Sigh

Books read in the past few months that I haven't had time to post a review on yet.  (plus x on kindle!)

Is science the new religion?

 Perhaps it should be. - What science means to me and why it is so much more than just a worldview.

I grew up with the Voyager probes.  My childhood seemed to mirror their grand journey from drawing board to launch pad to touring the solar system.  Well, in my head anyway. I had a plastic space shuttle hanging from my bedroom ceiling and at least three separate models of different bits of the Apollo hardware.  All poorly made and badly painted, but to me they became symbols of my own view of the world.  My own grand tour consisted of getting a job in a local bank and starting a family.  I wouldn’t change any of this but one thing has now lead to another and I find that my relationship with science has changed again.  

Creationist meddling in my children’s school (a state one, probably yours too, only you don't know about it) and a close look at their loony materials inspired a renewed fascination with science, biology in particular, and I am now more than half way through an OU Life Sciences Degree which I work on around my full time job and family.  I surprised myself at how strongly I cared about the science budget being protected from the cuts imposed by the newly elected coalition government.  I am now active in an anti-creationist group (BCSE), have had lunch with Genie Scott and I attend talks at local Skeptics in the pub meetings and sometimes I am the one doing the talk.  

So I feel that I am part of a growing section of society that reads science news with interest, glories in the latest TV documentary spectaculars and actually feels that some progress is being made in opposition to nonsense and pseudoscience with the fast approaching libel law reforms.  Evidence based thinking is becoming more common with the phrases “evidence based medicine” and “evidence based politics”  no longer a rare curiosity.  

So what does science mean to me?  Well, I think that it is all about the journey, or more accurately the method of locomotion.  For me the crucial thing is this. How do we move from one opinion to another better one?  If that isn’t very clear then let me tell you what it isn’t and then I might be making more sense.  

Science is not really a worldview.  

A worldview is an answer.  It is a forgone conclusion. E.g. the world is 6,000 years old.  It is a dead end, a reason to stop.  It is also often a great comfort because the answers claimed by worldviews always seem to coincide with something that the "worldviewer" seems to want anyway , e.g. "eternal bliss", or perhaps "being part of a small group of heroic people who have the truth and are persecuted by an ignorant majority who will shortly learn the error of their ways on the end of a toasting fork".  It is also true that having a worldview can save you an awful lot of time and effort. You don't exactly have to look into both sides of an argument do you? You don't ask genuine questions to try to trip up your own arguments do you?  I mean, who wants to make life difficult for themselves  like that anyway?  Just be nice to yourself, relax and stick to the script. 

Why is this an important question?  Sagan spoke about the importance of society understanding science when civilisation was built upon it.  I agree but also feel that numpties and deniers alike have gotten much better at aping science and they are also much louder.  

We now see numpties and deniers producing rhetoric that can sway the non-science educated intelligentsia and non-science educated non-intelligentsia alike.  God of the gaps is so yesterday. Today the appeal of the rhetorically beautiful over plainly spoken facts means that this old tactic has evolved. You no longer need a god or even a gap. Creationists proceed sans gap and have developed the god of the shoe horn.  Here is one veritable unsinkable rubber duck of an example as previously broadcast by BBC1 bending over backwards to have a balanced debate and so inflating the creationist side of the scales several thousand fold.   We were treated to the desperate creationist cry, "But where does the information come from?"  Now, there are huge sections on this topic in the degree I'm doing. But courtesy of the BBC, I listen as Prof. Andy McIntosh pleads with an obstinately sinful world. I can almost hear him thinking that if he can just sound sincere enough then the atheist conspiracy that reaches worldwide through all branches of science, stretches back decades and crosses national, political and even ideological borders, will immediately begin to crumble. 

As it happens he just sounds desperately deluded. But if you don't know what he is talking about, lets say you haven't just spent weeks working through it on an OU course, and lets also say that you don't have a way of finding out, of weighing the pros and cons of his position, then you can be swayed by him and people like him.

People like Andy no longer bother looking around for rocks that science hasn't looked under yet. They don't even bother looking for areas where not enough evidence is in yet and we can't pluck out a winning theory from competing hypotheses. Nowadays a glib phrase is enough "Where does the information come from?". 

"What?", says the intelligent, eloquent, politically aware and socially mature person who also just happens not to be very scientifically aware, "You mean they don't even know that?". 

Other folks manage the god of the gaps tactic without a god. Homeopaths certainly don't dilute their heavy handed hints that there is stuff about water we just don't know. Through that gap they squeeze into the public's wallets to sell their magic water. 

We even have people that use the god of the gaps rhetoric with neither a god nor a gap. Step forward the intelligent design brigade.  Denying their origins. And ignoring a lack of gaps they just spout empty rhetoric. They have hit upon the fact that if you make your claims totally scientifically ridiculous you will avoid the attention of the big beasts of the science jungle and perhaps even the media too who dismiss you as not worthy of their attention. Leaving you free to use your rhetorical powers on those who may well be intelligent and fair minded but lack the basic science education to realise that they are being lied too.

What leads people to perpetrate such nonsense  Apart from the fact that it works?

It's that worldview thing again. It is a final destination for most. It is the end of a quest for an easy life. It is an end to all that hard work involved in making your mind up about something and it is the very antithesis of science.  It doesn't involve thinking, just reacting. When you get into it it takes hardly any effort at all. 

I can't think of a better contrasting example that makes my point for me than James Dellingpole describing the moment when he couldn't answer a question put to him about his views on Global Warming, by the gently smiling science bruiser Paul Nurse, as "intellectual rape".  Being asked a pertinent question that you have no answer to is about as far from rape as I can imagine.  In fact it’s just the kind of thing that science loves.  It might just, after all, be a precursor to learning something and perhaps even (brace yourself James) changing your mind. 

Changing your mind about something is one of the objectives of scientific thinking. Well kind of. I mean to say that changing your mind in the light of logical argument backed up by evidence is one of the objectives of science.  Nobel prizes are given for this kind of thing. Far from being intellectual rape this is pretty close to an intellectual orgasm. 

So OK, yes, take science as your world view. But remember that it is a world view that actually frees you from all worldviews while censoring you from none. Welcome to intellectual freedom. Welcome to taking pleasure in changing your mind. Welcome to a rewarding , stimulating and (this will surprise those of other world views) comforting and purposeful way of living your life. 

Anyway must get back to exploring this wonderful reality with help of a madly grinning Mancunian, that scottish geologist bloke and the folks on Bang Goes the Theory.

Wow!

David Attenborough for president

A quick link to an interesting post

Is anything about this guy real?

Climate Change and the Politics of the USA

It's Carl again

Life in the Undergrowth by David Attenborough

Attenborough makes the most of the media and adds loads of interesting stuff not covered in the TV series.

From one point of view they are "Creepy Crawlies"  from another they are the original conquerors of the land and perhaps it's ultimate inheritors.  So why not learn a bit more about them.

There is no "exchanging a meaningful glance with wild Gorillas" moment but there is plenty to make you stop and think.  Plenty of great pictures too.  Some you can scare your granny with.

4 out of 5 stars.

Aunts Aren't Gentlemen by P.G. Wodehouse

A master of farce with another masterful farce.

Cats, horses, revolutionaries and Aunties combined into a fun read. Not his best but then his worst is still bloody good.

Read it what.

4 out of 5 stars.

The Wit of Cricket by Barry Johnston

A collection of anecdotes, a few laugh out loud, most not.

I suppose if you are really into cricket and it's history then this would appeal to you, otherwise don't bother.

2 out of 5 stars.

Stephen Fry in America by Stephen Fry

This is no more than it claims to be - a visit to every state and even Fry, with only a page or four for each state, can only fail to engage and entertain.

An entertaining TV series that never would have and never did make a good idea for a book.

2.5 out of 5 stars.

Last Chance to See by Mark Carwardine

I read this just as I finished watching the TV series.  So it is my own fault that my only complaint is that it doesn't add a great deal to the series.

Having said this it is a perfectly adequate stand alone book with plenty of fascinating material and unexpected twists e.g. being raped by a parrot or being moved to tears by Chimps.

In fact what do I mean, "perfectly adequate"?  It was in fact enjoyable and stimulating.  The stimulation was both positive and negative; giving you hope for the future, and in my case hope about the kind of world my kids will raise kids in, and also giving you a  glimpse of how big a mess we have made of things so far.

I imagine the celebrity involvement, the beautiful pictures and the adventure travel theme are all good reasons that this will perhaps be a good book to give someone who doesn't appreciate what we have on this planet in the hopes that it might just make them think.

And that is probably as good a compliment as I pay any book.

4 out of 5 stars.

Backbone of Night

How to annoy your customers

The AA have developed another way of annoying their loyal customers.

For some time now they have sent me a renewal notice at a more expensive rate than that available for new members.

This is easily solved by my ringing them to ask for the lower price, listening to them attempt to sell me insurance or other products I already have from companies that haven't just tried to treat me worse because I am a customer.

The new twist is this.  After agreeing to just charge the reduced price they then wrote to me telling me that they have in fact charged me more than agreed.

So I have to ring them again and they explain that they have charged me the lower price and that I should never take any notice of their letters to me as they can be wrong.

Quality organisation.

Benny Johnnies?

So condoms are OK now (in some circumstances)?

But according to the Pope himself, he is infallible.

Logically, therefore, he can't have changed his mind because he thinks he was actually wrong.

The evidence must have changed.

The worlds scientists should take this clue from Heaven and find out what has changed in the world of infection.

Perhaps a new kind of bug or a new technique of infection spread had evolved (been created whole and irreducibly complex).

Some come on science - get your act together and try to keep up.

One for the Pope

Science Saved My Soul.

Thin Line?

Sometimes there can be just a thin line between reality and woo, rationalism and madness. 

I was reminded of this recently at a "training event".  I won't go into the details of the where when or why, mainly because it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make but also so that no one sues me. 

Now before I talk about what happened let me first of all put a few cards down firmly on the table. I believe in being positive. I also believe in the power of non verbal communication. I believe in both within the limitations of reality as it is understood by science.  I also think that, in this particular case, these beliefs also happen to be trivially true and they are shared by everyone I have ever discussed them with.  But you can, of course, make your own mind up about that. 

What I mean is this. Positive attitudes can make big difference in peoples lives. Self motivation is often at least partly a question of genuinely thinking that success is actually possible. Attempting to motivate others also seems to be much more successful when the person trying to do the motivating is positive about whatever it is they are trying to get the other person to do.  I have met very few people who will admit to preferring the stick to the carrot. In case you are wondering how I can wander about discussing such things without getting arrested I should now admit that I used to be a trainer and that this was a question I would often address. 

You probably guessed that by nonverbal communication I was referring to the way we say things and not just the words we say. Tone of voice, body language, and when and where we choose to talk can make a huge difference to how our communication affects those around us.  Many of us have perhaps experienced difficulties in communicating when these additional methods of getting our point across are not available and we have to rely in words alone, perhaps when writing an email. 

I think that I am usually moderately successful in being positive and at communicating this through verbal and non-verbal means. But I guess others should be the final judge if that. 

Anyway, bearing in mind that the training event  was about communicating positively, I was expecting nothing more than a useful refresher but hoping for perhaps some tips or ideas that were new to me. 

I certainly got the latter, but not in a positive way. 

Mixed in with the trivially true points that our behaviour affects those around us was the following set of claims:

•if you think positive thoughts you're harder to push over than if you think negative thoughts. 

•if you think positive thoughts you can  hold your arm up more strongly than if you think negative thoughts. 

Both of these points were made using an interesting technique that I think will be a great way to get lots of people to think almost anything you like.  Get them all to stand up and form small groups or pairs. Ask them to think about one of the worst experiences in their lives, something energy sapping or draining  (a loved one dying perhaps?).  Get them to gently push each other over or perhaps push down on each others outstretched arms.  Now ask them to think of something positive, something that makes them feel happy or excited. Get them to repeat the pushing and shoving. Now ask "who felt the difference?" and wait for the inevitable "oh yeeesss" from somewhere in the room, respond quickly and firmly by telling them they did well and must be doing it correctly.  Look around and encourage others to "succeed" .

Now, stopping to think for a moment, I am really not aware of whether or not  thinking can actually influence muscular power output like this, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it did. I mean, your brain does control your muscles after all doesn't it?  Then again you aren't really going to generate any meaningful answer to that question by doing this exercise are you? You would have to measure forces and have controls wouldn't you?  And anyway, why is it that many weightlifters scream and rage rather than skip and dance when in competition?

•our bodies are constantly emitting "t" rays which are picked up by those around us without them realising it.

These rays do exist, they are utilised in the new generation of airport scanners. But we don't emit them from our bodies, they have to be beamed at us by the scanners. 

•your attitude determines whether or not these are positive or negative rays. 

Positive and negative "t" rays don't exist any more than positive and negative light rays exist, and you still don't emit "t" rays anyway. 

•people around you will be influenced to be positive or negative by the types of rays you emit. 

No they wouldn't be because people can't detect "t" rays.  And we don't emit them anyway. 

•you can control the kinds of rays you emit by controlling your attitude. 

See comments above. 

•a study done at Yale in 2000 showed that old people subliminally exposed to negative words for only one one hundredth of a second would perform worse at intelligence tests or mental agility exercises than those exposed to positive words. 

I managed to track down the study;


To be or not to be: the effects of aging stereotypes on the will to live


Author Levy, B; Ashman, O; Dror, I


Source Omega: Journal of Death and Dying; 40 (3) 1999-2000, p.409-20


ISSN 0030-2228


- here is the abstract;


Old and young participants (n=64) were subliminally primed with either negative or positive stereotypes of old age and then responded to hypothetical medical situations involving potentially fatal illnesses. Consistent with the hypothesis, the aged participants primed with negative stereotypes tended to refuse life-prolonged interventions, whereas the old participants primed with positive age stereotypes tended to accept. Results suggest that societally transmitted negative stereotypes of aging can weaken elderly people's will to live. (Original abstract - amended)

As you can see the study didn't cover the area he claims it did.  Apparently, being reminded of negative stereotypes of old people gives you less appetite for choosing life-prolonging medical intervention in the particular scenarios that this small group of people were asked about.  OK. Interesting.  But not really anything to do with the subject we were supposed to be discussing and in fact nothing to do with the point we were told it actually related to anyway i.e. subliminal messages can make you bad at mental tasks.


But anyway, even if the study did show what he claimed (and maybe I have the wrong one or perhaps he gave the wrong date) then he is mixing up words flashed on a screen very quickly with our situation.  At no point did we find out how we were supposed to use this technique to influence those around us.

•if you ask a horse psychologist they will tell you that horses know whether or not you think you are in charge of them. If you don't think you are then they won't follow you. 

Horse psychology is a fledgling discipline that seems to contain material ranging from claims that horses can read your mind using psychic powers, to genuine attempts to understand how they think and so to work out how we can use this. My sceptical sense would probably not have tingled at all if the trainer had pointed out that horses have eyes and ears and can pick up on non-verbal communication, just like people do.  


I have owned several dogs and in my experience I have seen them show signs of this and so a similar phenomenon in horses seems perfectly reasonable to me.  In the context of the "t" ray comments and without any mention of tone of voice or body language I really got the impression he was implying that "t" rays or something similar might be tipping off our equine friends. Maybe it was me and I was overcompensating now.  Just because some of the things he had said were bunkum didn't mean everything he said was bunkum after all.  Or did it? 

Most of these claims were prefaced by comments like "here comes the science bit", and "I'm sad so I like to look the science up and it told me that . . .".  As a fan of science I found this reassuring at first,  the fact that the trainer seemed to feel this added weight to his message made the whole enlightenment movement seem that little bit more worthwhile.  But why step over that line from reality into woo?  


Obviously I don't know if this was a case of cock up or con.  But I do know that, for me, this was annoying and patronising.  As someone who would actually like to promote positive attitudes and better communication skills I was left thinking that even if this chap had furthered those ends by such false claims the fact he had made them meant that I ended up feeling slightly negative about being positive in the future.  I think that he could have got the message across just as effectively without making these false claims. 

Now if only I could have done a quick study on the audience reaction and how many folks were actually put off by the nonsense claims just like I was, then this might be more than just an anecdote. 

Geek Mac tip : Save a web page as an iBook and read at your leisure

Safari - surf to selected doo-dah

apple + P to bring up print dialog

Choose PDF selector bottom left

Choose Edit Menu

Press the + button

Navigate to Applications and select iTunes - press open

Now when you pick this option your page will be saved as a PDF in the books section of iTunes.

I just saved a few biology papers there and it worked a treat.

Flamingo's Smile: Reflections in Natural History by STEPHEN JAY GOULD

This is another collection of essays loosely based around evolutionary biology (with some inevitable baseball references).

This is what the author is best at.  He like language and uses it in his own verbose and slightly pompous manner but once again we can see that he doesn't seem to have a nasty bone in his body.

Having now seen him talk on you tube I can picture him reading the book to me, slightly out of breath, fiddling with his glasses dramatically and pausing for effect quite often.  This only helps the enjoyment all the more.

Some of the material covered is getting old now (1987) so bear that in mind, but I particularly enjoyed some of the "period" references e.g. the dino-killing impact theory.

If you haven't read Gould then this might be a decent place to start - if you have read him then this is a cracking example of him in the medium he does best.

Three and a half out of five stars.