Which means I’ve been thinking a lot about my second love, teaching, and how I can integrate the modern into to the classical (if you will allow a blind man a little leeway in his similes).

I don’t know how many of you follow my Twitter account (@HORansome) but I recently found out that the course I helped redesign, PHIL105, has a a twitter feed, and that got me to thinking. How, I asked, can we integrate the twitter feed into the teaching of the class? At the moment the twitter feed is used outside of class, mostly to point students towards examples of bad reasoning, but there is no reason why it couldn’t be used in class by the students to suggest examples, in real time, to the teaching team.

The same should be true for the class’s bespoke e-mail address; why not get students to, say, submit their reconstructions of arguments in standard form via e-mail rather than the currently lengthy process of getting them to read out the reconstruction as someone at the lectern writes it out?

So, sometime next week we are going to experiment with the idea of integrating e-mail and Twitter into the class. It needs to be done with a certain amount of style; you can’t really have the lecturer constantly looking at incoming e-mails and tweets because it will disrupt the flow of the teaching, so a qualified assistant is going to be needed, one who can sort the good questions from the bad and know which reconstructions are going to be the most productive to put up on screen for the world to see. We also need to be cautious not to reveal who is sending us the questions or reconstructions; one virtue of going all ‘social media’ in the classroom is that people who might not want to raise their hand to ask a question might be willing to tweet or e-mail material if they know they won’t be outed.

I’m quite excited about this; I like teaching and I like making it easier for students to engage in the learning process. Now that wifi connections are pretty ubiquitous at the University of Auckland, and a lot of students have laptops of portable internet devices, this means we can make use of the technology¹.

More, as I say, news as it comes to hand.

Notes

1. Of course, it would be better if you could have integrated computers at each seat in the lecture theatre; that way you don’t have the problem of the person who might like to tweet a question but can’t because they have no tweeting device.

Related posts:

1. I’m all-a-twitter
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-22
3. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-15

Related posts:

1. The Aotearoa conspiracy theory Map
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-01
3. Kaikoura: The Dolphin Conspiracy #5

Feel free to suggest amendments.

The map now has its own page here.

Related posts:

1. Episteme Review #1 – God as the Ultimate Conspiracy Theory – Brian L. Keeley
3. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-29

It seems trivial to say that we (seem to) reasonably disagree on a lot of issues. We often disagree with acquaintances on matters of politicks and religion, monetary policy and pop cultural phenomena. I know people whose opinion I respect who are on the Right, and we seem to be able to agree to disagree on matters to do with, say, whether Rodney Hide is a disingenuous fool (although secretly one of us thinks that we’re right (or mostly right) whilst the other is dead wrong). Philosophers of Religion, in particular, disagree all the time when it comes to whether or not god (or the gods) exist, and, ontologically speaking, either the atheist or the theist philosopher is going to be in the right. Either the gods exist, or they don’t, even if it turns out that we have no good arguments for such propositions.

Now, some reasonable disagreement occurs because we often have different evidence and start out from different assumptions, and thus we reason, it seems rationally, to different conclusions. For example, If one detective only has the fingerprint evidence for some crime, evidence that points towards Bob the Builder committing the crime, and the other detective only has the eye-witness testimony, evidence that indicates Postman Pat as the culprit, then they should come to very different conclusions as to who committed the crime.

However, if the detectives were to share their evidence and talk through how it should be weighted (so as to come to a common starting point for their reasoning based upon the evidence), presumably they should both reason to the same conclusion. The idea, in its simplest form, is that, given the same evidence, rational agents should come to the same conclusions (this is called the Uniqueness Thesis or TUT: TUT: For any total body of evidence, there is exactly one reasonable attitude to take towards some proposition)¹. If the detectives fully disclose and share all of their evidence, then, if they are rational, then they should come to complete agreement as to who stole the Fat Controller’s blood diamonds.

Certain philosophers think that it isn’t possible for there to be reasonable disagreement between two rational aegents after full disclosure. No matter where you start your reasoning from, as long as you share all of your evidence, then there is one and only one justified position for you to take. To disagree in such circumstances is to act irrationally.

Now, this seems like a problem, because people, like philosophers (who are people too), do seem to reasonably disagree on a lot of matters, like the existence of the gods, whether the concepts mentioned in our best theories in the Sciences actually exist and whether there is any merit to interpreting the works of Nietzsche as philosophy. In the Philosophy of Religion, for example, atheist philosophers often know all the theistic arguments for the existence of god (or the gods) and know that the theists know and have replied to the atheistic arguments and yet these same philosophers still seem to engage in reasonable disagreement on the subject of the existence of some divine agent.

I’ve been asked by a colleague in my Department² whether there is reasonable disagreement thesis when it comes to conspiracy theories. Now, on one level, I’m not sure that it does; I don’t think we can point to many, if any, reasonable disagreements about the plausibility of certain conspiracy theories. Whilst there is disagreement between, for example, those who hold that 9/11 was an Inside Job and those who claim it was an Outside Job, there isn’t, as far as I can see, people who go “I respect your viewpoint; let’s just agree to disagree, eh?”³

Now, there might be a class of people who do not have a decided opinion on such matters as to whether 9/11 was an Inside or Outside job, and such people, when they hear the rival arguments, might say “I don’t know what to believe about this; those people seem to disagree so I’ll suspend judgement on the matter for the time being.” What, we might ask, are these people actually doing? Are they being rational?

Presumably, if they don’t know the epistemic status of the authorities in disagreement, then they are being rational. If you see two strangers disagreeing and you know nothing about the thing they are disagreeing over, then it would be irrational to side with either party to the debate. However, if you are in the position to judge who is a legitimate authority, presumably you could gauge who holds the burden of proof and decide accordingly.

Still, there might be reasonable disagreement between philosophers about the rationality of conspiracy theories. Brian L. Keeley thinks that, by and large, we are justified in dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand and Charles Pigden thinks such a dismissal is unwarranted; they seem to know each other’s arguments and yet disagree (relatively)⁴ reasonably. Of course, given that I’m writing my thesis on the subject I think they are both right and in error, so what might I know?

I don’t really have an answer to any of this; I’m just ruminating in textual form to try and get some sense of the shape of reasonable disagreement with regards to conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorising. If I have any further thoughts, I’ll be sure to let you know.

Comments appreciated.

Notes

1. I’m not entirely convinced that TUT is true, but that is a matter for another time.
2. I’m beginning to get a complex about capitalising “Department;” it sounds like I work for some amorphous arm of the government and not for a group of people who squabble like children at staff meetings. Then again, I suspect the members of amorphous arms of the government squabble like children at their meetings as well.
3. There is, I suspect, some reasonable-esque disagreement in the “Inside Job” community; a lot of fellow travellers who agree that the American government committed the acts of September 11th, 2001, disagree as to how it was committed, but when such disagreements are highlighted they tend to fracture such groups as opposed to glossing over them; the disagreement is only reasonable, it seems, if people don’t talk through it.
4. I also worry that I am a) over using parentheses and b) not using them correctly.

Related posts:

1. Henry Kissinger, how I’m missing yer…
2. Pithy Introduction
3. The Critical Thinker’s Toolkit (Rev #1)

Superb article, yet only some of the points were actually treated in fact extremely, I believe digging deep for that subject to make it a great informative will extremely help, will be looking forward for further informative article than this. Will suggest some points which are to the most excellent of my knowledge. This might help you bringing fabulous related information for all of us.

I do seek to bring fabulous and related information to you all, so I eagerly await the points which are the most excellent to arrive.

Related posts:

1. Spam
2. Important news coming soon…
3. I’m Spying on You

Related posts:

1. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-29
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-15
3. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-08

And why not? For, now that I am a star of the small screen, why shouldn’t I aim to be like the ubiquitous Mr. Fry (my lack of certain talents notwithstanding)?

Last Sunday José Barbosa,, myself and camera operator Michael, spent over three hours shooting three minutes of a critical thinking toolkit for the “Media 7″ science special. José, who I think wants to be a milliner, bade me wear my Victorian suit and doff a fez for the proceedings.

This is the result (let’s hope TVNZ don’t decide to pull it).

The entire show can be watched on Monday night on TVNZ7, or you can use the TVNZ’s “OnDemand” service here for the next few days (the YouTube channel seems a bit out of date; I’ll update the link when it gets updated).

Related posts:

1. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject of its movie trailers…
2. Celebrity Death Conspiracy Theories – The Dentith Files (95bFM)
3. The Insiders Guide to Happiness

Related posts:

1. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-08
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-29
3. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-01

Related posts:

1. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-29
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-01
3. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-22

You gave great points here. I did some research on the subject and have found nearly all people agree with your website.

If only nearly all people did agree… Then again, I wouldn’t have much of a research project if that were the case.

Terrific, that’s exactly what I was looking for! You just saved me alot of work

Which is great. I’m glad my ruminations about the Roel Van Leuwen thesis on Kerry Bolton were of such hope to you. Still, you really should get a blog that talks about your research interests that aren’t genitals.

This site is so great that i will honor it with my comment :)

I will honour your comment by telling Akismet it is spam. That way we both win.

Good evening We will not miss you.

Thanks, Mum.

Right on! Among other logical fallacies in this “traditionalist” -ism is the ‘appeal to common practice’, embedded therein. After all, there’s nothing healthy about being well adjusted to a sick society.

This one flummoxed me; it’s almost on topic with the post, but the link then sends me to a half-naked model trying to sell me headphones built by the kind of people you’d normally associate with electric drills.

Which is a fetish for someone.

Your idea coincides with mine.and I Believe it’s better.

Ambiguity, how I love you.

This is the coolest website and stories that i have ever read¡ its useful for me as im a lecturer and always motivate my students with these publised stories¡ thank you ¡ and waiting for plenty more¡

This is from someone at Disney Plushtoys, if you trust the author field. I’m glad to know that all those Donalds and Goofys are entering the world with a working knowledge of that day my website host went down and I blogged about it.

Good times.

thanks for the inspiration I was stressed by work but i learnt that life is about living to the fullest and enjoying every moment.Thanks a million

And so ends the movie adaptation of “All Embracing But Underwhelming,” which was filmed in the style of an 80s bromance. Night all.

Notes

1. Links have been removed.
2. Well, I don’t have to be snarky about them at all, but I want to so much.

Related posts:

1. Important news coming soon…
2. Winsome thoughts below
3. Whoops, Apocalypse (Averted)

Truly, I live the life of Riley (and, to quote “The IT Crowd,” I know Riley and the resemblance is uncanny).

The interview is in issue number 15 and can be found on pages 16 to 17. José Barbosa supplied the picture, which I think I might use for all my media-related ballyhoos in future. Since some of you won’t have ability or the want to pick up a copy of Craccum, I’ll let you in on a little secret; if you click here you can see a PDF of the interview.

You are now in on a conspiracy. Good luck.

Related posts:

1. Dentith Files – 95bFM
2. Whoop!
3. Celebrity Death Conspiracy Theories – The Dentith Files (95bFM)

Related posts:

1. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-29
2. A Conspiracy Week of Tweets 2010-08-15
3. For Jack

I’ve been festivising with the hoi polloi.

I have also been working, but the segments I have been working on are not ready for human consumption. So, let’s skip past that, shall we?

More quick news that fills up a blog post: I am currently reading Cass Sunstein’s book on Rumours (or “Rumors” as he calls them), which I’ll review in the next week or so. It’s a bit of a weird booklet; very early on decides not to define what a rumour is (and then, a sentence later, seems to define what they are quite happily). A lot of the things he finds problematic about the presence and transmission of rumours in the world seem like issues that could be easily addressed if he had a full definition to work with.

Also, I’m also moderating a debate on the nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn for the University of Auckland’s Atheist Week. More news on that as it comes to hand.

Finally, the Rumour paper, the one I gave at the Singaporean conference, is getting published in a book. I know this because they want to give me an honorarium for submitting the manuscript on time and in a publishable form. Apparently the honorarium is “substantial.” Given that you usually don’t get honorariums for publication, substantial could mean anything between fifty cents and a trillion dollars. I’m hoping the later, although if it’s enough to buy a coffee or two I’ll still be happy.

Back to work. Well, off to see the final film of the festival.

Trah/Cher.

Related posts:

1. Workshop rewrite
2. Revised! Resubmitted! Rumoured!
3. Singapore

I haven’t really written any fiction since. Whilst I have written a few short short stories, mostly to keep a little practice in, fiction writing is something I’ve given up on; my energies are meant to be going into thesis writing and lecture prep.

I miss fiction writing; it’s a lot more enjoyable than my academic work. I tend to write material which could be considered existential in nature; I like to deal with fictions about what it is to be an individual, which is mostly because my intuitions are (and this is odd, given my behaviour) vested in notions of group identity and the primacy of the social organism over the discrete entity (that sounds very pretentious, I know). I keep meaning to go back to it, but the thesis… Well, it gnaws at me.

Anyway. Today, whilst browsing twitter and not doing any real work, I found out about I Write Like. After being told that my blog posts are in the style of Dan Brown (which is oddly appropriate and very displeasing) I decided to try parsing the last bit of long fiction I had written; that, I was told, was in the style of Oscar Wilde (very much a step up, one feels).

Opening up “You Must Be” and scanning through it made me realise just how much I’d like to get back to fiction writing. It also revealed to me that it was five years to the day since I had last done anything to the story. I now really want to do another pass at it.

Anyway, I present it here (as a PDF) in case anyone is interested to read it.

I’m not sure Oscar would recognise it, but he’s dead so it doesn’t matter.

Related posts:

1. Postive Rejections
2. The Waiting Place is a Bit Rundown…
3. Zombies

So, with that egotistical bit out of the way, “Sunday,” this last Sunday, featured a segment on Jonathan Eisen and “Uncensored” magazine (the internet for people who can’t afford dial-up), as well as the chap who runs “Nexus” over in Australia. You can watch it here.

The thesis, as put forward by the publishers of “Uncensored” and “Nexus,” is that the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) only appeases vested interests and doesn’t fulfil the remit of informing the general populace. This wasn’t questioned by Ian Sinclair, the reporter for the piece, which was strange because he works for the MSM and thus… Well, it’s not really clear what the piece was about. It wasn’t about debunking the claims that magazines like “Uncensored” put forward, because whilst there was some very casual debunking¹ most of the piece seemed designed to allow the publishers of “Uncensored” and “Nexus” to say ‘You aren’t getting the whole truth from the media,’ as if a) most people don’t already know that and b) the publishers of “Uncensored” and “Nexus” would give you such truths.

All fairly predictable.

I really can’t think of anything particularly interesting to say about the piece, really. The segment had nothing new to say; it didn’t exactly paint Eisen as a crackpot or as a serious journalist but rather as… a man who prints a magazine. I’m curious as to what “Sunday’s” mostly middle-class audience thought of the piece. I could understand if they had brought Ian Wishart into the discussion, because Wishart, in “Investigate,” talks to the concerns of the white middle-classes but this?

Consider me bemused. And obviously not doing any work of substance if I can spend an entire morning trying to write this post.

Notes

1. For example, Clare Swinney asserted that some fairly innocuous cloud cover were actually chemtrails. Sinclair showed said chemtrails to a scientist, who said they were perfectly normal cloud cover, which then caused Jon Eisen to say that the scientist must be a minion for the “Man.” Hardly award-winning journalism.

Related posts:

1. More on Dreamers of the Dark
2. The Paradise Conspiracy
3. Falsify this, commie fool!