It has been a disgracefully long time since my last post on this blog. I have been swamped with all sorts of events and tasks. Since my last post, I have gotten married, spent two weeks in Japan, bought a house and begun a number of renovation projects. Hopefully, in the future, I will post a few things describing some of my house projects. Some other commentary on life and society should follow as well!
A great song by Rush, “Subdivisions,” contains an insightful (and cutting) remark about the great American lifestyle (although they may not have intended it as being critical of just America). This line also happens to nicely represent my thoughts on the 40-hour-per-week, gotta-have-that-health-insurance, 401(k), 2-weeks-vacation, work-for-
the-man day job. (For the last line, the music video shows a clock as it approaches five.)
Well some will sell their dreams for small desires
And lose the race to rats,
get caught in ticking traps
Keep the security and all-around boredom of it all; mine will be a life of my own, unowned by any mediocre member of the management class.
Before mentioning another government shenanigan, I would like to note that my Two Good Dogs dog treats did fairly well at the farmers’ market on Saturday. I sold out of the tuna treats, but didn’t sell a single bag of garlic treats. I don’t know why; my dog loves them. Anyhow, I digress.
While packaging my dog treats, I was told that it is not legal to weigh items (or, presumably, provide a weight label) at the market without a government certified scale. That’s right, we need the approval of our government overlords before we can say that a pound of beans is a pound of beans. Well, I certainly know that some of these government people are full of beans, but that’s another story. Let’s be fair, though!
Our Federal Government is the group that is notorious for debasing the value of the dollar by deficit spending; they seem to have no problem at all changing the “weight” (i.e., the value) of the dollar whenever it suits them. We small farmer/business types? We darn well better get their seal of approval that we’re not doing some fast-and-loose mathematics or scale adjusting. I guess, then, the Federal Reserve and the Congress have that stamp of approval; hence, they can do no wrong.
As a side note, yes, I do blame the state government. Although they are the ones who administer the asinine rule, they never seem to make a peep about Federal deficit spending (or their own). Government chumps who want to tell me whether my weight measurements are up to snuff will get more from me than a “get a job” just as soon as inflation stops.
Although writing and editing are my strongest skills, I do enjoy doing a variety of things. Basic website design is one of them. Check out this website that I designed recently.
In my morning scan of the (depressing) news, I came across an article at the Telegraph that both amused and annoyed me. I always enjoy reading lists of grating words and phrases, because they typically include many of those that have caught my attention as well.
“Judging by the avalanche of phrases shovelled by the spadeful into your inventively annoying prose, many readers must be constantly on the boil at hearing our language mutilated on the radio, television, in shops and cafes, by politicians and pundits, and, perhaps worst of all, by business management executives.”
Business management executives, indeed! Not to mention, of course, their lackeys in the human resources department. I had my fill of nonsensical garbage back when I was searching for a job. (If I may digress - the whole idea of begging someone for an opportunity to work appears, to me, to be an increasingly horrific idea.) Job ads are full of the most smarmy, condescending and exceedingly insufferable prose imaginable. I imagine that one of the torments of Hell is a daily reading of Careerbuilder.com. Here is a short list, taken from typical job advertisements, of some of the most despicable words and phrases in the English language:
The list could, of course, go on. Lest anyone think I am not being serious about this, here are two examples from a cursory search at the before-mentioned job board:
We are seeking goal-oriented individuals with a technical background in electrical engineering or computer science, and have a strong interest in applying their knowledge to a customer-oriented environment. Here’s what you should bring to the table:
…
- A proven track record of successful software or IT sales experience a plus
- A strong desire to excel in a fast-paced, high-reward environment
Oh, the beautiful prose.
This position is responsible for designing large scale networking infrastructures. Being a team member in our fast-paced team environment requires the ability to work on concurrent projects and a willingness to be a working member of the team. The Design Engineer works closely with other Design Engineers to create network level designs or modify existing design. This job interfaces with company management, implementation team members, vendors, and customers.
This last one is particularly enjoyable. One must be both a team member and a working member of the team. I assume that the distinguished author wanted to stress that this job requires work, as opposed to simply restating what they said earlier in the sentence. Maybe he or she just wanted to demonstrate prowess with flowery language.
The next step, beyond simply looking at this gross abuse of language, is to examine job advertisements on a slightly higher level. It must be assumed that the authors of these advertisements, with their ingenious language skills, believe themselves able to easily deceive their mentally impoverished readers. Pray tell, how does one truly come to the conviction that “equal opportunity” and “affirmative action” can logically coexist on the same line?
As something of jack-of-all-trades who enjoys trying lots of different things, I have done a little branding for a side venture. The sales venue will be the farmer’s market; I have no intention of trying to sell these to millions of pet-obsessed Americans.
Unless, of course, I start getting lots of e-mails about these!
My undergraduate degree is in physics, and, to a large extent, my work in graduate school was in the area of physics, although it was called “electrical engineering.” I was, more or less, on the physics side of engineering. As such, I have had various experiences with physicists, both in person and by way of written or otherwise recorded information.
I felt driven out of the realm of pure physics for several reasons, two of which involved my future prospects in the field. I felt that, if I were to stay in physics, my job possibilities would be highly limited, and I also felt that most of the ‘action’ in physics revolved around the study of fundamental particles, which, even at the time, I recognized as being far more philosophical a pursuit than many a physicist would care to admit. My third main reason for leaving the field proper, however, was the arrogance of many of the physicists that I met. In fact, it was arrogance combined with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) hypocrisy.
I would, first of all, say that physics is an interesting subject, and its study by numerous individuals has led to a number of remarkable discoveries and technologies (none of which are pure blessings, if I may give a little nod to Neil Postman). That being said, physicists are walking, talking examples of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A little bit of success by way of theorization and experimentation leads many physicists to posit themselves as gods - except, of course, when confronted with the philosophical implications of their theorizing. At such a point, they throw up a smoke screen with the “we’re physicists, not philosophers” tripe. (Yes, I have actually heard a physicist say just those words.) Good philosophers they are certainly not (in most cases), but they are indeed philosophers. Anyone who can talk about some of the more arcane aspects of quantum theory and still, with a straight face, declare themselves to be immune from philosophical considerations is either a liar or a schizophrenic (or both).
To present a case in point, consider the late Dr. Richard P. Feynman. Feynman was a well-known physicist who, to this day, leaves behind a legacy of influential accomplishments. I do not doubt that Dr. Feynman was a smart man; I have no doubt he was quite a bit smarter than the present author. Nevertheless, from what I can tell, he was not possessed of reason when it came to the implications of his theories.
Feynman was a major contributor to the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which deals with electromagnetic radiation (light), the behavior of electrons and other associated phenomena. In a particular lecture, Feynman extolled the success of the theory in predicting certain experimental results (although, I could raise some philosophical objections to this, but that is another subject), and even went on to say that QED could, theoretically, account for the behavior of men. That is to say, how people act and how they think is determined by the behavior of the particles that compose them. The behavior of these particles is, in turn, controlled by the forces that act upon them, as described by QED (along with gravitation, as described by general relativity, and the strong nuclear force, as described by quantum chromodynamics). Therefore, if there was a sufficiently powerful computer that was able to calculate the behavior of a virtually infinite number of particles as they interacted through time and space, that computer could and should, theoretically, explain (or predict, presumably) human thought and behavior.
The materialistic metaphysic of such a statement is quite evident. One question comes to mind, however: if, as Feynman says, human thought is nothing more than the end product of forces acting on particles (or, to put it another way, “matter in motion”), then one must ask why we should trust Feynman’s statements about anything. After all, what goes on in Feynman’s grey matter is the product of matter in motion, and there is no reason (within the materialistic framework) to think that Feynman has any freedom whatsoever to think in any manner not determined by the action of the particles in his skull (and, perhaps, to a lesser extent by the particles outside his skull). Yes, Feynman extols QED. He cannot help but extol QED, because that is how the particles that compose his body happen to be moving at that particular time. Feynman is, thus, no more than a puppet, whose mouth moves and produces sound waves and such that may impinge upon the ears of others. What does this have to do with reality, though?
Alternatively, look at it another way. Consider Feynman, a proponent of QED, and Smith, a skeptic of QED. To say that what goes on in Feynman’s head corresponds to truth and that what goes on in Smith’s head corresponds to falsity is to say that one arrangement of particles corresponds to truth and one to falsity. Such is nonsense, however, in a materialistic framework. ‘Truth’ is not a characteristic of particles, no matter their configuration. As a result, to speak of Feynman presenting truth is to speak in a manner that, from a materialistic perspective, would be entirely nonsensical. As a result, since truth (along with all concepts, since they are immaterial) is destroyed, logic is destroyed. Thus, materialism cannot support itself, and is shown to be self-refuting.
In light of such a devastating refutation of materialism, I believe that I am quite justified in my statement that physicists often combine arrogance (”my theory explains everything”) and hypocrisy (”I don’t need to answer such metaphysical nonsense”). This is quite unfortunate, but an expected consequence, in many ways. A little knowledge is, indeed, a dangerous thing.
Christianity Today has been hosting a written debate between atheist (not ‘athiest,’ a spelling I see far too often to write off as merely a typographical error) Christopher Hitchens and pastor/theologian Doug Wilson. (Hitchens is not more ‘athy’ than Wilson.) This debate has been stunning to me for one reason: Hitchens does not even pretend to answer Wilson’s repeated calls for a justification for objective moral pronouncements.
(As an editorial note, the attempts of many atheists to answer this challenge by defining the word ‘moral,’ rather than giving a justification for objective moral principles, is entirely insufficient. In other words, it is not enough to simply define ‘good’ as that which brings the most happiness to the greatest number of people (i.e., utilitarianism). It is also necessary to show how or why this definition is objective - i.e., that it applies to everyone, in spite of their personal choices. To do anything short of this is to bastardize the word ‘good.’ In such a case, one who says “X is good, Y is evil” is merely announcing that he or she likes X and doesn’t like Y.)
Am I concerned that Hitchens will come back like Rocky for a final-round knock-out? No. I do wonder, however, why one who publishes a popular book proclaiming the evils of religion (a phrase about as descriptive as “the evils of human action”) is so loathe to answer such a basic and fundamental question as “Says who?” It is a bit disappointing to see that Hitchens’ book is ranked so highly in places like Amazon.com, unless I am to assume that people have purchased it for either to enjoy his supposed writing prowess or to get a lesson in bad reasoning (in some cases, at least - I’m sure Hitchens has some good points in the book). This is must be an indication that government schools are doing a good job of dulling people to the point that they’ll believe just about any fantasy that they are fed, so long as it contains the right key words.
Morality is a distinctly personal concept. Obviously, children know this better than high-browed atheists who like to beat people over the head with that tiresome word ‘reason’ (by which they mean, “my beliefs” or “the way I think”). Children are very quick to ask, “Says who?” whenever told what to do by a peer. Those particularly brave souls who have the courage of their convictions will even utter such blasphemy in the face of teachers and parents. Indeed, “Says who?“
Whether or not he wins the presidential election in 2008, or even the Republican primary for that matter, Dr. Ron Paul is a man I can support. It’s nice to hear from a politician who doesn’t spout the kind of condescending “you idiot Americans need us (and we need more of your money)” garbage that so often comes out of Washington. It is also nice to be able to say that he actually could make an honest living if he was voted out of office tomorrow. Unlike virtually everyone else in that God-forsaken city, I can, in good conscience, call Representative Paul a leader. Go, Dr. Paul!
(Check out this great video at YouTube.)
One of the stronger arguments for the use of the serial comma is that its omission can lead to ambiguity. Consider, for example, the following sentence:
“He enjoys eating potatoes, tomatoes, peppers and onions and peas and carrots.”
In this case, it is arguable that the use of the serial comma can reduce ambiguity.
“He enjoys eating potatoes, tomatoes, peppers and onions, and peas and carrots.”
Perhaps this is considered a reduction in ambiguity, or perhaps it is just a smoother flow, breaking up the numerous instances of ‘and,’ and possibly eliminating the need for re-reading the text. (Yes, I used a comma where the serial comma is usually placed, but, if I may split hairs, the comma is used in obedience to a different rule: “Use a comma to separate similar or identical words standing next to each other, even when the sense of continuity does not seem to require it.” [Margaret Shertzer, The Elements of Grammar.]) I am not always convinced by these kinds of arguments, however, as ambiguity probably more often results from an assumption that the serial comma is supposed to be there.
Perhaps the most amusing case of this supposed ambiguity is found on a particular website about writing, which I will not name here. The sentence, which I have modified slightly, is the following:
“Bill left his money to his three children: Paul, John and Tim.”
The (rather laughable) argument was made that without the serial comma, the reader might think that the money was not split equally among the children! Ah, egalitarianism. What, pray tell, about the sentence above (even if it does include the serial comma!) gives the remotest idea that the money is necessarily split equally? Of course, it could be said that I have chosen a bit of an easy target on this one, as further bogus arguments were propounded along the same lines on this particular website.
A rule in the before-mentioned book, The Elements of Grammar, explicitly states that ambiguity is a reason for comma use:
“Use a comma to set off words, phrases, [sic] and clauses that would otherwise be unclear.”
(Yes, I am being somewhat facetious with the use of sic.) Given that a rule covering ambiguity and comma use already exists (at least according to one author, who, incidentally, uses and supports the serial comma), what is the need to add a rule when ambiguous cases have already been treated? That is to say, why generalize from a few ambiguous cases to all cases? This could possibly be understood if most cases were ambiguous, but this is hardly true.
This leads me to another argument that really annoys me: “That’s the rule of English.” This particular argument, which is to be read with a sense of “that’s the eternal rule of English,” can be embarrassed in so many ways that another post in this blog is needed to adequately deal with it. As such, I will not go into detail on this one now. Nevertheless, when I do treat this particular argument, I may name some names. We shall see.
Suffice it to say by way of conclusion, I do not believe that the argument from ambiguity is sufficient to establish the universal use of serial commas. I am still trying to keep an open mind on this matter, however, all jesting aside!