What, Why & How do we Know ?
Thought this was very interesting on several levels.
Another classic example from the football world. It is right that punishments for “unacceptable” transgressions of rules are in some sense arbitrary in their severity.
If there becomes a rule for the punishments against breaking the rule, then we have a game-changer where calculations based on the punishment become part of the rule-breaking decision. Pardew is wrong for this very reason, precisely because he wants clarity on the punishments. Liverpool in this example, but Chelski are the usual suspects in this morality play. I last highlighted this in the Hazard / Ballboy counter example here and the John Terry / “Professional” Foul case here.
Not only is science a branch of economics, so now is art.
See: BBC Story and Guardian piece.
In fact if you think about the current scale of funding into fundamental physics, actually science is the branch of culture being funded for it’s own sake. Mad. The world turned upside down. (Follow @TiffanyJenkins)
Full transcript here. Less bleak than the journalists’ selective headlines.
Terry Eagleton & Roger Scruton on “Culture” (Hat tip to David Morey on FB)
[Post Note : The price of everything and the value for nothing.
Deputy London major Munira Mirza, via @TiffanyJenkins]
Missed this last week on BBC World Service – Stephen Sackur interview with Daniel Dennett – introduced predictably as one of the “4 Horsemen of New Atheism“.
Much confirmation of my own view that Dennett is the most considered and sophisticated thinker in this space. The four I have before ranked Dennett > Harris > Hitchens > Dawkins (the first two are philosophers notice). The questioning by Sackur is typically caricatured in terms of the standard arguments, but Dennett always manages subtle qualification in his responses, though he pulls no punches with his final statement:
[Whatever theistic religion evolves into …]
“Love, faith, beauty and joy – I hope it lasts forever.”
[Note – the HardTalk link is only for one week. I have an offline copy if anyone wants to hear it.]
Just heard Dan Roam (Napkin Academy) speak at Fiatech2013.
Great use of Ian McGilchrist’s divided brain model,
… where objective analytical intellect has crowded out the more holistic visual aspect of experiencing the real world. The emissary having forgotten who is master. We need visual outlines before we express in written language. Excellent presentation by Dan.
Particularly impressive – the demonstration of recalling a couple of dozen images presented for only a second each – a 100% when given a visual choice, but barely a handful if asked to list from memory.
This has been banging around a few days, and today Larry tweeted the link to the story in the Telegraph.
I think there is an important point being missed. Voluntary (culturally conditioned) segregation is different from enforced segregation, even if you do disagree with both.
There was nothing in the context that pointed to Muslim radicalism or extremism any more than there was anything suggesting Larry was promoting incest – god forbid. Get a grip guys ‘n’ gals.
Yes, some of the cultural conditioning, creates intimidation that means the immediate voluntary segregation may not be straightforward – life’s just complicated enough. And, yes it was a “public” event, but in the context the fact that a significant part of the audience is actively Muslim is pretty fundamental, not some incidental factor.
So I do defend respect for, and sensitivity to, cultural differences if you want to start a dialogue where culture might evolve – mutually. Better than a display of rational arrogance.
[Post Note – another example from Leicester Uni on 20th Feb – reported by HuffPo on 16th April – of (non-enforced) segregation.]
Interesting conversation with Dawkins. (Hat tip to tweet from BHA.)
Law is a philosopher with an interest in the paranormal, so not surprisingly Sue Blackmore crops up. Love the “God helmet” passage. Also love the infinite regress argument on what counts as “evidence”. Must follow up with Law, and the argument around the value of philosophy (and theology) to scientists. (See previous Krauss reference.)
Law seems to have the patience to take his differences with Dawkins along in conversation. I’ve lost that.
Great first question too – where Dawkins doesn’t get it. The logical positivism and regress of scientific method not itself being amenable to scientific method. (See Maxwell’s Wisdom)
(Also the 4th question about prejudiced topics even in secular schools. Brilliant. Brilliant. The faith in “objective” peer review and the method, especially in highly specialised physics (Higgs Boson again). Objective standards of “expertise”, “concensus”, “independence”, etc, etc …. the “On The Road” continuous scroll myth …. believe in bullshit, go nuclear, tire of rationality …. lots there. The question at 1:24 ish … different sciences, different kinds of evidence, different things fixed / explained by that evidence.)
Interesting that this angle of the new Pope is already being picked up. Jesuits have a long history in education – education beyond religion and faith. (Catholicism, scholasticism and intellectual attraction form a huge topic in their own right. My interest here goes back to Inklings, etc.)
Prompted by this tweeted by David Gurteen, I recalled recent experience in a particular company.
I’ve been around a bit, worked over many years in different organisations, at different levels of management, and done a bit formal education and a lot of reading and writing on management subjects. I’d say I was a pretty well confirmed advocate of the MBWA (Management by Walking Around) approach and the Water Cooler ad-hoc conversations approach to organizational communications, even before ubiquitous social technology channels emerged.
However, my last full-time employment job (I currently work as an independent contractor) was in a Norwegian organisation where they took a very strong opposing view. Even having a conversation with someone at your desk or theirs was frowned upon – others at desks within earshot would “Shhh” and give dirty stares if you did stop to talk or shout over the open-plan cubicles more than a couple of sentences. You always had to invite someone over to a meeting area. To be fair there were various kinds of informal as well as formal meeting spaces available, but there was never the ad-hoc overheard participation.