Month: October 2015

I’ve been blogging for over 15 years and reached a point in life, as has happened a couple of times before in that time, where I need to take stock due to some significant life changes happening. I should probably “just write a book” as the psychiatrist said to the madman, and in fact more than one reader has actually suggested that to me, which is nice.

There is a side-project to write a book of course, various draft ideas, works in progress, along with several other hopeful initiatives. One way or another all the words I need to say are already in the blog, though (after Eric Morecambe) not necessarily in the right order.

From my perspective, although I flit about across many apparent subjects in the blog (and associated Twitter exchanges) the underlying theme is if anything becoming more narrowly definable even than the manifesto. In ever sharper focus. Of course my (anyone) being able to define it succinctly and accurately doesn’t do justice to its consequential scope – hence the need to elaborate with intelligible examples and engaging narratives.

Meantime, below, I’m posting a state of my nation to pull together many of the seemingly disparate topics and fulfill several promises to elaborate on one or two of them in a coherent way. To take stock and preserve a few key unspoken connections.

[He said confidently …]

So sad to lose Lisa Jardine. I was lost for words last night as the news came through via Twitter, and today maybe 95% of my Twitter activity feed has been dedicated to her. That may say something about the kind of people I follow on Twitter, but she surely made an impression on those who encountered her. Genuinely appreciated and missed by many.

Little I can add to the tributes from friends who knew her as colleagues at Cambridge, QML and UCL, and the many varied groups she worked with. Like her father, she impressed me on radio and TV before I’d ever met her and I’d already blogged a few references. I count myself lucky to have met her 3 or 4 times in the last two years working in London, and blogged those encounters.

Having discovered she shares that same “Bronowski moment” so many of us shared, and seen how close she was to her father as his celebrity was cut short by his own ill-health and death, it was fascinating to hear her talk on her work researching and writing his biography, like a true historian valuing the necessary interpretation, the imaginative filling-in and story-telling. I think my last interaction with her on Twitter was to ask how that publishing deadline was coming along. I wonder now what will become of that unfinished project.

But as one door closes others open. Historian David Cesarani, who also died yesterday, is someone I was only vaguely aware of until now. And Alison Jardine, her daughter-in-law, was introduced to many via Lisa’s Twitter feed, sharing examples of her artistic works and successes. Beyond viewing such pieces on-line, I’d never really looked at Alison’s on-line profile until now. Imagine my surprise to find she is based in Deep Ellum, that little Bohemia the wrong side of the interstate in downtown Dallas. Having visited Dallas several times, usually on a day or two breaks away from other business in Texas over the years, I’ve returned to bars, restaurants and music clubs between Elm, Main and Commerce, the opposite end from Dealey Plaza. A favourite spot.

Life after death is assured for memories of Lisa.

[Post Note : This has to be one of the best tributes, from Erica Wagner. Conveys the faith in humanity behind the intellect.]

[Post Note – And this New Humanist interview with Laurie Taylor.]

Just a holding posts for a thought that is going to need development.

Defending free speech whilst not supporting providing a platform for that speech, is perfectly rational and moral. I’ve said a fair bit before about real limits to free (potentially offensive) speech.
[Most elaborated here, and most recently referenced here.]

The recent Germaine Greer example is prompting plenty of talk about student unions rejecting speakers – all the usual “rational” suspects (*) weighing-in. We need to distinguish between plain ignorance – failing to appreciate what someone is saying and why – and fair blockage of providing a platform depending on the actual / intended message. (The recent Greer case is a former example. But there have been several others recently, Maryan Namazie, Hirsi Ali, etc at various points on the spectrum.)

[(*)The increasingly one-dimensional Dawkins included – in extract:

@RichardDawkins – A university is not a “safe space”. If you need a safe space, leave, go home, hug your teddy & suck your thumb until ready for university.

@psybertron – @RichardDawkins @bencobley Quite the opposite. Education [should provide] a safe space where students can take risks without retribution.]

I attended Bill Flavell giving a presentation Wednesday night on “Street Epistemology” at CLHG.

One way or another epistemology is the topic of my blog these last 15 years, and using epistemology to create ontologies for business information models has been my day job for maybe 25 so far, so epistemology (and cladistic taxonomies) I know something about. So-called Street Epistemology I’m previously no expert on, but it’s the branding of a methodology for atheists “interlocuting” with those of faith, after Peter “How to Create an Atheist” Boghossian. More on which later, but I gathered a few thoughts on what I was expecting, based on materials on the web sites of Peter Boghossian and Anthony Magnabosco, before the actual session. So first my own pre-amble:

Epistemology is the study of knowledge about the world.
It covers what, why and how we know, and how we understand the semantics (meaning) of what we (believe we) know about the world. That is not so much what is believed but the basis and the mechanics of believing and knowing.

[Ontology is the study of what exists in the world.
Assuming there exists an actual real world, ontology is really therefore about the model of what we believe to exist, hence the presumed relationship between our model and the actual world, based on what we know about it.

Most ontologies involve a taxonomy of classes (types) of things that exist, and their relationships. The basis for membership of any classes is therefore invariably based on what we can know about them – a kind of 20 questions (is it a bird? is it a plane?) or structured sequence or strategy of questioning (why is that your answer, etc.)  – hence an intimate relationship between ontology and epistemology.]

Street Epistemology (SE) is defined as:

A way of having more productive conversations
with believers to help them
re-examine the foundations of their beliefs.

[That way of conducting the dialogue is just such a sequence, flowchart or strategy of asking the basis of what is known / believed. Hence Epistemology. And, the context is to conduct such a dialogue in everyday terms on everyday neutral territory. Hence Street.]

So far so good. Understanding what we know by asking questions is as old as Socrates, indeed the Socratic method is named after him. Adding logic to create episteme and ontolog is what Aristotle first sought to formalise, and the debates continue today.

However, the phrasing of the definition is decidedly one sided – them and us. We are about to help and educate them apparently? “With all due respect” arrogant, cynical and disingenuous. Better (ie more equitable and honest) as:

A way of having more productive conversations
with believers to help them to help us
re-examine the foundations of their our beliefs

So (most recently a la Baggini): “Faithful” or “Rational” we all have thin ice or stacks of turtles under what we believe, whether we call it truth, knowledge, belief or faith. There is always a why (first cause) or at the very least a next question beyond our declared foundation.

The main quality of what we believe on the scale of knowledge to faith is how dogmatic or contingent we hold it to be true and the basis on which we justify holding it – if asked – hence the SE Q&A). The point is to recognise evidence and revisability based on experience (direct first-hand and/or authoritative, transparent, positively- or negatively-verifiable, second or third-hand experience).

The main enemy of reasonable belief is dogma, either individually or in unchallengable authority. Belief that doesn’t recognise doubt, questioning and challenge. Common dogmas are in:
(a) What counts as evidence of what.
(b) Denying the turtles, claiming a foundation more solid than we really have.
(c) Denying that what we believe, we know on whatever basis we hold  about the world is always going to have a human dimension, however “objectively” we might rationalise it.

Corollaries? There are too many to mention, so let’s switch to the actual talk:

After introducing the idea of the Socratic method, the questioning strategy, with the proviso not to lapse into any judgmental or emotional statements, nor to assert any alternative beliefs or arguments held by the questioner, the talk was mainly examples from the Magnabasco web resources. Both raw recordings of Q&A street interviews with theists, and a post-analysis commentary by Magnabasco – points to note and lessons to learn in conducting better Street Epistemology interviews.

Several comments from the audience questioned the disingenuity of the approach. Sure, there is nothing wrong with the Socratic method, but the unspoken (denied) objective of converting the target interviewee, or at least sowing seeds of doubt, getting them to question their beliefs, to leave holding such a question, is disingenuous.

Secondly all the examples used were too easy. Certain (100%) believers, but young, with little evidence of previous theological or philosophical bases of their beliefs. The SE people even have a name for them (after Socrates) “the unexamined”. All too easy to find a question to which the Interlocutor (interviewee) had never considered the basis of any answer, or to hold back on superior knowledge of ancient rehearsed arguments (Pascal’s wager, or Socrates Euthyphro argument).

So far as it goes, to sow seeds of doubt in “the unexamined” believers, then SE is fine of course. And, for atheist interlocutors, if learning the value of the open questioning strategy is needed, rather than reacting negatively and emotionally with “rationalist” counter-assertions, then a 2500 year-old lesson is always good too. All good if done genuinely.

There remain the two problems however. One, it could never lead anywhere with sophisticated theists or theologians, without switching into more active alternative arguments. ie it’s not that argument is bad, whether the dialogue is one-sided questioning or two-way cut and thrust, but that respect and politeness add value to both (mutually from both sides). Sophisticated theists have plenty of doubt. The trick is to understand the things about which they have least doubts.

And two, what is missing with SE is any respect for the other. The whole basis is “we know; we’re educating you”. The “empathic” approach is all a front. You can just about get away with such arrogance when the target is (a) naive in terms of the content of the argument, and (b) naive in terms of the hidden one-sided agenda. Anywhere else it is plain disrespectful and guaranteed to antagonise.

The right kind of respect is what Daniel Dennett cites as “Rappaport’s Law”. You should never start from a position opposing your interlocutor (in explicit open debate or in secret behind your questioning approach) unless and until you can demonstrate your understanding of their position. Indeed, demonstrate it so well they might reply “Yes, that’s exactly what I mean, I wish I’d thought of it like that.” OK, so sometimes time and life are too short to really get to that position in all real cases, and if naive your interlocutor may not have any sophisticated position anyway, but it is the principle of respect to at least genuinely wish to understand the other’s position. That’s empathy. [Post Note: I collated all my “rules of engagement” for constructive dialogue.]

The disingenuity kills that stone dead.

Sadly, it’s even worse than that. Not only is there no attempt to understand the other, over and above the “we’re educating them” stance, there were several totally dismissive positions cited:

The idea of “believing A and not-A to be true” was dismissed with with a snigger. Actually such a position is usually a big clue that neither side really understands yet what A is, or is holding only partial definitions. And, in other cases where objects are unclear or paradoxical, there may be truth and falsity spread over multiple categories of objects and layers of causation, not to mention timescales from historical, immediate and predictive.

Similarly the idea that not all belief in the truth of A can be 100% definitively backed by evidence was also ridiculed. Believing – knowing A – by feel and presence. This is just another consequence of dealing with poorly understood A. (Which isn’t to say a better defined A is necessarily better understood, simply that more questions are needed).

To cut a long story short, atheist rationalists have as much to learn from others (atheist or theist) using SE as any theists might do from atheists. It is dismissive and pejorative to start from a position that treats the other as deluded and unreasonable, in need of the benefit of your education, mentally ill in need of our counselling. At least Socrates knew he knew a lot less than the average atheist. SE is a curate’s egg. Good in parts, for the unexamined, but fundamentally rotten.

Finally, the supreme irony, is that scientistic atheist rationalists are typically the most vocal “new-atheists” in denying the value of philosophy. Science and logic already have everything anyone need know sewn-up apparently. Good news is that Bill Flavell blogs at “NilDogma” so hope for change 😉

=====

[2017 Post Notes: Buzzfeed piece from 2013, and a recent piece from David Webster. The veneration of Socrates is overdone and is in fact a serious limitation to enlightened critical thinking. Encourages the 2-year-old’s style of never ending …. but why, but how, and another thing, but why, what about, how,  …. not actually constructive. See also Rules of Engagement for any dialogue about complex topics.]

[2018 Post Note: See also 2018 Street Epistemology Update which picks up on this 2018 post from David Harding. Food for dialogue.]

=====

Hat tip to @SamiraShackle for drawing my attention to @FrankieBoyle’s Comment is Free piece in the Grauniad.

The theme and conclusion is telegraphed in the title, but the content is explicitly about the seemingly deranged rationale of supporting vaguely motivated bombing in Syria but resisting direct support for Syrian refugees. It’s a very intelligent read, plenty of historical, cultural and political content to support the arguments and, most importantly, it’s seriously witty.

I won’t quote spoilers, but the passage of 8 or 10 lines from “A handful of Afghans ….” to “…. how shit Leeds is.” must have a dozen gags within it on several levels, every one of them hillarious. That’s some skill.

I’ve used Frankie before as my archetype of the official “court-jester” in the context of freedom-to-offend debates. Whether writing for the Sun, or being written about in the Sun, no-one has a greater right to be as offensively funny as Frankie. His deadly clever wit earns it.

However, on top of that quality of content and delivery, Frankie nails the real underlying issue we are all struggling with. We can all criticise the “other side” in any political debate, but there is this nagging doubt that whichever side is actually in power, we never seem to learn from past bad decisions. The more rationally we try to justify them, the less we seem to have learned, and the less comfortable we are with supporting them. We (they) must be mad.

It really is an addiction to the decision making process that leads us time after time to the predictably wrong decisions. And the bigger they are the more predictably wrong. It’s a meme itself. An addiction to bad memes. This is a main agenda theme of Psybertron since I started. The first time I joined memes to addiction was back here in 2006 (sadly the content of the Bath conference of Unhooked Thinking on Addiction has suffered link-rot so can no longer be found.)

There’s also a self-reinforcing denial, a neurosis, like any addiction. We do it even though we (really) know it’s wrong, neurotically obsessed by following the well-trod ritual procedure, and again Frankie pinpoints why:

We cling to our dependency with the weary rationale of any addict.
The addiction is simple; giving up is complicated.

Simple repeatable rationale always wins. Anything else is more complicated. Keep it simple, stupid. Logical, quantifiable, arithmetic processes are (a) easy to do, and (b) easy to justify after the event. The numbers never lie, apparently. Unlike values and considerations that don’t fit simple arithmetic logic, where you might need to base your value on some strongly felt belief not backed by objectively definitive proofs. Life and death, not being repeatable experiments, don’t lend themselves to objective proofs. So we fall back on the things that do. Life and death suffer as a result.

Nice one Frankie. A recommended read, a very witty piece of satire, whether you agree with the underlying point or not.

====

[Post Note : On Psybertron previously – “Court Jester” on Frankie as archetype of offensive satire.]

[Post Note : Later piece by Frankie on aspirations of “Western (Capitalist) Civilisation”.]

Does Humphrys write his own drivel?

“Chinese dumping cheap steel” in our markets? WTF?! “Dumping” is pejorative and racist language. Sob stories of “our” families losing earners? Disgusting partisan political rhetoric. The Chinese are simply using the free-market as would we.

The problem is all markets being free.

“Parlous state” of UK steel industry? WTF?! Actually not remotely true. Efficiency and quality-wise UK steel industry is second to none in recent decades, both in basic steel-making in modern facilities and in the range of specialist steels and steel products. That’s why Tata, SSI and the like were interested in owning them. Problem is competitiveness of energy and labour and local HSE regulations in a global market.

The problem again is all markets being free.

Proud imperial heritage, used to be “exporter to the world”? WTF?! Maybe true, but irrelevant. Real issue is that steel-making is a strategic security resource. Do we really want to be incapable of producing our own steel, dependent entirely on foreign markets in times of security uncertainty? Clearly we can never expect to produce export steel scaled to satisfy Chinese construction bubbles, but it’s OK to expect we are capable of producing steel when we might need it.

Not all economic considerations are free market.

Somebody please read Paul Mason, and any non-autistic economist.

Key:

	Integrated plants: combined steelmaking and rolling mills.
	Other rolling mills.
	Coating plants.
	Wire plants.
	Tube mills.

Only 7 Actual steel-making plants left before this latest crisis. At least 5 are owned by the groups announcing closures, cuts and administration. We may be down to only 2 or 3 ?

[Post Note : I should add, these job-loss figures are dwarfed by those lost from the oil & gas industry during the last two years, but that industry doesn’t benefit from the romance of “the valleys” or “grim up north” clog-wearing traditions, even though Aberdeen is a long way from London. Just as strategic of course, even if publicly unpopular fossil energy is transitioning to renewables.]

Started reading Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz dialogue on Islam – the Future of Tolerance. Sadly not completed due to distractions including another read, but …

My impression is very good. Most of Nawaz subtlety on Jihadi / Islamist motivations looks much like my own – pure common sense, stuff I already agree with – and he has the first-hand perspective I lack.

Alarmingly,  Harris, whilst being positive in the spirit of dialogue, responds with “very interesting” and “that’s important to know”. It’s as if he really has been ignorant of this stuff.

I’ve always criticised Harris’ prejudiced anti-religious “new atheist” position, but always defended his more philosophical rationality, than say Dawkins or Krauss. Surprised he really was that ignorant.

Consistent with my impression of the Harvard live conversation, where I said Harris looked chastened by what he’d learned. Learning is always good. Credit to Harris.

Attended Theos event “Does Humanism need Christianity?” at Kings College, London last night

The dean introduced Nick Spencer of Theos, who in turn introduced chair, Clare Carlisle.

Christian speakers were Angus Ritchie and Alison Milbank.
Humanist speakers were Julian Baggini and Richard Norman.

The topic was a conversation in response to the Theos essay / booklet by Spencer and Ritchie “The Case for Christian Humanism” a critique of the Amsterdam declaration of Humanist values. A critique controversial amongst humanists when published last year, suggesting that, bar one anti-religious declaration, all Humanist values were shared with Christianity.

[And I have previously reviewed Spencer’s work on the shared histories of atheist humanism.]

Apparently it was recorded – so look out for the link – and @theosthinktank tweeted #theoshumanism continuously, and subsequently “storified” here – so I won’t include all my notes on the conversation. But a conversation it was. Proper dialogue rather than the standard debating to win.

For sure, the title as worded wasn’t going to be agreed with, that Humanism needs Christianity, or theistic religion in general, but it was clear humanists need christians, and muslims, and jews, and …

Humans need dialogue with humans.

My take-aways were:

Late on, Socrates’ Euthyphro arguments against the existence of god was cited (anonymously) from Plato’s Dialogues, from the audience. In fact it’s easy for each “side” to prove the other’s basis of belief is unfounded in an objectively narrow logical sense. Thing is we all as humans (really) see our rationality as something wider and deeper than this.

Transcendence – a grace or god or spiritual idea, being “somehow” one with, connected with the world, beyond the boundaries of our “self” and our “known” rationality. The Saganian “we are (all) stardust” suggestion quoted from the audience; we are an integral part of the cosmos and our terrestrial ecosystem, special only because of the responsibilities that come with our faculties. This as stated from a humanist audience member, correctly described as religious – a sentiment that binds us as humans – by Milbank.

Religious God-given stick / reward justifications for faith or the desire for absolute rational objective grounding are both ultimately misguided. And dogma is misguided in any context. The rationality of “turtles all the way down”; objective empirical, logical rationalism still ends at recursive first-cause questions of grounding. Accepting the thin ice we skate on (Baggini) might look like a kind of faith, a choosing to believe the best foundations on which we build our world view, but more an assertion we choose to believe pragmatically and contingently to live life without spending all our time in deep philosophical debate. (The trick is for us not to allow our ego and arrogance lose sight of the reality of this thin ice grounding our rational edifices.)

The real question neatly summed-up by Ritchie in his closing remarks, given we pretty much agree human values, and the nature or quality of their groundings, is “what is for the best for “conservation” of this understanding of these human values and their basis, for the future of humanity in the cosmos?”.

Turning every human value into explicit (objectively rationalised, evidence-based) human rights, might not be the best exclusive answer. Goods include transcendent sentiments and responsibilities.

A very encouraging dialogue.

 

=====

ROUGH NOTES – retained until recording or transcript can be linked.

case for christian humanism essay by nick and angus

ritchie – words n language affect values and perception. humanism.

historically inclusive of human values, not simply atheistic. church problem of giving up use of the word except catholics inc pope. atheist humanists sawing off branch?

norman – humanist atheist but happy with xtians also being humanist. dependency less clear. grounding of dignity of humans is the question. common problem to both camps. real issue is basis of reason n cognitive capacity? kahneman cognitive evolution and biases. no prior underpinning morality grounded in what it is to be human can agree.

milbank – h needs transcendent “god”.meaning always exceeds our grasp through metaphor etc bound religare. there is a meta dimension whether you call it metaphysical or spiritual. poetic beauty. is secular humanism setting human as a privikeged in itself. settibg limits at boundary of self. participation as creatures. more than rational and autonomous.

baggini – turtles all the way down story. moral nothing is groubded all the way down. rational secular accept reality of this – though dogmatic might not. god of the gaps as missing foundation doesn’t actually solve it. noones human reaction to the beauty of a new born is neitger theological or rational.

Humanists don’t see need for grace to complete the human?
Lots in common but few specific disagreement — based on Amsterdam declaration.
Stuff known by revelation in the religious is a specific difference.
Human capacity is enough grounding says Norman.
So do humanism needs to “trust” in the intuition that is ok to rely on the thin ice of human capacity. Not says Baggini more an assertion that it’s good enough- neither founded in pure reason out there cast in stone nor mere preference. This is a false dichotomy
Human appreciation of the baby?
We’re all human, but we’re not all Christian. Hard for Christian (sect) to claim universality.
Milbank Still sticking seeing humanists seeing humans end in themselves. Revelatory
No we really see that the human perspective is pragmatic limit to grounding.
Managing objects. Reacting to this is not just pomo different issues.
Does right and appropriate allow moral sentiment as well as objectively rational.
Really about theism not Christianity. Spiritual question. Genesis is Jewish anyway. Judaism has wonderful human view. Dominion is not negative. Tolkien fan!
We have Christian heritage culturally. Yes secular humans recognise complex relations beyond our autonomous self-identity.
Euthyphro
Assertion not faith? Many affective inputs as well as rational objective. Right is morally rational.
Demands for absolute grounding of morality doesn’t win an argument against someone who fails to hold right moral view. Agreed must not cash out morality as simply result of some other.
Transcendence also shared by secular humanist views. We are stardust. We are oriented to find meaning beyond ourselves.
Humanists do need Christians! Agreed.
Anti-religious humanists made most noise for a while, but there are plenty who do recognise value in the other. Conversation not debate.
Best at protecting the values we share — a conservatism.
No we are not certain — we know we’re on thin ice.