I've often railed out (into the wind, it seems) that "writing is writing," that the differences among the various "kinds" of writing are insignificant. I pretty much want to make the same protestation that "music is music" with the same message in mind. However, rather than expand on this latter truism, I want to venture another, perhaps more controversial, equation, namely that "music is writing" and "writing is music"!
Oh sure the "grammar" of each is expressed in different terminology, but they mean the same thing.
Both use symbols as the basic mode of expression (words and notes) and rely on an underlying structure (grammar and notation).
The basic elements of music are melody, harmony and rhythm.
The basic elements of writing are genre, story and meter.
An engaging sentence (in any kind of writing) has a lyrical quality that blends in with the message being conveyed and does so with a satisfying accented.
An engaging riff (in any kind of music) has a stylistic quality that expresses a purpose in the piece as a whole and does so with a satisfying beat.
So, can any good writer be a good musician -- and vice versa? Hmmmmm.......
Oh yes...I forgot...these siblings only share one parent. The other is unique to each: music has the ears and writing has the eyes. Their common parent? The brain!!
BOOK ACCESS -- CLICK ON THE BOOK COVERS
ROCK MUSIC IN AMERICAN CULTURE: THE SOUNDS OF REVOLUTION
NOW AVAILABLE FROM MCFARLAND & CO., PUBLISHERS
A New Birth of Freedom [ALTERNATE HISTORY/SCIENCE FICTION] NOW AVAILABLE!
![A New Birth of Freedom [ALTERNATE HISTORY/SCIENCE FICTION] NOW AVAILABLE!](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q503cgPDt3w/S7yCoJZ-94I/AAAAAAAAAOM/3FL1QEwFGVU/S220/Front_cover_mid.jpg)
Second book of the trilogy to be published by Whiskey Creek Press
Hitler The Cat Goes West
It's not about Hitler, Cats or Travel! It's A Socio-Political Satire of the Near Future.
The Mission
The Greatest Science Fiction/Alternate History Ever Written. Ok, it's in a niche of a niche of a tiny genre…but you won't find a better example of its kind anywhere! [including Harry Turtledove] It has been said that the combination of science fiction, alternate history and time travel is a risky endeavor. So be it!
You Say You Want A Revolution
The Greatest R&R Book Ever Written! Who says this, aside from me, of course.....? Click on the cover and see why! SOON TO BE UPDATED AND REPUBLISHED BY MCFARLAND AND COMPANY PUBLISHERS, INC!
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Pielke's Books On Kindle
Thursday, December 10, 2009
The Pielkes and The Global Warming Debate
Ok...I'm now about to venture onto foreign soil...climate science!!
Whatever possessed me to attempt this, you wonder?
Good question -- glad you asked!
First of all, I see that many discussants on the web mix my brother and his son up with me. I'm "Robert" and they are "Roger Sr." and "Roger Jr." respectively. They're both scientists...I'm a bull-shitter [a.k.a. philosopher] and an author [soon to be a world-famous author -- see...a bull-shitter, right?]
Second, I have no intention of saying anything at all about the science involved in this debate. I'm going to comment on the logic involved -- or the illogic as the case may be.
Third, they get tons more press than I do...and I"m jealous! So I'm hoping to glom some of their publicity. My two new books coming out in a few months could use it! [A New Birth of Freedom: The Visitor -- sf/alt history and Rock Music in American History: Stop Children! What's That Sound?] See...I'm glomming!
There's actually a forth reason and probably worth mentioning, since I tend to ramble a bit. My brother got to go to Copenhagen last week for the big Global Warming thing. I would have liked to go to Europe too!! Not for that conference! I would have stopped off in Amsterdam for a legal puff or two! Yaah mon!! Rastafari!
Ok...The Global Warming Debate [ahem...]
Logically, there can only be three positions, it seems.
1. Human activity has no [or no significant] impact on the climate and thus climate change. My brother tells me these folks are called "climate skeptics" in the trade. What he didn't tell me is that these people are idiots! They're certainly not familiar with rational thought processes! Think about it: in order to VERIFY such a claim, they would have to KNOW ALL POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES and rule them out-- but that's just not LOGICALLY possible. [You can't know all possible alternatives because there always may be others you don't know about -- you can't know what you don't know!! -- LOGIC 101! Verifying a negative proposition is ILLOGICAL.]
You can FALSIFY this but NOT VERIFY it.
These people can be ignored...if possible! It seems that Sara Palin is a prime example of such idiocy [no surprise there]; she recently signed on to this creed. And it would seem to be a mere chimera that we can ignore her. Presumably there are no scientists in this category.
2. So...that leaves us with the proposition that human activity has SOME significant impact on the climate and climate change, right? This proposition CAN be VERIFIED but NOT FALSIFIED. All it would take is showing ONE example of how human activity can accomplish this. Then it would be shown to be true.
Now here's where it gets tricky, because there are two very different positions packed into this notion. The word "some" logically and literally means "at least one and possibly all"! [LOGIC 101]
2a. The human impact on the environment is pretty much exclusively due to our excess production of carbon dioxide in various ways. Or...to put it a bit more starkly. The human impact on the climate is due only to CO2 pollution. And here there is a LOGICAL problem similar to the "Idiot's Alternative" above: "Exclusivity" can not be verified! You can NOT empirically [a.k.a. show that ONLY ONE thing causes another, because you can not rule out ALL other possible causes -- since you can't know things you don't know! [LOGIC 101 again]
2b. SO the ONLY LOGICAL alternative is that there is AT LEAST ONE kind of impact humans can have on the climate. Then the issue is to list the possible causes and assess which ones are more or less significant. THIS is the category for genuine scientific thinking: to consider all known causes and evaluate them objectively.
The core of the GENUINE debate seems to be that some scientists feel the evidence shows that CO2 is the culprit and that other causes are insignificant [Gore's people?] while other scientists feel that there is as much or more evidence to support other causes [Pielke's people?].
Evidence [not politics as those other Pielkes would say] should decide the matter...and as with all good and genuine scientific propositions, the matter is ALWAYS open for further consideration.
Now...I'm going to sit back, pour myself a glass of Bordeaux and wait for my brother to call!
Whatever possessed me to attempt this, you wonder?
Good question -- glad you asked!
First of all, I see that many discussants on the web mix my brother and his son up with me. I'm "Robert" and they are "Roger Sr." and "Roger Jr." respectively. They're both scientists...I'm a bull-shitter [a.k.a. philosopher] and an author [soon to be a world-famous author -- see...a bull-shitter, right?]
Second, I have no intention of saying anything at all about the science involved in this debate. I'm going to comment on the logic involved -- or the illogic as the case may be.
Third, they get tons more press than I do...and I"m jealous! So I'm hoping to glom some of their publicity. My two new books coming out in a few months could use it! [A New Birth of Freedom: The Visitor -- sf/alt history and Rock Music in American History: Stop Children! What's That Sound?] See...I'm glomming!
There's actually a forth reason and probably worth mentioning, since I tend to ramble a bit. My brother got to go to Copenhagen last week for the big Global Warming thing. I would have liked to go to Europe too!! Not for that conference! I would have stopped off in Amsterdam for a legal puff or two! Yaah mon!! Rastafari!
Ok...The Global Warming Debate [ahem...]
Logically, there can only be three positions, it seems.
1. Human activity has no [or no significant] impact on the climate and thus climate change. My brother tells me these folks are called "climate skeptics" in the trade. What he didn't tell me is that these people are idiots! They're certainly not familiar with rational thought processes! Think about it: in order to VERIFY such a claim, they would have to KNOW ALL POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES and rule them out-- but that's just not LOGICALLY possible. [You can't know all possible alternatives because there always may be others you don't know about -- you can't know what you don't know!! -- LOGIC 101! Verifying a negative proposition is ILLOGICAL.]
You can FALSIFY this but NOT VERIFY it.
These people can be ignored...if possible! It seems that Sara Palin is a prime example of such idiocy [no surprise there]; she recently signed on to this creed. And it would seem to be a mere chimera that we can ignore her. Presumably there are no scientists in this category.
2. So...that leaves us with the proposition that human activity has SOME significant impact on the climate and climate change, right? This proposition CAN be VERIFIED but NOT FALSIFIED. All it would take is showing ONE example of how human activity can accomplish this. Then it would be shown to be true.
Now here's where it gets tricky, because there are two very different positions packed into this notion. The word "some" logically and literally means "at least one and possibly all"! [LOGIC 101]
2a. The human impact on the environment is pretty much exclusively due to our excess production of carbon dioxide in various ways. Or...to put it a bit more starkly. The human impact on the climate is due only to CO2 pollution. And here there is a LOGICAL problem similar to the "Idiot's Alternative" above: "Exclusivity" can not be verified! You can NOT empirically [a.k.a. show that ONLY ONE thing causes another, because you can not rule out ALL other possible causes -- since you can't know things you don't know! [LOGIC 101 again]
2b. SO the ONLY LOGICAL alternative is that there is AT LEAST ONE kind of impact humans can have on the climate. Then the issue is to list the possible causes and assess which ones are more or less significant. THIS is the category for genuine scientific thinking: to consider all known causes and evaluate them objectively.
The core of the GENUINE debate seems to be that some scientists feel the evidence shows that CO2 is the culprit and that other causes are insignificant [Gore's people?] while other scientists feel that there is as much or more evidence to support other causes [Pielke's people?].
Evidence [not politics as those other Pielkes would say] should decide the matter...and as with all good and genuine scientific propositions, the matter is ALWAYS open for further consideration.
Now...I'm going to sit back, pour myself a glass of Bordeaux and wait for my brother to call!
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Afghanistan vis-a-vis Vietnam SIMPLIFIED!
It's really not all that difficult to compare the two "wars":
Similarities:
1. American troops were/are involved. Obvious, right?
2. Both were/are unwinnable. Why? Because there's STILL no clear meaning to what "winning" might mean.
3. American troops did and will inevitably leave -- having not accomplished an elusive "goal."
4. I would have taken genuine "guts" for a President to say -- in either case -- were not gonna go there!
Differences:
1. Vietnam was a "war."
2. Afghanistan is NOT a "war." Why? Because there no state or nation involved other than the U.S. and there was no "declaration" of war according to the Constitution --no government to surrender to us.
3. With Vietnam, it was at least arguable that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were RIGHT. [No, maybe not in the way they conducted the war and treated their prisoners...but in their GOAL to unite -- or to preserve the unity of -- Vietnam.]
4. Al-Qaeda is not necessarily linked to Afghanistan. It is and HAS ALREADY been best and most effectively dealt with by POLICE action.
Similarities:
1. American troops were/are involved. Obvious, right?
2. Both were/are unwinnable. Why? Because there's STILL no clear meaning to what "winning" might mean.
3. American troops did and will inevitably leave -- having not accomplished an elusive "goal."
4. I would have taken genuine "guts" for a President to say -- in either case -- were not gonna go there!
Differences:
1. Vietnam was a "war."
2. Afghanistan is NOT a "war." Why? Because there no state or nation involved other than the U.S. and there was no "declaration" of war according to the Constitution --no government to surrender to us.
3. With Vietnam, it was at least arguable that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were RIGHT. [No, maybe not in the way they conducted the war and treated their prisoners...but in their GOAL to unite -- or to preserve the unity of -- Vietnam.]
4. Al-Qaeda is not necessarily linked to Afghanistan. It is and HAS ALREADY been best and most effectively dealt with by POLICE action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)