Oxford University Press's Blog, page 560

Religion is not primitive science

When I first heard the suggestion that religion is primitive science, I put it down to ignorance on the part of people who had not studied these things. Having not studied religion, they did not understand what our ancestors’ religious statements were really doing. But now I am older and grumpier, and much more suspicious, and I suspect that claim about religion being primitive science is kept alive for more nefarious reasons; to enable people who should know better, to insist that since religion is but primitive science, it can and should be replaced by physics, chemistry, biology, or cognitive neuroscience. That insistence is only reasonable on the view that they perform equivalent functions and seek to answer the same type of question. Claiming religion is primitive science assumes that religion and science perform similar functions and speak to similar concerns. For example, that they both ‘explain’ things.

If you start from a very generic definition of explanation, you can make that appear to work. You might say explanation means locating the phenomenon to be explained in a larger framework that makes sense of it. Newton located the phenomenon of falling bodies in a mathematical framework, and Hinduism locates the question of human nature in a framework formed by Yogic practice, disciplined meditation, and Upanishadic philosophy. While obviously true, that basically descriptive claim about common explanatory functions does not really tell us much. It is way too general. The more important question concerns the functions performed by doing those things. Is Newton’s mathematical formulation of falling bodies designed to perform the same kind of function as Yoga, meditation, and thinking about the world using categories from the Upanishads? I think probably not. To call them both ‘explanations’ is true, in that they both serve to make sense of the phenomena under consideration. But that very generic notion of explanation confuses more than it enlightens.

 Claiming religion is primitive science assumes that religion and science perform similar functions and speak to similar concerns.

So I reject the common cliché that scientific ‘explanations’ are replacing religious ‘explanations.’ They are doing no such thing. The word ‘explanation’ is being used in radically different senses in these two references. Religions never were offering ‘explanations’ on the model of natural science. I don’t know any sacred text of any world religion that uses the word explanation, or uses a similar term with a science-like meaning.

Another case: Physics today offers a fiercely mathematical account of the first few micro-seconds of the universe’s existence, involving questions about how the most basic forces, symmetries, and constants, for example gravity, Planck’s constant, etc., might combine into the universe we know. One major unsolved problem at the time of this writing involves unifying General Relativity, which deals with large objects like planets and galaxies, and Quantum Mechanics, which deals with the smallest and most fundamental constituents of matter. One goal of research in contemporary physics is to construct a mathematical model harmonizing these two theories. Now, I think it is intuitively obvious that when the Hebrew Scriptures declared that “God created the heavens and the earth,” they were not seeking to unify General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They were not seeking to provide a mathematical model of the universe. They were affirming that the universe, whatever its physical, mathematical constitution, is dependent on a source beyond itself. They were not doing primitive physics. They were not doing physics at all. Only if I think that the Hebrew Scriptures’ declaration of God’s creativity or the Tibetan teaching about the cycles of the many worlds were designed to answer the questions that plague modern physicists, or that the complex mathematical formula of contemporary cosmology are designed to affirm the transcendental grounding of the universe, that is only if I think they are performing the same function, can I logically say that religion and science are primitive and advanced forms of the same field.

Another contested case: if I read the book of Genesis as though it were a biology textbook, seeking to answer questions about the biological drivers of the process of speciation, or to deny that there is a process of speciation, then I have made them appear to perform the same function. Then one could replace the other. But to read it that way, I have to think that the authors of the Hebrew Scriptures had in mind questions about the heritability of populations and the relationship of genotypes and phenotypes. Not likely! I don’t think they were seeking to answer the kinds of questions current biological theory struggles with. Rather I think they might have had in mind issues of moral responsibility; “the knowledge of good and evil,” as being central to the human condition. Biological theory and the book of Genesis address different questions. Their accounts perform radically different functions. One cannot do the job of the other.

Religions do not deal with the mathematical structure of fundamental physical entities nor do they depend on studies of population genetics. Rather they make claims about the ultimate (in the strongest possible sense of that word) source of time and space, and about humanity’s particular moral and spiritual nature. Therefore religion is not primitive physics or biology.

Featured image credit: Tiffany Education (center) by Ragesoss. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Religion is not primitive science appeared first on OUPblog.

Shakespeare and religion in 16th and 17th century England

The politics and religious turmoil of 16th century England provided Shakespeare with the fascinating characters and intriguing plots. From the publication of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses in 1517, which some historians argue ignited the Protestant cause, to the publication of the Geneva Bible in 1560, English religious history has dramatically influenced Shakespeare’s work. Obvious historical plays aside — Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Richard II — many other plays demonstrate the pervasive nature of religion at the time, such as The Merchant of Venice, The Taming of the Shrew, Coriolanus, and Hamlet. Explore the various religious landmarks in 16th and 17th century English history, and observe how Shakespeare draws on recent historical events to fuel his playwriting.

Are there any significant dates that we’ve missed? Let us know in the comments.

Featured Image: “Barnes and his Fellow-Prisoners Seeking Forgiveness” by Joseph Martin Kronheim. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

The post Shakespeare and religion in 16th and 17th century England appeared first on OUPblog.

Religious belief, fundamentalism, and intolerance

Religious belief has been allied, for centuries, with fundamentalism and intolerance. It’s possible to have one without the other, but it requires a degree of self-criticism that is not easily acquired.

When Calvin endorsed the execution of Michael Servetus in 1553, he justified his decision by appeal to (1) the certainty of his own religious faith and (2) the obligation of civil authorities to protect the citizens of Geneva from what he classified as heresy. Théodore de Bèze later defended that rationale in a lengthy Treatise in 1560.

When the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine subsequently considered how the Catholic Church should treat heretics, he invoked Calvin’s principle; he quoted Bèze to show that the state must support the eradication of heresy and, if necessary, execute those whom the Roman church classified as heretics (i.e. Calvinists!).

The two Christian churches were symmetrically intolerant of each other. They each appealed to the certainty of their own (incompatible) religious beliefs and to a political theory based on their common reading of the Bible. There followed, in France, decades of religious wars, which petered out only with victory for the majority church at the end of the century.

Two centuries later, a biassed Catholic court in Toulouse sentenced an innocent Huguenot shopkeeper, Jean Calas, to torture on the wheel and public execution. He was accused of murdering his son to prevent him becoming a Catholic, although the son had taken his own life. This monstrous miscarriage of justice prompted Voltaire to write A Treatise on Toleration (1763), in which he pleaded with the civil authorities and the Catholic citizens of France to cease persecuting their Christian fellow citizens. For Voltaire, religious persecution was absurd, and it was inconsistent with the Christian command to love God and one’s neighbour.

The logic of intolerance has been remarkably consistent over many centuries, within different churches and cultures. It can be used equally by those who read the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, or the Koran. St Thomas argued, in the thirteenth century, that the harm caused by heresy (the eternal punishment of apostates) was much greater than the harm inflicted on heretics (torture and the mere loss of life); therefore, the latter was preferable to the former. The common feature throughout this blight on humanity is the uncritical conviction that supports both what is believed—the sheer variety of which alone undermines its alleged certainty—and the political theory that justifies its enforcement on others.

“For them, the Kalashnikov is the modern equivalent of burning at the stake.”

John Locke helped liberate readers from the constraints of a political theory based on the Bible. He argued, in A Letter concerning Toleration (1689), that civil powers have no competence or jurisdiction to decide disputed religious questions, and that they should avoid either enforcing or restraining the religious beliefs of citizens.

Locke also contributed to a critical assessment of the certainty with which religious doctrines are held. Believers first believe that their preferred scriptures were divinely inspired, and then believe what they appear to teach (which is disputed even by those who accept their alledged origins). One belief rests on another.

Despite these historic developments, the default setting of many believers’ self-criticism remains stuck at zero. They believe, like children, that God chose them as a special people—as Cromwell claimed during the English civil war—or that he (or she?) allocated a geographical region to them as their earthly home. Many assume, as Aquinas did, that an uncompromising implementation of their religious convictions is rewarded by eternal bliss.

It’s easy to see why fundamentalism fits so well with religious belief. If one begins to question a literal or naïve reading of one’s preferred scriptures, one slides quickly into seeing that none of us has a direct line to God. We are merely human, and must rely exlusively on fallible reason. God did not choose us or condemn others, and they are not our enemies.

In many western democracies today, the defensive strategies of churches—to protect their members from ‘contamination’ by non-members—are limited to demands for separate schools, in which they can indoctrinate those who had been made members involuntarily soon after their birth. Peaceful non-engagement with other citizens has replaced civil war. Those who still endorse the logic of Aquinas and Calvin, however, are not restrained by the uncertainty of their convictions. For them, the Kalashnikov is the modern equivalent of burning at the stake.

Technology changes; poor philosophy survives in the closed minds of religious fundamentalists.

Featured image credit: Procession de la Ligue 1590 Carnavalet. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Religious belief, fundamentalism, and intolerance appeared first on OUPblog.

The art of persuasion

Although expert evidence in criminal jury trials is often heavily relied upon, the secrecy of the jury room has long prevented concrete analysis of the process. In a landmark study, the authors of Expert Evidence and Criminal Jury Trials have gathered the perspectives of jurors, judges, experts, and litigation lawyers from 55 criminal trials that took place before juries. The outcome is a comprehensive insight into how different people view issues relating to the controversial area of expert opinion evidence, and a reflection on how expert evidence can be more effectively utilised in the future. Below, Ian Freckelton QC answers some of our questions about this unparalleled study of expert evidence.

How would you define expert evidence?

Expert evidence is evidence, written or oral, in the form of fact and opinions by someone with specialised knowledge. The expert should have recognised experience and/or educational qualifications on a topic outside the common knowledge of the jury. Experts are uniquely permitted to give opinion evidence, whereas other witnesses can give evidence only about what they have directly observed or experienced.

What were the principal motivations in undertaking this study?

Expert evidence can be very complex and difficult to understand as its defining feature is that it is beyond the knowledge of non-experts. Because of this, there is a risk that jurors may rely on factors other than the content of the testimony when evaluating what an expert says. For example, they may be influenced by how confident the expert is. We wanted to understand the challenges faced by juries, and what perspectives judges, lawyers, and the experts themselves had on such challenges. We also wanted to explore potential changes to the admission, preparation, and presentation of expert evidence that might assist juries.

Did anything arise from your findings that particularly surprised or intrigued you?

The extent of reliance by the prosecution on multiple experts in a single case and the rarity with which the defence calls a rebuttal expert was unexpected. Another interesting finding was the mismatch between what participants thought was important or influential in evaluating the expert and what actually influenced perceptions. It was reassuring that the findings of this project are generally consistent with much of the experimental research on the influence of extra-legal factors (such as expert confidence), but that the effects of those cues was relatively modest. This confirms that juries do their best in the face of complex and conflicting expert evidence.

In your opinion, what makes an expert witness particularly persuasive to jurors?

There is a difference between what makes an expert persuasive to juries and what juries should ideally be persuaded by. Jurors can be persuaded by factors such as clarity and confidence of expression, and willingness to make concessions. Ideally, though, jurors would simply be influenced by the reliability of the science underpinning the expert evidence and its relevance to the facts in controversy, although this might require the assistance of legal counsel and the court.

What would you say is the most important recommendation for the future?

Many recommendations emerged from this project. Overall the most important recommendation is to do more to assist juries in evaluating expert evidence, by utilising reliability of expert opinions as a criterion for their admissibility, better pre-trial preparation of experts, considering other ways of presenting the evidence such as consecutive and concurrent evidence, and encouraging juries to ask more questions at trial.

Image Credit: “Black & White Justice” by Phil Roeder. CC-BY-2.0 via Flickr.

The post The art of persuasion appeared first on OUPblog.

Dialysis and hepatitis

From about 1964, there was increasing excitement that dialysis might become a major life-saving treatment for chronic renal failure, not just for acute renal failure. Transplantation was also in its infancy, but despite some promise, overall success rates at this time were very poor. A major frustration was the lack of resources to give dialysis to all who could benefit. Some remarkably bold approaches included self-dialysis and home dialysis, as much due to space and economy as patient independence.

A notorious anonymous editorial in the Lancet in November 1965 railed against the expansion of dialysis, complaining that it was consuming resources and diverting the attention of nephrologists who ought to be spending time on developing transplantation and blood pressure treatments. In the following three weeks, five pages of letters of protest were published from the renal units at Charing Cross, Edinburgh, Exeter, Leeds, Newcastle and the Royal Free, and from patient and medical student Robin Eady from Guy’s Hospital.

One paragraph of the gloomy editorial mentioned a recent serious outbreak of hepatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary which had already affected over 50 people, and killed a nurse and a hospital porter. It later extended to 14 members of staff, with a further death. “Clearly the risk of similar outbreaks in other dialysis centres cannot be discounted” – this turned out to be the article’s only accurate premonition.

This Manchester outbreak turned out to be just the beginning of similar outbreaks affecting multiple units in the UK and worldwide. Edinburgh had one of the worst experiences with a particularly high mortality. The outbreak began when a patient was given a blood transfusion from a donor who turned out to be incubating hepatitis. In just over a year, from June 1969, 26 dialysis patients were affected and 7 died. Twelve members of staff developed hepatitis, of whom four died: two were transplant surgeons and two were technicians. Renal units now caused fear above and beyond the complexity of their diseases and treatments.

HBsAG (Hepatitis B virus surface antigen. Transmission electron Micrograph) by GrahamColm. CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The Australia antigen was linked to serum hepatitis in 1966, leading to the identification of hepatitis B, and testing became widely available in 1969. It became apparent how extraordinarily easy it was to transmit hepatitis B. The Rosenheim Report in 1972 made recommendations about prevention, and coincided with a decline in new cases and the end of outbreaks. However, in the same year, the European Renal Registry recorded that 499 members of staff contracted hepatitis across 568 reporting renal units in Europe, with 12 deaths (2.4%).

Further expansion of dialysis slowed markedly, and in some units no new patients were taken on for a prolonged period. In many centres, and notably in the UK, there was a strong move towards home treatments delivered by patients. Vaccination against hepatitis B only became available from 1979 and was widely implemented in the 1980s. Newcomers sometimes wonder why current protocols for hepatitis testing remain so strict given the availability of vaccination, but history makes this clear.

In Edinburgh, the experience was so powerful that the full story was not presented at an internal meeting for 35 years. The memories of carrying out exchange transfusions on a dying surgical colleague in one’s own unit are indelibly imprinted on the minds of those involved. At the time, it was not clear who would develop the disease next, or when the epidemic would end.

A version of this blog post first appeared in the History of Nephrology blog.

Featured image credit: HBsAG (Hepatitis B virus surface antigen. Transmission electron Micrograph) by GrahamColm. CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Dialysis and hepatitis appeared first on OUPblog.

Let us not run blindfolded into the minefield of future technologies

In this blog series, Olle Häggström, author of Here Be Dragons, explores the risks and benefits of advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and machine intelligence. In this first post, looking specifically at the uncertainty of a technological future, Olle marks the challenges of developing these double-edged technologies.

There is a widely held conception that progress in science and technology is our salvation, and the more of it, the better. This is the default assumption not only among the general public, but also in the research community including university administration and research funding agencies, all the way up to government ministries. I believe the assumption to be wrong, and very dangerous. There is no denying that advances in science and technology have brought us prosperity and improved our lives tremendously, or that further advances have the potential to bring glorious further benefits, but there is a flip side: some of the advances that may lie ahead of us may actually make us worse off, and, in extreme cases, cause the extinction of the human race.

I have always been (and still am) drawn to the romantic ideal of scientific progress for its own sake – expanding the boundaries of humanity’s collective body of knowledge as a worthy goal in itself, above and beyond practical applicability and impact on the economy and human welfare. Still, this ideal is not the only aspect that counts, and perhaps, when a line of research is seen to create global risks that are not outweighed by potential benefits, we ought to think again about whether to proceed in that particular direction.

Imagine the world of the early 20th century and what life was like then. Compared to the world today, and the enormous difference. Much of this difference is due to advances in science and technology. In view of what, e.g., mobile phone technology and the Internet have done to our lives in the last couple of decades, there is no slowdown in sight. The 21st century is likely to turn out even more radically transformative than the 20th. Areas that are likely to bring huge impact include synthetic biology, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, plus various ways to enhance our cognitive abilities or otherwise modify human nature by pharmacological or genetic means, or via brain-machine interfaces.

Image credit: 2014-036 rocket science by Robert Couse-Baker. CC-BY-2.0 via Flickr.

The potential gains from these technologies are virtually unlimited, but the same holds true for the risks. In Steve Omohundro’s conservative reading of a recent McKinsey report, AI and robotics are expected to create $50 trillion of value during the next 10 years. At the same time, there is a growing and well-founded concern over what this will do to the labor market, as well as (in the longer run) whether humanity will be able to remain in control once we have created machines that outperform us in terms of general intelligence. This last scenario may sound extreme, but deserves to be taken seriously. Several prominent thinkers who have called attention to it in the last couple of years, including Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, Stephen Hawking, and Bill Gates. Other new technologies are similarly double-edged, and among the greatest challenges during the next couple of decades will be how to prevent advances in synthetic biology from leading to a situation where terrorists have access to enormously potent biological weapons of mass destruction.

Our future is uncertain, and we have nothing to gain from being fatalistic about it. Actions taken today may very well mean the difference between, on one hand, an outcome where we are the seed of a civilization that survives and thrives for millions or even billions of years, perhaps also expanding to the stars, and, on the other hand, one in which doom is forthcoming. Any serious attempt to quantify how much value is at stake is bound to give astounding answers.

What to do? Halting scientific and technological progress is not an attractive option, or even (realistically speaking) an option at all. We urgently need to find ways to push such progress in directions that are likely to bring us good, and away from those directions that spell doom. Which technologies should we most eagerly pursue, which ones are less important, which ones should we tread lightly, and might there be ones that should be avoided entirely? Our understanding of these issues are mostly ruefully insufficient (except in a few particularly clear-cut cases such the predominantly malign effects of developing AI technology for autonomous weapons), and needs to be improved. We also need to find safe ways to handle double-edged technologies. The current situation is tantamount to running blindfolded and at full speed into a minefield.

So who is responsible for rectifying this dangerous situation? There are many relevant agents here – individual scientists, research funding agencies, governments and so on, as well as ordinary citizens – in a complex network of interactions. I believe we all share some burden of responsibility. It might be beneficial if we set up some international body, perhaps somewhat along the lines of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change), with the task of summarizing state-of-the-art knowledge about the likely benefits and risks of the various technologies, and offering policy recommendations.

Header image credit: Keyboard by Jeroen Bennink. CC-BY-2.0 via Flickr.

The post Let us not run blindfolded into the minefield of future technologies appeared first on OUPblog.

Mentalization and borderline personality disorder (part one)

Sigmund Karterud is a pioneer of group therapy for borderline personality disorders. He focuses on mentalization: our ability to understand ourselves and other people in terms of mental phenomena – beliefs, feelings, wishes, and hopes. In the first of a two-part interview, I sat down with the Norwegian psychiatrist to explore the concepts, history, and effectiveness of the treatment.

Tell us a little about yourself.

Sigmund Karterud: I have been head of a specialised department for the treatment of persons with personality disorders for decades. I’ve been at Ulleval University Hospital my whole career, so I have, so to speak, followed the development of psychiatry since the 1970’s.

We started out with a small therapeutic community and have witnessed all the changes that have occurred over time. And actually for the whole period since the beginning of the 1970s, we have treated the same kind of people. During the early 70s, we had few concepts and few diagnostic labels, proper labels, for ailments; and then, development became clearer. Borderline personality disorder is a so-called ‘self-disorder’, or a disorder of the self where emotional dysregulation and problems with mentalizing are the two main components.

You realised that your patients suffering from borderline personality disorder had these two symptoms, emotional dysregulation, and mentalizing problems?

Sigmund Karterud: Yes. So the pioneering work on borderline disorders and mentalization took place here in London with Anthony Bateman as a key figure, and we’ve had some cooperation between Oslo, Norway, and London since the beginning of 90s. We were directly influenced by his ideas. We started to look at our patients in a different manner and it became clear to us that the way we used to treat these patients was not so good.

In what sense?

Sigmund Karterud: That we, I believe, treated them in a way that was too supportive. We didn’t challenge enough, and when we challenged people we challenged them in the wrong way, making them chaotic, turbulent.

What were the consequences of these realizations? Mentalization treatment is a combined psychotherapy, combining individual psychotherapy with group psychotherapy. The individual part is easier because that’s when you have a clear concept of what the disturbance is all about. It is simpler for the individual therapist to follow the other closely into the depths of the intra-psych, and how this plays out intra-personally and in society. But when it comes to the group component, it is not so simple.

The traps in group treatment with borderline patients are that when you gather together eight or eleven patients in a group, anger is easily triggered. All of them are emotionally unstable, all of them have identity problems, and all of them have interpersonal problems. You can easily end up with very chaotic group situations, as if people came to the group in order to fight rather than take part in the therapeutic project. Groups can also be very dull, very defensive; nobody daring to do anything through fear of triggering some type of psychological backfire. So it was too dramatic, too emotional, too aggressive, or too dull, rigid, and defensive with no vitality. This could make therapists stop giving patients group treatment because it is too challenging – too tense.

It was then a question of how we could modify the technique, to do it in a way which is adapted to more poorly functioning patients, yet still give them dynamic therapy where they can learn about interpersonal relations, emotional regulation, and how to mentalize better in a dynamic and vital way without being chaotic.

So how do you, when you’re creating a manual or a guide, have a balance between creating this positive and consistent approach, and treating every patient according to their own particular nuances?

Sigmund Karterud: Group therapy is like improvised theatre. The patient’s obligation is to bring in something from their current life, some kind of troublesome event, for discussion in the groups. The task is to try to talk about this event and try to understand it with what we call a mentalizing stance. [Group therapy] open[s] up the possibilities for a later development of something that should have been developed in childhood.

Our approach is geared towards how your personality problems are played out in current life. We are not so interested in any prior, underlying reasons from your upbringing. The main focus is on what troubles there are in your daily life, and how these are enacted, played out in the group. This type of work is rewarding, it’s funny, it’s vital. Empathy through group therapy is definitely psychotherapy and has many similarities with psychodynamic group psychotherapy and group analysis, which is popular here in London.

You do not benefit from a therapist telling you what is wrong with you. It doesn’t help you, because if you have mentalizing problems then you have problems with understanding other minds, understanding your own mind, and understanding intersubjective transactions, contextual issues. You become easily overwhelmed emotionally and you shut down your thinking. That’s what needs to be addressed.

If I met a patient before they started mentalization-based group therapy and then I met them again at the end, what differences might I see?

Sigmund Karterud: We have recently been doing interview investigations at a clinic in Bergen with very poorly functioning borderline patients who also were drug addicts. Substance abuse is very common in borderline patients. They were given this question. How were you before? How are you now? And most of them actually say it is two completely different worlds. ‘It’s almost like I can’t recognise myself in the person I was. It was so terrible…mentally I was in a fog’.

But of course, this is not a magic cure. Of course there are failures, but it is amazing to see how good this treatment system is, because borderline patients are so emotionally and interpersonally unstable. They just give up on other people. Of course they are also quick in giving up with their therapist treatment and efforts to treat them. So in the literature there will usually be a dropout frequency of 40%. At my clinic in Oslo, that frequency is 5%.

Featured image: The Conversation, Arnold Lakhovsky. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

The post Mentalization and borderline personality disorder (part one) appeared first on OUPblog.

10 surprising facts about atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief that God, and other deities, exist. It is difficult to ascertain how many of the world’s population are atheist as surveys don’t tend to differentiate between the irreligious and atheist. However, it is clear from polls that Europe and East Asia are the regions with the highest proportion of non-believers. In 2015, over 60% of people in China said they were atheist in a survey. It is also clear that numbers of atheists are growing across the world. How much do you know about this belief system? Julian Baggini, author of Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, tells us the ten things we never knew about atheism:

The name is an historical accident as atheists have to be defined as contrasting to our historically theistic culture.
‘A’ is not ‘anti’; not all atheists are anti-religion.
Atheism is not necessarily dogmatic.
Being an atheist means that you believe the balance of evidence shows that God does not exist. This is not the same as saying that you are 100% certain God does not exist.
Atheists are found in the clergy.
Atheists believe morality is independent of God.
It is a myth that the Soviet Union was a completely atheist state.
It’s factually untrue that most people on their deathbed turn to religion.
Atheism is not the same as Scientism.
There are still around a dozen countries where atheists can face death for their beliefs.

Featured image credit: “Clouds”, by Ana_J. Public domain via Pixabay.

The post 10 surprising facts about atheism appeared first on OUPblog.

A sneak peek at College Arts Association 2016

The Oxford Art Team is excited that the 2016 College Art Association Meeting will be in Washington, D.C. This year, we’re happy to celebrate the twentieth Anniversary of The Dictionary of Art. We’re also offering discounted individual subscriptions for Grove Art Online. Here are some suggestions on sights to see during your time in Washington, as well as our favorite sessions for the conference.

We suggest visiting the following sights and attractions while in Washington, D.C.:

Enjoy the latest art exhibits at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, including “Irving Penn: Beyond Beauty” and “Measured Perfection: Hiram Powers’ Greek Slave.”

Find a local bar to enjoy Super Bowl 50 on 7 Februrary, which will take place on the last day of the conference.

Tired of winter? Visit the United States Botanic Gardens and enjoy colorful flowers including the Lollipop Flower, Yellow Iris, Scarlet Rosemallow, and more.

Celebrate the year of the Red Fire Monkey in Washington, D.C.’s historic Chinatown neighborhood. Festivities and events are expected for the whole month.

Plus, don’t forget to keep an eye out for these conference sessions:

Wednesday, 3 February, 12:30 – 2:00 PM

Art in the Trenches: Visual Culture, at, of, and in the Face of War

Living Archives: Latin American and Latino Art Materials in U.S. Institutions

Wednesday, 3 February 2:30 – 5:30 PM

Beyond the Pictures Generation: New Approaches to Photography in the 1980s

Thursday, 4 February 9:30 AM to 12:00 PM

Picturing Death, 1200-1600 – Part I

Anthropocene and Landscape

Thursday, 4 February 12:30 – 2:00 PM

Activating The Archive

Friday, 5 February 12:30 – 2:00 PM

Before the Selfie: Promoting the Creative Self in Early Modern Northern Europe

Saturday, 6 February 12:00 – 2:00 PM

Memorial Walking Tour of National Mall: Divided We Stand: Conflicts and Controversies in Building Our National Memorials

Saturday, 6 February 2:30 – 5:00 PM

Aesthetics and Art Theory in the Socialist Context

Most importantly, make sure to visit the Oxford University Press Booth! You’ll be able to browse new and featured books with an exclusive conference discount, pick up complimentary copies of art journals like The British Journal of Aesthetics and Oxford Art Journal, receive free access to online resources including Oxford Art Online and Benezit Dictionary of Artists, and enter our raffle for a chance to win an OUP book. And, of course, feel free to just say hi!

Image Credit: “Aerial view of Washington DC” by tpsdave. CC0 public domain via Pixabay.

The post A sneak peek at College Arts Association 2016 appeared first on OUPblog.

A Q&A with Roberto Lorusso

Oxford University Press is pleased to welcome Roberto Lorusso as one of the new Editors-in-Chief of Multimedia Manual of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (MMCTS). We got to know Dr. Lorusso during an interview and discovered how he came to specialise in cardio-thoracic surgery, how he sees this field in the future, and what he has in store for the Manual.

What encouraged you to pursue a career in the field of cardio-thoracic surgery?

Since the beginning of my professional career, the combination of both clinical and research activities greatly appealed to me. During my PhD I worked at the Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), situated in the Netherlands, and then later on at the Catholic University, Gasthuisberg Hospital in Leuven, Belgium. My experience at both of these institutions allowed me to appreciate and understand both the academic and scientific approach to cardio-thoracic surgery. My past positions as Scientific Secretary of the Italian Society of Cardiac Surgery and then as Director of the EACTS School, and currently as Chair of Euro-ELSO (the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization) made me realise how professionals, juniors or seniors, still rely on the combination of high-quality education and scientific information.

MMCTS contributes to this by aspiring to be a major reference for professionals, providing them with the most updated and highest standard of care material for daily practice and academic purposes. MMCTS is a tool which provides researchers with an archive of basic to most recent surgical proposals and digital material, in a highly scientific, respected, and peer-reviewed environment.

Particularly, the user will find that the service provided by the EACTS publishing family of the EJCTS-ICVTS-MMCTS acts as a complementary tool to their research.

Roberto Lorusso, the new Editor-in-Chief of Multimedia Manual of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Author’s own photograph.

What do you think are the challenges being faced in this field today?

Technological advancement in multimedia communications has allowed easier and immediate accessibility to medical educational materials and documents. However, the ease of availability, such as web-documents, does not monitor content or guarantee a high-standard quality in material.

MMCTS is authored and peer-reviewed by highly qualified and respected professionals within the field, and this can assure readers of quality and reliability of the articles.

MMCTS acts as an immediate help and tool for any kind of research, from archive-based, to new innovative research proposals.

How do you see cardio-thoracic surgery developing in the future?

It is obvious that there are many current challenges taking place in our profession. Issues such as minimal invasiveness, cardiocirculatory or respiratory support in acute failure, therapies for chronic dysfunction, regenerative therapies, new valves, percutaneous approaches, and others, are already a reality and will continue to play a greater critical role in our practice.

It is a priority for us to protect well-established and proven research, as well as consider new proposals. We achieve this through thorough analysis and verification of sources and expert peer-review of the research.

I believe it is crucial for both scientific and professional revision within this field, and by doing this we minimise the risk of mistakes. The MMCTS Editorial Board and wide body of reviewers, always strive to ensure reliability and protection for users.

What are you most looking forward to about being the Editor-in-Chief of MMCTS?

This is at the same time a remarkable challenge but also an intriguing task. I am admirable of what EACTS has been able to build up in terms of professional contribution and support to our profession. Numerous tools and opportunities are provided to all of our colleagues, whether it is figures of progress or updates, gathering and sharing experiences, producing new results, or contributing innovative proposals. We must be the guardians of what has been achieved, particularly thanks to the work of Professor Marko Turina.

There are many key factors that will ensure the success of our service in the future: by distributing the acquired knowledge, making it available in the best quality and format we can, and at the same time always acting as a united body with EACTS Council and Domains, EJCTS, and ICVTS. This will be the key for successful and fruitful service from our side.

How do you see the Manual developing in the future?

MMCTS has several challenging tasks. It must remain highly educational and provide fundamental information. Additionally it is important for us to be progressive and remain open-minded towards new therapies, interventions, and surgical solutions.

We must be aware of the availability of multimedia communications in our field, and we must combine this with quality, innovation, education, and professional scrutiny. The most important factor will be to provide users with new innovative proposals, whilst retaining the high-quality and reliability of the standard of the product.

What do you think readers will take away from the Manual?

MMCTS provides a high level of professionalism in terms of education, continual updates and contact with highly respected peers. It also offers solutions for complex and difficult cases, recommendations from high-rank scientific organizations and several other insights provided by new sections of MMCTS.

MMCTS strives to become a daily partner for professional practice, and a meaningful reliable tool for enhancing training and education.

Featured image credit: “Heart-lung machine in a cardiac surgery.” by Jerry Hecht. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons. 

The post A Q&A with Roberto Lorusso appeared first on OUPblog.