All entries by this author

Blame Atheism! *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

For what? Oh, everything. Holidays, strikes, Europe. Why not after all?… Read the rest



Knowledge is More Than Cultural Capital *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

It can make the world a better place; downgrading the struggle for knowledge is reactionary.… Read the rest



Shock News – The DaVinci Code is Fiction! *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

People who think it’s fact should be herded into a crop circle and beaten with The Bible Code.… Read the rest



Declinism in France *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

‘so out of breath, so indebted, so closed in its own prejudices’ – narratives of decline are fun.… Read the rest



Another Myth Shot Down *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

Marco Polo did not go to China, okay? He read some books he found in Persia. … Read the rest



The Repatriation Issue *

Aug 12th, 2004 | Filed by

Critics angered by assertion of tribal rights over needs of science and knowledge.… Read the rest



Now Wait Just a Minute

Aug 11th, 2004 6:29 pm | By

Well now really. I can’t just leave this sort of thing sitting there unopposed. It would be a dereliction of duty. I like jokes and provocations as well as the next person, but there is a limit. There are some things up with which I shall not put, to paraphrase Winny.

Or is the objection that he lacks self-knowledge; he should realise he isn’t very bright – if he isn’t – and, therefore, not have stood for the presidency? If so, let’s have a reality check here. Bloggers are hardly paragons of self-knowledge…And, anyway, since when does a lack of self-knowledge justify the kind of opprobrium levelled at Bush?

What have bloggers got to do with anything? Is that the … Read the rest



Leave Dubya Alone

Aug 11th, 2004 4:19 pm | By

If I don’t dislike George Bush as much as the next guy, I certainly dislike him enough to have stayed up all night on US election night, worrying about chads, and hoping for a Gore victory.

But what I don’t get is how come he gets so much flak for supposedly not being very bright? If it’s true, how exactly is it his fault? Is it okay, then, to attack the intellectually challenged simply because they are intellectually challenged (Madeleine Bunting notwithstanding)?

Or is the objection that he lacks self-knowledge; he should realise he isn’t very bright – if he isn’t – and, therefore, not have stood for the presidency? If so, let’s have a reality check here. Bloggers are … Read the rest



Evidence for Social Brain Theory *

Aug 11th, 2004 | Filed by

Did humans evolve large brain to negotiate and manipulate complex social relationships?… Read the rest



Is Islam Religion or Political Ideology? *

Aug 11th, 2004 | Filed by

Both. ‘Religion is what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous.’… Read the rest



Education for its Own Sake or for a Job? *

Aug 11th, 2004 | Filed by

Gradgrind, Clarke; golf course management or utterly purposeless history study.… Read the rest



Cloning of Human Embryos Given Go Ahead *

Aug 11th, 2004 | Filed by

Just wait for the complaints of religious maniacs…… Read the rest



Style – Communication or Self-expression? *

Aug 10th, 2004 | Filed by

Truth-telling, therapy, sharing? Facts, beauty?… Read the rest



Reply to Holland

Aug 10th, 2004 | By Frederick Crews

Is psychoanalysis a science? The Spring/Summer 2005 issue of The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (vol. 9, no. 1) will contain a debate on the scientific merits of psychoanalysis. The exchange will include a 2000-word summary by the literary critic Norman N. Holland of his essay “Psychoanalysis as Science”; a 1000-word critique by Frederick Crews; a reply from Holland to that critique; and a commentary on both submissions by the psychiatrist Peter Barglow. Holland’s full essay can already be found on the Web here. In anticipation of the SRAM publication, concerned readers may be interested in an early view both of Holland’s summary version and of Crews’s response to the longer piece. The editor of SRAM has granted permission Read the rest



Open the Door

Aug 9th, 2004 10:16 pm | By

Thought for the day. It’s from Meera Nanda’s Prophets Facing Backward again. I may even have quoted this particular passage before – but if I don’t remember, you won’t either, and nobody ever reads old N&Cs, so it doesn’t matter. And anyway this is worth quoting often. It’s from the Preface, page xii.

Having grown up in a provincial town in Northern India, I considered my education in science a source of personal enlightenment. Natural science, especially molecular biology, had given me a whole different perspective on the underlying cosmology of the religious and cultural traditions I was raised in. Science gave me good reasons to say a principled ‘No!’ to many of my inherited beliefs about God, nature, women,

Read the rest


Paranoia at Historians’ Convention *

Aug 9th, 2004 | Filed by

Does Keith Windschuttle have an agenda or is he merely pointing out mistakes?… Read the rest



Is Al-Jazeera Biased? More Than Others? *

Aug 9th, 2004 | Filed by

Is an Arab-language satellite news network funded by US Congress ‘the free one’?… Read the rest



Phallocentric Theorizing When It’s at Home *

Aug 9th, 2004 | Filed by

‘Acephalic Litter as a Phallic Letter’ – and that’s not a parody!… Read the rest



Come Back to the Raft Ag’in, Martin Honey *

Aug 9th, 2004 | Filed by

Two guys, a long river trip, Heidegger: now playing at your local cinema.… Read the rest



Psychoanalysis as Science

Aug 9th, 2004 | By Norman N. Holland

Abstract

Current objections to psychoanalysis as untestable and unscientific ignore two facts. First, a large body of experimental evidence has tested psychoanlaytic ideas, confirming some and not others. Second, psychoanalysis itself, while it does not usually use experimentation, does use holistic method. This is a procedure in wide use in the social sciences and even in the “hard” sciences.

Psychoanalysis as Science

My essay, “Psychoanalysis as Science” [1] makes two points. One, although ignored in the “Freud wars,” experimenters have in fact generated much empirical evidence for the validity of at least some of psychoanalysis’ theory of mind. The oft-repeated mantra, “There is not a shred of scientific evidence for psychoanalysis,” is simply false. Two, part of the devaluing of … Read the rest