Inside Out

Inside Out Worksheet by Michael Smith on Scribd

What is Normal?

What is Normal? 

Did Kodak alter our perception?

A nice article showing that in the 1950s and 60s, Kodak's choice of model's for colour filters may have altered our perception of people with darker skin tones

The Problem of Free Will

Is Psychology a Science?

Richard Feynman on Social Sciences

Feynman on social science from Richard G on Vimeo.

Mass Hysteria

Penis Panics

Emergent Behaviour?

The Rise of the Lifestyle Nutritionists

Nutritionism is (a rather pejorative) term which describes the idea that it's an individual nutrient, not food, that is healthy, and that effectively 'good' and 'bad' nutrients exist. While scientifically recognised experts in diet and nutrition exist in many countries (usually referred to as 'dieticians'), nutritionists are unregulated and may be self-taught.

If it is not a recognised science, and therefore not subject to scientific rigor and peer-review, is it acceptable to refer to nutritionism as pseudoscience? Ben Goldacre (author of Bad Science) argues that is is. In this two-part podcast he investigates the rise of the celebrity lifestyle nutritionist and argues that the advice they give may be dangerous and in some cases fraudulent:

episode 1
episode 2

In Defense of 'Useless Knowledge'

I had a conversation with my head teacher a while ago in which he told me his thoughts about how the education system is likely to evolve in the near future. He feels that education is moving away from the learning of facts and more towards the development of skills. This is perhaps undeniable - for example TOK itself is supposed to develop the skills of critical thinking rather than rote learning. Eventually the role of the teacher (at least in the way we understand it today) may become redundant. Knowledge is so easily accessible today that it is becoming externalised (specifically to the internet). This means that students are becoming freer to concentrate on subjects that interest them or those which will be more useful in their chosen career.

A few interesting things occur to me here. Firstly, the externalisation of knowledge is reminiscent of European society prior to the Renaissance. At that time, the population at large was happy to leave (religious) knowledge in the hands of the Church, and in a previous post I discussed how St. Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in changing this and introducing the basic ideas of scientific thinking. Does acceptance that general knowledge should be left in the hands of others really therefore represent progress? After all, many teachers would say they are currently fighting a losing battle against insidious 'wikipediaism'. Secondly, will the society of the future be made of people with very specific skills but very little general knowledge? At the very least, that would certainly make games of trivial pursuit rather boring.

My feeling is that total dependence on skills-based education could lead to diminishing the enjoyment of learning for its own sake (although perhaps this is a bit extreme). I also have given some consideration to the idea of how we decide what knowledge is 'useful' or 'useless' for our students (or perhaps whether there is such a thing as 'useless knowledge'). This reminded me of an essay by Bertrand Russell, which I've reproduced below. Interestingly, he worries about the pressure that society at that time was putting on students to learn skills rather than gain knowledge. Upon reading, it does appear dated now (he published it in 1935). He consistently refers to the education of 'boys' rather than 'children' and his representations of women come across as a little sexist. He defends the assimilation of knowledge for its own sake, the satisfaction that learning brings and the dangers that a lack of knowledge pose in a society. It is, of course, a product of the time in which Russell was writing - Europe had been through a World War less than a generation before, and Nazism was on the rise. Russell was a pacifist (at that time) and a fervent opponent of Nazism. He felt that the rise of Hitler and increased militarism was brought about by lack of knowledge within the German populace.

I came across a nice anonymous quotation recently which is relevant here:

'[Specialistists are] people who know more and more about less and less, until they know all about nothing.'

from A Short History of Everything, by Ronald Wright, Carroll and Graff (2005).

Useless Knowledge by Michael Smith on Scribd

Science vs Philosophy

Undeniably, the success of the scientific method in uncovering truths about the world around us has led to paradigm changes in other subjects - particularly those that involve the study of human behaviour such as psychology. New subjects (such as political science) have come into existence as a result and scientific thinking has even taken a foothold in artistic subjects, for example when literary theory in its current form began to become accepted the mid-twentieth century.

This is a transcript of a conversation between philosopher Julian Baggini and theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss taken from the British newspaper, The Guardian. Baggini suggests that the creep of science into other subjects has begun to undermine them and that philosophy in particular is suffering as a result. It is interesting to compare their thoughts to those in previous articles I've posted on the subject of science vs religion.

Science vs Philosophy

Glossary of Philosophy

Enlightenment Rationalism Empiricism The Encyclopaedists Analytic synthetic distinction Logic Determinism Kant	Romanticism Rousseau Schelling and Coleridge Hegel Idealism Vs. Materialism Hegel's Dialectics Marx's Dialectical Materialism Schopenhauer & Nietzsche	Analytic Philosophy Bertrand Russell Wittgenstein: Tractatus Wittgenstein: Language Games The Private Language Argument Richard Rorty Timeline	Existentialism Kierkegaard: The solitary wanderer Martin Heidegger Edmund Husserl Sartre: Existence precedes essence Albert Camus
God Proofs of God's Existence: Argument from design Ontological argument Cosmological argument Pascal's Wager Kierkegaard Marx Nietzsche The Death of God	Mind Plato Aristotle Leibniz Epiphenomenalism Dualism Descartes Identity Theory Spinoza Behaviourism Ryle Ghost in the machine	Natural Science Popper Kuhn Feyerabend Science in the post- modern world	Moral philosophy Kant's Categorical Imperative Utilitarianism Nietzsche: The genealogy of morals Sartre and Bad Faith

Laughter Therapy and the James-Lange Theory

William James (1842-1910) and Carl Lange (1834-1900) were academics who studied the relationship between emotion and physical changes in the body. In about 1885, they independently proposed that emotion is dependent on two things: physical changes in our bodies and our interpretation of them. They felt that physical changes occur first and subsequently their interpretation. Together, they create the emotion. James is quoted as saying "the perception of bodily changes, as they occur, is the emotion ...we feel sad because we cry, angry because we strike, afraid because we tremble, and neither we cry, strike, nor tremble because we are sorry, angry, or fearful, as the case may be." (W. James. 1884. "What Is an Emotion?" Mind. 9, 34, 188-205).

The James-Lange Theory has fallen out of favour with psychologists in recent years, but there is some evidence that emotion in some aspects occurs as part of a bodily feedback mechanism in the way the James-Lange theory suggests. Proponents of this idea include so-called 'laughter therapists'. Among these are practitioners of a form of yoga known as Hasyayoga, who believe that fake laughter can trigger intense joy and therefore have beneficial physiological and psychological effects. When I watch the video below, I'm not sure if I'm laughing with him or at him - but in terms of the theory, I don't think that matters.

The Milgram Experiment

Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) was a Yale professor of psychology who is most famous for his controversial study into how far people will follow the instructions of authority figures without question. This became known as 'The Milgram Experiment'. I have posted details of this previously in 'The Top 10 Unethical Psychology Experiments' (although I personally would argue that Milgram wasn't intentionally acting unethically, and his subjects were not prevented from refusing to continue with the experiment once they had concerns).

In 2006 British illusionist Derren Brown produced a TV programme named 'The Heist'. In this he attempted to persuade a group of thirteen members of the public to partake in what they thought was a real armed bank robbery. In order to choose his victims, Brown reproduced the Milgram Experiment, and found results startling similar to those of Milgram. This is shown in the clip below:

Psychological Experiments

During the 20th Century a number of psychologists (the behaviourists and cognitive psychologists) tried to introduce greater scientific thinking into the subject. Greater emphasis was placed on the collection of empirical evidence through detailed observation, researchers made more of an effort to remain objective, and attempts were made to control variables, reduce the observer effect and repeat experiments where possible. Psychology effectively moved towards the inductivism of the natural sciences (or rather the hypothetico-deductive model of Karl Popper, 1935).

A number of experiments based on this thinking later became notorious. Some investigators were less than honest with their research subjects (often in an effort to lessen the observer effect or reduce the effect of extraneous variables). In other cases the long-term psychological effects of the experiments on human or animal subjects were not considered. Sometimes ethics were abandoned because the researcher placed their own work and reputation above all other considerations.

I've reproduced a list of the 'top 10 unethical psychology experiments' from the website listverse.com (last accessed 16/4/12). Its an interesting list, but I would argue that not all of the experiments could really be called unethical. The Stanford Prison Experiment, for example, more than anything was badly planned, with the subjects influenced by the observer effect into thinking they were expected to play a role. The list and the order in which the experiments are placed reflect the author's own thoughts on the subject.

Top 10 Unethical Psychology Experiments

The Stanford Prison Experiment

Taboo

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines a taboo as "a social or religious custom placing prohibition or restriction on a particular thing or person". Taboos come into existence as a means to help a society to persist or improve the general health of its members. Since societies change, so do taboos (although perhaps rather slowly, and without the acceptance of all).

According to French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009), incest (marriage and/or sexual partnership between closely related individuals) is the 'universal taboo' (The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1947), trans. James Harle Bell, John Richard von Sturmer, and Rodney Needham. Boston: Beacon Press, 1969). He believed this was a driving force in human social development since it forced people to look outside their family for mates and therefore brought disparate and even warring groups together.

The origins of this taboo seem to lie in the increased likelihood that children of an incestuous partnership will be born with abnormalities, and hence have a possible deleterious effect on a society. There appears to be more to it than this, though, as it does appear to elicit particular disgust and revulsion. Also there are other behaviours which increase the likelihood of a couple having children born with disabilities (for example becoming pregnant later in life) which are not held in the same disregard. In addition, it is not perhaps the universal taboo that Lévi-Strauss made out. For instance, European monarchies (together with those in other societies such as the Incas and Ancient Egyptians) encouraged marriage between closely related members of the nobility for centuries to keep blood lines pure. (With this in mind, it is interesting that Henry VIII chose to accuse Anne Boleyn of an incestuous affair with her brother to ensure he was granted his divorce - and her execution).

Given that incest has gained this reputation as perhaps the ultimate taboo, it is surprising that there is no true consensus between different nations with regard to its legality (or illegality). In some countries, the law has tried to take into account the risks while legalising it in certain circumstances. In Brazil, an uncle and niece may have a relationship provided they undergo health checks. In some states of the US, first cousins may marry if they are at reproductive age or ability. France dropped incest from the penal code under Napoleon, but reinstated it in 2010. Children born to incestuous relationships in France are removed and put into care. In the Netherlands, where consensual incest is no longer prosecuted, the legal status of a child born of such a relationship is ambiguous. Sweden is the only country in Europe which allows marriage between siblings who share a parent, although I believe Switzerland is currently debating whether it should be decriminalised.

There is an interesting academic paper on the subject here.

A story appeared in the news recently of two German siblings who met after growing up separately and started a relationship together (in the knowledge they were brother and sister). They lost their appeal at the European Court of Human Rights this week after being convicted in Germany. Here's how the BBC reported the story:

German Incest Couple

Loaded Questions

Can the way you ask a question influence the response you get? In this clip of the classic British sit-com Yes, Prime Minister, two civil servants discuss how they can decide on the results of an opinion poll before the government has even commissioned it. I imagine it isn't too far from the truth.