Posts Tagged ‘logical positivism’

Private Eye on Repeated Exposure of IDS’ Lies

June 25, 2015

Mike from Vox Political was in the Mirror, the Mail and the Groaniad this Tuesday. Ian Duncan Smith, the Minister for the Creative Murder of the Poor, had got really annoyed about disability rights’ campaigners’ continued demands for the release of the government’s statistics showing how many people had died due to sanctions after being declared fit for work. Smith had therefore made a speech denouncing them as ‘disgraceful’ for worrying the public unduly. And so the ladies and gentlemen of the Fourth Estate had come to Mike, and others, like the head of the disabled rights group, Black Triangle, for comment.

And far from being dismayed at this attack on his character, Mike was instead immensely amused, as it once again gave him the opportunity to make the true facts plain before the public, and point out IDS’ continuing lies, as well as his crass stupidity and manifest incompetence.

If IDS is going to get this upset every time someone challenges the honesty of his department, then I strongly advise him to stock up on all the stomach pills he’s going to need to control his increasingly bilious digestion. Because there’s going to be a very long line of ’em.

Mike and his fellows haven’t been the first people this year to upset the Gentleman Ranker about this. Private Eye, in its issue for the 29th May-11th June 2015, published this article on how a series of campaigners had demanded the information, and revealed how the published statistics that had been obtained very definitely give the lie to RTU’s claims. Here it is.

Dead Quiet Man

So much for work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith’s professed “outrage” when asked about secret government reviews into the unexpected deaths of benefit claimants.

In a televised debate before the election, Duncan Smith denied the existence of such a review and accused the Green Party’s Jonathan Bartley of making “scurrilous” and “cheap” allegations – even though his own civil servants had already admitted there had been 40 reviews of suicides and nine further benefit-related deaths in the previous year.

The Department for Work and Pensions is refusing to publish the outcome of those cases but last week, responding to an FOI request from Anita Bellows, a research for Disabled People Against Cuts, it admitted that 10 of the 49 claimants had been subject to controversial benefit sanctions.

Concern that one in five benefit-related deaths may be connected to the practice of suddenly halting payments – for example, after missing one jobcentre appointment – has increased pressure on Duncan Smith to release the reviews. Now his ministerial sidekick, Priti Patel, has unveiled figures showing that while the use of jobseeker sanctions fell overall last year, that was not the case for those who were ill or disabled. The number of people whose employment and support allowance (ESA, which replaced incapacity benefit as the out-of-work disability benefit) was suddenly halted, rose by more than a third last year to a total of 36,810 – leaping from 2,626 to 3,274 in the final month.

Patel maintains sanctions are used “as a last resort” – just as well if rumours are true that cuts to disabled people’s ESA will be part of Duncan Smith’s £12bn welfare budget cuts.

As a number of whistleblowers have pointed out, sanctions are most definitely not used as a last resort. Indeed, there have been leaks showing Jobcentres awarded prizes, like chocolate Easter eggs and mock sheriff’s badges for workers, who have sanctioned the most claimants. This shows that Patel is also a liar, which should itself come as no shock to anyone. She is, after all, one of the wretched authors of Britannia Unchained, the rabid free-market screed demanding that British workers work longer for poverty wages, without the support of the welfare state, in order for their bosses to get the same profits as their bloated counterparts in the Developing World. Unfortunately, the Eye article doesn’t mention the campaign to get the figures released for the numbers, who’ve died after being found fit for work. But it does show how benefit sanctions are causing people to take their own lives, and that the government is well aware of it. And therefore, through IDS’ actions and pronouncements, how desperate he is, to cover up this murderously failing policy.

As for Duncan Smith calling disability campaigners disgraceful, it reminded me of a philosophical system called Logical Positivism. As formulated by Alfred ‘Freddy’ Ayer, this held that any statement made about the world did not actually describe the thing it was apparently about. Instead, it was a statement about the speaker’s own mental state. For example, if someone was described as beautiful, that did not mean that they actually were so. It meant instead only that the person speaking found that person attractive. Logical Positivism has since been discredited, with Ayer himself stating that it was excellent but for a single flaw: it was almost totally wrong.

Nevertheless, it seems to describe with amazing accuracy Iain Duncan Smith’s own psychology. When he attacks disability campaigners as ‘disgraceful’, it means he finds them disgraceful, because they are clearly a threat to his continued position in government. To everyone else looking at his lies and incompetence, the true disgrace is how he was ever put in charge of it, and the millions of lives of people on benefits in the first place.

And he’d better get used to feeling threated, because the campaigners aren’t going to stop pressing for the information, nor stop trying to discredit him and the vile government he serves.

Advertisements

Archaeology’s Rediscovery of Religion

January 2, 2008

One of the most remarkable changes in archaeology in the 20th century has been its rediscovery of religion as a distinct field of inquiry. This change in attitude to the investigation of religion has occurred in direct contradiction to one of the key philosophical tenets underpinning the attitude towards science and religion of atheist polemicists such as Richard Dawkins. Archaeology’s rediscovery of religion thus marks the fall of one of the major philosophical supports for atheist worldview, while the stifling of proper scientific investigation of the religious beliefs of previous ages through their material culture because of the influence of this worldview demonstrates that atheist theorising has acted in this particular instance as an obstacle to scientific research.

The philosophical theory in question was the Logical Positivism of the Vienna school. As articulated in the 1930s, this held that all statements, rather than referring to an objective reality, were in fact descriptions of one’s own subjective state. Thus if someone said ‘it is hot’, what they really meant was not that it was objectively hot, but they felt hot. The Vienna Circle were ardent materialists who wished to uphold science’s position as the true method of describing reality against metaphysics. Metaphysics, they held, was nonsensical. Any language used of God was incoherent and thus meaningless. The world could only be investigated and described using the methodology of science.

The result of this was that during the heyday of Logical Positivism, roughly from the 1930s to the 1950s, there was a tendency in archaeology to eschew rigorously religion as a separate topic of investigation. Nothing could be said about the beliefs of past societies, and archaeology consisted to a large extent of the cataloguing of artefacts according to type, without considering the wider cultural, ideological or psychological factors affecting the manufacture of the item.

This began to change in the mid-20th century with Christopher Hawkes’ ‘ladder of inference’. This was a conceptual ladder which ranked the inferences that could be made about a past society from its archaeological evidence according to the ease with which such inferences could be made. At the bottom rung – the easiest level of inference – was technical processes. Next up were ‘subsistence economics’, then social and political institutions. On the top rung, representing the most difficult level of interpretation, was ‘religious institutions and spiritual life’. Hawkes’ diagram of the levels of difficulty in interpreting the archaeological evidence, although categorising religion as the most difficult societal process to interpret, nevertheless showed that it was possible and made the archaeological investigation of religion more respectable.

More recently, developments within Processual and Post-Processual archaeology have led to the further rediscovery of religion as an area for archaeological investigation. The Processual archaeologist Lewis Binford recognised that religion was a distinct field of inquiry, but considered it a part of ideology. However, Processual archaeologists largely ignored religion as a superfluous area of research outside of the main concerns of archaeology, which were held to be about technology and subsistence. Religion was classified as part of ‘palaeopsychology’. However, the development of cognitive processualism, which is the attempt to enter the minds of past societies and recover their worldview, following the ideas of such cultural historians and philosophers as R.G. Collingwood and Benedetto Croce, has led to religion again emerging as a distinct area of archaeological investigation. Colin Renfew, for example, has argued that archaeology can examine cult and ritual through archaeological artefacts concerned with the focussing of attention, the boundary zone between this world and the otherworld, the presence of the deity and participation and offering. 1

This development has not gone uncontested, however, and there are still archaeologists such as Ian Hodder, Michael Shanks and Christopher Tilley who continue to see religion as part of ‘ritual’ or the ‘symbolic’ dimensions of material culture. This can have some odd consequences, however. One of the criticisms of Ian Hodder’s 1990 book, The Domestication of Europe, was that some of the material he described as merely ‘ritual’ and ‘symbolic’ was indeed best understood as religious. However, despite this religion has nevertheless re-emerged as a distinct and respectable area of study for archaeologists.

Archaeologists interested in the study of religion are also particularly aware of the subjective nature of interpretation in this area. Some of the suspicion within archaeology towards the investigation of religion comes from the spurious recreations of palaeolithic and neolithic religion based on an overenthusiasic interpretation of the evidence, or applying modern conceptual categories to ancient artefacts. They are also aware that much depends on the individual archaeologist’s attitude to religion in his interpretation of the evidence: ‘Yet, equally, factors such as the perspective of the archaeologists writing about the archaeology of cult and religion must also be isolated as a potentially relevant factor. So that if religion is perhaps not of importance to the individuals themselves, this will inevitable be refelcted within the archaeological interpretations as well.’ 3 Thus a secular individual is as likely to misinterpret the evidence as a religious person.

While this doesn’t mean that the archaeologists investigating the religions of previous ages are themselves religious – indeed, many, perhaps most, are not – it does mean that religion has been increasingly established as a respectable area of archaeological inquiry against the Logical Positivist position that no statements about the religious beliefs of previous ages could be made. This has a particular relevance in other areas of the debate between science and religion. For example, despite the fall of Logical Positivism, many of the New Atheist polemicists like Richard Dawkins hold philosophical positions strongly reminiscent of it. Like the Logical Positivists, Dawkins seems to feel that metaphysics is nonsense, and that only empirical science can meaningfully describe reality. He is equally dismissive of religious language, and has written articles for atheist and Humanist magazines attacking it as meaningless. Apart from the fact that the Logical Positivism supporting this view is now rejected, there is a real irony here. Dawkins prides himself as a defender of scientific inquiry, yet the Logical Positivist attitudes he endorses and articulates were themselves an obstacle to scientists investigating religion from an archaeological perspective. One of the philosophical supports for Dawkins’ atheism, rather than assisting science, has really acted against it. Thus, one could be justified in stating that rather than supporting science and understanding, when it comes to the archaeological investigation of religion, atheism has in fact been an obstacle, a role atheists usually ascribe to religion.

Notes

1. Timothy Insoll, ‘Archaeology of Cult and Religion’ in Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: The Key Concepts (London, Routledge 2005), p. 47.

2. Timothy Insoll, ‘Archaeology of Cult and Religion’ in Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: The Key Concepts (London, Routledge 2005), p. 47.

Timothy Insoll, ‘Archaeology of Cult and Religion’ in Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology: The Key Concepts (London, Routledge 2005), pp. 47-8.