Mind your Ps and Qs ... because ...

During discussions in the classroom, which now seems like something that happened in my previous life and to which we might not return for a few more months, I would often follow up with a student's point with "because ..."

I want students to explain why X leads to Y, and not just assume that X is there or that Y will happen.  After all, the courses that I teach are not faith-based.  Sometimes, I would even tell them that very point--we do not simply believe but provide logical explanations.

If the context is climate change, then I even quote Katherine Hayhoe, who said it well that she does not believe in climate change, because climate change is not about belief, not about faith, but is about cause-effect.

Even though I walk around with a Rodney Dangerfield-like punchline, I know well that there are students who listen to me and think about what we discussed.   Like how a student wrote to me well after a term ended:

Hello Dr. K,
When we were in class last term talking about Climate Change you had mentioned Dr. Hayhoe and the quote she had about belief ...
I was wondering if you could please either send a link to her quote or just the quote itself.

If only a significant number of Americans behaved like that student!

Instead, there is a widespread denial of science that runs deep.  "[So many] of the same people who reject the scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change also question the evidence related to COVID-19."

Given how common it is, it is remarkable that philosophers have failed to give it a formal name. But I think we can view it as a variety of what sociologists call implicatory denial. I interpret implicatory denial as taking this form: If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong. This is the logic (or illogic) that underlies most science rejection.

It is not that this crowd is completely against science.  They cheer, for instance, when the American military pinpoints a location and bombs the shit out of an area full of brown people.  They know well that it was science that helped create the bombs and the precision technology to target an area.  So, to call them science-deniers is perhaps incorrect.  They are against science only when they run into "If P, then Q. But I don't like Q! Therefore, P must be wrong."

I like this framework to understand those who oppose climate change, evolution, ...

But, to reject Q just because it is not what we prefer as an interpretation means that it is only a matter of time before we run into reality.  "When we reject evidence because we do not like what it implies, we put ourselves at risk."

The U.S. could have acted more quickly to contain COVID-19. If we had, we would have saved both lives and jobs. But facts have an inconvenient habit of getting in the way of our desires. Sooner or later, denial crashes on the rocks of reality. The only question is whether it crashes before or after we get out of the way.

We are paying for the inaction due to denial all through February.  I cannot wait for President Joe Biden to throw out the regime of "alternative facts" and get us on to a path of ""If P, then Q" and take care of the Ps and Qs.

Solving the world's problems, one tomato at a time!

A few years ago, the university sent me and a couple of others to a conference in Kansas City.  The team leader suggested that we have dinner at a highly recommended restaurant that was a few blocks away.

When we reached the restaurant, I understood why it had those high ratings from a certain group of consumers.  It was one of those "farm to table" places.

"Farm to table" is one of those phrases that I have made fun of, like how I mock the slogan "eat local."  With the latter, I have some serious grammar problems too--they should at least phrase it as "eat locally."

With the "eat local" folks, who buy their meats and veggies and fruits from their locale, whatever the distance radius might be, how local is the eating when even the utensils that they use to cook are not made locally? The recipe is displayed on the iPad, which is not made locally.  You can see where I go with this ...

"Farm to table" is one of those.  Even the food I cook at home is "farm to table"--even though the farm might be far away in Mexico or New Zealand or in California.

A geographer at my old university writes about all these in an essay in which she brings her own life as an environmentalist.  She writes:

The late Anthony Bourdain made the point that “farm-to-table” is a cultural misnomer — all food comes from a farm, and most is served on a table.¹³ This trend has resulted in the tokenization of the local, environmentally friendly, sustainable meal and put many environmentally minded consumers in a place where their values make them vulnerable to manipulation by corporations that know how to capitalize on said values, but without accountability.
The concept of “local food” has been commodified to the point that it has become meaningless. Restaurants advertise themselves as “farm-to-table” and feature menus highlighting the names of the farms and places where headline ingredients are grown. But the Sysco truck still pulls up to the backdoor, unloading flours, oils, spices, and other ingredients sourced from across the globe.

I have found that if I point out such things that alert one to troubling contradictions, well, it is the quickest way to lose friends ;)

The author refers to a number of such "environmental micro-behaviors."

By fixating on micro-scale actions and lifestyle behaviors, environmentalists have made themselves vulnerable to attacks that characterize environmentalism as both out of touch with society and fixated on concerns that are dwarfed within the broader framework of environmental change.
What, then, should environmentalists do?

Keep in mind that the author is a self-described lifelong environmentalist and runs her daughter's school garden.

So, again, what should environmentalists do?

For many of us who think about the world and its problems, and who try to make meaning of it all in our pursuit of creating a better tomorrow, everything gets more complicated by the day.  And the moment we voice our thoughts on these, the naysayers--almost always from the Republican side of politics--immediately pounce on the contradictions we display in our lives.  Like with Al Gore and his jetting around.

I agree with her point that "micro-behaviors serve as anchors grounding us in a complicated world."

But we need to be careful about representing environmental micro-behaviors as larger and more impactful than they are, or attaching them to larger narratives that obscure the privilege of which they are a by-product. Are we capable of embracing this paradox? Can we contextualize our lifestyles within their broader environmental significance? Can we derive meaning and pleasure from activities that deepen our connectedness with the natural world while recognizing that we environmental moderns are among the most resource-intensive humans who have ever lived? Can we embrace hybridity and complexity without feeling compelled to quantify the carbon footprint of every micro-scale behavior?
In a world that is increasingly individualized, commercialized, and secular, environmentalism and the practices we enact in its name often serve as proxies for religious practices. Perhaps by allowing ourselves these pleasures without demanding that they solve the world’s ills, we can see them for what they are — opportunities for meaning and connection.

Indeed!

Marinara: From the backyard to the table!

This heavy post won't fly!

Every day, I seem to have some interesting memory-recall instances.  Why should today be any exception, right?

Even as I glanced at the headline, I thought to myself, "I have discussed this somewhere."  The headline was this: An American airline wins the right to weigh passengers on its Samoan route.

I spent a couple of minutes thinking about where it was ... and then it came to me.  It was the blog that this lazy business-focused guy has stopped working on.  I tracked down his post and my own comment as well.

The other day, I told students in one class that understanding the world, which is what learning is about, is to a large extent nothing but conversations--with those around us, with authors of texts that we read, with speakers we watch, and--heck--even with Socrates.  So, along those lines, I suppose this post is a continuation of the conversation from three years ago ;)

First a recap of the issues for those who are jumping into the conversation without any idea of what happened: "Samoa Air in 2013 became the first airline to charge passengers by weight."  That was what the retired businessman had blogged about in joy.  Since then, Hawaiian Airlines came to the same idea of weighing the Samoan passengers:

The problem for Hawaiian Airlines began when the carrier discovered it was burning through more fuel than anticipated on its route between Honolulu and the small Pacific island territory of American Samoa, according to reporting by the Associated Press. The airline ruled out explanations like strong winds and decided to conduct a voluntary survey among its passengers on the route. The results were clear: passengers and their carry-on luggage were, on average, 30 pounds (14 kilograms) heavier than expected.
So Hawaiian Airlines instituted a new policy. People flying between Honolulu and American Samoa would no longer be able to select their seats before arriving at the airport. Instead, they would be assigned seats when they checked in so that the carrier could distribute their weight evenly around the plane.

Now, if Samoans weighed only as much as the sports-maniac did, then nothing to worry about.  But, Samoans "have among the highest rates of obesity in the world."

Three years ago, my comment was this:

Hmmm ... you should be happy that you are not in the US--by now, a lawyer would have sued for a pound of flesh from you. Oh wait, you don't have a pound on you!!!

Well ... in a way, yes, this Hawaiian Airlines decision did not go unnoticed.  The people complained that:

Hawaiian’s decision is discriminatory because it applies only to that one route, most of whose passengers are Samoan or of Samoan descent.

How do you think that the U.S. Department of Transportation ruled on this?  I will leave it to you infer that from the headline of the article ;)

One of the comments in response to the article is interesting:

As a small person who has been subsidizing large people on airline flights forever, all I can say is get over it. You've had it lucky for years. A truly just and equitable system would be to charge everyone by total weight (body plus luggage). We seem to accept that principle for freight. Well, that's what we all are, human freight.

We are human freight?  It is one heck of a strange world in which we live.  Am reminded of the Brazil minister's response to the notorious memo authored by Larry Summers back when he was the World Bank's chief economist: " reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane."  Hey, that's another memory recall; how about that! ;)