Miscellany

A Vegan Pizza Cheese Worth Eating

2013-04-07T13:47:00.001-04:00

(Disclaimer: Prior to adopting a vegan diet I was a great fan of good cheese. It was one of my joys, and I did not give it up easily. So, I do know what good cheese is like, and no, this is not good cheese. It is a good cheese analogue which is not the same thing. Just as I don't eat meat analogues to replace meat (which I don't actually like), rather, to serve in the rôle of meat in recipes for texture and protein, I eat cheese analogues to act as cheese in various ways but not to be cheese, which they cannot be. That said, this product is excellent for the purposes I use it for.

Visually appealing, and with a mouth feel that doesn't put you off.

I ate an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet for about 30 years, adding some fish in about 15 years ago. I chose to restrict my diet for ethical reasons. I knew that absent an existential threat, I wouldn't kill an animal with my own hands, so it ultimately forced me to decide that didn't consider outsourcing the killing ethical. I stopped eating things that required animals to be killed. Eventually, I became aware of the extremely poor treatment of animals used to produced the ovo and lacto (egg and dairy) parts of my diet and it began to bother me.

A few months ago, I realized that I was having severe adverse reactions to wheat (and other grain) gluten. So severe that I would feel constantly ill. I realized I had to adopt a gluten-free (GF) diet, which I did. At the same time I took the opportunity to address my discomfort with eating eggs and dairy, and switched to a vegan diet as well. To say the results have been salutary would be quite an understatement. Reduction in weight, great increase in general health and energy, and a feeling of moral rectitude have been among the pleasant outcomes. What hasn't been so easy is adjusting my cooking to the situation.

I am not quite a foodie, but I do cook a lot, and dairy in particular has been a mainstay. I specially like pizza, for example. I already lost the crust, losing the cheese as well made things very unpleasant. I have tried various commercial GF, vegan pizzas with mixed results. The one constant was the cost, always far too high. Recently, I tried a pizza from Bold Organics. It was about the usual (high) price, but it was unusually good. The crust is excellent for a GF effort, but what struck me was the "cheese", it was exceptional. It melted and bubbled, and with a little assistance from the broiler, it even browned. I refer to the disclaimer at the start and mention that this is not cheese, it is a cheese analogue. But, it was a very good one.

A little research turned up the source of this "cheese", which is a company called Follow your Heart. I already knew about Follow your Heart from their exceptional Vegenaise product. It is a mayonnaise substitute good enough that my children actually prefer it to the egg version. That's quite an endorsement. I wasn't aware of their Vegan Gourmet mozzarella analogue, but I am now. It's really good.

I had some trouble finding it locally. I couldn't get the "Shreds" version, which would have been preferable, but I did find it in block form, and it shreds reasonably well. As you can see from the photo above, the appearance of the cooked pizza is very convincing. An excellent presentation. The flavor is mild and appropriate. Seasoning becomes more important in the absence of a really good cheese, but garlic, onion, and various Italian style herbs go a long way. The result is more than acceptable. It is an enjoyable meal.

I don't usually go out of my way to simulate animal and glutenous foods. I prefer to eat dishes that are organically free of gluten and dairy since they have evolved to be good food in that context. But, I do love pizza and I like the option of enjoying it from time to time. With Follow your Heart Vegan Gourmet mozzarella, I can make a pizza when I want it, and actually enjoy it. My challenge now is a really good, homemade, GF crust. If I work that out, I will report back.

How to Win an Argument

2013-03-07T08:02:00.000-05:00

Many times we encounter someone online who is obviously wrong. Of course, in the spirit of generosity, we politely point out that they are mistaken and should reconsider their entire Weltanschauung¹ since is has lead to them to absurd conclusions. More often than not, our generosity does not provoke the expected gratitude, rather, we are repaid with a barrage of facts and logic which are entirely beside the point (after all, the person is simply wrong).

When you find yourself in a situation like this, the key to winning the argument is simple: don't actually argue. Instead, with a few simple techniques, you can gain the moral victory that is rightfully yours, disposing of yet another Internet ingrate. It's not very difficult if you just keep a few things in mind.

First, don't make the mistake of actually analyzing the argument of the misguided fool you are to dispose of. This is not only a waste of time, it's downright dangerous. I can't tell you the number of sad cases where perfectly righteous and intelligent people have been seriously damaged by considering the "argument" of one of these fools. You see, many are quite intelligent and so they've laid all sorts of rhetorical traps. Often, they will use facts that you agree with and put them into a logical framework that supports their crazy position! Even the strongest of us are vulnerable to such trickery. Stay away from "argument".

You might be asking, "how can I win an argument if I don't argue?!". See, that's the kind of sharp analysis that is going to make you a success here. It's really surprisingly simple. You simply need to appear to argue. It is the same thing as really doing it, and there is no danger that you will change your mind by absorbing the crazy ideas you are fighting. Remember: we already know that these extremists are wrong. The fact that they can confuse others with clever reasoning doesn't make them right.

It turns out that quite a long time ago some Greeks had a similar problem to ours. They had a perfectly good philosophy and some "intelligent" people wanted to make all sorts of "reasoned" objections to it. Of course, like any philosophy, there were plenty of things you just had to understand to see why it was right. It's a sad thing but intelligence is no guarantor of "getting it". It's like Louis Armstrong said about Jazz, "Man, if you have to ask what it is, you’ll never know." These people just didn't get it, so how to keep them from messing it up for everyone else?

Here's where they got clever. They figured out what I am talking to you about here, that convincing people you are right is much more important than actually being right. Now, these guys were academics, so of course they made a big mess of it. Way too complicated. But, there are some things they came up with we can rescue. Think of it as a service to them, we can use their stuff to do good. So, I'd imagine by this time you'd like some practical advice. Let's get started! There isn't just one path to follow here. You will have to learn these techniques and apply them according to what you encounter.

Arguments are based on words, keep an eye out for dictionary violations.

These people just love to violate the dictionary. They will use words in the most twisted ways. Many times you can easily win right at the beginning by quoting good old Webster. One of the best references it the 1913 edition of Webster which has the real meanings of words in it. It was published before these people could take over the dictionary business, so it's reliable. If you catch them in a dictionary violation, that alone invalidates their argument. There is no defense against this. Just keep repeating it. Eventually, they will argue with you about the meaning, but you have Webster on your side.

Demand proof for everything.

These guys just love to say things without showing proof. An easy win is to demand proof for every claim. Don't worry about whether the claim is reasonable, or commonplace, or whether its truth would validate the argument. Don't get confused about why you are demanding proof. It's not to show that the thing isn't true! The purpose is to show that it might not be true. This being the case, you just need to discredit the proof they provide. Sometimes it's easy as pie. If they link to Wikipedia, just say, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". Everyone knows this. If they link to some partisan website, well, how can that be trusted?! If they link to a blog, heck, that's worse than Wikipedia! If they manage to find a source not so easily impeached, don't panic. All you have to do is say that the source does not say what they claim it does. Remember, if you can make the argument about the sources instead of their point, they've lost.

Become morally outraged.

This is a great one because it goes right to the heart of things. I mean, they are morally corrupt, after all. Look for anything that is just not morally acceptable and make it the issue. It will show everyone else just how bad this person is, and why it doesn't matter what they say. Anyone so reprehensible can't have anything worthwhile to say. You will probably find others who agree, and help to chastise your opponent. Keep in mind that the issue over which you become exercised needn't be something you are normally concerned about, nor something very important. It just has to be something that appears to violate the ethos of the group, or at least of your own supporters. This will allow you to dismiss anything the person says as coming from a "poisoned well". Cool, eh?

Ignore context, take each thing as if it stands alone.

One of the ways these people confuse things is by tying together a bunch of facts and ideas. If you take each of the points they raise as separate, you have a lot better chance of derailing their argument. Keep the bits isolated, don't argue about two at once, just focus on disproving a part and the whole will collapse. This is a general principle to apply to all of the above.

Well, there are many other techniques you might employ, but they are generally variations or specifications of what I have taught you here. As you practice, you will get better at it. But always keep in mind, winning an argument is about appearance. The winner is the one left standing, not the one who is "right". We already know that you are right, arguments aren't going to prove anything about that, they just confuse the onlookers. So, focus on winning and help to keep things on the right track for everyone.

—
1. Weltanschauung is German for a particular philosophy or view of life; the worldview of an individual or group.

What time is it?

2012-08-30T20:21:00.001-04:00

If anyone knows what time is is, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does.

This little Flash widget is nothing special with today's pervasive NTP (Network Time Protocol) usage, even on personal computers. But there was a time when I would set my watch (I don't even wear a watch any more!) every day by listening to NIST's radio station WWV from Boulder Colorado.

In my younger days, in the times of sunspot peaks and fantastic radio propagation, I could hear both WWV from Boulder with its male-voiced announcements and WWVH from the Island of Kauai, Hawaii using female-voiced announcements.

While I occasionally listen to WWV still, WWVH is not to be heard. So, I present you with this time display not because it is specially useful, or innovative, but because it is nostalgic. NIST is still the source of the correct time, be it UT1 or UTC but now we all use it without thinking about it, or even knowing about it.

Take a look at the super-nerdy time science and technology at that link above, it's one of those unsung critical things that keep all this technology working.

Sympathy (Feeling Together)

2012-04-12T08:54:00.000-04:00

In a very real way we are each in this life alone,
yet we are capable of sympathy.
Through it, we can make others feel they are not alone at all.

This is the greatest gift you can give another:
the feeling that they are not other.

Opportunity

2012-04-11T16:37:00.000-04:00

A door. The inside, the outside, and no observer.

Automatic Visual Poetry

2011-12-20T17:35:00.000-05:00

A cloud of words, their sizes proportional to their frequencies. This one made from the RSS feed for Miscellany. It's interesting to me, as the author, to see the emphasis on certain things.

Much easier to read in the bigger version...

Because it is generated from the RSS feed, it is also time-constrained, so ideas in time. Make your own, here. It's a Java applet.

Knowing without Understanding

2011-12-16T15:08:00.001-05:00

Let's imagine that the Materialist philosophical theory is true. What does this mean? Does it mean that believing it is true makes you better able to understand the events of the world?

"I refute it thus..."
I would say that such a belief is obviously wrong. It is grand conceit to imagine you understand what the implications of a Materialist solution to the nature of the world means in terms of your own experience. It is only ignorance of the true extent of the complexity of the world that allows anyone to think they've sussed it.

So, even if you believe that Materialism is the right approach, and even if you are right, you have no foundation for acting in any particular way on account of it. You aren't that smart, no one is. I assert that the only thing you can reasonably act on is your experience, and, if you imagine that you've figured that out you are building false worlds. The very greatest neuroscientist in the world has no better tools for understanding human experience than any of us. Physics isn't you, even if you are an emergent phenomenon of it.

Look Inside

2011-12-13T08:20:00.000-05:00

The world outside is an infinity of complexity and chaos.

The world doesn't care about patterns, about cause and effect, about meaning.

Inside our mind is an infinity of pattern and meaning.

There are two worlds, the one outside is meaningless without the one inside.

Foolish Wisdom

2011-11-16T06:58:00.001-05:00

Between you and I stands my mind.
Terribly smart, I find distinctions.
When I become foolish,
I lose my mind,
and forget I am more important than you.

Ignorance is Bliss

2011-10-04T08:19:00.001-04:00

See an effect and label it "cause".
Rules describe, they have no force.
Punishment is always after the fact.

It's not a Compromise...

2011-09-16T06:16:00.002-04:00

The demand for purity is much more destructive than accepting the admixture that is the best we can do.

It's a Shocker, I know...

2011-09-13T06:13:00.001-04:00

Sometimes, people understand you but still disagree.

Could you be wrong?

Snark is the New Black

2011-09-01T10:36:00.004-04:00

Cynics are often idealists, who, upon getting a stain on their all-white clothing solve the problem by getting an all-black wardrobe.

An Emendation...

2011-08-21T09:55:00.003-04:00

Never assign to intention what can be explained by incompetence, unless incompetence is the less likely explanation.

When actions seem out of line with stated goals figure out what goals the actions do achieve. Arguing about efficacy in the face of duplicity is damfoolish.

Concerning ourselves with malice is generally counterproductive. The conspiracy theories to which this aphorism is most often applied do not require malice as a driving force. Self-interest is the almost universal force behind conspiracy and it makes conspiracies self-organizing affairs.

The key is the "intention" of the entire system and not that of any particular actor. Can a system have "intention"? Yes, a system of human beings has the aggregate intention of the choices made by each person participating.

Be Joyful

2011-08-21T07:51:00.001-04:00

There is a difference between having fun and joy. We have fun with our bodies, joy encompasses all of who we are. Joy unburdens our hearts and elevates us. When we experience joy it is like taking flight. It lifts us up and makes us generous and loving to every creature. Joy is why you are here.

Words, Words, Words...

2011-08-21T07:48:00.000-04:00

A lot of what I write involves clarifying concepts through honing words. I am concerned with creating precision so that certain ideas can be communicated. When I assert a distinction between one word and another, I am trying to create a clear usage. Consider such posts entries in a Yaakov Lexicon. I think there are things to learn from them beyond that, but at the least understand that I am defining my usage.

When I was younger I often read the dictionary. It was very interesting to me to see all the words and all the usages. At some point I learned that the dictionary is only valid as a descriptive text. Prescriptive dictionaries are silly undertakings. While my lexicon might look prescriptive, I would never argue with someone using a word I have defined one way in the ordinary sense they see around them. I do it because I want a compact way to communicate to those who wish to read what I write.

I also hope, I will confess, in my vanity, to create a usage through reflexivity when I am able. Of course, I believe I am correct in the sentiments I express through these definitions but I am also ready to hear cogent arguments against them. I will not accept diffuse and purely destructive ones, though; these I will reject without scruple. A sharp and heartfelt disagreement will always get my consideration.

Or, You Can Sacrifice Yourself...

2011-08-17T14:42:00.000-04:00

Sacrifice the ideal to the optimal and live.

You have a limited time on this planet, don't spend it in an imaginary world.

It isn't Theoretical

2011-08-11T09:27:00.000-04:00

Honesty in public discourse is a moral obligation of the highest order. The lack of humility which brings a person to self-deception is also the direct cause of untold human suffering.

A World of Opposites

2011-08-11T09:11:00.005-04:00

Thinking, I mean really thinking, is hard.

While a minority of people enjoy mental effort, most of us prefer well-worn tracks. Even those people who enjoy things like logic puzzles and advanced math often have a narrow domain in which they mentally exert themselves.

The world is complex. Seriously complex.

Complexity is a problem for people that do exert themselves to find solutions to problems, if they even bother to consider it. But even among those folks who seek to systematize the world (or perhaps specially among them), complexity is pushed aside as, well, too complex.

Simplification is good. Or, is it?

There is no doubt that simplifying a problem is an important step in solving it. Breaking it down into pieces more easily understood is a necessary analytical device for most of us. In this way, simplifying is good.

But, by way of analogy, consider the difference between salt and gold. No matter how far down I divide gold, it remains gold^[1]. I take smaller and smaller pieces and even down to single atoms, I have gold. This is a simple problem. It's one thing, self contained. It is reducible to the atomic level.

Take salt^[2]. At first, we can divide it down into smaller pieces. Then we get to the molecular. If we stop here, all is well, but, if we continue we no longer have salt. Salt doesn't have an atomic existence. Does salt share some essential identity with sodium and chlorine? No. Salt is irreducible, just as every interesting or important problem in life is.

Irreducible complexity^[3] is the hallmark of an interesting problem. That is not to say that all problems must be taken as the result of the entire system in which they exist rather, it is an acknowledgement of a critical feature that interesting, important human problems do not have: duality.

The world is not black and white, it is grey.

Black and white, hot and cold, here and there—these all arise only in relation to each other. They don't exist on their own. This is something people notice as soon as they start to think. What they often don't notice, and what leads to confusion and even human tragedy, is that just because they see something as black it doesn't make some other thing white.

Those who do see this make demands for purity. We must be perfectly white, without a blemish, because that's what makes us just. Of course, this is impossible for human beings and so you end up with a lie. That lie is used to attack everything not pure white which now, perforce, is black.

This is the problem of false dichotomy. It is pervasive. I am right, so if you disagree with me, you must be wrong. No chance for each of us to be both. It leads to ideological abuse of other people and no ideology is immune to this. They just each make their biggest mistakes in the places where they are most weak.

So, start listening to your own arguments. When you notice a dichotomy, step back. Imagine there could be a third, imperfect and unclear way to see the situation. Don't try to take a statistical average, or its moral equivalent, and then reject that. That's just a "trichotomy", and the middle position is a straw man. Instead, imagine something that doesn't lie on the spectrum you've invented. There's where you will find your way out of your dilemma.

—
1. Yes, of course I can destroy the atomic structure, that's not a real objection to the analogy.

2. Table salt, NaCl.

3. This is not a formal, technical use of the term. We are speaking philosophically.

I'm Y and I'm Proud

2011-08-11T07:25:00.001-04:00

There is a very common class of argument that follows this basic pattern:

We should do X.

If you do X you are a Y.

That's not true!

The dictionary definition of a Y is someone who does X.

Of course, many of you spot the problem with this argument right away, but, even those who can see this in the abstract fall prey to the compelling nature of such argument when they employ it themselves.

Broadly speaking words have two sets of meaning. Denotations, which are direct and literal, and, connotations which are various degrees of hidden but just as powerful if not more so. Some words in the dictionary have the nature of their connotation(s) spelled out with labels like vulgar.

So let's deconstruct our argument, above. The advocate for X is labeled Y on account of her statement. X could be any number of things—"lower taxes", "stay home with our babies", "make union organizing easier", "legalize marijuana"—you get the idea. Her opponent responds with the label, Y and our advocate denies it.

Why? What is behind each person's behavior.

The person arguing against X would like to dispose of the idea as easily as possible. It is a challenging idea and probably complex. The advocate may well have a reasonable argument for it but the denier is ideologically opposed and doesn't want to be challenged.

The advocate objects to the label, Y. Why should she? Simply this, Y is selected not to describe but to discredit. Y admits of no nuance in the position of the advocate. Once labeled successfully as Y, our advocate can be dismissed out of hand.

Each party is paying much more attention to the connotations of Y than what it denotes. If someone has the terrible misfortune to be forced to kill in self-defense, Y can be "killer". While killer clearly denotes one who kills it also has negative connotations. If someone uses it in this context they intend to bring those connotations. If the labeled person objects they are not objecting to what it denotes but to the intended connotative content.

Arguments cannot actually be resolved with a dictionary (save those that are about attributes and content of the dictionary). However the dictionary is an excellent shield for those who would not be challenged by what is actually going on. "Words mean things" is a vapid retort to those who would prefer to deal with the intent of the speaker than with some orthodoxy that demands we own the connotations of words just because that happen to also denote something that matches. Worse, these same people will complain about neologisms. In other words they seek to control the content of our world by limiting the vocabulary available to describe it to an arbitrary authority.

Of course, all of my complaining just "semantics"...

semantics |səˈmantiks|

1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text

Maybe You are Wrong...

2011-08-09T21:56:00.001-04:00

If people don't agree with you it's probably not because you aren't yelling loud enough.

The Litmus Test

2011-08-09T09:01:00.005-04:00

When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.

When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.

When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.

If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

— 老子 (Laotse) (b. ~604 BCE) in 道德經 (Tao Te Ching) Verse 41

The Myth of the Ancient Palace

2011-08-07T20:24:00.003-04:00

In a city of great antiquity there was an ancient palace, so old that no one alive could say with authority who had built it. Many people had opinions about who the builders were. This lead to a great deal of argument with much heat and little light. It was a massive building, built on a great outcropping of rock, and beyond the means of the people of the city to reproduce. It had many rooms. Some ordinary: bedrooms, halls for dining, servants quarters and the like, some mysterious rooms of obscure purpose.

On the walls of the rooms were tapestries of fine handiwork and great beauty. Some were abstract patterns, hanging mostly in the obscure rooms, the others, in the ordinary rooms depicted scenes invoking narratives of epic battles between great kings and the doers of evil, magnificent cities gleaming, beautiful women sacrificing themselves, and heroic men bravely seeking their fortunes. The stories these tapestries told were explained from generation to generation.

The stories changed over time as stories do. At first each tapestry was perfect but in each generation people noticed, and talked about, how the pictures in the tapestry didn’t look quite as real, how the people weren’t shaped quite right. At first there was general agreement on the facts of the stories, but over time this became a point of contention—some folks believing one thing, some another. Sometimes, one side would prevail and the story would change for everyone.

Then, there arose a man who looked at the tapestries very differently. He thought deeply and saw that the tapestries kept people thinking one way. He spent his days in the palace arguing with the elders who kept the stories. He told his own stories, different ones, that denied what the tapestries had to say. This made the elders angry, they threatened to bar him from the palace. After a while, he stopped arguing about details.

He began to say the tapestries were fundamentally false and couldn't be fixed by interpretation. The man gained many followers. The anger of the elders turned to fear. The followers spent time working on new tapestries with the new stories on them. When they were satisfied with their work they felt strong and invulnerable. They marched to the palace, and by force they replaced most of the old tapestries with their own. All of the ordinary rooms got new hangings, and a few of the obscure rooms received them. "We have begun anew", said the man, "We have removed the old order and established a new one!"

At this time there was an exceedingly old merchant who travelled the world from place to place to earn his living. He'd been to the city of the palace many times. He'd seen the palace from the outside every time but only once had he gone in and seen the tapestries. He agreed they were beautiful, and interesting, but not so nearly as important as the elders or the people seemed to think.

A few weeks after the old tapestries had been replaced the old man entered the city. He saw the familiar palace, stately and in place. It’s four towering spires reaching to the sky, it’s great courtyard, the formidable walls and moat for protection. He saw the familiar roads and paths of the city all in their places. He recognized many people. He went to the market place and set about his business.

He visited a regular customer and they agreed on a transaction. When it was complete he set down to drink coffee and talk as was his habit.

His customer spoke, "So you must have been surprised at the great change since your last visit!"

"Great changes?", asked the merchant puzzled, "what do you mean?"

"Oh, surely you noticed the changes to the palace!"

"The palace? When I came into the city I saw it and it looked just as it always did."

"Oh, no, it's completely different!"

"Now maybe I missed something... it still has its four spires, the grand courtyard is there, the walls, the moat...”

"Oh no!", said the customer, "it's all different now, they've changed the tapestries, they are all new."

Thanks to KP

The Road Not Taken

2011-08-05T20:21:00.001-04:00

photo ©Neil Jones, some rights reserved

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

—Robert Frost (1874–1963) from Mountain Interval (1920)

Excellent Advice I Ignore...

2011-08-04T13:32:00.000-04:00

Any one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid.

—H.W. Fowler

~~For you, though, esteemed reader, I will embark on a program of reform.~~

I am going to fix it.