The Bell Inequalities and Proving a Negative

Wow. As usual great questions and really good discussion. I promise I'll weigh in on the atheism and faith question tomorrow; but today, I'll start with the easy ones -- logic and quantum mechanics.

Justin asks,

I frequently hear the phrase that one "cannot disprove a negative." Is this actually true or does it depend on the context?

In order to make sense of this, we need to understand what we mean by prove and disprove. There are two kinds of sentences -- those like "It's raining" whose truth or falsity depends upon the way the world is and sentences like "It's raining or it's not raining" whose truth or falsity is a matter of the form of the sentence or the meaning of the words and does not depend upon the way the world may or may not be. A proof of a sentence means showing that there is no way for the sentence to be false, that it must be true. A disproof is a proof that the sentence must be false. Can you show that the negation of a sentence must be false?

The second sort of sentence, those that are not contingent on the state of the world, are the sort of sentences that logicians and mathematicians deal in. Here, there are some examples in which you can show that a negative claim cannot possibly be true, but in the general cases -- the interesting ones -- you cannot do it with examples. Consider the negative claim, "There are no odd perfect numbers." A perfect number is one where you take all of the positive counting numbers that it divides into evenly, exclude the number itself, add up the rest and you get the number back. 6 is perfect because the only numbers that divide 6 evenly are 6 and 1, and 2 and 3. Ignore the 6, add up 1+2+3 you get 6. 28 is perfect: 1 and 28, 2 and 14, 4 and 7 are its divisors, so ignore the 28 and add up 1+2+14+4+7=28. There are therefore even perfect numbers, but since the times of ancient Greece, the question has been whether there are any odd ones. To this day, no one knows for sure. You could prove that an odd perfect number exists with a single example of one, but you could not disprove the existence of odd perfect numbers with even a huge list of odd numbers that are not perfect because the one that is lurking out there (should there be one) may just not show up on your list yet. Enumerating examples will never produce a disproof of the claim. You can't disprove a negative...in this way. There are other routes that may work -- showing that a result of there being odd perfects contradicts a sentence we have already proven must be true, what we call an indirect proof or reductio ad absurdum.

Then there are the sentences that depend upon how the world is. These cases are different because these are not the sentences of mathematics or logic which are based upon definitions, these require observation. These are the propositions of science and generally are not the sort of sentence for which there can be proof. For these sentences, there may be evidence which shows that a sentence is more or less likely to be true, but you don't get the sort of absolute certainty that comes with proof. There are, of course, cases like "You will see red" or "Your hand will hurt" which are open to direct experience and those may be shown to be absolutely true or false at the time, but general claims, the sort of positive claims that could be laws of nature, generally can be shown false by a counter-example but never true by instances. Take Newton's law of Universal Gravitation which specifies that any two objects with mass will attract each other with a certain pull based on how much mass and how far apart they are. If I find one example where Newton's equation does not hold, the law is false, but I can show thousands of cases where it holds and that will be good evidence that it is probably true, but I will never be able to show in this way that it must be true. The converse, then, is that negative claims could be shown true by examples, but never false by instances.

But sentences do not exist in vacuums (unless you shredded your dissertation, threw it on the floor, and then decided to clean up your apartment). We often determine whether a sentence is true or false relative to what else we have good reason to believe. These things might be false, but we have good evidence for them and so can use them, until shown otherwise, as a basis against which to judge further claims. In this way, we can ask for proof relative to other sentences. We can disprove a sentence on the assumption that some theory is true. For example, if for the sake of argument we accept quantum mechanics to be true, then Einstein's negative claim that "Quantum Mechanics is not complete because there are hidden variables" can be disproved. This is what the Bell inequalities did...

Not Einstein asks,

Can you explain the significance of Bell's inequalities to me in 2 paragraphs or less?

No. But it's my blog, I'll use more paragraphs if I want to.

Quantum mechanics is the physical theory that governs the behavior of matter and energy and is particularly necessary when dealing with very small things. Its central equation is what we call Schrodinger's equation into which you can put the description of a physical system at any given time and it will show you how the state of that system changes over time. Nothing strange there -- that's what all physical theories do for you.

The first strange thing, though, is that the description of the system that gets plugged in and pulled out of Schrodinger's equation is generally a state that we never, ever observe; it's what we call a superposed state. Consider a quantum egg in a quantum egg carton, there are twelve possible places for the egg to be. If we had a "free quantum egg" and did not look inside the carton, Schrodinger's equation would tell us that the egg is in a state of superposition made up of all twelve slots -- that is, the egg in some sense is in all of the slots, just not completely. If we applied a force that affected quantum eggs, we could make it so that the superposition was more heavily in certain slots and even not at all possible in others, but the egg would still be spread out among multiple slots.

The second strange thing is that whenever we open the egg carton, we always see the egg in one and only one slot, but we can never tell which one it is going to be. If the superposed state that we get from Schrodinger's equation rules out a slot, the egg will never be there, but for all the possible slots, there is a chance it may be there. We can get from the theory the probability that we will find the egg in a given slot, but there is absolutely no way in quantum mechanics to move beyond this probability to certainty.

This has pissed off many people, among them Albert Einstein, who argued that quantum mechanics is a good theory, a useful theory, a helpful theory, but it is an incomplete theory. This probabilistic element, he contended, is the result of an incomplete description of nature. There are other facts not included in the theory as it stands that determine which slot the egg will be in, we just haven't figured out yet what these hidden variables are. If and when we find them, we can use them to augment quantum theory and create a complete theory that will allow us to accurately determine where the egg will be.

In 1964, physicist John Bell worked on this question and figured out that there would actually be physically detectable consequences if the most natural sense of Einstein's notion of hidden variables were real. He worked out a set of equations called the Bell inequalities which would hold if there were no hidden variables and fail if there were. Turns out that they hold and so there is disproof for a certain sort of claim about hidden variables. Einstein's claim, in the way Einstein most likely thought about it, was shown by Bell to be wrong. A disproof of a negative claim...sort of...

Smart folks have shown that there may be ways to reformulate the notion of hidden variables so that a detour can be found around Bell's roadblock. This is what Phil is referring to in the comments (you are quick out the blocks, Phil, my friend). And we can use this to come back to Justin's original question about disproving a negative. Has Bell shown that there can't be hidden variables? No. Disproving a negative claim in the realm of contingent sentences is tricky business. He has shown that it can't be done in the way we would expect, but he has not -- as Phil correctly points out -- shown that it must be false. Do we have reason to believe that there are hidden variables? No. But we have not disproved it.

Auto Mechanics to Quantum Mechanics: Any Questions?

For those new to the Playground, there's a schtick I use to begin each class and some former students requested that I bring it here, so every couple of months I do. I invite my students to ask me any question, auto mechanics to quantum mechanics; I'll entertain any question at all. So here it is for everyone, if there is absolutely anything you've ever wanted to ask, let 'er rip. I'll try to answer as many as I can this week.

Pity Party: Who Do You Feel Sorry For?

Lots of people deserving pity recently. Here are mine:

I feel sorry for George Allen. Former Senator Macaca tried so hard, but with Keith Ellison, the first Muslim American Congressman, being sworn in with Thomas Jefferson's personal copy of the Koran, Virgil Goode replaces Allen as the biggest racist jackass to be recently elected from Virginia.

I feel sorry for Chevy Chase, with Gerald Ford having gone the way of his talk show, one of his classic bits is gone forever.

I feel sorry for Rush Limbaugh. Nixon and Reagan both used the FBI to cover up the fact that William Renquest was addicted to painkillers and suffering from paranoid delusions. The fact that Limbaugh's own drug addiction and paranoid delusions were allowed to be made public clearly means that he just isn't that important to the conservative movement.

I feel sorry for Generals Casey and Abizade and John Negroponte. I thought that when Bush demoted you for not doing your job well, he was supposed to give you the medal of freedom.

So who do you feel sorry for today?

He Wasn't As Bad As His Brother: Why Not Speak Ill of the Dead?

When Pinochet died, the title of JayinBmore's e post over at Are You Effin' Kiddin' Me was titled "Speaking Ill of the Dead." Ever since, I've been trying to figure out what is the basis for our prohibition against speaking ill of the dead. If we are told not to tell the truth about something, surely, there is good reason. Seems like it must be one of three possible sources:

A moral prohibition:
Is it moral in that it violates a sense of fairness to say something bad about someone who cannot defend himself? You can't properly judge without full understanding of the context and the person cannot speak for himself to fill in the missing details. Is it that the person has just suffered and you don't kick someone while he is down?

An etiquette-based prohibition:
Is it a matter of politeness, making sure that one does not offend the beloved of the deceased who are already dealing with the grief of their loss? Or is it that one's reputation lives on and you may be affecting how he is seen in posterity which also affects the family?

A religiously-based prohibition:
Or is it theological -- the person is having eternal judgment passed on their soul and you don't want to jinx them since so much is at stake or when someone dies it is God's place and not that of a mortal to judge?

What is so special about death that it overrides truth? Thoughts?

Big Blinds? Ditch the Sunglasses.

When the PGA was asked to accommodate golfer Casey Martin’s disability, they could have learned a thing or two from the World Poker Tour – it’s amazing how they’ve been able to make provisions for so many blind players. O.k., the guy sitting in the big blind isn’t really blind, but what’s up with all the sunglasses? If their “World Series of Poker” truly aspires to be Super Bowl of the card game, they need to eliminate the use of sunglasses, hoods, and any other means of obstructing a clear view of players’ faces.

The players use sunglasses to give them a competitive advantage. In my article discussing sportsmanship in the case of Garry Kasparov’s complaints against the programmers of Deep Blue, I argued that an advantage to a competitor is unfair if there is a benefit to the competitor that is not attributable to increased skill, improved strategy, or superior effort. A player should only advance his or her game if he or she is playing better, smarter, or harder. In baseball, for example, it is wrong to use a corked bat, that is, batters will drill out the center of the wood and insert a piece of cork in order to give the bat increased flexibility thereby making the ball jump off the bat and go significantly farther. In this case, the batter hits the ball farther even though he is no stronger, no better at making contact, and has the same stance and swing. The improved performance is not attributable to skill or effort.

In poker, there are three main skills. First, one has to be able to read the cards in able to determine a good betting strategy. Given what you are holding, what cards are showing on the table, and what game you are playing, how likely is it that you are holding the winning hand and given that likelihood how should one bet the hand?

Second, you need to be able to read the other players. To win, you not only need a good hand, you need a better hand than those you are betting against. The challenge of poker is in the asymmetric distribution of information – everyone knows different facts about who has what – and part of the game is to try to discern from how someone else is acting what they are probably holding. Really good poker players will be able to tell what you know from how you act. If someone, late in the game checks his down cards before betting large, he probably has a good hand and just wanted to make sure that the card he thought was down there really was still there. This is a classic tell that the player is not bluffing.

The third skill, is the converse of the second – not getting read. Great players have “poker faces,” stoic expressions that do not ever change, no matter the scenario. As such, you can never tell whether they are bluffing or holding a big hand. Others, knowing they don’t have a good poker face, go in the other direction and over-emote. They’ll talk and talk, feign surprise, joy, or wail at how bad their cards are so that any tell that might slip must be considered suspiciously – was that intentional?

This is where the sunglasses come in. The eyes are the key to reading a player and if you are wearing sunglasses, your eyes can’t be read. This means that the glasses convey an advantage that does not come from an improved game and should not be allowed.

Of course, the rules of all games are arbitrary. As long as everyone plays by the same rules, there things are fair. If anyone can use sunglasses, then it is not cheating. No one should have an unmatched technological advantage. This was what made the Casey Martin question interesting. Golf requires a lot of walking and this wears down the competitors over the course of the day, making the later holes more challenging. Using a golf cart would eliminate this part of the challenge and generally convey an unfair advantage to the rider over the walker. But Martin had a disability that made walking very painful. The question was whether his degree of challenge doing limited walking with an impaired leg was commensurate with significant walking with unimpaired legs. Was it a level playing field or one slanted in his favor?

The use of sunglasses in poker, however, is not there to level the playing field, but to allow everyone the same slant. If everyone was allowed to ride carts, scores would go down and more impressive shots would be hit. If corked bats were allowed, more and more impressive home runs would be hit. But part of being a championship level competition is to have the best players playing the most difficult incarnation of the game. Greens on pro courses are the trickiest to putt on. Major League hitters must use wood and not aluminum bats. This is part of what makes the big leagues the big leagues. But with poker, you are allowed to hide your face making the game easier in a way that does not require improved skill, strategy or effort. Pulling a sweatshirt hood over your face will keep your opponent from reading you in large part, but not because you have a better poker face, something that ought to be required from someone vying to be considered one of the world’s best players of the game. If the “World Series of Poker” wants to be seen more seriously than the Little League World Series, they need to ditch the sunglasses. Have the players’ face the music...with their real faces.

Saddam, Pinochet, and the Notion of Justice

Helmut, over at Phronesisiacal, says it right:

Two dead tyrants: Saddam and Pinochet. Two tragedies: that neither death is justice, whether the death came naturally or as the result of a bogus, politicized trial and state execution. Apologists for Pinochet on the right ought to be ashamed. Apologists for Saddam from the left ought to be ashamed. To the extent that neither are ashamed, they're moral cretins. The point is tyranny and the prescription is to bring tyrants to justice, real justice, for their abuses. Killing someone for expediency's sake or political reasons itself sleeps on the side of tyranny and only makes space for future tyrants and future states of exception.

If we follow Helmut and desire "to bring tyrants to justice, real justice," the obvious question is "What is real justice?" and the non-obvious question is "Should justice ought to be our concern anyway?"

When we think of justice, we generally think in terms of retribution. If someone wrongs another, the line goes, (1) the perpetrator should set things right as far as possible, for example, if he stole something it should be returned or if he destroyed something the victim should be monetarily compensated, and (2) the perpetrator should suffer some sort of harm himself commensurate with the suffering he inflicted. In cases like those of Pinochet and Saddam, clearly neither (1) nor (2) are possible. Great bodily suffering, of course, could be inflicted, but surely cruel and unusual punishment ought to be loathed for good moral reasons even when we seethe with disgust for people's decisions and actions.

So given that there is no chance for retribution of the classical variety, is death the only acceptable alternative? The line one often hears is that the killing is the one thing that we can give the families of the victims. Set aside whether attempts to satisfy the primal urge for revenge is a good in itself and whether they actually are satisfied by the execution, is it true that taking the life of the perpetrator is the only good that can be done for the families?

In South Africa, they chose differently. Perpetrators were seen to have value beyond a life that could be ended or bodies that could be incarcerated; they also had memories. A question some philosophers have been discussing is whether the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (a) traded truth for justice, allowing perpetrators to escape retribution if they could provide the families of victims with information about their loved ones and the circumstances surrounding their demise, or (b) engaged a notion of justice other than retribution. The idea that having to come clean for your actions, to admit them publicly before your peers is itself a form of justice different from that connected with punishment.

Saddam was executed for his atrocities. Pinochet lived out his natural life protected by allies placed in the government despite his atrocities. But in neither case did we get an honest accounting of what they had done. And that seems an additional harm to the victims.

Even in South Africa, the perpetrators of the most heinous offenses were not eligible for amnesty, and that is surely not what I am proposing here. I'm not saying what ought to have happened was some "come clean and we'll forgive and forget" type deal. But it does seem that there are questions in Chile and Iraq that could have been answered, that for the sake of the families should have been answered, and now never can. In the case of Chile, some in Spain and Britain tried unsuccessfully to intervene and create a forum where such truths would be brought out. In the case of Iraq, the rush to execute Saddam on charges not connected to his most horrific crimes seems almost designed to make sure none of the information came to light. Whether it was by design or not, it is now impossible for those families to ever really know what they might have known. For people who have suffered so much, it seems an additional injustice committed in the name of justice.

Happy New Year, Everyone!

On this, the first day of the first year H.E., we must recognize the righteous folks at Turner Classic Movies who schedule the annual Marx Brothers’ marathon. Watching Animal Crackers, I was struck by the line sung by Groucho (blessed be he), “I hate a dirty joke, I do, unless it's told by someone who knows how to tell it.”

So, here’s a new year’s Comedist question for everyone, “What is a dirty joke?” The obvious answer is a joke about sex. But surely not every joke about sex is a dirty joke. Suppose the sex is mentioned, but not referred to as in:

Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
Fornication.
Fornication who?
For an occasion like this, black tie is optional.

Or suppose it is referred to, but not mentioned:

I went to the Frito-Lay factory and took the tour because they said there would be free samples, but all I got was a lousy bag of Fritos.

Or suppose it is a joke where the punchline is based on the lack of expected sexual content as in the classics:

Farmer Brown had a cow and decided it was time to call his neighbor to bring over his bull. The neighbor sent his daughter to take the bull over to his neighbor’s. Farmer Brown’s son stood next to his neighbor’s daughter and as the cow and the bull got on with their business, he turned and said to her, “You know, that makes me want to do the same thing.” Looking up, the farmer’s daughter replied, “Go ahead, it’s your cow.”

Or the related,

Sol Rosenberg turns 90 and as a surprise his friends sent a hooker to his room in the home. Taking off her coat she says, “I’m here to give you super sex.” “What?” says Sol. A little louder she says, “I’m here to give you super sex.” “Huh?” Sol asks. Louder still she says, “I’m here to give you super sex.” Looking up, Sol replies, “If it’s alright, I’ll take the soup.”

Are any of these dirty jokes? What is it that makes a joke dirty? And if you don’t know, what’s your best?

Looking Back at the Year 0

Brothers, Sisters, and Transgendered Comedists Everywhere,

So the year Comedism went worldwide is coming to a close. We will designate it year 0, the year between B.C. (before Comedism) and H. E. (humorous era). What were there funniest parts of 0? My nominations:

Funniest radio dedication: "Someone wanted to send this one out to Congressman Mark Foley, Bob Seger's 'Turn the Page.'"

Best bit of the year: Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Press Corp's Annual Dinner...at least up until the video bit.

Funniest hunting accident: No contest

Funniest version of Hava Nagila: The Freaking Brothers

Funniest Mug Shot: Tom Delay

Funniest Onion Headline: Critics Blast Bush For Not Praying Hard Enough

Other humorous highlights?

Watch Out! I'm Dangerous!

With so much competition these days, it’s hard to get any recognition for your efforts in corrupting the youth. But every once in a while...

One of the classes that I, Aspazia, and everyone else in our department teaches, a course that goes by the seemingly innocuous name, “Contemporary Moral Issues,” has been listed on the right-wing website Family Security Matters as one of ten of "America's Most Dangerous College Courses.” This is funny and disturbing on many, many levels.

First, our department at Gettysburg is extremely quirky. In the world of very staid, starched collared philosophy departments, we have an unusually large number of offerings that are not only creative and off the beaten path, but the sort of courses that right-wing nutjobs would get their panties twisted in a knot over. But Contemporary Moral Issues ain’t one of them. That class is everywhere. It’s standard fare. There are a huge number of textbooks on the market for these courses and pretty much all of them look the same which means that not only is it a course that is taught all over, but pretty much identically taught all over. If Mr. Rantz wants to list some of our courses as dangerous, a little research might prove useful. I, for instance, will be teaching a course next semester entitled, “Wrong Science, Bad Science, and Pseudo-science” that will examine issues including intelligent design and the false claims of there being a scientific controversy, the corporate influence on science, and the way partisan appointments affect what government scientists can tell the public. Let me invite others to nominate their "most dangerous" courses.

Second, I love the hypocrisy. We hear over and over and over again from the right how we need to teach morality, we need to teach values. Ok, what would such a class look like? I guess it would look at, oh, I don’t know,...contemporary moral issues and discuss them intelligently.

But I suppose the most worrisome part is the model of education that Mr. Rantz has in his head. There are two pictures that get presented by conservatives in their war on learning. One is to extrapolate from the high school classroom to the college classroom. Often in secondary education, the model is training rather than teaching. The teacher says something, you write it down, remember it, believe it is true, and write it on the exam. This is clearly the model behind the testing fetish of those who brought us “No Child Left Behind.” The world is comprised of facts, education’s task is to put those facts in kids’ heads, and we need to make sure they know all the important facts. Teaching, on this model, is just a form of indoctrination. This, of course, is NOT how the college classroom works. I am not out there creating “Gimbel Youth” when I teach any class, but least of all Contemporary Moral Issues. That class is about moral reasoning; it teaches how to think about hard ethical questions, not what to think. That distinction between process and result is the one that folks like Mr. Rantz need to understand. Everything deserves to be thought about careful, cleanly, and rigorously. That goes double for the hard ethical questions facing us today. Legitimate discourse is not comprised of O’Reilly-style rants where the goal is simply to shout louder than your opponent whom you are trying to dehumanize. We need to learn to take all positions seriously, subject them all to rigorous scrutiny, reject those that fail to meet muster, and rationally, but passionate discuss those conflicting views that are left. That is what Contemporary Moral Issues is all about and if that is dangerous, I plead guilty.

But then there’s the other conservative understanding of education that gets all of this and still objects. I had a rabid conservative Christian once tell me that my course “Critical Thinking” was incredibly dangerous and should not be taught because it trained people to doubt, to demand evidence, and to question their own faith. Yes it does. And it does more. It gives them the tools to see where they are being bullshitted, lied to, and tricked. And it gives them the tools to build arguments, good, solid, rational arguments for what they believe and enunciate it clearly and persuasively. This course does lead many students to re-evaluate positions they had accepted unquestioningly for their whole lives. Some change their views, others think hard, and realize that there is good reason to hold the beliefs they have. But that sort of process is healthy – especially for a society that claims to be a democracy.* A flourishing democracy requires rational, passionate discussion and anyone who seeks to undermine it is not only unamerican, but truly dangerous.

I wish I could flatter myself and think that I am one of those dangerous academics the right keeps screaming about. But, fact is, it’s just philosophy. It’s questioning presuppositions, building arguments for alternatives, and evaluating the relative strength of those arguments. If you find that worrisome or problematic and want to see something dangerous, may I suggest a mirror?




*Void where prohibited. May not apply in Florida and Ohio. Consult Diebold for details.

Old Friends

Aspazia wrote a touching post the other day on that feeling of never being able to outgrow one’s place in the family. Old discomforts and awkwardnesses persist regardless of how much you’ve changed or grown. But I’ve been thinking about the flip side of that sentiment.

In my circuitous journey through life thus far, I have met many, many people. Some unbelievably intelligent, others incredibly funny, still others caring and humane, but never have I found a cluster of people like the friends with whom I grew up. Yes, I know Wolfe wrote, “You can’t go home again,” and Heraclitus wrote “No man steps in the same river twice,” but they are both wrong.

The measure of a true friend is not whether he or she always remains a central player in your life. A better criteria is after getting separated in the daily hecticness, having pursued your projects and dreams, growing and changing, whether that old spark is still there, whether there is even a moment's hesitation before the old playfulness returns.

Stephen King ends “Stand By Me” with the line, “I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?” I am incredibly blessed in true Comedist fashion to have those folks still with me. We can go decades between encounters, but put us in a room and there is the same pun-filled, movie quoting, old-joke making banter, the same affectionate ribbing, the same everything. It’s a different flavor from what you experience with your parents, children, or partner, but there is a kind of unconditional love from old friends that comes from a deep knowledge of who you are – they were there that night when you (fill in the blank) and that time when you (fill in the blank), and you never would have gotten through (fill in the blank) without them, so don’t even think of trying to put on airs. These are people you can’t bullshit. These are people with whom you are completely free to be who you are. And that sort of security lends itself to laughing, the sort of full body, soul-cleansing laughter that only comes from being in a place of love.

Gwydion is my oldest friend. He was the first person to ever say aloud my name spelled backwards. After leaving for college, we spoke on the phone occasionally and saw each other sporadically at best. Then he came to the graduate writing program at Hopkins where I was working on my doctorate one floor above. It was like we had never been separated. He introduced me to racquetball and it was like we were still eight – “O.k., this time you have to bounce it off one wall, over this line, hit it behind your back, turn around...” And now we have respectable careers, live-long loves, responsibilities we could never have imagined in Mrs. Tompakov’s first grade class, but to be in a room with him, and Egg, and You Know Who, and Mrs. You Know Who, and the rest of the gang is just like it was then. No one is as funny as old friends.

More Bad Gifts

My discussion of bad gifts got picked up a couple of places, including the Sacramento Bee and the Washington Times (yes, that Washington Times).

Let me make one clarification. I am not saying that there are no cases in which gift cards make good gifts. My folks and TheWife's folks have given us gift certificates to some of our favorite restaurants with IOU's to babysit. In this case, the gift certificate was a wonderful gift, but its worth was not purely in the thing that it bought -- the food. Instead what it represented was a nice night out with a person I love, something difficult when you have youngins. Similarly, a gift certificate to, say, a spa could be a wonderfully caring gift for someone who deserves pampering, but who you know does not have the money for it or would never spend the money on herself. But in line with my thesis, it is the experience, the doing and not the having, that is important here. Yes, this is a long way of saying thanks Mom and Dad for the gift certificate to The Wife's favorite Persian restuarant (if you are in the Baltimore area and haven't gone to the Orchard Market Cafe -- boy oh boy are you missing a good one).

That being said, back to bad gifts...what's the worst gift you've gotten?

James Brown, RIP

The Godfather of soul, the hardest working man in show business, soul brother number 1, the one and only Jaaaaaaames Brown has left us.

In addition to his own magnificent works, he had a lasting effect on popular music. Brown's work putting the accent on "The One," the first beat of measure, gave a special funk to his music. It was well learned by his later bass player Bootsy Collins, who took it to his work with George Clinton who spread the funky gospel far and wide.

My favorite James Brown related story: I was playing summer ball one year and one day the coach showed up looking off. He explained that his wife was pissed at him because she found out why he wanted to get married on May 3rd. He wanted to make sure he never forgot his anniversary, so he picked a date he could remember...James Brown's birthday.

Sad news, indeed. Papa's in a brand new box. Thanks JB. Rest in peace.

Christmas Questions

A few things I've never understood about the whole Christmas thing:

How is it a silent night if you are all out in it singing "Silent Night"?

Who was Carol anyway?

If it is Jesus' birthday why do you get the presents?

If a child was an avid coal collector and wanted nothing other than more samples for Christmas, but was extremely naughty all year, what would Santa bring for him?

Since it's Christmas and anyone who could answer the questions is too busy to read blogs today, here's a quick one for Jewish readers:

Apple sauce or sour cream?

The Chanukization of Judaism

In the space between Chanukah and Christmas, I had one of those realizations that on the one hand is trivial, but on the other makes you really think. We were saying the blessings before lighting the candles at my brother’s house on the third night and a discontinuity arose that I had known about since I was a kid. When we all said the words together, my father pronounced those that involve the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet in the Ashkenazi (European Jews) fashion, with an “s” sound. My brother and I use the Sephardic (Middle Eastern Jews) pronunciation, a “t” sound as we were taught in Hebrew school. We, and everyone at the school -- including the teachers, were of European origin; so why were we taught the Sephardic pronunciation? It was only this year that I figured it out.

Chanukah is a minor holiday that has been elevated to a major focus of contemporary Jewish life solely in order to provide a counter-point to Christmas. Unlike the other celebrations, the Talmud does not have a discussion of Chanukah. It is the only Jewish holiday dedicated to a military victory and that made the rabbis uneasy about it. Judaism is not a aggressive system of belief, it is not a theology of the conqueror, but a philosophical approach based upon being an outsider, considering how to treat the powerless. It wears its tribal, nomadic roots in the open. Unlike Christianity and Islam, it is a non-evangelical religion. If you weren’t born into the tribe, they don’t want you. If you demand to come in loud enough, they’ll let you, but don’t expect a free toaster for signing up. Chanukah celebrates not just the miracle of the oil, but control over land. The spirit is a commemoration of “this is ours, get the hell out,” and that is not the true tenor of Jewish thought.

But this accident the calendar mirrors a change in Judaism itself. In Hebrew school, they would spend a third of the time teaching the Hebrew language, a third of the time teaching Jewish history where you learned how every major civilization that came down the pike beat the living crap out of your ancestors, and the final third teaching theology where you learned that Jews are “G-d’s Chosen People” (tm). After a while you began to wish that He would choose someone else for a while to give those poor Jews a break.

Then came the horror of World War II. Suddenly technology had advanced to a point where true annihilation, something threatened from ancient times forward, actually became possible. Out of the realization of the very real chance that their deepest collective fear could be realized came the establishment of Israel.

The original spirit of Israel was one of the Kumbaya Yiddles, idealistic leftists seeking a social laboratory to create a caring communal corner of Creation. But, of course, the actual history ended up elevating the modern-day Maccabees. Judaism after WWII became Zionism and Zionism once it was on the ground required a much more aggressive stance. The generals were given the lion’s share of the social capital. All of a sudden, the spirit of the religion as practiced became one that more resembles Chanukah than Yom Kippur.

And that is precisely why we were taught to speak Hebrew with a Middle Eastern accent. We were being prepared to go to Israel. It was the first aggressive step in our indoctrination. We were being made into Chanukah Jews.

I don’t know why it took me a quarter of a century to connect the dots. But next year, if I light the candles, I will pronounce it with an “s” and make sure that my children hear it that way.

Bad Gifts

Those who say there are no bad gifts are like those who say there are no stupid questions...they are wrong. Sure, with respect to gifts, it's the thought that counts, but sometimes you are left wondering, "what were you thinking?"

In order to lift this plague of bad gifts, we have seen the rise of the gift card. A bit more stylish than its precursor, the awkwardly sized paper gift certificate, the new plastic version is gaining currency as an acceptable alternative to shopping. But does really avoid the problems of the poorly executed present? No.

Giving a good gift is a very difficult task because it requires thought on several different levels. To start, there is the care that gives rise to the desire to give the gift. Unfortunately, most of our holiday gift buying is socially coerced, we buy for those we have to buy for. The good gift demonstrates that you wanted to give, not that you felt compelled to.

This desire to give then triggers a second level of consideration – what to give? A good gift is something that the recipient will use and will make their life better. But usefulness is not enough. "Oh...um...thanks for the electric nose hair trimmer."

A good gift is also something someone wants. There is no greater success than seeing wide eyes and hearing, "How did you know?" A great present is one that displays an unspoken intimacy, an understanding of who the person really is.

But, of course, this is where life gets tricky because even folks you know well are not always transparent in this way. Picking out a gift is making a statement about what you see as a person's projects and pleasures and this will reflect how you see and judge them. If the person is a music lover, you might think that buying them music would be a good idea. But, of course, this is a holiday mine field. You don't want to get them music they will dislike or music they already have. If there is a specific genre or artist they like, buying certain popular titles may accidentally indicate that you think they are not enough of a fan that they wouldn't already have this cd or that they are a johnny-come-lately.

This is where the gift card has found a home in the gift giving process. If you let them pick out their music, books, or games, they'll be guaranteed to get what they wanted and in an indirect way, you gave it to them. You will have made the people you were buying for happy and done it without all the tedious figuring out what to buy. What could be better?

But it is precisely this simplicity that impoverishes the giving of the gift card. Yes, you are guaranteed to not have given a bad gift, but at what expense? Now, gift giving has become about the gift itself, and not the giving. The sense of connection is gone. The gift card is about you, not about us. It sends the message that happiness is to be found in acquiring the things you want, not in being close to people who care about you – even if the people close to you do not really know you. And isn't that the case for all of us? Aside from a significant other or a best friend, we all have parts that our loved ones don't quite understand. But when they give gifts that play to that side of us, the gift says, "I don't quite get it, but I know it's important to you and I want you to know I am happy to try to nurture that aspect of your life." In this way, a bad gift is still a bad gift, but sometimes bad gifts are the best ones to get. Sometimes it is the thought that counts.

Bush Another Lincoln?: You Decide

Over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, Scott points out that right-wing pundit Hugh Hewitt is continuing to contend that a century from now historians will see George W. Bush as another Abraham Lincoln. He writes:

And that's why every president, whether you like him or not, deserves a Doris Kearns Goodwin, who will go back there -- and you don't get it for a hundred fifty years, unfortunately, because Lincoln was so reviled, oh, so hated. Bush has got nothing like the hatred that Lincoln had, but it is eerily, eerily familiar as you read through the political agony of Lincoln. You get a sense of what Bush has been enduring when you read through the revolt of the generals, when you see the political intrigues, the decisions to try and break away, the villainous and vicious press that makes the blogosphere look like kindergarten. That's why -- and I always get hate mail after I do this segment, when I say Bush is Lincoln. It's just a replay, and the Iraqis and the Afghanis are going to be as grateful to his memory as African-Americans are to Lincoln's. That's a lock, it's what they call in the gambling world a mortal lock, and it's not going to take a hundred and fifty years for that to be obvious. In fact, it's already obvious in many parts of both of those countries.

While the good folks at LGM are quick to dismiss this comparison, I'd like to think about it some more. You see, I teach in Gettysburg and everyday I drive past the place where Lincoln delivered his famed address at the cemetery for the war dead. The white alternating rows of headstones cannot but make you somber and reflective. Then, walking from the parking lot to my office, I spot the place where Bush gave a campaign speech last year. These gentlemen are never far from my mind, so I am inclined to think a little more deeply about the claim. Let's examine the similarities and differences.

The differences, to be honest, seem a bit nitpicky:

- One had a beard; the other is clean-shaven.

- One did everything he could to unite a country divided; the other did everything he could to divide a county united.

- One signed the Emancipation Proclamation granting rights to oppressed people; the other favors a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage denying rights to oppressed people.

Like I said, trivial.

But the similarities seem striking:

- One got his education writing on a shovel with coal, a substance high in coke; the other also got his education high on coke.

- One was born in a one-room log cabin; the other was born at a time when behind the main residence on the Kennebunkport estate, the pool house was a one-bedroom bungalow.

- One was a war President because he did not want the southern states to secede; the other was a war President because he did not want the UN weapons inspectors to succeed.

- One wrote his deepest thoughts about ending a war and respecting the war dead on the back of an envelope; the other could write all of his deepest thoughts about ending a war and respecting the war dead on the back of an envelope.

As a philosopher, I don't want to answer this question for you, but I don't think that Hewitt's contention is as far fetched as some might make it seem...

Remembering Sagan

Joel over at Joel's Humanistic Blog has organized a blog-a-thon to honor the tenth anniversary of the passing of Carl Sagan and I wanted pay my respects to that wonderful advocate for science.

It is hard to believe that it is ten years. Like so many others of my generation, it was the combination of Cosmos and regular doses of Nova that first got me excited about science and changed the path of my life and shaped my intellectual interests. Sagan was an idol to so many of us who looked to him as the embodiment of our excited interest in the universe we inhabit. He was a real scientist who would talk with us, not talk down to us or over our head, but bring us into his world in which there was unending mystery, but also structure and reason. We could use our minds to understand the seemingly incomprehensible and emerge with images of beauty, inspiring awe.

Every time we understood something it opened up more questions that we could naively posit possible solutions to, solutions that would be undermined with more learning that opened up more questions. But from having understood the answers to the last questions, you knew that if you were smart enough, creative enough, and careful enough, you could answer them too, which would then give you another set of questions. The universe could be understood, it was orderly, but it was also vast ocean. Today, I teach a course entitled "Wrong Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience" in which I begin with Sagan's last book, The Demon Haunted World, in hopes of conveying those twin senses of wonder and structure in my students.

Then there was the time I almost got to meet him in person. I had an appointment. My name was on Carl Sagan's desk calendar for the last day of January, 1986. I was being recruited out of high school by the lacrosse coach at Cornell. He knew I intended to major in physics and he thought it would be a draw if I would meet with Carl Sagan in person. He was right. I couldn't believe I was actually going to be sitting in Carl Sagan's office and talking about science. I had seen him talk so many times before on the screen and seemed like he was talking just to me, but this time he really would be. He looked so tall, I wondered if he really was. Did he have a firm or a gentle handshake? I was a high school senior and could not admit to being giddy about meeting a geeky hero lest everyone know that I was such a geek (as if they didn't all know).

Then, two days before I was to go to Ithaca it happened. The Space Shuttle Challenger, on mission 51-L, exploded. It was a terrible tragedy. I remember walking past Mr. Blinke's history class, seeing the television on, and wondering what that forking trail in a clear blue sky was and then reading the caption. I will never forget that image.

While it can never compare to the loss of that terrible my visit was also a casualty. As I flew from Baltimore-Washington International airport to Ithaca, Carl Sagan flew from Ithaca to Washington to be part of the investigative panel. We probably passed in midair. I got to meet with some Nobel laureate whose name I don't even remember (but would probably be very impressed with if I knew it now). It snowed. They took me to some annoying frat party. I opted against Cornell. But I was this close to getting to meet him.

We miss you, Carl Sagan. We need a charismatic, but authoritative voice in the public discourse speaking enthusiastically about science, speaking up for baloney detection, a gentle, but smart presence to inspire the next generation.

Returning Fire in the War on Christmas

So we got a War on Christmas e-mail today to which TheWife decided a response was required. Here's the original and then our response:

'Twas the month before Christmas when all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.
The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a "Holiday".
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Not Happy Holiday.............................

The reply:

'Twas the month before Christmas and all through the malls
everything was ‘bout Christmas, no escaping at all.
The songs all about yuletide, and then on FOX news,
all the nut-jobs pretending there ain’t any Jews.

This country we know it’s a really big stew
of Muslims, and pagans, and atheists too.
But O’Reilly and Rush, not to mention Sir Hannity
are all trying to deny these good folks their humanity.

If you eat latkes, and liver, and kosher dill gherkins,
You are second class citizens, not real “Amurkans.”
We’re told “shut your hole,” if your season’s not elfish,
as these kinds of “Christians” are really quite selfish.

Don’t say “Happy Holidays” if you work in a store,
it’s “Merry Christmas” alone or they’ll declare war.
“We’re under siege!” they cry through their crocodile tears
“They’re trying to outlaw our holiday cheer!”

You can spot real Christians from those in wolves’ clothing
They’re the ones preaching love, not hatred and loathing.
But the Pharisees think it's only they who should count,
Truth be told, they should read what was said on the mount.

So Buddhists and Hindus and Hopi and Sioux,
the message is clear that is sent unto you.
When the tips of the branches get covered in frost
This country is theirs, time for you to get lost.

Those who believe that to keep of our brother
means to actually love and respect one another.
So when you are asked, “What would Jesus do?”
Answer them, “Welcome ones different from you.”

In conclusion, oh gasp, we guess we should say,
that Comet and Cupid are openly gay.
In this season of peace with the ground covered white,
Happy Holidays to ALL and to ALL a good night.

You want a war? Don't mess with the Comedists.

Can There Be positive Uses For Stereotypes?

A former student Zac asked this one:

I usually think of racism, ethnocentrism, and bigotry in terms overly broad or incorrect generalizations, often applied to individuals or smaller subsets: "All white people are stupid. You are white. Thus you are stupid." But what happens when the generalization is a positive attribute. In the movie Syriana, I remember a character saying: "Arabs are very family-oriented. As a people. Is that racist?" Is it racist for me to say "Brazilian girls are beautiful." What about "Jews are very cheap" (I've heard that one used in many different ways). What if such a generalization is the result of a careful anthropological/sociological study, say, a National Geographic article? I guess I don't really have one question -- just confused.

So we've got two questions here: (1) If there are traits that tend to occur more frequently in a given group than the population at large, is there anything wrong with pointing that out? and (2) Is stereotyping inherently problematic or is it the oppressive use of stereotyping that is the problem. Would there be anything wrong with using the technique to advance social justice by associating a positive trait with an oppressed population?

(1) Surely, you will find traits, especially those that reflect community values, that will be found disproportionately amongst members of a given community than in the population generally. This is a fact of the world and there is nothing wrong with citing anthropological data, especially in an argument. But the question becomes moral when we ask what one is doing with the fact. If the fact is being used to justify malicious treatment, there's a problem but the problem is not with citing the fact. But these sorts of observations also let us see other ways of living and trying to determine how we can break out of our own socially enforced models to live better lives. I remember riding in a car with the head of technology for the school system on the Navajo reservation in Arizona and having this sort of conversation -- discussing what parts of Navajo culture would be good to incorporate into whitebread America and what parts of the usual American ethos would be a positive development if grafted onto rez life.

(2) But the problem is that groups occupy places in a social power structure and the question that we need to consider is whether, realistically, these facts are likely to be misused in justifying injustices that are a normal part of the distribution of social power. The desire to use it as a tool for social justice comes from a good place, but we need to consider what logicians call "special pleading." Any property that one tries to attach to a group and then spin as a virtue, can be used against the group when spun as a vice. They are an adventurous people -- no, they are foolhardy. They are a scholarly group -- no, they are nerdy bookworms. They are passionate -- no, they are irrational. They are enterprising -- no, they are crafty. The idea that we can fight negative stereotypes by replacing them with positive stereotypes is a nice one, but when those with the power get ahold of the work you do, they can easily turn the other blade of the double-edged sword against those you are trying to help. And because they start with the advantage, their characterization will most likely be the one to stick.

There is, of course, the further problem that very many people in the group will not the trait at all. By entrenching the stereotypes, even positive ones, these folks will be looked down upon even more for not only being a member of the oppressed group, but not even having "the redeeming quality" of "those people." And for those who do have the virtue, any successes, no matter how much of a challenge, that displays that virtue will be minimized because, "Well, you know they are just like that."

The idea that we could use a harmful tool for good is an admirable impulse, but my fear is that this case is going to be a loser, no matter how you slice it. But then, I'm just an out of touch philosopher up his ivory tower...

Bush Sending Serge to Iraq?

So of the options that a group of Pentagon strategists put forward, President Bush is now considering the "go big" option. The idea is to send a surge of troops in order to pacify Iraq, or at least the Baghdad region in hopes of changing the current dynamic.

There are two possibilities here. Either the hope is that the new troops will provide a shock to the system that will radically alter the situation on the ground or it will provide a short window of lessened violence which would cynically allow the President to have something to point to, declare victory, and start a draw down claiming to have won in Iraq.

The hope that a surge of troops will alter the situation is based upon the same basic strategy as putting a young child having a tantrum on a time out. The idea is that right now emotions are so stirred up and the child so out of control that it is impossible to reason with the child and the melt down is only spiraling down and down. There is nothing constructive that can be accomplished through engagement either by trying to speak calmly or threatening punishment. But after a cool down period, the child will listen and respond differently. At that point, the child will be rational and we'll have a teachable moment where we can talk about what precipitated the tantrum, how he or she reacted to it, what could have been done differently, and how the outcome would have been more positive if the other route had been chosen.

By putting a whole bunch more boots on the ground, the hope is to significantly decrease the sectarian violence and therefore diminish the reprisal attacks. The thought is that violence is fueling violence and if we can just get a temporary moratorium, we can stop the spiral. Once order is imposed, the vast majority of people will prefer the order and cooler, more moderate heads will prevail. Those who want to return to the previous state of violence will be marginalized and a state of normalcy will become normal.

If that's the plan, I hope it works. Don't think it will, but I hope it does. The reason I believe it will fail is that the time out metaphor fails on a number of fronts. First, we are not dealing with children here and the US is not the big Daddy. The factions in Iraq are organized with well armed militias. They have definite agendas that are worked out and supported by religious and cultural worldviews. Additionally, the US has lost any possible credibility or moral authority we might have had. We are not seen as an honest broker with the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart and therefore have no power, even if the violence is temporarily quelled.

Second, while there is no doubt that violence begets violence, the time out metaphor requires a peace as an equilibrium. Time out type strategies will be effective when you have a teetering cup of coffee with a flat bottom. On its edge, the cup is unstable, but return it to its normal orientation on a flat table and everything will relax. But that is not the case here. Everything that started the violence -- a bloody history of oppression, religious tensions, an uneven division of natural resources, desires for national independence -- is still there. The thorns will still be in the lion's paw after the Novocaine wears off. What we have is perhaps better modeled by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict where cease-fires do diminish the number of tit for tat killings for a while, but then the violence gets up a head of steam and everything is back to the horrible place it always seems to be.

Had this surge come at the beginning of the adventure as people like Eric Shinseki were advising, everything would have been different. The US could have claimed some sort of moral authority. There was a period when the Iraqis were suspicious, but optimistic or at least open to the possibility that the US would be able to bring order and a better life. If we had come in large instead of light and never let things get out of control in the first place, everything would be different. But the PNAC plan of protect the oil, give no bid contracts to Halliburton, Bechtel, and other major GOP contributors, and stay out the way so that liberal democracy would spontaneously appear was the preferred choice -- because after all, it worked so smashingly in Afghanistan (with the accent on "smash").

Coming in heavy now may succeed in overwhelming the insurgency and the warring factions. It may inflame things further, but hopefully the military folks are thinking things through and being allowed to do it right. There does seem to be some reason to believe it could provide some respite from the civil war. As with the Israel/Palestine case, putting a lid on the pot will hopefully give a short window of depressed violence, if enough troops are brought in (where they'll come from, I don't know). But I don't think anyone who looks at this situation where we have the current President protecting al-Sadr and his militia, Sunnis who are fighting back, possibly with Saudi support which could soon go open and provide them with much more power, and Kurds who are making Turkey nervous with their plans.

My guess is that we are looking at the cynical option. The Bush folks know that the situation is unwinnable, but could never admit an error. They need to not only save face, they need to be able to punch the Democrats in theirs, reality be damned. The Bush people are looking to make this the two minute warning, bring in troops to call halftime, and then be the entertainment where they can bring their dog and pony show on the field, say that if the Democrats had their way the game would still be ongoing, declare fake victory, and leave.

Afterwards, of course, the manager from Pottery Barn will not have his calls returned.