here's Sabine Hossenfelder (sounding very serious and, well, very German) explaining the correct answer to whether light is a particle or a wave:
Readers might also be interested in her speculating on how a lightsaber might work. Or should that be "lightsabre"?
Thursday, January 07, 2016
Colbert too smart for the times
Stephen Colbert is fantastically talented at comedy acting: energetic, sharp as a tack, probably the only chat show host in the history of television who also happens to be serious enough about religion to teach Sunday School at his Catholic Church, and he has a crack team of writers behind him.
He's also moderately liberal, which means a large slab of the American public (the part that thinks Obama really is a Muslim, and that Trump is the best thing to happen to politics) cannot stand him.
So it doesn't really surprise me that after a strong start, his chat show is now running third in the ratings.
But get this: the lightweight, dumb comedy of Jimmy Fallon is number one. I don't find Fallon offensive, but I fail to see that he has any great talent; and I just don't think his writers come up with great lines. He is, at least, slightly hip with da kids in a way the daggy Jay Leno never was. (I mean, who could believe that he routinely out-rated David Letterman, even when DL was at his peak.)
Yes, it's not just Colbert: late night America doesn't tend to like its chat show hosts to be too smart. But especially at this extremely peculiar time of distressing, spreading stupidity amongst much of the American public, Colbert was always going to have a hard time being the ratings leader.
So that's all by way of preamble to a couple of recent clips from his show that I found amusing:
He's also moderately liberal, which means a large slab of the American public (the part that thinks Obama really is a Muslim, and that Trump is the best thing to happen to politics) cannot stand him.
So it doesn't really surprise me that after a strong start, his chat show is now running third in the ratings.
But get this: the lightweight, dumb comedy of Jimmy Fallon is number one. I don't find Fallon offensive, but I fail to see that he has any great talent; and I just don't think his writers come up with great lines. He is, at least, slightly hip with da kids in a way the daggy Jay Leno never was. (I mean, who could believe that he routinely out-rated David Letterman, even when DL was at his peak.)
Yes, it's not just Colbert: late night America doesn't tend to like its chat show hosts to be too smart. But especially at this extremely peculiar time of distressing, spreading stupidity amongst much of the American public, Colbert was always going to have a hard time being the ratings leader.
So that's all by way of preamble to a couple of recent clips from his show that I found amusing:
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Peter Martin on how the net didn't quite change things as expected
Why the blockbuster is far from dead
I liked this column from Peter Martin.
On the subject to the net and movies, as I have written before, I also find it curious that the change to digital projection, and therefore digital distribution, of movies has not seemed to have had the cost cutting benefits to movie making that would have seemed to be a natural consequence. (Or maybe it has, but just other movie making costs have increased anyway to "compensate".)
I liked this column from Peter Martin.
On the subject to the net and movies, as I have written before, I also find it curious that the change to digital projection, and therefore digital distribution, of movies has not seemed to have had the cost cutting benefits to movie making that would have seemed to be a natural consequence. (Or maybe it has, but just other movie making costs have increased anyway to "compensate".)
By way of comparison
1. David Leyonhjelm, in 2016, when it is a matter of female journalists being made to feel uncomfortable at work:
2. David Leyonhjelm, in 2014, when the issue was how he felt about John Howard's gun laws:
2. David Leyonhjelm, in 2014, when the issue was how he felt about John Howard's gun laws:
"All the people at [Sale that day] were the same as me," Leyonhjelm tells me, his light-blue eyes blazing. "Everyone of those people in that audience hated [Howard's] guts. Every one of them would have agreed he deserved to be shot. But not one of them would have shot him. Not one." He found it offensive, he adds, that Howard "genuinely thought he couldn't tell the difference between people who use guns for criminal purposes, and people like me".
Why around 3 degrees is still likely
I see that in the pre-Christmas rush, I overlooked the significance of a recent paper that showed why it was very likely that the "observational constraint" based studies (like the work of Nic Lewis) that had recently been suggesting that climate sensitivity was as low as 1.3 or 1.5 degrees are biased too low.
The explanation is at two posts at Real Climate.
The explanation is at two posts at Real Climate.
Conservatives and solar subsidies
As you might suspect, I quite liked this article in the New York Times: The Conservative Case for Solar Subsidies.
It's particularly worth following the link therein to the report from the Congressional Research Service that tallies up the government R&D funding for oil, gas and nuclear over the years.
I'm also presuming that Judith Sloan, if she could tear herself away from reading the Wall Street Journal over her tea and scones, would splutter while reading this:
It's particularly worth following the link therein to the report from the Congressional Research Service that tallies up the government R&D funding for oil, gas and nuclear over the years.
I'm also presuming that Judith Sloan, if she could tear herself away from reading the Wall Street Journal over her tea and scones, would splutter while reading this:
And there’s nothing in free-market economic theory that precludes government support. Markets tend to underproduce what economists call positive externalities — that is, the broad social benefits, like a cleaner environment, that aren’t captured on a company’s balance sheet.Solar panels, and the companies that make them, are replete with such benefits: They eliminate redundant power plants that otherwise lie idle, empower consumer choice and have fewer negative consequences than most other forms of energy. But markets don’t always reflect these, which is why it makes sense for subsidies to enter the picture.The kerfuffle over the Solyndra collapse aside, many conservatives already agree, and have for years. When I was at the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, we believed that an across-the-board energy policy was by far the best approach — and that included solar. From both a market and an environmental point of view, supporting the solar industry should make sense, no matter which side of the aisle you come from.
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
America's paranoid, nutty militia
Two pieces about the nut based militia movements of America - one at Vox, looking at their history since the 1990's (and pointing out how they re-emerged when it appeared that a black man may become President. What a co-incidence, hey?) The other is from LGF, and you should watch the video of one of the guys now in Oregon and his recreational interest in shooting arrows into effigies of politicians he considers "traitors". Not that he's advocating violence or anything, although he does share with us that he'd like to line up and shoot them all in the back of the head.
The only support in Australia that I've seen for the armed nutters like him currently holed up in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge building: from some in the threads of (you guessed it) Catallaxy Files, which should just be renamed Right Wing Ratbag Central and be done with. (Trump's pretty popular there too because - Muslims.)
The only support in Australia that I've seen for the armed nutters like him currently holed up in the Oregon Wildlife Refuge building: from some in the threads of (you guessed it) Catallaxy Files, which should just be renamed Right Wing Ratbag Central and be done with. (Trump's pretty popular there too because - Muslims.)
Yay for free will
It indeed seems that those who interpreted the original Libet experiments as having effectively rendered all humans (and animals) into deterministically driven, quasi automatons were doing some unwarranted extrapolation. (The Wiki article on Libet says that he himself did not discount the "veto" role of consciousness.) But here's the latest experiment:
Using state-of-the-art measurement techniques, the researchers tested whether people are able to stop planned movements once the readiness potential for a movement has been triggered.
"The aim of our research was to find out whether the presence of early brain waves means that further decision-making is automatic and not under conscious control, or whether the person can still cancel the decision, i.e. use a 'veto'," explains Prof. Haynes. As part of this study, researchers asked study participants to enter into a 'duel' with a computer, and then monitored their brain waves throughout the duration of the game using electroencephalography (EEG). A specially-trained computer was then tasked with using these EEG data to predict when a subject would move, the aim being to out-maneuver the player. This was achieved by manipulating the game in favor of the computer as soon as brain wave measurements indicated that the player was about to move.
If subjects are able to evade being predicted based on their own brain processes this would be evidence that control over their actions can be retained for much longer than previously thought, which is exactly what the researchers were able to demonstrate. "A person's decisions are not at the mercy of unconscious and early brain waves. They are able to actively intervene in the decision-making process and interrupt a movement," says Prof. Haynes. "Previously people have used the preparatory brain signals to argue against free will. Our study now shows that the freedom is much less limited than previously thought. However, there is a 'point of no return' in the decision-making process, after which cancellation of movement is no longer possible." Further studies are planned in which the researchers will investigate more complex decision-making
The questionable utility of "born this way"
A bit of an interesting take on the matter of sexuality and being "born this way" in this research:
Patrick Grzanka and Joe Miles, both UT assistant professors of psychology, recently published a study in the Journal of Counseling Psychology challenging the notion that the belief that people are born with their sexual orientation—a belief that has proliferated in the past 20 to 30 years, particularly among social and biological scientists—is the key to improving attitudes toward lesbian, gay and bisexual people....Kind of makes sense. And, perhaps counterintuitively in that "born this way and this is who I am" has helped in some legal fights, suggests that not insisting that their sexual orientation defines them as a person could be helpful in its own way.
For the study, Grzanka, Miles and co-author Katharine Zeiders of the University of Missouri surveyed two groups of college students. They used their previously developed sexual orientation beliefs scale, which attempts to capture a wide variety of beliefs such as the idea that sexual minorities are fundamentally different from straight people or that sexuality is based in biology. Most respondents believed sexual orientation is inborn and unchangeable, but it's what else they believed about sexual orientation that distinguishes them.
For example, the researchers looked more closely at respondents who had negative attitudes about gay men. Even among those who believed gay men are "born that way," those who also believed gay men are "all the same and act the same way" were more likely to hold prejudicial attitudes toward gay men, Grzanka said.
"We suggest that this demonstrates the limited capacity of 'born this way' arguments to reduce homophobia," he said.
Important science news of 2015
I have to thank Jason Soon for the link to this long, long list of (mostly) famous scientists and commentators talking at Edge about the big science stories of 2015.
Unfortunately, the format makes reading it a bit of a slog, so I'll just link to the ones that I think are particularly interesting:
1. Frank Tipler: I haven't read anything from him for a good few years, I reckon. I had assumed he had retired, and perhaps he has; but here he is, still holding out in his somewhat peculiar reasoning style on the matter of what problems associated with black holes would be solved if the universe will stop expanding and head back into a Big Crunch (an essential part of his long standing "Omega Point" theory, which few people pay attention to anymore ever since it appeared the expansion of the universe is accelerating.) Frank has always had trouble convincing other physicists he was onto something; probably because he always seems to be working backwards from the end result he wants, rather than the more routine way of dealing with evidence. But it is true, some physicists have argued that the poorly understood dark energy might do a switch around in future. (I'm sure I've posted to some arxiv papers along those lines, years ago, for those who can search this blog successfully.) It's hard to know who's right until the nature of dark energy is understood, I guess....
2. Jim Holt: a good science writer whose books I have always intended to buy but keep forgetting to. Here's he's writing about the somewhat amusing matter of a Japanese mathematician who thinks he has come up with a profound proof of something important, but hardly any other mathematician in the world can work out whether he really has, or not. Lectures on the topic apparently mystify most of the mathematician audiences. (I posted about this before, but it's such an odd and amusing story it's worth noting again.)
3. Richard Muller: the grandstanding physicist who said he was skeptical about global warming, but then did his own BEST re-analysis of temperature records and decided climate scientists were right after all, is here again hedging a bit by not saying that the risk of AGW is the reason why coal burning has to stop, but rather arguing that the millions of Chinese and Indians already dying from air pollution gives an immediate incentive to move to gas or nuclear. I think he sounds unduly "down" on renewables, but the figures he cites for the health effects of current pollution are startling, if accurate.
4. Joel Gold: never heard of this psychiatrist before, but he talks here about how Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (which I knew was considered good for mood disorders and depression) actually works rather well for psychosis too. That's a counterintuitive idea, and the first I have heard of it, but very interesting.
5. Michael McCullough: again, someone I haven't heard of, and talking of social research I haven't much heard of. Apparently, religion is mostly "below the belt". I'm not entirely convinced, but its worth more reading, I guess.
In other articles, lots of things I have written about over recent years get a mention: fecal transplants (yay), gut microbiome (poo related again); but yes, the single weirdest entry in the post is the one by a South Korean guy fancifully suggesting an economy based on powdered poo.
Perhaps he trips out after eating kimchi?
Unfortunately, the format makes reading it a bit of a slog, so I'll just link to the ones that I think are particularly interesting:
1. Frank Tipler: I haven't read anything from him for a good few years, I reckon. I had assumed he had retired, and perhaps he has; but here he is, still holding out in his somewhat peculiar reasoning style on the matter of what problems associated with black holes would be solved if the universe will stop expanding and head back into a Big Crunch (an essential part of his long standing "Omega Point" theory, which few people pay attention to anymore ever since it appeared the expansion of the universe is accelerating.) Frank has always had trouble convincing other physicists he was onto something; probably because he always seems to be working backwards from the end result he wants, rather than the more routine way of dealing with evidence. But it is true, some physicists have argued that the poorly understood dark energy might do a switch around in future. (I'm sure I've posted to some arxiv papers along those lines, years ago, for those who can search this blog successfully.) It's hard to know who's right until the nature of dark energy is understood, I guess....
2. Jim Holt: a good science writer whose books I have always intended to buy but keep forgetting to. Here's he's writing about the somewhat amusing matter of a Japanese mathematician who thinks he has come up with a profound proof of something important, but hardly any other mathematician in the world can work out whether he really has, or not. Lectures on the topic apparently mystify most of the mathematician audiences. (I posted about this before, but it's such an odd and amusing story it's worth noting again.)
3. Richard Muller: the grandstanding physicist who said he was skeptical about global warming, but then did his own BEST re-analysis of temperature records and decided climate scientists were right after all, is here again hedging a bit by not saying that the risk of AGW is the reason why coal burning has to stop, but rather arguing that the millions of Chinese and Indians already dying from air pollution gives an immediate incentive to move to gas or nuclear. I think he sounds unduly "down" on renewables, but the figures he cites for the health effects of current pollution are startling, if accurate.
4. Joel Gold: never heard of this psychiatrist before, but he talks here about how Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (which I knew was considered good for mood disorders and depression) actually works rather well for psychosis too. That's a counterintuitive idea, and the first I have heard of it, but very interesting.
5. Michael McCullough: again, someone I haven't heard of, and talking of social research I haven't much heard of. Apparently, religion is mostly "below the belt". I'm not entirely convinced, but its worth more reading, I guess.
In other articles, lots of things I have written about over recent years get a mention: fecal transplants (yay), gut microbiome (poo related again); but yes, the single weirdest entry in the post is the one by a South Korean guy fancifully suggesting an economy based on powdered poo.
Perhaps he trips out after eating kimchi?
Not abominable at all
Watched via Stan last night the one off Sherlock special episode The Abominable Bride, and, as much as I intensely dislike Steven Moffat's work on Doctor Who, I have to say I thought it was pretty terrific.
The episode is copping much criticism, and I don't really understand why. Even a significant proportion of commenters at The Guardian (home for all Moffat fanboys and girls) had trouble with it, yet I think part of the problem may be that some did not think hard enough about what the episode was doing. (Which is a little odd, because some of the criticism is along the lines that it was being "too clever by half".) Maybe it is just attracting too much over-analysis: can't people simply enjoy it for its fast and witty dialogue, effective spooky scenes, and fine direction? Or - another theory - it rated very highly in England (unlike the badly declining Dr Who ratings) and some might have been viewing the show for the first time, in which case, yes, it would make little sense.
But if you are going to go the "analyse it to bits" route, I think one person at The Guardian probably had it right. I'll link to his or her post once I can find it again!
The episode is copping much criticism, and I don't really understand why. Even a significant proportion of commenters at The Guardian (home for all Moffat fanboys and girls) had trouble with it, yet I think part of the problem may be that some did not think hard enough about what the episode was doing. (Which is a little odd, because some of the criticism is along the lines that it was being "too clever by half".) Maybe it is just attracting too much over-analysis: can't people simply enjoy it for its fast and witty dialogue, effective spooky scenes, and fine direction? Or - another theory - it rated very highly in England (unlike the badly declining Dr Who ratings) and some might have been viewing the show for the first time, in which case, yes, it would make little sense.
But if you are going to go the "analyse it to bits" route, I think one person at The Guardian probably had it right. I'll link to his or her post once I can find it again!
Monday, January 04, 2016
First post
And a Happy New Year to all. Except anyone in ISIS. Speaking of which, does anyone really have a good idea what the final outcome of the current diplomatic spat between Iran and Saudi Arabia will be? From the point of view of the West, I suppose that any intensification of the centuries old dispute between branches of Islam that involves keeping it within the boundaries of a few countries in the Middle East is not entirely a bad thing, working on the principle that while they're busy killing each other over there, they're not plotting new ways to kill the innocent in our countries. But it is, of course, even better if no one is killing anyone anywhere, especially over religion.
I've been on another beach holiday to our favourite seaside area. More about that later.
In the meantime, I didn't mind this article about the idea that all stories are the same. (Even if you have heard this discussed before, and you probably have, you should read it for the somewhat startling quote by director Guillermo Del Toro.)
Lately I've been feeling mildly interested in trying to be creative again. This is usually prompted by the fact that I can't find science fiction that interests me much anymore, or when I feel that movies are stuck in a bit of a creative rut, even while I enjoy them. (By the way, Christopher Orr notes that some critics - including him - have been revising their initial enthusiasm for Force Awakens.)
But, as always, whenever I start vaguely thinking of stories I would like to attempt to write up, my mind drifts back to what other books or movies they resemble. As the article about stories says, there are a million books out there explaining how to write a novel (or script), but I am not sure that there is any that can stop this defeatist feeling before I even properly start getting ideas down. Dreams often feel novel, but it is rare that one makes a compelling idea for a lengthy story.
Anyway, sadly, it's off to work...
I've been on another beach holiday to our favourite seaside area. More about that later.
In the meantime, I didn't mind this article about the idea that all stories are the same. (Even if you have heard this discussed before, and you probably have, you should read it for the somewhat startling quote by director Guillermo Del Toro.)
Lately I've been feeling mildly interested in trying to be creative again. This is usually prompted by the fact that I can't find science fiction that interests me much anymore, or when I feel that movies are stuck in a bit of a creative rut, even while I enjoy them. (By the way, Christopher Orr notes that some critics - including him - have been revising their initial enthusiasm for Force Awakens.)
But, as always, whenever I start vaguely thinking of stories I would like to attempt to write up, my mind drifts back to what other books or movies they resemble. As the article about stories says, there are a million books out there explaining how to write a novel (or script), but I am not sure that there is any that can stop this defeatist feeling before I even properly start getting ideas down. Dreams often feel novel, but it is rare that one makes a compelling idea for a lengthy story.
Anyway, sadly, it's off to work...
Friday, December 25, 2015
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
The problem (partially) explained
Will the Republican Party Survive the 2016 Election? - The Atlantic
I think this long essay by David Frum on the problems of the Republican Party is pretty good. But it still feels inadequate in not completely addressing the culture war the Right perceives itself as being engaged in.
I think this long essay by David Frum on the problems of the Republican Party is pretty good. But it still feels inadequate in not completely addressing the culture war the Right perceives itself as being engaged in.
Only took 50 years..
SpaceX rocket in historic upright landing - BBC News
These vertically landing rockets put me in mind of the one in You Only Live Twice. As the post title says, I only had to wait 50 years to see it become reality (kind of).
These vertically landing rockets put me in mind of the one in You Only Live Twice. As the post title says, I only had to wait 50 years to see it become reality (kind of).
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Force awakened
Just saw the new Star Wars - which is a more literal way of putting it than you might think, if you haven't been reading the reviews.
On the down side, I did have to suppress a scream due to a key plot feature which I warned the world would disappoint me. But on the upside, the film is in most respects more Empire that Wars, in that the key action and drama is more one-on-one, human-centric, than on the "X Wings versus yet another gigantic space ball weapon" scale.
Yes, Christopher Orr was right: the movie is pretty much a "mashup masterpiece"; and so was the more cynical Anthony Lane (who pretty obviously enjoyed it anyway) when he writes that the movie "feels young" and "as an act of pure storytelling, streams by with fluency and zip." (It really does seem to take only about 3/4 of its actual length, and the pacing always feels just right.)
Yeah, I have to give JJ Abrams his due: this is pretty well directed. And well scripted - there's an air of mature credibility to much of the dialogue that is so refreshing after the terrible lines in the prequels.
So while I did enjoy it for what it is, the best thing is perhaps that this is all the mashup-ery that is really possible in the series, so that the next movie must surely have to tread some new ground. They can't just recycle Empire, can they? It's my new hope that they can't. (Heh...)
[And on a "meta" observation: this has been a huge, huge year for movie franchises that have revisited their past. Certainly, there was a large element of it in Spectre; and with Mission Impossible, it was once again a case of Hunt having to defy the authorities and work in some sort of unauthorised ghost-like mode. Jurassic World was in many respects rather like the first, but with hundreds of victims in a cooler looking mega park. The trouble is, as much as I would like a bit more originality, I enjoyed all of them a great deal, and they all were pretty huge hits. I guess we only have ourselves to blame if we don't get more plot novelty.]
On the down side, I did have to suppress a scream due to a key plot feature which I warned the world would disappoint me. But on the upside, the film is in most respects more Empire that Wars, in that the key action and drama is more one-on-one, human-centric, than on the "X Wings versus yet another gigantic space ball weapon" scale.
Yes, Christopher Orr was right: the movie is pretty much a "mashup masterpiece"; and so was the more cynical Anthony Lane (who pretty obviously enjoyed it anyway) when he writes that the movie "feels young" and "as an act of pure storytelling, streams by with fluency and zip." (It really does seem to take only about 3/4 of its actual length, and the pacing always feels just right.)
Yeah, I have to give JJ Abrams his due: this is pretty well directed. And well scripted - there's an air of mature credibility to much of the dialogue that is so refreshing after the terrible lines in the prequels.
So while I did enjoy it for what it is, the best thing is perhaps that this is all the mashup-ery that is really possible in the series, so that the next movie must surely have to tread some new ground. They can't just recycle Empire, can they? It's my new hope that they can't. (Heh...)
[And on a "meta" observation: this has been a huge, huge year for movie franchises that have revisited their past. Certainly, there was a large element of it in Spectre; and with Mission Impossible, it was once again a case of Hunt having to defy the authorities and work in some sort of unauthorised ghost-like mode. Jurassic World was in many respects rather like the first, but with hundreds of victims in a cooler looking mega park. The trouble is, as much as I would like a bit more originality, I enjoyed all of them a great deal, and they all were pretty huge hits. I guess we only have ourselves to blame if we don't get more plot novelty.]
Monday, December 21, 2015
An unusual movie recommendation
You don't need children to watch Shaun the Sheep Movie, and it did much to redeem Aardman studio in my mind, after some dud material of late. (Well, The Pirates is from 2012 I see - seems longer ago than that - and it was not good, in my opinion.)
Lucky residents of Hobart
Powerful aurora australis puts on spectacular display of Christmas lights in Tasmania - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
And some people go travelling all the way to Norway to get a glimpse of them...
And some people go travelling all the way to Norway to get a glimpse of them...
A touch of the Don Quixote's about him
I generally avoid Spiked, largely because I can't bear the whiny, hectoring voice of Brendan O'Neill complaining every column about the whiny, hectoring voices of the Left.
But this Spiked Review interview with Roger Scruton is interesting. He has a new (or updated) book out, complaining about the rise and (in his mind) continuing influence of the style of Left wing intellectualism that got going in the 1960's. I think these are the key paragraphs summarising Scruton's view:
But this Spiked Review interview with Roger Scruton is interesting. He has a new (or updated) book out, complaining about the rise and (in his mind) continuing influence of the style of Left wing intellectualism that got going in the 1960's. I think these are the key paragraphs summarising Scruton's view:
In Fools, Frauds and Firebrands Scruton attacks the left idea of thought for a cause, ‘politics with a GOAL’. By contrast, he tells me, ‘Conservatives are by their nature people who are trying to defend and maintain existence without a cause’. Simply to keep things as they are? ‘We obviously all want to change things, but recognising that human life is an end in itself and not a means to replace itself with something else. And defending institutions and compromises is a very difficult and unexciting thing. But nevertheless it’s the truth.’But the interviewer makes an obvious point, and one which is similar to what I've been saying from time to time about the "culture wars" as it is playing out in Australian right wing politics:
For Scruton, the left intellectuals’ apparent attachment to a higher cause only disguises what they really stand for: ‘Nothing.’ He writes that ‘when, in the works of Lacan, Deleuze and Althusser, the nonsense machine began to crank out its impenetrable sentences, of which nothing could be understood except that they all had “capitalism” as their target, it looked as though Nothing had at last found its voice’. More recently, ‘the windbaggery of Zizek and the nonsemes of Badiou’ exist only ‘to espouse a single and absolute cause’, which ‘admits of no compromise’ and ‘offers redemption to all who espouse it’. The name of that cause? ‘The answer is there on every page of these fatuous writings: Nothing.’
The slightly pained look on his face suggests that I am not the first to ask Scruton why he has devoted a book to taking on a collection of largely declining or deceased intellectuals and a culture that he concedes ‘now survives largely in its academic redoubts’. ‘They may seem like obscure intellectuals to the man in the street but actually they are still dominant on the humanities curriculum’, he explains. ‘If you study English or French, even musicology or whatever, you have to swallow a whole load of Lacan and Deleuze. Take Deleuze’s book, A Thousand Plateaus – the English translation has only been out a few years, but it’s already gone through 11 printings. A huge, totally unreadable tome by somebody who can’t write French.’
‘Yet this is core curriculum throughout the humanities in American and English universities. Why? The one sole reason is it’s on the left. There is nothing that anybody can translate into lucid prose, but for that very reason, it seems like a suit of armour around the age-old prejudices against power and authority, the old unshaped and unshapeable agenda.’Hmmm. Many of the comments following the article are very good, and some go straight to the point that he's attacking a bit of a straw man:
He is a populist conservative who creates a grotesque caricature of the left, focusing on the nuttiest currents of academic leftism, then lumps all liberal thought in the same category and presents conservatism as a healthy and rational alternative. By and large this is how the new conservatism works. Part of it is the martyrdom fallacy, that is, presenting conservatism as the silenced victim who has "uncomfortable truths" to tell. The supposed outrage of the left at hearing these "truths" is presented as evidence that something true really was said. Needless to say, ad hominem attacks like these are never evidence.For a more sympathetic, but still critical, take, try this one:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)