Information on the forthcoming e-anthology edited by Chris Lynch. Taken from here:
Tangled Bank Press is pleased to announce the Table of Contents of its first publication.
THE TANGLED BANK: Love, Wonder, & Evolution will launch on Darwin Day, 12th February, 2010.
The anthology, which celebrates the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, is bursting with over 100,000 words of fiction, poetry, artwork, and essays.
An international line-up of nearly 50 contributors includes Sean Williams, Brian Stableford, Patricia Russo, Carlos Hernandez, Bruce Boston, and Emily Ballou.
For regular updates, visit our Facebook or Twitter pages, or stay tuned to the website. The introduction and a free story will be posted just prior to release.
Thank you to all who submitted!
–
THE TANGLED BANK
Love, Wonder, & Evolution
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FICTION
A.M. Muffaz, Finches
Z.S. Adani, A Fistful of Tassels
Brendan Carson, Vaster than Empires
Gerald Costlow, Mercy
Marlissa Campbell, The Proust Effect
Anil Menon, The Uncertain Hour
Jen White, An Ordinary Boy
Douglas A. Van Belle, Detritus of a Second-hand Mind
Anne Lyle, Hopeful Monsters: A Darwinian Fairytale
Ben Francisco, On the Entropy of Species
Christopher K. Miller, The Pigs Are Not Alone
Gitte Christensen, Nullipara
Catherine J. Gardner, The Sound of Sharp Voices
Carlos Hernandez, Confessions of a Voluntary Egg Carrier
Jetse de Vries, The Frog Pool
James S. Dorr, Pets
Chris Lynch, The Feathered Serpent
Christopher Green, Darwin’s Daughter
Michael C. Lea, Orgueil
Kelly Jameson, A Bear Trains a Man
Jefferson Navicky, Map of the Provinces
K.R. Sands, Boy of Bone
Brian Stableford, Creationism
Patricia Russo, Four Corners
NON-FICTION
Chris Lynch, Introduction
Russell Blackford, Science & the Sea of Faith
POETRY
Sean Williams, The Origin of Haiku by Means of Natural Selection
Julie Bloss Kelsey, The Selective Pressure of Children
Jeff Schiff, Swim to Saunter
Zenobia Frost, How do you do, Tuatara
Holly Day, Insectile
Magdalena Ball, Expressions of the Emotions
Anne Bryan, Rapunzel & the Double Helix
Phil Boiarski, Pakicetus
Anne Bryan, For Darwin’s Birthday
Bronwyn Mehan, Where the people are more evolved
Susan Beem, Points North
Jim Pascual Agustin, Creatures of Lava Tubes
Elizabeth Schultz, Evolution of the Encantadas
Michelle Leber, Rock Pool, Undertow Bay
Bruce Boston, Ancient Catch
Emily Ballou, The Green Need
ARTWORK
Teresa Young
Ernst Haeckel
Chris Rodenhurst
Steven Rhodes
Cat Sparks
About Me
- Russell Blackford
- Australian philosopher, literary critic, legal scholar, and professional writer. Based in Newcastle, NSW. My latest books are THE TYRANNY OF OPINION: CONFORMITY AND THE FUTURE OF LIBERALISM (2019); AT THE DAWN OF A GREAT TRANSITION: THE QUESTION OF RADICAL ENHANCEMENT (2021); and HOW WE BECAME POST-LIBERAL: THE RISE AND FALL OF TOLERATION (2024).
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Pigliucci on Randi and scientific scepticism
Over at Rationally Speaking, Massimo Pigliucci has a useful post on James Randi's recent "sceptical" comments on anthropogenic global warming, which he followed up on in a supposedly clarificatory note a couple of days later.
Before I go on, I should say that I have long admired Randi's work in debunking pseudo-science and paranormal claims, such as those of Uri Geller. If there's anyone I'd like to give a free pass to ... well, it's hard to think of a better candidate. I'm delighted to have an essay by him in 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists, and I'm reluctant to kick his head over this one issue, however important it is.
That said, it's disappointing to see Randi taking the approach he has to what is, after all, a very important issue where confusion reigns. As Pigliucci puts it: "these waters have been quite muddied already by big corporations who have been actively engaged in public deception about this issue for years, so that public opinion and politicians are already confused enough, almost to the point of paralysis. I really think this was an uncharacteristically bad target for Randi to choose."
Randi's position seems to be that he does not doubt the scientific consensus that the Earth has warmed by about 0.7 degrees Celsius since about 1850. He considers the claim that this warming has been significantly (let's say half or more) the result of human activity to be "likely" or "probable". However, he thinks there is room for reasonable doubt, based on such considerations as the complexity of inputs to climate and on the fallibility of scientists, who can be driven by peer group pressure and other less-than-exemplary motivations. Putting his case as charitably as I can, he seems to assume that the science of AGM is at an early stage and that it is still reasonable to doubt its key finding of significant human contribution to global warming, even though the latter is likely to be vindicated over time.
Randi was initially taken in by the, ahem, somewhat misleading "Petition Project", which collects thousands of signatures from individuals who doubt or deny anthropogenic global warming. He apparently now accepts its dubious provenance and very low probative value. He concludes in his clarificatory remarks:
Again, the importance and the impact of this phenomenon is well beyond my grasp. I merely expressed my thoughts about the controversy, and I received a storm (no pun intended) of comments, many of which showed a lack of careful reading that led to unfair presumptions and interpretations. Will I do it again with other subjects? Without fail, I promise you. This is what human interaction is all about, what makes it important. I've shown that I can make observations on subjects barely within my understanding, while admitting my shortcomings, and provoke reactions that are interesting, constructive, and sometimes furious. That's okay. Language is a means of expressing one's thoughts and opinions without resorting to fisticuffs or worse. This encounter was bloodless, gentlemanly, and civilized.
Unfortunately, that remains problematic. Randi concedes that he is not at all expert (or even well-informed) in this field, but he still wishes to make an assessment that a key finding is merely "likely" or "probable" when that finding is now well-established science, with a strong consensus in the relevant peer-reviewed journals. It has gone far beyond the stage of "interesting conjecture" or even "best-candidate hypothesis".
That does not, of course, entail that the theory is as robust as, say, the heliocentric picture of the Solar System or the evolutionary account of the diversity of life forms (and their appearance of intricate design). These theories are now so well-established and successful, over such long periods, that it is almost unimaginable that their central claims could ever be overturned by future observations. For all intents and purposes, they are as certain as that I am Russell Blackford, typing these words on my desktop computer. AGM is not so well-established as that, but what are we to say, and how are we to act, when it is now the overwhelming consensus of experts in the field who have no vested interest in fudging the results?
I must emphasise that this is not a situation where dubious intuitions or interpretations are relied on to produce convenient "truths" that obtain their real psychological attraction from religious or ideological leanings, or from the idiosyncracies of people's experiences. It is hard science, based on physical evidence and accepted by experts who come from many cultural, ideological, and other backgrounds.
Obviously, research on alternative hypotheses should continue. However, those of us who are not at the cutting edge would be irrational if we did not at least accept a very high likelihood (no use trying to put a percentage on it) that the key scientific claims about anthropogenic global warming are true. Likewise, in the current state of knowledge, policy-makers would be irrational to proceed on any other basis. Perhaps Randi doesn't really disagree with this, but he has worded his two pieces in a way that suggests he might.
Part of the reason this seems to have gone wrong is the very term "scepticism" (or "skepticism" as my American friends spell it). As Pigliucci notes, this term means, in context "a science- or evidence-based approach to the examination of unusual claims, typically in the realms of the paranormal, astrology, alternative medicine and the like." It does not refer to some sort of Pyrrhonic philosophy that doubts all truth claims, based on radical epistemological arguments. Pigliucci concedes that, "More recently, skeptics have expanded their aim to include some controversial issues in science, under the reasonable position that science itself should not be exempt from critical analysis." However, he adds, I think quite properly, the following note of warning:
Fair enough, except that science already has a large number of professional critics: scientists themselves (remember the peer review system?), as well as philosophers and sociologists of science. Moreover, while critical analysis of claims of the paranormal does not really require professional scientific expertise (indeed, Randi’s own spectacular career shows that the pertinent expert is more often a magician, since wannabe paranormalists often employ trickery to fool the public), actual science criticism does.
This seems right. Like anyone else, James Randi is politically free to think and write what he wishes - or at least he should be. But an issue such as AGM is not one where his particular expertise is likely to be helpful, and he should realise this. Indeed, it appears that he does, given his various disclaimers about lacking the relevant intellectual background. He is no better placed than any other intelligent person with a general understanding of science to suggest the conclusion that the "A" in AGM is dubious science. His main reason is the complexity of the global climate system, but it's not as if the scientists concerned are unaware of this complexity or are making pronouncements in ignorance of it.
The whole thing episode goes wrong at the very beginning, when Randi writes as follows: "Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF, I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As a year-end fling, I'll give it a try." But why should people be asking him "frequently" to turn a "skeptical eye" on matters of well-established mainstream science? That is not what scepticism is, in the current context. Again, scientific scepticism is not Pyrrhonism.
Randi should not have been tempted. The role that he has carved out for himself does not involve casting doubt on mainstream scientific theory about which he is professedly largely ignorant. If anything, it would make more sense to turn his scientifically-based scepticism to anti-scientific claims that attempt to challenge the consensus ... without actually carrying out studies suitable for publication in the appropriate journals. Yes, he is entitled to have opinions on all sorts of things, but it is unhelpful when he expresses ill-informed ones that are not based on the best current science, but on general speculation about peer group pressure and the like.
Pigliucci sums up the position well, when he writes:
James Randi is a major player in the skeptic movement, and that kind of position comes with responsibilities, one of which is that he really ought not to just wonder aloud about his opinions unless he has put in the time to do serious background reading on the matter at hand. I remain respectfully disappointed.
I agree. What's more, Randi has now done unnecessary damage to his own reputation. His opinions will henceforth carry less weight with reality-based people, and the situation is not helped by his assurance that he will do something like this again in the future, with other subjects. I hope it won't happen that way; we need his contribution to our culture, but in a manner that reflects his real abilities. It's a loss to us all if he dilutes his contribution with pronouncements that merely make it difficult to know when he speaks with a degree of authority and when ... well, not so much.
Before I go on, I should say that I have long admired Randi's work in debunking pseudo-science and paranormal claims, such as those of Uri Geller. If there's anyone I'd like to give a free pass to ... well, it's hard to think of a better candidate. I'm delighted to have an essay by him in 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists, and I'm reluctant to kick his head over this one issue, however important it is.
That said, it's disappointing to see Randi taking the approach he has to what is, after all, a very important issue where confusion reigns. As Pigliucci puts it: "these waters have been quite muddied already by big corporations who have been actively engaged in public deception about this issue for years, so that public opinion and politicians are already confused enough, almost to the point of paralysis. I really think this was an uncharacteristically bad target for Randi to choose."
Randi's position seems to be that he does not doubt the scientific consensus that the Earth has warmed by about 0.7 degrees Celsius since about 1850. He considers the claim that this warming has been significantly (let's say half or more) the result of human activity to be "likely" or "probable". However, he thinks there is room for reasonable doubt, based on such considerations as the complexity of inputs to climate and on the fallibility of scientists, who can be driven by peer group pressure and other less-than-exemplary motivations. Putting his case as charitably as I can, he seems to assume that the science of AGM is at an early stage and that it is still reasonable to doubt its key finding of significant human contribution to global warming, even though the latter is likely to be vindicated over time.
Randi was initially taken in by the, ahem, somewhat misleading "Petition Project", which collects thousands of signatures from individuals who doubt or deny anthropogenic global warming. He apparently now accepts its dubious provenance and very low probative value. He concludes in his clarificatory remarks:
Again, the importance and the impact of this phenomenon is well beyond my grasp. I merely expressed my thoughts about the controversy, and I received a storm (no pun intended) of comments, many of which showed a lack of careful reading that led to unfair presumptions and interpretations. Will I do it again with other subjects? Without fail, I promise you. This is what human interaction is all about, what makes it important. I've shown that I can make observations on subjects barely within my understanding, while admitting my shortcomings, and provoke reactions that are interesting, constructive, and sometimes furious. That's okay. Language is a means of expressing one's thoughts and opinions without resorting to fisticuffs or worse. This encounter was bloodless, gentlemanly, and civilized.
Unfortunately, that remains problematic. Randi concedes that he is not at all expert (or even well-informed) in this field, but he still wishes to make an assessment that a key finding is merely "likely" or "probable" when that finding is now well-established science, with a strong consensus in the relevant peer-reviewed journals. It has gone far beyond the stage of "interesting conjecture" or even "best-candidate hypothesis".
That does not, of course, entail that the theory is as robust as, say, the heliocentric picture of the Solar System or the evolutionary account of the diversity of life forms (and their appearance of intricate design). These theories are now so well-established and successful, over such long periods, that it is almost unimaginable that their central claims could ever be overturned by future observations. For all intents and purposes, they are as certain as that I am Russell Blackford, typing these words on my desktop computer. AGM is not so well-established as that, but what are we to say, and how are we to act, when it is now the overwhelming consensus of experts in the field who have no vested interest in fudging the results?
I must emphasise that this is not a situation where dubious intuitions or interpretations are relied on to produce convenient "truths" that obtain their real psychological attraction from religious or ideological leanings, or from the idiosyncracies of people's experiences. It is hard science, based on physical evidence and accepted by experts who come from many cultural, ideological, and other backgrounds.
Obviously, research on alternative hypotheses should continue. However, those of us who are not at the cutting edge would be irrational if we did not at least accept a very high likelihood (no use trying to put a percentage on it) that the key scientific claims about anthropogenic global warming are true. Likewise, in the current state of knowledge, policy-makers would be irrational to proceed on any other basis. Perhaps Randi doesn't really disagree with this, but he has worded his two pieces in a way that suggests he might.
Part of the reason this seems to have gone wrong is the very term "scepticism" (or "skepticism" as my American friends spell it). As Pigliucci notes, this term means, in context "a science- or evidence-based approach to the examination of unusual claims, typically in the realms of the paranormal, astrology, alternative medicine and the like." It does not refer to some sort of Pyrrhonic philosophy that doubts all truth claims, based on radical epistemological arguments. Pigliucci concedes that, "More recently, skeptics have expanded their aim to include some controversial issues in science, under the reasonable position that science itself should not be exempt from critical analysis." However, he adds, I think quite properly, the following note of warning:
Fair enough, except that science already has a large number of professional critics: scientists themselves (remember the peer review system?), as well as philosophers and sociologists of science. Moreover, while critical analysis of claims of the paranormal does not really require professional scientific expertise (indeed, Randi’s own spectacular career shows that the pertinent expert is more often a magician, since wannabe paranormalists often employ trickery to fool the public), actual science criticism does.
This seems right. Like anyone else, James Randi is politically free to think and write what he wishes - or at least he should be. But an issue such as AGM is not one where his particular expertise is likely to be helpful, and he should realise this. Indeed, it appears that he does, given his various disclaimers about lacking the relevant intellectual background. He is no better placed than any other intelligent person with a general understanding of science to suggest the conclusion that the "A" in AGM is dubious science. His main reason is the complexity of the global climate system, but it's not as if the scientists concerned are unaware of this complexity or are making pronouncements in ignorance of it.
The whole thing episode goes wrong at the very beginning, when Randi writes as follows: "Though this subject is not one that directly concerns the JREF, I'm very frequently asked if I'll turn my skeptical eye to it. As a year-end fling, I'll give it a try." But why should people be asking him "frequently" to turn a "skeptical eye" on matters of well-established mainstream science? That is not what scepticism is, in the current context. Again, scientific scepticism is not Pyrrhonism.
Randi should not have been tempted. The role that he has carved out for himself does not involve casting doubt on mainstream scientific theory about which he is professedly largely ignorant. If anything, it would make more sense to turn his scientifically-based scepticism to anti-scientific claims that attempt to challenge the consensus ... without actually carrying out studies suitable for publication in the appropriate journals. Yes, he is entitled to have opinions on all sorts of things, but it is unhelpful when he expresses ill-informed ones that are not based on the best current science, but on general speculation about peer group pressure and the like.
Pigliucci sums up the position well, when he writes:
James Randi is a major player in the skeptic movement, and that kind of position comes with responsibilities, one of which is that he really ought not to just wonder aloud about his opinions unless he has put in the time to do serious background reading on the matter at hand. I remain respectfully disappointed.
I agree. What's more, Randi has now done unnecessary damage to his own reputation. His opinions will henceforth carry less weight with reality-based people, and the situation is not helped by his assurance that he will do something like this again in the future, with other subjects. I hope it won't happen that way; we need his contribution to our culture, but in a manner that reflects his real abilities. It's a loss to us all if he dilutes his contribution with pronouncements that merely make it difficult to know when he speaks with a degree of authority and when ... well, not so much.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Helen Razer on internet censorship
Helen Razer tells it like it is over here.
At a time when so many people with power and influence appear to place little value on freedom of speech, I'm gratified to see others whom I like and respect coming out in protest. Helen Razer, John Birmingham, John Wilkins, and others have been unequivocal in their opposition to the Australian government's plan to add a new and dangerous layer of censorship to the internet. We have the beginnings of a political movement here. Let's act on it now.
And let's not relax about this for a moment in 2010.
Once more, the federal government may have the best intentions, if it aims only at censoring child pornography (which is already illegal). I'm not so sure of this, mind you, since many of Senator Conroy's rationalisations seem to go a lot further ... but it really doesn't matter. Even if we adopt the most charitable interpretation of the government's intent, the proposed legislation is a potential disaster with long-term ramifications. The proposed system of forcing ISPs to block websites selected by a government agency is a chilling prospect. Once accepted in principle, then actually established, this system allows future censorship of any category of speech that might elicit moral panic from time to time indefinitely into the future - whenever new restrictions might attract votes.
The effect will be to alter the entire playing field. Once the system beds down, politicians will no longer argue about whether internet sites should be censored by such a mechanism. The issue will become which sites - and some political players will seek a wide range of sites and categories. Nothing can stop the potential scope creep of such a mechanism if it is accepted at all. It is obvious that, in the censorious climate which arose last year, thanks to puritans and prudes at all levels of influence in New South Wales, attempts would have been made to get sites with Bill Henson's art photography on the censored list.
Over time, we could see any number of categories of websites added to the list - gambling sites, sites engaging in robust debate over religious issues, sites advocating the legalisation of euthanasia or certain drugs. To the extent that some abortions are illegal, or might become so, Australians might be denied information about this "criminal activity". The same applies to many other activities that are currently illegal, but clearly would not be if the Millian harm principle were applied seriously.
Already, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) wants to extend the proposed censorship mechanism to a broader range of material than the government apparently has in mind. Even if the current government is unwilling to do deals with the ACL - even if it opposes such initiatives on the floor of the parliament - the implications are obvious, should the balance of political power change more in the ACL's favour.
Nothing can be more important than this issue, since it creates a long-term threat to our most fundamental freedom - the freedom that enables us to challenge not only governments but even hardened public opinion. Without freedom of speech, we are helpless against the pressure of conformity and the political attractions of small-minded populism. Censorship must become a key issue in 2010, and we must insist that no political candidate is acceptable unless he or she stands for freedom of speech and against censorship of the internet.
Clive Hamilton, for example, may be enlightened in some ways, but he is a censor, an enemy of free speech. As such, he is unworthy of our vote. Please do not support any party that puts Hamilton forward as a candidate, as the Greens did recently in the Higgins by-election. As long as the Greens use Hamilton as a front man, do not give them your vote. Make it clear to them that Hamilton is a divisive figure whom you do not support.
No "clean feed"!
At a time when so many people with power and influence appear to place little value on freedom of speech, I'm gratified to see others whom I like and respect coming out in protest. Helen Razer, John Birmingham, John Wilkins, and others have been unequivocal in their opposition to the Australian government's plan to add a new and dangerous layer of censorship to the internet. We have the beginnings of a political movement here. Let's act on it now.
And let's not relax about this for a moment in 2010.
Once more, the federal government may have the best intentions, if it aims only at censoring child pornography (which is already illegal). I'm not so sure of this, mind you, since many of Senator Conroy's rationalisations seem to go a lot further ... but it really doesn't matter. Even if we adopt the most charitable interpretation of the government's intent, the proposed legislation is a potential disaster with long-term ramifications. The proposed system of forcing ISPs to block websites selected by a government agency is a chilling prospect. Once accepted in principle, then actually established, this system allows future censorship of any category of speech that might elicit moral panic from time to time indefinitely into the future - whenever new restrictions might attract votes.
The effect will be to alter the entire playing field. Once the system beds down, politicians will no longer argue about whether internet sites should be censored by such a mechanism. The issue will become which sites - and some political players will seek a wide range of sites and categories. Nothing can stop the potential scope creep of such a mechanism if it is accepted at all. It is obvious that, in the censorious climate which arose last year, thanks to puritans and prudes at all levels of influence in New South Wales, attempts would have been made to get sites with Bill Henson's art photography on the censored list.
Over time, we could see any number of categories of websites added to the list - gambling sites, sites engaging in robust debate over religious issues, sites advocating the legalisation of euthanasia or certain drugs. To the extent that some abortions are illegal, or might become so, Australians might be denied information about this "criminal activity". The same applies to many other activities that are currently illegal, but clearly would not be if the Millian harm principle were applied seriously.
Already, the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) wants to extend the proposed censorship mechanism to a broader range of material than the government apparently has in mind. Even if the current government is unwilling to do deals with the ACL - even if it opposes such initiatives on the floor of the parliament - the implications are obvious, should the balance of political power change more in the ACL's favour.
Nothing can be more important than this issue, since it creates a long-term threat to our most fundamental freedom - the freedom that enables us to challenge not only governments but even hardened public opinion. Without freedom of speech, we are helpless against the pressure of conformity and the political attractions of small-minded populism. Censorship must become a key issue in 2010, and we must insist that no political candidate is acceptable unless he or she stands for freedom of speech and against censorship of the internet.
Clive Hamilton, for example, may be enlightened in some ways, but he is a censor, an enemy of free speech. As such, he is unworthy of our vote. Please do not support any party that puts Hamilton forward as a candidate, as the Greens did recently in the Higgins by-election. As long as the Greens use Hamilton as a front man, do not give them your vote. Make it clear to them that Hamilton is a divisive figure whom you do not support.
No "clean feed"!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
A poem for cat lovers ...
Cats
Virile lovers and rigorous scholars,
In their fruitful and comfortable years,
Love their strong, sweet cats - their pride -
Who are cool and contained ... much like them.
These comrades of learning and passion,
Seek the frightening quiet of darkness;
Bleakest Erebus would have employed them
As his steeds - if they'd stooped to his service.
As they ponder, they strike noble poses,
Stretched like sphinxes, in deepest aloneness,
Who sleep on in a dream with no ending.
Their athletic loins pulsate with vigour;
And fine little goldenish star-flecks
Glint like sand in their mystical pupils.
— (Loosely) translated by Russell Blackford from the French of Charles Baudelaire [Edited for clarity].
Udo Schuklenk to head panel on euthanasia
My buddy and co-editor, Udo Schuklenk, has been appointed by the Royal Society of Canada to head up an expert panel on end-of-life decision making. This is an intellectual powerful group of people, entrusted to look at such serious and important issues as euthanasia and assisted suicide. They are already copping criticism, even before they report, from religious and moral conservatives.
I wish the panel good luck in its deliberations, and will look forward to seeing its report - which will likely become the state of the art in rational policymaking on such issues.
The panel's full membership is as follows:
Chair: Udo Schuklenk, PhD:
· Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, Queen’s University
· http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/
· Publications: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/researchs.htm
Before coming to Canada he worked at Australian, British, German, and South African universities, including Monash University’s Centre for Human Bioethics and at the University of Central Lancashire’s Centre for Professional Ethics. He is currently Joint Editor in Chief of Bioethics and founding editor of Developing World Bioethics. Both journals are listed in major indices including MedLine.
Members:
1. Johannes J. M. van Delden, MD, PhD:
Julius Center for Health Sciences, University Medical Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Chair, Ethical Commission of the Medical Council of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
http://people.juliuscentrum.nl/profile.aspx?id=10959
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1331141
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/33/4/187
2. Jocelyn Downie, S.J.D.:
Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy
Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University
http://law.dal.ca/Faculty/Full_Time_Faculty/Bios/Jocelyn_Downie/index.php
3. Sheila McLean, PhD, LLD, LLD, FRSE, FRCGP, FRSA:
First holder of the International Bar Association Chair of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University and Director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/schooloflaw/staff/academic/mcleans/
4. Ross Upshur, MD, MSC:
Canada Research Chair in Primary Care Research and Associate Professor, Departments of Family and Community Medicine and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto; Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics
http://www.sunnybrook.ca/team/member.asp?t=13&page=1199&m=175
http://www.jointcentreforbioethics.ca/people/upshur.shtml
5. Daniel Weinstock, PhD:
Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Philosophy, University of Montreal
Professeur titulaire, Département de Philosophie, and Directeur du Centre de recherche en éthique de l'Université de Montréal (CREUM)
http://www.philo.umontreal.ca/prof/daniel.marc.weinstock.html
I wish the panel good luck in its deliberations, and will look forward to seeing its report - which will likely become the state of the art in rational policymaking on such issues.
The panel's full membership is as follows:
Chair: Udo Schuklenk, PhD:
· Professor of Philosophy and Ontario Research Chair in Bioethics, Queen’s University
· http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/
· Publications: http://www.udo-schuklenk.org/researchs.htm
Before coming to Canada he worked at Australian, British, German, and South African universities, including Monash University’s Centre for Human Bioethics and at the University of Central Lancashire’s Centre for Professional Ethics. He is currently Joint Editor in Chief of Bioethics and founding editor of Developing World Bioethics. Both journals are listed in major indices including MedLine.
Members:
1. Johannes J. M. van Delden, MD, PhD:
Julius Center for Health Sciences, University Medical Center, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Chair, Ethical Commission of the Medical Council of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)
http://people.juliuscentrum.nl/profile.aspx?id=10959
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1331141
http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/33/4/187
2. Jocelyn Downie, S.J.D.:
Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy
Professor, Faculties of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University
http://law.dal.ca/Faculty/Full_Time_Faculty/Bios/Jocelyn_Downie/index.php
3. Sheila McLean, PhD, LLD, LLD, FRSE, FRCGP, FRSA:
First holder of the International Bar Association Chair of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University and Director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/schooloflaw/staff/academic/mcleans/
4. Ross Upshur, MD, MSC:
Canada Research Chair in Primary Care Research and Associate Professor, Departments of Family and Community Medicine and Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto; Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics
http://www.sunnybrook.ca/team/member.asp?t=13&page=1199&m=175
http://www.jointcentreforbioethics.ca/people/upshur.shtml
5. Daniel Weinstock, PhD:
Canada Research Chair in Ethics and Philosophy, University of Montreal
Professeur titulaire, Département de Philosophie, and Directeur du Centre de recherche en éthique de l'Université de Montréal (CREUM)
http://www.philo.umontreal.ca/prof/daniel.marc.weinstock.html
Monday, December 21, 2009
The pleasure of the texts
One of the effects of moving to a slightly smaller house with slightly less shelf space is the need to do at least some culling of our book collection. In some cases it's obvious which books can go, but there are many that have been sitting on the shelves waiting to be read - many of which are surely worth reading at least once, but not necessarily worth keeping. Others have been read many years ago. They may be worth reading another time, but, alas, not worth keeping in a home library.
As a result, I'm taking some time to read a randomish array of books that seem like candidates to be culled out of the collection, but nonetheless look interesting (I could easily imagine borrowing them from a library, but I don't necessarily need to keep copies for future reference). This is proving to be quite enjoyable - in an almost guilty way, with a tinge of the erotic overtones of jouissance rather than mere plaisir. Here I am: reading various books that I don't have a specific need to absorb at this moment! Such silky luxury of the mind! It seldom happens to me these days, when I have so many books that I actually need to read and understand, for one reason or other. I'm gaining unexpected - as it were, collateral - pleasures, even from books that I don't especially admire or exactly like.
How interesting, for example, to be able to stop and think just why I find Terry Eagleton's prose so off-putting (at least a couple of his books are off to a new home, I'm afraid). How unexpected to find enjoyment in a late-1970s account of structuralism and post-structuralism that I haven't dipped into since 1981, when I bought it (according to the flattened and yellowed sales docket that was lingering within its pages). This book, Structuralism and Since (ed. John Sturrock) is obviously out of date in respect of developments with post-structuralism, but so lucid in its discussions of Levi-Strauss and Barthes that I've decided to keep it.
And so it goes. I'm looking forward to more little gems.
As a result, I'm taking some time to read a randomish array of books that seem like candidates to be culled out of the collection, but nonetheless look interesting (I could easily imagine borrowing them from a library, but I don't necessarily need to keep copies for future reference). This is proving to be quite enjoyable - in an almost guilty way, with a tinge of the erotic overtones of jouissance rather than mere plaisir. Here I am: reading various books that I don't have a specific need to absorb at this moment! Such silky luxury of the mind! It seldom happens to me these days, when I have so many books that I actually need to read and understand, for one reason or other. I'm gaining unexpected - as it were, collateral - pleasures, even from books that I don't especially admire or exactly like.
How interesting, for example, to be able to stop and think just why I find Terry Eagleton's prose so off-putting (at least a couple of his books are off to a new home, I'm afraid). How unexpected to find enjoyment in a late-1970s account of structuralism and post-structuralism that I haven't dipped into since 1981, when I bought it (according to the flattened and yellowed sales docket that was lingering within its pages). This book, Structuralism and Since (ed. John Sturrock) is obviously out of date in respect of developments with post-structuralism, but so lucid in its discussions of Levi-Strauss and Barthes that I've decided to keep it.
And so it goes. I'm looking forward to more little gems.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
New Humanist on self-censorship
Over at The New Humanist, Caspar Melville has a balanced but strong piece on the decision by Index on Censorship to engage in self-censorship over the Danish cartoons issue. Melville openly acknowledges the safety issue:
Being the editor of a magazine that makes critical and satirical comments about many religions, and having written a book on the subject this year, I know too well what a thorny issue this is - staff safety does matter, as does the question of context. I can't say for sure what I - or my board - would do in these circumstances.
As he adds, however, it is very worrying when
a magazine whose very mission is to oppose censorship, who are publishing a piece precisely about the craven way in which Yale dropped the cartoons from a book where they would have clearly been relevant, on the basis of the possibility of a threat and no more
That is right, of course. We must take safety into account, but as Ophelia Benson also observes in various places (including in a comment on my earlier post, but most especially here), the prospect of violence was theoretical and remote. Furthermore, these acts of high-profile self-censorship merely add to the environment where certain kinds of publication are regarded as controversial ... and just might attract violence. The more responsible approach is one where publication of criticism of political Islam - or even of mainstream forms Islamic doctrine and culture - is considered routine. This includes satire, and it certainly includes straightforward reportage of satirical material produced by others - not attempting to hide what the discussion is actually about.
Every time a reputable, established organisation such as Yale University Press or Index on Censorship acts otherwise, it makes it more difficult for all the rest to act fearlessly. If The New Humanist does find itself in a similar situation at some point, as Melville contemplates, its decision has now been made that much more difficult.
As Ophelia suggests, this kind of action is also insulting to Muslims. Far from indicating respect, it amounts to a kind of profiling of Muslims, as a class, as potentially dangerous and violent. It would be better to have a bit of trust that most Muslims in Western democracies are good citizens of their various countries - just like most Christians, most freethinkers, most Buddhists, most Hindus, most New Age hippies, etc. - and that they can take a certain degree of robust discussion in their stride.
Being the editor of a magazine that makes critical and satirical comments about many religions, and having written a book on the subject this year, I know too well what a thorny issue this is - staff safety does matter, as does the question of context. I can't say for sure what I - or my board - would do in these circumstances.
As he adds, however, it is very worrying when
a magazine whose very mission is to oppose censorship, who are publishing a piece precisely about the craven way in which Yale dropped the cartoons from a book where they would have clearly been relevant, on the basis of the possibility of a threat and no more
That is right, of course. We must take safety into account, but as Ophelia Benson also observes in various places (including in a comment on my earlier post, but most especially here), the prospect of violence was theoretical and remote. Furthermore, these acts of high-profile self-censorship merely add to the environment where certain kinds of publication are regarded as controversial ... and just might attract violence. The more responsible approach is one where publication of criticism of political Islam - or even of mainstream forms Islamic doctrine and culture - is considered routine. This includes satire, and it certainly includes straightforward reportage of satirical material produced by others - not attempting to hide what the discussion is actually about.
Every time a reputable, established organisation such as Yale University Press or Index on Censorship acts otherwise, it makes it more difficult for all the rest to act fearlessly. If The New Humanist does find itself in a similar situation at some point, as Melville contemplates, its decision has now been made that much more difficult.
As Ophelia suggests, this kind of action is also insulting to Muslims. Far from indicating respect, it amounts to a kind of profiling of Muslims, as a class, as potentially dangerous and violent. It would be better to have a bit of trust that most Muslims in Western democracies are good citizens of their various countries - just like most Christians, most freethinkers, most Buddhists, most Hindus, most New Age hippies, etc. - and that they can take a certain degree of robust discussion in their stride.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The Swiss ban on minarets
It's one thing to raise questions about the truth of religious doctrines or about the moral authority of religious organisations and leaders - something I approve of and encourage. It's another to seek that religious doctrines or practices be suppressed by the coercive power of the state - something that I totally oppose. People should be entitled, in law, to believe whatever seems true to them, without being regarded and treated as criminals. They should also be entitled to act on their beliefs, so long as they don't breach well-justified and fair laws of general application. We obviously need to have laws against murder, so nobody gets to plead her religion to justify human sacrifices to her god. But if what she does is lawful outside the context of her religion, it should be equally lawful inside that context.
As always, there are some grey areas, but we should always look at issues of substance, not mere formality. Take the recent decision in Switzerland to ban the building of minarets. I suppose one extreme justification of this law might be that it applies equally to Muslims and others - it's not discriminatory against Muslims because no one, Muslim or not, is henceforth allowed to build a minaret. But that would be a silly argument. The law specifically forbids an activity associated with one religion: Islam. It unfairly burdens just one religion, and it can't be justified on secular grounds. If the problem is buildings above a certain height, then all buildings above that height should be forbidden. If the problem is with certain loud noises, then all loud noises should be forbidden at whatever times of day are appropriate. Singling out minarets is a clear attack on Islam as such, and hence a breach of the doctrines of separation of church (and mosque, etc.) and state and of freedom of religion.
I see that even the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has condemned Switzerland's actions. This organisation is fiercely secular, and strongly opposes political forms of Islam. Some of its policies do stray into uncomfortable territory where freedom-of-religion issues arise (e.g. its policy of banning faith-based schools). But it is absolutely correct to state the following: The Enlightenment didn't ban church towers in order to successfully push Christianity into the private sphere. The same must be done with political Islam.
Quite so. Political Islam must be opposed, but that does not justify using the law to harm and stigmatise Muslims, many of whom are doubtless as disenchanted with political Islam as any atheist or freethinker. Again:
Believing in Islam or any religion for that matter is not a crime. Neither is it a crime to have minarets in mosques. What are crimes, however, are groups or individuals using religion to threaten people to death, intimidate them, violate their rights, and discriminate against them. Society has to address these crimes and prosecute those who threaten or terrorise people - not ban minarets!
Absolutely right!
As always, there are some grey areas, but we should always look at issues of substance, not mere formality. Take the recent decision in Switzerland to ban the building of minarets. I suppose one extreme justification of this law might be that it applies equally to Muslims and others - it's not discriminatory against Muslims because no one, Muslim or not, is henceforth allowed to build a minaret. But that would be a silly argument. The law specifically forbids an activity associated with one religion: Islam. It unfairly burdens just one religion, and it can't be justified on secular grounds. If the problem is buildings above a certain height, then all buildings above that height should be forbidden. If the problem is with certain loud noises, then all loud noises should be forbidden at whatever times of day are appropriate. Singling out minarets is a clear attack on Islam as such, and hence a breach of the doctrines of separation of church (and mosque, etc.) and state and of freedom of religion.
I see that even the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has condemned Switzerland's actions. This organisation is fiercely secular, and strongly opposes political forms of Islam. Some of its policies do stray into uncomfortable territory where freedom-of-religion issues arise (e.g. its policy of banning faith-based schools). But it is absolutely correct to state the following: The Enlightenment didn't ban church towers in order to successfully push Christianity into the private sphere. The same must be done with political Islam.
Quite so. Political Islam must be opposed, but that does not justify using the law to harm and stigmatise Muslims, many of whom are doubtless as disenchanted with political Islam as any atheist or freethinker. Again:
Believing in Islam or any religion for that matter is not a crime. Neither is it a crime to have minarets in mosques. What are crimes, however, are groups or individuals using religion to threaten people to death, intimidate them, violate their rights, and discriminate against them. Society has to address these crimes and prosecute those who threaten or terrorise people - not ban minarets!
Absolutely right!
Index on Censorship censors itself
The respected free speech organisation Index on Censorship has chosen to censor itself by declining to publish any of the notorious Danish cartoons of Muhammad to illustrate an interview conducted by Jo Glanville with professor Jytte Klausen, author of a scholarly monograph The Cartoons That Shook the World. Over Klausen's protests, her publisher, Yale University Press, published the book with no illustrations of Muhammad - and hence with none of the cartoons that are its subject matter.
Of course, self-censorship is not state censorship. Individuals or organisations may choose to exercise this kind of discretion for all sorts of reasons, and when they do so it is not the same as if state power forced them to do so, with orders backed by threats of prisons and policemen. The justifiable fear of being silenced and stigmatised by the might of the state is not directly in issue here. In each case, it is understandable to an extent that a relatively small organisation, with limited security resources, has acted out of fear for the safety of staff.
Understandable, but most unfortunate. It is very regrettable when academic organisations, such as Yale University Press, and free speech advocacy organisations, such as Index on Censorship, go down such a path. It all contributes to a climate in which some speech becomes out of bounds as a result of the intolerance of its opponents, a very small minority of whom are violent (like the murderer of Theo van Gogh ... in another episode where Index on Censorship failed to distinguish itself as a consistent defender of free speech).
For more discussion - all of it reasoned and thoughtful - see these pieces, by Sherry Jones and Kenan Malik respectively.
As Malik says of Index on Censorship (of which he is a board member): "After all, we cannot in good conscience criticise others for taking decisions that we ourselves have taken and for the same reasons." How can the organisation consistently criticise Yale University Press, and other organisations that have taken the cowardly path of self-censorship, when it has been just as remiss?
Index on Censorship describes itself in glowing terms:
Index on Censorship is Britain’s leading organisation promoting freedom of expression. With its global profile, its website provides up-to-the-minute news and information on free expression from around the world.
Perhaps so, but its credibility is badly damaged every time it takes a stand that undermines freedom of expression, as it has in this case ... and, as mentioned above, not for the first time. Is it worth persevering with this organisation if it can't develop more consistent principles or a bit more spine? Malik evidently thinks so, for now. But all the good will it has built up over the years is starting to leak away like water.
Of course, self-censorship is not state censorship. Individuals or organisations may choose to exercise this kind of discretion for all sorts of reasons, and when they do so it is not the same as if state power forced them to do so, with orders backed by threats of prisons and policemen. The justifiable fear of being silenced and stigmatised by the might of the state is not directly in issue here. In each case, it is understandable to an extent that a relatively small organisation, with limited security resources, has acted out of fear for the safety of staff.
Understandable, but most unfortunate. It is very regrettable when academic organisations, such as Yale University Press, and free speech advocacy organisations, such as Index on Censorship, go down such a path. It all contributes to a climate in which some speech becomes out of bounds as a result of the intolerance of its opponents, a very small minority of whom are violent (like the murderer of Theo van Gogh ... in another episode where Index on Censorship failed to distinguish itself as a consistent defender of free speech).
For more discussion - all of it reasoned and thoughtful - see these pieces, by Sherry Jones and Kenan Malik respectively.
As Malik says of Index on Censorship (of which he is a board member): "After all, we cannot in good conscience criticise others for taking decisions that we ourselves have taken and for the same reasons." How can the organisation consistently criticise Yale University Press, and other organisations that have taken the cowardly path of self-censorship, when it has been just as remiss?
Index on Censorship describes itself in glowing terms:
Index on Censorship is Britain’s leading organisation promoting freedom of expression. With its global profile, its website provides up-to-the-minute news and information on free expression from around the world.
Perhaps so, but its credibility is badly damaged every time it takes a stand that undermines freedom of expression, as it has in this case ... and, as mentioned above, not for the first time. Is it worth persevering with this organisation if it can't develop more consistent principles or a bit more spine? Malik evidently thinks so, for now. But all the good will it has built up over the years is starting to leak away like water.
John Birmingham on internet censorship
Highlight:
On the clean feed issue, the way forward is less obvious. This dog of a system has been dreamed up by one of the Ruddbot's own and very much appeals to his Puritan sensibilities. The minute he abandons the filter he leaves himself open to attack from the Mad Monk that he is opening the gate to pedophiles and bomb makers. The fact that accessing, downloading or storing this sort of material on your hard drive is already illegal seems to have passed these clowns by. It is a dangerous issue for wired libertarians because we are very easily framed as defending the rights of child pornographers and whack jobs.
But nobody is doing that. This stuff is already illegal. By all means enforce the law. In fact devote all the added resources that would go into setting up a filter system and funding its bureaucracy towards the existing agencies who police these issues. Building a massively intrusive and undoubtedly inefficient, ineffective and occasionally malign bureaucracy is not a solution to net-based child porn. It's a political tactic to appear as though you're doing something.
The thing to remember about a filter is that once it's in place it can be used to block a lot more in the future. For instance a different government led by, let's say, a very devout Catholic, and depending on the votes of a few thousand Evangelicals in crucial swing states, might very well legislate against abortion. Both as a matter of principle and electoral pragmatism. A filter such as Sen. Conroy wishes to place over the internet would go a long way towards ensuring that anybody who wished to access information about safe abortion procedures was unable to.
Yes, that is well, clearly, and accurately argued. Go here for the whole discussion.
On the clean feed issue, the way forward is less obvious. This dog of a system has been dreamed up by one of the Ruddbot's own and very much appeals to his Puritan sensibilities. The minute he abandons the filter he leaves himself open to attack from the Mad Monk that he is opening the gate to pedophiles and bomb makers. The fact that accessing, downloading or storing this sort of material on your hard drive is already illegal seems to have passed these clowns by. It is a dangerous issue for wired libertarians because we are very easily framed as defending the rights of child pornographers and whack jobs.
But nobody is doing that. This stuff is already illegal. By all means enforce the law. In fact devote all the added resources that would go into setting up a filter system and funding its bureaucracy towards the existing agencies who police these issues. Building a massively intrusive and undoubtedly inefficient, ineffective and occasionally malign bureaucracy is not a solution to net-based child porn. It's a political tactic to appear as though you're doing something.
The thing to remember about a filter is that once it's in place it can be used to block a lot more in the future. For instance a different government led by, let's say, a very devout Catholic, and depending on the votes of a few thousand Evangelicals in crucial swing states, might very well legislate against abortion. Both as a matter of principle and electoral pragmatism. A filter such as Sen. Conroy wishes to place over the internet would go a long way towards ensuring that anybody who wished to access information about safe abortion procedures was unable to.
Yes, that is well, clearly, and accurately argued. Go here for the whole discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)