-
Archive of "interwebs" Category
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.
Fictional Sceptics #5: Questionable Content
A very brief Fictional Sceptics post today, because this is something which has only just become apparent to me and there’s not a lot to say on the matter.
You may or may not be familiar with the webcomic Questionable Content, drawn by Jeph Jacques. It’s a usually-amusing serial comic about a bunch of twenty-somethings, most of whom have some pretty messed up issues. You know, the usual. It’s not my favourite webcomic, certainly, but it’s usually entertaining enough.
Today, it climbed up a little more in my estimations by having one of the characters fly off into a rant about metaphysical beliefs and evidence. It may not be much, but it’s nice to see the sceptical mindset portrayed as another facet of an everyday person’s persona.
It’s a shame it had to invoke the clichéd “strict religious upbringing” as the cause of the character’s scepticism, but it is true that many sceptics have that in their past. Certainly not all, however – I’m pleased to say I’m part of the exception.
So thanks, Jeph. I’m looking forward to seeing more of this aspect of Penelope’s personality.
Stop worrying?
The biggest news in the athiest/sceptical sphere at the moment is probably the “atheist bus campaign” – by which I mean that it is the story that has garnered the most attention among the news/opinion sources I read on a regular basis.
When I first got wind of the idea a little while ago, I greeted it with mirth and interest; I thought it was about time we had some secular, atheist or agnostic messages out in the “real world”. It would help stimulate debate, and perhaps make people realise that they’re not alone in feeling detached from religion (a feeling I’m sure is more prevalent than generally believed).
Now that the campaign has well and truly taken off (last I heard they had exceeded their target by a staggering £75,000 or so), it’s even turning up in the “Politics” section of my RSS feeds – at Liberal Conspiracy and even a spoof by the great Beau Bo D’Or.
Of course, being sceptics, there has been little agreement on whether the slogan that had been settled upon was the right one to use. The first objections centered around the use of the word “probably”, and this choice may or may not have been down to advertising regulations not allowing more assertive statements. Others have claimed it’s too patronising and will not achieve what it aims to.
The most interesting objections come from an authoritative source, Tracy King at Skepchick.org, who expands on her initial misgivings in this comment. As someone who not only works in marketing, but was also a one-time Christian, her opinion is a very well-informed one on this matter. For her, the slogan not only doesn’t cut it, but is actually counter-productive. Sadly, I’m inclined to agree.
The question that needs to be asked when designing this sort of thing has to be about what the effect of the advert is intended to be. As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this one is to get people thinking, talking, and questioning religion, and also to put a friendly face on the alternatives – in this case, humanism. So will the chosen slogan have the intended effect? The general consensus among those discussing it seems to be “no”. The thread on the UK-Skeptics Forum has now turned mostly toward what the slogan should be.
I have no experience as a slogan-writer so can do little to offer alternatives; but as far as concepts go, I’d prefer one that didn’t evoke “God” at all. I feel that a campaign simply promoting rational, free, and intelligent debate would be more beneficial. The biggest problem faced in this regard is how best to word it so that average people will actually look at it and think.
I don’t know how far along the process is as far as the advertising is concerned, but if it’s at all possible, those organising the campaign should rethink the slogan in consultation with marketing advisers. The amount of money they have raised is a mandate to take it seriously and do the best job they possibly can.
Dear YouTube…
Please stop censoring freedom of expression.
Either: reinstate fsmdude’s account and his videos which offend only those who have some wacky beliefs in regard to a biscuit…
Or: define yourselves officially as a Catholic website for only Catholic-friendly videos, and I can begin looking for alternative video-hosting websites to frequent.
Thank you.
[Via here and here. (PZ, naturally)]
UPDATE: fsmdude is now back online. Thank you, YouTube. Now don’t do it again.
On a personal note, the dissertation is handed in and the Masters degree is officially over and done with. Posting to this blog should slowly start getting back to normal now. Thanks for your patience.
The importance of antidote
There are many reasons I see such a strong link between philosophy and scepticism. One of these is probably bias on my part, being a great lover of both and prone to making connections. Another prominent reason, however, can be summed up in the word therapy.
While in other contexts this is a word which would set off some alarm bells – it’s one which is used extensively by Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicines (my favourite acronym) to give the illusion of competence where none exists – in this context, it is therapy of the most genuine and beneficial sort.
People suffer from misconceptions. It’s just a fact of life that this is the case, and there’s nothing we can do to completely prevent this on a global scale. What the philosopher or sceptic is able to do is analyse an argument or a stated position, and identify fallacies. They can then determine the appropriate way of dissuading the person from that misconception (though of course there must be a degree of willing on the part of the subject). This diagnosis-treatment approach is why this particular brand of philosophy is known as therapeutic – and the parallels with scepticism are striking.This process in scepticism is aided substantially by the wonders of the interwebs and the ever-growing freedom of information. Someone insisting that acupuncture or homeopathy has a proven track record in clinical trials? Ask to see the published research – or better yet, show them the reams of research which contradicts their position.
Of course, an important part of any therapy is to treat primary causes rather than the symptoms alone; and the source of so much of the ignorance and misunderstanding in the world is the mainstream media. For the majority of people, who do not get their news from the internet, the main sources of information are television and the dead tree press – the worst of which are the tabloids. It seems impossible for a story to appear in The Scum that isn’t in some way serving the editorial agenda, every story spun to promote the paper’s pet worldview.
An example: for one reason or another, lately there has been a rise in awareness of knife crime in the UK; the government is pledging new measures to combat it, and the opposition are using it as further “evidence” that society is going down the pan. The latest crime survey figures were recently splashed across the headlines – crying out things like “crime wave” and “a stabbing every 4 minutes in Blade Britain”.Now, I’ve spoken before about the evil of statistics in the media, and this is another case of the media twisting the figures to suit their agenda. This is where we need our antidotes, and there are few as effective at bursting the hyperbolic bubble of social commentary as Obsolete, and in this case he certainly doesn’t disappoint. His entry on the subject reveals the figures behind the hysteria: 6% of violent crime in England & Wales in the last year involved a knife.
Without going into too much detail (head over to Obsolete’s article if you want the full load), the basic point here is that crime is down – and even knife crime in particular has seen a (albeit statistically insignificant) decrease in the last year. Where, then, does this apocalyptic vision of a Broken, Blade-wielding Britain come from? Speculatively, I would have to say that it’s probably the media themselves; though the Why is a different matter.
But can you imagine how hard it would be to get the facts were it not for the internet? How much more widespread the influence of the media would be? I shudder at the thought, to be honest.The internet is a wonderful resource, and one of the best uses to which it can be put is as part of the therapeutic process of scepticism, treating misconceptions and bringing the “antidote” of actual facts to a wider audience.
As if more were needed…
It seems that there is yet more support for the value of the “Socratic method”. Not that any more is needed, of course – but it’s always gratifying nonetheless.A new study has been done which suggests that “people who engaged in social interaction displayed higher levels of cognitive performance” [via ScienceDaily]. So not only does the Socratic method allow for the clear and logical exchange and development of ideas, but it also reflects (and takes advantage of) the value inherent in social intercourse.
The paper itself argues something which struck me as possibly misleading. It does not regard the main result of the research, which was fully supported, but rather an observation that “our society appears to be in a state of social decline”. This is certainly true in many respects – a reduction in membership of social and other organisations, for instance – and in some cases could prove worrisome, such as the research which indicates that people have fewer “close others” they can talk to about their innermost thoughts and feelings. However, I felt that there was a very important oversight in this passage – though perfectly forgivable as it was not within the ambit of the paper.
Basically, the definition of “social interaction” was a little narrow for my liking. It seemed to define it solely in terms of “face-to-face” interactions, even though part of the reason for the decline in these interactions is the now-widespread ability to interact socially while not in the same room. I would imagine that visiting friends and family began a shallow decline with the advent of the telephone; a decline which only steepened with the coming of the internet. However, especially in the last ten years, there has been an explosion in what might be called virtual interactions. Millions of people subscribe to social networking sites, fora, blogs, and recommendation networks such as Digg and del.icio.us. In some ways if not in others, we are a more socially connected global society than were just a few decades ago.
There is nothing (at least that I can think of) that would be missing in a long-distance interaction which would negate the apparent cognitively beneficial aspects of social discourse. Unless you want to propose the benefits of proximity to brainwaves from others, of course; but until I see respectable research on that, I’m going to assume it’s baloney.
While consideration of this new level of social interaction is unlikely to impact upon the outcome of the research done in this paper, it adds another dimension to the issue. Of course, it’s a complex enough issue as it is – needless to say, not all social interactions benefit cognition (it would be hard to believe if that were the case – people exchanging mindless dogmatic racial slurs are thinking more sharply because it’s a social activity?); and yet I still embrace this news as reinforcement of the value of Socrates’ most important contribution to the world.
[Ybarra, O., Burnstein, E., Winkielman, P., Keller, M.C., Manis, M., Chan, E., Rodriguez, J. (2007). Mental Exercising Through Simple Socializing: Social Interaction Promotes General Cognitive Functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 248-259. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207310454]
Support Free Speech
