Conversational AE (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)

[Mick Harper]

There is a further AE lesson. [Further, Mick? Dream on.] The family I spend Christmas with always have at least one badly behaved dog, some years more than one. They have never had a well-behaved dog in our joint adult lives.

When I point out that a gentle smack on the snout would solve most of their--and for three days, my--problems, they invariably say, year after year, "How would you like a smack on your snout?"

[Mick Harper]

AE-ist: Will you take responsibility for this current prison early-release furore?
Punter: Certainly not. It is the policy of this Labour government, I'm a Tory MP.
AE-ist: Do you agree its basic cause is the lack of prison places?
Punter: Yes, it would appear so.
AE-ist: Do you agree that is mainly down to previous Tory governments?
Punter: It is the responsibility of governments of all colours over many years.
AE-ist: Do you take responsibility for Tory governments' contribution?
Punter: I couldn't say. It's too complex a matter to work out standing here, on the spot.
AE-ist: You don't feel you have been put 'on the spot'?
Punter: By no means.

[Mick Harper]

Punter: I' m only asking the question.
AE-ist: You are completely neutral on the matter?
Punter: More or less.
AE-ist: Less. You decided to raise the matter.
Punter: How is that relevant?
AE-ist: Of all the matters in all the world, you chose to raise that one.
Punter: Not at all, it happens to be topical.
AE-ist: Of all the topical matters in all the world, you chose to raise that one.
Punter: So what is my opinion? In your opinion.
AE-ist: You are taking the 'shameful' side. And in no uncertain terms.
Punter: Why do you say 'shameful'?
AE-ist: Because you were only asking the question.

[Pete Jones]

Taking the "shameful" side is the kneejerk reaction of contrarians and conspiracy-theory-enjoyers. Both types of people have to be shameless. Or, at least unconcerned with what others think is shameful and shocking.

I'm very much concerned and so tend to take the shameful side only in trusted company.

The shameful side is always the minority opinion. Except in a secret ballot situation. There, the shameful side can elect presidents, even shocking ones.

[Mick Harper]

AE-ist: How did you vote?
Punter: I can't remember now.

[Mick Harper]

Do ships sink?
Yes.
Routinely?
No, it's a very unusual fate for any individual ship.
So a matter for AE?
No. Unusual does not mean unusually unusual.
What about unusual ships that sink?
That could be a matter for AE under the 'world record' rule.
What about ships that are national icons sinking?
That would certainly be a matter for AE.
Why?
The category is so small and sinkings so rare, there ought not to be any at all.
What about the Mary Rose, the Vasa and the Titanic?
Did they become national icons because they sank?
To some extent but they were all national icons before they sank.
How did they sink?
They had design flaws arising from being national icons.
Case closed, not a matter for AE. You can throw in HMS Hood.
In the case of Titanic everyone still blames an iceberg for reasons of national iconicness.
Do ships routinely sink because of icebergs?
The Titanic is virtually unique in that respect.
So a matter for AE.
I should cocoa. Under the 'careful ignoral' rule.

[Mick Harper]

There are two weaknesses here.

(1) First and most obvious is the pre-selection of the Mary Rose, the Vasa and the Titanic. This triad, or rather bi-ad, sprang to my attention when a documentary about the Vasa turned up on the telly. The Swedes have given this--the flagship of Gustavus Adolphus's navy of the 1620's--the full Mary Rose treatment, museum and all.

When they mentioned it had (also) sunk because it had too many gunports and it had too many gunports because it was the flagship, I sat up and took notice. That's quite a string of coincidences. If nothing else, it created an interesting category: 'ships which have a museum dedicated to them.'

(2) Not that this led to the Titanic, which also has a museum dedicated to it, being a matter of AE interest. And this is the second weakness. I already knew the Titanic sank because of a design flaw so I backfilled the AE connections. I didn't use AE to identify the Titanic as worthy of AE investigation. (Not that I did, that was down to Ishmael.)

I'm not sure how this arose. Ishmael will know. Something to do with coalfires (i.e. routine), not national iconness. Though we went to some considerable trouble trying to make the connection eg they sailed with a coalfire still burning because the Titanic was a national icon on its maiden voyage.

[Mick Harper]

However, it now occurs to me, I did use AE to identify two other sinkings that the world declined to identify as other than 'routine' (insofar as any sinking is a matter of routine).

(1) The 'tallest mast in the world' on the luxury yacht built by the British e-tycoon that sank off Sicily
(2) The only cruise liner that has ever sunk with a previous 'hero of sinking cruise liners' aboard.