Comments on: Well, That Was Interesting… (And An Apology)

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:49:58 +0000

Absolutely. A lot of conventional medicine is very unscientific, while at least some alternative medicine has a good bit of scientific evidence behind it…

By: Prankster

Prankster — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:20:33 +0000

I know Andrew didn’t want to start an epic debate about all this stuff, but I think it’s important to note, as a few have already done, that “conventional medicine” and “science” (in the abstract) are very much not the same thing. Andrew’s criticism of conventional medicine (as I read it) is that it’s sometimes NOT scientific, which jibes perfectly well with his point about teaching the scientific method. Saying “if something works then it’s conventional medicine” is a dodgy statement at best; we’re talking about theory vs. practice here.

And I don’t think that’s a semantic game at all–it’s addressing something to which a lot of people have attached assumptions and inferences. It’s sort of like saying “Unidentified Flying Objects exist”, which is a self-evidently true statement that nevertheless makes some people go berzerk because of the associations that go with it.

By: Kieran

Kieran — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:49:41 +0000

The most interesting aspect was what you considered controversial, 2 in particular seems like a no-brainer outside of the fringe right, though I guess you don’t define intervention all that clearly. 7 too is only controversial because of the tone, it’s an increasingly common preference in my experience. Any remotely religious person believes 9, and 10 too if the religion is abrahamic, and while I guess that’s less common online 9 is definitely the received opinion, which I assume would make it uncontroversial.

By: Gavin Robinson

Gavin Robinson — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:28:43 +0000

At least we don’t have grammatical gender. That makes things even worse. Don’t believe anyone who claims that genus and sexus are separate – there’s scientific evidence that they easily get mixed up in people’s minds so that grammatical gender leads to gendered perceptions of inanimate objects. With hilarious consequences…

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:50:53 +0000

Oh, I couldn’t agree more – there’s tons of inherent baggage in English, and the ‘rules’ could do with changing – what the rules are matters rather less than that they exist…

By: Gavin Robinson

Gavin Robinson — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:46:14 +0000

I think I see what you’re getting at now. If someone can’t spell or understand the rules of grammar then they have extra problems before they even get to the slipperiness of meaning. There’ll probably be more to discuss if you do a whole post on it. Just remember that the established rules of grammar are a great place to find Fedex arrows.

By: Simon Hacking

Simon Hacking — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:09:12 +0000

I’d like to echo Chad Nevett and ask for more on point 3 (which I’m surprised hasn’t had more attention considering that this is a blog about comics and music as well as politics and science).

Specifically, do you not agree that Austen’s ideas were novel when her books were published?

By: Zom

Zom — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:18:09 +0000

Interesting stuff.

Seems to me that your regularly readership are more inclined to see your list in terms of good faith. We know that you’ll have thought about what you’re saying, and we’ll allow you leeway with your definitions (see the brief debate around the use of the word “much”). The upshot of this is that, as a regular reader, your list encouraged me to think – to try and get my head around what your arguments might be, and exactly what *I* think.

So beneficial and worthwhile from my POV, less so from the POV of a stranger, or someone who isn’t in the mood to give you the benefit of the doubt.

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:12:48 +0000

Absolutely.

By: pillock

pillock — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:08:05 +0000

I think I'd better update that, given the arguments of James Graham on Charlotte Gore's page. My position is, I don't think anyone can make much of a meal of the question of "free will", if they're operating from a scientific perspective. Every minute we think, remember, imagine and act -- we accomodate our interests and impulsions, or resist them, and it is not mysterious. But is it real, or is it all just an illusion? What it is, is something that I don't see as not a particularly meaningful question for physics, biology, or psychology. The idea that free will is or might be illusory, is to my mind as irrelevant to scientific inquiry as the idea that we're all just brains in vats having orchestrated delusions about embodiment. It might be so; but that's a pretty big "might" to still change nothing one way or the other. Not a very good clarification on my part, I guess: apologies, I'm a bit sleepy. But I think the contention that free will doesn't exist is as essentially theological as the contention that it does...even in philsophy, it's only the consequences of such belief that ever really concern us. But in science, as far as I can see no consequences are produced by the holding of either position. Fortunately, I also can't see what this all has to do with "positions", anyway. Our experiences are the experiences of human beings; we view life through the lens of our humanity, and think and act according to what we see. Supposing it all to be just programmatic won't change that. Oh God, now I'm even sleepier...