Opium for the masses (Pt 2)

Here, a philospher, Soumaya Ghannoushi, attacks secularism by pinning it to positivism, simultaneously mounting one of the most eloquent defences of religion I've read and baffling the hell out of the usual gang of knuckle-draggers.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2006/10/secularisms_arrogant_face.html

In response to the article: it was inevitable that social constructivism would provided the last refuge for the religious. It's impossible to disprove rationally, since it does not accept the existence of an objective rationality. However, it can be criticised because the relativity it espouses leads to a moral and intellectual morass where right and wrong, true and false, do not exist. Are our so-called --spiritual leaders-- prepared to sell us down that path to save their own hides? Certainly, I know that the pope has spoken against relativism -- http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wyd082105.htm -- Therein lies the paradox, that to defend religion by social constructivism, the religious must first accept that there are no absolute truths: that is to say, destroy the very foundation upon which religion is built. Hence, instead, religion is enfeebled and dependent on the goodwill of atheists to defend it.

Opium for the masses (Pt 1)

Faith schools are a hot topic at the moment, especially after Alan Johnsons embarrassing climb-down over non-faith quotas. In this article, a Reform rabbi, Tony Bayfield, argues for the continued existence of faith schools:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tony_bayfield/2006/10/not_all_faith_schools_are_a_th.html

Tony, if you knew anything about denominational schools in central Scotland (faith has nothing to do with it), you would appreciate that the segregation of children according to religion has resulted in ceaseless hostilities amongst the areas inhabitants. The day that these divisive schools are closed will be the day that the catholic and protestant communities in Scotland take a great step towards rapproachment. However, this day will be a long time coming, since the bile-filled preachers of both religions have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.

Happiness is a hot topic

The Richard Layard Happiness agenda is back in the papers since a number of mental health charities have decided to back his plan. In this article, a psychtherapist, Derek Draper, discusses cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and worries about the impact on other forms of therapy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1935497,00.html

Re: disrealian,
I assume that when Draper talks about CBT+, he is nor referring to some derivative or advancment of CBT, but instead means that initially patients should be treated with CBT, and if this is unsucessful then they should receive some other form of therapy instead, such as psychodynamic or pure cognitive (the + part). As Draper hints at, CBT is most effective at helping people with easily-defined problems such as phobias or compulsive-obsessive disorders, whereas psychodynamic appears better for delving a bit deeper into the psyche.

The Golden Age of Marathon Runners

An article in Comment is Free discusses Teddy Sheringhams continued sporting prowess in awed terms. (He's a footballer, born 1966).


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_hattenstone/2006/10/post_553.html

Maybe the author should lok beyond football if in search of new idols. If it is athletic performance at advanced years that he wants, he should take a look at marathon runners: they don't peak until their mid 30's. Look at the current mens elite: Paul Tergat (born 1969), Haile Gebrselassie (1973) and Hendrick Ramaala (1973) to name but a few at the very top of their game.

Is peer-review pure pants?

The former editor of the British Medical Journal, Richard Smith, in an admittedly blatent attempt to plug his new book, has published an article panning the peer-review process. Only a fool would claim that peer-review is perfect, but I felt that the article was overly-critical and made claims for peer-review that not even its most fanatical proponents would espouse.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_smith/2006/10/beware_medical_journals.html

Here is my reply:

It's easy to criticise peer-review, but what are the credible alternatives? Richard Smith ignores the fact that peer-review was never intended to uncover fraudulence: as he points out, it is a system built on trust, and the goal is to establish if the conclusions reached can be justified by the data presented, not to see if the data is fabricated. However, if the research is of significance, then it is probable that attempts to first duplicate then build upon the work will establish its authenticity, as is presumably the case for the fraudulent sudies Richard refers to. As for publication bias, especially in big-pharma funded clinical trials, Ben Goldacre has suggested the wonderfully simple solution of compulsory registration of trials (www.badscience.net).

Regarding the finding of errors by peer-review, Richard Smith makes no reference to the severity of these errors, and makes no reference to the original research, so it is difficult to judge his claims, but two points are worth mentioning: peer-review is intended to pick up serious faults in reasoning and misrepresentation of the established facts, not to find trivial faults such as spelling mistakes and suchlike. Secondly, reviewers are not assumed to be foolproof, hence the reason why reputable journals submit each article to at least two reviewers.

Finally, I would like to point out that scepticism is a quality required of all scientists, and that those who take everything published in journals to be gospel have no place in research.

Purpose

The intention with this blog is to pull together all the comments I post on other blogs, and hopefully create a coherent body of comment which will reflect my interests/attitudes/prejudices. If I'm lucky, maybe some people will be lured here from some of the comment boards I post on, and if I'm very lucky maybe they'll hang around to start a debate. Who knows?