Tinkering on a Saturday morning...

Google has a customized search engine feature anyone can add to their personal webpage, blog, or google homepage. Since I don't feel like going to Leiter Reports blog everytime I want some information about the profession, etc., I decided to build one for Leiter Reports: A Group Blog and the Philosophical Gourmet Report.

(Note: Leiter Reports has a customized search engine available on the webpage. I wanted to build one for my Google homepage, so I could search his page without trekking over to his page. Jeez - am I lazy!)

You can add the customized search engine by clicking here and following the directions.

Separate but Equal?

The Supreme Court decided last week against voluntary integration programs based on race. Their primary reason seems to be that racial balancing doesn't promote "diversity." The court, in its majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, argued that forced integration programs wholly based on the race of students is unconstitutional.

Numerous folks, bloggers, political pundits, etc., have weighed in on the Supreme Court's decision. In the interest of buying some time before I contribute my own argument, I have pasted some of the discussion that's been going on elsewhere in this blogosphere.

I'm buying time because I want to read the Court's opinion before I draw up an argument for or against the decision. Much of what has been written about the decision is based in heresay rather than fact. Many obviously haven't bothered to read the Court's opinion. Those who have read it haven't read it carefully.

Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, either hadn't read the Court's opinion or had read snippets of what had been said on blogs or in the media. Two things he needs to get right is: (i) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District #1 has every thing to do with segregation in a school and (ii) the Court's opinion does not affect Grutter v. Bollinger. If Connerly is the chairman of an organization and he likes to generate opinions about Supreme Court cases, he probably should read them before he has an opinion about them! I think that Ward Connerly has more to do with this organization.)

Vanessa Hernandez of Supreme Court - School Integration writes:

What scares me most about the rollback on Brown’s promise of school integration is not the impact it may have on academic achievement (although I do think that school districts, spooked by this ruling, will be reluctant to even talk about race in schools, thus making it extremely difficult to provide at risk students with the additional resources they need). Rather, I’m troubled by the possibility that more children in this country will be educated in a segregated environment, lacking the understanding, empathy, and personal connection to people of other backgrounds which is necessary to participate in both American democracy and a global society.

Scott Lemieuxwrites:

Roberts's plurality opinion rests on the assertion that racial classifications intended to perpetuate a caste system should be considered the precise legal equivalent of racial classifications intended to remedy segregation. This is exceptionally unpersuasive, and also makes it almost impossible to actually remedy the ongoing de facto segregation of American school systems, much of which has roots in various forms of state discrimination (not just formal apartheid in the South, but the drawing of arbitrary school district lines to create segregated systems, local ordinances encouraging residential segregation, etc.).

The ACLU of Massachusetts charitably interprets the SCOTUS decision:

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on the Seattle and Louisville case neither reversed Brown v. Board of Education nor prohibited measures designed to ensure equality in education. Instead, the Court's decision provides a road map for efforts to desegregate public education so that students of all races can have equal educational opportunities.

I think that Rick Perlstein of Common Sense, sums it up very well indeed: "The idea that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could cough up such a ludicrous hairball is evidence of a nation gone mad with amnesia."

Sclblogger, of Supreme Court - School Integration blog, cites the reactions of the actual attorneys involved in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education:

-Robert L. Carter, the lawyer who Roberts quotes directly (and now a 90-year-old senior federal judge in Manhattan) explains how the Chief Justice distorted the purpose of and historical context behind his words:

"All that race was used for at that point in time [the 1950s] was to deny equal opportunity to black people. It’s to stand that argument on its head to use race the way they use it now."-Columbia Professor Jack Greenberg, who worked on the Brown case for the plaintiffs, called Roberts’ interpretation “preposterous.” He explained that,“The plaintiffs in Brown were concerned with the marginalization and subjugation of black people. They said you can’t consider race, but that’s how race was being used. . . Following Brown, there was massive resistance. This is essentially the rebirth of massive resistance in more acceptable form.”

-William T. Coleman Jr., a lawyer in Brown who now works as a lawyer in Washington, explained that,“The majority opinion is 100 percent wrong. It’s dirty pool to say that the people Brown was supposed to protect are the people it’s now not going to protect.”

What's the fallout? Well, more litigation. A group of parents in Lynn, Massachusetts have decided to challenge the school district's including "race" among the factors in a student's wanting to attend a school outside his/her neighborhood. The full story is here.

Philosophy@USU

I recently found a philosophy weblog at Utah State University (http://www.usuphilosophy.com). Charlie Huenemann authors many of the posts (all of what I read). His other weblog (click here) covers a lot of stuff, what some might call political, social, and intellectual commentary.

Huenemann specializes in the history of modern philosophy, especially Spinoza. For the time being, since there doesn't seem to be much distinction between the two weblogs in terms of authorship, I provide a link to Huenemann's blog. Should other authors begin posting on the Philosophy@USU I will add that link too.

Podcasting

Podcasts are sound or video recordings available for download from an internet provider. Podcasts are usually free, though they can be intended for a subscription only audience.

People in philosophy have used podcasts for class (search for Hubert Dreyfus or existentialism in iTunes), for online conferences (see Jeff McMahon's lecture here or Ernest Sosa's lecture here), and for general consumption (via Philosophy Talk, a radio broadcast). Although I think incorporating technology into the classroom is important, I hesitate to use podcasts. Let me explain.

(1) Introducing podcasting into the classroom. I've got a pretty good track record of using discussion effectively in large classrooms - say 100 or more students. Discussion improves not only my understanding of the material but it helps the student understand the material better. Recent history shows that students who engage in classroom discussion usually receive higher grades in the class.

Podcasts may inhibit discussion. If I incorporate podcasts, I fear that students will be less forthcoming. They will know that what they say is being recorded. If they know they're being recorded, then they might hesitate to discuss for fear of someone they don't know listening to the publicly accessible content. To circumvent this problem, I might restrict access to the podcasts. But this will surely result in more emails from students who forget the password. So, this will be more work for me.

Ultimately, my biggest fear is that the classroom dynamic may change. Students should feel free to ask questions and discuss without fearing that they're being recorded. My class will have to start with an explanation that they're already under constant surveillance by roaming webcams. Since they're already being surveilled, there's no reason to fear for discussing something in class. Moreover, I can say that the podcast will be removed from public consumption once the class is completed.


(2) Legal problems. The primary legal hurdle is: am I violating any university policy by podcasting my classroom activities? So far as I have read in the policies and procedure manual, I would not be violating any explicit rules of the university.

Implicit rules are a different story. If I make content available publicly, then those who do not attend the university will have access to classes offered by the university. Surely, this isn't in their favor because those who consume the podcast haven't paid tuition. Since they haven't paid tuition, they have no right to benefit from the lectures I post.

The easiest way around the legal problem is to check with the powers-that-be to ask for permission to use podcasts in the classroom. Much of the semester will be an experiment, but I believe that podcasting will be a pedagogical tool the future can hardly do without.

(3) Will attendance drop? If students know they can hear the lecture later that day by downloading it from the internet, will they be less apt to attend class? I'm especially worried about students who should be in the classroom as a means of helping them focus.

One of the advantages of podcasting lectures is that students will be able to review the lecture later if they missed something in class. Oftentimes students want me to repeat an explanation or an argument the following class period because their notes were incomplete. To complete their notes they will just have to download and to listen to the podcast using their favorite mp3 player.

If attendance becomes a problem, then I may have to institute a strict attendance policy. But I really don't want to do that, since taking attendance is time consuming in very large classes.

Note: An interesting discussion about podcasting is available here. Warren seems to think that it's not a coincidence that I posted on podcasting. I can assure him it is. I didn't know of his discussion until it popped up on statcounter. Also, I've been messing around with this post since the end of May. Thanks for the link!

Three paper drafts

I had a weekend of great accomplishment. So far as I can tell my recent success has been brought on by a serious case of dissertation anxiety.

First, I revised and submitted for publication a paper on Wittgenstein and nonsense.

Second, I revised and submitted for publication a paper on Tarantino and retributive justice.

Finally, I revised a paper I've entitled Action under a description: what the folk say. I want to tinker with it b/f I post a draft to my blog.

To top it all off I've got three things on the burner:

(1) experimental epistemology stuff
(2) The New American Wittgensteinians and Therapy
(3) Action individuation and planning theories of practical reasoning

Tales of Modernity hosts latest Philosophy Carnival

The latest philosophy carnival is here.

Is parental guidance suggested?

Nope! I'm clean, which is more than I can say for some blogs I read. But I'm kinda embarrassed that my blog joins the ranks of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, 101 Dalmations, Shrek. Am I some sort of pansy?

Mingle² - Online Dating

HT: Siris

Which type of emailer are you?

PsyBlog cites a recent study by Heir, Renaud and Ramsey (2007) that argues there are three types of emailers (click here). Some people get to email when they can, and they aren't stressed about replying to email. These are the relaxed emailers. Then, there are people motivated to reply immediately to email they've received. These are the driven emailers. Finally, email frustrates and stresses out a third group of people. Every time they open the emailbox they feel stressed. These are the stressed emailers.

Though I answered that I'm a driven emailer, I think I fall somewhere between the driven and the stressed. When school's in session, I worry that opening my professional emailbox (weber.edu account) will result in hours of formulating responses to students and colleagues questions or comments.

Despite the stress of my professional emailbox, I enjoy opening and reading the email in my personal email account. Oftentimes, I receive email from long-lost friends, colleagues I don't get to see very often, or persons interested in my work (though, this is a rarity). I enjoy reading these emails, and I enjoy responding to them. The type of email I receive in my personal emailbox is a source of joy and happiness.

So, if I were to answer the survey truthfully, I'd have to say that it depends on which email account the surveyors are talking about. Perhaps I'm an anomaly; maybe, people don't have more than one email account. It has been my experience that they do, and empirical research - if in fact that is what we can call this informal survey - should reflect that fact.

Ogden's great

Hot on the heels of the NY Times spread Friday, the local newspaper, i.e., the Standard-Examiner, published a 10-or-so page insert about the major economic and business plans for Ogden and the surrounding areas. For the most part, I found the insert informative.

The argument goes something like this: (1) the Ogden area real estate is affordable and convenient; (2) the Ogden area is attracting major players in the outdoor recreation industry and other industries (the article cites Malt-o-Meal as an example); (3) affordable and convenient real estate in addition to employment attracts people to a region of the country; (4) thus, the ongoing economic and business development will attract people to the Ogden area.

I agree. (and here comes the notorious "but.") The article seems to overlook two very important facts people in other parts of the country find very important. They find these to be so important that they won't move to other parts of the country that don't offer them.

(1) Nightlife. My best friend lives in Connecticut, in a suburb of NYC, and he epitomizes the 30-something yuppie that Ogden's trying to attract. For him, though, nightlife is very important; in particular, he's looking for nightlife with real beer, fun bars, and dancing. He's looking for "clubs," a place to dance, etc. If Ogden (and Utah for that matter) wants to attract the 30-something crowd from outside the state, then the rules are going to have to bend a bit.

(2) What's the deal with outsiders? I came from a small-town in suburban Boston. Everyone knew everyone else's business. We called these people "townies." I hated them. But one thing townies didn't do is treat outsiders badly. If you weren't from Norwood and if a townie ran into you on the street, they'd probably ask you where you were from and whether you had the time for a beer, a coffee, or a soda. Here, it's much different (at least off-campus). I like to walk to-and-from school, and I like public transportation. People have flipped me off, almost run me over when I'm walking in the crosswalk (to add insult to injury these folks usually honk their horn; I remedy the situation by walking very slowly and staring at the driver very intensely), and handed me a $1-bill as if I'm some sort of vagabond. If people here really want outsiders to move to Ogden - as it appears they do - then there going to have to realize that they're different. Celebrate diversity!

In sum, I like Ogden. I don't want it to change too drastically. The Junction is nice, but I wouldn't install more "clubs" to satisfy outsiders. I'd initiate a different approach by talking about a virtually alcohol/drug-free town. Ogden's got a lot of "charm," I'd tell'em.

(Perhaps this post is a bit too critical. In a future post, I'll share my positive thoughts about the new economic/business development in and around Ogden, e.g., Ogden didn't make the same mistake as SLC with the Gateway.)

The Fleecing of the Academy

Some people may sell Rolex look-alikes on the streets of New York; others sell DVDs of forthcoming blockbuster movies. But it takes a special kind of ninny to burn and to sell DVDs compiling copyrighted academic papers in philosophy.

Per Bill Edmundson's report, an eBay auction offers 600+ philosophy books and articles (click here). All of the material - so far as I can tell in one pass - is copyrighted by Oxford UP, Cambridge UP, and numerous journals. Wynnjammer07, the eBay auctioneer, has already sold several copies of his DVDs. All of the buyers (equally dim-witted) are listed on his feedback page.

A legal question: Could Wynnjammer 07 and all of the buyers be sued for copyright infringement? (I'm pretty sure they're all liable.)

Besides the philosophy books and articles on sale, wynnjammer07 sells hundreds of psychology books and articles too (click here). At least two philosophers show up on this list: Chalmers, The Conscious Mind (though wynnjammer lists the author as "Flanagan"), and Flanagan, The Science of the Mind. Since many of the books are collections and since I can't remember off-hand the contributors to these volumes, everyone should check the psychology list too.

Edmundson also points out that you may download many books and articles here and here. (Anyone may lodge a complaint at Mininova website.)

HT: Leiter Reports

Ogden in the NY Times

Ogden, Utah is quickly becoming a great destination for travellers and for people seeking an affordable place to live. A story by Wendy Knight was a feature in the Escape section of the New York Times today. You can read it by clicking here.

What I find interesting is Wendy's comparison of Ogden, UT to Boulder, CO. Anyone who has lived or visited these two places knows there is a world of social difference between the two. The difference makes Ogden a much more charming place to live than Boulder. (Perhaps I'm a bit prejudice to say this!)

Federal Reserve Board Regulation D: Is it really protecting America?

FRB Regulation D limits the number of electronic transactions you can make from a federally insured savings account into any other account during each statement cycle. The limitation pertains to the following types of transactions:

• Checks;
• Telephone transfers;
• Online banking transfers (including Bill Pay);
• Debit card transfers;
• Overdraft protection transfers; and
• Pre-authorized transfers from your account (including automatic and wire transfers).

According to the regulation, you are limited to 6 transfers per statement cycle, and only 3 of these transactions can be by check, check card, or similar order or withdrawal. For some financial institutions, a fee of $10 may be assessed if you exceed the limits in any statement cycle. Also, if you exceed the limits during 3 separate statement cycles during a 12-month period, your account may be changed to a checking account or frozen.

Regulation D requires all financial institutions to monitor savings accounts for the transactions listed above. Why should the government (via financial institutions) be able to monitor citizen's financial transactions? It's the Bush administration, so the natural answer is: terrorism. They're afraid that anyone who transfers funds electronically are engaging in terrorism. So, when you transfer that $100 from savings into a checking account to buy those shoes you wanted, you're engaging in activities deemed to be a form of terrorism by the federal government.

Terrorists have bank accounts, and they must transfer money from one account to another. I'm not disputing that fact. I don't even want to dispute the fact that the government should be able to monitor suspicious activity that could be linked with terrorism. But have we become so paranoid that a government is justified in monitoring all customers for transferring funds from an interest-bearing savings account to other accounts?

Recent evidence has shown that the savings rate is -1%. What that means is that we're spending more than we're saving. It's no wonder we're not saving! We don't want our accounts to be monitored. If we know that our accounts will be monitored by the feds, there's an incentive not to save. We don't want the government snooping in our financial transactions.

One thing to note about Regulation D is about the assessment fee. If you ask a customer service representative at a financial institution about the fee, they will claim that it is a federal requirement that customers be assessed a fee. But a fee isn't mentioned in Section 204.2 of Regulation D, which outlines the parameters for the excess transfers from a savings account. So, their claim isn't entirely accurate. They're charging for fees assessed by the government for the monitoring service.

48th Philosophers Carnival

The newest philosophers carnival is now posted at Common Sense Philosophy.

Mea culpe

I reviewed my blog page yesterday evening after posting on Hempel and experimental philosophy. I discovered that I omitted a link to Mixing Memory ( hereafter "MM"), a favorite blog of mine.

I attribute my oversight to one of two excuses. First, I could have forgotten to add it when I converted to the new (and very much improved) blogger.com account. The new blogger didn't import my links for some reason. Or, I didn't know how to categorize MM in my favorite blog listing. MM is a unique blog covering many different topics in psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, and general science.

I've categorized MM under: Blogs by individuals in Philosophy I read. I could be mistaken in categorizing MM that way. Until I have a critical mass of science/cognitive science blogs to link, I will continue to categorize MM under the current heading. Once I have that critical mass, I'll change the list. Thanks for bearing with me!

By the by, if you've not had a chance to check out MM and if you have interest in these areas, I strongly advise your checking out MM's blog!