Another video post

For those of you who can't stand my 'relaxed' attitude to grammar and correct wording, and my seeming obsession with ''''''''apostrophes''''''''', here's some of my irrelevant thoughts/musings in video form.

"Dear Antivaxxers, from Science" (No. 8)

Needs doing, might as well kick them when they're down.

(N.B. Some anti-vaccination protesters may indeed be otherwise pleasant, rational people undeserving of scorn or ridicule, but I'm not going to start making detailed exceptions. Some people have complained to me that this sort of generalisation is unfair and non-scientific so I shouldn't do it, completely missing the point that that's why I do this. Science being non-scientific is pretty much the theme of this series. If anyone else feels slighted or upset by the generalisations I've made, that you feel unfairly cast you or your chosen profession/beliefs in a negative light then send me a self-addressed jiffy bag and I'll return it full of good feelings, to replace the ones I've hurt)

"Dear Antivaxxers

Hello, how are you? This might end up being a bit confusing, as I'm the personification of the abstract concept of Science, and as such don't really exist, whereas when I say 'antivaxxers' I'm referring to the sum of individuals who collectively oppose the use of vaccination on the spurious and completely contradictory grounds that they're damaging to health.

I'm pretty sure you aren't part of one international organisation, but I'm lumping you together anyway. Aside from that detail, you do exist in a physical form, whereas I don't, so this letter might be weird for you, especially as it contains actual words and information.

It must be as if Santa Claus wrote to you first. In July. And you hate Santa Claus because he endangers your children (not like the traditional Santa Claus, a perfectly harmless symbol of goodness and generosity that teaches children to appreciate it when a fat sweaty old man in disguise breaks into their room at night bearing gifts, and to be really quiet about it when he does). But I digress.

Believe it or not, this is actually a thank you note. I wanted to say I appreciate it, all the things you've done to help me over that past decade. Not only have you helped me cut my research costs, but you've also opened up new fields of research for me that will no doubt prove very lucrative once I've made some headway, and in these troubling financial times that's nothing to be sniffed at.

For instance, I've managed to trim my research and associated costs by nearly 50% thanks to your shining example. Rather than have my people spend countless hours in labs and clinics, endlessly churning out data and results that might not even give the findings they want, before tediously writing them up then having numerous experts check their findings so that they can ensure the conclusions are appropriate, I've assigned most of them to adopt your approach.

Hysterical nonsensical screaming. Seriously, rather than do all that work to prove their theories about health, I've just got them going out into their street and yelling at passers by, about how if people ignore their theories then the children will be in danger (although with some of the physicists this is coming across as more of a threat, will work on that).

I've even got the paediatricians doing it. I did think that having people responsible for children's health wasting their time by shouting about children's health rather than doing things which were known to improve children's health would be detrimental to children's health, but I just followed your example; keep saying 'children's health' enough and it makes it OK.

Took me by surprise, but I have to admit it gets things done. I've seen a noticeable drop in reports about sick children, which may or may not be related to the fact that I've not bothered taking reports or analysing data for a while, it just gets in the way of all the shouting.

And another nice call on the spokespeople. I've been relying on trained and qualified people to convey facts and information about their chosen field, and it's never worked. If only I'd thought to get some middle-aged female celebrities to tell people what's what. The beauty of it is, they don't even need to be trained! They can talk about anything and people will believe them because media says they should. How ingenious. I only wish I'd gotten hold of some big celebrity spokespeople before Scientology snapped them all up (I'm also thinking of suing Scientology for copyright infringement, but that's another matter)

Either way, I now know in future to use only angry women as spokespeople, seeing as how they interpret every criticism and argument against them as wishing death upon their children, or potential children, giving them the upper hand in every debate even if they're stark raving mad. Maternal anger seems to trump reason and logic every time, I'll bear that in mind.

Also, as I said, thanks for opening new fields of research for me. For instance, I now know that 'harmless' low level or even inert doses of viruses injected from a young age are inherently dangerous, more so than exposure to the full strength virus which a non-vaccinated person is far more likely to succumb to. What an intriguing concept, the fact that tiny doses of measles/mumps/rubella can cause autism but the full-strength viruses don't. Inverse efficacy? I can't explain it. But I agree, can't be having children getting autism, much better they die of an easily preventable disease. Think of the children!

Unless you're one of those people like I implied Santa Claus, in which case do anything but think of the children.

And well done on exposing Big Pharma. That brute needs taking down a peg, admittedly. I mean, I thought I understood how business worked. I was wrong (you may be unfamiliar with this phrase, but just look it up). You revealed that Big Pharma is selling harmful/ineffective vaccines purely for profit. I would have thought that it would have been a major marketing mistake for a business to maim/kill potential customers, but I guess I was wrong. Toyota seem to agree. If I can work out how this is the case, I could make some serious money from it. Killing customers is a valid marketing strategy? I can't wait to ride the Disneyland Decapitator (The Decappiest place on Earth!), or enjoy a delicious McDonalds Cyanide burger. Mmm, lethalicious! I'm lovin' it! (For about 6 seconds)

So yeah, thanks for everything you've done, I appreciate it.

Love and Kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. You might want to watch where you tread, I dropped a vial of smallpox the other day, can't seem to find it. I'm sure it'll be fine, though

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy

Bad Astronomy

As mentioned in previous post, this humble blog got bigged up in Bad Astronomy today

Here's the page

No reason for that link, apart from giving my regular readers (many of whom are German, for some reason*) an idea as to why there's been a lot more traffic to this site, if they'd picked up on it. It just links back to here anyway, but that means that with a bit of luck we might be able to trap some spambots in an infinite loop.

Back with more letters soon

DJB

* = I mean, I don't know the reason why my blog has proven particularly popular with German people, the reason they ARE German is most likely due to being born and/or living in Germany

Email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

The Science Letters: Feedback (No.1)

Right

This is me writing now, not 'Science'. After a recent shout out via Bad Astronomy, I've noticed an increase in readers orders of magnitude beyond what I usually get. Hello all.

As a result, several points have been raised, which I will try to address now.

1: APOSTROPHES
Admittedly, I do use apostrophes quite excessively. Just a bit of a blind spot, I suppose. Not sure if this is a genuine attempt by people to get me to raise my standards (if so, cheers!) or if I've got a case of the mythological grammar Nazis. Just a note to point out that Science and grammar don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, they differ on many things. The meaning of the word 'colon', for example...

2: MR SCIENCE?
This has been raised previously, and I'll reiterate it here. Yes, I do write from the point of view that Science is male, despite the Latin feminine nouns. And before any militant feminists scream about arrogance, I do this purely because I am male, and no other reason. I also assign genders to other concepts according purely to what makes the letter read better, and may easily change my mind in later pieces. I wouldn't want to do it any other way, as whereas I am confident enough to write as if I were the living embodiment of the totality of science (encompassing all of mankinds information, study and research into the universe past, present and future), I would never be presumptuous enough to write as a woman. I know my limits.

3: ASTROLOGICAL MISTAKES
I'm aware that the Dear Astrology letter contains several 'mistakes' regarding astrology, in so far as you can make mistakes regarding a completely created system. I know Pluto is still there, but do astrologers? I'm trying to rail against things based on the perception of them in modern culture, as people always do with science. Meticulously researching the thing I'm addressing and making sure to avoid inaccuracies would sort of defeat the point of what I'm doing. That's what scientists always do, I want to show what it could be like if science behaved in a similar manner to it's detractors. Bare in mind, I've had an extensive reply from an astrologer, doesn't look like logic is their strong suit.

4: EXCEPTIONS
I do tend to do a lot of generalising, this isn't necessarily accurate when applied to things that aren't pseudoscience. This is purely for ease of writing/reading. Not all journalists/media platforms are idiotic trash dispensers, not all advertisers are soulless bullshit merchants, not all Apple products are pretentious. I could be more specific in my ill-informed rants, but that would lose the impact somewhat. Don't take it personal, unless you actually are a homeopath or the Pope, in which case I apologise for nothing.

5: SCIENCES QUALIFICATION?
Yes, I put BA hons whenever I sign off as 'science'. This is meant to be a joke, obviously. I just find it very amusing, the irony of the living embodiment of science actually having an arts degree. Maybe it's just me?


Think that's about it for now. Have I missed anything? Just comment or message if so. Will see if I can sustain people's interest into next week.

email: Humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear 'The Pope', from Science" (No. 7)

Had to be done, really

Dear 'The Pope'

Is that accurate, calling you 'The Pope'? I think the word is Pontiff, but whenever I try to write that I keep saying 'Pointless', which I know would upset you, as you don't usually like it when I say things which are accurate.
It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. I doubt you'll read this, you've never read any of my previous works. Even though we both have a tendency to use big Latin words in order to confuse people, I don't think we share similar reading preferences. My books tend to include figures and graphs, not so much stonings and miracles.

Also, I know I never said thanks for agreeing that the Big Bang theory is accurate, but having you agree with me actually undermines my argument more than anything, so would you mind just not getting involved from now on?
Actually, that was the last one wasn't it? Or was it several Popes ago? It's hard to keep track of you guys. Are you a Time Lord? Or is it one of those 'Dead Man's Shoes' situations? Or 'Dead Man's sacred ruby slippers', or whatever the hell those things are.

Anyway, to the point. You've been saying that having your people legally obliged to admit homosexuals violates 'natural law'? Say what now? What do you mean by 'natural law'? The laws of nature, which usually involves being killed and eaten by a superior physical specimen. I know some Gay people like to work out, but what do you think they'll do to you? Bring you down like a Gazelle and gnaw on your carcass? Although a potentially amusing scene, that's not what Gay people do. Any of them (despite your propaganda)

I ask because 'natural law' sounds like something that's under my jurisdiction, not yours. You take care of spirituality and all that, I'll take care of the laws of nature. And everything else of any use and importance.

I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about physics, I really can't see a law enforcing human rights violating the fundamental rules that govern space time. Are you suggesting that this policy disrupts biology? That the instinctive revulsion you feel towards homosexuality is natural, ergo attempting to suppress it is a violation of 'natural law'? Fair enough, so the suppression of natural inclinations is fundamentally wrong? Said the Pope? The POPE! A Catholic would be bad enough, but the POPE! From what I hear about what some of your lot get up to with the choirboys, they clearly agree with you.
I'm impressed in a way, you do set yourself some incredible challenges. I'm trying to save the planet, determine the fundamental structure of all reality and provide unlimited clean energy for all of mankind, but stopping teenage boys from masturbating? I know my limits.

Homosexuality is natural, by the way. This is true, because it exists. If it served no purpose, it wouldn't exist, it's not exactly a hereditary trait is it. If they were, as you say, 'not natural', evolution would have caused them to die out centuries ago. To say homosexuality is wrong is like say evolution doesn't occur!

Oh, wait.... Ah, I see what I did there.

Thing is though, you say evolution doesn't happen, and if evolution is summarised simply as organisms developing over time in order to ensure the survival of their genes, the homosexuality could be seen as counter evidence to this. So homosexuality must be an act of God. So which is it?

Or have I mixed you up with fundamentalists? I can never tell you lot apart. Either way, you're wrong. We all know it, stop trying to dress up your prejudice with nonsense terms you creepy old freak.

You need to relax mate. What you so worked up about? What would happen if you did allow homosexuals into the catholic church? You've been doing it for centuries. I know it sounds bad, the church would end up as some institution where women weren't allowed and all the men hung around together wearing elaborate clothes.

Yeah, sounds awful doesn't it.

Long story short, this anti-gay vitriol is a bit rich coming from a guy who (allegedly), to get his job, has to have his testicles squeezed by another man, in front of everyone.

It's not natural what you do. Ergo, by your logic, you shouldn't do it.

I know there hasn't been much in the way of scientific analysis in this letter, but that's usually a complete waste of time when I talk to you.

Stay out of my yard!

Science (BA hons)

P.S. If having an authority figure telling you what you can and can't do is so wrong, would it be OK if I got back to my stem cell work, and stuff like that? I'll just assume it is, shall I?

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

A reply! "Dear Science, from Astrology" (No. 3a)

Believe it or not, someone wrote a rather extensive reply to my original letter to Astrology.

Although not adopting the anthropomorphic personification viewpoint, it's still an exhaustive reply as to why Astrology is not just equal to but BETTER than Astronomy and science in General. The main basis for his claim seems to be-

1. Astrology is very old
2. It deals with the world beyond physics.

So yeah, not exactly subscribing to the rational viewpoint, but gives you a gist of what to expect.

A particular highlight is

"Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really"

Not really much that can be done with that.

Anyway, enjoy! (Also, latest letter is to advertising. Please feel free to keep the questions, suggestions and feedback coming. Like most scientists, I am dreadfully insecure)

"Hello. I'm ******. I think in old times some people have had knowledge
about the signs of the sky, like the people in India in the Indus valley
culture. They have had knowledge about the two invisible Moon nodes,
which they called Rahu and Ketu. That shows that they must have done
astronomy work. But I don't think, that this stuff is an object of
Neuroscience.



Astronomers? Yes, people called that a sect, they have separated
themselves from Astrology. Now they have nothing but formulas.



All night it is dark; I do not knew what people think about eclipses.



Well, I do not see any cause on the movement of the planets or the Moon.
It is said: "Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause)
and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence
of the first." But to my knowledge no one ever have shown, that the
movement per example of the Moon is caused.



Well, if you prefer evidence over wishful thinking, I think this is a
good idea, but the problem is that evidence is only a word and it is
used for all what seems to be real, but isn't it really. As one can
recognize, the colour of the sky is not real outside, it is, as you may
know a reality in a living consciousness.


If one accept it as true, what seems to be real, but isn't real, he
maybe is on the level of science. This as an big impact, because objects
of time, space, logic, music, harmony, algebra, brightness or colour
can be defined as evident, but not ever observed by the methods of
physics. And if this is to be recognized as true, it makes no different
whether one accept the nature of logic or the nature of a language like
French as true.



Well that are a lot of points you have come up with from your own
individual personal experience, but mostly all is not stuff of science,
but rumour.



I will try to pick your points up.



There are moving objects on the sky (and suns which do not move) like
the planets of our sun system. Relevant for the astrology are only the
moving objects and our sun. The sun is not really relevant, it is the
moving and rotating earth on their way around the sun. Because all
objects have a mass, a moving like an oscillation of a planet with a
frequency is because of the Planck constant an energy [eV] and because
this holds for all interacting movements like the rotation of the earth
surface with peoples, one can be understand, that it makes a different,
whether a body is placed in the east or in the west. Science people know
this effect as Doppler Effect. Because evidence is only to be
recognized, but not to show, like physical forces, and this is accepted
in the logic, in the music, and all other forms of evidence like algebra
or geometry, it is also possible to recognize the core of the language
of astro_logy like other languages. And of course it is no valid
argument, that a logic of a language like French has no evidence,
because it cannot be proved by the methods of physics; only he, who has
learned the language of French or astrology can speak valid scientific
arguments.



Predictions. If you know the astronomical algorithm for the
Earth/Sun/Moon system, you can predict a planetary constellation or an
eclipse of the Sun or the Moon. That is simple, because J. Kepler has
found out the relations of the undisturbed timeless motion.



In the core, astrology do not deals really with predictions of events,
but with the evidence of geometrical patterns (like music), which was
learned from the cycles of the moving objects. These patterns are
connected with the occurrence of a special mentality of born peoples,
which can be learned as evident. It seems like a mirror, that the
planetary pattern mirrors the scope of the mentality and fate of a born
individual, like the identity of the DNA can lead to loads that person
have like the mother or the father. This is not a business of belief,
it is a business of science in that one study evidence relations beyond
the science of physics as the science of natural forces.



As mentioned above, objects of other sun systems as our are not relevant
for the astrology. But if you speak on the delay of light from far
distances, as it is evident also for the force of gravitation that
should rule the planets, one can see, that Mr. Keplers accepted formula
for the undisturbed motion includes not any time delay from
gravitational interaction, and this holds also for objects like Quaoar,
in a distance of 6 light hours one way. With other words this means,
that there is no causality of time or space. Once again this moves a
phenomenon from the interacting physics to beyond the nature of physics
in that area, which is called metaphysics and which is taboo for the
sect of astronomers.


Science. The discussion what science is, is not a scientific discussion,
but a political discussion or a belief war. Like truth no one can
define, no one can define science, because it is not to be shown, but
only to be recognized.



Theories. Your understanding of scientific work is based on your belief
system called 'science' and believes that there are must be theories
first. But this is only your own belief. Nature or the order of nature
exist well without theories, like you can find out the relations of
tunes of a string by dividing the string into other lengths. Like
Pythagoras has taken that, what is, without any theory, and J. Kepler
has taken that up again and have added the relations of integer ratio
numbers by dividing the 2 Pi circle of the ecliptic with its bodies in
harmonic angle distances, which are used as language of the sky since
the old days in India to learn and recognize the own self, there is no
need for a theory. Theories are connected to functions, and functions
are connected with cause and effect. That what is, is no function.



Claims. I think a discussion on claims is not a scientific discussion.
It is a war. I think there is an agreement possible on that, what is
and/or on that what is to be recognized as true. And if this is true,
there is never anything that is in the same time true and untrue. This
means that there is only one nature which is without contradiction.
There are no two truthes posible.



Layman. If one is an expert in Neuroscience, he is not necessary an
expert in Geology or an expert in Sanskrit or astronomy. The rules are
that he, who would discuss competent on a discipline, he must study the
discipline first. This holds for every discipline in science. There are
also rules, that he, who is a laymen to a discipline, hardly can ask
questions with the reason only to fight a belief war, whether temporary
disciplines on universities are superior to the things down in the county.



There is a big phantom power with comedians like you, because in real
there is nothing, that any science is called doing can show, except
physical forces. But beyond, this only finger touching world of truth
called physics there is claimed time, space, truth vs untruth as
essential evidence, but no one of this educated peoples ever have given
a proof for this 'objects'.


Philosophy. I think it is sensible to show the own experience instead of
make suggestions as layman in another discipline. But if this is the
purpose of a layman, I think it is senseless to discuss with on the
level of science. Because there is only one nature with living people,
who knows nothing where they come from or why they live here a fate,
born with AIDS or born to die as child.


Astrology is a tool that helps people to understand the world beyond
physics as this the Chaldeans coming from India 4000 years ago to
Babylon have lived for, as told by Diodor. The sect of astronomers have
nothing; no philosophy about the own consciousness. Empty they come in
this word and empty they leave this world"

That's us told!

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy

"Dear Advertising, from Science" (No. 6)

One for the weekend. "When will it end?!?", I hear you shout. As soon as people stop reading it, I reply.

"Dear Advertising

I'm writing to you on the advice of my lawyers (I have about three). Please pass this message on to Marketing too, as almost all of this applies to him too. To be completely truthful, it wouldn't surprise me if you guys were the same person. I would say "I've never seen the two of you together" to support my argument, but seeing as you're both abstract concepts that's not surprising. But then so am I, so I can write to you and you'd better bloody read it or I'll come and find you.

Rest assured, I'll work out how, what with being Science and all.

Stop mentioning me in your work! Seriously, cut that crap out. We don't work together, I don't endorse you, if anything I wish you'd just piss off and die in a ditch, or some other filth-filled location, I'm not fussy. You make the money for all of Businesses evil henchmen, and they tempt my lot to go work with them on projects which are utterly meaningless. and generally detrimental to society. So to then claim I'm endorsing or somehow involved in the crap your flogging is just like a massive kick in the nether regions. Using my own leg. That you ripped off without asking.

I'll make this even simpler; I don't like you! I have to spend countless hours (on a shoestring budget) explaining to people the fundamental discoveries I've made, and they barely listen. You, however, get millions to spend and all the media exposure you want, and look what you do with it! And what's worse, it ends up making my lot look stupid!

Just to clarify, here's a brief list of things that, despite your claims, scientists don't spend any time researching;

• "What brand of cat-food cats prefer", especially when given a choice of '2'. A non-reasoning animal making an arbitrary choice between 2 options does not provide useful information. No, not even if it was a double blind. Anyway, aren't cats arrogant enough without extensive study into what particular type of reconstituted offal they will deign to consume? This is not a valid use of research funding.
• The design of the toothbrush is pretty much fixed now. A tweak here or there is fine, but one of us could do that on a Sunday morning while waiting for the centrifuge cycle to finish. It's not a series of monumental breakthroughs, as you seem to imply. And electric toothbrushes aren't much better. If you're the sort of person who can't be bothered to move your arm for a minute when cleaning your own teeth then they're screwed anyway, might as well glue a brush to a sex toy and call it good. And don't try the whole '4 out of 5 dentists recommend...' approach either. Dentists are overworked individuals who have to spend all their working lives fiddling about in the mouths of people who probably don't brush; they'd recommend daily bleach gargling if it made their lives easier.
• On a similar note, there aren't armies of scientists and technicians working on the next big development in disposable razor blade technology. It's a simple system, just add 1 more blade to the existing number then triple the price. Then wait until every posing vain idiot has bought one, then claim that, actually, 'the best number of blades on a razor is one more than we thought'. Repeat until disposable blades are bigger than the human face, then say 'oh no, wait, just the one blade is better'. Cycle repeats.
  

Just a few examples there of things I'm not involved with in any great way. But you also need to stop criticising the stuff I am involved with.

I've spent decades working with the food industry to make food more commercially viable, better tasting and long lasting, and then you imply that I'm basically pissing in it? Oh no, now you go and really emphasise 'natural' ingredients. Like what? Arsenic? Sulphur? Magma? Mmm, natural! And everything is natural at some point, before it undergoes processing, as I've not yet cracked the process of creating fresh matter from sunbeams or happy thoughts. Have you? I notice you never stipulate how 'natural' something is in relative terms, which isn't even slightly suspicious, of course.

I genuinely saw a bag of crisps the other day which boasted the claim 'Made of REAL ingredients'. I was reassured, those holographic crisps are never as good, and it's nice to have the possibility that we are all part of the Matrix ruled out by a fried potato snack.

And another thing, stop using my words when you clearly have no idea what they mean! 'High in polyunsaturates'? 'Contains Omega 3'? 'Rich in antioxidants'? You don't have a clue, do you? Why are these good things? Are they, in fact, good things? The phrase 'if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all' has never been one that I've adhered to, so I use my own.

"If you don't have any idea what you're saying, shut your stupid face!"

It's potentially dangerous, too. How many things do you say 'help boost the immune system'? 'Boost'? That must be a good thing, of course. What harm could an artificially increased immune system do? Tell me, are you familiar with the term Anaphylactic shock? I doubt it. But if I'm wrong, and you have discovered a manner to quickly and easily improve someones immune system, could you at least do the decent thing and let me know how? I have some AIDS sufferers who'd love to hear about it, and it would save a lot of time looking for bone marrow.

Speaking of discoveries, isn't it illegal to claim to have discovered something when you haven't? Case in point, that Oil of Olay crap where the secret ingredient is pentapeptides? A string of 5 amino-acids? If this is such an incredible achievement, can you point me in the direction of an organic compound that doesn't have any pentapeptides? Take your time. What does the next miracle cream contain? Revolutionary new 'atoms'? Ooh, wizz-bang!

But seriously, stop it. Stop telling people we're in agreement, stop using my words to confuse them and stop telling them that my work is bad for them.

There is some science to advertising, admittedly. You know how almost every system or process can be boiled down to a series of equations? Here's the equation for advertising.

N = n+1

N = Necessary number of things/services for an individual
n = Number they already posses.

There. That's it. All of advertising rests on this equation. Everyone needs one more of something, be it shoes, computers or level of whiteness provided by a washing powder.Of course, if they obtain one more of whatever it is, N become n. And so it goes on.

If this equation stops, you will cease to exist. I'm working with Maths to try and figure out how to make that happen.

Love and kisses

Science (BA hons)

P.S. That equation also seems to calculate the required number of films about 'Shrek', but I think this is a coincidence

email: humourology (at) live.co.uk
Twitter: @garwboy


N.B. After writing this, was reminded of several instances where advertising has been used as a force for good, such as the Atheist Bus Campaign. I really should have titled it a letter to 'advertising which incorrectly uses science for comemrcial gain', but that would have been quite unwieldy