Sunday, June 19, 2016

Book Review: "Fever" by John G. Fuller

This book had a great influence on me when I was about 13. It is an exciting true story about a terrible virus that started killing medical missionaries in Nigeria in 1969. It describes how doctors and scientists, all over the world, fought the virus that caused this terrible disease and eventually defeated it.

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

This is an exciting story, and it is also a story of great courage as doctors work with suffering and contagious patients in hospitals, as scientists work with lethal viruses in modern labs, as other scientists catch rats, bats, and other possible carriers far out in remote African villages. At least one of the medical researchers was infected by this Lassa virus and paid the ultimate price, dying in the struggle to save others.

The most important thing I learned from this book is how you solve big, complex, important problems. You don't solve them with emotion, you don't solve them with cheering, or by attacking people who disagree with you, and you don't solve them with hope or with fear. You solve big problems by gathering facts, constructing hypotheses based on those facts, then testing your ideas against reality by gathering more facts, and continuing this process until you find an objective, verifiable answer.

This book had a great influence on me when I was 13 and it still shapes my approach to solving problems now, 40 years later. This is a great book and a book that everyone could enjoy and benefit from.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #11: Bocardo

The 11th valid syllogism to study is called Bocardo. In symbols Bocardo looks like this:
Some M's are not P's
All M's are S's
Therefore, some S's are not P's

In words a Bocardo argument could come out like this:
Some people who act on their grievances against the government are not heroes
All people who act on their grievances against the government are protesters
Therefore, some protesters are not heroes.

Is that second line true? How do we define "protester?" That could be a weak point in this syllogism.

Here is another example:
Some people who break very minor laws are not deserving of jail time
All people who break even very minor laws are criminals
Therefore, some some criminals are not deserving of jail time.

Notice I changed the wording of the M term very slightly between lines 1 and 2. If I changed the meaning of the M terms in those two lines I have damaged this syllogism. I think the meaning is the same and the syllogism is good.

Notice that this syllogism is essentially making a distinction between different kinds of criminals – those who deserve jail and those who don't. A lot of thinking is just doing this – making distinctions. One of the clearest warning signs of a poor thinker is the inability to make distinctions. For poor thinkers everything gets a label and everything with the same label is the same. If you meet someone who thinks every Democrat and every Republican, every rich person and every poor person, every illegal alien and every terrorist, every person on welfare and every Syrian refugee is the same as everyone else in their group and deserves the same treatment – you're probably dealing with a poor thinker.

One caution, sometimes we use expressions like "All politicians seek power for themselves" as an emphatic way of saying "MOST politicians seek power for themselves." If they mean "most" ask them to say "most." If they mean all, you might be dealing with a poor thinker so start looking for counter-examples to disprove their statement.

Only use "all," as we do in syllogisms, when the subject is carefully limited and defined so that "all" is the right word to use and no counter-examples will shoot down the argument we are trying to make.


Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

***

I have not read this book but it looks great! Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Monday, June 13, 2016

Can Technology and Freedom Co-Exist?

Technological advances are generally viewed as blessings. Improved technologies often enable us to satisfy our needs and desires more successfully. They also enable individuals to do things by themselves that could only be accomplished in the past by large groups of people. Many tasks that used to require great outlays of time and resources can now be accomplished more quickly and economically.

With all these benefits it may be difficult to keep in mind some hidden dangers that technological advances bring with them, dangers that might someday threaten the very existence of personal freedom.

One of the dangerous features of technology is that it cares not at all for human values. It simply increases our ability to do things. Whether those things are good or evil makes no difference whatsoever as far as technology is concerned.

An even more dangerous feature of technology is that it seems to have no limits. It just goes on and on, putting more and more power into the hands of more people. As the power of individuals increases, seemingly without end - as we become more and more capable of doing greater and greater harm to larger and larger numbers of our fellow-citizens - there is likely to be an ever-increasing pressure to restrict personal liberty.

We can find many examples in history that illustrate the way technology has increased the power of individuals or relatively small groups. In 1950 only the richest and most advanced nations in the world could produce atomic weapons. Now it is likely that any nation with the desire to do so could equip itself with nuclear devices. Advances in technology have made it possible for poor countries to do what only the rich could do in the past. This trend will continue. With every year that passes it will became easier and more economical to build an atomic bomb.

What will happen when an individual has the capacity to build an atomic bomb in his or her basement? This possibility may be much closer than we think. More than twenty years ago a book appeared describing a college student’s physics project: to design, but not build, an atomic bomb. The project was successfully completed and caused serious concerns for a number of federal agencies. (Phillips, John Aristotle and David Michaelis. Mushroom: The Story of the A-Bomb Kid. William Morrow & Company, 1978.)

As technology advances, homemade atomic bombs may be the least of our worries. Genetic engineering, once the domain of Nobel laureates and million-dollar labs, is already within the reach of the weekend hobbyist. If you want to, you can already try to engineer lethal bacteria in your garage workshop. How should your neighbors feel about something like that? What should the government do about it? Bacteria are everywhere and certainly can’t be outlawed. The equipment needed is relatively simple; if we make it illegal to buy, you can probably construct it yourself. The knowledge needed is already in the public domain. What else can we do? Monitor what people are up to in their garages?

Computer technology has also put vastly greater power into the hands of individuals than they have ever known before. Experienced hackers can now cause difficulties for millions of people, and cause millions of dollars worth of damage. In 1900 no teenager in the world had any chance of causing confusion or devastation across an entire nation. Now any teenager with a little knowledge and access to a computer can take a shot at it. How do we respond to a threat like this? Monitor what people are doing on the Internet?

These are only a few examples. As technology continues to progress, the power of individual human beings to do harm will continue to increase in many areas. Efforts to restrict the flow of potentially dangerous information will probably fail. Knowledge about reality and the way the world works - which is really what technology is - will be hard to keep secret. Efforts to outlaw tools or raw materials with potentially dangerous applications are also likely to fail. If such materials cannot be purchased legally they will be purchased illegally. If they cannot be purchased illegally they will be built or produced from scratch. If they cannot be built or produced from scratch technological ingenuity will simply find a new method for producing the desired result - a method that does not use the outlawed tools or raw materials.

We have always known that an excess of governmental power is a danger to freedom. Will we find that an excess of personal power makes freedom impossible? We may one day discover that a prerequisite to individual freedom is individual weakness. A world in which private individuals have the power to harm, destroy, or kill on scales never before imagined may be a world entirely incompatible with personal freedom. As the power of individuals comes to rival the power once wielded by entire nations will it not become necessary to monitor the activities of those individuals as closely as nations try to monitor each others activities now?

Technology will continue to advance. There is no way to stop it. The power we have to harm each other will continue to grow. Demands for individual freedom and personal privacy will become ever more difficult to justify. There may come a day when individual human beings are simply too powerful to be left alone- when we are simply too powerful, and too dangerous, to be free. I am not sure if there is a solution to this problem. I AM sure we need to start thinking about it.

***

[This book discusses some of the unintended consequences future technological advances may have on human society.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this blog to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway