Cafe Philo in New York City next week: "What does it mean for any two things to be equivalent?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City next week, on Thursday, June 4, 2009, is "What does it mean for any two things to be equivalent?". I proposed the question. I have already posted on my preliminary thoughts and background for the topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately.

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Preliminary thoughts on what it means for any two things to be equivalent

The upcoming Cafe Philo meeting in NYC will discuss the topic "What does it mean for any two things to be equivalent?", which I suggested.

Here are a few of my preliminary thoughts as a tiny bit of background and explanation.

There were four motivations that I had:

1. I had been thinking about how computers might "reason" about determining whether two concepts were "equivalent" and how concepts can be compared.
2. The topic of "moral equivalence" has popped up on occasion without any detailed discussion.
3. I was curious about how to go about comparing seemingly similar concepts across languages and cultures and communities to determine how similar and different they are and whether they are "equivalent."
4. How to compare things that are nominally different but can be compared in specific ways. For example, the "work" and "pay" of men and women - are they "equivalent"? Or, the killing of someone who is very successful vs. a homeless person - is the "loss" to society "equivalent" or very different? Such comparisons may depend on the "level" of discourse.

By "things", I was not intending only physical objects, but also interested in concepts, topics, principles, meanings, personalities, beliefs, deities, or just about anything.

I think the concept of "comparison" is as much to be discussed as equivalence itself since we need to engage in comparison to determine equivalence, I think.

A discussion of equivalence also ties into whether things are "equal", "identical", "similar", "related", etc.

One odd thought experiment that popped into my head was identical twins. Are they equivalent? Are their lives equivalent? And what if two pairs of identical twins marry - are their marriages "equivalent"? Would the concept of adultery or the paternal identity of a child of such a union vary based on which of the twins was involved?

That is an odd case, but I am more interested in "equivalence" and comparison as it may show up in society and even our daily lives, not to mention how philosophers cope with it.

One final aspect of a discussion of equivalence: How many times have you heard someone seem to suggest that two things were equivalent or "the same" and then heard someone else insist "No, THAT's different!"?

It seems as if we have a desire or tendency or bias to assert equivalence for any number of reasons. What's that all about? Is it maybe simply a tendency to "simplify" our lives? Or maybe a mechanism for asserting control?

One timely social example might be "marriage" vs. "gay marriage" vs. "civil union." How might the "knife" of "equivalence" cut through this matter?

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City this week: "Should we worry about uncertainty?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City this week, on Thursday, May 21, 2009, is "Should we worry about uncertainty?". I proposed the question. I have posted some of my comments on the topic.

We are all hoping and expecting that, as usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Should we worry about uncertainty?

In preparation for the discussion topic of "Should we worry about uncertainty?", a topic that I proposed, for the next Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, on Thursday, May 21, 2009,  I made the following comments...

I'll refrain from overly dissecting the next Cafe Philo discussion topic, "Should we worry about uncertainty?", both because it happens to be the topic that I proposed and also because I am anxious to hear how others have interpreted the topic. I'll try to give only a very brief explanation of the topic, sufficient so that nobody can complain that they didn't know what it was about.

It was interesting that the topic garnered so many votes on the first vote and without any of the usual haggling about "But what does that really mean?" and "But the answer is simple!" and "That doesn't make any sense!". My hunch is that the mere mention of "uncertainty" and "worry" in the present "times" and "crisis" evokes a visceral reaction. People are experiencing the negative consequences of "uncertainty" in a big way and a way out is desired.

Now, whether that in fact was how others saw the question remains to be seen and will be a subject of debate. Whether the uncertainty of the current times/crisis is the main "worry" of people remains to be seen.

Without trying to parse the topic too much, I would simply suggest that it be interpreted as broadly as possible.

1) "Worry" should include the full range of thought, reasoning, communication, and action related to how we "cope" with uncertainty. "Worry" has negative and emotional connotations, including anxiety, which was the original intent on my part, but the full range of processes related to how we "deal" with uncertainty are fair game. Think as broadly or as narrowly as you see fit.

2) "Uncertainty" can be expanded to include the full range of degree of certainty, from absolute certainty to absolute uncertainty (completely clueless?) and "the unknowable" unknown unknowns. My original intent was dealing with situations where the facts are not sufficiently clear to lead to a high degree of confidence, but the discussion can also encompass excessive confidence when we may falsely imagine that we have a high degree of certainty but are mistaken for reasons that we do not necessarily discern. Feel free to think as broadly or narrowly as you see fit with regards to whatever aspects of uncertainty, certainty, and confidence you feel is of interest.

3) Don't feel constrained to the current times/crisis, unless you want to.

Feel free to pose propositions in terms of actual real-world situations that seem relevant to dealing with uncertainty, past, present, future, or imagined.

I could have worded the question as "How can we cope with uncertainty?" or as "Should we really have greater confidence about certainty than uncertainty?" or "What is the rational response to uncertainty?", etc., but somehow phrasing it as "worry" may elicit a more interesting discussion.

Feel free to include both the ontological nature of certainty as well as the behavioral aspects of what we "should" do in the face of the many degrees of certainty.

Ultimately, my main interest is to examine what "tools" philosophy can offer us to work with perceived certainty, uncertainty, and worry about them.

Other than all of that, you are free to interpret the question however you wish as perceived by you, as it was given, regardless of how I might interpret it.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks: "Should we worry about uncertainty?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, on Thursday, May 21, 2009, is "Should we worry about uncertainty?". I proposed the question.

As usual, Bernard Roy will be the moderator.

Catch on on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Made my Kiva micro-loan for the month of May

I made a new micro-loan through Kiva for the month of May. My intention is to make a new micro-loan every month, in large part from repayments for past micro-loans.

This one was for a weaver in Guatemala who makes women's clothes. It is a 14-month micro-loan for a total of $300, of which I lent $25. Its first repayment is scheduled for July 2009. The micro-loan was already disbursed to the micro-entrepreneur on April 24, 2009 by the local partner. Kiva is raising funds to essentially buy that loan from the local partner.

Here is my Kiva public lender page: http://www.kiva.org/lender/JackKrupansky

Note: This is all real and good, but these micro-loans do not net any interest to us micro-lenders. Kiva's fine print:

Lending to the working poor through Kiva involves risk of principal loss.
Kiva does not guarantee repayment nor do we offer a financial return on your loan.

Still, at least we know our money is really helping somebody better their lives in a visible way rather than put the money in a bank account or money market fund where who knows what it helps to pay for or what good it does and for only a few pennies of profit in our pockets.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City this week: "Can you buy happiness?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City this week, on Thursday, May 7, 2009, is "Can you buy happiness?".

It is unclear whether Bernard Roy will be the moderator. We'll see. Hopefully he will be there.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

Actually, I did in fact attend the most recent Cafe Philo in DC on Sunday, April 26 when the discussion was about the question "Can one believe in both god and evolution?".

-- Jack Krupansky

Memory of John Wilke

I just saw the news that John Wilke, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal died of cancer at age 54. I read about people dying every day, but rarely had I ever even met the person. I met John at the Microsoft antitrust trial 10 years ago (or so, 1998 to 2002.) I was a "semi-retired" independent software developer then and living in Washington, D.C. right at the time when the trial was getting underway. I attended the entire trial so I ended up meeting many of the reporters (and lawyers) at the long trial. Sometimes I would answer some of their technical questions, but mostly I enjoyed getting a front row seat watching news stories evolve from the ground up. It's amusing to read a story and then compare it to what I actually saw. Sometimes I would even go out drinking with a bunch of the reporters and lawyers after 8:00 p.m. when the reporters had filed their stories. On one occasion a reporter referred to me as their "mascot." That made me cringe, but that's better than other things that could have thought about me.

Although some (but not all) of the reporters were somewhat arrogant and full of themselves, John was always a nice guy around me. Professional and courteous.

One weekend there was a big storm in the DC area which knocked out the power in portions of the suburbs. I was eating dinner by myself at The Daily Grill restaurant on M Street and John walked over to my booth with his wife and daughter (about 7 or 8 years old?), said hello, and then proceeded to introduce me to his wife and daughter by saying "Jack is one of the reporters at the Microsoft trial." That just blew me away, but I barely managed to refrain from laughing. I wasn't sure whether to feel honored or insulted by being referred to as "a reporter." But, hey, at least John was being gracious and courteous and even acknowledging that I existed in one of the most brutal "power politics" cities in the world. He said that their power was out and they decided to come into the city for dinner. That's my last memory of John, other than as one of the reporters always madly scribbling notes and hounding the "poor" lawyers and witnesses for printable quotes.

His death does feel a bit strange to me since he was roughly the same age as me. Are we really getting that old?

-- Jack Krupansky

Modest exponential growth for H1N1 swine flu, but probably peaked

Yesterday I indicated that the growth in lab confirmed cases of influenza A(H1N1) "swine flu" was not yet exponential. I looked at the data again when the latest data came out today and now it is clear that there was in fact exponential growth in lab confirmed cases, both CDC and WHO, on the order of 50% growth per day, 47% growth per day for the U.S. and 55% growth per day globally. For the 10-day period since April 24, 2009, I calculated that the doubling interval for growth in lab confirmed cases was about 2.25 days globally for the WHO data and about 2.29 days for the U.S. CDC data.

BUT... the most recent WHO data grew at only a 36% daily rate and the most recent U.S. CDC data grew at only a 41% rate. My hunch is that the growth rate has peaked.

Here is the WHO and CDC data for lab confirmed cases and my calculated daily growth rates and days to double the growth rate of each day:

1. 4/24 - WHO: 25, doubled in 4 days; CDC: 8, doubled in 2 days.
2. 4/25 - WHO: 25, no change, doubled in 3 days; CDC: 11, 38%, doubled in 1 day.
3. 4/26 - WHO: 38, 52%, doubled in 2 days; CDC: 20, 82%, doubled in 1 day.
4. 4/27 - WHO: 40, 5%, doubled in 1 day; CDC: 40, 100%, doubled in 2 days.
5. 4/28 - WHO: 105, 163%, doubled in 2 days; CDC: 64, 60%, doubled in 3 days.
6. 4/29 - WHO: 148, 41%, doubled in 2 days; CDC: 91, 42%, doubled in 4 days
7. 4/30 - WHO: 257, 74%, doubled in 2 days; CDC: 109, 20%, doubled in 3 days.
8. 5/01 - WHO: 367, 43%, doubled in 2 days; CDC: 141, 29%, not yet doubled.
9. 5/02 - WHO: 658, 79%, not yet doubled; CDC: 160, 13%, not yet doubled.
10. 5/03 - WHO: 898, 36%, not yet doubled; CDC: 226, 41%, not yet doubled.

In summary, an exponential growth rate was clearly established, but my hunch is that it has already peaked.

In order to confirm that the exponential growth rate is still in place we would need to see the WHO number jump to 1,300 within a day or two and the CDC data would need to jump to 320 within a day or 450 within two days.

From want I have read, it sounds as if a large percentage of the "new" confirmed cases are simply lab confirmations of existing "probable" cases rather than the appearance of symptoms in additional persons.

-- Jack Krupansky

WTF is going on with this "killer" flu??

Talk about truth being stranger than fiction. Yes, we nominally do have a so-called "pandemic" -- 16 countries. Yes, the influenza A(H1N1) "swine flu" bug is a killer, nominally -- somewhere between 9 and 100 people dead in Mexico. Yes, it is still spreading [Hey you! Yeah, you! Stop coughing in my direction already! NOW!!] -- but not at a very alarming rate. Yes, it is very possible that the bug could eventually mutate into something much worse -- but it hasn't, yet.

But... the really simple facts are that outside of Mexico, a place that few people consider a paragon of public health, the raw numbers of "infected" are still quite low and the actual health impacts are quite mild. In fact, the average person or even doctor and even a lot of hospitals are unable to tell the difference from "normal" seasonal flu and "swine flu."

So, the public health people are caught in a bind: should they relax and tell everybody to "chill", or should they take more aggressive action of some unspecified sort?

The answer is... about all they can do is offer platitudes about "must remain vigilent", tell us (again) to cover our coughs and wash our hands, and... wring their own hands about how little they can actually do right now and stand back and watch the current mix of swine and "normal" seasonal flu continue to spread incrementally and eventually dissipate.

The bad news is that by raising the alarm so high, "the authorities" have caused emergency rooms and doctor offices to be overflowing with "the walking well" who are merely "concerned", so that the true "at risk" individuals are now at risk of not getting the prompt care which can protect them from more severe effects. Sigh. That's life.

Still, overall, I am fairly supportive of the efforts to date of "the authorities", including CDC, WHO, NYC Health, and the Obama administration. Sure, there are things they could have done and can still do better, but they are doing "good enough" for the actual "threat" that we actually have right now in front of us.

The crazy thing is that even "normal" flu is a killer and a real drain on productivity, so if the health authorities could make a much bigger dent in flu in general, we would have a real win-win, saving thousands of lives in a normal year as well as getting a leg up on "novel" pandemics.

So, here and now, what's next? Are the authorities going to simply "watch and wait" and let the seasonal flu mixed with some amount of "swine flu" play out? My hunch is that is the case, unless they want to station health professionals in public places and detain, test, and treat anybody exhibiting "flu-like symptoms" in public. That would cost a lot, but it might be the right thing to do to be prepared for future "real" pandemics. At least they should consider it on a trial basis.

The bottom line is... don't worry, be happy... and cover your cough, wash your hands, and stay away from coughing people, even in a "normal" flu season.

-- Jack Krupansky

I (heart) epidemiology

I (heart) epidemiology. Careful analysis of the actual numbers in a public health crisis is a great antidote to the passionate and scurrilous dissemination of misinformation and fearmongering. This latest so-called "pandemic" is a great case in point. Sure, so-called "swine flu" (influenza A(H1N1)) has spread to a number of countries around the world (15 at last official count), but the actual "body count" is still quite small and the actual health impacts (other than in Mexico itself) have proven to be quite mild.

If it was up to me [Imagine that, me running the world!!], I would reserve the term pandemic for significant global health impact, or at least have levels of health impact, such as death, long-term harm, severe short-term suffering, highly contagious, etc., with the bottom category being what we have outside of Mexico right now: mild.

The whole point of epidemiology is to avoid the need to debate public health and to have some objective measurements so that the discussion will be less about rhetoric and more about actual reality.

Numbers tell the real story. Sure, the numbers can and do change, but so does the actual reality. The whole point of the numbers is to track reality. What else is there that is worth discussing?

Sure, we all want to predict the future, but the numbers are actually our best available tool. Project into the future using current numbers and then see how things play out and then adjust our model of reality accordingly.

The heart and soul of the concern about pandemics is the worry that an epidemic will go exponential. That means it takes a certain amount of time for the number of infected to double and then each subsequent elapse of that same time interval will result in 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, and so on times as many infected. As long as an epidemic does not go exponential, it will usually just level out and actually begin to dissipate, such as what we may be starting to see right now.

Some people make a big deal about the fact that the authorities have not detected and confirmed all cases, but that is not a problem. All we really need is a sample of the total infected and then we can monitor that sample to get a sense of the health impacts and growth rate.

Epidemiology is all about evidence-based medicine. Rumors and unconfirmed reports will never be a valid substitute for real data and real facts.

The Wikipedia article on epidemiology tells us that:

Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice. In the study of communicable and non-communicable diseases, the work of epidemiologists ranges from outbreak investigation to study design, data collection and analysis including the development of statistical models to test hypotheses and the documentation of results for submission to peer-reviewed journals. Epidemiologists may draw on a number of other scientific disciplines, such as biology (to better understand disease processes) and social science disciplines including sociology and philosophy (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors).

To be crystal clear, epidemiology exists solely to support the interests of public health and preventive medicine. Anybody who tries to claim or suggest approaches to public health and preventive medicine without paying heed to the concepts of epidemiology is doing the public a disservice.

Spreading misinformation, flaming fear, and making wild claims is never in the interest of the public. Some individuals or groups may seek to exploit epidemics for their own agendas and power plays, but that is not about protecting and promoting public health.

-- Jack Krupansky

What kind of flu did I have back in March?

With all of the intense press coverage of the so-called swine flu "pandemic", I had actually forgotten that I in fact had some flu-like symptoms back in March. It was not a big deal at the time and I quickly recovered and promptly forgot about it. I likely "caught" the bug on the bus from NYC to Atlantic City or the local bus from Atlantic City to Waretown, NJ.

Prior to that, the last time I had a cold was back in June 2008, shortly after I moved to NYC from Bellevue, WA. I attributed that to getting used to all of the crap in the air here in NYC after living in the clean air of the Pacific Norwthwest for two years.

My "cold" in March was odd in that it was a "mini-cold", lasting about half as long and only half as intense as my typical cold such as that which I had back in June. Maybe 5 days total instead of 10 days total. I had never experienced a short cold like that before.

I had a mild sore throat in the afternoon the day after my bus trip, some mild body ache in the evening, modest congestion for several days, but not intense enough to cause any coughing. I did take a lot of aspirin, but no other "cold remedies." That's it. Nothing memorable if not in the context of the current "pandemic."

I made several trips in the latter half of March and early April, so I do not recall exactly for sure which one it was, but it was likely the trip on Tuesday, March 17th. I do recall that I was completely healthy again for a trip from NYC to Denver, Colorado on Thursday, March 26, 2009.

I do in fact wonder what "strain" of flu I encountered. Alas, it is long gone, but it would be interesting to hear if many others had any similar experience in that timeframe.

-- Jack Krupansky