1. For all his brilliance, there is one aspect of the influence of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) that is really bad: he has a habit of doing something without explaining why it is being done.
Human beings are rational creatures; our actions are means to ends.
Without understanding the goal, purpose or aim of an action, one is at a lost in evaluating the action.
2. It is with appraising a theory as with appraising some actions.
In appraising or criticizing any theory, be it a theory of economics, psychology, sociology, physics, chemistry, biology, theology or religion, one must first understand what that theory is about.
But how does one understand a theory?
The method of rational reconstruction is a method of understanding theoretical work.
"This method, which is known as 'situational analysis' or the method of 'rational reconstruction', regards a theory as a solution to a problem. To understand a theory is to conjecture the problem to which it is a tentative solution and to explain why the solution may be considered satisfactory, or otherwise significant, to the theorist." (Wong 1978, 7)
3. For those whom have any interest in methodology, "Chapter 2: Understanding and criticism" (pages 9 to 24) of Stanley Wong's The Foundations of Paul Samuelson's Revealed Preference Theory (1978) is pure gold.
A method is a series of steps a person follows to achieve a goal.
Methodology is the study of methods.
Although applied to economics theory in Stanley Wong's book, the method of rational reconstruction is completely general in nature - it can be used to understand a theory in any field of study.
Stanley Wong's book is now considered a classic in economic methodology.
"Chapter 2: Understanding and criticism" is written in such good prose that anyone with a secondary school education should be able to understand it - sans the economic references.
4. Some quotations to whet your appetite:
(Wong 1978, 9): "Our study ... is based upon solutions to two general problems: the problem of understanding any particular theory; and the problem of criticizing it."
(Wong 1978, 9-10): "Our solution to the problem of understanding a theory emphasizes, above everything else, the objectives that the theorist, qua theorist, wishes to achieve. In other words a theory is interpreted as a solution to a problem, i.e. the creation of a theory is seen as being goal-directed or as a rational action. We are therefore seeking to understand why the theorist regards his theory as an adequate response to the problem-situation as he sees it. The problem-situation or logical problem-situation comprises the objectives and their logical interrelations. Thus, the problem of understanding a theory becomes a problem of understanding a problem-situation in the context of which the theory was proposed."
(Wong 1978, 11): "Our solution to the problem of criticizing a theory is to distinguish between internal and external criticism. Internal criticism is criticism within a (reconstructed) problem-situation. External criticism is criticism of the problem-situation itself."
(Wong 1978, 11): "A rational reconstruction or situational analysis of a theory consists of two steps. First, we reconstruct hypothetically the problem-situation in the context of which the theory was proposed. In simple terms we are specifying the problem to which the theory is a proposed solution. Second, we explain why the theorist (or someone else) might think that the theory is a satisfactory solution to the problem."
(Wong 1978, 11): "The problem-situation comprises the theorist's objectives and their logical interrelations. The primary objectives upon which the theorist's attention is focused are called theoretical aims. They generate the main question(s) to which the new theory is directed."
(Wong 1978, 11-12): "Apart from the theoretical aims, the theorist has objectives that form the background against which the main questions are raised. They are known as situational constraints. By placing restrictions or constraints on the choice of an answer (or answers) to the questions that express the theorist's aims, these objectives create the circumstances in which the theorist's problems arises, turning the questions into a problem. Thus the problem of the theorist is to devise a theory that not only attains the aims but also satisfies the situational constraints."
(Wong 1978, 13): "Often, a theory is an integral part of a general theory; it is contributing to a solution of a general problem. Therefore, the choice of a theory to attain the theoretical aims of the less general theory is constrained by the consideration that it must not conflict with the objectives of the general problem."
(Wong 1978, 19): "It is useful to distinguish between two types of solutions to a problem: positive and negative. A problem is solved positively if a solution is found that achieve simultaneously all the theorist's objectives. This is what is usually meant by a solution to a problem."
(Wong 1978, 19-20): "A problem is solved negatively if the solution states that it is impossible to achieve simultaneously all the objectives of the problem-situation. A negative solution is an admission of failure but it can, nevertheless, be used as an instrument of learning."
(Wong 1978, 23): "Our solution to the problem of how to criticize is to divide criticism of a theory (our rational reconstruction of it) into two categories: internal and external. Internal criticism is criticism within the context of the (reconstructed) problem-situation, i.e. we are accepting the theorist's aims and constraints without dispute. It consists by and large of criticisms of the validity of logical and mathematical arguments. Since logical and mathematical theories are usually accepted in economics without question, internal criticism of this type is easily accepted by protagonists in a debate."
(Wong 1978, 23): "In addition, internal criticism includes evaluation of the consistency of the various objectives of the theorist and of the consistency of the (tentative) solution with the theoretical aims and constraints. Criticism of this type is the most devastating. The inconsistency of the objectives implies that the problem is unsolvable. The violation of a situational constraint by a proposed solution gives sufficient grounds for rejecting the solution."
(Wong 1978, 23): "External criticism, on the other hand, is criticism from outside the (reconstructed) problem-situation. In this category fall criticisms of the importance of the problem, of the accuracy of the theorist's representation of the situational constraints facing him and of the objectives themselves."
5. A Revised Edition of Stanley Wong's book came out in 2006.
What is new consists of:
(a) a new Foreword by Philip Mirowski ; and
(b) a new Preface and acknowledgments by Stanley Wong.
But are worthwhile read; otherwise, the text is unchanged.
References:
Wong, Stanley. 1978. The Foundations of Paul Samuelson's Revealed Preference Theory: A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wong, Stanley. 2006. The Foundations of Paul Samuelson's Revealed Preference Theory: A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction, Revised Edition. London: Routledge.
End.
1. Although a Christian by religion, I am by temperament closer to Daoism (or Taoism).
There are quite a few Cantopop songs that appeal to the would-be Daoist in me - "Losing Both Ourselves in the Watery Mists" ("倆忘煙水裡") is one of them.
2. "Losing Both Ourselves in the Watery Mists" is the theme song of the Hong Kong TVB Drama "The Demi-Gods & Semi-Devils (First Part)", which was first aired in March, 1982.
"The Demi-Gods & Semi-Devils" is based on a martial arts and chivalry novel of the same name by Louis Cha.
Louis Cha's pen name is "Jin Yong".
Like many Chinese, I am a big fan of Louis Cha's novels.
I must have read his 15 works at least three times each; some even more.
At one time, I have the hope that Louis Cha will be the first Chinese to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature.
But alas, that honour was bestowed on Gao Xingjian in 2000.
3. "Losing Both Ourselves in the Watery Mists" was sung by Michael Kwan and Susanna Kwan.
Although sharing a common last name, Michael and Susanna are not related.
Michael Kwan was an important Cantopop singer from the mid-1970s to late 1980s, but he has never sung full-time.
Michael Kwan entered the School of Architecture of the University of Hong Kong in 1969.
"Kwan practiced architecture full time after graduation and founded his practice in 1983." ("Michael Kwan", Wikipedia.)
Michael Kwan immigrated to the US in the early 1990s.
Susanna Kwan, on the other hand, is still active as a singer and TV actress in Hong Kong.
4. The title of this song is rather hard to translate into English:
"倆" ("two of us")
"忘" ("forget")
"煙" ("mist")
"水" ("water")
"裡" ("in")
I have seen the following translations in YouTube:
(a) "Memories Lost in the Mists";
(b) "Lost in the Mists of Time";
(c) "Both are Forgotten in the Mist"; and
(d) "Forgotten in the Mists of Time".
In the end, I opted for a wooden translation: "Losing Both Ourselves in the Watery Mists".
5. A search in YouTube yields many instances of this song.
However, most of the instances are duets by ordinary folks.
Michael Kwan and Susanna Kwan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByC2V-dftGE
6. The quality of the sound is very good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcFO8KBJ-3c
Another good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UCXBsuNtUQ
7. Susanna Kwan and Johnny Yip in concert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiyMOZRZ32U
Johnny Yip has become Susanna Kwan's duet partner for this song since Michael Kwan's retirement from Cantopop.
Another version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTPdX-1c38Y
8. The music in the instrument "Guzheng":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0OM7slHniw
Very good.
9. The video are scenes from the 1982 TV drama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEtMW-iuQSo
Brings back a lot of memory.
10. I am so glad they enjoy themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQr09RBR-1o
11. The video in this version has an English translation of the lyrics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6X5XlYGJCw
12. The video model is Pinky Cheung, a Hong Kong actress:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RonUx3gcIhA
13. They sang pretty well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuvcsR8PeiI
Although the guy missed some of the lyrics.
14. I suppose this song is pretty popular among us middle-aged folks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=250-WuS-nvQ
15. This is pretty ok too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXKIASEaNPc
16. Like some commented in YouTube, I too have a difficult time making out Ms. Wong's Cantonese:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVM6RR8EHZ0
But she has a good voice for this song and they harmonize quite well.
17. Phoebus can really play this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RJCuN3DA34
As to the singing, uh um ...
18. This is uploaded in February, 2012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7RSUG1zib0
Somebody still likes this song!
The video is nicely done - they are stills from the 1982 TV drama.
19. The Lyrics in Traditional Chinese:
倆忘煙水裡 - 關正傑, 關菊英
男：女兒意 英雄癡 吐盡恩義情深幾許
女：塞外約 枕畔詩 心中也留多少醉
*男：磊落志 天地心 傾出摯誠不會悔
女：獻盡愛 竟是哀 風中化成唏噓句
#男：笑莫笑 悲莫悲 此刻我乘風遠去
女：凝悲忍歎 無可
@男：往日意 今日癡 他他朝兩忘煙水裡
女：奈從今癡 兩 忘煙水裡
Repeat *, #, @, @
20. The Lyrics in Simplified Chinese:
俩忘烟水里 - 关正杰, 关菊英
男：女儿意 英雄痴 吐尽恩义情深几许
女：塞外约 枕畔诗 心中也留多少醉
*男：磊落志 天地心 倾出挚诚不会悔
女：献尽爱 竟是哀 风中化成唏嘘句
#男：笑莫笑 悲莫悲 此刻我乘风远去
女：凝悲忍叹 无可
@男：往日意 今日痴 他他朝两忘烟水里
女：奈从今 痴 两忘烟水里
Repeat *, #, @, @
21. Names, Words and Phrases:
Michael Kwan (Traditional Chinese: 關正傑; Simplified Chinese: 关正杰).
Susanna Kwan (Traditional: 關菊英; Simplified: 关菊英).
Daoism (alternate spelling of "Taoism").
Gao Xingjian (Traditional: 高行健; Simplified: 高行健).
Guzheng (Traditional: 古箏; Simplified: 古筝).
Jin Yong (Traditional: 金庸; Simplified: 金庸).
Johnny Yip (Traditional: 葉振棠; Simplified: 叶振棠).
Louis Cha (Traditional: 查良鏞; Simplified: 查良镛).
Martial arts and chivalry novel (Traditional: 武俠小說; Simplified: 武侠小说).
Nobel Prize in Literature (Traditional: 諾貝爾文學獎; Simplified: 诺贝尔文学奖).
Pinky Cheung (Traditional: 張文慈; Simplified: 张文慈).
Taoism (Traditional: 道家; Simplified: 道家).
The Demi-Gods & Semi-Devils (First Part) (Traditional: 天龍八部之六脈神劍; Simplified: 天龙八部之六脉神剑).
References:
"Michael Kwan", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kwan
(accessed 2012-03-09).
"Susanna Kwan", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susanna_Kwan
(accessed 2012-03-09).
"關正傑", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%97%9C%E6%AD%A3%E5%82%91
(accessed 2012-03-09).
"關菊英", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%97%9C%E8%8F%8A%E8%8B%B1
(accessed 2012-03-09).
"天龍八部 (1982年電視劇)", Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia,
http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%E5%A4%A9%E9%BE%8D%E5%85%AB%E9%83%A8_%281982%E5%B9%B4%E9%9B%BB%E8%A6%96%E5%8A%87%29
(accessed 2012-03-09).
End.
1. Google's new Private Policy became effective yesterday (Thursday, March 1, 2012).
According to a Google advertising: "So, instead of over 60 policies for different Google products and features, we're introducing just one, with fewer words, simpler explanations and less legal goop to wade through. That means that when you use Google, from Gmail and search, to YouTube and calendar, you can count on one simplified policy that explains our privacy commitment to you."
2. I have heard a debate on the merits of Google's new Private Policy last night (Thursday, March 1, 2012) on PBS News Hour:
(a) the host of the segment was Jeffrey Brown;
(b) the critic was Lori Andrews, professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law; and
(c) defending Google was Markham Erickson, the executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, representing more than 50 of the largest Internet companies in the US, including Google:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/googleprivacy_03-01.html
3. I think Google's new Private Policy is a further erosion of privacy on the Internet, so I sympathize with Lori Andrews' position.
But in my opinion, Lori Andrews lost the debate last night with Markham Erickson, and quite badly.
Markham Erickson main point was that there is a trade-off between a free product and your privacy in using that free product.
Google is a for profit company; in order to provide a free product to the public, it must sell advertising.
And that means giving up some privacy on the part of the consumer.
In actuality, the products Google provides are not free.
Giving up some privacy for Google's advertising is the price one pay for using Google's products.
4. So the point is not absolute: privacy or no privacy.
The point is relative and comes in degree: giving up how much privacy to Google (and other internet companies) is acceptable?
The products Google offers are:
(a) voluntary;
(b) free;
(c) nonessential; and
(d) have alternatives.
How much privacy should one give up in using products with these four characteristics?
5. Lori Andrews: "All the surveys of consumers suggest they'd rather not be tracked over the Internet."
If you don't want Google to track you, then do not use Google's products!
They are voluntary.
Markham Erickson: "Consumers actually do have to opt in order for Google to track a user's activities across the various Google products and services."
And Erickson is correct.
By voluntarily signing up for one or more of Google's services, the consumer has opted in.
Lori Andrews: "That information is being traded on. And you don't have a choice. Google's saying, if you want to use our services, this is the way it is; take your business elsewhere if you don't agree with it."
In my opinion, Lori Andrews lost the debate here.
Of course we have a choice and of course we can take our business elsewhere.
We can exercise our consumer sovereignty by not using any of Google's products!
End.
