Det finns de som talar om civilisationernas krig och ser ett kommande världskrig mellan det kristna väst och den muslimska världen. I verkligheten, som har visat sig med attentatet mot Charlie Hebdo, står vi inför ett civilisationens krig. Bilden av att tillhöra den goda sidan i kampen mot det onda är en stark bild som anammas av så väl den extrema högern, radikala muslimer och den grupp som i brist på annat kan kallas de politiskt korrekta.
Charlie Hebdo var ingen snäll tidning, det var inte deras jobb. Svenska politiker som ytterst är ansvariga för att vi har de lagar vi har bör kanske fundera över varför de demonstrerar för en tidning som kanske inte skulle kunna ges ut här. Charlie Hebdo hade inget emot att ge sig på minoriteter när det behövdes, för även den svaga sidan kan ha fel. Deras mål var inte enbart att reta upp muslimer, lika ofta, om inte mer, häcklade de xenofobiska högerpolitiker livrädda för allt som har med muslimer att göra.
Som den före detta chefredaktören för Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val, förklarat så vägrade man se muslimer som ociviliserade och mindre vetande. På samma sätt som man förväntade sig att politiker ska kunna hantera smädelse förväntade man sig att de olika religionerna ska kunna göra det på ett civiliserat sätt. Förväntar man sig inte det säger man att det finns en skillnad mellan västerländsk civilisation och den muslimska världen. Det är samma analys som görs av extremistiska islamister och av den extrema högern.
På Charlie Hebdo visste man att man retade många och man hoppades att de skulle svara på ett civiliserat sätt, arga brev till redaktionen, skaka på huvudet och sluta läsa tidningen, eller kanske inte bli uppretade alls. Men man visste också att man levde under hot från de barbarer som ogillar civilisation och låter våldet tala. Nu verkar det ha varit muslimska barbarer som begick terrordådet mot tidningsredaktionen men det hade inte varit mindre skrämmande om det varit högerextremister eller buddister, för det var ett barbariskt dåd.
För Charlie Hebdo var civiliserade muslimer igen anledning till oro, det var barbariet som döda dem, oförmågan att vara osams på ett civiliserat sätt. Denna oförmåga att vara osams på ett civiliserat sätt är vanligt förekommande även bland de som förespråkar den goda tryckfriheten där man inte förolämpar och förargar människor. Men det är få som vill prata om det. För det är lätt att ta avstånd från rasisterna som hatar muslimer och från fanatikerna som mördar för sin tro, men vem vill ta avstånd från det goda?
När man säger att vissa teckningar inte bör publiceras för de retar upp muslimer gör man samma uppdelning i västerländsk civilisation och den muslimska världen som islamisterna själva och de högerextrema partierna. Det är nästan lite rasistiskt. En del verkar anse att tryckfrihet är ett västerländskt påhitt som vi inte kan tvinga på den muslimska kulturen. Det är som att säga att vissa mänskliga rättigheter inte gäller för judar för de kan inte hantera dem.
Men det är givetvis inte så vi ser det, och jag säger 'vi' för jag tycker själv att man inte ska förolämpa och håna människor. Vad vi gör är att skydda människor från sådant de inte borde behöva höra, sådant som är osant, generaliserande och förolämpande. Vad vi behöver förstå är att tryckfriheten inte handlar om vad man bör säga utan om vad man kan säga. Det är inte vackert, för det finns många saker som man ska kunna säga utan att riskera att dödas för det. Men det är där skiljelinjen går mellan barbariet och civilisationen. Är det med makt eller med ord som striderna förs? Vi kan gömma oss bakom sådant som att ”med yttrandefrihet följer ansvar”, vilket som slagord är ett rejält avsteg från ”jag avskyr dina åsikter men är beredd att dö för din rätt att yttra dem”. Men till slut handlar det om vi är beredda att låta även sådant vi avskyr kunna sägas, det är det som är yttrandefrihet. Den kan verka oviktig men vill man leva i en upplysningens värld är den omistlig.
Vi har den inom vetenskapen, där det är argumenten som ska övertyga, inte böckerna de kommer från eller personerna som säger dem. Vi försöker ha den i samhället i stort, även om den kan vara obehaglig. Vi har yttrandefriheten för att oavsett vad en person säger så är det bättre att möta det med goda argument än ett förbud. Vi har den för att vi tror på alla människors rätt att förstå och bidra till diskussionen, även om de inte kan. Vi har yttrandefriheten för att inte göra skillnad mellan katoliken, muslimen, juden, buddisten och ateisten, de ska alla kunna säga vad de tycker, för ett jämt spelfält är det enda rättvisa. Vi har yttrandefriheten för att kunna säga åt alla idioter att de har fel och någon gång kanske inse att det är inte de utan vi som har det. För i ett upplyst samhälle är vi inte rädd för att ha fel för det är så vi lär oss saker.
Vad som är minst lika allvarligt är att när grundläggande principer skjuts till bakgrunden så slutar vi se den viktiga gränsdragningen. Vi ser de kategorier som islamisterna och högerextremisterna vill att vi ska se istället för skiljelinjen mellan civilisation och barbari. Det är inte civilisationernas krig som vi har framför oss utan civilisationens krig mot barbariet eller om man så vill: upplysningens krig mot l'obscurantisme. Franska media har varit duktiga på att betona att man är i en kamp mot de som inte vill ha ett fritt utbyte av tankar och idéer. Det känns som om många andra är fast i fokusera på vilken religion eller kultur en person tillhör. Det är inte fruktsamt i längden att fokusera på aspekter som egentligen är sekundära till om en person kan vara en del av ett civiliserat samtal och leva i ett civiliserat samhälle även om man har ett gott syfte.
Charlie Hebdo gav sig gärna på de som sa korkade saker, de sa säkert korkade saker själva, men de krävde aldrig att någon skulle hindras från att använda sin yttrandefrihet oavsett om det var islamisterna som till slut dödade så många av dem, eller rasister i Front National. Deras humor kan ha varit rå och otrevlig men de förde upplysningens arv vidare genom att inte hålla något för heligt för att kritiseras.
P.S.
Ja, jag vet att både tryckfriheten och yttrandefriheten har sina begränsningar och behöver ha dem. Själv skulle jag föredra att se att deras begränsningar var baserade på tre saker, förbud mot hot, en förtalslagstiftningen där sanningen övertrumfar ekonomiska resurser och ett hinder för att sprida sådant som tillkommit genom brott så som barnpornografi.
P.P.S
En sak till, det var inte Voltaire som sa ”Jag avskyr dina åsikter men är beredd att dö för din rätt att yttra dem”. Det finns i alla fall inga belägg för att han sagt det även om det sammanfattar hans inställning rätt bra.
P.P.P.S
Intervju med Philippe Val, en française: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152703065049151
Friday 9 January 2015
Thursday 8 May 2014
Learn the truth
A short blog-post today about two ways to question, and learn, the ”truth”.
In psychology and neurology one of the most repeated ”facts” is what happened to Phineas Gage in 1848. (He got an iron rod through his head and survived it, making the rest of his life very interesting to everyone who studies the brain.) In Slate there is an article about how one of the most told stories when retold, even to university students, is largely fictional. Or to be kind, even some scientists have used poetic freedom when describing the case of Phineas Gage. Now anecdotes are an important part of describing the world including science, but it is somewhat depressing that one of the great scientific stories are also one of the great examples of how to spin a story. It appears that there is a lack of information about what actually happened to Phineas Gage after the accident and that people have filled in the blanks with what they think should be the truth.
There is a lot of debate about energy, arguments about the environment, safety, and world politics is a huge part of the debate. Yesterday in the book store I came across a book arguing that nuclear energy is something bad, using Fukushima as an example of the dangers of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that nuclear energy is dangerous, but everything in life is associated with some danger. The question we need to ask is how dangerous nuclear energy is and anyone who wants to use Fukushima as an example should read this UN-report.
A small extract from the report:
Page 10 of SOURCES, EFFECTS AND RISKS OF IONIZING RADIATION, UNSCEAR 2013 Report,Volume I, REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SCIENTIFIC ANNEX A:
Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami
I want to emphasise that nuclear energy is dangerous and that the text above is cherry picked to show that it is not as dangerous as some people say it is.
In psychology and neurology one of the most repeated ”facts” is what happened to Phineas Gage in 1848. (He got an iron rod through his head and survived it, making the rest of his life very interesting to everyone who studies the brain.) In Slate there is an article about how one of the most told stories when retold, even to university students, is largely fictional. Or to be kind, even some scientists have used poetic freedom when describing the case of Phineas Gage. Now anecdotes are an important part of describing the world including science, but it is somewhat depressing that one of the great scientific stories are also one of the great examples of how to spin a story. It appears that there is a lack of information about what actually happened to Phineas Gage after the accident and that people have filled in the blanks with what they think should be the truth.
There is a lot of debate about energy, arguments about the environment, safety, and world politics is a huge part of the debate. Yesterday in the book store I came across a book arguing that nuclear energy is something bad, using Fukushima as an example of the dangers of nuclear energy. There is no doubt that nuclear energy is dangerous, but everything in life is associated with some danger. The question we need to ask is how dangerous nuclear energy is and anyone who wants to use Fukushima as an example should read this UN-report.
A small extract from the report:
38.
No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident.
39.
The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low. No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, related to the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to ionizing radiation. Effects such as depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms have already been reported. Estimation of the occurrence and severity of such health effects are outside the Committee’s remit.
Page 10 of SOURCES, EFFECTS AND RISKS OF IONIZING RADIATION, UNSCEAR 2013 Report,Volume I, REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SCIENTIFIC ANNEX A:
Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami
I want to emphasise that nuclear energy is dangerous and that the text above is cherry picked to show that it is not as dangerous as some people say it is.
Friday 2 May 2014
What is critical thinking?
I have an acquaintance who is very much familiar with what is happening in the education system in Sweden. He knows about different schools and different methods for teaching and he expressed to me that he was just sick of all the talk about critical thinking. Everywhere the term ”critical thinking” is used almost as a spell, as long as the pupils are taught critical thinking it's not very important that they know anything else. If the schools just teach critical thinking skills the pupils will find all the other information that they need by themselves.
This is of course idiotic and anyone who used critical thinking would realise that this is the case. My guess is that too many fall in the trap of using a popular word without even trying to think about what critical thinking really is.
What it isn't
To think critical about something is not to be able to find the correct information about that something or the correct answer to a question. (Here ”correct” is of course only a temporary property for a certain set of statements. The term ”correct” is relating to the ”truth” which is only an approximation, our current knowledge of the ”Truth” - how things really are.) To do that is to expand the existing knowledge either for oneself, a group of people, or for humanity if what is discovered is something not previously known. To be able to establish the truth is not the same as being able to think critically. To think critically comes before finding the truth and sometimes a truth cannot be found but it is still possible to think critically before that.
To think critically is not to doubt everything. That is what skepticism is often accused of as well, being nothing but doubt of all assertions. But there is not much thinking involved in doubting everything. It is also not very efficient to doubt everything even if one tries to do it in a Cartesian way in order to find a fundamental Truth, something that cannot be a mistaken impression or a lie by a deceitful god. It would also be difficult to avoid solipsism if one begin to doubt everything.
It is in my opinion likely that critical thinking is not one thing but a collection of different important techniques that has to be used and weighted with judgement. To do this is to employ critical thinking skills. The indiscriminating doubt of everything is not critical thinking but doubt is likely to sometimes be the result of judging the evidence at hand, and it can also be an important part in weighing the evidence. To acquire the skill for critical thinking include both knowing the different techniques and having the experience of using them, non of which is easy or comes natural to us humans. Today I am beginning to write a series of blog-posts about important elements of critical thinking. The first one is Heuristics
Important parts of critical thinking – Heuristics
Some relatively simple heuristics is a part of critical thinking. These might be so well known that they are even made into proverbs. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is – is one that most people have heard. It is probably also possible to include longer stories that are teaching an important lesson of what to do or not to do. To cry wolf is something that is bad, you can understand this either by thinking about how people would react to constantly get false alarms or you can learn it from the story.
But is it critical thinking to know that crying wolf is not a good thing to do? No, not really, the critical thinking part comes earlier. If we get the impulse to sound the alarm even if we know that there is no danger, we can either act on the impulse or think about it and chose not to. In reality we have a choice between the immediate satisfaction of an impulse or to consider what might be good for us in the future if we would need to sound the alarm for real. That it is bad to cry wolf is not something that is set in stone, from an individuals point of view it might be more rewarding to follow the initial impulse and have a laugh sounding the alarm. It can probably be argued that for a society it is bad if people have the habit of crying wolf. But what says that an individual should place the benefit of society above the joy of following an impulse? This is one reason why heuristics are never 100%. But this kind of reasoning is not likely to take place in the head of the person tempted to sound the alarm. The Story About the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a way to avoid thinking critically and arrive at the conclusion without thinking. That is to say the opposite of critical thinking. If we start to think critically about heuristics we realise that they are general rules that are questionable.
I still consider heuristics to be an important part of critical thinking, not because it always leads one to a correct result but because it gives us a quick warning about when we need to start thinking. The heuristics are there because we as a species have learned to not trust our impulses all the time, and we use our culture to give us warnings in tricky situations. The heuristics are something like a starting point for critical thinking. Unfortunately we don't have heuristics for all situations and some people follow them more or less blindly. They have limits but with all their faults they can still not be ignored.
This is of course idiotic and anyone who used critical thinking would realise that this is the case. My guess is that too many fall in the trap of using a popular word without even trying to think about what critical thinking really is.
What it isn't
To think critical about something is not to be able to find the correct information about that something or the correct answer to a question. (Here ”correct” is of course only a temporary property for a certain set of statements. The term ”correct” is relating to the ”truth” which is only an approximation, our current knowledge of the ”Truth” - how things really are.) To do that is to expand the existing knowledge either for oneself, a group of people, or for humanity if what is discovered is something not previously known. To be able to establish the truth is not the same as being able to think critically. To think critically comes before finding the truth and sometimes a truth cannot be found but it is still possible to think critically before that.
To think critically is not to doubt everything. That is what skepticism is often accused of as well, being nothing but doubt of all assertions. But there is not much thinking involved in doubting everything. It is also not very efficient to doubt everything even if one tries to do it in a Cartesian way in order to find a fundamental Truth, something that cannot be a mistaken impression or a lie by a deceitful god. It would also be difficult to avoid solipsism if one begin to doubt everything.
It is in my opinion likely that critical thinking is not one thing but a collection of different important techniques that has to be used and weighted with judgement. To do this is to employ critical thinking skills. The indiscriminating doubt of everything is not critical thinking but doubt is likely to sometimes be the result of judging the evidence at hand, and it can also be an important part in weighing the evidence. To acquire the skill for critical thinking include both knowing the different techniques and having the experience of using them, non of which is easy or comes natural to us humans. Today I am beginning to write a series of blog-posts about important elements of critical thinking. The first one is Heuristics
Important parts of critical thinking – Heuristics
Some relatively simple heuristics is a part of critical thinking. These might be so well known that they are even made into proverbs. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is – is one that most people have heard. It is probably also possible to include longer stories that are teaching an important lesson of what to do or not to do. To cry wolf is something that is bad, you can understand this either by thinking about how people would react to constantly get false alarms or you can learn it from the story.
But is it critical thinking to know that crying wolf is not a good thing to do? No, not really, the critical thinking part comes earlier. If we get the impulse to sound the alarm even if we know that there is no danger, we can either act on the impulse or think about it and chose not to. In reality we have a choice between the immediate satisfaction of an impulse or to consider what might be good for us in the future if we would need to sound the alarm for real. That it is bad to cry wolf is not something that is set in stone, from an individuals point of view it might be more rewarding to follow the initial impulse and have a laugh sounding the alarm. It can probably be argued that for a society it is bad if people have the habit of crying wolf. But what says that an individual should place the benefit of society above the joy of following an impulse? This is one reason why heuristics are never 100%. But this kind of reasoning is not likely to take place in the head of the person tempted to sound the alarm. The Story About the Boy Who Cried Wolf is a way to avoid thinking critically and arrive at the conclusion without thinking. That is to say the opposite of critical thinking. If we start to think critically about heuristics we realise that they are general rules that are questionable.
I still consider heuristics to be an important part of critical thinking, not because it always leads one to a correct result but because it gives us a quick warning about when we need to start thinking. The heuristics are there because we as a species have learned to not trust our impulses all the time, and we use our culture to give us warnings in tricky situations. The heuristics are something like a starting point for critical thinking. Unfortunately we don't have heuristics for all situations and some people follow them more or less blindly. They have limits but with all their faults they can still not be ignored.
Thursday 1 May 2014
First ever Uppsala Magic & Comedy or What I Did Last Weekend
Friday the 25th to Sunday the 27th was the dates for the first ever Uppsala Magic & Comedy festival, an opportunity for people to see some high class magic and comedy. There was also the opportunity to see the Swedish Championships in Magic so many magicians were at the festival for that reason as well.
The person that we have to thank for the festival and its success is Johan Ståhl who created and organised the festival. Of course also all the magicians and other artist at the festival helped making it a huge success. Finally the audience was important to make the festival the greatest magic & comedy festival in Scandinavia, all from the youngest children to senior citizens where there.
I was myself to some degree involved in organising the competitions so I didn't get to see all of them but I have been told that they where over all quite good. Unfortunately it was as always difficult for the people competing in the mentalism category although they had very good acts.
Johan Ståhl the person responsible for everything and probably the one who slept the least.
There were some acts for the very young. Zillah och Totte was a big success with the youngest children.
Tom Stone, one of the greatest magicians in Sweden and known among magicians all over the world, both performed and gave a lecture about how people are being fooled.
You could also learn magic either from Magnus Vihagen if you were a little bit younger or from Andreas Mattisson if you were more interested in manipulation. It was also possible to buy magic tricks from the dealers, some who came from so far away as Denmark.
From even further away than Denmark was one of the stars of the festival Inez from Spain. She had a very pleasing combination of comedy and great magical moments in her acts.
The two greatest international stars was without doubt David Williamson and Yu Ho Sin. They represent two completely different forms of magic. I learned that some thought that David Williamson was too pushy and harsh towards the spectators he brought on to the stage. I was on the other hand impressed by that in my opinion he never crossed the line even though he was pushing it. Yu Ho Sin on the other hand didn't need any spectators on stage. His act is pure magic and the manipulations that he is doing are not possible, that's how good he is.
The photos were taken by Theresa Kriegler and she will probably write something about the festival on the blog TrixxBox (in German)
If you want to read more about the festival right away it is possible to do that at Magi-arkivet (in Swedish) There you will also find the results from the competitions.
The person that we have to thank for the festival and its success is Johan Ståhl who created and organised the festival. Of course also all the magicians and other artist at the festival helped making it a huge success. Finally the audience was important to make the festival the greatest magic & comedy festival in Scandinavia, all from the youngest children to senior citizens where there.
I was myself to some degree involved in organising the competitions so I didn't get to see all of them but I have been told that they where over all quite good. Unfortunately it was as always difficult for the people competing in the mentalism category although they had very good acts.
The two greatest international stars was without doubt David Williamson and Yu Ho Sin. They represent two completely different forms of magic. I learned that some thought that David Williamson was too pushy and harsh towards the spectators he brought on to the stage. I was on the other hand impressed by that in my opinion he never crossed the line even though he was pushing it. Yu Ho Sin on the other hand didn't need any spectators on stage. His act is pure magic and the manipulations that he is doing are not possible, that's how good he is.
The photos were taken by Theresa Kriegler and she will probably write something about the festival on the blog TrixxBox (in German)
If you want to read more about the festival right away it is possible to do that at Magi-arkivet (in Swedish) There you will also find the results from the competitions.
Wednesday 23 April 2014
The Heretics, by Will Storr
Review: The Heretics – adventures with the enemies of science, by Will Storr
It was a new experience for me to read a book where people pop up in the text that I have had mail conversations with, met for a cup of coffee, or had dinner with. People that are acquaintances of mine and that I have as friends on facebook. This implies that this review will be biased in some way but one lesson from the book is that all reviews are biased anyway, because they are the product of a mind that is defending its own conception of how the world is. I also recognised a lot of the books referred to in the text as standing in my own bookshelf, so it is no surprise that The Heretics was a very suitable birthday gift that I devoured quickly.
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that one reason that I liked the book might be that within the skeptics movement I am somewhat of a heretic myself due to my Christian believes. I am sure that there are also some Christians that consider me to be a heretic but that is not the kind of Christians I hang around with.
The Heretics in the book are people that have a world-view that is very different from the scientific one and who often feel that they are treated unfairly by the scientific establishment. Some have had to leave academia after, as they see it, being branded as heretics. Others may see it as that they had to leave since they gave in to what they wished to be true instead of following the evidence.
In the book many of the biases that we suffer as humans are discussed, not least how we tend to see what we want to see and stop investigating an issue after we have found sufficient evidence to confirm our preconceived ideas of how the world should be. The refreshing and interesting thing with this book is that it apply this also to the scientific community and the skeptics. Because if these biases are human and scientist and skeptics are human there is a risk that also scientists and skeptics will be victims of these biases.
Will Storr describes how he talks to skeptics that are against homeopathy (as we are) without having read the scientific studies and without having tried to look at the evidence themselves. And he juxtapose this with believers in fringe theories and pseudoscience that also haven't read the research and can't remember what was the name of that article that proves beyond a doubt what they believe is true. He has a very good point although I don't agree with it 100%.
No person can be up to date with all research in all fields and at some point we have to trust the people that can give a summery of the research. If you believe that an authority has more knowledge than you of a topic, use the same scientific method as you would use, and is an honest person, it is all right to trust what that person says. At least until evidence to the contrary materialise. In the skeptic community we are interested in the promotion of science and critical thinking in general and are just a little less trusting of our leaders than the believers. So we skeptics should show some humility in regard to our believes.
Unfortunately on the other side you often find the ”experts” that are not trying to avoid bias and are not up to date on the scientific research, and you find people selling ideas and products with a confidence that they have no ground for. To me there is a difference between the skeptic taking an overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills to make a point without being as well read as Edzard Ernst and the homoeopath selling homeopathic anti-malaria pills without understanding what it is, how it works and if it works.
But the book is not about the skeptical movement it is about what it is like to be a human. Storr tries to understand not just how the heretics can hold their believes and preach them to others but also why they hold those believes. And he is not afraid to scrutinise himself and the stories he uses to justify his own beliefs and opinions. He gives a glimpse of the humans, some are easier to understand than others, some take larger liberties with the truth than others to defend their story but they all share the illness and blessing of having a brain. A brain that will create an image of the world as it suits us to see it. Storr doesn't spend much time describing science as the solution to our faulty vision but that is the way he treats it. What makes the book interesting is that he doesn't divide everything into black or white, pseudoscience and science, some people are just better at applying critical thinking even to themselves, but no one is perfect.
For a moment consider the opinions that you have about global warming, the Middle East, GMOs, the distribution of wealth, and all the other opinions that you have. What opinions that you have are wrong? You know that not all of your opinions can be correct, but you have no way of telling which of the things that you believe at this moment are incorrect. Some opinions no one can say if they are correct or not, but that doesn't help. No one is perfect, we don't live in a black and white world. That is what is important and that is what this book is about. In my mind the moral of the story is that the virtue of humility is still very important. We who want to think of our selves as guided by science must listen to what people experience and doubt our old truths enough not to miss new knowledge. In my opinion (which might be wrong), Storr have written a book that all skeptics should read since it is not the hero story that we are used to. We still need and we also have, heroes in the skeptical movement but we should not have any saints. It is also a book that highlights the human condition of having a brain that creates an image of reality and not a reflection of it and what problems that will follow because of this difference. It is a book that will let the interviewed heretics question what is sane and what is not, even so far as to entertain that hearing voices in your head is just another way of being sane. Read this book.
So can you be a Christian if you also want to be scientific about things? In this book it is stated that several studies show that religious people are happier than atheist. I doubt that being religious is a choice but if it was, the atheist would be in the same category as smokers, doing something that science know is wrong. (Since this is a written text I should point out to my atheist friends that this last bit is written partly in jest and partly to show that we live life in a complex world without right and wrong answers to many questions.)
It was a new experience for me to read a book where people pop up in the text that I have had mail conversations with, met for a cup of coffee, or had dinner with. People that are acquaintances of mine and that I have as friends on facebook. This implies that this review will be biased in some way but one lesson from the book is that all reviews are biased anyway, because they are the product of a mind that is defending its own conception of how the world is. I also recognised a lot of the books referred to in the text as standing in my own bookshelf, so it is no surprise that The Heretics was a very suitable birthday gift that I devoured quickly.
In the interest of full disclosure I should point out that one reason that I liked the book might be that within the skeptics movement I am somewhat of a heretic myself due to my Christian believes. I am sure that there are also some Christians that consider me to be a heretic but that is not the kind of Christians I hang around with.
The Heretics in the book are people that have a world-view that is very different from the scientific one and who often feel that they are treated unfairly by the scientific establishment. Some have had to leave academia after, as they see it, being branded as heretics. Others may see it as that they had to leave since they gave in to what they wished to be true instead of following the evidence.
In the book many of the biases that we suffer as humans are discussed, not least how we tend to see what we want to see and stop investigating an issue after we have found sufficient evidence to confirm our preconceived ideas of how the world should be. The refreshing and interesting thing with this book is that it apply this also to the scientific community and the skeptics. Because if these biases are human and scientist and skeptics are human there is a risk that also scientists and skeptics will be victims of these biases.
Will Storr describes how he talks to skeptics that are against homeopathy (as we are) without having read the scientific studies and without having tried to look at the evidence themselves. And he juxtapose this with believers in fringe theories and pseudoscience that also haven't read the research and can't remember what was the name of that article that proves beyond a doubt what they believe is true. He has a very good point although I don't agree with it 100%.
No person can be up to date with all research in all fields and at some point we have to trust the people that can give a summery of the research. If you believe that an authority has more knowledge than you of a topic, use the same scientific method as you would use, and is an honest person, it is all right to trust what that person says. At least until evidence to the contrary materialise. In the skeptic community we are interested in the promotion of science and critical thinking in general and are just a little less trusting of our leaders than the believers. So we skeptics should show some humility in regard to our believes.
Unfortunately on the other side you often find the ”experts” that are not trying to avoid bias and are not up to date on the scientific research, and you find people selling ideas and products with a confidence that they have no ground for. To me there is a difference between the skeptic taking an overdose of homeopathic sleeping pills to make a point without being as well read as Edzard Ernst and the homoeopath selling homeopathic anti-malaria pills without understanding what it is, how it works and if it works.
But the book is not about the skeptical movement it is about what it is like to be a human. Storr tries to understand not just how the heretics can hold their believes and preach them to others but also why they hold those believes. And he is not afraid to scrutinise himself and the stories he uses to justify his own beliefs and opinions. He gives a glimpse of the humans, some are easier to understand than others, some take larger liberties with the truth than others to defend their story but they all share the illness and blessing of having a brain. A brain that will create an image of the world as it suits us to see it. Storr doesn't spend much time describing science as the solution to our faulty vision but that is the way he treats it. What makes the book interesting is that he doesn't divide everything into black or white, pseudoscience and science, some people are just better at applying critical thinking even to themselves, but no one is perfect.
For a moment consider the opinions that you have about global warming, the Middle East, GMOs, the distribution of wealth, and all the other opinions that you have. What opinions that you have are wrong? You know that not all of your opinions can be correct, but you have no way of telling which of the things that you believe at this moment are incorrect. Some opinions no one can say if they are correct or not, but that doesn't help. No one is perfect, we don't live in a black and white world. That is what is important and that is what this book is about. In my mind the moral of the story is that the virtue of humility is still very important. We who want to think of our selves as guided by science must listen to what people experience and doubt our old truths enough not to miss new knowledge. In my opinion (which might be wrong), Storr have written a book that all skeptics should read since it is not the hero story that we are used to. We still need and we also have, heroes in the skeptical movement but we should not have any saints. It is also a book that highlights the human condition of having a brain that creates an image of reality and not a reflection of it and what problems that will follow because of this difference. It is a book that will let the interviewed heretics question what is sane and what is not, even so far as to entertain that hearing voices in your head is just another way of being sane. Read this book.
So can you be a Christian if you also want to be scientific about things? In this book it is stated that several studies show that religious people are happier than atheist. I doubt that being religious is a choice but if it was, the atheist would be in the same category as smokers, doing something that science know is wrong. (Since this is a written text I should point out to my atheist friends that this last bit is written partly in jest and partly to show that we live life in a complex world without right and wrong answers to many questions.)
Tuesday 22 April 2014
What I do for a living
Just so that no one forget it, what I do for a living is to lie an cheat. And people actually like it, at least that was the impression I got from the applauds for my show this last Saturday. I don't talk about my performances unless they are public and since I do mainly private parties, corporate events and university related gigs I don't say much about work here.
Since this was a public event I can tell you that this Saturday I was filling in for a fellow performer who got sick. Usually we do three days in a row when we perform at Magic Bar (Karlaplan 6). But now I only did one night and performed with Tom Stone who was one of the scheduled performers. Because you get to see at least two magicians when you visit Magic Bar Thursday-Saturday.
Friday 18 April 2014
Is the source important?
I saw a friend posting a link to an article on facebook about the 911 memorial in New York and the motto that has been chosen. If the motto is good or not is of course subjective. What is also to some degree subjective is what the motto means. We can compare that with the motto above the entrance to the auditorium of Uppsala University “Att tänka fritt är stort, att tänka rätt är större” (To think free is great, but to think right is greater). Over the centuries people have had many different ideas about the meaning of those words. Some hate them and some love them, but usually they just disagree about what the meaning is.
What is less subjective is where the motto is from and what it was originally about. But does that really matter?
The motto at the 911 memorial is: “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.” - Virgil.
That is actually quite impressive, a quote by Virgil, it is from the Aeneid and concern events in book 9. It would never work in Sweden were people have hardly no classical education at all. But perhaps the only reason it might work in the US is that people lack a classical education there as well. (You might notice that the quote is not in the original Latin.)
A key-chain that will be sold at the museum bears the inscription.
Credit Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The sentence is about two Trojan soldiers and lovers, and I guess that some would object to their relationship. But perhaps more importantly is that in the Aeneid they are killed after something similar to a suicide mission where they attacked the Greek army killing soldiers in their sleep.
It does seem a bit wrong if you want to remember the civilians that died at World Trade Centre. It works much better at the Valiants Memorial in Canada, which commemorate soldiers and where the quote is also used (but in Latin).
But is the source important? It is true that the person that know about the story behind the quote might find it objectionable. Celebrating young men who willingly embrace death after killing people in their sleep might not be the best quote for a 911 memorial. (To my Canadian friends I can reassure you that there are a bit more to the story so it is not as strange on a military memorial.)
To be honest though, how many are aware of who the “you” are in “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.”? Most people have never heard about Virgil, and If you heard of Virgil (before reading this) it is not likely you read anything of him. Though if you have read something by Virgil it is likely to be the Aeneid.
Now is it actually important what a few academics think about a motto?
If not what is the use of academics? The reason that we have a society where people can be experts in something like old Latin poetry is because these academics are societies bank of knowledge. Scientists are frequently asked to contribute their knowledge, now when people who study the classics are finally in a position where they can contribute why not listen to them?
What is less subjective is where the motto is from and what it was originally about. But does that really matter?
The motto at the 911 memorial is: “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.” - Virgil.
That is actually quite impressive, a quote by Virgil, it is from the Aeneid and concern events in book 9. It would never work in Sweden were people have hardly no classical education at all. But perhaps the only reason it might work in the US is that people lack a classical education there as well. (You might notice that the quote is not in the original Latin.)
Credit Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
The sentence is about two Trojan soldiers and lovers, and I guess that some would object to their relationship. But perhaps more importantly is that in the Aeneid they are killed after something similar to a suicide mission where they attacked the Greek army killing soldiers in their sleep.
It does seem a bit wrong if you want to remember the civilians that died at World Trade Centre. It works much better at the Valiants Memorial in Canada, which commemorate soldiers and where the quote is also used (but in Latin).
But is the source important? It is true that the person that know about the story behind the quote might find it objectionable. Celebrating young men who willingly embrace death after killing people in their sleep might not be the best quote for a 911 memorial. (To my Canadian friends I can reassure you that there are a bit more to the story so it is not as strange on a military memorial.)
To be honest though, how many are aware of who the “you” are in “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.”? Most people have never heard about Virgil, and If you heard of Virgil (before reading this) it is not likely you read anything of him. Though if you have read something by Virgil it is likely to be the Aeneid.
Now is it actually important what a few academics think about a motto?
If not what is the use of academics? The reason that we have a society where people can be experts in something like old Latin poetry is because these academics are societies bank of knowledge. Scientists are frequently asked to contribute their knowledge, now when people who study the classics are finally in a position where they can contribute why not listen to them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
