I really hope you'll take the time to read this post by Glen Greenwald. It captures my sentiments precisely, in language I could only hope to summon.
Joe
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
11 years ago
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Education vs. Experience
Education is what you get when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get when you don't!
Anonymous
Joe H.
Experience is what you get when you don't!
Anonymous
Joe H.
Health Care Reform and Euthanasia? UPDATE!
Opponents of health care reform have begun making the truly bizarre argument that health care reform is going to lead the government to coerce - or at least manipulate - vulnerable senior citizens into choosing less costly medical options at the end of their lives. They say that this is a form of "euthanasia."
The current House resolution for health care reform, H.R. 3200, contains a clause entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation” (Section 1233). The section mandates insurance coverage for senior citizens to meet with health professionals once every five years to discuss living wills and limits on end of life medical interventions.
The Bill does not require senior citizens to meet with a health professional every five years to update their living wills. It instead insures that elderly people can afford to do so if they wish! As everyone surely knows, the existence of an up to date "living will" can prevent a great deal of suffering, in addition to preserving valuable medical resources.
Forcing insurers to pay for such voluntary sessions is a fantastic idea - everyone, including the insurance company - benefits. Helping people clarify their wishes before they face a terminal illness will, in most cases, result in patients choosing less expensive palliative care over expensive medical interventions. But why would anyone oppose providing an incentive for people to clarify their wishes prior to becoming gravely ill?
This "liberals want to kill you to save money" crap is pretty hysterical. But I guess some people will believe anything.
Joe H.
UPDATE:
It is far worse than I thought. I stumbbled across this segment of the Rachel Maddow show which provides perfect (and numerous) examples of how far one political party will go to achieve its ends - tell old people that the government is going to kill you? Wow!
But then again, its not a lie if you really believe it! And I think most of the people on the segment do believe. Elected members of Congress no less.
Maddow's quoting Bill Maher was as accurate a description of the current political state of affairs as one could imagine. Maher said:
"[W]e don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."
The current House resolution for health care reform, H.R. 3200, contains a clause entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation” (Section 1233). The section mandates insurance coverage for senior citizens to meet with health professionals once every five years to discuss living wills and limits on end of life medical interventions.
The Bill does not require senior citizens to meet with a health professional every five years to update their living wills. It instead insures that elderly people can afford to do so if they wish! As everyone surely knows, the existence of an up to date "living will" can prevent a great deal of suffering, in addition to preserving valuable medical resources.
Forcing insurers to pay for such voluntary sessions is a fantastic idea - everyone, including the insurance company - benefits. Helping people clarify their wishes before they face a terminal illness will, in most cases, result in patients choosing less expensive palliative care over expensive medical interventions. But why would anyone oppose providing an incentive for people to clarify their wishes prior to becoming gravely ill?
This "liberals want to kill you to save money" crap is pretty hysterical. But I guess some people will believe anything.
Joe H.
UPDATE:
It is far worse than I thought. I stumbbled across this segment of the Rachel Maddow show which provides perfect (and numerous) examples of how far one political party will go to achieve its ends - tell old people that the government is going to kill you? Wow!
But then again, its not a lie if you really believe it! And I think most of the people on the segment do believe. Elected members of Congress no less.
Maddow's quoting Bill Maher was as accurate a description of the current political state of affairs as one could imagine. Maher said:
"[W]e don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."
Sarah Palin - Poet Extraordinaire
I got a pretty big kick out of this. William Shatner offers an interpretation of Sarah Palin's "so long" speech last Sunday afternoon. What makes it so funny - and revealing - is that Shatner is quoting Palin word for word.
Enjoy!
P.S. I know its been awhile since I've posted anything. I've been pretty sick over the last ten days. I hope to get back to a more regular schedule soon.
Enjoy!
P.S. I know its been awhile since I've posted anything. I've been pretty sick over the last ten days. I hope to get back to a more regular schedule soon.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Republicans and Justice Sotomayor
There is a sweet irony here. The famed Republican "Southern Strategy" shoots itself in the head.
Good riddance!
Joe H.
Good riddance!
Joe H.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The "C" Street Family
This was truly fascinating, and deeply troubling. Until recently, I had never heard of this organization.
Another reminder of how dangerous militant certainty can be.
Joe
Another reminder of how dangerous militant certainty can be.
Joe
The Experts
Sorry about my absence. I was wracked up with the flu for a few days.
About 20 years ago, Jonathan Rauch wrote a book called "Kindly Inquisitors," which I highly recommend. In that book, Rauch noted that we routinely threaten people with punitive sanctions to force them to take measures that we believe are appropriate. For example, we have tried, convicted and sentenced people for allowing their children to die from infections that ordinary antibiotics would have cured. Rauch then asked, what justifies our doing this? What can we say to someone who sincerely believes that prayer alone is the most promising treatment for their children? How can we justify forcing them to act as we think they should act regarding their children's health? Is our force a legitimate use of state power, or are these parents simply political prisoners?
Among other things - such as a plausible political theory - the answer to this question will hinge on what we can credibly claim to "know."
In my last post, I suggested that while I personally possessed knowledge in only a few limited areas, I am nonetheless justified in forming opinions in other areas, provided that the factual basis for my opinions are the consensus of the experts. I also criticized the practice of those lacking the relevant expertise of dismissing expert opinion, when what the experts say conflicts with the dismissers' ideologically based beliefs. I stand by these views, and offer a short summary of Rauch's explanation.
In a nutshell, modern inquiry is conducted under the following set of rules:
1. No one has the authority to declare what is true or false;
2. No one has the authority to dismiss or otherwise declare a criticism of the prevailing wisdom inappropriate or off limits;
3. Anyone can criticize any opinion or belief - no belief is immune from criticism;
4. There is never a final say - all beliefs, no matter how well settled, can be challenged.
5. For the purpose of public action - i.e., for the purpose of determining which ideas we will publicly finance in our research, place into our laws, or state in our text books - only those propositions that gain a wide consensus among those qualified to state opinions on the particular issue in question, pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the first four rules, will count as knowledge.
The basic idea is that a proposition constituting a wide scientific consensus, pursuant to a process by which that proposition has been subject to unfettered and unlimited scrutiny, has a greater claim on our epistemological allegiance than a proposition that has not been subjected to such scrutiny, or which has failed to garner widespread consensus.
Three things. First, "scientific" is defined very loosely in this argument. It covers all disciplines which apply rationally rigorous methods. Historians have established methods - I don't know what they are - I told you I was ignorant - for determining which historical explanations are plausible and which are not. Provided that historical inquiry is conducted pursuant to the same set of rules, historical interpretations that achieve widespread consensus among historians have a greater claim to our allegiance - we are justified in putting them in the text books.
Second, a widespread consensus of experts does not guarantee accuracy - hence rule no. 4.
Third, knowledge has traditionally been defined as "justified true belief." This meant that to know something, one had to have reasons sufficient to justify one's belief. Under our modern system of knowing, the justification has migrated from individual judgment to the collective judgment of those who have spent the time and energy necessary to master a particular area. This theory of knowledge combines expertise, unlimited criticism, and consensus. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can do in a world in which there is way too much knowledge for any one person to master.
So, it turns out that we have something to say to the parents who want to deny their children antibiotics. We can say to them, we have tested the hypothesis that "prayer only" works better than "prayer plus antibiotics," and the overwhelming consensus of the experts is that the latter is far more effective than the former. Given this overwhelming consensus, we cannot allow you place your childrens' lives at risk from an illness we have good reasons to believe is curable.
Why am I entitled to believe that human activity is warming the earth? Because that is the overwhelming consensus of the experts, achieved pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the four rules. I am justified because I'm putting my trust in a very reliable (albeit imperfect) method.
But without the experts, I am as ignorant as a rock.
Those who dismiss such experts as "loons" are putting their trust in . . . ?
Joe H.
About 20 years ago, Jonathan Rauch wrote a book called "Kindly Inquisitors," which I highly recommend. In that book, Rauch noted that we routinely threaten people with punitive sanctions to force them to take measures that we believe are appropriate. For example, we have tried, convicted and sentenced people for allowing their children to die from infections that ordinary antibiotics would have cured. Rauch then asked, what justifies our doing this? What can we say to someone who sincerely believes that prayer alone is the most promising treatment for their children? How can we justify forcing them to act as we think they should act regarding their children's health? Is our force a legitimate use of state power, or are these parents simply political prisoners?
Among other things - such as a plausible political theory - the answer to this question will hinge on what we can credibly claim to "know."
In my last post, I suggested that while I personally possessed knowledge in only a few limited areas, I am nonetheless justified in forming opinions in other areas, provided that the factual basis for my opinions are the consensus of the experts. I also criticized the practice of those lacking the relevant expertise of dismissing expert opinion, when what the experts say conflicts with the dismissers' ideologically based beliefs. I stand by these views, and offer a short summary of Rauch's explanation.
In a nutshell, modern inquiry is conducted under the following set of rules:
1. No one has the authority to declare what is true or false;
2. No one has the authority to dismiss or otherwise declare a criticism of the prevailing wisdom inappropriate or off limits;
3. Anyone can criticize any opinion or belief - no belief is immune from criticism;
4. There is never a final say - all beliefs, no matter how well settled, can be challenged.
5. For the purpose of public action - i.e., for the purpose of determining which ideas we will publicly finance in our research, place into our laws, or state in our text books - only those propositions that gain a wide consensus among those qualified to state opinions on the particular issue in question, pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the first four rules, will count as knowledge.
The basic idea is that a proposition constituting a wide scientific consensus, pursuant to a process by which that proposition has been subject to unfettered and unlimited scrutiny, has a greater claim on our epistemological allegiance than a proposition that has not been subjected to such scrutiny, or which has failed to garner widespread consensus.
Three things. First, "scientific" is defined very loosely in this argument. It covers all disciplines which apply rationally rigorous methods. Historians have established methods - I don't know what they are - I told you I was ignorant - for determining which historical explanations are plausible and which are not. Provided that historical inquiry is conducted pursuant to the same set of rules, historical interpretations that achieve widespread consensus among historians have a greater claim to our allegiance - we are justified in putting them in the text books.
Second, a widespread consensus of experts does not guarantee accuracy - hence rule no. 4.
Third, knowledge has traditionally been defined as "justified true belief." This meant that to know something, one had to have reasons sufficient to justify one's belief. Under our modern system of knowing, the justification has migrated from individual judgment to the collective judgment of those who have spent the time and energy necessary to master a particular area. This theory of knowledge combines expertise, unlimited criticism, and consensus. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can do in a world in which there is way too much knowledge for any one person to master.
So, it turns out that we have something to say to the parents who want to deny their children antibiotics. We can say to them, we have tested the hypothesis that "prayer only" works better than "prayer plus antibiotics," and the overwhelming consensus of the experts is that the latter is far more effective than the former. Given this overwhelming consensus, we cannot allow you place your childrens' lives at risk from an illness we have good reasons to believe is curable.
Why am I entitled to believe that human activity is warming the earth? Because that is the overwhelming consensus of the experts, achieved pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the four rules. I am justified because I'm putting my trust in a very reliable (albeit imperfect) method.
But without the experts, I am as ignorant as a rock.
Those who dismiss such experts as "loons" are putting their trust in . . . ?
Joe H.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
