The real Professor Robert Manne?

I haven't posted for a while so I feel guilty about leaving the running to Theo. Best solution is to whip up a gratuitously mocking distortature. It's fun, it's easy, and as it happens, the portrait relates to the previous post - so it seems relevant and timely.

Of course it's not - I just like mocking prigs. (This wasn't a typo, I really meant prigs - although the other word also fits Professor Robert Manne - not literally you understand.)

Henceforth, I shall call this type of distortature a psychological distortature. It is meant to capture the inner, psychological person, rather than the superficial external appearance.

This face speaks to me of self-indulgence, onanism, snottiness, arrogance... the epitome of the loathsome and useless academic. But that's just my impression from afar. For all I know he might be a very nice man when you get to know him personally.

His oeuvre mainly consists of ad hominem attacks disguised as scholarly work. Right back atcha Bobby.

_________
Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Personal Abuse.

Browbeating Bolt

Andrew Bolt sets up Professor Robert Manne, then Browbeats him down:

Bolt: You are the nation's foremost scholar, allegedly, on the "stolen generations". You have said more than anyone else. In fact, you got a $50,000 grant from the taxpayers to write about the "stolen generations" . . . After years and years of research and grants, of that 25,000 ("stolen" children), I won't ask you to name 25,000, I won't ask you to name 2000, I won't ask you to name 1000. I won't ask you to name 100 kids that were genuinely stolen for racist reasons or even 25. I'll just ask you, can you name just 10? Just 10?

Manne: I can send you material, I can send you material, Andrew, if you're interested.

Bolt: Name them. Just name them.

Manne: Just listen for a sec. You never listen. The policy started in the late 1890s, a man called Walter Roth in north Queensland. I have the names of, I would say, 200 children that he took . . .

Bolt: But can you name for me now 10 names.

Manne: I don't have the names in front of me because they're names -- usually they're names given by the colonial authorities . . .

Let me sum up. The leading propagandist of the "stolen generations" still cannot name even 10 of the 25,000 Aboriginal children who were allegedly stolen for racist reasons. The best he can do is promise to send me a list he's now found of children allegedly taken by one man more than a century ago.

….Ask yourself: If the greatest expert in the "stolen generations" still cannot name even 10 truly stolen children after years of looking, what must we conclude about this myth?

Bolt doesn't let him get a word in by continually asserting a pointless question, one that at best, only serves to illustrate Manne's poor memory. So from that we can't conclude anything at all about the stolen generation, one way or the other. Though I tend to suspect, like everything, it's not black and white. Of course, an unfortunate consequence, thanks to overzealous "do-gooding", and the fear of being branded a racist child thief if one removes an aboriginal child for their own wellbeing, we have rampant abuse going on, essentially unchecked, in aboriginal communities.

Update: Manne's response to Bolt's column.
__________
(Via reader Ben)

Tagged - Fallacy, Browbeating.

The ABC of arguing by artifice

The ABC's Chris Masters, a reporter for Four Corners, was to publish an unauthorised biography of broadcaster Alan Jones. Apparently Jones threatened a law suit, and even though ABC lawyers had checked the content to make sure it was kosher (according to Lateline tonight), the ABC Enterprises board of directors met and backed down.

The ABC directors constructed this Argument by Artifice to justify their pusillanimity:

ABC Enterprises director Robyn Watts said the decision not to proceed was made on commercial grounds. "ABC Enterprises has a clear responsibility to deliver a commercial return to the ABC," Ms Watts said.

However, as Masters points out:

They asked me to write the book, they asked me to do a huge amount of work on the book, they have asked me to draft it, they have asked me to provide an enormous amount of information to legal teams and editors, and so I've put four hard years of work into it.

It seems they had ample time to figure out if a biography of one of the most influential broadcasters in Australia, a man who also coached the Wallabies for four years, a man who wrote speeches for the current Aussie PM, a man who was arrested* in 1988 for behaving in an indecent manner in a lavatory block in London, could make money or not.

When asked to comment, Jones had nothing to say, though as the photo shows, he did seem pretty pleased with himself (about the book, not the London incident).

When Masters finds a new publisher, I'll buy a copy for sure. It's got everything.

Update (5th July): More details of the book and its commercial viability in Today's Australian:

The publishing world is now in a bidding war for what it expects will be the "book of the year"...

Matthew Kelly of non-fiction publisher Hachette said: "It will be one of the biggest books in Australia released this year.

"I think any commercial publisher in Sydney or indeed any publisher in Australia would be interested in talking to Chris about this project. It's a very attractive proposition, certainly in my view."

Crikey has more too:

Penguin, Allen & Unwin and HarperCollins – reportedly offering ...an advance somewhere in the region of $170,000. ...they anticipate the possibility of making around $300,000 profit from this book...

...[the ABC] will wear a $100,000 loss. It's lucky that the ABC's board members aren't involved in anything serious like directing the fortunes of a public media company. Otherwise they would be facing a very hostile AGM in the next few months.

_____________
* All charges were dropped and he was awarded damages - but cheap shots amuse me.

Tagged - Fallacy, Argument by Artifice.

String theory isn't even wrong

A book I want to read - Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics, by Peter Woit. I won't go into the details of string theory, because A) I only, vaguely, kind of get it and B) even if I did get it, it's very complicated and mathematical. Read this wikipedia entry if you like. Here's some of a review and an explanation for the title of the book:

Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University, has challenged the entire string-theory discipline by proclaiming that its topic is not a genuine theory at all and that many of its exponents do not understand the complex mathematics it employs. String theory, he avers, has become a form of science fiction. Hence his book’s title, Not Even Wrong: an epithet created by Wolfgang Pauli, an irascible early 20th-century German physicist. Pauli had three escalating levels of insult for colleagues he deemed to be talking nonsense: “Wrong!”, “Completely wrong!” and finally “Not even wrong!”. By which he meant that a proposal was so completely outside the scientific ballpark as not to merit the least consideration.

I object to string theory as a science on the basis of its lack of falsifiability; in theory even, it cannot be tested. This is one of the main objections cited in Woit's book (according to the review). I wouldn't describe it a science fiction, as Woit does, but rather a metaphysical branch of physics; string theorists are actually mathematically inclined philosophers, rather than physicists. However, personally I give it more credence than other metaphysical beliefs for the fundamentals of the universe, precisely because it is a mathematically elegant way of (potentially) unifying physics. Apart from lack of falsifiability, it does actually fulfil the criteria of a scientific theory - but this lack of falsifiability is its ultimate failing.

Here is one of Woit's other main objections to string theory, again according to the review:

…the domination of string theory in universities has stifled progress in alternative research programmes within theoretical physics. As long as the leadership of the physics community refuses to accept that string theory is a “failed project”, he writes, “there is little likelihood of new ideas finding fertile ground in which to grow”.

Put this way we are getting close to an Argument to Consequences. We accept the success or failure of string theory on its own worthiness, not on whether string theory research stifles other areas of research. This might be an unfortunate side effect of the popularity of string theory, but says nothing of its "truthiness" and is not a good reason to object to its "wrongness" or "rightness".

I hazard guess that Woit's objection at this point isn't actually an argument against the truth or not of string theory. It isn't, therefore, really a fallacious argument to consequences. A fallacious version would be something like - string theory isn't true because physics research monies would be better spent on alternative, testable theories. However, sometimes a non-example of a fallacy serves as a good illustration of the fallacy.

_________
(Review via Maggie's Farm.)

Tagged - Fallacy, Skepticism, Science, Philosophy, String Theory, Argument to Consequences.

Consequences of PoMo and yet more 9-11 conspiracy

I don't usually get too political but the underlying philosophy of western tolerance is based on the embracement of post-modern relativism. There are real consequences when western relativism (read: pacifist simple-minded certitude) is faced with a more radical and dogmatic religious simple-minded certitude. From The Australian, some uncomfortable stats:

…Britain stands out as a paradoxical country. Non-Muslims there have strikingly more favourable views of Islam and Muslims than elsewhere in the West. For example, only 32 per cent of the British sample viewed Muslims as violent, significantly less their counterparts in France (41 per cent), Germany (52 per cent) or Spain (60 per cent). In the Mohammed cartoon dispute, Britons showed more sympathy for the Muslim outlook than did other Europeans.

More broadly, Britons blame Muslims less for the poor state of Western-Muslim relations. But British Muslims return the favour with the most malign anti-Western attitudes found in Europe. Many more of them regard Westerners as violent, greedy, immoral and arrogant than do their counterparts in France, Germany and Spain.

I'm all for tolerance - with one exception - tolerance of all but the intolerant.

I also find conspiracy theories in general laughable, but as I've said before, about 9-11 conspiracies, some are offensive:

In not one Muslim population polled did most people believe Arabs carried out the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. The proportions range from a mere 15 per cent in Pakistan holding Arabs responsible to 48per cent among French Muslims. Confirming recent negative trends in Turkey, the number of Turks who point the finger at Arabs has declined from 46 per cent in 2002 to 16per cent today. In other words, in each of these 10 Muslim communities, most view 9/11 as a hoax perpetrated by the US Government, Israel or some other agency.

Ignorance combined with certainty is worrying - don’t they all know it was the Reptiles for crying out loud?

I'll end with a half remembered pithy aphorism which someone smart once said (I can't be bothered to track the quote down): the malady of the ignorant is to be ignorant of one's ignorance.

Update - here is a press release for the report and here is the pdf of the actual survey. I'll do a second update when I've had a look through them. Perhaps the original article I linked to has Stacked the Deck, or perhaps the survey will turn out to be an example of Advocacy Research. Or perhaps not...

Update 2: I found this interesting, from the press release above:

...there is enduring belief in democracy among Muslim publics, which contrasts sharply with the skepticism many Westerners express about whether democracy can take root in the Muslim world. Pluralities or majorities in every Muslim country surveyed say that democracy is not just for the West and can work in their countries. But Western publics are divided - majorities in Germany and Spain say democracy is a Western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries. Most of the French and British, and about half of Americans, say democracy can work in Muslim countries.

Yay for democracy. As Churchill said:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Of course, he also said:

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

Pithy bastard.
____________________
Tagged - Conspiracy Theory, 9-11.

What a good theory is…

I have just reviewed a book for the skeptic journal - computer Scientist Moti Ben-Ari's book, Just a Theory - Exploring the Nature of Science. I have produced a super-condensed and altered version of an important part of it for humbug hunting purposes.

Much humbug is spouted in the form of a theory, but a seeker after truth ought not to dismiss any theory a priori. However, given the large amount of excrement being continually generated by wackos, it's a good idea to have a handle on what constitutes a genuine scientific theory, and what doesn't. One can combine this with other criteria, such as Occam and Hume's razors, to determine the credence one gives to any particular theory.

The reason we give (provisional) consent to any theory is because, compared to any alternatives, it is backed by the most convincing evidence, has the greatest explanatory power and is the least convoluted. Unless some science is done to cast doubt upon it, or a new theory which offers greater explanatory power and is more parsimonious is proposed, we have no good reason and it serves no useful purpose, to doubt it. According to Ben Ari:

A scientific theory is a concise and coherent set of concepts, claims and laws (frequently expressed mathematically) that can be used to precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena.

A theory should include a mechanism that explains how its concepts, claims, and laws arise from lower-level theories. (Original emphasis.)

Homoeopathy falls into the above category. If we use Ben-Ari's definition of a theory as the demarcation criterion (to tell the difference between a scientific theory and horse manure), we can see that homoeopathy has been studied scientifically [pdf], yet it is clearly a pseudo-science. Homoeopathy lacks experimental evidence (it doesn't precisely and accurately explain and predict natural phenomena) and it has no plausible mechanism (unless you take the word of 'homoeo-physicists': “It’s quantum memory mechanics”, or whatever they actually call it...). Consequently there is no good reason to give it any credence whatsoever. Herbal medicine, on the other hand, though it still isn't science (it is far from coherent and lacks credibility), it has the potential to be scientific (there is undoubtably a mechanism by which herbs can affect the body).

I'll end this with a quote that I use at the beginning of my book review, by Bertrand Russell in History of Western Philosophy:

It is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.

____________________
Ps - Jef is a regular contributor to the skeptic - his latest essay is a greatly developed explanation of Bad Faith - the funniest thing I've read for a long time.

Tagged - Fallacy Skepticism, Science, Philosophy, Theory.

37th Skeptics' Circle

...is being hosted in the Bermuda triangle @ Autism Diva. 12 to go before we host here.

Global warming causes my clothes to dry quicker

I've sent this amazing story to ABC News in the US.

Dear ABC News,

I've noticed over the last few years that when I hang my washing out to dry, it has started to dry quicker than it used to. I believe this is firm proof of global warming and it's effect on my "everyday life". I have written this preliminary note to point this out to you, but as requested, I'll make a video too. I've also noticed that I have to mow the lawn more frequently in the last few years - I've set up a time lapse camera to film this and I'll provide the footage shortly - more proof of global warming.

Regards, Theo Clark

Why would I send such an obvious load of rubbish to them you ask? Well, they asked for it:

Witnessing the impact of global warming in your life?

ABC News wants to hear from you. We're currently producing a report on the increasing changes in our physical environment, and are looking for interesting examples of people coping with the differences in their daily lives. Has your life been directly affected by global warming?

We want to hear and see your stories. Have you noticed changes in your own backyard or hometown? The differences can be large or small — altered blooming schedules, unusual animals that have arrived in your community, higher water levels encroaching on your property.

Show us what you've seen. You can include video material of the environmental change, or simply tell your story via webcam.

I guess one can't expect members of a news team to be able to understand such complex concepts as the False Cause; Correlation Error.

I am coping reasonably well by the way. The increased rate of grass growth (thus an increase in the frequency of lawn mowing) is annoying, but I do like the fact that my clothes dry quicker.

Update: David Icke points out in his comment that global warming is actually a fiendish plot by shape-shifting reptilians; groundwork for their immanent invasion of earth.

I have noticed an increase in Gecko numbers over the last few years… Perhaps this is a product of global warming too? Though I hadn't considered the possibility that this was an alien invasion from an extra dimension. I just assumed they were from China or something.

____________________
Tagged - Fallacy, Skepticism, Global Warming, False Cause.


(Via Tim Blair)

Three houses answer

The answer to the three houses problem I posed below (earlier in the week).

Wrong category

Maggie's Farm has a good post about category errors as their Fallacy of the week.

Their examples are very broad but it's worth reading and thinking about. Ambiguity is a cunning type of category error.


______
Fallacy

The three houses

Marking and reporting is almost over, so normal service (Humbug Hunting) should resume shortly. In the mean time, here's another brainteaser:

Three houses (1, 2 and 3) are all situated on one block of land, encompassed by a fence (with house 1 up against the fence). The owners of each of the houses want to build driveways (starting inside the fence) from their homes to their respective gates. To decrease the likelihood of collisions, they do not want the driveways to cross. Show the homeowners how they can achieve this - house 1 to gate A, 2 to B and 3 to C.

I'll link to an answer in the comments section in the next day or so. (And I know the position of the gates wouldn't make sense in real life, but it's a brainteaser people.)


Tagged - Brainteaser

Faculty follies - Shock story: a faculty of arts produces something useful

Aussie English for Beginners is a book produced by the dictionary people at the Australian National University. The link takes you to further links. Worth a visit for non-Australians planning a trip to Australia. Or those Australians who relish creative turns of phrase in traditional Australian vernacular English. This picture was inspired by one such turn of phrase: "As flash as a rat with a gold tooth".

The meaning of this simile should be obvious. However, if it isn't... let's just say that this particular rat has tickets on himself.

Goofy Brazil (come on Aussie)

I know it's unlikely that we'll beat Brazil, but I thought I'd support Australia in their efforts to make Brazil look goofy in today's match (football/soccer world cup). Unlikely as it is, we have done it recently.

(I was going to make Ronaldinho look goofy too, but that seemed to be somewhat superfluous.)

Original distortature post about the goofy altruist, Ronaldo, is here.

Faculty follies - a metaphor for organisational skills

Interesting quote sourced from Maggie's Farm (they in turn sourced it from elsewhere - if I could be bothered I would track down the original).

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.

It's an interesting quote because it lends itself to paraphrase, viz:

I'd rather entrust the government of Australia to the first 400 people listed in the Brisbane telephone directory than to the faculty of Griffith University.

or... to put it more bluntly and with a particularly Australian vernacular touch...

The academic management of an average Australian university couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

Unfortunately I can't source this last aphorism. Much more pithy than the William F. Buckley quote.

Life and Living Quiz

Test yourself with some 8th grade science (are you as smart as a 13 year old?).

#1: What are animals without backbones called?

#2: True or False? About one-third of the food that humans take in is used to keep us warm.

#3: When classifying living things, what is the division above species?

• Order
• Genera
• Class
  
• Family

#4: Finish this sentence: "Oxygen and glucose give an organism energy by a process called..."

• breathing.
• respiration.
• perspiration.
  
• photosynthesis.

#5: Which word is the odd one out?

• Taxonomy
• Random
  
• Chaotic
• Jumble

#6: You are looking through a microscope with an overall magnification of 600x. The eyepiece lens is 20x. What is the magnification of the objective lens?

________________
If you are struggling - just cheat.

Answers posted in the next few days.

Education Carnival 71

The End of Year Staff Party is being held at What it's like on the inside - loads of stuff to get sucked into, including this great post.

Gallic symbol weaseled

I have noticed the over-use of two weasel-expressions in newspaper accounts about meetings, gabfests, conferences and the like.

A delegate to such a conference who merely walks out with dignity, is often said to have stormed out, or even fled the assembly.

Jacques Chirac is reported to have both stormed out, and fled at a recent meeting.

Quite an accomplishment.

Journalists given to using such emotive descriptions are untrustworthy witnesses to such events. People rarely storm or flee. They mostly walk - perhaps briskly. (Although in defence of the journalist in question, I do think the photograph taken at the time indicates that the pointy-headed cheese-eater in question appeared to be really cheesed off about something or other.)

I'm in trouble…

...the next time I apply for a job. Read this post at What it's like on the inside, for the entire story - truth or consequences:

Information about nearly anyone is just a "google" away. Employers are using this to their advantage in order to find out more about prospective candidates before hiring….

....When viewed by corporate recruiters or admissions officials at graduate and professional schools, such pages can make students look immature and unprofessional, at best.

Humbug online doesn't make me look immature and unprofessional, surely? I just have the humour gene.

I'm on google (yay!), so you'll know if I'm applying for a new job because the blog will mysteriously disappear for a few weeks or so. (Or maybe they'll assume I'm the Truman State Chem Professor?)

Assigning grades 101

I just found the solution to all my marking woes over at chemjerk:

1. Place 16 oz. beer glass in freezer approximately one hour before pouring.
2. Open beer bottle. For certain brews, this may require a special tool.
3. Pour beer into frosty mug.
4. Find and depress the symbol “A” on the computer keyboard.
5. Repeat steps 1 to 4 as necessary.

Now you'll have a principal who "...absolutely loves you because your students and their parents never complain."

If only I'd thought of that myself.

I will add to it, however: “Make sure you have a "fire" and all the papers were tragically lost, but luckily you had just finished recording all the marks.”

Clarification of the ad hominem fallacy

The ad hominem fallacy, or personal abuse involves a gratuitous and irrelevant attack or slur on a person's character. An attack which is irrelevant to the substance of the debate or discussion. The picture opposite is of a former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Mr Fraser was a crap Prime Minister.

In support of this contention, I would like to point out that Mr Fraser is sometimes known as Mr Poopy Pants. On the face of it, the picture itself seems to be insulting, and so does the nickname.

However I would dispute this. This post is not an ad hominem attack. He really does look like this - perhaps worse in real life, and without TV makeup. And rumour has it that he really did poop his pants. (That is said by some to be the reason he had to discard his pants in Memphis all those years ago.)

Anyway, even if some would characterise my post as a gratuitous ad hominem attack, Fraser is a total wanker and tool and he deserves it. Take that, Mr Poopy Pants!

All-purpose Kofi Annan cartoon

I have posted this generic Kofi Annan cartoon so I can link to it as each new UN fiasco makes the headlines. The cartoon will fit any conceivable UN fiasco in the future - so long as Kofi remains in charge.

A monumental stuff-up by a minister in an elected government typically leads to a resignation. In the UN, such stuff-ups lead to an expression of concern from the chief executive. If the stuff-up is breathtakingly bad, the chief executive - when pushed - may even express grave concern.

Marking is pointless and fun says Aflie Kohn

Given the continual pain I've been in for the last 3 weeks, which won't end for another 3, thanks to marking, I thought I'd quickly rip into Alfie Kohn. Kohn is an edumacation guru and "whole child" teacher. In his article, The Trouble with Rubrics, he seems to think that marking should be endless, inefficient, and have no point. The only way I can fathom that someone could hold such a belief is that they are sadistic and actually enjoy marking; the less point to it, the better.

I'll start with the pointlessness of marking. Note that Kohn claims he doesn't think in "black and white" anymore… yeah right!

Once upon a time I vaguely thought of assessment in dichotomous terms: The old approach, which consisted mostly of letter grades, was crude and uninformative, while the new approach, which included things like portfolios and rubrics, was detailed and authentic. Only much later did I look more carefully at the individual floats rolling by in the alternative assessment parade -- and stop cheering.

Whilst I agree with him on this point, that the "new approach" is not necessarily better than the "old approach". I find it strange that someone who is past dichotomous thinking goes on to say:

…I’d been looking for an alternative to grades because research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. The ultimate goal of authentic assessment must be the elimination of grades.

Apparently authentic assessment and grades are mutually exclusive, or did I not read that right or something? Kohn sets up a False Dilemma - we can't have both authentic assessment and grades. If that's the case, how are we to demarcate between those who know stuff, and those who don't? If we follow Kohn's advice we assess students but don't demarcate between work of high quality, good quality, satisfactory quality, poor quality, and so on. I'm guessing now, but perhaps he doesn't want a grade for each assessment item, but rather, an essay of feedback, to help students improve? I'm all for assessment for learning, but I'm quite sure that the fulcrum of assessment is to judge the quality of something. Assigning a mark is the shortcut way of reporting on the assessor's assessment. It should be possible for the assessor to justify their decision, but the mark makes it easy for the rest of us to quickly gauge the quality of something. Eg, I'm going into some detail now, explaining why Kohn's work in general is crap, but if I just give it a C+, you get the picture (I'm an easy marker!).

Now, he does make some good points with respect to rubrics and criteria, but if anything it leads me to say let's go back to standardised external exams - much less marking for me… Oh, in Kohn's book, that would make me despicable. Fancy not wanting to spend my entire life marking:

… there’s the matter of that promise to make assessment “quick and efficient.” I’ve graded enough student papers to understand the appeal here, but the best teachers would react to that selling point with skepticism, if not disdain.

Again, more dichotomous thinking from Kohn, topped off with a pre-empted impugning of motives (I must not be one of the "best teachers" then). Why can't marking be quick, efficient, and authentic? The answer must be that slow and arduous marking ensures authenticity… well if that's the case, everything I'm currently marking is highly authentic indeed.

Now, back to some pointless fun.

A postmodern joke

I enjoyed today’s editorial in The Australian, Bad art and bad teaching reflect a postmodern malaise for this joke:

WHAT do a perforated shipping container, a medical student who can't tell the difference between a heart and a liver and a poster advertising the movie Gandhi have in common? No, they are not all exhibits in the current Sydney Biennale – only the shipping container made it in this year. Rather, they are all symptoms of a postmodern rot at the core of Australian academic and cultural life that seeks to divorce art from beauty, replace skills-based excellence with warmed-over sociology and inject a politicised, deterministic view of the world in which identity groups trump individuals into virtually every sphere of life.

Okay, so technically it’s not a joke as there is no punch line and it’s not funny. However, on reading the whole thing it became clear that the joke is postmodernism itself. The occasional Strawman appears in some of the editorial, but all in all it is spot on.

Faculty Follies - when a deputy is not a deputy

In a faculty within the institution wherein I work, word on the street is that a plethora of position descriptions is about to be introduced. Academe is rife with meaningless descriptors for dodgy roles (adjunct professor, professor emeritus etc). However meaninglessness is about to reach new heights (or depths). The faculty in question is about to create Deputy Heads of Schools to work "alongside" Heads of Schools. It's official: the deputies will have the same status as the Heads of School.

Deputy (OED) "a person who is appointed to undertake the duties of a superior in the superior's absence".

Ironically, at the meeting where it was announced that the word deputy was about to be stripped of all useful meaning, concern was expressed about the declining literacy of undergraduates!

Also I understand that Heads of School will have assistants, as will the Deputy Heads of School. It's unclear as yet whether the assistants to the Heads of School will be of equal, higher or lower status than the assistants to the Deputy Heads of School. Or indeed, whether the assistants will be equal in status to those they assist.

All of this change will not affect me of course, because I am not a respecter of persons. Quite the contrary - I only respect good ideas. (In academe, there is a high correlation between bad ideas and high status.)

Use found for one-word legacy of useless excrescence

I like to think that some good can be found in anyone. I tested this assumption recently by re-reading some of the tripe written by the postmodernist's postmodernist, Jacques Derrida.

I almost lost hope, and then it slowly dawned on me - the word deconstruction had some potential utility. Not the word as laboured over, and mangled unto meaninglessness by Derrida and his camp-followers. But a purer, more basic form of the word. In fact, my form of the word.

Just as postmodernists have relentlessly stolen perfectly useful words from common parlance, and have rendered them meaningless. So I shall steal a postmodernist coinage and render it meaningful.

I will now deconstruct postmodernism, and the entire oevre of Jacques Derrida. Here it is.

Proposition: deconstruction is to literature as horse manure is to a sunlit meadow.

Evil brainteaser

Given the date, 6-6-6, it's time to bring out the evilest brainteaser I know:

Dots A, B and C must all join dots 1, 2 and 3 using lines.

That is, three lines must leave A and go to 1, 2 and 3 respectively; three from B must go to 1, 2, and 3; and three from C must go to 1, 2, and 3.

The lines can be curved, but they must not cross or overlap each other, cross or overlap themselves or go through the dots.

Good luck and remember, I told you it was evil.

Ps - draw on a bit of paper, not your screen.

Breaking news!

After much deliberation, including consultation with an expert on fallacies, I've decided to add Bad Faith as another category to the list of fallacies on the right side bar. I feel this is for the best as I really want to help educate and improve the quality of thinking "out there", not because we haven't posted anything of substance lately (bloody marking...).

3 doors

I'm being lazy - another brainteaser:

You are on a game show and win! The host gives you a choice of 3 doors, A, B and C. Behind one is the prize* and there is nothing behind the other two.

He asks you to choose a door. You choose one (let’s say B).

He then opens one of the other doors that (he knows) doesn’t have the prize (say A).

You are now offered the chance of staying with the first door you chose (B), or changing to the one remaining door (C).

Q: What should you do? Or does it make no difference?
__________
*Feel free to imagine whatever prize you like. You aren't really on a game show after all, it's just made up. I'm imagining some kind of "marker-bot". A robot that could do all my marking for me.

3 men* go to a restaurant…

and pay $30 for a meal.

The restaurant owner checks their bill and realises they have been overcharged by $5. He gives a waiter the money and instructs him to reimburse the three men. The waiter is a bit dodgy, so he pockets $2 for himself and gives each man back $1 each.

Each man has therefore paid $9 and the waiter has kept $2.

Given: $9 multiplied by 3 is $27 and then adding $2 makes $29 [(9 x 3) + 2 = 29], where did the other $1 go?
_________
* Feel free to substitute "women" if you are that PC.

Bad faith - the fun way to haggle

Don't like haggling? Me neither. So I fake haggle to turn an awkward experience into a memorable one. I shall call this type of haggling the Bad Faith haggle. There are many options - I will describe one of these.

I am currently attempting to buy a PDA, and most storekeeps (sales assistants) assume that they can expect a haggle. I make the implicit explicit. I say, "I suppose at this point I should haggle".

I then pretend to make a cellphone call to my wife and to begin a conversation. In an aside to the sales assistant, I tell him that my wife haggles, even thought I don't because I find the whole process demeaning. I then say to him "my wife says how much discount for cash?" When he replies I convey this information over the phone to my fake wife. I then say, "she says you've got to be joking". I then say to my fake wife: "I think your last comment was unwarranted, as the sales assistant looks offended". This surreal exchange continues for some time - I can get quite inventive, and I have even managed to have a heated argument with my fake wife in the middle of negotiations.

If the item is not too expensive, I like to finish off this way. After beating down the list price by a modest amount through my fake-wife-telephonic-proxy-haggle, I agree to the purchase, and then calculate the difference between the list price and the discounted price. I then tip the sales assistant by the exact amount of the haggle-discount. This amazes the sales assistant and compensates him for his trouble. I like to think that it also gives him an anecdote for dinner table conversations and salesperson conventions which he can use for the rest of his life.

How to be a postmodernist

Tip number 1: Have nothing of importance to say and whatever you say should be idiotic and wrong. Lest people see what you are saying is unimportant, idiotic and wrong, you must never communicate it clearly. Write meaningless Gibberish.

Tip number 2: Avoid those who are adept at using Occam's Manure Fork.

Here’s a perfect example of PoMos following Tip 1 - from the book Empire, by Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri:

…a new paradigm of power is realized which is defined by the technologies that recognize society as the realm of biopower. In disciplinary society the effects of biopolitical technologies were still partial in the sense that disciplining developed according to closed, geometrical, and quantitative logics. Disciplinarity fixed individuals within institutions but did not succeed in consuming them completely in the rhythm of productive practices and productive socialization; it did not reach the point of permeating entirely the consciousness and bodies of individuals.

They follow tip 2 by having it reviewed by credulous fools, such as Emily Eakin in The New York Times, who thought the book was: "...filling a void in the humanities."

Roger Kimball, in his piece in The New Criterion, The new anti-Americanism, replied to that little gem of a comment with: "It would be more accurate to say that it epitomizes that void." Precisely. These people couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

And on the off chance you need more reason to despise sciolism from this type of pseudo-intellectual trash, other than the fact it is meaningless piffle:

Antonio Negri was an architect of the infamous Red Brigades, a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group. In 1979, he was arrested and charged with "armed insurrection against the state" and seventeen murders, including the murder of the Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro, who was kidnapped in 1978 and shot dead fifty-five days later, his body dumped in a car. Negri did not actually pull the trigger. But, as David Pryce-Jones noted in an excellent article about Empire in the September 17 number of National Review, "The Italian authorities had no doubt that Negri was ultimately responsible. Just before Moro was shot dead, someone telephoned his distraught wife to taunt her, and that person was identified at the time as Negri." He fled to Paris, where he struck up friendships with Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and other specimens of enlightenment. He eventually returned to Italy and negotiated a sharply reduced sentence for "membership in an armed band."

A delightful man, this Italian Political Philosopher. I imagine the photo of him above will be what he looks like when he (no doubt) finds out he's won the Nobel peace prize.

___________
Technorati Tagged - Fallacy, Skepticism, Gibberish, Post Modernism.