Comments for Judges, politicians and civil liberties at http://www.adamsmith.org , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.adamsmith.org Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:05:13 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/judges,-politicians-and-civil-liberties-200804261291/#comment-111 Thanks for asking! I was introduced to Alfred Tarski's work by Bryan Magee, Karl Popper and Jeremy Shearmur. Here is an excellent short overview of Tarski's work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Tarski The particular example I had in mind was Tarski's Correspondence Theory of Truth utilizing a metalanguage. An illustration: "The statement 'le ciel est bleu' is true if -- and only if -- the sky is in fact blue." The words "ciel" and "bleu" can be described with any necessary degree of precision. "Ciel" can be defined as that layer of the atmosphere which includes oxygen atoms "Bleu" can be defined as light of a particular frequency range which appears to people as blue. Rayleigh scattering of sunlight by oxygen atoms causes the sky to appear blue. Leonardo da Vinci spent his entire life trying to find the answer to this question; along with: "Why do children look like their parents?" (Answer: genes); and "Why do people grow old and die?" (Answer: the Hayflick limit on the availability of telomeres in the chromosomal division during the renewal of cells). Using Tarski's correspondence theory, properties of slippery slopes can be described accurately. Regards, Tony Hollick - Tony Hollick Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:59:10 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/judges,-politicians-and-civil-liberties-200804261291/#comment-105 What exactly is meant by "Alfred Tarski's logic"? - pedant2007 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:04:43 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/judges,-politicians-and-civil-liberties-200804261291/#comment-103 "Slippery Slopes" may be a logical fallacy (although a very useful one in politics). A more accurate description which catches the heuristic of such measures is: "Wedge Entry Point." Politicians know that the first step is to establish a precedent that "no-one can possibly disagree with." Embedded in this measure will be a logic that permits an indefinite extension. Ferinstance: Up to 14 years ago, there were no laws against possessing "kiddie porn." Yet here was this growing Internet with all these private messages that were going unread by the "authorities." Now it's an old adage that to censor for _anything_ requires the power to examine _anything_ and _everything_. So the trick was, to find _something_, _anything_ that no politician in his or her right mind would dare to oppose. Home Secretary Michael Howard had just the thing: "Kiddie Porn." This had the great advantage, that since almost no-one had ever seen any, the popular imagination could be inflamed into believing almost anything. What was even better was that this could be an absolute offence. You could be convicted for possession even though you had no knowledge of it (a little like witchcraft in the bad old days). Better yet, you could be convicted and sentenced without the evidence ever becoming available for public scrutiny. Best of all, the police and the "security services" could go trawling through everyone's Internet taffic and even their computers in search of the benighted images. And -- guess what -- they could gather all sorts of useful information on the way. In the USA, academic surveys show that up to 80% of the "Kiddie Porn" sites are operated or controlled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And you most surely would _not_ want to go to prison in the US for anything, let alone a "sex offence." This gives the FBI enormous leverage over those it catches in its 'honey-pot' stings. Well, Michael Howard's "law" flew through Parliament (not surprisingly, when you recall that children at the Kincora Boys' Home were used as 'bait' to entrap politicians). And a Wedge Entry Point was established which could be extended indefinitely. "Well, you wouldn't be objecting to "Kiddie Porn" laws, would you?" Nooooo..... So the prospect of "the authorities" finding a Botticelli angel on your hard drive (or any other members of the Angelic Host, for that matter) strikes fear into the hearts of men (and women) everywhere. Indeed, even entirely synthetic images are prohibited. That is, _completely unreal_ images. And 'planting' such images on anyone's computer via the Internet is simplicity itself. "But I never knew they were there!" Doesn't matter. Absolute offence. Like drugs. And... I prefer Alfred Tarski's logic. And the abolition of victimless "crimes." While we still have any freedom left. Tony Hollick - Tony Hollick Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:12:37 +0100 http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/judges,-politicians-and-civil-liberties-200804261291/#comment-98 Let’s face it, life is nothing but a slippery slope and if we do not want to take the risk of slipping then we must run the risk of staying in bed. Also, many countries that suffer from being kept under the thumbs by drug dealers see the slippery slope having started when these criminals were awarded and guaranteed exactly the same procedural rights as any law abiding citizen. It is not that I do not partly agree with your comment, but let us not forget that life is not really that clear-cut because that would really place us on the mother of all slippery slopes. - Per Kurowski Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:46:53 +0100