As the year comes to an end, what were some highlights? Well, they would include my trip to the US early in the year, mainly to speak at a CFI convention in Orlando, Florida (but the trip also involved meeting some wonderful people, and visiting some great places for the first time, not least Yale University, The Kennedy Space Centre, and the superb CFI headquarters in Amherst, NY).
I'll also give shout-outs to the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne, the national science fiction convention (also in Melbourne), and the splendid evening put on by the Hunter Writers' Centre for the annual Newcastle Poetry Prize.
As to the latter, I've been appointed at least until the HWC's next AGM in May 2013 as chair of its board of directors - a role that I'll perform to the best of my ability, seeing if I can do something positive for a small but effective community organisation. Please check out the HWC's website, and if you are in (or have connections with) the Hunter region maybe think about how you can be supportive in 2013.
Online highlights included a couple of interviews: this science-fiction-oriented one with journalist and horror writer Jason Nahrung; and this much more philosophical one for RationalHub. I was involved in some interesting online debates: the biggest one, over the issue of free will, ranged across this blog, Talking Philosophy, and other forums, including the ABC Religion and Ethics Portal, where I ended up writing this long piece. It's almost a manifesto.
It's been a delight to be involved heavily with Talking Philosophy - I'm sure the place will go from strength to strength next year (there's at least one pleasing announcement to emanate from there fairly soon). I also commenced in 2012 as a regular writer for Free Inquiry, which is another partnership that I'm very happy about.
I'm still editor-in-chief of The Journal of Evolution and Technology - most of JET's activity over the past two years has been devoted to the online publication of a bumper issue on the subject of minds and machines. I'm pleased to say that this is now almost complete. It's been the equivalent of co-editing (with Linda Glenn) a large book. Meanwhile, the fifth anniversary of my tenure in that position at JET is about to come around. Time really does seem to fly!
Dominating my own publications for the year was my latest book, Freedom of Religion and the Secular State (released in January from Wiley-Blackwell), though I also had a long peer-reviewed article published by Ethics and Information Technology, and there were numerous other publications, some of which I've mentioned in earlier paras.
And so we move into 2013. I've been working hard through recent months, and I've been professionally involved with other people who've been working hard. You'll gradually see announcements rolling out, starting soon. Very soon.
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).
Saturday, December 29, 2012
George Dvorsky on gene patents
George Dvorksy has an interesting article at io9 on the subject of gene patents, discussing the current litigation over the issue. This includes a quote that he got from me on the subject of contrived patents in general and on the so-called tragedy of the anti-commons (though I don't use that expression - the point is that, theoretically, intellectual property rights can be become too fragmented among different right-holders to operate in the public interest).
The article is worth reading, not only because it discusses my (rather wishy-washy) views sympathetically but also because it gives an up-to-date and accurate account of a tricky, often misunderstood, subject. Dvorsky has his own bias, but he's fair in presenting arguments from both sides of the debate without simply dismissing any of them or demonising people with whom he has disagreements.
There's also a vigorous discussion thread there, which looks like it may contain some worthwhile nuggets.
The article is worth reading, not only because it discusses my (rather wishy-washy) views sympathetically but also because it gives an up-to-date and accurate account of a tricky, often misunderstood, subject. Dvorsky has his own bias, but he's fair in presenting arguments from both sides of the debate without simply dismissing any of them or demonising people with whom he has disagreements.
There's also a vigorous discussion thread there, which looks like it may contain some worthwhile nuggets.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Kuhn and his controversies
Over at The New Atlantis - a journal whose overall values often run in a direction opposite to mine - you can find an article on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in honour of that much-cited book's 50th anniversary of publication.
This piece, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty", by Matthew C. Rees, appears, to me at least, to be an accurate account of Kuhn's views, including of the areas where they were vague. The points of vagueness and incompleteness led to much debate: at one point, Kuhn famously denied being a Kuhnian, with the epistemic relativism that that was thought to involve.
Rees also appears, to me at least, to be careful and fair in his assessment of the book's merit and importance, including its relationship to the respective ideas of Michael Polanyi and Karl Popper.
I'm sure there are contentious points of interpretation and judgment, but this piece is much better than most of what I read about Kuhn and the associated controversies. You could do a lot worse than giving it a read if you've wanted something that lays out the nature of these controversies clearly and fairly compendiously.
This piece, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty", by Matthew C. Rees, appears, to me at least, to be an accurate account of Kuhn's views, including of the areas where they were vague. The points of vagueness and incompleteness led to much debate: at one point, Kuhn famously denied being a Kuhnian, with the epistemic relativism that that was thought to involve.
Rees also appears, to me at least, to be careful and fair in his assessment of the book's merit and importance, including its relationship to the respective ideas of Michael Polanyi and Karl Popper.
I'm sure there are contentious points of interpretation and judgment, but this piece is much better than most of what I read about Kuhn and the associated controversies. You could do a lot worse than giving it a read if you've wanted something that lays out the nature of these controversies clearly and fairly compendiously.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Book of the year - Eric Anderson, The Monogamy Gap
My book of the year is Eric Anderson’s The Monogamy Gap: Men, Love, and the Reality of Cheating (OUP, 2012). According to Anderson, moral and cultural
expectations of strict monogamy are psychologically unrealistic, pervasively and
deeply harmful, and (ironically enough) destructive of good relationships. He
argues that the phenomenon of widespread “cheating” is the corollary of a system
that is incompatible with human psychology and appears ridiculous when viewed
from outside its assumptions. Far more research is needed, as the author
acknowledges, but meanwhile he presents a lucid and persuasive, if incomplete,
case against the ideology of strict monogamy.
Speaking of strict, my strictly philosophy book of the year will be announced in a forthcoming issue of The Philosophers' Magazine. If you don't subscribe, you should do so.
As for fiction, I read some great material by Alison Goodman, Margo Lanagan, and many others. I'm one of the judges of the Norma K. Hemming Award, so I'm expecting to read a lot of high quality fantasy, science fiction, and horror over the next few months. Doubtless I'll be blogging about some of it.
My most popular posts of the year
My most popular post of 2012 by a long way was this rather brief review of The Avengers - written before the movie had been released in the US, at a time of great excitement about the movie (which went on to make over $1.5 billion dollars worldwide on its first release).
Second most popular was my post on why this has never been "an atheist blog" - it is a blog by a person who happens to be an atheist, and it is even a blog that defends and advocates atheism. However, there have always been other dimensions to our discussions. I'm quite proud of this post, if only because it acts as something of a portal to other posts that I've written over the years that I'm quite proud of.
Even though my next book (co-authored with Udo Schuklenk) is 50 GREAT MYTHS ABOUT ATHEISM, this blog will always have those other dimensions for as long as it survives. Furthermore, the following extract from the post remains true:
A close third was this post about the "shrill atheist" meme - it seems that this just won't go away. Quote: "Meanwhile, forthright Christians who want to argue publicly for the truth of their views manage to be at least as 'shrill' as Dawkins. For example, I'm currently reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which I don't think I've previously read in its entirety and have not opened for decades. As usual with Lewis, his style varies between blunt, emotive, self-righteous, and downright snide (I'll bracket off how naive the actual arguments are). His approach gets a free pass in our culture, but if an atheist wrote in exactly the same way he or she would be roundly condemned."
Second most popular was my post on why this has never been "an atheist blog" - it is a blog by a person who happens to be an atheist, and it is even a blog that defends and advocates atheism. However, there have always been other dimensions to our discussions. I'm quite proud of this post, if only because it acts as something of a portal to other posts that I've written over the years that I'm quite proud of.
Even though my next book (co-authored with Udo Schuklenk) is 50 GREAT MYTHS ABOUT ATHEISM, this blog will always have those other dimensions for as long as it survives. Furthermore, the following extract from the post remains true:
I am happy to rally under the banner of atheism for the purposes of networking and organisation. However, I am most strongly a secularist and a liberal - a liberal in the sense in which John Stuart Mill was a liberal, the classic sense that is primarily about individual liberty, freedom of speech, and diversity of ideas. My outspoken public advocacy of atheism should really be seen as outspoken advocacy of the idea that the claims of religion ought to be subjected to sceptical scrutiny, and that religion should not be accorded any kind of authority. And that advocacy is, as it were, in addition to what I was doing anyway - such as advocating what I see as a Millian liberal approach to issues in bioethics.I should say that none of this would necessarily change even if I decided tomorrow that the balance of philosophical arguments favours the existence of God. Actual religions would still be fair game for sceptical scrutiny, especially insofar as they claim the authority to tell us how to live our lives, and what we should and should not be permitted to do by the authority of the state.
A close third was this post about the "shrill atheist" meme - it seems that this just won't go away. Quote: "Meanwhile, forthright Christians who want to argue publicly for the truth of their views manage to be at least as 'shrill' as Dawkins. For example, I'm currently reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, which I don't think I've previously read in its entirety and have not opened for decades. As usual with Lewis, his style varies between blunt, emotive, self-righteous, and downright snide (I'll bracket off how naive the actual arguments are). His approach gets a free pass in our culture, but if an atheist wrote in exactly the same way he or she would be roundly condemned."
Nussbaum's excessive tolerance
I reviewed Martha Nussbaum's new book on religious intolerance (in fact, she's mainly talking about intolerance of Islam) in the latest issue of The Philosophers' Magazine. Well, they've also published it online, so you can check it out over here.
Extract: "The state is not well placed to make judgements about otherworldly matters, such as the truth or falsity of any particular religion. That also limits its ability to discover the 'right' canons of conduct for us all to follow – perhaps in the interest of our spiritual salvation – and gives it a good reason to permit much diversity in our behaviour. Thus, the state ought to adopt a degree of epistemic modesty about religious issues, and many moral ones. However, there is no reason for individual citizens to do likewise. We are well within our rights to conclude, from within our respective understandings of the world and conceptions of the good, that a particular religion has its dark side, or that a moral norm favoured by some religion is preposterous and harmful."
Extract: "The state is not well placed to make judgements about otherworldly matters, such as the truth or falsity of any particular religion. That also limits its ability to discover the 'right' canons of conduct for us all to follow – perhaps in the interest of our spiritual salvation – and gives it a good reason to permit much diversity in our behaviour. Thus, the state ought to adopt a degree of epistemic modesty about religious issues, and many moral ones. However, there is no reason for individual citizens to do likewise. We are well within our rights to conclude, from within our respective understandings of the world and conceptions of the good, that a particular religion has its dark side, or that a moral norm favoured by some religion is preposterous and harmful."
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
More love and cholera
I hadn't caught up with this yesterday, but the government review I mentioned has led to Love in the Time of Cholera staying on the VCE English Literature reading list - so at least good sense prevailed, even if this review was totally unnecessary.
Oh, and over here you'll find a pretty good point-by-point response to the original article crudely attacking the book (and mindlessly infantilising young readers).
H/T Margo Lanagan.
Oh, and over here you'll find a pretty good point-by-point response to the original article crudely attacking the book (and mindlessly infantilising young readers).
H/T Margo Lanagan.
That "pornographic" novel, Love in the Time of Cholera
In other annoying news, a senior teacher in Victoria manages to get a government review of the decision to list Love in the Time of Cholera as a text for study in an English Literature course at VCE level. For people outside Australia, the VCE is awarded at the end of the final year of high school, immediately before university or college, so we are basically talking about 16 to 18 year olds. English Literature is not a compulsory subject of study, but is regarded as a somewhat specialist (and advanced, or difficult) subject. Most students choose the rather different subject simply called "English".
I would have thought that this is exactly the age when we want to give young adults a mediated experience of formally difficult, and perhaps emotionally or thematically challenging, novels. Indeed, I don't see why bright teenagers could not come to grips with such a text at an even earlier age - thinking back to myself and my friends when we were in our teens, we might have found Gabriel Garcia Marquez heavy going, but we were at an age where we were quite ready for the thematic concepts (and to learn about complex literary narratives and some of the ways they can work).
I am constantly surprised by attempts to infantilise bright young people. Yes, they are relatively inexperienced with both the world and the ocean of world literature. Their judgments may sometimes appear a bit simplistic and naive to older people, mainly as a result of that relative inexperience. But how on earth are they supposed to gain experience and develop more sophistication if they are constantly treated like infants?
This is apart from the extreme crudeness with which this "senior teacher" evidently approaches the task of literary interpretation. It does sound as if this guy might not be well equipped, intellectually and emotionally, for the task. His own critical statements sound simplistic and naive, so, yes, I'm not sure how he is well placed to help teenagers develop literary sophistication as they read and ponder, analyse and debate a book like Love in the Time of Cholera. But people teaching literature at VCE level damn well ought to be capable of teaching challenging texts; mine (in the equivalent system in NSW) did a pretty good job, back in the day; and I'm sure most literature teachers have what it takes.
I would have thought that this is exactly the age when we want to give young adults a mediated experience of formally difficult, and perhaps emotionally or thematically challenging, novels. Indeed, I don't see why bright teenagers could not come to grips with such a text at an even earlier age - thinking back to myself and my friends when we were in our teens, we might have found Gabriel Garcia Marquez heavy going, but we were at an age where we were quite ready for the thematic concepts (and to learn about complex literary narratives and some of the ways they can work).
I am constantly surprised by attempts to infantilise bright young people. Yes, they are relatively inexperienced with both the world and the ocean of world literature. Their judgments may sometimes appear a bit simplistic and naive to older people, mainly as a result of that relative inexperience. But how on earth are they supposed to gain experience and develop more sophistication if they are constantly treated like infants?
This is apart from the extreme crudeness with which this "senior teacher" evidently approaches the task of literary interpretation. It does sound as if this guy might not be well equipped, intellectually and emotionally, for the task. His own critical statements sound simplistic and naive, so, yes, I'm not sure how he is well placed to help teenagers develop literary sophistication as they read and ponder, analyse and debate a book like Love in the Time of Cholera. But people teaching literature at VCE level damn well ought to be capable of teaching challenging texts; mine (in the equivalent system in NSW) did a pretty good job, back in the day; and I'm sure most literature teachers have what it takes.
Monday, December 24, 2012
Why is this even news?
An American Olympic athlete has been outed for having a job on the side as an escort, and suddenly the mainstream media are all over it with what can only be described as a mix of smug moralism and hand-rubbing prurience. It escapes me why prying into someone's private life in this way is considered to be in the public interest, or "newsworthy", why it is thought that the person concerned necessarily has anything to be ashamed of, or why she is now supposed to go through a period of publicly acting contrite and humbled. Perhaps she really does feel that way, but we see this happen so often in such cases that it looks awfully like a constructed PR narrative... at best. And at worst something like the outcome of a high-tech Stalinist show trial.
If she were a politician trying to make people's lives miserable by imposing an oppressive morality on them by an exercise of state power, perhaps it would be worthwhile exposing her hypocrisy. Likewise, perhaps, if she were a crusading moralist with no formal political power but with political influence. But nothing like that is involved.
I hesitate even to comment on this sort of thing, but I doubt that I'm adding to her woes by carping about it on a low-traffic site such as this. I won't mention her name and add yet another hit to the huge number that could be obtained from a Google search. But this kind of public shaming ritual leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If she were a politician trying to make people's lives miserable by imposing an oppressive morality on them by an exercise of state power, perhaps it would be worthwhile exposing her hypocrisy. Likewise, perhaps, if she were a crusading moralist with no formal political power but with political influence. But nothing like that is involved.
I hesitate even to comment on this sort of thing, but I doubt that I'm adding to her woes by carping about it on a low-traffic site such as this. I won't mention her name and add yet another hit to the huge number that could be obtained from a Google search. But this kind of public shaming ritual leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Sunday supervillainy - Gail Simone to be "new" writer of Batgirl!
I can't make head or tail of this. Gail Simone was apparently sacked as the writer for DC's New 52 book, Batgirl. But now the announcement is that the next writer for Batgirl will be ... Gail Simone.
It seems from here as if the uproar among angry fans caused DC to change its collective, corporate mind, but for all I know the whole damn thing was just a horrible mistake. One way or another, it's weird. At any rate, apparently all is well for the moment with the career of one of the few high-profile female writers in the comics industry. I hope it stays like that.
It seems from here as if the uproar among angry fans caused DC to change its collective, corporate mind, but for all I know the whole damn thing was just a horrible mistake. One way or another, it's weird. At any rate, apparently all is well for the moment with the career of one of the few high-profile female writers in the comics industry. I hope it stays like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)