'A Day in the Life' at RAF Benson

By Rebecca Worth

I visited RAF Benson in Oxfordshire to find out what air traffic is all about - what the job entails, and the pressures they face. Below is a three minute radio documentary I put together, including an interview with Flying Officer Stephen Worth who works in the air traffic tower.

I set the documentary up to follow a series of 'Day in the Life' shows on British Forces Broadcast Service Radio, a digital radio station, in order to give the general public and other military personnel an insight into life as an air traffic controller.

Seminar Paper - Tractatus Logico Philosophicus

Ludwig Wittgenstein was an Austrian philosopher, known by many for his work on his Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, a book containing seven chapters over viewing his logical positivist ideas on the link between language, logic and science. He was heavily influential to many Logical Positivists, and the seventy-five page long Tractatus consists of statements that he deemed to be self evident. Completed in 1918, the Tractatus was heavily misunderstood by some fellow philosophers, Russell himself being one of these. Wittgenstein felt Russell did not understand the Tractatus in all it's depth, because Russell wanted to write a formal introduction for the book, feeling that it did not make a lot of sense for those who did not know of Wittgenstein - a fair few at this point as he was unknown.

Wittgenstein argues in his publication that there is a deep link between language and the world, and logic and language, feeling that language has an underlying logical structure that nobody had yet to discover. The picture theory described by Wittgenstein delves into the idea of representation through pictures, branching out to sculpture and painting too. He argued there was a difference between an image's pictorial form and it's representational form, for example a bicycle has two wheels, and a toy model of a bicycle has four wheels too, however the size of both of these bicycles is different. A real bicycle is a lot larger than a smaller toy model bicycle, and this is what Wittgenstein thought was the representational form.  And so, the fact that the pictorial form and representational form differ in size means that a picture taken of a certain object or being cannot express its own pictorial form.

The first proposition in the Tractatus is, "The world is all that is the case" where he is categorizing things and their relationship to one another. One of his main points is that to describe the world you cannot simply look at everything in it, but you can look at the facts and it will be more beneficial. The world is not, in his view made up of objects, but of facts.

"What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts" is the next proposition made by Wittgenstein, meaning that occurrences in the world are made up of objects interacting logically with one another based on their properties, which are based on the basis of all reality.

The third proposition is where the picture theory comes in, "The logical picture of the facts is the thought" meaning that each each picture is made up of elements that come together to represent something.

"The thought is the significant proposition" He believes that logic itself is what gives the structure of language and what can be said.

"Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)" Referring to 'truth-tables' Wittgenstein had the idea of breaking everything down logically into their atomic parts.

"The general form of truth-function is: [, , N()].

This is the general form of proposition."
This relates to the above point that everything can be broken down and this sort of formula provides a way of formulating language through logic and science, which was what Wittgenstein believed. 

The last chapter, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." looks into the idea or what can and cannot be said in language. The entire Tractatus looks in depth into finding limits to the world's language through logic and science. 
 

Modern mathematics, Logic and Language a.k.a The Really Confusing Stuff

Lecture Notes

- counting is to create a group or category
- one thing, more than one thing, many things - all you need
- small numbers are functionally different from large numbers
- plurality = more than one
- 0-1 is very different from 6000-6001 - number is not solid
- 0-1 you have doubled it
- predicate = result of the operation
- you cannot analyse 0 or 1 - not complex enough
- language is a system - vocab of fixed symbols, a syntax and a grammar
- Analytic philosophy - breaking down to find logical basis - logical atoms
- Russell = logical atomist
- fuzzy logic = neat logic
- hieroglyphics - first example of symbolism and recording information - writing things down
- zero is not an actual number - the idea of "nothing" is impossible
- first manipulative number was 2
- Greeks believed the number 3 was a magic number - worshiped it
- Numerology
- zero = nothing = something
- therefore zero must be something
- something cannot be here and not here at the same time
- zero is not nothing, but it is a natural number meaning for example there are no people in the room
- 0+1=1 BUT 0*1=0
- Russell wrote Principia Mathematica - trying to replace numbers with logic
- no number in his system can be understood except with reference to another number
- Peano - first before Russell to define numbers as logical - problem of infinity
- Tool Russell uses - a class or a category
- The class of classes similar to a given class.

Week 9 - Science and Technology/Logical Positivism

Wittgenstein was a key figure in the ideas of Logical Positivism and heavily believed that everything was logical and factual. He believed that language was everything and that it infected people – nothing else mattered. Language described everything therefore without it there was nothing. His thought was that language was broader than just speech – there were such things as “speech acts”, that take place within “language games”. He saw language as a game, i.e. a situation bound by certain rules. An example of this discussed in the lecture was the Clangers, whereby you can understand what they mean purely without talking – therefore according to Wittgenstein they would have been performing a speech act. Another example would be monkeys and apes; you can understand what they are doing by analysing their stances and actions as opposed to speech.

The idea of logic was modernised by Freud and psychoanalysis, and in politics the use of logic was applied to attempt to solve social problems with examples such as state planning and the bureaucracy. However following World War II, many reacted against this ‘solution’. Unlike the romanticism movement, and aesthetics, logic was powerfully anti-metaphysical. Science was seen as the only valid way to analyse and solve any problem, social or otherwise.

Logical Positivists generally admired Hume, who was also a Logical Positivist, i.e. very sceptical about any truths that are not scientific truths. For example referring to Inference, and the idea that smoking causes cancer, when in fact it cannot be 100% proven, but is just inferred through the statistic.

The lecture also included the Verification Principle (Freddy Ayer – Language, Truth and Logic), which basically said that what has been decided as true or false up to now can all be ignored and is a waste of time, as there are statements that can be verified as provisionally true, definitely false, or cannot be verified at all. He paraphrased the Principle saying, “The method of verification is the truth of a statement.” However a state can be deemed “unfalsifiable”, such as “All men are mortal”, because the number of men being born is questionable, therefore there is always a chance the next to be born could be immortal.

1968 New Left, New Journalism

'New Journalism', by Tom Wolfe was a sort of manifesto explaining the ongoing change in journalism as writing. Wolfe basically wanted to mix literary techniques with journalism to document in a more effective manner, wanting to emphasize the idea of realism and instinct in journalists.

He had four suggestions for doing so -

1) Scene by Scene Construction 

Journalists should witness the events first hand then relay/recreate them for the reader.

2) Dialogue

The use of dialogue defines and establishes character at the same time as involving the reader.

3) The Third Person

Journalists should treat protagonists in their story like characters in a novel, for example thoroughly investigate the motives and thoughts behind the people.

4) Status Details

Surroundings were increasingly important for stories - what people surround themselves with - so as the reader we can look at people the way they look at themselves.

The climax of all of this was the introduction of "Gonzo" journalism, the idea that the journalist should fully submerge themselves into the story in order to really understand and report it to their full potential and advantage. Hunter S. Thomspon was the pioneer of this movement in journalism, wanting to really reflect the atmosphere and the energy of the time, particularly shown in 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas', really capturing the essence of the never-ending journey to the American Dream and indeed the drug culture at the time.

The idea of New Journalism was to blur the lines between fiction and non-fiction in the trade, and to evoke thought and reaction from both consumers and other journalists.

Week 3 - Existentialism/Wretched of the Earth/Battle of Algiers

"The rebel's weapon is the proof of his humanity. This irrepressible violence is man re-creating himself." -- The Wretched of the Earth

Existentialism was seen as an agent for political change. One of it's key figures was Nietzsche and his belief that 'God is Dead', not necessarily meaning God as an individual, more the end of the idea of certainty, for so long people had looked to religion for that certainty they lacked. People didn't see the point if there was no God or religion, however Nietzsche saw it as an opportunity for freedom. He believed that only after God was dead could you decide your own fate, what values you thought crucial and different moralities, after all not everybody was the same, inside and out. He opposed Locke's idea of national rights, and instead paved the way and the much needed space for Fanon's sporadic violence, where he wanted to destroy all oppression and power.

Nietzsche also had the idea of the "Ubermench" or the "super man" as it can be translated - he believed everybody had the potential to be a super man. He thought humanity should be overcome, and only with this will to power could man be defined by the choices he made. What was being opposed was the idea of the inauthentic self - the idea that society tells you who or how to be and behave. Nietzsche and the idea of existentialism in this case was that you define yourself by your own choices in life.

What was interesting was the point of disregarding certain 'choices' in life because they were not explicitly your choice, for example, the area in which you were born. Yes, it was someone's choice in your life to be born there, however you cannot change this fact, nor should you have to be defined by it, specifically because you didn't choose it as a life. The idea of 'moral luck' comes into play - if we don't choose it, it is not important. This was crucial to Fanon, a path to escape the role of the victim.

Jean Paul Sartre was on the same page as Fanon - he believed the life of a person is not defined in advance, and the past should not be used as an excuse for the future, as you should not let your past define you. Your past is not you. Existentialism was the idea that you should make your own choices and values, and the individual must decide what is right and what is wrong. 

On to Fanon, whose 'Wretched of the Earth' was practically a guide to revolution, literally by any means possible. He believed that "national liberation is always violent", not necessarily because he was angry, he just believed in violence having a meaning and that he was justified in his thoughts, as was violence. For him violence was the only resort and the thing to do - the only choice to make - in order to enforce change.

The Wisdom of Crowds

The title The Wisdom of Crowds kind of speaks for itself when the main thought behind the text and author James Surowiecki is that collective thinking is more effective than individual thought. The main focus of the book is that you shouldn’t have to search the crowd for that individual to answer your question or solve a problem, but instead ask the entire crowd, as in Surowiecki’s opinion, you’ll get the answer much quicker and more often that not the crowd will be more intelligent than the individuals in them.

There is an effective diagram in a separate publication, a summary of the same book, where many arrows pointing inwards to the words surround the words ‘Collective Intelligence’, and the word ‘Expert’ has a lot of arrows pointing away from the word. In the case of the collective intelligence, it is the idea that lots of ideas go into this thinking, in order to make it better rounded and informative, whereas with one expert, it is just one person giving out their one opinion to others. Even something so simple as a diagram with words and arrows shows how effective the idea of collective intelligence can be.[1]

The idea that this type of brainpower could solve different types of problems also surprised me, as it seemed so obvious. There are the ‘Cognition’ problems, where a certain solution may not exist, but collectively a group can find and think up new alternatives. Also ‘Co-ordination’ problems are self-explanatory; the group must work together and this depends on not just what the individual thinks but the group around them also. All three link with the final type of problem, ‘Co-operation’, where the group must come up with solutions that are good for everybody. Although the three are very similar and preach the same ideas overall, their subtle differences make up the different types of collective intelligence.

What I didn’t like so much about the book was that it dismissed the fact that people could just be thrown together by chance into a group to solve the problem at hand and that it would work, but it gave a sort of checklist of conditions each individual must acquire. These included diversity of opinion, independence – to decrease the ‘herding’ mentality[2], decentralization and aggregation. I understand why these qualities are important but it somewhat dismisses the idea that certain minds can and can’t work together. The book is riddled with examples of how collective intelligence works, one of which was it’s relation to traffic jams. What many people fail to notice is how things around them have come to be. The idea that the actual road is smart because of the team that designed it, as opposed to it being down to the individual driver, really made me understand the concept a lot more.[3] The idea of a group decision rather than an individual is also reflective of the democratic system I thought, as it can be seen that a democratic society is happier and more prosperous than a society run by, say, one dictator making all the decisions. This is talked about more in the ‘Collective Intelligence and Democracy’ part, and what I found interesting was when Surowiecki talked about the actual democracy itself not representing the wisdom of the crowd, but the decision to have a democracy in the first place does.

---

[1] Most Read Summaries. Summary: The Wisdom of Crowds – James Surowiecki. pp. 5-6.

[2] Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. (Abacus.) pp. 49.

[3] Surowiecki, J., 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. (Abacus.) pp. 145.