Homeward bound, I wish (am glad) I was (am).

San Diego, here I come. I'm leaving on a jet plane at 6:22 in the freaking AM from Kansas City, to return to SD at 11 something AM local time. No New-Years-Every for me. That's just as well. I'm ready to get my life going again. These long Christmas breaks are not for me.

Roof-eeze

When, I'm told, warm air hits cold air, it creates, among other things, fog and wind. Since I've been back in KS, the fog has been palpable--and created for some nice photos that I took on my way to eat dinner and see Sideways again with some friends, Chris Grenz and his wife Esther. But the wind was most noticable last night when, apparently, it violently separated my mother's roof from a section of its shingles.

This gave me a golden opportunity to explore a second career as a roofer.

Now, you may think it trite, but I spent about an hour up on my mom's roof replacing busted shingles, and, aside from one color-mismatched shingle, did a freaking good job of it, I have to say. Now, it goes without saying that I shan't be held responsible if my mom's roof collapses as a direct result of my gross negligence, but I honestly think there's a very small chance of that happening.

What'd I Say?

Apparently, the price of food has already started to escalate in the tsunami-affected regions. People whose livelihoods have been decimated by the tsunami will be unable to afford food in the coming months if something isn't done to allay the rising food prices, and also to provide fair compensation to food vendors who rely on selling food to be able to buy food for themselves and their families. Governments and agencies the world over must arrange their aid to save the most possible now. If that is not done, mark my words, this will be one of the most devastating famines the world has ever seen.

Also, for those interested in donating, I've provided links to the sites of reputable international aid agencies over there on the right. I urge you to donate all you can afford. I also urge you to avoid donating to USAid, given that agency's manipulative practices in doling out relief to needy populations. Use OXFAM or UNICEF.

The Trouble with Tsunamis

So apparently a series of gian Tsunamis killed something like 33,000 people around the Indian Ocean area in the last few days. This is really quite shocking. And I know that I refused to let this blog just become another series of pissed-off left-wing rants, but you have to really wonder about the US officials that have basically refused to do anything about this. Colin Powell actually had to state publically today that we weren't being "stingy" with our aid. Preposterous. I find it absolutely repulsive and lacking in any kind of basic decency that the US should be worried about its international image rather than merely spending the resources required to assist these countries, desperately poor as they are in any event.

I could go on. But here's just another observation. This tsunami, mark my words, will trigger one of the worst famines we have ever seen. Here's why. This famine has destroyed the employment prospects of many of the survivng workers; many people worked in these areas that were destroyed, including construction sites, rice fields, farmland, etc. Without proper sources of income, and with the assuredly rising price of food in the coming weeks, these people will be unable to afford to feed themselves. Rich countries must be aware of this, if we are to prevent another Great Bengal Famine from striking the entire Indian Ocean region.

Finally.

I've finally gotten around to posting some links to my work. See sidebar. The papers are in SEVERE draft-mode and are probably riddled with spelling errors. But, you know, it's the ideas people.

Plate 'Tek-tonics

The Red Sox resigned Jason Varitek. That's a load off. Apparently they also named him team captain, although I thought a better choice might have been Big Papi.

An Angry Cop!

Shelby bought me this movie for Christmas. My heart glows.

Darkness

Anyone heard anything about this movie? Apparently, it's coming out around here on the 25th. Any good? Apparently, it's a Spanish production that is just now being released in the US, though it's in English and stars Anna Paquin, for example.

Millar, Mueller, Miller

So the Red Sox just signed Wade Miller. Cool! Of course, the guy is coming off rotator cuff surgery, but had a mid-3 ERA last year before he went down. His best year two-year stretch was 2001-2, where he had a 3.40 ERA in 212 innings, and a 3.28 ERA in 168 innings respectively. He regressed a little in '03, but had a nice beginning of the year in '04 before going on the DL. Apparently he has passed a physical, though, and the Sox expect him to be ready by opening day.

Frankly, I don't know what to expect from this guy. Last year he had 88 innings pitched, gave up only 76 hits, and had 74 strikeouts (a ~7.5 K/9 ratio). He did, however, give up 44 walks, a high number--basically a walk every other inning. That comes out to a 1.25 WHIP. His VORP in 2004 was 21.8; not bad. The question is, who will he supplant in the Boston rotation? It seems likely he'll fit in nicely for CS while he's down, but what about when he comes back? Wakefield? Arroyo? Personally, I like the following setup:

Schilling
Wells
Clement
Miller
Wakefield

I think you gotta have the knuckleball guy in there, if just to eat up some innings. He's also got electric stuff on occasion. It's a shame not to be able to see where Arroyo might go next year, though. Perhaps they'll trade him.

This guy must be on the payroll.

Here are some recent comments from the Dodgers' GM:

"I know everybody else wants it done and they are leaning on us," Dodgers GM Paul DePodesta told the LA Times. "There is a lot of uncertainty here. We can't venture into something this significant with all that uncertainty remaining." The deal involves the Dodgers sending right fielder Shawn Green and pitchers Brad Penny, Yhency Brazoban, Kazuhisa Ishii and Brandon Weeden to the Diamondbacks. Johnson and Ishii would go to the Yankees, who would send to the Dodgers pitcher Javier Vazquez and prospects Dioner Navarro and Eric Duncan

Now, am I missing something, or is this the dumbest deal in the history of all deals for the Dodgers? This guy has GOT to be on Steinbrenner's payroll. Why in hell would you give up two good pitchers (OK, so Ishii had an off year, only 6 WS; but Penny had only two fewer than Vazquez and he was injured for a crucial span of the season) for a serious underachiever? Am I being snowed under here? Is there something I'm missing? Are these prospects red-hot or something? Last I heard the Yankees farm was completely depleted. Uncertainty....like your sanity?

The Wild Dogs of Retail

Pure gold.

Oh My Darling, Clement-ine

Ok. So it looks like the Red Sox are in trouble if the Yankees get Randy Johnson. Now let's see what happens when we plug Matt Clement and David Wells into the Red Sox rotation. Here are the Win Shares and Wins of the Red Sox rotation last year:

Curt Schilling WS 22
Pedro Martinez WS 17
Tim Wakefield WS 8
Bronson Arroyo WS 11
Derek Lowe WS 6

Ok. Now Wins:

Schilling 21
Martinez 16
Wakefield 12
Arroyo 10
Lowe 14

Except for Lowe, these numbers are pretty even. And Lowe is such a crazy case; the Red Sox offensive fire-power probably helped him out more than any other player. Lowe had a -11.5 VORP last season, so replacing Lowe with basically anybody will be an improvement. David Wells had a 40.3 VORP, so I'd say they're doing fairly well replacing Lowe.

For the Red Sox, the challenge will be reestablish what they had last year after the loss of Pedro Martinez. Now, they've already made improvements replacing Lowe, as noted above. But let's look at Matt Clement's WSs and Ws last year.

Clement WSs 11 Ws 9

So, if the numbers hold true, you can expect a boost for Clement in turning WSs into Ws. And given that Clement was +2 WSAA, and the WSA for the AL is 12, we can pencil Clement in (on last year's performance) for 14 WSs, 14-15 Ws. And though that's lower than Pedro's total, it's pretty comparable. If we compare VORPs, the numbers are a little more in Pedro's favor, 51.2 to 36.9. But comparing Derek Lowe + Pedro Martinez in VORP to David Wells and Matt Clement, you've got 39.7 to 77.2. Just for the fun of it, here's David Wells' WS and W numbers:

Wells WSs 10 Ws 12

So he's +4 WSs on Lowe, to Clement's -5 on Pedro. But if we look at WSAAs, it's a net VORP and WS gain.

The only thing that really makes me wonder is the even-ness at which Red Sox pitchers converted WSs into Ws. If we look merely at that, it looks like a net loss of Ws for the Sox. But it looks as though there's more to the story. There's no reason to think that the boost won't be more evenly distributed next year.

Note: this is not a prediction of the future. It's speculation on what would have happened had the Red Sox HAD Matt Clement and David Wells LAST YEAR. And, it turns out, things are pretty much even (maybe a little better). David Wells could die for all I know.

Here's hoping they can find a decent replacement for Curt Schilling.

Randy Johnson

I wonder how much help to the Yankees Randy Johnson will really be. Let's take a look, shall we?

Last year, RJ had 25 Win Shares, which is 13 Win Shares above average for a National League pitcher. Now, this is pretty impressive, considering that Win Shares, according to Bill James, generally correlates with a pitcher's actual win total. But for Johnson, he has 9 more win shares than actual wins, which is a testament a) to him pitching well for a hella-bad ballclub, b) pitching hella-well.

Pitching for the Yankees, given that they're a much better club than the Diamondbacks were last year, we can expect Johnson's Win Share total to more closely mimic his actual wins. In 2002, pitching for a better club, Johnson managed 29 Win Shares, compared to 24 Ws. In 2001, Johnson garnered 26 WSs to go with 21 Ws. (2003 is tossed out because of injuries.)

Now let's look at the Yankees' rotation last year. Being charitable, here's the best rotation they could have thrown out there:

Leiber WS: 11
Vazquez WS: 10
El Duque WS: 9
Kevin Brown WS: 9
Mike Mussina WS: 9

Not very distinguished in terms of WSs. Let's take a look at their actual win totals:

Leiber W: 14
Vazquez W: 14
El Duque W: 8
Kevin Brown W: 10
Mike Mussina W: 12

So what we have here is exactly the opposite of what happened to RJ last year (and, incidentally, since 2001 at least): these pitchers were actually much WORSE than their records indicate. (El Duque, of course, is a funny case.) They actually got BOOSTS turning their WSs into Ws.

So what does this say about RJ and the Yanks?

Now, there may be things I'm not calculating, or leaving out, for whatever reason. But if these statistics are a reasonable basis upon which to make judgments of the future, I think these are some extremely troubling statistics for Red Sox fans. Now, I don't think we should be looking for 30 Ws out of RJ, but it does suggest that if RJ continues to pitch as well (or close to as well) as he did for the Diamondbacks, we could be looking at a 25-or-so W season without breaking a sweat. For the Yankees, this means adding 10 Ws to the W total of the pitcher you traded for him. And you throw in Pavano, with 20 WSs, this could be a very scary Yankees rotation in 2005. (Of course, you have to factor in Pavano's career year; prior to 2004 Pavano had accumulated precisely 29 win shares total.) But even if Pavano pulls a Vazquez, adding RJ alone would be huge.

I like mine with lettuce 'n' tomata', Heinz 57 'n' fraynch fried potaytas

So it appears somewhere along the line my Mom has turned into a Parrothead. That's right. Jimmy Buffett in the car alllllllll dayyyyyyyy looooooooong. And it seems as though she and the car are in cahoots, because even tough Joe Jackson is persona non grata, that CD player loves wastin' away (again) in Margaritaville.

But I was able to put up with it yesterday because I finally got a new phone go replace my old, shitty one. I even downloaded a ringtone (HAH! Joinin' the 21st Century). So right now whenever anybody calls me, my phone plays "Don't Stand So Close to Me". Boy, I needed a new phone. I ran into a student at the bar a while back. She happened to catch a look at my phone and promptly declared that it was soooo 1989. That and she also declared that my thesis advisor was attractive. Poor, confused students. But she was right about the phone. 1999 is more like it, but anyway, I had been lax in getting a new one. Sometimes I claim that there's a woman to blame, but I know it's my own damn fault.

Way to go, Kansas!

Maybe this will allow us to get over the whole "evolution" thing.

Steppin' Out!

I had a decent night tonight. I decided that I absolutely had to get out of my Mom's place. So I borrowed her Mazda 323, broken CD player and all, and headed up to Lawrence to check out the Friday night scene. Basically I ended up getting a sub at Yello Sub, and going to La Prima Tazza to work on my paper submission to ISUS. Right now the paper's called The Fourth Way, and I may keep that title, even if I come up with a better name for the view I'm advocating. Whew, that paper's a mess. You can really tell that I wrote it page-by-page for like two months. I've had to make major alterations to the parts on egalitarianism and prioritarianism; I didn't even get to the section on sufficiency views. Ugh. But this, I think, is the most definitive statement I'll have of the view I'm advocating, so it's good to start somewhere. I envision giving something like this as a job talk when I eventually enter the market. So I did that while sucking down huge mochas in pint glasses.

After that, I decided to go next door to Liberty Hall to catch the late show of Sideways. Really good flick. It's going to take a few days until I have my thoughts together enough to write something on it. Worth seeing. Then I tried to play The Donnas in the car on the broken CD player and it, predictably, didn't work. So I listened to KJHK all the way home. Nice night.

Pedro...wtf?

I just don't get this guy sometimes. I mean, I was never any sort of Dan Shaugnessy puritanical moralizer or anything, but I just don't get how Pedro gets off making these sorts of comments.

Politics, politics

Let's say I wanted to argue against Elizabeth Anderson's version of deontic sufficientarianism called "democratic equality". How would I do this? Well, one obvious starting point might be to take the theory and point out implications that might seem particularly absurd, i.e., Anderson's theory says x, but in the following scenario, x is absurd, therefore we ought to revise the theory in light of the new findings for this particular scenario.

But this line of argument is particularly tricky. It's likely that a retort would come back as follows: "you think that in your scenario x is absurd, but it isn't!" How does one respond to this? Or, consider the line of argument given my Larry Temkin against the Slogan (that a situation cannot be worse than another if there is no one for whom it is worse): we wouldn't accept the Slogan because don't we feel that the slogan is too restrictive in cases of, say proportional justice (namely: a situation is better if it's worse for sinners)? Answer from Slogan supporters: no! Proportional justice is absurd if it conflicts with the Slogan!

The frustrating thing about these debates in political philosophy, in part, is that political philosophy was supposed to be somehow more tractable than, say, debates in normative and applied ethics--James Raches v. Judy Thomson, for example. After all, it seems as though there is some mechanism for resolving such disputes, i.e., the original position, or some other sort of state of nature argument. But it looks as though that conjecture isn't holding up. Intuition-pumping arguments have seemed to creep up in political philosophy just as much, and it's become just as frustrating to try to navigate these disagreements. (I'm not the only one who's noticed this phenomenon; Charlie Kurth gets big-ups.)

The abandonment of rigorous theoretical commitments in favor of intuition-pumping arguments is, I think, detrimental, but it is not clear at all that the idea that political philosophy was somehow more tractable wasn't just an illusion after all. I mean, Rawls himself suggests that we need to tinker with the original position to get it to match our considered judgments. With a few refinements, that procedure is referred to as reflective equilibrium. And it's not clear that social contract theory relies any less heavily on these sort of mechanisms, such as the Slogan that are seemingly only argued for by pointing at intuitions and scenarios.

So how do we overcome this problem and engage people who disagree with each other on a level that is more than table-pounding? I think the answer is not to look for some new method, but rather to return to the old method, the one that Rawls so proudly proclaimed, though he acknowledges its existence in the works of Nelson Goodman, especially the famous deductive logic passage from Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. What needs to be done, and what hasn't been done, is to articulate whole theories and judge them at each level of generality. It is not enough simply to point to the levelling-down case to argue against egalitarianism. It is not enough simply to point to proportional justice to argue against the Slogan. Rather, we have to produce whole theories and judge the theories themselves along with the implications in given cases. The levelling down case is damaging, but perhaps it could be accepted if the theory itself is plausible enough. Proportional justice is something most people agree with, but perhaps it could be rejected if Slogan-heavy theories are otherwise plausible. We have to return to holistic justification. We cannot simply let our first-order intuitions (intuitions about individual cases) do our dirty work for us. Intuitions in moral argument are here to stay. But we have to be able to organize our thoughts in coherent patterns, and testing must occur not only at the first-order, but also at the second-order, third, etc.

More on Le Trou

Here's an interesting tidbit taken from an essay by Chris Fujiwara posted on the Criterion Collection page:

The novel on which Le Trou is based recounts the true story of a prison escape plan in which the author, José Giovanni, took part. Becker wrote the script with Giovanni and cast the film with nonprofessionals, one of whom, Jean Keraudy (Roland), played the same role in real life that he plays in the film. The use of nonprofessionals (and, interestingly, Becker made professionals out of them—Philippe Leroy [Manu] and Michel Constantin [Géo] went on to particularly successful acting careers) is only one of the elements that heighten our sense that, as we watch Le Trou, we are immersed in a world that has been seen and experienced.

Duluth

Well, it looks like I'm headed to the Great White North after Christmas again this year. Can't wait. Somebody's gotta make sure that kid gets called "Mugsy".

So it turns out there's not much to do here in Baldwin City, Kansas when you don't have a car. I brought home my Netflix copy of Akira Kurosawa's "High and Low", but my Mom doesn't have a DVD player, so I'm stuck watching VHS copies of movies I owned in high school and college. On the docket for today: Pump Up the Volume. I'm also killing time by playing Beach Boys songs on the piano. So far I've mastered "Good Vibrations", "God Only Knows", and "Surf's Up". Up next: "Caroline, No".

Le Trou

Wow. Le Trou is one of the most engrossing movies I've seen in quite a while. It's done by director Jaques Becker, who's also known as directing a classic French Noir, Touchez Pas au Grisbi! translated literally as "Hands Off the Loot!"

One of the most remarkable things about Le Trou is the quite obvious dedication that everyone involved with the movie had. It must have been one of the most physically demanding acting jobs anyone has ever seen. A significant percentage of the movie contains long shots of these men exhausting themselves hammering away at solid concrete and cement.

The basic premise is a simple one: it's a prison break movie. Five guys in the same jail cell discover a way to tunnel out of their chamber into the sewer line, and to freedom. But unlike, say, The Shawshank Redemption this movie doesn't spare us the grueling everyday details of how one survives while attempting to bore into a sewer at night. Extremely well done.

Home

It's going to be weird going home this winter break. I'm not going to get to see my Dad at all, which is a little strange. Also, I'm leaving some stuff in San Diego that I'd rather not leave just now. But I suppose I don't really have much choice. That's the way things go.

Wish I had more to say. Tomorrow preview: review of "Le Trou".

Done.

Just turned in grades. My quarter is officially over. This has been a weird quarter for a number of reasons, but I'm really glad I'll get to go home and just chill for about 2 1/2 weeks. Of course, I'll have to be working on my dissertation and my submission to ISUS, but other than that, it should be nice and relaxing.

The Wild Bunch

Just finished Sam Peckinpah's epic The Wild Bunch. I have to say, though this movie is famous for the amount of violence it contains, I don't think it's really the amount of violence that one notices. I mean, any of the Terminator movies has much more violence than this one. Rather, it's the way the violence is filmed. It's at once stylized and realistic; during the opening massacre in a small town, the camera slows down to show women, children, horses being slaughtered, capturing the bullets moving through their bodies. That's the stuff that really gets ya'. The movie is also graced by a number of quite disturbing images, such as the children torturing scorpions during the first few moments of the film.

I'm not quite sure what to think of the main characters--they're clearly supposed to be "sympathetic" in some sense, i.e., they are supposed to display the last vestiges of Old West-style honor, or something like that. But the film nicely shows that they're not unambiguous characters. They treat women horribly. They have no qualms about murdering people that get in their way. In the way that the movie depicts the "end of the old west era", I think the movie itself could be read as a kind of "end of the old west movie"; reinforcing the idea that the men we are looking at, though they are "sympathetic", are also monstrous.

There's a nice bit of dialog I like. It parallels the famous dispute between Immanuel Kant and Benjamin Constant on the bindingness of truth-telling. (I'm paraphrasing here.)

Dutch: I can't believe he would kill Freddy.
Pike: What would you have done in his place? He gave his word.
Dutch: HE GAVE IT TO A RAILROAD MAN!
Pike: IT'S STILL HIS WORD!
Dutch: It don't matter that it's his word; it's WHO HE GAVE IT TO!

I like that. I think I'm on Dutch's side on this one, just as I usually side against Kant.

The China Syndrome

I have to say, The China Syndrome is a little disappointing. It's little more than The Insider inside a nuclear power plant. Not that The Insider was a bad movie. But The China Syndrome promised so much more...nuclear meltdown, radioactivity spilling into the Southern California air...you know, fun stuff like that. Instead it's really more a movie about corporate greed. They could have set that against anything. Qua nuclear power movie, it's not so good. Qua corportate greed movie, it's, well, ok.

Oh James (part II)

Further evidence that Bill James is among the best writers (of any stripe) working in English today.

1200 Pages.

So, I figured out that by the time Friday rolls around, I will have had to have graded 1,200 pages of student writing. Here's how it all breaks down fer ya':

• 30 20-page porfolios for Muir College Writing Program. (Completed early this morning.)

Sub-Total: 600 pages.

• 40 5-page papers for Philosophy 100.

Sub-Total: 800 pages.

• 10 20-page secondary assessments for the MCWP grading meeting. (Completed earlier this afternoon.)

Sub-Total: 1000 pages.

• 40 Final Exams for Phil. 100. The page number here is indeterminate, but is likely to run roughly 6 pages apiece.

Total: 1240 pages.

Sumbitch.

ISUS

Hey all. this is a great conference, for you consequentialist-types out there. It's every-other-year, and I went to the 2003 conference in Lisbon. Tons of top-notch scholarship for those interested in Utilitarianism and related doctrines. I plan to try out the view upon which my dissertation is based; you know, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Probably no one. But that's ok. In philosophy, according to a professor of mine, to get famous, your views don't have to be true; just interesting.

Speaking of this view, I need a new name for it. Here's a brief description:

There is a sufficientarian-style floor set at the level of human subsistence, with additional sufficientarian-style lines above that (relatively coarse-grained). In each case, we maximize the achievement of the lowest lines; in other words, you treat the achievement of these sufficientarian lines in a roughly leximin fashion.

John Roemer calls something like this view "maxificing", but this makes it seem like there's only one line, when in fact there are many. I've been taken to calling it "The Fourth Way"; the other three: egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and sufficientarianism. But that's a little generic. Maybe "The Rocking View"? Maybe "The View that's Hotter than Bond, Cooler than Bullitt?"

Little help?

Thanks, Steve.

Check this out.

Oh James.

Consider the following set of lyrics:

If you leave me, I'll go crazy.
If you leave me, I'll go crazy.
'Cuz I love you, I love you, oh...
I love you too much.

If you quit me, I'll go crazy.
If you forget me, I'll go crazy.
'Cuz I love you, I love you, oh...
I love you too much.

You gotta' live for yourself
Yourself and nobody else
You gotta' live for yourself
Yourself and nobody else

--James Brown, "I'll Go Crazy"

Now, this song is truly kickin', but don't these lines seem blatantly self-contradictory? The first two stanzas suggest that the protagonist is offering a reason to his lady why she shouldn't leave him, viz., that he'll go crazy. But the third stanza suggests, given the use of the pronoun "you" that (at the very least) the person he was addressing in the first two stanzas has "gotta' live for [herself, herself] and nobody else". But this seems to imply that the mere fact that he will go crazy is not a reason (or at least a good one) to remain with him.

Perhaps there's a prima facie/all things considered distinction working here. Perhaps James, in the first two stanzas is offering a prima facie reason why she should remain with him, but overrules that reason with the all things considered reason in the final stanza. But that just somehow doesn't seem to capture what's going on here. It seems like the third stanza is denying that anything that is not "for yourself" is a reason at all; not just that any other reasons get outweighed by the need to live for yourself, yourself and nobody else.

Divorce

You know, it's surprisingly easy to get a divorce in this town. Now that I think about it, the whole thing took about one-and-a-half hours. And most of that time was spent waiting for the San Diego Family Court Business Office to open. Other than that, after we got our packet, Kyra and I filed, oh, let's say a half-hour later?

Not quite sure what to think about all this. Maybe it should be a little harder to get a divorce. Susan Moller Okin makes an interesting point in her book Justice, Gender, and the Family that committed relationships shouldn't be particularly easy to enter (for obvious reasons), but they should also not be particularly easy to leave. I wonder whether the whole process Kyra and I went through is a signal that, as long as you don't have kids, divorce these days is not all that different from merely moving out of your former loved one's apartment.

Grading.

Why is grading so awful? I mean, I generally like teaching students, I enjoy interacting with them in office hours, I like listening to their interpretations of certain ideas and correcting them, etc. So why do I hate to grade their papers so much? The phenomenon is not new with me. A professor of mine once told me that going insane while grading is merely part of the territory. It's apparently impossible to avoid. Why? WHY WHY WHY WHY?

I suppose grading is a lot of mental effort on stuff that you might not think is particularly edifying; I mean, if I'm going to spend a lot of time reading a paper, it's generally best if that paper's going to teach me something I didn't know already, give me an interesting take on something, etc. But, then again, having philosophical discussions is no small effort, and I like to talk to students all the time about material. Ugh. And it's not like it's merely repetitive activity all the time; there is a very large variety of ideas in the prompts I allow students to write on.

Well, what we know for sure is that grading is awful. It's the worst torture. Maybe I just don't know why.

True, False, Neither.....Both?

It's easy to understand that a sentence is either true or false. Somewhat more difficult to understand is when a sentence is neither true nor false. In fact, classical logic simply denies the possibility of such sentences. But there may be some reason for thinking that they exist--consider future contingent sentences like "I will dance the night away tomorrow night." Surely it will be true or false tomorrow night, but does that sentence have any truth value today? Or consider vague sentences like "He's bald" said of some moderately balding person. Perhaps in those cases, there is neither a true nor false answer.

But could there be sentences that are both true and false? In the abstract, that sounds ok, but the problem is, this opens the door to the existence of true contradictions. So, let's say P is true and false. Well, that means ~P is also true. So that means that P & ~P is true. Well, there ya' go. True contradiction.

Graham Priest spoke today and suggested we ought to believe in true contradictions. His evidence? Take the following sentence. "This sentence is false." Well, if it's false, it's true, and if it's true, it's false. Problem. Well, you could say it's neither true nor false. But then what do you say of this sentence: "This sentence is either false or (neither true nor false)". Well, if it's true, it's false. If it's false, it's true, and if it's neither true nor false, it's true. Problem reappears. So why not say it's both?

Interesting argument. But I'm not sure I buy it. I'd rather, I think, go with other solutions to the Liar Paradox, insofar as I know what those are.

Play Misty for Me and Bullitt

Just finished watching this duo of Netflix holdovers from last week. Here are my views, in a nutshell.

PMFM is a decent thriller, although it seems to me to borrow from Hitchcock probably more than is really necessary. I mean, to some extent, most thrillers in the "person-coming-at-me-with-a-butcher-knife" vein owe something to Hitchcock, but did Eastwood really have to have the same sort of choppy editing during the slashing scenes? Anyway, that's just one comment. In addition, it's difficult to watch this movie without comparing it to Fatal Attraction, though I think they're at heart different approaches. In Fatal Attraction, Lyne doesn't (I HOPE, otherwise he's more of a misogynist than I thought originally) expect us to feel any real sympathy for Michael Douglas; there isn't a character here that is free of moral taint. But Eastwood's approach is purer in one sense: there's no real ambiguity here, the fling between the two main characters was fully consensual and they both knew explicitly what they were getting into. So it really is just supposed to be a story about a guy who sleeps with a psycho. And although FA has its place, I sort of enjoy the purity of PMFM.

Bullitt sucked.

Somehow I knew...

this would come back to haunt me. Apparently the Yankees might be able to void JG's contract based on his steroid use. This will give them an additional 82 million bones to throw at free agents over the next howevermany years. This is bullshit.

So, Jason's on the juice...

Well, at least the first professional baseball player to admit to being on the juice is a Yankee. That is somehow gratifying. In any event, this raises at least one philosophical worry for me. What's wrong with steroid use in professional sports? I mean, you might think that there are a number of things wrong with professional sports in general, the insane money being made/spent on it, but putting those issues to the side, what's wrong with an athlete taking a drug to enhance his or her performance?

As far as I can tell, there might be a couple of options:
1. It's not natural, i.e., the athlete is not garnering achievements as a result of factors intrinsic to him/her.
2. It allows people unfair advantages.
3. Drug use is bad, steroids are drugs, ergo, steroids are bad.

Point #2 seems to be an obviously inconclusive argument against steroid use. In fact, although it might be the case that actual steroid use nowadays allows some unfair advantages, this might as easily be read as an argument for the complete legalization of steroids so that all have access to it. In addition, hard work and exercise give certain people advantages over others in playing professional sports, but no one is suggesting that that is unfair.

Point #3 might very well be true, but is not conclusive against steroid use in sports. Certainly, if we are judging the health affects of certain activities and determining whether or not they should be legal, merely PLAYING professional sports seems to be as bad/worse for your body than steroids. I mean, we all hear stories about former athletes in their 50s who can't stand up straight or walk. If professional sports aren't bad in themselves, it isn't clear that steroids are felled by argument #3.

That leaves us with #1. But I don't see how this works, either. Compare steroid use with, for example, intensive diet monitoring and painkilling medication used after practice. Certainly no one is clamoring for the elimination of cortisone injections. But are those any more natural than steroids? Surely not! I mean, why is the Curt Schilling procedure any more natural than "the cream"? And how is naturalness being judged here? Is it natural to monitor one's calorie intake to within a gram-per-day of protein, carbohydrates, etc.? I simply don't see it. And if, somehow, that is natural, it is unclear what the normative force of naturalness is supposed to be in the first place.

Anyone out there have any better arguments against steroids?

Bullshit

Is anyone else looking forward to Frankfurt's new book "On Bullshit"? It's listed on Amazon as published by Princeton University Press, but the PUP website doesn't seem to have any information about it. His original article is quite entertaining, and is available online.

One.

Well, I suppose I have a blog now. When I have things to say, perhaps I'll say them.