Almost a month in and there is no resolution of the Boggo Road Gaol fiasco. On a recent Boggo Blog post (written by Chris Dawson of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society) [1] I raised the following point: "It would be more than interesting to hear a full account of what happened and why Mr. Sim was given the deed (and under a newly adopted business name)." Dawson's post had dealt with claims made by Mr. Sim that other potential operators (i.e. BRGHS) could not run the Gaol as they rely upon 'gold coin donations' and volunteers. It was stated by Mr. Sim that a commercial operation was necessary and implied that only a private business could achieve such. In showing that other major Gaols in Australia are run as commercial ventures by not-for-profit groups Dawson effectively rebutted Mr. Sim's assertions. What I meant to indicate through my comment is that an account, by those responsible for making the decision, outlining the reasons for Mr. Sim being granted the Deed of Licence would help to explain what happened and also potentially offer ways to constructively resolve the issue.
"The 'why' of all this is quite straightforward. Campbell Newman believes that the way to get Queensland "back on track" is through the private sector and a smaller government - despite all the national evidence showing that this is not how the low-profit heritage sector works. What we saw and heard suggests that the basics of this decision were made months before the BRGHS even found out about it: A private business model would be implemented at Boggo Road while trying to shoehorn community groups in there too. However, and as you point out, 'Ghost Tours' is hardly a successful business. Campbell Newman was convinced otherwise though, and here we are." [1]
Therein rests the crux of my comment: what evidence was there to show that Mr. Sim should be given the Deed of Licence? Even assuming the need for private business to guide the project, the question remains as to what grounds anyone had for selecting Mr. Sim. Leaving aside the why of the inverted commas, nothing seems "straightforward". By Dawson’s account it was down to political policy and personal evaluation on the part of Campbell Newman. I presume that Dawson is speaking of Campbell Newman in the abstract sense though, given that, as per Liam Baker's post on the matter, it was Bruce Flegg, and subsequently Tim Mander, who were directly involved [2]. If Mr. Sim was such an outstanding candidate that not even public tenders were deemed necessary then why not give the reasons? All I ask for is a degree of transparency in the matter.
In the second last sentence of the above quotation, Dawson alludes to the fact that I had noted my own reservations about Mr. Sim's capacity to run a commercial operation. That opinion is based on the fact that I would hardly consider his main venture, Ghost Tours pty ltd, to be a particularly successful one. Fiscal matters aside, I have seen more than enough to suggest that Mr. Sim has a rather lax attitude towards historical accuracy and would therefore be a poor choice of individual, to my mind, if the preservation of Brisbane’s heritage is part of the plan. In other words, there are neither self-evident nor obvious reasons for the decision hence warranting justification.
Perhaps the more salient part of Dawson’s response is its second paragraph which reads:
“There is a basic conflict of interest issue here, in that the private business has a financial motivation to stifle any 'competition' from community groups. The result is that third parties STILL have no access to Boggo Road (which was supposed to be a requirement of the Deed of License). Mr Sim still wants third parties like the BRGHS to pay him $100 per hour to access the gaol, and we understand that he is now arguing that he should have SOLE access rights, i.e. no other organisation can offer tourism services there. So much for this 'fair and equitable' access to a public asset we keep hearing about.” [1]
I would not deny Mr. Sim an equal opportunity to contribute or operate in the local history scene. However, I do think he needs to either meet the standards of historical study or present his work in such a way as to indicate plainly that it is not particularly useful in an educational sense. Excluding others (namely the Gaol’s own historical society – BRGHS) from running tours is not in the best interests of the site itself. In the end such action can, as Dawson remarks, only benefit the business side of things. Given that the BRGHS has shown that they wish to channel the proceeds of their work into the Gaol, and also the fact that their tours would attract different audiences (I, for one, would not be interested in tours involving costumed folk – Mr. Sim included – frolicking about the place) there is valid reason to open the doors to others.
Part of the causal structure behind Mr. Sim being in a position to get such access to historical sites and appear in the media is that there has yet to be an outright challenge of him in the public arena. While the deconstructions of his pseudohistorical pronouncements on this site as well as Haunts of Brisbane and the Boggo Blog are public in the sense that they can be freely and openly accessed, the audience for such challenges is limited. When I speak of the 'public arena' I mean to suggest that such a challenge needs to be articulated in the mass media. Perhaps the Boggo Road Gaol situation affords an opportunity for Mr. Sim to be held to account, and for his efforts to peddle questionable material as history and monopolise local heritage sites to be put to an end.
[1] http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/gold-coins-straw-men-who-really-runs.html
[2] http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/recipe-for-disaster-cocktail-1-rotten.html
A blog confronting pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and other questionable pronouncements of fact
Friday, December 28, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Old News about an even Older Flood
Given the involvement of one Robert 'Titanic Finder' Ballard, I wonder how long it will be before this is misused by Creationists and Biblical literalists:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/12/06/51/noahs-biblical-flood-was-real
Indeed, the title of the linked article already shows a degree of ambiguity.
Suggestions that localised, historical events gave rise to narratives of a 'great flood' have been circulating for quite some time. Nothing in the 'facts behind the story' arguments substantiate the Biblical narrative itself though. Saying they did is like saying that evidence of a historical 'Jesus' (who wouldn't have even been called Jesus) is evidence of Jesus, a character in the work of fiction called the Bible. Yes, fictional tales and figures can have a basis in reality but these don't make the stories a direct account.
The flood in question would not have been global nor caused by God opening the holes in the firmament (at that point in time certain people believed the sky was a dome - the firmament - that kept water out, hence the reason for it being blue). Flood myths predate Noah's own and can be found in Babylonian cultural traditions.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/2012/12/12/06/51/noahs-biblical-flood-was-real
Indeed, the title of the linked article already shows a degree of ambiguity.
Suggestions that localised, historical events gave rise to narratives of a 'great flood' have been circulating for quite some time. Nothing in the 'facts behind the story' arguments substantiate the Biblical narrative itself though. Saying they did is like saying that evidence of a historical 'Jesus' (who wouldn't have even been called Jesus) is evidence of Jesus, a character in the work of fiction called the Bible. Yes, fictional tales and figures can have a basis in reality but these don't make the stories a direct account.
The flood in question would not have been global nor caused by God opening the holes in the firmament (at that point in time certain people believed the sky was a dome - the firmament - that kept water out, hence the reason for it being blue). Flood myths predate Noah's own and can be found in Babylonian cultural traditions.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Joy to the World, a Prison is Re-opened
After being closed for several years, Boggo Road Gaol, one of Brisbane's iconic historical sites is to be reopened to the public. Well, partially at least. Instead of the much anticipated return to full operation as a tourist attraction and educational resource, two floors of a single cell block and parts of the yard are all that will be made accessible [1]. Even so this a move in the right direct. Or so I thought...
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Ten Commandments and 'Basic Morality'
Working within the topic of morality (and avoiding the drudgery of wading through Sam Harris' assertive treatise) it seemed rather diligent to briefly consider that oft cited paragon of morality, The Ten Commandments. Evangelical Christian fundamentalists have in the past tried to tell me that whatever else I may think of their religion I should be willing to concede that the Decalogue is a good guide to moral behaviour. Sometimes that concession is made by others and it is even claimed that these commandments persist outside of Christianity. I have never accepted that characterisation nor do I see it as accurate.
One means of concession is to cast the commandments as a valid espousal of 'basic morality'. By basic morality I take it one essentially means an unsophisticated acceptance of the points as ethical or the perception that these points are valid without us seeing the need for elaborate justification. To test this we need to look at the content of the commandments by listing them. In Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV used here), God begins by identifying Himself ("I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" - ed: who put them there in the first place?) then announces:
1 - You shall have no gods before me
2 - You shall make no graven images
3 - You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (or hold anyone who does guiltless)
4 - "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" and not working
5 - Honour your father and your mother
6 - You shall not murder/kill (interpretive variations exist)
7 - You shall not commit adultery
8 - You shall not steal
9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 - You shall not covet your neighbour’s house/wife/male or female servant/ox/donkey, or "anything that belongs to your neighbour"
Clearly then we do not have ten morally universal laws. It is actually 3 standard moral pronouncements (not murder/kill, not steal, not bear false witness), 3 fair points (honour father and mother, do not commit adultery, do not covet), and 4 contingent points which are only relevant or intelligible within a given religious framework (no other gods, no graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath day). Of course, it is impossible not to notice that the perceived morality breaks down even internally as wives and human beings are presented as property akin to livestock and houses in the final commandment. As such one can only agree with that one if necessary qualifications are made. Therein lays the issue: once qualifications and changes enter the picture one cannot hold this list to be ‘basic’ or easily accepted.
Where does this leave us? What is positive in the Ten Commandments has no inherent link to religion (ie one could justify those pronouncements without recourse to religious beliefs) and not all of them are valid or necessarily positive. Therefore we cannot say the list represents some kind of basic morality in and of itself.
Due to work load I haven't been able finish my review of Moral Landscape and likely won't have time for this until next week. However, I have now completed the book and stand firm in my assessment that it is highly flawed (perhaps too much so to adequately cover in a short blog post). Nevertheless that review is forthcoming, but in the interim I have another salient observation concerning Sam Harris.
One means of concession is to cast the commandments as a valid espousal of 'basic morality'. By basic morality I take it one essentially means an unsophisticated acceptance of the points as ethical or the perception that these points are valid without us seeing the need for elaborate justification. To test this we need to look at the content of the commandments by listing them. In Exodus 20:1-17 (NIV used here), God begins by identifying Himself ("I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery" - ed: who put them there in the first place?) then announces:
1 - You shall have no gods before me
2 - You shall make no graven images
3 - You shall not take the Lord's name in vain (or hold anyone who does guiltless)
4 - "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy" and not working
5 - Honour your father and your mother
6 - You shall not murder/kill (interpretive variations exist)
7 - You shall not commit adultery
8 - You shall not steal
9 - You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
10 - You shall not covet your neighbour’s house/wife/male or female servant/ox/donkey, or "anything that belongs to your neighbour"
Clearly then we do not have ten morally universal laws. It is actually 3 standard moral pronouncements (not murder/kill, not steal, not bear false witness), 3 fair points (honour father and mother, do not commit adultery, do not covet), and 4 contingent points which are only relevant or intelligible within a given religious framework (no other gods, no graven images, do not take the Lord's name in vain, remember the Sabbath day). Of course, it is impossible not to notice that the perceived morality breaks down even internally as wives and human beings are presented as property akin to livestock and houses in the final commandment. As such one can only agree with that one if necessary qualifications are made. Therein lays the issue: once qualifications and changes enter the picture one cannot hold this list to be ‘basic’ or easily accepted.
Where does this leave us? What is positive in the Ten Commandments has no inherent link to religion (ie one could justify those pronouncements without recourse to religious beliefs) and not all of them are valid or necessarily positive. Therefore we cannot say the list represents some kind of basic morality in and of itself.
Due to work load I haven't been able finish my review of Moral Landscape and likely won't have time for this until next week. However, I have now completed the book and stand firm in my assessment that it is highly flawed (perhaps too much so to adequately cover in a short blog post). Nevertheless that review is forthcoming, but in the interim I have another salient observation concerning Sam Harris.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
A Brief Outlook on The Moral Landscape
After watching a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig I decided to examine Harris' The Moral Landscape (2010) to discern whether or not the characterisation of it by Craig was accurate. While I assumed Craig was being his usual distortionist self I was actually wrong in this case. Having made it most of the way through (I find the book rather dense in the 'you never really get anywhere' sense so it's slower going than usual) I certainly believe it merits critical examination. For that reason I will post my examination of it once finished.
By way of lead up I have also been looking at reviews of Moral Landscape. Some of these arrive at similar conclusions to those which I have about the book (mainly negative) and will be addressed as part of the full post. One point I though merited direct attention was a pro-Harris retort from Chris Hallquist [1]. Regarding a comment made by Massimo Pigliucci, Hallquist writes:
"The snark that Harris just doesn’t know any philosophy (“I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it” – Massimo Pigliucci) is simply false. Harris did his bachelors in philosophy, and emphasizes in a footnote that he’s read quite a bit of the philosophical literature but just doesn’t think discussing it all would’ve made for a good book."
In the context of scholarship and intellectual debate asserting that you're "read quite a bit" is insufficient. Usually a writer is required to show (that is, evidentially prove) they have a firm grasp on relevant literature. Given Harris' general disdain for philosophy he omits a great deal of said literature that would otherwise be relevant. Even if he wanted to say it was garbage he would still be required to make that case. Therein lays one of the great issues of the book: it is assertive rather than evidentiary. Not very scientific. . .
If we actually look to Pigliucci's review we see that the above quote has been taken out of context. In context, Pigliucci writes:
"So, how do we ground moral reasoning? This is the province of a whole area of inquiry known as metaethics, and I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it." [2]
He isn't talking about philosophy in general but a specifically relevant field within it. Harris largely shows only an awareness of the 'big names' of philosophy which would be the expected extent of a bachelors degree in philosophy. Much more would be expected if someone were to be granted status as an authority or relevant voice on a topic. Since Harris speaks of 'moral experts' he clearly possesses the concept of expertise but falls short of justifying his status in that regard. Also, I can't help but wonder how a man with no qualifications beside said BA came to be a PhD candidate in neuroscience.
Further discussion shall need to wait until a future post.
1 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/01/11/whats-wrong-with-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape-review/
2 http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html
By way of lead up I have also been looking at reviews of Moral Landscape. Some of these arrive at similar conclusions to those which I have about the book (mainly negative) and will be addressed as part of the full post. One point I though merited direct attention was a pro-Harris retort from Chris Hallquist [1]. Regarding a comment made by Massimo Pigliucci, Hallquist writes:
"The snark that Harris just doesn’t know any philosophy (“I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it” – Massimo Pigliucci) is simply false. Harris did his bachelors in philosophy, and emphasizes in a footnote that he’s read quite a bit of the philosophical literature but just doesn’t think discussing it all would’ve made for a good book."
In the context of scholarship and intellectual debate asserting that you're "read quite a bit" is insufficient. Usually a writer is required to show (that is, evidentially prove) they have a firm grasp on relevant literature. Given Harris' general disdain for philosophy he omits a great deal of said literature that would otherwise be relevant. Even if he wanted to say it was garbage he would still be required to make that case. Therein lays one of the great issues of the book: it is assertive rather than evidentiary. Not very scientific. . .
If we actually look to Pigliucci's review we see that the above quote has been taken out of context. In context, Pigliucci writes:
"So, how do we ground moral reasoning? This is the province of a whole area of inquiry known as metaethics, and I suggest that Harris would benefit from reading about it." [2]
He isn't talking about philosophy in general but a specifically relevant field within it. Harris largely shows only an awareness of the 'big names' of philosophy which would be the expected extent of a bachelors degree in philosophy. Much more would be expected if someone were to be granted status as an authority or relevant voice on a topic. Since Harris speaks of 'moral experts' he clearly possesses the concept of expertise but falls short of justifying his status in that regard. Also, I can't help but wonder how a man with no qualifications beside said BA came to be a PhD candidate in neuroscience.
Further discussion shall need to wait until a future post.
1 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/01/11/whats-wrong-with-sam-harris-the-moral-landscape-review/
2 http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/about-sam-harris-claim-that-science-can.html
Labels:
Morality,
Sam Harris,
The Moral Landscape
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Ghost (Stories) of South Brisbane Cemetery & Beyond
In the preceding post I mentioned a recent “Moonlight Tour” of South Brisbane Cemetery. Besides the recurrent gripes at Toowong what also stood out was the occasional ghost tale and paranormal allusion. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the inclusion of such content it did go counter to some of my expectations. Quite early there was mention of a ‘Lady in Black’ who is reportedly sighted in the upper part known as the ‘teardrop’ (called so because the portions look like a teardrop shape on the map). This same story was reprised when we headed back up to the main gates. Members of the group were told to keep a look out for the spectre.
One point that bothered me about the description of this 'Lady in Black' was that we were never given any historical backing. As told that night, the tale/explanation behind the ghost was that she was in life a loving wife whose husband died young. She tended her husband’s grave side constantly then herself died not long after he had. I carried on wondering if there was an actual grave site in the 'teardrop' which housed the bodies of a man and his wife suitably timed in their deaths to match the narrative. In lieu of that it seemed like no critical reasoning was being applied. Because the tour was conducted by two main guides I should note that this particular narrative was told by Tracey Olivieri.
There was also supposition on the part of the other guide – Liam Baker, from Haunts of Brisbane – that an area around the grave of the captain responsible for the Pearl Disaster (which also contained the graves of a number of its victims) was subject to fluctuating temperatures due potentially to the close proximity of these bodies. Unless the area were shown to be one where temperature fluctuations were not to be expected or at the very least incredibly uncommon yet happening at high frequency then the supposition is meaningless. To posit a causal relation between a location’s temperature and who is buried/what happened there is rampant pattern seeking in the extreme.
With my interest peaked I decided to take a look at Olivieri’s, The Ghosts of South Brisbane Cemetery: Tales from my Backyard (2011). Although there is something of a disclaimer in the ‘Introduction’ where the author states, “I am not a ‘non-believer by any means”, we are nevertheless told that these tales are being cast as stories and nothing more (p.5). To a fair degree we may consider the book to be a brief memoir, comprised of personal and second-hand recollections concerning South Brisbane Cemetery. That provides one way to account for why the tales are simply told and not subjected to full critical evaluation.
Hints of criticality do emerge but are usually abandoned before reaching a conclusion. In an early example we are presented with the same story of the ‘Lady in Black’, then told that some versions of the story feature a nun in habit, while some connect the apparition to a lady who committed suicide in the river adjoining the cemetery in 1900, and others claim the ‘Lady’ is executed prisoner Ellen Thompson (pp.6-8). Giving an answer to the unrequited curiosity I experienced on the tour, Olivieri states in the following section, “out of respect for the deceased and any family members I believe it is always inappropriate to try and ‘identify’ any alleged ghost” (p.12). But isn’t that disrespect just paying the piper? In my view, if one chooses to draw on the appeal of ghost stories during historical talks or tours then it is inevitable that questions of accuracy and tenability will arise. Those questions may well lead to the necessity of assessing if a situation matching the story exists (as with the question of a suitable grave for the ‘Lady in Black’ above) and hence to identification. Furthermore, such inquiry may actually be respectful to the deceased and their descendants when a supposed ghost has previously been given an identity but that identification is entirely inconsistent with historical data (a recent case being that of ‘Mary Mayne’ in the Brisbane Arcade).
Subsequently, the author seems to pursue identification despite the earlier attitude to the contrary. Relating a story told to her by “an old and trusted friend” (p.19), Olivieri writes:
“He later heard from a neighbour that a young man had hanged himself years ago near the cemetery, at a place that was not yet within the cemetery grounds at the time. I looked into this myself and sure enough there have been a few suicides around the cemetery over time, including men who hanged themselves from trees. Are those stories related to this story? I cannot say, because that would just be meaningless speculation” (p.20)
One may try to argue that this isn’t identification because no names are given. However, it must be remembered that due to the very accessible National Libraries Australia online database of newspapers it is quite easy to find out the details of suicides potentially including names as in the case of the ‘Lady in Black’ suicide mentioned above.
Personally, I wouldn’t engage in such efforts as the identification of ghosts. Not in the least because the nature of the phenomenon is in question – are people seeing spirits of the dead, experiencing hallucinations, or something different? We cannot simply assume we all know what a ghost is, nor has anyone proven a connection to demonstrate that such localities as cemeteries, hospitals, or murder sites give rise to a phenomenon and that phenomenon is what we call a haunting. What I do find quizzical is that Olivieri holds these attitudes but nevertheless conducts tours in conjunction with the author of Haunts of Brisbane, a blog that persistently tries to identify the ghosts behind various tales and engages in what Olivieri seems to be describing as “meaningless speculation”.
Of course, the speculation is only meaningless if one doesn’t ascribe to some loose assumption that ghosts exist and hauntings are the product of tragic circumstance. That kind of assumption certainly appears to me to be present on the Haunts of Brisbane where existing accounts behind hauntings/ghosts are disputed and attempts are made to explain what are still taken to be valid occurrences. Putting history into the picture frequently debunks ghost stories in a way distinct to the use of historical material on Haunts of Brisbane though. If a story is shown to be unsubstantiated then it undermines the validity of the account, which in turn pulls the sheet off of a fraudulent ghost.
In my assessment, the efforts of Olivieri and Baker remain qualitatively different from the spurious ramblings of many ghosts and paranormal enthusiasts. Olivieri's book doesn't purport to be anything other than a collection of stories. On that note we may consider it in a different class to the similarly titled, The Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery (originally published in 2007, but reprinted in 2008 minus glaring errors that listed the cemetery as being open between sunset and sunrise only, and intimated that Samuel Blackall was a time traveller, born decades after his death – all quotes are from the 2008 edition) by Jack Sim. So, "Who the hell is Jack Sim?" you may ask. Well, going by his website with the just-quoted title one may be tempted to say he's a vigorous self-promoter. I should also make it clear that this is a different Jack Sim from the man of the same name who heads the World Toilet Organisation. I respect that Jack Sim. Actually, the author and Ghost Tours business owner is only using "Jack" as a trading name (http://businessprofiles.com/details/cameron-owen-sim/AU-54451041904). For the sake of not really caring what people call themselves let's henceforth refer to him as Mr. Sim so that everyone is happy.
Like Olivieri's Ghosts of South Brisbane, there's some author-info in the back of Ghosts of Toowong. Here we are told that Mr. Sim "has dedicated his life to preserving the details of things and subjects that all of us find both macabre and thrilling" and is described as a "dark historian" (p.41). When I want something "macabre and thrilling" I will read Lovecraft. To my mind, trite and irritating are words more fitting to Mr. Sim's self-publications.
Let's now deal with the "historian" label. On no documented occasion has Mr. Sim ever offered proof that he is a legitimate historian. It seems almost a running joke to ask for Mr. Sim's qualifications, in full knowledge that the only response will be silence. But what about amateur historians one may ask. Well, I would argue that Mr. Sim falls far short of even that designation.
Firstly, I say he falls short of being even an amateur historian because for a man supposedly "dedicated ... to preserving the deatils" he fails on some quite basic points. In the ‘Introduction’, Toowong Cemetery is listed as "257 acres (57 hectares)" (p.i). Actually, 257 acres would be a little over 104 hectares but that's not the real issue with Mr. Sim's claim. The problem is its completely wrong - Toowong Cemetery covers an area of just over 108 acres. The sign near the gates has the accurate area so it wouldn't be hard to ascertain, qualifications or not.
Another noticeable piece of historically misinformed writing is the chapter concerning the Mayne family (pp.27-9). Disgracefully the entire family is dubbed "the murderous Maynes" (I have never seen that label used outside of Mr. Sim's work or tours). Even the year that the only suspected murderer (and focus of the chapter), Patrick Mayne died is incorrect: it was 1865 not 1875 as Mr. Sim states! The story he presents has already been summarily deconstructed by Haunts of Brisbane so those wanting to know how it differs from history may visit: (http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/murderous-maynes-patrick-did-um-didnt.html).
A final glaring error is the mislabelling of 11th Avenue as 13th Avenue (p.37) despite the real 13th avenue being the short stretch of road that connects 8th Avenue to Boundary Road. Tragically in my opinion, Mr. Sim doesn't even give us a replacement 11th Avenue. Given that the false 13th Avenue is connected to a story in the book (about the Cemetery's own vampire no less, which "is said to be walking Thirteenth Avenue in the heart of the cemetery) and on Mr. Sim's tour (allegedly the sign is missing because people frequently steal it), I would conclude that the defacing of the Cemetery's map is based solely on Mr. Sim wanting to force it to fit his tales. Not what I would consider the actions of a genuine historian.
Interestingly, Mr. Sim appears to get a mention (albeit without direct identification) towards the end of The Ghosts of South Brisbane. Olivieri tells us that a “few years ago” she was approached and given the opportunity to work as a “ghost tour guide” at South Brisbane (p.36). After deciding not to take the job and “quite recently ... planning a series of not-for-profit night tours”, Olivieri reports that legal action was threatened because the company feared she would use material from its script and claimed their stories were “not common knowledge or in the public realm”. In my opinion, Olivieri is correct in her evaluation that “an attempt was being made to privatise public history and folklore.” Unless the stories were someone’s intellectual property (i.e. they made them up and can prove this) I would greatly doubt anyone’s ability to claim sole ownership of genuine local stories.
Do we have any comment relevant to this in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery? In the ‘Introduction’ Mr Sim claims "these stories are not made up. They come from local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff." So what this really means is that the stories are not made up by Mr. Sim. But considering he did not create or invent the stories who is he to claim ownership? Moreover, simply because local people are telling stories provides nothing to assess their truth by. Therefore it’s entirely possible his “local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff” are making things up. This pertains to the discussion of whether Mr. Sim is a historian because if we look at the references page he states that all chapters use "Various personal oral histories (withheld by request). Authors own collection" (p.40). Unlike the academic history that I practice, there is no accountability whereby source material is available for collective scrutiny. In the case of Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery we are asked to trust that these are valid accounts without ever knowing who, when, where in the cemetery or any other details.
All I see in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery is a loose compilation of allegedly genuine accounts, perpetuating a set of standards that accepts hearsay at face value. On the occasions previously listed when we can evaluate the accuracy on its contents, the book is sorely lacking. In a final summation I certainly believe that if there was greater concern and awareness of history then what I describe as these commercial sideshows would be either brought up to par or laughed out of existence. Now, I have no problem with ghost stories being presented as nothing but fun and folklore, but when assertions of accuracy or historical capacity are suggested then the standards of the discipline should be met.
One point that bothered me about the description of this 'Lady in Black' was that we were never given any historical backing. As told that night, the tale/explanation behind the ghost was that she was in life a loving wife whose husband died young. She tended her husband’s grave side constantly then herself died not long after he had. I carried on wondering if there was an actual grave site in the 'teardrop' which housed the bodies of a man and his wife suitably timed in their deaths to match the narrative. In lieu of that it seemed like no critical reasoning was being applied. Because the tour was conducted by two main guides I should note that this particular narrative was told by Tracey Olivieri.
There was also supposition on the part of the other guide – Liam Baker, from Haunts of Brisbane – that an area around the grave of the captain responsible for the Pearl Disaster (which also contained the graves of a number of its victims) was subject to fluctuating temperatures due potentially to the close proximity of these bodies. Unless the area were shown to be one where temperature fluctuations were not to be expected or at the very least incredibly uncommon yet happening at high frequency then the supposition is meaningless. To posit a causal relation between a location’s temperature and who is buried/what happened there is rampant pattern seeking in the extreme.
With my interest peaked I decided to take a look at Olivieri’s, The Ghosts of South Brisbane Cemetery: Tales from my Backyard (2011). Although there is something of a disclaimer in the ‘Introduction’ where the author states, “I am not a ‘non-believer by any means”, we are nevertheless told that these tales are being cast as stories and nothing more (p.5). To a fair degree we may consider the book to be a brief memoir, comprised of personal and second-hand recollections concerning South Brisbane Cemetery. That provides one way to account for why the tales are simply told and not subjected to full critical evaluation.
Hints of criticality do emerge but are usually abandoned before reaching a conclusion. In an early example we are presented with the same story of the ‘Lady in Black’, then told that some versions of the story feature a nun in habit, while some connect the apparition to a lady who committed suicide in the river adjoining the cemetery in 1900, and others claim the ‘Lady’ is executed prisoner Ellen Thompson (pp.6-8). Giving an answer to the unrequited curiosity I experienced on the tour, Olivieri states in the following section, “out of respect for the deceased and any family members I believe it is always inappropriate to try and ‘identify’ any alleged ghost” (p.12). But isn’t that disrespect just paying the piper? In my view, if one chooses to draw on the appeal of ghost stories during historical talks or tours then it is inevitable that questions of accuracy and tenability will arise. Those questions may well lead to the necessity of assessing if a situation matching the story exists (as with the question of a suitable grave for the ‘Lady in Black’ above) and hence to identification. Furthermore, such inquiry may actually be respectful to the deceased and their descendants when a supposed ghost has previously been given an identity but that identification is entirely inconsistent with historical data (a recent case being that of ‘Mary Mayne’ in the Brisbane Arcade).
Subsequently, the author seems to pursue identification despite the earlier attitude to the contrary. Relating a story told to her by “an old and trusted friend” (p.19), Olivieri writes:
“He later heard from a neighbour that a young man had hanged himself years ago near the cemetery, at a place that was not yet within the cemetery grounds at the time. I looked into this myself and sure enough there have been a few suicides around the cemetery over time, including men who hanged themselves from trees. Are those stories related to this story? I cannot say, because that would just be meaningless speculation” (p.20)
One may try to argue that this isn’t identification because no names are given. However, it must be remembered that due to the very accessible National Libraries Australia online database of newspapers it is quite easy to find out the details of suicides potentially including names as in the case of the ‘Lady in Black’ suicide mentioned above.
Personally, I wouldn’t engage in such efforts as the identification of ghosts. Not in the least because the nature of the phenomenon is in question – are people seeing spirits of the dead, experiencing hallucinations, or something different? We cannot simply assume we all know what a ghost is, nor has anyone proven a connection to demonstrate that such localities as cemeteries, hospitals, or murder sites give rise to a phenomenon and that phenomenon is what we call a haunting. What I do find quizzical is that Olivieri holds these attitudes but nevertheless conducts tours in conjunction with the author of Haunts of Brisbane, a blog that persistently tries to identify the ghosts behind various tales and engages in what Olivieri seems to be describing as “meaningless speculation”.
Of course, the speculation is only meaningless if one doesn’t ascribe to some loose assumption that ghosts exist and hauntings are the product of tragic circumstance. That kind of assumption certainly appears to me to be present on the Haunts of Brisbane where existing accounts behind hauntings/ghosts are disputed and attempts are made to explain what are still taken to be valid occurrences. Putting history into the picture frequently debunks ghost stories in a way distinct to the use of historical material on Haunts of Brisbane though. If a story is shown to be unsubstantiated then it undermines the validity of the account, which in turn pulls the sheet off of a fraudulent ghost.
In my assessment, the efforts of Olivieri and Baker remain qualitatively different from the spurious ramblings of many ghosts and paranormal enthusiasts. Olivieri's book doesn't purport to be anything other than a collection of stories. On that note we may consider it in a different class to the similarly titled, The Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery (originally published in 2007, but reprinted in 2008 minus glaring errors that listed the cemetery as being open between sunset and sunrise only, and intimated that Samuel Blackall was a time traveller, born decades after his death – all quotes are from the 2008 edition) by Jack Sim. So, "Who the hell is Jack Sim?" you may ask. Well, going by his website with the just-quoted title one may be tempted to say he's a vigorous self-promoter. I should also make it clear that this is a different Jack Sim from the man of the same name who heads the World Toilet Organisation. I respect that Jack Sim. Actually, the author and Ghost Tours business owner is only using "Jack" as a trading name (http://businessprofiles.com/details/cameron-owen-sim/AU-54451041904). For the sake of not really caring what people call themselves let's henceforth refer to him as Mr. Sim so that everyone is happy.
Like Olivieri's Ghosts of South Brisbane, there's some author-info in the back of Ghosts of Toowong. Here we are told that Mr. Sim "has dedicated his life to preserving the details of things and subjects that all of us find both macabre and thrilling" and is described as a "dark historian" (p.41). When I want something "macabre and thrilling" I will read Lovecraft. To my mind, trite and irritating are words more fitting to Mr. Sim's self-publications.
Let's now deal with the "historian" label. On no documented occasion has Mr. Sim ever offered proof that he is a legitimate historian. It seems almost a running joke to ask for Mr. Sim's qualifications, in full knowledge that the only response will be silence. But what about amateur historians one may ask. Well, I would argue that Mr. Sim falls far short of even that designation.
Firstly, I say he falls short of being even an amateur historian because for a man supposedly "dedicated ... to preserving the deatils" he fails on some quite basic points. In the ‘Introduction’, Toowong Cemetery is listed as "257 acres (57 hectares)" (p.i). Actually, 257 acres would be a little over 104 hectares but that's not the real issue with Mr. Sim's claim. The problem is its completely wrong - Toowong Cemetery covers an area of just over 108 acres. The sign near the gates has the accurate area so it wouldn't be hard to ascertain, qualifications or not.
Another noticeable piece of historically misinformed writing is the chapter concerning the Mayne family (pp.27-9). Disgracefully the entire family is dubbed "the murderous Maynes" (I have never seen that label used outside of Mr. Sim's work or tours). Even the year that the only suspected murderer (and focus of the chapter), Patrick Mayne died is incorrect: it was 1865 not 1875 as Mr. Sim states! The story he presents has already been summarily deconstructed by Haunts of Brisbane so those wanting to know how it differs from history may visit: (http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/murderous-maynes-patrick-did-um-didnt.html).
A final glaring error is the mislabelling of 11th Avenue as 13th Avenue (p.37) despite the real 13th avenue being the short stretch of road that connects 8th Avenue to Boundary Road. Tragically in my opinion, Mr. Sim doesn't even give us a replacement 11th Avenue. Given that the false 13th Avenue is connected to a story in the book (about the Cemetery's own vampire no less, which "is said to be walking Thirteenth Avenue in the heart of the cemetery) and on Mr. Sim's tour (allegedly the sign is missing because people frequently steal it), I would conclude that the defacing of the Cemetery's map is based solely on Mr. Sim wanting to force it to fit his tales. Not what I would consider the actions of a genuine historian.
Interestingly, Mr. Sim appears to get a mention (albeit without direct identification) towards the end of The Ghosts of South Brisbane. Olivieri tells us that a “few years ago” she was approached and given the opportunity to work as a “ghost tour guide” at South Brisbane (p.36). After deciding not to take the job and “quite recently ... planning a series of not-for-profit night tours”, Olivieri reports that legal action was threatened because the company feared she would use material from its script and claimed their stories were “not common knowledge or in the public realm”. In my opinion, Olivieri is correct in her evaluation that “an attempt was being made to privatise public history and folklore.” Unless the stories were someone’s intellectual property (i.e. they made them up and can prove this) I would greatly doubt anyone’s ability to claim sole ownership of genuine local stories.
Do we have any comment relevant to this in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery? In the ‘Introduction’ Mr Sim claims "these stories are not made up. They come from local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff." So what this really means is that the stories are not made up by Mr. Sim. But considering he did not create or invent the stories who is he to claim ownership? Moreover, simply because local people are telling stories provides nothing to assess their truth by. Therefore it’s entirely possible his “local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff” are making things up. This pertains to the discussion of whether Mr. Sim is a historian because if we look at the references page he states that all chapters use "Various personal oral histories (withheld by request). Authors own collection" (p.40). Unlike the academic history that I practice, there is no accountability whereby source material is available for collective scrutiny. In the case of Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery we are asked to trust that these are valid accounts without ever knowing who, when, where in the cemetery or any other details.
All I see in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery is a loose compilation of allegedly genuine accounts, perpetuating a set of standards that accepts hearsay at face value. On the occasions previously listed when we can evaluate the accuracy on its contents, the book is sorely lacking. In a final summation I certainly believe that if there was greater concern and awareness of history then what I describe as these commercial sideshows would be either brought up to par or laughed out of existence. Now, I have no problem with ghost stories being presented as nothing but fun and folklore, but when assertions of accuracy or historical capacity are suggested then the standards of the discipline should be met.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Brisbane: Big Enough for Two Historical Cemeteries
In the past I have written and conducted tours for the Friends of Toowong Cemetery as I have more than a passing interest in local history as articulated through cemetery walks. Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a nocturnal tour of South Brisbane Cemetery conducted by the Friends of said site. I say 'pleasure' in no small part because the tour was lacking the gaudy baubles and irritations (e.g. 'spooky hosts' in questionable costuming, pretending to be vampires etc, and scripts with inaccuracies) that are the hallmark of other night time tours operating in the local region.
My impressions of the tour aside, I decided to write a post because of a general sense of recurrent comparison that the tour guides set up between Toowong and South Brisbane Cemeteries. This comparative reprise had the tone of what might, in vernacular slang, be called a 'pissing contest' over which was the older, grander, more wonderful cemetery. Those which I explicitly remember had to do with the respective 'age' of each (marked by first burial), the number of people interred, and the fact that South Brisbane has "a [Queensland] premier too". On the whole, I found such comments to be quite pointless.
What directly prompted me to write was the reiteration of those same sentiments in the facebook event created for the upcoming tour on 24th August (http://www.facebook.com/events/424863900888632/). The first line of the event description reads: "Whilst Toowong Cemetery on the City's west-side lays claims to a number of Queensland's important pioneers and events, South Brisbane holds yet an earlier record of Brisbane's history".
Does it though? Both cemeteries were established in 1866. The first burial in South Brisbane took place on 1st August 1870. According to information gathered from the Council's Grave Location Search and also from the Friends of South Brisbane Cemetery website, this was the burial of a lady named Jane Hocking (or Hockings depending on source). Presumably she is a relation of Albert John Hocking as they are buried in the same plot. The Friend's site lists A J Hocking as a member of the cemetery trustees. Other than that I know nothing further of Jane. Toowong Cemetery's first burial occurred on the 3rd January 1871, only a matter of months after South Brisbane's debut. The burial in question was that of Governor Samuel Blackall. Not a good place to start a 'pissing contest', Friends...
Looking again at the event page, we see that the two first mentioned topics are the 1896 Pearl Tragedy and the executed criminals buried in South Brisbane. Toowong Cemetery has both victims of the Pearl Tragedy and victims of the hangman's noose. Indeed, the latter are those from Petrie Terrace Gaol which predates the Boggo Road inmates that rest in South Brisbane. How is this proof of a "yet earlier record of Brisbane's history"? It should also be noted that the history which cemeteries bear witness to predates the burial times of those interred in them anyway. That is to say we have as much interest in the lives of the people interred as we do in the date and moment of their death/funeral/burial when studying the significance of a cemetery.
Although it barely merits attention, the event description also lists a "Lady in Black" as being a 'resident' apparition of South Brisbane. If one chooses to focus (or even believe) in such things then Toowong likewise has a catalogue of such characters, some genuine folklore, some the partial fiction of more recent story-tellers.
To conclude, I still find a sense of competition quite meaningless. Brisbane has a long and interesting history, and certainly enough of a colourful past to fill at least two cemeteries. The very fact that many historical events encompass persons memorialised and interred at both Toowong and South Brisbane is testament to the mutual importance of each location.
My impressions of the tour aside, I decided to write a post because of a general sense of recurrent comparison that the tour guides set up between Toowong and South Brisbane Cemeteries. This comparative reprise had the tone of what might, in vernacular slang, be called a 'pissing contest' over which was the older, grander, more wonderful cemetery. Those which I explicitly remember had to do with the respective 'age' of each (marked by first burial), the number of people interred, and the fact that South Brisbane has "a [Queensland] premier too". On the whole, I found such comments to be quite pointless.
What directly prompted me to write was the reiteration of those same sentiments in the facebook event created for the upcoming tour on 24th August (http://www.facebook.com/events/424863900888632/). The first line of the event description reads: "Whilst Toowong Cemetery on the City's west-side lays claims to a number of Queensland's important pioneers and events, South Brisbane holds yet an earlier record of Brisbane's history".
Does it though? Both cemeteries were established in 1866. The first burial in South Brisbane took place on 1st August 1870. According to information gathered from the Council's Grave Location Search and also from the Friends of South Brisbane Cemetery website, this was the burial of a lady named Jane Hocking (or Hockings depending on source). Presumably she is a relation of Albert John Hocking as they are buried in the same plot. The Friend's site lists A J Hocking as a member of the cemetery trustees. Other than that I know nothing further of Jane. Toowong Cemetery's first burial occurred on the 3rd January 1871, only a matter of months after South Brisbane's debut. The burial in question was that of Governor Samuel Blackall. Not a good place to start a 'pissing contest', Friends...
Looking again at the event page, we see that the two first mentioned topics are the 1896 Pearl Tragedy and the executed criminals buried in South Brisbane. Toowong Cemetery has both victims of the Pearl Tragedy and victims of the hangman's noose. Indeed, the latter are those from Petrie Terrace Gaol which predates the Boggo Road inmates that rest in South Brisbane. How is this proof of a "yet earlier record of Brisbane's history"? It should also be noted that the history which cemeteries bear witness to predates the burial times of those interred in them anyway. That is to say we have as much interest in the lives of the people interred as we do in the date and moment of their death/funeral/burial when studying the significance of a cemetery.
Although it barely merits attention, the event description also lists a "Lady in Black" as being a 'resident' apparition of South Brisbane. If one chooses to focus (or even believe) in such things then Toowong likewise has a catalogue of such characters, some genuine folklore, some the partial fiction of more recent story-tellers.
To conclude, I still find a sense of competition quite meaningless. Brisbane has a long and interesting history, and certainly enough of a colourful past to fill at least two cemeteries. The very fact that many historical events encompass persons memorialised and interred at both Toowong and South Brisbane is testament to the mutual importance of each location.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Religion News: Cult leader ordered to return cash
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8478161/cult-leader-ordered-to-return-cash
"In the South Australian District Court on Monday, Silvana Melchiorre was awarded a default judgment against the former Agape Ministries leader [Rocco Leo] after he failed to appear."
If only the perpetrators of Christian apocalypse scams were ordered by law to return the money they've taken when Jesus fails to appear!
"In the South Australian District Court on Monday, Silvana Melchiorre was awarded a default judgment against the former Agape Ministries leader [Rocco Leo] after he failed to appear."
If only the perpetrators of Christian apocalypse scams were ordered by law to return the money they've taken when Jesus fails to appear!
Friday, June 1, 2012
Evidence and the Absence Thereof
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" has become one of the logicisms thrown around in debates over atheism. When confronted with William Lane Craig citing creationists (members of Operation 513included) one is likely to encounter the phrase as a retort, especially if the creationist in question has just been asked why there is so little evidence to back up their claims. The phrase isn't entirely without logic. If one position lacks evidence it does not automatically substantiate the contrary view. This can be demonstrated rather easily with a couple of examples.
Looking back to an earlier post, we see the Atheist Foundation of Australia claiming "there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for [among other things] the supernatural." If pressed for a clarification of what makes something "factually reliable" I would wager the AFA would use 'science' or 'scientific' somewhere in their answer so really that's the same thing said twice. However, science is the study of nature. We would therefore not expect to find "scientific" evidence of the supernatural, because it is by definition beyond nature or outside of the natural world. As such, the absence of the evidence is not cause to doubt the supernatural (there are a lot of those besides science), and not an argument for or against it.
So what is a valid case where the absence of evidence acts against a claim? What we need is a case where we would expect there to be much more (and at least better) evidence if the claim were factually correct. One prime case is the existence of the Biblical Jesus. I say 'Biblical Jesus' to establish that whatever loose historical analogue may have actually been preaching and stirring social discord two thousand years ago, it was certainly not the figure known in the Bible. In fact, he wouldn't have even been called Jesus! That name is an anglicised version of the Greek version of the Hebrew that may have been someone's name but possibly not: (pronounced) Yeshua.
Back to the Bible and how its claims are undermined by absent evidence. The period when Jesus was, according to the Bible, performing his miraculous acts is covered by Roman historians, and other writers from around the time. Do any of them mention the events described in the Bible? No. Would we expect them to? Yes. Some of them wrote on very mundane topics and surely the events of the Bible would have warranted at least passing reference! The best that fundamentalists and Biblical literalists can offer are marginal references to a leader and a group that may have been an early form of Christianity. While these may be (I say may be because it is also possible the fragments were forged) clues to the historical Jesus they lend no credence to the Biblical narrative.
Here's a glaring example of how independent sources and the Bible clash: Josephus (Jewish but captured by the Romans) is one source cited to have mentioned Jesus. His extant work contains two references. It also contains an antipathy to Herod. Herod was the king who, according to the Bible, ordered the slaughter of all first born children when he heard a new kning was born. This secured him a place in the nativity story but despite the other negative material about Herod contained in Josephus's writing there is no mention of this act. That is evidence againts it being a historical event.
Playing Devil's advocate (on behalf of the Bible...) maybe we should consider the possibility that other references to Jesus have simply not survived. Would this be reasonable? No. Early Christian preserved certain texts because of their reference to Jesus and/or Christianity, that much is historical fact. From this we can deduce that material discussing Christianity would have been kept. However, we need to temper that statement because we also know that documents critical of Christianity (including denials of its truth value) are lost to us forever because they are not preserved, and in instances were actively destroyed, by Christians. How do we know of these texts then? Because Christian writers such as the Church Fathers (Augustine and Co.) quoted passages from them in order to criticise of rebuke the authors.
In sum, we can be reasonably certain that other material from close to the time of the Biblical Jesus mentioned Christianity but was not preserved and is therefore no longer extant. We can also be reasonably certain that any positive mention would have been kept for posterity. Given that the independent historical sources fail to substantiate the Biblical Jesus we have cause to doubt the Bible. Hence, we have found evidence of absence.
Looking back to an earlier post, we see the Atheist Foundation of Australia claiming "there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for [among other things] the supernatural." If pressed for a clarification of what makes something "factually reliable" I would wager the AFA would use 'science' or 'scientific' somewhere in their answer so really that's the same thing said twice. However, science is the study of nature. We would therefore not expect to find "scientific" evidence of the supernatural, because it is by definition beyond nature or outside of the natural world. As such, the absence of the evidence is not cause to doubt the supernatural (there are a lot of those besides science), and not an argument for or against it.
So what is a valid case where the absence of evidence acts against a claim? What we need is a case where we would expect there to be much more (and at least better) evidence if the claim were factually correct. One prime case is the existence of the Biblical Jesus. I say 'Biblical Jesus' to establish that whatever loose historical analogue may have actually been preaching and stirring social discord two thousand years ago, it was certainly not the figure known in the Bible. In fact, he wouldn't have even been called Jesus! That name is an anglicised version of the Greek version of the Hebrew that may have been someone's name but possibly not: (pronounced) Yeshua.
Back to the Bible and how its claims are undermined by absent evidence. The period when Jesus was, according to the Bible, performing his miraculous acts is covered by Roman historians, and other writers from around the time. Do any of them mention the events described in the Bible? No. Would we expect them to? Yes. Some of them wrote on very mundane topics and surely the events of the Bible would have warranted at least passing reference! The best that fundamentalists and Biblical literalists can offer are marginal references to a leader and a group that may have been an early form of Christianity. While these may be (I say may be because it is also possible the fragments were forged) clues to the historical Jesus they lend no credence to the Biblical narrative.
Here's a glaring example of how independent sources and the Bible clash: Josephus (Jewish but captured by the Romans) is one source cited to have mentioned Jesus. His extant work contains two references. It also contains an antipathy to Herod. Herod was the king who, according to the Bible, ordered the slaughter of all first born children when he heard a new kning was born. This secured him a place in the nativity story but despite the other negative material about Herod contained in Josephus's writing there is no mention of this act. That is evidence againts it being a historical event.
Playing Devil's advocate (on behalf of the Bible...) maybe we should consider the possibility that other references to Jesus have simply not survived. Would this be reasonable? No. Early Christian preserved certain texts because of their reference to Jesus and/or Christianity, that much is historical fact. From this we can deduce that material discussing Christianity would have been kept. However, we need to temper that statement because we also know that documents critical of Christianity (including denials of its truth value) are lost to us forever because they are not preserved, and in instances were actively destroyed, by Christians. How do we know of these texts then? Because Christian writers such as the Church Fathers (Augustine and Co.) quoted passages from them in order to criticise of rebuke the authors.
In sum, we can be reasonably certain that other material from close to the time of the Biblical Jesus mentioned Christianity but was not preserved and is therefore no longer extant. We can also be reasonably certain that any positive mention would have been kept for posterity. Given that the independent historical sources fail to substantiate the Biblical Jesus we have cause to doubt the Bible. Hence, we have found evidence of absence.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Speaking of Questionable Statements Made to the Public: Local Fundamentalists, Operation 513
For the first time in a very long time the Brisbane "Battle Log" has been updated by local Christian fundamentalist group, Operation 513. In case you've never heard of them (not many have, including the AFA before being told) Operation 513 are the organisation behind the preachers who appear in the Queens St Mall, opposite the entry to the Myer Centre every Saturday night from 9pm to midnight. Members are sometimes loose, sometimes random coalition of ardent Christians (including many a young Earth creationist).
Back in the day they used to post contrived accounts of their 'victories' in the name of God on a blog titled, the Battle Log - Log as in web log and Battle as in they see themselves as soldiers for Christ. Group leader (now of Canberra) and originator, Josh Williamson had something of a military fascination. But I digress...
My interest in the post actually has to do with one the flowing themes of the blog: atheism and agnosticism. In the post I found this little jab at another set of local preachers: "By this time, a bunch of guys from the Brisbane Atheists (really, agnostics) group had arrived and started debating with Blake [presumably the one preaching the Gospel at the time]." Heckling the preacher is a common activity (mostly undertaken by passing dunks), and a rather formal affair for the Brisbane Atheists. Last I heard a specific sub-group was being set-up to approach Operation 513 each and every Saturday (true what they say about some people having nothing better to do...).
With Operation 513 calling them agnostics I assume their arguments are on the weak side these days. Actually, I recall the sub-group's stating aim being something along the lines of 'putting a face on positive atheism'. Positive atheism involves the claim that one can disprove the existence of God. Negative atheism, on the other hand, simply claims that the arguments and evidence offered by theists does not provide conclusive or even satisfactory proof.
Back in the day they used to post contrived accounts of their 'victories' in the name of God on a blog titled, the Battle Log - Log as in web log and Battle as in they see themselves as soldiers for Christ. Group leader (now of Canberra) and originator, Josh Williamson had something of a military fascination. But I digress...
My interest in the post actually has to do with one the flowing themes of the blog: atheism and agnosticism. In the post I found this little jab at another set of local preachers: "By this time, a bunch of guys from the Brisbane Atheists (really, agnostics) group had arrived and started debating with Blake [presumably the one preaching the Gospel at the time]." Heckling the preacher is a common activity (mostly undertaken by passing dunks), and a rather formal affair for the Brisbane Atheists. Last I heard a specific sub-group was being set-up to approach Operation 513 each and every Saturday (true what they say about some people having nothing better to do...).
With Operation 513 calling them agnostics I assume their arguments are on the weak side these days. Actually, I recall the sub-group's stating aim being something along the lines of 'putting a face on positive atheism'. Positive atheism involves the claim that one can disprove the existence of God. Negative atheism, on the other hand, simply claims that the arguments and evidence offered by theists does not provide conclusive or even satisfactory proof.
Labels:
atheism,
Atheist Foundation of Australia,
religion
Monday, May 21, 2012
More questionable Statements from the Internet: Deconstructing a "definition" of Atheism
Sticking to the general topic of the peddling of questionable 'knowledge' (to update the local situation: Haunts of Brisbane is currently assembling a petition to request "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours Pty Ltd turn over a document he purported to have in 2009 pertaining to the murder of Robert Cox) I thought I'd turn my attention to the "Atheist Foundation of Australia" and its various claims and assertions. Providing I have time, I will cover some of these in detail via subsequent posts. For the moment here's a basic breakdown of the problems which their "definition of atheism" suffers from:
As per the group's FAQ section (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/faq):
"Dictionaries contain a variety of definitions for Atheism. Prescribed by religious cultures has many Atheists finding them unsatisfactory. Most people who classify themselves as scientific Atheists consider the following definition to be a good working model:
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."
Of course dictionaries include a variety of definitions. Dictionaries are supposed to catalogue the usage of words. If a word has multiple usages or possible meanings then those will (or at least should) be covered therein. The second sentence implies that the definitions that can be found in dictionaries are set or shaped by "religious cultures". Let's look at a couple of easily accessible dictionary definitions:
From 'Oxford Dictionaries' (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism):
"noun
[mass noun]disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
From Meriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism):
"1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
I have restricted the search to a couple of results from the first page of Google simply because these are likely candidates that someone wanting a definition may come across before potentially stumbling onto the AFA site. Both are remarkably basic and leave little to be taken issue with. How then can these definitions be regarded as "unsatisfactory" (given dictionary accounts are typically quite simplistic, one therefore expects very little from them) or "Prescribed by religious cultures"? Both are presumably the result of dictionary researchers coming to agree that these represented broad but still useful accounts of the term.
The first is substantially broad yet quite correct. Although a historical case can be made that atheism pertains only to the denial of a theistic (as in, from theism, hence a-theism as a negation) God it is nevertheless applied presently to multiple conceptualisations of God and gods. Furthermore, "disbelief or lack of belief" accommodates both major stances with regard to atheism: positive (the assertion that God/gods do not exist), and negative (holding no belief in God/gods).
The second maintains similar features but adds further historicity to the definition. Noting the "archaic" usage identifies the use of the term in Ancient Greece as a synonym for impiety. While 2 a is far less clear than the Oxford account, it still provides a basic description of atheists as 'those who do not believe' in gods. 2 b is somewhat questionable, at least in my opinion as it implies a codification too similar to religion to adequately summarise the philosophical nature of atheism. However, do some groups or persons promulgate atheism in what may be described as a "doctrine"? Yes. I would argue that the AFA itself presents an example of this. Therefore the inclusion of that is appropriate.
Let's move on then to the third sentence of the AFA description. Suddenly we have a new sub-category: the "scientific" atheist. In my opinion "scientific" is being used here simply to provide validation through the tried and true invocation of science in that fashion. Moving on, we may ask why the group is so concerned with regular, dictionary accounts when they are "scientific" atheists. Indeed, one may also wonder if "Scientific Atheists Foundation of Australia" wouldn't have been a better moniker for the group to adopt. Regardless, on what grounds is the claim being made that the majority of such "scientific" atheists endorse the group's definition? Has a survey been carried out? Who are these "scientific" atheists and why are they so concerned with asserting a definition more elaborate than those we find in dictionaries? (Actually, why are they asserting a definition for atheism when they self-identify as "scientific" atheists?)
Now we come to the definition itself. Science makes a return when it is proposed that "no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural" exists. Firstly, the inclusion of "supernatural" takes us outside of atheism: in no way does the term imply or connote a denial of the supernatural, it deals specifically with deities. It is also worth pointing out that science proceeds using methodological naturalism and looks solely for natural causes. There could never be "scientific" evidence of the supernatural for precisely that reason. In the Dover schools trial, Intelligent Design was ruled unscientific (i.e. not able to be taught as science) because it involves supernatural agency.
Even more damning of this statement about errant evidence is the fact that a religious zealot could fully endorse it! Those who believe in God based on faith do not require evidence. Some of them even see the lack of conclusive evidence as proof that their faith is exactly that, faith. Evidence against their beliefs can also be seen as tests of faith. Perceiving a statement that may equally apply to the theist as to any atheist as even a “working definition” is what I would call naive.
Note the use of the word "acceptance" in the definition. Atheism is defined as "the acceptance" of no evidence for God or gods (I leave off the supernatural as it is patently spurious and is not part of atheism even in the most extreme generality). Before anything is said it is assumed that the position endorsed by the group is correct. One simply has to accept the state of affairs (...sounds rather like accepting Jesus as "our Lord and saviour"!).
Atheism is not "acceptance" it is, like any other position, a belief. I mean belief in the philosophical sense: a proposition taken to be true. It is obvious to me from the FAQ page and other parts of the AFA website that the author(s) of these sections do not know the difference between belief as a term within philosophy, and belief as a vernacular term. In the latter context belief usually implies a strong conviction (hence why a politician might say, "I believe..." rather than "I think...", as it appears to carry greater surety). Within philosophy there is no value judgement. The use of "acceptance" must then be the product of either: a) lack of knowledge, or b) misplaced semantics.
To sum up, the definition provided by the AFA website is, to my mind, an especially flawed one. Why bother pointing this out? Well, if a group purports to be a national body that represents a particular section of society then I argue there is an onus on them to actually know what they are talking about, just as there should be an onus on tour operators who cast their stories as anything but fiction to actually get the facts right. In my estimation and based on the above argumentation, the AFA falls substantially short of offering a useful, accurate, or even satisfactory definition. Far from being an exception, I have found other instances within that group's information and "articles" section displaying similar issues.
Much like I am concerned that those actually looking to become informed on Brisbane's history will be provided with errant information by a certain local tour operator, I am likewise worried that individuals who want to learn about serious intellectual concepts will be fed questionable definitions.
As per the group's FAQ section (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/faq):
"Dictionaries contain a variety of definitions for Atheism. Prescribed by religious cultures has many Atheists finding them unsatisfactory. Most people who classify themselves as scientific Atheists consider the following definition to be a good working model:
Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."
Of course dictionaries include a variety of definitions. Dictionaries are supposed to catalogue the usage of words. If a word has multiple usages or possible meanings then those will (or at least should) be covered therein. The second sentence implies that the definitions that can be found in dictionaries are set or shaped by "religious cultures". Let's look at a couple of easily accessible dictionary definitions:
From 'Oxford Dictionaries' (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism):
"noun
[mass noun]disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."
From Meriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism):
"1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
I have restricted the search to a couple of results from the first page of Google simply because these are likely candidates that someone wanting a definition may come across before potentially stumbling onto the AFA site. Both are remarkably basic and leave little to be taken issue with. How then can these definitions be regarded as "unsatisfactory" (given dictionary accounts are typically quite simplistic, one therefore expects very little from them) or "Prescribed by religious cultures"? Both are presumably the result of dictionary researchers coming to agree that these represented broad but still useful accounts of the term.
The first is substantially broad yet quite correct. Although a historical case can be made that atheism pertains only to the denial of a theistic (as in, from theism, hence a-theism as a negation) God it is nevertheless applied presently to multiple conceptualisations of God and gods. Furthermore, "disbelief or lack of belief" accommodates both major stances with regard to atheism: positive (the assertion that God/gods do not exist), and negative (holding no belief in God/gods).
The second maintains similar features but adds further historicity to the definition. Noting the "archaic" usage identifies the use of the term in Ancient Greece as a synonym for impiety. While 2 a is far less clear than the Oxford account, it still provides a basic description of atheists as 'those who do not believe' in gods. 2 b is somewhat questionable, at least in my opinion as it implies a codification too similar to religion to adequately summarise the philosophical nature of atheism. However, do some groups or persons promulgate atheism in what may be described as a "doctrine"? Yes. I would argue that the AFA itself presents an example of this. Therefore the inclusion of that is appropriate.
Let's move on then to the third sentence of the AFA description. Suddenly we have a new sub-category: the "scientific" atheist. In my opinion "scientific" is being used here simply to provide validation through the tried and true invocation of science in that fashion. Moving on, we may ask why the group is so concerned with regular, dictionary accounts when they are "scientific" atheists. Indeed, one may also wonder if "Scientific Atheists Foundation of Australia" wouldn't have been a better moniker for the group to adopt. Regardless, on what grounds is the claim being made that the majority of such "scientific" atheists endorse the group's definition? Has a survey been carried out? Who are these "scientific" atheists and why are they so concerned with asserting a definition more elaborate than those we find in dictionaries? (Actually, why are they asserting a definition for atheism when they self-identify as "scientific" atheists?)
Now we come to the definition itself. Science makes a return when it is proposed that "no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural" exists. Firstly, the inclusion of "supernatural" takes us outside of atheism: in no way does the term imply or connote a denial of the supernatural, it deals specifically with deities. It is also worth pointing out that science proceeds using methodological naturalism and looks solely for natural causes. There could never be "scientific" evidence of the supernatural for precisely that reason. In the Dover schools trial, Intelligent Design was ruled unscientific (i.e. not able to be taught as science) because it involves supernatural agency.
Even more damning of this statement about errant evidence is the fact that a religious zealot could fully endorse it! Those who believe in God based on faith do not require evidence. Some of them even see the lack of conclusive evidence as proof that their faith is exactly that, faith. Evidence against their beliefs can also be seen as tests of faith. Perceiving a statement that may equally apply to the theist as to any atheist as even a “working definition” is what I would call naive.
Note the use of the word "acceptance" in the definition. Atheism is defined as "the acceptance" of no evidence for God or gods (I leave off the supernatural as it is patently spurious and is not part of atheism even in the most extreme generality). Before anything is said it is assumed that the position endorsed by the group is correct. One simply has to accept the state of affairs (...sounds rather like accepting Jesus as "our Lord and saviour"!).
Atheism is not "acceptance" it is, like any other position, a belief. I mean belief in the philosophical sense: a proposition taken to be true. It is obvious to me from the FAQ page and other parts of the AFA website that the author(s) of these sections do not know the difference between belief as a term within philosophy, and belief as a vernacular term. In the latter context belief usually implies a strong conviction (hence why a politician might say, "I believe..." rather than "I think...", as it appears to carry greater surety). Within philosophy there is no value judgement. The use of "acceptance" must then be the product of either: a) lack of knowledge, or b) misplaced semantics.
To sum up, the definition provided by the AFA website is, to my mind, an especially flawed one. Why bother pointing this out? Well, if a group purports to be a national body that represents a particular section of society then I argue there is an onus on them to actually know what they are talking about, just as there should be an onus on tour operators who cast their stories as anything but fiction to actually get the facts right. In my estimation and based on the above argumentation, the AFA falls substantially short of offering a useful, accurate, or even satisfactory definition. Far from being an exception, I have found other instances within that group's information and "articles" section displaying similar issues.
Much like I am concerned that those actually looking to become informed on Brisbane's history will be provided with errant information by a certain local tour operator, I am likewise worried that individuals who want to learn about serious intellectual concepts will be fed questionable definitions.
Labels:
atheism,
Atheist Foundation of Australia,
religion
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Fighting Local Pseudohistory: The Case Against Ghost Tours
Today I found this blog post by Chris Dawson, author of several interesting books on local history and member of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society:
http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/brisbane-ghosts-busted.html
In the post Chris argues against the claims being made by a local business that Brisbane is the "2nd most haunted city in the world." According to their website this status is established by none other than National Geographic who allegedly voted on the matter. Chris Dawson was unable to find the poll and when National Geographic was contacted they informed him that their records showed no such information.
Despite being asked to substantiate the tagline no evidence has been offered by the business. So as far as anyone can tell the evidence that their claim is based on doesn't exist. If that's so then we may be dealing with a case of misleading advertising. In my opinion, if they're asking the public to take claims of paranormal activity at face value and believe their tour guides can pass for vampires (at least they don't sparkle...) and dead governors then they may well think people are gullible enough to fall for such assertions.
Personally I see this as one of the outcomes of trying to sell history. When business and the investigation of the past mix it often results in the prerogatives of the former outweighing the ethics of the latter.
I would also like to know why the proprietor of the business in question constantly refers to himself as a historian. Nowhere have I been able to find evidence that he possesses the requisite qualifications (i.e. a bachelor degree or higher in history).
http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/brisbane-ghosts-busted.html
In the post Chris argues against the claims being made by a local business that Brisbane is the "2nd most haunted city in the world." According to their website this status is established by none other than National Geographic who allegedly voted on the matter. Chris Dawson was unable to find the poll and when National Geographic was contacted they informed him that their records showed no such information.
Despite being asked to substantiate the tagline no evidence has been offered by the business. So as far as anyone can tell the evidence that their claim is based on doesn't exist. If that's so then we may be dealing with a case of misleading advertising. In my opinion, if they're asking the public to take claims of paranormal activity at face value and believe their tour guides can pass for vampires (at least they don't sparkle...) and dead governors then they may well think people are gullible enough to fall for such assertions.
Personally I see this as one of the outcomes of trying to sell history. When business and the investigation of the past mix it often results in the prerogatives of the former outweighing the ethics of the latter.
I would also like to know why the proprietor of the business in question constantly refers to himself as a historian. Nowhere have I been able to find evidence that he possesses the requisite qualifications (i.e. a bachelor degree or higher in history).
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Dawkins regards event as "pivotal turning point"
I am usually a fan of Richard Dawkins' precient comments but I found this one rather disappointing:
"I believe future historians of the decline and fall of religion will come to see the 2012 GAC in Melbourne as a pivotal turning point." Rachard Dawkins (in the 'Reflections' on the Global Atheist Convention)
What does it mean to say the GAC was a "pivotal turning point"? As I observed in the previous post, after two years there's no sign of a lasting impact for GAC part 1. Neither do I (as a historian) expect to look back in two years time and remark on the profound impact this installment of the event had.
According the a clip from Australian television program, The Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFstCJ7A9O8&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1) over 4,000 attended this time around. Now, over 4,000 Roman Catholic nuns marching to St. Peter's square, throwing off their habits and declaring the Church a farse would certainly be a significant moment in the decline of religion. But 4,000 (mostly) atheists paying to listen to a set of speakers and comedians? That certainly sounds like a notworthy point in the history of the comodification of knowledge but little else. As one Project presenter stated, "With conference goers paying up to $440, there's big money in bagging big religion".
I hope the event does have some positive influence but I rather doubt it will be "pivotal".
"I believe future historians of the decline and fall of religion will come to see the 2012 GAC in Melbourne as a pivotal turning point." Rachard Dawkins (in the 'Reflections' on the Global Atheist Convention)
What does it mean to say the GAC was a "pivotal turning point"? As I observed in the previous post, after two years there's no sign of a lasting impact for GAC part 1. Neither do I (as a historian) expect to look back in two years time and remark on the profound impact this installment of the event had.
According the a clip from Australian television program, The Project (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFstCJ7A9O8&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1) over 4,000 attended this time around. Now, over 4,000 Roman Catholic nuns marching to St. Peter's square, throwing off their habits and declaring the Church a farse would certainly be a significant moment in the decline of religion. But 4,000 (mostly) atheists paying to listen to a set of speakers and comedians? That certainly sounds like a notworthy point in the history of the comodification of knowledge but little else. As one Project presenter stated, "With conference goers paying up to $440, there's big money in bagging big religion".
I hope the event does have some positive influence but I rather doubt it will be "pivotal".
Labels:
atheism,
Atheist Foundation of Australia
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Why do we need a(nother) Global Atheist Convention? Wake me when it makes an impact.
Seeing as the event is underway right now I thought I'd provide some opinions on this.
I was at the first Global Atheist Convention, but decided not to go to the current spectacle. This instalment lacks the shock value of the original, possibly because a lot of the fears or hopes (depending if you are believer or atheist) didn't come to fruition. Last time an atmosphere of uncertainty and expectation surrounded the event. Now there just seems to be internal enthusiasm for a weekend of specialty entertainment. I am not sure why a second event was deemed a good idea. I would've understood staging the event elsewhere (maybe Texas) but in the same country (Australia) and the same city (Melbourne)? The reason for my reticence to see this as the greatest show on Earth (so to speak) is that two years later where is the impact of the Global Atheist Convention? Without a legacy or tangible effects, what justifies another? Let's see what David Nicholls, "president" of the Atheist Foundation of Australia says on the topic. (quotes taken from 'Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?' on the official site)
Nicholls claims, "There is a massive paradigm shift happening in all societies, especially in developed nations, where the taken-for-granted truths about supernatural origins are being critically questioned like no other time in history." To justify this assertion he offers only approximate attendance numbers from the original Global Atheists Convention ("2,500") and the USA Reason Rally ("20 thousand"). So according to Nicholls the fact that several thousand people (in a global population of several billion) attend these events proves "taken-for-granted truths ... are being questioned like no other time in history"? Hardly evidence for the assertion he makes.
Quantity is not quality. Nor does mass involvement indicate originality. We should begin our critical evaluation of Nicholls' claim by duly noting that challenges to religious and supernaturally based "truths" have been in circulation since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers. That more people are questioning a set of beliefs does not mean said beliefs are being subjected to a greater level of interrogation than ever before placed on them. Considering he is talking attendance, we can assume he is taking the participation of the public rather than the presenters (the most notable of which hold academic positions) as the main object of discussion. Yes, Nicholls and Co. are now on the bandwagon, taking armchair philosophy out of lounge rooms and into the streets and convention centres of the Western world but numbers signify nothing more than popularisation. What we really have is the general populace standing alongside academics and public intellectuals to pose salient questions. Still, it is the numbers that are growing, not the intensity of critique. Nicholls says nothing of the implications of this growth.
Following on from this, Nicholls forgoes substantiating his assertion and lists a number of gripes about "religion". I use inverted commas because Nicholls is justs saying "religion" without any concrete sense of what particular religions he is referring to or what constitutes a religion. Lack of a definitional scope is a problem as some may label his atheism a religion. In most of its forms I would argue atheism is not a religion but let's humour the claim and evaluate a little of what Nicholls says. At one point he states, "[religion] encourages a them and us mentality". But this is exactly what Nicholls does in the closing stages of his writing where he outlines a division between the "solution" (also called "us" by Nicholls implying his personal status therein), the spectators, and the "problem" (a by word for religious believers that may as well read 'them'). Personally, I am troubled that an individual who calls himself the "president" or an organisation that represents atheists nationally could be so flagrantly hypocritical.
My opinion is that Nicholls statement (he calls it an "essay" but I would refrain from applying that term if only on grounds of length) fails to answer the question of "Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?" Furthermore, it seems to me to be rife with hubris and self-aggrandisement. In a move reminiscent (in my eyes) of religious polemicists he is asserting with great satisfaction the privileged status of the atheists (the "solution" no less, but to what Nicholls gives us no insight). If so he is positioning atheists as a new chosen people (chosen by themselves in lieu of a deity or sense of fate). That comes a little too close to religion to sustain a division between believers and non-believers. Such stances are merely fodder for the religious and those who try to deride atheism.
Ineloquent expositions of this sort are one of the primary reasons I disassociate from "atheist" groups...as a general rule, one simply never knows if it was critical reasoning or ego that drives people to adopt the moniker of atheist, especially at a time when it has become a subcultural identity.
Just an opinion.
I was at the first Global Atheist Convention, but decided not to go to the current spectacle. This instalment lacks the shock value of the original, possibly because a lot of the fears or hopes (depending if you are believer or atheist) didn't come to fruition. Last time an atmosphere of uncertainty and expectation surrounded the event. Now there just seems to be internal enthusiasm for a weekend of specialty entertainment. I am not sure why a second event was deemed a good idea. I would've understood staging the event elsewhere (maybe Texas) but in the same country (Australia) and the same city (Melbourne)? The reason for my reticence to see this as the greatest show on Earth (so to speak) is that two years later where is the impact of the Global Atheist Convention? Without a legacy or tangible effects, what justifies another? Let's see what David Nicholls, "president" of the Atheist Foundation of Australia says on the topic. (quotes taken from 'Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?' on the official site)
Nicholls claims, "There is a massive paradigm shift happening in all societies, especially in developed nations, where the taken-for-granted truths about supernatural origins are being critically questioned like no other time in history." To justify this assertion he offers only approximate attendance numbers from the original Global Atheists Convention ("2,500") and the USA Reason Rally ("20 thousand"). So according to Nicholls the fact that several thousand people (in a global population of several billion) attend these events proves "taken-for-granted truths ... are being questioned like no other time in history"? Hardly evidence for the assertion he makes.
Quantity is not quality. Nor does mass involvement indicate originality. We should begin our critical evaluation of Nicholls' claim by duly noting that challenges to religious and supernaturally based "truths" have been in circulation since the time of the Ancient Greek philosophers. That more people are questioning a set of beliefs does not mean said beliefs are being subjected to a greater level of interrogation than ever before placed on them. Considering he is talking attendance, we can assume he is taking the participation of the public rather than the presenters (the most notable of which hold academic positions) as the main object of discussion. Yes, Nicholls and Co. are now on the bandwagon, taking armchair philosophy out of lounge rooms and into the streets and convention centres of the Western world but numbers signify nothing more than popularisation. What we really have is the general populace standing alongside academics and public intellectuals to pose salient questions. Still, it is the numbers that are growing, not the intensity of critique. Nicholls says nothing of the implications of this growth.
Following on from this, Nicholls forgoes substantiating his assertion and lists a number of gripes about "religion". I use inverted commas because Nicholls is justs saying "religion" without any concrete sense of what particular religions he is referring to or what constitutes a religion. Lack of a definitional scope is a problem as some may label his atheism a religion. In most of its forms I would argue atheism is not a religion but let's humour the claim and evaluate a little of what Nicholls says. At one point he states, "[religion] encourages a them and us mentality". But this is exactly what Nicholls does in the closing stages of his writing where he outlines a division between the "solution" (also called "us" by Nicholls implying his personal status therein), the spectators, and the "problem" (a by word for religious believers that may as well read 'them'). Personally, I am troubled that an individual who calls himself the "president" or an organisation that represents atheists nationally could be so flagrantly hypocritical.
My opinion is that Nicholls statement (he calls it an "essay" but I would refrain from applying that term if only on grounds of length) fails to answer the question of "Why Have a Global Atheist Convention?" Furthermore, it seems to me to be rife with hubris and self-aggrandisement. In a move reminiscent (in my eyes) of religious polemicists he is asserting with great satisfaction the privileged status of the atheists (the "solution" no less, but to what Nicholls gives us no insight). If so he is positioning atheists as a new chosen people (chosen by themselves in lieu of a deity or sense of fate). That comes a little too close to religion to sustain a division between believers and non-believers. Such stances are merely fodder for the religious and those who try to deride atheism.
Ineloquent expositions of this sort are one of the primary reasons I disassociate from "atheist" groups...as a general rule, one simply never knows if it was critical reasoning or ego that drives people to adopt the moniker of atheist, especially at a time when it has become a subcultural identity.
Just an opinion.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Huxley Quote
"[T]he question as to what Jesus really said and did is strictly a scientific problem, which is capable of solution by no onther methods than those practised by the historian and the literary critic."
T.H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', 1889
T.H. Huxley, 'Agnosticism', 1889
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Atheist's Guide to Reality: A Review
Rosenberg, Alex. The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. New York: Norton, 2011.
At first look the title is perhaps what one would expect to adorn a book featuring similar content to Richard Dawkins', The Magic of Reality. Instead of that, Rosenberg offers a treatise on 'where to from the assumption of God's non-existence'. Linking this to the previous post I thought Rosenberg's intention would have been better suited if he had labelled the book, Beyond Atheism.
Rosenberg is open about the fact that this book does not aim to provide arguments for atheism or disproof of the divine. Recent attempts at such (Dawkins - The God Delusion, and Hitchens - God is Not Great) he sees as showing "relative lack of originality" because the arguments they present "have been around for quite some time and achieved little effect" (i.e. they have not wiped out theism) [p.x]. In this regard I believe he misses the point of what was offered by those books. Yes, the arguments they listed and discuss have existed for upwards of a century. However, outside of academic or learned circles many of the arguments are not known (or known only in a poorly vulgarised form). Therefore, the work of Dawkins, Hitchens, and their colleagues may be regarded more as popularisation than any effort at providing new arguments. That task alone is a significant one at a time when broad education is sorely lacking.
What then does Rosenberg see as the purpose of his book? Aiming at those who already consider God's non-existence to be established, Rosenberg seeks to rehabilitate the term 'scientism' as a replacement for 'atheism', seeing the latter as too much of a "public relations problem" [p.5]. This is a rather odd choice as scientism is equally pejorative, connoting an ideological adherence to science as the only epistemological process of value. Often this is extended to imply that all that can be known is known by the available tools and theories of science as they currently stand. This is very close to the way that Rosenberg argues in suggesting that the answers to "persistent questions" (meaning of life etc) are provided with answers by science but these answers are rejected on more or less grounds of taste and tradition.
Here we see that the title is a little erroneous. The book deals largely with providing a positive identity (scientistic people - those who believe science provides the only reliable answers) as opposed to a negative one (atheists - those who do not believe in God). Directly reiterating the point I mentioned above, Rosenberg writes, "Our project is not to provide another argument for atheism, but to explore the God-free reality." [p.82] Much of this extends little further than suggestions for a nihilistic moral code (the only one Rosenberg sees as validated by science), and waxing on the meaninglessness of history and human life.
There are a few more qualms worth mentioning. Firstly, Rosenberg seems to have things around the wrong way. He suggests that this endorsement of science follows from the acceptance of atheism. Rather, I believe it more accurate to argue that atheism is a logical outgrowth of science - just one of the many implications of the findings that have thus far been made. Secondly, there are moments of lax consistency with regards to historical matters. In one chapter Isaac Newton is lauded for driving divine purpose out of physics [p.44], but subsequently it is stated that Newton viewed "the laws he discovered [as] God's commands to the universe" [p.84]. Newton is a complex figure due to his own occult and (idiosyncratic) theological leanings; too complex in fact to be invoked in Rosenberg's argument. Even now physics is the primary scientific recourse for those who want a little extra validation with their theistic beliefs. Finally, I found his discussions of C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures' to be less than nuanced, and thought that his treatment of the subject implied giving a pseudo-priestly authority to scientists.
Overall the book suffers from a lack of clarity. The lucid writing that one finds in Sagan and Dawkins is sadly lacking here. I genuinely mean sadly as I think Rosenberg's idea is a particularly interesting one that only falls short in its execution.
Although he did not intend to provide further arguments for atheism, it was a point that could well be considered such an argument which I found most intriguing. Usually when entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is mentioned with regards to evolution it as a refutation of Darwin's grand idea. Rosenberg however, argues persuasively that entropy and chaos is a benefit to evolution on the molecular level: the random distribution of molecules and the lack of any inevitable outcome providing the stage for random occurrences that eventually lead to the development of complex organisms sufficient opportunity to occur despite the low probabilities.
I would not suggest this book to anyone looking for an easy read. Those who do read it bear in mind that you must bring many elements of existing knowledge with you (for examples, there is no clear description of the Second Law that would render it explicable for absolute beginners).
At first look the title is perhaps what one would expect to adorn a book featuring similar content to Richard Dawkins', The Magic of Reality. Instead of that, Rosenberg offers a treatise on 'where to from the assumption of God's non-existence'. Linking this to the previous post I thought Rosenberg's intention would have been better suited if he had labelled the book, Beyond Atheism.
Rosenberg is open about the fact that this book does not aim to provide arguments for atheism or disproof of the divine. Recent attempts at such (Dawkins - The God Delusion, and Hitchens - God is Not Great) he sees as showing "relative lack of originality" because the arguments they present "have been around for quite some time and achieved little effect" (i.e. they have not wiped out theism) [p.x]. In this regard I believe he misses the point of what was offered by those books. Yes, the arguments they listed and discuss have existed for upwards of a century. However, outside of academic or learned circles many of the arguments are not known (or known only in a poorly vulgarised form). Therefore, the work of Dawkins, Hitchens, and their colleagues may be regarded more as popularisation than any effort at providing new arguments. That task alone is a significant one at a time when broad education is sorely lacking.
What then does Rosenberg see as the purpose of his book? Aiming at those who already consider God's non-existence to be established, Rosenberg seeks to rehabilitate the term 'scientism' as a replacement for 'atheism', seeing the latter as too much of a "public relations problem" [p.5]. This is a rather odd choice as scientism is equally pejorative, connoting an ideological adherence to science as the only epistemological process of value. Often this is extended to imply that all that can be known is known by the available tools and theories of science as they currently stand. This is very close to the way that Rosenberg argues in suggesting that the answers to "persistent questions" (meaning of life etc) are provided with answers by science but these answers are rejected on more or less grounds of taste and tradition.
Here we see that the title is a little erroneous. The book deals largely with providing a positive identity (scientistic people - those who believe science provides the only reliable answers) as opposed to a negative one (atheists - those who do not believe in God). Directly reiterating the point I mentioned above, Rosenberg writes, "Our project is not to provide another argument for atheism, but to explore the God-free reality." [p.82] Much of this extends little further than suggestions for a nihilistic moral code (the only one Rosenberg sees as validated by science), and waxing on the meaninglessness of history and human life.
There are a few more qualms worth mentioning. Firstly, Rosenberg seems to have things around the wrong way. He suggests that this endorsement of science follows from the acceptance of atheism. Rather, I believe it more accurate to argue that atheism is a logical outgrowth of science - just one of the many implications of the findings that have thus far been made. Secondly, there are moments of lax consistency with regards to historical matters. In one chapter Isaac Newton is lauded for driving divine purpose out of physics [p.44], but subsequently it is stated that Newton viewed "the laws he discovered [as] God's commands to the universe" [p.84]. Newton is a complex figure due to his own occult and (idiosyncratic) theological leanings; too complex in fact to be invoked in Rosenberg's argument. Even now physics is the primary scientific recourse for those who want a little extra validation with their theistic beliefs. Finally, I found his discussions of C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures' to be less than nuanced, and thought that his treatment of the subject implied giving a pseudo-priestly authority to scientists.
Overall the book suffers from a lack of clarity. The lucid writing that one finds in Sagan and Dawkins is sadly lacking here. I genuinely mean sadly as I think Rosenberg's idea is a particularly interesting one that only falls short in its execution.
Although he did not intend to provide further arguments for atheism, it was a point that could well be considered such an argument which I found most intriguing. Usually when entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics is mentioned with regards to evolution it as a refutation of Darwin's grand idea. Rosenberg however, argues persuasively that entropy and chaos is a benefit to evolution on the molecular level: the random distribution of molecules and the lack of any inevitable outcome providing the stage for random occurrences that eventually lead to the development of complex organisms sufficient opportunity to occur despite the low probabilities.
I would not suggest this book to anyone looking for an easy read. Those who do read it bear in mind that you must bring many elements of existing knowledge with you (for examples, there is no clear description of the Second Law that would render it explicable for absolute beginners).
Friday, March 2, 2012
More Agnostic or Atheist
Agnosticism, by its very conceptual status as a statement of uncertainty, implies there is a reasonable probability of either position - atheism or theism - being true. That probability doesn't have to be 50/50, it just needs to be enough to provide each position with credibility. No reasonable probability of theism's accuracy exists. That is to say, no arguments or evidence provide a compelling enough case to make theism a viable option. More than the mere fact of possibility is required to leave one undecided. Therefore agnosticism is an inappropriate position to hold.
I agree with Lovecraft's take on the situation:
"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."
However, I also concur with Penn Jillette's sentiments as expressed in The Portable Atheist (a compendium of work put together by the late Christopher Hitchens). Specifically I am thinking of his statement about being "beyond atheism". Not believing in God is a starting point that allows one to move beyond the metaphysical confines of archaic culture and open up new vistas of thinking, feeling, and life experience.
Atheism is not an identity. It is a position held in the context of a certain debate - an answer to a very specific question. It doesn't even cover every notion of God nor belief in the supernatural. It neither provides nor supplements anything beyond one's stance as to the existence of the theistic God.
I agree with Lovecraft's take on the situation:
"In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."
However, I also concur with Penn Jillette's sentiments as expressed in The Portable Atheist (a compendium of work put together by the late Christopher Hitchens). Specifically I am thinking of his statement about being "beyond atheism". Not believing in God is a starting point that allows one to move beyond the metaphysical confines of archaic culture and open up new vistas of thinking, feeling, and life experience.
Atheism is not an identity. It is a position held in the context of a certain debate - an answer to a very specific question. It doesn't even cover every notion of God nor belief in the supernatural. It neither provides nor supplements anything beyond one's stance as to the existence of the theistic God.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
A HPL Quote for 29 Feb
"...when I found the poets and artists to be loud-voiced pretenders whose quaintness is tinsel and whose lives are a denial of all that beauty which is poetry and art, I stayed on for love of these venerable things."
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Dawkins the Agnostic?
During the course of his discussion with the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins described himself as an agnostic (i.e he doesn't know whether or not God exists). Superficially this is a fine sentiment to have. The agnostic position is somewhat distorted nowadays because it is used by those with a sense of humility towards knowledge (such as Richard Dawkins) and those who simply do not want to express an opinion or be held to having to prove their case.
Agnosticism was intellectually invented by T.H. Huxley. Formerly the position that Huxley used it to describe was called negative atheism. Negative atheism is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of God. One holds it by expressing a view that all the arguments for the existence of God are inconclusive. However, it does leave open the possibility of new evidence changing that assessment. So it is effectively a 'provisional undecided' vote.
What I found disheartening about the subsequent comments was that there was no firm line drawn between a particular conception of God (in this case, Christian views) and the broad notion of a "supernatural creator". I say above that agnosticism is superficially fine because if it were the most general notion that were in debate it would be impossible to totally refute the claim that the universe was created by a being outside of nature. This does not translate to not being able to disprove particular beliefs or conceptions though. There is ample evidence that the God of Christianity (and the various deities of other faiths) are mythological constructions. Therefore one could rightly challenge the assertion of a particular God's existence with the purpose of disproving that claim.
Agnosticism was intellectually invented by T.H. Huxley. Formerly the position that Huxley used it to describe was called negative atheism. Negative atheism is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of God. One holds it by expressing a view that all the arguments for the existence of God are inconclusive. However, it does leave open the possibility of new evidence changing that assessment. So it is effectively a 'provisional undecided' vote.
What I found disheartening about the subsequent comments was that there was no firm line drawn between a particular conception of God (in this case, Christian views) and the broad notion of a "supernatural creator". I say above that agnosticism is superficially fine because if it were the most general notion that were in debate it would be impossible to totally refute the claim that the universe was created by a being outside of nature. This does not translate to not being able to disprove particular beliefs or conceptions though. There is ample evidence that the God of Christianity (and the various deities of other faiths) are mythological constructions. Therefore one could rightly challenge the assertion of a particular God's existence with the purpose of disproving that claim.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Brief Research Note: HPL
One of the papers I am currently working on features H.P. Lovecraft. Yesterday, while watching a presentation by Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss on youtube I came across an interesting thought. Dawkins had pointed out (as he done in the past) that the human brain is evolved to cope with certain time frames which are far smaller than the geological scale across which evolution happens and the universe was formed. Reflecting on several comments that HPL makes in his letters and fiction writing which display acute awareness of geological time scales, I wondered if it was not this aspects of his thinking which caused him to be dismiss religious and supernatural explanations in favour of science and unbelief. It is a matter of his philosophical thinking that I will likely follow up on in a specific paper of its own.
Here is one of my favourite quotes from HPL:
"It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive short cut of supernaturalism."
Here is one of my favourite quotes from HPL:
"It is only the inferior thinker who hastens to explain the singular and the complex by the primitive short cut of supernaturalism."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Yes, I study television. Get over it.
As Jonathan Gray points out, "Given the powers that some ascribe to television ("television caused Columbine," "television won Bush the election," "television brightened her day," "television fried his brain," etc.), it would be morally and intellectually irresponsible of us not to spend considerable time, effort, and energy examining the intricacies of television."
I shall call this field of examination, TVology. It is kind of like theology, only the thing it examines exists outside of the minds of its practitioners ... and is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and all-loving.
* Gray, Jonathan. Television Entertainment. London: Routledge, 2008 pp.2-3
I shall call this field of examination, TVology. It is kind of like theology, only the thing it examines exists outside of the minds of its practitioners ... and is all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, and all-loving.
* Gray, Jonathan. Television Entertainment. London: Routledge, 2008 pp.2-3
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
'ad hominem' is a logical fallacy, not a piece of decorative verbiage for everyday use
Several times I have encountered in non-academic discussions the faulty deployment of the philosophical term ad hominem. Usually it comes from people who have picked up the term from a piece of popular philosophy or science writing (like something by Richard Dawkins). Although an individual's own usage may be second hand and come from someone else's mistaken views. In any event, it seems ad hominem has become part of the fad to adorn ones speech and forum/blog posting with such language.
Having looked at the basic glossary meaning some think the term is synonymous with a phrase like 'personal attack'. This is wrong. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man" and is used to denote a certain logical fallacy where one party attacks the other's character or aspects of their personal identity (work etc) rather than the arguments and evidence they have provided. This is an attempt to argue against the premises of an opponent's stance without countering the justifications that have been given for it. In effect, one party seeks to de-rail the debate and to win without countering any evidence or argument contrary to their own claims.
For the term to be applicable there needs to be something of a formal debate in which the aspects of those involved (personal background, position etc) are irrelevant to proceedings. Such a situation does not exist in everyday or informal situations. Only if the circumstances are met can an individual's statements be considered ad hominem; in most cases they are simply comments about an individual that may vary from legitimate points (if someone has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision, or has proven to be unreliably informed or ignorant on matters of relevance to the discussion) to personal attacks (arguing against someone's personality rather than their factual or evidentiary claims; i.e. "You are a dickhead so your arguments are invalid").
In sum, only use a philosophical term (or any other academic/specialist phrase for that matter) if you actually know when it is correct otherwise you may fall short of your attempt to look smart and appear quite the fool instead.
Having looked at the basic glossary meaning some think the term is synonymous with a phrase like 'personal attack'. This is wrong. Ad hominem is Latin for "against the man" and is used to denote a certain logical fallacy where one party attacks the other's character or aspects of their personal identity (work etc) rather than the arguments and evidence they have provided. This is an attempt to argue against the premises of an opponent's stance without countering the justifications that have been given for it. In effect, one party seeks to de-rail the debate and to win without countering any evidence or argument contrary to their own claims.
For the term to be applicable there needs to be something of a formal debate in which the aspects of those involved (personal background, position etc) are irrelevant to proceedings. Such a situation does not exist in everyday or informal situations. Only if the circumstances are met can an individual's statements be considered ad hominem; in most cases they are simply comments about an individual that may vary from legitimate points (if someone has a vested interest in the outcome of a decision, or has proven to be unreliably informed or ignorant on matters of relevance to the discussion) to personal attacks (arguing against someone's personality rather than their factual or evidentiary claims; i.e. "You are a dickhead so your arguments are invalid").
In sum, only use a philosophical term (or any other academic/specialist phrase for that matter) if you actually know when it is correct otherwise you may fall short of your attempt to look smart and appear quite the fool instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)