I had my son's end of year school report yesterday (he is 7 1/2). While he was rated as above average in all subjects (of course!), the teachers were critical in one particular area - something that they had previously brought up with us. They said that he always wants to take time over his work, particularly writing and drawing, and likes to make sure it is correct and accurate before he finishes it. When they first mentioned this a few months ago we took it as a compliment! They felt it that wasn't a good trait and it was far more important to get something finished, however badly, in the little time available while they rushed from one subject to another, rather than spend time doing something properly.
Even at home he will spend hours drawing very detailed pictures or building complex models out of lego. If he gets something wrong, he will scrap it and start over again.
I always thought that attention to detail and the ability to concentrate on one task for a long period were good things. It's bad enough that today's internet culture is giving a generation of children with the attention span of a goldfish - it's another thing when this is reinforced by schools.
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Freedom to be wrong
I'm currently reading "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill and there is one section early on that jumped out at me.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is; that is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
It's that last sentence that I found particularly interesting. The first example that came to mind was of the debate between those who accept evolution and those who believe in a religious version of creation. Does it strengthen the position of a true viewpoint to be tested against a falsehood rather than avoiding the debate? I know Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists because it is not possible to hold a sensible debate based on evidence and reasoned argument against someone who doesn't play by the same rules of evidence and reason. After hearing 'debates' between biologists and creationists who refuse to accept the existence of transitional fossils I can see his point.
I'm wondering if the nature of public debate was really different in Mill's time or whether he was only involved in debates with other educated people. The problem these days is that you don't have to have any understanding of a subject or hold any evidence in order to put your case to a mass audience. Witness the case of the MMR scare where one dodgy study put one side of the case, but there was an overwhelming number of studies that showed the opposite. If you just looked at the mass media, the simple fact that there were two sides to the argument was treated as if both sides were of equal merit. This story just won't go away, Americans are now getting 'advice' on the safety of vaccines from those bastions of the medical profession, Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey, on Oprah.
Was Mills correct that debate between two opposing positions - 'true' and 'false' is a benefit to the side of the truth? Or have we got to a point in society today where the lack of critical thinking and the persuasiveness of the mass media means that 'truth' doesn't mean anything and that any point of view that is put forward on TV must automatically be valid? Also, there doesn't seem to be any real argument - everyone's position is equal, so there is never any reason to be persuaded to change your mind. Without trying to sound like a Monty Python sketch, there's more to an argument than saying 'No, it isn't'.
Was there ever a golden age of civilized debate when, to win an argument, it was enough just to be right?
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
No posts, then some Blasphemy
I've been too busy at work to write any blog posts recently. I have been planning a big post inspired by the book I'm reading at the moment - On Liberty by John Stuart Mill. I wish I had read this book years ago. It's full of ideas that coincide with the way my view on the world has evolved over the years. There was a section early on in the book about why we should be open to debate controversial issues because the truth is strengthened by being compared to falsehoods. I've had some thoughts about why this often doesn't work in the real world. It needs some more work, so watch this space...
In the meantime, I was directed (via Pharyngula) to this funny site of irreverent cartoons. I only had a chance to look at a few random ones, but I liked this one...
In the meantime, I was directed (via Pharyngula) to this funny site of irreverent cartoons. I only had a chance to look at a few random ones, but I liked this one...
Tuesday, 10 June 2008
Spaceplanes
This evening I listened to the latest Guardian Science podcast that contained an interview with Piers Bizony. He was promoting his book How to Build Your Own Spaceship. I haven't seen the book yet, but everything he said in the interview seemed very similar to the work and the opinions of David Ashford of Bristol Spaceplanes. David came to talk to a few of us at work a few years back and gave me a copy of his spaceplanes book. My naive question to him was "If this is such a good idea, why haven't NASA been working on it?". His answer seems to be the same as Piers Bizony. Back in the days of the USA/USSR space race, there was a lot of pressure to get something up in space quickly, so not much time and money was spent on development. The result was that large industries were then built on the old-fashioned rocket technology that came out of this race. The story from Ashford and Bizony regarding why there are no spaceplanes yet is partly the practicalities of an entrenched industry and partly suggestions of a conspiracy theory that I don't think helps their ideas gain credibility.
The claim of people in the spaceplane business (what there is of it) is that, if they had just a tiny fraction of one percent of NASA's budget, they could build a working spaceplane. I'd like to see them get a fair crack to try out their ideas. If there is going to be a spaceplane business in the future, Bristol seems like a good place to have it!
Edit: I found David Ashford's book at work. It's called 'Spaceflight Revolution' and it was published by Imperial College Press in 2003.
The claim of people in the spaceplane business (what there is of it) is that, if they had just a tiny fraction of one percent of NASA's budget, they could build a working spaceplane. I'd like to see them get a fair crack to try out their ideas. If there is going to be a spaceplane business in the future, Bristol seems like a good place to have it!
Edit: I found David Ashford's book at work. It's called 'Spaceflight Revolution' and it was published by Imperial College Press in 2003.
Sunday, 1 June 2008
Machines Like Us I like
I recently stumbled across a website that brings together quite a few of my interests - science, technology, skepticism, articles on life (real and artificial) and evolution. Their people section links to some of the characters I got to know when I was working with Artificial Life. It also features a nice little app that is worth going back to just to check if anything has changed :-)
The weird thing is that Google Ads is obviously getting a bit carried away and missing the website's target audience. A couple of the automated ads that Google put on the site are:
"Atheism against the law? Scientific proof that atheism requires a belief in miracles. "
"2008: God's Final Witness Unprecedented destruction will come in 2008, leading to America's fall. "
I wonder how many hits these sites got from this site?
Machines Like Us is a nice looking site with some good content, but I don't know if it gets visited or updated very often and the forum is a bit sparse. Perhaps I'll have to start stirring them up a bit.
The weird thing is that Google Ads is obviously getting a bit carried away and missing the website's target audience. A couple of the automated ads that Google put on the site are:
"Atheism against the law? Scientific proof that atheism requires a belief in miracles. "
"2008: God's Final Witness Unprecedented destruction will come in 2008, leading to America's fall. "
I wonder how many hits these sites got from this site?
Machines Like Us is a nice looking site with some good content, but I don't know if it gets visited or updated very often and the forum is a bit sparse. Perhaps I'll have to start stirring them up a bit.
Twit
Well, I've signed myself up for Twitter (http://twitter.com/sdhancock), but I haven't quite worked out the point of it yet. Maybe if I had more friends...
or, to be specific, if more of my friends were geeks like me
or, to be specific, if more of my friends were geeks like me
St Tony to save the world
Our late lamented leader, Tony Blair, has now decided to devote his life to faith. He is setting up a new faith foundation that will "attempt to bring religions together to tackle global issues". The first issue will be to tackle malaria.
Blair said "Mr Blair said: "If you got churches and mosques and those of the Jewish faith working together to provide the bed nets that are necessary to eliminate malaria, what a fantastic thing that would be."
(Note to Tony - the other word you were looking for was synagogue)
Maybe there's a point in that you can get access to large groups of people through religious organizations, but, if you really are interested in eradicating malaria, why do you need to drag religion into it? Why not just say you want to get everyone to help, rather than mentioning specific religious groups?
Incidentally, I noticed that Blair didn't include athiests, agnostics, humanists, etc. in his list of people he would try to recruit to his cause. Perhaps he realises that some people do get involved in altruistic charitable work without needing 'encouragement' from religious leaders. Then again, he might be ignoring us because he thinks we are all selfish heathens who would never offer to help and we are all going to hell anyway.
Blair said "Mr Blair said: "If you got churches and mosques and those of the Jewish faith working together to provide the bed nets that are necessary to eliminate malaria, what a fantastic thing that would be."
(Note to Tony - the other word you were looking for was synagogue)
Maybe there's a point in that you can get access to large groups of people through religious organizations, but, if you really are interested in eradicating malaria, why do you need to drag religion into it? Why not just say you want to get everyone to help, rather than mentioning specific religious groups?
Incidentally, I noticed that Blair didn't include athiests, agnostics, humanists, etc. in his list of people he would try to recruit to his cause. Perhaps he realises that some people do get involved in altruistic charitable work without needing 'encouragement' from religious leaders. Then again, he might be ignoring us because he thinks we are all selfish heathens who would never offer to help and we are all going to hell anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)