« The best mid-sized chunk I read today | Main | Taxation and fairness »
What I've been reading
1. Vie Francaise, by Jean-Paul Dubois. He is the French Philip Roth; the bottom line is that I finished it, and not just because of the occasional mentions of Adam Smith.
2. Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, by Gerd Gigerenzer. The author is a smart guy and an accomplished scholar, but despite his best efforts this book is a few years too late.
3. Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang, by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok. Inflation vs. cyclic theories, the latter help you stay an agnotheist by resolving the Goldilocks problem; only some of the universes through time have order as we know it. I enjoyed it, even though I am sick of popular physics books. It's also the first time I've understood anything about the Higgs field debates. Recommended.
4. The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society, by Mark A. Smith. The main thesis is that right wingers have made America a more conservative society by framing issues in terms of economic reasoning. Maybe I am too close to the topic, but I didn't learn anything from the book. At the very least it should interest progressives looking to mimic the successes (?) of the right wing.
5. Blankets, by Craig Thompson. This I loved and read in one sitting; it is a very good introduction to graphic novels, especially if you are not thrilled by Alan Moore.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 16, 2007 at 06:22 AM in Books | Permalink
Comments
I think for progressives to mimic the success of the right-wing, they would have to get their most extreme pundits into the major news channels, and then get these channels to act as if death threats, conspiracy theories and calls for violent revolution were nothing unusual whatsoever, and perfectly reasonable positions.
Then they wait, and step into the new middle ground.
Posted by: Harald Korneliussen at Jul 16, 2007 7:16:58 AM
Gigi Gigerenzer
ok, i might be a retard, but is "Gigi" are a pet name for Gerd???
Posted by: razib at Jul 16, 2007 1:39:05 PM
"Inflation vs. cyclic theories, the latter help you stay an agnotheist by resolving the Goldilocks problem; only some of the universes through time have order as we know it."
Well, sure, but the problem with an infinite cycle of changing universes is that Murphy's Law inevitably comes into effect, hard. Over an infinite length of time, whatever could go wrong, will go wrong. So, some cycle would inevitably break the system so it couldn't go on ... unless, of course, the whole system was, uh, designed to avoid those problems in the first place.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 16, 2007 3:44:12 PM
Atheists have no particular issue with the "Goldilocks" problem that needs resolving in the first place. Whether the universe will expand forever (or even has existed forever) in no way causes us any particular distress as there is no need to invoke (nor any benefit from invoking) some kind of creator.
Let's assume the universe has simply existed, and will exist, forever (as a worst-case for your apparent Goldilocks problem). How does invoking a creator get you around any problem you might imagine with this state of affairs - whether it be the infinite nature or the apparent fine-tuning? Certainly if we posit an explanation for these apparent problems (and let's say we call that explanation God) that explanation is itself subject to the same types of problems. If it is hard to believe that the universe could just exist forever, or that it could do so in a way that just happens to allow complex, self-aware, intelligent beings to evolve then it must be just as hard (actually harder) to believe that God could just exist in a way that allows it to create the universe as described above. How does adding a layer of complexity, uncontaminated by any evidence (to borrow a phrase from Sam Harris), explain anything?
In other words, let's say we have theory A with complications 1, 2 and 3 which make us wonder about the accuracy of A. To get around those complications we introduce a theory B which is said to be better because it can explain the complications 1, 2 and 3 noticed in theory A. However, theory B is also subject to the same set of complications itself, but when that objection is raised we are told by its proponents that those issues are "beyond science's ability to explain" and we just have to have faith.
In the end we have explained nothing, but rather introduced an unnecessarily complex method (to say nothing of its utter lack of any evidence) of simply sweeping the perceived problems under the rug of faith.
Posted by: Brian Courts at Jul 16, 2007 7:34:53 PM
But, you'll notice you haven't actually explained anything...
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 17, 2007 2:12:36 AM
I have not read that particular Graphic novel, but I see no reason not to
be thrilled by the work of Alan Moore. His psychological yet humorous
story telling style revolutionized "comic books" and shine an interesting light on more obscure ethical and ontological viewpoints while remaining action packed and highly entertaining. His stories are perfect for the format and have been mauled consistently by Hollywood.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 18, 2007 4:02:20 AM
