| on upgrades |
[Dec. 22nd, 2009|08:07 pm] |
About two months ago I had to re-install WinXP after buying a new HD. I took the opportunity to experiment with some new software--clean slate and all that. Don't feel like I have all these programs clinging like barnacles that I'm somehow beholden to.
For years I'd been relying on the same software to record music at home: a mid-90s, BBS-era DOS program called Impulse Tracker; a virtually unknown multitrack recording program called N-Track studio I stumbled on; the glorified sequencer Fruity Loops; and the usual freeware and open source audio editors (Audacity and so on).
Anyway, all this to say that I've been playing with Cubase, Cakewalk and other tools for grown-ups and it turns out the learning curve isn't so bad. I wish I were better with Midi, though; I only just figured out how to get my USB-Midi adapter to control multiple instruments simultaneously (i.e., sending signals in the keyboard and through to the drum machine on separate channels), which is really a trivial kind of thing to do.
For what it's worth, though, the drum machine (an old Boss Dr-550MkII, very much entry-level) sounds better than it ever has--Cakewalk allows for some pretty fine-grained triggering. Years ago I bought a rack-mounted digital reverb unit on a whim and running the drum machine through it makes for some huge fucking sounds, kinda reminiscent of Bat for Lashes.
So I'm kind of excited and having fun throwing noise together that doesn't involve guitars, just synths and beats. I doubt it will issue in proper recordings on the internets, but who knows. It's just good times now. |
|
|
| on grading |
[Dec. 21st, 2009|08:41 pm] |
Maybe I'm overly sensitive and get too invested in the success of my students. But I find something incredibly poignant about this scrawl, written in response to one of the exam questions:
I wish I could tell you.
Sorry.
I remember the student. Left early. Disappointed look. I feel bad. Like I've failed you because I must fail you. |
|
|
| . |
[Dec. 16th, 2009|11:42 am] |
 |
|
|
| On Extra Fallacies |
[Dec. 12th, 2009|12:51 pm] |
Fallacies that I would love to add to the existing canon. I've taught Critical Thinking three times now and we really need to update the shopworn list of "slippery slope" and "ad hominem."
Argumentum ad Chopra: My opponents reject my wild claims, but they are closed-minded (see how they reject my claims). Therefore I am right.
Essentially a variant on the Argumentum ad Einstein, which asserts it is good evidence for any view P that, in history, there are occasional examples of new ideas being resisted, then embraced. The idea here is that wild claim P shares a property (being doubted) with vindicated historical example Q: "Unrelated ideas P and Q were both doubted. Q turned out to be right. Therefore, P is right."
In any event, moves like these betray a deep confusion. We don't believe Einstein's arguments because he's a genius. We consider him a genius because he provided good arguments. If one is inclined to dismiss out of hand certain claims, we don't need a historical example to know this is wrong. Claims are gauged by evidence, argument and plausibility. Sometimes, such evaluations can be quickly and decisively made. Drawing a historical parallel to a major conceptual revolution ("they laughed at Einstein, too") should only bolster scepticism: we only believe Einstein becase the evidence was there, so show us the evidence. Otherwise it sounds like one is saying: "Einstein was a genius and I think I'm a genius. He was right; so I am right."
Middle Ground Fallacy: A logical extension of false dichotomy. The reasoning goes like this: there are two sides to every story; therefore, the fact of the matter lies in the middle. Politicaly, this is the centrist fallacy, exploited by every fast-talking demagogue who re-draws political boundaries to make any given position seem like a reasonable compromise, because people tend to internalize platitudes about "left" and "right" extremes meeting, requiring a saner middle way.
Another way this is exploited is the Wedge Argument, pioneered by Creationists, who create artificial controversies in the public sphere in order to create the illusion of a dichotomy. No matter how marginal the opposition, if the perception is that there are 'two sides,' the common public response will be to either seek out a 'middle ground' or remain agnostic and hence paralyzed, preventing public policy (in this case, agnosticism works for creationists just as climate change denialists).
Argumentum ad Don't-Like-It: If P, then Q. But Q is depressing and I had really hoped things weren't Q. So, not-P. Most commonly found when discussing supernaturalisms: 'If there were no afterlife, I'd be sad. I don't want to be sad. So, there is an afterlife.' Well, that might be an uncharitable way to put it. It always sounds more convincing when stated as: 'If there were no God, life would have no meaning. That's an intolerable conclusion. Life must have meaning, I know it has meaning. So there is a God.'
Generally speaking, that a proposition P has some unwanted consequence Q doesn't really count much against P. If you have really good evidence for not-Q, then sure, from If P, then Q you get not-P. But let's not confuse modus tollens with wishful thinking.
In sophisticated philosophy, don't-like-it often gets turned into an argument ad counter-intuitum, where we say: If P, then Q. Q is counter-intuitive. Therefore, not-P. (Or, more directly: P is counter-intuitive. Therefore, not-P.) So far as I can tell, philosophy is the only discipline where this is taken very seriously. Counter-intuitive results of assumptions are a commonplace and rarely thought to cast aspersions upon assumptions. This is especially true in logic and mathematics, fields whose certainty philosophers strive to emulate both in conclusion and method.
Consider the Banach-Tarski 'paradox'. Although some have thought such a result shows a problem with the axiom of choice, carrying out the modus tollens, more often it is just accepted that such counter-intuitive results just goes to show that intuitions are merely reliable, but not indubitable. Yet merely 'reliable' intuitions block a powerful and commonly used inferential mechanism deployed by analytic metaphysicians post-Kripke, where counter-intuitiveness lets us rule out sets of possible worlds and thus sound out ontology (by figuring out what are essential features and what are contingent). There are other inferential mechanisms that could replace the ad intuitum, of course, so this is not an argument against metaphysics per se (and it isn't even an argument against intuitions yet: at best, it's an analogy asserting something to the effect that in other fields, intuitions are not relied upon, so why rely upon them here? This is not a very strong argument.)
iopha |
|
|
| Is it too early? |
[Dec. 10th, 2009|08:24 pm] |
I'm leaving for Montreal soon, so I decided to do my seasonal post today. ;)
( Joy to the world... )
The hat and mini-falls are for sale on DaWanda!
 |
|
|
| More vacation pictures: Sighisoara |
[Dec. 9th, 2009|07:22 pm] |
After visiting the castle in Bran, we drove to Sighisoara, presumably the birthplace of Vlad Tepes, but it's probably inaccurate, like the castle story. It's still a very pretty city and I was glad I could go back there with Louis.
( To Sighisoara... )
Inside Vlad's house, which is now a restaurant. It's very pretty, but the food is not sensational.
( More... )
After that meal, we decided to take a walk up to the cemetery... but first we had to climb the stairs of death! The perspective is so fucked in there, I get all dizzy everytime I try to look up or down. ;)
( More... )
( More... )
The goth in me had to pose in the cemetery! ;)
( More... )
( More... ) |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
chicken_exit's Friends Page
cheerful
anxious