Month: September 2013

Just a holding link to this piece by Julian Baggini, where both head and heart are needed to recognise the value of something arithmetically expensive. (Hat tip to David Morey on FB a week or two ago. Significant on balance because Julian is one I’ve criticised before, but increasingly I see I can agree with him.)

I’ve adopted the term “scientism” for the subject – the problem topic – of my agenda here in maybe the last 5 years or so? Previously I’ve called it scientific fundamentalism, or maybe obsessive objective reductionism, Maxwell’s scientific neurosis, things of that ilk, since I started this blog 13 years ago. Before that I never really gave it a name – it was just a nagging doubt that there was a deep problem going unrecognised in the whole of human life, well beyond science. A problem I had difficulty even articulating, until the blog gave me a vehicle in which to practice. Scientism’s become the fashionable term for the problem, particularly since the more “shrill” new-atheist humanists – supported by celebrity scientists and comics – turned it into a front-page and social-media war. Amen to that.

Interestingly it was one of those “wow” moments of revelatory epiphany where I first used the term in 2008. (Good guess, 5 years ago.) I was actually using the term against myself, having previously been pursuing the problem of science within science, and recognising that as the error in itself.

This piece “Crimes Against Humanities” by Leon Wieseltier in New Republic I first looked at when tweeted by Tiff Jenkins a couple of weeks ago, and tweeted a positive holding response. Decided to do a thorough read again today. Essentially I agree with every word in Wieseltier’s piece, and have only one reservation.

As Wieseltier says, Pinker’s (baseless, and breathtakingly arrogant) argument can be summed up as:

There is nothing wrong with the humanities that the sciences cannot fix.

[And, my later references to Pinker’s piece, here and here.]

Wieseltier says a lot more – both assertions and reference arguments – so I’d recommend a thorough read and digest by anyone taking the debate seriously. As I say, I really have only one reservation – Wieseltier’s idea of casting humanities and science into distinct “domains” is too much like Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” much rejected by Dennett (with whom I mostly agree, like I mostly agree with Pinker and Harris). The boundaries of science and the humanities are indeed porous and open to cross-border investigations, as the definitions of the border evolve on both sides. Good fences make good neighbours, they say, so yes “working” definitions of boundaries are useful if not essential, but simply drawing them up as some kind of cease-fire line is not the solution, an agreement to disagree about the value of the other. Mutual human respect must be shared well into “enemy” territory both sides of the line. (A large part of Wieseltier’s argument is to point how little science seems to actually respect the wisdom, intelligence and intentions of those on the humanities side of the divide.)

Science was originally conceived as nature by those natural philosophers that pre-date science itself and the human pursuit of knowledge has gone hand in hand with the evolution of science . And indeed human nature is by definition part of nature, but that does not make the humanities in  any way a subset of science as if science were by definition an explication for the whole of nature. Science simply has no privileged position when it comes to knowledge of humanity within the cosmos, not even the overview of all applied empirical knowledge. In my view rather than seeing science and the humanities as mutually exclusive domains, they must be seen as complex interlinked patterns in the whole of nature. That whole may never be a single unifying theory of everything, certainly not in any causally reductive sense. To be unifying any “theory” needs to encompass more than science.

Particularly interesting, taking the topic beyond any science vs humanities “defensive” debate, well beyond any science vs religion “offensive” war, is that amongst the enlightened, the problem of scientism is recognised within scientific academia itself. Some scientists may believe that the philosophy of science is dead, without value, and that science is self-describing toward potential completion, but philosophers of science see that what science is missing are “values”. Ditto in hard to classify realms like economics. We all do well to remember:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Interesting that the press cynics are taking the line, once they’ve got over the concept that Russia may be sincere, is that securing Syria’s chemical weapons might not be “feasible” anyway. Mad thinking. If it weren’t feasible to locate (most of) them with any (reasonable) certainty, then how would any kind of targeted strike have been any more feasible, without significant risk of accidentally releasing them in collateral damage. Keeping stockpiles, like civilians, near likely targets would have been Syria’s greatest deterrent.

Anyway, full marks to France, Russia, and now UK & US falling into line, in taking the “securing and removing / disposing of the chemical weapons” proposal to the UN. Gaffe? How dumb do the press think international diplomats are? The politicians may says things off agreed scripts, but the ideas will be in real discussions. It’s win, win, win, win, lose, win. As good as it gets.

Putin gets to be the hero.

France gets to repair relations with US.

US and UK get their objectives, both moral and self-interested, without needing to take credit (or responsibility for the consequences).

The plan gets proper UN airing, even if debate can never reach reach unanimous agreement, allied majority is seen to have done right thing before attempting tough action. Being hard to achieve doesn’t make it wrong.

Syria gets message, takes note and makes public statement (and actions) of its responsibilities to comply.

World gets action with minimal WW3 risk, but can escalate if cooperation stalls or mission fails.

UK and US (and France) were right to (a) threaten a forcible strike against Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and (b) right to try to get government buy-in to exercise that right – both of which are quite separate from the actual order to act, if and when needed. Even talking softly, the diplomats need their governments to carry a big stick, one that will actually be used if attention to responsibilities waivers.

[Beyond Doubt][Bashing Heads Together]

PS – John Humphreys is past his sell-by date on BBC R4 Today. Just not up to “grown-up” politics and 21st century living.

 

 

OK, so there is some element of faddish fashion in here, but more variety is a good thing. And we need to get the facts straight is it “high fibre, protein rich and gluten free” or is it “pure protein” compared to (say) rice or wheat? Guess it depends on the form – whole-grain, milled, ground, etc. Clarity would help. But, the issue to highlight is the international economics intervention angle, not actually mentioned. Juts a thought, given this example.

So market opportunity for producers (anywhere) and sellers to cash in on. Good? But, the market price for South American produced quinoa means the poorer locals can no longer afford what used to be their staple food. Bad? Even if increased production closer to consumer markets brings the cost down, the price will still be at the consumer market production-cost prices. So what to do? Ban exports from original producer countries? No.

It’s an opportunity to make the original economy wealthier, provided interventions (say subsidies, incentives and levies in pricing and importing) simply regulate the transition until the locals can work up the benefits of having a valuable crop on their hands, in their own purchasing ability, as well as their export production capability. Meantime, anywhere else that can and wants to grow it, does so at global market supply and demand conditions.

How did Rudd let this tosspot win?

Syria continues to be the main story. Glad to see Putin has stepped up to it too. And, confirming Russia is not averse to supporting physical action, with UN processes, provided the case is “beyond doubt”.

Not forgetting what may be lost in translation, “beyond doubt” is not realistic, it’s scientistic (*). There needs to be a judgement based on what evidence can be trusted. Beyond reasonable (*) doubt surely. Talking of which, the Assad regime needs to do more, to take the chemical weapons seriously. If they deny direct intentional responsibility for the attack, they do need to be seen to act responsibly in addressing what actually happened. Denial is no case to be trusted, quite the opposite.

Despite juvenile incompetence of Cameron / Milliband, it’s good that western allies do establish their political case for authority to act – quite independent of specific plans to act.

It will be major progress (not just for Syria) if Putin genuinely tries to invoke UN here, and US recognise the value. Fingers crossed. I’m sure playing the hero fits Putin’s psyche to a tee. Go for it. [Update 9 Sept – as predicted … Russia taking the lead in getting the chemical weapons out of the equation – force and/or verification, UN needed, but initiative from Russia is as good as any.]

[(*) Scientistic because that’s my agenda, not war and politics. As the tag-line says, it’s about what we “know” and how we make and justify decisions to act, everywhere in life. Reasonable doubt and certainty are matters of human judgement (trust and faith) not science, not arithmetic of naive democracy. Jeez, heard another politician, a US representative, saying his opinion was based on the weight of opposition in his mailbag – forget the maths, use your moral judgement.]

The wisest strategy? Engaging in military attack against Syria to make the point about chemical weapons against civilians being unacceptable behaviour? The risk is hitting the Assad regime hard and giving the advantage to even less desirable terrorist rebels, maybe even allowing the weapons of atrocity to fall into their hands, right?

So don’t.

Make the objective to bash both heads equally hard, disable both their offensive capabilities with minimal human collateral and … if not entirely successful in one wave and the prospect of boots on the ground returns? … make the mission a smash and grab (Entebbe style) to seize the offending weapons (even one batch thereof, to show we intend to if we can) and get out fast. Leaving the chastened parties behind to “sort yourselves out like civilised humans”. If you have to redraw borders to satisfy religio-tribal family differences, get on with it – we’re still watching you.

We don’t choose sides, aim for a regime change, we simply level and civilise the playing field. And we can (should be) blue-helmets, not another imperfect nationally allied self-interest. Maybe we even suggest the Russians and/or Chinese do the smash and grab, with perhaps greater local cooperation ?

Hopefully Obama is already on the phone to Putin.

[And what’s the worst that could happen?]

Time to get creative, not cowardly.

Posted quite a bit on this recently, when we hear debates on what is in “our” interests – a shared first person plural – in politics, whether UK in EU or Rest of the world in Syria, etc. All that really matters is who “we” are. I’ve called it the multiple overlapping constituencies problem, and a tendency to contrast any one of “us” that takes our fancy in a given context with “them”.

Last noticed it when the Syrian ambassador suggested redrawing of national boundaries would be needed to find long term solutions – unusual for the incumbent “nation” to raise that suggestion. Roger Scruton’s point here is that nations need to be more like families. And I agree. The additional point being that families also respect and trust each other as families of man (*). Having no national borders is a utopian myth, but the best practical borders are those that delineate families (ie tribes) that can – in Roger’s words – share a first person plural. Politically, economic, expedient, circumstantial borders that artificially confine or divide “families” will always exhibit problems. Families have problems of course, but they generally see them as “their” problems, not someone else’s.

And looking at what “binds” nations as families, is where “religion” (that which binds us) and trust-based-on-love come into it.

[Good on Mr Gove. The way I see it the eastern Mediterranean is “our” shores. They are we. We are experiencing an atrocity. In which we discover that Sarah Vine is Michael Gove’s wife – seen retweeted many times:

given the choice of humiliating David Cameron
or taking a stand against atrocity,
they chose the former. Nice.

This is why (counter-intuitively) numerical voting is the wrong approach in a democracy – people think it’s about us winning over them and forget about the topic – clearly advertised by Cameron (credit to him) as “judgement”. They’re meant to be representatives, not delegates. I heard one MP justifying his vote in terms of the count of emails he’d received on one side. Talk about passing the buck of moral responsibility.]

[(*) The “Family” model works, because you not only have familial love within, you also recognise and “identify with” another family with its internal relationships and problems. A different family, but another family none-the-less, just like us. They are no different to we.

And, taking the US approach, currently in seeing evidence of atrocity and risk of future atrocity to be acted against as being in “our” interest. Yes the justification / rationalisation panders to selfish interest, but the judgement is enlightened nevertheless. It could be (have been) us – identifying with them – an enlightened inclusive indirect self-interest. The indirection matters. Self interest beyond the immediate vote Mr Milliband.]

[And tangentially connected – here another relevant example of the folly of focusing on the arithmetic. Austerity? Let’s announce a cut. OK, now what? And talking of Milliband’s juvenile incompetence, when the numbers do matter – his party funding – he shoots himself in the foot with his previous knee-jerk to breaking the default connection between Labour and the Unions. Talk about missing the point of Labour, disregarding history.]