I last read any
of the Sherlock Holmes stories in 1973.
I borrowed an omnibus edition from one of my girlfriend’s elderly aunts
and quickly reconsumed the tales, many of which I’d read in earlier years.
Despite the
four decades since that most recent reading, some of the phrases have stayed
fresh in my memory. Foremost among those
is something Holmes said to Watson many times.
As written by Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes’ words were “How often have I
said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth?”
Holmes was
repackaging a logical argument first struck upon by William
of Ockham, a 14th century friar, philosopher, and theologian. The argument is generally known today as
Occam’s Razor, a spelling that illustrates the idiosyncrasies of English. English philosopher Bertrand Russell phrased
Occam’s Razor as “One should always opt for an explanation in terms of the
fewest possible causes, factors, or variables.”
I’ve invoked
Sherlock Holmes and a 14th century logician because they have an insight to
offer on a key argument for urbanism.
The central
tenet of the StrongTowns argument for urbanism is that the drivable suburbia
is financially flawed and is driving our communities into deep and
unsustainable debt. But many choose to
look elsewhere for the causes of municipal financial malaise. In a recent post, I recounted that story of a Petaluma citizen
who argued that problem is instead the result of corruption in City Hall.
Nor is he
alone in his argument. I’ve yet to find
a U.S. city in which the comments following an article on municipal finances
don’t often degrade into accusations of corruption within the local elected
officials, coupled with the suggestion that the corruption should be evident to
all.
That’s the
point on which both William of Ockham and Sherlock Holmes would bring Occam’s
Razor to bear.
We have two
competing propositions. We can believe that
there is something systemically wrong in the drivable suburban model with the
result than many, if not virtually all, communities are experiencing financial
distress. Or we can believe that virtually
every city has elected politicians who are skimming from the till.
To use
Holmes’ formulation, which proposition seems further from impossible and is
therefore more likely to be true?
Or to use
Russell’s formulation of William of Ockham’s work, which proposition has fewer
variables and is therefore more likely to be true?
It should be
clear that a systemic failure of drivable suburbia is the correct answer to
both questions. It is a single fact that
would explain much of the financial distress we see. To argue for the crooked politician theory,
one would need to believe that tens of thousands of politicians are
stealing. One data point versus tens of
thousands of data points. It’s not close.
I won’t deny
that there are politicians who behave inappropriately. There have been too many convictions to argue
otherwise. But to argue that virtually
all politicians are crooked just isn’t credible.
So, if seven
centuries of the theory of logic, buttressed by the leading fictional detective
of all time, leads us to the conclusion that drivable suburbia is flawed, why
are so many people willing to point fingers at elected officials? Upton Sinclair answered that question for us
when he wrote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
If we
substitute “lifestyle” for “salary”, the quote provides a perfect explanation
for a general unwillingness to acknowledge the flaws of suburbia. Many of us like the suburban lifestyle, the
quarter acre of grass with the backyard pool, the two or perhaps three cars
parked in the driveway because the garage is too filled with toys for cars to
be parked there, the ability to live life without being aware of neighbors.
It isn’t a lifestyle
to which I aspire, but I know many who do and I can appreciate the attraction. And Sinclair, with the word substitution,
points out how attraction can quickly translate into grasping at straws, ignoring
the otherwise evident logic that the lifestyle is financially flawed.
Is there a
solution to our collective willingness to ignore logic to retain our unsustainable
lifestyle? Not any easy ones.
The only
real solution is a continual commitment to look deeper into the facts, not to
default to convenient but illogical answers.
When I make
this point, I’m not only talking to readers but also to myself. On a daily basis, I must challenge aspects of
urbanism that I wish were true but likely aren’t. Like many, I prefer trains as my mode of
public transit, but must admit that buses are preferable for many
situations. I love streetfront retail,
but acknowledge that the world won’t support as many storefronts as in my
grandparents’ time. I’d like to believe that
pedestrian malls can work, but must accept the fact that they’ve failed in many
places.
In every
case, I’d like to believe in what feels comfortable to me, whether rail
transit, sidewalk storefronts, or pedestrian malls. But I can’t do that. I need to be wary of the trap pointed out by Sinclair
and to follow the logical structure of William of Ockham and Sherlock Holmes to
seek simple answers in place of complicated answers based on wishful thinking.
Seven
hundred years ago, William of Ockham told us that the best answers are the simplest
ones. If we wish to leave the best
possible world for the next generations, we should listen and follow where the simple
answers lead us.
When I next
write, I’ll look at bag fees, the rules in many communities that, for example,
mandate charging a dime for a paper bag in which to carry groceries home. In general, I agree with bag fees. But, while buried in a pile of cardboard in
which Christmas gifts had been delivered, I realized that the bag fees have an
element of anti-urbanism. I’ll dig
deeper in my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment