WEBVTT - The Very Dust, Part 3

0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:07.120
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, the production of iHeartRadio.

0:00:12.840 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 2>Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind.

0:00:14.920 --> 0:00:17.400
<v Speaker 3>My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and

0:00:17.400 --> 0:00:21.440
<v Speaker 3>we're back with part three in our series on dust. Now,

0:00:21.440 --> 0:00:23.640
<v Speaker 3>if you haven't heard the previous episodes, you might want

0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:25.640
<v Speaker 3>to go back and check those out first. This will

0:00:25.640 --> 0:00:27.400
<v Speaker 3>probably make a little more sense if you have those

0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 3>in the pocket. In part one, we talked about how

0:00:30.800 --> 0:00:34.920
<v Speaker 3>to define dust. We talked about our perpetual roommates, the

0:00:34.960 --> 0:00:39.639
<v Speaker 3>pyroglyphid dust mites. We talked about atmospheric dust and its

0:00:39.680 --> 0:00:43.320
<v Speaker 3>complex relationship to weather and climate. That was Part one.

0:00:43.600 --> 0:00:47.160
<v Speaker 3>In Part two, we talked mainly about dust bunnies both

0:00:47.240 --> 0:00:51.080
<v Speaker 3>within the home and in outer space, as well as

0:00:51.360 --> 0:00:55.240
<v Speaker 3>how some historical attitudes toward dust dust in the home

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:58.960
<v Speaker 3>may have affected trends in interior design choices and even

0:00:59.000 --> 0:01:02.080
<v Speaker 3>some literary themes and horror. And today we are back

0:01:02.120 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 3>to talk more dust.

0:01:04.040 --> 0:01:08.319
<v Speaker 2>That's right, and you know we're gonna so we mentioned

0:01:08.319 --> 0:01:13.440
<v Speaker 2>how we'll eventually get to some magical mythological ideas religious

0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:16.679
<v Speaker 2>ideas about dust that's still on the way. That's going

0:01:16.720 --> 0:01:19.679
<v Speaker 2>to be a future episode. This particular episode, I'm going

0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:23.320
<v Speaker 2>to continue looking at Victorian dust. We're gonna get a

0:01:23.319 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 2>little philosophic, but we will also talk briefly about Dracula,

0:01:27.440 --> 0:01:29.920
<v Speaker 2>but in a way that connects directly to what we're

0:01:29.959 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 2>talking about here. So yeah, to kick things off, I'd

0:01:33.840 --> 0:01:36.160
<v Speaker 2>like to just pick up more or less where we

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:40.120
<v Speaker 2>left off with the theme of Victorian attitudes toward dust,

0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 2>a topic that I've ended up finding far more fascinating

0:01:43.600 --> 0:01:46.679
<v Speaker 2>than I expected. All Right, So in the last episode

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 2>I briefly mentioned a source an article or paper by

0:01:53.000 --> 0:01:57.440
<v Speaker 2>e Lean Cleary titled Victorian Dust Traps, and I went

0:01:57.480 --> 0:01:59.760
<v Speaker 2>ahead and sought that out. It's collected in her book

0:02:00.160 --> 0:02:05.440
<v Speaker 2>The Sanitary Arts, Esthetic Culture, and the Victorian Cleanliness Campaigns,

0:02:06.080 --> 0:02:09.359
<v Speaker 2>which is in itself a very interesting book, highly recommended

0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:13.280
<v Speaker 2>if anyone wants a deeper dive into the topic of

0:02:13.360 --> 0:02:18.840
<v Speaker 2>Victorian cleanliness. Now, Victorian London was indeed a world in

0:02:18.880 --> 0:02:23.000
<v Speaker 2>the throes of the Industrial Revolution. The Victorian period, of course,

0:02:23.200 --> 0:02:26.520
<v Speaker 2>is so named for the reign of Queen Victoria the

0:02:26.600 --> 0:02:29.720
<v Speaker 2>Rain in Question eighteen thirty seven through nineteen oh one,

0:02:30.440 --> 0:02:35.400
<v Speaker 2>but her rule encompassed much of the industrialization of English life.

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:38.880
<v Speaker 2>So we have a period here marked by rapid advancements

0:02:38.919 --> 0:02:46.680
<v Speaker 2>in industrial technology. Population swelled, a new business leader class emerged,

0:02:46.800 --> 0:02:51.240
<v Speaker 2>challenging the aristocracy for that top spot over a swelling

0:02:51.320 --> 0:02:55.640
<v Speaker 2>working class and virtually non existent middle class. So you

0:02:55.760 --> 0:03:00.160
<v Speaker 2>had vast socioeconomic differences going on, impacting the manner in

0:03:00.200 --> 0:03:04.040
<v Speaker 2>which the spoils and the horrors of industrialism were distributed

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:08.200
<v Speaker 2>to a large degree, because while upper classes obviously enjoyed

0:03:08.200 --> 0:03:12.280
<v Speaker 2>more freedom, everyone breathed the same air and ultimately the

0:03:12.320 --> 0:03:15.720
<v Speaker 2>same dust and dust. You know, dust doesn't care who

0:03:15.760 --> 0:03:19.560
<v Speaker 2>you are, dust doesn't care what part of society you

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:23.600
<v Speaker 2>come from. Now a lot has been written about Victorian sanitation,

0:03:23.800 --> 0:03:25.799
<v Speaker 2>like that in and of itself is a huge topic

0:03:25.840 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 2>because again the throes of industrialization, all these changes, changes

0:03:29.960 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 2>in population, changes in technology. We've touched on some of

0:03:32.960 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 2>these technologies in the past, especially on invention. You know,

0:03:36.400 --> 0:03:39.480
<v Speaker 2>how are you going to keep everything sanitary? Like the

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:44.200
<v Speaker 2>story of sanitation is ultimately the story of any civilization

0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:48.160
<v Speaker 2>or any empire, going way back in ancient times. Now.

0:03:48.200 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 2>According to Lee Jackson, author of Dirty Old London that

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:57.760
<v Speaker 2>cided on MPR's Fresh Air in twenty fifteen, this other

0:03:57.880 --> 0:04:01.040
<v Speaker 2>points out that by the eighteen nineties there were approximately

0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:04.839
<v Speaker 2>three hundred thousand horses and a thousand tons of dung

0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:06.200
<v Speaker 2>a day in London.

0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:07.640
<v Speaker 3>That's just horse dung.

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:09.680
<v Speaker 2>That's just horse dung. We're not even getting into people

0:04:09.720 --> 0:04:13.120
<v Speaker 2>or anything. That's just horses living and pooping in the city.

0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:19.000
<v Speaker 2>And London's capacity for managing all of that was vastly insufficient.

0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.880
<v Speaker 2>So in the streets the dung essentially became the mud,

0:04:23.200 --> 0:04:26.560
<v Speaker 2>and naturally, if it's dry enough, that dung also becomes

0:04:26.600 --> 0:04:29.320
<v Speaker 2>the dust of London, or part of the dust of London,

0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:32.520
<v Speaker 2>to be clear. On top of that, the other points

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.960
<v Speaker 2>out that London was a quote city of cesspools, with

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:38.599
<v Speaker 2>each house typically hosting a believe it was like a

0:04:38.640 --> 0:04:41.960
<v Speaker 2>six foot deep, four foot wide cesspool for all of

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:44.880
<v Speaker 2>the home's toiletry waste and I think various other wastes

0:04:44.920 --> 0:04:48.560
<v Speaker 2>as well, but a keynote the toiletry waste. And then

0:04:48.560 --> 0:04:51.400
<v Speaker 2>you had all of the coal lash produced by domestic

0:04:51.440 --> 0:04:55.360
<v Speaker 2>households in addition to coal lash produced by industry. Now

0:04:55.720 --> 0:04:58.400
<v Speaker 2>it was really fascinating. There was actually a system of

0:04:58.640 --> 0:05:02.560
<v Speaker 2>dust yards and dust men. They would come to your

0:05:02.560 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 2>house and haul off your dust or they would haul

0:05:05.279 --> 0:05:07.560
<v Speaker 2>off dust from the street and so forth. And then

0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:09.920
<v Speaker 2>there were the night soil men as well. These were

0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:11.800
<v Speaker 2>the people who would arrive in the middle of the

0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:16.960
<v Speaker 2>night to haul away your night soil from your cesspool.

0:05:17.880 --> 0:05:21.320
<v Speaker 2>Because the stinch of these activities, especially the night soil

0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:25.400
<v Speaker 2>removal here was legally deemed too odorous for daylight hours,

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 2>so in the night they would come haul it away,

0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:29.839
<v Speaker 2>put it in baskets, haulowed up out of that pit

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.240
<v Speaker 2>and take it out where it could be used in

0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 2>the countryside. The manure night soil it goes out to

0:05:36.200 --> 0:05:41.160
<v Speaker 2>help ultimately grow more food for the growing population of London.

0:05:41.640 --> 0:05:45.200
<v Speaker 2>I was reading an article by clearly A chill Me

0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:48.360
<v Speaker 2>of ground Shore, who wrote a piece about the dust

0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:52.400
<v Speaker 2>yards for this is in twenty fifteen for two Day's Conveyancer.

0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:56.839
<v Speaker 2>And this article points out some interesting facts about the

0:05:56.920 --> 0:05:58.880
<v Speaker 2>dust yards. And I have some other sources I'm going

0:05:58.920 --> 0:06:02.520
<v Speaker 2>to refer to about the dust yards here, But in

0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:05.279
<v Speaker 2>the eighteen fifties, the average amount of coal burn by

0:06:05.320 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 2>each household in London was estimated at eleven tons per year.

0:06:08.560 --> 0:06:11.760
<v Speaker 2>According to this article, coal lash was in demand by

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:14.800
<v Speaker 2>the brick industry for brickmaking, though it was also needed

0:06:14.800 --> 0:06:19.960
<v Speaker 2>for fertilizer. Both of these needs were increased by urban expansion,

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 2>so for food, for construction for all of those bodies

0:06:23.080 --> 0:06:26.560
<v Speaker 2>in the city. So in order to help meet these needs,

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:29.479
<v Speaker 2>we actually see an early example of a large scale

0:06:29.600 --> 0:06:35.320
<v Speaker 2>zero waste system, essentially a recycling program, though one that

0:06:35.400 --> 0:06:39.040
<v Speaker 2>of course is driven purely by economics here and also

0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:43.320
<v Speaker 2>one that is without any kind of modern health, environmental,

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:47.080
<v Speaker 2>or labor standards. So, for instance, children would work at

0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:49.040
<v Speaker 2>these dust yards along with adults.

0:06:49.560 --> 0:06:52.479
<v Speaker 3>And we know in many modern contexts, such as mining

0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:57.000
<v Speaker 3>and certain types of industrial settings, occupational exposure to dust

0:06:57.240 --> 0:06:59.800
<v Speaker 3>is a major health hazard and you have to take

0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 3>special precautions to, you know, if you're a worker in

0:07:03.360 --> 0:07:05.719
<v Speaker 3>a cement factory or in a mine or something, to

0:07:05.760 --> 0:07:10.360
<v Speaker 3>protect yourself from exposure to dust, to protect your lungs.

0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:13.200
<v Speaker 3>And so I would imagine some of those risks were

0:07:13.240 --> 0:07:14.920
<v Speaker 3>probably involved here as well.

0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:16.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, absolutely, So we have to be we have to

0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:19.960
<v Speaker 2>be careful about patting them on the back too much

0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 2>for this program because again a lot of these standards

0:07:23.480 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 2>were not in place, and it was purely driven by economics.

0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:31.240
<v Speaker 2>But still dust yards were in many ways recycling centers

0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:33.800
<v Speaker 2>where the dust was hauled off to by the dustmen

0:07:33.920 --> 0:07:37.920
<v Speaker 2>and the street sweepers. The dust yards entailed and organized

0:07:38.000 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 2>sifting and separation of different elements in the dust, radiating

0:07:42.200 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 2>out from like a central heap. I included an old

0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:52.040
<v Speaker 2>like illustration here for you, Joe. You can find these

0:07:52.040 --> 0:07:55.000
<v Speaker 2>online too, if you look up Victorian dust yard. And

0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:59.040
<v Speaker 2>here we see examples of women out sifting through the dust.

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:01.920
<v Speaker 2>It looks like there is a child there as well.

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:05.920
<v Speaker 2>There's a man shoveling dust as well, and various animals

0:08:05.920 --> 0:08:06.520
<v Speaker 2>milling about.

0:08:07.040 --> 0:08:10.720
<v Speaker 3>I do not see masks no in the picture. However,

0:08:10.760 --> 0:08:12.400
<v Speaker 3>it looks like a grand old time. They're just like

0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:15.680
<v Speaker 3>hanging out with ducks and pigs, and everybody's yeah, it

0:08:15.720 --> 0:08:16.520
<v Speaker 3>looks looks great.

0:08:16.720 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's a little more upbeat, I guess. Yeah. Now,

0:08:28.800 --> 0:08:31.680
<v Speaker 2>going back to the writings of Cleary, she writes that

0:08:31.840 --> 0:08:35.000
<v Speaker 2>these dust yards, along with various other things in and

0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:39.960
<v Speaker 2>around London again product of industrialization and just life in general.

0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:44.760
<v Speaker 2>You had slums, you had docs, you had brickyards, all

0:08:44.800 --> 0:08:48.600
<v Speaker 2>of this going on within London, and this helped to

0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:52.600
<v Speaker 2>establish a kind of moral geography of city life. Again,

0:08:52.679 --> 0:08:56.679
<v Speaker 2>morality here being very tied up with ideas of hygiene

0:08:56.679 --> 0:09:01.720
<v Speaker 2>and cleanliness and of course class. So while there was

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:05.120
<v Speaker 2>in many respects just one London and certainly one atmosphere

0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:08.319
<v Speaker 2>and one smoggy sky, there was also this kind of

0:09:08.400 --> 0:09:12.959
<v Speaker 2>attempt to regulate the clean moral city within the industrial husk.

0:09:13.440 --> 0:09:16.400
<v Speaker 2>And the home especially, she points out, was increasingly thought

0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 2>to constitute a quote self contained moral universe that can

0:09:20.880 --> 0:09:24.320
<v Speaker 2>in some sense be hermetically sealed from the pre germ

0:09:24.440 --> 0:09:29.080
<v Speaker 2>theory threats of miasma and spontaneous generation. And the home

0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:31.840
<v Speaker 2>was a haven, a safe place where all that disease,

0:09:31.880 --> 0:09:35.199
<v Speaker 2>all that horror could be shut out, or at least

0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:37.320
<v Speaker 2>there's the hope that you're shutting it out, and maybe

0:09:37.400 --> 0:09:40.640
<v Speaker 2>like the heartfelt belief that you were able to shut

0:09:40.679 --> 0:09:44.880
<v Speaker 2>it out of your home, and probably like the immediate

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:49.440
<v Speaker 2>unreal geography surrounding your home. But then, as we touched

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:52.360
<v Speaker 2>on in the last episode, you get the growing acceptance

0:09:52.480 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 2>of germ theory, and is this caught on in the

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.959
<v Speaker 2>public mindset. It changed all of this. It kind of

0:09:58.040 --> 0:10:02.160
<v Speaker 2>inverted this view of where the health threats are to

0:10:02.280 --> 0:10:05.760
<v Speaker 2>your way of life. So I want to read a

0:10:05.800 --> 0:10:08.479
<v Speaker 2>bit here from cleary that I thought was very insightful.

0:10:08.800 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 2>Quote Miismatic theories of bad air, foul smells, and spontaneous

0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 2>generation continued to dominate sanitary discourse in the eighteen seventies

0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:21.080
<v Speaker 2>and eighties, but as germ theories entered circulation, the impenetrable

0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:25.680
<v Speaker 2>Victorian home became an increasingly anxious fantasy rather than a

0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:30.440
<v Speaker 2>reliable domestic construct. Sanitary geographies of the city turned inward,

0:10:30.760 --> 0:10:36.240
<v Speaker 2>eventually producing analogous geographies of the over decorated, architecturally busy

0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:41.360
<v Speaker 2>Victorian interior. Even purpose built environments could contain pockets of

0:10:41.400 --> 0:10:46.160
<v Speaker 2>potential contamination and illness. In fact, the architectural flourishes and

0:10:46.240 --> 0:10:50.240
<v Speaker 2>decorative fittings so identified with mid Victorian style became sites

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:54.480
<v Speaker 2>of suspicion and fear as the nineteenth century waned. In

0:10:54.559 --> 0:10:58.320
<v Speaker 2>these new domestic geographies, I argue the decorative dust trap

0:10:58.679 --> 0:11:02.400
<v Speaker 2>rivaled the urban fever nest as a primary locust of

0:11:02.480 --> 0:11:06.760
<v Speaker 2>pollution anxiety, emerging as a contested site of cultural value

0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:10.040
<v Speaker 2>and meaning in a variety of Victorian texts.

0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:14.880
<v Speaker 3>Mmmm, okay, so explain that a little the dust trap

0:11:15.160 --> 0:11:17.840
<v Speaker 3>mirrors the outside world.

0:11:18.280 --> 0:11:21.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So instead of having these pockets of town that

0:11:21.280 --> 0:11:23.840
<v Speaker 2>you would avoid or kind of cut yourself off from,

0:11:23.960 --> 0:11:26.080
<v Speaker 2>or even I guess I'm reading into it here but

0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:28.560
<v Speaker 2>kind of pretend or not there, which I think is

0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 2>something that goes on in a lot of a lot

0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:33.960
<v Speaker 2>of cities even to this day. But instead of just

0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:37.480
<v Speaker 2>relying on that kind of a sanitary geography, as she

0:11:37.600 --> 0:11:40.680
<v Speaker 2>terms it, suddenly you're applying that line of thinking to

0:11:40.760 --> 0:11:43.600
<v Speaker 2>your own home and you're thinking about those dust bunnies

0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:46.720
<v Speaker 2>under the bed, You're thinking about those corners in the

0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:50.400
<v Speaker 2>house where dust is kind of swept to and it accumulates,

0:11:50.960 --> 0:11:56.080
<v Speaker 2>or even like clearly brings an example up in the

0:11:56.080 --> 0:11:58.640
<v Speaker 2>book of a just a Victorian text on how to

0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:02.480
<v Speaker 2>hang like paintings or pictures of some sort in your house,

0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:06.880
<v Speaker 2>even that exercise would have warnings about dust traps, about

0:12:07.640 --> 0:12:09.640
<v Speaker 2>trying to do it in such a way as to

0:12:09.679 --> 0:12:11.720
<v Speaker 2>not permit these dust traps to occur.

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:16.000
<v Speaker 3>And the argument is that this view of the interior

0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:20.720
<v Speaker 3>geography somewhat coincides with or is influenced by the emergence

0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:25.200
<v Speaker 3>of germ theory, like the correct understanding that disease is

0:12:25.200 --> 0:12:28.280
<v Speaker 3>to a large extent caused by tiny organisms that are

0:12:28.280 --> 0:12:30.640
<v Speaker 3>invisible to the eye and all around us.

0:12:30.760 --> 0:12:33.640
<v Speaker 2>Right, and of course we know that new information, even

0:12:33.640 --> 0:12:37.480
<v Speaker 2>when it is accurate, it doesn't mean that reactions to

0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 2>set accurate information are always you know, completely as as

0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 2>on point, I guess you would say.

0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:49.480
<v Speaker 3>You can respond to true information in an irrational way.

0:12:49.320 --> 0:12:51.400
<v Speaker 2>Right now, not to say that anything that we've I

0:12:51.440 --> 0:12:54.240
<v Speaker 2>certainly didn't find much in the way of anyone arguing, hey,

0:12:54.280 --> 0:12:56.040
<v Speaker 2>let the dust build up in your house, it's good

0:12:56.040 --> 0:12:59.320
<v Speaker 2>for you. But it does seem like there's a certain

0:12:59.320 --> 0:13:02.600
<v Speaker 2>amount of sort of dust anxiety overreach at the time,

0:13:02.720 --> 0:13:06.760
<v Speaker 2>or dust mania. But she also points out that this

0:13:06.800 --> 0:13:09.480
<v Speaker 2>doesn't mean that dust was just seen as a threat.

0:13:09.720 --> 0:13:13.280
<v Speaker 2>I mean, because again, dust is ubiquitous and and you also,

0:13:13.320 --> 0:13:16.640
<v Speaker 2>I think, have this kind of like you know, modern

0:13:18.120 --> 0:13:22.000
<v Speaker 2>fascination with the world. I mean, in the same sort

0:13:22.000 --> 0:13:24.760
<v Speaker 2>of scientific awakening that is making it possible to understand

0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:29.760
<v Speaker 2>what's going on with disease also with sort of illuminating

0:13:29.800 --> 0:13:33.560
<v Speaker 2>this idea of learning more about the world around you.

0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:36.239
<v Speaker 2>So she points out that dust, you know, is complex

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:39.600
<v Speaker 2>in the way that we view it. Even at the

0:13:39.679 --> 0:13:42.960
<v Speaker 2>time quote when particles of dirt were illuminated by sunlight

0:13:43.320 --> 0:13:48.800
<v Speaker 2>or other atmospheric conditions, victorians could simultaneously experience the transformative

0:13:48.840 --> 0:13:53.640
<v Speaker 2>beauty and the contaminating agency of dust. And I'm going

0:13:53.720 --> 0:13:56.280
<v Speaker 2>to turn to an example of that here in just

0:13:56.360 --> 0:13:56.880
<v Speaker 2>a little bit.

0:13:57.040 --> 0:13:59.959
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think I can experience that duality depending on

0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:03.000
<v Speaker 3>the context in which I see the dust. For example,

0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:06.800
<v Speaker 3>there are certain filmmakers that really love to show say

0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:11.000
<v Speaker 3>maybe a strong beam of light cutting through a dark

0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:14.920
<v Speaker 3>environment and you see little particles of dust floating in

0:14:14.960 --> 0:14:18.200
<v Speaker 3>that Beam's It's a beautiful effect when achieved in film.

0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:21.200
<v Speaker 3>If I see that same effect inside my house, it

0:14:21.200 --> 0:14:22.640
<v Speaker 3>feels a little gross.

0:14:22.960 --> 0:14:26.360
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, Or if it is beyond a particle and it

0:14:26.400 --> 0:14:29.600
<v Speaker 2>becomes like visible cat here, Yeah, you know, it's like

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:31.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm trying to like take my contact that's the worst.

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:33.840
<v Speaker 2>I'm like, I've washed my hands, I'm going to take

0:14:33.840 --> 0:14:36.080
<v Speaker 2>a contact out or put one in, and somehow I've

0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:40.480
<v Speaker 2>already gotten the cat here attached to my finger, and yeah,

0:14:40.720 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 2>that is floating around and is part of the whole

0:14:42.760 --> 0:14:43.800
<v Speaker 2>dust bunny scenario.

0:14:43.880 --> 0:14:46.360
<v Speaker 3>Of course, I'm trying to think, what who do I

0:14:46.400 --> 0:14:49.160
<v Speaker 3>have in mind? Who there's like a director who really

0:14:49.200 --> 0:14:52.240
<v Speaker 3>loves like a beam of light with dust floating in it.

0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:53.440
<v Speaker 3>But I can't think of who it is.

0:14:53.880 --> 0:14:55.720
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's it's a motif you see from time

0:14:55.800 --> 0:14:57.880
<v Speaker 2>to time, and it can be it'd be quite beautiful.

0:14:58.040 --> 0:15:02.040
<v Speaker 2>There is this kind of sense of sort of revealing

0:15:02.080 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 2>the particles of nature, you know, there's kind of like this,

0:15:06.080 --> 0:15:08.440
<v Speaker 2>even even though we are not obviously looking at atoms

0:15:08.520 --> 0:15:11.120
<v Speaker 2>or anything, you know, in that beam of light, there

0:15:11.200 --> 0:15:13.720
<v Speaker 2>is this kind of like revelation. It's like, oh, there

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:15.120
<v Speaker 2>are smaller realms than this.

0:15:15.600 --> 0:15:18.840
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you're not literally seeing the smallest things. I mean,

0:15:18.840 --> 0:15:23.920
<v Speaker 3>in the same way that consciousness of dust is equated

0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:27.800
<v Speaker 3>to consciousness of germs. You're not literally seeing the germs,

0:15:27.800 --> 0:15:31.200
<v Speaker 3>but it like reminds you that you're surrounded by things

0:15:31.280 --> 0:15:33.280
<v Speaker 3>on a scale that's very small, and that most times

0:15:33.280 --> 0:15:34.920
<v Speaker 3>you don't most of the time you don't see or

0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:35.560
<v Speaker 3>notice them.

0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So you know, I don't think it's it's it's

0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:42.680
<v Speaker 2>that much of a stretch to put ourselves in this mindset,

0:15:42.760 --> 0:15:47.320
<v Speaker 2>this mindset where she says that that that these like

0:15:47.640 --> 0:15:51.880
<v Speaker 2>the dusty corners of these homes were quote simultaneously places

0:15:51.920 --> 0:15:57.680
<v Speaker 2>of artistic imagination and filthy accumulation. So I was like, okay,

0:15:57.720 --> 0:15:59.680
<v Speaker 2>I need to throw in some examples of this, and

0:15:59.760 --> 0:16:02.560
<v Speaker 2>I've leave, and she mentions a number. I already mentioned

0:16:02.560 --> 0:16:04.760
<v Speaker 2>the picture hanging guide, and I was thinking, well, I

0:16:04.760 --> 0:16:07.720
<v Speaker 2>need to probably bust out some Charles Dickens here. But

0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:11.360
<v Speaker 2>then I discovered that there are examples of both attitudes

0:16:11.400 --> 0:16:16.160
<v Speaker 2>toward dust in the Victorian horror classic novel Dracula by

0:16:16.200 --> 0:16:18.200
<v Speaker 2>Bram Stoker from eighteen ninety seven.

0:16:18.560 --> 0:16:22.120
<v Speaker 3>Okay, eighteen ninety seven would be very late Victorian, but

0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:24.040
<v Speaker 3>still technically under the wire.

0:16:24.200 --> 0:16:25.960
<v Speaker 2>It gets in under the wire, and I think, you know,

0:16:25.960 --> 0:16:30.440
<v Speaker 2>it's definitely all that time and that culture. Okay, so

0:16:30.640 --> 0:16:32.920
<v Speaker 2>I'm going to read a little from Dracula here. Didn't

0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:34.720
<v Speaker 2>think I was going to get to do that. So

0:16:35.000 --> 0:16:39.040
<v Speaker 2>anytime we get to discuss Dracula without warning, it's nice.

0:16:39.720 --> 0:16:42.520
<v Speaker 2>So the first bit, this is from early on. This

0:16:42.600 --> 0:16:46.400
<v Speaker 2>is in Dracula's castle. I was not alone. The room

0:16:46.680 --> 0:16:49.680
<v Speaker 2>was the same, unchanged in any way since I came

0:16:49.720 --> 0:16:52.720
<v Speaker 2>into it. I could see along the floor in the

0:16:52.760 --> 0:16:56.600
<v Speaker 2>brilliant moonlight, my own footsteps marked where I had disturbed

0:16:56.840 --> 0:16:58.840
<v Speaker 2>the long accumulation of dust.

0:16:59.200 --> 0:17:02.440
<v Speaker 3>All right, so this this is Harker writing about being

0:17:02.520 --> 0:17:06.439
<v Speaker 3>in draculus castle. We're here clearly that the dust is

0:17:06.600 --> 0:17:10.920
<v Speaker 3>viewed as a kind of as a signal of something wrong,

0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:14.160
<v Speaker 3>like that this is not a place that is occupied

0:17:14.280 --> 0:17:18.280
<v Speaker 3>by living people, that it is only unnatural beings that

0:17:18.400 --> 0:17:21.040
<v Speaker 3>dwell here, and that the way in which they dwell

0:17:21.119 --> 0:17:23.480
<v Speaker 3>is not really life right.

0:17:24.040 --> 0:17:25.399
<v Speaker 2>And so I was looking into this a bit more,

0:17:25.440 --> 0:17:28.080
<v Speaker 2>and I found an excellent paper that gets into this

0:17:28.160 --> 0:17:31.280
<v Speaker 2>and other related topics. This is from Lily s May

0:17:31.440 --> 0:17:34.960
<v Speaker 2>from nineteen ninety eight. It's titled Foul Things of the

0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:38.560
<v Speaker 2>Night Dread in the Victorian Body. And so we have

0:17:38.640 --> 0:17:42.760
<v Speaker 2>another passage here, and this is also from Draculus Castle

0:17:42.800 --> 0:17:44.720
<v Speaker 2>from the same point of view. I thought I would

0:17:44.720 --> 0:17:47.280
<v Speaker 2>watch for the Count's return, and for a long time

0:17:47.400 --> 0:17:50.840
<v Speaker 2>set doggedly at the window. Then I began to notice

0:17:50.960 --> 0:17:53.199
<v Speaker 2>that there were some quaint little specks floating in the

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:56.240
<v Speaker 2>rays of the moonlight. They were like the tiniest grains

0:17:56.280 --> 0:17:59.359
<v Speaker 2>of dust, and they whirled around and gathered in clusters

0:17:59.359 --> 0:18:01.879
<v Speaker 2>and a nebulus sort of way. I watch them with

0:18:01.920 --> 0:18:04.439
<v Speaker 2>a sense of soothing and a sort of calm stole

0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:08.040
<v Speaker 2>over me. I lean back in the embrasure in a

0:18:08.080 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 2>more comfortable position, so that I can enjoy more fully

0:18:11.520 --> 0:18:12.640
<v Speaker 2>the aerial gamboling.

0:18:13.200 --> 0:18:15.280
<v Speaker 3>Oh, I would not have remembered this moment at.

0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:17.199
<v Speaker 2>All, but yeah, but it's like a nice little you know,

0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:20.159
<v Speaker 2>caught up in the moment, just sort of noticing dust

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:23.280
<v Speaker 2>and out of context that it's been a long time

0:18:23.320 --> 0:18:27.480
<v Speaker 2>since I've read Dracula in full. I am not sure

0:18:27.480 --> 0:18:30.280
<v Speaker 2>if this is meant to be just dust or if

0:18:30.280 --> 0:18:33.400
<v Speaker 2>this is some hint of the Count's doing. But as

0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:36.320
<v Speaker 2>we'll discuss, we can easily wrap all of this up

0:18:36.440 --> 0:18:37.200
<v Speaker 2>under the same heading.

0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:41.960
<v Speaker 3>But it's funny that in Dracula's Castle the dust is

0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:45.600
<v Speaker 3>clearly meant to show a lack of life that there is,

0:18:45.920 --> 0:18:50.080
<v Speaker 3>that this castle is not currently occupied by living beings

0:18:50.440 --> 0:18:53.439
<v Speaker 3>who and it's and the fact that everything is covered

0:18:53.440 --> 0:18:58.119
<v Speaker 3>in dust is a sign of disuse and decay and unnaturalness.

0:18:58.560 --> 0:19:03.320
<v Speaker 3>At the same time, dust is overwhelmingly associated with life

0:19:03.320 --> 0:19:05.920
<v Speaker 3>and activity of the city of the period.

0:19:06.240 --> 0:19:09.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Yeah, and maybe this is what we get a

0:19:09.240 --> 0:19:14.320
<v Speaker 2>glimpse of in this this second quotation here, Yeah, where

0:19:14.400 --> 0:19:17.960
<v Speaker 2>it sounds lively. You know, he's talking about it in

0:19:18.040 --> 0:19:23.119
<v Speaker 2>terms of motion and in life and interaction. Okay, so

0:19:23.160 --> 0:19:26.040
<v Speaker 2>those are both from Dracula's Castle, but we also glimpse

0:19:26.119 --> 0:19:28.920
<v Speaker 2>dust in London as well. This is from Lucy's perspective

0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:31.880
<v Speaker 2>much later on in the book. The air seems full

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:35.560
<v Speaker 2>of specs floating and circling in the draft from the window,

0:19:35.920 --> 0:19:38.760
<v Speaker 2>and the lights burn blue and dim. What am I

0:19:38.840 --> 0:19:41.600
<v Speaker 2>to do? God shield me from harm this night? I

0:19:41.600 --> 0:19:43.800
<v Speaker 2>shall hide this paper in my breast, where they shall

0:19:43.840 --> 0:19:45.879
<v Speaker 2>find it when they come to lay me out. My

0:19:45.960 --> 0:19:48.840
<v Speaker 2>dear mother gone. It is time that I go to Goodbye,

0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:52.000
<v Speaker 2>dear Arthur. If I should not survive this night, God

0:19:52.119 --> 0:19:54.119
<v Speaker 2>keep you, dear, and God help me.

0:19:54.760 --> 0:19:57.760
<v Speaker 3>This is interesting in the air being full of dust

0:19:57.880 --> 0:20:01.480
<v Speaker 3>almost it's like an indicat that death is imminent.

0:20:02.000 --> 0:20:05.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, almost, like there's almost kind of like a

0:20:05.640 --> 0:20:10.400
<v Speaker 2>fairy fire kind of vibe to it, you know. Now.

0:20:10.480 --> 0:20:12.880
<v Speaker 2>Later on in the novel, as pointed out by May

0:20:13.560 --> 0:20:17.239
<v Speaker 2>in that write up, Dracula's London layer is said to

0:20:17.320 --> 0:20:22.240
<v Speaker 2>have walls quote fluffy and heavy with dust, which I like.

0:20:22.320 --> 0:20:26.800
<v Speaker 2>It's almost like there's a strong sense that Dracula's presence

0:20:26.840 --> 0:20:30.640
<v Speaker 2>alone makes the place dustier than it could have logically been.

0:20:31.359 --> 0:20:33.960
<v Speaker 2>And then, of course you know what happens at the end.

0:20:34.280 --> 0:20:38.160
<v Speaker 2>Dracula is staked Dracula is slain and quote his whole

0:20:38.200 --> 0:20:40.359
<v Speaker 2>body crumbled into dust.

0:20:40.760 --> 0:20:43.040
<v Speaker 3>This would go back to that theme we talked about

0:20:43.040 --> 0:20:46.840
<v Speaker 3>at the beginning of the first episode, how most often

0:20:46.960 --> 0:20:50.120
<v Speaker 3>in literature it seems that imagery of dust is used

0:20:50.160 --> 0:20:55.000
<v Speaker 3>to signify a kind of worthlessness. And yeah, so when

0:20:55.000 --> 0:20:58.359
<v Speaker 3>a body in a story crumbles into dust, it seems

0:20:58.440 --> 0:21:02.480
<v Speaker 3>to it seems to indicate it almost a magical signal

0:21:02.520 --> 0:21:03.360
<v Speaker 3>of good riddance.

0:21:03.960 --> 0:21:06.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, yeah, so we definitely have that going on. There's

0:21:06.000 --> 0:21:08.960
<v Speaker 2>no denying that you know from dust you came, does

0:21:09.040 --> 0:21:12.440
<v Speaker 2>you become? And this creature of on life is now

0:21:12.480 --> 0:21:17.720
<v Speaker 2>reduced to dust. And yet May stresses that throughout that, Okay,

0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:19.439
<v Speaker 2>we have this time period in which we have all

0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:24.480
<v Speaker 2>these attitudes about dust, and we also have the titular

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:28.199
<v Speaker 2>vampire here, who is an infectious creature. And much has

0:21:28.240 --> 0:21:31.240
<v Speaker 2>been written comparing like the infectious nature of vampires to

0:21:31.359 --> 0:21:37.200
<v Speaker 2>various pathogens, sometimes to syphilis and other maladies, and May

0:21:37.240 --> 0:21:41.159
<v Speaker 2>stresses that quote terror of contamination by minute particles of

0:21:41.160 --> 0:21:45.920
<v Speaker 2>corruption is thoroughly reinforced in Stoker's novel. I was looking

0:21:45.960 --> 0:21:47.840
<v Speaker 2>around briefly at screen grabs, and I'm like, what is

0:21:47.880 --> 0:21:52.439
<v Speaker 2>the dustiest Dracula movie that we have, And I'm not

0:21:52.480 --> 0:21:54.639
<v Speaker 2>sure offhand. You know, he turns into dust at the

0:21:54.720 --> 0:21:57.199
<v Speaker 2>end of a lot of these movies. But I was wondering, like,

0:21:57.200 --> 0:21:59.560
<v Speaker 2>which one has the dustiest sets. Now I feel like

0:21:59.600 --> 0:22:01.040
<v Speaker 2>I'm gonna have keep an eye open for that.

0:22:01.680 --> 0:22:05.400
<v Speaker 3>I feel like the Todd Browning Dracula emphasizes dust in

0:22:05.840 --> 0:22:10.359
<v Speaker 3>Legosi's castle. There's less dust that I recall once they

0:22:10.480 --> 0:22:11.720
<v Speaker 3>move on back to London.

0:22:12.400 --> 0:22:16.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And I'm not sure about the ninetiese version from

0:22:16.119 --> 0:22:19.919
<v Speaker 2>Francis Ford Coppola. I do. I am long overdue to

0:22:20.000 --> 0:22:22.560
<v Speaker 2>rewatch that one, But if I were to guess, I

0:22:22.600 --> 0:22:26.879
<v Speaker 2>would maybe expect some fine dust in the castle. But

0:22:27.240 --> 0:22:30.280
<v Speaker 2>maybe they end up avoiding it in London because there's

0:22:30.320 --> 0:22:32.800
<v Speaker 2>like a sense I feel like they probably shot London

0:22:32.800 --> 0:22:37.359
<v Speaker 2>with a certain air of modern gleaming there. But then again,

0:22:37.359 --> 0:22:39.000
<v Speaker 2>if you end up going into a crypt, what's the

0:22:39.000 --> 0:22:41.159
<v Speaker 2>first thing you're at least tempted to do? Set wise,

0:22:41.359 --> 0:22:44.160
<v Speaker 2>that's dust everything, right, give it that n nice Gothic air.

0:22:44.520 --> 0:22:47.720
<v Speaker 3>We could quite possibly do the Copola Dracula on Weird House.

0:22:47.760 --> 0:22:51.359
<v Speaker 3>It is weirder than it needs to be, and I

0:22:51.400 --> 0:22:53.720
<v Speaker 3>don't know, there are things about that you could argue

0:22:53.760 --> 0:22:55.879
<v Speaker 3>are not good, but I think it's a heck of

0:22:55.920 --> 0:22:56.720
<v Speaker 3>a good time.

0:22:57.160 --> 0:22:59.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and there's greatness within it for sure.

0:22:59.400 --> 0:22:59.880
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:23:00.240 --> 0:23:05.280
<v Speaker 2>Anyways, more on Dracula, inevitably later on in another episode

0:23:05.280 --> 0:23:08.680
<v Speaker 2>of one of our shows, but in the larger picture again,

0:23:08.720 --> 0:23:12.240
<v Speaker 2>as we've already touched on, Clary argues that the aversion

0:23:12.280 --> 0:23:15.240
<v Speaker 2>to dust and dust traps in architecture, art and design

0:23:15.680 --> 0:23:19.440
<v Speaker 2>helped fuel a more minimalist, modernist aesthetic, free from the

0:23:19.520 --> 0:23:23.200
<v Speaker 2>various nooks and crannies that might allow dust to accumulate.

0:23:23.920 --> 0:23:26.919
<v Speaker 3>Okay, so that would make sense because I'm not a

0:23:27.119 --> 0:23:30.479
<v Speaker 3>you know, I don't have a great knowledge about interior design,

0:23:30.920 --> 0:23:35.240
<v Speaker 3>especially historically. But what I picture the interior of a

0:23:35.359 --> 0:23:39.240
<v Speaker 3>Victorian home, especially like an upper class one, I picture

0:23:39.240 --> 0:23:41.879
<v Speaker 3>it as a very craggy landscape. There's just like a

0:23:41.920 --> 0:23:45.080
<v Speaker 3>lot of stuff going on, a lot of like nooks

0:23:45.119 --> 0:23:47.639
<v Speaker 3>and crannies, Yeah, and things poking out in places that

0:23:47.680 --> 0:23:49.840
<v Speaker 3>would just be like hard to access with a broom

0:23:49.920 --> 0:23:54.119
<v Speaker 3>or a duster. And yeah, and I contrast that very

0:23:54.200 --> 0:23:56.639
<v Speaker 3>much with what I think of as like, I don't know,

0:23:56.680 --> 0:24:01.920
<v Speaker 3>the mid century modern interior style in American homes, which

0:24:01.960 --> 0:24:05.280
<v Speaker 3>is just like a lot of clean surfaces places that

0:24:05.320 --> 0:24:07.600
<v Speaker 3>would be easy to get dust out of.

0:24:08.080 --> 0:24:10.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and clearly also discusses some other ideas, a much

0:24:10.680 --> 0:24:13.119
<v Speaker 2>deeper dive that we can get into here, but she

0:24:13.200 --> 0:24:16.960
<v Speaker 2>also explores some other like class based and economic factors

0:24:17.000 --> 0:24:20.120
<v Speaker 2>may have played in like if nothing else, if there's

0:24:20.160 --> 0:24:23.639
<v Speaker 2>this new in general, you don't want your house to

0:24:23.640 --> 0:24:27.639
<v Speaker 2>be super dusty. There's this new emphasis on keeping things

0:24:27.680 --> 0:24:29.840
<v Speaker 2>from getting too dusty, and therefore there's kind of this

0:24:29.920 --> 0:24:35.320
<v Speaker 2>additional cost to having furniture like this or household molding

0:24:35.480 --> 0:24:38.000
<v Speaker 2>like this, because it is harder to clean, and then

0:24:38.040 --> 0:24:42.680
<v Speaker 2>you're potentially having to pay more or put more into

0:24:42.720 --> 0:24:48.320
<v Speaker 2>the into the battle against that dust. So, yeah, anytime

0:24:48.359 --> 0:24:50.560
<v Speaker 2>you have shifts in design like this, there are multiple

0:24:50.560 --> 0:24:52.679
<v Speaker 2>things going on, but it is interesting to think about

0:24:52.880 --> 0:24:55.040
<v Speaker 2>how this may have played a role in all of that.

0:24:55.600 --> 0:24:59.000
<v Speaker 2>It's also interesting to think about this idea of like, Okay,

0:24:59.000 --> 0:25:01.719
<v Speaker 2>you know hermetically fel the home. The home is separate

0:25:01.760 --> 0:25:05.119
<v Speaker 2>from the world surrounding you, be that an urban environment

0:25:05.280 --> 0:25:08.080
<v Speaker 2>or a rural environment, or some mix of the two.

0:25:09.160 --> 0:25:12.000
<v Speaker 2>And you know, we're still sort of feeling ourselves out

0:25:12.040 --> 0:25:14.720
<v Speaker 2>and having different shifts in all of this. While I

0:25:14.760 --> 0:25:17.000
<v Speaker 2>haven't run across anything that has said, yes, let the

0:25:17.080 --> 0:25:19.760
<v Speaker 2>dust build up in your house, we have seen examples

0:25:19.800 --> 0:25:24.240
<v Speaker 2>of studies that have argued that exposure to cats and

0:25:24.320 --> 0:25:27.840
<v Speaker 2>especially dogs, especially at a young age, can help bolster

0:25:27.920 --> 0:25:30.399
<v Speaker 2>the immune system. You know, there's a lot about the

0:25:30.960 --> 0:25:35.280
<v Speaker 2>complexity of the microbial world that we're still figuring out,

0:25:35.320 --> 0:25:37.399
<v Speaker 2>and we're still figuring out how where we are in

0:25:37.440 --> 0:25:41.159
<v Speaker 2>that whole equation and where our artificial environments and our

0:25:41.240 --> 0:25:44.560
<v Speaker 2>cities currently stand in all of that as well.

0:25:54.119 --> 0:25:57.159
<v Speaker 3>Okay, well, for today's episode, I got to thinking about

0:25:57.320 --> 0:26:01.119
<v Speaker 3>dust in the context of a of an age old

0:26:01.400 --> 0:26:04.840
<v Speaker 3>philosophical problem, and I was thinking about it like this, So,

0:26:04.920 --> 0:26:07.879
<v Speaker 3>of course dust is everywhere, there's some amount of it

0:26:07.960 --> 0:26:11.600
<v Speaker 3>in pretty much all environments and all homes. But at

0:26:11.600 --> 0:26:16.680
<v Speaker 3>what point does something actually become dusty? We talked about

0:26:16.680 --> 0:26:19.120
<v Speaker 3>this in part one of our series, this weird phenomenon

0:26:19.160 --> 0:26:21.760
<v Speaker 3>where you know, you look at a desk surface, or

0:26:21.800 --> 0:26:24.119
<v Speaker 3>a lamp or a shelf in your house and it

0:26:24.160 --> 0:26:26.679
<v Speaker 3>can seem like, well, it's not dusty at all, no

0:26:26.760 --> 0:26:30.960
<v Speaker 3>intervention needed, you know, it's fine, no notes, until suddenly

0:26:31.040 --> 0:26:34.199
<v Speaker 3>one day you notice it needs dusting. In fact, it

0:26:34.240 --> 0:26:37.919
<v Speaker 3>doesn't just need dusting. It is now revolting. How did

0:26:38.000 --> 0:26:39.040
<v Speaker 3>I let it go this far?

0:26:40.520 --> 0:26:43.320
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I'm reminded again. We talked about Hollywood dust machines.

0:26:43.640 --> 0:26:45.359
<v Speaker 2>What if you didn't have one and you just had

0:26:45.400 --> 0:26:47.720
<v Speaker 2>to wait for things to set to get dusty again.

0:26:47.960 --> 0:26:49.680
<v Speaker 2>What would that be like? It's like, okay, not yet,

0:26:50.480 --> 0:26:53.160
<v Speaker 2>not yet, Okay, now now it's dusty again.

0:26:53.240 --> 0:26:55.840
<v Speaker 3>But would that ever happen if you were watching it constantly?

0:26:55.920 --> 0:26:58.360
<v Speaker 3>It seems like, you know, it's the trying to watch

0:26:58.400 --> 0:27:01.040
<v Speaker 3>a pot boil, except it would take months, I guess.

0:27:01.760 --> 0:27:04.240
<v Speaker 3>But it is weird how, at least to me, things

0:27:04.720 --> 0:27:08.440
<v Speaker 3>tend to go from not noticeably dusty to too dusty,

0:27:09.680 --> 0:27:13.920
<v Speaker 3>And presumably this is not usually because of a massive

0:27:14.000 --> 0:27:18.320
<v Speaker 3>quantity of dust being deposited all at once. Instead, there's

0:27:18.640 --> 0:27:22.080
<v Speaker 3>something going on with our perception. Some amount of dust

0:27:22.160 --> 0:27:25.919
<v Speaker 3>is always present, and that amount is slowly accumulating a

0:27:25.920 --> 0:27:30.080
<v Speaker 3>little by little, and it doesn't register as dustiness to

0:27:30.240 --> 0:27:33.920
<v Speaker 3>us until it is past a certain threshold, and maybe

0:27:33.960 --> 0:27:36.240
<v Speaker 3>the light strikes it in the right way, maybe we're

0:27:36.280 --> 0:27:38.560
<v Speaker 3>in the right mood or mental state to see it,

0:27:38.880 --> 0:27:42.639
<v Speaker 3>and suddenly it does look dusty. Now we're here, and

0:27:42.720 --> 0:27:46.320
<v Speaker 3>it occurred to me that this is actually a specific

0:27:46.640 --> 0:27:51.600
<v Speaker 3>manifestation of a famous dilemma in philosophy known as the

0:27:51.640 --> 0:27:56.040
<v Speaker 3>Sobriety's paradox or the paradox of the heap. The word

0:27:56.160 --> 0:28:02.760
<v Speaker 3>sobrieties spelled sories, from the Greek word for pile or heap.

0:28:03.520 --> 0:28:06.760
<v Speaker 3>It is named after the most famous example used in

0:28:07.000 --> 0:28:11.159
<v Speaker 3>these these thought experiments, and that example is a heap

0:28:11.240 --> 0:28:16.240
<v Speaker 3>of sand. So I'll illustrate the dilemma like this. Imagine

0:28:16.600 --> 0:28:20.480
<v Speaker 3>one million grains of sand piled up together on the ground.

0:28:21.000 --> 0:28:24.040
<v Speaker 3>Is this a heap of sand? I think most people

0:28:24.080 --> 0:28:26.120
<v Speaker 3>would say, yes, it is that. That's not a very

0:28:26.160 --> 0:28:27.520
<v Speaker 3>controversial thing to call it.

0:28:27.880 --> 0:28:32.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And just the summoning the word million instantly makes

0:28:32.400 --> 0:28:34.960
<v Speaker 2>you think, well, that's a lot. That sounds heapworthy. Though

0:28:35.000 --> 0:28:37.120
<v Speaker 2>then I begin to second guess myself and think, well,

0:28:37.200 --> 0:28:40.360
<v Speaker 2>grains are small. What does a million grains of sand

0:28:40.480 --> 0:28:41.480
<v Speaker 2>pile together look like?

0:28:42.520 --> 0:28:44.959
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean, it doesn't matter what the number is actually,

0:28:45.000 --> 0:28:47.280
<v Speaker 3>but I think we you know, imagine you say you

0:28:47.320 --> 0:28:49.480
<v Speaker 3>start with a heap of sand, whatever you think a

0:28:49.520 --> 0:28:54.000
<v Speaker 3>heap is. Now you remove one single grain of sand

0:28:54.080 --> 0:28:56.200
<v Speaker 3>from that heap. So if you start with a million,

0:28:56.280 --> 0:28:59.520
<v Speaker 3>you're left with nine hundred ninety nine nine ninety nine.

0:29:00.280 --> 0:29:03.560
<v Speaker 3>Is it still a heap? Yes, in fact it would.

0:29:03.640 --> 0:29:07.080
<v Speaker 3>It would seem not only wrong but silly to suggest

0:29:07.200 --> 0:29:11.520
<v Speaker 3>that removing one grain of sand makes a heap into

0:29:11.560 --> 0:29:15.120
<v Speaker 3>a non heap. One grain does not make the difference clearly.

0:29:15.240 --> 0:29:19.440
<v Speaker 3>But assume you repeat the process a million times, remove

0:29:19.480 --> 0:29:22.960
<v Speaker 3>one grain, ask if it's still a heap. Eventually you

0:29:22.960 --> 0:29:26.120
<v Speaker 3>would have only one grain of sand left, and by

0:29:26.120 --> 0:29:30.000
<v Speaker 3>that point you know it is definitely not a heap. Obviously,

0:29:30.040 --> 0:29:32.480
<v Speaker 3>nobody would call a single grain of sand a heap,

0:29:32.960 --> 0:29:37.960
<v Speaker 3>And yet it seems impossible to identify any particular point

0:29:38.000 --> 0:29:41.400
<v Speaker 3>along the way where removing one more grain of sand

0:29:41.720 --> 0:29:44.160
<v Speaker 3>would make it no longer a heap. It's like, oh,

0:29:44.200 --> 0:29:46.400
<v Speaker 3>we went from one hundred and thirty eight to one

0:29:46.480 --> 0:29:49.640
<v Speaker 3>hundred and thirty seven grains. Now it's not a heap anymore.

0:29:50.320 --> 0:29:53.760
<v Speaker 3>That obviously doesn't seem right. But if you can't identify

0:29:53.840 --> 0:29:57.240
<v Speaker 3>the number at which it ceases to become a heap

0:29:57.240 --> 0:30:00.560
<v Speaker 3>of sand, what is a heap? You could use the

0:30:00.600 --> 0:30:05.360
<v Speaker 3>same process to question the concept of dustiness. Is this

0:30:05.480 --> 0:30:08.400
<v Speaker 3>lamp dusty. I'm looking at a lamp right now that

0:30:08.760 --> 0:30:11.080
<v Speaker 3>it's pretty dusty. I should have dusted it before we

0:30:11.120 --> 0:30:14.640
<v Speaker 3>started recording here. So yes, it's definitely dusty. But if

0:30:14.640 --> 0:30:17.480
<v Speaker 3>I were to remove one grain of dust at a time,

0:30:17.880 --> 0:30:20.320
<v Speaker 3>is there a point at which it would become no

0:30:20.480 --> 0:30:24.760
<v Speaker 3>longer dusty? Well, certainly there is. There's some point you

0:30:24.760 --> 0:30:27.120
<v Speaker 3>would get to where everybody would say, yeah, that's not

0:30:27.200 --> 0:30:30.440
<v Speaker 3>a dusty lamp. But you can't say where that point is.

0:30:30.560 --> 0:30:33.200
<v Speaker 3>You know you'd hit there before you get to zero

0:30:33.360 --> 0:30:36.200
<v Speaker 3>grains of dust or one grain of dust, But where

0:30:36.320 --> 0:30:40.120
<v Speaker 3>is it? And no single subtraction of a grain of

0:30:40.200 --> 0:30:43.800
<v Speaker 3>dust ever makes sense as the threshold, And so you

0:30:43.800 --> 0:30:45.960
<v Speaker 3>can note that it doesn't matter which way you go.

0:30:46.040 --> 0:30:48.680
<v Speaker 3>We've been talking about subtraction. But you can illustrate the

0:30:48.680 --> 0:30:51.880
<v Speaker 3>paradox by addition as well. So you can start with

0:30:51.920 --> 0:30:56.120
<v Speaker 3>one grain of dust, add another grain, add one pyroglyphic

0:30:56.200 --> 0:30:59.400
<v Speaker 3>dust might fecal pellet at a time, and it's hard

0:30:59.400 --> 0:31:02.680
<v Speaker 3>to say when the surface goes from not dusty to dusty.

0:31:03.120 --> 0:31:05.760
<v Speaker 3>The Sobriety's paradox is usually thought of as relevant to

0:31:05.840 --> 0:31:10.560
<v Speaker 3>the philosophical problem of vagueness. It can arise in connection

0:31:10.760 --> 0:31:14.760
<v Speaker 3>to any term that makes sense and is useful, but

0:31:14.880 --> 0:31:17.880
<v Speaker 3>is also vague, And so we can think of examples

0:31:17.880 --> 0:31:20.960
<v Speaker 3>from multiple parts of speech. So when you think of

0:31:21.040 --> 0:31:33.920
<v Speaker 3>adjective adjectives, you can think of tall, short, long, wide, narrow, loud, quiet, bald, hairy, crowded, sparse,

0:31:34.600 --> 0:31:36.080
<v Speaker 3>all of these where you know, you can make a

0:31:36.080 --> 0:31:39.840
<v Speaker 3>list of thousands of words like this, all of them

0:31:39.880 --> 0:31:43.400
<v Speaker 3>could be subject to a Sobriety's attack. Is a seven

0:31:43.440 --> 0:31:47.120
<v Speaker 3>foot tall person tall? I think basically everybody would say yes,

0:31:47.680 --> 0:31:52.160
<v Speaker 3>Now subtract a millimeter? Is that person still tall? You

0:31:52.200 --> 0:31:56.120
<v Speaker 3>can't find a clear cutoff. But also the Sobriety's paradox

0:31:56.160 --> 0:31:58.760
<v Speaker 3>goes a bit deeper because you can apply it or

0:31:59.000 --> 0:32:02.720
<v Speaker 3>a similar principle to concepts that you might not think

0:32:02.760 --> 0:32:05.760
<v Speaker 3>of as readily, concepts that are not usually considered a

0:32:05.800 --> 0:32:09.480
<v Speaker 3>type of measure or as counting. Based one example in

0:32:09.640 --> 0:32:12.680
<v Speaker 3>a paper that I was reading by a philosopher named

0:32:12.720 --> 0:32:19.520
<v Speaker 3>Diana Rathman, any color descriptor, for example, red red color

0:32:19.640 --> 0:32:23.320
<v Speaker 3>is usually thought of as visible light at a frequency

0:32:23.400 --> 0:32:26.200
<v Speaker 3>of you know, somewhere around four hundred and thirty to

0:32:26.240 --> 0:32:29.200
<v Speaker 3>four hundred and forty terra herts. It's a frequency of

0:32:29.280 --> 0:32:33.560
<v Speaker 3>reflected visible light, and you can place that range in

0:32:33.680 --> 0:32:36.000
<v Speaker 3>different places. You know, some websites I was looking at

0:32:36.080 --> 0:32:39.600
<v Speaker 3>said red is between like four hundred and four hundred

0:32:39.600 --> 0:32:41.960
<v Speaker 3>and eighty tarra hertz, or it just said it's four

0:32:42.040 --> 0:32:44.479
<v Speaker 3>hundred and thirty tarra hertz or four hundred and forty.

0:32:44.880 --> 0:32:48.880
<v Speaker 3>So there's obviously a range of frequencies that most people

0:32:48.880 --> 0:32:51.800
<v Speaker 3>will look at and say, yeah, that's red, and there

0:32:51.840 --> 0:32:54.640
<v Speaker 3>are ranges of other frequencies that most people will look

0:32:54.680 --> 0:32:57.640
<v Speaker 3>at and say that's definitely not red because it's blue

0:32:57.840 --> 0:33:01.440
<v Speaker 3>or it's orange or something. But whatever your starting point,

0:33:01.480 --> 0:33:04.320
<v Speaker 3>if you say start within the common red range, you

0:33:04.320 --> 0:33:08.320
<v Speaker 3>could vary the frequency of the reflected light rays one

0:33:08.400 --> 0:33:10.320
<v Speaker 3>at a time, you know, one hurts at a time,

0:33:10.360 --> 0:33:13.880
<v Speaker 3>one tear, heurts at a time, up and down the spectrum.

0:33:14.400 --> 0:33:17.120
<v Speaker 3>At what point is a color no longer red and

0:33:17.240 --> 0:33:20.280
<v Speaker 3>instead orange or purple? There are just tons of in

0:33:20.480 --> 0:33:24.880
<v Speaker 3>between colors. So either you have to impose a hard

0:33:24.960 --> 0:33:28.360
<v Speaker 3>frequency cutoff or some other kind of arbitrary rule that

0:33:28.400 --> 0:33:31.360
<v Speaker 3>does not conform to our true experience of seeing colors,

0:33:32.200 --> 0:33:35.240
<v Speaker 3>or you have to say that all colors are red.

0:33:35.400 --> 0:33:39.240
<v Speaker 3>You know, even blue is red, or even invisible gamma

0:33:39.320 --> 0:33:42.520
<v Speaker 3>rays are red too. Or you could say that red

0:33:42.720 --> 0:33:46.120
<v Speaker 3>like doesn't exist or is not a meaningful concept. But

0:33:46.200 --> 0:33:50.000
<v Speaker 3>I think that's obviously wrong because red is a perfectly

0:33:50.080 --> 0:33:52.560
<v Speaker 3>useful concept. We use it all the time. You could say,

0:33:52.720 --> 0:33:55.240
<v Speaker 3>can you hand me the red the hammer with the

0:33:55.280 --> 0:33:57.520
<v Speaker 3>red handle, and people know what you mean, they pick

0:33:57.520 --> 0:33:57.840
<v Speaker 3>it up.

0:33:58.200 --> 0:34:01.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. The only time that kind of a request causes

0:34:02.000 --> 0:34:05.360
<v Speaker 2>confusion is when you are straight over into an area

0:34:05.880 --> 0:34:08.080
<v Speaker 2>where you could make a case for it being a

0:34:08.080 --> 0:34:11.480
<v Speaker 2>different color, right, And even then you'd have to have

0:34:11.560 --> 0:34:14.320
<v Speaker 2>some other situations. The situation have to be more complex

0:34:14.360 --> 0:34:17.120
<v Speaker 2>than that, or you'd have to be particularly fussy to say, oh,

0:34:17.160 --> 0:34:19.799
<v Speaker 2>don't you mean the fusia hammer, like, I mean, if

0:34:19.800 --> 0:34:22.200
<v Speaker 2>there's one hammer there, you know which one they want, right,

0:34:22.600 --> 0:34:23.879
<v Speaker 2>pick the closest one to red.

0:34:24.520 --> 0:34:26.520
<v Speaker 3>Right. So I don't think it's a good solution to

0:34:26.840 --> 0:34:30.040
<v Speaker 3>this paradox to say, actually red does not exist and

0:34:30.160 --> 0:34:33.719
<v Speaker 3>heaps do not exist, because clearly, I mean, we use

0:34:33.800 --> 0:34:37.399
<v Speaker 3>these concepts successfully. They are useful and meaningful. There are

0:34:37.440 --> 0:34:40.400
<v Speaker 3>objects that are red but not orange, or red but

0:34:40.480 --> 0:34:43.520
<v Speaker 3>not blue for that matter, And there's no and at

0:34:43.520 --> 0:34:46.040
<v Speaker 3>the same time, there's no good way to mark a

0:34:46.960 --> 0:34:50.279
<v Speaker 3>universal cutoff point between the frequencies of light that are

0:34:50.320 --> 0:34:51.640
<v Speaker 3>red versus orange.

0:34:52.000 --> 0:34:52.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah.

0:34:52.719 --> 0:34:55.680
<v Speaker 3>Now we've already established that the Sobiety's paradox applies to

0:34:55.760 --> 0:34:59.279
<v Speaker 3>concepts like heap or pile. Those It's clear how it

0:34:59.320 --> 0:35:03.360
<v Speaker 3>works there, because those are concepts that involve an implicit

0:35:03.520 --> 0:35:06.759
<v Speaker 3>counting of things. But also, if you think about it,

0:35:06.760 --> 0:35:12.200
<v Speaker 3>it doesn't only apply to collection categories. Most nouns are

0:35:12.360 --> 0:35:17.319
<v Speaker 3>defined by some unspecified quantity of mass or measure, or

0:35:17.360 --> 0:35:22.080
<v Speaker 3>some unspecified degree of quality. In fact, some philosophers have

0:35:22.120 --> 0:35:25.440
<v Speaker 3>pointed out that you can attack the identity of basically

0:35:25.520 --> 0:35:29.600
<v Speaker 3>any object with a Sobriety's decomposition. So you know this

0:35:29.680 --> 0:35:33.319
<v Speaker 3>is a VHS copy of Highlander two the quickening. Now

0:35:33.400 --> 0:35:37.399
<v Speaker 3>take one atom away from it. Is it still Highlander two?

0:35:37.480 --> 0:35:40.760
<v Speaker 3>Is it still the VHS? I obviously yes, one atom

0:35:40.800 --> 0:35:44.120
<v Speaker 3>doesn't make a difference, And you, obviously at the same time,

0:35:44.200 --> 0:35:48.440
<v Speaker 3>cannot do this forever, because like a single carbon atom remaining,

0:35:48.840 --> 0:35:52.400
<v Speaker 3>or just a little fleck of black plastic from the

0:35:52.480 --> 0:35:55.239
<v Speaker 3>VHS would not be a copy of highland Er two

0:35:55.280 --> 0:35:58.680
<v Speaker 3>on VHS. But it is impossible to pick a boundary

0:35:58.920 --> 0:36:02.000
<v Speaker 3>where removing a single atom at a time makes a difference.

0:36:02.560 --> 0:36:06.279
<v Speaker 3>So these paradoxes arise from common words in terms that

0:36:06.640 --> 0:36:13.120
<v Speaker 3>don't have strict physical or mathematical definitions. Some words, not most,

0:36:13.239 --> 0:36:17.600
<v Speaker 3>but some words do have strict physical or mathematical definitions.

0:36:18.000 --> 0:36:20.920
<v Speaker 3>For example, the word trio. You could refer to a

0:36:21.080 --> 0:36:24.640
<v Speaker 3>trio of sand grains, and there would be three of them.

0:36:24.920 --> 0:36:27.200
<v Speaker 3>If there are more or less than three, it's not

0:36:27.360 --> 0:36:31.360
<v Speaker 3>a trio, but a heap of sand or a dusty lamp.

0:36:31.560 --> 0:36:36.480
<v Speaker 3>Those those terms are vague and they don't entail numerical specificity.

0:36:36.880 --> 0:36:39.239
<v Speaker 3>Now you might respond to this by saying, well, you know,

0:36:39.320 --> 0:36:42.440
<v Speaker 3>this is this problem of vagueness in the soariety's paradox.

0:36:42.600 --> 0:36:46.640
<v Speaker 3>It just arises because you know, we're being sloppy, right,

0:36:46.640 --> 0:36:49.800
<v Speaker 3>We're using vague words and concepts, and we could speak

0:36:49.840 --> 0:36:53.360
<v Speaker 3>more specifically. We should be more specific with our language

0:36:53.360 --> 0:36:58.040
<v Speaker 3>and avoid these philosophical problems. But is that achievable and

0:36:58.200 --> 0:37:02.760
<v Speaker 3>is that even desirable? The majority of the descriptive words

0:37:02.800 --> 0:37:07.160
<v Speaker 3>we use, again, do not have physically and mathematically precise

0:37:07.239 --> 0:37:11.719
<v Speaker 3>definitions and are, to varying extents subject to this kind

0:37:11.760 --> 0:37:15.480
<v Speaker 3>of vagueness and Furthermore, I would argue that they have

0:37:15.640 --> 0:37:19.279
<v Speaker 3>to be because it would be impossible to build a

0:37:19.440 --> 0:37:23.480
<v Speaker 3>language system that was actually usable in which all terms

0:37:23.480 --> 0:37:28.680
<v Speaker 3>and expressions had physically precise and mathematically precise definitions. And

0:37:28.760 --> 0:37:31.000
<v Speaker 3>if you doubt this, just try it. See if you

0:37:31.080 --> 0:37:35.560
<v Speaker 3>can communicate with somebody about everyday matters using no terms

0:37:35.600 --> 0:37:39.360
<v Speaker 3>that could invoke a Soroiety's paradox, or only terms with

0:37:39.440 --> 0:37:43.640
<v Speaker 3>physically precise definitions. I think if you do this, language

0:37:43.719 --> 0:37:48.760
<v Speaker 3>just becomes impossibly inefficient and non expressive. You just can't

0:37:48.800 --> 0:37:52.960
<v Speaker 3>really communicate this way, so we actually need vague terms

0:37:53.040 --> 0:37:56.719
<v Speaker 3>like dusty, even though we can't tell you exactly how

0:37:56.760 --> 0:38:00.880
<v Speaker 3>many dust grains or pyroglyphic feces are in. At the

0:38:00.920 --> 0:38:03.160
<v Speaker 3>same time, I think it's important to be aware of

0:38:03.200 --> 0:38:09.160
<v Speaker 3>the Sobriety's paradox because people try to invoke versions of

0:38:09.200 --> 0:38:13.120
<v Speaker 3>it or similar types of logic, I think, for purposes

0:38:13.120 --> 0:38:17.440
<v Speaker 3>of deceptive argumentation or to try to affect your thinking

0:38:17.480 --> 0:38:23.000
<v Speaker 3>with fallacies. For example, one classic way to try to

0:38:23.040 --> 0:38:25.880
<v Speaker 3>resolve the Sobriety's paradox that I think is not valid,

0:38:26.200 --> 0:38:28.359
<v Speaker 3>you know, with the heap of sand, is to say

0:38:28.400 --> 0:38:31.960
<v Speaker 3>that the paradox proves that heaps cannot exist. Since n

0:38:32.000 --> 0:38:36.480
<v Speaker 3>plus one grains of sand starting at one never constitutes

0:38:36.520 --> 0:38:39.000
<v Speaker 3>a heap, and since you can't tell me at what

0:38:39.200 --> 0:38:42.759
<v Speaker 3>number it becomes a heap, heaps do not exist. You

0:38:42.760 --> 0:38:45.359
<v Speaker 3>can imagine a kid pulling this with his parents when

0:38:45.360 --> 0:38:48.200
<v Speaker 3>they tell him to clean his dusty bedroom. It's like, oh,

0:38:48.280 --> 0:38:51.960
<v Speaker 3>how many grains of dust constitutes dustiness? Mom? You know,

0:38:52.120 --> 0:38:54.080
<v Speaker 3>tell me or your argument is invalid.

0:38:54.160 --> 0:38:55.920
<v Speaker 2>Oh yeah, yeah, that's going to end well for you.

0:38:56.000 --> 0:39:00.560
<v Speaker 2>Kid can't lose your switch privileges exactly.

0:39:00.640 --> 0:39:03.919
<v Speaker 3>So I mean it does sort of in a way

0:39:04.680 --> 0:39:09.040
<v Speaker 3>involve an interesting question in philosophy that that you know,

0:39:09.280 --> 0:39:12.440
<v Speaker 3>raises deeper questions about the vagueness of language, But it

0:39:12.440 --> 0:39:14.759
<v Speaker 3>doesn't prove what it's supposed to prove. It doesn't prove

0:39:14.800 --> 0:39:18.319
<v Speaker 3>that heaps or dustiness do not exist. But people do

0:39:18.400 --> 0:39:21.560
<v Speaker 3>try to use this argument that way. You know, in

0:39:21.640 --> 0:39:26.239
<v Speaker 3>a silly example, you could argue that no macroscopic object exists,

0:39:26.280 --> 0:39:28.920
<v Speaker 3>since you could you could do a soroiety's paradox on

0:39:29.000 --> 0:39:31.520
<v Speaker 3>them by adding or subtracting one atom at a time.

0:39:32.040 --> 0:39:35.920
<v Speaker 3>And people do use arguments like this to attack what

0:39:36.040 --> 0:39:39.239
<v Speaker 3>I think are basic valid observations, but that they might

0:39:39.440 --> 0:39:42.640
<v Speaker 3>not like. So, like a billionaire could could say I'm

0:39:42.640 --> 0:39:46.640
<v Speaker 3>not rich by doing a society's paradox with one dollar increments.

0:39:46.760 --> 0:39:48.960
<v Speaker 3>Oh well, if you had one more dollar, would that

0:39:49.000 --> 0:39:53.040
<v Speaker 3>make me rich? Obviously, it doesn't undermine the idea that

0:39:53.040 --> 0:39:56.000
<v Speaker 3>somebody can have a billion dollars and that that means

0:39:56.040 --> 0:39:58.839
<v Speaker 3>they're quite wealthy. It just because you can't pick a

0:39:58.880 --> 0:40:01.440
<v Speaker 3>single dollar incre meant where they become wealthy.

0:40:02.360 --> 0:40:05.440
<v Speaker 2>Well, unless you are a taxing body, I guess, right,

0:40:05.480 --> 0:40:09.200
<v Speaker 2>and then you can put certain thresholds right, But but

0:40:09.239 --> 0:40:11.120
<v Speaker 2>then you kind of run into that situation too, where

0:40:11.160 --> 0:40:13.720
<v Speaker 2>it's like, oh, so really, if I made a dollar less,

0:40:14.520 --> 0:40:16.400
<v Speaker 2>it would be it would be different, it would be

0:40:16.440 --> 0:40:18.960
<v Speaker 2>a different bracket, and so forth. I guess. The thing

0:40:19.040 --> 0:40:23.000
<v Speaker 2>is we for like legal purposes and so forth, or

0:40:23.040 --> 0:40:26.319
<v Speaker 2>even like rule based systems, you know, we sometimes have

0:40:26.480 --> 0:40:29.520
<v Speaker 2>to decide on what the cutoff point is, you know,

0:40:29.640 --> 0:40:31.880
<v Speaker 2>like that's right, you have to be this tall to

0:40:31.960 --> 0:40:35.040
<v Speaker 2>ride this ride. And if if you are just a

0:40:35.040 --> 0:40:37.279
<v Speaker 2>little too short or a little too tall for the

0:40:37.320 --> 0:40:39.319
<v Speaker 2>ride or whatever, like, then yeah, you get into this

0:40:39.360 --> 0:40:42.080
<v Speaker 2>gray area. But sometimes you do have to call.

0:40:41.960 --> 0:40:43.680
<v Speaker 3>It, well, yeah, I think much in the same way

0:40:43.680 --> 0:40:45.200
<v Speaker 3>that we've talked about on the show before, that like

0:40:46.000 --> 0:40:50.960
<v Speaker 3>life is impossible without relying on heuristics for judgment, which

0:40:51.000 --> 0:40:54.800
<v Speaker 3>can often be quite inaccurate. And so there are certain

0:40:54.920 --> 0:40:59.440
<v Speaker 3>domains where you have to override that natural reliance on

0:40:59.520 --> 0:41:04.239
<v Speaker 3>heuristic and involve laborious analytical thinking. Domains like science or

0:41:04.239 --> 0:41:07.680
<v Speaker 3>philosophy or something where if you just go on heuristics,

0:41:08.239 --> 0:41:10.200
<v Speaker 3>you're going to get the wrong answers. So you can't

0:41:10.200 --> 0:41:12.480
<v Speaker 3>do that. And at the same time, it's not possible

0:41:12.520 --> 0:41:17.719
<v Speaker 3>to live life by by judging everything based on laborious,

0:41:17.760 --> 0:41:20.839
<v Speaker 3>you know, deliberate analytical thinking. I think in the same

0:41:20.880 --> 0:41:24.000
<v Speaker 3>way you cannot have a language and a culture and

0:41:24.040 --> 0:41:27.279
<v Speaker 3>a life without relying on vague terms. But like when

0:41:27.320 --> 0:41:29.880
<v Speaker 3>it comes to the law, vague terms create a lot

0:41:29.960 --> 0:41:31.920
<v Speaker 3>of problems, so you have to go out of your

0:41:31.960 --> 0:41:34.399
<v Speaker 3>way to try to reduce them. And even then, there

0:41:34.440 --> 0:41:36.880
<v Speaker 3>are still lots of vague terms in the law. Like

0:41:36.920 --> 0:41:40.240
<v Speaker 3>in the law, you have concepts of reasonableness and stuff

0:41:40.520 --> 0:41:45.600
<v Speaker 3>you know that just that ultimately is saying, like you know,

0:41:45.760 --> 0:41:50.760
<v Speaker 3>later jurists, insert your interpretation here as to what reasonableness means.

0:41:51.400 --> 0:41:54.799
<v Speaker 2>You know, earlier you mentioned like short and bald and

0:41:54.840 --> 0:41:57.919
<v Speaker 2>hairy as examples, and that has only made me think

0:41:58.120 --> 0:42:01.799
<v Speaker 2>too of various works of fiction or even nonfiction where

0:42:02.040 --> 0:42:06.400
<v Speaker 2>an individual a character is described, and sometimes you'll have

0:42:06.440 --> 0:42:08.799
<v Speaker 2>an author who says little more than that, you know,

0:42:09.320 --> 0:42:12.040
<v Speaker 2>describes them perhaps as like a short, bald, hairy man

0:42:12.840 --> 0:42:16.640
<v Speaker 2>walked across the street, and that does give you like

0:42:16.880 --> 0:42:19.919
<v Speaker 2>enough material to sort of run with it and help

0:42:20.000 --> 0:42:24.000
<v Speaker 2>generate an image in your mind for that character. But

0:42:24.120 --> 0:42:26.279
<v Speaker 2>it's going to vary greatly from one writer to the next.

0:42:26.320 --> 0:42:29.000
<v Speaker 2>There are some writers who will, you know, go into

0:42:29.040 --> 0:42:33.480
<v Speaker 2>great detail, telling you exactly how hairy they are, exactly

0:42:33.520 --> 0:42:36.279
<v Speaker 2>how bald, and exactly how short, you know, drawing on

0:42:36.440 --> 0:42:38.760
<v Speaker 2>all the tools of literature to make it very clear

0:42:39.160 --> 0:42:42.720
<v Speaker 2>and perhaps very engaging or funny or terrifying or whatever

0:42:43.040 --> 0:42:47.799
<v Speaker 2>in doing so. Or sometimes they'll say something that they're

0:42:47.800 --> 0:42:49.919
<v Speaker 2>really not saying much at all, but they'll say something

0:42:50.000 --> 0:42:53.640
<v Speaker 2>very specific. You know, it'll be one specific metaphor or

0:42:53.680 --> 0:42:56.799
<v Speaker 2>analogy that will that will give you just enough to

0:42:56.840 --> 0:42:58.800
<v Speaker 2>go on and form that kind of concrete idea in

0:42:58.840 --> 0:42:59.239
<v Speaker 2>your head.

0:42:59.760 --> 0:43:02.000
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that is interesting, and I guess it is a

0:43:02.120 --> 0:43:06.959
<v Speaker 3>feature of each author's individual literary style, how much sort

0:43:06.960 --> 0:43:11.480
<v Speaker 3>of laxity and tolerance they want to allow in their descriptions,

0:43:11.520 --> 0:43:14.640
<v Speaker 3>you know, how much they want to rely on vague

0:43:14.719 --> 0:43:17.920
<v Speaker 3>terms that could allow a wide range of interpretations. If

0:43:17.960 --> 0:43:21.239
<v Speaker 3>you call a character bald, that could be interpreted as

0:43:21.320 --> 0:43:24.480
<v Speaker 3>them having a completely shaved head, or it could just

0:43:24.520 --> 0:43:28.799
<v Speaker 3>suggest significantly thinning hair and so forth. And so some

0:43:28.920 --> 0:43:31.560
<v Speaker 3>authors might be comfortable with that whole range, and other

0:43:31.600 --> 0:43:35.560
<v Speaker 3>authors want to impose a more kind of I don't know,

0:43:35.600 --> 0:43:39.239
<v Speaker 3>authoritarian take on the reader's imagination and say here's exactly

0:43:39.280 --> 0:43:41.239
<v Speaker 3>what you should imagine. I'm going to tell you how

0:43:41.280 --> 0:43:42.319
<v Speaker 3>many hairs there are?

0:43:42.840 --> 0:43:44.600
<v Speaker 2>You know, I was trying to think of an example

0:43:44.680 --> 0:43:48.239
<v Speaker 2>of you know, I mentioned how sometimes it's very specific,

0:43:48.880 --> 0:43:50.520
<v Speaker 2>but in a way that is not giving you a

0:43:50.560 --> 0:43:54.640
<v Speaker 2>whole lot of detail either. And I'm trying to think

0:43:54.680 --> 0:43:56.839
<v Speaker 2>of a specific example, and I had to look up

0:43:57.239 --> 0:43:59.239
<v Speaker 2>here online to find one. I believe this is a

0:43:59.239 --> 0:44:03.600
<v Speaker 2>book I've read. But in Raymond Chandler's Belong Goodbye, the

0:44:03.760 --> 0:44:07.799
<v Speaker 2>character of Philip Marlowe's describing somebody and says he had

0:44:07.840 --> 0:44:11.239
<v Speaker 2>a face like a collapsed lung. I mean, what are

0:44:11.239 --> 0:44:14.440
<v Speaker 2>you perfect it's somehow it's perfect, and yet like, what

0:44:14.480 --> 0:44:17.759
<v Speaker 2>does it mean? How do you? How do you? How

0:44:17.760 --> 0:44:19.920
<v Speaker 2>would you do a sketch based on that? I don't know,

0:44:19.960 --> 0:44:24.080
<v Speaker 2>but it works. It's distinct enough to work, and it's amusing.

0:44:24.560 --> 0:44:27.799
<v Speaker 3>I really appreciate things like that. You might call those

0:44:27.840 --> 0:44:32.200
<v Speaker 3>more kind of spiritual analogies, because you can't imagine that

0:44:32.280 --> 0:44:35.360
<v Speaker 3>it means. Literally, it looks like the tissue of a

0:44:35.400 --> 0:44:39.040
<v Speaker 3>collapsed lung, but there's something, there's something of a collapsed

0:44:39.120 --> 0:44:42.360
<v Speaker 3>lung eness about it. Yeah, that's beautiful.

0:44:42.960 --> 0:44:46.120
<v Speaker 2>But this is a great area of contemplation. Touches on

0:44:46.160 --> 0:44:50.680
<v Speaker 2>some of the other paradoxes that we've discussed and discussed

0:44:50.680 --> 0:44:53.160
<v Speaker 2>in the show before, you know, topics of like infinity,

0:44:53.320 --> 0:44:56.239
<v Speaker 2>like in what is infinity plus one? The ship of

0:44:56.280 --> 0:44:57.920
<v Speaker 2>theseus and so forth.

0:44:58.840 --> 0:45:01.239
<v Speaker 3>And to be fair to the sarri these paradox literature,

0:45:01.560 --> 0:45:03.480
<v Speaker 3>it goes a lot deeper. I didn't take us deep

0:45:03.480 --> 0:45:05.400
<v Speaker 3>into the weeds on it, but there have been, for example,

0:45:05.440 --> 0:45:08.719
<v Speaker 3>some philosophers who have tried to use this paradox to

0:45:09.840 --> 0:45:14.759
<v Speaker 3>attack the very foundations of logic, saying like, well, you know,

0:45:14.800 --> 0:45:18.799
<v Speaker 3>so there's principle in classical logic that says either a

0:45:18.880 --> 0:45:22.680
<v Speaker 3>statement or its negation is true. So you know, it's

0:45:22.760 --> 0:45:24.880
<v Speaker 3>got to be the case that either A or not

0:45:25.040 --> 0:45:29.799
<v Speaker 3>A is true. And if you've got something like the

0:45:29.840 --> 0:45:34.279
<v Speaker 3>paradox of the heap, then you've got potentially something that

0:45:34.560 --> 0:45:38.120
<v Speaker 3>is neither a heap nor not a heap. And so

0:45:38.239 --> 0:45:40.800
<v Speaker 3>some people have said, well, then maybe there's something wrong

0:45:40.880 --> 0:45:44.160
<v Speaker 3>with logic, and people have come back and argued that way,

0:45:44.280 --> 0:45:46.520
<v Speaker 3>and so again, I didn't get deep into those dilemmas,

0:45:46.520 --> 0:45:48.160
<v Speaker 3>but if you want to look it up, it's out there.

0:45:49.840 --> 0:45:51.919
<v Speaker 2>All right. Well, we're gonna go ahead and close out

0:45:52.040 --> 0:45:54.840
<v Speaker 2>this episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, our third

0:45:55.000 --> 0:45:58.640
<v Speaker 2>episode on Dust, and we will be back for at

0:45:58.719 --> 0:46:01.839
<v Speaker 2>least a fourth episode. So if you're trying to figure

0:46:01.840 --> 0:46:03.880
<v Speaker 2>out exactly how long we're going to go on Dust,

0:46:04.560 --> 0:46:07.600
<v Speaker 2>we don't know. We don't know where the heap ends

0:46:07.600 --> 0:46:10.080
<v Speaker 2>on this one, but there will at least be one

0:46:10.080 --> 0:46:14.040
<v Speaker 2>more episode on Dust, maybe two more episodes, who knows.

0:46:14.080 --> 0:46:16.480
<v Speaker 2>We'll see how it goes. In the meantime, we'll just

0:46:16.520 --> 0:46:18.960
<v Speaker 2>remind you that Stuff to Blow Your Mind is primarily

0:46:19.000 --> 0:46:23.120
<v Speaker 2>a science podcast, with core episodes dealing with science and culture.

0:46:23.280 --> 0:46:25.480
<v Speaker 2>In the Stuff to Blow Your Mind podcast feed on

0:46:25.520 --> 0:46:28.480
<v Speaker 2>Tuesdays and Thursdays. On Mondays we do listener mail, on

0:46:28.480 --> 0:46:31.440
<v Speaker 2>Wednesdays we do a short form episode, and on Fridays

0:46:31.560 --> 0:46:33.640
<v Speaker 2>we set aside most serious concerns to just talk about

0:46:33.640 --> 0:46:36.200
<v Speaker 2>a weird film on Weird House Cinema.

0:46:36.440 --> 0:46:40.080
<v Speaker 3>Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.

0:46:40.160 --> 0:46:41.680
<v Speaker 3>If you would like to get in touch with us

0:46:41.680 --> 0:46:44.400
<v Speaker 3>with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest

0:46:44.440 --> 0:46:46.359
<v Speaker 3>a topic for the future, or just to say hello,

0:46:46.520 --> 0:46:49.040
<v Speaker 3>you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow

0:46:49.080 --> 0:46:56.680
<v Speaker 3>your Mind dot com.

0:46:57.480 --> 0:47:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production of iHeartRadio. For

0:47:00.520 --> 0:47:03.279
<v Speaker 1>more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the iHeartRadio app,

0:47:03.440 --> 0:47:19.280
<v Speaker 1>Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.