Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law - Think Week

On Friday 15th February as part of Oxford Think Week, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law met on stage in the Sheldonian Theatre.

The discussion was generally an interesting revision of the sorts of things that I hear on scientific and skeptical podcasts, week in and week out, and I write about here.  A few of the audience were a little disappointed that there was nothing very new in it.

However, I can listen to these two men for a very long time without getting bored, and you have to admire their dedication to their cause.  They give up their time (and indeed money by sponsoring the event) in order to be visible to another audience - predominately of young people. 

Getting the message of rationalism and science out to the public takes a lot of effort and they show little sign of tiring.

As usual, the questions asked by the audience varied in quality.  Some were thinly veiled angry responses from a religious world-view that had clearly found itself on the back foot.  Others were more statements than questions in spite of the chair imploring people to keep their questions short.  Also as usual there were questions which were politely answered, but could have be met with simple advice to go and read a book.

Asked about objective morality and how one should address the competing requirements of different moral values we learned that RD claims to be a consequentialist.  SL agreed that he had got the description correct.  I doubt that the questioner felt satisfied with the answer that he got as he was clearly under the impression that he had deal the knock-out blow.

I for one thought it was the best answer available.

When the video of the event is posted I will link to it here.

Pecha Kucha

Last week a colleague introduced me to another new concept. It is a teaching technique (with a competitive element).

At the time he was presenting a module of a training course and he introduced the idea of 'pecha kucha', which apparently is Japanese for chit chat.  The idea is that you present your message in 20 'PowerPoint' slides and that the presentation is set up so that the slides advance automatically, once ever 20 seconds.  The whole thing is over in less than 6 minutes.

Apparently pecha kucha nights (PKN) are arranged for brave speakers to put across their point of view in a concise way, and some people develop an expertise in it.

I was looking forward to the training - but he said that he wasn't able to present it in that way after all.  :(  I have a suspicion that people get so close to their particular areas of expertise that it is difficult to present the items that matter to others without going into the detail that you need to be an expert yourself.

So . . . rising to the challenge I thought I might have a go at it and translated his detailed and knowledgeable training into an attempt to present the things that we really need to know.

I'm delighted to say that he approves.  Now I just need a chance to present it while he is there to answer the really difficult questions!

Swedish icy mystery

My friend and colleague, Tom, was visiting family in Sweden recently and on a forest walk he came across this remarkable and so far unexplained icy feature and photographed it.

Surprising sharp edge around a patch of ice. 

At first glance it just looks like an icy puddle, but when you look more carefully it has some very peculiar and surprising features.

Closer view of the upstanding edge - Swedish icy mystery!

Tom described it as follows:

I have never seen or heard of anything even remotely like it before. I probably saw about a thousand other frozen puddles that week, and none of them had any unusual features at all.

Stalks of grass through the mysterious sharp ice feature.

It had snowed about 10-15cm some days before we got there and this had largely thawed by the time of this forest walk, after several days of the temperature being about -2°C overnight and 0 to +2°C during the day.

There are many deer in the forest, and a few dog walkers. Several other puddles showed evidence of the water level having gone down under the ice crust before refreezing. I now see that where some larger grass stalks had lain through the developing ice wall, presumably wiggling in the breeze, they have made round holes in the wall. The little ones are just frozen in position as I described the other day.

Another view - including a reed passing through a melted hole.

Perhaps the explanation for the large green reed having melted a hole is more related to it being a dark colour, and thus collecting more warmth from the sun, but how this sharp edge was formed is still a mystery.

So . . . are there any arctic explorers out there who have an explanation please?

Circular Reasoning Works

Circular Reasoning works!

Where the pope will be hiding . . .

Following on from yesterday's post, apparently the pope is planning to hide himself away in that non-country called The Vatican, in order to avoid the risk of prosecution.  See this link.  It is a good read and it covers the main points quite thoroughly.

I'm glad that this concept demonstrates a small hint of contrition, but I don't think it goes far enough.

Looking at it another way, is this fair to the new pope?  Anglican priests who retire will always move to another parish, so that their successors can take charge without being influenced by a predecessor. 

Obviously former popes have different rules.  But then again they have different views of morality too. 

Now the question arises . . . does the non-country called The Vatican have an extradition treaty with any country in Europe?  If so, it should expect a phone call quite soon. 

If not, it doesn't deserve to be called a country, and the whole problem of the prosecution of its leading criminals is recursive.

Monopoly provides the answer to the question "What does a retired pope do next?"

In general terms this is a virtually meaningless question because most popes do not abdicate and retire.  No doubt it will be a while before we hear the real reason for the retirement of Pope Benedict, even if we ever find it out.  The Roman Catholic Church could hardly be say to be famous for its openness.

Like his brother, Pope Benedict has been accused of quite a number of misdemeanours during his professional life.  It is asserted that he has personally been responsible for covering up the nefarious child abuse activities of many Catholic priests.  Although it is not implied that he was actually involved in the rape of children, it would be regarded as a very serious crime in any civilised jurisdiction to take actions intended to impede the police in their investigation of crime.  And yet this is exactly what he has been accused of.  Aiding and abetting one criminal would be serious enough, but it if is true that Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith activities have been systematically confounding law enforcement then someone should take personal responsibility for it.  That someone should clearly be the head of the organisation.

Now that Ratzinger will no longer be acting as 'The Pope', and therefore no longer the head of state of that 'non-country' called 'The Vatican', one might hope that he is getting rather worried.

Please think about that and feel some satisfaction at my optimism.

His immunity to prosecution must surely have been rescinded along with the other responsibilities of the position.

Surely, just like that other notorious European tyrant Mladic, Ratzinger should be arrested and denied bail while his alleged crimes are thoroughly investigated and he is ultimately brought to trial. 

Therefore the answer to the question of his retirement plans should come directly from the Monopoly board!

Ratzinger - 1st March - Go to Jail. Go Directly.

Go to jail.  Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect £200 (or whatever currency or culture you prefer).

After all this is a man who should know more about morality than anyone else on Earth if the claims of his church are true.  If God really set the standards of objective morality, then the Vicar of Christ (and his older brother) should have been able to tell that it is immoral to shelter his fellow priests from justice (or whatever his older brother is accused of).

There is little evidence that they have grasped that concept yet.

Go to jail.


Update: 22:30.  This evening I attended an event in Oxford, where Stephen Law and Richard Dawkins were in discussion as part of 'Think Week'.  One of the questions from the audience was on exactly this topic.  RD has been involved in a previous discussion about an attempt to prosecute the pope and together with Christopher Hitchens had paid a top lawyer to look into the idea.  Sitting in the audience this evening and knowing that this post was scheduled I felt quite amused.

Peter Atkins talks about absolutely nothing

No really . . . he was talking about the absolute nothingness before the beginning of the universe, as part of Think Week in Oxford!  The talk was so popular that people had to be turned away from the door.  This event was held in a teaching room in the famous Ashmolean Museum. 

Atkins is of course a popular speaker and people expect to get good value from any talk that he gives and he did not disappoint.  This time he included a number of his usual (witty and pithy) atheistic comments but he was aiming to explain a possible view of the origin of the universe to a bewildered audience.

The point of the talk was to demonstrate that the creation of the universe from absolute nothingness might be open to scientific elucidation, contrary to the view that religion offers the only answers.  As he said, unlike religions, when different branches of science intermingle there is support rather than conflict.  He also re-stated his assertion (which I find very reasonable) that the 'why' questions should really be rephrased as portmanteaus of 'how' questions that science can answer.  When theologians claim that science can't answer the why questions, his reply is to shrug and say "So what? There is no valid question beginning with 'why'".  By asking how questions, we get rid of the need for omnipotent beings, and the supernatural has no place in science.

He went on to show some different models of families of universes, and mention that our notion of time might be far too naive.  Time might be circular but for today he wanted to assume that there really was an instant in time when the first universe came into being.  Following similar lines to Lawrence Krauss in his book A Universe from Nothing, Atkins went on to explain how the universe might look as though it is full of energy but in fact the positive energy, including that which exists as matter, is exactly balanced by the negative energy associated with gravitational attraction. When questioned about why gravitational energy is negative he used a nice analogy that I had never heard before.  Take two objects.  One distorts space-time to make a gravitational well, and the other rolls into the well to reach a lower energy state.  I like it!

Getting gradually deeper into the science of origins and carefully pointing out that he was not telling us that this is the answer, but only a possible answer, he went on to talk about conservation laws.  Taking as his first example, the law of conservation of energy might be inferred from the observation that the universe has no net energy.  If it came from nothing then the simplest explanation is that 'the nothing' had no energy, and that state has been preserved.  He invoked Noether's (first) theorem which states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. In the case of the conservation of energy, the associated symmetry is the uniformity of time.  Similarly, conservation of momentum is associated with the uniformity of space, and angular momentum with the isotropy of space.  In fact almost all laws of physics probably imply the uniformity of the 'nothing' that was there before the universe, and he gave some examples of how the alternative to the physical laws would lead to virtual anarchy.

Concluding the first part of the talk he pointed out that at the creation almost nothing happened.  There is still nothing here, but it is a much more interesting form of nothing than it was before nothing happened.

The second part of the talk became much more abstract, getting into set theory and some other mathematics and without admitting where I lost the plot I'm not going to describe it in detail.  Someone was recording it, and if it is published on the web I will link to it so that you can listen for yourself.  My short summary of it is that time may be regarded as a dimension, but that it is a very special kind of dimension.  The idea that there is only one dimension of time (when there are three spatial dimensions) implies that you can't turn around in it.  (Eeek!  How?)

He then concluded that the whole point of his talk was to show us that science is not afraid to confront the concept of nothing at all, and that the properties of nothing at all can be discussed quite rationally.

In the Q&A there was a question about how (a) god (the creator) might not have been god at all, but that aliens might have seeded the Earth with life and having realised that it was all going wrong had gone away leaving no sign of their involvement.  Having tried to answer the question politely, the questioner persisted with a little rant about how he wasn't being taken seriously.  He refused to stop even when asked by the chairman. 

In his typical politely assertive way Atkins answered that if there was any evidence at all for that idea then it would definitely be worth considering, but that there isn't any evidence.  The questioner picked up his coat and left, much to the relief of all of us.

All in all, it was an entertaining evening with a great speaker and a great chance to meet some very interesting people, older friends and newer.  I will be attending more Think Week events, (although unfortunately not all of them).

Why aren't ghosts naked?

We all know people who claim to have seen ghosts, even if those people are usually sensible enough not to have told you about what they have experienced.

But have you ever heard anyone claim that they have seen a naked ghost?  I'm left wondering how these disembodied spirits have some way of remembering what clothes their corporeal forms used to wear, and indeed how they choose from the wardrobe that must have changed throughout their lives.

You might argue that this is no stranger than the concept that the ghost's former self changed its appearance throughout its life, but that somehow the apparition has chosen a snapshot in time - presumably normally at the point of its final demise.

Maybe they keep the clothes that they wore at the same time.

Or maybe there are just no ghosts and the people who have the requisite imaginations to conjure up such an image in their minds have no trouble conjuring appropriate-looking attire as well.

Why are there no dragons?

For Darwin Day, it seems appropriate to write a post about evolutiion.

Evolution seems to have produced a wide range of surprising abilities.  In many cases the same ability has come about separately in different species at different times.

Sight seems to have evolved in tens of separate ways.  Many creatures share the optical band that humans are able to sense (around the part of the spectrum where the atmosphere has the lowest absorption), but other creatures have developed to use infra-red and ultra-violet.  Some are very sensitive to the polarisation of light and others like us are almost completely unaware of it.

Sonar seems also to have evolved in about four separate ways.  Even in mammals like whales and bats there is nothing in common between their organs to suggest common evolution.

More surprisingly, electricity has been co-opted by completely unrelated species of fish, and Bombardier beetles have even evolved ways of creating explosions by secreting fluids which are unstable together.

But what of things that seem never to have evolved?

No animal has naturally evolved radar.  Perhaps the other options are good enough for short distances but much cheaper in terms of energy.

But fire is another property that is noticeably and more surprisingly absent from the animal kingdom.  This is the stuff of legend, with fire-breathing dragons being common in folk-lore.  Nobody serious suggests that these creatures really lived, even though there are creatures that create fuel (as cattle create methane in large quantities) and as we have already seen, electricity is generated at the voltages needed to make sparks to ignite the fuel.  The potential was there.  So why are there no dragons?

Sunny brain, rainy brain

Elaine Fox made a presentation to Oxford Skeptics in the Pub last week, in a meeting attended by an unusually large number of people.  The theme of the talk was about whether optimism is good for us.

She began by reminding us that everyone is different.  Quoting William James, she said that every baby born into the world is inundated by "the blooming buzzing confusion of sounds", and it is remarkable how quickly they are able to focus on the ones that matter and ignore the sounds and sights that form the background to life.

She went on to tell us that some things are hard-wired into us, and that fear and pleasure play a large role in the workings of our brains.  In most people, fear takes priority over pleasure and she described the signal route from the amygdala to the pre-frontal cortex - the desire to eat lunch is over-ridden by the desire to avoid being lunch.  (I didn't know that we do not have one amygdala but two.)

In order to convince us that most people have an optimistic approach to life (which seems counter-intuitive to all of us, let alone a room full of skeptics) she read a few statements out and asked us to score our level of agreement.  See below**.  The room displayed a wide range of scores, but she was successful in demonstrating what she wanted. (This was not necessarily done in a completely scientific manner.  How were those statements chosen, and what do they actually mean in detail?)

Optimism is a complex combination of states.  It is not just a matter of happily expecting the best outcomes, but people who score high on optimism scales also take positive actions and persist longer to solve difficult problems.

She also pointed out another (perhaps obvious) point that our outlooks are not shaped by nature or nurture, but by the interaction between both.  The brain remains much more malleable throughout life than was understood only a few years ago.  As an example, she described how London taxi drivers who were studying for a test called 'The Knowledge' had been shown to have experienced a growth in the size of their hippocampus. 

Studies of different gene variants have shown correlation with subtle effects on brain chemistry.  Perhaps there is good science behind these claims.  We didn't really hear enough to be able to tell, and in some ways this was a pity, because it further confirms our bias that the science of the brain is still in its infancy.  Only be the highest standard of scientific method will that change quickly. 

The final topic was about therapeutic effects of cognitive bias modification.  She claimed that various studies showed health benefits from an optimistic bent.  Let's hope that this turns out to be true.  I have a strong feeling that I have heard opposite claims from other researchers, but that is not necessarily a threat to the advance of science.

All in all, it was an interesting evening in spite of a the projector being unable to display in colour.  Obviously it must have been the projector, not the Apple Mac that was being used for the presentation as nothing ever goes wrong with a Mac does it?  Ironic comments aside, the venue was a place that has recently been renamed "The Wig and Pen".  There are rumours that it wants to start to charge for use of the room as well as gaining the benefit of bringing 50 or 100 customers in.  All I can say to that is that they would need to improve the quality of the room.  A bar with one member of staff does not cope with the number of customers.  And one might expect that the toilets would have been cleaned, and that the taps on the sinks in the gents toilets (at least) might open in a more controlled and less explosive way.  I would vote to change venue.

Thanks as usual to the organisers, Heather and Alex.


**Small note
My transcription of the 6 statements:
1/ In uncertain times I usually expect the best.
2/ I enjoy my friends a lot.
3/ I would take off on a trip with no pre-plans.
4/ I don't get upset too easily.
5/ I get restless when I spend too much time at home.
6/ I count on good things happening to me.

Decide for yourselves whether these all reflect aspects of optimism.  Not everyone understands what they mean and how much we are expected to consider the implications.  Not everyone agrees that they reflect optimism as opposed to some other quantity - but then again none of the people I have asked are experts on the topic.  However, I was VERY pleased to score slightly higher than one of my friends who I consider to be highly optimistic, albeit much lower than another.

Entertaining anagrams

Once in a while you come across a really entertaining anagram.  20 years ago I found myself amused by the irony of the anagram of government minister Virginia Bottomley's name.  It seemed humorously plausible as it seemed believable that she might claim "I'm an evil tory bigot"!

Having survived the Conservative government of that time, (which led quite directly to 10 years of Labour government), there was a period when 'Apple Macintosh' developed 'laptop machines'.  There is a surprising synergy between those two sides of an anagram.

On the other hand sometimes you hear one that is appears humorously antithetic.  It would be very surprising to find that "Brittney Spears"
is on of those "Presbyterians".

Polka-dot trees

Visiting Aix en Provence, I found that many of the trees have been wrapped in red fabric (with white spots).  Was this frost protection?

Aix-en-Provence, joining Marseille's year as City of Culture

No, apparently Aix is joining in with Marseilles which is currently the European City of Culture. This photo was taken in the evening sun. It was 10 degrees C, which is warmer than it was at home.

Everyone's online

Apparently everyone is online . . . except me, as I will probably be at 35,000 feet on the way back from Marseilles to London as this post is published.  Normal service will be resumed tomorrow.

Looks like everyone's online!

No rational person . . .

I can recommend the following debate, This House Believes that Organised Religion has no place in the 21st Century, although not necessarily for the reasons that you might expect.  You might know that I am a fan of Richard Dawkins, and originally it was the main reason that I watched the following video.  I wish that the proposal was true but didn't believe that they would win, but I was pleasantly surprised by the performance of a number of the other speakers.

The order of speakers was interesting.

Andrew Copson speaks a lot of good sense.  He introduced the debate with what was later described as a presumptuous speech.  I think that might have been a little harsh.

Retiring Archbishop Rowan Williams then gave a very well polished, aspirational sermon.  He is, after all, a professional speaker and I respect his style, even if not his beliefs.  Of the archbishops of the last century he is one of the two stars in my opinion.  William Temple was the other.  Did Williams produce a convincing argument?  I think not.  But did he carry the audience?  Certainly yes.

In response, Professor Richard Dawkins spoke in predictably rational terms and explained why truth matters.  He spoke well, but something about the way that he read his notes was less impressive than his usual performance.  It was rather scripted and didn't really come from the heart on this occasion.  But it was worth listening to his words, and I couldn't disagree with any of them.


Then Tariq Ramadan gave an irrational, taqiyyah-laden, rebuttal.  His message seemed to me to include:

• You need me (is that a threat?)
• You're being dogmatic (so what?)
• We know more about humanity (how?)
• I reject your criticism of my religion's attitude to women (and I reject that!)
• You say religion is backwards looking (and would be right to do so)
• We are better at talking about morality and ethics :)
• And you should welcome me to the discussion.

Well - you should welcome ME to the discussion too, and I have as much right to claim that as you do - but it doesn't get me invited.

After some interesting questions from the audience - mostly non-theistic in their background - Dr Arif Ahmed delivered a crushing conclusion on behalf of the proposal.  (Starts at 1:10:30)  Responding to a question about what he would take as evidence he replied in two parts:

1. A valid argument with true premises, from which the consequences follow, or
2. Empirical evidence

Addressing another well spoken, although pompous heckler, who used the age old argument that correlation does not imply causation, he expertly quipped:

Nobody denies that correlation does not entail causation, but everybody who knows anything about it knows that correlation is evidence for causation, which is what I was claiming.

But in spite of being aspirationally righteous, the debate was always going to go to the opposition.  It might have been framed differently if it referred to the 22nd century instead of the 21st, but it is already too late to claim that religion has no place in the 21st century.  And the final speaker, Douglas Murray won the day.  Murray is an atheist and long-term opponent of the speakers on his own side, but still he joined with them to oppose the motion.

Having rightly dismissed Alain de Botton's ridiculous writings he went on to say about religion:

Is it true?  No!  But truth is like water.  It needs a vessel to carry it.

Like all analogies this it a little deceitful, but metaphorical presentations are always more convincing than things that are merely true.  As he said, no rational person can agree with the proposition - however much they may wish it were true.

And I will be loking out for interviews with Douglas Murray in future.

Emergency entrance!

How's your French?  I was surprised recently to pass the office of one of my Swiss colleagues and see this sign.

Entree de Secours - emergency entrance!

If you travel in Francophone countries at all you will probably have noticed signs saying 'Sortie de secours' - meaning 'Emergency Exit'.  So this sign for an emergency entrance is both humorous and delightful.  It suggests that if you need help you have come to the right place.

Small note:  The gentleman concerned in invariably helpful too.

Superfluids

Think of a fluid with no viscosity.  In other words it is perfectly runny and if you stir it to start it rotating in a beaker it will spin for ever.  Literally for ever! 

This same magical fluid can also climb up the walls of the beaker containing it, run over the top and down the outside, to drip off the bottom.  And to cap it all, it transfers heat perfectly well too.

Surely this fluid doesn't exist.

Well, surprisingly it does!  It was well studied by Jack Allen at The University of St Andrews.  It is called a 'superfluid' and the best known example of it is liquid helium (specifically helium 4 rather than the lighter isotope, helium 3).  'Normal' liquid helium has a boiling point 4.2 degrees above absolute zero, or as we describe that temperature on the kelvin scale it is at 4.2K.

However, if you cool this liquid to below 2.2K it changes into a new form.  It still looks like an ordinary colourless liquid (and yes it really is possible to photograph things that are this cold if you do it carefully)  but it now has the amazing properties described above.  The embedded video shows you enough that you might want to investigate the subject further.  I hope you will.

Thank goodness water doesn't have these properties.  Imagine if your nice hot cup of tea could escape from its cup and drip onto your legs.  Ouch!

Small note:  In memory of my friend Bob Mitchell who died last year.  Bob was a key member of the team of cryogenic experts who first filmed the effects of superfluidity for Jack Allen, at St Andrews University.  He also inspired the first part of my career, working with superconducting magnets and cryostats, and as luck would have it, he was the customer on my first cryogenic system installation .

Fill your tyres with nitrogen

Did you know that some people claim that there is a special benefit to be gained by filling your tyres with nitrogen instead of air?

Why could that be?

The gas inside a tyre is only there for one purpose - namely to keep the tyre from going flat (and specifically flat at the bottom as it is rare for a tyre to go flat at the top).  The right pressure ensures that the correct area of rubber is in contact with the road and takes up some of the vibration from the uneven surface. 

Air is 78% nitrogen already, and all but 1% of the remainder is oxygen, so what might be the advantage of going for a gas that you have to pay for instead of free air?

Nitrogen is very slightly lighter than air, so the 'moment of inertia' of the whole wheel might be reduced, but only by an unnoticeable amount.  Nitrogen is dry whereas air contains a little moisture which might condense into a tiny droplet or two of water.  So what?  Certainly corrosion of wheels isn't such a massive problem.  When did you last see a wheel rusted away from the inside.  Why could that possibly be worse than the constant attack of the atmosphere on the outside of the wheel?

Some claim that oxygen molecules are smaller than nitrogen so it diffuses more easily through the rubber allowing the pressure of the tyre to vary from optimal more quickly.  This is plain wrong.  Oxygen is bigger and will diffuse more slowly (albeit not much bigger and not much more slowly).

It is also plain wrong to claim that oxygen expands and contracts more if the tyre temperature changes.  Anyone claiming that is unaware of the 'gas laws' -  basic physics taught to 15 year-olds.

There must be only one explanation for the recommendation to use nitrogen in tyres.

Profit!

Surely it just another way to extract money from the gullible.

Small note: Or have I missed something else?

And yes - we really do spell the word tyre with a y in UK English.  

Contaminated by halal!

In the news this weekend, we hear that there is outrage that some of the supposedly 'halal' food provided to Muslim prisoners in the UK includes traces of pork.

Well . . . what might we all think about that?

First of all, since I'm paying for that food, to maintain a healthy and humane lifestyle for those who have been convicted of crimes serious enough to warrant imprisonment, I would like to know that it has not imposed additional costs in its production.  I would like to see this humanity extended to the animals who are involved in the process and as a matter of principle I object to being involved in deliberate cruelty to animals in order to satisfy the savage iron-age whims of a minority.

Secondly, call me insensitive, but I think the UK has bigger fish to fry than to worry about whether a trace quantity of pork is found in the food provided free to our prisoners.  It almost makes you wonder what real news is being hidden by this mock outrage.

After all, Muslims are specifically permitted to eat food that is not halal if their lives are at risk as a consequence of not eating it.  If they are in prison, their lives would certainly be affected if they were not being fed free of charge.  So it works one way when convenient, but not the other way whenever they have an opportunity to claim their status as victims.

I'm much more bothered about another outrage though.  I'm very concerned about my own ethically sourced food, produced in a way that is actually required by legislation to minimise the suffering of the animals that we eat.

There appears to be a good chance that my food is contaminated by meat that is classified as halal, because the barbaric Islamic practice of slaughter produces more meat than the halal market requires.  For some odd reason, Islamic slaughterhouses are not required to prove that all their produce goes into the Islamic market.   They can kill as many animals as their capacity allows and send it out to other markets willy-nilly.

This is the real outrage!  Halal slaughter should simply be banned in all civilised countries - NOW!

Anthony and Cleopatra

Anthony and Cleopatra were found dead in a locked room.  A broken bowl was found on the floor next to them.  Can you explain what might have happened?

This was the riddle posed to me this afternoon over a cup of tea by a friend in Oxford.  It is a test of our mastery of Theory of Knowledge, and I think I failed predictably.

Leave your attempts at an answer in the comments below.  I'll publish the solution in a day or two.

********

Update 3rd February.  See the answer in the comments below. Well done DS and indeed AK.

Revenge

Rats get revenge on cats?

Dinosaur over the cuckoo's nest

I heard a story about the billboard outside a cinema in 1975.  They pasted up the poster for the Disney movie One of our Dinosaurs is Missing . . .

One of our dinosaurs is missing - Disney

. . . and underneath it there was this amazing and amusing coincidence . . .

One flew over the cuckoo's nest - was it a dinosaur?

Apparently, one of them flew over the cuckoo's nest.

Thermodynamics of Hell

You sometimes see amusing explanations using science to demonstrate that heaven is actually hotter than hell, or that hell is endothermic or exothermic.  (Don't let those words put you off reading further!)

But what about the concept of the eternal existence of hell?  Is it even a possibility that eternal torment can be maintained?

The second law of thermodynamics seems to suggest that it is not possible. It uses mathematics to describe the way that hot things cool down and that the universe will end its days uniformly cold and lifeless. 

Of course maybe hell is not in this universe but in one where our laws of physics do not operate.  And just in case you get too excited about this, bear in mind that it might take trillions of years to ensure that hell is cold enough to be comfortable.

So that leaves us with one of the usual quandaries. 

Even if hell exists in some non-physical sense, what kind of merciful god would sentence someone to torment for a mere trillion years just because of the sins that they committed during an adult lifetime of a few decades?

Would you worship a god like that?

Epimenides brings a paradox to the bible

Those who claim the infallibility of the bible might not have noticed something hidden in the book of Titus.  It is a version of a paradox attributed to a Cretian called Epimenides.  It is said that he made one immortal statement:

"All Cretians are liars."

As the Wikipedia article says, a paradox of self-reference arises when one considers whether it is possible for Epimenides, as a Cretian to have spoken the truth. 

In the book of Titus it appears in this form:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Titus 1: 12-13 (Authorised Version)


So are people from Crete always liars or is this one telling the truth?  When verse 13 says that this witness (evidence) is true, which part is true?  They can't both be true can they.

It seems that the Epimenides Paradox was regarded as a bit of a joke in the first century, and it is surprising to find a joke in the bible, even if when one is quite well hidden from modern eyes.

Over-rated champagne?

Do you like champagne?  It is not fashionable to criticise it, but it seems to be used a little bit too frequently at celebrations, major or minor.  I'm not (necessarily) suggesting that it is too frequently from the point of view of the taste but too frequently because it is sold at a premium price.

There is a Yorkshire word that is rarely used outside the county - and I don't really know how to spell it . . .

Thoyle

. . . or something like that (as I have never seen it written down) has a specific and distinct meaning.  It means that its not that I can't afford something, but I just don't think it is worth that much money.  If it was in more common usage I would be very pleased, and it would have application in many situations.

Madame Bollinger apparently disagreed - but then again it must have been more cheaply available to her.  Anecdotally she said

"I drink champagne when I'm happy and when I'm sad.  Sometimes I drink it when I'm alone.  When I have company I consider it obligatory.  I trifle with it if I'm not hungry and drink it when I am.  

"Otherwise, I never touch it - unless I'm thirsty."

The small matter of orientation - that's solar panel orientation

I have been thinking about installing some solar panels.  Now obviously if you are installing them on a building, it is easy to see that mounting the panels to face in some directions would be better than others.  In the Northern hemisphere, pointing the panels in a generally southerly direction is obviously better than a northerly direction.  At a particular time of year it might even be possible to find the optimum angle.

However, on a movable structure - namely a boat - it would be much more difficult to choose the best direction.  On any day of the year the boat might be facing to the North, South, East and West at some time of the day.  That could leave you constantly worrying about setting your panels to produce the largest amount of power.  This is something that I don't want to bother with.

The one direction that you can always guarantee to point to, with reasonable accuracy, is UPWARDS!   So I have been wondering whether this is could be the best compromise.  Obviously it is not the very best in ideal conditions, but from the point of view of a pragmatist who wants a tidy roof and the least possible bother, would this be a silly choice?

It seems not.  According to this site, pointing vertically upwards will lose 10% of the optimum energy collection (in the UK at least).  At lower latitudes that loss would obviously be reduced.  A mere 10% loss is much better than pointing the panels in completely the wrong direction for a lot of the time.

Now the only problem is that England is often rainy.  A flat panel will collect water.  How much shall I tilt the panels to keep them clean and relatively dry?

Forlorn snowmen

As the big thaw hits the south of England, I came across a slightly melancholy sight . . .

Forlorn and melting snowmen in the school playing field

This is a photo of the remains of a crowd of snowmen in the school playing field in East Hagbourne, Oxforshire.

Children drive parents to distraction!

Are the children of this century harder to deal with than in the last?  I doubt it.  I suspect that children have always pushed the limits and made life difficult for their parents.

My mother says that I didn't (although I don't think I really believe her).  Perhaps that demonstrates a flaw in my character, or in her memory (or mine).

I suspect that my de-conversion from Christianity to determined atheism hasn't even affected her view on that topic.  She will never be an atheist, but I'm sure she understands why I have arrived in this state.

I observe other parents of today struggling with their own children and I sometimes want to reassure them with a classical quotation.  How about this one?

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannise their teachers." -- Socrates

So it is not a very new problem then!

Snowmen guard against flooding . . .

The radio woke me this morning, as usual, and in a state of half sleep I heard a news story that the UK Government was asking people to build snowmen.

Well of course, by the time I was fully awake (a few hours later!) I started to wonder whether I had imagined it.  But no!  I hadn't.  Someone really had suggested that the risk of flooding as the snow thaws would be mitigated if some of the snow was in larger, denser heaps, so that it melted more slowly.

Could this make a difference in real terms?  Yes of course -  but only if every family in the country made a few snowmen of the prodigious proportions illustrated here.

Massive snowman - protecting us against flooding!

This glorious edifice was built in Bishops Auckland this week.  It exhibits impressive proportions!

Otherwise the whole idea is quite risible!

Stridency is the least you should muster!

Richard Dawkins sometimes seems to rejoice in the way that his critics refer to him as 'strident'.  Shortly before the death of Christopher Hitchins, Dawkins interviewed his fellow 'horseman of the apocalypse'.

He told Dawkins in the interview:

“You have a discipline in which you are very distinguished. You've educated a lot of people; nobody denies that, not even your worst enemies. You see your discipline being attacked and defamed and attempts made to drive it out.

“Stridency is the least you should muster . . . It's the shame of your colleagues that they don't form ranks and say, ‘Listen, we're going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements.’”

Well said - of course!

One small thing that I can claim is that I frequently defend Dawkins against the way that he is mis-represented.  Religious family members might not like him, but they can't, in all honesty, use stridency as an excuse.

You can read more at this link.

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.

Satellite dishes everywhere

Some people refer to satellite dishes as 'architectural acne'.  And however useful these dishes are in these days of widespread competition in the TV market, I find it surprising and amusing to discover them attached to trees and posts next to the waterways that cross the English countryside.

Satellite dish on firm ground - Kennet and Avon Canal

If you want satellite TV on your boat, perhaps it is wise to fix the dish to 'terra firma' at your mooring.

Long live free will!

My friend Steve Zara has recently become involved in an online 'debate' with Jerry Coyne about free will.  As you might remember, I wrote a blog post about the role of Determinism and Chaos in free will, a few months ago.

It seems to me that Jerry Coyne puts up a bit of a straw man when arguing against Jim Al-Khalli's view of free will.  Al-Khalli hardly touches on the question of dualism, at least in the sections quoted by Coyne, and anyway this is all a paper tiger.  (The word is never used in the whole of his article.)

The more serious part of the argument is about how chaos can come to the rescue and actually give us free will without falling into total anarchy.

As I explained in my earlier post, the detailed future state of the universe is not predictable, even in principal.  I gave three reasons to support that idea, namely chaos, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and quantum fluctuations.

Chaos appears to me to be the strongest factor in this.  The other two might not be significant in everyday life, but over a greater length of time they could build up to make a difference.  It might be possible to compute your way out of the chaos conundrum, but by increasing your computing power you only delay the moment of uncertainty.

However, it is important to note that this unpredictability comes in small doses.  Although we can't predict exactly what we might think or do tomorrow, as new uncertainties approach us, we can at least predict what are the more likely trends.  Without resorting to dualism, our minds have an emergent internal consistency which tends to make us act in a way that is consistent with the way we acted yesterday.

This means that chaos and unpredictability make the future uncertain, but without robbing us of our free will they ensure that future trends are likely to be consistent with what we expect.

Long live free will . . .  even if Christians do often use it as an excuse for the atrocities committed by their God!

The Pope blocks Jesus

Another great episode from Jesus and Mo.

I recommend you to visit the site regularly.  There is always a smile to be had.

Restoring the right to insult!

The UK Government has been threatening for some time to introduce dangerously restrictive clauses into Section 5 of its 'Public Order Act', but it seems that common-sense has prevailed after all.

By including the word 'insult' in the act, it made it possible that you might be arrested for calling someone a policeman in the wrong tone of voice.  (And yes - that definitely was the wrong tone of voice in the last sentence.)

The fight against this egregious intrusion into civil rights has been led by the organisation called Reform Section 5, with support from many others including the National Secular Society (NSS).

That the government has backed down on this case seems truly surprising. Yes -  they experienced their heaviest ever loss in the House of Lords, being out-voted 3 to 1, but this rarely seems to make a difference to the barely elected coalition.

Read more about the story on the NSS newsletter.   While you are there, why not consider joining the organisation.

Dogma against alleged dogma - from The Pope

If the pope preaches that agnosticism contains its own dogmas, does that make it an example of someone using dogma to fight another dogma, or is it just a fallacious claim that is unsupportable.

In his January 5th statement, The Pope stated "Today’s regnant agnosticism has its own dogmas and is extremely intolerant regarding anything that would question it and the criteria it employs".

Let's think about that.  Can it logically be true?  If agnosticism is the state of claiming that you can't (or don't) know whether to believe in God, wouldn't the people who are agnostic want to ask questions and wouldn't they be interested in any questions that shed light on the situation?  It is only by a process of discussion that they can get off the fence on one side or another, and surely that is something quite important.

In other words, even more than usual, The Pope is preaching nonsense that is unsupportable by evidence of any kind.

This is another of those cases of Christianity claiming to be the victim, when in fact it is preying on other innocent victims for the sole benefit of the priestly class.  All Christianity works towards this aim, but the Roman Catholic Church's work is particularly egregious.

One also has to ask the question - does the wise old Pope confuse agnosticism with atheism or secularism?  He might perceive all three as threats.  I wonder why he singled out agnosticism.

Perhaps he is even more afraid of atheism and didn't dare to use the word.

A hollow victory - with a wry smile!

The news this week is full of the 'victory' in the European Court of Human Rights of an employee of British Airways, who wanted to wear a cross over her uniform.

What a hollow victory!  She was awarded the magnificent sum of 2000 euros in compensation for her distress.  The size of that award demonstrates that the whole case was risible, and that the judges in the court have a sense of humour after all.  When you consider that every lawyer involved in the long series of court appearances leading to this small 'victory' probably earned an order of magnitude more money than their client was awarded, you have to ask who really won the case.  As usual - it was the lawyers.

Do I care that she won?  Of course not.  That is the basis of secularism.  If she wants to wear a cross over her uniform so that its chain get caught and breaks from time to time I don't mind.  It won't affect my views about her religion (even if I personally feel different about her as a rational being).  

If someone wears a cross so obviously and ostentatiously then I feel that it is open season for people to ask them questions.  They could be practical:

"What does the T stand for?"

or doctrinal

"Do you really believe that the wine turns into the blood?"

or theological, sectarian, denominational . . . or simply logical

"How do you actually know that the bible is true?"

None of those questions would be appropriate with a normal person who did not advertise their point of view using an iron age symbol of torture.

What the news has almost failed to mention is that the other three cases heard at the same time were dismissed.  One cannot discriminate against gay couples on religious grounds or put patients at risk. (I think it was slightly perverse and contra-evidential to assume that hospital managers know anything useful about running hospitals, but we will let that one slip as it is probably true that lawyers know even less about it!)

The strangest thing is that the British Airways case was only won because the airline had tried so hard to reach a compromise.  They had changed their uniform policy in order to appease - and as a result they lost the court case.

Never mind.  Almost everyone is laughing at a militant Christian and it was worth it.

FSM-mobile

It is rumoured that The FSM will be touring a large city near you this year.  However, I'm sure that this is just Catholic propaganda.  Unlike the pope, the FSM would not need four inches of bullet-proof glass for protection!

FSM-mobile . . . Catholic propaganda!

Country Style

Walking in rural England you often reach fences which are supposed to keep animals in a field (or out of it) but to let people pass.  Often there are footboards so that you can step over the fence.  We use the term 'stile' to describe them.

However, across a public path in Hungerford church yard, close to the Kennet and Avon canal, I was confronted by this alternative design.  I had just passed a group of people coming the other way and doubted that they had climbed over it, but it looked just like a fence.

An interesting type of gate (or stile) in Hungerford - closed.

Looking at it from the other side, I found an odd looking post that seemed to have been cut into four sections.

An interesting type of gate (or stile) in Hungerford - closed - from the other side.

And then I realised that the left hand post sections act only as counterweights, and that the pins through the smaller post were pivot points for the horizontal bars.

When you press the top bar down this happens . . . 

An interesting type of gate (or stile) in Hungerford - open.

and you can step over the fence at its lowest point.  When you let go, the bars rise again under the influence of the weights on the left hand side.

Surprisingly ingenious!  I've never seen one of these before. 

Small but appreciative note:  Thanks to regular reader, Darryl, for pointing out that I had not spelt stile correctly.  I think I have changed the spellings appropriately now.

No large dogs

Just a bit of canal-side graffiti today.

Graffiti - no large dogs!

Someone has added a funny caption.  It made me smile, at least

Small note:  Photo taken at Hungerford, Berkshire. And I did see a dog almost as large as that today!

Canal tunnels

Today I went through the Bruce Tunnel on the Kennet and Avon canal. 

The Bruce Tunnel on the top section of the Kennet and Avon Canal.

This is the view, emerging from the south-east end of the tunnel.  Having done 7 miles and 15 locks today with a crew of two others, I didn't see another boat moving at all. 

Just three more locks tomorrow and I can moor up and relax.  Apparently there is snow coming.

Could Nick Cohen be the new Hitch?

At the National Secular Society's conference last September, Nick Cohen gave a rousing speech entitled "How modern blasphemy works in practice".

In his introduction he included a quote from the late Christopher Hitchens:

“Its not enough to have free speech.  People must learn to speak freely.”

The contents of his speech and accounts of his work lead me to wonder whether he might pick up the mantle that was so tragically dropped a year ago, and the following notes might help you to understand why I suggest this.

A lady had said to him that morning on his journey, “What's the point of the NSS?  You've won haven't you? We're a secular society.”

She was missing the point.  We have a de facto blasphemy law.  It has not been passed by parliament and is not enforced by courts.  It brings with it no right to be innocent until proven guilty and there is no right of appeal. Instead, it is based on the threat of violence.  There is a huge system of self-censorship which overwhelmingly hurts the country. 

Cohen often sees the fear in editors and broadcasters eyes.  If we provoke the intolerant then we put people at risk.  People have now worked hard to develop this whole theory that to insult Mohamed is to perpetrate Islamophobia when in fact it is nothing of the sort.  Those who threaten retaliation are little better than truculent children and we can't expect them to behave as Westerners.

He suggested going back through the great writers in favour of free speech.

Milton's Areopagitica, 1644, pointed out the absurdity of censorship.  What kind of person would want to be a censor?  It certainly couldn't be anyone of talent or they would want to do their own work.  On that basis, anyone who wants to be a censor is unfit to be one.

More recently, The Jewel of Medina by Sheri Jones strove mightily not to cause offence, and in her version of the story of the life of Mohamed, Jones made him tell his wife to remain with her parents until she had grown up (which probably never happened even if a real Mohamed actually did exist, for which there is absolutely no historical evidence).  The book got a $100K advance.   Then in spite of bending over backwards to avoid telling the truth she was accused of causing offence!  Publication of the book was pulled.  A professor in Texas had said “This book is an insult to Islam” so the publisher believed him.  Eventually it was released by a new publisher, whose home was subsequently fire-bombed.  The very fact that someone said the above led to fire-bombing. 

Also everyone is afraid to admit that self censorship exists.  Journalists all like to pose as dissidents in a dictatorship, challenging establishments, transgressing boundaries – normally this is nonsense.  They simply seem unable to acknowledge that certain topics are just off-limits.

One reason why the banking crash came out of the blue was that journalists knew that challenging a city institution costs a lot of money to defend.  But no journalists want to say that they and their editors are afraid of litigation.  Because we can't admit our fear we make excuses. 

Cohen wants to emphasise the importance of at least being honest about being a coward.  The language of the liberal left has been corrupted and turned on its head to accuse people of racism etc.  Many people who use this language are genuinely afraid.

(John Stuart )Mill realised that there were other ways of confronting extremism than the law.  Online public opinion is one way now.  It is not hard to beat a holocaust denier in open argument and if you can't do it you shouldn't be in the business of trying.  It is important to have your answers ready and to make people feel absurd for using silly arguments.

A few hundred years ago you would know that the finest minds in the world, such as Isaac Newton, also had supernatural beliefs as a broad explanation of the world around them.  Now that is no longer possible.  As soon as you reach some level of knowledge you will know that the greatest minds of today do not hold those unscientific views now.  Religion is no longer able to be involved in high culture.  This makes religious people defensive and wary of learning.  Religion now knows itself to be intellectually on-the-back-foot.  Instead it can become ultra-fundamentalist and aggressive.

People don't understand the point of political extremism is that there always HAS to be something to keep their supporters inflamed. 

I think it is time for me to read more of Cohen's work, but first I need to complete reading Hitchens long book of essays, "Arguably"

You say . . . God says . . .

This informative item came up on Facebook recently.  I thought it would be worth sharing.  (Click on it to see a larger version.)

You say this, but God says that!

Things Christians say, part 42: Who are you to question the almighty?

A weekly series of responses to the things Christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte'). 

Who are you to question the almighty?

Piano

That is another interesting question because it leads us in unexpected directions.

Are you saying that nobody should ask questions?  What if the word of God has been misunderstood for all these centuries (as for example it seems to have been in the case of slavery).

If it turns out that some questions are allowed, then how do you decide who is allowed to ask them.  Clergy?  Theologians? Only the pope?  Surely none of those can be called unbiased, and therefore the questions should be asked by the only group of people who are absolutely unbiased about your God and all the other gods.

Atheists should ask the questions.

***

Forte

Having said the above, we might reasonably point out that all the different churches have different approaches to matters of dogma and doctrine.  Are we allowed to ask questions of Christians of the 'wrong kind', (and specifically not of your kind)?  Or should we leave them in their current state of ignorance (as you seem to do)?

And I would like to point out that I definitely do exist.  I'm not sure that the same quality of evidence is available for any god.  Whether your God is almighty or not is clearly a moot point given the amount of suffering in the world.  So your question is really meaningless.

I'm me and I ask questions.  Your almighty is probably a figment of your imagination.


Last episode:  You confuse Christianity with religion
Next: God bless the pope

Annoyed by BBC Christianity

Listening to the morning service on BBC Radio 4 last Sunday, recorded in nearby Oxford, I found myself reminded about the reason for finding church irritating.

That isn't the same as the reason for failing to believe in god - as I think that happened a bit earlier.

The Anglican Church's friendly and pious nonsense is both familiar and annoying.  I got a horrible reminder of the many hours that I wasted sitting in church on a Sunday morning.

I even found myself annoyed (and subsequently amused - as I had been in my school years) by the tone of voice of Canon whateverhisnamewas.  His undulating notes were almost enough to induce sea-sickness.  The content of his talk was typically vacuous and hopeful, and bears little connection to biblical christianity as opposed to another 'nice' religion, if there are any other 'nice' religions.

At least it was traditional, and vaguely lovely, and English.

I prefer my English traditions in other forms these days.

Dolphins attack . . . or do they?

If you were one of these surfers and saw this sight, what would go through your mind?

Dolphins at play - a frightening sight for surfers

I must say that I wouldn't feel comfortable in that situation!

Lichtenberg Figures

I recently came across this fascinating image on Facebook.  It shows the interesting pattern left on the green of a golf course after a lightning strike.

A 'Lichtenberg Figure' on a golf course.

Apparently the crazy patterns are called 'Lichtenberg figures', and if you do a Google search for images of these figures you find some other amazing pictures like this one.

Lichtenberg figure on a man's back - struck by lightning!
(from this interesting site)

A quick glance at the relevant Wikipedia page is also interesting.

See the Northern Lights

I once saw a spectacular display of the Northern Lights and I have always wanted to see them again.

This seems to be the ideal site . . . in a glass topped igloo in Norway.

Igloos with a view of the Aurora

What happens if it snows?  I assume that the view is obscured quite quickly.

How do you draw the curtains though?

Which lands first?

Test your knowledge of basic Newtonian mechanics.

If a marksman fires a bullet perfectly horizontally over a level stretch of ground and at the exact same instant drops an identical bullet to the ground, which of them hits the ground first?

Of course we are all tempted to say that the one that has been dropped will land first, and of course we will all be wrong to say that.  Both should hit the ground at the same moment.

The really surprising thing is that the fired bullet has travelled so far in the short time before it lands.

A site for sore eyes . . .

Conjuctivitis.com is said to be a site for sore eyes.

In more ways than one I think that is true.  From a skeptical and scientific point of view I think it fails to be very convincing.

But still the concept is funny!

Off to the Land of Nod

Many of my well educated readers will know this already, but there is a biblical basis to the phrase 'off to the land of nod'.

As far as I remember, there is nothing to suggest that the inhabitants of this mythical land were particularly sleepy, but then again the book of Genesis is hardly notable for the accuracy or believability of the stories that it contains.

Of course this legendary area to the East of the Garden of Eden is where Cain was sent to after he had murdered his brother Abel.  (Genesis 4:16)

In fact, it seems likely that the people who were sent to Nod had a lot of hard work in front of them.  Having been banned form the Garden of Eden they had to start to work hard to survive.

Maybe that is why they were tired?

Only two countries . . .

Did you know that there are only two countries in the world that do not have laws permitting divorce?

One of those isn't actually a real country, but more of a small patch of Italy which has a special dispensation to avoid paying tax on its obscene wealth.  It is The Vatican.  (It is also the 'country' with the highest crime rate per capita, and that figure even excludes the predatory activities of the priests who the Roman Catholic church has failed to surrender to the proper authorities.)

The other country, perhaps the only real country involved, is The Philippines.

First Cruise!

I bought a boat yesterday, and took it for the first cruise on the Kennet and Avon Canal today.  This is a view from the helm (at the stern (i.e. back) of the boat).

The view from the helm of a 70' narrowboat in a lock at Devizes, Wiltshire.

So far so good!