Trade magazines

I simply cannot keep up with all the trade magazines that I receive — Machine Design, Electronic Design, Information Week, and more. I do try to read whichever articles seem relevant though, knowing full well that I can’t read them all.

There was a time, when I was working for another employer, that I focused primarily on reading books about general engineering and software design, as well as some non-technical texts on leadership, community fundraising, and other useful topics. I deliberately avoided reading trade publications at the time, so that I could focus on these other materials.

When I explained that I chose to focus on various textbooks instead, one person exclaimed, “Fella, by the time those books are published, they are already out of date! You need to read the trade publications if you want to stay abreast of your field.”

She meant well, but I think that she was very much overstating the matter. To say that engineering textbooks are automatically obsolete by the time they are published is a gross exaggeration—especially when they deal with more philosophical matters such as effective software design methodologies. There’s a whole lot of art there, and it’s only weakly dependent on the current state of technology. What constitutes good sofware design? That’s a deeply philosophical question, and to understand it well relies more on understanding style than understanding the latest and greatest technology.

For that matter, what about merely pursuing a broad education for one’s self? Right now, for example, I’m trying to learn more about languages (including Latin), philosophy, history, marketing techniques, and other diverse disciplines. Is this relevant to engineering? Maybe not directly, but trust me… you’d be surprised at how helpful this often turns out to be.

Isn’t is still true that these trade publications are more up-to-date than your beloved textbooks, thoug? Absolutely, which is why I devour them at my current job, in addition to my weekly dose of library books. They do have a serious drawback, though; namely, they tend to have a low signal-to-noise ratio. That is, while their content is more cutting-edge, the trends and technologies that they describe are also more likely to fizzle out—to go nowhere, or perhaps to simply have limited use. That’s one reason why focusing on the trade publications might not be the most productive use of one’s time.

Ultimately, it’s a question of striking the right balance between depth and breadth. Trade publications can provide breadth—a broad overview of the latest trends and developments. Other materials can provide greater depth on specific topics of interests. Unfortunately, time is limited, and there is way too much information out there for any one person to absorb. That is why the extent to which I read these trade publications will vary depending on my needs and my position in life.

Thinking you’re right

Have you ever heard someone say, “You’re problem is that you think I’m right” or “I feel insulted when people say that my beliefs are wrong”?  I certainly have.  It’s a childish attitude on the part of the people who say such things, and it’s bloody annoying besides.

In effect, people who make such statements are saying “Right and wrong are just a matter of opinion.”  The thing is, that’s a self-refuting statement.  If right and wrong are just a matter of opinion, then it’s merely one’s opinion that right and wrong are a matter of opinion.

Truth is truth.  If someone believes that his beliefs are right, then that’s just natural; after all, who would willingly hold beliefs that he/she does not maintain to be true?  And why should we be offended when other peopel think we’re wrong?  One might disagree, but that’s no reason to take offense.

Some people. Sheesh!

Self-refuting objection to seatbelt laws

I was monitoring one of those idiotic Internet discussion recently.  In this discussion, people were debating about whether it’s right for society to enact laws that require people to buckle up.  Some people were saying that it’s wrong, and that requiring them to fasten their seatbelts was an egregious infringement of their freedom.  ”What business is it of yours, anyway?  I’m the only one who’ll be affected if I don’t buckle up.”

This is a silly argument, of course.  When somebody is injured or killed in a car accident, other people are affected as well.  What about situations where someone is thrown through the windshield, for example, or thrown from the backseat into the front seats?  And what about the emotional trauma that witnesses would be forced to endure? And what about the burden to the health care system?

Another person said, “It’s wrong! Why don’t you people shut up?  You’ve got no right to tell people what they should or shouldn’t do!”  Not surprisingly, he failed to realize that his own argument was self-refuting.  After all, if it’s wrong to tell people what to do, then why was he telling his opponents that they shouldn’t tell people what to do?

 

Ayn Rand should have bought a dictionary

A lot of people are fans of Ayn Rand. I am not.  I find her to be a piss-poor philosopher, largely due to the way in which she fails to use terminology in a consistent and accurate fashion.

For example, she lauds the importance of “selfishness,” but what she really defends is mere self-interest.  There’s nothing wrong with self-interest per se; however, by redefining selfishness to mean concern with one’s self, she makes selfishness out to be a virtue — which it is not. She mangles the meaning of altruism in the same way.

As one  other commentator on the web said,

The purpose of language is communication. There is a standard definition for words like “selfishness” which people use to communicate with one another. I did not “redefine” the word; it is not “my” definition. It is the definition commonly accepted and used for communication as found in the dictionary.

When someone redefines a word differently and uses it differently (which is commonly done in all cults, incidentally), one naturally asks, Why are they doing this? If Ayn Rand wanted to talk about “Concern with one’s own interests,” why didn’t she use the perfectly good word, self-interests?

At any rate, Ms. Rand did not “define” the word selfishness. She did not say she was providing her own definition of the word. She said specifically that was the way it is defined in the dictionary, which is a lie.

 

Dashing off to a philosophy lecture

Dashing off to one of the local public libraries to hear a Philosophy professor talk about his book. Yeah, I’m sure that there’ll be a lot of people attending this one.  << snerk >>

And I’m sure that the library will be filled with beautiful women.

Self-refuting claims

Every now and then, I hear people say foolish things like “There is no absolute truth.”  To them, I ask, “Is that absoutely true?” It should be pretty obvious that this is a self-refuting claim–a claim that cannot stand up under its own premises and which must therefore be false.

Some people have a hard time grasping this concept, though.  When I tried to explain how this claim disproves itself, one guy responded with “So because there is no absolute truth, there is absolute truth?  Huh?”  I think it was J.P. Moreland who once said that modern man is no longer accustomed to thinking in a straightforward, logical manner.

Here’s another example.  Every now and then, I hear somebody declare “Science is the only way that we can ever know the truth!”  When they say that, I ask, “Is that true?  If so, what scientific method did you use to arrive at that conclusion?”

 When people are deeply wedded to these suppositions though, they often find it difficult to let go of such notions.  One fella said, “Of course science is the only way we can know anything.  That’s just common sense.”  Common sense is important, but it’s not a scientific technique.  Despite repeated explanations, he just couldn’t grasp the notion that by appealing to “common sense,” he was invoking a non-scientific approach to defending his claim.

One person said, “Any approach to knowledge is science.  Even looking under a rock and making an observation is science.”  No, it isn’t.  There’s  a reason why fields such as philosophy and history are not considered scientific.  Nor is merely making an observation “scientific.”  As any sixth-grader should be able to tell you, observation is merely the first stage of the scientific method.  It is not science per se.

Philosophy

I still want to read my copy of Philosophy for Dummies.  I am sporadically reading Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult, and I’d like to resume reading Philosophy and Superheroes: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way.

 Too bad that my Philosophy 101 course was so boring.  The relevance of the material simply wasn’t communicated well, nor was the material made interesting in any way.  They also used the meandering writings of Gabriel Marcel.  Marcel excused his meanderings on the grounds that philosophical thought is like a web, but I think that’s a copout.

Use the library!

I love living in a city that has a great public library system.  The county library is also pretty darned good.  If I had grown up in this town, I would have loved to take a year off from school and simply immerse myself in the knowledge contained within the library tomes.  I would immerse myself in science, history, philosophy, language, pop culture, and more.  If I had a proper mentor, that would have been even better.   I’d even bone up for a chance at getting on Jeopardy!

 Actually, that’s a bit of a sore point for me.  My parents were pretty good about making sure we got a good education; however, they didn’t really view books as an investment.  My mother certainly didn’t; in fact, she cringed whenever I spent money on a computer book or a paperback novel.  It wasn’t because we were poor, either; after all, she spent a comparable amount of money on gossip magazines and decorations for the home.  Rather, she simply didn’t fully appreciate the importance of books as an investment.

I’ll never understand people who don’t make full use of the library.  Back in my elementary school days, I had one classmate who was proud of the fact that his library card was completely clean and empty.  Not something to brag about, fella!

I also remember Jeric, a classmate that I had in my undergrad days.  Toward the end of my freshman year, he stopped me in the corridors once to ask where the library was.  Nearly an entire year had gone by, and he still hadn’t set foot in the building!  He didn’t even know where it was.  That’s just pathetic and a waste of schooling.

I read somewhere that he’s now president of his own company.  I don’t think I’d ever hire his services, though; after all, this guy was notorious for cheating his way throughout high school and college.  Doesn’t say much for his skills and acumen.  Now, he could be a perfectly good company president, but I’d lay odds that he got to that position through bluster and personal networking (and probably a good dose of dishonesty) rather than through any other abilities.