Buddhism and the social sciences: "The Stupidest Man Alive" award goes to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson

Sunday, August 17, 2014

"The Stupidest Man Alive" award goes to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson

It looks like Brad DeLong has not given the "Stupidest Man Alive" award for a little bit now. Further research is required to ascertain how long it has been since he gave out the award. Apart from the award given out in July, 2013 (this he gave to himself for making an error that is actually quite forgivable), the previous one, as far as I can see, inthe first 10 hits on Google takes it away from Donald Luskin and gives it to Steven Landsburg.

-+-

Yet another gift to our public sphere from Jacob Weisberg and Michael Kinsley…

Cord Jefferson has the report:

Steven Landsburg… economics professor at the University of Rochester. Formerly a Slate columnist…. March 20… "Censorship, Environmentalism and Steubenville," the post attempts to compare and contrast potential "psychic harms" associated with pornography, environmentalism, and being raped while you are passed out. If one of those things, prima facie, doesn't sound like the others to you, well, Landsburg would like to understand "what is the key difference among them?"…
After describing a scenario in which a character named "Farnsworth McCrankypants" is mentally traumatized by knowing other people watch porn ("Question 1"), and another in which "Granola McMustardseed" is distressed by the idea of wilderness desecration ("Question 2"), Landsburg poses "Question 3," which references the recently closed Steubenville rape case:
Let's suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm—no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I've read, was not even aware that she'd been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.)… Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?… I'm having trouble articulating any good reason why Question 3 is substantially different from Questions 1 and 2. As long as I'm safely unconsious and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn't the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits?…
Every time someone on my street turns on a porch light, trillions of photons penetrate my body… if those… caused me deep psychic distress, the law would continue to ignore them… bodily penetration does not seem to be in some sort of special protected category…

-+-

Without getting into that particular debate, I would like to point out that the award now has a new contender who, as far as I know, is so far ahead of the pack that there is not a single competitor in sight.

The new winner of the award is (envelope please): Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson of the University of Northampton. Here were my previous comments on this matter.

-+-

I think Alasdair Gordon-Finalyson by virtue of his statement regarding my supposed anti-Semitism and subsequent refusal to issue an apology has simply gone beyond all parameters of reasonable discussion. The very idea of insulting people like this is revolting. And I'm sorry, there are no two ways about this.
As for me, I'm glad that I got out of the Soto Zen Buddhism forum within days of having joined it. The Internet is a very strange place.

-+-

What led to Alasdair Gordon-Finlayson to call me out on supposed anti-Semitism was, I believe, a reference in a sentence to "the Nobel Prize Awards Ceremony, or as I like to call it, the World Jewish People Appreciation Day". This statement was somehow anti-Semitic to Gordon-Finlayson. This statement obviously implied pride/achievement for the Jewish people (in winning so many Nobel Prizes). Nothing negative. Not only was reading this statement as anti-Semitism a very bizarre reading, at the time I posted this comment, another person did say that he understood this sentence in the way I intended it once I brought this matter to the attention of the forum. So, there is absolutely no question there. Absolutely none at all.

-+-
Sorry. There are no other contenders. No one even close.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About z-Buddhism

About z-Buddhism: http://buddhismandthesocialsciences.blogspot.com/2014/08/about-z-buddhism.html

-+-

There are many Buddhisms. There is, of course, mainstream Buddhism. Then, there is X-Buddhism, a description of which is available at the following website: http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/. And then, there is Y-Buddhism. Somebody suggested Y-Buddhism as an alternate type of Buddhism (I have not looked into the details of Y-Buddhism, whatever that may be). In this blog, we will describe Z-Buddhism.

Z-Buddhism is, hopefully, the last Buddhism you will ever need. Z-Buddhism interprets Buddhism in conjunction with what know from the sciences as well as the social sciences.

Z-Buddhism does not build up from X-Buddhism or Y-Buddhism. It instead builds up theory as it ought to be done - correctly and right the first time. While X-Buddhism seems to be building up some theory to deal with Buddhism intelligently, it really seems to be the sort of "theory building" you see in European continental philosophy. This type of theory building involves using words that few people can understand and it must be said that it is not clear that anything useful is being contributed by a theory merely by the use of impressive sounding words - hermeneutics, substratal matrix, visible informant, et cetera. Gayatri Spivak, Slavoj Zizek, and Homi Bhabha are just three intellectuals guilty of using terms that serve no real purpose other than to obfuscate. The excessive use of these words is often indicative of a poverty of theory itself. This does not mean that X-Buddhism itself is lacking in any way. It is merely a warning to be careful about certain types of theories. Indeed, the obfuscatory words of deconstructionists such the people behind X-Buddhism (or more famously Zizek, Spivak and Bhabha) may even play a role. By not revealing its hand, but yet speaking against the "Machine", it is able to critique whatever "Machine" it is that it chooses to pit itself against.

Again, the excessive use of complex-sound words is often indicative of a poverty of ideas in a theory. This is because of the following reason: good social scientific theories are based on a set of hypotheses. This set of hypotheses can be stated in relatively simple terms. So theories, which are built up from good hypotheses, can also be stated in relatively simple terms. An example of such a theory is the theory of disruptive innovation. Although the theory itself has fallen into question, the techniques of good theory building were used to build the theory - although extra care should have been taken in making sure that the theory was novel as well as accurate. A better theory is the theory of evolution. What is noteworthy about this theory is that it can be explained in relatively few and simple terms (viz., life arises due to evolutionary forces.)

Let us move on to the motivations of theory building. The motivation of theory building is to shed light on the world. The conflict of Religion with Science is well known. Christianity has come under attack because it conflicts with science. The theory of creationism has been throughly debunked and indeed this "theory" has been entirely superseded by the theory of evolution. What is an emerging truth is that Buddhism also has a conflict - not with the Sciences, but with the Social Sciences. Z-Buddhism tells the story of what this conflict is and how it is being resolved (if at all that is possible). Some of the conflict between Religion and Science are essentially unresolvable. It is simply the case that the theory of creationism is wrong. Similarly, it is possible that some of the issues with Buddhism from the perspective of the Social Sciences may never be resolved.

Like the DNA which consists of three intertwining strands, the world of religious studies consists of three strands - at least, it ought to. The first strand (let us color it red) is the strand of Christopher Hitchens and others who are against Religion in every form. The second strand (let us color it green) is the strand of Religion itself. Different religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are part of this strand. The third strand (let us color it blue) is that of the scientist and the social scientist. Thus far, only two strands have been proposed. This work should be seen as the third strand that is oftentimes ignored.

In Z-Buddhism, we will look at some of these issues, and resolve the ones that may be resolvable. So that's Z-Buddhism. It is the last Buddhism you will ever need.