I Know It But I Can't Prove It, Really

Over at Joanne Jacobs, a commenter (the first one) claims:

In this forum, I once said that one of the two dumbest lines in detective stories is "I know he's guilty but I can't prove it." If you can't prove it you don't know he's guilty, you only suspect it. (There is at least one special case exception: if the proof depends on knowing you are telling the truth.)

Well, I don't know what exactly is meant by the "one special case" mentioned, but there's one very special case that wasn't mentioned, probably because it undermines the commenter's claim: Goedel's incompleteness theorem.

In short, one thing Goedel proved is that there are propositions that can be known but not proved.

Then the commenter goes on to say:

religion teaches making real-world decisions based on feeling and faith even if it means ignoring strong evidence. Christianity is harmless when confined to Sunday mornings. Base your schooling on it, and you have a disaster.

Two things. (1) This comment betrays a woefully inadequate account of what Christians have historically meant by "faith." (2) If you base your schooling on Christianity, what you get is not a disaster but the university.

Irony: Found in Translation

It is often remarked that the translation of a book from one language to another can never capture the author's genius. Something is always lost in translation.

While reading Richard Polt's translation of Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols; or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, I came across an irony that seems to have been added by the translation. In "What I Owe to the Ancients," Nietzsche says that "One will recognize in me, even in my Zarathustra, a very earnest ambition for the Roman style . . . .

In trying to emphasize the word "Roman," the translator has removed it from the roman style (of the typeface) and set it in italics. If I may equivocate on "Roman" and "style," the translator has frustrated Nietzsche's preference for the Roman style by removing his word from the roman style. I find this ironical; I'll forgive you if you don't.

A Quiz!

What do these topics all have in common? (Answer when you click "Read more")

AGRICULTURE, ALGEBRA, ALLIGATION, ANATOMY, ANNUITIES, ARCHITECTURE, ARITHMETICK, ASTRONOMY, BLEACHING, BOOK-KEEPING, BOTANY, BREWING, CHEMISTRY, COMMERCE, CONIC SECTIONS, ELECTRICITY, FARRIERY, FLUXIONS, FORTIFICATIONS, GARDENING, GEOGRAPHY, GEOMETRY, GRAMMAR, HORSEMANSHIP, HYDROSTATICS, LAW, LOGIC, MECHANICS, MEDICINE, METAPHYSICS, MIDWIFERY, MORAL PHILOSOPHY, MUSICK, NAVIGATION, OPTICS, PERSPECTIVE, PNEUMATICS, RELIGION, SHORT-HAND, SURGERY, TANNING, and TRIGONOMETRY

They were all covered in the first edition (1768-1771) of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, these were the only topics covered in the first edition. Does the selection of topics seem strange (in a possibly good sort of way)? Some topics are expected, e.g., agriculture, chemistry, law. Others not so much, e.g., bleaching, brewing, horsemanship, midwifery, short-hand, tanning.

Help Andre

My friend Andre was seriously injured in a car accident a week ago. If you have some time, and perhaps a few dollars, take a look at his story. Clicking on the above picture will take you to a site where you can donate. Clicking here will give you a blog with updates on how he's doing.

Veteran's Day

Today we remember the veterans of our country's armed forces. My dad is one of them. Thanks, dad. He'll tell you that lots of guys his age were joining, and he was just going along with them. But just because lots of guys were doing a good thing doesn't make it any less good.

If Lincoln Had Used PowerPoint

The Gettysburg Address in PowerPoint.

"Rove remains his Machiavellian self "

Dymphna, who blogs at "Gates of Vienna" (see the blogroll) and "Neighborhood of God," thinks that Harriet Miers's nomination and subsequent withdrawal was orchestrated by Rove.

So what did her time at bat accomplish? Well, it sure galvanized the base didn't it? George W got the message: people are paying attention. So he paid attention back and gave them what he'd planned to give them anyway: a decent nomination. So now they like him again. And by nominating Harriet, he got his licks in for the evangelical base, too. And Laura could give us the party line about "needing to have a woman on the Supreme Court." Everybody's happy and now Harriet can go back to obscurity as the White House Counsel. Or whatever.

Meanwhile, the Dems are looking longingly backwards at Ms. Miers. They could have had a field day bashing her for weeks. And then they'd have passed her and she would have "grown in office" -- i.e., moved left.

I think she's right about this. That Rove is a sneaky fellow, and for all the ridicule Bush receives, he is, too. As Machiavelli says,

The choice of ministers is of no small importance to a prince; they are good or not according to the prudence of the prince. And the first conjecture that is to be made of the brain of a lord is to see the men he has around him; and when they are capable and faithful, he can always be reputed wise because he has known how to recognize them as capable and to maintain them as faithful. But if they are otherwise, one can always pass unfavorable judgment on him, because the first error he makes, he makes in this choice. (The Prince, ch. 22, trans. Manfield)