Ok, philosophically speaking, this isn’t too important. But what IS interesting is that it actually took some thought to figure out why I felt that the previous post link OUGHT to be on the right and the later posts link OUGHT to be on the left. It might not have occurred to me at all, except that the template I was modifying had them reversed and it bothered me.

So first, I tried to justify the template author’s view. I assumed I was wrong. What would make him right? Well, I thought, you do read a book from left to right. You turn the pages left to right and so when you read a blog, you ought to read it left to right, too. When you read a book you read from earlier in time to later in time. Therefore, later posts ought to be on the right. Sounds good, right?  So why didn’t I like it?

After some thought, I decided that one does not read a blog in the same order as one reads a book. Again, in a book, you read what happens first FIRST. But in a blog it is precisely reversed – you read what happens LAST first. Hmm….

So, if a blog where a book, the first pages would hold the latest information and the last pages the earliest information. Hence, the link going to earlier posts really ought to be on the right.

What is interesting about this is that I never consciously thought about it before – and yet I had an opinion. This opinion was something I picked up entirely subconsciously. And maybe you did, too. And yet it seems to me an extremely subtle observation. Subtle enough that it took some thought for me to answer the question why I felt the way I did.

Now, I can’t say it’s wrong or right to do it either way, but at least now I know the reasoning behind what before was simply an intuitive preference. As with all of these little observations, they may not mean much, but they expose the inner workings of the human mind and I do think working out the reasoning behind our automatic responses ultimately serves us.

So there you have it.

If you enjoyed this post, you might be interested in my little observation about foreign book spines.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

I do realize, however, that many people are simply ignorant of the principles behind copyright and patent law and have no means of formulating an argument in their minds, either for or against. I was also hit with a very simple question: If you don’t believe in copyright or patent law, why do you assert your own copyright in the footer of your blog?

That’s a very good question. And today I will explain why.

I simply do NOT believe in martyrdom. Not for me, not for you, and not or any other artists or patrons of the arts out there. I DO NOT recommend uploading, downloading, or otherwise sharing works that are not your own with the world. Why? Because you can go to JAIL. Believe me, that song is NOT worth it. No song is.

Now for my reasons for the copyright notice. I also do NOT recommend ignoring the existence of copyright laws when you put your own works on the internet or otherwise publish them. I also do NOT recommend ignoring patent law when you invent something new. Why? Because you could potentially lose YOUR OWN ABILITY TO USE THOSE IDEAS. One of the important points I make in my arguments against patents is that when someone else uses your idea you do not lose your own ability to use that idea. In a perfect world if others can profit from your idea, then so can you. But that’s not the case here. If you don’t assert ownership, someone else will.

What CAN you do? You can assert copyright and then tell people to go ahead and use your work as long as they properly attribute it to you (they don’t plagiarize), they do not use it in such a way as to suggest that you endorse a product that you don’t, and they do not suggest that you are benefiting in some way from their use of it when you aren’t. In other words, as long as they do not commit FRAUD.

This is the idea behind the Creative Commons License movement and I wholeheartedly agree with it. No one must be a martyr. No one HAS to be a martyr in order to change things. Speak out, yes. Martyr yourself, no.

Now, many of the problems that will pop up in your mind when you try to imagine a world with no copyrights and patents are not really problems that result from a world with no copyright or patent protection, but of a world were copyrights and patents exist for everyone else except you. If you are going to bother imagining a world without them, then go all the way and imagine it completely. This is a world where no one EXPECTS such protection in the first place. Would they still bother to create things? Well, would you? I repeat, the reward for the creation of a better mousetrap is not money. It’s a world where there exists a better mousetrap.

Now go. Create better (and better and better) mousetraps.  And let everyone else do it, too. The world will be a better place.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

I recently explained my views on patents in my open letter in response to Professor William Bains, a scientist and the editor of the now defunct Bioscience Hypotheses. What I said about patents applies equally to copyright. But in that letter, I made the mistake of saying, albeit in a footnote, that copyright was less of a problem than patents because it is much more specific. Scratch that. It’s a big problem. It’s an especially big problem when people begin to see this notion of intellectual property as some kind of real right that they have and start demanding that everyone bow down and pay tribute to them just because they wrote a song (or book, or made a movie, or a drawing, or a photograph or whatever) or worse because they are acting as a MIDDLE MAN on the supposed behalf of someone who wrote a song (or all that other stuff). The hubris is sometimes astonishing. After all, shouldn’t the world stop in order to protect my RIGHTS? Well, yes, only there is no such thing as a right to an idea and your rights are NOT infringed because someone shares a song with a friend (or with anyone else). In fact, you can only BENEFIT by someone essentially taking the time to PROMOTE your work. So, stop whining.

If you are a musician who is really concerned that your fans will trade and share your music, well, I do have some advice for you. It’s really very simple. DON’T RELEASE YOUR MUSIC. After all, no one is going to be able to pull it out of your head. At least not yet. And if they try to do that, I will defend your right to keep in it there as well as I would defend your right to life.

Oh, wait.

You WANT to release your music? You mean, you want to give it away AND keep it, too? Somehow, I’m reminded of an adage about a cake….

But you might be a musician who is confused about this. You might be wondering how you will make a living if you let people freely share your music. I want to tell you this. The MORE YOU LET PEOPLE TRADE YOUR MUSIC THE MORE PEOPLE WILL BE LISTENING TO YOUR MUSIC. And the more people that listen to your music, the more fans you will have. The more fans that will PAY to have an AUTHENTIC mp3 or CD recording. The more fans that will PAY to see you perform. The more fans that will want the official CD with the official lyric book inside and with your official signature on it. Those .99 cent mp3’s you let people FREELY share will have repaid you many MANY times over. There is no need to be greedy.*

Now, what about plagiarism or people using your work to promote their own views or products, or people selling your stuff as if it were really you selling it? Well, it seems to me that there are already laws that protect you against these things. Specifically they are the laws against FRAUD. How does that work? Well, with plagiarism, it’s fairly plain. That’s fraud pure and simple. What if someone uses your work to promote their own views or product? The potential for fraud is there also unless the person were to make it clear that you don’t necessarily endorse their views or their product. After all, the work is going to be associated, in the minds of others, with you and your reputation. Fraud is also an issue when someone is just plain selling your stuff without your explicit permission. This is because many buyers will assume that by purchasing the work they were helping to support the further creation of more of your work and many buyers DO want to be patrons of the artists they are fans of. Indeed, why would they bother to pay for the work at all, then, especially in a world without copyrights?

Remember: If people purchase your music they have done you a good turn. If they SHARE your music, they have done you a good turn and you should NOT be trying to punish them for that. No one should go to JAIL because they are a fan of your music. Instead, consider them promoters. Very cheap promoters, too. They love your music and they want others to, too. Don’t worry. Your true fans will want to buy your music from you. They will want to be patrons of your work. They will buy CD’s just because they have your stamp of approval, your artwork, or your signature on them. So by all means, sell them on your website. Sell them on iTunes and Amazon and wherever else. Just don’t try to stop the wonderful promotion of your work on the internet.

Oh, and do get rid of those annoying middlemen.

*This is especially true if you are a small player. For those of you who are just starting out, or whose fan base is still small, this article a friend of mine recently sent me might give you a little perspective. It called 1000 True Fans and it’s by Kevin Kelly. It might help you.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

To really answer this question more correctly, though, I think it would be beneficial to make a few assumptions. Assumptions that may or may not be true, but are useful for the sake of seeing clearly an aspect of the question. Let’s assume two things for the sake of clarity. Let’s assume that the presidential candidates say exactly what they mean, what they believe, and what they intend. I know, I know. That’s a BIG assumption to make. We can probably say without any doubt that it ISN’T true. But you will see in a moment why I’m making it. The other assumption is that elections are indeed free and truly count the sentiments of the people. In many cases we can say they probably do not, but in at least some, they do. With these two assumptions in place and accepting that the president in largely a figurehead with little or no real power let’s ask the question again: Does it matter who gets elected?

Well, yes, it does. If the people, ignorant as they may be of the true political realities, and trusting the words coming from the mouths of their candidates, choose a man who openly and vehemently defends a position that with one swipe eviscerates the US Constitution by blithely tossing out Amendments 4 through 8, then we can say, they certainly will get what they deserve. They are not good people. But, if they choose a man who is consistent, upholds individual freedom, abhors war, avoids foreign entanglements, and upholds the right to self defense, they make a bold statement about their philosophy, intelligence, and maturity. And whether that president could deliver, or whether he might be used as a tool to fool the people into accepting something that seems right but is really to their detriment, they illustrate their basic goodness and with that make it that much harder for the powers that be to ultimately control them.

So, yes, I think it does matter who gets elected, if only because it lets me know who my neighbors are.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

One of the worst copyrighting ideas is the idea of licensing where you as an individual pay for something but you nevertheless don’t actually own it – meaning you cannot legally give it away or share it. The notion is one of “intellectual property” or the belief that one can “own” an idea, something we’ve already discussed in the previous post.

The music industry’s war against music sharing is a prime example but it is really a media industry problem as it applies equally to movies, books, software, photographs, and other electronically produced artistic works. You may ask yourself, how would the arts be funded if no one paid for the products? To answer that question, let’s use the music industry as one example. How ever did musicians earn a living before the advent of recording? They performed. When recording came along, the recordings initially served as advertisements for the live show, not as the principle means of income. And to a great degree they still do. Many musicians make their living performing. What is lost here, then, is not the musician’s income, but the income of a middleman. A middleman who’s service is really no longer needed. But that middleman is going to do everything in his power to remain in control, including using the police powers of the US government to do it. While they do that there are some unintended (read intended) consequences.

Check out this video explaining how SOPA works and some of the consequences.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

Since the first collection of charts that went up on ridethegoldbull.com a lot has changed. As my understanding improves, so will the charts. As it looks right now, 2012 is set to be a momentous year. Check out the charts!

If you have ideas, comments, questions, or if you know how to get data, especially daily data that includes either of the previous Dow/gold ratio cycles (daily data from the 20′s and 30′s or from the 60′s and 70′s), you can comment here on this post or contact me through Illumicharts. I am especially interested in data for silver and for oil.

Just a reminder: Most of the charts are still updated on a weekly basis but updates to the charts will no longer be posted on the Generalist. Sign up for email updates over at Illumicharts! If you’ve signed up but you’re not receiving updates, check your spam folder for the email authentication first, then let me know.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

Unfortunately, Bioscience Hypotheses did not survive. Almost immediately upon submission I received a letter informing me that my editorial could not be published because the magazine was soon to be no more. The subject matter is good for discussion and debate and I wouldn’t mind seeing some arguments for the opposing view myself, so when I found Professor William Bains‘s article free online I realized I could simply publish my editorial in it’s entirety. So… here it is:

Dear Professor Bains,

I read with interest your recent article Who should benefit financially from a good idea? in Volume 2, Issue 3 of Bioscience Hypotheses. In your article you identify some problems with the patent system as it is and suggest ways to “bridge the gap” between the interests of industry and the free flow of ideas. The subject is clearly of great importance and there is no shortage of great minds grappling with it. May I suggest, however, that a complete understanding of the problems caused by patents requires an epistemological shift. This shift is not an easy one for most modern scientists to make because while they are well versed in the empirical or a posteriori scientific method, they are for the most part ignorant of the a priori sciences of ethics and politics, under which an understanding of patents would fall. Because of this I fully expect that my arguments will seem entirely foreign and radical to most readers. I only ask that they spend a little time working through the logic themselves before simply dismissing them.

I wish there was a way to “bridge the gap” as you would like to do. If such a thing were possible it would mean a lot less time and expense. But I am afraid that this is simply not possible and in the following paragraphs I will attempt to explain why.

There are two closely related a priori arguments against patents, one, that they are unlawful, and the other that they fail to increase (or in fact decrease) innovation. The first, that patents are unlawful, for most readers, will require some explanation.

The term Law, as it is used in common speech, is an equivocal term which means both law as it is legislated and law as it ought to be. In the following paragraphs, I will be using the term in the normative sense, law as it ought to be. Even in this sense, most people would be astonished to hear that patents could be unlawful. After all, isn’t it only fair that those who innovate reap the benefits of their innovation? Well, yes, of course. But what exactly are the benefits of an innovation and what exactly are patents meant to protect?

The right to life is the basic starting point for the ideal of Natural Law[1], the philosophical ideal upon which the United States is founded. On this view, life is the ultimate human value because without it no other human values are possible. Therefore, if a society is to be just, each man must have a right to his own life. From this follows the right to property in one’s person (i.e., your body belongs to you), and the right to sustain one’s life by one’s own hand, which implies the right to property in the fruits of one’s labor.

It would seem at first glance that patents are a form of protection for the right to property in the fruits of one’s labor – after all it’s you who labors to do the thinking. But are they? The first clue that they are not is revealed by the need to formulate a special law. If property as such is already protected, why would there need to be a special law over and above the one against theft? As you mentioned in your article, a patent assumes the right to an idea. But can an idea be property? In fact, “ownership” of an idea can be shown to be in contradiction with the right to property.

An idea exists in a sense very different from property. In so far as an idea leads to some truth it is available to be discovered by any mind actively seeking it. But more importantly, no idea when used as such by another person deprives an innovator of his own use of it. Therefore a patent seeks not to protect those who own property from losing it, but to prevent others from gaining property by creating it. The patent can be used in this way to force those wishing to use an idea to pay tribute to the patent holder. By this the patent seems to be a “right” to a profit or to financial gain for the holder. But such a “right” can never exist under Natural Law because it violates the right to property of those who must pay the tribute. An idea therefore is distinct from property and patents are therefore unlawful.

There are a number of reasons that people might not accept the above argument. For one, it seems unfair to the innovator. In truth, the innovator loses nothing by another’s use of his idea. However, the user of an idea gains by it and this is what seems unfair. The right to property however is a protection against loss, not a protection against another’s gain. In fact, the innovator himself stands only to gain when he makes an idea public to other minds[2] – with or without a patent. Only a patent requires a loss to someone. It is because we are so used to seeing one person’s gain as another’s loss – the zero sum game – that we are prone to this error.

But there is another reason. How, people will ask, will anyone ever invent or innovate anything new if he cannot be assured of profiting from his ideas? What prevents people from seeing the answer is the simple fact that they have always lived in a world where indirect exchange, i.e., money, is the norm. But, as you note in your article, this view confounds two distinct economic roles, that of the innovator and that of the entrepreneur. The innovator seeks to bring into existence something which did not exist prior. The entrepreneur seeks to profit from the difference between the costs of bringing an item to market and the revenue he can expect when he sells that item. In real life a single individual may play both roles, but they are nevertheless distinct roles conceptually. And that brings us to the second argument against patents – that they do not encourage innovation. This is because the innovator’s reward is never monetary. The man who seeks to build a better mousetrap is not seeking a monetary gain. His goal is not an intermediary but a primary. His reward is quite simply a world with a better mousetrap.

It is not surprising that most people cannot accept this simple reward as being enough. For years animal behaviorists attempted to train animals using a type of indirect exchange. They came to believe that animals simply were incapable of certain things. It wasn’t until researchers started to train animals using a form of direct exchange that they began to discover all of the possibilities hidden within animal intelligence. For example, when animal behaviorist Irene Pepperberg wanted to train African Grey Parrot Alex how to speak and understand English, she used a disarmingly simple technique. When Alex gave the correct response, Pepperberg did not reward him with food – an intermediary – she instead rewarded him with the item that he had named. Behaviorists were shocked at the results – that Alex did in fact learn to speak and understand English![3] And I submit to you that they would be just as shocked at what people can do.

That this idea escapes those of us who imagine that were it not for the monetary gain, no innovation would occur, is really amazing, given the most ubiquitous adage that “necessity is the mother of invention.” And it is. But, as it is with animals, a secondary gain is actually stifling to innovation. Rewarding people with the undue power of monopoly invariably creates a class of individuals who seem to be attempting to solve problems but they aren’t really interested in the answer, i.e., a class of patent seekers. It will be in the interests of such a group to create guilds and peer-reviews that control, not only who can learn of and use ideas, but also who publishes, and who has access to funds. It is often in the interests of these monopolists not to fix a problem, but rather to control and maintain it in perpetuity! Cheaper or unpatentable remedies are overlooked, or worse, suppressed. I recently received an email from a woman bemoaning that medical science seeks only to manage disease – usually by more and more expensive means – and never to cure it. She’s absolutely right and the reason is patents.

In addition, as you pointed out, true innovations are rarely the work of one man alone – they proceed in stages. For those in need of an empirical example, the case of the steam engine makes evident the hindrances to innovation caused by patents.[4] It’s important to note, however, that empirical evidence, while sometimes compelling can be illusory. The problem with the empirical in this case is that complex historical data is unrepeatable. While it may seem that we have made great advances under the patent system, we have no way of empirically testing what the rate of innovation would have been without patents. Thankfully, we can use a priori arguments to illuminate that for us.

Many people are so used to the system of copyrights[5] and patents that it is nearly impossible for them to imagine any other way. They will want to know who will fund the innovation (and its realization) -  the answer is the people who desire such an innovation to exist of course. A man with cancer wants a cure, not a monetary gain! He wants a cure, not an expensive means of “managing” his disease. He, and the millions like him, will have no problem funding the realization of an idea which promises a cure. It’s important to realize that this is an entirely different goal from that of the patent holder! Yes, these ideas require a sea change in the way people think about problem solving – it requires that people once again view themselves as personally responsible. But the backwards incentives created by the existence of patents is part of the reason for that loss of personal responsibility in the first place. Patents place the emphasis not on the benefits of the results of innovation but upon benefits of a monopoly. These problems will never go away until patents are abolished. While such a drastic change seems impossible, it is important for people to recognize that this is in fact the goal. Attempts to work around the problems caused by patents with more laws will lead only to a continual evolution of more and more complex laws until the system grinds to a complete halt and a revolution occurs.

In truth there is only one way to defeat the patent system and that is to speak out against it. This does not mean martyring oneself. Of course we must all work as well as we can within the system as long as it is not within our power to change it. Nevertheless, we should endeavor to change it if only by educating ourselves and others whenever we can. Until a critical mass understands why the patent system is detrimental to innovation, nothing can really be accomplished to change it.

That said, there are individuals who intuitively understand if not explicitly. They are the ones who have created scientific and medical journals that are free and accessible, not just to doctors and scientists within institutions, but to everyone, where ideas are freely exchanged and debated. Unfortunately, there is no way to “bridge the gap”. Catering to the monopolist will not fix the problems he causes. Only knowledge will.

Notes:

[1] It is important to note here that Natural Law is NOT a list of rules or commandments. “Thou shall not kill” is a rule, while Natural Law is a body of thought which is the result of deductive reasoning. The problem with rules is that they always have exceptions. When individuals are not aware of the reasoning that led to a rule, they cannot reconstruct such reasoning in order to expose the exceptions and they become blind followers who are easily manipulated and controlled. There is a clear exception to the rule “Thou shall not kill” and that exception is plainly exposed in the corollary of the right to life – the right to defend it. [Blog readers, see my article Why Rights Are Inalienable for further analysis of Natural Rights.]

[2] The right to property includes within it the right to dispose of that property – e.g., the right to give it to someone else – hence human beings peacefully engage in trade. It can be said then, that by making an idea public, a man has “disposed” of it. The patent holder, however, wishes to have his cake and eat it too in the sense that he wishes to give away an idea while at the same time being the sole controller of it.

[3] Pepperberg I. Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2006; 100(1-2): 77-86 (doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.005) [Blog readers: Those interested in Dr. Irene Pepperberg's work with Alex might be interested in the following books: For the layman: Alex & Me By Irene Pepperberg; for the scientist: The Alex Studies: Cognitive and Communicative Abilities of Grey Parrots By Irene Pepperberg]

[4] Boldrin M, Levine D, Nuvolari A. Do Patents Encourage Innovation? The Case of the Steam Engine. The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty. December 2008; 14-17

[5] Copyrights operate in a very similar fashion to patents and have some of the same problems. They are, however, less of a hindrance to innovation because they are very specific – they do not protect ideas but particular arrangements of words, notes, or images. In a sense, they are really only a rather improper extension the law against fraud – e.g., the use of someone’s work without proper attribution (plagiarism), or use of someone’s work in such a way as to suggest they endorse something which they do not. I believe it is in recognition of this truth that so many internet users have come to create their own form of copyrights – the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike agreement for example.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

Nevertheless, our hypothesis regarding a possible cure is still in play.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

One thing I’ve noticed about these anticipated years: the real problems usually start later. Sometimes much later. 1984 is just about coming to roost now and it’s 2012. The expected problems of 2000 didn’t materialize, but something momentous was certainly in store for 2001. What does it mean? Maybe it means the powers that be don’t really want you to be prepared. After all, their vision is long term and most people don’t maintain their vigilance past the anticipated year. But even if we remain vigilant, us little people will rarely know the timing of any disaster. So, while I agree that it is good to have a general plan in case things go wrong, I think it is also good to have a plan in case things go right. If opportunity comes your way will you be in a position to take advantage of it?

That’s what resolutions are for. Well, resolutions are only part of it. Resolutions tend to be things you want to correct about yourself. You want to stick to your diet, or be more organized. Those are a step in the right direction, but they’re not the whole story.

By now everyone has heard of The Secret. The idea is that the universe (or God, or nature, or whatever you want to call it) is capable of supplying your every desire. Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. The genie says “Your wish is my command.” And all you have to do believe and receive. To many people it sounds like a whole lot of baloney. You could say it’s a form of prayer, if you believe in that kind of thing. But sometimes a little humility will bring you worthwhile results. So I’d say it’s worth trying. After all, if it works, it hardly matters how it works.

But I can think of at least one way that it must work. The first step towards making something a reality is recognizing that it is a possibility. Without that, no mind has the power to do anything at all. The first step is always an idea. This “ingredient” is often left out of the list and yet it is the most fundamental. Whenever something seems to you to be more than the sum of its parts, remember that this is impossible. You just forgot one of the parts: the idea. And because ideas have so much power, The Secret is really just logic in disguise. You will never accomplish anything if you don’t think about it first and believe it is possible. And the more you think about it and plan the more likely you will achieve.

So… have you made up your list of goals? What are you manifesting for the new year? What will you bring into being? What are your ideas? Write them out. Plan them out. See them as possible. Develop an air of quiet expectation. It does work. It works because that’s how the world works. It’s not mysticism. It’s just logic in disguise.

I have made my list of resolutions, plans, and goals. I even typed them out. One of my resolutions for 2012 is to write more. And by putting this out there I am building some expectation in you, too. I hope you’re going to hold me to it.

So Happy New Year’s Resolutions, everyone! Happy New Year 2012! Let’s resolve to make it a good one.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

The cheap newsprint-like paper, small size, soft cover, and most of all, light weight, made them perfect for carrying around on daily basis. And I was one that always had to have a book with me. I once knew an artist who liked to dip them in the bathtub and let them dry into a crinkly sculpture. There was something about the well-worn, used-and-abused, but still readable, look that appealed to her. I myself, used to make little covers out of cardboard and brown paper bags so they would stay neat and clean while I was reading them. At one time I had library of them piled double-deep in three bookshelves. At some point I decided keeping all these books wasn’t such a good idea. I was running out of space and moving them was becoming impossible. I guess I figured I could always just pick them up again at the used bookstore whenever I fancied reading them. How wrong I was. I wish now I had simply found some way to store them. Many of them were classics and I miss them. And they’re getting harder and harder to find.

The softcover still exists and is very popular. But not the mass market paperback. Even used bookstores are phasing them out. On a recent trip to the Strand in Manhattan, all that was left was a single bookshelf. Yes, you still see them in supermarkets, but they are mostly the latest fad mysteries, romances or science fiction novels, not classics, and even those are doomed. They will be replaced with electronic versions for Kindles, Nooks, iPads and the like. it’s the end of an era. In the meantime, publishers have to make a buck and they figure if you’re going to get a paper copy of a book you are going to want a nice one, if not yet a hardback. So all the paperbacks are large. It almost seems pointless to bother making soft covers at all, the point of which, it seems to me, was to keep the weight (and price) down.

But the move to Kindles, Nooks, iPads, and other book-readers doesn’t please everybody. In fact, it probably bothers any book lover who grew up before such things existed. It will be the children who become used to reading electronic versions of everything. And here is where it really gets scary.

Remember the Memory Hole of Orwell’s 1984? Winston Smith was charged with destroying “inconvenient” printed materials. His job was to rewrite history to fit the ever changing whim of Big Brother. But Orwell, as much inside information as he is likely to have had, couldn’t have imagined just how easy it would be – without even the need to destroy a single piece of paper! Electronic books can potentially be rewritten with the touch of a button.  And, I’m sorry to say, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that one day they will be. The temptation is just too great.

As a blog writer, I know myself the temptation to “fix” past material. After all, we are growing and changing all the time. What I wrote here on the blog in 2005 may or may not reflect my current point of view. I could, if it appealed to me, go back and change some of my previously written material. I’m a bit of a purist, though, so beyond fixing typos, I am un-inclined to do it. But that doesn’t mean the idea has never crossed my mind. Imagine that kind of power in the hands of those less considerate. Imagine a time when no one bothers to print anything anymore. When all your “books” are stored in a “cloud” somewhere. Those with access to the cloud can now rewrite history. It is almost a certainty that this kind of power will be used.

Of course, if this is on your mind, it’s probably NOT the mass market paperback you will want to stock up on. After all, it’s hardly archival. You will want to fill your archival library with the highest quality hardcovers with acid free paper. But as for me, I will also be holding on to a few MMPs. They may not be archival, but I’ve no doubt that some centuries from now archaeologists will unearth them from landfills fully preserved. I do wonder what they will think when they compare them to their then modern counterparts. I wonder what printer Ben Franklin would think if he could see the predicament ahead. As 2012 approaches, I can say, we are truly at the end of an age.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

The video also made me realize something else I had not addressed about Seth Godin’s The Marketing of Conspiracy Theories. I’m not sure what particular conspiracy theories Godin has in mind, but he muses that the reason people like them is that they are “comforting.” Well, I’ll let you be the judge about which scenario you find comforting…

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

Recently, a friend of mine, knowing that I run with an “alternative” crowd sent me a post by author Seth Godin called The Marketing of Conspiracy Theories. Let’s just say that I knew immediately I was being goaded. I think my friend really wanted to give me some material for getting myself moving writing for the blog. So, here it is.

Before this, I had never really heard of Seth Godin and honestly, I still don’t know much about him. He might very well be an earnest individual who, given the pressures of writing a daily blog, fell for some so-called skeptic nonsense. I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when I know next to nothing about them. Also, my friend finds Godin’s business insights to be particularly cogent and I am inclined to trust that view.

That being said, I don’t intend to go easy on Godin, here. It’s nothing personal.

Godin begins his post on The Marketing of Conspiracy Theories with a definition. That’s always good practice. Here it is:

A conspiracy theory is a complex alternative explanation for the truth.

Ugh…. where to begin.

Well, my initial reaction was to read no further and to ask the question: “With this definition, how could you ever come to know the truth if it happened to include a conspiracy?” It’s much worse than that really. But apparently Godin asked himself the very same question because he immediately qualifies by saying that of course there are conspiracies, but those are conspiracy facts.

Oh boy.

Now, in fairness to Godin, this is not really his definition. You can probably find variations of it all over the place. It is especially prevalent among professional debunkers and skeptics for obvious reasons. I can’t help but laugh. But let’s look at it.

The biggest problem with this definition is the inclusion of the word truth. After, all, it’s nice to know that Godin knows what it is! The hidden assumption, of course, (the package-deal as Ayn Rand might say) is that the truth is known, but not just known, it’s obvious and certain, too. And  the labeler knows what it is, hence he can recognize an alternative to it. That’s rather arrogant. Especially given what Godin talks about next: science.

I love how the word complex always ends up in this definition, as if only the simple is ever true. This is most certainly a mistaken reference to the notion of “Occam’s razor” and it fails to take into account that conspiracies are not scientific issues. No one will be performing any experiments on the motives of a men any time soon. Induction is involved, yes, but the kind of induction one does in a courtroom, not in a lab. Godin does make a good point about science, though. He says that it must be falsifiable. That’s true. We cannot make any positive statements of certainty about knowledge we obtain empirically or through induction. But it is precisely because of this that all knowledge obtained inductively remains on some level open to revision and this is quite the opposite of the assumption of certainty implied by the use of the word truth.

Definitions ought to be useful. Well… let me qualify that, not just useful. They must enlighten people. They  must help people to understand something better. Does this definition do that? I don’t think so. In fact, it’s so-called usefulness lies entirely in the other direction. It seems to me that a definition like this is meant to prevent people from investigating an alternative view. It does this by implying that the truth is known and certain. It’s a bit like telling people that if they even investigate this alternative explanation they are simply allowing themselves to be duped. They are wasting precious time. After all, better minds have already determined the truth. By this, I see the purpose of this definition to be simply an elegant way to apply the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity or worse Appeal to Authority. In some cases, the labeling really amounts to Ad Hominem. It’s true purpose is revealed to be an attempt to keep the truth hidden or to at least to quash further debate about what it might be.

It wouldn’t be right to criticize a man’s definition without proposing what I think is a better one. So here we go.

One way to formulate a definition is to start with the common usage. What are the essentials that bind the things most often labeled conspiracy theory? It seems to me that they are things that take into account the meaning of the two parts of the term as they are commonly used separately. So we can start with a theory that includes a conspiracy. Godin takes note of neither of these terms, but he does suggest that the opposite of  theory is truth. We talked about that already. Later he goes on to suggest that the opposite of fact is theory. But that’s not right either. The opposite of fact is fiction or falsehood. A theory is not a falsehood hence it’s opposite is not fact. Rather theory, in the common usage, includes the suggestion that it remains open to revision, much more like the science Godin apparently values. But, Godin fails to mention entirely why the word conspiracy is even part of the term, especially given that he acknowledges the existence of conspiracy fact. So the question is not so much why it’s a theory, but why it’s a conspiracy theory.

I think we can get at the answer to that by asking ourselves what kind of explanation specifically does the inclusion of the assumption of falsehood (in Godin’s definition) hope to quash? Well, it seems to me that it is precisely the kind that suggests that the truth may have been covered-up. So here is my definition:

A conspiracy theory is an alternative to the established explanation of events which suggests that the truth may have been covered-up.

There. I think this is a much better definition. First, I think it is much more accurate as a description of what people commonly use the term to express. It also explains why it’s a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy is the cover-up. The theory is what was covered-up and why. But also, this definition does not reference which view is true only that one is established, or popular, and one is not. It leaves YOU to do your own thinking. And in that way it helps you to understand something better.

Now some might say that this just confuses people by making them waste time looking into falsehoods. Godin would be one of those people as he goes on later to say that conspiracy theories “sell doubt.” But again, as we just went over, there is no certainty in science, the empirical, or induction. Doubt is an unfortunate reality and there’s nothing at all wrong with having it. No one said it would be easy. The thinking is for YOU to do. YOU will determine which ideas contain the best evidence. That’s YOUR responsibility. And there will be times when you will tell yourself that you simply don’t know and you will have to wait for more evidence. Humility in these matters can only suit you.

But Godin’s article isn’t just about a definition. I spent quite a bit of time on it for a reason. But what Godin really wants to discuss is the marketing of said conspiracy theories. As I mentioned, he feels that their purpose is to sell doubt. This particularly interesting given two facts. One is that conspiracy theories are by definition (mine) unpopular, and two that the opposite notion is selling a certainty where none can even potentially exist. So what is Godin’s definition of conspiracy theory selling? Trust in the popular or established explanation. After all, why would anyone concern himself with the marketing of the unpopular and not the marketing of the popular but potentially wrong? Which theories won in the marketing game? Certainly not the unpopular ones! If anything their marketing strategies are inferior. No, the much more worrisome marketing technique is the one that has created an established explanation that is so accepted that challenges to it are immediately labeled “false” (as per Godin’s definition) without the advancement of any real argument. Now that’s marketing!

In fact there are two kinds of doubt. There is the healthy kind of doubt that recognizes the uncertainty inherent in life and science. Then there is the unhealthy kind of doubt. The kind that makes you wonder if you are capable of making a reasoned determination. Which of the definitions advance which kind of doubt?

I will let you be the judge.

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

How High Gold and How High Gold 2012 (about these charts)

Dow Priced in Silver (about this chart)

How High Silver and How High Silver 2012 (about these charts)

Silver Priced in Gold (about this chart)

If you would like to receive notifications of updates to these charts and others on illumicharts.com, please sign up for email updates or subscribe to the rss feed.

I hope you enjoy the new charts!

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...

The Generalist - Integration Happens Here...