Watching recent seasons of DW I find I am somewhat concerned these days. There seem to be some trends emerging that are not entirely wholesome. Even the quality of the sci-fi aspects are in question. Here I have written a critical review of the Easter 2013 episode (S7, Pt.II Ep.1: The bells of St.John) which hopefully explains what I mean.
First the good points:
*Good special effects
*Pretty good use of humour
*Jenna Louise Coleman as Clara (her acting I mean, not other obvious reasons!)
Bad Points:
Plot holes
The doc spends quite a few minutes of the show trying to get let in to the house Clara's in. Then after she is attacked by the consciousness-stealing wi-fi robot construct (at least I hope it was consciousness, we will come back to this later) , he suddenly remembers to use his sonic screwdriver, and gets in in a jiffy. Gee thanks doc. Timing.
When the doc is having the keyboard-tapping hacking dual with the guy from the Shard workers, he beats him and manages to reverse the download of Clara's consciousness. (How would that work?) After this has happened, the Shard leader (a woman called Miss Kizlet played by Celia Imrie) remembers to up his IQ on her convenient iPad controlling device. A bit late?
Plane Rescue: Cool, but major plot contrivance to suddenly have the pilots come back round once the plane is pulled up (Is their consciousness returned? How?)
Anti-Grav Motorcyle bit: When the doc and Clara leave, Doors to the TARDIS left wide open. Massive throng of inquisitive people standing around. Free access to time travel ship, anyone?
When Clara is hacking the Shard control room (even though it's supposed to be unhackable now their defensive IQ is maxxed up) she manages to get their webcams (all conveniently placed of course) to snap photos of the workers, then use photos to search Facebook etc. for their places of work. This would have been clever, if we knew how she downloaded photos from an unhackable network. Even if we grant the writers that contrivance, it still doesn't explain how she knew they were on floor 65.
When the fake wi-fi construct robot Doctor confronts Clara on the balcony of the Cafe, my question is: Is the Doctor in control of it at this point? There are problems either way. If he is, he just goes ahead and assimilates Clara without letting her in on the plan. How kind. (I would also say, without any confidence in being able to rescue her later, but as we know, the doc always wins). If he isn't in control of the imposter doc, how come it manages to completely assimilate her consciousness in less time than it only partially managed to do so back at the house? And more importantly, how does he get control of the robot doc anyway? Sonic screwdriver again?
More worrying aspects:
This episode:
Dualism. This is one of my major concerns about sci-fi. It applies to lots of other shows though, not just DW (even Stargate did it, much to my chagrin). This is the notion that there are two separate states of being: the physical (i.e. the body) and the spiritual (i.e. the soul). This is necessary for the idea that consciousness (or the soul, now you see how I was previously being charitable before) can be stripped from a body, transported intact somwehere else, and installed in another entity; then the whole procedure reversed and both parties go back to their business as usual as if nothing had happened. But, it is frankly absurd. All the current scientific evidence indicates that the mind is just a construct of the brain, and dualism is a myth - consciousness entirely leaving the brain equates to no electrical activity, no neurons firing, brain death, just actual DEATH. But surely, this is sci-fi, isn't it, and we can allow such flights of fancy?
Sci-fi mainly works because the unbelievable things in it are just that. Unbelievable. We have no idea how they work, but can maybe imagine how with extremely advanced technology, such a thing may at some stage in the future be possible. But the whole consciousness transfer problem goes beyond this. In many ways, it is something we already understand. The only way to reconstruct consciousness when it has left the brain would be to actually reconstruct the physical brain, molecule by molecule. So the physical is inextricably linked to the mental. This is why severe trauma can cause brain damage. In reality, I cannot see a way in which consciousness transfer, if even surviveable (which it wouldn't be) would leave the poor victim anything other than a vegetable.
Using the London riots as a plot device. Not good, this one. The riots are painted here as experiments performed by the shard workers in controlling the minds of people, to see how far they can go. But this is actually quite disingenuous because it detracts from the real reasons which caused the real riots for real people - inequality, lack of education opportunities and jobs, dodgy Govenment idealism, Public sector cuts, dodgy Policing and the rest of it. You can't just explain away recent real events which are still clear in people's minds, as a mere contrivance.
Sexism - Damselling. Clara is quite clearly turned into a damsel to be rescued by the heroic knight (read: doc) near the end of the episode when her consciousness is assimilated by the fake-doctor robot. This would be bad enough, but she had previously been quite badass in this episode, right? Well, yes, but how drearily sexist to suddenly exclude her when it came to the exciting finale. Because only men are ever capable of really saving the day. Women are permitted to assist but when the shit really hits the fan they have to stand by and watch like the passive, helpless creatures they are. Wonderful. I shouldn't need to warn people of the dangers of this stereotype.
Bad morals and sexism. The ending of this episode is extremely morally dubious. We have the doc off celebrating his "victory", meanwhile a poor woman (Miss Kizlet, Celia Imrie) who has been controlled against her will by a malevolent male presence for decades, is suddnely thrown back into her own body to come to terms with what he's done. (And what she's done running this monstrous experiment - guilt much?) Yeh, great innit. Worse still, she has the mind of a child. For goodness sake! Her cries are very disturbing and this is clearly not suitable for kids. I shouldn't need to remind people of clear connotations to domestic violence.
Think about this for a minute - how much would you NOT want to be her? It is an absolute travesty and I'm not sure what anyone actually has to be happy about. OK, so we saved some people from having their consciousnesses devoured by the big male baddie, but by his own admission he had already gained a lot from them and seemed satisfied. Tell me how it would have been that much worse to leave everyone trapped a bit longer while the doc worked out some plan to save her? I find it worrying how the writers managed to paint themselves into a scriptwriting corner, with sexism being the only way out. It would have been much kinder to leave the woman as the baddie, dodgy as that is in itself. You know soemthing is wrong when you write a statement like that. But no, we had to make the woman suffer. Notice how the men that were mind-jacked into working at the shard were returned pretty much to their former state? Funny, that.
In the last couple of series, one of the overarching plots has been all about how the doc needs to man up and come to terms with the sacrifices he makes in his day-to-day job of saving the Universe. Admit his faults and express his feelings i.e. Matt Smith being emotional. But now we have some serious consequences of what happens to Miss Kizlet, and good old doc don't give a damn. Well, I hope you can make some sense of that, because I sure can't.
I seriously hope this season proves me wrong by coming back to this episode later on and performing some much needed time-travelling repairs. But at the moment we still have the clear moral message that a man leaving a woman mentally destroyed and her life shattered is acceptable as a means to an end. Well, guess what doc, that's simply not good enough.
Overall recent DW problems:
The increasing prevalence of the sonic screwdriver. Ah, that great panacea. It is almost starting to become the equivalent to "special pleading" for DW writers, a convenient way out of any seemingly impossible situation, invoking the unstoppable force to save the day.
Matt Smith's over-emotional portrayal of what has always previously been a more emotionally aloof doc. I yearn for the days of the distant, alien Time-Lord largely disconnected from human affairs. Now it almost seems creepy, how the Matt Smith doc ogles all his female companions and uses the TARDIS as a way of amazing them and getting into their affections. This sends out the message to men that it is OK to try and buy your way to women's hearts with flash toys and gadgets. No commitment required! The TARDIS is becoming less a time-travelling spaceship and more a pimped ride or the doc's personal "snogging-booth" as Clara says. Such an association would have previously been unconscionable. That's how far we've fallen.
Sunday 31 March 2013
Saturday 30 March 2013
Hey men, this is why you should support feminism
Read this article, please. Just read it. Thanks
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy
I have to say I read most of this article with an overwhelming sense of glee. "Damn, feminism is so totes cool and awesome!" would sum up my feelings nicely.
I really admire the author Lindy West, she has put together a brilliant summary of the issues and put layers of justification onto my already (in my own honest opinion) strong rationale why I support feminists. Jezebel was already a cool website but this is definitely one of the best articles I've read on it for a while.
I have a few comments on some specific points though:
Part 1: I think that Humanism developed as a movement before feminism really took off. As I understand it, it was mainly conceived as a legitimate belief system, alternative to religion. So it was never meant to be specifically fighting for feminism: but this is just one of its goals among many. Otherwise, agreed.
Part 2: Completely agree. A man denying that sexism is a problem, is basically a selfish bigot. It is blatantly obvious to me that it is a huge problem permeating the entire fabric of society.
Part 3: Very well explained. Tough, but keeping it real. Agree.
Absolutely loving Part 4. So interesting! I never even realised most of these notions were actually the case but it makes sense now - thanks for enlightening me! Of course a lot of vociferous men (including MRAs) would disagree with almost all of this, but they're idiots for it.
Also, more worryingly, some Evolutionary Psychologists would have a lot to say:
"The notions that women are better caregivers, housekeepers and should make babies rather than wealth, as well as the attachment of value to physical attributes, are genetic facts that have been evolved into the human brain during the Pleistocene era"...might be their general gist.
The science behind this has some value. It is controversial in some cases, and the confidence of the findings may not be 100%, but we can't really just discount it completely because we don't like it. This is one of the very few issues I have with feminism. I think it would be more intellectually honest for some of this to be accepted rather than denied, despite the obvious bad taste it leaves in the mouth. There is another, even stronger and morally robust argument than simply ignoring these findings: accepting them, but still not letting them stop what we want to achieve.
So here is the crux of my problem: is it really 100% true to say that the assumption that women are better caregivers is just a part of patriarchy? I'm not so sure. There is scientific evidence saying at least some part of it is genetic rather than just socially ingrained. And why deny this obvious advantage? It is a clear plus for women in my book. It may be stereotyping women to admit this, but not admitting it is just feeding the stereotype that women are irrational science-deniers. I simply refuse to accept that latter stereotype, from personal experience, it is utterly repugnant to me.
There is a part of me that almost feels that the article is TOO KIND to men. Why not accept the positive parts of steroetype, such as women are better caregivers, more in tune with their feelings, more resistnt to pain and have more empathy? Just because something is true, we don't need to live up to it if we don't want to. That's just fatalism. I think women are being too hard on themselves and should have their cake AND eat it, as it were. Why can't you be a bit superior to men, not just equal. I would still support that movement! There is certainly some evidence for it: humanity certainly needs women, it needs men a lot less. Let's get to equality first, I suppose.
In case you didn't realise by now, for a man I am actually quite pro-radical feminism!
The other points of Part 4 I accept completely.
My main point on this is: Even if the Evo Psychology arguments are true, so what? I don't think we should reinforce stereotypes that we find objectionable. Let's try making women at least equal and see where it goes. Let's try making the future for ourselves that we think we deserve and should have, not the one that would seem to have been predetermined for us.
It is a bitter pill to swallow admittedly, but at the end of the day I believe it is just a placebo (see what I did there?) which won't adversely affect our chances of making "Movement Feminism" work.
http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy
I have to say I read most of this article with an overwhelming sense of glee. "Damn, feminism is so totes cool and awesome!" would sum up my feelings nicely.
I really admire the author Lindy West, she has put together a brilliant summary of the issues and put layers of justification onto my already (in my own honest opinion) strong rationale why I support feminists. Jezebel was already a cool website but this is definitely one of the best articles I've read on it for a while.
I have a few comments on some specific points though:
Part 1: I think that Humanism developed as a movement before feminism really took off. As I understand it, it was mainly conceived as a legitimate belief system, alternative to religion. So it was never meant to be specifically fighting for feminism: but this is just one of its goals among many. Otherwise, agreed.
Part 2: Completely agree. A man denying that sexism is a problem, is basically a selfish bigot. It is blatantly obvious to me that it is a huge problem permeating the entire fabric of society.
Part 3: Very well explained. Tough, but keeping it real. Agree.
Absolutely loving Part 4. So interesting! I never even realised most of these notions were actually the case but it makes sense now - thanks for enlightening me! Of course a lot of vociferous men (including MRAs) would disagree with almost all of this, but they're idiots for it.
Also, more worryingly, some Evolutionary Psychologists would have a lot to say:
"The notions that women are better caregivers, housekeepers and should make babies rather than wealth, as well as the attachment of value to physical attributes, are genetic facts that have been evolved into the human brain during the Pleistocene era"...might be their general gist.
The science behind this has some value. It is controversial in some cases, and the confidence of the findings may not be 100%, but we can't really just discount it completely because we don't like it. This is one of the very few issues I have with feminism. I think it would be more intellectually honest for some of this to be accepted rather than denied, despite the obvious bad taste it leaves in the mouth. There is another, even stronger and morally robust argument than simply ignoring these findings: accepting them, but still not letting them stop what we want to achieve.
So here is the crux of my problem: is it really 100% true to say that the assumption that women are better caregivers is just a part of patriarchy? I'm not so sure. There is scientific evidence saying at least some part of it is genetic rather than just socially ingrained. And why deny this obvious advantage? It is a clear plus for women in my book. It may be stereotyping women to admit this, but not admitting it is just feeding the stereotype that women are irrational science-deniers. I simply refuse to accept that latter stereotype, from personal experience, it is utterly repugnant to me.
There is a part of me that almost feels that the article is TOO KIND to men. Why not accept the positive parts of steroetype, such as women are better caregivers, more in tune with their feelings, more resistnt to pain and have more empathy? Just because something is true, we don't need to live up to it if we don't want to. That's just fatalism. I think women are being too hard on themselves and should have their cake AND eat it, as it were. Why can't you be a bit superior to men, not just equal. I would still support that movement! There is certainly some evidence for it: humanity certainly needs women, it needs men a lot less. Let's get to equality first, I suppose.
In case you didn't realise by now, for a man I am actually quite pro-radical feminism!
The other points of Part 4 I accept completely.
My main point on this is: Even if the Evo Psychology arguments are true, so what? I don't think we should reinforce stereotypes that we find objectionable. Let's try making women at least equal and see where it goes. Let's try making the future for ourselves that we think we deserve and should have, not the one that would seem to have been predetermined for us.
It is a bitter pill to swallow admittedly, but at the end of the day I believe it is just a placebo (see what I did there?) which won't adversely affect our chances of making "Movement Feminism" work.
Friday 29 March 2013
In response to "The laughable faux-superiority of Movement Skepticism"
I
would like to respond to the points made in this article, as someone
who identifies as a Skeptic and Atheist. I will do this in the form
of a kind of “open letter” to the author.
“As
a Skeptic and Atheist, I understand and sympathise with your
position, as made clear in your article . I am not surprised that
such an article has appeared, although it will probably come as no
surprise to you that I have some issues with it.
I
was initially quite taken aback and offended by your article,
however, I have now considered that it is more important to try and
understand your perpective. I do not expect you to take any further
interest in my opinions, but if you could take a few minute to read
my response it would be much appreciated.
I
think the biggest misrepresentation that you have made is that all
atheists and skeptics subscribe to the same ideas surrounding the
value of logic. I do not accept your points 1-7 at the start of your
article. I agree up to point 5, but for 6, well to be realistic we
cannot expect, nor desire, to drive out all “magical thinking”
overnight. That is massively impractical and we are not so dogmatic
as to “not permit” it under any circumstances. If that were the
case skeptics would be out murdering religious and spiritual people
right now.
It
would be more accuarate to say that skeptics advocate raising
awareness of the dangers and pitfalls of magical thinking, and
encourage its decline (not disappearance – we all in some small way
subsribe to superstition in our everyday lives, and there may be some
evidence that this can be subconsciously beneficial). Such huge
changes as the ideal of reducing the influence of certain religious
institutions must, if they ever become reality, be achieved slowly
and carefully with the support systems in place to help people that
want to change.
Point
7 is too dogmatic for me, and I would think many skeptics. It would
only ever apply to the analysis of ideas, and not extend to our
attitudes towards others. The notion that rationality is the
be-all-and-end-all of human decision making is as abhorrent to me as
it obviously is to you. Other vital factors should influence us –
liberalism, empathy and philosophy all have their important roles.
I
think it is a bit unfair of you to charicature all atheists as
uncaring automatons or slaves to logic. We are people too. We do not
all agree with each other – this myth is highly damaging. There is
currently a sizeable schism within the atheist/skpetic/freethought
community, and people like me find the charicature you created to be
as reprehensible as you do. Chief amongst this scourge are MRAs, or
MRAtheists as you mention. I agree with you about them. Their vile,
selfish, bigoted and abusive behaviour has over the years created a
deep division separating them from the more tolerant and liberal
among us, who would like to be inclusive and show empathy, compassion
and respect for all people. I am also actually quite critical of
these “militant” atheists who basically “troll” forums and
hashtags looking for fights with theists and believers. Such
behaviour does not really help anyone. Instead of this, I consider the best approach to be to combat only hateful religious extremism and also everyday disriminations such as sexism and racism, that need to be wiped out.
Please
try to understand that the atheist community is open to many people,
all of whom are necessarily unvetted as “non-believers”. Anyone
can become an atheist after disavowing their god, and that action
alone does not remove any other dangerous prejudices that they may
hold (probably from the religion!) But please also understand that
fighting against such ingrained discriminatory attitudes is tough. It
is a bit more complicated than “cleaning up your own backyard” as
you put it, and takes time and support systems. We are working on it!
I could have construed your words here as quite intolerant actually, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
As
a white, male atheist I like to support women's rights and LGBTQ
rights whenever I can and think that Humanism is a good platform for
doing so. There are many organisations whose members are mainly
composed of atheists, who actively oppose the MRAtheists both you and
I find so offensive. One such organisation is the Centre For Inquiry
(CFI). I ask that you please look at all the good work they do on
behalf of minorities and women in secularism before you write such
articles. Blog spaces such as the FreeThought Blogs (FTB) and
Skepchicks are occupied by very liberal and tolerant women (and men)
from diverse backgrounds who constantly fight against MRAtheists, and I might add, receive much abuse for it.
I
also take issue with the assertion that skeptics view themselves as
superior to others. I do not. Skepticism by its very nature lends a
large dose of humility – in the light of changing evidence,
sketpics are quick to admit they were wrong and change opinion along
with the scientific consensus. Skepticism is just a good way of answering such questions as "Is God likely to exist?", "are there really alien UFOs" or "does homeopathy really work?"
Nor do we believe ourselves to be more intelligent than non-skeptics. Most of us will accept that we are priveleged. I for one wish to work with other activists in empowering minorities and fighting discrimination. Whilst we believe it is best for people to learn and know all the ways in which religion can damage the world, we leave it entirely up to them to decide if they want to keep their religion. I believe that knowledge is to be offered when asked for, but I do not approve of it being forced on people. If someone has all the information they need to make a rational decision and chooses to stick with their religion, there is nothing we can, or should, do to stop them.
Nor do we believe ourselves to be more intelligent than non-skeptics. Most of us will accept that we are priveleged. I for one wish to work with other activists in empowering minorities and fighting discrimination. Whilst we believe it is best for people to learn and know all the ways in which religion can damage the world, we leave it entirely up to them to decide if they want to keep their religion. I believe that knowledge is to be offered when asked for, but I do not approve of it being forced on people. If someone has all the information they need to make a rational decision and chooses to stick with their religion, there is nothing we can, or should, do to stop them.
You
are also correct to offer some criticism of Richard Dawkins. Although
I hold his works Such as The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene in the
highest regard; outside his books, in activism and comment, he too
often comes across as uncaring, and can be divisive, driving away
those who would otherwise be allies.
Near
the end of your piece you appear to accept that secularism, or
separation of church and state, is preferable to state-sponsored
religious dogma. In that case, please work with us in trying to
promote secularism all across the world – this is one of atheism's
main causes.
In
summary I thank you for writing your article, and think it is
important to highlight the struggle currently going on in
atheist/skeptic circles. Du to my own status I can't really offer any comments on the plight of trans- people but I do recognise that you are unfairly ostracised even by some feminists. But please bear in mind that not all of us
are as dogmatic as you may think, and openly and actively resist the
damaging actions of those MRAtheists you mentioned.
I
hope you can appreciate that this response has been made with a
charitable interpretation of your words in mind, and I hope you
accept these comments in the constructive nature with which they were
intended.”
Thursday 28 March 2013
The monkey evolution "problem"
All too often I hear the same question on Twitter or somewhere on the internet : If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
There are several different ways to answer this question. I aim to show that the questions itself is pretty ridiculous. One of the most complete overall answers is here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys
You can ask a very similar question using different analogies, and make the answer all too obvious. But the principle is still the same.
I don't actually think it's too useful to argue that we didn't evolve from monkeys. Although this may be strictly true (we evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and humans that was different than monkeys are now) if the common ancestor was still around today as it was then, we would still call it a monkey. So better to say "not all monkeys evolved into humans, only some of them did". But we still need to re-iterate that those monkeys have evolved in different directions. One important point to make is that evolved adaptations need not appear outwardly as changes to physiology. For example, a monkey's eyesight could improve over 100s of thousands of years and we would not know without testing for it.
Good answering points: "Individuals do not transform, populations evolve!"
The "descent of man" is misleading as it implies an individual evolves dramatically throughout its own life! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Darwin-chart.PNG
"Don't fall for the old "Great Chain of being" fallacy. It's pre-scientific!"
"Evolution hasn't finished - it is always ongoing, but Selection Pressure determines the rate at which particular traits or mutations are favoured over others"
Let's explore some of the important issues here. "Speciation" is an important part of any complete answer to the monkey question. As a population grows, it expands its borders and moves out in different directions all around. Sometimes, it just so happens that a part of the expanding population can become isolated and no longer be able to mingle with the others. This can happen due to various environmental factors such as continental drift. For example, an island population of monkeys could drift slowly further out to sea and at some point be unable to complete the journey back to the mainland as it is too far to swim. At this point, the exact environmental conditions on the island on which they found themselves trapped would put pressure on their chances to survive and procreate. This is called Selection Pressure and is another key aspect of evolution. Until the monkeys have evolved to become highly adept at surviving in their current climes, they will be under selection pressure or "survival of the fittest". Once sufficiently evolved, the monkeys have found a niche and there is no particular advantage from one small mutation to the next, meaning that selection pressure is lessened. But by this time they may look decidedly different to their long lost cousins from the mainland and may not even be able to breed with them! If this was the case, we now have two different species!
Other important points: Species don't need to appear to change to succeed. Crocodiles have exhibited relatively slow physiological evolution (although their genome has obviously still evolved) and so ostensibly changed remarkably little in many millions of years. This is because they are settled firmly in an evolutionary niche in which they are the master predator!
Similar question, with obvious answer:
"If dogs are domesticated wolves, how come there are still wolves?"
Car Evolution: Maybe a useful tool?
"If the Ford Focus mark III evolved from the Ford Focus mark II, how come there are still Ford Focus mark IIs? "
This is quite a clever example (if you ignore the designed by man, transforming individual, and evolutionary "jumps" rather than a continuum, aspects) because not only does it expose the original question's stupidity, it also raises the further question: Why do Ford Focus mark Is also still exist? We can imagine that direct evolution from one state to another is represented in this analogy by an owner "trading in" their old model for a newer one at a Ford dealership, an act that is common enough to give the analogy at least some credence.
Again, we can see that earlier versions of the same car model fit a particular need for people and so have occupied a niche, removing much selection pressure. Ford Focus mark Is are still good and perfectly acceptable cars in their own way. Not all drivers trade in their motors for the newest models. For any particular purpose, mark Is can still suit someone's needs. This was the case when mark IIs came out, and still when mark IIIs came out. Applying this analogy to monkey evolution can be quite useful as it helps provide this further insight.
"We are still evolving from those monkeys that diverged and speciated from the main monkey populations, who are themselves still evolving, albeit in ostensibly subtler ways".
There are several different ways to answer this question. I aim to show that the questions itself is pretty ridiculous. One of the most complete overall answers is here:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/How_come_there_are_still_monkeys
You can ask a very similar question using different analogies, and make the answer all too obvious. But the principle is still the same.
I don't actually think it's too useful to argue that we didn't evolve from monkeys. Although this may be strictly true (we evolved from a common ancestor of monkeys and humans that was different than monkeys are now) if the common ancestor was still around today as it was then, we would still call it a monkey. So better to say "not all monkeys evolved into humans, only some of them did". But we still need to re-iterate that those monkeys have evolved in different directions. One important point to make is that evolved adaptations need not appear outwardly as changes to physiology. For example, a monkey's eyesight could improve over 100s of thousands of years and we would not know without testing for it.
Good answering points: "Individuals do not transform, populations evolve!"
The "descent of man" is misleading as it implies an individual evolves dramatically throughout its own life! http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Darwin-chart.PNG
"Don't fall for the old "Great Chain of being" fallacy. It's pre-scientific!"
"Evolution hasn't finished - it is always ongoing, but Selection Pressure determines the rate at which particular traits or mutations are favoured over others"
Let's explore some of the important issues here. "Speciation" is an important part of any complete answer to the monkey question. As a population grows, it expands its borders and moves out in different directions all around. Sometimes, it just so happens that a part of the expanding population can become isolated and no longer be able to mingle with the others. This can happen due to various environmental factors such as continental drift. For example, an island population of monkeys could drift slowly further out to sea and at some point be unable to complete the journey back to the mainland as it is too far to swim. At this point, the exact environmental conditions on the island on which they found themselves trapped would put pressure on their chances to survive and procreate. This is called Selection Pressure and is another key aspect of evolution. Until the monkeys have evolved to become highly adept at surviving in their current climes, they will be under selection pressure or "survival of the fittest". Once sufficiently evolved, the monkeys have found a niche and there is no particular advantage from one small mutation to the next, meaning that selection pressure is lessened. But by this time they may look decidedly different to their long lost cousins from the mainland and may not even be able to breed with them! If this was the case, we now have two different species!
Other important points: Species don't need to appear to change to succeed. Crocodiles have exhibited relatively slow physiological evolution (although their genome has obviously still evolved) and so ostensibly changed remarkably little in many millions of years. This is because they are settled firmly in an evolutionary niche in which they are the master predator!
Similar question, with obvious answer:
"If dogs are domesticated wolves, how come there are still wolves?"
Car Evolution: Maybe a useful tool?
"If the Ford Focus mark III evolved from the Ford Focus mark II, how come there are still Ford Focus mark IIs? "
This is quite a clever example (if you ignore the designed by man, transforming individual, and evolutionary "jumps" rather than a continuum, aspects) because not only does it expose the original question's stupidity, it also raises the further question: Why do Ford Focus mark Is also still exist? We can imagine that direct evolution from one state to another is represented in this analogy by an owner "trading in" their old model for a newer one at a Ford dealership, an act that is common enough to give the analogy at least some credence.
Again, we can see that earlier versions of the same car model fit a particular need for people and so have occupied a niche, removing much selection pressure. Ford Focus mark Is are still good and perfectly acceptable cars in their own way. Not all drivers trade in their motors for the newest models. For any particular purpose, mark Is can still suit someone's needs. This was the case when mark IIs came out, and still when mark IIIs came out. Applying this analogy to monkey evolution can be quite useful as it helps provide this further insight.
"We are still evolving from those monkeys that diverged and speciated from the main monkey populations, who are themselves still evolving, albeit in ostensibly subtler ways".
I wish I could write a blog piece THAT good
Awesomeness. Sums up just what I think. 'Nuff said.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/03/28/a-white-boys-observations-of-sexism-and-the-adria-richards-fiasco/
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/03/28/a-white-boys-observations-of-sexism-and-the-adria-richards-fiasco/
Wednesday 27 March 2013
Not funny, clever nor cool
The text below is taken from a Google+ post which has been one of the most commented on in recent days. If you can bring yourself to get all the way through I have put some comments of my own at the end. If not, you're not missing much as after the first 5. instructions in "how to make a woman happy" it goes on without saying much. I think we get the general idea. I shall not name the poster, but *shock horror* it was a man.
---
HOW TO MAKE A MAN HAPPY
1. Feed him
2. Sleep with him
3. Leave him with peace
4. Don't check his phone (Msgs)
5. Don't bother him with his movements
So whats so hard about that?
HOW TO MAKE A WOMAN HAPPY
It's really not too difficult but.... To make a
woman happy, a man only needs
to be:
1. a friend
2. a companion
3. a lover
4. a brother
5. a father
6. a master
7. a chef
8. an electrician
9. a plumber
10. a mechanic
11. a carpenter
12. a decorator
13. a stylist
14. a sexologist
15. a gynecologist
16. a psychologist
17. a pest exterminator
18. a psychiatrist
19. a healer
20. a good listener
21. an organizer
22. a good father
23. very clean
24. sympathetic
25. athletic
26. warm
27. attentive
28. gallant
29. intelligent
30. funny
31. creative
32. tender
33. strong
34. understanding
35. tolerant
36. prudent
37. ambitious
38. capable
39. courageous
40. determined
41. true
42. dependable
43. passionate
WITHOUT FORGETTING TO:
44. give her compliments
regularly
45. Go shopping with her
46. be honest
47. be very rich
48. not stress her out
49. not look at other girls
AND AT THE SAME TIME, YOU
MUST ALSO:
50. give her lots of attention
51. give her lots of time,
especially time for herself
52. give her lots of space, never
worrying about where she goes.
BUT MOST OF ALL IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT
53. never forget
*birthdays
*anniversaries
*valentine
*arrangements she makes. —
(Copied from Facebook)
---
Wow. See, the thing about saying something is "just for fun", as the poster seems all too keen to point out, is that it should attempt to be in some way, funny. This pretty much fails I think. (Gyneacolgist...seriously? Yes, legions of men out there moonlighting as OBGYNs).
Apart from the rampant sexism, there is a long list of harmful gender stereotypes reinforced by this piece, including the cruel notions that women are home-makers, cooks, and sex-slaves; they are unappreciative, demanding, neurotic, clingy and aloof, unforgiving shopaholics. Apart from the fact that some of these actually contradict each other (clingy / aloof - which is it?) the male bias almost literally leaps from the page in all its sick manhood-waving "glory". And that is just a sample from this veritable banquet of stereotypes.
The writer must be someone in an unhappy relationship and feels "nagged" or "hen pecked", this little escapade helps him feel better about himself. But wouldn't it be better still to confront the problems and discuss issues with his partner, or try professional counselling? Perish the thought that it would be possible for both men and women to move past these simplistic and repulsive norms!
By becoming the jack-of-all-trades you are effectively creating an environment where you are the go-to person for problems. Someone who takes the trouble to learn all these skills can't really moan when expected to sometimes use them. It is perfectly acceptable as a man to call out builders, electricians etc. rather than do-it-all-yourself. But this is just a microcosm of the bigger problem.
This post promotes gender roles, whilst at the same time bemoaning those self-same gender roles being imposed back. It is going in logical circles, a self-created positive feedback loop.
So at its roots is this post just an unfunny sexist jibe, or a cry for help from and to the emotionally stunted out there, chained to the dreary heteronormativity they themselves perpetuate?
Either way, well done Google+ ! D'Oh! *faceslaps*
---
HOW TO MAKE A MAN HAPPY
1. Feed him
2. Sleep with him
3. Leave him with peace
4. Don't check his phone (Msgs)
5. Don't bother him with his movements
So whats so hard about that?
HOW TO MAKE A WOMAN HAPPY
It's really not too difficult but.... To make a
woman happy, a man only needs
to be:
1. a friend
2. a companion
3. a lover
4. a brother
5. a father
6. a master
7. a chef
8. an electrician
9. a plumber
10. a mechanic
11. a carpenter
12. a decorator
13. a stylist
14. a sexologist
15. a gynecologist
16. a psychologist
17. a pest exterminator
18. a psychiatrist
19. a healer
20. a good listener
21. an organizer
22. a good father
23. very clean
24. sympathetic
25. athletic
26. warm
27. attentive
28. gallant
29. intelligent
30. funny
31. creative
32. tender
33. strong
34. understanding
35. tolerant
36. prudent
37. ambitious
38. capable
39. courageous
40. determined
41. true
42. dependable
43. passionate
WITHOUT FORGETTING TO:
44. give her compliments
regularly
45. Go shopping with her
46. be honest
47. be very rich
48. not stress her out
49. not look at other girls
AND AT THE SAME TIME, YOU
MUST ALSO:
50. give her lots of attention
51. give her lots of time,
especially time for herself
52. give her lots of space, never
worrying about where she goes.
BUT MOST OF ALL IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT
53. never forget
*birthdays
*anniversaries
*valentine
*arrangements she makes. —
(Copied from Facebook)
---
Wow. See, the thing about saying something is "just for fun", as the poster seems all too keen to point out, is that it should attempt to be in some way, funny. This pretty much fails I think. (Gyneacolgist...seriously? Yes, legions of men out there moonlighting as OBGYNs).
Apart from the rampant sexism, there is a long list of harmful gender stereotypes reinforced by this piece, including the cruel notions that women are home-makers, cooks, and sex-slaves; they are unappreciative, demanding, neurotic, clingy and aloof, unforgiving shopaholics. Apart from the fact that some of these actually contradict each other (clingy / aloof - which is it?) the male bias almost literally leaps from the page in all its sick manhood-waving "glory". And that is just a sample from this veritable banquet of stereotypes.
The writer must be someone in an unhappy relationship and feels "nagged" or "hen pecked", this little escapade helps him feel better about himself. But wouldn't it be better still to confront the problems and discuss issues with his partner, or try professional counselling? Perish the thought that it would be possible for both men and women to move past these simplistic and repulsive norms!
By becoming the jack-of-all-trades you are effectively creating an environment where you are the go-to person for problems. Someone who takes the trouble to learn all these skills can't really moan when expected to sometimes use them. It is perfectly acceptable as a man to call out builders, electricians etc. rather than do-it-all-yourself. But this is just a microcosm of the bigger problem.
This post promotes gender roles, whilst at the same time bemoaning those self-same gender roles being imposed back. It is going in logical circles, a self-created positive feedback loop.
So at its roots is this post just an unfunny sexist jibe, or a cry for help from and to the emotionally stunted out there, chained to the dreary heteronormativity they themselves perpetuate?
Either way, well done Google+ ! D'Oh! *faceslaps*
Monday 25 March 2013
My thoughts on Evolutionary Psychology
Evolutionary Psychology (EP) does seem like quite a strange area of Science to me. It turns up some weird old findings, some of which we always suspected might have been the case, and others which go against first principles. Some of the conclusions drawn are fairly disturbing, even worrying and sometimes frankly sexist. EP has many proponents, but also a large group of detractors which include feminists amongst their number. I would like to focus here on one such.
There is a now infamous Youtube video of a Skepticon talk by the wonderful Rebecca Watson in which she criticises EP quite severely. Although I found the talk entertaining, funny and useful, it was not one of her best for accuracy, clarity or purpose. However, the storm of hate-filled bile that erupted in the aftermath of it was way out of proportion and just goes to show what cruel, selfish people can be like when they smell a "weakness". Just look at some of the sick responses to the video, in the comments. These trolls need to listen to themselves and grow up. Stop this vile abuse!
So Watson gives the subtle impression that she doesn't like EP because it comes up with some pretty horrific findings. I can understand why a staunch feminist like Watson would hate EP. I very much accept that. But just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Us atheists should know this.
This is one of the few places I disagree with Watson. I don't really think it's necessary to dismiss EP the way she attempts to do, in order to be able to effectively refute its conclusions (as opposed to its findings). Her dismissal is a bit too much of a generalisation for me. I think it's is true that some aspects of EP studies can be dubious, but this applies to virtually all other sciences as well. The Pleistoceine brain assumptions must have at least some validity. The application of data generation from modern-day humans and extrapolation back needs to be done carefully. I think certain researchers who have a track record of controversial findings should be extra dutiful in making their assumptions that they try not to stick with the male-biased or heteronormative ones!
There are quite obviously various conflicts of interest that can emerge in EP, a field still dominated by men. The "they would say that wouldn't they?" effect can be hard to overcome and I think more effort needs to be put into gently reassuring women that neutrality is guaranteed, unless we want many more women to turn away from it completely. I should not have to say that including more women in support of EP will help, not hinder, any progress it makes. The history of research pairings or groups should be checked for previous controversial findings, and maybe they should be encouraged to work with other peers rather than in their own echo chamber. After all, facts are facts. EP papers I think should be subject to peer review not just for the methods and data, but also specifically for bias in assumptions and conclusions. This approach could help re-assure us all of its veracity. In fact these rules if not already in place could be adopted by any area of science, not just EP.
I am not really doubting any of the work, data or findings from Evolutionary psychology. Apart from the assumptions which are sometimes made as I discussed, I think the science is solid. I just sometimes doubt its usefulness, relevance and the conclusions drawn as to what we should do about the findings. Using them as some men have suggested, an excuse to not challenge or improve ourselves; is lazy self-indulgence, pandering to our comfort zones, and completely lacking in moral rigour.
This is the angle of attack I would prefer that feminists used. Just because we discover that the brains of women work differently to those of men, for example, I can't see how that justifies re-inforcing gender roles or stereotypes. We need to work towards the future we think we should have, not encourage ourselves to follow our nature, as per the naturalistic fallacy, regardless of whether the Zeitgeist says it is abhorrent. I think this subject is closely tied to both the "is-ought" problem and the "fact-value distinction". Base instinct should be left where they evolved, in the caves. Carrying some part of them still today just means that men can still be bastards with pathetic willpower who can't resist their own instincts. Already knew that. Doesn't make it right.
We need to trust our own modern morality as humans. If traits evolved, they can do so again, differently this time. This could happen by natural evolution or we could find a way of genetically modifying out undesirable characteristics from the human genome. We shouldn't have to accept that what is currently true, is what should always be the case.
Another ostensibly disagreeable finding from EP is summarised here. Rape is found to be evolved into men's brains from when it was a evolutionarily favoured behaviour by the authors. OUCH. The studies in the book also suggest that rape may be evolved form of sexual gratification.
So there is at least some sexual-gratification component to rape. Wow, big surprise. I still submit that there is a significant power/dominance/control side to it as well, as it is clearly used as a weapon in some cultures. This could be a societal/cultural adaptation rather than an evolutionary one; it makes no difference, it still exists.
Well, rape might have been "natural" in the Stone Age (Pleistoceine, whatever). It was less unacceptable when we still wore loincloths, jumped at shadows and worried mainly about our next meal! I frankly don't care. It does NOT mean it can be excused nowadays. It may go some way to explaining why it happens so much, but that just shows men need to reject these base instincts and move forward using the reason of our brains and the self-control of our frontal lobes.
For me, EP is best used in the same way that we use history, as an investigative tool that informs us of past mistakes so that we don't make them again. It is a cautionary tale of how NOT to behave. It is to Science what History is to the social sciences and humanities.
It may be that the next linkage made by the strongest proponents of EP is that the notion of "choice" or "freedom" is a myth and that the decisions we make are all just the result of chemical reactions and balances/imbalances in our brains. As Sam Harris has said, there is some empirical evidence for this but as yet no clear consensus.This could then be made to make the connection with rape being "natural" to lead to it being "inevitable". Even if this were true, and I cannot accept that it is, I think this would be unfortunate and unbecoming regression to fatalism, that we would do well to avoid.
There is a now infamous Youtube video of a Skepticon talk by the wonderful Rebecca Watson in which she criticises EP quite severely. Although I found the talk entertaining, funny and useful, it was not one of her best for accuracy, clarity or purpose. However, the storm of hate-filled bile that erupted in the aftermath of it was way out of proportion and just goes to show what cruel, selfish people can be like when they smell a "weakness". Just look at some of the sick responses to the video, in the comments. These trolls need to listen to themselves and grow up. Stop this vile abuse!
So Watson gives the subtle impression that she doesn't like EP because it comes up with some pretty horrific findings. I can understand why a staunch feminist like Watson would hate EP. I very much accept that. But just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Us atheists should know this.
This is one of the few places I disagree with Watson. I don't really think it's necessary to dismiss EP the way she attempts to do, in order to be able to effectively refute its conclusions (as opposed to its findings). Her dismissal is a bit too much of a generalisation for me. I think it's is true that some aspects of EP studies can be dubious, but this applies to virtually all other sciences as well. The Pleistoceine brain assumptions must have at least some validity. The application of data generation from modern-day humans and extrapolation back needs to be done carefully. I think certain researchers who have a track record of controversial findings should be extra dutiful in making their assumptions that they try not to stick with the male-biased or heteronormative ones!
There are quite obviously various conflicts of interest that can emerge in EP, a field still dominated by men. The "they would say that wouldn't they?" effect can be hard to overcome and I think more effort needs to be put into gently reassuring women that neutrality is guaranteed, unless we want many more women to turn away from it completely. I should not have to say that including more women in support of EP will help, not hinder, any progress it makes. The history of research pairings or groups should be checked for previous controversial findings, and maybe they should be encouraged to work with other peers rather than in their own echo chamber. After all, facts are facts. EP papers I think should be subject to peer review not just for the methods and data, but also specifically for bias in assumptions and conclusions. This approach could help re-assure us all of its veracity. In fact these rules if not already in place could be adopted by any area of science, not just EP.
I am not really doubting any of the work, data or findings from Evolutionary psychology. Apart from the assumptions which are sometimes made as I discussed, I think the science is solid. I just sometimes doubt its usefulness, relevance and the conclusions drawn as to what we should do about the findings. Using them as some men have suggested, an excuse to not challenge or improve ourselves; is lazy self-indulgence, pandering to our comfort zones, and completely lacking in moral rigour.
This is the angle of attack I would prefer that feminists used. Just because we discover that the brains of women work differently to those of men, for example, I can't see how that justifies re-inforcing gender roles or stereotypes. We need to work towards the future we think we should have, not encourage ourselves to follow our nature, as per the naturalistic fallacy, regardless of whether the Zeitgeist says it is abhorrent. I think this subject is closely tied to both the "is-ought" problem and the "fact-value distinction". Base instinct should be left where they evolved, in the caves. Carrying some part of them still today just means that men can still be bastards with pathetic willpower who can't resist their own instincts. Already knew that. Doesn't make it right.
We need to trust our own modern morality as humans. If traits evolved, they can do so again, differently this time. This could happen by natural evolution or we could find a way of genetically modifying out undesirable characteristics from the human genome. We shouldn't have to accept that what is currently true, is what should always be the case.
Another ostensibly disagreeable finding from EP is summarised here. Rape is found to be evolved into men's brains from when it was a evolutionarily favoured behaviour by the authors. OUCH. The studies in the book also suggest that rape may be evolved form of sexual gratification.
So there is at least some sexual-gratification component to rape. Wow, big surprise. I still submit that there is a significant power/dominance/control side to it as well, as it is clearly used as a weapon in some cultures. This could be a societal/cultural adaptation rather than an evolutionary one; it makes no difference, it still exists.
Well, rape might have been "natural" in the Stone Age (Pleistoceine, whatever). It was less unacceptable when we still wore loincloths, jumped at shadows and worried mainly about our next meal! I frankly don't care. It does NOT mean it can be excused nowadays. It may go some way to explaining why it happens so much, but that just shows men need to reject these base instincts and move forward using the reason of our brains and the self-control of our frontal lobes.
For me, EP is best used in the same way that we use history, as an investigative tool that informs us of past mistakes so that we don't make them again. It is a cautionary tale of how NOT to behave. It is to Science what History is to the social sciences and humanities.
It may be that the next linkage made by the strongest proponents of EP is that the notion of "choice" or "freedom" is a myth and that the decisions we make are all just the result of chemical reactions and balances/imbalances in our brains. As Sam Harris has said, there is some empirical evidence for this but as yet no clear consensus.This could then be made to make the connection with rape being "natural" to lead to it being "inevitable". Even if this were true, and I cannot accept that it is, I think this would be unfortunate and unbecoming regression to fatalism, that we would do well to avoid.
Sunday 24 March 2013
Words I don't acknowledge, and never use (except here!)
Dodgy
words: I find that I become more and more frustrated
and angry at the use of certain words by the religious or anti-women
communities when putting across their ridiculous ideas. The following
is a short list of a few classics; I have intentionally missed out
some, and no doubt many more elude me at the time of writing. I
challenge the veracity of these words and their relevance in a modern
world. I refuse to use these words myself in conversation or writing;
and in verbal discussion, if spoken to me I will make a point of not
understanding, and endeavour to insist that an alternative word is
used instead.
Basically, these words
are old and outdated. They were formulated in a time when our
understanding of the world was less complete and contained many
inaccurate connections between cause and effect, and the difference
between right and wrong, for example. As a result, the words have
unwanted negative connotations which make their everyday usage
somewhat suspect. I submit that if we insisted that their users
re-frame their argument using alternative language, the argument
would become less convincing and the users of it, more skeptical.
This can only be a good thing.
Slut
I
have previously explained elsewhere in this blog about the completely
unfair use of this heinous word. As there is no male equivalent, it
is obviously constructed from a unbalanced viewpoint and makes women
out to be less virtuous if they are promiscuous. Evolutionary
psychology may have shown that men being more sexually promiscuous
is the norm, and that may be why the word developed. ( I will talk
about why I think we need to take conclusions from Evolutionary
Psychology with a “pinch of salt” as it were, later in another
post).
But
simply stating that males have a more privileged existence doesn't
make it right. Why should we continue the same old attitudes that got
us through the dark ages, now that we don't have to? I think women
have just as much right to sleep around as men do and should not be
looked down on for it. Each person should be judged on their own
merits; sexual promiscuity has little bearing on this.
Sin
(religious)
I
think sin is a word which only relates to religion, and the
religious. They use it in the sense of transgression of a moral
principle I.e. “wrongdoing”, but if you look at what they
actually consider wrongdoing to be, several of the items (such as
worshipping other gods, not making graven images, working on
Saturday/Sunday, and “coveting” anything)
have no clear connection to damaging behaviour that may actually
cause harm to society. Coveting things is how capitalism works. As a
Liberal, I believe that we should, as far as possible so that no harm
is done, allow people to do what they choose; the fulfilment gained
from which is shown to reduce instances of other, actually harmful
behaviour. In an open and frank world which the modern one is
approaching, ridiculous behaviours are exposed for what they are and
there is less point in “banning” them. The desire to control
people's lives is something that only religion and repressive
dictators or communist sates aim to do.
Also,
the idea of “original sin” is purely despicable. St. Augustine
was a hateful, cruel person for devising it I think. It only serves
to burden children with the responsibility of becoming Catholics and
so continue the Catholic line. Nepotism and “jobs for the boys”
in the most disgusting of old men's clubs, I say.
Joy
(Christian sense; synonym Rapture) and Rapture
(being carried off to meet Christ)
Sometimes
I think that the “joy” Christians espouse is a thinly-veiled
revelling in their misplaced righteousness and fortune as the sole
survivors of a non-existent Rapture. Whilst everyone else suffers for
eternity in hell. Oh yes, don't forget that. Rapture is a hideous
fantasy, but a completely selfish one as well. I just use the term
happiness or delight instead of joy. Would you be truly happy knowing
billions of other people had just died? What a fallacy.
Vice
(religious overtones)
This
is very similar to Sin as I described above, but I wanted to separate
it because of the way it is still used by some Governments to
discriminate against women. One of the typical examples is shown
here. It is often used to justify outlawing of a completely harmless
action or behaviour. The “Committee
for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” the Saudi
morality police
in other words. How progressive.
Islamophobia
I'm
not going to say much here, but just that I think it would be useful
for Islam to be more open to valid criticism. See here. You can't
have Islamophobia without
Infidelophobia!
Saturday 23 March 2013
More old FB stuff
I'm feeling lazy so thought I'd rehash some more old stuff (or should that be guff?) from Facebook rather than actually bother to write something new. I am working on it though, honest!
-----
-----
-----
-----
Got
to plug Ben Goldacre's BAD PHARMA - I'm listening to the audiobook
and it is a fascinating and well measured journey through the rather
horrific landscape of the drug trial, regulation, and marketing
process with shocking twists at every turn! Well worth a read /
listen, and it helps raise awareness of the tricks that are out
there, the main culprits who let us down, and what we can easily do
to protect ourselves.
-----
-----
On
why Pistorius' actions make no sense, even if he's telling the
truth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21522673
What goes through the mind of someone who shoots through a locked door into a toilet? What did he think - burglar in the loo? Right. That's where they always go to find the valuables. Yeh, because there's a huge correlation between burglars and weak bladders.
Whatever happened to the obligation to apprehend? "Come out with your hands up!" Or at least, warn first and try to apprehend? You can't just shoot anyone who comes into your house. Surely only Special Forces or Jack Bauer types would actually rely on bullet penetration to hit an unseen target through wooden panelling. Or did he have a fibre-optic snake cam?! This is like something out of Tom Clancy. The fact that the target was unseen, effectively rules out the possiblilty that he could have known he was about about to be fired upon himself, which is the only real defense to shooting someone.
I don't see how he can come out of this dreadful situation well. Whatever hapens, this is another shocking example of the logical fallacy of keeping loaded guns in the house for self defense. And yet again, a woman is the victim.
I'll close with a strange reminisence: in the video game "Farcry 2" (incidentally, set in a fictional African republic), the protagonist would sometimes come across enclosed, restricted areas in the wilderness with signs which warned: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". I kid you not. This was ironic at the time - but how chilling that effectively the same result has now come to pass in a real case.
-----http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21522673
What goes through the mind of someone who shoots through a locked door into a toilet? What did he think - burglar in the loo? Right. That's where they always go to find the valuables. Yeh, because there's a huge correlation between burglars and weak bladders.
Whatever happened to the obligation to apprehend? "Come out with your hands up!" Or at least, warn first and try to apprehend? You can't just shoot anyone who comes into your house. Surely only Special Forces or Jack Bauer types would actually rely on bullet penetration to hit an unseen target through wooden panelling. Or did he have a fibre-optic snake cam?! This is like something out of Tom Clancy. The fact that the target was unseen, effectively rules out the possiblilty that he could have known he was about about to be fired upon himself, which is the only real defense to shooting someone.
I don't see how he can come out of this dreadful situation well. Whatever hapens, this is another shocking example of the logical fallacy of keeping loaded guns in the house for self defense. And yet again, a woman is the victim.
I'll close with a strange reminisence: in the video game "Farcry 2" (incidentally, set in a fictional African republic), the protagonist would sometimes come across enclosed, restricted areas in the wilderness with signs which warned: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again". I kid you not. This was ironic at the time - but how chilling that effectively the same result has now come to pass in a real case.
Actually, one more thing on that above. Another "journalism" rant - The Sun's handling of the case was woeful and shocking, capped by their despicable objectification of the victim Reeva Steenkamp the following day on their front page. Such lack of respect really shows why we need better press regulation. Go here to support complaining about it, I did.
Thursday 21 March 2013
A deeply rooted, poisonous behaviour
Sexism is deeply rooted
in the academic sciences, a 2012 study shows. I also argue it is even
apparent in the language we use. What can we do when it is becoming
ever more apparent just how ingrained sexism is in our society?
Summarised here:
The conclusion talks
about the way in which the sexism shown against women was non-gender
specific i.e. just as likely to emanate from women themselves; how it
was unintentional i.e. subconscious; and how it likely emerges from
“widespread cultural stereotypes”.
Great. Good. So, let's
just get on with challenging those stereotypes then. Which is,
basically, what feminists have been trying to do for years!
**
I put together this
little piece, to show how a dictionary definition of a man's state of
behaviour can be seen as positive, yet switching genders and applying
to women can lead to essentially the same definition becoming
inherently derogatory:
-
stud
2
(stʌd)
—
n
6.
slang
a
virile or sexually active man
promiscuous
(prəˈmɪskjʊəs)
—
adj
1. indulging in
casual and indiscriminate sexual relationships
Conclusion:
Promiscuous man = A virile stud.
-
slut
(slʌt)
—
n
2.
derogatory
an
immoral woman
immoral
(ɪˈmɒrəl)
—
adj
2. sexually
dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
Conclusion:
Promiscuous woman = An immoral slut.
No,
this isn't the rape-apologists' dictionary! These actual Collins
World English Dictionary definitions show just how the dice are
weighted against women. It really highlights the size of the task at
hand. Everday Sexism at its most blatantly absurd.
-
NOT NICE! Not nice at
all.
Face the facts, the
Patriarchy is alive and well. So let's destroy that toxic edifice,
slowly crawling out into wider society with its glacial malevolence,
before it claims more victims.
Wednesday 20 March 2013
Fertility can breed poverty too
Well
d'oh! Ya thunk? Who knew, eh?
I
thought I'd copy in verbatim the following from Population Matters'
Facebook feed. I couldn't say it better myself! This whole thing
really sticks in my craw.
The
new Pope already has a lot to answer for in supporting the prolonged
agony of these poor people. They need birth control and the Catholic
Church is complicit in denying it to them, ensuring the Philippines
will remain in a regressive state of disrepair for the foreseeable
future, for far too many of its citizens. Here goes:
Comments
on this:
- The Pope has expressed (very welcome) concern for the environment and biodiversity. Population growth in the Philippines is a key driver of environmental degradation and species loss. So the ideas of forbidding birth control whilst urging people to act to protect the environment are in conflict.
- The argument that allowing individuals to control their fertility amounts to State interference with private matters is incredible and intellectually dishonest. Preventing people from using birth control they desperately want is the actual interference.
- Finally: it is interesting, and refreshing, to see open acknowledgement that high fertility plays a part in keeping families trapped in poverty. The interaction of poverty and fertility is complex and causality almost certainly flows both ways. The mirror idea, that poverty creates high fertility, is the culturally predominant reading of the relationship between the two factors and has led to the suggestion that the best way to control fertility is to make everyone wealth (as proposed by the well-intentioned Hans Rosling and also by noted troll Bjorn Lomborg). Unfortunately there simply aren't enough resources to make over 7bn people wealthy (in any meaningful material measure of wealth). It is illogical and possibly immoral to hold population policy hostage to development goals which may be ultimately unattainable, at least in part, due to population growth.
From the news article:
"He said he believed that Pope Francis, who was officially inaugurated on Tuesday, would be happy to hear of the delay.
Despite widespread support for the new measures in the Philippines, the Catholic Church lobbied against the legislation, saying it would undermine marriage and morality. More than 80% of the Philippines' 96 million citizens are Catholic.
One of the petitions submitted to the court against the law argues that "the State cannot, as a general principle, routinely invade the privacy of married couples in the exercise of their most intimate rights and duties to their respective spouses," according to PNA.
But supporters of the legislation, like Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, say it is necessary to help people in the Philippines "escape the vicious cycle of poverty by giving them options on how to manage their sexual lives, plan their families and control their procreative activities." "
- The Pope has expressed (very welcome) concern for the environment and biodiversity. Population growth in the Philippines is a key driver of environmental degradation and species loss. So the ideas of forbidding birth control whilst urging people to act to protect the environment are in conflict.
- The argument that allowing individuals to control their fertility amounts to State interference with private matters is incredible and intellectually dishonest. Preventing people from using birth control they desperately want is the actual interference.
- Finally: it is interesting, and refreshing, to see open acknowledgement that high fertility plays a part in keeping families trapped in poverty. The interaction of poverty and fertility is complex and causality almost certainly flows both ways. The mirror idea, that poverty creates high fertility, is the culturally predominant reading of the relationship between the two factors and has led to the suggestion that the best way to control fertility is to make everyone wealth (as proposed by the well-intentioned Hans Rosling and also by noted troll Bjorn Lomborg). Unfortunately there simply aren't enough resources to make over 7bn people wealthy (in any meaningful material measure of wealth). It is illogical and possibly immoral to hold population policy hostage to development goals which may be ultimately unattainable, at least in part, due to population growth.
From the news article:
"He said he believed that Pope Francis, who was officially inaugurated on Tuesday, would be happy to hear of the delay.
Despite widespread support for the new measures in the Philippines, the Catholic Church lobbied against the legislation, saying it would undermine marriage and morality. More than 80% of the Philippines' 96 million citizens are Catholic.
One of the petitions submitted to the court against the law argues that "the State cannot, as a general principle, routinely invade the privacy of married couples in the exercise of their most intimate rights and duties to their respective spouses," according to PNA.
But supporters of the legislation, like Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, say it is necessary to help people in the Philippines "escape the vicious cycle of poverty by giving them options on how to manage their sexual lives, plan their families and control their procreative activities." "
Tuesday 19 March 2013
“Dark” Humanism: A Defence
Humanism has received a
bad press lately. It has been attacked as “dark” by extreme
relativists and labelled a “dodgy brand” by religious apologists.
This is my response to
the following article criticising Humanism in the former sense.
http://historyschipwrapper.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/twitterstorm-dawkins-dark-humanism/
So
extreme relativists (who I will for brevity henceforth term
relativists) argue that barbaric actions do not necessarily lead to a
barbarian.
I'm
sorry, but a person who repeatedly performs barbaric actions, is
a barbarian for all intents and purposes. That's how it's defined.
But this is just a point of semantics. That fact that relativists can
get so worked up over a simple designation should tell you something
about their bloody-minded contrariness.
The
relativists' resistance to the idea that one way of living can be
even slightly better or worse than another is simply staggering. It
demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the principles of the
way things change and evolve. Over time, cultures and empires have
risen and fallen, not all due to some outside influence! There happen
to be ways of doing things that are favoured over other ways, in
particular circumstances. We have no proof that distinctly
self-destructive cultures and societies have not existed at one time,
and then become extinct because that social adaptation didn't work
out. Of course there are unlikely to be any contemporary examples, as
these things are necessarily short-lived.
We
need to challenge ourselves to improve our societies and dismantle
the barriers to progress. Relativism is a distinct obstacle in this
regard: if one's culture is as valid as any other, improvement is
precluded unless made in unison.
We
all share some degree of relativism as Humanists. But the extreme
relativism of the post-modernists and religious apologetics is just
taking it too far. They have a cosily created bubble where everything
looks great and feel comfortable for them. The trouble is, it doesn't
have much bearing on the real world; all the inequalities and
injustices we see are made to seem necessary artefacts of the
constructed model.
But
it is wrong and misleading to assume that humanists will think the
worst of barbarians. We will not attack them or reject them as
outcasts. Humanists recognise the perils of in/out group thinking
very well, thank you. Above all, humanists respect all other forms of
humanity. To suggest that we view “inferior” cultures as needing
“correction” is highly misleading. They stop short of claiming
that humanism would lead a great crusade on the Middle Eastern
cultures, Dawkins at the helm, sword raised with blood-lust. But I
can imagine this picture flowing through their minds. It says more
about the insecurities of the post-modern and religious apologist's
position than it does humanism. People don't have anything to fear
from Humanism. It is the natural value system or philosophy to
supplant religion for non-believers such as atheists, agnostics,
skeptics and freethinkers.
Within
humanism, I think that these barbarians would be shown the error of
their ways by demonstrating the damage to the bigger picture that
barbarism does. And they will be given the opportunity to reduce that
behaviour. Outreach, if initially unsuccessful, will lead to
tolerance and inclusion, until such time as relations improve. But
humanists have learnt not to give up on something just because it's
difficult. This is because humanism has been through so much that it
has become stronger. Thousands of years of being somewhat oppressed
have given us patience, understanding and empathy with the human
condition.
The
real problem that I have with relativism is that it assumes that
cultures which have hardly advanced in 100s or 1000s of years are
working just as well as Western culture. Tell that to the young
family who is being offered a place in the developed or Western
world, instead of their current plight in say sub-Saharan Africa or
the Arabian peninsula under a dogmatic, unelected dictatorship. Most
would jump at the chance. Or if they didn't, years down the line that
decision would be playing on their minds. I don't think a valid
argument has been made yet to counter this. Humanism would not try to
change any culture beyond recognition, only encourage it to see the
benefits of development. It's not as if Humanism can see no value in
other less developed cultures and wouldn't want to learn anything
from them.
Another
point raised is that Dawkins refuses to debate the “great”
William Lane Craig. The guy is a philosopher and Christian religious
apologist, debunked here by the excellent Rosa Rubicondior:
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/p/apologetics.html
So
asking this genius to debate Dawkins would be like Einstein debating
the Cookie Monster. Craig has no real valid arguments. He is also a polished professional debater who excels at "scoring points" without actually saying anything valuable. It would be
pointless. Dawkins needs challenges in his dotage, for goodness sake!
So,
“Dark Humanism” is a “dodgy brand”, indeed. Leave it up to
uber-relativists and apologetics to come up with those; the
non-scientific, whiny, intellectually dishonest people that they all
too often are. They would say that, wouldn't they?
Instead,
I submit that “history's chip wrapper” will live up to its
metaphorically eponymous standards as a greasy, smelly covering to
some old, now unwanted food-for-thought, destined for the garbage tip
of religious apology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)