Lots of people have been sending me this paper by Erik Andrulis, and most of you have done so with eyebrows raised, pointing out that it's bizarre and unbelievable; some of you wrote asking whether it was believable, at which point my eyebrows went up. Come on people: when you see one grand cosmic explanation that is summarized with cartoons, which the author claims explains everything from the behavior of subatomic particles to the formation of the moon, shouldn't you immediately sense crankery?
It's also getting cited all over the place, from World of Warcraft fan sites to the Discovery Institute (those two have roughly equal credibility in matters of science), so I had to skim through it. I read it with rising concern: Erik Andrulis is a young assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, and he's published entirely sensible papers on RNA processing. This paper is so weird and out there that it is either an attempt to Sokal the field of origins of life research, or the man is seriously mentally ill. Either way, this is not going to help his career in the slightest.
Life is an inordinately complex unsolved puzzle. Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life. This theory is based upon a straightforward and non-mathematical core model and proposes unique yet empirically consistent explanations for major phenomena including, but not limited to, quantum gravity, phase transitions of water, why living systems are predominantly CHNOPS (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur), homochirality of sugars and amino acids, homeoviscous adaptation, triplet code, and DNA mutations. The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe.
Having skimmed through all 105 pages of this thing, I can tell you with confidence that it answers none of those questions. Just the fact that it is entirely non-mathematical and non-empirical (there aren't any observations or experiments described at all), and that the entirety of the theory is built around diagrams sketched out by the author, should also tell you that this is not a useful or predictive theory.
It does not have an auspicious beginning. In addition to being constructed around cartoons and being a non-mathematical Theory of Everything, it has to introduce an elaborate collection of neologisms that make the whole paper painful to read.
In the theory proposed herein, I use the heterodox yet simple gyre--a spiral, vortex, whorl, or similar circular pattern--as a core model for understanding life. Because many elements of the gyre model (gyromodel) are alien, I introduce neologisms and important terms in bold italics to identify them; a theoretical lexicon is presented in Table 1. The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre. This entity is attractive because it has life-like characteristics, undergoes morphogenesis, and is responsive to environmental conditions. The gyromodel depicts the spatiotemporal behavior and properties of elementary particles, celestial bodies, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and systems as quantized packets of information, energy, and/or matter that oscillate between excited and ground states around a singularity. The singularity, in turn, modulates these states by alternating attractive and repulsive forces. The singularity itself is modeled as a gyre, thus evincing a thermodynamic, fractal, and nested organization of the gyromodel. In fitting the scientific evidence from quantum gravity to cell division, this theory arrives at an understanding of life that questions traditional beliefs and definitions.
Here's a partial copy of his lexicon. It goes on quite a bit longer than what I've copied here.
Table 1. Gyromodel Lexicon
Alternagyre
A gyrosystem whose gyrapex is not triquantal
Dextragyre
A right-handed gyre or gyromodel
Focagyre
A gyre that is the focal point of analysis or discussion
Gyradaptor
The gyre singularity--a quantum--that exerts all forces on the gyrosystem
Gyrapex
The relativistically high potential, excited, unstable, learning state of a particle
Gyraxiom
A fact, condition, principle, or rule that constrains and defines the theoretical framework
Gyre
The spacetime shape or path of a particle or group of particles; a quantum
Gyrequation
Shorthand notation for analysis, discussion, and understanding gyromodels
Gyrobase
The relativistically low potential, ground, stable, memory state of a particle
Gyrognosis
The thermodynamically demanding process of learning and integrating IEM
Gyrolink
The mIEM particle that links two gyromodules in a gyronexus
Gyromnemesis
The thermodynamically conserving process of remembering and recovering IEM
Gyromodel
The core model undergirding the theoretical framework
Gyromodule
A dIEM particle in a gyronexus
Gyronexus
A polymer of dIEM particles linked by mIEM particles
Gyrostate
The potential and/or kinetic state that a particle occupies in its gyratory path
Gyrosystem
A gyromodel with specific IEM composition, organization, and purpose
IEM
Information, energy, and/or matter
I can't help myself. You knew this was coming.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Now I know that you are in lexical shock right now, but I'm about to make it worse. Witness the use of these terms in figure 1 of the paper, which will also reveal the kinds of diagrams he's using.
"The levorafocagyre, in turn, is antichiral to the dextrasupragyre" is a nice sentence that about sums up the experience of reading this thing. Don't believe me? Here are more excerpts that illustrate the grand, cosmic, and entirely uninformative nature of gyroexplanatory gyrobabble. Andrulis purports to explain everything from learning and memory (learning and memory by gyres, not the poor people trying to understand his paper):
The ultimate state of gyromnemesis is the stably adapted particle or gyronexus in the gyrobase. A particle thus adapts through learning and memory by completing one full cycle--a revolution-- around the singularity. Taken together, gyrognosis defines IEM integration and assessment whereas gyromnemesis defines IEM storage and recovery. Finally, although a diquantal IEM (X'') undergoes gyrognosis as the gyrobase of a primary majorgyre, it undergoes gyromnemesis as the gyrapex of an alternagyre. Thus, gyre learning and memory are relative to the gyradaptive singularity.
To the formation of Earth's moon:
Lunar Formation. The favored hypothesis for the formation of Earth's Moon is from planetesimal impact on a proto-Earth proceeded by matter ejection, accretion, and gravitational capture [189,190]. However, the question of lunar origin has not been settled since there are competing, albeit antiquated hypotheses [191,192]. I also discovered the stunning admission that, "...shamefacedly, [astronomers] have little idea as to where [the Moon] came from. This is particularly embarrassing... [193]." The oxygyre models the Moon as a macroxyon that has a macroelectron within itself; this simple gyrosystem accounts for the known chemical composition of the Moon surface, oxides [194]. Regarding lunar origin, the macroxyon that is the Moon emerges from the macroelectron that is the Earth, concomitant with the emergence of Earth's macroxyon [195,196].
Several additional points can be derived from this gyrosystem. First, the oxygyre explains water on and in the Moon [197-199]. Second, the gyrating effects of the macroxygyre model the rotation of the Moon on its axis. Third, the path of a less exergic macroxyon (Moon) around more exergic one (Earth) follows an ohiogyre path, or lunar orbit. Fourth, this oxygyre provides insight into how tidal cycling is linked to lunar orbit and axial rotation [200] since the Earth's oceans (macroxymatrix) and Moon itself (a macroxyon) exert complementary attractorepulsive forces. Fifth, this theoretical union also helps clarify short-term chronobiological ([201]; see 3.8) and long-term geophysical [202] relationships. Sixth, the craters that cover planetary, lunar, and satellite surfaces [203-205]--most if not all of which are near-perfect circles--bear the signature of the macroelectron singularity and its strong thermodynamic force on the oxygyre [206].
You know what? That doesn't explain anything!
While the strange terminology and nonsensical claims could be clues that this is an elaborate Poe of some sort, the story I've heard from some other sources is that Andrulis is not getting tenure and will be leaving Case next year, and that he seems to have a history of tuning in and out — so what this most like is is a developing personal tragedy. I hope he gets the care he clearly needs; his other work suggests that this is an intelligent mind that is currently going off the rails.
Setting Andrulis aside, though, there are other problems here. How did this paper get published? It's terrible: unreadable, incoherent, bizarre, and completely lacking in evidence or mathematical support. This is from the very first issue of a new journal, Life, which also contains a perfectly reasonable general summary of origins of life research by Stuart Kauffman alongside Andrulis's ghastly dreck. There seems to be a complete lack of editorial discrimination at the journal; this is not the way to build a reputation. Or rather, it is, but not a desirable one.
And then there is Science Daily, which seems to be the source where most of my correspondents found this paper. Science Daily is an incredibly annoying source: all they do is republish, without any kind of intelligent assessment, press releases. They suck. What good is mindless regurgitation?
And finally, there's Case Western Reserve University, which must bear a share of the blame. Where did the press release come from? Why, from the Media Relations office at CWRU. Somebody wrote the press release that begins like this:
The earth is alive, asserts a revolutionary scientific theory of life emerging from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The trans-disciplinary theory demonstrates that purportedly inanimate, non-living objects--for example, planets, water, proteins, and DNA--are animate, that is, alive. With its broad explanatory power, applicable to all areas of science and medicine, this novel paradigm aims to catalyze a veritable renaissance.
It's madness stamped with the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine seal of approval. If Andrulis did Sokal the journal, he also Sokal'ed the institution that employs him. Who wrote that bullshit? Do they have anyone competent review their press releases before they mail them out to the whole wide world? Was there anyone thinking in all the steps from crank professor to PR department to journal editor to reviewers? There were so many points where this crackpottery should have been detected and rejected, and it didn't happen.
Indiana is preparing to promote creationism in their science classrooms. A legislative committee has advanced a bill that endorses creationism and "alternative theories" to the vote of the full senate. So it's not a law yet, but it's advancing down the path.
Here's the horrifying part: it was approved 8:2 by the Republican-controlled Senate Education Committee. This is a group that is supposed to be the gatekeeper for good educational practices; you'd think their job was to screen out the random wacky garbage that individual, ideologically motivated members of the senate might poop out. But in the state of Indiana, they've handed that job over to goddamned Republicans in a calculated effort driven by their Republican governor, Mitch Daniels, to overhaul the state's educational system.
It's practically Republican gospel to destroy the system of public education in the US. It's always going to lead to tears when you put those bastards in charge.
MIT climate scientist’s wife threatened by deniers – “Prominent MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel has been receiving an unprecedented “frenzy of hate” after a video featuring an interview with him was published recently by Climate Desk.”
The craziest conspiracy theorist ever? – Francis E. Dec, “The time cube guy was probably inspired by him. But you’ve probably never heard of him. And if it weren’t for his letters, you never would.” From Josh.
An artist's impression of Alain de Botton's "Temple to Perspective
Alain de Botton has been accused of many things – of being superficial, self-absorbed and most recently (by Terry Eagleton) "banal" – but no one would call him stupid. The PR campaign for his latest book Religion for Atheists: A Non-Believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, is a case in point. To accompany the book’s publication he has launched a campaign to build a “£1 million atheist temple” in the City of London, dedicated to the wonders of the evolution. It sounds rather nice – a 46 metre narrowing tower (De Botton himself refers to it as "A Temple to Perspective") with a roof open to the sky, with layers of fossil-studded rock representing the different eras of the earth’s life, ending at the ground with a wafer-thin strip of gold depicting the infinitesimally short span of human life on the planet.
De Botton, who has some previous motivating property developers to invest, claims he has already raised half the money, but, more importantly for the sale of his new book, he has raised the ire of Richard Dawkins and the interest of the media. According to today’s Guardian, Dawkins is appalled at the idea, and would prefer to see the money sunk into his (not entirely uncontroversial) idea of secular schooling. It was also dismissed by Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association, who said humanists can get their sense of awe and wonder from art, theatre and long walks in the country, thanks very much.
Some on the other side are not happy either: Rev Katharine Rumens, rector of St Giles' Cripplegate church, in Barbican, near where the temple is likely to be located, suggested that it would lack the sense of community of a church and wouldn't really speak to the human condition. However, media vicar George Pitcher welcomed the move as offering a more positive form of atheism than that represented by Dawkins.
All in all a perfect strategy. Reject God and piss of Dawkins? Check. Have a groovy picture and a slick website? Check. A million quid to chuck in the headline? Check. Stoking the embers of the debate over modern architecture, and available for comment at short notice? Check and check. Which is probably why every newspaper appears to have run with the story, no doubt the TV news shows will follow suit, and Hamish Hamilton will be licking their chops.
I interviewed De Botton at length last week for the next issue of new Humanist (out Feb 16). No spoilers, but I’ll say this: he’s a smart guy.
Published by noreply@blogger.com (Caspar Melville)
on Fri 27 Jan 11:27:00
A bottle and a cork together cost $1.10. The bottle costs $1.00 more than the cork. How much does the cork cost?
As ever, please do NOT post your answers, but do say if you think you have solved the puzzle and how long it took. Solution on Monday.
I have produced an ebook containing 101 of the previous Friday Puzzles! It is called PUZZLED and is available for the Kindle (UK here and USA here) and on the iBookstore (UK here in the USA here). You can try 101 of the puzzles for free here.
Published by Richard Wiseman
on Fri 27 Jan 07:00:31
A few videos below thanks to Bala at Nirmukta. He posted links in the comments below but they've been added up here at the top to make sure others see them.
Richard Dawkins Q&A, session 1
Richard Dawkins at Jaipur Literary Festival, India, answers audience questions
Richard Dawkins support for Salman Rushdie
Richard Dawkins reads a statement in support of Salman Rushdie during the Jaipur Literature Festival after Salman was kept out of it because of protests by Islamists. Even the virtual conference was later cancelled.**Man has replaced god: Debate (edited).
Man has replaced god: Debate (edited).
Jaipur Literature Festival final day debate. The (poorly framed) motion was later changed to "Does god exist". Full video will be uploaded soon. The speakers are, Prof.Richard Dawkins, Javed Aktar, Suhel Seth, Aruna Roy, Swami Agnivesh, Prof.Salim Engineer, Ashok Vajpayee, Qaisra Shahraz.
Book reading by Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward.
Richard Dawkins and Lalla Ward read from Dawkins' books Magic of Reality and Unweaving the Rainbow at Jaipur Literature Festival.
I can’t recall if we’ve had had this discussion here before — I apologize for the repeat if we have — but as lead organizer for the Houston Skeptic Society, I am teaching a quarterly course on the basics of critical thinking and the processes of skepticism. The class is geared for those just discovering skepticism, or for those who might want to brush up on their critical thinking skills.
Now I have a basic outline for the course, and I know pretty much how the class will unfold, but I thought I’d pick your brains for even more ideas; especially since most of you who comment are established and polished critical thinkers. So . . .
How would you approach teaching Critical Thinking 101? What hints might you offer by way of course materials? What might you avoid? Any other suggestions/comments? Should I expect to get an apple from my students? Beer? Whiskey?
The Afternoon Inquisition (or AI) is a question posed to you, the Skepchick community. Look for it to appear Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays at 3pm ET.
Despite being an ex-Muslim, i.e. someone who learned so much about Islam that she was appalled enough to leave it, I’ve been accused of being an apologist for Islam.
Incidents like the actions of the New York Police Department are what make me sound like I love Islam rather than have left it.
A year ago, accusations began to fly concerning the New York Police Department’s chosen methods for combating terrorism done by Muslims. Specifically, it was alleged that, as part of training, officers were being shown The Third Jihad, a film intended to spread the idea that American Muslims present a grave threat to the United States. The NYPD denied the allegations, claiming that the film in question was shown only a few times and then by mistake.
This turned out to be a lie. The film was used rather purposefully by the NYPD as part of officer training. Currently, the department does not intend to counter the film with anything that questions its inflammatory tone and serious accusations against the Muslim American community. The New York City police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, has since apologized for his involvement with both the film and the incident.
I’ve seen The Third Jihad. Professor Ken Hearlson taught the final class I took as a student in pursuit of my Bachelor’s degree, and, though he has been cleared of the aforementioned allegations made against him, he is not exactly known for having a balanced perspective. In a class that was allegedly about US Government, he spent most of the lecture period ranting about how gay people want to teach fisting in schools and how, when it came to Muslims, “I just don’t trust ‘em” (direct quote).* He showed the film as part of his class.
If Muslims in the United States had as much super-secret power and influence as The Third Jihad alleges, then they would not be subjected to such films in their classes and as part of their official police training (as, in the end, it was two officers, one of them Muslim, who blew the whistle on the showings of The Third Jihad). Instead, the backlash against American Muslims, all in the name of fighting terrorism and Sharia, continues led by those who have the actual will, might, and voting power to actually implement theocratic laws.
*This made me wonder that if he were to keel over with a heart attack due to working himself up to such a high blood pressure with his rants, would he refuse treatment from a Muslim doctor? There are a lot of them.
Both images are courtesy of Chris Rojas (Crux Photography) via Flickr.
NASA released this incredible new high-res image of the Earth, taken by the recently launched Earth-observing satellite, Suomi NPP.
The image, which centers on North and Central America, has been nicknamed “Blue Marble 2012″ after the famous “Blue Marble” image (below) taken during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. The original Blue Marble, featuring the Arabian Peninsula and Africa, is one of the most well recognized photographs of all time.
Suomi NPP is designed to help improve weather forecasts and increase scientists’ understanding of long-term climate change. Originally called the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project, the probe was renamed Jan. 24 in honor of the late Verner E. Suomi, known as the “father of satellite meteorology.”
The Suomi satellite compiled this enormous image from small sections that it photographed over the course of Jan. 4, and the pictures were later stitched together.
We live in a secular state, a fact that is often celebrated. However, what does this mean for the issue of morality? Does our state have a moral compass? It is not an easy issue to address, and is one that has exercised the minds of moral philosophers throughout the ages.
Waleed Aly discussed the morality of secularism with Scott Stephens, editor of the ABC's Religion and Ethics website.
In a court of law, say a murder trial, a jury is asked to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, whether a person is guilty or not guilty. In several jurisdictions including 34 of the states of the US, a guilty verdict may result in an execution. Numerous cases are on record where later evidence not available at the time of trial, especially DNA evidence, has cast retrospective doubt on a guilty verdict and in some cases led to a posthumous pardon.
Courtroom dramas accurately portray the suspense that hangs in the air when the jury returns and delivers its verdict. All, including the lawyers on both sides and the judge, are on tenterhooks and hold their breath while they wait to hear the foreman of the jury pronounce the words, “Guilty” or “Not guilty”. However, if the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” means what it says, there should be no doubt of the outcome in the mind of anybody who has sat through the same trial as the jury. That includes the judge who, as soon as the jury has delivered its verdict, is prepared to give the order for execution — or release the prisoner without a stain on his character.
And yet, before the jury returned, there was enough “reasonable doubt” in that same judge’s mind to keep him on tenterhooks waiting for the verdict.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the verdict is beyond reasonable doubt, in which case there should be no suspense while the jury is out. Or there is real, nail-biting suspense, in which case you cannot claim that the case has been proved “beyond reasonable doubt”.
American weather forecasters deliver probabilities, not certainties: “80 percent probability of rain”. Juries are not allowed to do that, although it’s what I felt like doing when I served on one. “What is your verdict, guilty or not guilty”? “Seventy five percent probability of guilt, m’lud.” That would be anathema to our judges and lawyers. There must be no shades of grey: the system insists on certainty, yes or no, guilty or not guilty. Judges may refuse even to accept a divided jury and will send members back into the jury room with instructions not to emerge again until they have somehow managed to achieve unanimity. How is that “beyond reasonable doubt”?
In science, for an experiment to be taken seriously, it must be repeatable. Not all experiments are repeated — we have not world enough and time — but seriously controversial results must be repeatable or we don’t have to believe them. That is why the world of physics is waiting for repeat experiments before taking seriously the claim that neutrinos can travel faster than light.
Shouldn’t the decision to execute somebody, or imprison them for life, be taken seriously enough to warrant a repeat of the experiment? I’m not talking about a retrial. Nor an appeal, although that of course is desirable, and happens when there is some disputed point of law or new evidence. But suppose every trial had two juries, sitting in the same courtroom but forbidden to talk to each other. Who will bet that they would always reach the same verdict? Does anybody think a second jury is likely to have acquitted O J Simpson?
My guess is that, if the two-jury experiment were run over a large number of trials, the frequency with which two groups would agree on their verdict would run at slightly higher than 50 percent. But anything short of 100 percent makes one wonder at the “beyond reasonable doubt” held to be sufficient to send somebody to the electric chair. And would anybody bet on 100 percent concordance between two juries?
Isn’t it enough, you may say, that there are 12 people on the jury? Doesn’t that provide the equivalent of 12 replications of the experiment? No, it doesn’t, because the twelve jurors are not independent of one another: they are locked in a room together.
Anybody who has ever been on a jury (I’ve been on three) knows that authoritative and articulate speakers sway the rest. Twelve Angry Men is fiction and doubtless exaggerated, but the principle remains. A second jury without the Henry Fonda character would surely have found the boy guilty. Should a death sentence depend on the lucky break of whether a particularly perceptive or persuasive individual happens to be picked for jury duty?
I am not suggesting that we should introduce a two-jury system in practice. I suspect that two independent juries of six people would produce a fairer result than a single jury of 12, but what would you do on those many (as I suspect) cases where the two juries disagreed? Would the two-jury system amount to a bias in favour of the defence? I can’t suggest any well worked-out alternative to the present jury system, but I still think it is terrible.
I strongly suspect that two judges, forbidden to talk to each other, would have a higher concordance rate than two juries and might even approach 100 percent. Yet that, too, is open to the objection that the two judges are likely to be drawn from the same class of society and to be of similar age to each other, and might share the same prejudices.
What I am proposing, as a bare minimum, is that we should acknowledge that “beyond reasonable doubt” is a hollow and empty phrase. If you defend the single-jury system as delivering a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”, you are committed to the strong view, whether you like it or not, that two juries would always produce the same verdict. And when you put it like that, will anybody stand up and bet on 100 percent concordance?
If you place such a bet, you are as good as saying that you wouldn’t bother to stay in court to hear the verdict, because the verdict should be obvious to anybody who had sat through the trial, including the judge and the lawyers on both sides. No suspense. No tenterhooks.
There may be no practical alternative, but let’s not pretend: our courtroom procedures make a mockery of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
This article was published in New Statesman, 23rd Jan 2012, under a different title.
We're having a visit today from Shawn Lawrence Otto, a fellow who has been fighting against the un-American war on science on the web and in a book, Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. He's speaking on campus tonight at 7:30 Central, in the HFA Recital Hall — I urge local community members to show up, he has important things to say about education and climate change — and that talk is going to be streamed live, so all you distant strangers can also watch the show.
It was a little strange, though, to get messages from the university administration telling me I'm expected to go to dinner with him. It turns out, I'm in his book — there's actually a substantial 4 or 5 page section in there where he discusses an interview he had with me (I'm getting old, and I've done so many interviews that they all bleed together), so I had to run out and get a copy of the book to find out what I was getting into. It all sounded a bit Chris Mooney-like.
Fortunately, the book is good — if the topic is a bit Mooneyish, it's the Mooney of The Republican War on Science, and not the batty, Nisbet-bespelled Mooney of Unscientific America, and his stuff on me isn't a hatchet job. Otto doesn't come out and declare me the absolutely correct master of all I pontificate on (I'll have to bend his ear and make suggestions for the second edition), but at least he recognizes that there are many different angles to take in fighting ignorance. You are allowed to read the book and listen to the talk without feeling outraged.
Here's an idea sure to divide opinion – the Camden New Journal reports that there are plans on the table to erect a giant statue of Jesus Christ, evoking Brazil's iconic Christ The Redeemer statue, on North London's Primrose Hill to mark the end of the 2012 Olympics and the transferral of host city status to Rio de Janeiro.
The proposal has not yet been reviewed by the local planning department but, according to the New Journal, a London-based planning consultancy working with the Brazilian Tourist Board recently sent an email "to a handful of Primrose Hill residents" informing them of the plan and requesting secrecy in order to retain "a 'wow' factor" for Londoners and “the world’s media" when it is unveiled at the end of the games.
Opinion among those interviewed by the New Journal is divided between those who wouldn't mind if it was temporary and a local councillor who says it "sounds a bit like some marketing brainstorm" and who thinks the planners "need to get some more original ideas". But the religious nature of the project has also attracted the attention of secularists, who question the wisdom of erecting a giant symbol of Christianity above the London skyline. In a statement on its website, the National Secular Society's president Terry Sanderson said:
"The Olympic Games is supposed to unite people of all creeds and cultures through sport. Introducing something as blatantly sectarian as this would completely go against the spirit of the games and be a kind of triumphalist statement about Christianity. It is a very bad idea and must be kicked into touch immediately."
So what do you think? Could London do without a Saviour lording it over its population, or is it time our decadent capital city acquired some new religious iconography and climbed on board with JC? Answers in the comments.
Published by noreply@blogger.com (Paul Sims)
on Thu 26 Jan 11:53:00
US President Barack Obama’s 65-minute State of the Union address last night (24 January) touched on themes and issues that were expected, calling for measures to revitalize the economy and urging that the very wealthy pay higher tax rates — a minimum of 30% for those with more than $1 million in income.
But it also included multiple references to subjects near to scientists’ hearts. Here is a sampling of points in the speech that touched on science, medical research, education, energy and the environment. (For greater detail on the policy proposals mentioned in Obama’s speech, see here.) Bear in mind that many of the president’s proposals would need action by a Congress that is seriously divided on partisan lines.
- Obama urged lawmakers not to “gut” US investments in basic research, arguing among other things that “the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched” and create lightweight vests that protect police and soldiers from “any bullet.”
- Calling on Congress to “stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs,” the president argued that a path to citizenship should be created for foreign students who come here to study subjects like business, science and engineering. “Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.”
- Obama took aim at rising tuition costs in colleges and universities, threatening to withdraw some federal support if the institutions don’t keep their tuition hikes in control. “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down,” he said.
Tremble in fear, and behold this terrifying homicidal vegetable!
The larger denizens of Brazil may be unaware of the carnage beneath their feet, but trust me — the far more numerous inhabitants of the country, roundworms and such, feel nothing but terror at encountering their roots.
When you are trying to change the world, how do you know when you’ve succeeded? Last week, when Skepchick went dark, did it do any good?
Last year, I put together a workshop on skeptical activism with the fantastic Desiree Schell. I thought it might be useful to share some of the components of this workshop in a few blog posts, and to provide some examples of activism that are working or that are not.
More and more, skeptical groups are starting to move into the realm of activism. As we continue to see examples of poor critical thinking, bad information and societal trends toward anti-science positions, many of us want to do more than just talk about it, and try to put campaigns of activism together to try to effect change. But, as skeptics, we also must recognize that we need more than our gut instincts to run successful campaigns.
Even though this is my first in a series of posts on this topic, I thought it might be useful to start with what happens at the end of a campaign. So I’m going to be discussing measuring success of an activism campaign. When you’re putting your campaign together, it’s important to begin with the end in mind. How will you know if your activism was successful?
Identifying how you’ll be measuring success will help you solidify clear objectives for your campaign. If you want to raise awareness about the safety of vaccines, how will you measure that awareness? How will you know if you’ve succeeded?
Last week, thousands of sites, including the Skepchick network, participated in the SOPA blackout, going dark for a day to protest legislation that would tie the hands and freedom of the internet. For a few days after the blackout, I saw several of my less… optimistic friends post a link to this opinion piece regarding the blackout.
This article is a great example of a very common problem I’ve noticed with activism. Allies criticize you because although they agree with your position, they disagree with your tactics. You’re coming on too strong or not strong enough, you’re not pushing hard enough, you’re making the whole movement look bad. Sound familiar?
Image Courtesy Surly-Ramics
The only answer to this problem is evidence. If you think your tactics were successful – provide the evidence.
In the case of the SOPA blackout, this critic is saying that what we did was simply not enough. We didn’t put anyone in any real hardship and so the blackout could not possibly work. The writer quotes Snopes:
“Protest schemes that don’t cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.”
It’s a valid concern. Many activist campaigns lack ‘teeth’ and therefore fall flat. The Snopes quote above is in reference to the periodic request for people to not buy gas on a particular day of the year to protest rising gas prices. Because these campaigns are badly organized (we get those emails at least once a year; does anyone know if there’s actually a day when it’s happening?) and don’t really get a lot of support, they don’t often succeed. However, I don’t agree with the sentiment that basically says that activism has to be hard and you have to make huge sacrifices to run a successful campaign of activism. Yes, running an activism campaign takes work. But the individuals participating in a campaign can often play a very small, crucial part that requires very little effort from them but contributes to a much larger impact.
In reality, you have to be self-aware, smart and focused to run a successful campaign of activism. The thing about activism is – sometimes it doesn’t work. Sometimes the critics are right. So when you are managing a campaign, it’s really important to understand how you will figure out if you were successful or not.
So, was the SOPA protest a success? Luckily, we have a very clear way to check the evidence on this one.
Pretty chart that is easy to read!
ProPublica.org tracked the positions of congress members on SOPA the day before and the day after the protest. The effect was clear. The protests cut the official SOPA supporters by 15 congressmen and added 70 opponents. In addition, shortly thereafter, Lamar Smith, the chief sponsor of SOPA pulled the bill altogether.
That’s pretty compelling evidence that the blackout tactics worked. Even if there is still work to be done against PIPA and other similar legislation, it’s hard to argue that the blackout had no impact.
The lesson:
It’s crucial to have measurable objectives when you’re planning a campaign. You may have several objectives – primary and secondary. Your primary objective should be pretty big and should be easy to measure. Did anyone in power change their position? Did a business change their policy? If your objective is to have a certain company stop advertising anti-vaccine organizations, that’s also your measurable outcome. Did they stop, or not?
Keep in mind, however, that NOT achieving your primary objective doesn’t mean your event was a failure. Measuring your secondary objectives, such as positive media hits, internal participation, new relationships, is important when evaluating your progress.
Finally, keep in mind that if you have measurable objectives, even failing to meet your goals is a partial success. Because you know you failed and you can learn from that! So you can throw away those tactics or re-work them into something that will get you better results the next time. You won’t be doing the same thing over and over, in the hopes that it has some sort of impact. So even if you fail, you still win.
Published by Masala Skeptic
on Wed 25 Jan 20:00:01
The iPad/iPhone edition is available as a free download and brings you selected pages from the latest issue as soon as it is published. You can subscribe within the application for full access, which brings you every page of the issue and a searchable archive back to March 2006. A subscription costs £1.99 per month or £9.99 per year.
The app, produced by our digital edition provider Exact Editions, has the following features:
• Swipe or tap the page edges to flip to next/previous page.
• Use the animated thumbnail view to flick through the pages.
• Pinch or double-tap pages to zoom.
• Switch between single or double-page view (iPad only).
• Search the current issue or (paid-only) the archive.
• Tap any page links to web sites, email addresses, phone numbers or maps.
• Tap contents-page links to jump to a particular article.
• Sync back issues to your device for offline reading (requires wi-fi).
• Network connection required otherwise.
We recommend first running the app within a wi-fi area so it can sync the latest issue to your device - after that you can use it anywhere. Subscribers will receive new issues automatically via Newsstand.
For those asking about other platforms, including Andorid, we do hope to be able to offer a branded app for those in the not-too-distant future. But in the meantime, a regular digital subscription will give you access via the Exact Editions Android app for just £9.99 per year.
Published by noreply@blogger.com (Paul Sims)
on Tue 24 Jan 15:38:00
The Jesus & Mo cartoon strip that has sparked controversy
at London's universities
Following the recent controversy surrounding the use of a frame from the satirical cartoon strip Jesus & Mo by the atheist student society at University College London, it has now emerged that the cartoons are at the centre of a similar dispute at the London School of Economics.
The Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society at LSE (LSEU ASH) reproduced the Jesus & Mo cartoons on their Facebook page following news of the controversy at UCL, and were yesterday instructed by their student union (LSEU) to remove them. In a statement released on the union website, LSEU explained the decision:
"On Monday 16th January it was brought to our attention via an official complaint by two students that the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society posted cartoons, published by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, depicting the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus "sitting in a pub having a pint" on their society Facebook page. Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students' Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page.
It was decided that the President and other committee members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society would be called for an informal meeting to explain the situation, the complaints that had been made, and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of Students' Union policy on inclusion and the society's constitution. This meeting took place on Friday 20th January at 10.30am. The society agreed to certain actions coming out of the meeting and these were discussed amongst the sabbatical team. In this discussion it was felt that though these actions were positive they would not fully address the concerns of those who had submitted complaints. Therefore the SU will now be telling the society that they cannot continue these activities under the brand of the SU.
The LSE Students’ Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus. The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students' Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE."
The atheist society have decided not to comply, and have appealed to the union to withdraw the instruction. In a statement on behalf of the society's committee, LSEU ASH president Chris Moos said:
"There are no reasonable grounds for the LSESU’s instruction because we are in no way violating their policies or byelaws. The cartoons on our Facebook page criticise religion in a satirical way and we totally reject any claim that their publications could constitute any sort of harassment or intimidation of Muslims or Christians.
That there was no deliberate intention to offend is illustrated by the fact that the cartoons were posted only on the LSESU ASH page and not in other spaces. But even if some people are offended, offence is not a sufficient reason for certain artistic and satirical forms of expression to be prohibited. A university should hold no idea sacred and be open to the critiquing of all ideas and ideologies.
We want to engage with LSESU and work with them further to resolve the situation, but not in a way that jeopardises the legitimate criticism or satirising of religious and other beliefs. That is a freedom which is indispensable."
As was the case with UCL, the LSEU ASH have received the backing of both the British Humanist Association and the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies (AHS), which have announced that they will conduct an investigation into the handling of free speech issues by student unions, with a view to providing guidance to student atheist, secular and humanist societies.
"There has been too much conflation recently of being offended and being intimidated, with the implication being that they are equivalent," explained Jenny Bartle, president of the AHS. "Such an assumption is a potential threat to free speech and free debate, and we are concerned to address this underlying problem in the long term."
A demonstration in defence of free expression, prompted by the student controversies and organised One Law For All, is set to take place in London on 11 February.
Published by noreply@blogger.com (Paul Sims)
on Tue 24 Jan 10:23:00
My claim is that the word “footstool” is a palindrome (a word that reads the same backwards and forwards). In what way am I right?
If you have not tried to solve it, have a go now. For everyone else, the answer is after the break.
The solution is that ‘footstool’ is a palindrome ….. in morse code. Did you solve it?
I have produced an ebook containing 101 of the previous Friday Puzzles! It is called PUZZLED and is available for the Kindle (UK here and USA here) and on the iBookstore (UK here in the USA here). You can try 101 of the puzzles for free here.
Published by Richard Wiseman
on Mon 23 Jan 07:30:43
Conservative MP (and New Humanist Bad Faith Award winner) Nadine Dorries' Ten Minute Rule bill proposing abstinence-based sex education for girls, which passed a first reading in the House of Commons last year, was due for its second reading in Parliament today. Campaigners for comprehensive sex education, including humanists, feminists and sexual health charities, had gathered outside Parliament this morning to hold a demo against the bill, but as they did, news emerged that the proposed legislation had not appeared on the Commons order of business for the day. Here's what the author of the Guardian's Politics Live blog, Andrew Sparrow, has to say:
"10.54am: Nadine Dorries's sex education bill has been removed from today's order paper – meaning it will not now be debated today, the Commons information office have confirmed to me.
It may be debated another day, but for now it has been "removed from effective orders", a spokeswoman told me.
The bill is likely to have been withdrawn by Dorries herself. "No one would be able to remove a private members' bill without the permission of a member."
I am just going to ring Dorries's office to find out why she has withdrawn the bill."
In an update a few minutes later, Sparrow added that the person he spoke to at Dorries' office could not explain why the bill had been withdrawn.
So we don't know for sure that the bill has been permanently withdrawn, but if it has it's a victory for comprehensive sex education in our schools, as the British Humanist Association's Andrew Copson points out:
"If
the Bill had been debated, it would not have been passed, and there was always
a good chance that there would not be enough parliamentary time for it even to
be debated. It would be nice to think that Mrs Dorries withdrew her Bill
because she at last realised that abstinence 'education' is a
dangerously unrealistic and irresponsible proposition for our young people; in
the more probable eventuality that her decision was guided by politics rather
than a change of heart, we will all certainly need to remain on our guard
against such foolish proposals in the future. The fact that the Bill ever
got tabled for a second reading at all has given all those who care about good
quality, comprehensive sex and relationships education to say so, and take a
stand against the sort of un-evidenced, ideologically motivated policy making
that the Bill represented."
Published by noreply@blogger.com (Paul Sims)
on Fri 20 Jan 11:39:00
Governor Mitt Romney has yet to persuade the religious conservatives in his party that he is fit to be President of the United States. However, he could probably appease the Republican base and secure his party’s nomination if he made the following remarks prior to the South Carolina Primary:
My fellow Republicans,
I would like to address your lingering concerns about my candidacy. Some of you have expressed doubts about my commitment to a variety of social causes—and some have even questioned my religious faith. Tonight, I will speak from the heart about the values that unite us.
First, on the subject of gay rights, let me make my position perfectly clear: I am as sickened by homosexuality as any man or woman in this country. It is true that I wrote a letter in 1994 where I said that “we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” and for this I have been mocked and pilloried, especially by Evangelicals. But ask yourselves, what did I mean by “equality”? I meant that all men and women must be given an equal chance to live a righteous life.
Yes, I once reached out to the Log Cabin Republicans—the gays in our party. Many people don’t know that there are gay Republicans, but it is true. Anyway, in a letter to this strange group, I pledged to do more for gay rights than Senator Edward Kennedy ever would.
Well, Senator Kennedy is now deceased—so I don’t have to do much to best him and keep my promise. But, more to the point, ask yourselves, what did I mean by “rights”? I meant that every man and woman has a right to discover the love of Jesus Christ and win life eternal. What else could I have meant? Seriously. What could be more important than eternal life? Jesus thought we all had a right to it. And I agree with him. And I think we should amend our Constitution to safeguard this right for everyone by protecting the sanctity of marriage.
I don’t have to tell you what is at stake. If gays are allowed to marry, it will debase the institution for the rest of us and perhaps loosen its bonds. Liberals scoff at this. They wonder how my feelings for my wife Ann could be diminished by the knowledge that a gay couple somewhere just got married. What an odd question.
On abortion—some say I have changed my views. It is true that I once described myself as “pro-choice.” But again, ask yourselves, what did I mean? I meant that every woman should be free to make the right choice. What is the right choice? To have as many children as God bestows. I once visited the great nation of Nigeria and a met woman who was blessed to have had 24 children—fully two-thirds of which survived beyond the age of five. The power of God is beyond our understanding. And this woman’s faith was a sight to behold.
Finally, I would like to address the scandalous assertion, once leveled by the Texas Pastor, Robert Jeffress, that my church—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is “a cult.” In fairness, he almost got that right—the LDS Church is a culture. A culture of faith and goodness and reverence for God Almighty. Scientology is a cult—this so-called religion was just made up out of whole cloth by the science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. But the teachings of my Church derive directly from the prophetic experience of its founder, Joseph Smith Jr., who by the aid of sacred seer stones, the Urim and Thummim, was able to decipher the final revelations of God which were written in reformed Egyptian upon a set golden plates revealed to him by the angel Moroni. Many of you are probably unfamiliar with this history—and some of you may even doubt its truth.
I am now speaking to the base of our party, to the 60 percent who believe that God created this fine universe, and humanity in its present form, at some point in the last 10,000 years. Let me make one thing absolutely clear to you: I believe what you believe. Your God is my God. I believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and the Son of God, crucified for our sins, and resurrected for our salvation. And I believe that He will return to earth to judge the living and the dead.
But my Church offers a further revelation: We believe that when Jesus Christ returns to earth, He will return, not to Jerusalem, or to Baghdad, but to this great nation—and His first stop will be Jackson County, Missouri. The LDS Church teaches that the Garden of Eden itself was in Missouri! Friends, it is a marvelous vision. Some Christians profess not to like this teaching. But I ask you, where would you rather the Garden of Eden be, in the great state of Missouri or in some hellhole in the Middle East?
In conclusion, I want to assure you all, lest there be any doubt, that I share your vision for this country and for the future of our world. Some say that we should focus on things like energy security, wealth inequality, epidemic disease, global climate change, nuclear proliferation, genocide, and other complex problems for which scientific knowledge, rational discussion, and secular politics are the best remedy. But you and I know that the problem we face is deeper and simpler and far more challenging. Since time immemorial humanity has been misled by Satan, the Father of Lies.
I trust we understand one another better now. And I hope you know how honored I will be to represent our party in the coming Presidential election.
God bless this great land, the United States of America.
Lawrence M. Krauss is a renowned cosmologist, popularizer of science, and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is the author of more than 300 scientific publications and 8 books, including the bestselling The Physics of Star Trek. His interests include the early universe, the nature of dark matter, general relativity and neutrino astrophysics. He is also a friend and an advisor to my nonprofit foundation, Project Reason. Lawrence generously took time to answer a few questions about his new book, A Universe from Nothing.
***
One of the most common justifications for religious faith is the idea that the universe must have had a creator. You’ve just written a book alleging that a universe can arise from “nothing.” What do you mean by “nothing” and how fully does your thesis contradict a belief in a Creator God?
Indeed, the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” which forms the subtitle of the book, is often used by the faithful as an unassailable argument that requires the existence of God, because of the famous claim, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” While the chief point of my book is to describe for the interested layperson the remarkable revolutions that have taken place in our understanding of the universe over the past 50 years—revolutions that should be celebrated as pinnacles of our intellectual experience—the second goal is to point out that this long-held theological claim is spurious. Modern science has made the something-from-nothing debate irrelevant. It has changed completely our conception of the very words “something” and “nothing”. Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.) I spend a great deal of time in the book detailing precisely how physics has changed our notions of “nothing,” for example. The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of “nothing”—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.
Now, having said this, my point in the book is not to suggest that modern science is incompatible with at least the Deistic notion that perhaps there is some purpose to the Universe (even though no such purpose is manifest on the basis of any of our current knowledge, and moreover there is no logical connection between any possible “creator” and the personal God of the world’s major religions, who cares about humanity’s destiny). Rather, what I find remarkable is the fact that the discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the Universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible. Everything we have measured about the universe is not only consistent with a universe that came from nothing (and didn’t have to turn out this way!), but in fact, all the new evidence makes this possibility ever more likely. Darwin demonstrated how the remarkable diversity of life on Earth, and the apparent design of life, which had been claimed as evidence for a caring God, could in fact instead be arrived at by natural causes involving purely physical processes of mutation and natural selection. I want to show something similar about the Universe. We may never prove by science that a Creator is impossible, but, as Steven Weinberg has emphasized, science admits (and for many of us, suggests) a universe in which one is not necessary.
I cannot hide my own intellectual bias here. As I state in the first sentence of the book, I have never been sympathetic to the notion that creation requires a creator. And like our late friend, Christopher Hitchens, I find the possibility of living in a universe that was not created for my existence, in which my actions and thoughts need not bend to the whims of a creator, far more enriching and meaningful than the other alternative. In that sense, I view myself as an anti-theist rather than an atheist.
I’d like to linger on the concept of “nothing” for a moment, because I find it interesting. You have described three gradations of nothing—empty space, the absence of space, and the absence of physical laws. It seems to me that this last condition—the absence of any laws that might have caused or constrained the emergence of matter and space-time—really is a case of “nothing” in the strictest sense. It strikes me as genuinely incomprehensible that anything—laws, energy, etc.—could spring out of it. I don’t mean to suggest that conceivability is a guide to possibility—there may be many things that happen, or might happen, which we are not cognitively equipped to understand. But the emergence of something from nothing (in this final sense) does strike me as a frank violation of the categories of human thought (akin to asserting that the universe is a round square), or the mere declaration of a miracle. Is there any
physical
reason to believe that such nothing was ever the case? Might it not be easier to think about the laws of physics as having always existed?
That’s a very good question, and it actually strikes to the heart of one of the things I wanted to stress most in the book. Because a frank violation of the categories of human thought is precisely what the Universe does all of the time. Quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of our Universe on very small scales, is full of such craziness, which defies common sense in the traditional sense. So small squares are sometimes round.. namely systems can be in many different states at the same time, including ones which are mutually exclusive! Crazy, I know, but true… That is the heart of why the quantum universe is so weird. So, yes, it would be easier to think about the laws of physics as always having existed, but “easy” does not always coincide with “true.” Once again, my mantra: The Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.
Now to hit the second part of your question… do we have any reason to suppose the laws themselves came into existence along with our universe? Yes… current ideas coming from particle physics allow a number of possibilities for multiple universes, in each of which some of the laws of physics, at least, would be unique to that universe. Now, do we have any models where all the laws (including even, say, quantum mechanics?) came into being along with the universe? No. But we know so little about the possibilities that this certainly remains one of them.
But even more germane to your question perhaps… do we have any physical reason to believe that such nothing was ever the case? Absolutely, because we are talking about our universe, and that doesn’t preclude our universe arising from precisely nothing, embedded in a perhaps infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces, or spaces-to-be, some of which existed before ours came into being, and some of which are only now coming into, or going out of existence. In this sense, the multiverse, as it has become known, could be eternal, which certainly addresses one nagging aspect of the issue of First Cause.
I want to keep following this line, because it seems to me that we rarely do it—and I think many people will be interested to learn how a physicist like yourself views the foundations of science. As you know, in every branch of science apart from physics we stand upon an inherited set of concepts and laws that explain the whole enterprise. In neuroscience, for instance, we inherit the principles of chemistry and physics, and these explain everything from the behavior of neurons to the operation of our imaging tools. As one moves “up” in science, the problems become more complex (and for this reason the science inevitably gets “softer”), and we find very little reason to contemplate the epistemological underpinnings of science itself. So I’d like you to briefly tell us how you and your colleagues view the fact that certain descriptions of reality might be true, and testable, but impossible to understand. I had thought, for instance, that most physicists were unsatisfied with the strangeness of QM and still held out hope that a more fundamental theory would put things right, yielding a picture of reality that we could truly grasp, rather than merely accede to. Is that not true?
Another deep and difficult question Sam! A full answer would probably take more room than we have here, and I have tried to address this issue to some extent both in A Universe from Nothing and my books Fear of Physics and Hiding in the Mirror. First of all, let me address the issue of “understanding.” There are aspects of the universe, such as the fact that three-dimensional space can be curved, which cannot be “understood” in an intuitive sense because we are three-dimensional beings. Just like the two-dimensional beings in the famous book Flatland, who had no idea how to truly picture a sphere, we cannot visualize a three-dimensional closed universe, for example. This does not stop us, however, from developing mathematics that completely describes such a universe. So, our mathematics can model such a universe and allow us to make predictions we can test, and therefore provide an “explanation” of the universe that is comprehensible, even if not intuitively understandable.
But there is something even more profound about the nature of “scientific truth” that has arisen in physics, which I don’t think is generally appreciated. It is the simple fact that we realize that none of our theories are “true” in the sense that they adequately describe nature on all scales. All of our physical theories, as we now understand them, have limited domains of validity, which we can actually quantify in an accurate way. Even Quantum Electrodynamics, which is the best tested theory in nature, allowing us to predict the energy levels of atoms to better than 1 part in a billion, gets subsumed in a more general theory, called the Electroweak theory, when it is applied to trying to understand the interactions of quarks and electrons on scales 100 times smaller than the size of protons. Now, as Richard Feynman emphasized, we have no idea if this process will continue, if we will peel back the layers of reality like an onion, whether the process will never end, or whether we will truly come up with a fundamental theory that allows us to extrapolate our understanding to all scales. As he pointed out, it doesn’t really matter, because what we scientists want to do is learn about how the universe works, and at each stage we learn something new. We may hope the universe has some fundamental explanation, but as I keep emphasizing, the universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and our job is to be brave enough to keep trying to understand it better, and to accept the reality that nature imposes upon us.
It is true that some physicists find the strangeness of Quantum Mechanics unsatisfying and suspect that it might be embedded in a more fundamental theory that seems less crazy. But hope and reality are not the same thing. Similarly, it may be intellectually unsatisfying to imagine that time began with our universe, so asking what came before is not a sensible question, or to imagine an eternal multiverse which itself was never created, or to never be able to empirically address the question of whether the laws of nature arose spontaneously along with the universe, but we have to keep plugging away regardless, motivated by the remarkable fact that nature has surprises in store for us that we never would have imagined!
Finally, it is the “how” question that is really most important, as I emphasize in the new book. Whenever we ask “why?” we generally mean “How?”, because why implies a sense of purpose that we have no reason to believe actually exists. When we ask “Why are there 8 planets orbiting the Sun?” we really mean “How are there 8 planets?”—namely how did the evolution of the solar system allow the formation and stable evolution of 8 large bodies orbiting the Sun. And thus, as I also emphasize, we may never be able to discern if there is actually some underlying universal purpose to the universe, although there is absolutely no scientific evidence of such purpose at this point, what is really important to understanding ourselves and our place in the universe is not trying to parse vague philosophical questions about something and nothing, but rather to try and operationally understand how our universe evolved, and what the future might bring. Progress in physics in the past century has taken us to the threshold of addressing questions we might never have thought were approachable within the domain of science. We may never fully resolve them, but the very fact that we can plausibly address them is worth celebrating. That is the purpose of my book. And it is this intellectual quest that I find so very exciting, and which I want to share more broadly, because it represents to me the very best about what it means to be human.
Here’s an interesting problem with data analysis in general, and so, by extension, data journalism: you have to be careful about assuming that the numbers you’ve got access to… really do reflect the underlying phenomena you’re trying to investigate. Today’s Guardian has a story, “Antidepressant use in England soars“. It’s much more overstated in the [...]
Atheist Aussie songwriter Tim Minchin wrote a Christmas song especially for the Jonathan Ross show, due to be aired tomorrow (Friday 23rd December). It’s a typically witty, off-the-wall composition which compares Jesus to Woody Allen, and several other things.
Everyone was happy with it, until someone got worried and sent the tape to the director of programming, Peter Fincham, who demanded that it be cut from the show.
He did this because he’s scared of the ranty, shit-stirring, right-wing press, and of the small minority of Brits who believe they have a right to go through life protected from anything that challenges them in any way.
The moment it was announced that Christopher Hitchens was sick with cancer, eulogies began spilling into print and from the podium. No one wanted to deny the possibility that he would recover, of course, but neither could we let the admiration we felt for him go unexpressed. It is a cliché to say that he was one of a kind and none can fill his shoes—but Hitch was and none can. In his case not even the most effusive tributes ring hollow. There was simply no one like him.
One of the joys of living in a world filled with stupidity and hypocrisy was to see Hitch respond. That pleasure is now denied us. The problems that drew his attention remain—and so does the record of his brilliance, courage, erudition, and good humor in the face of outrage. But his absence will leave an enormous void in the years to come. Hitch lived an extraordinarily large life. (Read his memoir, Hitch-22, and marvel.) It was too short, to be sure—and one can only imagine what another two decades might have brought out of him—but Hitch produced more fine work, read more books, met more interesting people, and won more arguments than most of us could in several centuries.
I first met Hitch at a dinner at the end of April 2007, just before the release of his remarkable book god is not Great. After a long evening, my wife and I left him standing on the sidewalk in front of his hotel. His book tour was just beginning, and he was scheduled to debate on a panel the next morning. It was well after midnight, but it was evident from his demeanor that his clock had a few hours left to run. I had heard the stories about his ability to burn the candle at both ends, but staggering there alongside him in the glare of a street lamp, I made a mental note of what struck me as a fact of nature—tomorrow’s panel would be a disaster.
I rolled out of bed the following morning, feeling quite wrecked, to see Hitch holding forth on C-SPAN’s Book TV, dressed in the same suit he had been wearing the night before. Needless to say, he was effortlessly lucid and witty—and taking no prisoners. There should be a name for the peculiar cocktail of emotion I then enjoyed: one part astonishment, one part relief, two parts envy; stir. It would not be the last time I drank it in his honor.
Since that first dinner, I have felt immensely lucky to count Hitch as a friend and colleague—and very unlucky indeed not to have met him sooner. Before he became ill, I had expected to have many more years in which to take his company for granted. But our last meeting was in February of this year, in Los Angeles, where we shared the stage with two rabbis. His illness was grave enough at that point to make the subject of our debate—Is there an afterlife?—seem a touch morbid. It also made traveling difficult for him. I was amazed that he had made the trip at all.
The evening before the event, we met for dinner, and I was aware that it might be our last meal together. I was also startled to realize that it was our first meal alone. I remember thinking what a shame it was—for me—that our lives had not better coincided. I had much to learn from him.
I have been privileged to witness the gratitude that so many people feel for Hitch’s life and work—for, wherever I speak, I meet his fans. On my last book tour, those who attended my lectures could not contain their delight at the mere mention of his name—and many of them came up to get their books signed primarily to request that I pass along their best wishes to him. It was wonderful to see how much Hitch was loved and admired—and to be able to share this with him before the end.
Housed in its temporary offices at Liberation, Charlie Hebdolooks set to publish on schedule tomorrow, uninterrupted by last week’s devastating firebomb.
Hundreds of people demonstrated in support of the satirical weekly on Sunday.
Hebdo demo: Support for the magazine has been strong this time round
The president of SOS Racism was among the supporters, declaring that
In a democracy, the right to blaspheme is absolute.
Editor “Charb” said,
We need a level playing field. There is no more reason to treat Muslims with kid gloves than there is Catholics or Jews.
Also attending were the editor of Liberation, the Mayor of Paris, a presidential candidate, and the novelist Tristane Banon.
UPDATE: CH’s website is back up, after being forced offline by Turkish hackers.
Briefly: I thought this was a pricing error, but it turns out it’s deliberate, so… My book is £2.49 on Kindle for the next week or so. When it’s this cheap you might as well use it to test the Kindle app on your phone (I’m a massive Kindle dork, it helps me get more [...]
The French satirical paper has reacted defiantly to the firebombing of its offices by teaming up with Liberationto produce a special supplement which reproduces the controversial images. The 4-page wraparound was distributed with Thursday’s edition of the daily newspaper.
"Soft sharia": The four-page supplement which accompanied Thursday's Liberation
The staff of Charlie Hebdo insisted on their “right to poke fun”, and the editor, Stephane Charbonnier, said in an article contained in the extra:
We thought the lines had moved and that maybe there would be more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech.
Liberation‘s editor, Nicolas Demorand, said his paper’s offices were opened to Charlie Hebdo staff as “a basic gesture of solidarity”.
They will also print an extra 175,000 copies of Wednesday’s edition of Charlie Hebdo, as the initial print run of 75,000 sold out quickly.
Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 22 October 2011 This week Baroness Susan Greenfield, Professor of pharmacology at Oxford, apparently announced that computer games are causing dementia in children. This would be very concerning scientific information: but it comes to us from the opening of a new wing at an expensive boarding school, not an academic [...]
The offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has been firebombed, causing extensive damage, because the latest edition, entitled Charia Hebdo, carried a cartoon of Mohammed on the cover.
Charlie's Law: "100 lashes of the whip if you don't die laughing"
A single petrol bomb was thrown through the window at approximately 3am. There were no injuries.
This is not the first time Charlie Hebdo has been on the receiving end of Muslim rage. MWW covered extensively the protests, and the trial and acquittal of its editor Philippe Val which followed the publication of this special edition:
Too true: "It's hard being loved by idiots" says Mo on the cover of this Feb 2006 edition
Hi, just to say, there’s a great piece in this month’s .net magazine about www.nerdydaytrips.com, the crowd-sourced dorky-days-out Why-Don’t-You project I built with Applecado, Aaron Rudd, and Jo Brodie. Snippet: Tanya Combrinck: Tell us about your ideal kind of day trip. Ben Goldacre: I’m not really interested in guide book stuff, I’m interested in stuff [...]
People often ask if there’s one good book that is accessible to all, about how evidence based medicine works. The answer is undoubtedly “Testing Treatments“. I name-check it to death in Bad Science, I learnt a huge amount from it, and it’s just come out in a new edition. You can (generously!) download the full [...]
Former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford but still Head of Science and Education at Biocare has an enthusiasm for interventions that we wish we might share but, too frequently, when we examine the studies on which he relies, the results do … Continue reading →
The People’s Medical Journal (aka Daily Mail) has a touching faith in the value of early diagnosis and screening tests. It would be rather charming to note that their history of being wrong has not as yet reduced them to … Continue reading →
A friend linked me to this. I was a sobbing mess within the first minute. I sometimes wonder why I feel such a strong kinship to the LGBT community, and I think it’s because I’ve been through the same thing that many of them have. So I watched this video and I cried, because, as [...]
UPDATE #1: I got my domain back! Many thanks to Kurtis for the pleasant surprise: So I stumbled upon your blog, really liked what I saw, read that you had drama with the domain name owner, bought it, and forwarded it here. It should work again in a matter of seconds. I am an atheist [...]
A new PLoS article has been published, arguing that The accelerated rate of brain atrophy in elderly with mild cognitive impairment can be slowed by treatment with homocysteine-lowering B vitamins I don’t have time to deal with this in as … Continue reading →
Chadwell writes: I’m a 16 year old in highschool and I guess my natural cynicism lead me to question the dogma and ignorance of religion. I was a christian but I just figured that why would god send the only salvation to man kind to a single area and practically turn his all-mighty back on [...]
If media science coverage from experienced, professional journalists is so poor that an amateur with a quarter of an hour to kill before heading to bed can highlight clear errors, there certainly is a real need for reflection. Continue reading →
Michael asks: I am 14. I was raised Catholic, and until about a week ago I was a firm believer. But last week I began to think. And the more I thought, the more it didn’t make sense. I’m pretty confident at this point that I don’t believe in God, and I’m pretty sure I’m [...]
Let’s start at the end: how in the name of all that’s reasonable is the Catholic church still in existence? If it were a decent sized country rather than an undemocratic city state, elections or armed revolt would have put paid to it by now. Instead, through the promise of a fictional fiery doom in a hypothetical afterlife, it’s maintained its iron grip on the gullible and superstitious worldwide.
I’ll come clean here. I’m what can best be described as a “secular catholic”. Father’s side was Irish, the whiskey consumption, “for medicinal purposes”, pretty high and no family event complete without someone getting stretchered out after a thump on the nose. Thanks to my mum however, I remained untainted by even a baptism. Score! What I’m saying is that they’re lovely people, but brainwashed by a corrupt, and indeed perverted organisation.
It turns out, that if you live in the UK, you’re going to be contributing around £20 million of your hard earned squids on the pope’s visit. Luckily there’s the iPhone app for that. I mean a facebook group and petitions to sign if you’d rather that dosh went on something useful like say, cancer drugs or decent protection for our boys in Iraq. Works whichever side of the fence you’re on, right? Money better spent.
The deliciously vitriolic Christopher Hitchens had a rather nice piece in Slate magazine under the heading “The pope’s entire career has the stench of evil about it” quoting the chief exorcist of the Vatican, the Rev. Gabriele Amorth as saying “the Devil is at work inside the Vatican”. Well, yes, but does he wear a dress and a cock-shaped hat?
At this point I’d like to give a shout out to the tenuously incumbent president of Spain, Zapatero, who has been doing his best to roll back the Inquisition and bring Spain kicking and screaming into a twenty-mumbleth century: contraception, abortion all the good stuff we take for granted and THEY don’t want you to have. Top bloke. Deserves our support.
Of course, they can’t help trying to interfere in every little part of our lives to the point where they’d rather take their ball away than actually help children in need. A catholic adoption agency would rather close than allow homosexuals to adopt. Maybe they’re worried the children will catch gay and not reproduce?
And I’ll leave you with some lovely poetry on the subject from Digital Cuttlefishwho has a lot more where this came from!
I thought I saw an atheist
In leather, black, with spikes
Who tore apart a bible (that’s
The sort of thing he likes)
A blasphemous expression, which
The Polish nation fears–
Because he tore some paper, now
A man may serve two years.
I thought I saw a holy man
Whose faith was being tested;
He had to bear the screams of all
The children he’d molested.
With such a dreadful burden, though,
Remained a ray of hope:
The law, at least, acknowledged his
Protection by the Pope.
I thought there might be justice, and
I hoped it would prevail.
The man who tore some paper
Should not have to go to jail.
The man who tore through children–
He, a heartless, soulless shell,
Should be punished by the people–
He does not believe in Hell.
We live in a secular state, a fact that is often celebrated. However, what does this mean for the issue of morality? Does our state have a moral compass? It is not an easy issue to address, and is one that has exercised the minds of moral philosophers throughout the ages.
And finally, we get to the most ludicrous of them all: Nergal of the death metal band Behemoth is 
Subscribe
OPML