Professor Richard Dawkins and questionable standards of scholarship

It has long been my impression that Professor Dawkins' emotions override his commitment to the highest standards of scholarly argument and research, and this is stated as a clear accusation by a victim of one of his attacks, the distinguished academic philosopher and former atheist Anthony Flew:

Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.

For the rest of Professor Flew's article, please see here.

I am not concerned to argue the case either for or against atheism here. There are honourable people on both sides of the argument.

But I am concerned that an eminent scientist long associated with my university should lose his professional compass so grossly on a matter that deeply interests and affects millions of people.

It is also worth noting, as perhaps many do not realise, that Professor Dawkins was, in effect, sponsored by an American billionaire to ride his hobby horse. The University's website openly admits:

Simonyi Professorship was set up with the express intention that its first holder should be Richard Dawkins.

I should like to know who is (and was then) on the appointments board for the Simonyi Professorship, and the interconnexions among them and others including the successful candidate and Mr Simonyi himself. I fear that the more I come to know about this, the more I may possibly feel that the Chair and its surrounding issues might serve to lessen respect for the University and its work.

If there is any reader of this post who teaches or is attending, or has taught or attended at Oxford University and would care to join me in a letter to the University inquiring into the Simonyi Professorship, I should be obliged if he/she would get in touch with me.

How Western civilisation will fall

Special Educational Needs and Inequality

One might (perhaps) expect that less wealthy areas of England would have a higher proportion of children identified as having Special Educational Needs (SEN). Not so, according to this graph on page 103 of the NHS Atlas of Variation in Healthcare (November 2011 edition):

Using a measure called Indices of Multiple Deprivation and correlating it with the proportion of primary age children with a SEN Statement, it seems that children from poorer areas are less likely to be so diagnosed.

I don't think that's a true reflection of underlying need. There's loads of children with EBD (emotional and behavioural difficulties) and pace Mr Clegg the  modern pattern of disrupted family structure really doesn't tend to help them. Perhaps schools that have more such children accept the situation as "normal"; or maybe their SENCOs (Special Educational Needs Coordinators) are simply overwhelmed. It's notable that primary age children are more likely to get excluded in Year 6, as the dreaded teacher-damning SATS exams draw near and the school finally decides that it can't afford to have a severely disruptive child in the group - was there really no such difficulty in the years before that?

But there are other kinds of need. Autism is an interesting case, and incidence of diagnosis is seemingly influenced by the social class of the family - an ASD (autistic spectrum diagnosis) expert in Birmingham LEA told us a year or two ago that the better-off quarters of Birmingham were yielding an ASD diagnosis rate some five times higher than in poorer areas. Perhaps it's because ASD doesn't carry the same potential stigma for the parent - it's genetic rather than a consequence of poor parenting skills - and perhaps also it's because it's a good way to attract extra attention and resources for your child (autism is a lifelong condition, unlike, er, "naughtiness").

Not that autism isn't real - I have taught autistic children all the way from mild cases down to the ones that can't or don't speak at all. But middle-class parents are (naturally) better at fighting their child's corner to get the diagnosis. And it strengthens their arm that the techniques and resources specifications in SEN statements are legally enforceable - such fun, as Miranda Hart's on-screen mum likes to say.

So in some ways the graph above is inadequate - it needs to be broken down into types of disability, and further into economic sub-divisions of the LEA (there is a world of difference between, say, Nechells and Hall Green). But even with the data aggregated in the way it is, there seem to be more questions to ask about inequalities in diagnosis and provision.

How to become incredibly rich in the coming total economic collapse

You can't. And I don't want to read any more articles promising something like this.

Even bankers are hoarding food

Extract from an article in today's Daily Mail:

‘It is not “crazies” buying this,’ says James Blake, whose company Emergency Food Storage specialises in freeze-dried foods. ‘We get a lot of high-powered business people as customers. Most people buy insurance for their health, their house or their life — this is food insurance.  
‘Of course, we hope it never happens, but if there is a major catastrophe, then money is not going to be worth much after a couple of days. It will be food that becomes the most needed thing.’  
Dave Hannah and his company B-Prep sell similar products. He says a number of his customers are bankers. Their average spend is £3,000.

Down with France, says Chinese rating agency

Dagong has re-rated France's debt from AA- to A+ on 8th December. This anticipates the Reuters report that France can expect to lose her AAA rating next year, and goes much further than the view of some commentators in the latter article that perhaps the rating should drop to AA.

Why David Cameron deserves no credit whatever for his EU veto

It is quite clear that Cameron's veto was not down to his growing a pair of balls, or a spine, heart or brain, come to that: it was the inevitable result of overreaching by Sarkozy and Merkel.

Blinded by their doctrinaire EU-federalism, they failed to see that they were pushing the British PM into a place where he simply cannot go. His Party has been split for decades on the Europe issue and even the Opposition Labour Party is divided (though at pains to conceal this so as to increase the Conservatives' fratricidal anguish), much of the electorate that has sufficient education and intelligence to take an interest is in favour of leaving the EU altogether, and thanks to the financialisation of our economy, we need the City because taxing its thieves is what is keeping our gunwales above the waterline.

When the French and German Sir Humphreys are finally allowed to talk some sense into their masters' hot heads, there will be another deal offered. My guess is a temporary derogation for the City from the proposed tighter regulations - perhaps five years, or until some round-figure year such as 2020.

Or, if the French wish to get in another dig, 18th June 2015. The rationalists of the Revolution are more superstitious than the religious they despise, and the bicentenary of Waterloo would afford them a satisfying symbolic revenge. It would be like Hitler's decision to have the French sign the second armistice at Compiègne in 1940, in the same railway carriage where the Germans had to sign their surrender in 1918.

This regulostice would allow time for our pinstriped crooks either to filch what's needed for a comfortable early retirement, or to find positions on the Bourse, the Börse and (of course) the Far Eastern (and maybe Australian) exchanges where all the exciting action of the future will be centred. And the British politicians and their placemen will doubtless reap their Quisling rewards in Brussels and Strasbourg.

At any rate, cancel the flags, bunting and bands.