Category Archives: Rationalism

In a recent debate over Kashmir, the Twitter handle of the Republic TV, a reliable guide to the dominant state-supported narrative on any issue, belted out: Why intellectualise the problem? Tweet using #NationFirstNoCompromise and speak out.

In another debate, headlined as "Indian against Anti-Nationals", an RSS functionary noted that anti-nationals are of two types: Those who terrorise and those who provide intellectual justification."

Major Gaurav Arya, an in-house expert of the Republic TV, asserted that stone-pelters ought to be declared as terrorists, but are protected by the intellectual ideology weaved around them.

This deliberate opposition between intellectual opinion and "national interest" is not only a constant trope of the Republic TV, but also that of government spokesmen (although, lately, it has been hard to discern the difference between the two).

For almost every major problem Kashmir, Maoism, communalism, Pakistan the government and its enablers have devised a way to deflect all responsibility from its own failures towards a cabal of intellectual insurgents JNU type academics, "Lutyens' journalists", human rights activists, liberal writers, pro-pakistan peaceniks and so forth.

The term intellectual that relates to the ability to think and understand complicated things has itself become somewhat of a slur today. The popular demons in the dominant narrative academics, journalists, human rights activists, writers, rationalists are all persons engaged in professions that require them to think critically and rationally about issues of society and culture.

'This unwillingness or inability to compromise almost always leads to violence, witness the unending violence and repression in Kashmir.'

Unsurprisingly, the views of these groups of people often collide with the worldview of the Sangh Parivar, an institution whose value system is diametrically opposite to the values held by them. The Sangh and their millions of followers privilege values of obedience, loyalty, hierarchy and suspect values of individualism, rationalism and critical thinking. The rise of the Sangh Parivar as the pre-eminent force in Indian culture and politics has therefore inexorably reduced intellectuals from an object of respect to an object of popular loathing.

Richard Hofstadter, historian and author of the acclaimed book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, defined intellectualism as the understanding of human society in terms of balance of forces and interests based upon the continuing process of compromise. Intellectualism, Hofstadter writes, is sensitive to nuances and sees things in degrees, and is essentially relativist and sceptical.

The present government represents one of our most anti-intellectual governments ever not merely because of its zealous devotion to its (right-wing) ideology, but because of its imperviousness to nuanced thinking and utter rejection of compromise as an essential tool of politics.

The discourse of the government, and the dominant media, is stepped in absolute moral terms, of right and wrong, where compromise is seen as weakness, or worse. The latest illustration is the discourse on Kashmir, where both the government and dominant TV channnels such as Times Now and Republic, have painted the separatists as evil traitors, with whom talks are an unforgivable compromise.

This unwillingness or inability to compromise almost always leads to violence, witness the unending violence and repression in Kashmir. Or look at the recurring episodes of vigilante violence all over the country, a natural consequence of taking an absolutist moral stance on beef eating, one that leaves no room for individual choice.

The violence and the hatred are but the sordid consequences of the fundamental vice a dominant mood of anti-intellectualism. As the Financial Times famously commented in the aftermath of Brexit: When (British Conservative, pro-Brexit politician) Michael Gove said the British people are sick of experts he was right. But can anybody tell me the last time a prevailing culture if anti-intellectualism has lead to anything other than bigotry?."

We have had a right-wing government before, under whom we did not experience a widespread surge of ideologically driven violence as we are witnessing today. Thats because Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a broader-minded person than Modi, had the ability to compromise, and understood that imposing a singular-ideological vision on a diverse country would only lead to violence and instability.

His repeated attempts at talks with Pakistan despite major betrayals, and his outreach and talks with Hurriyat would surely have been characetrised as anti-national treachery in the current atmosphere.

Indeed, Arun Shourie, a prominent member of Vajpayees cabinet, has famously termed the present government as not just anti-intellectual, but anti-intellect.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross, Sinclair Lewis had warned. While it would be a stretch to label it fascism, the current atmosphere of overbearing authoritarianism in our country is certainly wrapped in the flag and carries a trishul. The flag is used not to only muzzle dissenting voices, but to smother the very act of critical thinking.

Unquestioning obedience is demanded, any doubts or questions raised over the dominant narrative on Kashmir, Pakistan, Maoists, beef, academic freedom automatically consigns one to the detestable camp of anti-nationals.

Conformity is viewed as a sign of patriotism, while critical thinking is seen as tantamount to treachery.

Demonetisation was a perfect illustration of the morality play our rulers weave. In a digital version of Freudian slip, the word is sometimes autocorrected on the phone as demonisation, which is perhaps not altogether far from what the exercise was intended to accomplish, as it did with great success.

It not only painted the entire opposition as corrupt and self-serving, but more broadly tarnished anyone questioning the rationale or effectiveness of the move as selfish and unpatriotic. The trope of evoking soldiers to make us happily stand in endless lines was telling; for at that moment we were all conscripted as soldiers for the nation, and like good soldiers we were meant to obey and sacrifice without any questions or complaints.

In this militaristic view of society order and discipline is paramount, thinking and rational inquiry are signs of weakness and liberal decadence. Hard work, the PM suggested , was superior to Harvard.

It must be noted that of all the appeals made by the PM to the citizens to gather support for demonetisation, almost every argument was aimed towards the heart, to emotions and morality; none to reason or economic logic. Inevitably, while the economics of demonetisation failed miserably, the politics of it won handsomely.

HL Mencken noted that the most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. The most dangerous prevailing superstition in our country is the unthinking devotion to a narrow-minded concept of nationalism. The fact that many of us today justify things such as the beating up or killing of humans in the name of a scared animal, or tying up a citizen to a jeep and parading him around, or the demonisation of academics, journalists and minorities, or the elevation of a hate-spewing priest to lead a state, is evidence enough that many of us have, in Menckens words, stopped thinking things out for ourselves.

That is the greatest political triumph of the government of the day, as well as the greatest tragedy for the health of our democracy.

Also read: Tough times ahead: Anti-Modi is the new 'intellectual'

View original post here:

Modi governments greatest trick: Hate the intellectual - DailyO

Washington Health Systems Wilfred R. Cameron Wellness Center is about to open a new labyrinth, thanks to Scott Township resident Dorit Brauer, labyrinth creator and owner of The Brauer Institute for Holistic Medicine.

Designing this particular labyrinth was remarkably special for Brauer, as it is the first hospital-affiliated labyrinth in Western Pennsylvania, though she also has designed labyrinths in several other locations, too, including Ohio, California and even Germany and Israel.

I love every labyrinth Ive created because the experiences it generated and the connections to the people who walked it are always profound, Brauer says of her work. It is an enriching experience, and every single labyrinth walk has the potential to change how you see the world. It is a spiritual transformation power tool and therefore, every experience contains its own special gift.

Labyrinths are considered sacred circles found in every culture around the globe and date back thousands of years the circle has no beginning and no end. It is a doorway to another dimension, and it allows us to become whole and experience oneness, fulfilling the deepest yearning of the human soul, says Brauer, who also authored the book Girls Dont Ride Motorbikes A Spiritual Adventure Into Lifes Labyrinth. The sacred circle represents our origin and final destination, our divine essence that exists beyond time and space.

Though labyrinths may appear similar to mazes, which became popular during the period of rationalism in the 15th century while emphasizing reasoning and thinking, Brauer says there are distinct differences.

A maze forces you to make choices and reach dead ends, she says, but a labyrinth allows you to reach states of clarity, particularly during troubled times and turmoil, and its single-winding path invites you to give up control and relax.

As you walk through a labyrinth, Brauer suggests considering the three Rs:

Release: Release everything that does not serve your highest good. Exhale all concerns, worries, painful memories, aches from your body and beliefs and perceptions that do not resonate with the light.

Receive: As for guidance to lifes challenges. Be assured that the answers to your questions will emerge in the days following your labyrinth walk. Visualize breathing in and breathing out the light. Let your light shine bright and radiant.

Reflect: Trace your steps back out of the labyrinth. Count your blessings and all the good that you have received throughout your life. Focus on happy memories, moments of joy and love. Reflect and embrace everything that is good and nourishes your soul.

Walking through a labyrinth offers many benefits, Brauer notes. Individuals have noticed stress reduction, clarity, inner peace, self-discovery and much more. Since it is essentially a walking meditation, the positive benefits associated to meditation also apply to labyrinth walking. Labyrinths are even becoming increasingly popular in hospital settings, such as the new one at the Cameron Wellness Center.

Brauer says she first learned about labyrinths when she was growing up in Europe, but became more involved with them when she was planning a cross-country road trip for her 40th birthday in 2006.

I knew that I was embarking on a spiritual journey and that I wanted to write a book to share what I had learned, she says. Then I discovered the Labyrinth Locator and found very interesting labyrinths along my itinerary. I wanted to learn more and participated in a labyrinth facilitator training with Dr. Lauren Artress, who was then the Canon of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco and author of Walking a Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Practice.

Since then, Brauer has created more than 100 labyrinths, many of them temporary that could be found in nature, at churches, or for childrens birthday parties and other events such as Farm to Table Pittsburgh, the Healthy Womens Expo at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center and in corporate settings for team building workshops.

She advises that the best way to find local labyrinths is to visit the World Wide Labyrinth Locator at labyrinthlocator.com and enter your zip code.

To see the new labyrinth that she designed on the walking trail behind the Cameron Wellness Center, stop by the opening ceremony scheduled for 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. on June 10.

More here:

A labyrinth is coming to Washington - Observer-Reporter

Man is stupid, you know, phenomenally stupid; or rather he is not at all stupid, but he is so ungrateful that you could not find another like him in all creation. I, for instance, would not be in the least surprised if all of a sudden, apropos of nothing, in the midst of general prosperity a gentleman with an ignoble, or rather with a reactionary and ironical, countenance were to arise and, putting his arms akimbo, say to us all: I say, gentlemen, hadnt we better kick over the whole show and scatter rationalism to the winds, simply to send these logarithms to the devil, and to enable us to live once more at our own sweet foolish will! Notes From the Underground, Dostoevsky

The logarithms Dostoevsky was talking about there would be the mathematical representation of all possible human action according to the laws of nature used to plan and build utopia.Rationalia, Neil deGrasse Tyson would have called it, but Dostoevsky chose the Crystal Palace after aglass exhibition hallbuilt in Hyde Park, which lives on in the name of an oft-relegated football club.

In this Crystal Palace, which is most assuredly LEED-certified, everything will be so clearly calculated and explained that there will be no more incidents or adventures in the world. Then this is all what you say new economic relations will be established, all ready-made and worked out with mathematical exactitude, so that every possible question will vanish in the twinkling of an eye, simply because every possible answer to it will be provided.

The Underground Man rejects all this calculation of his best interest, applauding the reactionary gentleman and his stupid followers, and insists: Ones own free unfettered choice, ones own caprice, however wild it may be, ones own fancy worked up at times to frenzyis that very most advantageous advantage which we have overlooked, which comes under no classification and against which all systems and theories are continually being shattered to atoms.

The Underground Man, you could say, is a Trumpkin. Dont let the leaders ironical countenance throw you off the resemblance; another more literal translation renders that a retrograde and jeering physiognomy.

This is the essence of President Trumps decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. Here comes this jeering, ignoble brute kicking over the whole show, when President Obama and the rest of the worlds greatest minds had just finished solving it for us. Certainly, the question of what to do about global warming vanished after models provided every possible answer, didnt it?

Of course, the models continue to spit out every possible answer as in a broad range of possibilities, not a single truth one either accepts or denies and thats for the questions the models are meant to answer. Heres how NASA summarizes the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on the unknowable questions: An increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will probably boost temperatures over most land surfaces, though the exact change will vary regionally. More uncertain but possible outcomes of an increase in global temperatures include increased risk of drought and increased intensity of storms, including tropical cyclones with higher wind speeds, a wetter Asian monsoon, and, possibly, more intense mid-latitude storms. So disasters, possibly. Or possibly not. But its certain that there will be either more disasters or not as many.

Yet leftists and journalists take dubious claims (it is possible to know the future! and we do!) and turn them into policy demands of supposedly incontrovertible merit. The question itself vanishes, ours not to reason why.

But doesnt the Paris agreement, surely, represent the global collective effort we need to save the planet? Well, to save it from an increase of 0.2 C degrees, yes. Thats what researchers at MIT figured would be the collective effect of the non-binding agreement. And thats if everybody else lived up to a plan that would cost us trillions $3 trillion over two decades, according to industry estimates that Trump cited.

Power plants would take a hit of $366 billion over 15 years under Obamas Clean Power Plan, according to industry estimates, but federal rulemaking reaches down into nooks and crannies few of us consider. The hit to the residential dehumidifier industry, which I didnt even know existed, from just one recent green rule is $220 million.

Instead of telling the truth, reporters obscure it. USA Today writes about how were missing out on a chance to develop our green energy industry, as if businesses are too stupid to make money without government telling them how. Business Insider promises devastating long-term economic consequences for the US. The reliably useless CNN Money reports that American businesses dont believe Obamas energy regulations were job killers.

My favorite was an AP news story headlinedLeaving Paris climate agreement unlikely to add U.S. jobs, economists say. The reporter then quoted exactly zero economists agreeing with that headline.

Withdrawing from the Paris agreement is hardly going to create jobs in the U.S., read the money quote from one Cary Coglianese, a professor of law. While specific environmental regulations can sometimes lead to job losses, they also can and do lead to job gains with the result being roughly a wash.

Thats also his position on regulations in general theyre roughly a wash.

A new study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute puts the annual cost of federal regulations at $1.9 trillion. My point isnt simply that the professor is wrong (though I think he is). Its not that there are no economists who would agree with that headline (there are; the far-left Economic Policy Institute, among others, imagines that regulation leads to harmony and efficiency).

There will always be geniuses with detailed plans for how to build the Crystal Palace. I mistrust them all.

Consider the gap between $1.9 trillion and zero. Consider the similarity between the economy and the climate both impossibly vast systems, with a googolplex of moving parts, few of them susceptible to study in isolation. We can identify some general principles and forces by observation certain incentives and physical effects but what do we know for sure? We can model a few things, but what are we leaving out that might matter more?

I think of the depth of research and the quality of data involved in economics, and theres still no consensus on the blueprint for a Crystal Palace. Yet the planners expect us to be impressed with the observations of climatologists. Ah, so clouds are shiny, and it gets hot when you do that one thing. So clearly, the snow in upper Canada and Norway is going to melt and drown us all.

Crystal Palace South transept & south tower from Water Temple, 1854 (Wikimedia Commons)

See the rest here:

Sophisticated Man Is Stupid - American Spectator

Pakistan started off as a promised land, and after some struggle, started creating promising national and international narratives. The nation succeeded doing that because the society was focused, and created excellence in the given resources of the day. Those who have lived through the Pakistani society in any of the decades from 1950s, to mid-1980s find it hard to believe that they live in the same country that once had more of promise and less of pessimism. The latter did not topple the former by accident. There were political, social and interpretive-religious processes of failures that gave birth to a muddled thinking one finds rampant in a confused population giving way to even more confused youth.

Those who left for greener pastures should try and become loyal citizens of their chosen lands, and leave Pakistan to those who either could not find an opportunity to leave or deliberately chose to stay back

Heres how it happened. The political nexus of civil-military bureaucracy was already undercutting the reason and rationalism in our society since 1956, but the sudden political shifts between 1965 and 1977 bedazzled the collective Pakistani memory. Then the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan began in 1979, and this pushed us into a spiral of conflicts that has further confused the already-confused. This strange war brought death and destruction to our people and their hopes in strange ways. People started losing hopes for a stable, prosperous and peaceful Pakistan for them and their generations. Those who could afford or cheat to migrate, migrated. And while doing so, thousands of pucca Muslims did not even hesitate to obtain fake certificates of declaring themselves Ahamdis, Hindus, Sikhs or Christians when it came to tricking the immigration officers of the foreign governments.

Confused state narratives create confused social narratives, and vice versa. Hence, leaving Pakistan, particularly since 1977s martial law of Gen Ziaul Haq, has been a discussion that probably every lower-to-middle class household in Pakistan has had. The elderly implicitly or explicitly but commonly encouraged the younger to leave. Interestingly, this very stratum of the society comprises of the super-patriots, and the self-proclaimed guardians of the ideological narratives of Pakistan; yet, the discussions! War, any kind of war precisely does that to a people and their socio-political psychology. From sanity, it pushes people towards quick and mindless reactions reactions that create more noise and less of sound. Resultantly, a nation breaks down into groups, and groups devolve into individuals where each living person tries to do just one thing: survive either by fighting or fleeing away.

Fight and flight, both, have been in abundance since the General Zias military dictatorship failed to contain the negatives of Afghan war on the Pakistani society. Crisis of the Pakistani State and society aggravated as a sectarian-political revolution in our neighborhood tried spreading its wings in our courtyard, but the Arab-brethren wanted Pakistanis to rather grow Arbi and not the Ajmi wings. The melting pot of the geo-strategic and sectarian conflicts created an environment that culled the middle class creativity and their ownership of the society. Alongside, the state formally promoted a certain version of Islam and tried making people good Muslims, instead of responsible citizens. Consequently, neither good Muslims nor responsible citizens, a scaring majority of Pakistanis chose becoming habitual pessimists criticising the state and society with half-baked ideas and knowledge.

Look around, and you shall find a predominant number of people pressing their thoughts as information and knowledge. This mixture gets exponentially interesting if you get to interact with the expatriate community, particularly the ones living in established Western democracies. Themselves enjoying rights and freedom that the Western democracies ensure, many among these hyper patriots want quick and ruthless change, military rule, Islamic caliphate, or revolution. People who took the flight, should rather become loyal citizens of their chosen lands, and leave Pakistan to the competence or incompetence of their compatriots who either could not flight, or deliberately chose to stay back and fight whatever the menaces and opportunities their land offered.

Probably for the first time in four decades since 1977, political elite as well as the deep state in Pakistan are talking about recreating a representative national narrative for varied audiences, locally and internationally. Whether it creates more muddles is yet to be seen, as Pakistanis have seen that happen before many times already. But heres a hope that the mess does not get messier, and a clear thinking process unfolds. Havent we had enough of muddled thinking already?

The writer is a social entrepreneur and a student of Pakistans social and political challenges. Twitter: @mkw72

Original post:

Pakistani thought process - Daily Times

In his final year of theatre studies, exhibition curator Geoffrey Curley went on exchange in London and lived on Chiltern Street.

"It's literally the street right over from Baker Street," which is the famous home of Sherlock Holmes. Was this by design?

"No, it was a complete coincidence," Mr Curley, a former theatre designer, said.

But, of course, as Sherlock Holmes himself might have replied, there are no such things as coincidences.

"Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent ...If we could [see] the strange coincidences ... the wonderful chains of events leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction [seem] most stale," said the great detective in A Case of Identity.

It is this world of fantastic reality that Sydneysiders can explore at the Powerhouse Museum's new offering, which opened on Saturday: The International Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes.

Mr Curley, an American, has taken this exhibition around the world Sydney is the seventh stop.He said he had unprecedented co-operation from the Conan Doyle Estate.

"Usually the family doesn't participate," he said. But as you step into the world of Arthur Conan Doyle after passing through some London fog (dry ice), you are welcomed by the author's great nephew, Richard Conan Doyle.

The exhibition is a triumph of Victorian rationalism, neogothic chic and steampunkattitude. Central to the exhibitionis solving a crime, a murder no less.

You must deduce from simple facts how the police got their theories so wrong using the latest techniques of 19th century science: optics, botany, cosmetics, photography, ballistics andtelegraphy.

Perhaps the only thing missing is an injecting room: Holmes' indulgences of heroin and cocaine are not obvious in this representation.

Mr Curley used his contacts in the theatre world to involve Tony Award-winning Broadway designers to build Holmes' Baker Street study. Holmesian author Daniel Stashower developed the narrative of the murder which you must solve.

And to solve this crime you must interact with the exhibits like a sleuth.

Or, as Sherlock Holmes said inThe Sign of Four: "Eliminateall other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

The exhibition marries literature, culture, history and science.

While a fictitious character, Sherlock Holmes inspired some of the early founders of modern forensic science.

Professor Claude Roux is the director of the University of TechnologySydneycentre for forensic science.

"The pioneers in forensic science at the end of the 19th century included Austrian Hans Grossand Frenchman Edmond Locard," Professor Roux told Fairfax Media.

Locard was known as the "Sherlock Holmes of Lyon" and was reportedly an avid reader of ConanDoyle.

"The Locardprincipledeclares that 'every contact leaves a trace'," he said.

Professor Roux said: "Whatforensicscience does is look at the traces of crimes themselves and this is exactly what Sherlock Holmes does."

"Observation, reasoning and the ability to infer the right questions leading to hypothesis and tests it's the ultimate scientific method."

EXHIBITION HIGHLIGHTS

Go here to see the original:

Powerhouse Museum Sherlock Holmes exhibition unites science ... - The Sydney Morning Herald

In a political environment where it can be challenging to maintain a sense of hope and optimism about the future, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a soothing balm of rationality and compassion.

After Donald Trumpproclaimedhe was withdrawing the United States from the Paris Accord on climate change, political and corporate leaders both within the U.S. and around the world unanimouslydenounced the move in the strongest terms.

But Macrons approach was different. Like other prominent voices, Macron indeed spoke out against Trumps decision as a mistake for our planet. But in addition to speaking out, Macron also reached out.

He spoke to those of us in the United States who are feeling despair, embarrassment, and hopelessness in the face of Trumps actions. With clarity and conviction, he told the American people that others believe in us, and he even issued an invitation:

To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the US: pic.twitter.com/qxjPX8MhKt

Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2017

Tonight, I wish to tell the United States: France believes in you. The world believes in you. I know that you are a great nation. I know your history our common history.

To all scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the President of the United States, I want to say that they will find in France a second homeland. I call on them: Come and work here with us, to work together on concrete solutions for our climate, our environment.

I can assure you: France will not give up the fight.

In striking contrast to Trumps bombastic and grandiose tone, Macron exhibited a return to calm rationalism an approach grounded in the ideology upon which our two countries democracies were founded. With a heartfelt empathy juxtaposed against theisolationist rhetoric of Trumps nationalism, Macron recognized our common humanity, the fate of which ultimately rests in decisions made not within borders but despite and across them:

We all share the same responsibility: make our planet great again. pic.twitter.com/IIWmLEtmxj

Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) June 1, 2017

I call on you to remain confident.We will succeed. Because we are fully committed. Because, wherever we live, whoever we are, we all share the same responsibility: Make our planet great again.

Diametrically opposed to the attempts by Trump and the GOP to leverage fear, tribalism, and the myths of nostalgia to take our nation backward, Macrons words were a gift of encouragement and solidarity not you but we, working together to overcome the divisive forces of avarice and Trumpism at home, and the global rise of white nationalism and rejection of a shared humanity.

Nothing less than the future of all of the worlds children is at stake.Macron knows that. And the majority of the American people do, too.

More:

French president to the resistance: The world believes in you - Shareblue Media

3 Jun 2017, 8:48 p.m.

Central to the exhibition is solving a crime, a murder no less.

In his final year of college exhibition curator Geoffrey Curley lived in London for a year, on Chiltern Street.

"It's literally the street right over from Baker Street," which is the famous home of Sherlock Holmes. Was this by design?

"No, it was a complete coincidence," Mr Curley, a former theatre designer, said.

But, of course, as Sherlock Holmes himself might have replied, there are no such things as coincidences.

"Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent ... If we could [see] the strange coincidences ... the wonderful chains of events leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction [seem] most stale," said the great detective in A Case of Identity.

It is this world of fantastic reality that Sydneysiders can explore at the Powerhouse Museum's new offering, which opened on Saturday: The International Exhibition of Sherlock Holmes.

Mr Curley, an American, has taken this exhibition around the world - Sydney is the seventh stop. He said he had unprecedented co-operation from the Conan Doyle Estate.

"Usually the family doesn't participate," he said. But as you step into the world of Arthur Conan Doyle after passing through some London fog (dry ice), you are welcomed by the author's great nephew, Richard Conan Doyle.

The exhibition is a triumph of Victorian rationalism, neogothic chic and steampunk attitude. Central to the exhibition is solving a crime, a murder no less.

You must deduce from simple facts how the police got their theories so wrong using the latest techniques of 19th century science: optics, botany, cosmetics, photography, ballistics and telegraphy.

Perhaps the only thing missing is an injecting room: Holmes' indulgences of heroin and cocaine are not obvious in this representation.

Mr Curley used his contacts in the theatre world to involve Tony Award-winning Broadway designers to build Holmes' Baker Street study. Holmesian author Daniel Stashower developed the narrative of the murder which you must solve.

And to solve this crime you must interact with the exhibits like a sleuth.

Or, as Sherlock Holmes said in The Sign of Four: "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

The exhibition marries literature, culture, history and science.

While a fictitious character, Sherlock Holmes inspired some of the early founders of modern forensic science.

Professor Claude Roux is the director of the University of Technology Sydney centre for forensic science.

"The pioneers in forensic science at the end of the 19th century included Austrian Hans Gross and Frenchman Edmond Locard," Professor Roux told Fairfax Media.

Locard was known as the "Sherlock Holmes of Lyon" and was reportedly an avid reader of Conan Doyle.

"The Locard principle declares that 'every contact leaves a trace'," he said.

Professor Roux said: "What forensic science does is look at the traces of crimes themselves - and this is exactly what Sherlock Holmes does."

"Observation, reasoning and the ability to infer the right questions leading to hypothesis and tests - it's the ultimate scientific method."

EXHIBITION HIGHLIGHTS

The story Exhibition unites science, literature, history ... and blood first appeared on The Sydney Morning Herald.

Follow this link:

Exhibition unites science, literature, history ... and blood - The Border Mail

The Hindu

A journey to reckon with The Hindu He is, I would like to believe, disturbed over the growing amnesia about the Dravidian movement's commitment to rationalism, the scientific spirit. The austere Periyar is a living being for him. He must be worried on whether that is so for his party ... and more »

Original post:

A journey to reckon with - The Hindu

In 1838 Ralph Waldo Emerson, part Plato, part Ichabod Crane, attacked the corpse cold rationalism of conservative and liberal alike in his classic Harvard Divinity School address, declaring, as any good Transcendentalist would, that: Truly speaking, it is not instruction, but provocation, that I can receive from another soul. What he announces, I must find true in me, or reject; and on his word, or as his second, be he who he may, I can accept nothing. For Emerson, truth was not true until perceived from deep within.

Not instruction, but provocation, is a phrase that lies at the heart of genuine education. After some 42 years of making a run at that, I still believe that the classroom is sacred space where opinions collide, interpretations vary, and, pray God, learning prevails. From Socrates holding forth in the Agora to todays Power-Point-assisted seminars, when such intellectual provocation prevails, there is nothing like it, nothing in this world.

Unless, of course, students and/or faculty are packing a piece, utilizing campus carry laws that bring guns to class, concealed in pockets, purses, briefcases or backpacks. When guns show up for class, provocation takes on a whole new meaning. Learning itself is dangerous and transformative, but it should never be life-threatening. Campus carry scares the Holy Socrates out of me; it really does.

When this century began (the year of our Lord 2000), there were no laws that permitted firearms on university/college campuses. As of spring 2017, 11 states now offer such legal possibilities, including Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Ohio and Wisconsin. Tennessee lets faculty, but not students, arm themselves. (Hopefully faculty meetings are firearm free!)

Sixteen states ban concealed weapons at universities: California, Florida,Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,South Carolina and Wyoming. (The North Carolina legislature is working hard to arm college students, but they cant get beyond court-rejected, racial-discriminating voting and gerrymandering laws.) Twenty-two states leave the decision of on-campus weapons to the discretion of specific educational institutions.

The increase in campus carry options were significantly impacted by the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre in which a senior student gunned down 32 students and wounded 17 in a horrendous killing spree. Many insisted that the gunman might have been stopped had students and faculty been sufficiently armed. The shooting prompted schools to tighten lockdown policies, increasing campus police, and expanding electronic alert warnings. Campus lockdowns are no longer uncommon in schools across the country. Better safe than sorry.

In spite of cloistered quads and ivy-covered surroundings, American schools of higher education have never been immune from the social realities of their national and regional cultures. Alcohol excesses and burgeoning opioid epidemics continue to wreak havoc, often with violent implications. Sexual abuses take heavy tolls on state, private and, yes, Christian schools alike. Hostile ideological and political divides all too often lead to physical threats and attacks against faculty or students at institutions left and right of center. Will concealed weapons save us or merely deepen the danger to life and limb? Is our society itself so broken, so brutal, and intellectual provocation so volatile, that firearms are a necessary defense?

Advocates insist that the society is indeed so violence-laden that citizens must arm themselves in every setting. Some suggest that increasing sexual violence is sufficient reason for females to take up arms. Others demand that Second Amendment rights be applied in every segment of society, colleges included. I fret over implied threats and symbolic implications. Does the syllabus declare: Dont shoot! Youre all getting As?

What if campus carry is simply the most dangerous of an unceasing set of classroom distractions, existing alongside tweets, texts, Google, Wikipedia and Facebook, diversions that thwart both instruction and provocation, disengaging students from ideas that might form or re-form them? Whatever else the vulnerability of learning means perhaps it is this: try as we might to protect ourselves externally and internally, we can never insulate ourselves enough to escape the insolent idea, the banal diatribe, the suicidal bomber, or the AK-47 crazy.

For years, Ive thought (but never said aloud) that teaching means getting intellectually naked in front of a group of people for the sake of ideas, and hoping they gasp at the ideas and not the teachers conceptual vulnerability. Firearms that protect may also become weapons that sidetrack from what learning can and should be the great mystery of vulnerability to ideas and each other.

In Telling the Truth, the Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, & Fairy Tale, Frederick Buechner tells about a high school class that had gone better than usual the day they studied King Lear. Buechner concludes: The word out of the play strips them for a moment naked and strips their teacher with them and to that extent Shakespeare turns preacher because stripping us naked is part of what preaching is all about, the tragic part. In my academic experience, provocation and spirituality are intricately related.

So please dont come to my classes, lectures or workshops armed for anything but learning. Leave your guns outside, please. Go ahead, make my day.

OPINION: Views expressed in Baptist News Global columns and commentaries are solely those of the authors.

See the original post:

'Don't shoot! You're all getting A's!' - Baptist News Global

By Weston Sims | Opinions Editor | 05/31/17 11:10am

Theres a difference between understanding a statistical probability about someone and using that probability to make an assumption about that person.

The former merely involves knowing how to comprehend a statistic, while the latter consists of misusing that statistic to imprison a person inside a generalization or in other words, committing a logical lapse. It denies them their full humanity, their individual autonomy. This assault on personhood is the mechanism by which racism, sexism, xenophobia and a million other degrading modes of thought operate. And its incredibly easy to get caught up in it; humans have a propensity to do so.

By nature, we categorize and simplify to make sense of the complicated world we live in and truth is likely to get lost in translation. We become seekers of simplicity rather than seekers of truth, and oftentimes, others who share this world with us bear the cost.

This cost takes many forms, some more malicious than others. A woman is denied a promotion because of an employers unconscious inclination that women are too emotional to lead. A black man is denied a job because the name on his application has ethnic connotations, and thus all of the baggage that carries in America. A homosexual man is assumed to be more promiscuous than his straight counterpart.

But all are connected through a singular defect: Its a cage crafted from the often unconscious attempts by human beings to categorize other human beings.

Many stereotypes are the result of social conditioning oftentimes through exposure to Hollywood, the news media or society in general and sometimes stereotypes are created and sustained in the cesspool of overt racism. For example, racists will come across a statistic about other human beings like how African Americans in the U.S. have a higher incarceration rate than other races and use that statistic to assume the character of the demographic represented by it. Without caring much for how such statistics come to be, such as through systemic oppression, these statistics give racists a foundational sense of rationalism for their misguided and immoral beliefs. Under the guise of this rationalism, they proceed to strip away room for doubt, that precious space that buffers people from the worst of dogmas. Doing so provides fertile grounds for racist movements.

Once racist movements capture this misguided sense of rationalism, they open themselves to broader appeal, an effect compounded by Western cultures enlightenment influences. One doesnt need to look too deeply into history to see this effect, though the early 20th century provides a stark example; you only have to look at America today with the rise of the Alt-right, a movement whose leader paints himself as an intellectual racist.

Its important we dont fall into the trap of letting a statistic, especially those taken out of context, lead us toward allowing negative stereotypes to shape our minds.

Making an assumption about which horse will win the Kentucky Derby based off statistics must be distinguished from making an assumption about a human being based off statistics. The crucial distinction is that the consequences between the two assumptions are in no way equal.

There are different consequences for betting on the horse race the worst material outcome is you lose money. The worst immaterial outcome may be a loss of pride.

Betting on human beings is a completely different game. Imposing assumptions about human beings, which are often negative, can have terrible, life-changing effects for the victims. In a material sense, people are denied jobs, promotions, housing, and the list goes on. As for immaterial outcomes, people are denied respect, friendship and basic humanity. These negative outcomes often provide a feedback loop with marginalized people being more likely to be pushed into a position of committing actions that lend toward their social exclusion.

Because of the difference in consequences, our decision calculus must adjust accordingly.

We must keep our unconscious biases in check. The trouble is that, while the effects of stereotyping are completely manifest for the victims, the causes are often hidden from the perpetrator under years of social conditioning. Moreover, many perpetrators are under the false assumption that they completely understand their own minds.

If they think they arent a racist, they believe it follows they arent a racist. They believe unconscious biases dont exist, despite the vast amount of research that points to the contrary.

To mitigate this self-deception, we must all confront ourselves with the acknowledgment that we arent completely aware of some of our own beliefs. It will require humility and a great deal of internal debate.

We must leave room for doubt; its the only assurance youre looking for Truth and not a crutch for your world view.

Continued here:

COLUMN: The statistical fallacy - The Auburn Plainsman