-
Archive of "Uncategorized" Category
Flying the Flag
It seems that the Gods / Forces of Coincidence want me to blog, as so many things have been happening lately that have brought me to the same collection of thoughts.
I think the first and most major event was the World Cup. There was something of a minor furore over whether it was Good and/or Right for the flag of England to be flown outside of Number 10, Downing Street in support of the English football team. To those who care about these things, it was somewhat offensive to the other members of the United Kingdom that the largely-resented “dominant” partner in the union was to get its flag flown outside the headquarters of that union.The defence was that, if the Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish teams had qualified for the competition then their flags would have been flown also. This is almost certainly true, I would say; it would be insensitive and politically suicidal to operate any other way. Nevertheless, the minor uproar was inevitable. And that is what interested me: why do people get so worked up about these things?
The second was the horrific oil spill in the gulf, and the strange conversation that followed the coverage in the USA. There was talk that BP should be referred to by its acronym and not as “British Petroleum” as this ran the risk of generating ill will toward Britain as a whole. The strangest part, though, was a debate I heard on BBC Radio 2, which asked whether we as the British Public should be criticising the company or defending it. This was not on the basis of its actions, however – the facts of the actual case seem to have been counted as largely irrelevant. No, rather the debate hinged on the fact that it was an (at least nominally) British company. Apparently a lot of British pensioners have money invested in the stocks, for instance.I was surprised, I must admit – in my rather naive way – that this was really so open for debate to people. If a corporation acts in an irresponsible way, or fails to act in a responsible way, then they should be criticised. They should not be deemed worthy of defence purely by virtue of their nationality or the self-interest of stock investments. Is it really so mad to suggest that this approach is totally backwards?
Finally, there came the always-inspiring genius of Bill Hicks. I went to a showing of American: The Bill Hicks Story, a documentary about the great man’s tragically short life, and there was a short clip about the burning of the flag and how extremely people tend to react to that particular form of expression, particularly in the U.S.. It certainly seems that the more vocal incarnations of patriotism that we experience over on this side of the Atlantic are far more widespread on the other. Perhaps this is a false impression, but in a country where children are expected to recite an oath of fidelity to that country, patriotism is certainly taken very seriously indeed.The question that kept occurring to me through all of this is one that first struck me after a throwaway comment on the radio. It may have been a politician commenting on the Downing Street Flag Fiasco, I can’t remember. But the comment was a qualification to the main portion of their argument, and was along the lines of “I’m proud to be British”. This was then joined by other phrases from the same conversation about what nationality people considered themselves: “I’m Scottish first and British second”, for instance, or “I’m English first and foremost”.
I just thought, am I alone in not strongly identifying with the state I was born into? Whether England or the United Kingdom? Am I the only one who feels no compulsion to qualify any sensible, well-reasoned comment with “Of course I’m proud to be British”? I do hope not.
Pride is something that should relate to an achievement, generally speaking. I am proud of some of my writing; I am proud of gaining my degrees at university. I am not proud of an accident of birth. I am happy, to some degree, to be British. Certainly it has afforded me a great deal of advantages simply not available to those in less affluent countries. I am happy that I live in a country that, generally speaking, allows a significant amount of freedom of expression. But I am not proud to be British. I don’t feel that the adjective applies.
I don’t see patriotism as a useful force in the world. What it does in terms of promoting solidarity within a country and a sense of national identity is positively counter-productive in an increasingly global society. The oil spill is the perfect example: almost as much coverage has been given to the international relations aspect as has been given to the fact that it is a disaster on an incredible scale. Why do people care that it’s a nominally British company, when the spill is affecting several states with no regard for national boundaries? I am increasingly convinced that we need to regard ourselves as citizens of the Earth first, with this taking precedence over any national identity we might feel.I leave you with the incisive wit of The Great Hicks…
Is there any body out there?
Yes, I’m still around. This blog has been on something of an unofficial hiatus lately thanks to work progressing with gusto on my first novel (details here). But I’m going to do my best to keep A Sceptical I plodding ever onward, to keep my mind on the topics that interest me, if nothing else.
The news, for instance, that astronomers are hopeful of detecting extraterrestrial life interests me greatly. Not just because aliens are always interesting, but that it involves not only very cool science, but also some fascinating philosophy. This is the money quote in that regard:
“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms that we can’t conceive”
Of course, aliens are unlikely to conform to our typical imaginings of them, no matter how zany those might be. There is a very good reason for this, that might not be obvious – until you think about it.It’s easy to see, with aliens such as Greys, where the ideas have come from – usually just basic modifications of a human, by which I mean they are similar in form but with certain parts bigger or smaller or different colours. Occasionally they’ll have extra or fewer parts, but the parts themselves will still be familiar to us – even if they are taken from animals. This sort of hybrid has been around for millennia – think of the animal-headed gods of Egypt, or the Minotaur of Crete.
Then there’s the level of aliens who are somehow more alien, such as the eponymous creature of the Alien films. These are the product of a somewhat more sophisticated imaginative process, and they truly start to “feel” alien. Yet they are nevertheless still rooted firmly in our world, composed as they are of a multitude of parts of Earthbound creatures. A lot of these will come from the weirder parts of nature, such as pharyngeal jaws or even the “Tongue-eating louse”.
It is inevitable that even the weirdest, most outlandish aliens of which we could conceive are still nevertheless a Terran construct. This is because, even if you are not aware of it, your imagination can only work with the raw materials of one’s own experience. So, even if your imagination is far and away the most creative ever possessed by a human mind, its creations will be based only on things you have seen, or heard about, or smelled, or felt.
This being said, theoretically I think I’m right in saying that any “Goldilocks planet” will bear significant similarities to Earth that it is possible that we would indeed recognise some of the forms that the indigenous life takes. There are only so many efficient ways to breathe, see, and smell (so far as we know), and while we would certainly encounter completely new approaches to survival, we should also not be surprised to see these repeated on Earthlike planets.Whatever happens, when we finally start discovering those planets (as we will do soon, if current indications bear out), it’s certain to be an amazing and revolutionary moment. Maybe, one day, our imaginations will be able to work with brand new, fresh raw materials from a completely different world.
Celebrate the 13th
Today is one of those days when we are all reminded of the superstitions that surround us. Most people reading this will know how these beliefs in “bad luck” are perpetuated – confirmation bias and the rest. So I propose a couple of simple and entertaining ways of celebrating rationality on this supposedly unlucky day. Feel free to join in with either, both, or none at all.1. Recklessly and with joyous abandon, indulge in as many “unlucky” activities as possible. Opening umbrellas indoors, stepping on cracks in the pavement, walking under ladders… Go crazy!*
2. Count and notice all the good things that happen to you today – and draw no conclusions relating to some mysterious common cause.
* Any injuries sustained by such reckless indulgence is to be attributed not to the date but to clumsiness/stupidity etc.
Single-issue Parrrrties…
I realise this is old news to most people by this point, but I’ve been stupidly busy over the last month or more and just haven’t had the time, or indeed inclination, to blog. Even my creative writing, which takes precedence, has suffered lately. But enough of that. What is this old news to which I refer?
The UK now has an officially recognised and established Pirate Party. No, this isn’t some attempt to nationalise children’s birthday entertainments (at least I don’t think it is); it is a serious political organisation with a serious message.That message, according to their website, is threefold: reform copyright and patent law; end excessive surveillance; ensure freedom of speech. Definitely policies I can get behind. But despite the multi-pronged nature of their “manifesto”, I have a hard time not categorising them as a single-issue party. Perhaps they would not dispute this.
The problem here is that single-issue parties do not get elected, and nor should they. For instance, at the time of writing this, their official manifesto contains the amusing line “Pirate Party UK has no opinion on whether Britain should or should not be a member of the European Union.” Is it sensible for a political party, I.E., a group presumably campaigning for votes, to have no opinion on this central topic in British politics? Even if you do not accept this, and think that “no opinion” is a perfectly acceptable position to take on Europe, then skip down to the economic policy. Yep, that’s right, they don’t have one.
As with every single-issue party, it seems that the function they intend (or are at any rate “destined”) to perform is that of a pressure group. Their true effect will not be measured in votes, but in public awareness of the issues; though it is true that any votes they do receive may well push the major parties into more serious consideration of those issues.
But why go to the trouble of creating a political party, when a pressure group is subject to far less red tape and hoop-jumping? If it is an effort to be taken more seriously, then they missed the lesson of the Snowdrop Campaign in 1997 – possibly the most effective UK grassroots pressure group in recent history. Indeed, their petitions resulted in new legislation being pushed through almost immediately by a new government terrified of the media’s disapproval after the horrific Dunblane Massacre. The resulting legislation, however, was rushed; as a result it was near-unenforceable and had to be reworded.
The media has evolved significantly since then, of course. 12 years ago the internet was just barely beginning to function as a media outlet, and the Snowdrop Campaign was one of the first to utilise its potential as a mass-communication tool. The Pirate Party is a group which, with technology as its primary background, is in a position to take full advantage of the new media, Web 2.0, or whatever other buzzword you’d like to use for it.Should they be an established political party? Well, it’s probably not necessary. But I do wish them the best of luck in getting their message heard.
Grassroots Skeptics
One of the most important, interesting, and downright enjoyable things about the sceptical movement is the grassroots, street-level organisation. So it was with great enthusiasm that I greeted the announcement of Grassroots Skeptics – intended to be a hub for this sort of organisation.At the moment their website can be found here, and you can follow them on Twitter – @GRSkeptics.
It’s a most promising-looking endeavour and should be well worth keeping an eye on.
Pimping complete!
Arbitrary Link Day: August Edition!
I’ve decided to periodically link across to fellow sceptic websites – and probably a few that don’t qualify as such but are nevertheless very much worth a look. I was originally thinking about making it once a week, but knowing the reliability of my updating, I settled for a more realistic target – once a month (ish).
So are you ready for today’s link?
As it’s his birthday, I thought I’d give you a link to Tim Farley’s superb website, What’s the Harm?If you’ve ever been talking to someone about a particular brand of irrationality, and their defence boiled down to “well, each to their own” or “what’s the harm, really?” – this is the website that answers them. It is a constantly-expanding account of the cost (in financial terms as well as physical) of irrational beliefs – everything from prayer healing to homeopathy, from UFOs to ouija boards. As a reference tool for sceptics, and indeed any who are even remotely curious about such things, it is indispensible.
Aurelius’ Antidote
Many of you will have heard of Pascal’s Wager; it is one of the more well-known arguments against adopting an atheist world-view. Summarised, it states that it is better to believe in God because if one is wrong, one loses nothing, whereas if the atheist is wrong, (s)he goes to hell. Not only is this a truly cynical way to come to religious belief, but there are certain other flaws also – primarily, the issue of which God.For instance, suppose you took it seriously, and began worshipping the God of the Bible, the Christian God – quite confident in your now-unassailable position. You can’t lose! If there’s no God, no harm done. If there is, you’re in his good books. However, when you finally meet your maker, it turns out to be Allah. He’s not too pleased about your outspoken worship of a rival God, and you end up in Hell anyway. So much for the wager.
Until recently, I thought this was the best argument to marshal against the infamous wager. Then I was introduced to this elegant quotation from Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of the Roman Empire from 161 to 180. Which means that this quote predates Pascal’s Wager by approximately 1500 years.“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
It is always gratifying to find one’s own thoughts put so eloquently into text.
Fictional Sceptics #4: Something New
OK, so my “fictional sceptics” feature was originally named “Fictional Sceptics in Pop Culture”. But today I’m breaking with that particular pattern because I want to bring you something that is most certainly not part of the popular culture. It’s a short story by an unknown author going by the name of Nick Westwood*, set in a parallel future the better part of a thousand years distant. It’s part of a wider collection of stories which will eventually form The Unity Chronicles. Various other background pieces for this collection can be found at the author’s page on DeviantART.The Uraz Research Facility never slept. This was aided by its positioning at the temperate northern pole of the planet, where they experienced only two hours of semi-darkness in every thirty. The sun was at its highest in the sky when Nakato finally lost his temper.
‘It’s what we’re made of! Please try to lift your mind out of religious complacency and comprehend what I’m telling you!’
‘I’m sorry, Hari. I’m trying to understand what you’re saying but it goes against everything we know about the universe and our place in it. You can’t just dismiss centuries of knowledge with a few simple phrases.’
‘I agree. But that’s not what’s going on here; firstly, it’s not centuries of knowledge – it’s centuries of willful ignorance. Secondly, I’m not dismissing it with a few simple phrases, I’m dismantling it with logic and reason.’
‘But how do you know all those old texts are even real? They must have been outlawed for a reason.’
‘Of course they were outlawed for a reason; they were outlawed because they run contrary to every teaching of the Book of Unity. Contradictions in matters of fact as well as in the morality of all this new research.
‘But that’s just the point, isn’t it? Science isn’t meant to play God.’
‘What is it meant to do then, Faerin? Toil away at petty, circular research and find more and more advanced ways for humanity to destroy itself? I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of that; and I thought this new alliance would bring the opportunity to break from the old dogma, to give science the freedom it needs to find the truth and improve lives. Do you know that in some respects we’re actually less advanced than Earth scientists over a thousand years ago? Before any colonisation had taken place? Does that make even a little bit of sense to you?’
‘What did they know that we don’t? It’s hard to imagine a culture ignorant of space travel could be more advanced than us in any way. Besides, how could all that information just get lost like that?’
‘It was “lost” because of the rise of the Church, don’t you get it? The fields of genetics, evolutionary biology, cybernetics – all outlawed because of the threats they presented to the Church’s theological dogma. Anything they claimed as “science playing God” was made anathema; funding was pulled, and research was legislated against. Before the Church gained dominance, science had made great leaps in understanding exactly what humans were made of, and of what they might one day be capable. The censorship imposed didn’t just set us back by decades, it completely removed entire fields of research. Now that we’re free of that dogma, I was hoping to to revive the outlawed sciences. Give me one good reason why we shouldn’t – one that doesn’t appeal to religious authority.’
‘I can’t, Hari. It just goes against the grain. It feels wrong.’
‘Of course it does; that’s the point. If we don’t challenge these boundaries then our science will remain restricted in the way it has been for the last few centuries. It feels wrong because like the rest of us you were raised in a dogmatic, blindly unquestioning society. All I ask is that you read these texts and then tell me if you still feel the same way. Try to keep an open mind.’
- – - – -
Two days later, Hari Nakato sat at his workbench poring over a set of readings he had just taken. Everything from the texts were being confirmed; every test he ran resulted in the exact predicted outcomes. Just then, Faerin entered the lab. Her hair was unkempt and her eyes bloodshot. Her face bore a strange expression, that Nakato recognised only too well; a conflicted mixture of enlightenment, disbelief, and frenzied excitement. She’d read the texts.
‘Hari, they knew how we came to be. There was no Almighty Hand, no mud sculptures, no miracles. They – they actually mapped a human genome, they proved a relation to other apes. The potential for genetic modification, for eradicating disease and deformity even prior to birth… You were right. The ancient Terrans were way ahead of us, they knew things we’d never imagined were even there to know. How could the Church even defend itself against that sort of advancement?’
‘Nobody knows for sure; it’s astounding that these texts even survived to be honest. The only other history we have left is what we’re told by the Church, and as has become abundantly clear, they can’t be trusted to tell the truth. I think we can probably assume that they managed to raise a furore over the implications of the research – the morality of modifying “God’s Design”, and once they’d got their foot in the door they were free to outlaw anything that contradicted their precious book.’
‘But aren’t we going to do a similar thing with these texts? Who’s to say that these are more valid than the Book of Unity?’
‘I see you took the message of the questioning mindset to heart; but you seem to have overlooked the most important one – the texts themselves tell us not to take them as unquestionable truths but test them, probe them – doubt them. That’s what I’ve been doing while you were away missing two nights’ sleep. Everything I was able to test of what they say is true, Faerin. Everything. We just rediscovered DNA and the origin of the species. Given a few more decades and sufficient funding and personnel, we might actually be back to where we were a millennium ago. Further, if you count the progress we’ve made in the fields of research that weren’t outlawed.’
‘God bless the Varangian Alliance.’
‘I can think of more suitable ways to put it, but yes. Things are finally starting to look up.’
Nothing to add to that really, I’ll let it speak for itself.
* Yeah, that’s me.
Support Free Speech
