Year: 2013

Wonder what all the “institutional infringement of individual privacy” people think about this kind of surveillance that was originally dubbed “spy in the cab” think now? A use that was never intended when this data capture started. Right result nevertheless.

There’s nothing new under the sun, is one of my repeated adages. Plus ca change – with technology of communications and media, for example – plus c’est la meme chose. I often also quote Horace quoting another from 4000BCE similarly pointing out the the perceived problems “of our time” are nothing of the sort, but are rather recurring cycles of ubiquitous aspects of humanity.

How I come to be posting this today is a case of tennis, elbow, foot. PsyJr posted a link on FB to the Guardian piece on Sam Harris and scientism ! – and Sam Harris being someone I’ve referred to often (mostly positively) on Psybertron, I skimmed previous posts including this one – We Didn’t Start The Fire. It’s a review of Harris piece on the scientific evidence against open fires as a source of heating – though the subject matter of his piece is incidental, illustrative of his main point about faith-based belief responses to scientific evidence against their faith.

I included a YouTube link to Billy Joel’s song of the same name which, apart from being a stonking pop song, is the same message. It was written as a response to someone with an 80’s/90’s perspective of world problems looking back on the 50’s/60’s/70’s as a time when nothing of note happened. And we could say the same looking back on the late 20th century from the early 21st when it comes to (say) mid-east conflict and terrorism from a Syrian perspective (this month) or Egyptian (last month). Ironic, having just also read and thoroughly enjoyed Scot Anderson’s Lawrence In Arabia in the last week.

So what about Harris and scientism – I see the BHA has also posted a link – need to respond. Science gone too far – can’t hear that expression in anything other than the dulcet tones of Handsome Dick Manitoba of the Dictators …. it’s nothing new.

Anyway, the particular Oliver Burkeman Guardian piece says itself that a previous piece by Steven Poole better addresses the scientism debate kicked off by Steven Pinker – responded to previously here.

Apart from more links to things I’ve not yet read, neither piece actually adds much more than a summary of the debate remaining contentious – but a real debate – scientists responding to “accusations” of scientism. Actually that’s not my problem. I have NO problem with scientists doing science being scientistic – it’s everybody else.

Curtis White – The Science Delusion:

When Richard Dawkins was named the world’s “Top Thinker” in a poll recently published by Prospect magazine, it was hard to avoid the suspicion that the world—or at least that part of it that votes in such polls—must have an impoverished sense of what constitutes a vital or transformative intellectual figure. Mark O’Connell – The Slate.

Scientism -> impoverished sense, sounds about right. Having been blogging on about this for 12 years so far, it’s good to see the debate getting out there. Dawkins being held up as some kind of paragon of virtue (I use the term advisedly) is a prime reason he’s one if my recurring targets – nothing personal.

[Although it appears White is someone who shares my view that scientism is THE major problem “of our time” (irony alert) his book doesn’t sound like one I’d like to read. (By “of our time” I of course mean, since the 18th Century “enlightenment”. The part of the problem that is “not of our time” but ubiquitous, is the memetic problem – the problem that humans mostly share as knowledge what is most easy to share, not what is best. It is that fact that this problem is reinforced by mass communications media that makes it THE problem of our times.)]

Heard Sacks on BBC Sunday, talking sense as usual. Not really digested this yet. Contentious, was equating trust with religion – with which I have no problem – religion / trust is what binds “us” together. Only question is who is “us” and the nature of the “bondage”.

In essence I agree with Sacks point (again). Culture is losing the plot if it decides all it can trust are things scientific. Scientism as I’ve dubbed the problem. Oddly scary that formal humanist organisations share this lack of trust in humanity. (Must check Sacks use of the word “secular” here.)

The comment thread on the BBC story has some classics. Here just one example, much promoted.

[Trust of people] derives from how you are brought up as a child, and this has a lot to do with love, respect, acceptance and kindness, and little or nothing to do with religion.
[Huh, except that religion also derives from … and has a lot to do with … etc. The religious upbringing line is even brought up by atheist humanists as “child abuse” fer chrissakes.]

I prefer humanists to religious folk, convinced of their own righteousness.
[Talk about the righteous pointing fingers! Irony x hypocrisy squared.]

(Comment  are closed – actually quite a good few balanced responses too – about not ignoring Sacks points simply because you do not agree with his religion.) But more generally – people confuse religion with (a) irrational belief and (b) the particular practices of particular religions. Whereas it is by definition what binds us together. It’s another clear management (or governance) example – the same cultural failing – that turns such values into objectives where so-called organised religions – like any “professional” organisation. They inadvertently attempt codify what they value in prescriptive do-this / do-that practices, and destroy their value in the process. Religion (trust) ceases to be. What religions are accused of is precisely what most important cultural institutions suffer from.

Today’s lesson (see earlier posts):
Any benefit of the doubt, in an objective evidential sense,
must fall with trusting the humanity of the human(s) involved.
It is that which binds us together.

The problem is a cultural one, one of cultural values. Not problems with religion or science except in so far as they are both immersed in cultural problems, the same as politics and economics are, including the politics and economics of the humanities ironically.

Interesting looking back on Hans Blix words around the time of the Iraq WMD inspections on how it is hard (and political) to know how to apply the “benefit of the doubt” in forensic cases like the Syrian chemical weapons “attack”. I have no doubt chemical weapons were detonated near Syrian civilians . How come? – I’m really not sure, and as Blix also says, “intent is part of knowledge”.

Why would I give a flying ferret what an anonymous vegan thinks of Badger culling aimed at cattle husbandry or animal welfare of any kind?!? Limited context to even protest let alone interfere.

Less anonymous and disinterested on the other hand, but more partially informed propaganda being spread via @RickGervais, though his opener was a topical goodie.

With a cruel government committing the genocide of an innocent indigenous population, Obama is now sending troops to fight for the badgers.

LOL. If we all remember Ricky is the court jester we’ll get along fine – a tweet worthy of the same standards as the excellent Derek. The problem is his media power – not just his own tweets say, but the threads it generates – reinforcing half-baked misinformation of dubious moral value. Classic example, exemplifying the memetic problem we face as a culture.

Another good post from Sam. Not taken time to post on this current “Miranda” news story yet, but since Sam has, I’ve commented my view there.

POST NOTE – there are two corollaries to this story. Considering:

A. The state-secrets / state-security / whistle-blowing / publication “rights” issue.

B. The use of “terrorism” legislation as an expedient or indirect justification for actions re A.

C. The stop and search “suspicious” individuals in response to B.

1. The Miranda case is fundamentally about A, where B is simply an expedient, a non-issue.

2. The real issue with B is C, and what counts as suspicion. At one extreme, every time any individual comes into (otherwise routine) contact with police or security officials there is a statistically random sampling of all of us. (I get stopped for a possible parking / driving offence – or as happened recently, I draw a police officer’s attention to a nearby argument turning ugly –  and one in x times, I’m invited over to the office for a thorough security search?) Or the other extreme, each official is subjectively allow to pick up on “appearances” at that point, given time available to their primary job. What do I look like, who am I with, what does my behaviour suggest, where have I just come from, etc. Particularly tricky where your primary job is rights vs aliens at border control. (A pure red-herring in the Miranda case, where the individual was pre-identified, beyond any immediate “suspicion”.)

Once you bring in pre-existing “evidence” concerning an individual’s security interests / activities, the contentious question is not really about the evidence itself, but about discovery of evidence – “surveillance” based on wide general selection or on subjective / circumstantial suspicion “prior to any actual evidence” – interest has to start somewhere. (Common problem in the whole “scientific” agenda here is what counts as reasonable evidence for …. whatever decision / action next.)

Augusto Cuginotti (hat tip to David Gurteen again)
Anyone who can bring “love” into knowledge management is OK with me.
As I so often quote Nick Lowe:

Where are the strong, and who are the trusted?
What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding?

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.]