The Real Da Vinci Code

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:19 pm

Quote:

As an interesting side note, subjects such as mathematics and psychology are not sciences!

Just in case there was any doubt - which I am sure there wasn't - I don't think of either subject as a science. Mathematics (perhaps my worst ever subject) I see as being a subject you need at least a basic understanding in order to get to grips with science.

Psychology is a real dodgy one. It is a subject I fascinated by, but I think the closest we get to it being seen as a science is under the heading "Behavioural Science". However, this is not an "exact" or a "hard" science as say physics, chemistry and biology. Rather it is approaching the study of human behaviour by using the methods of science. I say it is dodgy as psychoanalysis also falls under the banner of psychology - and this is a particular subject that gets hit hard by sceptics. Sigmund Freud the founder of the first school of psychoanalysis often gets in the neck for his "theories", although he is also praised for drawing attention to the study of the mind. Let's face it, being sceptics we all have an interest in this particular area. Personally I like Viktor Frankl's school of logotherapy, but I see it more as a school of philosophy and Frankl drew this comparison too.

Forensic science requires that you study fascinating subjects like criminology (my amateur pet subject) and criminal psychology. So although they aren't hard sciences they are at least acknowledged by the scientific community, which, by its nature, is sceptical. Incidentally history is also sceptical.

undercover sceptic · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:27 pm

Jamie,

I certainly had no doubt,

I was just curious at the fact Shermer has a BA in psychology, yet here it's a BSc. Add to that my faith in studying psychology to degree level was knocked by a physcist pointing out it's not a 'proper' science put doubts in me whether I should continue my studies in the subject.

My other lo is Theory of Evolution. I was planning a career as evolutionary psychologist but again, evolutionary Biologists knock this rather heavily!

And I just realised I have gone way off topic and hogged the thread talking about myself Embarassed

Regards,

Den.

_________________
Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.
Stephen J Gould

MY BLOG PAGE

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:28 am

Shermer's expertise in psychology is an important point. I believe psychology is part of being a sceptic, just as criminology is part of being involved with forensic science. If you want to be a scientist full stop, then I would say psychology isn't a subject you should be concerned with. However, a big part of being a sceptic is asking "Why do people believe in this stuff?" That question is not going to be properly addressed by hard sciences alone.

Don't worry about tangenting off, but I would highly recommend the Real Da Vinci Code for a decent example of genuine historical investigation vs con-theo fantasy nonsense.

Rob · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:38 pm

Must check that out...

Hey Den tangents are good!

_________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:36 pm

Don't get me wrong, I love good historical fiction - which the DVC isn't Evil or Very Mad

- and I am all for the preservation of myths and the promotion of interest in historical places. However, to turn what can essentially be traced back to a single 1950s scam into a wild goose tourist trap is beneath contempt. Worse still it distorts people's views on history. Leonardo Da Vinci should be remembered for his genius and artistry not for being part of some fictional conspiracy theory.

Rob · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Tue Oct 28, 2008 7:39 pm

Yeah, those "troofers" or scammers, seem to do that with whatever myth they want.

Nostradamus was another great example of imaginative BS.

_________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:24 am

I think the book gets a lot of ill-deserved recognition. For example, the very clever supernatural historical horror "The Historian" has been unfairly labelled "The Dracula Code". There is a very clear difference here. "The Historian" cleverly meshes fact and fiction in much the same vein as Tom Holland's vampire novels. It has never made any pretentions about being factual. The book isn't perfect on its actual historical data, but the mistakes are understandable and not a completely contrived plot that has led gullible people to go down completely non-existant alleyways in history.

I guess my main gripe with Dan Brown's work is that he has said on at least one occassion that his research for the book was based on fact - which is where "The Real Da Vinci Code" investigation takes its lead. On the positive side, it inspired a thoroughly entertaining and re-watchable documentary. Now if I could only get my sceptical paws on Tony Robinson's Richard III one!

undercover sceptic · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:12 pm

Sweeney Todd,

a historian wrote a book on it as historical fact which is BS as I have the book, £2 off Amazon which clearly shows the story is from the penny dreadfuls,

Regards,

Den.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sweeney-String-Wordsworth-Mystery-Supernatural/dp/1840224835/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225292853&sr=8-12

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sweeney-Todd-Story-Barber-Street/dp/1861059892/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225292981&sr=1-3

_________________
Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.
Stephen J Gould

MY BLOG PAGE

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: The Real Da Vinci Code Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:56 am

Glad you mentioned that one, Den. Like Sawney Bean, there is no historical evidence to support he ever existed and yet many report them as if they were fact. I think I mention the Todd story in my article "Myths, Faction and Pulp Non Fiction":

http://jamieclubb.blogspot.com/2008/02/myths-faction-and-pulp-nonfiction.html

Feel free to use it on the blog!

Other more modern examples of serious myth-making can be found in a lot that has been written on the mafia. The bad history here stems from the "pulp non-fiction" produced in the 1950s. However, as I wrote in my article all of this stuff, including Todd and Bean, has a certain charm to it when looked in a fictional context. The mafia stuff at least does attract future historians, like me, who went on to explore the truth. DVC just seems a lot more corrosive in historial terms, mainly because of the con-theo element.