Stephen Law on The Malcontent's Gambit

One of my favourite philosophers was interviewed recently on one of my favourite podcasts.  I don't know how Alan Litchfield pulls it off to get such good guests on his podcast, 'The Malcontent's Gambit', but he seems consistent in that ability.

This podcast features Stephen Law, who is author of a number of books including 'Believing Bullshit' and a former speaker at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub.  Stephen will also be noticeable in the annual Oxford event called Think Week, where he will be in discussion with Richard Dawkins.  Tickets sold out quickly, as is common for these Dawkins events in Oxford!  (Yes - I have got one, thank you.)

Given his track record, being acknowledged as one of the few people who have significantly defeated William Lane Craig in a debate, I think the discussion with Dawkins will be interesting.

Without having to speculate about future events, I highly recommend The Malcontent's Gambit podcast.   In this interview, Law dismissed the Euthyphro Dilemna before going on to talk about the 'evil god hypothesis', which turns out to be difficult to contest.

Featured on Skepticule podcast

I was innocently listening to the Skepticule podcast this afternoon, episode 34, and they were talking about three events in London this September, that I also attended and wrote about. (See below.) I was pleasantly surprised to be mentioned by name in the interesting account of the Secular Europe March.

So here is a quick shout out for the Three Pauls who run the Skepticule podcast.  I'll look forward to meeting one or more of them again.

(I'm mentioned from 34:40!)

Related links:
Thoughts about the Secular Europe March
The Pod Delusion's birthday party
Secularist stars at the NSS conference

Clever humour is the worst kind

I was quietly giggling at the humour and rhetoric of Robin Ince, as I was listening again on episode 154 of The Pod Delusion yesterday.  This was the speech he gave at the March for a Secular Europe two weeks ago in London.

Asked why I was laughing, I said I thought Robin's humour was very clever and interesting.  I shared a couple of his comments and they brought a laugh too.

But then came another comment.  "Clever humour is the worst kind".

And this is one of the things that is wrong with a Christian viewpoint - particularly a Methodist viewpoint where eloquent sermons criticising eloquent speech were a staple of the Sunday services.  I remember being subjected to the 'eloquent speech' sermon often enough myself, while visiting a Methodist Church in Belfast, and at the time I thought it ironic.

What a shame that religious people fear intellectualism so much.

The Pod Delusion's birthday party

Welcome to Conway Hall, in London, home of the South Place Ethical Society.  From the outside the building looks like a small non-conformist church.  'Tardis-like', it seems to be much bigger inside than out.  Over the stage is the slogan "To Thine Own Self be True".

Conway Hall - for the Pod Delusion's birthday party.

After the march for a secular Europe, it was quite a short walk to Red Lion Square to reach the venue for a 'birthday party'.  The Pod Delusion has gathered a good audience these days, and a couple of hundred of us were in London to attend the live event.  I joked to one of the organisers of the march that he should have extended it to reach Conway Hall, because so many of the people had ended up here after finding suitable 'refreshments' along the way.

We were told that there would be an opportunity for questions after each segment, and threatened with James O'Malley's holiday photos if we were not able to fill the time available.  A lively participative audience ensured that there was little risk of that happening, but he wasn't able to resist the temptation to tell us a 'programmer's joke'  

A Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) consultant walked into a bar . . .pub . . tavern . . . inn . . .

Ha ha! The first half of the event got off to a good start.  Liz Lutgendorf gave us an entertaining history of Conway Hall.  Then Guardian Blogger Martin Robbins explained "Why The Daily Mail Is Evil!".  This really was the low point of the event.  Much as I love to ridicule 'The Daily Fail,' any attempt to rouse to audience to chant anything about the miserable rag was embarrassingly pathetic.  Bad form Robbins!  And to be honest, all your ranting about Suri Cruz might have been a good point but it was just boring.

Then Drew Rae offered us a "Risk Assessment for the Apocalypse!" (in which he committed the classic risk assessor's faux pas of confusing a hazard and a risk) and fire scientist Claire Benson (@pyroclaire) managed not to burn down Conway Hall with an interesting demonstration of spectroscopy! (I'm not completely convinced that a carbon dioxide fire extinguisher is the appropriate one for a methylated spirits fire.  Fortunately Liz didn't have to use it.)


After the interval things got even better.  Deborah Hyde (aka Jourdemayne, author of Jourdemayne's blog and Editor of the Skeptic Magazine) got us off to a really good start with "Psychology of the Supernatural!", including an explanation of the origin of the meme of driving a stake through the heart of a vampire.  Deborah was THE star of the show. 

@KateRussell then gave us some interesting insights about the growth of the internet, with a warning to bloggers to avoid making unnecessary links to unindexable, data-hungry, subterfuge-laden and often unreliable infographics.  (Or at least, remember to use the no-follow tag if you must make a link, ensuring that the subterfuge of the SEO-savvy authors is defeated).

Alom Shaha's 'magic show' kept us entertained for a while too.  It isn't completely obvious that he would make it as a professional magician, but he could get away with doing kids parties . . . and birthday parties for us 'adult-kids'.  (I would warn him that the eight year old grandson of my friend in the audience possesses his eight-of-clubs trick!  As if he doesn't already know that.)  The main point was that he is a great speaker and has an enviable sense of humour and he entertained the audience, using technology as well as 'conventional' magical props.  The greatest shame was that he had a bottle of white wine for one of the tricks.  Why?  Because there was no white wine left at the bar in the interval and I would have enjoyed a glass of it!

Helen Arney, whose 'Voice of an Angle' joke was hardly noticed by the majority, then completed the evening very nicely.

After the March for a Secular Europe in the afternoon, this was the conclusion of a great day out.  I'm looking forward to the fourth birthday party, and hoping to help The Pod Delusion out with a feature about Fusion in the next year.  More on that another day.

 

Sunday Selection 4

Continuing a new series where there is little additional content from me, but I simply share a few items, new and old, that have pleased me this week.  As almost every week, I see items on the web that I find interesting, amazing or  or amusing.  This disjointed ramble might be on any of my normal topics - or on other topics entirely.  My thanks go to the friends who helped me to find them.

First:  'Hotwheels double loop dare' - although one son tells me that 'everyone has seen this, the other one hadn't.

Next: I just love the tango used in Arnie's humorous movie, True Lies.  The Movie version is here, and another version of the whole of Carlos Gardel's beautiful, passionate Por Una Cabeza can be found here.  Just seeing that makes me want to watch the movie again - worth a good smile!

Podcast of the week:  Radiolabs Podcast 'Talking to Machines'
Maybe some of us find ourselves talking to machines without realising it.  This podcast from June 2011 had some interesting surprises.

Atheist blog post of the week:  “Dear Atheists, We Ex-Muslims Are Waiting For You”, from The Friendly Atheist.  I think you can follow my 'Creeping Islam' tag to see that I'm supporting his campaign to some extent, at least.

Physics of the week: This has to be the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson.  You can't have missed that.  Here's Lawrence Krauss's take on it.  The question is - what does it mean?  I feel that this is too difficult a concept to explain in terms that we can all understand and since I don't get it myself, I'm not going to try.

Parody of the week:  Homeopath to start offering ‘assisted-suicide’ remedy.
" . . . as proof of its effectiveness, last week a man came in having a heart attack. The remedy was so good that he died before we could administer it.’  Read on and laugh out loud

Controversial atheism site of the week: Somehow, the most religious people in Israel seem to think they are too pious for the army, and yet they expect the more secular Israelis to risk their lives on their behalf. 

And finally . . .

Favourite places: Fingal's Cave

Fingal's surprising cave on the island of Staffa.

Sunday Selection 1 - a new series

This is the first post in a new series where there is little additional content from me, but I simply share a selection of items that have delighted or surprised me this week.  As almost every week, I see items on the web that I find interesting, amazing or amusing.  My thanks go to the friends who helped me to find them.  The selection might be on any of my normal topics - or on other topics entirely.

You will probably find that there is too much here for one visit, so bookmark this page and come back to read a bit more another day.

First: the long awaited video of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali on stage together during the 2012 Global Atheist Convention, 13-15th April, in the Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre.  Well worth watching the whole hour!

Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and a guest 'horseman', Ayaan Hirsi Ali,
Melbourne 2012, from here.

Next: a candidate horseman himself, Peter Boghossian speaking forthrightly about Jesus, the Easter Bunny, and Other Delusions earlier this year.  (34:50 long.)

The inspirational Peter Boghossian, from here

Podcast of the week: Yhe UK based Pod Delusion.  This week's episode, #140, (64 minutes) includes Daniel Dennett giving his take on Alan Turing, former government chief science adviser Sir David King teasing about what really went on behind the scenes of the Iraq war, and Ben Hammersley explaining why technology makes politics difficult. They also tackle Gove’s proposed new curriculum, archiving film for the future and finding out if evangelical christian women really want to go out with Jesus.  As always - a good lively programme.

New podcast of the week: goes to one that I discovered recently.  Considering that it only appears to be on its third episode, it is going amazingly well.  Alan Litchfield's  The Macontent's Gambit claims (and appears to succeed) in  Extolling the Finest in Secular Thought.  Try an episode or two and subscribe to it you like them.  Already he has had some notable and interesting guests including Peter Boghossian, Guy Harris and Victor Stenger.


Physics of the week: the solution to the problem of speeding neutrinos, as I blogged on Monday in Enforcing the cosmic speed limit.

Controversial atheism site of the week: Jesus Never Existed, which you might or might not agree with.

Satire of the week: This article from The Onion:   Capricious God Violently Shakes Ant Farm Day After Bestowing Orange Slices Upon Colony which is highly amusing.

And finally . . . 

Favorite places: a link to a fantastic HD video of Yosemite National Park (only 4 minutes) which brings back memories for me, of visiting one of the most beautiful places in the world in 2008.

Yosemite - one of my favorite places - source here.

As I said, this is the first in a series.  Your comments, visits and preferences will help me to decide whether this experiment is a good idea or not.

Here be dragons

A year or two ago I came across this wonderful introduction to Critical Thinking.  It was produced by the great Brian Dunning, the host and creator of one of the very best skeptical podcasts, Skeptoid.com.

At 41 minutes in length, you might need to schedule a little quality time to concentrate on "Here be Dragons" which is available at that link in a variety of formats.  I very much doubt that you will be disappointed, however often you have seen it before.

And if you have never listened to the Skeptoid podcast then it is definitely time to start now.

Dunbar's Number in Social media

You might have heard of the concept of 'Dunbar's Number' without having put a name to it.  If you have, you might have formed a view about whether you believe in the idea that we can only keep a certain number of social contacts in our thoughts. 

To quote from Wikipedia, Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.  Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

Like me, I'm sure that you know people who seem to remember everything said by everyone, however long ago.  Perhaps like me you recognise your own inability to do the same.  In my job I find that I have to interact with a huge number of people, and I often find myself completely unable to remember the name of someone who I have known for years.

Robin Dunbar - a touch is worth a thousand words any day!

Whether or not Dunbar's hypothesis about neocortical processing capacity or theories about long term memory are the perfect explanations of the phenomenon, I think almost all of us recognise the feeling.  You can see him speaking about Facebook friends and 'real friends' and related topics in an excellent 19 minute long talk on ForaTV.  See Robin Dunbar: How Many Friends Does One Person Need?  He says that he thinks touch is one of the most important factors in maintaining a real relationship and discusses the role of kinship, and talks about the fragility of friendships.  Interestingly it seems that the limit to the number of friends seems to be largely limited to primate species too.

A recent episode of the always-interesting podcast, Skepticality, featured an interview with David McRaney at this link You Are Not So Smart.  In a discussion that covered a huge range of interesting topics he mentioned that studies of people's use of social media have been used to test Dunbar's number in a new way.

Looking into this I found one such study of Twitter users.  Validation of Dunbar’s Number in Twitter by Bruno Goncalves et al seems to confirm the idea, with a sample of 1.7 million individuals, 380 million tweets and 25 million conversations.   The magic number of contacts comes out at around 200 again. 
Small note: I must admit that I'm not entirely certain where this was formally published as it is now in an online open-source repository, www.plosone.org.  The authors appear to come from respectable organisations.  I sometimes think that peer review is an over-rated idea anyway!

Teach the controversy - but teach it from the pulpit!

Those of us who follow the argument about the teaching of evolution in schools realise that there is an ongoing battle around the world.  In USA the Intelligent Design (ID) movement uses rhetorical skills to push forward the idea of 'Teaching the Controversy'.

Teach all the controversies (source)

It seems that, in a recent poll, 80% of American adults agreed that schools should 'teach the controversy' about evolution.  That seems like a large figure, but of course it has not been revealed to us what the actual questions were, or how they were led to that choice.  Were they asked whether they knew that there really is NO controversy about it?  On the one side you have the overwhelming weight of evidence from every major science, all fitting together like a giant perfectly interlocking jigsaw puzzle - albeit with quite a lot of pieces still missing and a few that do not yet fit.  On the other hand you have the 'revelation' and imaginings of deluded individuals - some of whom have chosen to make a career out of being controversial.**

You might consider the following admission to be tantamount to confessing to self-harm, but I actually listen to the podcast ID the Future, which is published by The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle.  The Discovery Institute is named after the ship HMS Discovery in which George Vancouver  first explored the Puget Sound in 1792.  But on the basis of their work we find that their 'discoveries' do not come from real science.  There is no danger that true hypotheses are generated and tested by their researchers.  In a sense the establishment ought to be called 'The Revelation Institute'.  To give an idea of their true aims, in 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions"

Back to ID the Future!  Yes - I find the listening experience rather irritating (and you can try it out here if you feel strong enough) but at least I have become familiar with the arguments that the ID movement promotes.  Listening to 'whining, whingeing, wet and wittering' regular presenter Casey Luskin is almost a physically painful experience.  (Just listen to an episode to hear what I mean.)  Not long ago he was talking about the shameful entry on Wikipedia for an organisation described as being "associated with the Discovery Institute".  Rather than correct the error the speakers spent an eternity complaining about it.  (Maybe someone should explain to them what a wiki is!)

To give you a flavour of ID The Future, one of their recent podcasts was actively encouraging biological scientists to withhold their critical views of evolution (or Darwinism as they pejoratively refer to it).  But they were only to keep quiet until they have got tenure in a university.  Then they can 'safely' nail their true colours to the mast of the Discovery Institute and claim that the whole of biological science is tainted . . . and that God did it all!  (Oh yes - we should add that it was their god - not any other random deity from the pantheon.)

This is a perfect example of the technique of 'lying for Jesus'.  It also tells a lot about the integrity of the people giving this advice - presumably 'good christians' - that they would publicly speak out about this disingenuous campaign.  This is Christian taqiyya!  It would tell even more if a scientist actually followed their advice, and once in a while you hear sob stories about people being rejected from academic institutions for doing exactly that.

On this week's episode, 4w's Luskin claimed that "We are perfectly comfortable with students learning about views that we disagree with". 

Let's test that theory then.  Would he be happy to teach the controversy from the pulpit in the same 'fair and open' way that they would like to use to promote ID mumbo-jumbo in schools?  For example, let's look at some:

• the actual evidence for evolution (as mentioned above)
• the counter evidence to claims about the biblical flood
• the evidence of the actual life of Jesus (for which there is pitifully little - all of it being from a single collection of biased writings)
• the evidence that there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century
• and that 'Darwinism' is not the same as 'the theory of evolution' and it has nothing to say about the origin of life - but only about how it developed.

The list is more or less endless.

I think I'm all for the idea of teaching the controversy as long as we are talking about real controversies.  I suspect we might not agree about where it should be taught.


**Small note:  Might I be accused of making a successful blog out of being controversial?  Maybe.  I'll let you know my conclusion when it really is successful!