Last Wednesday I almost heard a real ghost story. It was at a dinner at Lingon, one of the nicer restaurants in Uppsala, that the conversation turned to hotel stories.
One in our company started to tell us a story of how he woke up in his hotel room in Gothenburg by someone inserting a key in the door and opening it. He was surprisingly not so alarmed that he became clear awake but was still drowsy as he heard the woman enter his room. He could hear that it was a woman by the distinct sound of high healed shoes.
The woman entered the bathroom, closed the door and locked it.
Still not completely awake he started to consider his options, scream? Call the reception and complain that some strange woman forced herself into his room? Or maybe just wait and see and hope that the problem would literally go away?
The room was still dark, he heard the bathroom door open and the woman walk toward the desk in the room. For some reason he remembered that there was a yellow pencil on the desk. At this point having things gone too far he turned on the light and the woman by the desk disappeared.
Now this would have been the end of a conventional ghost story, or perhaps he would have found out in the morning that a young woman been murdered in that hotel x years ago. That would have worked for both a literary story or a personal story told at dinner at a nice restaurant.
But this is one of the stories that didn't become a ghost story. It turned out that the walls in the hotel were so thin that he had just heard the guest in the next room.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Thursday, 26 January 2012
Perspective and Objectivity
Now this may not shock that many people, but I have no reason to try to shock people, I like philosophy and especially the philosophy of science. This blog entry is about a question I was made aware of yesterday during a brake in a seminar on rhetoric.
In science the ideal is to be objective. It is true that scientists are human and not always live up to the ideal, but the goal of being objective in the search for knowledge remains.
Yesterday I was surprised over an idea expressed by a fellow attendee at the seminar. She considered it to be unnecessary to try to be objective. We were now not discussing science but the softer topics like philosophy, history, rhetoric, and all the rest. But I was surprised that anyone could hold the view that it is not the ideal to be objective.
The motivation was that several perspectives are better, and that a real scholar should let different voices emerge from the material he/she studies. Of course this is true, a multitude of perspectives is an advantage. As often is the case I could not at the moment find a response; I have now.
Objectivity is not a perspective. To be objective, or rather to try to be objective, is about trying to the out most not to add or take away anything, not to let value judgements guide the interpretation, and allowing even the most terrible text the benefit of a doubt that there might be something in it. This is something that the good scholar need to do for all chosen perspectives, we do not have access to the “real” world. We are always watching it through some theory, or as others call it perspective. But each perspective deserves to be handled with care, and that implies objectivity.
It is not all right for a conservative to screw up a Marxist perspective on the “Arab spring” just because the conservative doesn't like communism. If you choose to adopt a Marxist perspective you can't let your personal feelings about that perspective make you deviate from what that perspective might tell you. This is of course also true for someone who loves Marx and might deviate in the other direction.
Finally, the reason why it is better to use several perspectives instead of just one, is because we hope to get closer to an objective understanding of what we study. Since all perspectives are limited and the choice of perspective might be subjective (even if it isn't a conscious subjective choice) to use several perspectives will be an advantage.
In conclusion to be objective is not a perspective.
In science the ideal is to be objective. It is true that scientists are human and not always live up to the ideal, but the goal of being objective in the search for knowledge remains.
Yesterday I was surprised over an idea expressed by a fellow attendee at the seminar. She considered it to be unnecessary to try to be objective. We were now not discussing science but the softer topics like philosophy, history, rhetoric, and all the rest. But I was surprised that anyone could hold the view that it is not the ideal to be objective.
The motivation was that several perspectives are better, and that a real scholar should let different voices emerge from the material he/she studies. Of course this is true, a multitude of perspectives is an advantage. As often is the case I could not at the moment find a response; I have now.
Objectivity is not a perspective. To be objective, or rather to try to be objective, is about trying to the out most not to add or take away anything, not to let value judgements guide the interpretation, and allowing even the most terrible text the benefit of a doubt that there might be something in it. This is something that the good scholar need to do for all chosen perspectives, we do not have access to the “real” world. We are always watching it through some theory, or as others call it perspective. But each perspective deserves to be handled with care, and that implies objectivity.
It is not all right for a conservative to screw up a Marxist perspective on the “Arab spring” just because the conservative doesn't like communism. If you choose to adopt a Marxist perspective you can't let your personal feelings about that perspective make you deviate from what that perspective might tell you. This is of course also true for someone who loves Marx and might deviate in the other direction.
Finally, the reason why it is better to use several perspectives instead of just one, is because we hope to get closer to an objective understanding of what we study. Since all perspectives are limited and the choice of perspective might be subjective (even if it isn't a conscious subjective choice) to use several perspectives will be an advantage.
In conclusion to be objective is not a perspective.
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Annual scepticism
There are a few things that happens every year even in the world of scepticism. I will continue my series of highlights in the past and present year with something that did happen last year, one thing that has already happened this year, and something that will happen this year.
I have already mentioned the great success we (the Swedish sceptics) had with what we did at Almedalen last year but the thing I want to mention now is the biggest sceptical conference in the world The Amazing Meeting (TAM). I have been to a few TAMs and last year I got to go once more and I had a great time. For the interested reader I can recommend the soon to be published article I wrote for the Swedish sceptics publication Folkvett. I will update the blog with a link when the article is available online.
What has happened this year is that the Swedish sceptics has announced who won the two awards “årets folkbildare” och “årets förvillare”. Fortunately the news have actually been reported quite a lot in the media. I guess that the reason is that more and more people have heard of the organisation and heard about the awards. Though people tend to have heard about the “negative” award, the deluder of the year, much more than the “positive” award.
This year the positive award went to the children science show “Hjärnkontoret”. This is a very popular show that has been running for 16 years. Unfortunately only a few of the news media mentions this. Not surprisingly one is SVT, the Swedish state television that makes Hjärnkontoret. But also DN mention the winner of the positive award.
Of course even for DN the big news is who got appointed deluder of the year. This year it was the environmental board in Orsa and Mora municipality that got the award because they wanted to force telecommunication companies to change their antennas to remove all electro-magnetic radiation that allegedly caused great problems for one individual in that municipality. If the companies had been forced to follow the environmental board's decision half the area of the municipality would have no cellphone coverage or television.
The problem is that no one has been able to show adverse effects for the type of radiation that the antennas transmit. The reasoning the board relied on was shaky and included google as a source.
In SvD there is a short opinion piece where the chairman of the Swedish sceptics explain why the award was given to the environmental board.
One of the two big tabloids in Sweden also writes about the award (the negative one) and in their interview with the environmental board they uncover that they apparently still haven't understood that they have no scientific or rational standing in their argumentation.
Also the local radio for Orsa and Mora municipality have a short segment on the issue.
If one wants to learn more about how tax money are wasted on unproven and quite likely unnecessary removal of electro-magnetic fields Mats Reimer writes about it in his blog.
The announcements from the Swedish sceptics can be read on the Internet: årets folkbildare, årets förvillare.
Finally something to look forward to this year. Besides all the fun activities that will be arranged in Sweden like reccemottagningen, kulturnatten, and bokmässan there is the world sceptic conference in Berlin. As of yet I have no plans to go there but I really would like to.
I have already mentioned the great success we (the Swedish sceptics) had with what we did at Almedalen last year but the thing I want to mention now is the biggest sceptical conference in the world The Amazing Meeting (TAM). I have been to a few TAMs and last year I got to go once more and I had a great time. For the interested reader I can recommend the soon to be published article I wrote for the Swedish sceptics publication Folkvett. I will update the blog with a link when the article is available online.
What has happened this year is that the Swedish sceptics has announced who won the two awards “årets folkbildare” och “årets förvillare”. Fortunately the news have actually been reported quite a lot in the media. I guess that the reason is that more and more people have heard of the organisation and heard about the awards. Though people tend to have heard about the “negative” award, the deluder of the year, much more than the “positive” award.
This year the positive award went to the children science show “Hjärnkontoret”. This is a very popular show that has been running for 16 years. Unfortunately only a few of the news media mentions this. Not surprisingly one is SVT, the Swedish state television that makes Hjärnkontoret. But also DN mention the winner of the positive award.
Of course even for DN the big news is who got appointed deluder of the year. This year it was the environmental board in Orsa and Mora municipality that got the award because they wanted to force telecommunication companies to change their antennas to remove all electro-magnetic radiation that allegedly caused great problems for one individual in that municipality. If the companies had been forced to follow the environmental board's decision half the area of the municipality would have no cellphone coverage or television.
The problem is that no one has been able to show adverse effects for the type of radiation that the antennas transmit. The reasoning the board relied on was shaky and included google as a source.
In SvD there is a short opinion piece where the chairman of the Swedish sceptics explain why the award was given to the environmental board.
One of the two big tabloids in Sweden also writes about the award (the negative one) and in their interview with the environmental board they uncover that they apparently still haven't understood that they have no scientific or rational standing in their argumentation.
Also the local radio for Orsa and Mora municipality have a short segment on the issue.
If one wants to learn more about how tax money are wasted on unproven and quite likely unnecessary removal of electro-magnetic fields Mats Reimer writes about it in his blog.
The announcements from the Swedish sceptics can be read on the Internet: årets folkbildare, årets förvillare.
Finally something to look forward to this year. Besides all the fun activities that will be arranged in Sweden like reccemottagningen, kulturnatten, and bokmässan there is the world sceptic conference in Berlin. As of yet I have no plans to go there but I really would like to.
Monday, 2 January 2012
First post this year
As promised here are some more highlights of last year and what to look forward to during this year 2012.
This time I like to focus on magic and mentalism. By far the most important thing regarding my magic and mentalism the previous year was my appearance in Fenomen, the Swedish version of Uri Geller's fairly successful tv-show concept. It is a show partly focused on finding the new Uri Geller but here in Sweden the focus was much more on the entertainment aspect.
Even though the show happened in 2011 it began even earlier, in 2010 with a phone call regarding mentalism. The first phone call was a bit cryptic since that is the nature of things in the television business when nothing is yet decided nor official. It was Helen Kraver that called me and indeed discovered me. since not that many had heard of me before. She later worked with the props for the show and is most recently known for her work with “Allt för Sverige”.
After the show there were some interviews and try-outs. The final try-out was at Magic Bar and I think that one went quite well, indeed so well that I ended up among the ten mentalists in the show.
Unfortunately I was the first one to leave the show. And although I would of course have preferred to be there longer I was not that disappointed. I had a great time and got to meet some very nice, funny and interesting people. I got my first experience of doing live television and that was an interesting experience. I also got to meet my old friend Ian Rowland who helped out as a consultant for the show.
I think that my stile of mentalism not really suited the demographic of the show but that is not an excuse since I should of course have changed my way of presenting my material. But I am glad to say that following the discussions about the show in different internet forums I didn't find any correct explanation of what I did.
I could make a long list of all the wonderful people that I got to meet but I will not do that because it would make boring reading. Instead I will address a question that I sometimes get. Some people wonder what a sceptic like me did on a show together with Uri Geller as if it would be immoral. But I think that it was far better that there were some sceptics there than Geller without any sceptics what so ever. Also my friend Banachek have worked on the US version of the show and no one can accuse him of not being sceptical enough.
Concerning things to look forward toward there is FISM 2012. That is in short the Olympics of magic and this year it will be in Blackpool UK. I have not bought a ticket yet since it unfortunately coincide with TAM in Las Vegas and I still consider my options. Although I do love to go to TAM I think that this year it will be Blackpool before Las Vegas (anyone that has been to both can question that decision but remember that is not the places that attract me).
I end with a few clips from my Fenomen performances.
This time I like to focus on magic and mentalism. By far the most important thing regarding my magic and mentalism the previous year was my appearance in Fenomen, the Swedish version of Uri Geller's fairly successful tv-show concept. It is a show partly focused on finding the new Uri Geller but here in Sweden the focus was much more on the entertainment aspect.
Even though the show happened in 2011 it began even earlier, in 2010 with a phone call regarding mentalism. The first phone call was a bit cryptic since that is the nature of things in the television business when nothing is yet decided nor official. It was Helen Kraver that called me and indeed discovered me. since not that many had heard of me before. She later worked with the props for the show and is most recently known for her work with “Allt för Sverige”.
After the show there were some interviews and try-outs. The final try-out was at Magic Bar and I think that one went quite well, indeed so well that I ended up among the ten mentalists in the show.
Unfortunately I was the first one to leave the show. And although I would of course have preferred to be there longer I was not that disappointed. I had a great time and got to meet some very nice, funny and interesting people. I got my first experience of doing live television and that was an interesting experience. I also got to meet my old friend Ian Rowland who helped out as a consultant for the show.
I think that my stile of mentalism not really suited the demographic of the show but that is not an excuse since I should of course have changed my way of presenting my material. But I am glad to say that following the discussions about the show in different internet forums I didn't find any correct explanation of what I did.
I could make a long list of all the wonderful people that I got to meet but I will not do that because it would make boring reading. Instead I will address a question that I sometimes get. Some people wonder what a sceptic like me did on a show together with Uri Geller as if it would be immoral. But I think that it was far better that there were some sceptics there than Geller without any sceptics what so ever. Also my friend Banachek have worked on the US version of the show and no one can accuse him of not being sceptical enough.
Concerning things to look forward toward there is FISM 2012. That is in short the Olympics of magic and this year it will be in Blackpool UK. I have not bought a ticket yet since it unfortunately coincide with TAM in Las Vegas and I still consider my options. Although I do love to go to TAM I think that this year it will be Blackpool before Las Vegas (anyone that has been to both can question that decision but remember that is not the places that attract me).
I end with a few clips from my Fenomen performances.
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Noteworthy events 2011
It is that time of year when people tend to think about what they have done and what they are going to do. I will take it in small steps. My plan is to give some past highlights of 2011 and some probable highlights of 2012, one of each, for a few blog entries.
Among my accomplishments of 2011 is to get to second place when it comes to the most read opinion pieces in SvD (a major Swedish newspaper). To be honest I had not much to do with its writing or the fact that it became very popular but I still list it as one noteworthy thing I did during 2011. It is not every day you can assist an astronaut to take an overdose of sleeping pills.
To see the list of the most popular opinion pieces follow this link.
To read the original piece (in Swedish) follow this link.
Among plans for 2012 I am enlisting to take courses that will hopefully give me a master degree in rhetoric.
Happy New Year!
Among my accomplishments of 2011 is to get to second place when it comes to the most read opinion pieces in SvD (a major Swedish newspaper). To be honest I had not much to do with its writing or the fact that it became very popular but I still list it as one noteworthy thing I did during 2011. It is not every day you can assist an astronaut to take an overdose of sleeping pills.
To see the list of the most popular opinion pieces follow this link.
To read the original piece (in Swedish) follow this link.
Among plans for 2012 I am enlisting to take courses that will hopefully give me a master degree in rhetoric.
Happy New Year!
Saturday, 17 December 2011
An obituary of sort
Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011
I am writing this for two sad reasons, the first one is that Christopher Hitchens is dead, the second one is the sad state of the Swedish obituaries.
Maybe he wasn't that big in Sweden, definitely not as big as he was in the US or the UK. We are talking about a man so influential that the New York Times stopped the presses to get his obituary in the paper. I doubt that any Swedish paper stopped their presses. And it is sad that the media in Sweden never understood his greatness; not that he was always right, but he would always argue his point and ask uncomfortable questions and not seldom deliver uncomfortable facts.
But I can understand that he wasn't popular in Sweden since he was a fierce debater in that intellectual stile which appear to be shun by the Swedish media. It would not do to show that intelligence and facts could be used in a debate instead of conviction and opinions. Not that Christopher Hitchens didn't have opinions but he, as far as I can tell, never argued that his convictions in themselves were enough of an argument.
So what about the man himself?
I often didn't agree with him, I have met him, not only heard him speak but actually been at the same party and exchanged a few words with him. I was not starstruck by him although his eloquence is admirable. But I can understand those who idolised him because he was a very unique man, he smoked, and he clearly drank, and he wrote and spoke all with the same uncompromising zeal.
I valued his critique of religion, because as a Christian and secularist, I believe that all religions should be criticized and even ridiculed. A crazy thing as a religious belief deserve ridicule and only people who can stand their believes being ridiculed should be allowed to be religious. I much rather live in an world there people like Hitchens or even people much, much less well spoken than him, can insult religion as much as they want, than in a world there people are under pressure not to offend. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of speech has become a “religion” in the west and that it is necessary to understand that it must be placed on the same level as other religions and learn to “play nice”. That is pure humbug, and I think Hitchens would agree with me on that. (Though since he is dead we will never know.) To listen to people you don't agree with will make your thoughts evolve and if freedom of speech is restricted, humanity will suffer.
That is why I am sad, because a great combatant in the struggle for humanity has passed away. I know that he didn't believe, but I hope he was wrong and although I don't agree with drinking I hope he has found his place at the big bar in heaven.
I am writing this for two sad reasons, the first one is that Christopher Hitchens is dead, the second one is the sad state of the Swedish obituaries.
Maybe he wasn't that big in Sweden, definitely not as big as he was in the US or the UK. We are talking about a man so influential that the New York Times stopped the presses to get his obituary in the paper. I doubt that any Swedish paper stopped their presses. And it is sad that the media in Sweden never understood his greatness; not that he was always right, but he would always argue his point and ask uncomfortable questions and not seldom deliver uncomfortable facts.
But I can understand that he wasn't popular in Sweden since he was a fierce debater in that intellectual stile which appear to be shun by the Swedish media. It would not do to show that intelligence and facts could be used in a debate instead of conviction and opinions. Not that Christopher Hitchens didn't have opinions but he, as far as I can tell, never argued that his convictions in themselves were enough of an argument.
So what about the man himself?
I often didn't agree with him, I have met him, not only heard him speak but actually been at the same party and exchanged a few words with him. I was not starstruck by him although his eloquence is admirable. But I can understand those who idolised him because he was a very unique man, he smoked, and he clearly drank, and he wrote and spoke all with the same uncompromising zeal.
I valued his critique of religion, because as a Christian and secularist, I believe that all religions should be criticized and even ridiculed. A crazy thing as a religious belief deserve ridicule and only people who can stand their believes being ridiculed should be allowed to be religious. I much rather live in an world there people like Hitchens or even people much, much less well spoken than him, can insult religion as much as they want, than in a world there people are under pressure not to offend. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of speech has become a “religion” in the west and that it is necessary to understand that it must be placed on the same level as other religions and learn to “play nice”. That is pure humbug, and I think Hitchens would agree with me on that. (Though since he is dead we will never know.) To listen to people you don't agree with will make your thoughts evolve and if freedom of speech is restricted, humanity will suffer.
That is why I am sad, because a great combatant in the struggle for humanity has passed away. I know that he didn't believe, but I hope he was wrong and although I don't agree with drinking I hope he has found his place at the big bar in heaven.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Lecture
For anyone who is interested and somewhere around Stockholm on the 7th of Mars 2012 I will give a semi-public lecture. It is a part of a lecture series with the title ”Vetenskap och ovetenskap” (Science and non-science) arranged by Björn Fjæstad for Senioruniversitetet i Stockholm (Stockholm Senior University) together with Folkuniversitetet (The Peoples University).
Beside me a number of very talented and interesting people will be speaking. Anna Bäsén will be talking about alternative medicine (that is treatments that has either not been proven to work, or proven not to work) the week after me. After her Martin Rundkvist will be talking about pseudo archaeology. Martin has been speaking at the lecture series that I arrange for my church in Uppsala and the speaker that follow Martin will as well have been here. CJ Åkerberg will talk about conspiration theories in Uppsala the 12th of January and in Stockholm the 28th of Mars. Everyone mentioned above I know, some more than others. Than there are two more talks one about parapsychology and the other one about the radiation from mobile phones and the so called electro-sensitivity that some people suffer from; the suffering is real although the cause of it is disputed.
If I was older I would make sure to attend this lecture series myself. To attend you have to sign up for the lecture series and pay the fee of 500 crowns.
Beside me a number of very talented and interesting people will be speaking. Anna Bäsén will be talking about alternative medicine (that is treatments that has either not been proven to work, or proven not to work) the week after me. After her Martin Rundkvist will be talking about pseudo archaeology. Martin has been speaking at the lecture series that I arrange for my church in Uppsala and the speaker that follow Martin will as well have been here. CJ Åkerberg will talk about conspiration theories in Uppsala the 12th of January and in Stockholm the 28th of Mars. Everyone mentioned above I know, some more than others. Than there are two more talks one about parapsychology and the other one about the radiation from mobile phones and the so called electro-sensitivity that some people suffer from; the suffering is real although the cause of it is disputed.
If I was older I would make sure to attend this lecture series myself. To attend you have to sign up for the lecture series and pay the fee of 500 crowns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
