Flying The Friendly Skies

From New Scientist Tech:

A prototype European system uses multiple cameras and "Big Brother" software to try and automatically detect terrorists or other dangers caused by passengers.

The European Union's Security of Aircraft in the Future European Environment (SAFEE) project uses a camera in every passenger's seat, with six wide-angle cameras to survey the aisles. Software then analyzes the footage to detect developing terrorist activity or "air-rage" incidents, by tracking passengers' facial expressions.

Other behaviors could include a person nervously touching their face, or sweating excessively. One such behavior won't trigger the system to alert the crew, only certain combinations of them.

Unfortunately, they cannot reveal specifically which behaviors were most likely to trigger the system. Much of the computer's ability to detect threats relies on sensitive information gleaned from security analysts in the intelligence community.

Read the full article here

The article talks about a study in which simulated attacks were thwarted using the CCTV. It would be interesting to see what facial expressions are considered "terrorist" facial expressions. Would this system work in America? As Americans, would we allow this level of personal intrusion for the sake of safety?

Electro-Sensitives

A group of self-described "electro-sensitives" in New Mexico say they are being discriminated against because public buildings such as libraries have Wi-Fi in them, and they claim that Wi-Fi makes them sick.

Arthur Firstenberg says he is highly sensitive to certain types of electric fields, including wireless Internet and cell phones. "I get chest pain and it doesn't go away right away," he said.

Firstenberg and dozens of other electro-sensitive people in Santa Fe claim that putting up Wi-Fi in public places is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The city attorney is now checking to see if putting up Wi-Fi could be considered discrimination.

link to story here

What do you think? Are libraries and coffee shops discriminating against "electro-sensitives" by providing Wi-Fi access? Should we provide "dead-zones" to accommodate?

Another One Bites the Dust...

From Sabrina Jamil, via the Florida Student Philosophy Blog

President Bernie Machen has proposed that the University of Florida's Ph.D program in Philosophy, along with two other Arts/Letters Ph.D. programs, be eliminated in the face of the State of Florida's budget reductions. In truth, we agree with Dr. Ariew of USF when he states "I don't have all the figures, but Florida's canceling its Ph.D. in Philosophy will not result in great savings; it is a short-sighted and stupid move. Certainly it will result in a black mark for the "flagship" University in Florida." This decision is not only bad for the University of Florida, but sets a dangerous precedent that treats Philosophy programs as expendable or optional, rather than as a crucial component of any institution claiming to teach Liberal Arts. Sign this petition to show President Machen that this decision is not being taken lightly by the academic community of philosophers. We the undersigned request that President Machen keep the structure of the Philosophy Ph.D. program at the University of Florida intact.

signature goal: 5,000

You can sign the petition here

The wisdom of Johnny Rotten, part 1

On the big Rock acts of the 60's:

They came out of the ever-so-generous-and-love-everyone sixties and soon turned into the f***ing greedy, shifty little businessmen doing their utmost to stifle the opposition. The lot of them deserved the name dinosaur - too big, too pompous, elaborate, enormous, enormous amounts of equipment, only playing very large auditoriums or open air festivals. Music became as remote from the general public as you could possibly get. They became like little royal families unto themselves. They carted themselves around the country, waving to us occasionally. They bought immense houses, joined the stockbrokers belt and sent their kids to -private schools! See? The system! They became it. [John Lydon, No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs, p. 196.]

Perhaps the younger readers in the audience (is audience the right word for blog readers?) cannot envision the generation of which he speaks. We do not seem to have the rock royalty that we used to. Still, is the criticism fair? Did they become the system?

Playing the Building

David Byrne is perhaps best known as the frontman and songwriter of the new wave band Talking Heads. His newest project turns buildings into instruments.

According to Byrne, Playing the Building is a sound installation in which the infrastructure, the physical plant of the building, is converted into a giant musical instrument. Devices are attached to the building structure — to the metal beams and pillars, the heating pipes, the water pipes — and are used to make these things produce sound. The activations are of three types: wind, vibration, striking. The devices do not produce sound themselves, but they cause the building elements to vibrate, resonate and oscillate so that the building itself becomes a very large musical instrument.

"I'd like to say that in a small way it turns consumers into creative producers," Byrne explains on his official site, "but that might be a bit too much to claim. However, even if one doesn't play the thing, it points toward a less mediated kind of cultural experience. It might be an experience in which one begins to reexamine one's surroundings and to realize that culture -- of which sound and music are parts -- doesn't always have to be produced by professionals and packaged in a consumable form.

"I'm not suggesting people abandon musical instruments and start playing their cars and apartments," he adds, "but I do think the reign of music as a commodity made only by professionals might be winding down. The imminent demise of the large record companies as gatekeepers of the world's popular music is a good thing, for the most part."

In an interview with Anne Pasternak, curator of Playing the Building, Byrne explained his love of pop culture.

"That's partly due to my upbringing. I was taught that elitism is bad, and though I'm not sure I believe anymore that all bits of specialized knowledge or appreciation are bad, I realize this pushes me to democratize what I do. So I often make things out of low, or at least not luxe or precious, materials (like pop music, PowerPoint, an old organ, and empty buildings) that are accessible and approachable to all sorts of people."

Plato would have put David Byrne up for adoption.

Morgan Sparks [1917 -2008]

Yesterday, Morgan Sparks, best known as the Bell Labs researcher who invented the first practical transistor passed away. Without transistors, the digital revolution would be nothing but science fiction. Personal computers, ipods, and cell phones all rely upon transistors. You can read more about his life at PBS




.

Everything is Miscellaneous

Recently, I reviewed David Weinberger's new book for metapsychology online reviews. David Weinberger, a fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for the Internet & Society, has made a significant contribution to the emerging scholarship on the classification of knowledge. His principal thesis is that we must eradicate the idea that there's a best way to organize information. As a corollary, Weinberger believes we must rethink the relationship between organization and knowledge. His work is an intersection of history, philosophy, and digital information. You can check out his blog here.

Nelson Mandela: Terrorist (according to U.S.)

Previously on the blog, it was noted that the U.S. terrorist watch list will near 1 million by the end of the summer.

Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela was flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. According to USA Today, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed.

However, if "common sense" is the logic employed in removing Mandela shouldn't it also be employed in the decision to make 1 million people into terrorists? The hilarity of this situation is all too apparent: a man who spent his life bringing down Apartheid legislation that classified inhabitants and visitors into racial groups is denied access to a country that classifies inhabitants and visitors into terrorists and non-terrorists.

Key Terms In Logic

The University of Kent Centre for Reasoning and Continuum Books are planning to publish short articles on key terms, authors and texts in logic, both in The Reasoner and in a volume "Key Terms in Logic". The volume will be priced at £50 hardback and £12.99 paperback.

Entries should be pitched at beginning undergraduate students in philosophy.

Authors will retain copyright of their text, but will need to fill in a form to give The Reasoner and Continuum Publishers permission to reprint their work

If you would like to contribute, please choose unassigned entries from the links provided in the most recent issue of The Reasoner (Volume 2, Number 4 - April 2008), and contact TheReasoner@kent.ac.uk with a brief CV.

The Military and Atheism

According to CNN, Army Specialist Jeremy Hall is suing the U.S. for religious discrimination, naming Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the lawsuit. CNN states that "The issue came to a head when, according to Hall, a superior officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, threatened to bring charges against him for trying to hold a meeting of atheists in Iraq. Welborn has denied Hall's allegations."

Hall's case is currently being aided by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. According to the foundation:

All branches of the United States military are afforded the same rights to religious freedom as are American civilians. However, members of the Armed Forces willingly surrender on a temporary basis certain free exercise rights when it impinges on military discipline and the successful completion of a military objective. This guarantee of religious freedom is codified for the Armed Forces in Title 10, United States Code (USC), sections 3073, 3547, 5142, and 8067. Free exercise of religious freedom for military personnel is further detailed in Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 1300.17, “Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services,” which describes the commander’s responsibility to provide for religious accommodation.


I think the gray area in this case is a soldiers "willingly surrender on a temporary basis certain free exercise rights when it impinges on military discipline and the successful completion of a military objective." In other words: military first, religion second.

Vengeance Is Ours

In the current New Yorker, anthropologist Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs, and Steel and Collapse, examines the vengeance practices of tribal societies in New Guinea. According to one of the tribesman, "The original cause of the wars between the Handa and Ombal clans (which have spanned 4 decades) was a pig that ruined a garden." I couldn't help but place this battle in the context of Just War Theory and wonder whether this would qualify as a "Just Cause."

It is easy to dismiss these causes and ongoing wars as a by-product of a primitive society in which war, murder, and demonization of one's enemies are the norm. Yet, while we may comfort ourselves in believing our modern nation states are more civilized, Diamond reminds us that these tendencies are still alive and well today. He writes:

In times of war, even modern state societies quickly turn the enemy into a dehumanized figure of hatred, only to enjoin us to stop hating again as soon as a peace treaty is signed. Such contradictions confuse us deeply. Neither pacific ideals nor wartime hatreds, once acquired, are easily jettisoned. It’s no wonder that many soldiers who kill suffer post-traumatic stress disorder. When they come home, far from boasting about killing, as a Nipa tribesman would, they have nightmares and never talk about it at all, unless to other veterans.

What I found most fascinating about the article was that the tribes seem to follow an ethical code during warfare - something akin to a discrimination principle.

On one occasion, I asked Daniel whether there are any rules that limit how one may kill enemies. He said, “In a night raid in which we sneak into an enemy village and surround the hut of a targeted enemy individual, we can tear down the hut to force the enemy to come out so that we can kill him. But it’s not acceptable to set fire to the hut and burn him to death.” I then asked, “Is it acceptable for six of you surrounding a hut to attack and kill a single outnumbered enemy?” Daniel answered, “Yes, that’s considered fair, because it’s already extremely dangerous for us to penetrate enemy territory, where we are greatly outnumbered.

The two examples set up a contradictory notion of respect. On the one hand, killing your enemy without facing him is cowardly and shows little respect for the enemy. On the other hand, death-squad style killing, of a seemingly non-personal nature, is considered permissible due to the inherent danger a group assumes in penetrating enemy lines!? A strange ethical code indeed. Unless, of course, the mode of execution is viewed through the lens of revenge. Warfare in the eyes of Handa and Ombal is an ongoing battle of revenge, not just between tribes but internally with themselves. Modes of killing become secondary to the proper identification of the killer by the victim. The need to relieve feelings of vengeance is the primary motivation for violence. Without a doubt, this perpetuates a never-ending cycle of violence - feelings of vengeance are simply pushed onto someone else.

In our modern nation state, we deed over our individual right to exact personal vengeance to the state. This, in turn, theoretically reduces the amount of violence between individuals. But how do we relieve our feelings of vengeance when we are wronged? When a loved one is killed? When you are a victim of a crime? It is not until the moment of victimization that we realize that our right to revenge has been handed over to the state. At this point, we immediately want it back. For the greater good, however, we can't have it back. Nevetheless, our feelings remain. As Diamond points out:

My conversations with Daniel made me understand what we have given up by leaving justice to the state. In order to induce us to do so, state societies and their associated religions and moral codes teach us that seeking revenge is bad. But, while acting on vengeful feelings clearly needs to be discouraged, acknowledging them should be not merely permitted but encouraged. To a close relative or friend of someone who has been killed or seriously wronged, and to the victims of harm themselves, those feelings are natural and powerful

The only question left is: What do we do with them?

Harvard to Establish Open-Access Repository

In a historic first, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) yesterday unanimously approved a motion that would compel faculty to deposit their research in an open access (OA) repository managed by the library to be made freely available to anyone via the Internet. Harvard University librarian Robert Darnton, in a pre-vote op-ed in the Harvard Crimson, declared that the motion "represents an opportunity to reshape the landscape of learning."

Under the proposal, individual members of the FAS would be directed to retain their copyrights, as opposed to assigning them exclusively to publishers as part of their publishing contracts, so their research could be made available. Faculty could still publish their articles in any journal that would not abridge Harvard's institutional repository rights. Darnton predicted the policy "would make scholarship by FAS freely accessible everywhere in the world, and it would reinforce a new effort by Harvard to share its intellectual wealth." Further, the plan could have major, transformative implications for the library, which would have the remarkable task of collecting and disseminating Harvard's faculty output in addition to its current roles.

The information divide is slowly eroding...now, if we could just do something about the digital divide!

Read the full press release here.

Thanks Philosophy Club

A quick thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion on Fotion's "A New Just War Theory" (on the blog and at philosophy club). The book review has been accepted for publication by Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought and will be featured in a commemorative book.

For Sale: 34-Year-Old Kidney (slightly used)

Should you be allowed to sell your own organs for transplant? Philosophy Now reports that Philosophy Prof. Mark J. Cherry of St Edward’s University, Austin, Texas has called for the trade to be legalized. He believes this would destroy an existing black market and improve the conditions surrounding transactions. He made the proposal in Prohibitions, a book published by the Institute of Economic Affairs

In a radio debate he was opposed by an organ-recipient who felt that all donations should be altruistic. His proposal was welcomed cautiously by Prof. Nadi Hakim, the surgeon who performed the world’s first hand transplant. Having seen the changes possible in patients who receive transplanted organs, he said that such items were beyond price, but that any method to stimulate the supply of donors should be examined.

Evangelical Atheism

Culture critic Mark Dery has written an excellent rant about "'evangelical' atheists" like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Although delighted by their strategy, Dery is disappointed in their seeming ignorance about American evangelical christianity on more than a surface level. For Dery, the key to understanding why christianity still "works" in the U.S. is by examining it, in proper context, as another subculture.

As a subculture, American evangelical christians will continue to dismiss any argument (logically consistent or otherwise) from a non-evangelical christian as misguided. Much like the punk dismissing the person in the suit and tie as part of the system, the evangelical christian will only see the non-christian as part of a dangerous secular tyranny. Dawkins and Hitchens think if they can expose the illogical beliefs of Christianity it will - by the power of Castle Grayskull reason - be eliminated. Reason, therefore, is a necessary but not a sufficient criteria for understanding the rise of evangelical christians in America.


From Dery's essay, titled "Devil's Advocacy":


Yes, the Enlightenment tradition of reasoned debate and the scientific method's appeal to fact trump evangelical Christianity's "faith-based" obedience to scriptural "truth," its cowering fear of the Deeply Disapproving Daddy in the Sky. Those points being eagerly granted, how much more interesting to excavate the historical, class-based, and economic roots of American evangelical Christianity, to understand it in all its oxymoronic complexity as a conservative counterculture. There is a reductionistic, black-and-white binarism to Dawkins and Hitchens arguments that, irony of ironies, replicates the very same Manichean dualism beloved of American fundamentalism.

(And no, I'm not echoing the sophistic argument, made with her usual blunt-trauma subtlety by Ann Coulter and with somewhat more nuance, on the left, by Chris Hedges. I'm not arguing that a dogmatic atheism is a fundamentalism by any other name; rather, I'm arguing that using the sledgehammer of reason to smash to smithereens religion's preposterous epistemology and its hypocritical morality leaves half the job undone. Conservative Christianity has little to do with theology and everything to do with the culture wars; making sense of it requires not just a rationalist-materialist critique but an ethnographic/anthropological angle of attack

“Einstein’s Jewish Science”

Tue, Apr 15, 2008 7 pm
Business Conference Center
Lake Charles, LA

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was referred to as “Jewish science” by sympathizers of Adolf Hitler. Sure, the Nazis were evil, but, in this case, could it be that they were right? It depends, of course, on what you mean by the phrase “Jewish science.” When the question is viewed through the lenses of Einstein’s views concerning science, religion, and politics, the answer may be surprising. Discussion is encouraged.

Dr. Gimbel holds a doctorate in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University and is a professor of philosophy at Gettysburg College. He is the author of Defending Einstein, Rene Descartes: The Search for Certainty, and edits “The Grateful Dead and Philosophy.” He has also written articles on issues of sportsmanship in the Kasparov/Deep Blue chess match, the geometry of M.C. Escher’s artwork, and comparing the environmental ethics of the German and American Nazi Parties. His special approach to teaching ethics in a fashion designed to encourage open-minded, but rigorous discussion is featured in the “Journal of Thought.”

Free admission

Rep. Monique Davis to atheist Rob Sherman: `It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!'

As a native from the Land of Lincoln, I can't do anything but wonder about the quality of our political representatives. The Chicago Tribune recently reported on the face off between Ill. Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) and Rob Sherman - green party candidate.

In response to Sherman's objection to the state of Illinois giving $1 million to the Pilgrim Baptist Church, Davis attacked him for not believing in God and for having the temerity to say that the Church and State should be separate. She told him that she believed it was dangerous for children to know that atheism exists. She ordered him to stop testifying and insisted that in the Land of Lincoln, "people believe in God!" That is certainly news to this Illinois boy.

Here is a brief snippet of the debate (for fun, see if you can pick out the logical fallacies):

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school. I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

I am not quite sure which state she is referring to: our nation-state or the state of Illinois. Having grown up in Illinois, I am pretty sure it was built upon lots and lots of corn fields, not God's divine will.

* Outside of the logical fallacies, Davis may be on rocky historical ground as well. As this incident has caught fire the last few days, East Carolina University History Dept. chair Gerald Prokopowicz has found a new audience for his book, "Did Lincoln Own Slaves? And other frequently asked questions about Abraham Lincoln." According to Prokopowicz: "His religious beliefs were dynamic, complex, and powerful, but not conventional." Read his brief interview here

John Abbott

John Abbott was opposed to WWI, WWII, and every other war. He was classified as a Conscientious Objector in WWII (which apparently was not his idea), and ordered to a camp with other CO's. But he refused to serve there, either, thinking that even the make work in the camp was supporting the war effort. He then got sent to prison. In Prison, they wanted him to work, and he refused again, so he was sent to solitary confinement, where he remained for most of the war.

In an interview with Studs Terkel, described in "The Good War": an Oral History of World War Two, he takes up the question of Hitler and the justification of war:

All wars are the same. In war, both sides are trying to kill each other over a "principle." And the principle "thou shalt not kill" got lost in the shuffle.
>What about Hitler?
What about Hitler? He was one person. They were all doing what Hitler said. What do all prisoners do? They do what the warden says. The only power Hitler had was the power the people gave him. I felt the whole world had gone absolutely mad, crazy mad. They were in love with war.

I like that last part, and it makes me wonder. Certainly Hitler had power, but he had power because many of the people did what he wanted them to do. He already had, pre-1933, the brown shirts agreeing with him, and using violence to get what he (they) wanted. Hitler by himself could do absolutely nothing. So when we focus on the leaders who get us into wars, we forget that they are not leaders until they have followers, we forget that there is always an option, that people let themselves be bullied, or else follow willingly. The pacifist refuses, either to be bullied, or to follow willingly. If someone kills him, it is the killer who does something wrong, but not the pacifist.

I'm not sure I agree with Abbott's view, but it certainly is something to think about.

Russell on War

Bertrand Russell was a well known pacifist. His opposition to the first world war, and his support for draft dodgers during that war led to his being removed as a professor of philosophy at Cambridge, being stripped of his title ("Lord Russell"), removed from the House of Lords, and eventually, being placed in jail.

His move from Imperialist to Pacifist apparently took place in a 5 minute mystical span, an event which took place in 1901 during a visit to his friend's house, Prof. Whitehead. He writes:

Suddenly the ground seemed to give way beneath me, and I found myself in quite another region. Within five minutes I went through
some such reflections as the following: the loneliness of the human soul is unendurable; nothing can penetrate it except the highest intensity of the sort of love that religious teachers have preached;
whatever does not spring from this motive is harmful, or at best useless; it follows that war is wrong, that a public school education is abominable, that the use of force is to be deprecated, and that in human relations one should penetrate to the core of loneliness in each person and speak to that.

Here, then, is one atheist reason for being a pacifist. All that is good, his view holds, comes from love, and war is its opposite. He had this epiphany watching the wife of Whitehead undergo severe agony, and his human response was to dedicate his life to the irradication of suffering. "The echoes of pain reverberate in my heart.... pain makes a mockery of what human life should be." This pain is caused by, not ended, by war, says the pacifist.

In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined

A recent New York Times Article points out the growing popularity of "philosophy" as an undergraduate major.

"Nationwide, there are more colleges offering undergraduate philosophy programs today than a decade ago (817, up from 765), according to the College Board. Some schools with established programs like Texas A&M, Notre Dame, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, now have twice as many philosophy majors as they did in the 1990s."

Really, this should come as no surprise as graduate school is becoming a necessary extension of a student's education. According to the University of Buffalo, philosophy students tend to score higher on the GRE, LSAT, and GMAT (I suspect they do pretty well on the MCAT as well...as long as they double-majored in a science).

In addition to higher standardized test scores, studying philosophy will make you the coolest person in your circle of friends [citation needed].