Friday, 18 February 2011

Coalition drops the homeopathetic pill

Today, from HM Government, I received this email:
You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to implement the recommendations of the House Commons Science and Technology committee evidence check on Homeopathy.

Her Majesty's Government has responded to that petition and you can view it here:

http://www.hmg.gov.uk/epetition-responses/petition-view.aspx?epref=nohomeopathy

Her Majesty's Government

Petition information - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/nohomeopathy/

If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optoutpetitions@hmg.gov.uk
It asks if I'd like to opt out of further emails.... Might as well, given the effectiveness of signing this particular petition. Here's HM Government's response to the petition in question:
The new Government considered the findings and recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and has published a full response. 

The Department of Health will not be withdrawing funding for homeopathy on the NHS, nor will the licensing of homeopathic products be stopped.  Decisions on the provision and funding of any treatment will remain the responsibility of the NHS locally.

A patient who wants homeopathic treatment on the NHS should speak to his or her GP.  If the GP is satisfied this would be the most appropriate and effective treatment then, subject to any local commissioning policies, he or she can refer them to a practitioner or one of the NHS homeopathic hospitals. 

In deciding whether homeopathy is appropriate for a patient, the treating clinician would be expected to take into account safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness as well as the availability of suitably qualified and regulated practitioners.  The Department of Health would not intervene in such decisions.

The Department’s response to the Science and Technology Committee report explains the reasons behind its decisions in more detail.  The response can be found on clicking on the following link:

So there you have it. In response to the recommendations of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Evidence Check on Homeopathy, the Government is going to do ... precisely nothing.

Incidentally, that last link goes to something entitled: "Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science & Technology report: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents", which as far as I can tell has nothing whatever to do with homeopathy.

Homeopathetic, that's what I call it.

Thursday, 17 February 2011

Four Burnee links for Thursday

Mosque school arrest following Channel 4 documentary | UK news | The Guardian
Glad to see something happening about the atrocities filmed in this programme.

Driving Things to the Extreme « A Thousand Things Astronomy
To anyone who thinks you need hugely expensive astronomical equipment to take pictures of celestial bodies...

Teaching of evolution in school science under new threat
The idea that there could be schools that are not required to teach the national curriculum seems totally ludicrous to me.

On Faith Panelists Blog: Religion: the ultimate tyranny - Paula Kirby
She's back! And rightly objecting to the ludicrous implication that religion is in favour of freedom. PZ Myers liked this article too:
Ah, that feels so good…Paula Kirby really cut loose on the believers yesterday. The topic was the compatibility of religion and freedom—they're about as compatible as religion and science.
Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles.
You really must read the whole thing. It's probably not a good idea to do it at work, though, because afterwords you'll want to snuggle up and fall asleep.

Wednesday, 16 February 2011

A protest song to define protest songs

A fascinating article by Dorian Lynskey in today's Guardian online tells the story of "Strange Fruit", the protest song that defined the career of jazz singer Billie Holiday.
It is a clear, fresh New York night in March 1939. You're on a date and you've decided to investigate a new club in a former speakeasy on West 4th Street: Cafe Society, which calls itself "The Wrong Place for the Right People". Even if you don't get the gag on the way in – the doormen wear tattered clothes – then the penny drops when you enter the L-shaped, 200-capacity basement and see the satirical murals spoofing Manhattan's high-society swells. Unusually for a New York nightclub, black patrons are not just welcomed but privileged with the best seats in the house.

You've heard the buzz about the resident singer, a 23-year-old black woman called Billie Holiday who made her name up in Harlem with Count Basie's band. She has golden-brown, almost Polynesian skin, a ripe figure and a single gardenia in her hair. She has a way of owning the room, but she's not flashy. Her voice is plump and pleasure-seeking, prodding and caressing a song until it yields more delights than its author had intended, bringing a spark of vivacity and a measure of cool to even the hokier material.

And then it happens. The house lights go down, leaving Holiday illuminated by the hard, white beam of a single spotlight.
Click to read more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ZyuULy9zs

Tuesday, 15 February 2011

God, contingency and special pleading — the cosmological argument

As promised here's the first instalment of my review of Evidence for God, edited by Dembski & Licona.

"The Cosmological Argument" by David Beck

Here's Beck's argument, conveniently set out by his own headings:
  • Step 1: What We Observe and Experience in Our Universe Is Contingent
  • Step 2: A Network of Causally Dependent Contingent Things Cannot Be Infinite
  • Step 3: A Network of Causally Dependent Contingent Things Must Be Finite
  • Conclusion: There Must Be a First Cause in the Network of Contingent Causes
You'll not be surprised to learn that the First Cause is not only "uncaused" but is also "God". But going right back to Step 1, Beck asserts, "We know of nothing that spontaneously initiates its own causal activity." (p 16.) I think a certain quantum physicist (name of Schrödinger) might have taken issue with this assertion.

Be that as it may, the problem with Beck's argument is that he's refuting himself. He starts off by claiming that everything that has been caused must have a cause that caused it. This is nothing but tautology. It's the same as saying that everything that has been caused has been caused. Anyone can play that game: things that are coloured red are coloured red. But then he goes on to claim that this can't go on for ever, and therefore there must be something that started off all the causing, and because it started off the causing, it wasn't itself caused by anything else (which, you'll note, is yet more tautology — this first cause is uncaused because ... it's uncaused — and it's the first cause because it wasn't itself caused).

It's also amusing to realise that the so-called First Cause posited by this infinity-averse argument turns out to be an infinite and eternal God.

Beck specifically denies the idea of an infinite universe — but I don't think this is something you can simply assert. Our universe may have begun in the Big Bang, but the Big Bang may have been the result of something in an alternative eternal universe. This alternative universe, if eternal, does not need to have been caused. This is similar to the argument about something coming from nothing. The question, "How can something come from nothing?" may be an unnecessary question if there has always been something.

Beck's conclusion, "There must be a first cause in the network of contingent causes," seems to me to be self-refuting special pleading. Beck is also not above a bit of emotional blackmail. In response to the hypothetical objection, "What caused God? If the universe is a network of causes and effects, then you cannot arbitrarily stop at some point and call it God," Beck states (my emphasis):
"This, however, misses the whole point of the argument. The Cosmological Argument shows that a series of contingents must be finite: it must eventually lead to a non-contingent. It would be nonsense to ask what causes this first uncaused cause. So this objection simply fails to understand the argument." (p 19.)
This is similar to insisting that parallel lines meet at infinity. It's confusing a concept with a physical reality. Parallel lines do not meet anywhere, by definition.

My other main objection to this argument, which to be fair to Beck, does admit of incomplete knowledge of our universe, is nevertheless the hubris of assuming any first cause must be God; that if the existence of contingent things demands the existence of something non-contingent, that non-contingent thing must be God, for the simple reason that God is defined as the only non-contingent thing.

God of the gaps, anyone?

Monday, 14 February 2011

Faith schools: suffer the little children — and they do

The BBC Radio 4 programme Beyond Belief is a mixed bag. Each week Ernie Rae speaks with studio guests and includes a pre-recorded report or interview. I've mentioned a few previously on this blog. Often the subject matter is of only marginal interest to me but this afternoon's edition was about faith schools, featuring the Rev Janina Ainsworth — Church of England Chief Education Officer, Ibrahim Hewitt — former head of Al-Aqsa Primary School in Leicester and now an inspector of faith schools, and Andrew Copson — Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association.

The programme is available as a podcast, and this week's edition is downloadable as mp3 audio here:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/belief/belief_20110214-1700a.mp3

Janina Ainsworth seemed convinced that faith schools were inherently a "good thing", while Ibrahim Hewitt's views were all over the place. I particularly liked Ernie Rae's question to him towards the end of the broadcast, as to how probability is taught during maths lessons in a Muslim school. Apparently the children are told that there's no such thing as chance: if you throw dice, the results are not random but willed by God.

During the entire discussion Andrew Copson had the firmest grasp on the issues, seeing through the equivocation and appeals to emotion of the other two guests. I suspect that even Ernie Rae has serious doubts about the validity of faith schools. Given his introduction at the start of the broadcast, I don't think he was merely playing devil's advocate here.

But the most telling point in the programme was a recorded interview with Peter Flack, assistant secretary of the Leicester National Union of Teachers, who believes faith schools are a danger to society. He asked:
"What is so different about children who come from families with religious beliefs, that they need to be educated separately, that they need to be segregated from everybody else?"
Later in the day we had a perfect illustration of the danger Peter Flack warns about. Channel Four's Dispatches: Lessons in Hate and Violence, presented by Tazeen Ahmad and broadcast at 8 pm (with a repeat at 2:40 am), showed precisely what can happen to children if they are left in the clutches of faith-based education. We're not talking only of incitement to violence — these children (some as young as six) were being repeatedly hit. The violence was recorded as part of Dispatches' trademark "secret filming". What's worse, the featured establishments had been inspected and passed as fit places for young children to be "instructed".

A trailer clip of the programme is available here:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/video/series-80/episode-1/lessons-in-hate-and-violence

Those in favour of faith-based education often speak of it enabling children to become part of the community. The evidence suggests, however, that the "community" of which they speak is a narrow one, deliberately segregated from the wider society into which it ought to be integrated.

Sunday, 13 February 2011

Burnee links for Sunday

You can't overdose on homeopathic remedies; Why won't homeopathy skeptics drink their own medicine?
Talk about spectacularly missing the point! The reason why you can't overdose on homeopathic remedies has nothing to do with "vibrations", it's because there's nothing in them. Truly wonderful nonsense.

Stephen Law: Free schools to teach creationism
Stephen Law is rightly indignant about an insidious practice that's becoming less insidious and more blatant as the control of schools is relinquished to the private sector. And if you want to know who "Dave" is, go here:
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/02/strange-case-of-dave.html

CFI Supports U.S. Rep. Pete Stark’s Darwin Day Resolution | Center for Inquiry
Pete Stark: a lone voice in American politics?

I am Denial Girl! Can I get a theme song? | Godless Girl
I'm not sure I would have taken this tack in response to the Reverend's tired old email, but I don't blame Godless Girl for doing so. The Reverend's sentiments aren't original, or logical, and certainly say more about him than they say about Godless Girl.

Jourdemayne: Exorcism: Ancient & Modern
It beggars belief — mine at least — that this stuff is still, in this day and age, thought by significant numbers of people in authority to be a real phenomenon.

Loose Ends and Global Warming. I get angry. - steve's posterous
"May Darwin protect us from the ignorant views of actors and writers who confuse being an exciting rebel with being dumb about science."
People say silly things. When they do, this should be pointed out to them.

Lawrence Krauss: Religious viewpoints need not conflict with science - steve's posterous
Another post from Steve Zara. (As an anti-accommodationist I couldn't resist it.)

Saturday, 12 February 2011

Are human values moral values?

Revisiting the Unbelievable? online discussion group this weekend after a period of absence, I noted that considerable to and fro was in full swing regarding the show in which Paul Thompson ("Sinbad") debated Mark Roques on the question of "human value". This is a pretty diffuse term to begin with, and the discussion on the show didn't define it with any precision. The debate illustrated a typical clash of mindsets that could not be resolved during the limited time for the show, and although the online forum discussion allows for greater depth, it isn't any more likely to reach a resolution.

Rather than dwell on that particular discussion in isolation, I'll simply point to its similarities with the 11 September 2010 edition of Unbelievable? — a discussion between Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, and Peter D. Williams of Catholic Voices. The show wasn't explicitly about human values, but it showed the same clash of mindsets as the more recent broadcast.

Andrew Copson is one of humanism's most articulate advocates, and the fact that he made no impression at all on Peter Williams during their discussion illustrates the futility of attacking the theist position on the metaphysics of morality. Unfortunately the show's format prevented this aspect of their disagreement being further explored. Not that such exploration would have made much difference, I suspect.

The theist position is that morality must by definition have a transcendent basis. The humanist position is that such a basis is neither proven nor necessary. While it may be too much to hope that theists such as Peter Williams will be swayed by the arguments Andrew put forward, there may have been theists (and others) listening to the show who don't necessarily buy into a fundamentally transcendent nature of morality, and who will see that Andrew's humanist viewpoint is a perfectly valid stance, and one that is based on reality rather than some disputed, unproven supernatural proposition.

Andrew's point at the end of the exchange was well made: as a result of the discussion he said he was more convinced of his own position than he had been before.

In brief, as I see it, the problem with the "moral argument for the existence of God" as espoused by some theists, is mainly one of definition. A humanist may go into some detail as to how he or she derives moral values without a belief that those values are god-given (as I have done myself), but theists are unable to accept such a line of argument because they believe that any values derived from something other than God aren't "moral" values at all. It's as if they define morality as "a system of values dictated by God". Never mind that such a definition impales itself on the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma — which, despite theistic protestations to the contrary, has never been successfully resolved.

Friday, 11 February 2011

Armand Leroi delivers the 2011 Darwin Day Lecture

IMG_0367w_ArmandLeroi


Without notes and with just a few informative slides, Armand Leroi delivered his captivating 2011 Darwin Day Lecture to a packed Conway Hall on Wednesday evening. His talk, titled "Mutants, and what to do about them" covered the possibilities, practicalities and economics of screening for genetic diseases. Phrased thus, it sounds like a dry subject, but Professor Leroi spoke with commitment and deep knowledge, in clear and expressive language that allowed his succinct points to hit home. His lecture was introduced by Robert Ashby, British Humanist Association (BHA) Board of Trustees Chair, while the lecture itself and its subsequent Q&A was chaired by BHA Vice President Richard Dawkins. The evening concluded with a few announcements from BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson.

IMG_0362w_RobertAshbyIMG_0365w_RichardDawkinsIMG_0374w_AndrewCopson

Though he did not shy away from the eugenic implications of universal screening of human embryos, he was clear in his avoidance of making moral judgements. It's not necessary here to reiterate these or any other points in his lecture, as you can listen to the entire thing yourself — along with some intelligent questions from the floor. The audio was recorded by the Pod Delusion and is available from their website, which incidentally also allows embedding of the player, as below:


IMG_0368w_ArmandLeroi

The latest regular episode of the Pod Delusion also contains brief interviews with Armand Leroi and Richard Dawkins before the lecture:


There's also a direct mp3 download link for the above episode 71 here:
http://media.ipadio.com/20110211011055.mp3



UPDATE 2011-02-16: Unfortunately the Pod Delusion embedding feature appears a little flaky for its special episodes, so here's a direct link to the lecture:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2011/02/09/bha-darwin-day-lecture-listen-live-at-730pm/

Thursday, 10 February 2011

Burnee links for Thursday

Richard Dawkins, the Protestant atheist | Thomas Jackson | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Another unfocussed diatribe against a straw man.

Harris and Pigliucci: On moral philosophy - Butterflies and Wheels
Peter Beattie with a refreshingly serious consideration of The Moral Landscape.

Times Higher Education - Justice for Hedgehogs
Law, ethics and morality. Simon Blackburn remains unconvinced by Ronald Dworkin's book.

Established church aims to re-evangelise us all — New Humanist
Commenting on John Sentamu's General Synod speech, Paul Sims quotes Naomi Phillips of the BHA:
"This is a tension at the heart of the Church of England which demands resolution. The Church of England wishes – as a church – to promote Christianity and of course it should be free to do so, but it should not be privileged in doing so, and it is not legitimate for it to enlist our shared and publicly-funded schools, social services and our parliament in its evangelistic task."
And yes, it probably is time for disestablishment.

Lord Monckton attacked from all sides... by climate sceptics | Carbon Brief
Lord Monckton is not a scientist, so the traction he gets (as evident from the Storyville documentary) is disturbing. But I think the 'swivel-eyed loon' comment is — at the very least — unfortunate.

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

Blogging every day — a success?

Due to QEDcon over last weekend I seem to have let the momentous occasion of my 300th Evil Burnee post go by without comment. I'll correct that omission with this brief, meandering rant about blogging in general, why I blog, and what it's been like blogging every day this year (so far).

This is actually (I think) the 307th post. I knew I was approaching 300 — and that I'd pass it soon — when I decided at the beginning of 2011 to post something every day for a month. Previously I posted when I felt like it. Sometimes an event in the news, an item on the radio, or something online would prompt me to ponder and urge me to write. That was fine, if I got around to actually writing about it. Sometimes there'd be a delay (life, you know?); sometimes I'd even have a few notes, but often the timeliness of the post in prospect would pass, and it perhaps didn't seem appropriate to post something retrospectively when there were other more pressing items of interest to blog about. If I got around to them.

So I resolved to experiment with (at least) one post per day, and for January 2011 it went well. Five original blogposts per week, plus two lists of Burnee links, kept the stream going. February has been a little different, with QED intervening (not that I stopped blogging during the weekend — operational netbook permitting), and other matters squeezing my blogging time. Nevertheless I'm keeping it up, albeit with a number of slightly backdated posts needing perforce to be retrofitted.

I blog to clarify my thoughts — sometimes I'm unsure what I really think until I write it down — and to let others know my position if they're interested. ("Others" could of course include my future self: Notes from an Evil Burnee provides a record of my position on a range of issues, as well as being a useful repository of links to online articles I've found interesting for one reason or another, at one time or another.)

And the discipline of blogging every day has been useful in encouraging engagement with the issues at hand. It's all very well hearing or reading something during the day and thinking, "Maybe I'll write something about that at the weekend, or next week, or...." Much more useful, productive and motivating to think, "I'll write about that tonight."

So the experiment has been successful, and will continue. Many more words to come.

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

Why Dawkins gets a bad rap for his books

DSC_1776w_RichardDawkinsAnyone who has actually read a book by Richard Dawkins knows that he writes with transparent clarity. And that's his undoing, as far as his detractors are concerned. If a book has a provocative title — The God Delusion, for instance — persons of a certain predisposition will be predisposed not to read the book itself, and will rely on others to tell them what the book contains. TGD was even described by one detractor as a "barely literate diatribe" — which is so far from the truth one can only wonder if this person read even a single sentence of it.

Dawkins is an educator. His books are written mostly for a lay audience, and he takes care to be precise. This is particularly noticeable in his latest, The Greatest Show On Earth, where he elucidates, in detail, the overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution. After reading TGSOE, no-one of moderate education or intelligence can fail to have an understanding of why evolution explains how we came to be here.

That his sentences only need to be read once in order to glean the meaning therein, unfortunately counts against Dawkins when he is read by someone used to grappling with the obfuscations of theology. Dawkins' writing is so clear by comparison it can be dismissed as simplistic, superficial or shallow — when it is nothing of the kind. Clarity is the enemy — indeed the antithesis — of theology. That's why the likes of Terry Eagleton and Karen Armstrong dislike it so much.

Clarity is often, as Dawkins himself has noted, mistaken for stridency, militancy and shrillness. If people accuse Dawkins of being strident, militant or shrill, you can be sure they've not read his books or heard him speak. His message is clear — and if his detractors understand it (as they must, if they understand English), they have only one way to attack it — by attacking him. They interpret his clear message as an assault on the intricate convolutions of theological navel-gazing. In the face of Dawkins' exemplary clarity those who resort to such ad hominem attacks can be justly labelled shrill, militant or strident.

Monday, 7 February 2011

Burnee links for Monday (delayed after QEDcon)

Clergy told to take on the 'new atheists' - Telegraph
"A report endorsed by Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury," according to Jonathan Wynne-Jones, "warns that the Church faces a battle to prevent faith being seen as a social problem"

I'd suggest that a good way to prevent faith being seen as a social problem is for faith to stop being a social problem.
The rallying call comes amid fears that Christians are suffering from an increasing level of discrimination following a series of cases in which they have been punished for sharing their beliefs.
Proselytising in the workplace is to be deplored. And often it's not just for sharing their beliefs, but for unfair discrimination against people who have a right to be treated equally. Your religion should not give you a free pass to discriminate unfairly.
The Church is keen to address the rise of new atheism, which has grown over recent years with the publication of bestselling books arguing against religion.

However, the document says that this intolerance is becoming more widespread and can be seen in public bodies, which it says must be challenged over attitudes of "suspicion or hostility towards churches and other faith groups"
Since when has the publication of bestselling books been "intolerant"? You guys have had it easy for far too long. Now your number's up.
(Via Butterflies and Wheels)


Accommodationism is false - steve's posterous
And that's a true statement. Steve Zara expands on it a little.


The Atheist Experience™: Notice how misogynist the GOP has gotten lately? Want to do something fun about it?
Monstrous indeed. It's amazing what downright evil some people will do as a result of religious dogma.


Skeptical Times « The Hampshire Skeptics Society
This one-page newspaper was handed out to everyone at QED. Good ice-breaker, from those cheeky Irish Skeptics.

Sunday, 6 February 2011

QED day two — science-based skepticism

It turns out that during the entire two days I didn't go to any of the events in the breakout room. I don't know what this says about me, or about the main QED speakers, or about the concept of having things going on other than in the main room.

First thing, in the main room, was Michael Marshall on stage to update us on the global #ten23 campaign: Homeopathy — there's nothing in it! He mentioned that earlier in the day (after only two hours sleep) he took part in a brief radio discussion about the campaign, opposite a homeopath who didn't seem to get it (surprise!), and having since heard the piece I'm amazed how Marsh managed to stay cool in the face of the homeopath's same old same old.

As 10:23 am approached, Marsh showed some examples of his "homeopathy hate mail" — to which he always replies politely — and then it was time for the overdose. The pilules provided in unmarked vials to every attendant were apparently homeopathic Belladonna, and on the given signal over three hundred people downed enough "medicine" to ... well, to do nothing at all. And that was the point (a point that, as mentioned above, was entirely lost on Marsh's homeopathic radio opponent).

Wendy Grossman was the first speaker of the day. She's the founding editor of The Skeptic magazine in the UK, and her wide-ranging talk on Policy-Based Evidence emphasised the need to base policy on evidence rather than seeking evidence for policies adopted for other reasons. She touched on copyright, Big Pharma, public relations, ghost-writing of scientific papers and even UFOs — amongst many other matters. I hope there'll be a QED DVD, because Wendy Grossman's talk was one of those content-rich presentations (despite having only one slide) that would repay another hearing.

Simon Singh talked about the Big Bang — which is the title of one of his many books — and he seemed happy to be expounding on something other than libel-reform, homeopathy and chiropractic. I was particularly interested in his take on the Paul Nurse/James Delingpole BBC Horizon clash, as he talked about how non-experts can be expected to come to rational decisions about complex matters such as climate change, which is something I blogged about recently.

Having learned from my experience yesterday, I bought my lunch in the hotel bar and was therefore not late for Jon Ronson's typically idiosyncratic talk, The Psychopath Test, which is also the title of his forthcoming book from which he read some brief extracts. He identified certain characteristics of psychopaths and in the process unwittingly indicted at least half his audience. He also showed some video clips, including from his film about the Bilderberg Group (based on his book Them), and the Insane Clown Posse "Miracles" rap-music video (paused often, to intersperse comments) that he previously showed at TAM London 2010.

Colin Wright demonstrated the maths of juggling, including the idea of a negative juggling ball that goes back in time (to be fair, he also demonstrated how the maths worked for this concept, and showed how it's not actually nonsense). He did make the juggling itself look easy, though it clearly isn't. But the core point of his talk was that maths enables you to make predictions about physical systems (something Simon Singh also touched on). In Colin Wright's case, this enabled him to extrapolate the maths to produce a completely new juggling pattern, which he was able to show to attendees at a juggling conference. (A juggling conference is probably a bit like a skeptic conference, but with more balls.)

Final speaker was Eugenie Scott, director of the US National Center for Science Education. She gave us a run-down of the problems associated with the teaching of evolution in American schools, and how creationists have attempted to insinuate creationism into the school curriculum by various means. The creationists' methods have become more sophisticated over the years, from "scientific creationism" through "teaching the controversy" to "academic freedom". These are lessons we in Britain must learn and take to heart, because the creationists are hard at work in the UK. The Scotland-based UK Centre for Intelligent Design is busy amassing its forces, and will be attempting to inveigle its way into Scottish schools, using the same tactics the Discovery Institute has been adapting for years. Vigilance is essential if we are to prevent children's scientific education being stunted by ID/creationist nonsense.

The closing ceremony consisted of Mike Hall thanking a whole load of people who had contributed in many different ways to the success of QED — and it has been a resounding success — followed by a general exodus to the bar, where it was pleasant to relax off schedule. Eight of us went for a meal at a nearby Indian restaurant, after which we spent the rest of the evening back in the bar. I would welcome the opportunity to do it all again next year.


Note: due to failure of my netbook during Saturday night, this post was written Monday evening and backdated.

Saturday, 5 February 2011

QED day one — your brain lies to you

First day of #QEDcon has been intense. This is my brief adumbration of events, to be expanded (with links) in later posts. (I know I said that about TAM London 2010, but that's an ongoing blogging project, for which your patient indulgence is required. As for this also.)

For QEDcon I thought the biggest problem was going to be deciding when to break out to the breakout room, but at least for today I found my preferences were all for the main room — on the basis that much of what was going on in the breakout room was likely to be accessible at a later date (at least in audio podcast form). The main room is apparently being video-recorded — not just for the projection screens.

Bruce Hood was first up (after George Hrab's introduction) with Hugging Murderers and Stabbing Teddy Bears in which he presented some of the ideas about essentialism that he covered in his book (which I've read, and of which more later). An onerous task — opening the show, as it were — but well handled, and we were soon into the intricacies of evolved cognition. All of us have built-in (not necessarily accurate) ways of interpreting our surroundings, which we never fully grow out of. This cognitive unreliability proved to be a theme of the day.

Professor Hood's talk was a tricky one to follow, but Kat Akingbade gave us her take on the value of faith (a slightly different topic from that scheduled). She also explained that though the target audience of the web series Science of Scams was teenagers, the show garnered a wide demographic, illustrating the critical need for training people to use critical thought.

She described how she elected to adopt a religious faith for one week, in an attempt to enter and perhaps understand the mindset of a believer. This was no doubt useful for experiencing and illuminating the rules and rituals of a particular religion, but since (as she admitted) she didn't actually become a believer — even for a week — I felt this was an exercise of limited merit. It's not the rituals that are the problem with faith — it's the dogma, and those without faith can easily circumvent the most damaging aspects of the dogma because they don't feel bound by it.

Next came the panel Ghost Investigations Today, with Chris French, Hayley Stevens and Trystan Swayle. Some brief exposition on their respective experiences in investigating paranormal activity — whether or not of ghostly origin — and their current methods, yielded insights into what it's actually like ghost-hunting (and why that's not what it should be called). Unlike for the previous two speakers, the panel audio was weak and I missed some of what was being said, including most of the questions from the floor.

The break for lunch wasn't long enough for anyone going farther afield than the hotel bar (as I did, along with others from Winchester Skeptics in the Pub). Which meant that we were late back and missed the beginning (about 20 minutes) of Jim Al-Khalili's talk on time travel. But what I did hear was fascination stuff. He maintains that travelling backwards in time is possible in principle (if not in practice), according to the modern theory of Quantum Gravity — grandfather paradox notwithstanding. (Incidentally I conferred with neighbours and established that I had missed only introductory laying of time-travel groundwork. The tricky bits — like how to to configure your double-wormhole space-time tunnel — came later, which I heard.) Mind-bending though this all is, the science apparently supports it, which goes to show that we can't trust our intuitive conclusions on such abstruse matters.

In a lively talk Chris Atkins demonstrated the blatant perfidy of the British tabloid (and some not so tabloid) press, and included selected clips from the films he's made. If you had any vestige of credulity left regarding the integrity of tabloid journalism in the UK, this talk would have dispelled it.

Chris French's The Psychology of Ghosts and Haunting expanded on some of the topics he touched on in his earlier panel, talking about ghost-hunting kit, predilections and biases. He made the point that the TV show he was on (as the "token skeptic") did not fake any ghostly activity, which explains why nothing much happened, and why the show didn't get renewed. When modern TV ghost-hunters report ghostly activity, they're doing it because they've already convinced themselves that ghosts exist — in spite of the lack of sound objective evidence to support such a conviction.

Last of the afternoon talks was by Steven Novella, who was soon into his stride regaling us with the difference between how the brain subjectively seems to operate, and how the same brain-functions appear to a neuroscientist such as himself. Once again the brain is playing tricks, making us think it works in a particular way, when in fact the science says it simply can't. (This whole discussion is weird anyway; the brain trying to examine itself is almost certainly not party to all the information it needs to do such a thing. If our brains were simple enough that we could understand them, they would be too simple for us to be able to do it.)

Then came a break before the Gala Dinner at 6 pm. This was a sit-down affair with people randomly allocated to tables, each with one of the QED speakers. I found myself seated next to the aforementioned Professor Bruce Hood, who proved to be excellent "value" — keeping us fascinated and entertained with stories from his field of study. I was pleased to say that I'd read his book Supersense, but as it was the Kindle edition I regretted not being able to bring a copy for him to sign.

Dinner was followed by a prolonged sound-check, as the audio set-up seemed to be misbehaving, but it was eventually fixed and Matt Parker introduced Helen Keene standing in for Robin Ince who'd had to pull out at short notice. Helen Keene's interactive history of the space race (including shadow puppets!) was smart, hilarious and incredibly geeky. Matt Parker followed with a freestyle routine on skepticism with a numerical bent (much of which seemed to be a mix-and-match made up as he went along), and George Hrab finished off with a typically polished performance of some of his best-loved songs.

A great day of skeptical infusion. Exhausting too. More tomorrow.

Friday, 4 February 2011

#QEDcon is go for launch.

Via one taxi, a train, a tube, another train and a short walk I'm now in Manchester for #QEDcon, ready for the start of proceedings at 9:00 tomorrow morning.

After settling into my hotel room on the 6th floor I transverticulated to level three where the promise of satisfying comestibles awaited. The said comestibles comprised as much curry as I could consume, notwithstanding permitted platter recharges of unlimited enumeration. So I ate as much as I wanted.

Then to the bar, awash with skeptics from all over the country (plus some from much farther afield). Pre-registration was efficient and friendly, and the QED badges are quite nifty (but it has to be said I'm easily impressed in this department).

Alcoholically lubricated discussion ensued between various attendees regarding the QEDcon schedule (amongst, no doubt, other things), and as far as I can tell a good time was had by all.

But now it's time for bed.

Thursday, 3 February 2011

Burnee links for Thursday

Alister McGrath loves him some Deep Rifts : Pharyngula
Doesn't McGrath have a new book out? Get ready for some circumlocutory proliferation.

Pod Delusion Live in Southampton on 26th February » The Pod Delusion - A Podcast about Interesting Things
I might go to this, seeing as it's local, and as I missed the Winchester one ... and as I'm not sure if I'll see the QEDcon one (depends what's on at the same time).

Four Dollars, Almost Five: The cosmological argument refuted in a nutshell
This is almost exactly the same as the very first argument in that book I decided to review.
Message from the stars: astrology is “rubbish” and “nonsense” | HumanistLife
Prime time TV pronouncements on the reality of astrology are welcome. Stargazing LIVE was an excellent series, and I particularly appreciated the expressed sentiment that it's all very well looking at pictures on a screen (from, say, Hubble), but there's no substitute for letting the actual photons from celestial objects enter your own eyes.

Tim Minchin on a roll | The Australian
A revealing and comprehensive piece on the current king of subversive musical humour.

Wednesday, 2 February 2011

QEDcon is this coming weekend — reports may or may not be erratic

On Friday I'll be heading up to Manchester for QEDcon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwypRRZ-548


I'll be travelling by train, and unlike previous excursions (which have mostly been shorter than the 4+ hours of the Manchester trip) I hope to be connected while on the move. I'll have my netbook with me, and it's now equipped with a mobile broadband USB dongle. I've no idea how effective this will be out in the real world (as opposed to trying it out in two or three places locally), or what coverage will be like. It could be an interesting experiment. On the other hand it could be intensely frustrating. Expect reports (or not, depending...).

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

"Consensus" about complex science, global warming and God

This BBC Horizon programme was listed in Burnee links on Sunday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89AeCLCtJQ

I embed it above because the problem of climate change skepticism (indeed skepticism of any generally accepted science) raises important issues about how non-experts can be expected to approach the consensus.

In next week's Radio Times (published today) the correspondence pages contain the two letters I've scanned and shown at left (click to bignify and legibilificate). We have two opposite opinions on the Horizon programme, just as we have opposing views on climate change itself. But as Paul Nurse put to James Delingpole, if one is not competent to assess the science itself, it makes sense to go with the consensus — and that's what I do. Climate science is extremely complex, such that even the computer models are only approximations of what is — and will be — going on.

It occurs to me, however, that though I'm willing to accept the scientific consensus on global warming, I'm not willing to accept the consensus on some other matters — the existence of God, for instance. The majority of the world's population believes in some kind of deity. I don't. But unlike with climate science, I consider the arguments for and against the existence of God to be accessible to anyone with some general education and a willingness to think. Some of the arguments for God are philosophical arguments, and I understand that the majority of professional philosophers are atheists. I realise that in this sense I'm agreeing with a consensus, but I'm not doing so blindly. In another sense one can consider theology as part of philosophy and the consensus weakens. But who bases their beliefs on what theologians say?

This week there was another BBC Storyville documentary specifically about climate skepticism, by Rupert Murray. From the BBC website:
Filmmaker Rupert Murray takes us on a journey into the heart of climate scepticism to examine the key arguments against man-made global warming and to try to understand the people who are making them

Do they have the evidence that we are heating up the atmosphere or are they taking a grave risk with our future by dabbling in highly complicated science they don't fully understand? Where does the truth lie and how are we, the people, supposed to decide?

The film features Britain's pre-eminent sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton as he tours the world broadcasting his message to the public and politicians alike. Can he convince them and Murray that there is nothing to worry about?
What is genuinely worrying about this film is that Lord Monckton seemed to be getting plenty of traction while talking a lot about the science, when as far as I know he's not a scientist. Murray filmed him in Australia doing some field "experiments" with a bottle of acid. While I'm not a scientist myself, I did chemistry, physics and biology at school, and even I know that there's more to understanding how to do science than being able to recite the periodic table.

Monday, 31 January 2011

Is there life after death? Yes/No/Maybe

From BBC TV programme The Big Questions, broadcast yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6WD_l1Ud6g


Can you answer this question in 16 minutes? Indeed you can: the answer's "no."

Maybe you think that's too glib, and some effort ought to be expended assessing the evidence. But in this discussion the evidence is not in evidence — that is, no-one actually presents any. The person who gets first go (Mohammed Hatehit, from Didsbury Mosque) simply assumes the existence of the soul, and uses its separateness from the body as definite proof of life after death: you bury the body, but where does the soul go? It must go somewhere. However, if the soul doesn't exist then obviously it doesn't go anywhere as it wasn't there to begin with. (He doesn't suggest why the soul, if it exists, couldn't be buried with the body....)

Spiritualists such as Steven Upton like to cite anecdotal evidence of communication with "the other side" — but as Michael Marshall of Merseyside Skeptics ably points out, such parlour tricks can be convincingly replicated by stage magicians.

Anglican bishop Stephen Lowe demonstrated a shade of tentativeness — so typical of the Church of England — that threatens to subsume Anglicanism beneath a welter of uncertainty. At least Penny Mawdsley from Sea of Faith was prepared to concede that there are Christians who don't believe in God.

Jewish Chronicle columnist Angela Epstein's comment that she sees this world as "almost a waiting room for the world to come" is symptomatic of faith that casts reality as something inferior to unreality. This is the kind of thinking that leads to notions of the Rapture. Why bother doing anything at all, if we're simply enduring this life while waiting for eternal bliss?

Naturally this 16-minute discussion couldn't conclude without someone (it was Ajmal Masroor) proposing Pascal's Wager — an argument so bad that anyone using it should be automatically disqualified from participating.

Sunday, 30 January 2011

Burnee links for Sunday (via Dawkins and Myers)

Substance over sweetness — another New Atheist critique gone askew : Pharyngula
PZ wants to ask the only question that really matters.

Stephen Asma responds : Pharyngula
But Asma doesn't think PZ's question is relevant.

The best is lost : Pharyngula
And in response to PZ's insistence on truth, a Pharyngula reader sends a godless poem.

Should employers be blind to private beliefs? - Boing Boing
Richard Dawkins says beliefs do matter.

Science Under Attack - Horizon - BBC - RichardDawkins.net
Sir Paul Nurse, Nobel Prize winner and new head of the Royal Society, urges scientists to engage in the public space.

Further reflections on discrimination - Richard Dawkins - Boing Boing and RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net
Richard Dawkins follows up his recent Boing Boing post.

Saturday, 29 January 2011

An alternative argument from complexity

When considering whether natural organisms have been designed, or alternatively have come to be the way they are through natural processes, it's a good idea to consider some examples.

Take the mousetrap. This is a purposeful arrangement of parts, obviously designed to do a particular job. One can examine all the individual parts and see how each uniquely contributes to the purpose for which the mousetrap was designed.

Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa)-3 newLook at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota. One can recognise faces carved into the mountainside, three-dimensional images of not just generic people, but specific men who actually lived — and these are their likenesses. We know, however, that these examples are not naturally occurring phenomena; they came into existence by the action of designing minds.

When we look at the forms taken by living organisms we see similar arrangements of parts, but to a much greater degree. Life is extremely complex — so complex, in fact, that to imagine that a designing mind could accurately specify such complexity is stretching credulity beyond reasonable limits. We simply cannot imagine any mind being sufficiently intelligent to be capable of such vast complexity. Even if such a complex designing mind was responsible for the complexity of life, one would be remiss in omitting to enquire where the complexity of the designer originated.

In the absence of any other explanation, therefore, we must by default assume that such complexity has arisen by gradual stepwise refinement of regressively simpler organisms. Such small steps seem intuitively more likely than the sudden fait accompli of a grand design.

Extrapolating these small steps backwards in time it seems obvious, therefore, that life originally began very simply, probably by random emergence of self-replicating molecules. It seems likely that in the not too distant future this mechanism will be demonstrated in the laboratory.

Friday, 28 January 2011

Lying about time — relaunch of the Sci Phi Show

Recently I was pleased to discover that Jason Rennie has relaunched the Sci Phi Show — a podcast looking at philosophy and science fiction. The first of Jason's new episodes dealt with lying — what it is and whether it is always morally wrong to lie. He cited a couple of definitions from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
  1. To make a false statement with the intention to deceive.
  2. To make an assertion that is believed to be false to some audience with the intention to deceive the audience about the content of that assertion.
Jason explained the four conditions that need to apply to the second definition in order to make it clear: the Statement condition, the Untruthfulness condition, the Addressee condition and the Intention to deceive addressee condition. This second definition is the more precise and therefore more useful one, but Jason demonstrated in his subsequent discussion that use of the term "lie" often implies a degree of wrongness. (The Stanford definition explores some of these issues.)

Whether you consider a lie to be more or less morally wrong depends on your basis for morality. If you base it on an inviolable precept such as, "Thou shalt not bear false witness," you might find little leeway to consider the philosophical niceties. As I see it, the general prohibition on lying is to do with notions of trust and the reliability of communications. It may be perfectly moral to lie in certain specific circumstances (Jason suggested several), but if lying became the norm the fabric of society would quickly unravel.

Jason's second show was about time travel, and began with a discussion of definitions of time. Defining time appears to be fraught with impossibilities; for instance, what's the answer to the question, "How long can a condition of no change persist?" It depends whether you think time is something that passes, irrespective of events that occur. Note that of all our many ways of measuring time — to astonishing accuracy — none of them is objectively measuring the passage of time, but merely counting the occurrence of extremely regular events (although that raises the question of how we know these events are "regular").

However, this is pretty simple stuff in comparison with Jason's overview of alternative theories of time and his explanation of time-travel paradoxes — highly recommended, if you don't mind your brain turning to spaghetti.

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Pompey Skeptics in the Pub — 2nd Thursday of every month

When the inaugural Winchester Skeptics in the Pub had to be relocated because the original venue wasn't likely to accommodate the enthusiastic hordes who came to see Simon Singh, Rebecca Watson and Sid Rodrigues, it seemed to me like SitP had arrived. That was over a year ago. SitP in Britain received a further boost from the networking at last year's TAM London, and shortly after that event I was pleased to hear that moves were afoot to start a SitP in Portsmouth (where I live).

And start it did, though perhaps not on quite the scale of Winchester SitP — but give it time. On Tuesday evening the first Pompey Skeptics in the Pub (at the Mermaid, 222 New Road, Portsmouth PO2 7RW) featured a reading by Pam Lee on the importance of critical thought even about those things we take for granted, a skeptical quiz by Trish Hänn, and a cosmology presentation (with mind-boggling slides and video) on dark matter and dark energy by Chaz Shapiro.

It was small gathering of local and not so local people who identify more or less as skeptics (including a more or less skeptical but definitely well-trained dog), who generally agreed that the evening had gone well and that it should be a regular event. So join us on the second Thursday each month, from 10th March onwards. (And check out the photographic evidence, courtesy of Malcolm Stein.)

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

The Atheist Experience — listen or watch, but don't miss it

Given the name* of this blog and the tenor of most of its posts, readers would not be surprised to learn that I listen to several atheistically themed podcasts. The atheist podcast that I look forward to most, however, and have done since I first encountered it a couple of years ago, is The Atheist Experience, a live call-in TV show from the Atheist Community of Austin. It's available via an audio podcast feed (on iTunes, for instance), and that's how I normally listen.

If a show is especially good one week, I'll make a point of watching the video version. This week's was one such, hosted by Jen Peeples and Tracie Harris. Even before substituted host Matt Dillahunty called in at the end, I had already decided it was worth a blogpost. The hosts of The Atheist Experience are the sharpest explicators and defenders of the atheist viewpoint I've come across. Their consistently high standards of debate, argument, explanation and critical thought make the show archive a treasured resource.

For your enjoyment and education I embed this week's show here — #693: Misconceptions About Atheists — and I particularly recommend the exchange with caller Mike starting around 21'40":
http://blip.tv/file/4674944


The ACA also sponsor audio-only podcast The Non Prophets (which will occasionally be referenced on the TV show), along with many local activities.


*"Notes from an Evil Burnee" is a dead giveaway, considering the last two words are an anagram.

Monday, 24 January 2011

Equality is against Melanie Phillips' religion (and vice versa)

After a disorientating but mercifully brief instant of agreement with Melanie Phillips when she interrogated Anthony Seldon on last week's Moral Maze, I now find things are back to normal, as evidenced in her latest column at Mail Online today, in which she attempts to perpetuate the myth that religious views are being marginalised in Britain.
...schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.
Bombarded? In maths?
In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of ­homosexuals in the population.
And about other things, I suspect. Even if this is true, it's hardly bombardment. Certainly not to the extent that in history lessons they may be bombarded with — horror of horrors — historical dates.
The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.
They were guilty of illegal discrimination against a couple who were in a legal civil partnership, on the basis that the couple weren't married. The judge ruled that for this purpose marriage and civil partnership are equivalent.
Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples.
Quite right too. If agencies refuse to treat people equally, they have no business providing a public service.
Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions.
If they refuse to do the job they're paid for, they should do the decent thing and seek other employment.
It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.
Yeah, just about everything. Gay trains, gay supermarkets, gay refuse collection. Does Melanie Phillips find herself using gay hyperbole, by any chance?
Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.
Well, we wouldn't want things to be too equal, now, would we?

Sunday, 23 January 2011

Burnee links for Sunday

Book review: Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape
Russell Blackford reviews Sam Harris's new book.

Blackford reviews The Moral Landscape « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne's take on Russel Blackford's review, with a follow-up here:
Harris responds to Blackford « Why Evolution Is True

Tell me now how do I feel – Bad Science
Ben Goldacre is blue about Blue Monday. Again.

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER 2011
Richard Dawkins gives his answer to the question: "WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?" (Read the others too.)

The Q.E.D conference « BARsoc.org
The Ghost Investigations Today panel is one I hope to attend at QED. (The "Breakout Room" will be showing The God Who Wasn't There, but I could watch that another time on DVD.)

Ms Information - Communicating the Message in the Skeptiverse « She Thought
Some fascinating insight from Geologic HQ.
(Via George Hrab.)

Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: Unpalatable truths
Russell Blackford (him again!) is a glutton for punishment.

The British Humanist Association
Relative to recent discussions about secular morality, it's useful to remind ourselves of one particular organisation's objectives.

Open warfare round the dinner table: the mediasphere responds to Baroness Warsi | HumanistLife
Roundup of press reactions to Warsi's recent speech.

Saturday, 22 January 2011

Happiness — if you can't define it, you can't legislate for it

The Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4 this week was about happiness. At least, that's what it purported to be about, but most of the discussion was concerned with attempts to agree on a definition of happiness. From the BBC website:
They call it Blue Monday - January 24th - the unhappiest day of the year. Christmas seems a long time ago, but the bills for it are dropping on the mat, we've failed at all our New Year's resolutions, the weather is awful and all we've got to look forward to is February. But do not despair, our government is coming to the rescue. Politicians are so worried about our state of mind it was their New Year's resolution to do something about it.

On January 5th was the first meeting of the "Measuring National Well-being Advisory Forum" and the Office of National Statistics has just started a consultation on making general well-being (GWB) a key national statistic, alongside the more traditional things like Gross Domestic Product. Setting aside the question can you measure happiness - the moral question is should you?

Money isn't the key to happiness and perhaps we should see ourselves as more than just units of economic production and consumption. But is it the job of the state to concern itself with our emotional life and build that in to policy making? A lot of what makes us happy as individuals may not be very good for us, our fellow man, or society as a whole. Will we start being fed a very particular one-size fits all view of happiness and "the good life"? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is all very well, but should happiness be an end in itself? Shouldn't we be asking what we as individuals can to do make other people's lives better, rather than asking what the state can do to make us happier?

Chaired by Michael Buerk with Melanie Phillips, Matthew Taylor, Claire Fox and Clifford Longley.


Witnesses:
  • Professor Lord Richard Layard, Director, the Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
  • Simon Blackburn, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge
  • Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington College
  • Phillip Hodson, Psychotherapist and author who popularised 'phone-in' therapy in his role as Britain's first 'agony uncle'.
Streaming audio of this 45-minute radio programme is available on the iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/xhj84/

Unsurprisingly no consensus on the definition of happiness was reached. Simon Blackburn suggested that happiness equated with living a meaningful life, but that just takes the question one step back: can we agree on what is "meaningful"?

At the beginning of the programme Richard Layard's utilitarian analysis met with a degree of disdain, though I imagine he's used to such recoil from the merest hint of reductionism. But if you want to get to the crux of the matter then an honestly reductionist approach has a lot to commend it. At least it might yield tangible results, as apposed to an insistence that happiness can never be satisfactorily defined and that it's a waste of time trying.

Further on in the discussion I found myself in the unfamiliar position of agreeing with Melanie Phillips, albeit fleetingly, when she questioned Anthony Seldon's specific singling out of happiness-promoting characteristics as fit subjects for the secondary school curriculum. She lost my agreement an instant later when she suggested that instead he should just teach religion. A moment before, she had casually claimed that the things Seldon associated with happiness were all common to religion; careful examination of the facts, however, belies this claim. Seldon's justification for "teaching happiness" was presented on the basis of correlation with higher A-level results: pupils feel better about themselves — therefore they do better in exams. I don't think I need to set this out as a formal syllogism to show that its reasoning is flawed.

My own view of "happiness" is that it isn't something one should strive to achieve, because like the gold at the end of the rainbow it will be forever out of reach. Happiness is more a state of intentionality than it is a state of being. Like consciousness and free will, happiness is something we are aware of, which might at the same time be an illusory construct of our cognitive faculties. Even if we use Simon Blackburn's definition and link happiness to meaning, that can only lead to confusion about what things are meaningful. So I come back to intention: happiness isn't something we gain, it's something we do.