first stab at 'against method'

I call it the first stab, but I'm not sure if there will be any more than one. I've made a start with Feyerabend's Against Method, and the first impressions are not promising. Two issues which struck me are, one, the claim that the history of a science should be an inseparable part of the science itself, and two, that the way we interpret information from our senses is more of a prejudice than anything else.

As to the first, from what I can gather, he's saying that our knowledge is not a collection of theories which you can patch together to get a partial-but-accurate picture of how things really are in the world. Instead, he says, it's more like 'an ocean of mutually incompatible alternatives', where every theory that anyone has ever come up with is part of the mix - whether the theory was put forward by scientists, cranks, or liars - this mix is what constitutes "knowledge". In this case, "the history of a science becomes an inseparable part of the science itself."

But: I don't share the re-definition of knowledge. I would say that our knowledge is, admittedly and self-evidently, partial - but it can still be accurate, as far as it goes. And evaluating the accuracy of ideas and understandings is done with respect to the real world out there (or, the real world which we're a part of, depending on your perspective I suppose) - a) there are objective realities, and b) we are capable of grasping them, and c) we are reasonable beings, and d) we are capable of using reason to compare the-way-things-are with the-things-we-believe. In this case, the history of science (or, the history of a science) is the history of what different people have thought at different periods in time about a particular empirical issue or phenomenon. It is not necessarily the same thing as the current thinking on that issue or thing, and neither does it tell you anything about the goodness of fit between people's ideas at any given time and the way things really are - the way we would see things if we knew/understood everything there was to know/understand. That has to be evaluated rationally.

The other issue was the conclusion he drew from this example: when we look at a table in normal circumstances, we can say 'The table is brown.' When we look at a table in poor lighting, though, we would say, 'The table seems to be brown.' His comment on this is that it expresses a variety of different assumptions - that some of our sensory impressions coincide with reality while others don't, that the medium between the object and us doesn't distort anything, and that the light 'carries a true picture'. These, he says, are all "abstract and highly doubtful assumptions which shape our view of the world without being accessible to direct criticism."

Well, for one thing, what has he done with these assumptions if not accessed them and criticised them. But for another thing, I don't see why these assumptions deserve to be disparaged under the label of "doubtful." Rather than being highly doubtful, I would suggest, they are highly useful and reliable. We know by down to earth day to day experience that it is worth our while to rely on just such assumptions. That's why we say "is" sometimes and "seems to be" other times - we know that some of our sensory experiences match with reality and others don't. We take such things for granted because we know they can be taken for granted, and we know too that it's in our interests to take them for granted.

I haven't finished the whole book as yet, but if I can crystallise any more of these issues as I go along, I'll try and let you know.

holding fast

There's a section in Jeremiah's prophecy where he describes the tragic state of the church in his time, and his description has a very contemporary ring to it. It's chapter 50 v 6-7, where the situation is that the pastors are leading the people astray, the people have no sense of their own to remember their resting place, and in her weakness her enemies were taking advantage of her. Same today really, considering the visible, professing, church at large - the pastors lead the people astray, the people are going off astray anyway without much encouragement, and in that weakened state false religions start to move in on her territory, businessmen exploit her with marketing ploys, and blasphemers and heretics get the biggest say. You could say that this exploitation serves her right for her backsliding. Yes, but she still belongs to the LORD (it's the church that's called by his name: he calls them even there in Jeremiah "my people") and when people take advantage of her weak and guilty condition, their sinful opportunism is an attack on God's own cause, and they are culpable. It might be only what she deserves, but it's still wrong of anyone to treat her like that.

Point being? The point is that each of us has a responsibility ... well, first of all there's the responsibility to join a church and put personal faith in the Lord of the church, but in any case, our responsibility is, not to do anything to undermine the qualities or strengths or the institution of the church (visible or invisible). Go weeping and seek the Lord together - Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant. Jeremiah 50 v 4-5. Or, in New Testament terms, "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent." "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, which are ready to die." Revelation 3 v 3 and 2.

the cruelty of life sentences

Here's a discursive piece on the BBC - Can society justify life-long imprisonment? You'd think the question was rhetorical: if you murder somebody, of course it's justified to put you in prison for life.

But apparently, there are people who think that whole-life tariffs are "cruel", because most convicted murderers are in prison for killing a partner or loved one, and by imprisoning people for life, you give them the idea that they've nothing to live for, and in any case, who are we to say that murderers can never be rehabilitated. Anyway, one suggestion is:

After serving a long prison term, they should be released because the relationship that caused their crime has come to an end.

But hang on - that relationship only came to an end because of the murderer murdering the other half of it. And: what on earth does it mean, to say that the relationship caused the murderer to murder? Their crime was to end the relationship by choosing to kill their partner (or "loved" one). And when I say they chose to kill, I mean it: it wasn't the fault of the relationship, nor, as is implicitly suggested by blaming this abstract thing called the relationship, was it their partner's own fault for not being less murderable - it was the fault and the responsibility of the person who killed. I'm not saying people are never provoked, or that they don't lead difficult lives in miserable relationships, but it is never a solution, it is never ever a solution, to take someone's life from them just because you feel hard done by. The comment is made in the BBC article that when the death penalty was abolished in 1969, life sentences were meant to be life. We need to regain a sense of the preciousness of human life: people who take the lives of other human beings, whether that's a policeman or a partner or a prostitute or a stranger or a series of strangers or a sick or disabled person, those people need to realise that their own life is forfeit because of it. That's not cruel: that's only fair.

whose supper

Here's a snippet from a book which I recently bought secondhand, and which I've been delighted with ever since it arrived. Right from the first glance at the contents page!

"It is the Lord's supper, the Lord Christ's supper. The apostle, in his discourse concerning this ordinance, 1 Cor 11: 23 etc, all along calls Christ the Lord, and seems to lay an emphasis upon it; for, as the ordaining of this sacrament was an act of his dominion, and as his churches' Lord he appointed it, so in receiving this sacrament we own his dominion, and acknowledge him to be our Lord. This also puts an honour upon the ordinance, and makes it look truly great; however, to a carnal eye, it has no form nor comeliness that it is the supper fo the Lord. The sanction of this ordinance is the authority of Christ; the substance of this ordinance is the grace of Christ. It is celebrated in obedience to him, in remembrance of him, and for his praise. Justly it is called the Lord's supper, for it is the Lord Jesus that sends the invitation, makes the provision, gives the entertainment; in it we feed upon Christ, for he is the bread of life; we feed with Christ, for he is our beloved and our friend, and he it is that bids us welcome to his table. In it Christ sups with us, and we with him; he doth us the honour to sup with us, though he must bring his own entertainment along with him ...

"Let our eye, therefore, be to the Lord, to the Lord Christ, and to the remembrance of his name in this ordinance. We see nothing here, if we see not the beauty of Christ; we taste nothing here, if we taste not the love of Christ. The Lord must be looked on as the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, and all in all in this solemnity. If we receive not Christ Jesus the Lord here, we have the supper, but not the Lord's supper."

It's from 'The Communicant's Companion,' by Matthew Henry, and this piece comes from the first chapter. I bought it from peterreynoldsbooks.com, and it's not the first excellent book I've had from there. It's probably the one I've talked about most though - resulting in several people wanting to borrow it, so I should really stop talking about it and finish it so I can pass it on. (If you want a look, email me at the usual address!)

two manslaughter verdicts

Two court cases bothering me at the minute.

One, Jacob Wragg, a disabled ten year old, was smothered by his own father, and the father was convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. Two, David Morley, beaten to death by a group of teenagers in an utterly motiveless and random outburst of violence, and the verdict is again manslaughter.

What's so terrible about the first case is its correspondence with the idea that people with disabilities can be killed, or assisted in dying, on the basis either that their life isn't worth living any more, or that they are too much trouble for their carers. I can't describe the horror that I experienced just from reading the account of how one disabled woman in hospital was too scared to go to sleep in case they "helped" her to die. The callousness of ever imagining that a solution, something to be offered to people to help them, could ever consist of putting an end to their life. Particularly, you see, when we aren't taking steps to improve the quality and availability of good palliative care for people with serious illnesses, or the quality and availability of support for people with disabilities.

The second case is appalling in a different way - the way that randomly inflicted cruelty is seen by some people as fun, funny, or somehow an acceptable way of passing an evening. It shows a disregard for other people's welfare which is total: even the solidarity which the group showed at the time of beating up this man (not to mention the other people they attacked on the same night) - even that disintegrated once they were in trouble with the police, when they tried putting the blame on each other and playing down their own individual part. Who knows how much a person's environment and company and background contributes to them reaching a place where they shake off all restraints and end up with that kind of complete indulgence of their self-ish instincts: what kind of a society do we have, when this is the kind of behaviour that emerges from it.

But this really is our society, not just some horrible blip that other people are guilty of ... there but for the grace of God goes any one of the rest of us ... so the question isn't just how to deal with "those" people, but how we're going to collectively react. Well, there is in fact a precedent, available for anyone who wants to, to follow.

... there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away. ... My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge ... thou hast forgotten the law of thy God ...
O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself: but in Me is thy help.
O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God, for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously ... Hosea 4v1-6; 13v9; 14v1-2

not disastrous, she says

Ok, I had a 100% turnout from those participants today, which was great, but I spoke too soon ... they all either had a cold, or some strange articulation patterns (I heard some amazing amounts of L-vocalisation this afternoon), or both ... I don't know how much of this data is useable, and each participant took 45 minutes to run, so it was hardly the most successful of data collecting enterprises. Well, I'll just have to make up for it in that other session I was going to run. These things happen.

can't wait

It's so exciting ... tomorrow I get to spend the whole day in the recording studio, collecting some lovely data! Well, that's if my participants actually show up ... sad and bitter experience suggests otherwise, but this time I need to run another session anyway, so it won't be disastrous if there's a few no-shows tomorrow.

linguistic hero

I'm not very good at reading biographies: it's not a genre that I'm very keen on.
Although having said that, any time I have read a biography in the past couple of years, I've been surprised at how much I did get out of it. More of that another time, maybe.

But one person who I really only learnt to admire through reading his biography was William Tyndale, the first person to translate the Old Testament and the New Testament directly from their original Hebrew and Greek into English. He was eventually (1536) betrayed and executed, but he left an amazing legacy. His biographer is David Daniell, and one of the people singing the praises of the book in the blurb or inside the front cover made a comment to the effect that his treatment of Tyndale left you respecting him, the biographer, nearly as much as the man biographed. He does seem to care about Tyndale, whether his person or his work, and in addition he has an enthusiasm for the skilful arrangement of words and ideas which can only come from an insight which I wish I shared. And which by that clumsy sentence I have shown myself not to share.

A snippet from Tyndale's preface to his New Testament:

... ye see that two things are required to begin a Christian man. The first is a steadfast faith and trust in Almighty God, to obtain all the mercy that he hath promised us, through the deserving and merits of Christ's blood only, without all respect to our own works. And the other is, that we forsake evil and turn to God, to keep his laws and to fight against ourselves and our corrupt nature perpetually, that we may do the will of God every day better and better.

It's published by Yale University Press (also available from Amazon etc).

the back window

Out the back window about half an hour ago =)


Credits to James

you are what you believe

I've stumbled across a couple of places in the past day or so that make the point that what you do is determined by what you believe - practice flows from theory, behaviour flows from belief.

Take linguistics, for a random example - people who believe that language is for people to communicate with each other and share ideas and feelings, study very different aspects of language in very different ways from people who believe that a language consists of an infinite set of strings generated by an innate universal grammar.

For a different example, take a person who believes that God exists: surely that person is going to live a life that takes into account the omniscience and omnipotence of God, and acts accordingly, doing what pleases him and avoiding what displeases him.

One particular issue arising from this is the question, what impact does a false or mistaken belief about God have on the life of a Christian, someone who does believe in the existence of God and who professes to have been saved by him. There's a verse that makes it clear that his people are sanctified through the truth, for example - so if they have a shaky grasp of the truth or hold onto errors mixed in with the truth, surely their sanctification is going to be impaired. I suppose too that, depending on how serious the error or ignorance or doubt is, the implications for that person's comfort and sense of security and ability to run the race set before them will be proportionately serious.

Thinking of that verse in Isaiah, Trust ye in the Lord for ever: for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength ... the reason why we are encouraged to trust in the Lord is because in him there is everlasting strength, he is the eternal Rock. So, if a person did not believe the premise 'in the Lord there is everlasting strength', they would hardly follow through with the argument, 'trust in him for ever.' Surely, people, surely failing to believe that God is eternally strong, that the Lord has everlasting strength, would have a harmful effect on your faith, hope, love, peace, and any other grace provided in the gospel for the benefit of the Christian and to equip him/her to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.

Our Father, which art in heaven ... Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

fat club

I read a report somewhere a while back about some research that showed when a woman moves in with a man she tends to put on weight, just because of eating to keep up with him. It was probably done with a total sample size of about 17 , and the results probably got mangled in the media version, but I think I'm living proof that there's some truth in it. After more than a year of this malarkey, all those extra pounds are finally starting to demand urgent attention.

So, as of last week, I'm not eating to keep up any more: I'm cutting down on the amount I'm eating, not just at shared meals but all the time. So I'm a wee bit hungry, but feeling very virtuous. It's not a proper diet, obviously, it's just an Eating Less Strategy. And it doesn't survive particularly well at weekends it turns out ... but the situation isn't that urgent, after all.

Oh, and just a nod to Popperian falsification (I'm still planning to read Feyerabend you know) - obviously I'm not living *proof* of the women-eat-more-with-men claim, I'm only "evidence consistent with".

twice shy

I just discovered I didn't know the meaning of backbiting.

I was reading Jonathan Freedland's comment in the Guardian on the new Tory leadership - he quotes David Cameron claiming to be fed up of "the name calling, backbiting, pointscoring" style of politics at Westminster, and makes the accusation that George Osborne attacking the Chancellor "called names, bit backs and scored points."

Bit backs? I wanted it to be bit back!

But, apparently, that was just my idiosyncratic folk etymology - as it turns out, backbiting really is biting someone on the back, not biting back at somebody (as I hadn't realised I'd thought).

Weird.

memories of a puritan

Something I heard the other night reminded me of a book I read a couple of years ago by Stephen Charnock, one of the English puritans. One of the most memorable things about it was what he said about the verse that goes along the lines of, What will it profit you, to gain the whole world, if you lose your own soul. His comment was that, by gaining the world, you're gaining a loss - gaining ruin, gaining destruction. That struck me at the time for a very stark way of putting it. It's not a neutral unimportant thing to lose a soul.

But the other thing which I remember him talking about was how God gets great glory to himself from saving great sinners. I think he might even have made it into an incentive for "great sinners" to go to God for salvation, because his grace would shine all the greater by saving such an obviously unworthy person. I'm sure I've read somewhere else that just like a skilled surgeon enjoys taking on challenging cases, in the same way the Saviour loves to show his skill at healing or saving souls in the most difficult and unlikely of circumstances.

O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself, but in Me is thy help.
O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God, for thou hast fallen by thine inquity. Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously ... for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy. I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely, for my anger is turned away from him. Hosea 13-14.

There's a short entry for Stephen Charnock in Wikipedia (here).

reasons to hate christmas, no 79

The price of the Big Issue has gone up to £1.20 in the last week or so. While I was negotiating change with the vendor she mentioned it was her first day of selling it. And why? Since it's Christmas.

It makes me sick that the pressures to participate in Christmas are so strong that someone has to resort to selling the Big Issue just to get through the Christmas season. It shouldn't be like this!

If people are desperate to remember the birth of Christ they should do it on a weekly basis, every Lord's Day when they remember his resurrection (his birth's included there, along with his death, by presupposition if nothing else). Meanwhile, if you want a holiday at the end of the year, by all means have it ... just don't make religion an excuse for this commercial frenzy which disadvantages so many people who can least afford it.

And if you *really* have to do some Christmas shopping, how's about Oxfam Unwrapped or World Vision's Alternative Gifts catalogue. Then at least someone might benefit from our seasonal spending.

one more thing

I wonder if Kate Smurthwaite has a blog?

'What are lad mags doing to us?'

wrestling with the Divine Idea

Fascinating article by Robert Winston - 'When science meets God.'

It brings out how human beings on their own can't come to any substantial knowledge of what God is like - beyond their agreement that there is some supernatural being and that he is powerful. This much and only this much a human can figure out from his/her own existence and the observed uncontrollable forces in the world around us.

To know anything other than this about God, we need him to reveal himself to us in other ways ... to know anything better than this, we depend on God to reveal himself in better ways. Otherwise we're left to our own ignorance and the inevitability of conflicts and clashes with other people who don't share our half-formed conceptions of the Unknown God.

It's then just a question of finding out whether he has in fact made any revelation about himself, and identifying where and how he did it. That's why the Westminster Confession (for one example) lays its foundations on the Holy Scriptures (chapter 1) and proceeds from that starting point to describe what we know about God, sin, and the Saviour. If we don't take God's word for it, then a forlorn 'wrestling with the Divine Idea' is the best we can aspire to (or rather the fate we're consigned to) - which is hardly ideal.

peaceful tranquility

The interior decoration of my flat is entirely the responsibility of its previous owners.

Having made that clear, I can tell you about the wallpaper in my bedroom. It mostly consists of a cream background, with purple spirals of varying sizes in a fairly regular, but soothing, pattern. When you look at it right up close, you also notice there are words written on there too ... soothing words written in loopy relaxed handwriting.

Peaceful tranquility
Calmness and serenity
Oasis of calm

Over and over, at soothingly spaced intervals, alternating with another wee three-liner expressing similar sentiments.

On one level, this is just an insight into the fuzzy concept of "nice bedroom wallpaper" which some people in the world must have. On another level, hopefully not making too much of this, it sets me off on a minor rant. Not that it takes much to do that, of course. But does saying these words really change anything about the situation - the state of the room or state of the reader? - is it really the case that a peaceful tranquil atmosphere is created simply by virtue of the words being written up somewhere in the room. Actually, to be more specific, what gets me going is the connection this mentality has with the gouranga people who keep popping up all over the place (if that's even how you spell them). If something bad has happened to me, how exactly does it help, to say Be Happy? Merely saying the words won't make me happy, except on a very superficial wishful level. (Especially when the gouranga man I'm talking to suggests that my age is about thirty, but that's another story.)

Basically it's just the same old human search for happiness and peace, looking in the wrong places and trying the wrong methods, never finding and never giving up ... There is a place to find peace and there are clearly defined methods for getting there, but we just don't want to look there, don't want to try those ways, it's all too much to swallow. That's why we need grace that's irresistible.

Meanwhile, I've turned down the chance to be entered in a prize draw which could have "won" me £40,000 to spend on either my kitchen or my bedroom, so suggestions for a more tasteful and less conceptually loaded look for my bedroom (on a realistic budget) will be welcomed.