AddThis

Share |

Thursday, April 30, 2009

冠軍‧真理

成為體壇冠軍,
要艱苦鍛練,
還需不斷參加比賽,
接受可以擊敗自己的對手的挑戰,
比賽贏出,
進一步碓立冠軍地位,
比賽敗北,
改善技巧,再戰江湖,
這是難走的路,
卻是唯一體育冠軍之路

追求科學真理,
要努力讚研,
還需不斷進行實驗,
接受可能得出與預測不符的測試,
實驗通過,
進一步碓立真理地位,
實驗失敗,
修正理論,再次嘗試,
這是難走的路,
卻是唯一科學真理之路

Friday, April 24, 2009

絕種男性

一個社區,
厲行有機耕種,
個個素食主義。

情如姐妹,
卻沒有同性戀,
生育唯靠複製。

曾幾何時,
偶有男士到訪,
現在雄性絕跡!

不是絕跡,
而是絕種!
有科學家頂測,
他朝人類亦相同,
試問男人如我,
焉能不驚心動魄....

所以這個蟻民Mycocepurus smithii 的新發現,其實不大有趣!

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

《Natural Justice》

好不容易,才看完Ken Binmore的《Natural Justice》。不是書太難,而是人太懶!推薦這本書給我的朋友要我寫個讀書報告,真是難為這副懶骨頭。

為甚麼不同地方有不同的道德習慣?為甚麼人類的『高尚情操』會在某些禽獸的行為出現?有一批哲學家嘗試利用兩種較新的工具,來研究這兩個問題。第一個工具,是博奕論(game theory),為人際關係作出量化分析;第二個工具,是逹爾文的演化論(evolution),是探討所有生物行為的統一平台。這個哲學分枝,名為演化道德論(Evolutionary Ethics)。

Binmore是實驗經濟學(experimental economics)先驅,亦是演化道德論的中堅分子。他認為“道德”是社群博奕的一個均衡點(equilibrium),而“公平意識”是個體追求這個均衡的本能。比起他的前作《Game Theory and the Social Contract》,本書的數式大大減少,但仍然要求讀者對博奕論有簡單認識。

本書探討責任、階級、同情心等一般哲學問題。但筆者最感興趣的,是Binmore嘗試融合兩個主流哲學的努力。

Binmore提出,在一個穩定的社區,以整體利益為依歸的功利主義(utilitarianism),以人人平等為主軸的平等主義(egalitarian),以及納殊議價均衡(Nash bargaining solution),三者都會得出同樣的道德結論。

但當時勢出現變化,而人的思想不及適應時,就出現兩種情形:如果傳統制約仍在,功利主義將成為社會主導思想;如果沒有了制約,平等主義會是公平的標準。但只要有足夠時間,人的思想會隨環境而演化,最終功利主義及平等主義,必再次與納殊議價均衡統一。

不同意Binmore的觀點?Binmore也同意自己的分析大膽而粗糙,且充滿爭議性。

在本書最後一章,Binmore似乎脫去了他的科學家外衣,提出他的政治觀。他認為政治沒有烏托邦,但理想國度應該有智慧地設計律法。簡單來說,要持份者為極大化自身利益,自願接受法律規範。畢竟,Binmore的專長是投標設計,曾經為世界各地包括香港設計3G頻譜投標程序。感覺上這一章與之前的有點不協調,但筆者對Binmore其中一個說法非常同意:

『我們要改變制度時,要同時考慮人的心態會跟隨制度而變!』

這非常籍得希望社會改革的朋友留意。

Thursday, April 02, 2009

AIG Merges with AIG to Form AIG

Although I don't agree with its tone on free-market, it is a funny article anyway:

From http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/aig-merges-with.html
by

According to recent press reports, the creationist organization Answers in Genesis will merge with the troubled insurance giant American International Group. The new corporation will be named AIG, for American Indulgences Group.

AIG chairman Edward Liddy will become the chairman of AIG. AIG chairman Ken Ham will be second in command and will continue to direct the Creation Museum, which will be renamed Credit Management. CM will rate bonds that are based on credit-default swaps on a scale from AAA to aaa. AIG will also subcontract with the Vatican to market indulgences in the United States. These indulgences are expected to become AIG’s major product. The Vatican, in an ecumenical gesture, agreed that it would not impose a religious test on those who purchased its indulgences.

Ham argues that redirecting his organization from young-earth creationism to voodoo economics is not as much of a leap as it might appear at first glance. Like creationism, free-market economics is wholly unsupported by the evidence: boom-and-bust cycles like the present cycle, for example, followed a failed experiment in deregulation. Ham maintains, however, that faith is superior to intellect, and the economy gods must have put those booms and busts in there for a reason. Economic theory, he says, is entirely faith based anyway, and he will from now on put his faith in derivatives.

Distinguished first-amendment scholar Reed Cartwright argues that the US taxpayer owns over 79 % of AIG. Because AIG is a religious organization, the merger could be construed as an establishment of religion by the government and will require a waiver from the Justice Department. Cartwright anticipates that the American Civil Liberties Union will file suit to block the merger.

Liddy observes that AIG is, in fact, a nonprofit organization, and merging with AIG merely acknowledges its status as such. He will continue to receive his salary of $1 per year, but will be eligible for a retention bonus equal to whatever is required to maintain AIG’s status as a nonprofit. Ham, by contrast, will accept payment in the form of options based on credit-default swaps. “You could say I am testing my faith,” he says; “God is my counterparty.”