High-speed rail in Japan

On November 9 2010, Keith Yost, columnist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology newspaper The Tech, published an opinion piece stating the case against high-speed rail (HSR) and large-scale infrastructure projects in general. In his article, ‘Derail high speed rail: It’s time to end the liberal fetishization of infrastructure’, Yost, who also blogs at The Sensible Technocrat, argues that the US should abandon proposals for high-speed rail because the potential cost is too high compared with the potential benefits. The pattern of urbanisation in the US makes HSR unviable, Yost contends. Homes and workplaces are spread across urban centres, making node-to-node transport such as HSR ill-suited to the needs of US citizens. The flexibility afforded by cars is a much better fit, he argues. This argument may apply to US HSR proposals, but it’s largely irrelevant to the Australian discussion.

The main proposal in Australia is for a high-speed rail link between Melbourne and Sydney. The link will provide an alternative to air transport. It’s not simply a substitute for existing rail and automobiles. When considering convenience you have to compare oranges with oranges. So, if the Australian line offers an alternative to air travel, one has to compare the convenience of HSR with the convenience of air travel. And not many people have a form of air transportation parked in their garage. Most of us have to travel to an airport, much as we would have to travel to a station if we were to use HSR. If this is also the case in the US, then the rejoinder also applies there.

Continue reading »

Chas, doing his thing

On 15 November 2010, Chas Licciardello of The Chaser published an article on the ABC’s The Drum Unleashed responding to an article by Paul Howes in the November 13 Daily Telegraph. Howes’ article criticises Internet anonymity; and while Chas’ article is funny (as a good deal of The Chaser team’s work is), its a fallacious response to Howes’ argument.

Here’s how Chas summarises Howes’ article:

Howes’ argument focused particularly upon the effect anonymous abuse might have on politics, and it consisted of two major points — that politics is a horrible job; and that political candidates may be driven away by the hatred they face on the internet. Then all we would be left with is a choice between “pollie-bots” and “absolute dimwits”.

This is a fair summary of Howes’ article. But then Chas goes on to argue that

…Howes’ argument is self-refuting. With all the working, travelling and getting stabbed in the back politicians do, does anyone think that being called “utterly incompetent” by rangarooter34 on news.com.au’s comments section is going to be a defining factor in their career choice?

While Howes’ claim that a bit of Internet abuse will cause politicians to reconsider their career choices and budding up-and-comers to think twice about entering politics may be questionable, it is not self-refuting.

Continue reading »

Relativist-safe puppies

There comes a time in a young humanities student’s life when he or she or it stumbles across that easy cure-all for differences: relativism. Ah, the simplicity of letting sleeping dogs lie. Got a tension that arises from incompatible beliefs between cultures, religions or knowledge systems? Just agree to disagree; adopt a modus vivendi approach and postpone any resolution indefinitely. But the young humanities student soon strikes two problems. The first arises when the student asks, ‘What about when the dogs are barking or biting, not sleeping?’ The modus vivendi style of diplomacy is well and good when the difference settled by an agreement to disagree is inconsequential, unimportant or trivial. But how do you settle cultural, political or epistemological differences when the point of difference is one of real intellectual or physical contention? This is exactly the point when the vacuity of relativism is revealed.

Continue reading »

This post isn’t yet logically tight, but what the heck!

When is a performative contradiction not a contradiction? When the ‘performative contradiction’ objection is a tu quoque fallacy.

So what is a performative contradiction? We need look no further than Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s Team America: World Police to answer this question. Hollywood actor Gary Johnston (the Tom Cruise parody) is approached by Spottswoode, a United States Government agent, to join the Team America forces. Spottswoode proposes that Gary meet the rest of the team. Gary agrees; Spottswoode and Gary get into Spottswoode’s limousine to make their way to Team America headquarters. But to Gary’s surprise the limousine doesn’t drive, it flies. This is the dialogue that ensues:

Gary Johnston: OK, a limousine that can fly. Now I have seen everything.
Spottswoode: Really? Have you seen a man eat his own head?
Gary Johnston: No.
Spottswoode: So then you haven’t seen everything.

US Government agent Spottswoode and Hollywood actor Gary Johnston take a trip to Team America headquarters

And Gary will never see a man eat his own head because to eat one’s head is impossible. A man simply cannot eat his own head for one good reason: the mouth is a part of the head. So to eat all of one’s head one would have to eat one’s mouth. But how can one eat one’s mouth with one’s mouth? You may get the lips down, but that’s about it. Once you get to the teeth and jaw, you’re done. At this point anyone who tries to do this will realise that he’s engaged in a performative contradiction. (No doubt dejection would follow.) Insofar as we maintain that eating involves chewing and to chew we need to have a mouth, including teeth and a jaw, then there comes a point when you cannot eat any more of your head because the very apparatus required for eating are part of the head.

Continue reading »