Art V Science: Personification

No Article, but here's the upcoming gig I keep referring too

Greetings, seasons wishes and merry new year and all that. First December entry, so I thought I'd get into the spirit of things. And why not start with a bit of self-indulgence and talk about my recent talk? Why not indeed.

I recently did the monthly Science Cafe, which was three days ago as I write this. It's a monthly forum for the open discussion of Science ideas and thinking, or just something novel about the field of science that someone wants to talk about. It's all good, and takes place in the lovely cafe-bar at the Gate, not too far from where I live. So far, so good.

I've never done this before, but am currently promoting an upcoming gig (see link above) which is billed as a science-themed comedy night. Now, I am totally aware that this may be a stupid idea. It may all go horribly wrong, it may be the most confusing gig ever, but I don't think it will be. My hypothesis is that it will be great and a novel experience. But I don't know, this gig is in every way experimental, which is somewhat appropriate.

But if I feel this way, and I'm the one who organised it, surely others will have stronger doubts? Curiosity alone may not be enough to get an audience, which is integral to any gig. So, what we need is strong evidence to support the claim that Science can be funny. Unfortunately, I can't provide that. All I can show are my own efforts at this (see what I did there? Self depreciation? It's all the rage). And that's what I was doing at Science cafe. The concept of science being a valid source of comedy most people consider inter sting in it's own right, but I was to put together a semi-talk, semi-routine to both provide a sneak preview of the gig and a talking point for the assembled masses.

It was a good night. The highlight of which was an almost literal personification of the ongoing clash between art and science. Here's my report of the evening, which may differ wildly if you ask anyone else. That's the problem with subjectivity, it's subjective.

Evening began with the first speaker, Science journalist Dr. Toby Murcott, discussing his talk about 'Why Scientists are always wrong, and why it's a good thing'. The main point he makes is that scientific reports can't offer what the media demands as a straightforward yes or no. When a scientist makes the claim that they definitely know something, then they will invariably be proven wrong with further research. Fair point, but I sort of disagree with the 'scientists are always wrong' claim on similar grounds as that in itself is a definite conclusion. Several examples he used could easily be picked apart, and the people I was with didn't really buy what he was saying, finding their own opinions reaffirmed rather than challenged. But that can happen in any debate, so no worries.

My turn then. Went very well, started talking about my background, school, education, tendencies, and my experience at dealing with the general public, always throwing in as many punchlines or humorous anecdotes as I could, most of which worked very well. This was reassuring, as it's always a risk when you try and do comedy in front of people who aren't out for comedy. It can help or hinder. If it's a music night or something like that, it can be annoying as people think you're just getting in the way. Whereas when it's more a whatever you'd define what I was doing as, people aren't expecting to be made to laugh, so it can be more effective.

Did my talk thing, got laughs, people liked, I got given a card, jobs a goodun. Break, then Q and A with me and the first guy. Most questions are aimed at the first speaker, as he made an actual claim that could be questioned/challenged, whereas my talk seemed to result in a more sort of 'fair enough' response. I said science can be funny, effectively demonstrated it, no worries.

During the Q and A, someone mentioned that school seem to favour arts over sciences when teaching. Toby came up with some reasoning, can't remember it now. At this point, our roles seemed to be that of someone asks him a question, he gives a very long answer, I jump in at the end with a humorous observation, move on. I simplified his argument, in what I thought was a clearly jokey manner, by pointing out that schools need high pass levels, and arts are easier, turning to the rest of the room and declaring "We've all thought it, don't deny it!". Much laughter. Followed by shriek of disapproval.

Intense looking middle-aged woman at the back takes exception to my ribbing. She did an arts degree. There followed some back and forth which seemed to kick off a room-wide debate. I will know highlight the main point made and my thoughts therein, and where they deviate from what I said if this occurred.

Arts woman:
"I have an arts degree" (I can't disprove that either way, lets take it as true).

"Arts subjects are just as hard as science!" (I had made no claim to the contrary, it was clearly a joke I thought, but her statement was overconfident, as she has no basis of comparison to test her claims, at best it seems to be based largely on the fact that she found her arts subject difficult but assumed she's equally/more intelligent than most people)

"Anyone could do science if you (an aggressive 'you', meaning all scientists present) just demystified it!" (A bizarre claim. Science, with it's rigid structure, logic, cause and effect mentality and absolute adherence to the laws of nature, where every claim has to be rigorously tested with approved methods and be sanctioned by a group of well informed experts and every published piece has to be explained meticulously, that's mysterious. Whereas arts, a largely subjective medium based on a shared belief system, personal opinion and with no measurable qualities, that's perfectly normal. In fairness, someone nearby immediately replied 'you could say that about arts'. Arts lady attempted to be more precise)

"But you can do arts, and you can't do science. (looks at me) I could get up and do stand-up (she really couldn't, but I was very tempted to let her try) but I couldn't just go and be a neuroscientist if I wanted! (no, she couldn't. This seemed to mean that you have to be a scientist to do science, whereas anyone can be an artist, a claim which normally enrages artists as it cheapens their profession/talent/livelihood etc. She appears to resent the fact that us scientists keep it away from the public. This is clearly just a malicious attempt on our part to keep 'normal' people in awe of us. Rather than, say, some rational attempt to stop the system collapsing entirely. Would you fly on a plain where the pilot was someone who just fancied having a go? I doubt it. Everyone is allowed to do science, as long as they know how things work, and that takes a bit of learning. What do you get if you do 'science' without knowing how things work? Homeopathy, bogus medication and Gillian McKeith, that's what you get).

Me in response
"I don't believe that scientists are any more intelligent than artists overall" (This is true, it's a ridiculous thing to say, like all women are bad drivers, such a sweeping statement can never be true. Plus I've met some incredibly stupid people who are qualified scientists. A scientist invented homeopathy, don't forget)

"I would never claim to be more intelligent than someone just because I'm a scientist" (I wouldn't it's true) Art's lady: You're not more intelligent than me (All evidence to the contrary thus far). Me: That's what I said (in a way). Arts lady: ....

"Science is seen as complex and difficult, so anyone who does it is believed to be more intelligent, but it's just another form of intelligence. You could have someone who's just as good at music as I am at Neuroscience, that would make us equally "intelligent" (I didn't mention the quote marks while talking out loud, but you get the idea) But you ask most people they'll say I'm the smarter one. I have no clue whatsoever as to how music works, but because it's more common, to more people it's not as impressive, that's the only reason scientists are seen as they are. If people can get over this misconception then we'll all be happier." (I believe all this)

This went on for some time, I managed to maintain the moral high-ground by not getting into a slanging match. It was obvious that most people in the room were not on her side, and I was coming across as the more rational, thoughtful, considerate person. it was Obama V McCain all over again (this is what I was told afterwards, not an arrogant self-appraisal)

The sad thing is I believe what I said. She'd turned up to an event called science cafe clearly expecting a dispute and to score some points off the arrogant boffins who think they're so smart, and she was going to get her argument even if no-one was willing to give it. So what we got was the scientist on one side, making calm statements, taking opinions on board and thinking rationally about the claims being made, and the artist on the other side, shouting passionately about their own opinions which made no sense and no-one agreed with but fuelled largely by self belief. Ironic how the person defending the artists was probably the worst possible ambassador. But not to worry, she'll be fine, she clearly was the sort of person who's convinced they've won a non existent argument in spite of all evidence.

But it was a fun night overall. I hope she comes to the gig this Sunday, it'll be a rude awakening. I was being polite and restrained because of where we were. Some of my fellow comics aren't so generous, if she wants to shout her mouth off again she might as well paint a target on her face. So, if anyone's free, anyone fancy walking round an art gallery shouting 'This Is Bollocks'! as loud as possible? See if they show similar restraint?

Technology is Awesome!

Worlds Fastest Masterpiece.

Isn't technology just great? I mean, seriously, its awesome. Right now I'm writing pointless babble on a software generated screen on a household device capable of performing millions of calculations a second and rendering them into visually understandable metaphors for the average human, which is in turn in constant communication with millions of similar devices all over this planet, exchanging data at near lightspeed, and all so people can download porn or illegal movies, chat on MSN, check facebook or read my irrelevant blog.
Which they do, it seems. According to my reports, this blog has been read in the UK, USA, Canada, France, Poland, Australia, Romania and Korea to date. So Hello, Howdy, Hello again, Bonjour, Powitanie, G'Day, Hallo and 여보세요, respectively.
Moors Law dictates that technology is getting more impressive at a greater rate. It used to be War that caused this, as better technology gives you a tactical advantage, and that's still the case, but now it's capitalism that seems to be the greater driver. Anyone who reads Dilbert will know how desperate people who aren't responsible for making it are for the next big technological breakthrough. Its kind of sad in a way, that so much time, energy, expense and effort goes into making something as impressive and compact as your standard mobile phone, and it's largely used by teenage girls to send messages like "Hi babe, C U L8r lolz x ;)".
But when they put their minds to it, Engineers can make things that are technologically breathtaking whilst simultaneously being fantastically pointless. As in the example at the start of the article. So much time and effort put into making something which is at best a laboured metaphor which has very short term use, because once you've seen it... But what about art? What are most works of art if not impressive things that have no use other than to exist? The fact that they were done justifies them, nothing else can be asked of it. Why should technology or science be any different? Well, Art probably won't end up accidentally producing a doomsday device, so there is that argument, but even so.
But still. The only way is up, assuming society doesn't collapse. Technology gets bigger and better, or actually smaller and faster, definitely not bigger and arguably better, depends on what you consider as 'better' I suppose. If you think something that can do more things in half the time is better, then yes. If you think something that can do the job for which it is intended with minimum fuss without breaking down for unknown reasons every ten minutes is better, then maybe not.
But all new technological gizmos must survive past birth. Tomorrow new invention could be the next iPod or the next Betamax. Although do you think the iPod was always going to be called that? My guess it was just going to be the Pod, but on the patent application it was meant to be in italics, Pod, but was written in a hurry by someone who wasn't used to keyboard shortcuts.

That's a real slow burner that one, you might chuckle to yourself later on tonight. Although you probably won't.

In order to balance complaints...

I've been getting some feedback form this Blog lately, which was nice. The general opinion is as follows:

"It's really funny, but way too long".

The only criticism I've received is that it's too long. Also, one person said it gave them vertigo. Seriously. I was oddly proud, but promised to address that.

I apologise for the length of my posts, it's a habit of mine. I admit that 28.3783244 % of people tell me I over-analyse things, and I tend to waffle. I don't really mind, the point of me doing this was so that I could discuss the ramifications of recent science stories. The media often reduces important stories down to the bare bones in order to meet the artificial requirements of brevity, and I think a lot of Science based news suffers for this. And the media we're exposed to today has given people such short attention spans, and I don't think it's necessarily a good thing.

There, that's my relatively brief rant over with. In the interest of fairness, here are some incredibly short commentaries, all with a science theme at least, in order to bring down the average length.

• I have a phobia of dirty toilets, a very bad one. I can't stand to use them, and I pour copious amounts of bleach down my toilet in order to keep it hygienic. I keep hearing about the erosion of British coastal marine life and habitats and the altering pH levels of the sea. This is normally blamed on over-fishing and industrial chemical run off. However, judging by the amount of high strength alkaline I've released into the sewage system, it might be because of me. I'm sorry.

• Scientists often mock artistic people for not understanding our field. But it works both ways. I work in a high profile Psychology building, my wife (an optometrist) works in a brand new state-of-the-art optometry teaching installation. Both of our buildings have extremely expensive art exhibits in the entrance areas. My wife's building's art (multi-million pound, by the way) is a number of sculptures made from glass beads and shapes suspended at eye level by high tension wires. The walls are white. My building has gone more post-modern, with a psychologically calculated interpretation of Dante's inferno, and the assorted monsters within. So we have transparent sculptures that normal sighted people find hard to see in a building for the visually impaired, and a recreation of hell itself in a building which hosts many people who suffer form psychological disorders. Either this is mind-bogglingly short-sighted (two puns there, neither intended) or utter genius, as it'll help us filter out those who are faking it.

• There's a new Alzheimer's drug in development. Very good. It doesn't cure it, but it slows the progression. People still have Alzheimer's related dementia, but it takes longer to get to the point where you lose all cognitive function. Not to sound harsh, but this is possibly the only case where the characteristics of Alzheimer's make it preferable to other diseases. If there was a drug, let's say for cancer, that meant you still suffered the same hideous symptoms, but for longer, I doubt it would be as marketable.

• In order to balance possible insensitivity from my last post, for my final year university assignment, I had to find a cure for Parkinson's. I kid you not. After conducting much research, I did find a mechanism that combined gene therapy, stem cell research and hormonal regulation that may have reduced Parkinson's to a diabetes-like illness. I got 65% for this, which I felt was a bit harsh. Obviously, I didn't have the experience, resources or wherewithal to investigate this cure further. 5 months later I went back to my project supervisor for a reference. He was gone, apparently he'd up and left one day unannounced. Almost as if he'd got his hands on something that potentially could make him rich but didn't want to tell anyone as he'd come by it by illicit means.
  

• The above story is 100% true

• Apparently, the Martian Phoenix lander has had trouble analysing the soil for ice because it's too sticky. The soil stay in the scoop and won't fall out into the analysing oven. Maybe I'm being dense about this, but didn't NASA invent Teflon? And what do we use Teflon for these days?

• Now Bees might be used to hunt down serial killers. Are Alsatians really that hard to come by? I quite like this idea actually, the use of animals with special senses to help solve human problems is not an old one, with rats being able to sniff out tumours or wasps sensing bombs (I'll post links when I find them). But given the fact that, apparently, something mysterious is killing off the British Bee population, and now some of them are potentially being used to hunt down serial killers, I can't shake the feeling that this is going to be made into some prime time drama special one day, where a bumblebee constable goes it alone to track down the man who killed his mate/queen/hive/swarm/larvae. Maybe even a movie is possible. But I'll avoid any jokes about Bee movies. Apart from that one, obviously...

I think that'll do for now.