Category: General

Conspiracy Theories – Philosophy and Critical Thinking

Class Number: 21217
When: 6 sessions, Wednesday 25 July – 29 August, 6 – 8pm
Where: Room 202, Arts 1 Building, 18 Symonds Street
Fee (GST incl): $117.00 International Fee (GST incl): $195.80
Class Limit: 25
Course Description: Some people think that Philosophy is all abstract thinking. However critical thinking is a set of philosophical tools that allow us to make informed and well-reasoned arguments towards particular viewpoints. In this course we will look at the application of philosophy to conspiracy theories, ranging from the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, to the Da Vinci Code itself and to the North Head tunnels conspiracy. Through the application of critical thinking skills to the content of these theories you will experience first-hand the practical application of philosophy to everyday life.

More information here.

Subway

Just a note to say that if I ate at Subway I’d be more than happy to boycott them over the Jackie Lang incident. I’m all for punishing management for their stupidity (otherwise, how will they learn?). However, I have only eaten at Subway twice and neither time did I find the food enjoyable. I can’t really join a boycott when it makes no changes whatsoever to my actions so I offer all those bloggers who are boycotting them my sympathy. I do have to ask the question, though; why on earth are you eating fast food that is, in essence, a sandwich you could make at home? I mean, really. Are your lives so busy you don’t have time to cut your own cheese?Yes, I meant to say that.

PBRF

Philosophy won at the PBRF (once again) but the University of Auckland has come second, losing out to Otago. I’ve already overheard some academics (not philosophers, I should add) claim that the weighting was against Auckland. It’s not quite a conspiracy yet, but I’m sure that in a few weeks it will grow into one.

Brief Political Commentary

The recent debate in New Zealand in re legalised child abuse (sucks to be you if you think the repeal of Section 59 was about anything else) has ended with a cross-party compromise. Seeing that I’m currently very interested in Social Epistemology (and that one of the ways you can characterise the constitution of a group is whether they share the same beliefs) it fascinates me that the Labourites and the Nationalites are making out that their party leader won and that the other has made a strategic mistake. If you support National, then John Key has outsmarted Helen Clarke by being able to be all Prime Ministerial. If you support Labour then Helen Clarke has outsmarted John Key by making him agree to a compromise of the Labour Party’s invention. If you belong to a minor party then both Helen Clarke and John Keys have betrayed the electorate and will suffer at the next election. In all cases it seems that people are selecting their beliefs based upon the domain of interest that is ‘Which party do I prefer most?’ Now, of course, this is exactly how politics works, but even so I still find it most amusing.

Still, yay for the repeal.

PS. I know; two posts in one day? What will I do next.

Notes concerning a radio broadcast

I’m not at all confident when it comes to balanced reporting in re Conspiracy Theories as Research; I’m sure many of us remember the storm in a teacup that was the secondary school teacher using Conspiracy Theories as an aid to teaching History. That blew over very quickly, and I’m told it was because the media got it entirely the wrong way around. Thus, it was with some trepidation that I listened in on Kim Hill’s interview with Dr. Marc Wilson of Victoria University’s Psychology Department. (more…)

No time to post – got to go read a book!

Internalist Epistemology – seems a failed project.

Externalist Epistemology – seems a bit wishy-washy, what with critiquing psychology in one sentence yet using it as the basis for theory in the next.

Mixed Epistemology – seems to be the way forward?