Main

July 18, 2006

Experience Machines and the Details of Life

David Friedman and Scott Scheule both have valuable thoughts on Nozick's experience machine. Nozick's hypothetical device was this: suppose we could build a machine of some kind that could fully simulate reality, and by getting into the machine you were promised your simulated reality would be better than your real reality ... would you do it? Friedman's answer sseems to be that there is something valuable about the reality itself that cannot be simulated.

Continue reading "Experience Machines and the Details of Life" »

May 23, 2006

Happiness is ...

Max Borders does a great job explaining why happiness research is a bad idea (Sorry Will). To summerize ... it's like that song from Your a Good Man Charlie Brown:

HAPPINESS IS FINDING A PENCIL.
PIZZA WITH SAUSAGE
TELLING THE TIME.
HAPPINESS IS LEARNING TO WHISTLE.
TYING YOUR SHOE FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.

Continue reading "Happiness is ..." »

May 22, 2006

The only trancedent value ...

... is that there is no transcendent value. Don Boudreaux trots out the Hayek (and now the Buchanan) that conservatives love to hate. Hayek's defense o liberalism was decidedly anti-foundationalist (to use postmodern terminology.) Buchanan, who I had always assumed was in league with conservatives, apparently concurs, which means I need to read more Buchanan. Boudreaux adds:

Continue reading "The only trancedent value ..." »

May 10, 2006

Hayek's Birthday

Well, Hayek's birthday has come and gone with very little acknowledgement. Of course it is his 107th, not the kind you celebrate. Nevertheless, Mises Blog is recognizing the moment with a series of classic Hayek quotes. My favorite:

"Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom."

But as is often the case with great thinkers, there are tensions in Hayek on display even in this list of quotes. For example, does the following quote really match up with the previous one?

"...if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish."

May 03, 2006

[br]atlas shrugged? how far objectivists have fallen

individualist cover.jpg

No this isn't the cover of Variety Magazine, it's the cover of The New Individualist, the publication of one of two competing flagships of objectivism. One would have hoped that reports in Variety that Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are philosophically attracted to the long awaited hollywood project to bring the objectivist epic to the silver screen might have led to some skepticism from those advancing Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rather, silence from the Ayn Rand Institute and nothing short of pop culture gushing at The Objectvist Center must have Ayn Rand turning over in her grave.

When not recreating her breakthough role by raiding Ayn Rand's Tomb, Jolie revels in her new role as 'tax raider', using her media platform in Namibia to make herself into the anti-Ayn Rand, pushing an impossible altruism - i.e. the extension the concept of no child left behind to the entire world.

Continue reading "[br]atlas shrugged? how far objectivists have fallen" »

April 18, 2006

The challenges of social science

Reading Gladwell's blog I found this quote very interesting:

(from a reader) market research actually encourages people to answer in conventions, and doesn't encourage the telling of stories. Many of these stories are probably complex and deeply buried such that they are hard to consciously access anyway.
This, in fact, is one of the critical problem of all social science and why Gladwell's work is so well received.

The unit of analysis with all social sciences is not society, but rather people. Society itself is much too complex to be studied as a whole, so social scientists (just as a natural scientist would) study smaller groups and individuals with the expectation that results of these observations can be generalized.

Continue reading "The challenges of social science" »

April 15, 2006

Doubting the doubters - A white paper on the black magic of skeptics

As promised a week ago, I have been pursuing the intersection of religion, science and political society -- a realm ever bit as energetic as your average hadron collider.

The superstitious skeptic, Professor Daniel Dennett

Noted atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett was spreading his ‘gospel’ at Harvard recently, i.e., his new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. Dennett opened ironically by embracing naturalism, a religion rooted in natural phenomenon. He even encouraged donations to the lecture’s sponsor, the Center for Naturalism. This immediately brought to mind what might have been the reaction if, say, Exxon Mobil, had sponsored a lecture by Pat Michaels, a noted skeptic of global warming.

It is striking the extent to which secularists, the driving force behind the modern skeptical movement, are themselves insular to skepticism. If you are willing to stand up and be counted as a vocal critic of superstition, then anything you believe is presumptively rational – and consequently your exhortations on public policy are blithely accepted by followers. If Pat Michaels would only open his lectures by denouncing intelligent design instead of debunking climatological scare tactics, he could count on a much broader academic engagement of his ideas.

Continue reading "Doubting the doubters - A white paper on the black magic of skeptics" »

March 13, 2006

Libertarians, Pragmatist and Idealist

Stephen Gordon has a good post at Hammer of Truth discussing the myriad of different ways libertarians can move forward, despite a lack of consensus on what role libertarians should play in politics. The apparent division is between the pragmatist (which I prefer to "moderate") and the idealist (which I prefer to "radical"). There is no conflict between the two, but unfortunately the idealist always seems to think there is one.

In reality, the idealist, in all his self-delusion, serves a very important function as the conscience of the movement. The pragmatist, understanding as he does that we can only get there from here, that whatever liberty is going to look like it is going to have be molded out of the existing society, needs the idealists to keep him honest. The idealist is the angel on the shoulder constantly keeping the pragmatist on track as he meanders from one compromise to the next. The pragmatist is right about the logistics, but the idealist is the driving force behind his machinations.

The problem only arises when the one forgets to recognize and appreciate the other. The idealist out of touch with reality and the pragmatist who's lost his "religion" are really the same threat.

March 07, 2006

Maximization Compulsions

Catallarchy has a great post on "maximizers" and "satisficers". A "maximizer" is one who is continuously searching for better options, even when he or she is relatively satisfied. A "satisficer" is more apt to stop searching once a reasonably satisfying option is found. Specifically, Patri Friedman asks "is satisficing rational?" I'm not sure this is the right question. It impies that any one particular mindset is more rational than the other. The reality, I think, is that whether the behavior (maximizing or satisficing) is rational depends on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. The key is that any "rational" behavior can be irrational if performed for irrational reasons.

The issue then is whether the motivation is rational maximization or an insatiable standard of satisfaction. The same would hold for the satisficer who risks maximizing utility for some reason other than being truly satisfied. Of course, we are now getting beyond the categories available to economics but the discussion heightens my awareness of just how difficult it is for any one person to determine his or her level of satisfaction about anything, much less a social scientist to determine the optimal level of satisfaction for an entire society (i.e. utilitarianism).

PS> If you're not reading Catallarchy regularly your missing out.