Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Dawkins. Show all posts

Sunday, 17 October 2010

TAM London Blog: No. 5 – Black-Dawk down.

(8.50 AM, 16th October, TAM venue, Edgeware Road, London )

Right, so, the event kicked off. We piled into the massive auditorium-type place. Well, we queued in an orderly fashion and politely sat down, as this was an early-morning talk about science, rationalism etc., not a Friday night football match between two rival teams with particularly enthusiastic but idiotic fans.

It was well good to find that the Amateur Transplants were providing some warm-up entertainment. I’m a big fan of these guys, and they returned throughout the day to provide sweary medical-based songs as entertainment. At one point I said they were like the TAM equivalent of the MS Office paperclip, only very welcome instead of annoying (It was evening and, more importantly, I was drunk when I tweeted that, so may have come across as me being a prick, but then I don’t need the filter of technology to achieve that).

So, after a few ditties from the AT’s (a lot of acronyms going on here, sorry about that but I have a lot to get through), the event proper began. I won’t be trying to explain or describe the songs, partly because I don’t really have the linguistic skills required to effectively describe music, partly because I’d prefer you to go out and investigate the AT’s yourself, and partly because that even if I was willing to hum or sing a few of their numbers to you, this would be meaningless in text.

Host for the event was Richard Wiseman, who is a professor of psychology. This is worth bearing in mind, as he kept repeating it during and after many of his frankly quite hilarious set pieces and joke bits. I imagine this was said to make the fact that he was clowning around even more intrinsically ridiculous, and for everyone else it no doubt did. But as someone who has worked very closely with high-ranking psychology professors, I’m aware that sanity on their part is a bonus at the best of times. No matter, he was one of the best and most ridiculously over-qualified MC’s I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen loads, you know.

We got a brief welcome talk from James Randi, who I think is a gnome. Granted, he is super-rational, founder of the JREF which was the organisation responsible for TAM, and has dedicated his life to the fighting of pseudoscience and other abuses of rationality and logic.

I don’t care, I still think he’s a gnome. He’s short, alarmingly spry despite his advanced age (82) has an amazing white beard, and does magic tricks; that’s a gnome by anyone’s definition, surely? I didn’t see a pointy hat, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have one. If I was trying to hide the fact that I was a gnome, I’d probably hide my hat and try to convince the human race to be rational and scientific too.

Not saying it’s a bad thing; if anything it’s awesome.

The first speaker proper was Susan Blackmore. I’d not heard much about her before, but the name rang a bell. Turns out she’s that psychologist woman with the mad hair. A very interesting talk was given by her, all about her previous days as an enthusiastic paranormal researcher, hell bent on obtaining empirical proof of the existence of ESP. It’s an interesting tale, not really mine to tell, but I did love the irony of the fact that her persistence and almost fanatical devotion to her goals meant she ended up doing dozens of well thought out and well designed experiments (of many variations), which, despite intense analysis, failed to produce any significant or useful results.

In short, her extreme desire to provide support for the pseudoscientific gave her the exact same experiences as any good scientist (and me) ends up having. See, it is a process, not a ‘belief’. Like respiration. Or cheese.

And she was followed by none other than Professor Richard Dawkins. A lot of people just say ‘Richard Dawkins’. I always include the ‘professor’ because it seems weird without it, especially having seen him in person now.

I learned a lot from Prof. Richard Dawkins, the militant atheist. For a start, I learned that militant actually means softly spoken and polite and reasonable and well-thought out and ever so slightly exasperated. You know, like a terrorist or something. He may have had an AK47 slung over his shoulder, but I think that would have spoiled the lining of his tweed jacket, so I doubt it.

His contention was that evolution as a subject should be taught as a new ‘classic’, as Latin and Greek were taught, under the argument that they gave you a well-rounded and useful set of skills with which to function in the real world. He said that the study of evolution offers this in a much more comprehensive (and genuinely useful) manner.

People say that Dawkins is a one-trick pony when it comes to evolution (Well, they’ve tweeted it to me, so I think that counts). In his defence, it does seem to be his area of interest/expertise, so I’m inclined to let him off on that one. He did make some mocking jokes about those educated in the classics. This could be seen as elitist, and maybe it is. It’s also fun, sorry to say. I’m sure it works both ways.

It was interested to find that there are two types of evolution, Neutral evolution, where most of the changes that occur on the molecular level are of little or no consequence (a controversial theory), and punctuated equilibrium, which believes that most of evolution occurs in small groups while the bulk of a species remains constant (also a controversial theory). Anything evolution-based is controversial, it seems.

He also used phrases like ‘if you mate with an animal’. It’s probably a holdover from enduring too many Welsh stereotypes, but that phrase caught my worried attention. I tried to figure out if it was a subtle dig at me, but I think that was just me being egomaniacally paranoid.

I think everyone thoroughly enjoyed Dawkins’ talk, a lot of people were clearly there to see him. I think that’s one of the alarming ironies about Dawkins; he engenders this unrelenting devotion to his views and people are often very unwilling to hear him criticised, which is much more akin to religious leaders and their kind. I don’t think he would like that, even if it did mean more book sales for him...

E-mail: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

StumbleUpon.com

Thursday, 14 October 2010

TAM London Blog: No. 1 - TAM-A-Gotcha!

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening/Why are you still awake? (delete as appropriate).

This Blog is a bit of a special one, for a few reasons.

Firstly, this is my first blog written as an actual, fully qualified no-going-back Doctor of Neuroscience, rather than a 'you can say you are one as long as it's not for anything official' Doctor of Neuroscience. The latter is what I have been for 11 MONTHS! That's nearly a year, for those of you with different calenders. The normal turnaround time is 12 weeks. Not Months. Weeks. However, my examiners decided my thesis was 'too concise'. In other words, I didn't put enough meaningless waffle or conjecture in it.

Those of you who read this blog regularly are probably having trouble believing the claim that something I wrote would be insufficiently long winded. And you'd be right. My original draft was much bigger than that submitted, but my supervisors (both Professors, both extremely highly respected and experienced in the field, and both deserving of actual decent PhD students rather than dross) recognised my witterings for what they were (i.e. pointless babble) and told me to take it out.

My examiners felt otherwise and said I had to put the waffle back in. Well, they said it needed to be 'longer with a greater degree of discussion about all results and experiments, not just those with a useful outcome'. Odd that they would want more information about things that have no scientific merit, my guess is that they're secretly climate-change deniers.

Anyway, I was given an extra year to do my corrections, rather than the standard 12 weeks. I did them in 12 weeks anyway, because that's the kind of guy I am. I duly sent them back in, and waited.

And waited


And waited.




And waited.






They finally replied. They wanted more corrections. Turns out the corrected corrections weren't correct enough. So I did those as well, even a lot of them were corrections which were actually made the first time round but not noticed, it seems.

More waiting.

Now it's done. I'm one of them doctors now, for real. I've been able to say I'm a doctor since my Viva, last November (LAST! NOVEMBER!), but not on anything official, like passports, bank cards. just unimportant things that most people wouldn't see, e.g. Business cards. And blogs.

But anyway, to celebrate the occasion, here's a little announcement. It's not so much a revelation of a closely guarded secret as something I've forgotten to mention before now. But anyway, here it is.

For the next few days, I will be tweeting/blogging live from The Amazing Meeting, TAM London.

This is a very prestigious and high-profile event, which features the cream of the skeptic and scientific communities from both sides of the Atlantic. Check out the website for full details.

A lot of people will no doubt be reporting from this. For example, the official Blogger is Martin Robbins of the Lay Scientist, reporting for the Guardian, and there will no doubt be many others. Look them up.

I'm unlikely to provide any reports from the event which will be insightful, thought provoking or inspiring. Odds are, it'll mostly be just me taking the piss, albeit inadvertently. I'm not a professional reporter or journalists, but on the other hand I can't be sacked from doing this blog, so hopefully I can make it more amusing than others, as I have the freedom to do so.

The thing is, I'm still not really sure what TAM is. It's obviously a meeting/conference of some sort, but to what end? Is there an opportunity for Q&A? DO you have to pick which talk you're going to, like at some of the conferences I've been to? Or does everyone sit there and watch, like some obscenely long stand-up gig?

Then there's the ethos of the thing. A lot of people are going, and everyone's very excited about it, saying it's the best thing ever and no mistake. Other people site the expense and say it's a bit elitist, a bit pointless, just a massive back-slapping session for smug rationalists. I'm paraphrasing there, but that's the gist of it as far as I can make out.

I have no idea which it is, but I'm going to assume it's very good, because I can be optimistic on occasion. However, if TAM London does turn out to be some celebration of smugness as some claim, then I shall make it my mission to be the first person forcibly thrown out of it. How so? Well, my preferred method is the 'accidental upset' technique. There are many famous people who are scheduled to speak, and every chance our paths will cross. How offensive can I get without them actually taking offence? It's quite a gamble at TAM, or TAMble if you like. So, should the opportunity arise, I will endeavour to say the following questions to the skeptic illuminati.

Feel free to do the same if you're there and fancy a TAMble of your own.

RICHARD DAWKINS/P.Z. MYERS:

- Which one are you the Pope of again?

- If evolution is true, how come people don't have wings? *

- Would you like to come to my child's christening when I have one?

- Don't worry about it, a lot of people didn't like Jesus in his time either.

- Will you sign my Koran?


BEN GOLDACRE:

- How come Gillian McKeith makes more money than you?

- Do you use Loreal?

- I saw you drinking water just now, I thought you didn't believe in Homeopathy!

- My friend said he went to university with you. He doesn't like you, but wouldn't say why*

- Will you sign my Koran?


STEPHEN FRY:

- Aren't you the guy who was in the lift that time?

- Interesting talk. Are you on twitter, by any chance?

- I really liked your book, can I get you to sign a copy? I don't have it with me, it was a library book, can you just sign one and send it to me?

- You're such a British icon, would you consider campaigning for the BNP?

- I enjoyed that debate you did about Catholicism with that Widdicombe bloke. I sensed a spark, is there something going on between you two?

- You're bigger than you look in 'House'.

- Will you sign my Koran?


GRAHAM LINEHAN:

- I like your tweets, they're funny. Have you considered writing comedy?

- How come they stopped making Father Ted? Was it the child molesting thing?

- You're my second favourite funny person after Peter Kay.

- Will you sign my copy of Flanimals?


JAMES RANDI:

- If I accurately predict that you won't give me £1,000,000, can I have it?

- This event is the result of your foundation isn't it? Do I give my expenses form to you?

- Will you sign my Koran?

ALAN MOORE:

- Loved you in Lord of the Rings.

- Which move adaptation of your work is your favourite?

- You were in the Simpsons that time. Why?**

- I think you should be ashamed of yourself for ripping off X-Men like that.

- Will you sign my Koran?


I give myself 3 hours, tops.


So yeah, follow my exploits here, on Twitter, and those of everyone else using the hashtag #TAMLondon. Speak soon.

* People have genuinely said this to me

** I genuinely want to know this.

Email: Humourology (at) live.com
Twitter: @garwboy

StumbleUpon.com

Social Network sharing gubbins