Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Both Pol. and Ethical Philosophy
>
Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking
Mod
Exactly. As I put it in a paper I wrote in 1966, “For Plato, the philosopher will only find what is natural (physei) by ascending from the laws and conventions (nomoi) of the cave through the path of dialectic to the realm of light.” (The professor grading this paper made one correction in my Greek and one other stylistic correction, both of which I have incorporated in the preceding quotation.) This was the first sentence of the first paper I wrote on Plato. Platonic dialectic proceeds through the contradictions of opinion to a noncontradictory basis in knowledge. (It has nothing to do with Hegelian or Marxist dialectic.) I could give numerous examples from my own experience, starting at about age 14. But such would be neither necessary nor appropriate in the present forum.
I am not discussing “intersubjectivity” here, because that notion is not relevant to my immediate point. Additionally, such discussion would require more time and space than I have available here and now.
Mod
This is an example of the application of critical thinking to the way statistics are used in political polemics. Although I am not an expert on these statistical studies (and thus cannot say with 100% certainty whether the analysis in this article is correct), the information in the article warrants consideration.
Mod
Mod
An example of the first phenomenon, which apparently spurred this concept, was the bank robber in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who, in 1995, put lemon juice on his face because he thought it would make him invisible, just as writing in lemon juice is a methodology of invisible ink. When surveillance cameras accurately captured his face and he was accordingly arrested, he was incredulous.
Any similarities to recent events is purely coincidental.
That's an excellent summary. It's like I keep reminding a cohort of mine who frequently wallows in conspiracy-theory. Each time I refuse to take a little nibble of one of his current dishes, he comes back with an ever-increasing pile of links, videos, and opinions. He won't grasp that a theory is made more suspicious the more perfectly it explains world events.
I tell him: "nothing is that perfect..." Inquisitions are always wrong; blaming some shadowy group is never the correct answer. In the modern world we don't tie persons to stakes and burn them no matter what 'the evidence' says.
I think the correct response is to come up with a conspiracy theory of your own that contradicts his on every point and to ask him to refute it. If he doesn't accept your argument, ask him if he is actually considering all the possibilities. Trump could be a Muslim. Saudi Arabia is running the United States. The Bible was written by aliens, and Jesus was cloned from the body of the last human being to die five thousand years from now. And so on.
Thanks. Yes, with (well, not specifically with that method but with others) I have run rough-shod over his theories. But what I've learned from the experience is that the white-knuckled grip some citizens maintain on their hatreds, likely stems from phobic causes. Some arguments go so wildly beyond reason that they must emerge from mild paranoid-schizophrenia and other mental maladies. Fanatic precision; psychological projection; reductionist arguments; and selective-application of logic is the hallmark. Even if you point out classical logical fallacies it may make but little dent; and where an exchange of views wanders off into mental health you need to know when to retreat. If a psychologist were to sit in on some of the conversations I've had, and seen the wild-eyed intensity in some of these cohorts of mine; I have no doubt but that this would be the conclusion drawn.
Mod
I like the "alien" idea. Mimi and I are watching reruns of "The Third Rock" on Amazon Prime. It's hilarious. Four aliens adopt human bodies and try to mingle with real humans. Their purpose is science, not conquest. There are many allusions to "Star Trek," including one scene in which the aliens laugh their heads off over the errors of the Star Trek assumptions about life beyond our solar system. Comic problems arise when the aliens/humans think they know what they don't really know about human life. They've been partially but not entirely prepared for human culture, so they constantly misinterpret what people are saying. To fit in with the immediate theme, they think they know what they don't really know.
I recently read an article on our post-truth world. It is powerful in that the author explores the implications of introducing "alternative facts" to what is becoming an Orwellian reality. Below is the link: shorturl.at/qvMZ2
Mod
Good article. Thanks for sharing, and welcome to this group.
Following up on John's & Alan's posts in ##369 & 370, here's the final installment in Philosophy Without Borders's series on Orwellian themes in political philosophy & the philosophy of cognition--Memory, “Alternative Facts,” and the Political Philosophy of Cognition, #4–The Political Philosophy of Memory, & Conclusion.
https://againstprofphil.org/2020/06/1...
Mod
https://againstprofphil.org/2020/06/1..."
The penultimate paragraph of this essay states (italics omitted):
An important and illuminating irony here, of course, is that the most practically-useful, hands-on accounts of these techniques have been recorded in classified, publicly-unavailable US security agency, military, and foreign service handbooks that have themselves been designed and written in the larger context of powerful, politically-expedient ideological cognitive manipulation, by the US government, of the very people who are required to study and master those handbooks as part of their highly demanding, rigorous, and thought-controlling training.Along this line, there is significant evidence that Sirhan Sirhan, who was arrested for the assassination of Robert Kennedy, was previously subjected to CIA mind-control techniques: see William W. Turner and Jonn G. Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and the Cover-Up (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2006). As I have previously stated, I am not a conspiracy theorist—with the exception of the Kennedy assassinations, for which there is ample evidence that elements of the CIA were involved in the conspiracy. Similar arguments have also been made about the Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X assassinations, but I have not studied those events in depth and accordingly cannot comment on them.
Mod
I'd like recommend independent journalist John Stauber and his books on the rise of the PR industry's influence on newsmedia. The menacing issue is: packaged news products and wire services offering content (saving broadcasters from carrying out costly investigative journalism themselves). Instead, journalism can be purchased in advance to fill empty on-air slots.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_St...
A documentary based on his work, 'Toxic Sludge is Good For You' is available to view (free) online and included are transcripts, study guides, and credits/sources for his assertions. Feel free to ask me for the link if you have any difficulty locating.
Feliks wrote: "I'd like recommend independent journalist John Stauber and his books on the rise of the PR industry's influence on newsmedia. The menacing issue is: packaged news products and wire services offerin..."Hi Feliks. Some excellent work on this has been done by UK journalist Nick Davies, especially his book, "Flat Earth News", which I can recommend. It details how, as you say, journalists are more and more repackaging news from the "wire", and simply don't have the time, bodies or resources to investigate stories first hand, as they used to. The change in quality of news is therefore largely due to financial pressures and modernisation.
Ah. Hello Gareth. Yes --I'm sure we all agree that journalism is threatened. But I've had occasion to hear the name 'Nick Davies' in just the past day or so. As far as I can tell, he is a Brit free-lancer with a couple of small scandal-exposing incidents to his name. One story was that a 'News of the World' newspaper website was hacked but the newspaper didn't announce it (?) Another was something to do with eavesdropping on the voicemail of a murdered schoolgirl(?) This is from his Wikipedia bio (I apologize but I can't find much else). But yes he is stated to be an author who specializes in the topic of news quality. Very well, that's laudable. I do see he has at least three books for sale via Goodreads/Amazon, too.And if you say he's legit, I will keep an open mind about him. But my question is: if he is connected to 'Flat Earth News' then why not apply more rigor to his own products? I've been directed to 'Flat Earth News' on Youtube and found shrill conspiracy videos. Anonymous footage with nameless actors, filmed on vague foreign streets, with no accompanying credits or specs.
I'm very leery of 'guerrilla' video as a rule (all visual media actually) so I admit I am not the best judge. Everything seems suspicious to my eyes. But it seems odd that anytime someone wants to steer my opinion these days they direct me to Youtube videos and there's never any answer when I question: 'who are these videographers? why was this video made? who paid for it?' etc
I don't know what Youtube videos you are referring to, but I strongly suspect they are nothing to do with the book, or with Nick Davies. Davies is a long-serving and highly respected journalist who has worked for the Guardian and other top newspapers. The main scandal I think you are referring to is the exposure by Davies and others of the nefarious means that many British newspapers use to get "dirt" on people. It was a huge deal here in the UK, but maybe it hasn't crossed the pond (assuming you're in the US).
Aye. I granted that I could not and would not pass any judgment on Mr. Davies and I bow to your deeper familiarity with the man. All I have to report is my experience with a Youtube channel for 'Flat Earth News' which a friend steered me to this week. I'm just wishing that all such videos had better accreditation and sourcing for what we see. As I understand it, Youtube does not readily lend itself to this? A video is displayed and then is immediately followed by a user chat section?
I have to say I don't watch much Youtube, so I'm probably not the best person to ask! Davies's book is worth checking out, though slightly dated now, but it does give an intriguing insight into how news media has been deteriorating for a while, and why that is.
I'm glad to hear your reaction as a Briton, to Davies and I also count it as a point in his favor that you're a member of Alan's group.Regarding YouTube --y'know, I wonder if the tilt towards 'fake news' everywhere, might be checked slightly if there were some legal requirement which forces all videos to have their provenance stated upfront in a 'specifications' section.
Mod
Alan E. Johnson
Author and Independent Scholar
Feliks wrote: "I'm glad to hear your reaction as a Briton, to Davies and I also count it as a point in his favor that you're a member of Alan's group."Thanks, Feliks! :)
Alan wrote: "Hey, guys, not all YouTube videos are fake news. For an example of a scholarly YouTube video, see my lecture titled “The Architect of Freedom of Conscience and Church-State Separation"
Thanks, Alan, I'll check it out. Yes, there's some great stuff on Youtube for philosophy, but I do take Felik's point: there is also a lot of unaccredited misinformation. I think, however, that social media companies are unlikely to adopt some sort of quality check, as that would take too long (and no doubt reduce uploads, as people fewer people would be willing to jump through those hoops). Most social media companies can't even protect copyright! Which I know, as an illustrator, is a double-edged sword: your stuff gets stolen and used without permission, but you also get noticed more.
Re #251Robert wrote: "According to Popper's falsification principle, a claim is scientific if and only if it possible to construct a way to falsify it. The stronger the claim, the harder it is to falsify it. The claim stands as long as it is "king of the hill."
Houdini constructed a way to falsify a claim that the dead can speak to the living. But one wonders if that is enough to say this claim is scientific. Can a claim be scientific even if it never passes a falsification test?..."
I think the answer is yes. There are examples of this. Take for instance, the grand 'free energy' principle proposed by neuroscientist Karl Friston. He admits it is not falsifiable. But it is still very powerful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_en...
We've touched on it lightly in past group discussions; and that may be as much as can be done with it. Still, worth bearing in mind...
Mod
As for YouTube, I agree that a lot of it is unverified nonsense.
unrelated question (unrelated to any of the preceding)In argumentation, is the following a specific logical fallacy? If so, which one? Is it merely invoking 'relativism'?
Two people discussing Darwinism, or the Holocaust, or some other controversy and one's position is, "Well, we don't know anything for sure --all human knowledge is imperfect. No one can be entirely positive about any theory, theories are overturned all the time. It could be as you say, but it could also be as I say, we can't rule anything out --"
Mod
In argumentation, is the following a specific logical fallacy? If so, which one? Is it merely invoking 'relativism'?
Two people discussing D..."
It sounds like a popular form of extreme skepticism. I don't know whether it has ever been labeled a fallacy as such, but it is fallacious in the sense that an assertion that nothing can be known is self-contradictory, because the very assertion that nothing can be known would be a violation of the rule being offered. It is, as you observe, similar to relativism or its cousin, historicism. See the “Historicism” topic of this group.
Appropriate skepticism is a good thing and a part of critical thinking. But a blanket assertion that we cannot make any moral or factual assertions is ridiculous as well as self-contradictory. When Socrates, the most famous skeptic of all time, said that “what I don’t know, I don’t think I know,” he wasn’t, as Leo Strauss observed, saying that he knew nothing.
That clarifies, thanks Alan. After I posted, I recalled that I always encounter this argument in 'does God exist?' discussions too, and there is plenty of battle about it and thus, material for me to turn to. I blanked on it temporarily, but it may be designated the 'argument from doubt' gambit. Often used to 'self-serving' ends. I like the fine point you raised, better.
There may be some false equivalence here, depending on what was being compared. So, you could say "all theories based on empirical evidence are subject to doubt" (true), but then use that to equate the status of (e.g.) flat earth theory or 7-day creationism with Darwinism and round earth theories, suggesting that it's as legitimate to believe in one as the other. This would ignore the difference between the quality and extent of evidence supporting the latter theories, compared to the former, even though theoretical doubt is present in both.
Indeed Gareth. I'd half-recollected that there was a handy catchphrase for this kind of thing. "Raising unfair comparisons" or "drawing false similarity" or something like that. WIsh I could recall what it was.
Dear All,Here's a recent post by Andrew Chapman--a member of the Philosophy Without Borders project--that critically applies H.P. Grice's classic work in informal logic & "pragmatics" (i.e., speech act theory) to the current Black Lives Matter debate--
The Pragmatics of Saying “All Lives Matter”: A Critique.
https://againstprofphil.org/2020/06/2...
Mod
I believe we've briefly discussed the notion of whether the internet is praiseworthy because it brings fact-digging tools to the public or whether it is more dangerous for its ability to obscure truth. Atlantic Monthly article on an MIT study which set out to determine this.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrfglq2
MIT finds that the internet is more geared to spreading disinformation.
(Pardon me if this is an older article, I just stumbled over it so it's fresh to me)
convenient reference for logical fallacies"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
"Know thyself" (cognitive biases)
https://yourbias.is/
I admit some of the symbols take a moment to figure out
Mod
"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies"
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
"Know thyself" (cognitive biases)
https://yourbias.is/
I admit some of the s..."
Clever. I especially like the "Strawman," though I often say "strawperson" in order to avoid any imputation of sexism.
Ha! You should see the look on my face whenever someone tells me to stop referring to 'women' as 'girls'. As if they've read more feminist literature than I have? Sheesh :D
ps. something I'm noticing a lot recently: the vociferous climate of debate lately has a lot of camps claiming this: ' ...unlike in the modern day, people in very backward past timeperiods often judged others' mindsets based on their upbringing'. Yet at the same time when all these very-correct camps grapple with each other over contemporary issues --one of the first salvos fired is: 'ah, your mindset naturally springs from the way you were brought up -- you don't see it of course, because as you know fish can't detect water they swim in'.
Sigh.
Mod
That's called the ad hominem fallacy.
re: #149Alan wrote: "This article discusses how Amazon is now allowing "peer" review of scholarly papers, even by people who have no background or expertise in the subject matter of the paper. The article quotes Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos as praising this development as follows: "Why shouldn’t the public comment on a research paper on kidney disease? I have two kidneys, and so do most of my friends."..."
If I may venture an opinion related to the above. I'm unsettled lately by how much this trend we touched on a while ago (in post #149) has spread even further.
Recent conversations I've had --well, suffice to say that I've seen progress entirely derailed by this new, popular presumption that there is no authority left for facts, or statements-relying-on-facts.
It seems to me that the problem is one of standing. Digital-platforms especially, tend to deny that anyone has greater standing to speak than anyone else. I'm not casting a slur here against the democratic participation in debate. I'm saying instead, that there should be a difference recognized between 'professional' dialogue vs 'lay' dialogue. It's getting lost.
For example: if an accredited surgeon, or a tenured professor has his findings challenged during a peer-review process; that is one type of professional dialogue. Two lawyers or two judges might also debate a murder case from a standpoint of expertise not accessible to say, a teenage dropout. Our society trusts in higher-level professional to determine outcomes which we then (usually) follow.
But lately it seems as if anyone and everyone (using the net) can 'skim', 'browse', 'spectate' or 'catcall from the sidelines' in a way that makes crucial, forward moving dialogue impossible. I see people prioritizing 'good old-fashioned common sense' over any other knowledge-base.
As trusty as 'good old-fashioned common sense' is, we haven't let it rule human affairs since medieval days; and we ought not return to it now.
If we were hypothetically present on the deck of a ship off the deadly Cape of Good Hope --the sea ahead of us filled with icebergs --that is not a venue for 'debate' by the ship's galley staff. The captain and the bridge crew are the only ones who can be trusted to steer the vessel. They have the 'standing' to do so. 'Debate' might even be fatal in such a case.
New communication technologies grant the 'glib idlers' in the Agora, access to conversations in 'the School', which they don't have the slightest capacity for.
A buddy of mine loves to accuse the scientific community of 'holding back facts' from the general public. "Why don't they substantiate this, why don't they substantiate that?" etc etc etc. Due diligence is never to his satisfaction. I hear the same thing from every quarter of the internet. But no one is 'hiding' facts. The answer is simply that --for the sake of progress --scientists always agree among themselves not to niggle or nit-pick over every possible scientific principle 'as if from scratch'. They grant that certain tenets are long-since proven by generations of their fellows before them and don't need to be gone over again.
But to loafers on the internet of course, that appears as if 'someone isn't supporting his case strongly enough'. Well? How exactly should an expert with twenty years of experience, upload his hard-won wisdom to the internet?
Denying that someone has 'standing to speak', is not discriminating against them. It's just recognizing the reality that some knowledge can only be earned with experience and time.
Frustrating.
Mod
Alan wrote: "This article discusses how Amazon is now allowing "peer" review of scholarly papers, even by people who have no background or expertise in the subject matter of the paper. Th..."
The US judicial system divides the function this way: The jury of nonexpert people (lawyers usually use peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors who are actual experts, including lawyers) is there to apply "common sense" to decide common factual issues. However, judges, trained in the law, decide legal questions, and experts are often called to testify to assist jurors in reaching conclusions about matters in which "common sense" is insufficient. Of course, the experts on each side usually disagree with each other, and deciding between the experts thus often becomes a jury issue. However, the trial judge and the appellate courts always decide questions of law. There have been times and places (not in contemporary Anglo-American law) when jurors have been allowed to decide the law, but those days are behind us. If they ever return, then the legal system, imperfect as it already is, will be hopeless.
Alan wrote: "There have been times and places (not in contemporary Anglo-American law) when jurors have been allowed to decide the law, but those days are behind us. If they ever return, then the legal system, imperfect as it already is, will be hopeless..."Eek. A probable result if populist authoritarianism is ever embraced.
In turbulent times, Americans seem to crave a return to supposed 'ordinary folk running the government again'. In my conversations lately I can't seem to drive home the importance of that Jefferson sentiment (the one I asked you about recently, re: the danger in peremptory, rash choices).
Too many people lately seem to have no idea how long --or how difficult --a historic process it was to arrive at today's US governance; they only see/hear the faults. They only want to 'exchange it' for some different system overnight. The English Civil war? Never heard of it.
Another example: anytime Franklin Delano Roosevelt's name comes up the first thing I hear is, "he engineered Pearl Harbor to get America into the war".
Anytime I hear the name Abraham Lincoln in a conversation, someone pipes up with, "it's coming out now that he actually hated blacks".
Always sensationalism and scandal; but never any fathoming of the everyday workings of our political system. Always complaints about high taxes; never any pride in the way-of-life we've attained; or how we got here.
Mod
It happens that I am extremely busy right now. I'll try to reply sometime within the next couple of days.
Mod
Anytime I hear the name Abraham Lincoln in a conversation, someone pipes up with, "it's coming out now that he actually hated blacks"."
Many people simply cannot deal with nuance (let alone irony, which has long been dead). Nobody really knows about FDR and Pearl Harbor. But FDR was almost alone at first in recognizing the threat that Hitler posed to Europe, the UK, and the United States. Re Honest Abe, yes, he initially expressed approval of the view that Blacks should not have equal rights, but, no, he did not hate them. He believed very strongly that slavery was wrong and he brought about the Civil War by opposing the expansion of slavery to newly created states.
Hello all - Recovering from surgery this momentous election day and came across this piece by “Kindly Inquisitors” author Jonathan Rauch from Reason Magazine. Don’t know is this is the right location for this posting but am sure it will generate some kind of response. Rauch, who was among the first to write on what is now known as “cancel culture “ in the early 90’s here updates his thinking for our new season of cultural and political sensitivity. I find his overall premise and arguments compelling and courageous. They are also hopeful for our culture which, given the importance of today to the nations future, seems particularly valuable.https://reason.com/2020/11/01/how-to-...
I've heard of 'call-out culture' and 'media vortex' but wasn't aware of 'cancel culture'. Thanks for that phrase.As far as concerns the issue of colleges used as venues for hate-mongering, I'm still against it; and I don't mind if the extreme Right wants to call this censorship. I disagree that they have a basis to invade campus property in that manner, before any question of censorship even arises.
Oh well. One new term I learned this month: 'virtue signalling' is one I actually relish and will probably use myself, whenever necessary.
ps. seems to me the fall and rise of New York State's Elliott Spitzer demonstrates that being 'cancelled' is not a unidirectional path. I think it was only two years after his horrifically embarrassing scandal that he transformed into a talk show host. Reminiscent of Scorcese's superb social commentary, 'The King of Comedy'.
Mod
Mod
The failure here of critical thinking is breathtaking. We are back to the early days of Joe McCarthy—but worse, this time around.
I can only chortle at the thought of some rag-tag 'freedom of assembly' band of pot-bellied, politically irate couch-potatoes forming up in a Wal-Mart parking lot somewhere. They'll probably spend all of six weeks of preparation before the Facebook invite, studying up on the topic of tactical squads on Youtube. Someone will inevitably forget to obtain a permit from the local Chamber of Commerce before the deadline; and the clamor will be so feeble the National Guard won't even get their usual 'phone call from the Governor'. My prediction: at least TWO injured (sunburn, & dehydration).
Mod
HaHa! Thanks, I needed that.
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Books mentioned in this topic
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms (other topics)Mythical Thought (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge (other topics)
Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Arthur Koestler (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
Edward R. Tufte (other topics)
Richard Saul Wurman (other topics)
I think you are referring to Plato's distinction between episteme and doxa. I remember enough from my reading to make sense of what you are saying.
Thank you for contextualizing your comments. I can appreciate them better in light of what the surrounding discussion was.
I do, however, want to say that I remember one philosophy lecturer in academica explain the distinction between intersubjectivity and objectivity. It was in a Youtube video, so I hope that does not detract from the credibility of his remarks. I have done a cursory search on "subjectivity" and "philosophy" using Google, and it seems to be confirming what he was saying.
Anyway, to summarize, there is a crucial distinction to be made between intersubjectivity and objectivity. Objective standards can be arrived at without recourse to opinion, while intersubjective standards necessarily must. The similarity, however, is that both can be operative as a norm in spite of their differences.
To cut to the chase, an example may be helpful. Objective truths can be arrived at without needing opinion. So an example would be the speed of light, for which all that would necessarily be helpful qualifications when the speed of light varies, such as when traveling through mediums with different indices of refraction. Even the way it varies is within the domain of objective fact and can be verified by anyone willing to reproduce experiments and observe the results.
Intersubjective norms would concern something like movie reviews. We can say that movie reviews are inherently subjective, but that does not mean that agreement among reasonable people is impossible about movies. Because human communication occurs within a community of discussants, there are in fact standards that people can appeal to when attempting to justify their opinion. The appeal to these communal standards can give authority to what people say even though movie reviews are subjective, not objective.
In that sense, then, not all is lost even when we say that moral truths are subjective. Most reasonable people can agree that the Nazis are evil, but what about Reaganite fusionism? People here can reasonably disagree, even if the resulting differences are anything but reasonable. What remains is politics, which entails collective action in response towards a common goal. Just because such action is based on subjective moral truths doesn't mean that there are no standards. It just means the standards are based on opinions, and there is nothing wrong with that.
That is my view anyway. I realize you in all likelihood disagree completely. One thing you may dislike about what I am saying is that, if it is true, sometimes when someone says something with extreme sounding, subjective rhetoric, we may realize that they are saying something true even though their rhetoric and demeanor can be anything but objective. To that, I would say a certain vehemence is sometimes necessary and desirable in response to circumstances. To be called subjective might be an insult in such situations, but I don't think we should be afraid just because someone decides to label us with that phrase, since all they are doing is revealing their misunderstanding of the relation between social norms and truth.
Hegel, according to one Hegel scholar that i have read, remarked on the inherent "sociality" of reason. That is, we learn what is reasonable and what is not based on our interactions with larger human communities against which we define ourselves. We decide that, yes, I agree with these people, but no, I disagree with these other people. There is nothing wrong with that and a necessary price we pay for becoming politically conscious. That seems very reasonable to me, even if, as I said, the resulting disputes are anything but reasonable.