1. Nineteenth-century America was not a libertarian utopia

    But beyond the obvious fact that many Americans were not free–women and African-Americans, in particular–lies a deeper reality: Americans in the nineteenth century did not live without rules, regulations, and laws, and did not rely strictly on private contract and personal responsibility to conduct business or to handle social relations.

  2. Underdetermination and the balance between religion and science

    The Duhem-Quine thesis, when simplified, explains how a given set of facts can produce more than one apparently true conclusion: essentially, different background assumptions lead to different outcomes. A related concept is known as underdetermination: that a given set of evidence can be explained by more than one—potentially conflicting—theory. How does this impact the relationship between science and religion?

    Read Underdetermination and the balance between religion and science at in propria persona.

  3. Objectivity, science, and (a)political action

    Theodore M. Porter, in Trust in Numbers, argues that the American distrust of elites—and of government itself—has led to a focus on “mechanical objectivity,” or rules to make decisions. In many ways similar to what American jurists call “procedural due process,” the idea of to diminish the necessity of personal judgement in favor of predictable, “transparent” processes and thus lessen the number of disputes over the outcomes of a bureacratic decision.

    Read at Objectivity, science, and (a)political action in propria persona.

  4. David Noble on “The Religion of Technology”

    In The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention, David Noble investigates the Western relationship between religion and technology.

    Read David Noble on “The Religion of Technology” at in propria persona.

  5. The problem of expertise in a liberal democracy

    Stephen Turner’s book, Liberal Democracy 3.0, provides a useful background to the problem of expertise — especially scientific expertise — in a modern liberal democracy.

  6. Four planning rules to avoid project disasters

    One key reason to study history? To learn from the past: (1) take small steps, (2) favor reversibility, (3) plan on surprises, and (4) plan on human inventiveness.

  7. Privacy and the First Amendment: privacy as property?

    In Copyright and the First Amendment: The Unexplored, Unbroken Historical Practice, Terry Hart does an excellent job of exploring why the First Amendment has never been held to interfere with the enforcement of copyright, including pre-publication injunctive relief.

    Read Privacy and the First Amendment: privacy as property? at in propria persona.

  8. The rule of law in Michigan

    Should a state legislative body be insulated from judicial scrutiny of its “internal” processes? Is ignoring actual vote counts, and simply declaring something to have “immediate effect” sufficient to make it so in the state of Michigan? What is the relationship between the three branches of government?

    Read The rule of law in Michigan at in propria persona.

  9. My latest top five tweaks, tips, and plugins for WordPress

    Periodically I am tempted to switch to a lighter-weight CMS/blogging platform—like Anchor, which looks just beautiful—but then I’m reminded that I love WordPress for its crazy flexibility and endlessly new plugins. I regularly take advantage of this to tweak and change my own site—and you can too! So what have I been doing lately with my favorite platform?

    • Endless scrolling and dynamic layout
    • nRelate Popular Posts, Related Posts, and Flyout
    • W3 Total Cache
    • Ads for search visitors only
    • Ad block detection
    • Bonus: CloudFlare

    Some of these are easy—just install a plugin—while some require more advanced knowledge to implement—but all of them will supercharge your WordPress installation.

    Read My latest top five tweaks, tips, and plugins for WordPress at in propria persona.

  10. Reforming government regulations: Stephen Breyer’s technocratic solutions

    In Breaking the Vicious Circle, Justice Stephen Breyer tackles the problem of regulation and risk in the American context:

    Justice Breyer identifies several systemic problems that plague the regulatory process in the United States. He discusses how public (mis)perceptions, congressional (over)reaction, and technical (un)certainty create a “vicious circle” that increasingly undermines the legitimacy of the regulatory process. — Eric J. Gouvin, A Square Peg In A Vicious Circle: Stephen Breyer’s Optimistic Prescription For The Regulatory Mess

    Breyer complains that the current approach to risk regulation is irrational. Because the perception of risk drives voters, and therefore public officials, to focus on specific potential harms, there is little appropriate “risk-benefit” assessment employed.

    …

    My short opinion? Breyer effectively identified major systemic problems with the American regulatory system, but his full proposed solution is simply impractical in the United States (perhaps especially in 2012)—but more limited versions would still provide useful reforms. But any of this would require greater trust and respect in science—and a philosophical uniting of virtue and wisdom by scientists is not enough to overcome the current anti-intellectual and anti-science beliefs prevalent today in the American Right:

    “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is.” — 2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

    Read Reforming government regulations: Stephen Breyer’s technocratic solutions at in propria persona.

    11.   Next »