Author: Psybertron

I’m missing the sell-out talk by Peter Singer promoting his latest “The Most Good You Can Do” this evening at Conway hall, due to switching to attend a screening of Timbuktu at Institute Français / Cine Lumiere (more on which later, but a new group of people to interact with as well as the film itself).

I was expecting to find Singer’s rational position too extreme for my taste, based on the advance blurb, but wanted to hear his arguments – I’ll just have to read his book. Coincidentally, already had feedback from his lunchtime presentation at RSA today that kinda reinforced my (clearly admitted) prejudice.

Anyway, an important debate none-the-less. Thanks to twitter, no shortage of input. Not least this NY Review of Books review by John Gray, and Singer’s own letter in response. I share the frustration of many with Gray’s overly pessimistic negativity, but can’t fault his basic arguments, so I shall read both with interest.

=====

[Post notes : Made the right call there. Consistent with feedback from the earlier talk today, if the video recording was anything to go by, the Peter Singer talk at Conway Hall / London Thinks appears to have been excruciating.

Moving on. Timbuktu on the other hand was wonderful.]

Not yet read the Paul Mason / Grauniad article where this originated yet, a classic case of a picture tells ….

Of course, depending on your political agenda, exactly which story those words tell is entirely optional. Must read the article, but Paul Mason is very much focussed on the Greek perspective of “Grexit” these days.

Or “Graccident” as I heard the accidental exit coined this morning?

Dilbert nails it again today – the same day I started reading Dick Tavern’s “March of Unreason” – warning against the politics of science undervaluing the “irrational” values of art, sport, etc. (amongst other things).

ISIS are a barbarous abomination. They need taking out independent of any wider peace-making and state-building “security” considerations.

Scarily on @BBCR4Today this morning Humphrys suggested ISIS and the idea of their caliphate were no longer to be derided, but an entity to be taken seriously in the tri-partite break-up of Iraq/Syria. No way Jose, they are inhuman criminals.

Fortunately the (?) interviewee confirmed that “Boots on the Ground” were certainly very much “ruled-in” to the anti-ISIS coalition considerations – no commitment as part of current talks, sure, but NOT ruled-out. This is absolutely the kind of action that should be taken within proper international / UN arrangements involving cooperative Mid-East states. Absolutely as Charles Kennedy called-for in opposing the US /UK “WMD” debacle that led us into Iraq by the wrong route, with the wrong mission-creep objectives.

We owe it to Charlie (RIP) to get it right this time.

More later, but an interesting piece. http://phys.org/news/2015-06-obsession-metrics-corrupting-science.html (HT to Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh )

The problem with measuring things is (a) you need to choose an object (thing) to measure, and (b) you need to choose another object (measurement) to quantify. Both those things are prejudiced by the model you started with. If your model is a hypothesis you’re attempting to falsify, that’s OK. But contrary to popular belief that’s only a small (albeit crucial) part of science – most of science is creative exploration, and objectification is (literally) the last thing you need.

Stop measuring and start listening, experiencing unmediated by your chosen measuring device or measures, with an open mind, without prejudice. You might learn something.

In fact the article concerns meta-science, about measuring academic inputs to and outputs from science resources, not about scientific measurements themselves, but the same considerations apply. Values are more important than measures. The topic arose in this blogging project from the perspective of “scientific management” – governance of any human system, whether the content is science or widget-making. Perversely science suffers disproportionately from scientific management. Science is (should be) scientific enough without it.

I’ve made myself “unpopular” a couple of times with my agenda of (self-)restraint when it comes to free speech – it’s a freedom we all have all the time, but nevertheless best used where there is some prospect of positive outcome.

Sure, sometimes martyrdom (figurative and/or literal) is necessary, if the point needs to be made to publicly assert the right and take the flak (literally and/or figuratively) when the right is under physical denial. Let the deniers damn themselves from their own mouths (and/or gun barrels). But hopefully, there’s more to life than that.

Great piece here from Cruella (Kate Smurthwaite) in The Teacher magazine, on the relative priority of creating conditions in society where exercising the right of free speech is a positive experience, rather than encouraging 13 year old girls to set themselves up for abuse.

In all honesty, if I’d known when I was 13 what I know now,
I would have spoken up less. Now who wants me to come
into school and tell girls that?

Kate, of course, has had that on-line abuse experience in spades. I’ve been much more fortunate.

[Post Note : YouTube “News at Kate” version of the story.]

An agenda of mine that how funds get allocated to big science projects needs to be set by social values, not by science itself.

“Research councils often back big science out of ignorance ….”

“pathways to impact … a charter to support bullshitters.”

“…. perhaps it’s time to open up the debate to the public about what scientific agendas we should be pursuing and how they should be resourced. This could help move away from a trend where our governments are buying into ‘vanity projects’, and would have the potential to hold them more to account.”

Which means they need to be justified in terms of meaningful values.

The idea of research being funded because it leads to economic benefits is as dumb as education being designed for career paths. Those are development and training.

[Post Note : “inevitably an element of politics” in big science Jon Butterworth]

[Post Note : Shell (& BP “big oil”) influence science exhibits they sponsor – no shit Sherlock.]

Addition to the collection http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-32888548

Headway Blog http://whoareyounow.org/

Listened to Beyond Belief BBC R4 broadcast Sun 24th May on iPlayer this morning. It featured Stephen Law (@_CFIUK), Nick Spencer (@TheosNick), Marylin Mason (BHA) – with a brief inserted piece from Rory Fenton (also of the BHA) – in conversation with Ernie Rea.

Stephen and Marylin’s stories are similar to mine. Naturally atheist, yes, but that’s a negative statement, about something not believed, so more than that. Atheism-plus. Finding Humanism when noticing boxes being ticked in positive outlook and values. Few actual requirements in the accepted definitions of atheism; so possible for Christian atheism too, though usage of the word can vary the intended definition with context.

Whether “science alone” can answer the big questions of morality is a matter of broad & narrow definitions. Narrowly defined no, but broadly yes, knowledge believed based on evidence of experience. Certainly moral values have evolved with us.

Some debate about the origins of humanism, much as per two recent posts. Ancient Greek – Epicurian/Stoic origins – thinking about good lives leaving gods aside, very human gods anyway at this time. (Same as Grayling’s talk here). Versus Nick’s focus on post enlightenment / renaissance forms of humanism. Stephen conceded humanism does not preclude Christianity, it does not necessitate atheism. Marylin “hostile” to religion only where it impinges on individual daily politics – essentially the secular view.

Discussion of Humanism being used in an anti-religious sense, is really one of boring semantics. There is a lot of shared history. In fact Stephen called it a “phoney war” and then (dare I say) engaged in it – putting prickly straw-men into the discussion with “Of course what Nick thinks … / what Nick is attempting to …”

From my perspective, there was no real disagreement here. The origins of humanism are important in understanding its evolution, but no-one owns the resulting reality or its definition. Humans probably evolved humanist values independent of religion, and religion may have focussed on co-opting, codifying and maintaining them. What matters is what’s positive about it in a secular society; certainly not exclusively atheist, more atheism-plus, to use Stephen’s word. In fact surely, the more we share claims to subscribe to the content of Humanism the better? They’re in our custody now and in future.

Two significant points as the discussion drew to a close:

The idea of “bedrock” in education. Something people can be taught before and whilst they learn by thinking for themselves from experience and first principles. Humanism should be a part of that. (We may not want codification cast in stone, but there needs to be a resource – see also the Grayling piece again.)

Secondly, in defining that Humanism, Nick highlighted one possible point of difference. The clue is in its name. One key aspect is in understanding “what it means to be human“.

Hear, hear.

Had an interesting evening Thursday, listening to Rupert Sheldrake (again) at Theos, the Christian religious think-tank (for the first time), and having the opportunity to question and talk with him and with other Theos members. Also acquired a copy of Nick Spencer’s “Atheists, the Origin of the Species“; more on which later. [Post Note : Full audio of Sheldrake here.]

I sympathise with Sheldrake, indeed agree that most of his ideas benefit from [ie rationally deserve] proper scientific consideration. Pending “materialist promissary notes”, I’m even happy to hold his panpsychism-based ideas as possibilities. (Interestingly, Iain McGilchrist who was cited as a recent Theos guest speaker, and someone whose ideas I recommend to anyone who’ll listen, holds a not-quite-panpsychic position in seeing the brain more as our “transducer” of consciousness (maybe of proto-consciousness) than its physical container.) None of which means I believe in the paranormal (by definition there’s no such thing), or that “morphic resonance” is the most likely explanation. Sue Blackmore, protege of Dawkins and Dennett, of course held the same position as Sheldrake in taking scientific research of the paranormal seriously. No-one can accuse Sheldrake of not taking a properly sceptical scientific stance on these (whackier) topics. It’s science’s response to scientific questions that is the target here.

Nailing his “10 theses” to the door of the “church of reason” Sheldrake succeeds in maintaining his pariah status in mainstream science. I questioned whether greater progress might be achieved by focussing on fewer key questions that deserve answers, than turning the situation into one large battle on a very broad front. Like, for example, Unger & Smolin who support (at least) two of Sheldrake’s positions (but couldn’t admit as such). One that physical laws and constants are fixed, and somehow don’t deserve evolutionary explanations of their values and form in the current universe(*). And, two, that when it comes to form and knowledge in the universe of physics, mathematics has some absolute privileged “Platonic” position. Science needs to recognise its own metaphysical dogmas as such.

One point I take issue with Sheldrake is in placing Dennett in the camp of denying the self and the reality of consciousness. Dennett rejects “the hard problem” characterisation of their explanation. He very much sees a common sense evolutionary explanation based on information as form independent of physical substrate, as do I, as does Sheldrake.

Anyway, I’m posting these Sheldrake notes under the “Atheists, the Origin of the Species” heading because the common point is that so much of the history of post-enlightenment science has had the denial of soul-like-stuff as its materialist agenda, the thin end of a theist wedge, rather than honest, sceptical investigation of how it is properly explained by natural science.

I’m only maybe 1/4 thru reading Spencer’s “Atheists, the Origin of the Species” since Thursday, but the parallel with Anthony Grayling’s talk “Values and Humanist Values” the night before is already making me smile. They’re both taking a historical view – Spencer on Christian atheism mainly post-1500, Graying on non-Abrahamic humanism from the Greeks onwards – the common ground is obvious. Christian humanism, Christian secularism and Christian scepticism are as real as their atheistic, scientistic counterparts.

[Reformation] sceptics could believe as confidently as any religious adherent. They were simply doubtful of the rational grounds for belief, and its capacity for certainty. Scepticism was the antithesis of dogma, not faith.

The fact that theological differences might be a cipher for political and social threats was a nuance easily lost amid the aroma of cooking [human] flesh. Theological certainty could kill, and it wasn’t even certain.

Earlier in the introduction, Spencer uses a quote from Francis Bacon that has intrigued me before and, in my case. has led to a more than passing interest in OxBridge intellectuals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that converted to Catholicism late in life.

“a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism;
but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”

Or in my own corollary, even a little more attention to dialogue on philosophical common ground, might bring humanity to more rational shared values and priorities.

=====

[(*)Note – and there are other real physicists questioning these if sources are required.]

[Post Note : Good timing. Humanism & Christianity Discuission on BBC R4 Beyond Belief between Nick Spencer (Theos, above) Stephen Law (CFI_UK) and Marylin Mason (BHA) – and Rory Fenton (BHA). Non-contentious agreement, more notes here.]