GENETIC BIGOTRY?
To prepare your for the implications of my title, I present some background.

Remember THE METATHINK THREE? If not, say, "Howdy-doo!"

Using the notion of probability, I can explain ONTOLOGY, EPISTEMOLOGY, AXIOLOGY to you -- that is, the part Neal, Joe, and Wood will play in your future, especially if you are TAB (temporarily able-bodied).

One of the most famous of debates among great physicists during the 20th century was that between Albert Einstein and the great Danish physicist, Niels Bohr -- who first became known for his "solar system" model of the atom. The debate concerned THE NATURE OF THE PROBABILITY COMPONENT IN QUANTUM THEORY -- the richest physical theory of all times.

Any "quanton" has associated with it a wave. The great German physicist, Max Born (x-y), hypothesized that this is "a probability wave". Its value tells us the probable "location" of a quanton at a given time.

This provoked Einstein to say, "God does not play dice with the Universe!" Einstein accepted the fact that Born's idea led to extremely good predictions. But Einstein argued that this is necessary because of LIMITS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE. Einstein argued that HIDDEN VARIABLE EXIST IN THESE PROCESSES such that discovery and use of these VARIAABLES would preclude the RANDOMNESS presently tolerated. Thus, Einstein was saying that QUANTUM PROBABILITY IS EPISTEMIC ("Whaddya know, Joe?")

But Bohr argued that QUANTUM PROBABILITY IS ONTIC -- that is, "built into Nature" ("What's real, Neal?").

Later, Einstein and two colleagues formulated a "thought experiment" to expose this aspect of Quantum Theory as INCOMPLETE. However, over the years, this has led to confirmed experiments that not only show Einstein to be wrong, but that "Nature is much stranger than we thought".

The Einstein-Bohr debate evokes the ONTIC and EPISTEMIC aspects of some processes. However, it is DECISION-MAKING that brings out the AXIONIC aspect.

A common error is believing that PROBABILITY MEASURE is DETERMINANT in DECISION-THEORY. NO! EXPECTATION (PROBABILITY TIMES VALUE OF EVENT) IS DETERMINANT!

Example. Suppose 1000 lottery tickets are sold. If the lottery is "fair", the PROBABILITY OF WINNING IS 1/1000th. Suppose the PRIZE is $500. Then THE EXPECTATION OF THE LOTTERY IS ($500) x (1/1000) = 50 CENTS. (This is also THE ARIMETIC MEAN -- THE PRIZE SPREAD EQUALLY FOR ALL 1000 TICKETS.) Given two lotteries with the same EXPECTATION, the one whose ticket is cheaper is the better deal.

Thus, the AXIONIC factor makes the difference here.

Failure to understand this apparently made a big difference during The Bastard (Undeclared) War in Vietnam. Robert MacNamara was our Secretary of Defense. MacNamara had been known as "The Whiz Kid of General Motors". But now he reasoned that our cause would win in Vietnam because there were 10 times as many South Vietnamese soldiers as opposing Vietcong. But some one asked: "What if those 10 South Vietnamese soldiers won't fight and that one Vietcong fights like hell?" That is, if the VALUE of the VIETCONG is so much greater than that of the South Vietnamese Soldiery, then the "odds" were against McNamara. (You can read about this in David Halberstam's, The Best and the Brightest.)

I've showcased Neal, Joe, and Wood, to make you aware of the "metathink" aspect of decisions made about your future employment -- a discusssion which you'll FIND ONLY HERE!

Biological experts say it's becoming possible to know, from DNA analysis, that a given person has "a genetic predisposition" to a disease -- say, breast cancer.

The problem is that INSURANCE COMPANIES (and, as we'll see) ARE USING THIS INFORMATION AS AN EXCUSE TO CANCEL INSURANCE POLICIES (or deny employment) WHEN THIS BECOMES KNOWN.

But INSURANCE COMPANIES (ONTICALLY) BASE THEIR RATES ON STATISTICS DRAWN FROM THE GENERAL POPULATION. THE NUMBER OF "PREDISPOSED" DOES NOT CHANGE WITH INFORMATION THAT A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS ONE OF THEM. THE COMPANIES ARE WORKING WITH ONTIC PROBABILITY, AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BRING EPISTEMIC FACTORS INTO THEIR DECISION-MAKING!

That problem was in the news in 2000. At this writing, June, 2001, the news tells of corporations who are requiring dna tests of prospective employees. Why? To deny employment to those who may be genetically disposed to some disease or condition. They justify this on the same PROBABILISTIC grounds invoked by the insurance companies.

This action is being attacked as a violation of ADA, Americans With Disabilities Act.

Surprised? There must be millions of TABS out there who do not realize that they can be DISCRIMINATED against by such apparent corporate bigotry. "What -- me? Need defense under ADA?" Welcome to "Christina's World"!

You're being warned about this now, June, 2001. Are you just going to take it?