My first piece of advice is this; buy your own bicycle. I tried in vain a few times to learn on a bicycle borrowed from my mother, but it was a gorgeous machine and I was afraid of damaging it, so I was unwilling to really get moving for fear of falling. The first advantage with having your own bike is it’s nobody’s problem but yours if it gets damaged. Secondly, you can choose a bike that you like. I did this and it helped to get me excited about cycling, since I already adored my bike.

The bike I chose was a secondhand Standish road bike. The gentleman at the store told me it was about twenty-five years old, making it older than me. It only cost me sixty dollars (which was a huge bargain), but you should be able to pick one up for a reasonably good price. Alternately, you might even find one being given away, this happens all the time on networks like Freecycle and the lesser known ‘roadside garbage collection’ network. It’s worth making sure the brakes work and that the bike is in rideable condition (though it doesn’t need to go far), so you may want to take a friend who knows how to ride and ask them to ride down the street a little. Many of the guides I’ve read suggest buying a brand new bike, but I’m not sure this is a good idea. A brand new bike is expensive (though undoubtedly safer) and, if you’re anything like me, you won’t know yet which sort of bike you prefer. I suggest you get a new bike once the second-hand one has done its job, and then retire the old girl with full honours.

Which type of bike should you look for? Well, I taught myself on a road bike with racing handlebars and very thin tyres. This, on reflection, may not have been the easiest choice I could have made. I now own a few bikes and I’d recommend looking for an old mountain bike; they’re a little more stable because of their wider tyres, even though most of them are terribly ugly. I chose my bike based mainly on the great bargain. Having said that, one can learn on a bike like mine, evidently.

My second-hand bike

If you’re an Australian, like me, buy a helmet. Sure, you’ll probably only start out going five kilometres an hour down your driveway, but the hope is that you’ll be able to extend that distance once you learn the basics. It would have been very sour indeed to be pulled over and fined by the police on my first ride. If you’re elsewhere, it’s probably not a bad idea to buy a helmet anyway. That’s fiercely debated, though, so it’s up to you.

So, you have an old bike and (maybe) a shiny, new helmet. How do you start? At the time, I had every man and his dog offering advice on what I should do, based mostly on their experiences learning to ride at six or seven years old. Some of these tips proved helpful, others didn’t.

By far, the most overwhelmingly common piece of advice was ‘just go’, with the explanation that a bike, once in motion, is less likely to fall over. True though this is, it wasn’t very helpful advice to someone who had never put foot to pedal before. As anyone reading this article has probably discovered, once you take your feet off the ground, you fall. When and how do you start to go?

A friend advised me to start off riding along next to a wall and reach out to it for support. While this did give me a feel for making the bike move under my power, it wasn’t really very helpful overall. In addition, I got a lot of cuts and bruises on my hands from reaching out suddenly to correct my balance. So, this step is optional for late-blooming beginners, I suppose. Wear some gloves if you do want to do it, but I wouldn’t recommend it overall.

Most of the good advice I received came from my Dad, and I’ll lay it all out.

First, have one pedal at the top of its rotational area, ready to push off and then turn your front wheel very slightly towards the direction of that pedal. It seems a little counter-intuitive, but this will correct the initial imbalance from pushing on the pedal.

Keeping your other leg out of the way of the other pedal, push down on the raised one as hard as you can. It’ll start the bike going and after enough times, you should be able to put your other foot on the other pedal before you start braking madly to avoid crashing into the back fence. Take a moment to congratulate yourself when you reach this step (I know I did) since you are now, more or less, riding a bike.

Finally, probably the best piece of advice I received throughout the whole process was this; when the bike starts to tilt, like you’re going to fall, turn the front wheel in the direction you’re falling. I always had the instinctive drive to turn the other way, to compensate, but it makes sense if you think about it. Avoid putting your feet down (despite the overwhelming urge to do it) and try this a bunch of times. It was after I mastered this that I felt the most pleased with myself.

After doing this enough times, I went to a local waterfront area which is usually deserted (I walked the bike there for fear of making a mess of things on the street) and rode up and down many, many times. Eventually, I tried turning corners and I didn’t find this hard to master. My first cycling injury came when a small dog, off its leash, ran in front of my front wheel. I panicked and, instead of using the brakes, turned sharply to the left, tipping my bike over and spilling me onto the ground. A ripped pair of jeans and a grazed knee. So uh… don’t do that. Make friends with your brakes and use them.

By now, it’s probably time to buy yourself a new bike and start practicing for real. If you’re lucky, your secondhand bike will still have some life in it. Mine certainly did, I still ride it regularly. If you do buy a new bike, keep the old one around and take it apart in your spare time. Learning some fundamental bike maintenance skills is very, very useful. If you’re going far from home, assemble a simple repair kit with a bike spanner that fits your wheels, tyre levers a patch kit and, if you can fit it in, a spare tube and a pump. I got a flat tyre several kilometres from home on one of my first trips and had to get picked up on the side of the road. Avoid this. This website is a good resource for learning some bike maintenance skills, as well as thousands of guides on available online, especially on YouTube.

Altogether, it took me three days to learn to ride a bicycle, spread across a week or two. I’ve heard stories of people mastering it in an hour, though, so you might have more luck than that. If it takes longer, don’t worry too much. It is hard, something that a lot of people who learned to ride as a kid may not remember. It’s even beginning to seem silly to me, now, that I couldn’t master it once upon a time. I go cycling regularly now and own several bikes. It’s a great hobby and it has the potential to deliver a lot of fun.

One of my first rides. Note the lack of a helmet.

Many Adelaidians will be familiar with these street preachers, commonly seen tag-team proselytising in the mall. Despite their obnoxious volume, they’re generally either ignored or are the target of some derision. However, it is difficult to say that they should be banned from making their views public to those who want to listen, as one of the preachers reportedly argued; “In order for a democracy to work, there needs to be a free-flow of information.”

The pair of preachers stand accused of hate speech, purportedly what led the council to seek the ban in the first place. To dispense with the preachers’ claim that they do not take part in hate speech. In my experience, it is not uncommon to hear distasteful or offensive remarks in the context of sermons, though  I have never heard such openly inflammatory comments as “Muslims are dirty,” as reported in the Advertiser article and the preachers contend that they have never made such remarks and that the Advertiser has a secular bias (see comments).

So, should the preachers be banned from the mall? The issue is not so clear cut. After all, the mall is very frequently a staging area for special interest groups of many kinds, some of which might cause offence to others with differing viewpoints. For example, Voluntary Euthanasia advocacy groups are a frequent sight. However, there are a number of crucial differences between these two examples. Primarily, such groups are rarely (if ever?) making gratuitously offensive remarks or threats, but it is also noteworthy that, while they frequently offer pamphlets, they are also unlikely to be announcing their agenda over a loudspeaker. Thus, they minimise their potential offensiveness and make taking in their message largely optional. This is, of course, the well known area where free speech and hate speech part company.

Leaving aside the issue of whether it is possible to proselytise religion without causing gratuitous offence (it may not be, given the necessary exclusion of certain people involved, such as homosexuals), it is reasonable to expect that any individuals entering the mall with loudspeaker equipment for the sole purpose of making racial slurs or otherwise degrading comments would be unwelcome. Moving aside the Christian trappings of the alleged hate speech, then, makes the issue a little clearer. Their religion is perfectly acceptable (within laws regarding volume, etc.), but their offensive comments are not.

When asked for comment, one of the preachers reportedly said:

“I’ve got some very good Muslim friends, Hindu mates, friends who are homosexual and friends who are [sic] athiests,”

This fallacious defense is tired and well-known to anybody who has argued against someone accused of hate speech or other offensive behaviour. Simply put, it is irrelevant whether one has friends of Category X to whether one is guilty of discrimination, except possibly the fact that said friends may have made a poor choice in companions. Nothing in having a Muslim friend precludes one from attacking Muslims and it certainly doesn’t exempt someone from being called on such behaviour.

Finally, it is as yet unclear whether religious proselytising is prohibited by council by-laws in the mall in the first place. This issue is currently being investigated and is likely to factor heavily into the final decision.

]]> http://detrange.com/2010/08/31/rundle-mall-preachers-banned-for-hate-speech/feed/ 12 DeTrange http://detrange.com/2010/03/15/global-atheist-convention-the-rise-of-atheism/ http://detrange.com/2010/03/15/global-atheist-convention-the-rise-of-atheism/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:25:55 +0000 Daniel Carabellese http://detrange.com/?p=444 ]]> APPARENTLY I am not alone in thinking that A C Grayling, noted philosopher and speaker at the Rise of Atheism convention, was greeted like a rock star. A greeting he went on to live up to with a superb talk entitled ‘Atheism, Secularism, Humanism: Three Zones of Argument’. A striking contrast to this proper, treatise-esque title was Catherine Deveny’s performance, bearing the legend: ‘God is Bullshit. That’s the Good News.” Both of these speakers are representative of an overall superb convention in Melbourne last weekend, a success which can scarcely be expressed by words, in the humble opinion of this Full Weekend Pass-holding attendee.

While the standard of quality amongst the talks was astronomically high, a few especially poignant sessions stand out in my memory; Max Wallace’s “The Delusion We Pay For: How Taxpayers Subsidise Religion.” provided an extremely illuminating overview of the way in which taxation laws and standards favor churches with tax exemption and a lack of accountability, despite the enormous income of some such institutions. This talk was so superb that the stock of Wallace’s book, The Purple Economy, promptly sold out. Disappointing for myself and others like me, as we were hoping to buy a copy and have it signed. However, I have been reliably informed by the Australian Humanists that a mail-order service for Wallace’s book will be made available to satisfy the demand.

A session which was especially moving was the speech given by Taslima Nasrin, entitled ‘My Struggle for Secularism, Human Rights, Freedom of Expression and for Women’s Freedom’. Taslima, who has several fatwas issued against her even now and was guarded by security personnel, told the heartbreaking story of how she has been exiled from her home  in Bangladesh and ejected from India. She told of how she has been physically attacked, protested and hounded out of more than one country simply for expressing her views in writing. Her talk left me close to tears and received a well deserved standing ovation.

Of course, it is impossible to forget PZ Myers. PZ’s talk ‘The Inescapable Conflict Between Science and Religion’ detailed the incompatibility of scientific thought and holding religious beliefs. He quickly dispensed with the counter-argument that many scientists are theistic by pointing out that many serial murderers are also theistic. I am simplifying his argument, of course, but the general point is that the fact that two incompatible beliefs can be held simultaneously does not make them compatible. The existence of God, he said, is a scientific, material claim and can be, has been and should be treated as such. An aside; two newly made friends and I cornered PZ at the Saturday Night Dinner and had a very rewarding conversation with him about secularism and science communication. PZ was charming, delightful and friendly.

Myself and PZ Myers!

The final day of the convention opened with Peter Singer, a philosopher whom I admire very much. I was able to speak to Professor Singer about his book, Practical Ethics on Saturday evening, after having studied his work at great length last year as part of a Moral Philosophy course. His talk entitled ‘Ethics Without Religion’, detailed the philosophical bases of morality and ethics and dispensed with the absurd idea that ‘goodness’ is a gods-given quality.

Later, the audience heard from Dan Barker, who holds the unpleasant distinction of having been an Evangelical Preacher for many years before his eventual deconversion to atheism. His talk, ‘Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists’ detailed his journey from up-and-coming Evangelical celebrity to Atheist activist. It was remarkable and enlightening to hear an account from ‘the other side of the fence’, especially when he explained how intense and real the feeling of the presence of God can be to some evangelicals and how convincing this had been. I had the opportunity (along with a couple of other friendly ladies and chaps) to speak to Mr. Barker after the convention and am certain to buy his book at the soonest possible convenience; the wealth of information he had to convey was, he said, much abridged in his talk.

Finally, of course, was Richard Dawkins. It will come as no surprise that Dawkins’ talk was absolutely superb, detailing the nature of evolution with obvious passion and hypothesising that religion might have come partly out of our sense of gratitude and of ‘fairness’ ‘firing in a vacuum’ in the same way that a beaver, he explained, will build a phantom dam in the absence of any logs or river to build it with. In the second part of his talk and the following Q&A, Professor Dawkins talked about the recent news regarding Mary McKillop’s sainthood, opining that it was “pure Monty Python”. The statement which resonated the most with me bears quoting in full here: “I don’t think we should go out of our way to insult Islam because it doesn’t do any good to get your head cut off, but we should always say that I may refrain from publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, but it’s because I fear you. Don’t for one moment think it’s because I respect you.” Dawkins, too, received a standing ovation. To my delight, I was able to speak with him during Sunday lunch. I asked him about the term ‘adaptationist’, which I had heard from PZ Myers the night before. Adaptationist, Dawkins opined, “is a silly word.” He went on to say that he would “have it out” with PZ. Hopefully no arguments ensued, though I did note that he mentioned the term ‘adaptationist’ a few times during his talk.

Myself and Richard Dawkins!

My heartfelt thanks goes out to everyone who made this convention possible, including and not limited to the Atheist Foundation of Australia and Atheist Alliance International. In addition, the hard work and dedication of the volunteers who worked tirelessly to keep everything running on track, including the Young Australian Skeptics’ own Jason Ball, who is fast becoming something of a celebrity. The speakers, too, all worked for free. Special mention is deserved for Kylie Sturgess and Stuart Bechman, who MC-ed the convention throughout and kept the program running smoothly. Kylie also gave an amusing and informative talk, entitled ‘Sex and Skepticism: a Study of Belief in Australian Women’.

On the flight home from Melbourne, I felt a small amount of sadness mixed in with the elation of such a superb weekend. It isn’t fair, I thought, that Theists have a monopoly on gathering and on community. It was amazing to be in a place where one need not be worried about causing offense, a place where science was properly respected and valued. As David Nicholls, president of the AFA said, “Isn’t it a magnificent feeling to be in the majority?”. I think this feeling has given me some insight on the lure of Church community. It was wonderful to feel perfectly at home, in a place where one belongs. It is my hope that the tradition of such conventions continues, not as a parallel to Theistic sermonizing and groupthink, but as a beacon of freethought, with disagreements, demands for independent thought and rejections of dogmatic beliefs. We all came to be part of this convention by a ‘spiritual quest’, as Ian Robinson put it, whose logical conclusion is Atheism.

I can safely indicate that this is an event not to be missed in the future. The opportunity to meet people, both famous and otherwise and to have discussions with them on topics of importance to secular society was amazing all on its own. Every speaker was well worth hearing, far and away exceeding expectations. There was mention of a DVD being made and I encourage any who did not attend the convention to purchase it when it is available. While I have chosen some of my personal stand-outs, I must stress that the entire panel of speakers was excellent.

The event was amazing and I will never forget it.

First off, we have a brand new law which affects the South Australian State Election (March 20, for those who didn’t know). It will be illegal to publish any materials commenting on election matters without also publishing one’s real name and post-code, once the writs have been issued. Fines of thousands of dollars are threatened for those who infringe. See In A Strange Land for the relevant section of legislation and commentary. South Australians will be unsurprised to learn that the man associated with this pernicious piece of lawmaking is apparently Mr. Michael Atkinson. In effect, this means that to comment on the election, one must necessarily expose oneself to the dangers of putting too much information on the internet, or break the law. Update: It is not clear, at this stage, whether blogs are covered by this legislation. The legislation does not specifically state that they are, but Atkinson’s comments seem to suggest as much. Electronic Frontiers Australia attempt to decipher the issue.

Update: After an almost universally negative response, Atkinson has decided to eliminate this law. Calling the backdown ‘humiliating’, he said “that’s politics in a democracy and I’ll take my lumps”. While this does not excuse the law in the first place, it does give some motivation to keep protesting regarding the issues below; sometimes things do change for the better!

We also have the current government plan to censor the internet. In brief, this involves an ISP level filter which, if implemented, would block any sites on a top-secret government blacklist. The rationale is, of course, “Won’t somebody please think of the children!” Visit NoCleanFeed to learn more and see what you can do.

Returning to Michael Atkinson, South Australians were recently delighted to discover that R18 films can no longer be displayed alongside regular films in stores. I say ‘discover’, because the law came into effect with no discussion or notification whatsoever, leaving retailers scrambling to comply. The covers of R18 films, apparently, are too offensive. This is despite the fact that many lesser rated films have more violent and provocative covers. This picture is now deemed unsavory enough to be in its own, separate section.

An issue that’s close to my heart; Australia lacks an R18 rating for video games. This means that many games are Refused Classification (summarily banned) when the Office of Film and Literature Classification deem them unsuitable for fifteen year olds (to whom our highest available rating caters). A unanimous agreement of the Attorneys General is required to amend this law, again allegedly halted by a man who is fast becoming my least favourite person in the whole world; Michael Atkinson. A government discussion paper on the matter was recently made available to the public: you can have your say here. Also, see Gamers4Croydon, the political party attempting to unseat Atkinson in Croydon, South Australia.

Atkinson also recently notoriously implied that most (all?) gamers were criminals and tricksters, saying: “”I assume the Gamers4Croydon campaign will involve criminal activities and dirty tricks, which is what I’ve come to expect from gamers.”

Finally, pornography. Specific types of pornography are being Refused Classification (effectively banned) in Australia; those which feature small-breasted women (who allegedly too closely resemble children) and those which feature female ejaculation. I know very little about this one, but please check it out here for news and commentary.

Please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made, or add other relevant news. The question now is; what can one do? The obvious answer is vote. Any other suggestions?

“Have you ever seen this symbol on the back of your food products?”

This question heads a forwarded e-mail which concisely details the horror of the ‘Halal Foods Authority’ and their association with Australian branches of food corporations such as Cadbury. Wikipedia defines Halal as a term referring to “any object or an action which is permissible to use or engage in, according to Islamic law.” For the purposes of this article, it is used specifically regarding food and preparation procedures. The author of the e-mail does not approve of the appearance of the pictured logo, writing:

This is a Muslim Association that collects money from the Australian Food Industry for this symbol, so that Muslims will purchase the product. Yet we are told the Muslim population are only one and a half percent of Australia’s total!

The Halal Certificaiton Authority are an organization which is affiliated with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Their purpose is to certify companies as having complied with Islamic standards of food preparation and therefore permit companies to display a logo which indicates this fact. While they do charge a certification fee, the suggestion that they simply ‘sell’ the logo is false. A Halal information website states:

Procedures vary but usually include an application form, site inspection & discussion, and ongoing supervision by representatives from the certifying organisations during the production of halal products. A certification fee is charged.

Regardless, the implicit argument that since Muslims are a minority in this country, then Halal certification is wrong is a strange one. Evidently the 1.5% of Australia’s total population that desire Halal foods is an attractive market sector for Cadbury. The author seems to suggest that minority groups are insufficiently important to justify a company meeting their culinary desires, a position which I find quite absurd. Lactose intolerant citizens are also a minority, as are people who are left-handed and those who prefer organic foods. How dare Sanitarium, Officeworks and natural foods stores sell soy milk, left-handed scissors and organic food respectively!

On a recent radio talk-back show a well known  host was alerted to this practice. He hit a stone wall when trying to find out HOW MUCH money was paid to this organization and WHERE the money went.

Allegations of corruption in an organization affiliated with the Quarantine and Inspection Service and which claim to be in accordance with Federal legislation are a serious matter and genuine suspicions should be investigated promptly by the proper authorities. However, talk-radio hosts do not exemplify this category. I am unsurprised that he ‘hit a stone wall’ attempting to investigate the private financial business of this organization, and would suggest that in future concerned citizens contact the Australian Federal Police on such matters.

It was explained that by buying those marked products at least you are supporting a religion that is actively trying to destroy the Australian way of life or at the other extreme the money MAY be supporting terrorism.

This is a plain appeal to prejudice and stereotypes. It is hard to imagine a more preposterous reification than suggesting that Islam is attempting to destroy the Australian way of life. It is certainly true that the number of adherents to Islam in the ‘Western World’ is increasing, however Australian citizens are not obligated to behave in certain stereotypical ways and are protected by a right to freedom of religion. Indeed, it may even be that some Muslim citizens do dislike traditional Australian culture, but this certainly does not mean that each and every Muslim is working hard to ensure the collapse of this supposedly universally agreed ‘way of life’ and it is ridiculous to suggest such a thing.

Similarly, the knee-jerk association of Islam with terrorism is both childish and idiotic. While current high-profile terrorist groups may be Islamic, this does not mean that all Islamic groups and companies are funding terrorism. It is possible that an Islamic association may be supporting terrorism, but it is by no means an assumption one can freely make with no evidence whatsoever. It is possible that I may be funding terrorism, but it would be very strange for someone to accuse me without any evidence. This reaction is similar to seeing an Islamic person on the street, behaving perfectly innocently, and thinking “they might be a terrorist!”.

Many Australian Companies are paying this money including BEGA, CADBURY and many other well known companies.  Check before you buy AND BECOME AWARE..

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING?

I fear I must answer this question with a resolute “No.” I do not. I suspect the writer of this e-mail is similarly unaware. Do I really know where my money is going when I buy anything from a major corporation? People are well within their rights to boycott any products they choose, but I sincerely hope that no rational person will cease buying Cadbury chocolate on the rationale that they have identified a desirable market and are responding to it appropriately, gaining a certification from an organization which is no more likely to be supporting terrorism than any other, despite this e-mail’s alarmist message.

“The stories of a strange creature: the Wug.

I present to you: The Wug.

Mister Wug was very sad, because he had no mouth. Therefore, he could not smile!

So, Mister Creator said: “Take this mouth!”

and then, Mister Wug smiled!”

Le test de Wug

A brief explanation of the Wug Test (via Wikipedia):

“The child is presented with some sort of pretend creature, and told, “This is a wug.” Another wug is revealed, and the researcher says, “Now there are two of them. There are two…?” Children who have successfully acquired the allomorph /z/ of the plural morpheme will respond: wugs /wʌɡz/.

Very young children are baffled by the question and are unable to answer correctly, sometimes responding with “Two wug.” Preschoolers aged 4 to 5 test best in dealing with /z/ after a voiced consonant, and generally say that there are two wugs, with a /z/; they do almost as well with the voiceless /s/. They do less well in dealing with /z/ in other environments such as after nasals, rhotics, and vowels.”

Billboard with Religious advertising in Port Adelaide

If you can’t read the billboard, it says: “Christ hath ONCE SUFFERED for SINS, the JUST for the UNJUST that HE MIGHT BRING US to GOD. Read your Bible!”

Apparently APN have no issues with this particular bit of advertising. Seems a bit inconsistent.

Leaving aside the fact that newspapers routinely sensationalise the findings of research for marketing purposes, it is common to see the nature of current research appearing in the popular media. It seems that whenever research confirming a seemingly self-evident truth is published in the mainstream media, the response (at least on Shortnews, whose forums I visit regularly) ranges from lukewarm to openly hostile.

Consider a study from my own discipline of Psychology which (at least according to the mainstream news) discovered that the mental health of a child’s father has a more profound effect than expected on the mental health of a child. A poster complains at how much money can be wasted “on things we already knew!”

The nature of these complaints generally follows the formula; “This truth was self-evident, self-evident truths do not require researching, therefore this research was a waste of money/time.” After all, if we all already knew something, why bother confirming it?

In its most basic form, this complaint fails at the first hurdle. Many preposterous hypotheses have, in the past, been accepted as ‘self-evident truth’ and then later been discovered to be totally false. The idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe comes to mind, or that it is only a few thousand years old. The temptation to crow “I knew that!” when empirical data confirms an old wives tale or traditionally accepted piece of folk wisdom is understandable, but it is important to remember the thousands of ‘truths’ that empirical research has disproved. More simply; one cannot state the factual accuracy of a maxim until it is empirically supported in some way. Yes, it does seem obvious that a father’s psychological state influences that of his children, but as an undergraduate I would be extremely disappointed to see one of my Psychology textbooks say; “The mental health of parents influences the psychological states of children because it’d have to. It’s obvious.” As indeed I would be disappointed to see any similarly banal claim in any science.

What then, can be said about hypotheses which have already received empirical support in the past? Surely it’s a waste to re-do experiments or research in the same area which supports the idea that an active lifestyle and healthy eating reduce the risk of heart disease.

Not so. As one poster rightly identifies, “without constant study we would be left in the dark.” Science is not a process in which a hypothesis which is supported is then abandoned on a shelf as unassailable truth. Indeed, such dogma is more the domain of Religion. It is important to verify and build on the findings of past research. Old ideas must be challenged and either verified and expanded or abandoned to accommodate new and more accurate ideas. Not only that, but not all studies are created equal. Flawed research methodology can lead to inaccurate results. Re-testing is extremely important to guarantee the continued veracity of scientific testimony. Some early psychometric research (IQ testing and related areas) by Stanley Porteus in South Australia allegedly discovered a lower average intelligence capability in Aboriginal children compared to white children and that an Aboriginal adult male“had the brain capacity of a 13 year old white schoolboy.” (Bin-Sallik 1990, pp. 9-11).  Subsequent research showed these findings to be spurious and the result of bad research design, but at the time (1915) policy makers claimed to have known this all along. Imagine if the complainers had stepped in then. A waste of money to do more research, we know these Aboriginal children are incapable of the same intelligence as white folks. The idea is outrageous.

So my response then, to those forum-goers who complain that research is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer money or that scientists should “do some real scientific studies” is a suggestion that they consider the way the process of science actually works. Enduring theories (like Darwin’s natural selection, an old favourite) are not made so by simply accepting the findings of one study and refusing to do any further research, but by continued research which finds the same or similar results. Furthermore, folk wisdom or ‘common knowledge’ are not true simply because “everyone knows that.” Attempting to argue any point with this shameless appeal to the authority of the majority quickly collapses, buried under the avalanche of its own stupidity. Empirical support is needed to make fact claims and continued empirical support is required to continue to make them.

References:

Bin-Sallik, M A 1990, Aboriginal Tertiary Education in Australia, how well is it serving the needs of Aborigines?, Underdale SA, South Australian College of Advanced Education.

Shortnews 2009, Study: Fathers Psychological Problems can have an Effect on Children, viewed 21 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78570>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Americans Choose Media That Reinforces Their Political View, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78957>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Doing Healthy Stuff Makes You Healthy, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=79781>