The Risks of Lifelong Learning
The Journal of Loose Ends
Volume 3, Number one


Today's article is a submission from the journal Nihilism Today, the 
journal of record for the Institute for the Defense of the Indefensible.
 The Institute has received a dramatic increase in attention in the
post-scientific era, for obvious reasons, but also because it was one
 of the first institutions of higher learning to pursue an organized
post-scientific approach to research. 

Here's a brief overview of their method: graduate students propose a 
narrow line of inquiry, typically a single question in a single subject
 and then they pursue that question down the deepest darkest rabbit 
holes that they can find in defense of opposing arguments. For instance, 
they might choose to pursue the question :what are qualia? 
The student would then charge forward brandishing a functionalist 
analysis ending in epiphenomenalism and victory. The student would then 
turn around and under cover of intuitions regarding the hiddenness of 
other minds she would outmaneuver herself and take property dualism’s 
high ground. 
In the tradition of classical debate, the point isn't to 
discover one's own position on the issues at hand, but to win. Having 
set the stage, we are now ready to hear from our contributor to this 
issue of The Journal of Loose Ends. The author wishes to remain nameless
 in keeping with the policies of the original publication. All 
submissions to Nihilism Today are anonymous. 

A mere decade ago, Nihilism Today reached a nadir in its circulation. 
It was down to 20 subscribers, and on several occasions had greater 
sales at the newsstand. Today, the journal is distributed by subscription
only to greater than 20,000 patrons. 
The post scientific deluge lifted Nihilism Today off the
 muddy shoal where it foundered and bore it away 
to a sunny harbor in the Greek Isles of academia. 
The journal and the Institute deserved the rehabilitation. In my opinion,
 there is good reason for it. 
One reason for the scientific era's 
end was its trouble with skepticism. Scientists never quite figured out
 how to do it right. Driven by social pressures, they flip-flopped 
between the poles of avoidance. They wanted to appear open-minded and 
cautious at once. It turns out though, that you can't chase migrating monarchs
 and Bigfoot through the same forest with equal enthusiasm and maintain
 public respect.

The Institute has always followed the proper course regarding skepticism
: None for either side. Since one person does the fighting for both
sides, the institute's method proves the most credible.
However, new sociological and neuropsychological findings related to 
lifelong learning may bode ill for the institute's future. Long  
considered an innocent buzzword, for those professionals who attempt the 
path of lifelong learning, serious spiritual repercussions may follow.
Scientific era researchers have followed several cohorts of professio
nals engaged in lifelong learning. The studies looked at measures of 
currency and professional motivation over time and correlated the scores
on those quality measures with participation in continuing education. 

When the University system disintegrated, the study coordinators 
kept sending questionnaires to the participants and tabulating the data
in hopes of finding a new source of income in the post scientific 
academic arena. I was their benefactor.

I have served as ombudsman for the Institute for many years. I saw what
 was in the cards for the scientific method. In preparation, I began
a longitudinal analysis of Ideological Crossover's effect on subject
 motivation, short-term and long-term participation in subject matter
 of interest, and global assessment of well-being. Our findings suggest
 that there is a problem.

After three years, the majority in every cohort rated continuing education
 as more harmful than beneficial. After five years the majority 
agreed with the statement, "nobody knows anything about anything in my
 field." 
 At the 10-year mark, majorities endorsed the statement, "everyone
 claiming expertise in my field is delusional, and progress is 
illusory."
After analyzing the data and drawing conclusions, I notified the editors
 at Nihilism Today. They scheduled a meeting the week afterward to 
hear my presentation.

When I presented the beliefs and supporting anecdotes, I followed up 
with the conclusion that the outcome reflected a difference between 
the usual continuing education process and the institute's method. When
one argues against oneself, one avoids specious argument, scoffing, and 
violence. One learns that there is no unassailable position or total victory.
 So what if most points prove unprovable? Occasionally, the disputant
gains some ground on himself, and that makes it all worthwhile.

The usual editors' meeting hubbub died down after I concluded, and then
 the challenges began. The meeting became confrontational. I invoked
 my ancient right of trial by ordeal. The board's majority decided to
 subject me to a defense of causal closure of the physical world. My 
performance would determine whether or not Nihilism Today published the
 study and whether or not I retained my tenure.
My subsequent presentation constitutes the analysis and discussion sections
 of the study. Before diving in, certain definitions need clarification.

Cause is a tricky thing. It has generated its share of skeptics over 
its lifetime. We indicate three things when we point to a cause. First,
 we see two or more objects bearing historical identities in some immediate
 or historically relative, proximal relation. Second, we see the
 objects in question exit the relation with a change in their identity
 which necessarily references the preceding relation in explaining 
the change. 
Finally, we observe the same alterations under the same circumstances
recurring over time reliably.

To go any farther, we will need a definition of facts. Facts are states
 of affairs which obtain. There are relevant flavors of fact, specifically
 brute facts which explain, but are not explained, and facts in
 brown paper wrappers with explanations attached.

Lastly, we are stuck with at least a minimal definition of properties.
In the interest of clarity, we must sidestep some nuance. Properties 
are boxes for facts. They have the weakness of every box: a motivated 
person can pack all of the nooks and crannies with things not meant for
 boxes and certainly not proper fits for boxes manufactured with something
 specific in mind. Boxes don't discriminate, and so they invite
 equivocation on representation (our sensorium represents primarily), 
misunderstanding of aspect, and misuse of reduction.
Given the confusion that would follow an unflinching pursuit of all 
associated tangents, I think it is relatively harmless to assert that 
there is no difference between properties and the world population of 
facts with their custom boxes. Now we are properly equipped and we can
 engage.

Let's see how nonphysical causation holds up under the requirements of
 our causal observations. We will get to something that seems adequ
ately challenging - a uranium 235 nucleus decaying.
We should have a warmup before we dive in. The nucleus is definable as
 a spatiotemporal condition. It takes up space and participates in a 
series of events over time. Existing in space lends it several useful 
attributes. It exists as a proximity relation, so it's basically distinguishable
 from its associates on the basis of relative distance.
If the nucleus takes a Newtonian bounce, space-time contributes to an 
account that strictly explains the behavior. The nucleus exists at a 
certain place and time. That point in time intersected with the identity
 of another state of affairs which obtained. That state of affairs 
included a otherwise identical uranium atom whose identity consisted 
in relevant part of a vector- in other words - an orientation of change
 in spatial displacement over time relative to the target atom's state
 of affairs obtaining over the relatively equivalent aspects which 
ended in a third state of affairs obtaining – the second uranium atom's
 attempt to occupy the same space at the same time as the target atom
 and the resulting bounce. The third state of affairs contains changes
 in its identity that explain the collision.
Under similar circumstances, those changes will be reliably similar. 
The characteristic elements of physical causation fully explain the Newtonian
 bounce, and it is not merely a 'just so' story. The category 
"Newtonian bounce" does not have a strict boundary condition in principle
 even though it is so reliable that we can freely speak of it as 
if there were such a condition.
Our explanation of the second uranium atom causing the first uranium 
atom to bounce off the point of contact in a particular direction and 
at a certain velocity is so tight that there is no room for any different
 identifying state of affairs to obtain.
To be sure, try to imagine a world that runs on causes without the characteristics
 of physical causes. Do away with the space-time continuum. Objects have no
 relative proximity. Their identities contain no reference to
 any dimensional aspect; they have no aspects at all! Now 
we must turn Hume's causal skepticism on its head. If what we observe 
when we speak of causes are constant conjunctions of events, whose necessity
 we never directly observe, we are dependent on the constancy 
and its requirements to account for facts, identities and properties 
that permit coherent explanations. We are stuck with the relativistic 
requirement. There is some relative dimension that goes along with a 
coherent explanation of identities and, therefore, causal relations.

Let's return to the uranium atom. The nucleus has a spontaneous rate 
of decay explained by the numerical arrangement of its particles.
The nucleus decays because the distribution of forces across 
distances within the structure is not uniform enough to be stable. 
For the Atom we hold in our magical tweezers, we don't know when it will
 fly apart, and there is no reason for it to fly apart when it does. 
It seems like nuclear decay is more like a brute fact than a causal event.
 The only possible explanation is "it just happened". However, just
 a theoretical reduction below the inexplicable decay, we have a half-life,
 which gives us a lifeline. Physical causation's structure permits
 explanations of things like spontaneous nuclear decay where the
 alternatives get stopped by reference to brute fact. Because physical
 objects have the sort of identity that they do, we have access to 
different aspects of those identities which allow for relatively complete
 causal explanations without a proliferation of brute facts.
 
We have objects with relative proximities in space and time distinguishable
 by their relations and relative identities, so we can have theories
 which are more or less reliable. Statistics mean something to us
 Sensitivity to initial conditions means something to us as well. So 
physical causation explains all those conditions we frequently mistake
 for questions of truth, knowledge, and being when they are really
questions about cause, relation, and experience. The world isn't causally
 closed just because there is no room for other kinds of cause. It 
is closed because physical causation requires consistency, and our ex
planation of the world finally requires physical causation’s consistency.
 When we claim that the angel of death killed someone, the claim 
requires an explanation of how the angel did the killing, and that explanation
 must be laid out in physical terms. The language of physical
 causation exerts an irresistible normative pressure on any alternative.

Nihilism Today published the paper, and now I can explain my position.
 There is no longitudinal curation in any continuing education program.
 Source information gets presented alongside conclusions and 
recommendations, often without a clear distinction. Curricula present discoveries
 in the field and changes in recommended practices as they come
 in, and fail to contextualize the changes.
If you extract enough data during a scientific experiment, it eventually
 starts to look like the same gray soup, as the enlightening irregularities
 get diluted by excess significant figures. In a grand enough
 scheme of things, everything rounds off to zero, and the quantity of
 information with attendant recommendations available in most fields 
of study has crossed the grandness threshold. Over the long term, we 
should abandon all hope of certainty, especially the false certainty that 
debate tactics produce. We must try to remember that nobody fights over the obvious,
 but when we lack data, opinion fills the void. Lifelong learners, beware
 the despair. It's coming for you. Maybe you should sub-specialize.