Category Archives: Being a christian in academia

Two Provocatives (Part 2)

Second of Two Provocative Statements About a Philosophical Understanding of Sustainability

Andrew Basden

Provocative Statement 2

I’ve got ten minutes left. So I want to make another provocative statement that’s not in my paper but was stimulated partly by Chrisna, who said “We need deep inner personal transformation.” And Peter I think said “we need personal conversion.” Over the last five/ten years I’ve been gradually thinking this: that if we’re going to solve the issues of sustainability and climate change, we need deep inner personal transformation.

Peter: I think John Wilson also made that statement.

A: Yes, I think he did. Several people did.

I joined the Green Party in the 1970’s, it’s now 2015, forty years later. The problems haven’t been solved, anything like. The heart of the people has not been changed.

Let me just tell you a few things. It’s what we’re going to go provocative about. One of my colleagues, one of my friends, in deference to me and my green ideas, he changed his car for a small car in the 1980’s/90’s. But then he got a Jaguar and he explained that his son had said to him, “Well maybe God wants you to have what you like.” The problem was that, although he did his duty and got a small car, his heart wasn’t changed. He was still hankering after whatever it was, a Jaguar or whatever it was. This ‘hankering-after‘ needs to change.

Peter: Use the term ‘aspiration’?

A: Yes.

So my second provocative statement is this.

Jesus Christ works.
Now I remember Michael Howard or somebody from the conservative government saying “prison works” and in fact it turned out that prison doesn’t work, so maybe it will turn out that Jesus Christ doesn’t work.

I don’t mean “Christianity works”, it doesn’t.
I don’t mean that Christians work, they don’t.
I don’t mean that the churches work, they don’t.
I mean: Jesus Christ works.

Now I say this in an academic situation where most people will not be Christian believers, will not be followers of Jesus Christ. So I’m not saying this to try and convert to you or to try and argue. I’m saying this as a kind of theoretical possibility – for which research is needed. And it has never been researched. Let me explain.

How/Why Jesus Christ Works

Jesus Christ can change the heart, that means things like aspirations, I’ve got a list here. Attitude, uprightness, world view can change, mind set can change, aspirations, expectations, motivations, enthusiasms. ?Leaned? people who can exercise leadership in their community, good leadership because they’re self-giving and so on.

Jesus Christ can change the heart freely, so it’s not that we’ve become automatons but as C S Lewis puts it; “Our hearts become freely aligned – Our wills become freely aligned with God’s will.” (And I’ve experienced something of that.) There’s a kind of freedom there.

Historical Evidence

The second point is: there is historical evidence for this working, which is not usually talked about but occasionally is. I’m thinking in terms especially of spiritual revivals. First of all there was the Reformation (now the Roman Catholics here might not like what I’m saying here, seeing that as a spiritual revival). But the Reformation helped people see that you didn’t have to come to church and go through all the church hierarchy to get to God. You could approach God directly and be justified before God by the work of Jesus Christ direct, not through the Mass and through the Virgin Mary. That had great affect. But it then deteriorated.

In the 1700’s John Wesley and George Whitefield preached to the minors. Because, even after the Reformation (it had deteriorated), [and] the hard-living, ‘uncouth’ miners were told, “You clean up your lives, then put on suits, and come to church and then you can learn about God.” John Wesley and George Whitefield said “No!” They preached directly to the miners and said, “You are sinners. You need to repent. And then Jesus Christ died on the cross to get you forgiven,so that you are acceptable to God as you are, without any church.” Thousands listened, thousands flocked to their preaching and discovered this for themselves. And then they changed their lives, as a result of what Jesus Christ did in their hearts. And so, for example, drunkenness diminished, cruelty to women diminished, and so on. And the Methodist Church was born. (In fact the Methodist Church has {also} deteriorated over the years.)

The 1800’s the Skye revivals in the Isle of Skye in Scotland, that I’m now reading about, similar things happened. Then there was the Evangelical Awakening in the 1800’s, that brought in the Factory Acts and workers’ rights – and also animals {rights} interestingly. And then there was a Welsh revival in 1904, that had a similar effect of the Wesley revival.

But there’s more. Because of the Wesley revival and similar work going on in the 1700’s, William Wilberforce was motivated by the Spirit of God (because his heart was changed), in Parliament, to try and ban the slave trade. Every year he put forward a bill to try and ban the slave trade for twenty years, and after twenty years it succeeded. But he was motivated by Jesus Christ – not by Church, not by Christianity. He wrote

“I feel God has given me two great objects in life: The abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” (By manners he didn’t mean etiquette, he meant attitudes.)

And Eric Metaxas, in his book on Wilberforce commented that what Wilberforce and his colleagues did was more than abolish the slave trade and later slavery. He changed the mind-set of a whole generation. Because, before that, slavery was seen as the natural order of things and it was something that upheld the economy of Brittan, especially while they were at war with France. And so, it was very difficult to argue to ban or abolish the slave trade – and also the Bible didn’t actually say anything against slavery, much. But his heart was changed by the Spirit of Christ, and the slave trade was banned or abolished – and the people agreed with it.

Working for Sustainability

The thing is, the way I see it working is like this; You don’t need everyone to be changed by Christ, there’s a person whose heart has changed {pointing to a diagram with a central person} and they affect others – perhaps other Christians whose hearts have half changed, and half changed their lifestyle – which affects others who are maybe not Christians who have partly changed their lifestyle and ethics, and so on. And some of these might be people in Parliament.

This is my thought for sustainability. What we need is thousands of people discovering having their hearts changed by Christ.

Now I must finish, there’s a lot more I could say. This is the first time ever, that I’ve said this in public, so very raw and it’s provisional, I’d be grateful for feedback.

But I want to say something. It could be that other religions or other ideologies work just as well. What I know is, there is historical evidence, from the revivals, that Christ has worked. So I’d like to recommend that – as the idea that Jesus Christ works – as something that ought to be researched in the sustainability community.

Many people will immediately react against it and reject it; that’s not a rational response. Some Christians will use it as evangelism; that’s not a rational response. Neither are worthy of the sustainability community. Rather I put it out as something to be researched and discussed. Thank you.


Note 1. Professor Peter Brandon, whom the Workshop was honouring as a kind of Festschrift.

Note 2. I was at that time working in a research project led by Peter Brandon to build expert systems to help the Surveying Profession. Expert systems are computer applications that encapsulate human expertise about a particular topic, so as to give advice, stimulate thinking, provide understanding, etc.

Note 3. Aspects of ICT in use, or aspects of sustainability. The same suite of aspects. See “”.

Note 4. Patrizia Lombardi, joint organiser of the Workshop. Patrizia undertook a PhD with Peter Brandon and, at my suggestion, developed Dooyeweerd’s aspects as a framework for understanding urban sustainability. See Brandon PS, Lombardi P (2005) Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.

Note 5. Michelle was one of the participants in the workshop, who had just spoken.

Note 6. The paper is a printed version that I wrote as a draft for the workshop.

A Case of Good Christian Scholarship: David Lyon

I want to examine a case of what I think is good Christian scholarship, as an exemplar that we might follow: the work of the sociologist, David Lyon, who has become known as a leading expert on surveillance studies.

Many Christians in the academe adopt approaches that, I believe, are neither effective, nor satisfactory as genuine Christian scholarship. One common unsatisfactory way is to be an ‘upright’ person and a ‘good witness’ in the conduct of the activities of scholarship — but this does not affect the theoretical content of our fields, so our fields are deprived of genuine Christian contributions, and Christians simply acquiesce to the content. Another, does try to affect the content, by trying to bring in God or Christian principles — but this usually ends up as an antagonistic elite position, with little to recommend it to the field.

David Lyon takes a third way, which I find more satisfactory and effective, and ‘resonates’ with me as genuine Christian scholarship. His approach may be described as neither antagonism, nor acquiescence, but treating the world’s thought as impaired insight. As a result, his Christian faith and viewpoint make a genuine contribution to the field, which scholars of other faiths and ‘none’ can value, and the whole field benefits.

What Does David Lyon Do?

To make this contribution, does David cite Bible verses? No (with one exception, below). Does he argue from Biblical principles? No (with one exception, below). Does he argue from a Christian world view? Not even that, as far as I can tell.
He begins from Christian presuppositions. He explains [Lyon 2007, 3]:

“A note is needed at this point on the perspective that underpins this book. While I genuinely try to present an overview of surveillance studies and to be fair to different theoretical positions in particular, I cannot pretend that I myself take no position. … I draw readers’ attention to valuable insights in the work of many thinkers, including those who disagree with each other. Readers will not find the work of a consistent disciple of Zygmunt Baumann, Judith Butler, Émile Durkheim, Jacques Ellul, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Karl Marx, Georg Simmel or Max Weber here … Yet the analysis done by each of these, among others, contains very helpful ideas. … While I find substantial agreement with others in the field, analytically and ethically, I try to find consistent ways of expression my position. However poorly I live them, my convictions are Christian.”

Let us pick this apart, to see what David Lyon does, which might act as a model for good Christian scholarship.

1. “A note is needed at this point on the perspective that underpins this book.” It is good to be aware that we have a distinct perspective, and in papers or books to tell readers openly what it is. David Lyon does not belabour it, but places his explanation where it is appropriate. Often the appropriate place to do so is in the Introduction after outlining the topic, or sometimes at the end, as a postscript, as is done in Hart [1984] and Basden & Wood-Harper [2006].

2. “While I genuinely try to present an overview of surveillance studies and to be fair to different theoretical positions in particular, I cannot pretend that I myself take no position.” Try to be fair, but do not hide behind any pretence of being ‘neutral’. We all hold a position, so admit it. Readers will trust us more if we do so. David Lyon does not give the impression of arrogance, of holding ‘the truth’, but one of humble offering of the treasure he believes he has.

3. “I draw readers’ attention to valuable insights in the work of many thinkers, including those who disagree with each other. … Yet the analysis done by each of these, among others, contains very helpful ideas.” Affirm the work of extant thinkers in the field. See their insights as ‘valuable’. Recognise that disagreements in the field do not necessarily mean that we have to take sides. Just as when Joshua asked the Angel of the Lord “Are you with us or with our enemies?”, he told Joshua “Nay, but as Captain of the Lord’s Host I come”, so God’s perspective usually transcends the battles that go on in each field.

I saw a website that claimed to be ‘Christian economics’, which was little more than a poor-quality promotion of free-market competitive capitalism, and one-sidedly ignore issues of justice for the poor or for the earth. That site, in my view, dishonours Christ, despite having in one corner a brief statement of the gospel.

4. “Readers will not find the work of a consistent disciple of Zygmunt Baumann, Judith Butler, Émile Durkheim, Jacques Ellul, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Karl Marx, Georg Simmel or Max Weber here …” Critique the work of others in terms that are relevant to the field — but critique in a way that all reasonable readers would see as valid critique. Here David Lyon signals that every line of thought that he finds insightful, is also open to critique. For example, later in his book, he makes one of the best critiques of Foucault’s thought that I have yet seen — sandwiched between his appreciation of some aspects of Foucault.

Some ‘Christian’ writers criticise Foucault because they don’t like his secularist, postmodern views, and especially not his views on sexuality, and fail to acknowledge Foucault’s penetrating insights and his courage. By contrast, Lyon’s critique is in terms of how Foucault ignores certain aspects that are important in the reality of his field.

5. “While I find substantial agreement with others in the field, analytically and ethically, …” Understand points with which we agree, and write about them. It might require digging deeper, because it it easy to be blinded by the points on which we disagree with them.

‘Analytically’, We might dislike some of their theories, especially those that grabbed the headlines, but dig underneath to see what theoretical contribution they have made, perhaps in questioning previous flawed ideas.

‘Ethically’, we might dislike their view of what is right and wrong, especially those for which they are well known, but dig deeper because usually their ethical views are based on an important stance with which we would agree and which was in need of being said.

6. “I try to find consistent ways of expression my position. However poorly I live them, my convictions are Christian.” It is at this point that it is appropriate for David Lyon to mention his Christian viewpoint. He does not try to define what this means, nor does he use many words about it. Rather, he lets the rest of his book speak for itself, just as Jesus did to John’s disciples: he let the works speak for themselves.

I do not suggest that these are the only things we need to do. For example, to Affirm and Critique we might add Enrich, and this is what David Lyon does throughout his book, Surveillance Studies: An Overview [Lyon 2007].

In What Way is This ‘Christian’?

The result is a work that seems to me second to none as a reference point for the field of surveillance studies. It is not just comprehensive but rich, and has a certain ‘feel’ that I like, being not just technical but also ‘human’ in its approach.
What makes it good Christian scholarship, to me, is:

  • It is rich, as just mentioned. What I mean is that it covers all the varied aspects of the field. Lyon [2007] discusses legal, the technical, the informational, the social, the economic, the ethical, and the faith aspects, among others. This, to me, is ‘Christian’. If reality is created, rather than ‘just is’, then it is likely to exhibit a diversity of aspects, a diversity of ways in which it is ultimately meaningful. Meaningfulness refers always to an Origin of Meaning. By contrast, many works try to promote one aspect, often one that had previously been overlooked. By doing so, they sing to the tune that reality ultimately has no meaning except what we give it. Good Christian scholarship, in my view, tries to give equal due to every sphere of meaningfulness. Call it ‘non reductionist’ if you like.
  • It breathes the coherence of reality. The distinct aspects are woven together as a beautiful tapestry of material. If reality has its Origin in a Loving Creator, then we would expect the diversity to cohere and work together. Christian scholarship, in my view, tries to understand how the irreducible modes of being and functioning all work in harmony to bring something good and beautiful in the field. Christian scholarship can often produce an ‘overview’ kind of work that others will find useful.
  • It is ‘human‘, as just mentioned. It recognises that the process of logical thought is never neutral, and that every thinker holds a position. We have seen above that thought is not neutral. At one point, Lyon [2007, 68] says “For me, such commitments are expressed in a quest for …” [see below]. We are responsible for the logic we employ. A sense of responsibility and responsiveness pervades Lyon’s work.
  • It is ‘ethical’. It exhibits the attitude that normativity, ethicality cannot be divorced from an understanding of the field. The text above continues, “For me, such commitments are expressed in a quest for the kind of justice that takes special account of the very vulnerable …” [Lyon 2007, 68]. It is the Humanist ground-motive of theoretical thought that divorces ‘Is’ from ‘Ought’, and the Scholastic ground-motive that began to put them into different compartments of our lives, sacred and secular. To a Biblical ground-motive or viewpoint, what ‘is’ has ‘goodness’ built into it (Genesis 1). The Fall has not negated that, though it distorts human views.
  • Finally, it can mention or allude to what we believe: God, Christian faith, the gospel and the Bible but in a way that is appropriate, stimulatory and seductive

Some Questions

How and when to mention God, Christianity, etc.?

Seldom, and only when appropriate to the topic. Not in a crass way ‘because I feel it my duty as a Christian to do so’. We have seen above how Lyon [2007] just once mentions his Christian convictions (note, not his ‘faith’). At the end of Lyon [2003] we find,

“Jacque Ellul once noted, reflecting on the fate of ancient cities such as Babylon and Nineveh, that these cultures were closed, too, ‘protected against attacks from the outside, in a security built up in walls and machines.’ Is there anything new under the sun? Yet, against that, insists Ellul, is the vision of a city where doing justice and loving one’s neighbour is put first. From that commitment to responsibility for the Other proceeds peace and prosperity, freedom and security, sought otherwise through false priorities. This is a city whose gates are never shut. It is a place of inclusion and trust. And its light finally banishes all that is now done in the dark.

Notice the allusions to Biblical themes, speaking redemption.

It does not explain how to accept Christ, because to do that would not be appropriate to that book. In my view, it can sometimes be appropriate in other books or papers, where solutions are being discussed, and we can offer Biblical salvation as one such solution. But present it humbly, offered as ‘a’ way, even though we might hold Christ to be ‘the’ way, because by doing so we respect the academic readers’ desire to understand options. And, do take pains to argue how it actually contributes a solution; I find the idea of three dimensions of salvation useful here: not just becoming acceptable with God, not just being filled with the Holy Spirit, but also so that the creation can ‘rejoice’. All three of those dimensions can be argued to be relevant to any field, but it takes a lot of effort to work out how. Are we ready for that effort; it is sacrificial?

Can and Should We Critique Christian Scholarship?

Yes indeed we should. Within God’s creation, and within humanity’s calling to open up the potential of reality, no Christian scholarship can claim to be without flaw.
I critique Lyon [2007] work for one thing: The ‘solution’ he seems to suggest, to bring about the state of affairs where the ‘very vulnerable’ are properly taken account of, relies on juridical and informational processes and structures only. In my view, he does not adequately discuss the attitudinal or faith aspects of this solution. He does allude to the attitudinal aspect in Lyon [2003], in his passage quoted above, but does not develop the theme.

I might also wish a discussion of how surveillance fits into a wider set of concerns of society, especially that of climate change. I might also question whether the post-2008 ‘recession’ might change anything. But to expect those in his book would be unfair.


What David Lyon does is to adopt a Biblical presupposition about the nature of reality and the nature of scholarship. His approach is neither antagonism, nor acquiescence, but treating the world’s thought as impaired insight. He does this from an understanding of reality (of the world of surveillance) that is deeply formed and informed by Biblical presuppositions. He does mention his Christian faith once or twice, and he does allude to God once or twice, but only where it would be appropriate in the eyes of others, and not to ‘evangelise’. He adopts a three-point strategy:

 – He affirms each thinker’s view where it seems to him valid.
– He critiques each thinker’s views, from his wider view.
– He enriches the views of those thinkers, so they can be taken further.

As a result, his work is valued throughout the field as of high quality and useful, and his work has become a reference point for his field. But it takes a lot of effort to achieve that. I trust this overview of his work is useful.

Andrew Basden, April 2015


Hart H. 1984. Understanding Our World: An Integral Ontology. Wedge Publishing, Toronto.
Basden A, Wood-Harper AT (2006) “A philosophical discussion of the Root Definition in Soft Systems Thinking: An enrichment of CATWOE” Sys. Res. and Behavioral Sci., 23:61-87.

Lyon D. 2003. Surveillance after September 11. Polity Press.

Lyon D. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Polity Press.

Unity in diversity of the human soul: a hard scientific look

The brief peer-reviewed publication reproduced below in draft form is offered as an example both of Christian apologetics (albeit of a covert sort) and also of C-A-N-’s programme of ‘Shaping Our Disciplines.’ 

The Scriptures that are shared by Judaism with Christianity and Islam teach that each human individual (‘soul’) is – using contemporary scholarly terminology – both an embodied member of a biological species and an acculturated member of a social community: a dual nature held together as one person by actions, thoughts and feelings jointly between partners and among a wider circle of family and friends (Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:23-24).

In contrast, Western thought became increasingly dominated by a materialist ontology. For example, much of science treats people and their surroundings as piles of chemicals. Yet in western philosophy this pervasive Physicalist presumption is collapsing under the weight of its own incoherence (The waning of materialism – Koons & Bealer, OUP, 2010).

 Neither reductive neuroscience nor sceptical postmodernism can deny the reality of human achievements, such as the invention of objects that make air push upwards harder than gravity pulls downward (flight) and the creation of series of noises or marks that enable the hearer or reader to achieve more (linguistic communication). A private experience, a public speech, a passage of text or a piece of art can bear any number of interpretations. Yet what a community agrees that a set of words conveys about the material and societal practicalities of our shared life enables each of its members to form effective intentions.

The Letter to a medical journal drafted below exploits this reality to propose a “psychosocial” approach to measuring the effects on people’s wellbeing of what people do repeatedly.
– David Booth

Authors’ manuscript (revision of uncut draft before submission in December 2014)
Accepted version online: 26 May 2015;  doi:10.1038/ijo.2015.62
Hard copy: Booth, D. A. & Laguna-Camacho, A., 2015. Physical versus psychosocial measurement of influences on obesity. Comment on Durandhar et al. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders, 39(7), pp. 1177-1178. DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2015.62

Letter to the Editor, International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders.
Physical versus psychosocial measures of influences on human obesity. Comment on Durandhar and others (2015) by David A. Bootha and Antonio Laguna-Camachob
aSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. E-mail:
b Medical Sciences Research Centre, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Toluca City, Mexico. E-mail:

Eminent colleagues in research on energy balance and human obesity, including the two Editors of this journal, argue that research participants’ reports of their own food intake and physical activity should be replaced by monitoring instruments that generate data automatically.1 This proposal has two fundamental flaws. Each has been obvious for a long time. Neither of these criticisms is especially profound. Both basic deficiencies in research on human obesity can be overcome by objective verbal data developed in psychological science.

The first flaw is that the everyday actions that need to be measured are liable to be changed by awareness that they are being monitored. Participants in research on energy exchange between the body and the environment are likely to try to eat less and to exercise more if they think that they might be regarded as too heavy for their health. Furthermore, such efforts to adopt supposedly healthier practices are fully justifiable. Indeed, it would be unethical to try to persuade a participant to maintain habits which risk the disease and distress to which obesity can contribute. Attaching instruments to measure intake or movement may produce at least as much change as asking for a diary of weighed intakes or categories of physical activity.

Contrary to Durandhar and colleagues, the problem is not “self-”report. Awareness that an independent observer is making a record could change behaviour as much or even more.

Erroneous numbers for energy intake or expenditure can also come from intentional or unintentional omissions of intake or insertions of movement. Yet monitoring instruments can be abused, even when fixed to the body. People so minded can relax on a couch while knocking their wrist accelerometer in a walking rhythm!

For the same reason, participants’ reports of readings on their bathroom scales should not be impugned relative to weights read in clinic or laboratory. Anticipation of the appointment for measurement is liable to change behaviour which is thought to affect weight. In addition, the intervals between appointments are generally too long to track the step change in weight that results from a sustained alteration of energy intake or physical activity.

In short, all ethical observation is invalidated by reactivity. In addition, calculations of physicochemical values from records by wearable instruments and verbal reports share considerable inaccuracies. Poor sampling makes food composition databases and energy conversion factors highly approximate. Also, metabolic efficiencies and energy partitioning vary within and across individuals.

The second basic flaw is that physics and chemistry cannot capture the societally objective patterns in human ingestion and movement. Choices of foods and drinks, as well as exercising or resting, and keeping warm or cool, are all actions construed in words by a community. The identity of each habitual practice is specifiable only by a culture’s consensus on descriptions of the observed activities, as shown by biosocial thought experiments in the 1930s2 and more recently in human sciences.3,4

This principle has been recognised for physical activity.5 It has been implemented for a number of common habits of eating, drinking and exercise.6,7

Only habits that recur at least once a week or so are likely to have substantial effects on weight. Recall of habitual occurrences can be highly accurate back over at least a week.7,8,9 Hence it is possible to estimate changes in the frequency of each habit in free-living individuals with sufficient accuracy to measure the effects on weight.7

Participants should never be asked, “How often do you .?” Answering that question does not require any actual occasion to be recalled; there are many other ways of coming up with a number.10 Instead, the question should be “When did you last .?”, followed by “When was the last time before that?” The time between those two occurrences gives the exact current frequency.11

In order to measure the effect of a habit on weight, that recurrent pattern of actions must vary in frequency independently of other habits’ variations. This disconfounding has been attempted for energy intake between meals (‘snacking’)6,12 but not for other intake patterns.13 In addition, to show that the described behaviour influenced weight, rather than the other way round, the change in frequency of the habit must precede the start of the change in weight. Crucially, the asymptotic effect on weight of a change in frequency of a habit includes all compensation by later intake and/or expenditure.14,15

In summary, effects of observation on behaviour imperil accuracy and validity no less for instrument readings than for verbal records. In any case, human actions can only be identified by communally agreed descriptions. Fundamental scientific evidence from life in the locality is needed in order to determine the amount of weight change caused by a persisting change in frequency of a recognised habit.

Once the effectiveness of a habit has been measured, approximate measures of that activity’s usual material correlates are needed in order to specify supportive changes in the environment. These could include factors in the composition, labelling and marketing of foods, or in the provision of walkways, transport, room heating and so on, as well as dosage of a medication, design of a surgical procedure or intervention attuned to epigenetic background.16

Most importantly of all, the effects on weight of changes in socially identified habits translate directly into clinical or public messages for use within the same culture. Universal education in the options specified by such biosocial evidence may well be the only way to reduce the personal, social and economic costs of obesity and overweight.16

      1. Dhurandhar NV, Schoeller D, Brown AW, Heymsfield SB, Thomas D, Sørensen TIA et al. Energy balance measurement: when something is not better than nothing. Int J Obes 2015; accepted article preview 13 November 2014.
      2. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical investigation [Posthumous translation by G.E.M. Anscombe]. Oxford: Blackwell,1953.
      3. Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am Anthropol 1986;88:313-38.
      4. Maguire MJ, Dove Speaking of events: event word learning and event representation. In Understanding events: from perception to action, 193-218 [Shipley TF & Sacks JM, eds.]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
      5. Westerterp KR. Pattern and intensity of physical activity. Nature 2001;410:539.
      6. Booth DA, Blair AJ, Lewis VJ, Baek SH. Patterns of eating and movement that best maintain reduction in overweight. Appetite 2004;43:277-83.
      7. Laguna-Camacho A. Patterns of eating and exercise that reduce weight. PhD Thesis 2013.
      8. Smith AF, Jobe JB, Mingay D Retrieval from memory of dietary information. Appl Cogn Psychol 1991;5:269-96.
      9. Armstrong AM, MacDonald A, Booth IW, Platts RG, Knibb RC, Booth DA. Errors in memory for dietary intake and their reduction. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2000;14:183-91.
      10. Sedlmeier P, Betsch T. [eds.] Etc. Frequency processing and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
      11. Booth DA, Platts R Tool for assessing and reducing an individual’s fat intake. Appetite 2000;34:107-8.
      12. Coakley EH, Rimm EB, Colditz G, Kawachi I, Willett, W. Predictors of weight change in men: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998;22:89-96.
      13. French SA, Jeffery RW, Murray D. Is dieting good for you?: prevalence, duration and associated weight and behavior changes for specific weight loss strategies over four years in US adults. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999;23:320-7.
      14. Booth DA. Mechanisms from models – actual effects from real life: the zero- calorie drink-break option. Appetite 1988;11 Supplement:94-102.
      15. Dhurandhar EJ, Kaiser KA, Dawson JA, Alcorn AS, Keating KD, Allison D. Predicting adult weight change in the real world: a systematic review and meta- analysis accounting for compensatory changes in energy intake or expenditure. Int J Obes (Lond). 2014 Oct 17. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2014.184. Epub ahead of publication.
      16. Booth DA, Booth P. Targeting cultural changes supportive of the healthiest lifestyle patterns. A biosocial evidence-base for prevention of obesity. Appetite 2011;56(1):210-21.