Citation Needed

• There appears to be a widespread belief that bloggers should refrain from making wild guesses about general public opinion.

• A new study confirms this belief and proposes that blog articles should always refer to proper research and include full citations.

• The authors recently demonstrated that citations are especially useful while referring to the latest research.

• The citations might as well be probably useful while making suggestions that are likely to be somewhat vague.

• Trivial remarks, of course, do not need a citation (Iry-Hor 3100 BCE).

• As a popular example of citation etiquette, the authors point to Wikipedia—a relatively unknown encyclopedia available on computers connected to the Internet.

• The study is consistent with more than six years of research which has shown that authors who do not provide citations are unaware of more than six years of research.

• I sincerely hope that the authors’ names are forever remembered for their important contribution.

Facebook is No Trifle

In a Wall Street Journal article “Why Our Innovators Traffic in Trifles”, Nicholas Carr claims that Facebook, Twitter, and Pinterest are examples of “innovation’s turn toward the trifling”. The evidence, he says, is that such technologies are merely “altering internal states, transforming the invisible self or its bodily container.” Truly big inventions, according to Carr, are directed “outward” and pertain to “changing the shape of the physical world” or of “society”.

While it is true that Facebook is about information and ideas, and steam engines—which Carr puts in the second category—are about machinery, it does not follow however that the former are inherently less valuable than the latter. Contrary to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which Carr invokes, man cannot fulfill even his “primitive physiological requirements” without “self-actualization”. Imitating Boromir, One Does Not Simply Reshape the Physical World. Knowledge is a necessary precondition to action; and Facebook is essentially a tool to disseminate and obtain knowledge.

Historically, it has been inventions such as phonetic language, paper, and Guttenberg press that have served man’s “desire for self-expression and self-promotion”—a desire that Carr finds to be “small” and presumably not noble enough when being fulfilled by Facebook. Yet he could not honestly label the ancestral “complex systems of communication” as trifling, and rationalizes by characterizing those as being “outward” directed, by which he means "selfless". And selfless is exactly what their inventors and users were not. It does not make any difference whether you declare “what’s on your mind” on a remote retina display or a papyrus. Both are acts of “self-expression and self-promotion”. The same goes for the steam engine: there is nothing selfless about creating a powerful machine that reduces your physical labor.

Carr’s harmless-sounding call to “enlarge our aspirations” is a deceptive cover for his call to murder the self—the only entity with the capacity to aspire. Our ancestors had to selfishly choose to lift themselves from the caves. And that makes them big, not “small”.

A steam engine or Facebook can both serve the self. Either technology can be more valuable to a man than the other. The body and mind are integrated; there is no dichotomy between “tools of survival and tools of the self.”

ATLOSCon 2012: The Method of Invention

I will be presenting a talk on The Method of Invention at ATLOSCon 2012.

Here is the description:

Did the greatest inventors in history succeed by chance, intuition, or indiscriminate and arbitrary experimentation, as is commonly alleged? Or, did they ask and answer the right questions, and seek the relevant facts? Drawing upon the history of steam engine—the invention that powered the industrial revolution—Atul Kapur will present his hypothesis that each invention requires the identification and integration of three specific and distinct causal relationships, which he terms as “aberrational”, “essential”, and “differential”. James Watt, as well as his predecessors, will each be shown to have sought and successfully identified these three relationships. The topics to be discussed include: the relationship between discoveries, inventions, and concept-formation; the difference between invention and innovation; the crucial role and difficulty of experimentation; and why even the proper use of inventive method does not guarantee success. The lecture will end with an audience-driven discussion on the importance of reinstating the heroic status of inventors as a part of our cultural battle, and a note on why that requires untangling and demystifying the inventive method.

[Slightly modified from original]

The conference will take place May 24-28, 2012 in Atlanta, GA.

Click here to view the information on all classes and speakers. The registration is still open. And, it costs $75 or less!

Further information:

ATLOSCon is an annual conference organized by the Atlanta Objectivist Society (ATLOS).

Objectivist Round Up

Welcome to the 245^th edition of the Objectivist Round Up—a weekly selection of posts by bloggers who have adopted Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. It is for the first time that Wit Lab is hosting the Round Up.

This week's selection is rich in politics. Ayn Rand emphasized that politics is not a self-contained discipline. She wrote:

Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish.

“Choose Your Issues,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1962, 1

Now we are ready for the content from our bloggers. Here we go:

Roderick Fitts presents Induction of the Principle of Individual Rights (Founding Fathers) posted at Inductive Quest, saying, "In this post, I will explore the facts, assumptions, inductions, and conclusions of the Founding Fathers used or had to know to create their new theory of individual rights, and applied it to the new American nation!"

Darius Cooper presents How Much Social Security Will you Receive posted at Practice Good Theory, saying, "I make a best guess about how Social Security will turn out, and how much you will receive".

Kelly M. Valenzuela presents Famous Immigrant of the Week - Mikhail Baryshnikov posted at Mother of Exiles, saying, "I feature a famous immigrant each Friday, but I particularly love this one.  The video is just a sampling of the dazzling athleticism and artistry Baryshnikov is known for.  I also love how he defected from the cruel and evil Soviet Union to become a proud, productive American citizen."

Paul Hsieh presents Should You Trust Practice Guidelines? posted at We Stand FIRM blog, saying, "Here's why you shouldn't trust medical "practice guidelines" under ObamaCare."

Brian Phillips presents Social Problems and the Solution posted at Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, saying, "Today, the typical response to any social problem, such as education or energy production, is more government intervention. However, there was a time when individuals were free to address such issues voluntarily."

Jenn Casey presents ATLOSCon 2012 Speakers and Classes posted at Rational Jenn, saying, "We have a fantastic line up of speakers and classes for our conference! We hope you'll join us in Atlanta from May 24-28."

Jon Glatfelter presents Affirmative Action: A Solution to Racism—Or its Symptom? posted at The Undercurrent. About the post: "Jon Glatfelter explores affirmative action's deeper implications and motives."

Josh Windham presents Nobody Deserves Egalitarianism posted at The Undercurrent. About the post: "Should all men be afforded certain opportunities? Are we each entitled to our happiness? What does an individual deserve? Josh Windham takes on these questions with this Campus Media Response."

[The entries are listed in the order they were received.]

That concludes the edition. If you liked it, you may want to "Like" the Facebook page of the Objectivist Round Up as well. If you are an Objectivist interested in submitting posts to the upcoming editions of the Round Up, you will normally be asked to do so through the Blog Carnival. However, since that mechanism is not working, consider joining the OBloggers email list, where you will receive weekly instructions and reminders for posting.

The Certainty in Quantum Physics

In a Scientific American guest blog on the relationship between physics and philosophy, James Lloyd writes:

"If we can’t be certain about the properties of fundamental particles, what does that say about our knowledge of nature?"

The author is referring to quantum physics, which accurately describes the probability of a given event on the scale of elementary particles, but cannot predict when (or if) it would occur.

Does quantum physics imply an inherent uncertainty in nature, as the author presumes?

No. Contrary to the claims of some leading physicists, all that quantum physics provides is certainty. Elementary particles behave exactly in accordance with the probabilities calculated using equations of quantum physics. Just because the equations do not predict which one of the possible ways an interaction would occur, it does not follow that such occurrences are causeless and, hence, metaphysically uncertain.

If not for the certainty, a quantum computer would be inconceivable.

And, "what does that say about our knowledge of nature"?

Not that it’s unreliable, as most modern philosophers jump to conclude. Rather, the achievements of physics, including those of quantum physics, are a testament to the fact that knowledge is possible, and can be obtained with certainty.

Just as an egg laid by an ostrich cannot give birth to a chicken, the facts identified by physicists cannot, in the end, invalidate factual knowledge.


Update [Dec. 08, 08:16 UTC]: Slightly edited for clarity.

“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” in Quotes

When I was in college, the only books on physics that I could really understand were written by Richard Feynman.

Six years later, I am beginning to rediscover him. From a different perspective.

Recently, I read his book "Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!" and found it to be thoroughly amusing. The book is a collection of self-narrated stories of mischief from his super-adventurous life. I found out from it that Feynman's brilliance and rationality extended beyond his work in physics.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the book*.

On honesty and integrity in being a scientist:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool." [p. 313]

"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work." [p. 312]

"Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools--guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus--THAT, I CANNOT STAND!" [Emphasis original; pp. 258-259]

[The last quote appears in the book as Feynman's describes his experience at an "inter-disciplinary" conference. He was a panelist in a debate on how to achieve "the ethics of equality". The participants put forward their proposals, but kept evading any attempt to discuss what is meant by the phrase "the ethics of equality". Feynman argued that it's futile to debate without defining one's terms. He said, "So, in my opinion, we had no dialogue at all. Instead, we had nothing but chaos!" At this point, he was attacked with even more unintelligible phrases, such as, "Don’t you think that order can come from chaos?" Feynman vowed not to attend any interdisciplinary conferences.]

On mind-altering drugs, and the joy of thinking:

"I had once thought to take drugs, but I got kind of scared of that: I love to think, and I don’t want to screw up the machine." [p. 301]

"You see, I get such fun out of thinking that I don't want to destroy this most pleasant machine that makes life such a big kick." [Emphasis original; p. 184]

On first-handedness in seeking a career:

"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing." [p. 156]

[Feynman reached the above principle in declining an offer from a prestigious institute. The job was offered to him by reputed scientists, including Einstein. However, Feynman did not consider himself suitable for the job! From then on, he decided to put his own interest above others in all his career decisions, especially in choosing the problems for his research. He went on to undertake the problems that he found interesting, even if they seemed useless to his colleagues. This path led him to ultimately make many key discoveries in physics—including the one for which he later won the Nobel prize.]

Feynman also made some observations on topics that are not of interest to most scientists.

On unquestioned and unchecked authority:

"A teacher who has some idea of how to teach her children is forced by the school system to do it in some other way—or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts." [p. 310]

On redistribution of wealth:

"[T]he idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there's only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them." [p. 257]

[Feynman is right. In the same paragraph, he speculates that some countries are poorer than others because they lack development and machinery. Although he could not identify the deeper cause of poverty—the lack of freedom and ideas—he does come close when he says that machinery, in turn, requires "concentration of capital".]

Since Feynman was a physicist, and not a philosopher, I find it remarkable that he held such unconventional and superb ideas. What kept me flipping the pages of the book were examples of how Feynman, whom I had already known as a brilliant physicist, first-handedly acquired and applied rational principles in his life. That, and the fact that the book is full of hilarious anecdotes that brought me loads of chuckles.

I hope that the quotes have encouraged you to gift yourself a Feynman book this Christmas. I certainly plan to read more from the man.

Update [Jul. 18, 16:50 UTC]: Slightly edited for clarity.

*The page number after each quote refers to the Bantam edition (paperback) published in February 1986.

Occupy Wall Street, and Saying Grace on Thanksgiving: What do they have in Common?

The following words were spoken by an Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protester:

“[Bosses] and upper management people who have these top floor offices here, they don’t work; they don’t produce anything. They sit at the top and they count money, and their money makes money for them. They don’t provide anything for society; they suck wealth out of it.”

Another protester claimed that Steve Jobs “didn’t produce anything", but merely “took in the wealth that others produced”.

Now let’s have a look at Thanksgiving:

Thanksgiving started out as a celebration of good harvest. It is an acknowledgement of production. But whom do most families thank for the food on their table? They either thank no one in particular. Or they say grace, expressing their gratitude to God.

Do you see what’s common between the OWS and saying grace?

Both attempt to discredit the real producers.

The premise behind the statements of OWS protesters is that laborers and lower-wage employees are the only people essential to production (as explicated in a pamphlet that was widely distributed among the protesters). But this cannot be farther from the truth. Those with “top floor offices” are indispensible to production. They include the CEOs, investors, and top-level managers, who exercise their judgment to discover new talents, generate the capital to incentivize them as employees, and combine the product of their efforts. It’s only because of productive men like these that we have amazing products in the marketplace, including the technology that the OWS uses to organize and popularize their protests.

Likewise, saying grace attributes production to a nonexistent. It evades the fact that every luxury and delicacy at a Thanksgiving dinner is produced by producers who are unmistakably human. A turkey might exist in nature on its own, but it must be domesticated, processed, packed, distributed, retailed, and cooked before it sits on the silverware and becomes a food product. As writer Craig Biddle has pointed out, saying grace involves an “injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.”

How can the OWS and those saying grace so easily ignore the nature and source of production? The culprit is the dominant morality of altruism. Focusing on other people blinds a man to the fact that his life depends on values that must be produced. It blinds him to the fact that production requires thinking, which is not automatic, but requires conscious effort. This, in turn, disables him to identify productivity as a virtue, and a producer as someone who is profoundly moral. The result is to ignore, detest, or vilify the producers. And if the demands of OWS are met, even rob them of their possessions.

This Thanksgiving, let’s reverse the injustice committed by the OWS and by those saying grace. Let’s thank real producers, including those with “top floor offices”, who bring into existence all products and goods, including the wonderful ones on our Thanksgiving table.

Thanks to the Center for Industrial Progress, and Ari Armstrong, for the interviews of OWS protesters.

Slide-to-Unlock --> When Geniuses Apply for Patents

The internet LOL’d when news broke out that Apple has been awarded a patent for Slide-to-Unlock—a design element apparently so trivial that almost every smartphone user blushed upon hearing the news. On a serious note, many complained that the legal practice of granting patents to components, instead of actual devices, doesn’t make sense. Defenders of Windows 8, which uses the same mechanism specified in the patent, claimed that since the implementation is "different" there is no issue of infringement.

Is there anything wrong with the Slide-to-Unlock patent? Let me first state that I’ve never been to law school, and I understand that arguments for patent laws are not always trivial, but let me tell you two remarkable stories from history that might make you lean in favor of the patent.

The first story begins in Scotland; the year is 1769. James Watt has invented a remarkable steam engine that has more than thrice the efficiency of the best existing engine. He is applying for a patent. The specifications in his patent application are different from most patents filed in his time. Six decades earlier, Thomas Newcomen had filed a patent application that included every detail of his breakthrough engine: pipes, valves, and whatnot. But Watt wants to receive patent protection for merely a single component: the condenser. His patent does not include the entire design.

Thanks to the sanity of the patent office, Watt was granted the patent. Needless to say, there were critics. They claimed that Watt is willfully concealing his invention by an incomplete specification. Even today, some cite the patent to question his status as a hero of industrial revolution, alleging that all he did was invent a small component of the steam engine.

Such claims are absurd. That small component, a separate vessel for condensation, allowed the cylinder to be kept warm such that no steam was wasted in the next cycle. This is what essentially made Watt’s engine remarkably efficient and superior to any previous engine. As Watt himself explained*, he did not specify the other components because either those already existed in existing engines or he didn’t regard the improvements he made in those to be “significant”. His purpose was not to conceal his improvements in those components, rather to only protect what was truly essential. Sure enough, later when he or others made enough improvements in other components, they filed separate patents.

Our second story begins in Dayton, Ohio; the date is March, 1903. The Wright brothers are applying for a patent. It will be nine more months until they fly the first powered airplane in man’s history. But they are confident that they will succeed. Like Watt, they go one step further: their patent application specifies, not a component, but a method—a very uncommon practice at their time. Their application describes the method as controlling of an aircraft by changing the surface angle near the tips of wings.

After an initial rejection, and with the help of an attorney, the US patent office granted their patent. Here cometh the critics. Wright brothers had used wing-warping (twisting) to change the angle near wing tips. One of their rivals later used another method (ailerons) to change the angle. Critics claimed that this does not constitute a patent infringement, and that the method deserves credit by virtue of being "different".

Apart from the fact that the Wright brothers’ patent explicitly stated that the angle of the surface could be changed by any manner, the claim is baseless because an invention, by its very nature, involves an identification of essentials. For example, it is not essential to a telescope whether its scope is made of metal or wood. Galileo invented the telescope. He didn’t invent a wooden telescope! Likewise, the Wright brothers invented the method of changing surface angle as the key to achieving sustained flight. Whether the manner to achieve this is through wing-warping or ailerons is not essential to the invention.

From the two stories, it should be clear that (1) if patents were granted not to components, but entire devices, as some critics of Slide-to-Unlock patent would prefer, it would require the sacrifice of James Watt to his critics, and (2) if a rival is free to implement a patented method in another manner, as some defenders of Windows 8 would prefer, it would require the sacrifice of Wright brothers to their opponents.

Rational patent practices didn’t develop easily. Because of the unconventional way in which they specified their patents, both Watt and the brothers had to pursue lengthy legal battles to protect their inventions from infringement. Some criticize them for spending so much time in courts. But I think it is morally right to defend your property, material or intellectual. As Wilbur Wright righteously wrote in a letter to an aviator, "[it] is our view that morally the world owes its almost universal use of our system of lateral control entirely to us. It is also our opinion that legally it owes it to us." Neither Watt nor the brothers were famous or influential before their respective inventions; they took a bold, but sensible, step when they filed for patents in a manner that they saw effective. The genius of Watt and Wright brothers extends beyond their inventions—they were instrumental in establishing patent practices that will protect inventors, including those of Slide-to-Unlock, for centuries to come.

*A Plain Story (1796)—James Watt’s account of how he came upon invention, and a response to his critics.

Update [Nov. 17, 17:25 UTC]: Slightly edited for clarity.

Watt and Edison Contra Determinism

A common criticism levied against innovators is: “if not him, somebody else would have done it.”

Formally described as counterfactual conditional or simply “counterfactual”, such criticism is used in a variety of contexts: to emphasize competitors, to denounce CEO salaries, to oppose patents, etc.; but, essentially, its purpose is to rob an innovator of the moral recognition that he deserves. A recent example [video] is an Occupy Wall Street protester who used the criticism against Steve Jobs, and concluded it with “To Hell with Steve Jobs!”

The philosophical doctrine underlying such criticism is determinism—the idea that your thoughts and actions are merely a consequence of external past influences. Its product is social theories such as “critical mass” theory of development, the labor theory of value, and ultimately the complete disregard for the individual under Communism.

But man has free will. The very fact that you can choose to disagree with that statement is evidence for it. Innovation requires knowledge and thought. And neither of those is automatic—they require volitional application of your mind. However, my purpose here is not to convince you that man has free will. (If you aren’t convinced, you’re determined to be doomed, anyways.) Instead, I will quote from some brilliant innovators who were, and still are, routinely charged with the “counterfactual”.

Thomas Edison, emphasizing the importance of effort, said:

None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.¹

James Watt answered the criticism directly:

[I am] not so presumptuous as to think that there were not, and are not, numbers of mechanics in this nation, who, from the same or even fewer hints, would have completed a better engine than [I] did. [...] But [I do] not pretend that any body could have done it without thinking upon it, nor without much previous knowledge and some experience of similar things.² [Emphasis original.]

Steve Jobs, on the other hand, pointed out that sometimes even the innovators feel that they don’t deserve full recognition:

Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something.³

Although Jobs deserves enormous moral praise for being an “insanely great” producer (and for many other reasons, perhaps), I disagree with him on the source of “little guilt”. Jobs is right that creativity requires mental integration. But the act of “seeing” a “connection” between things is a uniquely human capacity. It requires conscious effort, and is our sole means of survival. Thus, properly understood, creative activity can only be a source of pride. To the extent that a creative person feels guilt is the extent to which he accepts the premise of determinism.

¹ As per Wikiquote, the statement was made in a press conference (1929).

² A Plain Story (1796)—his account of how he came upon invention, and a response to his critics.

³ Wired (February 1995)

Hazare’s “Solution” does Not Solve Anything

The basic problem with Indian activist Anna Hazare’s “solution” to the problem of corruption is that it only adds to the bureaucracy. If passed in any form, the so called Jan Lokpal or Citizens' Ombudsman Bill would subordinate the judicial- as well as some portions of executive-branch of the government to arbitrary and uncontrolled power, while adding another layer of bureaucrats, who will be less accountable and more powerful than the elected ones.

Hazare’s evil lies in his advocacy of statism, his version of which is an expanded and more arbitrary form of government in India. His “solution” to corruption does nothing to address its root cause: the arbitrary power of the democratically elected looters to redistribute wealth (some of which they unsurprisingly keep in their pockets). Instead, the only difference under Jan Lokpal would be that the loot and bribes would be divided among a larger number of bureaucrats. Even worse, the consequent increase in legal and judicial complexity would make the redistribution of loot even more non-objective and difficult to track—all in the name of “transparency”.

No matter how the deck chairs are rearranged, the corrupt will remain attracted to politics as long as the winner gets to distribute Rs. 2,00,00,00,00,000 in non-defense activities (hint: look up "2G scam"). The Hazare “solution” is a recipe for attracting even more corrupt power-mongers to politics.

An alternative political method to prevent corruption does exist. It consists of eradicating the disease, and not merely treating the symptoms. Begin by scraping the power of the bureaucrats to implement “welfare” programs. Scrap their coercive monopolization of electricity distribution, roadways, dams etc. Cut their hold on corporate mergers, bond markets, polio vaccines, and 2G licenses. In principle, separate the government from economics. Strip the government to its only legitimate functions: the police, the army, and the judiciary. The economic liberalization of India in the 1990s was a step in the right direction. It is time to advocate for a consistent and non-contradictory implementation of the free-market.

Not only does Hazare hold fascist political ends (meaning tyrannical in spirit, but freedom-enhancing in pretense), his means are consistent as well. Hunger strike is not an argument—it is a knee-jerk crybaby reaction. Consequently, some have criticized Hazare for not being truly Gandhian, who was arguably much more intellectually versed than Hazare. True, but I would argue that even though Hazare’s interest in ideas might be weaker than Gandhi’s, his tactics are Gandhian to the core (where, by “Gandhian” I mean marked by an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason.) His choice of hunger-strike rather than a political treatise is insulting, non-intellectual, and non-mindful of individual judgment.

There is an irony in Anna Hazare supporters singing “Ek dokha kha chuke hain aur kha sakte nahin” (translated: “Having been deceived once [by the British], we cannot be deceived again”). Who really needs to sing this line is the Indians who have so far resisted the brainwash, and they need to start singing it soon.

Why I like Daphnis and Chloe

I wrote a guest post at One Objectivist's Art Object of the Day on why Daphnis and Chloe by Louis Hersent is one of my favorite paintings.

I like the painting for its depiction of a passionate couple engaged in a life-affirming moment. Let me define that moment by briefly describing the painting as we see it (i.e. without any reference to the story that it's based upon).

A beautiful young couple is sitting in the countryside. The girl is holding a double-flute close to her mouth, while her face and eyes are rotated just enough to glance at the guy. The guy's slightly open mouth and the same positioning of their fingers suggest that he is teaching her how to play a melody. [...]

Go read the whole thing, here. And, please leave a comment!

Thanks to One Objectivist's Art Object of the Day for letting me guest-blog.

Q&A on Oil

As a graduate student in marine sciences, I occasionally encounter queries on environmental issues from friends and strangers. Here are my answers to three questions related to oil:

Q: What new technologies do we need in order to prevent oil spills?

A: None! You are making an incorrect assumption that the essential cause of oil spills is unreliable technology. The fact is that there are more significant factors that come into play. For example, BP and other oil companies have to undertake huge amount of risk by drilling in deep waters. If you retrace the reasons due to which they do not drill on land (in the Arctic) or shallow continental shelves, you will find that there are laws that prevent them from doing so. A shallow or surface drilling operation, if allowed, will be able to afford better technology that would make it safer. An oil spill at such a site would be local in spread, and much easier to stop. Another factor is the laxity induced by the regulatory structure, which transfers the burden of responsibility from the oil companies to the unaccountable EPA regulators. Also, many oil companies invest significantly in "green" projects that divert their focus from the research in drilling technology.

Q: Do you think the U.S. could survive without offshore drilling, or do you think we absolutely need to drill offshore?

A: I don't know what percentage of population can economically "survive" if they only depend on foreign oil. But your goal should not be mere survival. It should be to make the best of your own life. The question you should ask is: would such a restriction lower my standard of living? The fact that oil corporations desperately want to drill in the US, despite governmental restrictions and onerous regulations, suggests that they believe they can produce and sell oil cheaper than the one being imported. Hence, I am inclined to believe that (at present) domestic drilling is in all likelihood raising the standard of living, at least in the US, by making oil cheaper. Even if that's not the case, a government-imposed moratorium on drilling is necessarily bad because it restricts your choice to act on your own judgement.

Q: What alternative sources could we possibly use instead of oil? Is there a different fuel source that could be used?

A: As of today, no other alternative fuels are economically viable. As Alex Epstein, a Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, explains:

Fossil fuels supply 86% of the world's energy--the energy that makes the difference between 40-year life expectancies in undeveloped countries and 80-year life expectancies in industrialized countries. By contrast, a meager 2% of the world's energy is produced by "green" sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels--after over three decades of subsidies around the globe.

Oil is likely to remain indispensable for many decades. It is the most significant resource responsible for industrial growth that "makes catastrophes noncatastrophic.”

For Mr. Epstein's detailed argument, see "Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market", The Objective Standard [requires subscription]; and "Let's Celebrate Oil's 150th Birthday And The Value It Adds To Our Lives", Investors.com.

The ideas expressed in this post are solely mine, and not of my employer or colleagues at the University of Miami.

Objectivist Roundup

The latest edition of Objectivist Roundup is available at The Playful Spirit.

The Roundup includes my post on Left's distortion of concepts. It also includes two other posts that reflect on the same issue – one by Mike Zemack on Left's unprincipled distinction between “violence” and “force”, and the other by C. W. on the doctrine of “too big to fail.”

It being April Fools’ Day, the host has aptly introduced the Roundup by quoting Ayn Rand on humor. I post here my favorite funny kid video (but don’t forget to check out the Roundup!):

Left's "Unfair" Attack on Healthcare Industry

Recent healthcare legislation places numerous new restrictions on healthcare providers, essentially forcing them to act against their own best interests. The enslavement of professionals, who are directly responsible for improving human life, has been facilitated by Left’s countless accusations hurled against them. Insurance companies are routinely blamed for being “unfair” whenever they raise premiums or deny coverage. President Obama, gloating on the passage of the healthcare bill, victoriously declared:

“[Insurance companies] have to start playing by a new set of rules that treat everyone fairly and honestly. The days of the insurance industry running roughshod over the American people are over.”

Such accusations are directed indiscriminately towards the entire industry; allegedly, no insurance company has been competent enough to offer “fair” prices. This only makes one wonder why none of these self-declared pundits could open their own company that offers lower-priced insurance. The only logical answer could be that the market prices of insurance are, in fact, unbeatably low. Perhaps, the Left was never really concerned about high prices. Had it been, it would not have been furious at Whole Foods CEO’s proposal to remove already-in-place governmental restrictions that have been driving the costs up.

What is it, if not pricing, that Left is actually denouncing as “unfair”? The answer becomes clear when one observes that “unfairness” is always cited in the context of need. President Obama loves to narrate sob stories of people who had to suffer from illness because they were unable to afford insurance. The claim is that it is “unfair” for an insurance company to set prices that some people cannot pay – even if setting a lower price would result in losses. This suggests that the accusation for being “unfair” is actually a denunciation for making “profit”.

To accuse a healthcare provider for making profit is to denounce him for keeping the product of his own effort. It means to treat him as sacrificial slave, who has no right to exist for his own sake. This is exactly opposite to the founding principle of United States: an individual’s right to his own life. If Left presents its anti-life morality (of altruism) in its full naked obscenity, most Americans would reject it. This is why Left attempts to sneak-it-in by perverting the concept of “unfair”. But what is really unfair is preventing a healthcare provider from earning a living.

Watch out – the phrase “unfair price hike” is going to be heard more and more often as insurance companies will inevitably struggle to meet ends under the new restrictions. To defend against such attacks, one must begin by exposing the treachery involved in Left’s usage of the concept “unfair”. It is necessary to define one's terms clearly before one can challenge the healthcare legislation on moral grounds. Epistemology is the battleground for ethics (and, thus, for politics). Capitalism has eroded in America because the Left has been successful in keeping its terms vague.

Capitalism welcomes objectivity – more precise are its terms, the stronger its defense. This is because it is a system based on reality: in order to sustain his life, man must keep the product of his own effort. Capitalism has nothing to hide. Its enemies know this, which is why they attack the language (concepts) capitalism needs in order to defend itself. Any intellectual revolution that aims to redeem capitalism must begin by clearing the epistemological fog emitted by the Left. The ideal places to begin are college and university campuses, which have been the Left’s den-of-iniquity ever since the Progressive Era.

Objectivist Roundup

Objectivist Roundup is a weekly selection of posts from bloggers advocating Ayn Rand's philosophy. The posts cover all sorts of topics, such as education, career, practical ethics, politics, parenting, and even diet. Ayn Rand called Objectivism "a philosophy for living on earth," as opposed to the impossible-to-follow mystical or altruistic doctrines.

The latest edition of the Roundup is hosted by Kelly Elmore at "Reepicheep's Coracle." Many posts in this edition are, unsurprisingly, related to healthcare. (The Roundup also feature my previous blog post.)

Does Katie Really Know Where Taiwan is?

A 23-month-old girl, Katie*, received a fair amount of publicity on the internet and news reports because of her “geography skills”. In a YouTube video which has now been viewed more than 4.5 million times, her parents ask her to locate on a map more than 40 different countries, one after another. Quickly and correctly, she is able to point those out. Katie has demonstrated this ability on talk shows with hosts Rachael Ray and Oprah Winfrey. She was acclaimed by the local media as a “child prodigy” and a “very talented” girl.

Katie’s ability is unusual given her very young age. Most two-year-olds are able to speak and use only a few simple words. How does Katie manage to locate so many different countries on a map? One clue is provided by her parents. When asked by Rachael Ray how they discovered her “skills”, her father explained: "Katie's uncle went to Taiwan when she was 16 months old, and she wanted to know where he went. So we found a map and pointed to Taiwan. The next time she saw the map, she pointed to Taiwan." Let us put this in Katie’s perspective. When her parents first showed her Taiwan on the map, Katie must have associated the sound “Tai-wan” with that particular shape located on the chart paper. Later, when she saw the map, she recalled the associated visual pattern and pointed at its location. In essence, her method was pattern recognition. It is by this process that Katie is able to locate all those countries.

It must be stressed that Katie is too young to grasp the concept ‘country’. She cannot even conceive of organized societies or large stretches of land, let alone their complicated international division. For her, the map is nothing more than a piece of paper, over which countries are nothing but colored shapes. They do not correspond to anything else in reality. If you doubt this, note an incident that happened during Rachael Ray’s show. After Katie was done showing her “skills”, Rachael, while announcing a reward, asked her: “How’d you like to go to Hawaii?” Of course, Katie had no clue what it means to “go to” a location on a piece of chart paper. It is not surprising that she proceeded to do the only thing she knew to do whenever she hears “Ha-wa-ii”: she pointed her finger at Hawaii’s location on the map. This leaves us no doubt that, although, some sounds and patterns are associated in her mind, they are completely disconnected from reality.

Such disconnect between “knowledge” and reality is actually very common; it could be found not only in kids, but also in adults. For example, for many people, “knowledge” consists of miracles and magicians presented in “holy scriptures”. These people evade the fact such “knowledge” contradicts with a rational view of reality based on the evidence of our senses. They are unable to distinguish between arbitrary assertions and verifiable truths. Epistemological disability of this magnitude results when one dogmatically adopts assertions without integrating them with the rest of one’s knowledge. The pedagogical method – commonly used in schools and colleges – that is responsible for such disintegration consists of demanding from students that they accept instructions on faith. It is the method by which Katie was “taught” about countries.

A proper method of learning about a country would be based on the hierarchical structure of concepts. Every country has an identity. To know about a particular country means knowing about some of its unique characteristics. These characteristics are not limited to shape and location, but also include historical and current events, natural and man-made structures, people, cultures, languages, climate etc. Let us take an example. Say, you are reading a detailed account of a historical battle that was spread across many different regions. Assume that the location and other geographical features of those regions played an important role in the battle. At this moment, if you take a look at that country’s map, it would hugely benefit you in pursuit of your knowledge. You will be able to easily associate progression of historical events with geography of the regions. The names of the regions will enable you to retain all their unique characteristics as one mental unit, just like names of people enable you to retain unique behavior or events associated with that person. In short, a proper method of learning about a geographical region begins by learning about its unique characteristics, and ends with retention of its name.

In case of Katie, I am not advocating that she should have been taught about Taiwan via history, but that a two-year-old is very immature to really understand where Taiwan is. Katie’s intelligence, by virtue of which she is able to remember so many countries, would only help her in future if she is taught by methods based on epistemology of a rational being, not of a parrot. Otherwise, she may remain vulnerable to any mystic who preaches that earth was created in seven days.

*I have replaced the actual name of the child with a fictional one

Introducing Wit Lab

Welcome readers. I am excited to start my very first blog: Wit Lab*. In this post, I will briefly describe the scope of the blog and my purpose in starting it.

I intend to use Wit Lab for publishing my essays and commentary on scientific and social trends. My analysis will be from the perspective of Objectivism – the philosophy of 20^th century novelist-thinker Ayn Rand. I must state, however, that I am not an authority on Objectivism. Ayn Rand’s ideas are so revolutionary that I still gain new insights whenever I re-read her works. I will write more on Objectivism and Ayn Rand in my future posts.

Most of my posts will be related to my non-academic interests. I will analyze contemporary or historical trends in physical sciences, education, culture and politics. On few occasions, I may write on more theoretical subjects, such as epistemology or philosophy of science. I may also post on my developing interest in history and economics. The subject on which I will not post is my academic field of study – Meteorology in which I obtained a Masters, and am now working for a Ph.D. – except in context of a wider cultural or political issue (such as “climate change”). This is because I plan to write blog posts at night, when I am “done with” my academic work. In case you are interested, check out my official website.

I have a three-fold purpose in starting this blog. First, I want to connect with people who share my fundamental values or my view of life. This does not mean that I would ignore anyone who does not agree with me on a given issue. On the contrary, I will be happy to hear your disagreements, provided you hold reason as an absolute. So, feel free to write your comments on my posts.

Second, I found that I have a lot more to say on many issues than I comfortably can over Facebook (forget about Twitter). The style of my blog posts is going to be short essays but a little more formal in style than most other blogs. I will still remain active on Facebook because I think it is useful to remain in touch with friends and have nice little arguments debates. So if you enjoy Wit Lab, I encourage you to friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter. You will win an early check-in if you mention that you found me through this blog.

Finally, the blog would let me nicely archive my posts so that I (and everyone else) can easily go back to old material. I will post 1-2 times per week in the beginning, but I may post more frequently as my writing skills improve.

Thank you for visiting Wit Lab!

*No, I didn’t steal the name from Wetlab – the bar at my university campus.