Helen Beetham (H.Beetham@plymouth.ac.uk)
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:31:32 +1200
From: Helen Beetham <H.Beetham@plymouth.ac.uk> Subject: Predictability Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 22:31:32 +1200
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crispin
Hello again and thanks for taking up my point. At risk of boring everyone else...
>If you view utility and social acceptance as two sides of the same coin,
>then I think you should be prepared to swap the two terms round in the
>statement made by Martin.
I don't think this is the case. The implication in your original argument (if I understood correctly) was that the
first term (utility) is neutral with respect to the social and cultural factors which complicate the second (acceptance) -
i.e. that there is some non-social or scientific measure of the utility of a particular theory. I was arguing that this
is not the case - theories appear useful only in a specific social context even if this is such a broad context (e.g. the
eradication of disease) as to have attained the status of a natural or primary good.
If one accepts this then the social and cultural milieu in which theories are developed and applied ensures continuing
negotiation around their utility and acceptability. This does not make utility and acceptability the same thing, as your
example illustrates.
> Enforced
>castration is a socially-unacceptable solution to the generally acknowledged
>problem of sex offending: that is not to say that it *might* not be a very
>effective solution.
Enforced castration might have the effect of rendering certain individuals, caught and convicted of sex crimes,
unable to offend again. In a culture of retributive justice (an eye for an eye) this in itself would be both acceptable
and useful. This in turn might (though might not) have the effect of reducing the rate of sex crime. In a society which
deplores sex crime, this would be considered useful, though the acceptability would remain highly debatable and other
effects of the measure would probably be considered harmful. In some cultures and military sub-cultures, however,
rape is tolerated or even applauded as part of the practice of colonisation/subjugation of the enemy. In such a culture enforced
castration would be entirely useless as it would take out the most aggressive members of the fighting force. Naturally it would
also be unacceptable - but the point is that utility of any measure remains subject to the same social factors as acceptability.
If we reduce the problem to an empirical one - does castration reduce the chance of an individual sex offender re-offending -
we can hope to find a probabilistic answer which will give some degree of predictability. This says nothing about how
useful the scientific finding may or may not be in the complex society in which it is to be applied. Predictability is not in
itself useful.
Helen
Helen Beetham
Senior Lecturer
Educational Development
University of Plymouth
Drake Circus
Plymouth PL4 8AA
tel: +44 1752 232346
fax: +44 1742 232330
email: hbeetham@plymouth.ac.uk
http://sh.plym.ac.uk/eds/elt/
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 09 Sep 1999 - 12:42:16 MEST