Other languages ​​#14

How to choose a president fairly if the system of “democratic elections” does not work? How to decide who should have surgery first when there are not enough doctors, medicines and hospital beds? How to determine who should be given free education - the one who is poorer, or the one who is more talented? Alan Ryan suggests, paradoxically, casting lots. In many cases, it is the good old roulette, he believes, that will be the only fair solution that will ensure true “equality” - equality before the will of fate.

Quotes: We are talking about the distribution of benefits among members of society. The “equal share” principle, which at first glance seems like a good solution, does not stand up to criticism upon closer examination. What is this - “equal opportunities”?.. And if we are talking about something in short supply, for which it is impossible to satisfy the demand?

No one deserves to win the lottery; no one gives the right to do this. When we spend money to lose or win undeservedly, we just want to take advantage of the same chances. If the same need gives two people the right to the same treatment, but it is not possible to provide them with the same treatment, then everyone should at least have the same chance of receiving it. Even if this is not the most correct or effective solution, at least some kind of negative justice will be achieved. The law allows this in extreme cases: sailors from a shipwreck who, in order to survive, decide to eat one of their comrades, can avoid being charged with murder if the decision was made by lot, but will be convicted if the victim was chosen based on any other considerations.

The Claims of Nature Virginia Postrel Reason

The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, but since then the passions around this kind of “sex issue” have not subsided. Every American knows that offending sexual minorities is not good, if not detrimental to one’s own reputation. But the secret struggle does not subside, and there are much more clearly incorrect statements (even from high stands) than one can imagine. Until now, trying in vain to decide “it is possible or not”, “normal or abnormal”, people appeal either to religion, then to statistics, or to nature. And they invariably receive a completely ambiguous answer from them.

Quote: Seeking sympathy from heterosexuals and protection from civil law, gays emphasize again and again that their sexual orientation is an innate property and not the result of their choice. It's the same as being heterosexual, or being left-handed, or belonging to such and such a race, to such and such a gender - that is, a person is born with this. This argument works well in the political arena, while most Americans are still convinced that homosexuality is a sin.

PS If we turn to medical facts, it turns out that the question is even more complicated. You can’t lump all manifestations of “homosexuality” together. Recently, for example, it has become known that homosexuality in men is rather a “call of nature” (in the structure of some parts of the brain, gays really differ from “straight” men and are closer to women), while in women it is more of a whim, a caprice, mood (no special brain characteristics have been identified in lesbians).

Pop Culture and the Threat to Rational Inquiry Douglas Hofstadter Science

When the author of the essay was still a child, the granite of science had a natural black and white color: such were the slides and diagrams that depicted the mysterious protons, electromagnetic waves and other miracles that fascinated little Douglas. The pathos of modern educational materials is exactly the opposite: there is no mystery either in nature or in the process of scientific knowledge; everything is digestible and can be folded into a pocket-sized digest. Now Indiana University professor Douglas Hofstadter discovers educational cartoons, rock musicals and comics at every turn, designed to present the essence of all knowledge “in an accessible form.” The notorious sugary-sweetened granite, which the modern child is fed to his fill, has lost all its delicious appeal for him. Pop packaging in a toxic color devalues ​​real knowledge, Hofstadter argues.

Quote: Society today seems to be imbued with a deep, unconscious prejudice against science. In movies, television, and fiction, scientists are portrayed as heartless, humorless oafs who would rather kill in cold blood than smile; I would rather write abstruse formulas than fall in love.

Yours, Mine, and Ours (Yours, mine and ours) Cullen Murphy (Cullen Murphy) Slate

"My God!" - we say, without at all meaning a monopoly on communication with the Lord. The Americans went further: the editor of the respected Atlantic Monthly magazine discovers a curious figure of speech that has developed in the language of his compatriots - the widespread use of personal pronouns in relation to the Lord. If during the times of religious battles and the formation of new cults this had a very definite meaning (“this is my God, unlike yours”), now it is acquiring the character of a linguistic curiosity. However, from a private linguistic observation a global conclusion follows: a “personal” god, which pops up every now and then in the speech of modern man, means fragmentation of the concept of divinity - the advanced part of humanity returns to a kind of “polytheism”, implying that everyone arranges a pantheon for themselves according to their own taste .

Quotes: In discussions on the issue of abortion, it has become routine practice to define abortion as an event that occurs “between a woman, her gynecologist and her Lord.”

In an article on dietetics, I came across this description of the problem (excess weight): it remains “between me, my scales and our Lord.” In the article about haircuts - that it is “between me, my hairdresser and our Lord.” In an article about driving on highways - that it is "between me, my speedometer and our Lord."

PS In principle, this is a logical culmination of the development of Western democracy. Strengthening the institution of personal rights and freedoms inevitably contradicts the interests of communities, including religious ones. Privacy and individual beliefs are a top priority. Everyday language innocently reflects the “concepts” by which people live.

Macho Anthropology Juno Gregory Salon.com

If the cannibalism of primitive peoples still remains in question (see Jared Diamond's article "Archaeology: Let's Talk About Cannibalism" - issue 12 ), then the carnivorous tendencies of the anthropologists who study them are practically a proven fact. Perhaps the main American anthropologist, Napoleon Chagnon, is accused of conducting monstrous biological experiments on Indians, deliberately infecting them with infectious diseases, forcing the natives to perform bloody rituals in front of a movie camera, falsifying scientific data and, to top it all off, overwhelmed by truly Napoleonic ambitions, sought to transform places habitat of the Indians in their patrimony. The culprit himself considers his accusers to be evil democratic politicians and finds many defenders who agree with his classic statement that the most natural social structure is totalitarian and built on dominance, rather than on equality and cooperation.

Quote: Chagnon also has many supporters in the media - perhaps due to the growing popularity among the people of his view of culture. So it’s safe to say that the anthropologist has the heavy artillery on his side.

Notes of a Fringe-Watcher. What's Going On At Temple University? (Notes from an Idle Observer: What's Going on at Temple University?) Martin Gardner Skeptical Inquirer

Science is in danger: Philadelphia's Temple University has become a refuge for pseudoscientists who, entrenched within academic walls, legally bring their pseudoscience to the student masses. An American columnist specializing in scientific issues is indignant and annoyed: with the sarcasm of a feuilletonist, he irritably “sands” homeopaths; ufologists; acupuncturists; psychics; researchers using Tarot cards as material to study problems of randomness and regularity; doctors presenting physical illness as a mental disorder - a violation of the relationship with reality. The article (and at the same time a devastating review of the university periodical where the relevant materials are published) is written not without wit and is an overview of many fun facts and theories.

Quotes: I expected to find outstanding research on the nature of unknown matters on the pages of the journal; about the genetic roots of altruism; about the reasons for the transience of life of organic molecules; about the multitude of worlds, each of which consists of an infinite number of worlds with their own laws, breaking into our reality; or about supercomputers dealing with quantum mechanics. What do I see instead?..

Dan Kenner, an acupuncturist, introduces a term new to me - "nosology." This is not a study of noses at all, but a science of classifying diseases.

PS From the “notes of an idle observer” it is clearly visible what an abyss separates “positive” knowledge from “alternative”, and on the other hand, how arbitrary it is to classify a particular theory as the first or second category. Probability theory and quantum mechanics at one time caused no less irritation among “positivists.” Today there are experts who will say that astrology is not a matter of faith or disbelief, but a strict science, like mathematics, in which it would be absurd to “believe or not believe.” And, say, they will ask you not to worry about the genetic roots of altruism, but rather to raise your children properly.

The Looking-Glass War. Why don't we see ourselves upside down in the mirror? (War through the looking glass. Why don't we see ourselves upside down in the mirror?) Jim Holt (Jim Holt) Linguafranca

The mirror swaps left and right sides - this is not surprising for the common man. But not for a philosopher, mathematician or Linguafranca columnist (see his articles: issue 4 - “Lucky Numbers”; issue 7 - “Does everyone lie about calendars?”; issue 13 - “What have I done to deserve this!”) . Kant also believed that it was completely unobvious that it is left and right that change places. The 20th century dotted almost all the i's in the interpretation of spatial-optical metamorphosis: it was repeatedly proven that in fact the mirror turns over the back and front, that is, everything that is on the axis perpendicular to the mirror. And “right” and “left” do not exist in nature at all: these are only conventional names for two horizontal directions parallel to the mirror. Nevertheless, the author suggests sometimes turning to the homespun truth of “truthful mirrors” and feeling the difference between right and left “in your own skin.”

Quotes: Once, while walking through a crowded quarter of New York's East Side, I came across a curious shop. He traded only one product - mirrors, which did not change places between right and left and therefore were called “True Mirrors”. One such mirror stood on the display case. Looking at my reflection, I was amazed at how frighteningly the usual features of my own face were distorted, how lopsided my smile was, how ridiculous my hair looked, combed on the “wrong” side. Then I realized that the image I was faced with was the true me, the way the whole world sees me. And the image of myself that I am used to seeing in an ordinary mirror is actually an incorrect, reverse reflection, swapping my left and right sides.

Thus, logically speaking, the concept of left/right is parasitic on the concept of front/back, while top/bottom in no way does so. And the mirror is believed to reverse front and back. This is why it most likely reverses left-right as well (if this actually happens, which is still doubtful to this day).