Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Monday, 16 May 2011
Uncaged Monkeys at the Anvil, Basingstoke
"So what's this Uncaged Monkeys thing you're going to see then? Is it a band?"It may have been different, geeky, at times hilarious and at other times intensely moving. It may not be the usual fare at the Basingstoke Anvil, but it filled pretty well all of the hall's 1400 seats.
"No, it's not a band."
"A play?"
"No, it's ... science. And comedy."
"Oh. That sounds —"
"By the people in Radio Four's The Infinite Monkey Cage. You heard of that?"
"Er, no."
"Well, they just got a Sony Award."
Robin Ince started the show off, casting some aspersions on Professor Brian Cox — whom he claimed never listened to the introductions so he could say what he liked. Then it was time for TV's Professor Wonder Boy to wow us with potted particle physics. He hit us with the Higgs boson, and claimed that particle accelerators were always built near airports in order to give them a sense of perspective. In a generally reassuring manner he touched on the likelihood of the Large Hadron Collider destroying the Earth, using a technical term that I forget — though I remember it was four letters beginning and ending in "t". (There was also a "w" and an asterisk in it somewhere). He showed us a graphic of government funding, challenging us to locate the spend on scientific research. He pointed out the bill for the bank bail-out, and that it was greater than the amount spent on science ... since Jesus. And he did the Big Bang.
Ben Goldacre chased his wild hair and oscillating eyebrows around the stage, with tales of placebos, big pharma and fish oil pills, and he showed us a picture of his cat Henrietta, plus a certificate of her medical qualifications — the same qualifications claimed by nutritionist Gillian McKeith. Great mirth ensued, but the stuff about big pharma was actually quite worrying.
Steve Jones talked about evolution, illustrating natural selection with something from his own early career as an engineer. His example was a process of converting a liquid to a powder by forcing it at high pressure through metal nozzles. Apparently these nozzles used to corrode and become ineffective very quickly. Rather than try to work out the best shape for these nozzles, the designers used a form of random mutation, making ten copies, each slightly — but randomly — different from the original. These copies then were tested, and best one was then randomly mutated ten times and then those copies were tested. After several cycles of such random mutation and selection, they ended up with a nozzle that lasted 100 times longer than the original, but no-one knew why.
Simon Singh electrocuted a gherkin on stage, which was highly illuminating (literally, though what it would taste like after that, he didn't say). Of such insights is the scientific knowledge regarding the size and the age of the universe derived. And he too did the Big Bang. He ended with the story of his somewhat pedantic insistence on the accuracy of song lyrics, which is appropriate because we were also entertained by Helen Arney, who sang to us while playing the ukele.
There was a session during which Robin Ince passed on tweeted questions to Ben Goldacre, Brian Cox and Simon Singh. (There is also a podcast — Free Primates — in which the Uncaged Monkeys answer questions they didn't have time to deal with on stage.)
Naturally the show could not pass without several mentions of Carl Sagan, of whom both Robin Ince and Brian Cox are declared fans. Sagan's Pale Blue Dot brought the proceedings to a moving close.
Altogether it was a splendidly enjoyable evening, and I saw the whole thing close up as I was on the front row. What I should have realised is that the Anvil is the nearest venue for many of those people who attend Winchester Skeptics in the Pub, as well as the fledgling Portsmouth Skeptics in the Pub. Several were indeed attending, and I was pleased to be able to join some of them for a curry after the show.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Burnee links for Sunday
Church Times - Cameron urges Brits not to fight shy of ‘doing God’
(Via HumanistLife.)
We aren't angry, we're effective, which is even scarier : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers ponders Chris Mooney's session in his own Point of Inquiry hot seat.
Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God - Telegraph
I think Dawkins should stand his ground and ignore such accusations, which are not so much about "debating" as "baiting". William Lane Craig was revealed as a disingenuous trickster in his recent debates with Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, so Dawkins is wise to steer clear. I fully accept that Craig is likely to "win" such a debate — he is after all a professional debater — but it would be a technical win and add nothing to the wider argument. His debating points (as we've seen from the recent debates with Krauss and Harris) are formulated to be essentially unfalsifiable and therefore not worth the engagement. When I heard that Craig was coming to the UK I felt a great surge of indifference. Once upon a time I would have been interested in whom he would be debating and where, but no longer.
My sister wanted a godless funeral. But still invited God | Jon Canter | Comment is free | The Guardian
Secular rituals should be unique. (Religious rituals are made up, so why shouldn't the godless do the same?)
Brow Beat : A.C. Grayling's Top 5 Non-Religious Books on Living a Good Life
Some literature recommendations from a supremely literate but down-to-earth philosopher.
Iran to blind criminal with acid in 'eye for an eye' justice | World news | The Guardian
Has Rowan Williams — in favour of sharia law in Britain — commented on this story?
New Oxford study: religion pervasive, ergo impossible to eradicate « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne detects a whiff of accommodationism's wealthy promoters in a recent study of religious belief.
“I’ve never really understood this argument about ‘Should the Church get involved in politics? Yes or no?’ To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church, is involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. . ."A horrible and divisive slur. Cameron is implying that only "Christianity, faith, religion, the Church" can provide answers to moral questions.
(Via HumanistLife.)
We aren't angry, we're effective, which is even scarier : Pharyngula
P. Z. Myers ponders Chris Mooney's session in his own Point of Inquiry hot seat.
Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God - Telegraph
I think Dawkins should stand his ground and ignore such accusations, which are not so much about "debating" as "baiting". William Lane Craig was revealed as a disingenuous trickster in his recent debates with Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, so Dawkins is wise to steer clear. I fully accept that Craig is likely to "win" such a debate — he is after all a professional debater — but it would be a technical win and add nothing to the wider argument. His debating points (as we've seen from the recent debates with Krauss and Harris) are formulated to be essentially unfalsifiable and therefore not worth the engagement. When I heard that Craig was coming to the UK I felt a great surge of indifference. Once upon a time I would have been interested in whom he would be debating and where, but no longer.
My sister wanted a godless funeral. But still invited God | Jon Canter | Comment is free | The Guardian
Secular rituals should be unique. (Religious rituals are made up, so why shouldn't the godless do the same?)
Brow Beat : A.C. Grayling's Top 5 Non-Religious Books on Living a Good Life
Some literature recommendations from a supremely literate but down-to-earth philosopher.
Iran to blind criminal with acid in 'eye for an eye' justice | World news | The Guardian
Has Rowan Williams — in favour of sharia law in Britain — commented on this story?
New Oxford study: religion pervasive, ergo impossible to eradicate « Why Evolution Is True
Jerry Coyne detects a whiff of accommodationism's wealthy promoters in a recent study of religious belief.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
More cargo-cult "science" from the Centre for Intelligent Design
The email contains the following:
It's become a mantra for Darwinists to claim that ID isn't science. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that challenges Darwinism.
"It's become a mantra for lawyers to claim that this woman is guilty of a crime. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that her neighbours watch Sky Sports on a Saturday."
Friday, 13 May 2011
My 400th blogpost
It's Friday the Thirteenth, a highly significant date.
(Actually it isn't. Friday. Or significant. Sharp-eyed readers of Notes from an Evil Burnee who look for my posts every day — do I have any of those? — may have noticed that the posting date accompanying each blogpost isn't necessarily the date it's actually posted. When I'm busy with other things I can't always post on my intended daily schedule, so I catch up later and back-date posts where necessary. And this was the week of the massive Blogger outage, so even if I'd had time I wouldn't have been able to post anyway.)
Friday the Thirteenth is not significant, other than it's the date when superstitious people believe that they are more likely to experience bad luck. Which is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy, so maybe they're right after all. (I read a Hansard report the other day — David Tredinnick claiming that surgeons won't operate when there's a full moon, because blood won't clot properly. It seems like he really believes this nonsense — but he also believes homeopathy works, and wants more research to prove it. Horse, please follow the cart.)
With this (rather self-indulgent) post — my 400th — I'm up to date again. It's beenfive four and a half months* of daily blogging, and I continue to enjoy it, to find it a useful outlet and a means of clarifying my thoughts on a range of concerns. So, for now, I think I'll keep doing it.
*Self-indulgent and innumerate.
(Actually it isn't. Friday. Or significant. Sharp-eyed readers of Notes from an Evil Burnee who look for my posts every day — do I have any of those? — may have noticed that the posting date accompanying each blogpost isn't necessarily the date it's actually posted. When I'm busy with other things I can't always post on my intended daily schedule, so I catch up later and back-date posts where necessary. And this was the week of the massive Blogger outage, so even if I'd had time I wouldn't have been able to post anyway.)
Friday the Thirteenth is not significant, other than it's the date when superstitious people believe that they are more likely to experience bad luck. Which is probably a self-fulfilling prophecy, so maybe they're right after all. (I read a Hansard report the other day — David Tredinnick claiming that surgeons won't operate when there's a full moon, because blood won't clot properly. It seems like he really believes this nonsense — but he also believes homeopathy works, and wants more research to prove it. Horse, please follow the cart.)
With this (rather self-indulgent) post — my 400th — I'm up to date again. It's been
*Self-indulgent and innumerate.
Thursday, 12 May 2011
Burnee links for Thursday
It is an honour to read this towering intellect persisting in its failing frame. Hitch does his readers a unique service with unstinting insights into his ongoing condition. Lessons for us all.
Why the world might end next Saturday - Religion - Salon.com
An attempt to explain how nutcase Harold Camping has worked out that the "rapture" will occur on May 21st. What I want to know is this: if the date of the rapture is somehow encoded in the Bible, won't God be pretty pissed off with Camping for letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak?
Science explains the end of the world - On Faith - The Washington Post
Richard Dawkins was asked to comment on the lunacy of Harold Camping. He gives it the attention it deserves, dismissing it with utter contempt, and goes on to talk of other things. Would that the media in general took so sane a view of the matter.
Tessera: Good Girls Don't
It's hard to believe that stupid (and sexist) ideas like this one put forward by Nadine Dorries can get any traction in today's Britain, but she won the vote. Tessera gives a good analysis.
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
A telling telic misapprehension in Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God
The title of chapter 14 of Dembski & Licona's Evidence for God makes me wonder about the currency of it: "Debunking the Scopes 'Monkey Trial' Stereotype". The Scopes "monkey trial" was way back in 1926. It was dramatised in the black and white film Inherit the Wind. (A more recent BBC Radio drama — based on court transcripts — is available for download from RapidShare.)
The thrust of Edward Sisson's essay is that it's wrong to insist that the scientific consensus about evolution be taught to children, because in 1926 scientific consensus included the existence of the ether and the usefulness of eugenics. But if there's little actual controversy about a theory such as the ether (as there wasn't until science showed that the theory was false — indeed numerous experiments around the time of the trial were already spreading doubts about the ether's existence), how else should we determine what's to be taught in schools? Certainly not by reference to scripture — especially in the US where the teaching of religion is unconstitutional. Where there is genuine controversy it's legitimate to expose children to competing theories, but school science lessons should teach accepted science. The overwhelming scientific consensus, in 1926 as now, is that Darwinian evolution explains the way life came to be the way it is on this planet. Darwinian evolution, therefore, is what should be taught in schools.
But be that as it may, this chapter appears to be an unsubstantiated bleat for creationism, while at the same time offering no evidence for God, which is what Dembski & Licona's book is supposed to be about.
Towards the end of his chapter, Sisson clearly illustrates the usual creationist misunderstanding of evolution:
Note the use of motivated, irresistible drive, drive for power, and force. These words impute intention — a telic force — when in fact Darwinian natural selection is nothing of the kind. There is no force, no drive, no motivation. It just happens. It's simply the way things occur in a system comprised of organisms capable of reproducing themselves, while at the same time being susceptible to reproduction errors that make them more or less suited to their environment. Darwinian evolution occurs that way because it can do no other.
4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952915
But be that as it may, this chapter appears to be an unsubstantiated bleat for creationism, while at the same time offering no evidence for God, which is what Dembski & Licona's book is supposed to be about.
Towards the end of his chapter, Sisson clearly illustrates the usual creationist misunderstanding of evolution:
Indeed, Darwinians, who claim that all of life is motivated by an irresistible drive for survival, which necessarily means a drive for power, are poorly positioned to claim a special exemption from the very force they say rules life. (pp. 79-80)
4truth.net:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952915
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
