Well, I continue to be at best sporadic on this blog. I've been a bit better on the god blog.
Recently I've been anxious for spring to arrive. I really want to get back to hiking and backpacking. I think Will is getting old enough to really start participating too. I don't think Josh or Teresa will be too gung ho on it, but Teresa at least will go sometimes and on the other times it wouldn't hurt me to get some alone time in the woods. Right now, the only good place will be low in the valleys, and it will still be pretty cold with all that. Anything high will be snowy or worse. Of course Will wants to go snow camping, so maybe I can arrnage something like that. We'll have to see how the weather holds. This next weekend we're headed to SLC on a birthday trip for him. And on the other day he wants to invite friends over to play.
I lack a couple pieces of gear to really get back to backpacking. My old REI internal frame finally broke last summer. The plastic piece that holds the sholder straps to the adjustable frame just broke. The straps are still tethered to the pack by som webbing, so the pack was wearable and could be lugged out (someone else did it, I was carrying Will who got several stitches for the gash on his knee.) But the pack just isn't useable in any realistic sense. I'm going to take it to REI in SLC this next weekend to see if it can be repaired. I hold little hope that it can. Even if the pieces are still available (I bought the pack used in the late 80s) I suspect that it would be cheaper to buy a good second hand pack than to repair this one. The second thing I need is a good pair of hiking boots. Fortunately these are less essential than the pack. I can make do with tennis shoes and a pair of field boots as long as I don't try anything to difficult. And of course I'm not likely to get too difficult with Will along. So for now, I'm in the market for a good pack. I've been looking online, and found a few that looked good, but I've been out of the loop on packs for a while and don't really know what I'm looking at. I'm hoping to take some time at REI to try a couple on, though wilth Will in tow that may be difficult. The next option is to head to sportsmans warehouse and another local place and poke around. between that and some online reviews, I should be able to get back up to speed enough to make a cgood choice.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Starting a new one
Well, it's pretty obvious I've been less than diligent about blogging. Not sure why. Guess lately I just haven't been feeling like sharing general thoughts and such. Anyway, there is something I'd like to blog about, so I'm going to start a second blog. It will probably be more active than this one, though in many ways less personal. I've started a blog about philosophy of religion, specifically about the epistemic status of religious belief. It's here if anyone cares to have a look (he said, pretending that anyone was out there actually reading what he wrote.)
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Spring has been warring with winter for some months now. Like the long democratic primary, it's a close race with neither side willing to concede defeat. The pundits seem to have recently called the race in Spring's favor, but Winter has vowed to soldier on until the last bulb has withered and the blossoms have fallen from the almond tree. Some worry that the battle will continue until the solstice with Winter finally being forced out only by weight of that venerable elder, Summer. There is worry of course, that the protracted contest poses a danger for the tomato crop. If tomatoes aren't planted well before solstice, there may not be time for them to fruit before the first fall frosts. Fortunately, all our tomatoes are safely ensconced in the artificial habitat of our sunroom. The democrats should be so lucky.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Why don't people understand hypothetical examples?
We read W.K. Clifford's article on the ethics of belief in my philosophy class. In it he uses a hypothetical example of a shipowner who convinces himself that his ship is seaworthy by the use of clearly spurious reasoning (e.g. "it's never sunk before, so it won't sink this time.") Of course the ship sinks and everyone on board dies. Clifford concludes that the shipowner was wrong to believe that the ship was seaworthy. (Not just that the belief was wrong, but that it was wrong for the shipowner to have the belief because he didn't have sufficient evidence to support it.) Furthermore he argues that the shipowner would have been wrong for believing the ship was seaworthy even if it had not sunk. Clifford's thesis is "it is wrong, always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
Now there are many plausible criticisms of Clifford's argument, I don't want to suggest that it is unassalable. But I'm amazed at the number of times students will say things like "how do we know that everyone died? Maybe someone survived." or "maybe the ship didn't sink because it was in bad shape, maybe it sank because of a storm." Of course one problem with such response is that they just aren't relevant. Clifford's point is about evidence, not about ships that sink. But my puzzlement is in a different area. It's a hypothetical argument! Clifford is making up an example to illustrate a point. He gets to decide how the example goes. You can't argue against it by questioning whether Clifford has got the details right. Of course he has (or hasn't). It's a hypothetical argument! How can people not get this? Did they not do story problems in math? Imagine a student raising their had in 7th grade math. "Excuse me teacher, how do we know the train was really heading east from Chicago? I mean what if it went south for a little bit and then kind of northeastish?" or "You shouldn't count my answer wrong because after all, we can't be sure that Sally really had six apples before she gave three to Bob. I mean who saw her? What if it had been seven and she just miscounted?"
We read W.K. Clifford's article on the ethics of belief in my philosophy class. In it he uses a hypothetical example of a shipowner who convinces himself that his ship is seaworthy by the use of clearly spurious reasoning (e.g. "it's never sunk before, so it won't sink this time.") Of course the ship sinks and everyone on board dies. Clifford concludes that the shipowner was wrong to believe that the ship was seaworthy. (Not just that the belief was wrong, but that it was wrong for the shipowner to have the belief because he didn't have sufficient evidence to support it.) Furthermore he argues that the shipowner would have been wrong for believing the ship was seaworthy even if it had not sunk. Clifford's thesis is "it is wrong, always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
Now there are many plausible criticisms of Clifford's argument, I don't want to suggest that it is unassalable. But I'm amazed at the number of times students will say things like "how do we know that everyone died? Maybe someone survived." or "maybe the ship didn't sink because it was in bad shape, maybe it sank because of a storm." Of course one problem with such response is that they just aren't relevant. Clifford's point is about evidence, not about ships that sink. But my puzzlement is in a different area. It's a hypothetical argument! Clifford is making up an example to illustrate a point. He gets to decide how the example goes. You can't argue against it by questioning whether Clifford has got the details right. Of course he has (or hasn't). It's a hypothetical argument! How can people not get this? Did they not do story problems in math? Imagine a student raising their had in 7th grade math. "Excuse me teacher, how do we know the train was really heading east from Chicago? I mean what if it went south for a little bit and then kind of northeastish?" or "You shouldn't count my answer wrong because after all, we can't be sure that Sally really had six apples before she gave three to Bob. I mean who saw her? What if it had been seven and she just miscounted?"
Monday, October 8, 2007
Blog nought
So here I am blogging.
I used to write. It was a way of easing my soul onto paper where I could take a better look at it. Perhaps later I'll share some of that. For now, however, this is just a blog about the nothing of which we, or at least I, am made - a kind of attempt to eff the ineffable.
I write in two ways. In my day job I try to say what I mean. But when I'm writing for my self (sic), I hope that my words show what cannot be accurately said. Two different things showing and saying. There are things that can be shown but not said, and I suspect there are also things that can be said and not shown. Where the line is, and to what degree it is a sharp line rather than a vague and inchoate separation I do not know. Perhaps, as with many things, there is no real difference between saying and showing that does not amount to a difference in perspective. A difference rather in the observer than in the things observed.
I had hoped to say something tonight. But it feels if instead I shall say nothing. Like a runner who has not raced in years, my thoughts cramp atthe exertion of expression. They balk and refuse to come cleanly into solid being. Hiding, luking, ducking quickly behind more respectable images. Vanished, like Eliot's thrush. Seen only at one remove. For now I shall let them have their game of hide and seek. I am content to glempse them fleetingly. Later, when the sun has set and they are less wary, I shall coax or cajole them into the open. Or perhaps I shall go hiding with them, uncovering their habits in the place where they are wont to dwell. We shall be friends they and I, or perhaps merely less skittish around each other.
I used to write. It was a way of easing my soul onto paper where I could take a better look at it. Perhaps later I'll share some of that. For now, however, this is just a blog about the nothing of which we, or at least I, am made - a kind of attempt to eff the ineffable.
I write in two ways. In my day job I try to say what I mean. But when I'm writing for my self (sic), I hope that my words show what cannot be accurately said. Two different things showing and saying. There are things that can be shown but not said, and I suspect there are also things that can be said and not shown. Where the line is, and to what degree it is a sharp line rather than a vague and inchoate separation I do not know. Perhaps, as with many things, there is no real difference between saying and showing that does not amount to a difference in perspective. A difference rather in the observer than in the things observed.
I had hoped to say something tonight. But it feels if instead I shall say nothing. Like a runner who has not raced in years, my thoughts cramp atthe exertion of expression. They balk and refuse to come cleanly into solid being. Hiding, luking, ducking quickly behind more respectable images. Vanished, like Eliot's thrush. Seen only at one remove. For now I shall let them have their game of hide and seek. I am content to glempse them fleetingly. Later, when the sun has set and they are less wary, I shall coax or cajole them into the open. Or perhaps I shall go hiding with them, uncovering their habits in the place where they are wont to dwell. We shall be friends they and I, or perhaps merely less skittish around each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)