On HU
We started out the week with Kinukitty’s review of the fetishy yaoi Kiss Your Hair.
For July 4, Richard Cook provided a history of Captain America in covers.
Erica Friedman talked about her childhood love for Classics Illustrated (and in comments various Utilitarians debate the worth of Jane Austen.)
Ng Suat Tong discussed Jim Woodring and the world of the Unifactor.
Alex Buchet discusses his own racism in light of Tintin’s.
I discussed the relationship between interviews and criticism, prompting an epic attack in comments from our esteemed proprietor, Gary Groth. Jeet Heer and Tom Spurgeon throw a few punches as well.
Vom Marlowe and her mother explain why Wonder Woman’s new costume sucks.
Caroline Small discusses the art deco illustrations of John Vassos.
And Robert Stanley Martin’s Frazetta thread went on and on and on, with further contributions from Robert, Jesse Hamm, Domingos Isabelinho, Charles Reece, and others. As those who read the TCJ message board have grown to expect, Mike Hunter appears to be the last man talking at the end….
Utilitarians Everywhere
At the Chicago Reader I discuss what’s wrong with experts.
Willie Sutton was famously quoted as saying that he robbed banks “because that’s where the money is.” We go to experts because they’re the ones with the expertise. Sure, we figure out that water is wet and the floor is hard on our own, but it’s not long after we’re up and walking that we start relying on outside sources for information. Electricity turns the lights on, seat belts save lives, the earth is round—for most of us most of the time the basic assumptions of our lives are based on expert knowledge. Which is to say that a lot of what we think we know isn’t knowledge at all, but faith. When the laptop stops working most of us call the tech guy out of childish hope, just as a medieval peasant with a poisoned well might look for a witch to burn.
At Splice Today I express some mild appreciation for the new Kylie Minogue album.
So I hate it, right? Well, not exactly. This album is not good, but I don’t resent its existence. In part, that’s because of the resolute lack of pretension; Aphrodite is rote, but it isn’t going for anything but rote. Kylie isn’t trying to share her pain like Keyshia Cole; she’s not trying to be edgy like Lady Gaga; honestly, she doesn’t even seem like she’s trying to be sexy. You wouldn’t think you could declare, “I am Aphrodite!” without some concupiscent intent, but Minogue pulls it off through sheer plastic anonymity. This is the goddess of love as showgirl Barbie.
Other Links
I enjoyed this article about word balloons in manga and American comics.
That’s a pretty great review of the Kylie album. The blues parallel is really smart.
I haven’t read Wrong, but one thing that struck me from a list of “factoids” from the book is how wrong your inference is here:
Which is to say that a lot of what we think we know isn’t knowledge at all, but faith.
It is, in fact, self-contradictory. How would you go about proving that assertion? Oh yeah, with evidence, not faith. Which seems to be the author’s method. For example, to pick his first two factoids listed: (1) “About two-thirds of the findings published in top medical journals are refuted within a few years.” and (2) “As much as 90 percent of physicians’ medical knowledge has been gauged to be substantially or completely wrong.” Are we to take these findings as merely being more unprovable assertions that have no better grounding than the initial findings which are being denied? — reducible to one’s faith vs. another’s faith. Or are we to take Freedman’s facts as evidence that what is often taken as the final truth on something is not, in fact, true. If the latter, then what is needed isn’t faith, but the traditional components of the scientific method. Otherwise, why think there’s anything of worth in Freedman’s book — because you have faith? As Bertrand Russell said, “Where there is evidence, no one speaks of ‘faith’. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.” A better concept is ‘inference to the best explanation’ or abduction (although the former is easier to understand than the latter). IBE invites skepticism (falsifiability and whatnot), whereas faith is acceptance, commitment, acquiescence to a proposition being claimed to be true. Of course, trusting scientists to behave ethically (methodologically skeptical) is constantly being undermined by the profit motive that has gained a stronger and stronger hold on their assorted disciplines. Accepting that it’s all just a matter faith serves corporations and creationists equally well.
Hey Charles. I actually don’t have any problem with benefiting creationists; like Feyerabend, I think they’re pretty much harmless. In fact, I think the best way to undermine creationist thought (if that’s what you wanted to do) would be to teach it in schools. Kids learn nothing in schools.
Anyway, Freedman addresses the problems you discuss (i.e., relying on expert testimony to refute expert testimony.) As I tried to make clear in the review (but may have failed) he’s not a Feyerabend devotee; instead, he thinks that you can compare evidence and sift it and come up with something approximating truth. He just argues that basically people give too much credence to expert testimony in general for a whole host of reasons. As I say, he pushes on knowledge, but doesn’t really question it’s reality.
That’s me that does that. And in answer to your argument: yes, of course, the assertion that knowledge is friable is itself based on evidentiary arguments, which are based on faith. The fact that my own argument is logically inconsistent doesn’t undermine my argument that all arguments are logically inconsistent; it supports it (to the extent that any argument can logically support anything.)
My point isn’t that we can’t or shouldn’t form conclusions based on evidence to the best of our ability. My point is that the best of our ability is extremely limited, and that recognizing that keeps us from various sins, most notably hubris.
I disagree that corporations and enlightenment views of objective truth are at odds. On the contrary, I think that the belief in limitless human power and expansion are at the root of both. But…of course that’s only a partial truth as well.
“I enjoyed this article about word balloons in manga and American comics.”
Hmm, I thought that was pretty terrible. Filled with prejudices, bad insights and lousy examples.
Everybody’s a critic!
That’s me that does that. And in answer to your argument: yes, of course, the assertion that knowledge is friable is itself based on evidentiary arguments, which are based on faith. The fact that my own argument is logically inconsistent doesn’t undermine my argument that all arguments are logically inconsistent; it supports it (to the extent that any argument can logically support anything.)
Well, we agree on your argument’s validity. No point in arguing with that. All that stuff about misogyny being wrong was just based on faith, eh?
Sure; faith in equality, in justice, in love. What sort of objective, scientific argument could you possibly make for such things anyway? I guess you could make some sort of evolutionary utilitarian argument that misogyny is unoptimal or something — but, really, barf.
Basing beliefs on faith doesn’t mean that you’re disconnected from evidence, or that a belief is wrong. It means you recognize that both reality and the human brain are pretty mysterious, and that people don’t know things for sure and all, but do their best within their limits. As I said in the piece, we see through a glass darkly. I mean, do you feel that you possess actual, objective, incontrovertible evidence for the truth of your own positions? That seems pretty hubristic to me.