ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/30/86)
>My fundamental example is Hitler's Germany. If more people had >been trained to think logically, my theory is that Hitler's >irrational doctrines would not have had such an impact. [Tedrick] Of course, then Hitler would have been more logical, too. Whether that would have made him more dangerous is another question. It is my contention that Hitler's Germany lacked morality, not logic. Many very logical people consider "self-interest" theories of morality to be the most rational ones. Presumably, it is in one's self-interest to avoid causing harm to others for fear of possible retaliation. But what if it appears to be in the majority's self-interest to suppress the minority and all possibility of their retaliation? Given Hitler's basic assumptions, his actions followed logically enough. And Germany has had relatively high standards of education for a long time. Personally, I do not think that Hitler's doctrines were vastly more irrational than those I prefer. For example, I believe: 1: All people are equal 2: Only those points of view which advocate harming or suppressing other people should be suppressed Clearly, (1) is ridiculous in any scientific sense. (2) is blatantly self contradictory. Yet I believe them, although I cannot support them rationally. When I say that Hitler's Germany suffered from lack of morality, it is not my intent to support authoritarian morality dictated by government or religious institutions. On the contrary, it is clear that a population whose morality is dictated by father figures is prone to Hitleresque abuse. Traditional religious morality is equivalent to a self-interest morality with an authoritarian God figure to mete out reward and punishment. My theory is that the Germans of the 1930's, an intelligent and highly authoritarian people for whom religion was rapidly becoming a thing of the past, were highly susceptible to total moral corruption. Tragically, one of the dominant philosophies of the day, logical positivism, encouraged disregard of `metaphysical' subjects like morality and ethics. Ironically, the logical positivists included many whose flight from the Nazi terror was largely responsible for the breakup of logical positivism. I still find it peculiar to hear people speak of physics and math as "objective" while labeling morality and ethics as "subjective". I believe this is due to historical reasons -- the metaphysical carving up of human wisdom into spiritual and physical that occurred at about the time of Descartes. This post-Galilean truce between science and religion continued until Darwin unintentionally demolished what was commonly felt to be basis of religion. That done, there are now two attitudes towards what were traditionally held to be spiritual concerns: 1: Discard them as "non-objective" 2: Decide that they merit serious study, thereby making them "objective". By my account, morality can be studied objectively, freed from all religious trappings. One CAN "objectively" analyze moral theories and eliminate those which are contradictory, self defeating, not evolutionarily stable, or, most importantly, in violation of deeply held moral axioms, such as the golden rule. Derek Parfit, from "Reasons and Persons": Some people believe that there cannot be progress in ethics, since everything has already been said. Like Rawls and Nagel, I believe the opposite. How many people have made nonreligious ethics their life's work? .. Before the recent past, very few Atheists made Ethics their life's work. Buddha may be among the very few, as may be Confucius, and a few ancient Greeks and Romans. After more than 1000 years, there were a few more between the 16th and 20th centuries.. Hume.. Sidgwick.. [Most of the others] did not do ethics, they did meta-ethics. They did not ask which outcomes would be .. right and wrong. They asked.. only the meaning of moral language, and the question of objectivity. Nonreligious ethics has been systematically studied, by many people, only since about 1960. Compared with the other sciences, nonreligious ethics is the youngest and the least advanced.. Belief in God prevented the development of moral reasoning. -michael
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/02/86)
In article <237@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: A very nice article, Michael. Thanks! Gives me a chance to state my positions more clearly, in their extreme form :-) >>My fundamental example is Hitler's Germany. If more people had >>been trained to think logically, my theory is that Hitler's >>irrational doctrines would not have had such an impact. [Tedrick] > Of course, then Hitler would have been more logical, too. I can't accept that as self-evident. >Whether that would have made him more dangerous is another question. A question well worth discussing. >It is my contention that Hitler's Germany lacked morality, not logic. Good. I disagree. I think we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. >Many very logical people consider "self-interest" theories of morality >to be the most rational ones. At present, I do also. >Presumably, it is in one's self-interest to avoid causing harm to >others for fear of possible retaliation. I would agree with that, although there is more to be said about this particular point. >But what if it appears to be in the majority's self-interest to >suppress the minority and all possibility of their retaliation? I never said the majority shouldn't oppress the minority. I happen to believe it is not optimal in many cases, but rather a sign of lack of intelligence among the majority when such oppression occurs. Brute force suppresion is usually the method used by the stupid, not the logical. But sometimes destruction of a minority is unavoidable, if one is to live. I kill ants and spiders and snakes from time to time. I don't like to do it but I've tried total non-violence and it doesn't make sense to me. Life is violent at times. It is the creator's fault (whoever he/she is) as far as I am concerned, not mine. >Given Hitler's basic assumptions, his actions followed logically enough. NO! His actions were *NOT* logical! In addition, logic could have served to refute some of his basic assumptions. >And Germany has had relatively high standards of education for a long time. I went to school one year in Europe as a child. The standards of education were higher in some ways. In some ways American education is better. (Particularly in allowing students to continue as long as they want. At the time I was in school in Europe, there was a "weed-out" process at each level, where a certain number of students were shunted away from higher education.) What I particularly am arguing for is for a one year course in symbolic logic at the high school levels for all students who are capable of taking trig. So as to widen the base of the population which is familar with logic. I think there is too much elitism in education in the sense that the masses are "washed off" as hopeless. In Europe, I have been surprised to sense more class consciousness and elitism than I expected. In a democracy, it is important to educate the masses in logic if intelligent political judgements are to be made by the voters. >Personally, I do not think that Hitler's doctrines were vastly >more irrational than those I prefer. I have studied the man. He was not logical. He was clever, charismatic, had a very strong will, was very intelligent, had a good memory, etc. But he wasn't logical, rather he was more intuitive. His reasoning was full of flaws. >For example, I believe: >1: All people are equal In some ways they are, in some ways they aren't. >2: Only those points of view which advocate harming or suppressing > other people should be suppressed Not self-evident to me. > Clearly, (1) is ridiculous in any scientific sense. (2) is blatantly > self contradictory. Yet I believe them, although I cannot support them > rationally. > > When I say that Hitler's Germany suffered from lack of morality, it is > not my intent to support authoritarian morality dictated by government or > religious institutions. On the contrary, it is clear that a population > whose morality is dictated by father figures is prone to Hitleresque abuse. > > Traditional religious morality is equivalent to a self-interest morality > with an authoritarian God figure to mete out reward and punishment. Some truth in that, but I can't accept it as a premise for further argument. >My theory is that the Germans of the 1930's, an intelligent and highly > authoritarian people for whom religion was rapidly becoming a thing of > the past, were highly susceptible to total moral corruption. This is an interesting point of view, however I would argue that the Germans were not uniquely susceptible. It could have happened in other countries. However, the excellence of the German military made Hitler particularly dangerous. Also, "total moral corruption" is too simplistic and extreme as far as I am concerned. Many Germans were against Hitler, many Germans were communists, etc. Any population not trained to think for themselves (ie trained in logic) is susceptible. (Not that logic is sufficient training, but it helps.) > Tragically, one of the dominant philosophies of the day, logical > positivism, encouraged disregard of `metaphysical' subjects like > morality and ethics. Ironically, the logical positivists included many > whose flight from the Nazi terror was largely responsible for the breakup > of logical positivism. Well, going off on a tangent it is highly ironic that Godel, etal, were working in Germany before and during Hitler's rise to power, and that the advent of the Nazis broke up the group at Goettingen (sorry for the spelling if its wrong). "Logic for the masses" might have been an antidote for Nazism. Also note that Nazi power was largely based on manipulation of the masses through propaganda. Logic is a useful tool for analyzing fallacious arguments and cutting through propaganda. > I still find it peculiar to hear people speak of physics and math as > "objective" while labeling morality and ethics as "subjective". Its easy to explain. They are objective because the community of mathematicians, for example, seems to agree on many key points. The idea is to formalize things to such a degree that it can withstand critical analysis. In morality and ethics there seems to be endless debate and disagreement between the best people in the field. Not to say everyone agrees on everything in mathematics or that I have given a complete or non-controversial explanation, but there does seem to be a large area of common ground in mathematics where everyone in the field is more or less in agreement. >I believe this is due to historical reasons -- the metaphysical carving up > of human wisdom into spiritual and physical that occurred at about the > time of Descartes. This post-Galilean truce between science and religion > continued until Darwin unintentionally demolished what was commonly felt > to be basis of religion. That done, there are now two attitudes towards > what were traditionally held to be spiritual concerns: > > 1: Discard them as "non-objective" > 2: Decide that they merit serious study, thereby making them > "objective". > > By my account, morality can be studied objectively, freed from all > religious trappings. One CAN "objectively" analyze moral theories and > eliminate those which are contradictory, self defeating, not > evolutionarily stable, or, most importantly, in violation of > deeply held moral axioms, such as the golden rule. > Well, this is interesting, but tangential to my "Logic for the masses" program, so I will pass over it in silence. I do agree that you should pursue these problems. Good luck! > Derek Parfit, from "Reasons and Persons": > > Some people believe that there cannot be progress in ethics, since > everything has already been said. Like Rawls and Nagel, I believe > the opposite. How many people have made nonreligious ethics their > life's work? .. Before the recent past, very few Atheists made > Ethics their life's work. Buddha may be among the very few, as may > be Confucius, and a few ancient Greeks and Romans. After more than > 1000 years, there were a few more between the 16th and 20th > centuries.. Hume.. Sidgwick.. [Most of the others] did not do > ethics, they did meta-ethics. They did not ask which outcomes would > be .. right and wrong. They asked.. only the meaning of moral > language, and the question of objectivity. Nonreligious ethics has > been systematically studied, by many people, only since about 1960. > Compared with the other sciences, nonreligious ethics is the > youngest and the least advanced.. > > Belief in God prevented the development of moral reasoning. > >-michael Thanks Michael. Perhaps we are in agreement in some sense. It sounds like you are trying to study morality and ethics scientifically. That would be in *AGREEMENT* with my ideas.
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (05/03/86)
In article <237@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: >For example, I believe: ... >2: Only those points of view which advocate harming or suppressing > other people should be suppressed. > >(2) is blatantly self-contradictory. Yet I believe them, although I >cannot support them rationally. .... > >I still find it peculiar to hear people speak of physics and math as >"objective" while labeling morality and ethics as "subjective". I >believe this is due to historical reasons .... Well, when it is involves beliefs which you yourself admit are self- contradictory, how can you call it anything but subjective?? >One CAN "objectively" analyze moral theories and eliminate those which are >contradictory, self defeating, not evolutionarily stable, or, most impor- >tantly, in violation of deeply held moral axioms, such as the golden rule. This was originally about Naziism, so let me point out that another's "deeply held moral axiom" might be (indeed, was) "Jews are evil." If your whole moral system is based on an arbitary choice of moral axiom, how can you say that it is not subjective?? -- David desJardins
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/04/86)
Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism? Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism. I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German people to justify his social engineering. For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need to genetically purify an Aryan race. His anti-semitic campaigns did not stop with simple "we don't like them", he (let's take 'he' from here on to represent the general Nazi race campaigns) used biological arguments with diagrams of "Jews" showing how their physical characteristics clearly belied an inferior form of human being (not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and other such drivel.) Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in labor just to see what happened.) I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE GONE MAD. You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood, doing their secret weapons and other war research etc. Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused throughout and the problem was that people were fooled by simple logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass hysteria etc.) No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic. -Barry Shein, Boston University
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/04/86)
In article <534@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: Barry. For shame. You of all people? One of the most insightful posters I have read? I can't believe you wrote this. Anyway, you guys have made me so mad that I hereby am declaring a holy net.reference war. I am going to drown you in references to Hitler's irrationality until you say "UNCLE! I've had enough! Hitler was not logical!" >Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism? >Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual >level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying >how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism. > >I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >people to justify his social engineering. Hitler perverted science to his own ends. You can hardly call Nazism scientific. It was anti-scientific. It was mindless application of technology, perhaps, but not scientific. The very essence of science is freedom of thought, freedom of inquiry, freedom for communication and interaction within the scientific community, independent critical analysis by scientists. Hitler's program was complete subordination of the German people to the will of a single individual, the Fuhrer. Have you studied Nazism? >For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of >current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need >to genetically purify an Aryan race. Do you claim this program was scientific? >His anti-semitic campaigns >did not stop with simple "we don't like them", he (let's take 'he' >from here on to represent the general Nazi race campaigns) used >biological arguments with diagrams of "Jews" showing how their >physical characteristics clearly belied an inferior form of human >being (not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the >flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and >other such drivel.) Do you claim these demonstrations were scientific? Would you consider the possibility that they were propaganda designed to mislead the German public and others? >Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the Yes. *IN THE GUISE OF SCIENCE*. *NOT SCIENCE*. >concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in >labor just to see what happened.) You call that science? >I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE > GONE MAD. Perhaps application of technology and method gone mad. "Science" without freedom of thought is not science. >You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood, Logical in what sense? How can you be logical without questioning everything? Machine-like perhaps. Is that what you think logic is all about, functioning like a machine? >doing their secret weapons and other war research etc. As a matter of fact, the Nazis drove out many scientists, and many (even non-Jewish) left of their own accord. These logical people *DID* recognize Nazism for what it was, *BEFORE* it was too late. Perhaps I have an unusual perspective, since I know several of these individuals personally (some of whom are world recognized authorities in their fields, whom I will not name). One of these (my neighbor, who is like a father to me), at a testamonial dinner for his 75th birthday, included in the printed program which was distributed to the guests, the statement "the greatest achievement of my life was in recognizing Nazism for what it was, and leaving Germany" in the early 1930's. Hitler claimed that he could "do without this Jewish physics, for the first 100 years" of his "1000 year reich". The Nazi war effort suffered severely due to the loss of these scientists, while the allied war effort was immeasurably aided. Have you forgotten about the atomic bomb? >Now, I suppose one could argue that the point is that logic is abused >throughout I claim it was *NOT UNDERSTOOD*, especially by Hitler. Hitler was *ANTI-INTELLECTUAL*. He believed that *HIS WILL AND INTUITION* were supreme, that he was a *SUPERMAN* and *TRANSCENDED REASON*. >and the problem was that people were fooled by simple Yes, the people *WERE FOOLED*. The question is, *HOW CAN PEOPLE AVOID BEING FOOLED*. >logical prestidigitation, but somehow I feel if that is the argument >it is a poorly put argument, there is something more important going >on (like that people will believe what they want to believe, mass >hysteria etc.) How do you propose to counteract these dangerous tendencies, if not by developing people who can think for themselves, question their belief systems, and question the views of the mob? Is not a study of logic useful for these purposes? >No, I don't think it's logic that would save humanity, it's humanity >recognizing humanity, unless that also is logic. How can humanity recognize truth? Does logic have no part to play? > -Barry Shein, Boston University I feel very sad today. There are tears in my eyes right now Barry.
laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (05/05/86)
From observing a decade of my mother's grade 8 students, it is not clear to me that the majority of high school students could learn logic, even if were a required subject. What is worse, it is not clear to me that the bulk of high school teachers could *teach* it. But then, I remember *my* grade eight year as a nearly continual battle wioth a math teacher who was convinced that there was no such thing as negative infinity, *by definition* whereas I was certain that there had to be one ... -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/06/86)
(gee, I've posted to net.sci twice in my life and both times ended up needing serious skin-grafts!) To reconcile what Tom Tedrick and myself seem to have fallen out about: Yes, the Nazis subverted logic, science for their own evil purposes. Although they perhaps used a veneer of technologism (!?!?) to rationalize and implement their madness, ultimately it was sheer power and terror that carried them to their thrones. As usual, Hitler remains the bad example, useable for any purpose, for any side of an argument. I believe somewhere here we straddle the logic of science, what is good science and the authority of science. For example, I am fully convinced the authority of Science is leading us, like the pied-piper of legend, to almost certain doom with their nuclear madness. Is this logic? They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up. He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry, that is not a commercial plant..." (I was *so* gratified when the interviewer snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated reaction on tv.) Is this not logic in the service of madness? Whether or not the Hanford plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed? Unfortunately logic rests on facts from which to draw conclusions, there is no way even the most educated populace can begin to assimilate the necessary facts from which to draw logical conclusions (such as become expert in nuclear power plant design.) I think the resolution is, logic may be necessary, but it is by no means sufficient. -Barry Shein, Boston University
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/07/86)
In article <764@hoptoad.uucp> laura@hoptoad.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes: >From observing a decade of my mother's grade 8 students, it is not clear to >me that the majority of high school students could learn logic, even if >were a required subject. As stated, the plan was to make it required for those who were at a level where they could take trig. Even logic has some prerequisites. >What is worse, it is not clear to me that the >bulk of high school teachers could *teach* it. Ahhh. I was hoping someone would fall into that trap. I would also be very surprised if many could teach it. But at least by trying to teach it, they might learn something themselves. As we all (should) know, it is usually the teacher who learns the most from the course.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (05/08/86)
In article <559@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP writes: >They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview >with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which >apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up. >He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry, >that is not a commercial plant..." (I was *so* gratified when the interviewer >snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area >of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated >reaction on tv.) > >Is this not logic in the service of madness? Whether or not the Hanford >plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed? In a word, no. This is not logic. It is a superficially logical argument, but on closer examination, it is flawed. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 P.S. Where is Hanford? In particular, how close is it to any of the major population centers?
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (05/08/86)
>Yes, the Nazis subverted logic, science for their own evil purposes. >Although they perhaps used a veneer of technologism (!?!?) to rationalize >and implement their madness, ultimately it was sheer power and terror >that carried them to their thrones. It was also propaganda, lies, manipulation of the masses using deceit. Should we debate the truth of that statement? If we accept it as true, then I ask: how is one to guard against being manipulated by propaganda? I claim logic is vital, as it allows one to analyze arguments and root out fallacies. How are we to stop the masses from being manipulated by demagogues? I claim "logic for the masses" would at least make it more difficult for demagogues to control the masses. >As usual, Hitler remains the bad example, useable for any purpose, for >any side of an argument. NO! Not useable for any purpose. I claim lack of logic was the FUNDAMENTAL flaw in his personality. I claim deficient logic was the FUNDAMENTAL problem which allowed National Socialism to flourish. This conclusion is the result of 20 years of study and thought on my part. I hope you will not take it lightly. >I believe somewhere here we straddle the logic of science, what is >good science and the authority of science. For example, I am fully >convinced the authority of Science is leading us, like the pied-piper >of legend, to almost certain doom with their nuclear madness. Can we blame logic for this? Who forced us to create atomic weapons by his efforts to create his own? (Hint: his initials were A.H. Want references?) Is it not logic that compels us to question the road we are taking? Is it not lack of logic that prevents world leaders from cooperating to stop this insane competition that may lead to utter catastrophe? >Is this logic? I call it madness, not logic. >They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview >with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which >apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up. >He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry, >that is not a commercial plant..." YOU are the one using logic. I see no logic in the "scientist's" statement. >(I was *so* gratified when the interviewer >snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area >of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated >reaction on tv.) Not to mention straightforward and logical. >Is this not logic in the service of madness? It is *SOPHISTRY* in the service of madness. It is *LOGIC* which we use to *REFUTE* sophistry. >Whether or not the Hanford >plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed? No, it is *ILLOGICAL SOPHISTRY*. Logic was invented by Aristotle primarily to *REFUTE SOPHISTRY*. I think you have gotten the two (logic & sophistry) confused. >Unfortunately logic rests on facts from which to draw conclusions, What? That presents no problem at all. If you aren't convinced that the premises are true, you don't even have to analyze the argument to refuse to accept the conclusion. It is only when confronted with tricky reasoning that starts from premises which you accept that you have to worry about refuting the argument through analyzing its logic. >there is no way even the most educated populace can begin to assimilate >the necessary facts from which to draw logical conclusions (such as >become expert in nuclear power plant design.) So reject everything that you don't know is true. Or, if you are not a philosopher, at least be aware that you are operating under assumptions which may or may not be true. Don't be misled by the "experts" into blindly accepting as true that which is unproven. >I think the resolution is, logic may be necessary, but it is by no >means sufficient. Sure. No argument with that!
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/08/86)
> Tom Tedrick >> Barry Shein >Barry. For shame. You of all people? One of the most insightful >posters I have read? I can't believe you wrote this. > >Anyway, you guys have made me so mad that I hereby am declaring >a holy net.reference war. I am going to drown you in references >to Hitler's irrationality until you say "UNCLE! I've had enough! >Hitler was not logical!" Lacking any rigorous methodology powerful enough to model and describe our world, especially the human world of love/hate, belief/desire, etc.. I'd say that's a tautology: NOBODY's behavior is logical, whether they be Hitler or Gandhi. >>Re: Would logic have prevented the rise of Nazism? > >>Although I must admit I am not acting at a terribly high intellectual >>level, somehow I find this claim astounding and completely denying >>how, in many ways, I heretofore have considered Nazism. >> >>I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >>an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >>people to justify his social ENGINEERING. Political systems evolve like anything else; there is nothing to prevent evolution from following a path that is "evil" according to our subjective notions of "good". We can try to build safeguards into our system, as the framers of the American constitution attempted to do, although I see no reason to trust these safeguards considering how slavery and discrimination have plagued this nation's history. >Hitler perverted science to his own ends. You can hardly call >Nazism scientific. It was anti-scientific. It was mindless >application of technology, perhaps, but not scientific. The >very essence of science is freedom of thought, freedom of >inquiry, freedom for communication and interaction within >the scientific community, independent critical analysis by >scientists. Hitler's program was complete subordination of >the German people to the will of a single individual, the >Fuhrer. Have you studied Nazism? Scientific inquiry proceeds just as well restricted to the limited discourses of engineering and theoretical physics. There is absolutely nothing unscientific about dictatorships. There are no builtin safeguards implicit in science to prevent its subordination by the will of an individual. Scientific "objectivity" DEMANDS that it rise above all "subjective" considerations. Science impartially serves whoever or whatever is in charge. -michael
keen@inuxd.UUCP (D Keen) (05/09/86)
> From observing a decade of my mother's grade 8 students, it is not clear to > me that the majority of high school students could learn logic, even if > were a required subject. What is worse, it is not clear to me that the > bulk of high school teachers could *teach* it. But then, I remember > *my* grade eight year as a nearly continual battle wioth a math teacher > who was convinced that there was no such thing as negative infinity, > *by definition* whereas I was certain that there had to be one ... > -- > Laura Creighton > ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura > toad@lll-crg.arpa I am afraid that I will have to agree with Laura. Based on most of the psychological research on logical reasoning, there is little evidence to suggest that academic training transfers to real world or even semi real world situations. There is a large body of very depressing literature on this topic. Even something as simple as set inclusion problems show no improvement on the basis of academic training in logic. Granted this research is done with college students which opens entire other issues e.g. the thought processes of these individuals are already firmly established (the too late theory), but my cynical nature suggests that even if one believed that ethics, logic, morality could be taught we don't have the vaguest notion of how to do so in a reliable manner. Donald Keen AT&T Consumer Products P.S. I ceased doing and following this area of research over five years ago, but I doubt that any substantial changes have occurred in the data.
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/14/86)
It does make a lot of difference whether a reactor is an electric power plant or a military or research reactor. The Hanford plant, which is indeed of the latter variety, as well as several other American reactors which have some design similarity to the Chernobyl one, produces fissionable material. It runs at much lower capacity, involves far less heat, and has significantly less general production pressure associated with its operation. Hence there are a number of objective, empirically verifiable reasons to calculate the safety risks of such machines at much lower levels. It seems quite normal and logical to mention this in response to someone's concerns about safety. Also, a total of about two dozen families reside within the high risk radius (10-20 miles) of the Hanford plant, according to NYTimes report. Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/16/86)
In article <534@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >people to justify his social engineering. I would say that he used the *appearance* only, Hitler had no conception of the reality of science any more than he was a good art critic! > >For example, his racism was based largely on an extrapolation of >current eugenic theories. He referred to mongrel races and a need >to genetically purify an Aryan race. Rather it was *justified*(not based) on appeals to *popular* (mis)conceptions of the current eugenics theories. >(not unlike racists in this country trying to show that the >flat nose bridges of blacks shows they are closer to monkeys and >other such drivel.) Very like, and his drivel was no more scientific than that of US racists! Just becaues some idea is justified by an appeal to science does *not* make it science. > >Consider all those experiments under the guise of science in the >concentration camps (like tying together the legs of a woman in >labor just to see what happened.) This is hardly science. Doing something "just to see what happens" is *not* the scientific method. These people were using science as an excuse to play, with human beings as toys. > >I THOUGHT THE POINT WAS HITLER'S NAZI GERMANY WAS PRECISELY SCIENCE > GONE MAD. NO, it was society gone mad, with science being used as an excuse and a justification. Very little true science was done under Hitler, that is probably why we developed the A-bomb instead of them. > >You know, those cold, logical germans, killing off the impure blood, >doing their secret weapons and other war research etc. Hitler hardly appealed to cold logic, his was a *very* emotional approach. When giving speaches he practically frothed at the mouth. He gained support by calling on powerful emotions not logic. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (05/19/86)
>From: tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) > It does make a lot of difference whether a reactor is an electric >power plant or a military or research reactor. The Hanford plant, >which is indeed of the latter variety, as well as several other >American reactors which have some design similarity to the Chernobyl >one, produces fissionable material. It runs at much lower capacity, >involves far less heat, and has significantly less general production >pressure associated with its operation. Hence there are a number of >objective, empirically verifiable reasons to calculate the safety >risks of such machines at much lower levels... So, therefore, you feel comfortable with the fact that Hanford operates without a containment vessel even thought that was pointed out as being the chief problem with Chernobyl? How come lower capacity et al seem so important when it seems that our major nuclear accidents are being attributed to "human failure" (Chernobyl, TMI) by plant operators? Does the lower capacity compensate for human failures? I presume somewhat (less likely to be confronted with certain problems like bursting valves) but I think it ventures into some very sticky new probabilities. At any rate, certainly the lack of a contaiment vessel at Hanford (as at Chernobyl) makes us more liable to the results of a human error and therefore should be looked into carefully. I don't think the fact that it is a military reactor is clearly relevant here, although it's not clearly irrelevant either, probably a minor issue at best. See, a logical problem, how does one weigh the facts (not, perhaps, as a nuclear engineer, but as a citizen)? Obviously we disagree only on weighting. -Barry Shein, Boston University
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/21/86)
>So, therefore, you feel comfortable with the fact that Hanford operates >without a containment vessel even though that was pointed out as being >the chief problem with Chernobyl? No, the referenced posting did NOT refer to the author's greater or lesser feelings of comfort, and gave no indication that this was implied. The posting was a response to another which seemed to infer that Hanford is just like Chernobyl, and that any criticism of the Soviet reactors applies equally to such American ones as Hanford. As for feelings of comfort, obviously the distinctions become trivial unless one infers some policy implications. One reasonable way to state these, perhaps, would be to say that the Hanford situation, because its operating pressures are signficantly lower, AND because it is not situated in densely populated area (less than a dozen families within 10 mile radius from what I read), does present significantly lesser safety risks. Hence if one is making judgments about the comparative prudence of national policies, the American policies **on the basis of this one example only, and not knowing very much about the rest on either side!!** seem significantly more acceptable. Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (05/22/86)
In article <638@bu-cs.UUCP> bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) writes: > >How come lower capacity et al seem so important when it seems that our >major nuclear accidents are being attributed to "human failure" >(Chernobyl, TMI) by plant operators? Does the lower capacity >compensate for human failures? I presume somewhat (less likely to be >confronted with certain problems like bursting valves) but I think it >ventures into some very sticky new probabilities. You have missed a couple of factors. First the minor factor, a smaller reactor has laess radioactive material, so the situation cannot get quite as bad. Second, a smaller core is *intrinsically* *cooler*, and is thus less likely to meltdown other factors being equal. In fact some of the smallest reactors are almost immune to meltdown, you would have to *try* to get them to melt! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ??
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/23/86)
>>I thought a common thesis was that Hitler utilized modern science (or >>an appearance of the same) to a technologically entranced German >>people to justify his social engineering. A "common" thesis only in a very narrow, and mainly misleading context. Most people in Europe, and certainly in Germany, understood very well that the Nazis were ultra-nationalists, and this was anything but "scientific." Note especially that much of the scientific community had to flee, and that wasn't only Jews. Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264 uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
jim@ism780c.UUCP (05/24/86)
In article <238@psc70.UUCP> tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) writes: >>So, therefore, you feel comfortable with the fact that Hanford operates >>without a containment vessel even though that was pointed out as being >>the chief problem with Chernobyl? > > No, the referenced posting did NOT refer to the author's greater or >lesser feelings of comfort, and gave no indication that this was >implied. The posting was a response to another which seemed to >infer that Hanford is just like Chernobyl, and that any criticism of >the Soviet reactors applies equally to such American ones as Hanford. You seem to be interested in some indications of implication but not others. The issue isn't "applies equally", but rather "is relevant". The engineer quoted was saying that commerical reactors are different. And the reaction from the interviewer was that that isn't relevant to the folks near Hanford. And he is right. Pointing out that Chernobyl isn't relevant to commercial reactors evades the question of whether it *is* relevant to Hanford. It also evades the basic point that *accidents happen*. The NRC's own figures predict something on the order of a 40% chance that *some* reactor *somewhere* will melt down by the year 2000. The hydrogen bubble at TMI nearly burst; we were *lucky* that time. > As for feelings of comfort, obviously the distinctions become >trivial unless one infers some policy implications. One reasonable way >to state these, perhaps, would be to say that the Hanford situation, >because its operating pressures are signficantly lower, AND because >it is not situated in densely populated area (less than a dozen >families within 10 mile radius from what I read), does present >significantly lesser safety risks. Has there been a recent accident that killed off the other dozen families you mentioned in your last posting? Perhaps you should reread your NY Times article, and see what it *really* says, and determine whether it is reliable. From your critical postings in net.politics, I am rather surprised that you would take such an article at face value. Does the article mention that the Hanford plant uses the Columbia River for cooling, and the implications on the water supply to nearby communities? Does it mention the size of the crew at the plant? That the high school football team is called the bombers and that they have mushroom clouds on their helmets and that when workers get exposed at the plant their friends buy them "red hot lover" T-shirts? Does it mention that the Polish children taking iodine tablets are a bit more than 10 miles from Chernobyl? Did it say just what the safety risk *is*? >Hence if one is making judgments >about the comparative prudence of national policies, the American >policies **on the basis of this one example only, and not knowing very >much about the rest on either side!!** seem significantly more >acceptable. The issue is not comparative prudence of national policies. Any idiot knows that the Soviet nuclear policy is much less prudent than our own. But the real question is, how should we react? Should we pour large amounts of energy into assuring everyone that everything is ok and it can't happen here, or should we take this opportunity to remind ourselves of the possible consequences of error, and take a serious look at our own safety risks? Perhaps we should look at how well the policy recommendations that came from the study of the TMI accident have been implemented. I think you would find the conclusion pretty dismal. The problem isn't so much that nuclear power reactors are dangerous as it is that they are dangerous if you aren't aggressive about guaranteeing their safety. P.S. What is this doing in net.philosophy and net.religion? -- -- Jim Balter ({sdcrdcf!ism780c,ima}!jim)