James LaRue - myliblog

Years ago now, (2008) the international library corporation OCLC conducted a surprising study. They interviewed some 4,000 people to find out what they really felt about libraries. The issue was a weird contradiction. The use of the library was growing sharply over the past 25 years. Many patrons enthusiastically admitted “I love my library!” But at the same time, support for libraries — measured by the ability for the library to get on the ballot, or win the election when they did — was falling. The study, which was replicated 10 years later, surfaced all kinds of interesting and non-intuitive findings. Here’s the big one: library use, all by itself, simply doesn’t have much to do with support. That is, the folks who check out 40 books a week to feed the curious minds of their toddlers were no more likely to vote for a library mill levy than people who didn’t use the library at all. There was, however, a group of super supporters. They shared some characteristics that seemed important...

I was a philosophy major in college. (Actually, I got a double major: philosophy and creative writing, with a minor in business law.) When I graduated my father asked me what I was now qualified to do. “Argue eloquently in bars,” I told him. And I have. But, in fact, philosophy is a wonderful tool to tackle almost anything. What I learned from my readings was that clear thinking comes down to three things. First, what are your premises? Can you identify them? Second, how reasonable are they? Is there evidence? How trustworthy is it? Third, can you get from those premises to a justifiable conclusion? Does the chain of your reasoning follow the rules of logic? In this, the Age of Misinformation, we see many people whose premises are not just made up but strongly contradicted by the data. Once the false problem is set up they offer a ludicrous solution. An example. Premise: “There is a burgeoning public health crisis of sexual crime and misbehavior!” Evidence: In fact, like violent crimes...