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."

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.

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."

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

'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.