Discussing What You "Ought Not" Say: taboo, philosophy and politics

updated 1/24/20

Lay lady lay
Lay across my big brass bed
Stay lady stay
Stay with your man a while
Until the break of day -- Bob Dylan, Lay Lady Lay (1969)[1]

"You slimy weasels want some sex education? I'll give it to you. Just keep your zipper shut and you won't end up with some God-awful disease!"[2]

Looking for Consensus on Controversial Topics.

Some decades back, I was invited by a Catholic university to give a lecture on the topic of corporal punishment. The presentation would be open to both faculty and students, both undergraduate and graduate and, in effect, to any interested attenders. I gathered from the invitation that I was to talk about both the nature and morality of corporal punishment, particularly as it might occur in an educational environment.

My philosophical approach was to employ case studies, common situations, to see what, if any, consensus we could reach on criteria to be generalized for discussion.[3]
The first case I presented was this:

5 year-old Arnold is bitten by a squirrel after pinching his sister and running out into the backyard.

Question: By his being bitten by the squirrel, has Arnold been punished? The audience was to use a 5-point scale:

1 = definitely not; 2 = probably not; 3 = unclear; 4 = probably so; 5 = definitely so [4]

On a handout sheet, audience members,indicating only their university status and case evaluation, gave in their responses to a small team who tallied them.

The audience appeared to be balanced between faculty and others. (Many were identifiable as such by their clerical garb.) However, I was somewhat surprised by the responses. The great majority of the faculty put down 1, a few 2. Among the undergraduate students most put down a 5, fewer a 4. There were very few 3's.

But before I began a discussion, I told the audience that the description of the case was clearly very sketchy. Perhaps, I suggested, if I had given them more information about Arnold's situation, it might have influenced their judgement. In fact, I suggested that they write down some conditions that might influence their judgement in the opposite direction from their first response, counter-evidence, as it were. For example, what additional information would convince them to change their 1 to a 2 or higher; which, to change a 5 to a 4 or lower.

I then asked for people who would reveal their original situation and give a reason why they changed it by telling us about their new "counter-evidence." One faculty member, a nun, who initially gave a 1 = definitely not punishment, said that there was not clear cause and effect relationship between the pinching and the biting. It looked to her that the biting was a random occurrence -- unless Arnold's mother had trained a squirrel to bite big brothers who pinched little sisters. That got a laugh but was accepted as a relevant condition, thus able to move the judgement away from a 1 to something higher.

An undergraduate who thought Arnold was being punished, 5, said he thought that the squirrel might be an instrument of God delivering what Arnold deserved. But, after turning in the handout he had some misgivings and reconsidering that, in the original sketchy depiction of Arnold's pinching, it could have been that Arnold pulled the squirrel's tail just before the bite. That would be a more likely scenario. It's easier to delve into the mind of a squirrel, he said, than into the mind of God.

(Faculty present may, perhaps, have felt some relief, at least, that they had had some influence on that student's education.) Besides, continued the undergraduate, we don't know whether Arnold actually hurt his sister; nor, whether she provoked him. Nor, have we been told how long it was before the biting squirrel incident occurred.

As it turned out, the discussion developed such that trying to negotiate a consensus on the nature of punishment, was only partially successful for lack of time; but it did seem to get the audience to recognize the complexity of the notion of punishment and the issues of justice and cruelty that were pertinent to them.

Dirty Words and Obscene Implications.

Ten or so years ago I went into a Whole Foods market to get something. Behind me came a man and woman perhaps ten to fifteen years older than I was. Music was playing softly in the background. I heard Bob Dylan singing Lay Lady Lay in a strangely deep voice. It was the first time I had ever heard the song. It sounded erotic to me, but not unusually so. Here's what happened next.

The couple behind me (call them "the Smiths") stopped, shuddered and hurriedly went back outside. They seemed to be agitated. Mr. Smith came back alone and said to a cashier, "I have to talk with the manager." The cashier called another man, who came and asked how he could help.

Mr. Smith protested, "Don't you hear what they're singing on that record. I can't bring my wife in here with that garbage playing! Turn if off!"

The presumed manager said, "Look, I'm only the assistant manager. The manager's home sick today. And I have no authority to change the music piped into our store."

"Well, then," said Mr. Smith. "We certainly cannot stay to shop in a store that plays pornography!"And out he went.

We ought not dismiss this as an ephemeral example of the sexual "hang-ups" of "old fogies." So let's extend our attention to other areas of present-day controversy. Often we are chided, often quite vehemently, not to "speak evil," i.e. not to use dismissive or biased terminology in discussing people. This caution often occurs in attempts to acculturate not only non-English speaking immigrants but also native-born Americans to settle conflicts between and within their different groups. Issues of conflict are often not only terminological but also racial and gender-related.

Speak No Evil, Teach No Evil, Mention No Evil?

Back in the '70's I got a position in a Philadelphia Junior School (grades 7-9) teaching in and "coordinating" an ESOL program. (ESOL means English to Speakers of Other Language."Coordinating" means "a lot more responsibility, some little blandishment, no extra remuneration.")

The school had a regularly assigned officer from the city Police Department, whose presence and quick access to reinforcements kept the turbulence in the school to a generally non-threatening minimum. But violent incidents were not infrequent.

The 1200 students assigned to the school -- built for 600 -- were a mixture of 30% neighborhood kids, and bused-in others. The neighbor kids were those White kids not attending local Catholic schools. The bused-ins, not neighborhood kids, were about half African-American and half Hispanic. My program served about 100 immigrants from several nations whose English language skills ranged from almost nothing to American 2nd-grade-level.

Conflicts between different student groups of boys were usually along ethnic lines; although, infrequently, when Cupid crossed such barriers, girls would fight ferociously, too. Exceptions to the general ethnic bellicosity were the ESOL students.

After a few years I started running presentations for the faculty and other staff on cultural difference and cross-cultural and ethnic conflict. Attendance was fine, since I was given time from the regular schedule of Wednesday afternoon faculty meetings. Few absented themselves. No one from outside school came in.

Then I announced that I would hold a session on vulgar and obscene words that our Hispanic boys, in particular, used to insult each other, and occasionally, staff and faculty. The use of such language was an issue because it often provoked student fights or faculty upset. (Once the students inclined to use such language found out that I knew Spanish, they never confronted me with "bad words", especially as I would contact their parents if they persisted.)

On the afternoon of the meeting, at 2:30 PM, our school library, which could comfortably hold about 50 adults, was packed full (SRO) with close to 100 people others standing out in the hall. I did not recognize many of those visitors (but some seemed to be parents of our charges).

I was a little concerned that not being members of our staff nor a teacher, the extra people would not understand what I was doing, especially when I repeated the kind of language that "their kids," regularly used. "Their kids" they held to be, maybe, occasionally "mischievous," but really deep down "merely somewhat immature, not intending any harm. (For some "kids," I thought otherwise, having been a school disciplinarian for several years.)

I announced to the audience that I was going to review the most frequently used improper and/or obscene language commonly heard throughout the school. I would give them first in Spanish, then translate them into English. Then I would indicate the degree of offense they were considered to offer in various circumstances, e.g. talking to your peers as opposed to your parents, teachers or to strangers. The words would range from sexual crudities to ethnic slurs.

I then said, "You might find some of these words, especially in the English translation, to be offensive and inappropriate. If you feel you might be uncomfortable or upset, please take the next five minutes to leave the room and make space for someone standing out in the hall waiting to come in."

No one moved. No one so much as shifted their weight or moved a muscle. It seems as if they were holding their breath. I waited two minutes and then began: "The most frequent Spanish taboo word I have heard in our school is mama'o. It is formed from the verb mamear which means suck. The corresponding English word to mama'o has three syllables and means, one who performs fellatio.

I said the English word. Dead silence. Five long seconds passed. And then the reaction occurred...


To find out what happened and its consequences, see Philosophy, Race and Language: Conflicting Value Priorities )

Cordially
--- EGR

---------------

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Bob Dylan Lay Lady Lay Songfacts

[2] My junior high school gym teacher (Spring 1957, Vare JHS, Philadelphia, PA) very begrudgingly was set to teaching us ninth-graders "sex education" after it was made a school board policy emphasis. --EGR. See Doing Violence to 'Violence'

[3] Unless I am dealing with formalized languages, e.g. logic, mathematics or some general scientific theory, I avoid beginning with specialized definitions and trying to "deduce" suggestions for practical application. "High-level" theories normally do not enjoy broad recognition, much less consensus, outside of their specializations.

I used a formula to generate my case study examples, but it was not divulged to the audience until they had discovered most of it for themselves after the lecture during the discussion and development session. That formula was: Person P imposed a "treatment" T on another person V, for which P had a reason (for T}.

For a theory-first approach, see Rozycki, EG School Violence, Punishment, and Justice The concept of punishment used in the school violence article I took from Anthony Flew in S.I. Benn and R.S. Peters, The Principles of Political Thought (New York:Free Press, 1965) p. 202.


[4]For more on this procedure, Rozycki, EG Doing Ethics: concerns & procedures.

Also, for expanded instructions for case analysis, see A Library of MODEL CASES FOR ANALYSIS.

All Definition Ultimately Rests on Stipulation, i.e. Communal Agreement.

edited 052020

Fools bite one another but wise men agree together.-- Proverb
Agree, for the Law is costly.-- Proverb
The limits of your language are the limits of your world. -- L. Wittgenstein [1]

Stipulative vs Reportive? A distinction has long been noted between what we call “truth” and what we designate as “knowledge.” And so, many venerable thinkers have speculated, we can imagine that as our knowledge expands, so will it – “in the limit” as mathematicians say – eventually comprise truth. (Given that the universe doesn’t collapse into a black hole, or explode into some multidimensional supernova or something equally distracting.)

One common distinction among definitions as been that some are stipulative, i.e. generally restricted to narrow uses in restricted circumstances. Stipulative definitions purportedly stand in contrast to “reportive or “semantic” or “real” definitions, i.e. ones that get at the truth of things. (See Types of Definition)

So it is that a confusion arises between authoritative (for some purposes) sources and “truth-tellers,” founts of veracity, as it were. Dictionaries, technical manuals, and the like, become Holy Books. Why then do they (and Holy Books, too) “suffer” revision? (See "What Does That Word Really Mean?" -- The Misleading Dictionary Ritual)

Stipulative Legal Use vs Other Usage Let’s look at the notion of stipulation as it is used in legal contexts:

An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs. During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation. -- West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. S.v. "stipulation." (My italics to emphasize variables to be used in following paragraphs.)

Now, let’s see how we might transform such a definition of stipulation into a kind of framework for generalization distinguishing semantically necessary structural constants from variables that allow for generalization into wider contexts.

By substituting for the specific legal terms we derive

An agreement between (interested parties) that concerns (action) (in a given venue) and is designed to simplify or shorten (procedures) and save costs. During the course of (an undertaking) the (representatives of different perspectives) may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation.

There are six variables: interested parties, action, in a given venue, procedures, undertaking, representatives of different perspectives.

If we substitute other terms for the variables, which may designate either individuals or sets of variables, e.g. groups, professions, activity-types, etc, that themselves may be “unpacked,” we can generate broader, more inclusive, clearly stipulated definitions.

For example, substituting, in order: oncologists, use of chemotherapy, in children, patient discomfort, in hospital stays, attending physicians,
we get

An agreement between Oncologists that concerns use of chemotherapy in children and is designed to simplify or shorten patient discomfort and save costs. During the course of in hospital stays, the attending physicians may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation.

If we substitute: Nixon and Brezhnev, activating military forces, around the world, tensions, in times of confrontation, diplomatic services; we get

An agreement between Nixon and Brezhnev that concerns activating military force around the world and is designed to simplify or shorten tensions and save costs. During the course of in times of confrontation, the diplomatic services may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation.

(An important note: Just because all knowledge may rest on stipulation, does not mean that any stipulation whatsoever is knowledge. Many may be falsehoods, if not just nonsense.)

Why Does Universal Stipulativity Matter? So what if all definition ultimately rests on stipulation?

The simplest response is quite plausible. Definitions are, so to speak, the building blocks of communally accessible knowledge. Stipulations are human decisions. They are often -- if not always -- constrained by non-epistemological considerations, the primary ones being monetary, time and opportunity costs. For example, dictionaries are finite, even such volumes as the Oxford English Dictionaries. One cannot define every word demanding that all terms in definiens be defined along with those of the definienda. People have to agree when enough is enough just to get the work published. (See The Fractalization of Social Enterprise)

We normally rely on our inculcated linguistic and cultural norms of communication and affiliation to provide often pre-conscious stipulations which limit the pursuit into infinity of ever more recondite items of possible knowledge.

To pursue these issues, see Searching for “Reality"? Stipulate A Turtle!
Cordially
--- EGR

FOOTNOTE

[1] This adage is often translated as "The limits of my language are the limits of my world." In any case, the semantic structure of the German verb, bedeuten, is substantially different from that of be , (is or are). This is at best the weakest of translational connotation of identity between forms of bedeuten and forms of be.

Consider this clip from the online English-German dictionary, dict.cc at https://www.dict.cc/?s=bedeuten

Pseudo-Science: the reasonable constraints of Empiricism

Reporter: Professor Russell, is it true that you do not believe in the Supernatural World?

Bertrand Russell: My dear fellow, I do not believe in the Natural World.

Russell, in his reply to the reporter, rejects a traditional distinction, natural-supernatural, that has nowadays reappeared as grist for both religious and anti-religious patty-cake bakers plying their wares to a public undereducated and generally uninterested in the history of thought.

So it is that in this 21st Century it has become very modish for pundits, introducing themselves as aficionados of Science, to invoke scientific research to make sweeping statements, and to concoct sleight-of-mind distinctions about the Universe, its structure and its contents.

For example, we find Robert Shermer, writing in Scientific American (March 2003, p. 47) citing psychological studies which, he claims, "are only the latest to deliver blows against the belief that mind and spirit are separate from brain and body."

Mind (Spirit) is no more than brain and body. Perhaps that is so. But what kind of empirical science presumes to conclude that its own narrow, Earth-time&space-bound investigations apply across time and space? What kind of empirical evidence can be offered for such a claim?

Such presumption has long been indulged in: for example,

1. The sole motivators of human behavior are pain and pleasure.

2. Love is the hyperevaluation of the sex object.

3. Animals are mere mechanisms lacking feeling.

4. There are no non-environmental determinants of behavior.

These propositions, later revealed as very probably falsehoods, were held and promulgated even by those considered to be the intellectual giants of their era.

Note that they all presume to talk about "all" of some category of things, without indicating limits on where and when to look for evidence disconfirming them. (This "synecdoche fallacy," "Some X is Y, therefore all X is Y" drives not only a lot of commercial promotion, but provides a foundation for much of the impetus for so-called Educational Reform.)



This is not to say that such claims ought to be rejected out of hand as false. Rather, they should be recognized, practically-speaking, as non-empirical, because they are unbounded, i.e. they go beyond what their advocates can produce a critical test for.

Note well: the considerations given above are intended to offer neither aid nor comfort nor rebuttal nor rebuke to the many (often well-intentioned, even if benighted) enthusiasts of esoterica, occult or otherwise.

To examine these issues further, see Religion, Intelligent Design and the Public Schools: serving God to Mammon?

Also relevant is Questionable Assumptions in Social Decision Making. Identifying Trans-ideological Epistemological Presuppositions.


Cordially
--- EGR

Blocking Inquiry

Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.
-- C. S. Pierce (1889) The First Rule of Logic

But even in this, our Land of the Free, Of, For and By the People, blocking inquiry is seen as an indispensible technique to proper socialization, called “good citizenship.” And the basic rule of “good citizenship” is “Don’t question either this directive, or those who have (claim?) the authority to tell you what to do.” Little wonder that “critical thinking” is little more than an empty buzzword in the mouths of those who govern American educational institutions.

Of course, much lip service is given to the idea that education should nourish and encourage a child’s curiosity. But unspoken is the reality that such curiosity must be constrained within bounds whose existence is seldom acknowledged, much less subject to inquiry. For the sake of a “peaceful, orderly society.”

In fact, it is not only teachers, but parents, too, who breathe sighs of relief once they perceive that their children have given up on asking “Why?” and, instead, just pay if only very perfunctory obedience when told to do things.

Much money is wasted when people are given a costly education in which they don’t learn to tell when they are being given a runaround. Much of our formal education is flawed in this way. Even most higher education fails to give people a practical introduction to the many words, phrases and modes of speech used to dissuade us from asking potentially embarrassing questions.

So instead of explanations that might give insight and control to those who ask for them, they are offered terms, inquiry blockers, like “human nature,” “mystery,” “intuition,” “faith,” “feelings” and similar obscurities as “explanations” for many of the important problems they encounter. Such education aims not at empowerment and mastery, but obedience and resignation.

Students in higher education are subjected to myriad "introductory" courses that serve up buzzwords, seldom critically examined, like "market," "ecology," "transcendence," "power," "society" that they may sport as knowledge, even though very little if any practical application is acquired with them. (See Masks: words that hide agendas)

Even worse, the semi-literate condition a great number of people end up in after years of formal education cements their belief that any skills requiring careful attention to the fine points of writing or discourse are dispensible for everyday, practical activities, except for, perhaps, those of lawyers or college professors.

The sad irony is that there appears to be no small number of lawyers, college professors and other “professionals” for whom careful, critical use of language is as much a confused exercise as it is for the average guy-on-the-street. Politicians, advertisers and hucksters of salvation know this and rely on it to make their living.

To examine these issues further, see Inquiry Blockers


Cordially
--- EGR

Some Beliefs Are Neither True Nor False.

I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong. -- Bertrand Russell

This is a strange statement coming from a philosopher, an English Lord, who went to jail because he openly opposed Britain's involvement in World War I. (Conceded, imprisonment is still not a death sentence.) Surely, he knew -- perhaps not at that time -- that there are beliefs that cannot be said to be true or false. They may be judged to be unworthy, precipitous, or unwise, perhaps, but not true or false.

The crucial difference is between "believing that" and "believing in." Believing that is a matter of truth or falsity. Supporting evidence is a relevant consideration

Believing in is a matter of commitment, of faith, or of hope. One may persist in such commitment in the face of strong evidence that it is wrongheaded. We may question the wisdom of such a commitment, but we do not ask for supporting evidence. One can believe in something, without believing that something else relating to it is true or false.

For example, you may insist on believing in your brother's honesty, without believing it is false that he has stolen something. Or, you can believe in being kind to all persons without believing that they personally merit such consideration.

False beliefs are beliefs that something is factually true, when it is not. A judgment that someone's belief is false depends on the authorities one invokes to claim that one knows something to be a fact belying the belief (a belief that) judged to be false.

The most one can say about beliefs in some thing, in some commitment, in some person is that this faith, this commitment, presumes the truth of facts needed to support that faith. To the extent that such facts are lacking, the faith may be at best a forlorn hope.

So it is that one may believe in a god without knowing that a god exists; or one may believe in a way of life, i.e. pacifism, Animal rights, without knowing that such a way of life is ultimately feasible. There is a lot of room between "not knowing that X" and "knowing that not-X" that permits belief in X to retain some credibility, some honor, even.

A religious belief may be foolish, -- many have died or caused others to die for such foolishness. But religious belief in, trust in, commitment to a god is not disestablished by facts based on the authority of empirical science, any more than, say, brain research can inform me that I am mistaken in believing that chocolate I am tasting at the moment tastes good, if I judge the chocolate I am tasting to taste good to me.


To examine these issues further, see Pseudo-Science: the reasonable constraints of Empiricism


Cordially
--- EGR

Speak English or Else! Keeping the dice loaded.

edited 1/14/18

Don't know nothin’ ‘bout history.
Forget about biology!
Hardly opened up a science book.
French, I never gave a second look.

You may be a doctor with a fine degree
But If you can’t speak English
Just like me,
You’re nobody I need to see.

--- Adapted from "What a Wonderful World"
by H Alpert, L Adler, S Cooke

There is substantial reluctance, active resistance, even, to permitting any language other than English (in any of its North American variations) to be recognized as an official language of the United States of America. Why might that be?

Part of it is the persistence of generally submerged ethnic, class and cultural competition for status. But there are more substantial issues to be recognized: native speakers of an American English dialect have a huge, unearned social and business advantage over those who come to it later in life. Many do not want to give up that advantage.

You may have gone through school learning little, yet you will still have a communication skill, a tone of voice, an enunciation, merely, learned as a child, that gives you an edge in the US over the most educated person who learned English as a second language. To a similarly hap-hazardly-educated American ear, you will sound "natural." (Exceptions to this prejudice, especially on the East Coast of the US or in Hollywood, is anything that passes for "British" English.)

No wonder you shrink from recognizing another language besides American English as official: you might lose an undeserved, purely fortuitous, competitive edge in many arenas of American life.

To continue these considerations, see Cultural Domination and the Teaching of ESOL, English to Speakers of Other Languages.

Cordially,
-- EGR

Reading and Language Instruction: science, ideology or …?

Which is the superior tool? A hammer or a screwdriver?
Which is the superior medicine? Penicillin or aspirin?
Which is the superior vacation place? The mountains or the seashore?

These are misleading questions. Don’t jump to answer them. Before they can be addressed, you have to have a good idea, at least, about:

a. what the potential user intends to do with the tool or with the medicine or in the vacation place;
b. whether the condition of the recipient of the user’s action is appropriate for the item chosen, for example, is it an eye infection or a headache that is being treated?
c. whether there are other tools, or medicines or vacation places available besides the two mentioned.

For years an apparent debate has been going on in schools between aficionados of two “methods” of teaching reading, the proponents of “phonics” vs. the proponents of “whole-word” reading. In English and “foreign language” classrooms, fans seem to have settled into “reading-translation” versus “audio-lingual” camps, although recently these distinctions have become blurred – no doubt reflected in the success of methods such as Rosetta Stone.

Reading people, however, still keep churning the waters, some, at times, bandying labels such as “Progressives” – to demonize the “whole-word” camp – or “Conservatives” -- to impugn the phonetics people. (This "warfare" may have more to do with commercial competition among their publishers than any personal enmity among reading theorists.)

Maybe -- as they used to chant back in the Age of Aquarius -- the rule should be “different strokes for different folks.” If so, the real sticking point is probably the school budget (or school board ignorance).

Which is the superior method? Phonics or Whole-Word?
Which is the superior approach? Audio-Lingual or Reading-Translation?

These, too, are misleading questions. Don’t jump to answer them.

Answer these questions first:

1. What outcomes are you looking for?
2. Who are the students and what languages are involved and what learning traditions have they been exposed to?
3. What other methods, or amalgams of methods are available?

To examine these issues further, see Language Ideology in Schooling Practice


Cordially
--- EGR