Review: Paradise Lost

Paradise Lost by John Milton is an epic poem, written in free verse and in English. This was apparently the main aim of Milton, to write an epic poem for England and to do so in the Enlish language. That's the format, and if you're unwilling to read a free-verse poem published in 1667 give this a miss -- but if you're willing to have a go, it's a worthwhile effort, and not just because it's a much-referred-to classic.

The general theme is well known -- the Fall of Man, the sins of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden -- but it includes the history and creation of Earth and the fall of Satan and his cohorts as well, thanks to a fairly long-winded conversation between Adam and Eve and an angel who was sent to warn them against being tricked into eating the forbidden fruit.

It's interesting reading his particular theology (making sure you don't get sucked into the trap of thinking that's what all Christians thing/thought) and his explanations for the actions of the various participants in the great tragedy. Satan is portrayed as rallying his troops against the great oppression of God, although none of them seem to realise the obvious point that he's planning on replacing it with a great impression by himself. This book could very well be the source of the quote "better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n" (Book I, 263) and there are quite a few well-turned phrases, as you'd expect. Of Belial: "To vice industrious, but to nobler deeds/timorous and slothful", and the works of Sin and Death to create "a passage broad/Smooth, easy, inoffensive down to Hell". On that note, I particularly liked Milton's origin of Sin and Death, a quite deft allegory.

As befits an epic poem there are sections of great battle, brave derring-do, triumph and defeat. However, it also deals lengthily with the more mundane aspects of the tale; the tempting by the serpent and the eating of the fruit. To Milton the knowledge gained was of evil, and the ability to think and be evil. After falling prey to the wiles of Satan, "innocence, that as a veil/ Had shadowed them from knowing ill, was gone" (Book IX 1054), and "since our eyes/opened we find indeed, and find we know/Both good and evil, good lost, and evil got" (Book IX, 1070).

As a story it's quite compelling even if the format is a little strange, but for me the best part was an insight into Milton's mind, how he intepreted the beginning of Genesis. Or at least, how he wrote it down for the poem -- it's worth remembering that he wasn't writing an historical account nor a theological tract, but an epic poem, and it's quite possible he didn't follow his personal philosophy in the interests of the story.

One jarring aspect was the chauvinism/misogyny. Women are portrayed not only as vain and easily tempted, but also alarmingly good at tempting men who are reportedly powerless against their feminine beauty and wiles.

All in all, a worthwhile read if you're looking at getting acquainted with the literature that has had a significant effect on the world.

Paul the Precognitive Cephalopod

So, imagine you're an octopus...

One of the biggest stories to come out of the World Cup -- apart from Suarez's new "hand of God" -- was Paul the Octopus flawlessly predicting the result of every world cup game he was presented with. You can check Google New or Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar with the cephalapod, and pay attention to this paragraph: "Assuming Paul's predictions were no better than fair coin flips, the probability of 12 or more successful predictions in 14 attempts is ~0.65%, as given by the binomial distribution.[34] The probability for 8 out 8 successful predictions is ~0.39%"

So according to scientific standards the result is "significant", which means that it was unlikely to have occured by chance. So, proof of future-predicting powers if only in cephalopod mollusks? A skeptic will of course deride this as ridiculous, usually without giving any reason for the result apart from a vague "in an infinite universe anything can happen" statement.

Of couse, one might suggest retrospective bias, where only successes are remembered...but this falls down when you realise that Paul was preselected before the World Cup as being able to predict the outcome of matches, which he then went on to do with one hundred percent accuracy. You might suggest that the handler was somehow guiding the octopus, but that merely implies the handler can predict the future. What do you want, a double-blind test where neither the octopus nor the handler knows what is being predicted? That just doesn't make sense.


So the challenge is: Why should we not consider this as evidence of precognition? Try to think for yourself before heading to Google...

(Image is photoshopped and from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_the_Octopus.jpg)