In the interests of rationality it might have been at least polite, as well as informative, to indicate that the mandate of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies of Conrad Grebel University College is \”to undertake research and public education, and provide support for peacemaking efforts at various levels. Currently IPACS researchers give leadership in three areas:
Project Ploughshares investigates the economic and political consequences of militarism, monitoring regional conflicts and arms flows and undertaking \’citizen diplomacy\’ projects.
The Network (Interaction for Conflict Resolution) provides a network for community justice and conflict resolution programs across Canada.
Certificate Program in Conflict Management. IPACS engages in public education with community groups, churches, educational institutions and non-governmental organizations. Its activities include workshops, seminars, public lectures and publications on current issues such as the Canadian arms trade, cross-cultural conflict resolution and the role of the church in peacemaking. The Institute regularly sponsors lectures delivered by specialists in issues related to human conflict and peace.
The foregoing information is quoted from the webpage of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Conrad Grebel College is well-known for its approach to international peace issues from a Mennonite-Anabaptist tradition. These pacifists are unlikely spies.
This article describes an appalling situation. Women make up around 1/3 of victims of murder. Yet the perspective promoted here is that they are being discriminated against, singled out for gynocentric violence.
Does not every murder victim have a right to life? How is it that two dead young men are less worthy of attention than one dead woman?
Violence against women and men is equally wrong; but the perspective adopted in this kind of study seems to be about gaining moral high ground for activists. IANSA is a growth opportunity for moralisers, following the success of the campaign agaisnt land-mines. Why do we need to leverage murder to higher opprobrium through adding discrimination against women to the mix? Why are these groups so proud of taking rabbit rifles away from Australian farmers, yet strangely silent about the murdering habits of terrorists such as Hamas and Hezb\’ollah?
Rebecca Goldstein seems to be confusing an intellectual position with intellectual property. Goedel\’s interpretation of his own theorem is interesting, but it is only one interpretation. When she claims, for instance, that Barrett is \”misinterpreting\” Goedel because he draws the conclusion that “Mathematicians now know they can never reach rock bottom; in fact, there is no rock bottom, since mathematics has no self-subsistent reality independent of the human activity that mathematicians carry on,” his interpretation isn\’t refuted because Goedel drew a different conclusion — his interpretation is refuted only by an argument showing that the conclusion doesn\’t work, somehow.
Ironically, to use Goldstein\’s term, she seems to have decided to fight the po-mo turn by invoking authority, rather than reason. What would Goedel have said?
PS — the Regis Debray quote is funny — Goedel and Lenin, eh? And yet, it is funny what rational thinkers come up with. For instance, here\’s a well known anecdote about Goedel, who was going to be interviewed on his application for American citizenship:
\”Apparently, Gödel called Morgenstern on the eve of interview to tell him that he had discovered a logical loophole in the framing of the Constitution which would enable a dictatorship to be created. Morgenstern told him that this was absurdly unlikely and under no circumstance should he even mention the possibility at his interview the following day. When the day of interview came, Einstein and Morgenstern tried to distract Gödel from thinking too much about flaw in the constitution by generating a steady stream of jokes and stories.
At the interview itself the judge was suitably impressed by the sterling character and public persona of Gödel\’s witnesses, and broke with tradition by inviting them to sit in during the exam. The judge began by saying to Gödel, \”Up to now you have held German citizenship.\” Gödel corrected this slight affront, noting that he was Austrian. Unfazed, the judge continued, \”Anyhow, it was under an evil dictatorship . . . but fortunately that\’s not possible in America.\” With the magic word dictatorship out of the bag, Gödel was not to be denied. \”On the contrary, I know how that can happen. And I can prove it!\” By all accounts, it took efforts of not only Einstein and Morgenstern but also the judge to calm Gödel down and prevent him from going into a detailed and lenghty discourse about his \”discovery.\”
J. Barrow, Pi in the Sky, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, p.118.
I guess Debray is not the only guy who had the kooky idea that the logic of set theory could extend to politics.
As this site is a wonderful resource for rationality and skepticism, I wonder if anyone out there could help me find a book with the same qualities on psychology, particularly ideas about personality. I have accepted the critique of Crews et al that the thoeries of Freud, Jung and their ilk are unscientific bilge but now would like to find some useful ideas. A glance at psychology textbooks suggests there are a lot of other theories of personality so I wonder how a person is supposed to make sense of it all.
Your request interests me because I am a complete beginner in that area too, and would like to see any recommendations you get. I tend to find books with AHA! moments and get over-entusiastic about them. One book full of AHA! moments that is almost relevant to your question is Cialdini R., \’Influence: Science and Practice\’ 4th Ed.
Covers how people choose their actions according to self-identified personal qualities, and how you can subtly shift that identification to change subsequent choices. Doesn\’t cover the questions of what personalit is or how it is established.
The nineteenth century essayist John Stuart Mill absolutely annihilated all arguments for/against ANYTHING on the basis of being natural or unnatural. I forget the title of the essay, but googling for his name + nature ought to turn it up.
For a summary of just how wacky many of the more common current anti-gay \”arguments\” are, see Gay Marriage/Rights on http://www.spiritualdiablog.blogspot.com.
Here is stated that wearing of a veil or other coverings by a young girl has detrimental impact upon their psychological well-fair, and as such it is as though by enforcing a covering we are damaging the child in a way that a sexual molester does. This is an absurd argument, for two reasons. Firstly, covering of a child can act as a means to inhibit vulnerability of young girls around older men, with intentions of a paedophilic nature, in fact for this reason I would argue that all children be covered. I am however aware that a child should not suffer due to the weakness of adults, however those of us who hold a realistic view of the world will understand that it is better to take measures preventative in nature, rather than walk freely into danger with the hopes that another will help. Secondly, western countries who deny the wearing of a veil, do so on the basis that it isolates the girls from the rest of society. However, the society of a child, you will find actually comprises mainly of their family and family friends, with whom they spend their evenings, and weekends. And indeed at home they will wear their veil. Does it not seem more difficult for the child to feel apart of both western society and their own Islamic society if they have to remove the vestitudes of their beliefs and culture at the door in order to feel as though they are accepted. This is indeed a way to further the distance between Islamic and western culture.
It has also been argued by some such as Richard Dawkins, that religious belief is contributed to by genetics, if this is so, then it is possible that a child will hold the very same inclinations as that of its elder. I argue that the rich culture into which they are born should not be changed before they have a choice, but rather, they should be given the choice to refute their childhood doctrine when they are of age. Therefore if they maintain the culture they have not deviated from the upbringing which will enrich their later spiritual life, if they choose to maintain it.
Here is stated that wearing of a veil or other coverings by a young girl has detrimental impact upon their psychological well-fair, and as such it is as though by enforcing a covering we are damaging the child in a way that a sexual molester does. This is an absurd argument, for two reasons. Firstly, covering of a child can act as a means to inhibit vulnerability of young girls around older men, with intentions of a paedophilic nature, in fact for this reason I would argue that all children be covered. I am however aware that a child should not suffer due to the weakness of adults, however those of us who hold a realistic view of the world will understand that it is better to take measures preventative in nature, rather than walk freely into danger with the hopes that another will help. Secondly, western countries who deny the wearing of a veil, do so on the basis that it isolates the girls from the rest of society. However, the society of a child, you will find actually comprises mainly of their family and family friends, with whom they spend their evenings, and weekends. And indeed at home they will wear their veil. Does it not seem more difficult for the child to feel apart of both western society and their own Islamic society if they have to remove the vestitudes of their beliefs and culture at the door in order to feel as though they are accepted. This is indeed a way to further the distance between Islamic and western culture.
It has also been argued by some such as Richard Dawkins, that religious belief is contributed to by genetics, if this is so, then it is possible that a child will hold the very same inclinations as that of its elder. I argue that the rich culture into which they are born should not be changed before they have a choice, but rather, they should be given the choice to refute their childhood doctrine when they are of age. Therefore if they maintain the culture they have not deviated from the upbringing which will enrich their later spiritual life, if they choose to maintain it.
The striking feature of Azam Kamguian\’s article is that the focus is exclusively on Islam. It may well not be discriminatory to ban all religious symbols in the public domain, but to call for the banning of Islamic schools and the hijab and not of the symbols and schools of any other denomination is a clear illustration of why the French policy is indeed seen as discriminatory. Where are the calls for the banning of Jewish skullcaps, of Catholic schools? Also, while I support the idea of encouraging rationality and the scientific method to discourage religious belief, but Kamguian makes an error in supposing that banning religious symbols will contribute to this. Surely Muslim women will only cease to wear the hijab if they abandon their faith rather than the other way round? Secularism should not be imposed on people anymore than religion should. As to the point regarding the link between the veil and the suppression of women, the same arguments apply. Other religions are equally, if not more discriminatory, originating as they do from patriarchal societies, and the hijab (for those who have it imposed on them – yes, many do actually choose to wear it) is a symptom rather than a cause of this subjugation.
In the interests of rationality it might have been at least polite, as well as informative, to indicate that the mandate of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies of Conrad Grebel University College is \”to undertake research and public education, and provide support for peacemaking efforts at various levels. Currently IPACS researchers give leadership in three areas:
Project Ploughshares investigates the economic and political consequences of militarism, monitoring regional conflicts and arms flows and undertaking \’citizen diplomacy\’ projects.
The Network (Interaction for Conflict Resolution) provides a network for community justice and conflict resolution programs across Canada.
Certificate Program in Conflict Management. IPACS engages in public education with community groups, churches, educational institutions and non-governmental organizations. Its activities include workshops, seminars, public lectures and publications on current issues such as the Canadian arms trade, cross-cultural conflict resolution and the role of the church in peacemaking. The Institute regularly sponsors lectures delivered by specialists in issues related to human conflict and peace.
The foregoing information is quoted from the webpage of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. Conrad Grebel College is well-known for its approach to international peace issues from a Mennonite-Anabaptist tradition. These pacifists are unlikely spies.
South Africa: Women With Guns to Their Heads http://allafrica.com/stories/200503080539.html
This article describes an appalling situation. Women make up around 1/3 of victims of murder. Yet the perspective promoted here is that they are being discriminated against, singled out for gynocentric violence.
Does not every murder victim have a right to life? How is it that two dead young men are less worthy of attention than one dead woman?
Violence against women and men is equally wrong; but the perspective adopted in this kind of study seems to be about gaining moral high ground for activists. IANSA is a growth opportunity for moralisers, following the success of the campaign agaisnt land-mines. Why do we need to leverage murder to higher opprobrium through adding discrimination against women to the mix? Why are these groups so proud of taking rabbit rifles away from Australian farmers, yet strangely silent about the murdering habits of terrorists such as Hamas and Hezb\’ollah?
OB, love the interview with Rebecca Goldstein. It opens a keen desire to learn more about Godel and the history of mathematical logic.
Just wanted to comment on the Drake Equation. There is growing evidence for the second term fp, so two down and five more to go!
douglas
The Goldstein interview is a really nice piece of work, on both of your parts. It brightened my morning (no pun intended).
Rebecca Goldstein seems to be confusing an intellectual position with intellectual property. Goedel\’s interpretation of his own theorem is interesting, but it is only one interpretation. When she claims, for instance, that Barrett is \”misinterpreting\” Goedel because he draws the conclusion that “Mathematicians now know they can never reach rock bottom; in fact, there is no rock bottom, since mathematics has no self-subsistent reality independent of the human activity that mathematicians carry on,” his interpretation isn\’t refuted because Goedel drew a different conclusion — his interpretation is refuted only by an argument showing that the conclusion doesn\’t work, somehow.
Ironically, to use Goldstein\’s term, she seems to have decided to fight the po-mo turn by invoking authority, rather than reason. What would Goedel have said?
PS — the Regis Debray quote is funny — Goedel and Lenin, eh? And yet, it is funny what rational thinkers come up with. For instance, here\’s a well known anecdote about Goedel, who was going to be interviewed on his application for American citizenship:
\”Apparently, Gödel called Morgenstern on the eve of interview to tell him that he had discovered a logical loophole in the framing of the Constitution which would enable a dictatorship to be created. Morgenstern told him that this was absurdly unlikely and under no circumstance should he even mention the possibility at his interview the following day. When the day of interview came, Einstein and Morgenstern tried to distract Gödel from thinking too much about flaw in the constitution by generating a steady stream of jokes and stories.
At the interview itself the judge was suitably impressed by the sterling character and public persona of Gödel\’s witnesses, and broke with tradition by inviting them to sit in during the exam. The judge began by saying to Gödel, \”Up to now you have held German citizenship.\” Gödel corrected this slight affront, noting that he was Austrian. Unfazed, the judge continued, \”Anyhow, it was under an evil dictatorship . . . but fortunately that\’s not possible in America.\” With the magic word dictatorship out of the bag, Gödel was not to be denied. \”On the contrary, I know how that can happen. And I can prove it!\” By all accounts, it took efforts of not only Einstein and Morgenstern but also the judge to calm Gödel down and prevent him from going into a detailed and lenghty discourse about his \”discovery.\”
J. Barrow, Pi in the Sky, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, p.118.
I guess Debray is not the only guy who had the kooky idea that the logic of set theory could extend to politics.
As this site is a wonderful resource for rationality and skepticism, I wonder if anyone out there could help me find a book with the same qualities on psychology, particularly ideas about personality. I have accepted the critique of Crews et al that the thoeries of Freud, Jung and their ilk are unscientific bilge but now would like to find some useful ideas. A glance at psychology textbooks suggests there are a lot of other theories of personality so I wonder how a person is supposed to make sense of it all.
Thanks in advance for any help..
PaulP,
Your request interests me because I am a complete beginner in that area too, and would like to see any recommendations you get. I tend to find books with AHA! moments and get over-entusiastic about them. One book full of AHA! moments that is almost relevant to your question is Cialdini R., \’Influence: Science and Practice\’ 4th Ed.
Covers how people choose their actions according to self-identified personal qualities, and how you can subtly shift that identification to change subsequent choices. Doesn\’t cover the questions of what personalit is or how it is established.
Shredding the \”Unnatural\” Argument
The nineteenth century essayist John Stuart Mill absolutely annihilated all arguments for/against ANYTHING on the basis of being natural or unnatural. I forget the title of the essay, but googling for his name + nature ought to turn it up.
For a summary of just how wacky many of the more common current anti-gay \”arguments\” are, see Gay Marriage/Rights on http://www.spiritualdiablog.blogspot.com.
Here is stated that wearing of a veil or other coverings by a young girl has detrimental impact upon their psychological well-fair, and as such it is as though by enforcing a covering we are damaging the child in a way that a sexual molester does. This is an absurd argument, for two reasons. Firstly, covering of a child can act as a means to inhibit vulnerability of young girls around older men, with intentions of a paedophilic nature, in fact for this reason I would argue that all children be covered. I am however aware that a child should not suffer due to the weakness of adults, however those of us who hold a realistic view of the world will understand that it is better to take measures preventative in nature, rather than walk freely into danger with the hopes that another will help. Secondly, western countries who deny the wearing of a veil, do so on the basis that it isolates the girls from the rest of society. However, the society of a child, you will find actually comprises mainly of their family and family friends, with whom they spend their evenings, and weekends. And indeed at home they will wear their veil. Does it not seem more difficult for the child to feel apart of both western society and their own Islamic society if they have to remove the vestitudes of their beliefs and culture at the door in order to feel as though they are accepted. This is indeed a way to further the distance between Islamic and western culture.
It has also been argued by some such as Richard Dawkins, that religious belief is contributed to by genetics, if this is so, then it is possible that a child will hold the very same inclinations as that of its elder. I argue that the rich culture into which they are born should not be changed before they have a choice, but rather, they should be given the choice to refute their childhood doctrine when they are of age. Therefore if they maintain the culture they have not deviated from the upbringing which will enrich their later spiritual life, if they choose to maintain it.
Here is stated that wearing of a veil or other coverings by a young girl has detrimental impact upon their psychological well-fair, and as such it is as though by enforcing a covering we are damaging the child in a way that a sexual molester does. This is an absurd argument, for two reasons. Firstly, covering of a child can act as a means to inhibit vulnerability of young girls around older men, with intentions of a paedophilic nature, in fact for this reason I would argue that all children be covered. I am however aware that a child should not suffer due to the weakness of adults, however those of us who hold a realistic view of the world will understand that it is better to take measures preventative in nature, rather than walk freely into danger with the hopes that another will help. Secondly, western countries who deny the wearing of a veil, do so on the basis that it isolates the girls from the rest of society. However, the society of a child, you will find actually comprises mainly of their family and family friends, with whom they spend their evenings, and weekends. And indeed at home they will wear their veil. Does it not seem more difficult for the child to feel apart of both western society and their own Islamic society if they have to remove the vestitudes of their beliefs and culture at the door in order to feel as though they are accepted. This is indeed a way to further the distance between Islamic and western culture.
It has also been argued by some such as Richard Dawkins, that religious belief is contributed to by genetics, if this is so, then it is possible that a child will hold the very same inclinations as that of its elder. I argue that the rich culture into which they are born should not be changed before they have a choice, but rather, they should be given the choice to refute their childhood doctrine when they are of age. Therefore if they maintain the culture they have not deviated from the upbringing which will enrich their later spiritual life, if they choose to maintain it.
The striking feature of Azam Kamguian\’s article is that the focus is exclusively on Islam. It may well not be discriminatory to ban all religious symbols in the public domain, but to call for the banning of Islamic schools and the hijab and not of the symbols and schools of any other denomination is a clear illustration of why the French policy is indeed seen as discriminatory. Where are the calls for the banning of Jewish skullcaps, of Catholic schools? Also, while I support the idea of encouraging rationality and the scientific method to discourage religious belief, but Kamguian makes an error in supposing that banning religious symbols will contribute to this. Surely Muslim women will only cease to wear the hijab if they abandon their faith rather than the other way round? Secularism should not be imposed on people anymore than religion should. As to the point regarding the link between the veil and the suppression of women, the same arguments apply. Other religions are equally, if not more discriminatory, originating as they do from patriarchal societies, and the hijab (for those who have it imposed on them – yes, many do actually choose to wear it) is a symptom rather than a cause of this subjugation.