Scientific cycles?

I've argued before that scientific method is applicable to much more than the subjects of the traditional hard and soft sciences. At least some aspects of history, human geography, social policy and morality are susceptible to empirical research. If you doubt this I suggest you look at the way that Steven Pinker uses data to test Kant's theories in Better Angels of our Nature.

One of the approaches used by would-be theorists is to look for cycles in history. Hegel, Marx and Toynbee all did so with decidedly mixed results. Now Peter Turchin, professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Connecticut, has joined their ranks. Turchin claims that societies show 2-300 year cycles and that just three factors - economic output per head, the balance of labour supply and demand and attitudes to wealth redistribution - are enough to explain social evolution. Indeed, he says that his equations exactly match real wage rates since 1930.

I don't know if Turchin is right but his predictions are quantitative and can be tested. That's science.

Policing: Less is More

All the parties want to "protect front-line policing", see for example this. It seems that everyone wants more policing. But why?

Crime in the UK has been falling for over ten years.  It’s long been known that this is not primarily due to either policing levels or policing tactics. Many explanations have been suggested but there’s now a growing acceptance (articles in Mother Jones and the Guardian) that the real cause of the decline may be the removal of lead from petrol.

Lead is a poison known to damage children’s brains. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that is causes dyslexia and problems with impulse control – the very problems that underlie much crime.

Of course we’ll need a police force for as long as there is crime; and that’s probably as long as there are human beings. Human society demands a balance between individual initiative, even greed, and social responsibility. We don’t always get this right either as individuals or as societies and when individuals get it wrong we need laws, courts, police and, sometimes, prisons.

Enemies of science

Last night (May 9th) Prof Richard Evans gave the annual Sense About Science lecture. Prof Evans, a historian, is the first non-scientist to give this lecture.

Prof Evans told the stories of six epidemics, four of cholera plus AIDS in South Africa and BSE in the UK. The stories were fascinating and appalling. (The full lecture will be available as a Guardian podcast so you can see for yourself.) They were also relevant to H4S’s vision: "A world in which important decisions are made by applying the scientific method to evidence rather than according to superstition."

Evans showed that the first three cholera epidemics occurred because the relevant governments did not act on the best scientific advice. All occurred after Dr John Snow had stopped an epidemic by removing the handle of the Broad Street pump and after Bazalgette had built the London sewers. The science was clear. The folly of rejecting science was also apparent in South Africa’s AIDS epidemic; M’beki’s denial that HIV causes AIDS blocked both mitigation measures and the use of effective therapies.

Nothing so far will surprise any member of H4S. But the reasons for the rejection of the science were also interesting. In general the issue was not ignorance of the science but explicit rejection. Before the epidemic the rulers of Hamburg rejected the science because they did not want to invest in public health measures that might have prevented the epidemic. Once it had started they rejected the science because it implied the need to close the port and thus loose money. And they were able to reject the science because Hamburg was not a democracy, had no tradition of independent advice on public health and because they were willing to use lethal force to enforce their views. The epidemics in Russia and Naples showed similar patterns.

M’beki, by contrast, rejected the science because he saw it as a Western conspiracy based on stereotypes about black sexuality. (And also, I think, because the anti-retroviral drugs would have been very expensive.)

A similar issue, excessive respect for farmers’ financial interest, also affected the UK’s response to BSE though with less disastrous results.

What this says to me is that though superstition is an enemy of science it is far from the only one. Vested interests, authoritarian politics and belief in conspiracy theories are also potent enemies.

How the 'war on drugs' increases psychosis

In a previous post I argued that Humanists should be concerned about the international prohibition of recreational drugs. I cited evidence to show that the 'war on drugs' has been lost and that much of the harm associated with drug use is due to illegality not pharmacology. I did not make the libertarian case; though humanists ought to take it seriously.

I did not and never have claimed that the use of street drugs was risk-free. I've always believed that heroin, for instance, is very harmful to most of its users. But cannabis is surely different. When I first became interested in this topic - 40 years ago - the evidence against cannabis seemed very slight - and generally contradictory. Yet I've had to accept from more recent evidence that cannabis use is associated with an increased risk of psychosis.

So I was wrong? Sort of. But the truth is more complex.

Cannabis has several active ingredients notably tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). Laboratory and field studies show that it's THC that creates the risk of psychosis whilst CBD has a protective effect.

Over the years the 'hash' and 'grass' of my youth have been replaced by 'skunk'. Skunk contains a higher concentration of THC than the hash of yesteryear and, critically, much less CBD. It's therefore much more likely to provoke psychosis.

This change in composition is not some random effect of climate or fashion; it's a consequence of prohibition. Over the years street cannabis supply has switched from imports from high hills in hot countries to domestic cultivation under intensive lighting. The intensive lighting appears to drive the replacement of CBD by THC.

This would probably not have happened without prohibition and if it had happened in a regulated market then the regulator could have intervened to reverse the trend.

The current incidence of cannabis-related psychosis is therefore a consequence of prohibition. There would be some cannabis-related psychosis in a regulated legal market - cannabis is not risk-free - but if we care about health we will abandon prohibition and seek a policy that might reduce the harm from drug use.

A challenge to Humanism

Humanists, says the BHA, "are atheists and agnostics who ... base our ethics on the goals of human welfare, happiness and fulfillment". I'll drink to that.

But if humanists are really keen on human welfare, happiness and fulfillment why is so much humanist discussion about religion?

Religion is, of course, inimical to human welfare in many ways. But it's not the biggest obstacle. I think humanists should spend more time on the other obstacles. Science, both physical and social, can help us recognise and address them. Here are my top three threats to human welfare - chosen partly for the roles that science and engineering play in understanding and addressing them.

First, climate change. The world is already 0.6 degrees warmer than before the industrial revolution and a rise to two degrees above is as near certain as any forecast can be. The change has already thinned the polar ice, increased the melting of glaciers and brought drought to east Africa and floods to Bangladesh. Without science we would not understand the causes nor the urgency of the need.

As humanists we should, and mostly do I think, accept the science and the moral case for action. For humanists in developed countries - most of us - that means accepting that its our emissions that have caused the problem and who therefore have the greatest need to change.

But though science gives us understanding it is only politics that can deliver the changes - in behaviour and technology - that we need. Humanists should be actively engaged in both the debates and the political campaigns. Are we?

Second, drug prohibition. Illegal drugs such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin are certainly harmful to at least some of their users. For 90 years our response to this has been prohibition. We made possession and trade illegal and launched a war on drugs. It is a war that we are losing - possibly have lost.

In the developed world the range of street drugs has been increasing for decades whilst the drugs themselves are very affordable. In Mexico the war between drug cartels has taken 2,000 lives this year alone. In Afghanistan poppy cultivation funds the Taliban and makes the conflict even more intractable. In the UK drug addiction is a major cause of petty crime whilst in US cities it's a major cause of the horrendous murder rate.

And most of this is not due to drugs but to drug prohibition. The prohibition of street drugs makes no more sense than the prohibition of alcohol - which the USA tried with such ignominious results. Short of a police state, and perhaps even with one, we cannot stop drug use. We can, however, reduce the harm done by adulterated drugs, gang violence and drug-related crime and prostitution. These benefits are so great that this ought to be a moral imperative for humanists.

This is a case where humanist libertarian and humanitarian principles point in the same direction as the economics. (The UK Thinktank Transform has estimated the economic benefit for the UK at £4-14B where the uncertainty reflects the weakness of current evidence.)

Here, I repeat, is an issue on which principle, reason, economics and compassion together point to a radical conclusion that was first discussed in Humanist circles at least 40 years ago. (We can even expect that the religious will oppose us!) So why has the movement not made this issue its own?

Thirdly, economic inequality. Research over several decades has shown that economic inequality creates a wide variety of social ills including mental and physical illness, drug abuse, obesity, premature death, teenage births, violence, prison population and a lack of social mobility. It even, I've argued previously, drives people to religion.

The research, popularised last year by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better, shows that it is inequality, not just poverty, that has this effect. The bad effects are felt at all levels of society - though they are worst for the poor.

Since humanists have generally favoured equality over hierarchy this issue ought to appeal to them. Where, then, is the humanist campaign for greater equality? Where, even, are humanists discussing it?

Humanism, especially when informed by science, has the potential to generate genuinely radical initiatives for major social improvement. Perhaps we no longer believe in major social improvement.

Whatever the reason we are certainly not advancing such views. Indeed, mostly we aren't even discussing the issues.

Down with naked numbers!

On the front page of today's Guardian Larry Elliott reported (Watchdog under new pressure for cutting job loss forecast) that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had forecast job losses of 499,000. That number is ridiculous, not in itself but in its claim to precision.

“499,000” means that the number of jobs lost will be neither 498,000 nor 500,000 but 499,000. That’s a claim worthy of a racing tipster or a psychic. It has no place in a sensible economic discussion.

In its pre-budget report the OBR discusses the uncertainty in its forecasts with care. It says “the probability of growth being within one percentage point of our central forecast [2.5%] in [2014] is around 30 per cent". In science we generally quote a range or the standard deviation. In the OBR’s case the growth forecast is 2.5% +/- 2.1%; the range 0.4% to 4.6%. That's a dismal level of precision but at least it's honest - and that is not something you always get in official statements.

It’s obvious that this uncertainty affects every other OBR forecast. I can't find the job loss forecast in the OBR's Pre-Budget Report but if it's proportional the +/- 1 SD range would be 100,000 to 900,000. (And let's remember that there's a one third chance that reality will fall outside this range!)

You can't understand forecasts without knowing the uncertainties. Let's push to have them spelt out.

What is philosophy for?

Once upon a time, or so I've heard, three Greek philosophers sat in a taverna arguing about the number of teeth a horse had. Their arguments were rigorous and elegant. One applied principles of symmetry. The second considered the nature of grass whilst the third drew on Plato's doctrine of ideal forms. Finally, unable to agree and somewhat drunk, they approached an Arab merchant at the next table to judge between them.
The merchant listened carefully and then asked to be briefly excused. On his return he gave judgment. The losers were upset and demanded that he explain what was wrong with their arguments.
"Arguments be dammed" said the Arab "I went to the stables and counted them!"

I was reminded of this several times on Saturday at the BHA's conference on Humanism, Philosophy and the Arts. Interspersed with singing, poetry and two non-philosophical speeches three humanist philosophers offered persuasive arguments about the role of the Arts and their relevance to humanism. The philosophers made many claims about facts. For instance, Richard Norman and Nigel Warburton argued that humanists could appreciate religious art just as much as the religious could whilst Richard Norman claimed that WW1 war poetry had changed our attitudes to war. Now these are factual claims that should be settled by empirical investigation. The first needs the methods of psychology and the second of history. Neither can be resolved by the methods of philosophy.

I was still wrestling with this after lunch when Julian Baggini spoke on Hollywood vs. Philosophy. One of his points connected with mine for he said that philosophy is not usually an argument; it's more often an attempt to draw the reader's attention to a fact or connection that he may have overlooked. That, it seems to me, is a very useful approach when approaching an issue but it's not very useful for settling it. Philosophers may help us to understand what teeth are and what is to qualify as a horse - even perhaps what counting means - but if you really want an answer you can believe in you just have to go to the stables with the Arab and start counting.

I think Francis Crick got it right in conversation with Sue Blackmore: “philosophers often ask good questions but they have no techniques for getting the answers. … A lot of problems that were once regarded as philosophical are … now … part of physics” Or, I might add, history, sociology or psychology.

In the last 200 years scientists and other empirical scholars have got much better at finding data and at connecting those data with longstanding intellectual problems (as well as with major practical problems and, regrettably, trifling pseudo-intellectual ones). The process is incomplete but it expends inexorably to address issues of religion, aesthetics and morality.

And it is not just religious and political ideologues who will be upset by what the facts tell us.

Climate change: The challenge to Humanism

Humanists believe in reason, science and compassion. Most humanist moral and political thinking derives fairly directly from the third of these. In climate change, however, we have a political and moral issue that is critical for the whole human race but which derives very directly from science.

In the 40 years that I’ve been a humanist the movement has fought, and continues to fight, a series of struggles over abortion, divorce, sex, euthanasia and religious privilege. In each case we have made an essentially moral argument based on the rights of individuals to make choices about their lives and the lack of authority, by church or state, to overrule those choices. We have used science to support these views – and have generally been lucky in finding that it does support them.

Of course we’ve supported broad campaigns against poverty, slavery, debt and political persecution – but rarely with the same energy that we’ve devoted to our core issues.

Climate change is different. It’s a challenge to the world and a particular challenge to humanism.

Firstly it’s the most important issue we’ve faced since the invention of the atom bomb, and arguably ever. Climate scientists are almost completely agreed that unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast temperatures, and later sea levels, will rise uncontrollably. This will reduce the Earth’s carrying capacity, drive many species into extinction and reduce the human population substantially. 

Secondly, our understanding of climate change comes mainly from science. Literally thousands of scientists have contributed to the work of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); itself probably the largest scientific endeavour ever conducted. Science has been less successful in predicting the human consequences of climate change largely, I think, for fear of being thought to exaggerate. I've addressed these consequences by using scenario planning with markedly pessimistic results.

Thirdly, climate science shows that the problem is due primarily to industrialisation; itself closely associated with science and the Western societies that gave rise to individualism and modern humanism. Science and humanism thus originate in the very processes responsible for the problem. Climate change is a political challenge to Western societies because it threatens those societies and the liberties that they support. It’s also a particular challenge to humanists because we need to show that societies based on our values, reason, science and liberty, can exist without destroying the environment that supports us.

For at least the last 50 years Western society has worshipped continual economic growth driven by ever-increasing personal consumption. This consumption is increasingly driven by a celebrity-obsessed media, an advertising industry whose purpose is to create new 'human wants' and widening inequality. This is obviously unsustainable in the long-term. And it doesn't make people happy - as increasing rates of mental illness show.

Now humanists are, as individuals, rarely obsessed by possessions and consumption. But we are part of a society driven by these things and we have failed, as a movement, to dissociate ourselves from that society or to develop an effective critique. 

Fourthly, it requires long-term international action on a scale unmatched since World War 2. As in that war this will require most people in many countries to forgo products, like cars, and experiences, such as foreign holidays, to which they feel entitled. In the poorest countries people are already dying from the effects of climate change. The required actions conflict with some national goals, such as China’s industrial development, and make the UN’s Millennium Development Goals harder to achieve.

As I write this world leaders are travelling to Copenhagen to negotiate a solution to the problem. The diplomats, scientists and pressure groups have been there for a week – some for much longer. But this is itself a problem. Diplomats are used to negotiation and expect to end every negotiation with a compromise. But you cannot negotiate with the laws of nature. A compromise that fails to cut emissions fast enough will be a failure, delaying but not preventing the climate catastrophe. 

That’s why some humanists, including myself, spent Saturday December 5th marching through London to create a ring around Parliament in The Wave , the UK’s largest ever climate change demonstration. In London there were over 50,000 people, with another 13,000 in Glasgow.

This was not only a very big event it was also very diverse. Organisations present ranged from the establishment – the Co-Op, Women's Institute, WWF and RSPB – through Friends of the Earth, Oxfam and Greenpeace to the Socialist Workers Party. The organisations affiliated to Stop Climate Chaos , the organising committee, claim over eleven million members. That’s far more than have joined ALL the UK’s political parties and, I’d guess, far more than are shareholders in the most environmentally damaging businesses. It’s certainly more than are members of all the UK’s humanist organisations.

This ought to be a humanist concern because it threatens the survival of human civilisation and calls for us to respect the science, exercise compassion and collaborate globally, in a great humanitarian cause.

[This post was originally written for the BHA's Humanist Life website.]

Campaign Success! David Flint, Humanists4Science, 10 Downing Street Petition - Teach Evolution in Primary Schools

David Flint, Chairman Humanists4Science had 500+ signatures for his No 10 petition:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to include the teaching of evolution by natural selection in the new national primary curriculum. More details

More details from petition creator

Scientists are agreed that all today’s living organisms have evolved over millions of years from simpler organisms. This evolution is best explained by Darwin’s theory of natural selection and its subsequent refinement. Natural selection is the most powerful tool for understanding living things.

The current draft curriculum includes living things but omits evolution and natural selection. These ideas are needed to lay a foundation for later studies and to help children see their place in the living world and the universe.

Submitted by Mr David Flint – Deadline to sign up by: 18 August 2009 –Signatures: 536

This petition was mentioned in The Times, 20 November 2009.

Success!! 
Humanists4Science and other groups have helped to introduce legislation on 19 November 2009 to make teaching of Evolution compulsory in Primary Schools!

Humanists4Science welcomes new legislation for the teaching of evolution in primary schools

Humanists4Science welcomes new legislation, introduced today, on primary curriculum reform in England, which introduces compulsory teaching of evolution to ages 5-11 year old children.


Chris Street (pictured) reports that following Humanist4Science July 2009 proposals to the Government, legislation was introduced today (11 November 2009), to make evolution compulsory and explicitly taught to children aged 5-11 years in Primary Schools.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (19 November 2009) press release states that Evolution will be compulsory in the Primary curriculum from September 2011.

However the Humanists4Science proposal for compulsory teaching of  'The Scientific Method' in Primary Schools, was not taken up.

In July 2009 Chris Street authored the Humanists4Science submission to the Primary Curriculum reform consultation by Jim Rose.

Chris Street of the Humanists4Science group said "this is brilliant news because now children will learn about evolution as early as five years rather than when they are fourteen. I met Desmond Swayne MP on 10 July to discuss teaching evolution in Primary Schools  and he who wrote to Diana Johnson MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary for State for Schools at the DCSF). I think Humanists4Science have had a direct input into successfully changing National Primary School curriculum legislation."

Andrew Copson, BHA Director of Education and Public Affairs, said, ‘It is fantastic to hear final confirmation that, for the first time, evolution will now be included in the national primary curriculum. Evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying the life sciences. That it had not originally been included in the revised primary curriculum was of great concern and we are pleased to see that has now been rectified.’

source: www.DCSF.gov.uk, 19 November 2009, Major reform to curriculum at the heart of a renewed push to drive up standards.

source: Humanists4Science submission to the Jim Rose Primary Curriculum reform consultation.

Department for Children Schools and Families Press Release

The Department for Children Schools and Families dcsf.gov.uk 19 November 2009 Press Release stated that from September 2011 in Primary Schools:-

"Evolution made compulsory and importance of British history confirmed in new areas of learning"

"Schools Minister Vernon Coaker has today confirmed plans to bring in a new curriculum to shake-up primary education – with overwhelming support from pupils, parents, teachers and experts."

"New legislation introduced today on primary curriculum reform in England will drive up education standards across the board. Vernon Coaker confirmed that evolution will become a compulsory part of science education"

"Due to the positive response to Jim Rose’s proposals, few changes were made to the proposed Areas of Learning. However, after consulting with parents, teachers, the science community and other interested parties, pupils will be expected to explicitly cover evolution as part of their learning. Learning about evolution is an important part of science education, and pupils already learn about it at secondary school."

Background

The independent review of the primary curriculum, the first in ten years, was led by educational expert Sir Jim Rose and began in spring 2008. The new legislation is based on his report, which sought the views of teachers, parents, pupils and subject experts and took over a year to complete. The Government accepted Jim Rose’s recommendations in full in April this year. The BHA, Humanists4Science and others commented on his review by 24 July 2009.

Humanists4Science Proposals on Evolution

• in the Science, Life and Living sections include:-
• Charles Darwins’ theory of Evolution by Natural Selection - the single most important idea underlying the life sciences. 
• how organisms are adapted to their environments and how variation can lead to evolutionary changes.’ 
• children should understand that, over time, organisms have evolved.
• the Key Stage 4 curriculum (pg 224) states: -
• Organisms and health - In their study of science, the following should be covered: 
• a) organisms are interdependent and adapted to their environments 
• b) variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified 
• Humanists4Science recommend that part of the Key Stage 4 curriculum be included in the later stages of the Primary Curriculum viz. 
• ‘to apply knowledge and understanding to describe how organisms are adapted to their environments and how variation can lead to evolutionary changes’ 
• Humanists4Science recommend addition of notes:-
• L14. to apply knowledge and understanding to describe and explain the structure and function of key human body systems including reproduction 
• L15. to investigate the structure, function, life cycle and growth of flowering plants and explain how these are linked 
• L16. to investigate, identify and explain the benefits of micro-organisms and the harm they can cause 
• Humanists4Science welcome the example of the study of Evolution and Darwin (page 48) included in the report under Cross-curricular studies:-
• ‘Schools that chose the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth to launch a study of this famous Victorian and his lasting contribution to science included learning about the journeys of the Beagle, mapping the route to the Galapagos Islands and the climate and conditions revealed through the voyage which furnished Darwin with a wealth of evidence for his theory of evolution.‘ 
• Conclusion: 
• Humanists4Science consider that Evolution be specifically mentioned in the Primary Curriculum.

Humanists4Science Proposals on Scientific Method.
Humanists4Science proposed (pages 16-17) that the 'scientific method' be included in the Primary curriculum.

We recommended that the scientific and technological curriculum be amended to:-

Pupils develop valuable skills in applying scientific method, that is generating and testing ideas, gathering and making sense of evidence, developing possible solutions, and evaluating processes and outcomes. They learn to distinguish evidence from opinion and communicate their findings in a variety of ways."

"essential knowledge should include "a direct reference to the value of science as a way of finding out true facts.

"addition of "how the scientific method enables us to learn truths about reality". Humanists4Science proposed that key skills, taken together, make up the scientific method. and that  scientific method skills are needed by children to make progress:’

"Conclusion: Humanists4Science consider that Scientific Method be specifically mentioned in the Primary Curriculum."

Submission by Humanists4Science

Who are Humanists4Science?

Humanists4Science (H4S) group is for humanists with an active interest in science. We believe that science is a fundamental part of humanism but also that it should be directed to humane and ethical ends. Science is, in our view, more a method than a body of facts. H4S seek to promote, within the humanist community and beyond, the application of the scientific method to issues of concern to broader society.

Can science remove the death penalty?

Humanists have been opposed to the death penalty for many decades and in most of the world public opinion has moved our way. Most opposition to the death penalty is moral - we think it's wrong. However, people also oppose this penalty because we seem, too often, to execute the wrong person. And here science, specifically forensic science, can make a contribution.

Today's Guardian reports that even in Texas support for the death penalty is declining. Juries are more reluctant to issue death sentences and some prosecutors are less willing to ask for them and Mark White, a former pro-death governor has called for change. According to the Guardian's Chris McGreal these changes are due a stream of cases in which convicted murderers, some on death row, have been shown to be innocent. Nationally there have been nearly 140 such cases.

In most of these cases the new evidence has come from DNA testing. The academic science of life has indeed brought life to some convicts. This science has changed minds that had proven immune to the appeals of compasion. 

This is a point with broad application. Many important moral and political issues have been the subject of excited debate for years, even decades. Some, perhaps, appear settled. But for most people, and especially for humanists, the morality of a personal action or public policy depends on its consequences. Consequences are matters of fact and thus amenable to science. 

Humanists4Science believes that all policy decisions should be based on the best available evidence. We also believe that if the evidence is rubbish the government has a duty to fund research that will produce better evidence. The story of the death penalty shows that this is not only intellectually sound but politically realistic - if very slow!

Darwin, Humanism and Science - James Williams on Creationism in schools

James Williams talks to the Darwin, Humanism and Science day conference (6 Jun 2009) on "Insidious Creationism" and why we should teach children early in their education about geological time and the theory of evolution.

Darwin, Humanism and Science - A C Grayling

Darwin, Humanism and Science - A C Grayling, 3 June 2009 conference.

my Random notes: Relationship between Science and Humanism

• What can science do for an understanding of  the central humanist concerns? (1’25”)
• humanism tries to get a good understanding of human nature - natural sciences and social sciences (psychology and sociology) should help us (3' 30")
• science is the best epistemology (4' 05")
• don't base your thinking on authority, ancient texts or priests (5')
• CP Snow - the 2 cultures - science could solve population increase, nuclear bombs problems, scientific literacy and applications of science via technology, widening gulf in 1950s between arts / humanities and science. (6'-10')
• among the best and most important things that have said are the scientific things (12'15")
• there should not be just two cultures (humanities and arts) - there should be just one (12'30")
• the general population has become even for distant from the scientific outlook - the gap in 2009 between science and the arts and humanities is even wider than it was 50 years ago in CP Snows (16'45")
• as humanists we should be alert to is that the scientific way of thinking, this mindset is of the greatest importance for society (17')
• scientific attitude for humanists - science does not give us proof and certainty  not one thing in Nature magazine is absolutely right (John Maddox) - contrasts with neat stories of Christianity 19'
• new evidence refines understanding, open ended, adjusted, refuted, mindset - commitment to rationality (21')
• different methodology with religions - authority, closed (22')
• evolution of religions - were 'science' and technology millennia ago eg winds, tides, sacrifice virgins (23')
• its an evolutionary advantage that children should be credulous (26')
• better empirical evidence for the tooth fairy than god! (26')
• rational proportioning (hence rationality) of the claims you make to the supporting evidence (28')
• so few religions are left (but noisy and dangerous) - 1000s of gods have vaporised in the light of knowledge and reasoning (28')
• scientific styles of thought as happened in The Enlightenment - we today are the phenotype of the 18th century Enlightenment  - help us to think about the good things in society (29')
• human nature and human understanding - evolutionary theory & psychology (30')
• neurosciences - philosophy of mind - oxytocin - Patricia Churchland (31')
• reductionism - emotions - need for love (33')
• relation of science to humanism - sciences can give info on human nature - natural science is the greatest achievement of humanity - how to think better, not a reductive enterprise, will not take away aethestics (34')
• greater chance of progress than with our religious history (36')
• 
  

TAKE ACTION by 24 July 2009! Consultation on the new Primary Curriculum in England: Science and evolution!

source: British Humanist Association e-bulletin, 22 June 2009 & BHA site.

What is the issue?

In January 2008 the Government commissioned a review looking at both the organisation and content of the National Curriculum taught in primary schools in England. The review was lead by Sir Jim Rose. His final report was published on 30 April 2009.

The changes that have been proposed by the Rose Review have now been put out to public consultation. The consultation is being conducted by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). The public consultation will run until 24 July 2009, after which point the Government will consider how to proceed.

BHA position

The BHA broadly welcomes the proposed new curriculum. However, we have particular concerns regarding the new ‘scientific and technological understanding’ area of learning, which is one of six new ‘areas of learning’ that have been put forward as the new structure of the curriculum.

Our main concern is that the ‘scientific and technological understanding’ area of learning makes no requirement for pupils to learn about and investigate the concepts of natural selection and evolution. We believe that the theory of evolution – arguably the single most important idea underlying the life sciences today – must be included in the primary curriculum.

The wealth of new educational resources on evolution available for children of primary school age demonstrates their ability to grasp the simpler concepts associated with it, and a basic understanding of evolution will help lay the foundation for a surer scientific understanding later on in children’s school life.

With 2009 being the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the omission of evolution from the curriculum of primary schools is scandalous.

What can be done?

Please write to your MP, urging them to support the inclusion of natural selection and evolution in the primary curriculum. You can use our online facility to email your MP directly at http://tinyurl.com/evolutioninprimaryschool.

Please also make a submission to the QCA’s public consultation, which you can do by downloading the consultation questionnaire online at http://www.qca.org.uk/qca_22265.aspx.

You can read the BHA's own response to the consultation at http://tinyurl.com/bhaprimaryreviewsubmission.

Here the BHA not only make more detailed comments about other weakness in ‘scientific and technological understanding’, but also in some of the other areas of learning. If you agree with the BHA's comments in these other areas then please do consider responding to these sections of the consultation as well.

If you are a teacher, please explore the possibility of your school making a response to the consultation to urge for the changes we are looking for.

If you are a member of a political party, you can write to the education contact or spokesperson of your party to urge them to support the changes we are seeking. For Labour, this is Rt Hon. Ed Balls MP on ed@edballs.com, for Conservatives this is Michael Gove MP on govem@parliament.uk, for Liberal Democrats this is David Laws on lawsd@parliament.uk.

Please do all the above insofar as you are in a position to do so.

Please copy any submissions you make or correspondence you enter into on this subject to Paul Pettinger at the BHA (paul@humanism.org.uk or by post to British Humanist Association, 1 Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD).

Philosophy versus science?

Science and philosophy have sometimes seemed opposed. In fact science and philosophy are complementary. Often it is philosophy’s role to set questions and explain methods; science’s to apply the methods and answer the questions.

Science is sometimes seen as no more than a collection of facts and theories. But we owe to philosophers, notably Karl Popper, the realisation that science is above all else a method. It is the best method yet found by which we protect ourselves from error in our understanding of the world.
In truth natural selection did not so much make us great thinkers as great survivors. Our mental capacities, no less than our physical ones, are optimised for survival in the conditions that formed us. They therefore include a number of cognitive biases that helped our ancestors to avoid being eaten but which make it difficult for us to think clearly.

The scientific method, including the use of mathematics and logic, insists that we suspect our intuitions and that we test them by observation and experiment. This insistence is, of course, applicable to every factual claim, including those of theologians, alternative therapists, politicians and marketers.

But science is, of course, also a set of facts and theories. Both are often extraordinary. Science provides us with facts about the early moments of the universe and about the many strange and beautiful things in its current vast extent. It provides us too with facts about very small things – from sub-atomic particles to bacteria and cells. It reveals the amazing variety and complexity of living things.

But above all science provide us with explanations. With, that is, general theories that explain a vast range of phenomena from the motions of planets to the reactions of molecules. And these are preferable to the speculations of theologians and philosophers, or the prejudices of laymen, because they have survived rigorous testing. They are not mere opinion. These theories are, at best, wide-ranging, elegant and profound. They produce surprises as well as explaining the commonplace. It’s for this reason that I agree with Prof. A C Grayling’s remark last Saturday that science is “humanity’s greatest achievement”.

It’s often said that science cannot tell us what to do. Apologists for religion often suggest that this is a weakness. This is not the place to examine their own claims to moral and practical insight.

We are all faced with periodic needs to make morally difficult decisions. Humanists, like others, generally rely on their feelings and the advice of those they respect. But some of us would like to have a solid basis for these decisions and we look to the work of moral philosophers to at least clarify the issues. Philosophers can, indeed, bring clarity to complex issues; it’s what they do. In practice decisions often depend on basic moral principles, which humanists often share with others, and on our understanding of the facts. Specifically of the likely consequences of our actions.

But here we are back to science! For establishing facts and the likely consequences of actions are, at least when we try to take a general view, just what science does. Thus we see why Prof. Jonathan Glover, the notable moral philosopher, said in last year’s BHA Bentham lecture, that science could offer more than philosophy in resolving difficult moral problems.

Science rarely tackles morally significant issues because scientists often do not see how they could contribute (and perhaps because they fear the criticisms that would follow if they did). Yet humanists in particular need science’s contribution.

Quack remedies spread by virtue of being useless

Mark Tanaka hypothesis to explain the persistence in use of medical quackery is that people simply copy the treatments used by other sick people. Since quackery treatments will be used for a longer time than proven remedies, the quackery treatments will tend to be copied more often than the proven remedies.

However James Holland Jones says that this hypothesis may not be the whole story. People use language to communicate to others whether a treatment is actually working so one would expect the quackery treatments not to be taken up as often as proven remedies.

• source: New Scientist
  
• 12:32 01 May 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Eating a vulture won't clear a bad case of syphilis nor will a drink made of rotting snakes treat leprosy, but these and other bogus medical treatments spread precisely because they don't work. That's the counterintuitive finding of a mathematical model of medical quackery.

Ineffective treatments don't cure an illness, so sufferers demonstrate them to more people than those who recovery quickly after taking real medicines.

"The assumption is that when people pick up treatments to try, they're basically observing other people," says Mark Tanaka, a mathematical biologist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, who led the study. "People don't necessarily know that what somebody is trying is going to work."

The World Health Organization is demanding better proof that folk medicines work before they can be approved. And the Malaysian government has rejected more than a third of the 25,000 applications to register traditional medicines it has received because the treatments are ineffective or dangerous.

Despite these efforts, quack medicine persists around the world. Some Nigerians treat malaria with witchcraft, a South African health minister recently claimed that garlic and beetroot treat HIV, and western health stores brim with unproven treatments for almost any disease imaginable. For instance St John's wort does nothing for attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children, a recent placebo-controlled trial concluded.

Contagious treatments

To understand why these quack medical treatments persist in the face of better proven remedies, Tanaka applied mathematical models used to measure evolutionary fitness to medical treatments.

His model accounted for factors including the rate of conversion to a treatment, the effectiveness of a treatment, the rate at which people abandon a treatment, the odds of recovering naturally, and the chances of dying. The model starts with a single person demonstrating a treatment – rubbish or not – and measures how many people are influenced to go on to give the treatment a try.

Under a wide range of conditions, quack treatments garnered more converts than proven hypothetical medicines that offer quicker recovery, Tanaka found. "The very fact that they don't work mean that people that use them stay sick longer" and demonstrate a treatment to more people, he says.

Bad treatments don't always win out. Recurring diseases are more likely to promote effective treatments than rare diseases because repeated demonstration weeds out bad treatments, Tanaka found.

'Just ask'

But is this model valid in cultures where evidence-based medicine predominates, and government groups such as the US Food and Drug Administration vet most medical treatments?

Tanaka thinks so, pointing to the popularity of alternative medicines and the debate over the effectiveness of FDA-approved drugs. "In many situations people will just observe and copy anyway, regardless what the official information is," he says.

And in some cases, one peer-reviewed study may conclude that a drug works, while another shows it doesn't. "Even where there is a bit of clinical research, we don't really know yet whether at lot of medicines are effective," he says.

"I think it's an interesting idea. It's quite clever", James Holland Jones, a biological anthropologist at Stanford University in California, says of the model. However, language allows people to vet unproven remedies without trying them, he adds – that is, you can just ask if a treatment was effective. "You don't necessarily have to copy everything."

Journal reference: PLoS-ONE (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005192.s001)

National Science and Engineering Week - British Science Association

BHAScience is not the only organisation with a new name! British Association for the Advancement of Science ('the BA') is now known as British Science Association. They have a new logo too - or should that be called a rorschach inkblot test?!

6-15 March 2009 is National Science and Engineering Week with apparently thousands of events running in schools, museums, shopping centres and even pubs throughout the UK.

I searched for 'Dorset' and discovered an amazing society on my doorstep - BOURNEMOUTH NATURAL SCIENCE SOCIETY http://www.bnss.org.uk/ with a talk 'How on Earth did Life Start' on 10 March.

What amazing events can you find in your area during National Science and Engineering Week?

Television - curse of society!

The decline in US ‘social capital’
It isn’t what you know but who you know.” – trad.

Robert Putnam, sociology professor at Harvard, has shown that the US’s social capital, ie the value of the relationships between people, peaked around 1960 and has been in steady decline ever since. He has a LOT of evidence for this, published in 2000 as Bowling Alone and on the web at www.bowlingalone.com.

His analysis, again very thorough, shows that this is a bad thing. It is damaging to educational performance, child welfare, public safety and prosperity, health, happiness and democracy.

There are several causes, the largest of which is responsible for about 40% of the decline. That cause is television. At risk of gross over-simplification Putnam says that because it is so easy people watch TV rather than going out to meet people and thus making or reinforcing those inter-personal relationships that are the essence of social capital.

He also finds that some kinds of TV programme are more harmful than others. The worst are soap operas and reality TV shows, the least are news and documentary programmes. He does not suggest a reason for this yet I find it intriguing.

Perhaps these are just the most compelling – I will not say ‘best’ – shows.

The psychological roots of the problem

But I think there’s another and more interesting reason. What distinguishes the best from the worst kinds of programme is the importance of on-screen characters. Soap operas and reality TV programmes are about characters rather than, say, plot, location or ideas. And the programme makers try to make their audiences care about these characters; to think of them as real people. (This is easier on reality TV shows because the characters are real people even if acting strangely.)

And here’s why this matters.

Commonsense suggests and a variety of studies confirm that people have a finite capacity for tracking personal relationships. Prof. Robin Dunbar of Oxford, a humanist scientist, has estimated this at 150. Doubtless there is individual variation (and the exact number does not matter). This number reflects the importance of social relationships within hunter-gatherer bands in our evolution.

People tend to treat media images of people as if they were real people. Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass of Stanford have shown this in repeated experiments – published as The Media Equation. This rather perverse fact reflects the fact that our minds evolved in a period in which the only things that looked like people were, in fact, people. Therefore on-screen characters will occupy some of their brains’ finite capacity for tracking personal relationships. The effect will presumably be greatest for on-screen characters who appear regularly and that exhibit their relationships with other on-screen characters. The effect will therefore be particularly great for soap operas and least for news, documentaries and music. It will be greater for TV than for cinema.

Therefore people who watch a lot of reality TV and soap operas will have less available capacity for managing relationships with real people. This will be especially acute for soap operas because they have a lot of characters. (60 in Coronation Street.)

Therefore watching TV, especially soap operas, undermines real personal relationships, especially in those who watch most frequently and regularly. That’s pretty much what Putnam found.

What follows?

Many conclusions might be drawn from this analysis. I think the links between sociology, psychology and our evolutionary history make it inherently interesting and possibly significant. However, I won’t claim to be unbiased!

However, the most important conclusions concern the effect of television (and do not depend on my sortie into evolutionary psychology!).

• First, TV is damaging our society. Social conservatives have claimed this since it first appeared – turns out they were right.
• Second, the increasing richness of TV (colour, larger screens, more channels and longer hours) is probably making this worse.
• Third, we should avoid watching soap operas – and make sure our children don’t see them either.

How not to do science

From a scientific point of view, this is about as wrong as you can be.

The journal Science last week had a story that on the surface looks like a minor spat between scientists but in reality has several unfortunate consequences. According to Science, an Israeli company (Nemesysco) is selling a device using Layered Voice Analysis (LVA), which they say can analyse voices to help determine whether the speaker is possibly being deceitful. They have a patent on the technique and have published some papers on the method of analysis. But they also claim that their device implements more than they have published because they think they have been ripped off by publishing too much in the past.

Enter Anders Eriksson and Francisco Lacerda, two researchers in phonetics in Sweden, who have studied this device and came to the conclusion that it was not all it was cracked up to be, reporting their results in December 2007 in the peer reviewed publication The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law under the inflammatory title of Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously. A founder of Nemesysco, Amir Liberman, took exception to what he described as a personal attack and asked his lawyers to contact the journal, who, being a small bi-annual publication could not afford any legal costs and pulled the article from their website. This led to the Science piece because Lacerda counter claimed that Liberman is attempting to stifle scientific development.

The LVA devices have been bought by 25 local administrations in the UK to assess callers with a view to further investigation for trying to defraud the benefits agencies. A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said that a decision will be made in 2010 as to whether to roll it out nationwide. The figures quoted from the London Borough of Harrow are insufficient to judge whether they could have saved just as much if they took a random selection of applicants rather than the ones LVA picked out. There is no comment on whether they considered the effect of the tool on matters of privacy, liberty or legality. Thoughts of the polygraph come to mind.

So, what do have here?

First, a company that wants to keep information to itself so it can make money from it. This in itself is a warning to the sceptical that there may be more to this than meets the eye.

Second, researchers who have tried to assess the device, and written a tactless article. Even if their blunt criticisms are valid, this is not the way to go about influencing people.

Third, a journal that apparently took a legal risk which its editors could have avoided by insisting on a rewording of the disputed article.

Fourth, customers, most notably people in a position of power, who have taken something on the say-so of a sales force without having had the efficacy independently assessed, and apparently with no plan to do an adequate assessment themselves.

My point in writing this piece is not to take any sides in this particular matter since I do not have the full facts, but to ask what they all thought they were doing. Science can provide data, but only when access to it is unconstrained and open to sceptical checking. The reporters of experimental results have a duty to do so in an unemotional and straightforward manner. One part of the task of journal editors is to ensure papers are civilised and clear. And customers who have an opportunity to acquire good data to make a decision that can be supported in public, but do not seem to be doing so, are misusing the data they are collecting. The only gainers in this sorry state are the lawyers.

But everyone could have been better off if they had all been more conscientious. Customers could get better data for a more compelling decision; editors could avoid legal disputes; authors could provide uncontroversial data to make a point; and companies could gain through better co-operation with academia and their users.

I might have shrugged this off as a case of Homo sapiens behaving typically apart from the understanding that there is a chance that every applicant for support from the state may eventually be subject to a dubious attack on their good name by the use of this device.

If we want to attract more to the sciences, then we need to be rigorous throughout. This story is an example of how to get it wrong all the way through, from idea to use.

Is the PM serious about science?

Last week the PM has launched a new campaign to encourage public interest in science and show people its importance to their everyday lives as well as to the strength of the UK economy. A reception at Number 10 was followed by "a debate about how science can be taken to a wider audience to encourage more public involvement and understanding."

Given today's survey results showing a quarter of our fellow brits to believe in creationism that seems timely. And I'd be the last to begrudge Terry Pratchett, Kathy Sykes et al, a free drink.

But is it real? Will the PM do anything useful?

Last Tuesday (bear with me, it's relevant) I heard Professor Sir Michael Brady give the Turing Memorial Lecture at the IET. At the end he was asked what government should do to encourage science. After bemoaning the standards of some, unnamed, universities he said: The government should pay physics teachers more. The response, unsurprisingly, was spontaneous applause.

He ought, of course, to have said science not physics but everyone makes mistakes when they ad lib.

To inspire pupils to do science we ought to pay science teachers more than, say, English teachers. We ought to reward students who study science and not, well, certain other less useful things.

The public education campaign is valuable to - though no substitute for money - but Brown should start by following Obama's lead. He should apply science to government policy making. That would set a good example and do good directly.

Come on Gordon. Let's see some action!