too many of questions right on my first practice test.
As for the applications, the first round was due on the Jan 1,2,3, and 5. Nothin' but time, I thought. I figured each application would take about 2 hours. Fill out a form here, answer a question here, press "send" and done. Enter reality.
I'm not going to bore you with details, but anyone who's applied for grad school knows (and I know now) that I was as delusional as a homeopath peddling remedies for autism.
Basically, after about the 3rd or 4th day of studying, reality started to rear its ugly head, and more caffein wasn't going to make it go away. I was 2 weeks away from my target date and nowhere near ready--and I was exhausted.
Basically since the beginning of December I'd been pushing myself to finish term papers. And then I had to pack up my room, drive my stuff back to Vegas (shout out to my girl for helping me), continue to work on papers, fly to Vancouver (the whole flight I was frantically working on a paper). Arrive at me Ma's house at 1am and basically kept working until the paper was done.
But it wasn't until I started working on my applications that reality came crashing in like a fatman (wearing a bumble bee outfit) through Japanese paper doors.
So, after trying to keep the fatman in the bumble bee suit out as long as I could I've had to reassess the situation and reset my goals. I stopped studying for the GRE for 5 days and just did applications. Now I'm caught up on those. Now I'm pushing my GRE date to the 1st week of Feb. The schools that I've already applied for and that I apply for in late Jan. won't get the new (hopefully higher) scores. My original scores aren't terrible, it's just that they're not spectacular either. Enough about that stuff. Lets talk new year's resolutions.
New Year's Resolutions
I almost made a resolution this year, but before I talk about it I would like to thank all the people who make fitness and diet resolutions every year. Thank you for keeping my gym fees low. Without you fools signing year long contracts every year to "finally" get in shape, gyms would not be able to offer the low membership prices they do for those of us who actually attend regularly. For this gift I am willing tolerate, for 6 weeks max, your hurkey-jerky movements in the gym, your preworkout, workout, and post-workout "nutrition" drinks, your either decades-old gym wear or obviously-never-before-used-brand-spanking-new gear; the crazy out dated exercises you learned back in high school P.E. class or remember from that aerobics class you took in the 80s. In fact I'm even willing to tolerate those of you who act like you've been going to the gym all along even though you stand out like tourist in Vegas. Yes, I will be magnanimous to you all...but only for 6 weeks. After that I want my gym back. Thank you for coming...see you next year!
Lest you all think I'm a gym snob, I'm quite the opposite. I love helping beginners out. When I see a kid (or adult) trying to do something and it is painfully obvious they have no clue what they are doing, I always go over and (politely) ask if I may offer some suggestions. I've even given random strangers my phone number if they want me to help them out next time I'm at the gym. No....I do not wish failure on anyone. I wish everyone success. It's just...it's hard not to by cynical sometimes when you've seen the same thing over and over, every January.
So, to all those newbies this year, don't be afraid to ask for some help from someone who seems to know what they are doing. Most of us are happy to help and offer encouragement...even though we might snicker about you as a group. Good luck!
That brings me to what was going to be my new year's resolution. I thought it might be good for me not to ridicule people with ridiculous beliefs. The problem is, it's so hard to refrain! It's not like I think I know everything in the world, but there are some beliefs and belief systems that are clearly ridiculous. So, I've decided to take a moderate approach to this resolution because, I think in principle it's a good thing to do, and I'm definitely guilty of going overboard sometimes. Also, that sort of behaviour is unbecoming of a philosopher. So, here's my modified resolution: I will limit my scorn and ridicule of others to my blog. I endeavour to abstain from such behaviour in public and (maybe) facebook!
Oh! My poor blog, how I have neglected thee! This time it was not out of pure laziness; I've actually been working my butt off. First order of bi'nis.
My semester at ASU:
Man! I will start by saying this. That was a lot more difficult than I expected. I did not admit this at the time but after the 2nd week I was seriously considering dropping out and choosing a different path. After going on a long hike and then talking to my Mom (thank you, Mom!), I talked myself off the ledge and decided to stick it out. Actually, she helped soothe my self-doubt several times over the semester.
I have never wanted to quit anything. If anything, I continue doing things purely out of spite long after it becomes apparent that no positive results will emerge. I've always believed that if other human beings can do something, so can I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. So many "I"s=bad writing. Startng now, the person wrtng ths wll stop usng so many eyes. Ok, maybe a few won't hurt.
Long story short, as the semester progressed, my brain slowly "remembered" how to function at a decent level and I ended up with some respectable grades. Nevertheless, I feel like I'm at least a semester away from where I'd like to be in terms of my ability to grasp concepts. With that in mind I have made a reading list and study plan for myself so I can be better prepared for next fall when I hopefully get accepted into a program that doesn't get it's funding pulled 6 weeks before classes start.
GRE/Grad Skoo
In my typical style I made plans that were overly ambitious and oblivious the realities of the world. My plan was to rewrite the GRE in the first week of January AND get all 12 or so applications done for Grad skoo, and do it all over the holidays when everyone else around me is relaxing and laughing and telling me to come out to this and that, and family dinners. HA! (that's reality laughing in my face). Not to say I haven't tried to do all I set out to do. I've studied every night except one and I haven't gone out with the exception of NYE and family dinners.
I finished my last term paper sometime in the afternoon around the 15th of December after a 48 hour marathon. I took a nap then woke up and started studying for the GRE. So far so good.
I initially wrote it the GRE in Sept. 2009. I figured 2 weeks this time should be fine. Well, not really. At least this time I remembered what the math concepts were, although I didn't get too many of questions right on my first practice test.
As for the applications, the first round was due on the Jan 1,2,3, and 5. Nothin' but time, I thought. I figured each application would take about 2 hours. Fill out a form here, answer a question here, press "send" and done. Enter reality.
I'm not going to bore you with details, but anyone who's applied for grad school knows (and I know now) that I was as delusional as a homeopath peddling remedies for autism.
Basically, after about the 3rd or 4th day of studying, reality started to rear its ugly head, and more caffein wasn't going to make it go away. I was 2 weeks away from my target date and nowhere near ready--and I was exhausted.
Basically since the beginning of December I'd been pushing myself to finish term papers. And then I had to pack up my room, drive my stuff back to Vegas (shout out to my girl for helping me), continue to work on papers, fly to Vancouver (the whole flight I was frantically working on a paper). Arrive at me Ma's house at 1am and basically kept working until the paper was done.
But it wasn't until I started working on my applications that reality came crashing in like a fatman (wearing a bumble bee outfit) through Japanese paper doors.
So, after trying to keep the fatman in the bumble bee suit out as long as I could I've had to reassess the situation and reset my goals. I stopped studying for the GRE for 5 days and just did applications. Now I'm caught up on those. Now I'm pushing my GRE date to the 1st week of Feb. The schools that I've already applied for and that I apply for in late Jan. won't get the new (hopefully higher) scores. My original scores aren't terrible, it's just that they're not spectacular either. Enough about that stuff. Lets talk new year's resolutions.
New Year's Resolutions
I almost made a resolution this year, but before I talk about it I would like to thank all the people who make fitness and diet resolutions every year. Thank you for keeping my gym fees low. Without you fools signing year long contracts every year to "finally" get in shape, gyms would not be able to offer the low membership prices they do for those of us who actually attend regularly. For this gift I am willing tolerate, for 6 weeks max, your hurkey-jerky movements in the gym, your preworkout, workout, and post-workout "nutrition" drinks, your either decades-old gym wear or obviously-never-before-used-brand-spanking-new gear; the crazy out dated exercises you learned back in high school P.E. class or remember from that aerobics class you took in the 80s. In fact I'm even willing to tolerate those of you who act like you've been going to the gym all along even though you stand out like tourist in Vegas. Yes, I will be magnanimous to you all...but only for 6 weeks. After that I want my gym back. Thank you for coming...see you next year!
Lest you all think I'm a gym snob, I'm quite the opposite. I love helping beginners out. When I see a kid (or adult) trying to do something and it is painfully obvious they have no clue what they are doing, I always go over and (politely) ask if I may offer some suggestions. I've even given random strangers my phone number if they want me to help them out next time I'm at the gym. No....I do not wish failure on anyone. I wish everyone success. It's just...it's hard not to by cynical sometimes when you've seen the same thing over and over, every January.
So, to all those newbies this year, don't be afraid to ask for some help from someone who seems to know what they are doing. Most of us are happy to help and offer encouragement...even though we might snicker about you as a group. Good luck!
That brings me to what was going to be my new year's resolution. I thought it might be good for me not to ridicule people with ridiculous beliefs. The problem is, it's so hard to refrain! It's not like I think I know everything in the world, but there are some beliefs and belief systems that are clearly ridiculous. So, I've decided to take a moderate approach to this resolution because, I think in principle it's a good thing to do, and I'm definitely guilty of going overboard sometimes. Also, that sort of behaviour is unbecoming of a philosopher. So, here's my modified resolution: I will limit my scorn and ridicule of others to my blog. I endeavour to abstain from such behaviour in public and (maybe) facebook!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Airport Security and Racial Profiling
If found this post in my "drafts" page from when I first started this blog. I guess I'd forgotten to press "publish". Anyway, given the recent changes in airport security measures it seems serendipitous that I found it now...
Wednesday January 27 2010
Wednesday January 27 2010
First of all, I obviously wasn't able to comply with my new schedule. Band rehearsal ended up being post-poned for 30min but I didn't know how long it was going to actually be when I started waiting. One of the guys in the band had to do a media interview so we couldn't start until it was done. Usually they like to do several takes so the duration of interviews is always unknown. While waiting I practised my stick toss. Then I was supposed to do a "meet and greet" after rehearsal, so I got ready and waited...and waited. I guess it got cancelled because the next thing I heard was 20min to curtain. Maybe tomorrow will go according to plan...HA!
Disclaimer: Before anyone gets all huffy about what I'm going to write, I want to say that this is a thought experiment. Policies that I find logically compelling I have trouble with on other grounds. Besides, this is my blog, and if you don't like it, go write your own! (or leave me angry comments...as you please!) One more thing: please feel free to exchange the word "freedom fighter" with "terrorist" depending the side for whom you feel the most political sympathy.
I listened to a really interesting interview on my favourite podcast "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe". It was about racial profiling for airport security. Although I'm not an airport security expert (big shock, I know) I'd always leaned toward racial and geographical profiling in this context. I know, I know, racial profiling is not something one should publicly support unless you are spend your afternoons in rocking chairs swatting flies and telling any newcomers to your neighbourhood "we don' like yur kahd 'round here". However, in the context of airport security there seems to be an intuitively strong case for it. If a given group that is identifiable racially and/or geographically openly declares that they will attempt acts of terrorism against you, does it not make intuitive sense to screen people that fit this profile a little more carefully than others? I know it's not fair for the innocent majority members of this group to be screened more that non-group members but who said security had to be fair?
The interviewee was an international airport security expert and he asserted unequivocally that racial profiling does not work for airport security. Airport security is much more effective when secondary screening is random. Apparently, this isn't even a debate amongst security experts. That's food for thought. The reason racial or geographic profiling doesn't work is because the terrorists already know what security is looking for, so they will send someone who doesn't meet the profile. For example, when Chechnian terrorists blew up two planes both bombers were women. The terrorists knew that Russian security rarely gives secondary screening to female passengers, so the obvious thing to do was to recruit women. Security will never see what it is not looking for and it is not difficult for the freedom fighters to know what airport security is looking for. When secondary security screening is done randomly, there is no way for the freedom fighters to anticipate who will be screen and on what grounds.
Basically, the way airport security operates now, almost by definition, cannot work because they are always fighting the last battle. When terrorists knew that shoes wouldn't be screened, they put da' bomb in da' shoe. When carry-ons were screened for solid explosives, the terrorists used liquids. When security started screening shoes, terrorists put da' bomb in da' underwear, and so on.
According to the security expert the solution is to take the resources (money and people) that are being wasted in "security theatre" and put it it intelligence gathering and the training of all airport employees to be able to do security interviews and learn to recognize suspicious behaviour. When it comes to profiling, behaviour profiling will yield better results so airport employees should be trained to be able to profile based on behaviour.
Why am I writing about airport security? A couple of reasons I guess. First is that I travel a lot so I directly suffer the consequences of onerous airport "security". Second, prior to listening to the interview I thought that racial profiling for airport security made sense from a logical point of view, although I was never quite comfortable with it's unintended side effects. Listening to the interview showed me my logic was flawed and I learned something new. Contrary to many people I actually enjoy when a belief I hold is methodically disproven with evidence. I like the feeling I get when I can discard an erroneous point of view. Third, I wrote this as a practice for when I'm back in school and I have to be able to assimilate and reproduce what a professor has said during a lecture. Finally, I thought that I there may be a chance that I am not the only one in my circle of friends who isn't a security expert and might also benefit from listening to what an expert has to say on the topic.
In the end, however, I agree with the security expert's arguments for measures that would lead to actual airport security but regarding racial profiling I'm not entirely convinced that it needs to be discarded entirely. I agree that racial profiling on it's own is not the best security method but I'm still unsure why his method would have to exclude racial profiling. I still think that from a purely logical point of view, in cases where there is a racially and/or geographically identifiable group that overtly promises to attempt terrorist acts, there is a reasonable case for profiling. Here's an grossly oversimplified example to illustrate the principle: Imagine you lived in a country where everybody had 5 eyes and there was a country of people with 3 eyes. A group of people from your country, because they harbour grievances against the 3-eyed people, openly declare on behalf of all 5-eyed people (but without consulting you) that they will attempt acts of violence against 3-eyed people. Would it not be reasonable for the 3-eyed people to regard any 5-eyed person with suspicion? How can the 3-eyed people reasonably discern who are the terrorists among the 5-eyed people in their airports? I suppose they could conduct lengthy interviews with each passenger, regardless of the number of eyes: it would be effective and fair, but security wait lines would take even longer than now. Or you can just secondarily screen all people with 5 eyes.
It sounds good in the over simplified example and establishes the principle but racial profiling on it's own might not translate too well in the complex real world of US airport security. First of all, there are several examples of home grown, white terrorists (McVeigh, Unibomber), so if you are only secondarily screening Arabs, the home grown crazies can easily slip through. Also, and this may come as a shock to most of you, but Americans are largely ignorant when it comes to distinguishing between Hindus, Arabs, Israelis, Turks, and other darker skinned people or knowing who their political allies are. An Israeli friend of mine that I work with told me a funny/sad story that happened shortly after 9/11. He was talking to a group of girls who were either in the military or who's husbands were in the military. They asked him were he was from because he has an accent. When he told them "Israel" one of them yelled "you better get the fuck away from us before I try to kick you ass"! Yup, somehow the "subtle" political distinction between the Israelis and Arabs escaped her keen military mind....(by the way, for my American friends reading this---as defined by the state department, the Israelis are your friends!) Anyway, you'd probably have better luck training airport security personnel methods of behavioural profiling rather than trying to undo a life time of ignorance :)
So, where am I going with all this unnecessary rambling? I'm not sure. Maybe something like this: scanning bags, shoes, etc.. has benefits, but by itself it's not the best solution. It probably acts more as a deterrent to the average crazy person than to the well organized, highly motivated terrorist. Behavioural profiling and intelligence gathering are the security expert's methods of choice but it's going to be years before current staff are adequately trained and intelligence networks put in place. Racial profiling is far from perfect but if there are members of an identifiable group that overtly announce their violent intentions, it is not unreasonable to check people that fit the profile.
As one of my heros, Mark Crislip says, please post your comments and hate mail below, I'd love to hear from you"!
Stuck/Quine/Epistemology Natualized
Ok, what I'm about to do may turn out to be a very poor decision but at this point I don't have much to lose. Here's the situation. I have one term paper left and for some reason I just cannot make any progress. I'm so confused by now that I can't tell if the problem is that I don't understand the content of if I can't synthesize the information or if I need more information, or if I have too much and it's just disorganized. I don't know. I'm embarrassed to admit how much time I have devoted to this stinkin' paper and I have nothing but a few pages of unfinished thoughts that lead nowhere. So, here's my plan. I'm going to summarized the issues here in my blog. I feel like I'm talking to friends, you're not going to grade me, and my writing seems to flow better when it's "for fun". The risk is that nothing may come of this and I will have wasted more valuable time that maybe should have been spent doing more research or rereading material. Anyway, speaking of wasting time, enough with the preamble:
So my paper is about a philosopher named Quine and the problem of knowing whether we can justify our system of scientific knowledge. I know what your thinking...um, just put on lab coat, and run some experiments and if the evidence confirms a theory, then ta-da! it works. Why do philosophers need to make everything so complicated? In a sense this response is correct, and it is in some ways related to what Quine says.
The general topic that we are investigating is "how we know what we know". This area of philosophy is called epistemology. Traditional epistemology saw one of its primary roles as trying to find a rational justification for our knowledge of the world. This type of reasoning must be distinguished from experiential reasoning, or as philosophers call is "synthetic" or "a posteriori"(after the fact). The problem can be framed like this "how do we know what we know?" Answer: "we learn through experience" Question: "how do you know that experience gives you a reliable picture of the world?" Typical answer, "because further experiences confirm that my beliefs are true". Did you catch the problem? If you didn't, here it is. This is an instance of circular reasoning. You are setting out to prove the reliability of beliefs derived from experience by appealing to experience. It's not a good argument if you support what you are trying to prove with the thing you are trying to prove.
So what does Quine say about all this? He says, all this talk of trying to prove science (experiential knowledge) from something other than experience is just crazy talk. We haven't made any progress since Descartes, who formulated the problem in its modern form, and Hume, who pointed out even more problems. Lets just stop all this madness and allow for a certain amount of circularity. Why? because unless you want to postulate divine revelation, clairvoyance and other untenable ways of knowing, all we have is appeal to experience. So, instead of continuing on this fools errand of trying come up with a logical proof for how it is that science (seems) to work, lets look at how it actually does work. In other words, instead of looking at how we ought to derive beliefs, lets look at how we actually do derive our beliefs (in science). How do we do this? We appeal to empirical psychology.
Empirical psychology is the study of how we go from sensory stimulation to some sort of behavioural (maybe assertions) output indicating belief. Now I know what some of you are thinking: Whoa! Nelly! Stop right there. That sounds like behaviourism and I remember hearing that behaviourism is the devil! Lets make a distinction here between philosophical behaviourism and methodological behaviourism. The former, which is probably the one that most people object to, is the position that all there is is behaviour. There are not mental states, emotions, etc....we are basically all just machines. Well, you'd be right to object, and in academia that view died a long time ago. Quine is proposing methodological behaviourism. This is the idea that, while people may have mental states, emotions, and sensations, the only thing that we can observe as outsiders is behaviour. Behaviour here should be construed in a broad sense: from the macro scale all the way down neural and sensory receptor stimulations, firing of synapses and so on. There is no way to observe what someone's feeling of feels like but we can observe their behavioural responses. That's all this means.
Moving on. So, suppose we accept this model and ignore, for the time being accusations of circularity. Are there any important questions that this new paradigm will not be able to answer? A common argument against this model is that it provides no guidance in areas of norms. Let me explain: Norms are standards by which we measure success. Norms are the basic level of competence required for an operation to be considered successful. For example, the academic norms for grade 3 are that you are able to read and write at a given level and maybe know all your multiplication tables. If you are below the norms, you cannot successfully carry out these tasks.
So, what's an example of a case where we need to know something about epistemic (to do with knowledge) norms? Lets say 2 people are having an argument about the results of a science experiment. The experiment was, in a beaker (I have to say that word any chance I get!) they pour 1 cup of sugar into one cup of water: the result is that the beaker now shows the meniscus to be a 1 1/4 cups. Scientist 1 (I'll call her Mary) says this proves that 1+1=1 1/4. Scientist 2 (Bob) says, no: this does not disprove the laws of arithmetic.
So what does this all have to do with using psychology to solve epistemic problems? Here it is: psychology can give us an account of how the light reflecting off the beaker and solution stimulated the visual system and, after a long causal chain, produced a behaviour in the scientists that indicated they perceive the meniscus to have risen to indicate 1 1/4 cups. If we appealed to neuro-psychology we could learn the neuro-pathways that were stimulated when Mary and Bob came to their respective conclusions. To summarize, the scientific method could tell us how the reasoning occurred but it cannot tell us which method of reasoning is preferable. This is because science is descriptive, not prescriptive or normative.
So, does it end here? Case closed? I think there's more to the story. I think there are ways that science can tell us which ways of reasoning are preferable. Let me elaborate: We know that depending what type of problem we are asked to solve and how we frame a problem it will influence how we solve the problem. For instance, sometimes people voice opinions/beliefs based on emotions, other times they use logic. Depending on what type of "reasoning" process they are using, neuro-psychology tells us that different parts of the brain are engaged. It is safe to assume that for most problems, resolution is preferably achieved through using the rational, rather than emotional part of the brain. So, since we know which part of the brain is preferable and the conditions which bias toward our engaging it, we can set up conditions for us to yield "true" beliefs.
Lets take a step back so we can go into more detail. When I said that I assumed that for most problems it is preferable to engage the rational part of our brain, in a sense I was expressing a norm. Strictly speaking science cannot say "this method is better because it produces true beliefs". This presupposes a norm or value, that of producing true belief. So, there are 2 issues here, that of expressing preference for an outcome and the notion of truth.
Scientific theories cannot tell us what is true. They can only tell us that to which experience, thus far, has conformed. Science history is littered with examples of theories that where at one point as sure as, well...lets just say they were held as true. Sometimes there are competing theories to explain the same phenomena. The point is the the notion of truth in science, as in most places, is not "true come what may". Again, science simply gives us a best account of the evidence at hand.
So, how can science distinguish between thought patterns for justification? The same way that it adopts any theory. Setting up circumstances that biasing our thinking in ways that use the rational part of our brain will lead to beliefs that will conform better with experience and help us to better navigate our world than if we had chosen a cognitive process that would bias toward other beliefs.
Anyway, those are two of the central themes. There's a lot more but I'm struggling with it. If you made it to the bottom I thank you for taking the time to read this crap. I'm so screwed. I have no idea what I'm going to write....
By the way, if there are any philosophers out there reading this, any helpful suggestions will be graciously accepted....
So my paper is about a philosopher named Quine and the problem of knowing whether we can justify our system of scientific knowledge. I know what your thinking...um, just put on lab coat, and run some experiments and if the evidence confirms a theory, then ta-da! it works. Why do philosophers need to make everything so complicated? In a sense this response is correct, and it is in some ways related to what Quine says.
The general topic that we are investigating is "how we know what we know". This area of philosophy is called epistemology. Traditional epistemology saw one of its primary roles as trying to find a rational justification for our knowledge of the world. This type of reasoning must be distinguished from experiential reasoning, or as philosophers call is "synthetic" or "a posteriori"(after the fact). The problem can be framed like this "how do we know what we know?" Answer: "we learn through experience" Question: "how do you know that experience gives you a reliable picture of the world?" Typical answer, "because further experiences confirm that my beliefs are true". Did you catch the problem? If you didn't, here it is. This is an instance of circular reasoning. You are setting out to prove the reliability of beliefs derived from experience by appealing to experience. It's not a good argument if you support what you are trying to prove with the thing you are trying to prove.
So what does Quine say about all this? He says, all this talk of trying to prove science (experiential knowledge) from something other than experience is just crazy talk. We haven't made any progress since Descartes, who formulated the problem in its modern form, and Hume, who pointed out even more problems. Lets just stop all this madness and allow for a certain amount of circularity. Why? because unless you want to postulate divine revelation, clairvoyance and other untenable ways of knowing, all we have is appeal to experience. So, instead of continuing on this fools errand of trying come up with a logical proof for how it is that science (seems) to work, lets look at how it actually does work. In other words, instead of looking at how we ought to derive beliefs, lets look at how we actually do derive our beliefs (in science). How do we do this? We appeal to empirical psychology.
Empirical psychology is the study of how we go from sensory stimulation to some sort of behavioural (maybe assertions) output indicating belief. Now I know what some of you are thinking: Whoa! Nelly! Stop right there. That sounds like behaviourism and I remember hearing that behaviourism is the devil! Lets make a distinction here between philosophical behaviourism and methodological behaviourism. The former, which is probably the one that most people object to, is the position that all there is is behaviour. There are not mental states, emotions, etc....we are basically all just machines. Well, you'd be right to object, and in academia that view died a long time ago. Quine is proposing methodological behaviourism. This is the idea that, while people may have mental states, emotions, and sensations, the only thing that we can observe as outsiders is behaviour. Behaviour here should be construed in a broad sense: from the macro scale all the way down neural and sensory receptor stimulations, firing of synapses and so on. There is no way to observe what someone's feeling of feels like but we can observe their behavioural responses. That's all this means.
Moving on. So, suppose we accept this model and ignore, for the time being accusations of circularity. Are there any important questions that this new paradigm will not be able to answer? A common argument against this model is that it provides no guidance in areas of norms. Let me explain: Norms are standards by which we measure success. Norms are the basic level of competence required for an operation to be considered successful. For example, the academic norms for grade 3 are that you are able to read and write at a given level and maybe know all your multiplication tables. If you are below the norms, you cannot successfully carry out these tasks.
So, what's an example of a case where we need to know something about epistemic (to do with knowledge) norms? Lets say 2 people are having an argument about the results of a science experiment. The experiment was, in a beaker (I have to say that word any chance I get!) they pour 1 cup of sugar into one cup of water: the result is that the beaker now shows the meniscus to be a 1 1/4 cups. Scientist 1 (I'll call her Mary) says this proves that 1+1=1 1/4. Scientist 2 (Bob) says, no: this does not disprove the laws of arithmetic.
So what does this all have to do with using psychology to solve epistemic problems? Here it is: psychology can give us an account of how the light reflecting off the beaker and solution stimulated the visual system and, after a long causal chain, produced a behaviour in the scientists that indicated they perceive the meniscus to have risen to indicate 1 1/4 cups. If we appealed to neuro-psychology we could learn the neuro-pathways that were stimulated when Mary and Bob came to their respective conclusions. To summarize, the scientific method could tell us how the reasoning occurred but it cannot tell us which method of reasoning is preferable. This is because science is descriptive, not prescriptive or normative.
So, does it end here? Case closed? I think there's more to the story. I think there are ways that science can tell us which ways of reasoning are preferable. Let me elaborate: We know that depending what type of problem we are asked to solve and how we frame a problem it will influence how we solve the problem. For instance, sometimes people voice opinions/beliefs based on emotions, other times they use logic. Depending on what type of "reasoning" process they are using, neuro-psychology tells us that different parts of the brain are engaged. It is safe to assume that for most problems, resolution is preferably achieved through using the rational, rather than emotional part of the brain. So, since we know which part of the brain is preferable and the conditions which bias toward our engaging it, we can set up conditions for us to yield "true" beliefs.
Lets take a step back so we can go into more detail. When I said that I assumed that for most problems it is preferable to engage the rational part of our brain, in a sense I was expressing a norm. Strictly speaking science cannot say "this method is better because it produces true beliefs". This presupposes a norm or value, that of producing true belief. So, there are 2 issues here, that of expressing preference for an outcome and the notion of truth.
Scientific theories cannot tell us what is true. They can only tell us that to which experience, thus far, has conformed. Science history is littered with examples of theories that where at one point as sure as, well...lets just say they were held as true. Sometimes there are competing theories to explain the same phenomena. The point is the the notion of truth in science, as in most places, is not "true come what may". Again, science simply gives us a best account of the evidence at hand.
So, how can science distinguish between thought patterns for justification? The same way that it adopts any theory. Setting up circumstances that biasing our thinking in ways that use the rational part of our brain will lead to beliefs that will conform better with experience and help us to better navigate our world than if we had chosen a cognitive process that would bias toward other beliefs.
Anyway, those are two of the central themes. There's a lot more but I'm struggling with it. If you made it to the bottom I thank you for taking the time to read this crap. I'm so screwed. I have no idea what I'm going to write....
By the way, if there are any philosophers out there reading this, any helpful suggestions will be graciously accepted....
Saturday, November 20, 2010
"Entertainer" Woes and Rant
I just got back from doing a show and for some reason I'm feeling kind of pissed off. In my more enlightened moments I don't blog when I'm upset because I'll usually say something I'll regret. So, lets see what I say!
First off, I love performing, I really do. I don't care if it's in my underwear or in a chicken suit or both at the same time, I love being on stage and entertaining. You get the point.
Yesterday I finished a term paper and I don't yet have a topic for my last paper so I thought I'd just do some reading on Friday night, maybe hit the gym. In the afternoon I got a call to do a show. Not just a bachelorette party but a show at a club to promote their upcoming ladies night. It paid absolute crap, $70.00, but it was cake: I just had to get myself there, do my 5 minute show, then I could go. Sure, why not? I thought. It'll break the monotony of eat, study, gym, study, study, class, eat, sleep, study, study, procrastinate, procrastinate, gym, eat, study...anyway, you get the idea.
It was at a Mexican night club (more on that later) so the show wasn't until 1am. In order to get there 15min early I left at 12. When Im half way there my contact calls me and tells me it's been postponed until 1:30am. No big deal. I could use some down time and I'm a night owl so it's not that late for me. I'm in the change room with the other guy who's dancing at the event. We're waiting and waiting and waiting. Finally, at 1:50 I said to the organizer, either you put us on next song or I'm leaving. I'm pretty easy going but we were now 50 min behind schedule for a show that essentially pays nothing and I'm cooped up in a little change room.
The club was full on traditional Mexican with a Mexican polka band blaring their oompapa music. No big deal. I was kind of expecting more of a Mexican-American type club with reggaeton but this was a more traditional club. The part that felt strange was that this was not a ladies' night. This was just a regular Friday night polka-fest; guys and all. I don't think I've ever done a show in front of guys. Well, actually I'm pretty sure of that. Not that I have a problem with guys. Some of my best friends are guys. And some of them are Mexican guys. And some of them are gay Mexican guys. I just prefer not to strip for them. Anyway, as with most traditional cultures, the guys tend to be pretty homophobic, so I thought it was odd that they all watched the show. Maybe I'm just. that. good. Or maybe they wanted to steal my moves! Oh no! Well, the more likely answer is that they probably wanted to keep an eye on their women.
I brought my cowboy act because I thought it would go over well. The act requires a girl from the audience. I brought a girl up on the stage and sat her in the chair. There's one part of the act were I take her hand and run them down my rector abdominalis (I love that word). In this part my shirt is off but I have yet to tear away the pants. Immediately after I turn around, straddle her legs and slowly take my belt off. The whole time she's trying to tear my pants off...
Let me stop for a moment and tell all of you who have never done any type of performance a thing or two about entertainer pet peeves. Near the top of the list is audience participants that fuck with your show! Everything is carefully timed, be it a magic or dance or comedy. Also, it my show, not yours! If you want a show, put the time in, and spend years getting to the point were people will actually pay to see you. Moving on....
There's a musical cue I'm waiting for and if you mess shit up I'm gonna be pissed! Of course most people by 2am in a bar are drunk and probably won't know and don't care, but to the entertainer, we care! The only way to be a good entertainer is if you care. You can't be good if you don't care. It's simple! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Anyway, I'm trying to nicely hint to her to stop it by firmly but gently taking her hands off my buttons and placing them on my hips but she won't stop. This is not the first time this has happened an usually this subtle hint is sufficient. Let me stop (again) to explain something. I had come to the club in a good mood. To me I wasn't doing it so much for the money but as a break from studying and do something fun that I'd also get paid for (but not sooooooo fun that I'd do it for free). But after the 50min wait I was a bit irritated. And I felt a little awkward with all the guys in there staring me down. This chick was going to push me over the edge. So, I grabbed her wrists really hard and placed them very firmly on my hips. Remember, the whole time everyone in the club is watching so I'm smiling my face off like everything's just dandy.
Finally, the music, my choreography and the plot-line of my schtick (by schtick I mean act) cumulate into a glorious festival of flying pants to reveal my "sacred" American flag booty shorts. In the final part of the act I kind of side straddle the girl in the chair (hard to describe), put the cowboy hat on her and spin her around in the chair. So I'm trying to get into position but she keeps pushing me off her. WTF? A second ago you wouldn't stop tearing at my pants, and now you won't let me side straddle you? (does that sound weird?) Every time I approach her she pushes herself away in the chair. I'm literally chasing her around the stage. At this point I should have given up, walked away and improvised something. But no. Sometimes you're locked on autopilot. Or maybe it was cuz she had pissed me off earlier. I don't know. Anyway, I grabbed her, forced her in the chair, lay down with all my weight across her lap sideways and spun her around in the chair....the way the show is supposed to go! Don't mess with my show, bitch!
I have no idea if anyone noticed but after that, when I went to collect tips from tables I wasn't very jovial (I've been performing so long that I smile automatically when I'm on stage whether I want to or not--muscle memory). Also, while I was collecting tips of course one of the guys had to take his shirt of and flex for me. The guy needed to lay off the burritos, I'm not sure what he was trying to prove except that he needs to go to the gym. Wow! I'm bitter! usually stuff like that makes me laugh. Also I noticed with that crowd, which is true of most crowds, that there is an inverse relation between how much they tip and how much they grab at you. A note to women who plan on going to a ladies night. Yanking on a guys underwear is not sensual, or on anything else for that matter. Maybe your boyfriend is different but as far as I know, most guys had enough wedgies back in high school.
Ok, I'm gonna stop now. I feel a bit better. This has been therapeutic for me. I hope it was at least mildly entertaining for you. As a final note, 95% of the time audiences are respectful and I am treated well. I guess no matter what your job, there will be the occasional crappy day. Thanks for reading! G'night...
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Update and T. Burge vs J. Campbell: The Limits of Vision Science
Uppdayt:
What's up friends...I apologize for the increasing duration of time between entries. I'm in the heart of term paper writing season and it's hard enough just to get my reading and writing done. I've put work on hold until the semester's over so I can dedicate myself to the work that will hopefully move me forward in life.
Anywho, aside from an increase in stress, which is to be expected, things are going well. I'm healthy, learning philosophy, and I go hiking once a week. What more could I ask for?...I'll stop there.
For all youz guys who like to hear funny stripper stories, I apologize, I have none because I haven't been working...So, on with the philosophy!
T. Burge vs J. Campbell: The Limits of Vision Science
Could a colour-blind scientist who was an expert on the science of colour vision be able to recognize the colour red (unassisted, on the first try) if she got her vision back?
Within the realm of philosophy of mind there is a subsection that deals with perception. The main issue it addresses how much about the external world can we learn through our senses (if anything). Philosophers who endeavour to answer this question naturally draw heavily empirical (i.e. scientific) knowledge from vision science and perceptual psychology. Within this specialized field there is a debate as to whether the empirical sciences can give a full description of perception. (I'll refer only to vision because it is the most studied sense).
Historically, there are a couple on background facts that are relevant. First, in modern philosophy of perception, pre-vision science era, philosopher conjectured on how vision worked. Some of these philosophers started to employ the scientific method and ran empirical experiments. Eventually they branched off and formed their own discipline (which is what happened with all the natural and social sciences at some point). Those that stayed continued to philosophize about vision "from the armchair".
Of those that stayed in the armchair, some declared that there were some aspects of perception that science could not tell us about. Most scientists outside of philosophy scoffed at this notion and saw the philosophers as archaic and simply trying to legitimize their existence.
OK, enough background, lets get to the issue. The issue hinges on what is called, in philosophy speak, "the qualitative aspect of perception". In normal English it means "what it's like to have an experience". Essentially, the argument is that science and psychology can tell us how perception occurs, how all the subsystems work, how light arrays on the eyes are converted into neural impulses, how seeing colour activates one part of the brain rather than another, and so on. But, they say, if you added up all the scientific facts about perception it could never tell you what it's like to see, for example, "a red ball". Or to make the example more clear, science can tell us how a bee sees, but science cannot tell us anything about what it's like for the bee to see a flower.
Philosophers that oppose this view are generally labelled materialists. They argue that the aggregate of explanations of neural impulses and descriptions of brain states is what is to see x. In other words, given such and such a brain state and such and such an arrangement of sensory organs and subsystems, the phenomena that arises out of all that stuff simply is perception of x. There's no more to say about it.
I find that there is an intuitive pull to saying that, no, all this talk of brain states doesn't give a full account of what it is to see. Here is a classical argument for the position. Imagine the most brilliant vision scientist to ever live. She is knows every thing there is to know about vision. The knows how every single neurone will respond to seeing any given colour. In a strange twist of fate, our brilliant vision scientist was born colour blind. The question is, will all her factual scientific knowledge, does our scientist know what it's like to see red? If she suddenly were able to see colour would she be able to (unaided) identify red the first time she saw it?
I'm not going to tell you what I think. I'm curious to know what other people think. Please post your comments! I hope I've explained the issue clearly. If you have questions please affix a wedge-like piece of metal to the end of a wooden handle and ax me!
What's up friends...I apologize for the increasing duration of time between entries. I'm in the heart of term paper writing season and it's hard enough just to get my reading and writing done. I've put work on hold until the semester's over so I can dedicate myself to the work that will hopefully move me forward in life.
Anywho, aside from an increase in stress, which is to be expected, things are going well. I'm healthy, learning philosophy, and I go hiking once a week. What more could I ask for?...I'll stop there.
For all youz guys who like to hear funny stripper stories, I apologize, I have none because I haven't been working...So, on with the philosophy!
T. Burge vs J. Campbell: The Limits of Vision Science
Could a colour-blind scientist who was an expert on the science of colour vision be able to recognize the colour red (unassisted, on the first try) if she got her vision back?
Within the realm of philosophy of mind there is a subsection that deals with perception. The main issue it addresses how much about the external world can we learn through our senses (if anything). Philosophers who endeavour to answer this question naturally draw heavily empirical (i.e. scientific) knowledge from vision science and perceptual psychology. Within this specialized field there is a debate as to whether the empirical sciences can give a full description of perception. (I'll refer only to vision because it is the most studied sense).
Historically, there are a couple on background facts that are relevant. First, in modern philosophy of perception, pre-vision science era, philosopher conjectured on how vision worked. Some of these philosophers started to employ the scientific method and ran empirical experiments. Eventually they branched off and formed their own discipline (which is what happened with all the natural and social sciences at some point). Those that stayed continued to philosophize about vision "from the armchair".
Of those that stayed in the armchair, some declared that there were some aspects of perception that science could not tell us about. Most scientists outside of philosophy scoffed at this notion and saw the philosophers as archaic and simply trying to legitimize their existence.
OK, enough background, lets get to the issue. The issue hinges on what is called, in philosophy speak, "the qualitative aspect of perception". In normal English it means "what it's like to have an experience". Essentially, the argument is that science and psychology can tell us how perception occurs, how all the subsystems work, how light arrays on the eyes are converted into neural impulses, how seeing colour activates one part of the brain rather than another, and so on. But, they say, if you added up all the scientific facts about perception it could never tell you what it's like to see, for example, "a red ball". Or to make the example more clear, science can tell us how a bee sees, but science cannot tell us anything about what it's like for the bee to see a flower.
Philosophers that oppose this view are generally labelled materialists. They argue that the aggregate of explanations of neural impulses and descriptions of brain states is what is to see x. In other words, given such and such a brain state and such and such an arrangement of sensory organs and subsystems, the phenomena that arises out of all that stuff simply is perception of x. There's no more to say about it.
I find that there is an intuitive pull to saying that, no, all this talk of brain states doesn't give a full account of what it is to see. Here is a classical argument for the position. Imagine the most brilliant vision scientist to ever live. She is knows every thing there is to know about vision. The knows how every single neurone will respond to seeing any given colour. In a strange twist of fate, our brilliant vision scientist was born colour blind. The question is, will all her factual scientific knowledge, does our scientist know what it's like to see red? If she suddenly were able to see colour would she be able to (unaided) identify red the first time she saw it?
I'm not going to tell you what I think. I'm curious to know what other people think. Please post your comments! I hope I've explained the issue clearly. If you have questions please affix a wedge-like piece of metal to the end of a wooden handle and ax me!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Nutrition Rant: Simple vs Complex Carbs
Upddayt
Ok, it's crunch time for me. Semester's end is in sight which means 1 thing: term papers. Honestly, I'm kind of freaking out. Guess I just need to divide everything into manageable tasks. Wait, that would make too much sense. I should do what most pop psychology/self-help books say. I should just visualize getting an 'A'. Or just have a really positive attitude, or something like be open to the universe conspiring to help me--whatever the crap that means. Or I could do my favourite: just pray. Prayer will get me through these tough times. Right. What happened to organize your time, and work hard? Why attach all this other useless crap?
True story (sort of, I'm changing the details so preserve anonymity). I had a friend (a believer) who was in a car accident. He worked very hard during physical therapy to get better. Followed all his doctors' advice, the whole nine yards. He healed sooner than expected. When asked about his recovery he attributed it to all the people who prayed for his recovery. What the crap? So, modern medicine and physical therapy, and all the effort you made are just frills and gimmicks? So, I suppose when people who are prayed for don't get better it means their friends and family didn't pray hard enough? Or maybe they prayed to the wrong god? Have you ever heard of a religious person blame their slow recovery or eventual death on people not praying enough for them? Probably not, but they'll attribute all the credit to sweet baby jesus (sbj) if things go the way the want. Makes me want to tackle people.
Anyway, the whole point of this entry is to let all my millions of readers (thanks for reading Mom!) know that my entries may not be that frequent while I am entering term paper season. I'll do my best but can't promise much except for the occasional tirade against flawed logic. (Colbert: But you acknowledge it is logic!)
So, for tonight I leave you with this, a rant I wrote about a week ago on my friend's blog (which chronicles his weight loss experience) while I was supposed to be working on one of my term papers....enjoy! Bye the bye, thanks to my sister for the biochemistry overview and fact checking. She's a real scientist with her own lab coat, test tubes, bunsen burner, and beaker...so listen up!
Context: there had been a couple of comments from the peanut gallery (readers of my friend's blog) with suggestions that I knew had no scientific support, mainly in regards to carbs. (I'd be lying if I didn't mention that I was a little jealous about how many comments he got from his peanut gallery....c'mon guys! you're way to quiet for a peanut gallery!)
Ok, it's crunch time for me. Semester's end is in sight which means 1 thing: term papers. Honestly, I'm kind of freaking out. Guess I just need to divide everything into manageable tasks. Wait, that would make too much sense. I should do what most pop psychology/self-help books say. I should just visualize getting an 'A'. Or just have a really positive attitude, or something like be open to the universe conspiring to help me--whatever the crap that means. Or I could do my favourite: just pray. Prayer will get me through these tough times. Right. What happened to organize your time, and work hard? Why attach all this other useless crap?
True story (sort of, I'm changing the details so preserve anonymity). I had a friend (a believer) who was in a car accident. He worked very hard during physical therapy to get better. Followed all his doctors' advice, the whole nine yards. He healed sooner than expected. When asked about his recovery he attributed it to all the people who prayed for his recovery. What the crap? So, modern medicine and physical therapy, and all the effort you made are just frills and gimmicks? So, I suppose when people who are prayed for don't get better it means their friends and family didn't pray hard enough? Or maybe they prayed to the wrong god? Have you ever heard of a religious person blame their slow recovery or eventual death on people not praying enough for them? Probably not, but they'll attribute all the credit to sweet baby jesus (sbj) if things go the way the want. Makes me want to tackle people.
Anyway, the whole point of this entry is to let all my millions of readers (thanks for reading Mom!) know that my entries may not be that frequent while I am entering term paper season. I'll do my best but can't promise much except for the occasional tirade against flawed logic. (Colbert: But you acknowledge it is logic!)
So, for tonight I leave you with this, a rant I wrote about a week ago on my friend's blog (which chronicles his weight loss experience) while I was supposed to be working on one of my term papers....enjoy! Bye the bye, thanks to my sister for the biochemistry overview and fact checking. She's a real scientist with her own lab coat, test tubes, bunsen burner, and beaker...so listen up!
Context: there had been a couple of comments from the peanut gallery (readers of my friend's blog) with suggestions that I knew had no scientific support, mainly in regards to carbs. (I'd be lying if I didn't mention that I was a little jealous about how many comments he got from his peanut gallery....c'mon guys! you're way to quiet for a peanut gallery!)
Just thought I'd throw my two bits in regarding carbs. First lets begin with weight loss basics. Far and away the most important thing is that calories out must be less than calories in, regardless of source. If calories in exceeds calories out, you gain weight. If they are equal, you maintain. This is not to say that there aren't optimal ratios of macro nutrients (simple carbs, complex carbs, proteins, fats) but the calories in/calories out formula is orders of magnitude more important if weight loss is the primary concern. In regards to the complex vs simple carbs, ultimately it matters not which you eat (in the context of weight loss); what matters is the caloric content. Since one gram of carbs, simple or complex, is equal to just over 4 calories of energy, ultimately eating one has the same effect as the other in regards to caloric intake.
Next we come to complex vs simple carbs in the context of "which is better for you". They are basically chemically the same thing except the complex carbs are chains of simple carbs (i.e. sugars or monosaccharides, in chemistry language). The metabolic difference is that complex carbs take longer to enter the blood stream because the body has to break down the complex chains of molecules into individual simple sugar molecules before it can absorb them into the blood stream.
The rate at which carbs are broken down and absorbed into the blood stream is called the glycemic index. When we eat foods high in simple sugars (simple carbs) the rate at which the sugars enter our blood stream is high because there is no need for our body to break the molecule down any more than it is. When a large amount of sugar is "dumped" into the blood stream all at once, the body responds by increasing insulin production. Insulin production is linked to energy storage. The body stores energy in two ways: 1. it converts the sugar into glycogen, where it is stored in the muscles, or 2. in the fat cells where it is stored as fat. If your muscles are already saturated with glycogen, then your body will tend to store excess glycogen as fat.
So, as you can see, if you consume simple carbs in quantities below the bodies threshold for releasing insulin there is no negative effect. But not everything is so simple, many things depend on context. For instance, for athletes it is important to eat simple carbs after a workout so glycogen stores are replenished quickly. Furthermore, insulin is a transporter of nutrients to cells, so after a workout, we want higher insulin levels so energy is more effectively transported back into our cells.
With all this hysteria about carbs it is important to keep a couple of things in mind. First, they ultimately are broken down in to the same thing. Second, if we have an active life style, both simple and complex carbs are important parts of our diet to meet our energy requirements. The problem is usually that processed foods are calorie dense, not that that simple carbs themselves are bad. Once again, the problem is calories in vs calories out. Not macro-nutrient ratios.
One more note concerning carb hysteria, and this concerns the naturalistic fallacy. But first a quick return to elementary chemistry. Both fructose and glucose are monosaccharides (simple sugars). "Natural" sugar is called sucrose, and contains one fructose and one glucose molecule. just because it is "natural" doesn't endow it with any magical properties. chemistry is chemistry is chemistry. That said there is a lot of hysteria concerning high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) HFCS is also composed of both fructose and sucrose. the only difference is that because the fructose and sucrose molecules are not bound, the ratio of fructose to glucose can be controlled. It comes in 55/45 blend or 42/58. There is nothing inherently "bad" about it. Any "natural" food is going to have both fructose and sucrose. In the case of HFCS the fructose content is high or low depending on the level of sweetness required. Many people (not chemists) claim there is a link between HFCS consumption and obesity. While it is true that there is correlation, there is not causation. What causes the obesity is over consumption of calories--not the chemical properties of the molecule.
Anyway, i should stop ranting....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)