To the nascent naturalist
On craggy coast and yeasty shore
Philosophers have walked the lonely walk before
The deadliest view of the living sound
Primeval slush to the horizon unbound.
Two decades old, no need for a stroller
No need to grow two decades older
The ice plant sucks salt from the rock
The surf, the gulls — a ticking clock.
To the nascent naturalist
She speaks in tongues
With a breath of mystery
She fills his lungs
He coughs up questions and answers.
Salty absurdity as his hammer
To the rock he pins a foundation of lectures
Till he’s built around him four broad walls
A sturdy home of queries, conjectures
With a weary sigh he surveys his tribute
Relishing proudly its perfected angles
Four broad walls and not a window to breathe through
The vine whose roots the branches strangle.
In convoluted sentential tangles
He digs and prays for profound detection
But mystery remains at sea:
“Goodbye, perverted reflection.”
Karl Popper (Kpop!) tells it like it is
From logical fallacies of induction to evolutionary epistemology, Kpop’s like ‘Yo! the sun might not rise tomorrow’ and ‘Yo! Hume’s psychology is primitive’ and ‘Yo! sometimes we perish by our unconfirmed hypotheses’. Break it down Karl…
“Hume himself confused the problem of induction with the problem of the necessary connection between cause and effect; and Kant saw in the problem of the a priori validity of the causal law one of the most fundamental problems of metaphysics. But Hume must be credited with the formulation of the pure logical problem of induction and its solutions…He writes, for example, that we have no reason to believe ‘that those instances, of which we have no experience, [are likely to] resemble those, of which we have had experience’.
…All that is assumed is that we have empirical evidence of the truth of certain instances, and it is asserted that this does not entitle us to conclude to or extrapolate to analogous experiences at other instances (whether in the past or in the future).
This, then, in all its purity, is what I have christened ‘Hume’s [logical] problem of induction’.
Hume’s answer is as clear as can be: there is no argument or reason which permits an inference from one case to another, however similar the conditions may be; and I completely agree with him in this respect.
I believe, however, that Hume is wrong when he thinks that in practice we make such inferences, on the basis of repetition or habit. I assert that his psychology is primitive. What we do in practice is to jump to a conclusion; that is to say, to quite inconclusive hypotheses to which we often cling, and with which we may perish, unless we are able to correct them, which is possible especially if, on the human level, they are formulated exosomatically in written form, and submitted to criticism.
The assertion that we have an irrational inclination to be impressed by habit and repetition is something quite different from the assertion that we have a drive to try out bold hypotheses which we may have to correct if we are not to perish. The first describes a typically Lamarckian procedure of instruction; the second a Darwinian procedure of selection. The first one is, as Hume observed, irrational, while the second seems to have nothing irrational in it.”
from Objective Knowledge, Ch. 2, §30: Muddles Connected with the Problem of Induction
the gargantuan carbon footprint of the american infrastructure
a study by MIT mechanical engineers has found that while the average American carbon footprint is five times the world average, the carbon footprint of the American homeless is still greater than twice that of the average human.
a homeless person living in the United States, who sleeps in a shelter and eats in a soup kitchen, is by engaging in the safety net of American society responsible for 8.5 metric tons of carbon emissions. the average global citizen is responsible for 4 metric tons.
in light of this, it is unquestionable that the solution to America’s carbon excesses must be systemic.
the pachydermal artists
i have a few things to say about this video of an elephant painting a “self-portrait”. first of all, the video is well described by those oft-misused words: unbelievable, incredible. the painting is probably as good as i could do, and i lack the creative touch to add the flower. the video has had mixed reception judging from the 7,877 comments, ranging from “good job elephant u are awesome!” to “hoax” to “any animal is smart if you whip it enough”. most are credulously supportive. but each of these comments represents a viewpoint i would be willing to endorse; i am going to try and make the case pro and contra each.
the BBC has previously reported on elephant paintings, indeed on elephant paintings of elephants, which is already a step further than chimpanzees, whose high brow tastes cause them to paint exclusively in an abstract expressionist style (basic portraits beneath their sensibilities). note that there is no reason to believe the portraits are of the artist, rather than, say, a friend — hence my reluctance to use the term ’self-portrait’. anyhow, the elephant portrait featured in the BBC report is fairly abstract itself, much messier than the precise lines painted by the pachydermal artist in the youtube video. the BBC report at least makes me comfortable with the idea that elephants can paint elephant forms, which is amazing by the way.
of course this proves little about the elephant’s cognitive abilities beyond that they can be trained to do complex tasks. so, is it just the whip that’s made them smart? the BBC report says portraits can be produced with only a month of training — seems not excessive. i actually find the precision of the youtube portrait to suggest that it’s not by rote the elephant has become an artist. if these animals are painting by reproducing a series of motions that’s been taught to them, cruelly or otherwise, i would expect the painting to be a bit messier than the one in the youtube video. the evenness of the strokes and the precision with which the lines are connected, in my opinion, is more plausibly explained by an understanding that this activity involves an iconic representation rather than by the repeated motions learned through a very thorough training regiment. that’s far from proof, if such a thing can be proved.
i considered the possibility that this video is a hoax. my disbelief was strong enough that i thought maybe the artist was actually just some guy with a disgustingly trunk-like arm (most of the video doesn’t show the whole elephant). i don’t know anything about the art of detecting fraudulent video, so i’ll remain silent on the issue.
in the end i’m thinking “good job elephant u are awesome!” it seems to me the pachydermal artists have understood that a painting is an iconic representation and they have achieved through a type of physical therapy the motor ability to produce a representation of their own form. one thing lacking on these paintings is a signature at the bottom. these aren’t self portraits — i doubt elephant selves exist — but only slightly less remarkable for that.
