An open thread where, at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
(Prefer to join a more focussed discussion? Try our recent roundtables for recent lively discussions or browse our archives for topics of interest)
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
The ‘news’ is particularly dispiriting today. But I found this on twitter which heartened my inner: the-world-is-completely-fucked-over-by-vanity-and-sexism wowser and this, which touches nicely on my fairly strong leanings to want to boil them all in oil.
We don’t have a crisis in confidence. We have a crisis in belief.
The only thing that the people of the world believe nowadays is that, where ever they look, there is someone out to screw them. (Government, Big Business, The Banks et al)
The Looney Left and Rabid Right have managed to keep their world view intact only by attempting to destroy those that disagree with them.
The Moderates (From both sides) are watching their world being destroyed and have a feeling of immense betrayal.
They want things to better for all but, for the life of them, they can’t see how.
The invasion of Wall Street is the beginning of the cry ” I’m Mad As Hell And I’m Not Going To Take It Anymore”
As it turned out, the major enemies of gender equality turned out to be on the left:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/women-at-war-is-the-final-surrender-20110929-1kz77.html
Terry, that’s not teh Left, it’s Clive Hamilton. While he may be of the Left, he doesn’t speak for all of us.
Terry, by ‘the major enemies of gender equality’, are you really referring to just one man writing one article?
You don’t think the gender equality project has hit bigger hurdles in the past than a lone article in the Age?
Clive Hamilton was the former director of the Australia Institute and the Greens’ candidate for Higgins, so he is not an isolated crank voice.
So from ‘the major enemies of gender equality’, we’ve moved to ‘not a lone crank’.
That wasn’t too hard now, was it?
Now, go on and show that he’s not a lone crank on this issue, by producing someone else prominent from the Left who agrees with him on this issue.
Then you might be correct, at least in the assertion you’ve retreated to.
Are you saying that the views expressed by the Australia Institue represent no one other than their Director?
Or that endorsed and high-profile Greens candidates can have any views they like?
From Naked Capitalism, Friedrich Hayek joins Ayn Rand as a hypocritical user of medicare.
That’s hilarious, JoeG. And Hayek has no “I was forced to pay it so I deserve to be reimbursed” argument either – the letter makes clear he opted into it, and the Kochs checked that out before they told him it was safe to come to the US. How hilarious. Hayek only came to the US to rant against social security after he was assured he would be eligible for social security, and the opponents of medicare assured him that there was no way he could get affordable health care under their supposedly superior market scheme!
Actually Terry, I always thought Hamilton was a poor choice of candidate for that electorate – his dour, puritanical stance on many issues would not have endeared him to the latte-swilling, Chardonnay-chugging hedonists and elitists of Higgins.
Obama in trouble for ordering another extra-judical killing. But only because the target was an American citizen.
Seems a bit hypocritical to start questioning assassination strikes just because the man has an American passport.
he is not an isolated crank voice.
He most certainly is – or at least, he’s not more representative of the very hetergenous left than a hundred other provocateurs. Honestly, I just wish Hamilton would shut up; his gleeful pelt towards irrelevance is irritating to watch.
“Are you saying that the views expressed by the Australia Institue represent no one other than their Director?…”
For an idea of what I’m saying, I recommend reading my comments. I stand by all of them to the letter, and mean nothing more by them than what’s plainly there.
Meanwhile, you’ve made an impossibly grand claim, backed down from it without grace or good humour, and now seem to be arguing that an organisation of which Hamilton used to be Director must be in agreement with him on this particular issue. Do you have any reason to believe this whatsoever?
“…Or that endorsed and high-profile Greens candidates can have any views they like?”
What DI(NR) said, firstly.
Secondly, I disagree with Hamilton on this any many other issues, as do lots of prominent Greens. Unfortunately, the claims you are still doggedly clinging to about The Left are going to require that you produce, at a minimum, one (1) other prominent voice from The Left who’s in accord with Clive on this.
If you do, I will match it with one from the right. Then you can try to find another, which I will also match. Rinse and repeat.
Could be fun!
FTR … I’d not have voted for Hamilton either, and had I been in the relevant branch of The Greens at the time, I’d have strenuously opposed his candidacy.
How boring that Hamilton is still promulgating the idea that it’s women’s job to be a gentle, civilising influence on men. Anne Summers skewered this idea in “Damned Whores and God’s Police”. Hamilton does want us to play the role of “god’s police” still, as opposed to those porn lovin’, gun totin’ “damned whores”. Women, generally, don’t want to be either.
He’s no lone crank, but neither does he speak for all the left.
And so it goes. If the left can dismiss Hamiton, quite properly, as not representative of the left, then the same can be said of Breivik and the right.
Word.
I mean, any help women can give us would be much appreciated, but it’s essentially our own job.
Has anybody heard from Paul Burns lately?
Paul Krugman: Markets Can Be Very, Very Wrong
Relates to the contemporary political-cultural situation in so many ways.
@terangeree, Paul Burns’s last comment here was on the 19th, which is a rather long interval for him. He’s said that he’s busy with researching and also has had some computer problems lately, but I’ll shoot off a quick email to let him know that he’s missed.
@20 &22
An Ootz comment is long overdue also.
Please advise re Paul and Ootz
The bursting of the commodity price boom combined with an historic Liberal majority in Parliament – it’s time to get ready people – http://wp.me/pb4Hp-4U
This comes under the heading of spooky.
As people know, No 1 son, Leni, shares a birthday with V.I. Ulyanov (a.k.a Lenin). — 22 April. It’s also Earth Day — the first of which took place 22-4-70.
I was watching Dr Who last night and it seems that the writers hace chosen 22-4-11 as the day the Doctor get killed in thier ongoing narrative. How bizarre!
Hullo. all. Touched by your comments, much appreciated. Replied to tt’s e-mail which I’ve asked her to post. Guess my long silence deserves an explanation.
Its been stormy weather up here and I don’t like going on line in such weather.
I have had a bit of a bout of storm asthma which has knocked me about.
It os nose down bum up on my reserach. My etes are so nad now I can’t read at night so I cram all my work into daylight hours.
I have a lot of trouble also reading posts and comments and I guess for a while there I just gave up. But I really am okay and I do lurk around just to see if I can see anything.
If anything really serious was to jappen to me I’d make sure one of my friends put a post on LP letting you all know.
I’m very touched and love you all. Sorry for being so slack.
Paul B.
Now for some political comment and rather cheerier personal stuff that I missed making over the past week or so.
I’m glad the Bolta copped it. If the ignorant fool had bothered to do even some cursory reading on the topic of Aboriginality he would have realised white skinned Aborigines just don’t walk in off the street and say, Hi, I’m Aboriginal. It is a long and complex process undertaken by Aboriginal communities accepting the Aboriginality of people who don’t look Aboriginal which is decided on by the communitis themselves as it should be.
I’m glad that trash At Homw with Julia is off the air. Need I say more. Only saw the first and last episodes and both were abysmal. Now for the Chaser Boys which I’m really looking forward to.
Have anew you beut ser top box which picks up all the channels. Not impressed by the Drum but do like One on One. Any suggestions. Would be much appreciated. Ca seee TV okay up close.
Getting a new printer. Broke the last one puling out empty ink cartridges and tray. As a mate of mine said putting me near machinery is dangerous, to the machinery.
Awaiting heeaps of books on slavery in 18C Virginia.
Think Friday nights on ABC1 is crap.
Ditto Saturday except for Dr. Who. (anybody worked out what’s really going on there? I haven’t yet. Spose we’ll know next week. No spoilers from UK pls.
Well, I am getting the hang of this. I will try to comment more frequently.
Glad to hear from you and to know that you are chugging along, Paul.
I look forward to reading the fruits of your research on your website when you have completed it. You have the knack of bringing the 18th century alive for us.
“Denmark introduces a food fat tax. Butter, milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food will all be taxed if they contain more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-02/denmark-introduces-food-fat-tax/3205392
Sounds like a damn good idea.
SG – but on milk?!?! And why fat and not sugar – wouldn’t this encourage more high sugar/low fat products. News report was saying it may not last long as the govt who introduced it got voted out recently
Chris, just whole milk. A tax is first and foremost a way for government to raise money. Applying a tax to certain types of consumption you want to discourage is secondary is smart.
Fat is by far the worst for obesity. 25% of carbs are burned to convert them into storable fats while only 3% of fats need be used to store them. Saturated fats are also worse for health and gram for gram, fats have more than twice the fattening power of carbs.
Sugar is certainly a very addictive carbohydrate which IMHO could make it just as bad as fats in making people fat. Taxing saturated fats is a bloody good start though.
Greg M @ 29.
Have handwritten a post on John Hunter RN;s 1776 Atlantic crossing in HMS Eagle in 1776 nut haven’t had the energy to put it up yet. It was originally in the Halifax chapter but will now go in vhapter 1o on the early stages of the New York campaign. Will yake a little while as I;m a bit drained at the moment.
Glad you like my stuff. It gives me determination to go on despite current health problems.
Am finding the research into Virginia 1775-6 very stimulating, into Lord Dunmore, the convict John Modeley and the latter;s part in Dunmore’s Ethiopian Regiment. Strange writing a chapter on just one character once I get going on it, as so far apart from my opening chapyr on James Matra, its all been joint biography so far. Still tinkering a bit with Halifax chapter – yet to do the conmclusion – waiting for my new printer which I hope to get next week.
In chapter 9 I might deeve off into Charleston, SC, the 1776 Clinton campaign. as I have a slave down there too, but I was going to deal with him mostly in 1780 Charlestob siefe. Will see what I can dig up on him for the earlier period I think. There was some truly shocking stuff going on in Charleston a few years earlier which I need to research yet
Detting into Afro-American history in the 18C is quite a methodological challenge because of the paucity of black sources. Lots of stuff through white eyes though, most of it to say the least jaundiced though more informed by fear of slave rebellion than the racism of the ante-bellum period when cotton became king. .
OOprs/ John Mosley. Took his name from his masters in Cumberland County Va.
Without the compensating tax on sugar, I think you’ll just end up with people buying high sugar, low fat products instead resulting in little to no gain (could be even worse). If you want to bring in a tax like that I think its important to exempt certain foods you do want people to consume. Eg some people may not like low-fat milk and so choose even worse alternatives which are high sugar but low fat.
Thank you for your kind thoughts, really appreciate that. Kind of on deck again since Friday, will briefly mention on Sunday thread.
Good to hear from you Paul, you are an inspiration.
Re Bolt, pity the blinding spin with outcries of ‘freedom of speech’, when it really is about responsible professional conduct, nothing more nothing less. Consistent sloppy research, bad attitude and unethical behaviour would see any accountant, surgeon or engineer at some stage in court or in front of an inquiry. That is if you consider newspaper columnist, radio commentator, blogger and TV host a profession.
Re the rhino horn thingy. Having taken, on foot, clients close up to these marvellous beings in Africa and enjoyed some close encounters with their Indian relative in the Terai of Nepal, they are rightly an iconic animal. However, their plight is sad but not uncommon, as the truth is that loss of habitat and political instability is by far the bigger thread than poaching per se for most other species as most probably the Rhino too. In the process of establishing a new housing estate nobody cares about the annihilation of a rare and endemic flatworm, even if it happens to be a key species. Nor did anyone make the connection with the poverty and instability in Africa in regards to the Rhinos and poaching.
BTW, some background re dehorning
http://www.naturetalk.co.za/Blog/post/NatureTalk/51/DEHORNING-RHINO-The-Welfare-Ethics-and-Behavioral-Considerations/
In the interests of symmetry, the coalition now has its own less-than-inspiring bald ex-pub rock front man.
OOtz,
good to hear from you. Hope skin problems improve.
Agree absolutely with you re Bolt. and the standard of responsibility/professionalism in journalism.
Peru Enacts Mining Tax Overhaul
Another source says:
.
If you wanted more detail on the latest Australian Nobel laureate Brian Schmidt than you get from the fluff pieces in the mainstream media, you can check out his page describing his research and why it’s important here.
Good to see you back and that everything’s OK, Paul.
I was wondering if all was well and know I know!
I’d like to point out that I recently had a beer with Australia’s 2005 Nobel Prize winner, Barry Marshall. He was a funny chap!
Religious people … whacky or crooked? As the passage below shows, they can be both:
Small Russian Orthodox Sect Considers Vladimir Putin a Saint
(You’ll need to click the link for the whole story)
@Fran
“Religious people … whacky or crooked? As the passage below shows, they can be both”
They can also be neither, but nice generalization there Fran.
My hopes for Bill Shorten have dimmed. I watched his speech at the tax summit today and it was very mediocre – shots of the audience showed they thought so too. And then he was wearing a jacket that reminded one of the worst of 1985.
Savvy said:
Thanks …
I’d just add that religion is a form of delusion, so while they can certainly avoid be crooked and (as I’ve noted in this place before) can often be more courageous and worthy in what they do than the irreligious, they are always, at least to some extent, irrational.
One suspects that at least some people who are already disturbed are attracted by religious paradigms, as it gives them comfort, which may explain some of the whackiest religions.
@ Fran
“I’d just add that religion is a form of delusion.”
“they are always, … irrational. ”
In your opinion, do not state your opinion as fact.
Now if you would like to change your opinion to fact, simply prove you are right in your claims.
Savvy said:
I’ll speak much as I please. That said, of course, it’s an opinion — an inference deriving from the absence of any reasonable basis for belief in metaphysical intelligence or notions such as “fate” or “destiny”, which is fundamental to all religion.
[insert standard Fran-I-know-you're-a-pedant-so-you'll-thank-me-for-this disclaimer]
The more generally accepted spelling is ‘wack(-y, -ier, -iest)’, with no ‘h’.
@ Fran
“I’ll speak much as I please”
For now.
Curious what you think of people who believe this planet is visited by Aliens?
@Fran
“an inference deriving from the absence of any reasonable basis ”
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Can you prove your theory or dis-prove that which you hold in such low regard?
thanks jess @41
“I’d just add that religion is a form of delusion, so while they can certainly avoid be crooked and (as I’ve noted in this place before) can often be more courageous and worthy in what they do than the irreligious, they are always, at least to some extent, irrational.”
Fran, are we all not, to some extent, irrational? It would probably take a lobotomy or some such to produce an exclusively rational human being. Would it be a human being?
“One suspects that at least some people who are already disturbed are attracted by religious paradigms, as it gives them comfort, which may explain some of the whackiest religions.”
If I’m correct, some of the major contributors of posts to this blog would call themselves religious. I think nearly all of us would describe them as very intelligent and informed people. How do you explain this? “It gives them comfort”?
Savvy said:
Overly credulous. Of course, believing in the possibility of the existence of non-terrestrial intelliegent life requires qualitatively lesser unfounded credulity than powerful metaphysical beings.
That’s true, but back here in the real world, our decision-making is best when based on pertinent and accurate information considered through well-tested models of the way of the world. The question is whether one’s choices should be based on what we think credible, or on our frivolous doubts. The people from the climate denier lobby, for example, think the latter, but sensible people prefer the former. They assert that there is an absence of proof and that should demand that we see proof of absence.
It is paradoxical to hold that there is a god and yet assert that laws of physics apply, to believe in causal relationships, or free will. Of course, if one rejects these latter things, it is scarcely meaningful to hold a view at all. No claim about reality could be reliable.
Most religionists of course simply flick pass epistemology off into things not to trouble themselves about, compartmentalising their religion for special occasions and getting on with their lives the rest of the time.
Russell asked:
All of us have at best partial knowledge and insight. None of us can process and model all of the data notionally available to us in anything like real time and act coherently all the time. One may describe that limitation as “irrationality” if one wants. Yet there’s a difference between being of limited insight and cognitive accomplishment and admitting things that will obstruct insight. Belief in gods and metpahysics is a kind of intellectual malware. It’s not the only kind of malware, but historically, it has frequently been at the heart of systematic injustice and harm to human wellbeing.
I believe that is the case.
False dichotomy and amalgam. Being a religionist does not preclude erudition, or insight into the human condition. For a time in human history, the most literate of folk swore by gods. Many of them wrote treatises in what we now call philosophy. Human beings are complex and nuanced, and our impulses are typically a mix of things at least some of which should not be able to coexist if we were all strictly consistent. Yet we aren’t. We are works in self-authorship and authored also by others.
I’ve argued that religion is a kind of cognitive malware, but just as computers can continue to function with malware so too do humans achieve worthy things with unworthy ideas. Unworthy ideas religious or otherwise, are disasters in embryo, but of course, not all embryos survive. Worthy ideas are human progress in embryo, but the same rule applies.
It would be idle and absurd if we were merely to define our fellows by their potential to harm or advance human interest, salient as this question is. We must take our humans as we find them and assist all to be the best they can be. The human project demands equitable and reasoned collaboration amongst all us of partial insight and limited cognitive accomplishment so that together we may ensure that worthy embryonic idea survives and fosters human progress.
“Being a religionist does not preclude erudition …”
no, I mentioned that because (after our discussion of ‘ignorant fools’) I know you think that “our decision-making is best when based on pertinent and accurate information considered through well-tested models of the way of the world.” and we both know that our religious contributors our fully aware of those models, yet they come to a different place than you would like …..
“The human project demands equitable and reasoned collaboration amongst all us of partial insight and limited cognitive accomplishment so that together we may ensure that worthy embryonic idea survives and fosters human progress.”
This sounds worthy, yet chillingly eugenic. While I want ‘reasoned collaboration’ I also want passionate, loving, daring, creative collaboration. I want to hear from people who maybe apprehend something about life that I haven’t apprehended. I want to hear about truths that maybe aren’t arrived at rationally. I want to share the full human experience with people.
That doesn’t mean I can’t discern “systematic injustice and harm” from wherever it originates, the rational or irrational, but I’d like to ask you, when you say that “there’s a difference between being of limited insight and cognitive accomplishment and admitting things that will obstruct insight” – how you can be so sure that there’s only one kind of insight?
EU,US,AU. Isn’t it bleeding obvious at this point that corporations and the wealthy need to pay more tax?
Just a website issue: I’m often getting ‘Error establishing a database connection’ when I try to load the LP homepage – is anyone else having this problem? It’s not fatal and usually goes away after the second refresh or so.
Perhaps Savvy can set out his reasoning demonstrating the existence of a christian God? After all that’s my fundamental problem with Christianity, the reasoning wrt to god, christ and the trinity relies a a set of highly contested texts written a very long time ago when assumptions about how the physical world worked were radically different to those we make today. Over to you Savvy to set out the proofs using modern up-to-date scientific approaches.
@Jess,
That intermittent problem is currently ozblogistan-wide as I understand it. Jacques is working on it.
I’ve actually lost a couple of posts that way TT. Mostly I remember to save to the clipboard first but once or twice I haven’t and then have to bite my tongue to keep decorum …
Fran, if I hit the “back” arrow, my browser takes me back to where I was and I don’t lose anything. That’s Firefox.
Just in, Steve Jobs has passed away.
Using IE Brian, I just get the default blank text box.
Sad to hear the news about Steve Jobs. Glad to hear that Sarah Palin won’t be contesting the presidency in 2012. I’d like to know the reason in her mind, assuming that’s not a paradoxical question.
Bill Gates on Twitter:
Melinda and I extend our sincere condolences to Steve Jobs’ family & friends. The world rarely sees someone who made such a profound impact.
Ok, thanks TT.
Brian: The NYT had a six-page obituary up within about 30 seconds of the announcement of Job’s death. Would be interesting to know who they keep pre-written obituaries for actually.
Also Patrickb: One can be religious (Christian even) without necessarily believing in a personal God. It depends somewhat on your definition of religious though I suppose…
Oddly Jess, I heard a radio interview with a female journalist recently who explained that it was her job to maintain and update obituaries on celebrities. Apparently she would actually go around to people and interview them with just this object in mind. Apparently, the desire to speak from beyond the grave and control their legacy exceeded their umbrage at the impertinence, most of the time.
Not knocking Steve – but R.I.P Ruby Langford and Bert Jansch.
@Patrick B
“Perhaps Savvy can set out his reasoning demonstrating the existence of a christian God?”
Who mentioned only one god?
I do believe that Fran says everyone inthe world who is religious of whatever flavour is “delusional” and “irrational”.
[Comment about another blogger redacted - Ed]
Yes: A wonderful pioneering entrepreneur, whose startups became icons and household names here, and who has been described as life-changing by famous people.
Vale, Di Gribble.
On a more cheerful note, it was Flann O’Brien’s birthday yesterday. Although he’s already dead, so I guess no cake for him.
*Gets out Own Trumpet, blows briefly* I did the same in the early days of the Balcony. As Keats said in one of Flann O’Brien’s Keats and Chapman stories, “Great mines stink alike”.
I suspect that Palin’s dummy run was a convenient decoy for the Republicans, never a serious prospect, she could be relied upon to draw a lot of fire cf the actual contenders. Bachmann seems, if anything, worse. Japerz’ favourite Christie is keeping his powder dry.
Re Christie: provocateur Lauren Rosewarne asks can a fat man be President
Is Bert Jansch dead? fuck. When? (I was just reading about him the other day, and thinking I should get some of his records.)
Re Burt Jansch – RRR will be playing a tribute show on Sat sometime between 6 and 8 pm. it can be streamed.
Russell said:
Bizarre … unless eugenics means something other than what I believe it does.
None of these is excluded by reason. Reason is a foundation for them.
So do I, in my recreational time.
But not with everyone or even very many people … as that isn’t practicable. You could try and wind up looking like Clark Griswold on European Vacation.
Russell wrote: “While I want ‘reasoned collaboration’ I also want passionate, loving, daring, creative collaboration..”
Fran wrote: “None of these is excluded by reason. Reason is a foundation for them.”
Fran, would you claim that reason was necessarily the foundation for passion, love or creativity?
@74 – not if he won’t put his name up!
@Fran
As you believe everyone in the world who believes in religion, luck, superstition, ghosts, paranormal activity are all delusional and not rational thinking people, would you go so far as to say they have a mental disability?
dear all
beliefs & rationality among some of the great biologists:-
ronald fisher:- pioneer of modern population genetics & statistics, monarchist, wrote sermons for his chapel, stanch anglican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_A._Fisher
lancelot hogben:- zoologist, pioneer medical statistician, anti-eugenicist, anti-fascist, communist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Hogben
sewell wright:- population genetics pioneer (genetic drift), unitarian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewall_Wright
steven jay gould:- palaeontologist, evolutionary biologist (punctuated equilibrium), doughty defender of public science education, expert witness at mclean v arkansas creationism trial (1982), baseball tragic, anarchist, agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_J_Gould
richard lewontin:- evolutionary biologist, geneticist, famously (with gould) opposed bf skinner’s socio-biology, communist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin
theodosius dobzhansky:- evolutionary biologist (modern synthesis), never missed a sunday or a saint’s day, devout russian orthdox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky
ernst mayr:- taxonomist, evolutionary biologist (species concept), opponent of creationism, atheist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mayr
kenneth r miller:- cellular biologist, doughty defender of public science education, expert witness at kitzmiller v dover “intelligent design” trial (2005), has had audiences with pope current & pope previous cautioning vatican re “intelligent design” movement, roman catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
francis r collins:- geneticist, director human genome project, opponent of “intelligent design”, currently usa director national institutes of health, home educated, evangelical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
richard dawkins:- ethologist, evolutionary biologist, opponent of “intelligent design” movement, atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_dawkins
yours sincerely
alfred venison
@ Venison
So I take you disagree with Frans view of people who hold a belief system?
Graham Dilley has also just shuffled off his mortal coil…
@savvy, I very much doubt that Fran holds the all-or-nothing view of rationality vs. irrationality in people that you are insisting upon imposing upon her here, and I’m fairly sure that cognitive science doesn’t support an all-or-nothing view of rationality either. Intelligent, functional, successful people can and do still hold irrational beliefs, because irrational beliefs can be simply unsupported by known facts as well as the more concrete category of contrary to known facts. e.g.
Savvy,
reason is not rationality. Rationality is a particular way of reasoning, but reasoning is the ability think in an organised manner. For example, rationality applied after an emotional explosion at something or other is probably not much chop.
The ability to reason using both emotional and analytical modes of thinking is the shit. It is not taught, and should be.
And reasoning also has its moments. Other times you have the let the mind go…
It’s the creative process.
Nicely put, Roger. Very few people are taught to reliably distinguish between just the facts vs their thoughts/interpretation of the facts vs their feelings about the facts, and this lack of nuance about our own thinking patterns causes a huge amount of social friction.
Here’s a summary of a relevant article in Scientific American:
A simple yes or no.
Do you agree or disagree with Frans assertion that everyone on the planet who believes in religion, ghosts, luck or superstition is both delusional and irrational.
All or nothing thinking such as you evince above is a textbook example of irrational behaviour, savvy.
(P.S. she asserted no such thing – displaying some irrational beliefs/behaviours does not make a person entirely irrational)
savvy, this may be irrational, but you remind me of a group I recall fondly from the 70s – Pearls Before Swine.
Russell asked:
My text above:
I chose my article carefully. Reflect on that.
Savvy @80 said:
It sounds like you are in the equivocation fallacy game. Five posts later you render this as follows:
Let’s try unpicking this.
Disability: This is used in a variety of ways, including ways which identify those with a disability as ethical inferiors of ostensibly “non-disabled” people. Sometimes it is put into the “normal/abnormal” paradigm. This is not only offensive but spurious, IMO.
In my view, everyone suffers from some disability. It’s just that some disabilities are more readily apparent, or have a greater impact on the ways in which people seek to meet their needs. I am only 1.67m tall. That would never have precluded me from playing basketball, but it would certainly have forced me to adapt my play and work a good deal harder to play effectively at the elite level, had I been so minded. One can call my short stature “a disability” if one wants, but it doesn’t say very much interesting about my claim as a human being.
Those who believe in the “paranormal” or religion more generally can and do, most of the time, adapt their working styles to meet their needs. Sometimes this willingness not to be bound by the observable leads them to consider things that those uninterested in metaphysics would not consider. It is certainly possible to arrive at worthwhile ideas by specious reasoning or in the absence of actual observable data. Parmenides, amongst the ancients, attests to this. So too, much more recently, does Pasteur. So when this openness of mind leads them into creative intellectual activity, worthy endeavour in the service of humanity or the like, one cannot but applaud. I certainly do.
The problem of course is that specious method and spurious data is a lottery — quite a poor one — and the prospect of consistent worth arising from this source is equally poor. That is why intellectually robust processes are optimal in public policy, notwithstanding that certainty of rectitude eludes even this.
As I noted above, human beings compartmentalise, and are rarely if ever consistent. Being entirely intellectually and ethically consistent is probably impossible in practice and in many cases, that is probably just as well. People are works in progress, with their ideas, attitudes and passions in a state of slow flux — nudged this way and that by personal and cultural circumstance. I am not the same person I was at 7, 17, 27 or now at 53. We make exceptions, distinguish, develop nuance, learn more things and modify our ideas and so forth. Angst and appetite contend. This it seems is something that marks our entire species. Amidst all that, I would say belief in metaphysics logically predisposes suboptimal ethical choices and has been at the foundation of much that is wrong, and on that basis should be challenged.
We have at the moment, an excellent example of the triumph of cultural angst over robust intellectual process in the conflict over mitigation policy. Religionists are found in substantial numbers on both sides of that conflict. That datum alone should remind us to be cautious in characterising the causal chains between religion, identity and human worth.
@Tigtig
“All or nothing thinking such as you evince above is a textbook example of irrational behaviour, savvy.”
Don’t tell me tell Fran, she is the one who says all religious people are delusional and “they are always, at least to some extent, irrational. ”
Always irrational. Thats sure some all or nothing thinking from Fran.
So if you do not like all or nothing statements take your problem up with her.
Patrick stevedores are striking. If pay and conditions weren’t such a serious matter I would be tempted to put this on the whimsy thread : ).
@Fran
“I am only 1.67m tall.”
That is not a disability Fran, do not try to say it is.
“So too, much more recently, does Pasteur. So when this openness of mind leads them into creative intellectual activity, worthy endeavour in the service of humanity or the like, one cannot but applaud.”
People who believe in religion or luck who do not make such endeavours for humanity, they are what, wasting their time?
“I would say belief in metaphysics logically predisposes suboptimal ethical choices and has been at the foundation of much that is wrong”
SUch as?
“Do you agree or disagree with Fran’s assertion that everyone on the planet who believes in religion, ghosts, luck or superstition is both delusional and irrational.”
Well Fran you are the one who has made that claim in this forum.
“Russell asked:
Fran, would you claim that reason was necessarily the foundation for passion, love or creativity?
Fran replied:
None of these is excluded by reason. Reason is a foundation for them.
I chose my article carefully. Reflect on that.”
Fran, I’m still not clear on what you mean – I wouldn’t think of reason as a foundation of passion or creativity – the popular meanings of the words would see them as opposites. We see very young children being creative (and passionate!), before reason has much developed. How do you see reason as a foundation for passion?
Russell @ 92 “I wouldn’t think of reason as a foundation of passion or creativity”. But, say, reasoned science is a great passion for many, surely? Especially those who have made “great leaps forward” through creatively innovating from scientific discovery. I honestly don’t see what is so difficult to understand about that Russell.
Fran is right on the ball here IMHO.
savvy, what Fran wrote and how you are quoting it are two very different things. Her “they are always, at least to some extent, irrational. ” vs your “Always irrational.” Those two commas and the words in between them that you removed are exactly what makes Fran’s statement not “all or nothing”, particularly when placed in the context of the rest of what she has written on this topic.
Context matters.
@Tigtog
““they are always, at least to some extent, irrational”
This comment means that people who believe in religion are always irrational, however the degree may vary?
Yet the word “always” does not leave room for sometimes or maybe.
Why do you seem to confuse the meaning of the word “always”.
If you do not know the meaning of the word always then look it up.
So by Frans thinking people who believe in religion are ALWAYS irrational, just to varying degrees.
Fran said “”"I am only 1.67m tall.”"”"
Maybe thats why the other kid used “Louise the Fly ” to tease you.
Coz your a short arse.
Excellent choice by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/07/nobel-peace-prize-2011-live
dear savvy @82
“So I take you disagree with Frans view of people who hold a belief system?”
i haven’t got a knack for abstract philosophical disputation, so i’ll leave that to adepts like yourself & fran. what i do know, though, from fifty years of listening & reading, is that music is a language & a symphony is knowledge. not knowledge like knowing beethoven’s fifth, or knowing all the beethoven symphonies & liking the odd numbered ones best.
but rather knowledge you can get through hearing & apprehending a rational structure, effected through sounds, unfold in time. naturally, there’s emotional apprehension happening at the same time. there can even be a sensuous response, say, to exquisite orchestration, or felicitous turns of phrase, or particularly eloquent moments, the “sweet notes”, carried off with aplomb. this knowledge, then, is multidimensional, simultaneous, and cumulative. it partakes simultaneously of the rational, the emotional & the sensuous. in real time or recalled through memory.
unless, of course, you regard music as a mere diversion not to be taken too seriously by women & men of discernment. but for me music’s deadly serious art. i couldn’t live without it or without reflecting on it.
in the 19th century, germans especially, but other national music cultures too, came to regard music as a special pre-verbal rational discourse, a kind of aural philosophy (seriously). one went to “tristan & isolde” knowing one would hear wagner’s take on schopenhauer through his poetry & his music; to mahler or to strauss for nietzsche; to scriabin for theosophical discourses in sound; to schoneberg & berg for intimations of capitalist society decaying under pressure of nascent fascism (according to adorno).
so, yes, to put it unprofessionally, i think rational & emotional & sensual can co-exist in people’s minds without detriment to these people.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
re: the dear/deer at @100
-word
I am only 188cm tall, thus totally destroying my ambition to play a central and essential role in the Dwarf-Throwing Competition.
dear savvy
an (other) reply to your question, and again obliquely, tangentially responsive.
i’ve read collins & miller on faith & science. like them i think good scientists leave their faith in the cloakroom when the enter the lab, so to speak.
like them i think that scientists such as, for example, michael behe, a notorious catholic champion of “intelligent design” (they’re usually evangelicals) & expert witness for the defence in kitzmiller v dover, is not a good scientist because he looks to his science for material confirmation of his faith. collins & miller view this as weakness of faith & emphatically not “christian science”. they argue “intelligent design” is bad science & bad theology.
collins, a home-schooled evangelical, welcomes invitations to speak at churches, up & down the bible belt, about evolution, human genetics, the project he headed, and even the possibilities of stem cell cloning. his faith motivates him to this he says.
collins is criticized by hard-core evangelicals as nevertheless a dreaded evolutionist despite his faith and held in suspicion by some atheist scientists/bloggers for his religion. miller gets it from both sides as well, and for the evangelicals he’s damned as a papist, too.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
“re: the dear/deer @ 100″
Or to be formal, Alfred, Lord Venison, Monarch of the Glen?
I’m also completely at sea in philosophical discussions but Fran’s original claim was that all religionists are irrational to some extent, which is a fair claim but not one which distinguishes them from the rest of the populace. Nobody is perfectly rational, fortunately, because people who most nearly approximate that condition are people with severely damaged affective capabilities, like psychopaths. There has been a great deal of study into the extent to which rationality is employed as a posthoc buttressing of positions to which one is emotionally attached, it is something all people do some of the time and the more sophisticated your ability to apply rational reasoning, the more elaborate and believable the rationalisation. The danger with rationality is that you come to believe that you are not only capable of unalloyed rationality but that this is a desirable state.