Randi and arguments from authority

December 17, 2009

My internet’s down, so I’m back hopping between free wifi cafe’s like I was in September. Hopefully when I’m back in the UK on Sunday I’ll have more regular access, and in the meantime I’m going to make the most of not having facebook as a distraction by getting some work done. But there’s some very important stuff going on. Check out the Quackometer for a great summary of what James Randi has foolishly done and a discussion of the same. Basically he’s admitted that he’s not qualified to know whether climate change is happening or not, but at the same time he’s thrown his lot in with a fringe group of denialists rather than with the scientists who’ve been working on this for decades.

Now this is both good and bad. It’s bad because he’s just given a big tasty bone to the denialists and he’s sullied the name of good skepticism by aligning us with climate change skeptics, who generally operate by quite different standards to the rest of us. We’ve been getting enough of that in the media simply because we’re skeptics commenting on climate change, they seem to assume that we’re skeptical of climate change.

But it’s also a good thing. The majority of skeptics do actually use an argument from authority on climate change. We quite happily defer to the scientists who know what they’re talking about on this issue, unlike most other issues, simply because most of us aren’t scientifically literate enough to form an opinion of our own. This is a good opportunity for skeptics to go off and do the research. It’s a good motive to do something which ordinarily might take a lot of time and effort for something which might not bear any fruit anyway. When I’m back online properly I’ll definitely be reading up a bit more and I’ll be sure to get a post up here about it.


Climate Change Rally

April 22, 2009

2 new links on the blogroll today, the first is Richard Wiseman’s blog. He’s the Professor for the Public Understanding of Psychology at Hertfordshire University, and his blog is updated daily with psychological phenomena and a weekly puzzle. The second is the Edinburgh Skeptics blog, a blog from the group which organises the Skeptics in the Pub in Edinburgh.

climate-chaos-rally-0201

Anyway so today after my exam early this afternoon I went to a Stop Climate Chaos rally at Holyrood. Here’s a few pictures. It was really well organised and well attended, with the aim of getting the Climate Change bill passed in the Scottish Parliament ahead of the Copenhagen conference. That looks likely, and I’m sure with such a huge dedicated support base, progress will be made. However, on my way home I went to the supermarket and decided to check where everything I bought was from, and what shocked me most was the vegetables! I’m trying to cut down how much meat I eat so I’m buying more (and more unusual) veg than I normally do to go into meals. But almost everything I could find was grown abroad, and not just in fairly nearby places, but places like Kenya, Peru, Egypt, Senegal and Thailand! This wasn’t very complicated stuff either, just babycorn, spring onions and different types of beans. Surely it’s possible to grow this stuff in the UK, or at least Europe, with it’s diverse climate? Unfortunately not much is in season at the moment, but here’s a chart showing what’s in season in Britain at different parts of the year. Hopefully the pictures won’t make this post too weird, I can never get them to work properly.climate-chaos-rally-0151


Humanist Ethics

February 13, 2008

Last night, the Humanist Society held its Big Event of the Semester (BEotS), a panel discussion on Humanist Ethics in the 21st Century, with:

  • Roger Redondo, a neuroscientist and president of the Humanist Society
  • Sue England, a human rights lawyer and women’s rights expert
  • Patrick Harvie MSP, a humanist member of the Scottish Greens Parliamentary Party
  • June Maxwell, leader of the Humanist Academy, who stepped in at the eleventh hour to replace another speaker who fell ill

Each of the speakers made a 20 minute talk or so taking their own spin on the question, “why do we need evolving humanist ethics in the 21st Century?” Roger concentrated on how we know that morality is wired into each of our brains genetically. There is evidence of a sense of justice in chimpanzees, and the ‘Trolley Problems‘ show us that morals are to a large extent universal, regardless of social conditioning.

The other speakers spoke more about humanist ethics in action. Sue England’s talk was particularly interesting because she led with the statement that religious discrimination is nothing whatsoever like other types of discrimination, in that you can’t easily change your sex or your race or get rid of a disability, but you can very easily change your religion or get rid of it completely. She then went on to show how religious organisations are gaining ground and getting privileged consultation in the EU, exemption from taxation and widely in Europe in such places as Germany, the Church gets money directly from pay packets like a second “voluntary” income tax. She also claimed that the European Convention on Human Rights mentions nothing about religion, but the Human Rights Act 1998 had section 13 put into it by Blair, which means courts have to respect the rights of a person to freedom of thought and religion. I’ve since been and checked this out, and article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights does outline freedom of thought and religion, so I think she must have got her wires crossed there.

Patrick Harvie’s talk was also very interesting. He concentrated on his time as the shadow for the Communities Portfolio, during which he was lobbied by all kinds of religious groups, and how religious groups get privileged in all kinds of ways in politics as well as in law. It tied in quite well with what Sue was saying. He finished by saying emphatically that a fixed moral worldview can’t adapt to new ethical problems such as stem cell research, abortion and climate change. We can’t just look in the Bible and ask “what did Jesus say about nanotechnology?”

June Maxwell’s talk was understandably a little less well jointed, since she had no time to prepare it. She concentrated on education, and how an evolving humanist ethic taught in schools would encourage children to be more responsible, and to think more about their actions rather than just not doing something because they’ve been told to.

She also claimed that Abraham, Moses and even Jesus never existed, which was more than a little controversial with 2 of the members of the Edinburgh Creation Group who came along for the show, missing their own event which was happening at the same time. She justified this by saying that the pagan gods that were celebrated on the 25th of December bore startling resemblances with Jesus, citing Attis, Osiris, Dionysus and Mithras as examples. I’ve checked a few of these out and the theory doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. Mithras was worshipped after Jesus died, so if anything he was a copy of Jesus, and I can only find very tenuous similarities between Jesus and Dionysus. Lots of people know the links between Osiris and Christianity, but since the legend of Osiris is so old (about 2400 BC), I think it’s more likely to have affected the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah than the legends surrounding Jesus himself. I think it’s more likely that he did exist as a person, but that he was exaggerated and lied about by his followers in order to fulfil the OT prophecies. I’ve heard a theory on my local radio phone-in show that Jesus was a drug dealer (I am from Liverpool), but I’ll leave that for now.

There was also a lot of controversy during the Q&A session when someone raised the issue of faith schools. The question-asker said that she’d been to a faith secondary school and she was always taught to be open minded, and she was taught about other faiths as well. June then replied (very passionately, I might add, she was almost shouting by the time she finished) by taking the example of the story of Abraham, which teaches obedience, but says nothing about the right of his son to live. I don’t know when June was last in a faith school, but I spent 14 years in the faith school system and I only ever learned about that story when I read the Bible in my own time, it wasn’t taught as part of the curriculum. Generally speaking my school was very liberal, it taught evolution and everyone I know believed in it, and I came out with a good sense of morals and a good education. There were certain problems which I won’t go into, but it certainly wasn’t the brainwashing zombie-factory June seems to think they are.

This entry’s getting far too long and I’ve had nothing to eat yet today (in my Chinese oral exam this morning I apparently told the examiner that my dad’s a professional socialist, instead of a social worker), so I’ll wrap it up with a comment. I was a little disappointed. I was hoping this would be something I could point to in the future and say “look, humanism isn’t just about bashing religion”, but religion was a topic which came up far too much throughout the evening. Sue England’s talk was not much more than arguing against religious practices in Europe, and the only talk that didn’t have religion at its centre was Roger’s, who I’m pretty sure didn’t talk about it at all.

All in all though, it was a good event and I’m glad I went, even if it did mean I didn’t do enough revision for my Chinese exam.