Month: August 2013

When I see quotes like this:

Chemical weapons attacks
have killed dozens of people near Damascus,
(Syrian opposition activists claim).

I’m reminded of this Churchill quote, (from the days before mass ITC media, remember).

“A lie gets halfway around the world,
before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

(Hat tip to David Gurteen, I think, for reminding me of the Churchill quote – can’t find the tweet.)

UPDATE – 27 August. OK, the truth is getting its pants on – so the facts are now accepted undoubted chemical weapon “attack” and undoubtedly by “Assad regime” (Kerry statement no less). So – given that – a specific moral case to answer – questions of what kind of intervention (for me) still depend more on context than on any “scientific” justification for specific long term ends from specific short-term actions. The message of unacceptability is end enough to justify an intervention, details of the intervention can be evolved to longer term ends. Initially – take out or disable the head and/or its communications (I’d be amazed – disappointed – if detailed plans for such didn’t already exist).

Context questions for me are basically “how come?” Who were the specific target civilians and what are they to Assad’s interests? In what sense was the attack targetted or “indiscriminate” or a one-off – what other chemical / non-chemical attacks on those targets or others? What did Assad and/or his operational commanders think they were aiming to achieve, what are the decision / communication channels? Where is the cock-up vs conspiracy balance? Is the whole affair really just a Sunni vs Shia religious political power struggle? (And remember none of these questions undermine the basic moral case, they add meat to what makes a “wise” intervention, not the case “for” an intervention.)

[PPS 29th August. OK, so right first time, doubt of intent is still significant. And to be clear “being responsible” is not in doubt either, but that is different to intent. Sure Assad’s military are responsible for chemical weapons being accessible in Syria in 2013 whoever releases them for whatever reason. That’s why Syrian authorities must be seen to address.]

As I kept saying during the “gay marriage” debacle debates, why stop at two ?

Good thoughtful piece by Richard Heller on Yahoo News (hat tip to BHA on Facebook)

Clearly so long as there are far-reaching anomalies that need sorting, then it makes sense to have “ministers” whose job it is to work the issues. Clearly it makes sense for religious groups doing social good in the UK to be considered on their merits for UK charitable status like any other such group, but equally clearly the secular state shouldn’t be supporting specific religions promoting their religious practices. Hence the scope for anomalies and questions. So far so good.

As an atheist any defence of religions is cultural. That extends to having representatives of churches in the second chamber, to represent the cultural heritage of social values. Plenty of scope for anomalies and compromises there too, but being difficult to organise and agree doesn’t make it wrong. And yes, those church representatives need to “reflect” the current population, church populations that is, but this is about cultural heritage, not representation by popular voting – so historical as well as current. It’s a force of conservatism. Not surprisingly the Anglican church has a de-facto privilege here, but one that erodes over time, to reflect the cultural balance. (Note that this is entirely about human values, and has nothing whatsoever to do with rational questions of whether science is right and religion is wrong.)

Heller concludes with a little sarcasm, referring to the example anomaly, that a Mormon group gets the dubious benefits of charitable status:

Meanwhile, I shall continue my pursuit of Baroness Warsi.
Would she meet me if I became a Mormon?

Oh, how we laughed.

[Post Note : Sad that most of the comments on the Yahoo piece have nothing to do with the post, just rants about religion(s). Sad that is the environment in which Richard Heller gets to write. And sad that you can’t comment without signing up to Yahoo, not even with your Facebook identity. Criminal.]

Not commented on this so far, but however well-intentioned the military take-over from Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government, proving that there is far more to a real democracy than the mere arithmetic of  popular majority voting and body-bag counts, the shooting of hundreds by the state security forces is a criminal tragedy. It’s going to set Egypt back a long way.

Often wonder how the US supporters of “the right to bear arms (against your own government)” would honestly handle it differently. Massive peaceful (but armed) demonstration occupying public places, opening fire on the security forces, killing several, when ordered to break it up and leave. Lethal force meets lethal force. Probably a defensively armoured stand-off would be preferable to actual retreat, if they’d come prepared for that, but once fire is returned …. already a bloody mess.

Would it have been less of a mess if the forces had simply withdrawn from the (armed) mob once they had been fired upon. Somehow I doubt it. Like I said, a mess.

 

The point of critical disagreement is to test agreement, it’s not for the sake of argument itself. The point is to achieve progress on what can be agreed – to expand mutual knowledge, not to perpetuate and extend disagreement.

(Of course that doesn’t change the fact that ultimately everything agreed as known is contingent and could fall down like a house of cards, but the point is to build something, something of practical value, not to destroy anything. The wise never lose sight of the contingency, the potential destruction, but nevertheless work towards achieving value.)

When substantial disagreement is agreed, of course the point is to unpick that back to some point of mutual agreement so that constructive argument can resume. Agreeing to disagree can only ever be a temporary or localised truce; a difference of current priorities; a pause from progressive efforts. Disagreement is never an end.

Which leads to the criticism of what I refer to here as scientism (or SOMist thinking, as it might be called elsewhere). I say scientism to distinguish it from science itself – science is scientistic for good reason – but I’m talking here about scientism as the dominant or privileged approach to reasonable rationality generally for all human decisions of policy and value. Ethical, moral and value questions of what’s best.

When I refer to scientism as the prevailing, but flawed ideology, I’m referring to this.

• Decisions that privilege argumentation based on objectively defined entities and concepts, with relations that are amenable to logical (including arithmetical) manipulation, over any other kind.
• Considerations that may well recognise the existence of less-well-defined objects, relations and values, but nevertheless privilege “reduction” of decision-making considerations to models that may be “evaluated” according to the privileged mode of argumentation. (This isn’t to say such models may not be of practical value, it simply says they need not be privileged over any other kind as “the” view of reality.)
• Argumentation that, despite depending on creative theorising, imagining, conjecture and hypothesis, privileges sets of relations and premises that are falsifiable, those sets that exhibit incoherence, where pairs may conflict in truth value, over those that are coherent, constructive, and reinforcing.

All of which begs questions about what “other kinds” of valid consideration there are. However, the ideological dogma is effectively to say there are none; that is to say that the burden of argument on any consideration not meeting the above criteria is with those beyond the dogma to provide arguments about considerations beyond the dogma that nevertheless meet the dogma. (The denial of this point is Maxwell’s “scientific neurosis”.)

In summary, the dogma is:
Doing things scientifically represents high quality.
Doing things unscientifically equates to low quality.
A scientific argument always trumps a non-scientific one – in scientific knowledge obviously – but in any question of policy and value in human affairs.

 

Ironic that Jim Al Khalili, one day after posting a challenge to the tweeter who could explain the most complex / significant fundamental physical theory in 140 characters, resorted to a chain of 4 tweets merely to express his outrage and other tweeters suggesting “celebrity” was maybe a motive in large numbers of A-level students naming Brian Cox in their UCAS applications to study physics at university. And doing it just two tweets after tweeting himself that “the Cox effect is real” though he “hates to admit it”. (With a smiley, of course, fortunately he doesn’t really mind Cox being more famous than him.)

Hamish McKenzie, writing in PandoDaily – Elon Musk is more important to society than Steve Jobs ever was – notes Elon Musk pleading with successful entrepreneurs to “think outside the Internet.” He goes on to quote (Musk’s PayPal co-founder) Peter Thiel:

“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.”

Talking of celebrity name-dropping, how ironic too that Larry Krauss going on stage this evening (now) in Oz presumably to deliver his stadium rant in defence of “reason” should tweet: (coincidence that Cox is also on stage in Oz as I type?)

“Equally nice to have something to remember Christopher by to take with me onstage.. 🙂 pic.twitter.com/q23OTE6HLR “

Who wouldn’t “defend reason” Larry? The problem is in your presumed privileged definition for the whole of reason. Name-dropping the late Christopher Hitchens to cement his mantle of 5th Horseman (or is that 6th after Steven Pinker?) maybe. Not forgetting the other celebrity atheists from the world of entertainment, Fry, Gervais, et al.

The famous celebrities kindle interest, and as Plutarch said (hat tip to David Gurteen):

The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled.

Even the top scientists need to beware the cult of celebrity. So yes, the marketing value to grabbing attention and generating interest is real, but don’t confuse the perceived authority of that with the value of the knowledge content, the ideas expressed. The memetic effect of authority by celebrity association “the Cox effect” simply compounds the problem of crowding out the higher value ideas with the catchier ones.

Jim is the last person I’d want that to happen to – the celebrity scientist / atheist who understands the high value idea that it is irrational to wage war on the faithful.

Tiffany Jenkins writing in The Scotsman reviews the Edinburgh Fringe production of “HeLa“ by IronOxide.

The controversy looks set to fester long after the Festival, with developments in genetic research and Opera Winfrey and HBO making a movie of Lack’s life story. The dominant narrative is of a poor black woman who was exploited by science, when it is in fact a story of how dedicated researchers helped to save millions of lives in an unequal society. It’s a narrative that does Henrietta Lacks a disservice by focusing on her tumour cells and not on the person: she was always more than tissue. She was a mother, a wife and a woman who loved to dance. That is how she should be remembered.

Good to see a journalist and campaigner for the arts and humanities, who really does see the cultural distorting privilege of “scientism” in policy and economics generally, also defending science from the spurious accusations of race-politics and scientific exploitation in an artistic production. With balance there is hope.

Contrast that with Larry Krauss – the 5th Horseman – disingenuously twisting a story to score scientific and logical argumentation points against a theologian. If people don’t argue with respect and constructive intent, then scientism, and not humanism, continues to reign.

Larry is being pompous, disingenuous, rude and unethical – to use his own words – and “for entertainment” too! Sure, Dawkins doesn’t “set Pell up” in advance of the Q&A conversation. Pell makes a mistake (as a non-expert) in answering the host’s question, by not recognising the particular lines of genetic heredity between specific species, whilst nevertheless accepting that genetic evolution of species is “probably true”. And Dawkins, the expert, ridicules and sneers at him, rather than building on the probable truth between them. We don’t see the context before and after this exchange, but with this kind of behaviour, a pox on both their houses.

We don’t see the full Craig dialogue, so can’t comment further on that either, but ditto Larry’s “stadium rant” in the above clip shamelessly conflating the “explanation of the diversity of life – the origin of species” with the “origins of life” – reprehensible. (Same problem with his “a universe from nothing” thesis – which is really a very good, “something complex from a next-to-nothing potential-energetic vacuum” story. Simply not the same thing, and he knows it. Krauss previously on Psybertron)

I have a pretty evident agenda here that objectifying (and measuring in order to manage) the wrong things, or too narrow a slate of things, is counter-productive: Partly because objectifying or reifying the issue may be misguided in itself, and partly because “governance” is at least a two-way, if not more complex, system-behavioural game anyway, where turning measures into targets generally manifests predictably-unintended, unpredictably-undesirable consequences.

Here Part 1 and Part 2 of a paper by Ron Baker of VeraSage Institute (via LinkedIn). Not yet digested fully, but seems to cover some good ground – starting with counting as obsession and a reference to Saint-Exupery. Also the fact that Peter Drucker was definitely NOT the source of the “if you can’t measure, you can’t manage” maxim, if anything quoting it to make the opposite point – noted here before. (Interesting to see Lord Kelvin as the probable source – originally in a distinctly scientific knowledge context.) Part 2 starts with Milton Friedman’s opening gambit “How do you know?” – sound familiar? Useful reference resource.

Interesting piece in CMS Wire review a Forrester Research paper. I’m sure CMIS Building Blocks with REST API’s must be pretty close to what we’re doing with manageable reference fragments to define information involved at business interface transactions. (Thanks to Margaret Warren on Facebook also LinkedData, EmbeddedMetaData and ImageSnippets in there.)

Steven Pinker in New Republic writing Science Is Not Your Enemy – An impassioned plea to neglected novelists, embattled professors, and tenure-less historians – for an intellectual truce. (Posted by BHA on Facebook)

Not quite sure why particularly the neglected, embattled and tenure-less, but a plea for a truce between science and humanities. Good to add Pinker to Al Khalili amongst the scientists recognising that ongoing war is not the way forward. Science has no monopoly on intellectual rationality so it, or rather it’s more righteous scientistic humanists, really should stop attacking the humanities if they don’t want to be seen as the enemy.

The Catch-22 is that because scientistic rationality holds sway politically, socially and culturally, the humanities are indeed embattled when it comes the cycles of funding and resources. The Mexican stand-off does require the party holding the upper hand to fold first, but it takes two in any event. Pinker is of course making the case for the scientistic side only, so …

TO SIMPLIFY IS NOT TO BE SIMPLISTIC.

Diagnoses of the malaise of the humanities rightly point to anti-intellectual trends in our culture and to the commercialization of our universities. But an honest appraisal would have to acknowledge that some of the damage is self-inflicted. The humanities have yet to recover from the disaster of post-modernism, with its defiant obscurantism, dogmatic relativism, and suffocating political correctness.

If anything is naïve and simplistic, it is the conviction that the legacy silos of academia should be fortified and that we should be forever content with current ways of making sense of the world. Surely our conceptions of politics, culture, and morality have much to learn from our best understanding of the physical universe and of our make-up as a species.

But it’s not simply commercialisation and anti-intellectual trends is it Mr Pinker? That is being simplistic. It’s a reaction to an intellectualism based on scientistic standards alone. It’s a reaction to scientistic commercialism based on objective “outcomes”. Sure there were excesses in post-modernism and the like, their excesses were probably making a point, and all schools have their extremists somewhere along the line. The politically correct suffocation is if anything caused by the scientistic standards in policy-making, which exclude all non-objective standards of “correctness”.

Surely our conceptions of science and rationality have much to learn from our humanistic values. It takes two to truce.

[Post Note : Link to John Brock’s blog – Cracking the Enigma – and his post on Bronowski in response to the Pinker post comments on Twitter. One to follow – majoring on Autism – another topic here.]