I haven’t kept up with my idea of writing smaller and more regular post on here at all. I like doing it but I’m so busy with study that I never make the time.
Anyway here goes one off the top of my head whilst I’m thinking about it. It was celebrated Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s 100th birthday last week (or would have been if he hadn’t died in 1998). There were therefore quite a few articles circulating around about him. I knew of him due to ‘The Seven Samurai’ (which to my shame as a film fan I still haven’t seen) but I hadn’t heard of any of his other films directly. When reading an article about his work I was struck by the synopsis of a film called Rashomon. I sought it out and watched it last week.
I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of it in its entirety although many elements of it were certainly outstanding. I liked the concept of the film very much and enjoyed the story. The main issue for me was probably trying to appreciate a Japanese film from the early 1950s as if it was just being shown for the first time – which of course is impossible. Many of the innovative ideas used by Kurosawa would not seem so to me because cinema has moved on since his time – and what’s more, many of my favourite directors have been influenced by Kurosawa so it is natural to be familiar with some of his techniques. Having said that, it was clear that the cinematography and editing were exemplary and they have stood the test of time.
What is best about the film is the idea behind the story. Put simply, four eyewitnesses describe the event of a rape and murder and all of them describe events quite differently. We don’t know who is telling the truth, nor do we know if any of them are deliberately misleading us or if they are recalling events to the best of their ability. In my mind the films asks us to question the nature of truth. What is truth? Is truth absolute or is it subjective?
Certainly when it comes to eyewitness accounts then we can explain anomalies by the imperfect nature of human memory and also by the propensity of those telling a story to be influenced by their past experience and unique understanding of the world. Perhaps we all see things very differently (although we can certainly tell if someone has been killed and by whom if we are watching at the time). However, when we are speaking, the audience that we have, the pressure we are under and the situation we are in will greatly affect what we actually say – whether this is done consciously or at some subconscious level. To get a really good idea of this I suggest you watch “Capturing The Friedmans”. It is a quite brilliant documentary, and although the subject matter may be tough going it is a wonderful film which makes you think about these issues in real detail (see more here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0342172/).
So where am I going in all this? Well, eyewitness accounts are perhaps more likely to get distorted than other kinds of ‘truths’. So the question can be posed more widely – is there such a thing as ultimate truth? For many people the basic tenets of their religion (whichever it may be) are the absolute truth. But again here we get into subjective truth again; if I speak to a devout Muslim he or she will give me one version of ‘ultimate truth’, but a devout Christian will tell me that this is false and will provide another ‘ultimate truth’. Both cannot be true, and as far as I can tell there is no independent arbiter of the veracity of these beliefs. We can extend this argument to contain hundreds of contradictory belief systems all of which are 100% ‘known’ to be true by its firm followers.
I cannot hold to any religious belief as ultimate truth - but I can take those religious teachings which inspire me and use them, I hope, to lead a better life and to draw strength from. So do I believe there is ultimate truth? Well I do think there are things that are as representative of the truth as it is possible to know as human beings. I have spoken in other blog posts about how the scientific method can help us to determine some things as true, and I hold to that strongly. Although, I would certainly not go as far as saying that science is ultimate truth. Those things I do know as true can be verified against observable evidence (or testable hypotheses). In this way we can have truth without certainty, any scientific fact has to be disprovable and thu is only 99.99999…% true. I have used this quote from Ashley Montagu previously but it sums up what I’m trying to say here:
“The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof”.
I want to remain as rational and logical about certain truths as possible, but please note that this doesn’t equate to being unemotional or uncreative. I try not to believe what I read in the papers, what I hear in the office, what I see on TV about the new ‘miracle health cure’, what I’m told by politicians or what is preached about in certain literature. I remain open to other people’s point of view and do not hold anybody’s beliefs against them, and I’m very happy to hear why people may disagree with me, but I am careful to evaluate the information I receive before readily adopting it into my worldview. I am training to become a scientist, but I am far from one yet so my understanding still needs much developing. I am willing to learn and to keep investigating my perception of ‘truth’ and I am sure I will continue to enjoy the journey.
I have no idea if any of this makes sense as I wrote it in one go without a planned structure. Anyway, I hope that if anybody does read this then you enjoy it. As always, I’m open to comments.
Thanks for reading – Dominic.
Friday, 2 April 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010
Global warming
I have left it some time since my last blog entry so I should start by saying happy New Year to anyone who might read this blog. I think I’m my own worst enemy when it comes to making time for writing on the blog because I tend to want hours to produce a polished and coherent article. However, this is a blog and not a piece of academic work so I’ll try and take a more relaxed attitude to blogging in 2010.
One thing that has been on my mind in the last few weeks has been the issue of climate change and global warming. In the UK we have had an extremely cold spell of weather which has caused heavy snowfalls, icy roads and travel chaos up and down the country. It’s rare, especially for those of us living in the south of England, to see such consistently cold weather and persistent snow on the ground. I have heard (or read on Facebook) several people making comments along the lines of “So this is global warming is it? I can’t see how the scientists can be telling us that the climate is warming when it’s been freezing cold and snowy for weeks”.
Perhaps this is quite a natural thing to think but I wanted to address it here because I believe that global warming is a huge problem and one that must be dealt with. It’s worth mentioning in advance that I am no scientific expert in this field, although I have studied some areas of climate change, and seen a great deal of robust scientific data, so I do feel able to discuss the topic.
What we should understand about climate change is that scientists look at average surface temperatures taken from monitoring stations in multitudes of locations across the globe. Each area provides data on the local mean (or average) surface temperature and all of these averages are then taken and collated to produce figures for the global mean surface temperature (GMST). I am not going to give references to all of those figures and sets of data here only to say that the measurements are reliable and accurate. Looking at the data it is certain that over the last century the temperature at the Earth’s surface has been warming (if not before).
The key thing to note here is that climate change is evaluated by looking at average (mean) temperatures going back over centuries of data. Isolated periods of unusually cold weather do certainly occur but that is of no direct impact to the question of whether the climate is warming. Furthermore, instances of cold weather in one region of the world may occur whilst other areas in the world see unusually hot weather; whilst people in the UK were shivering in the icy weather the residents of Melbourne in Australia were sweltering in a heat wave. During a year the weather fluctuates and we will see cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, windy weather but none of these isolated occurrences tell us about the overall picture. That is why we need to look at the wider picture and the average temperatures globally compared to the averages in past years.
It is also very true that over the Earth’s long history the climate has experienced fluctuating high and low average temperatures. What scientists studying climate change do is to work out if the recent rises in GMST are to be expected (looking at the background of continuous climate change) or if the period of current warming is atypical. To do this they evaluate ancient temperature records which can be done through various methods (such as proportions of fossil pollen grains). The consensus is that the rate of warming we see across the globe today is unusually higher than seen in the past.
To go further into this I could now digress in to carbon dioxide levels but I was originally attempting to keep this blog relatively short - something which seems to be extremely difficult for me to achieve. As a budding biologist one of my main concerns regarding this level of warming, which is almost certainly thanks to anthropogenic activity, is the devastating environmental effects it is having. The Earth’s climate has always varied considerably due to natural causes and equally the extinction of species has always been a commonplace occurrence over the vastness of the Earth’s history. But events in recent times are not natural and since we can now understand the potential consequences it seems bizarre that we would choose not to act.
Those people who claim global warming is a huge conspiracy would do well to seek out and evaluate the scientific data for themselves. The scientific facts on this matter have no political or economical agenda; the data speaks for no organisation or pressure group but stands alone as pure factual data that we ignore at our peril. It may not be to the detriment of the current adult population if the trend of warming isn’t tackled but our children will surely suffer. What is more, the ecological and environmental consequences will not be easy to recover from and a great many species will be lost from this Earth never to evolve again.
As always, many thanks for reading.
Dominic (who, whilst writing this, realised that I too am not doing enough to make a small difference to the problems of global warming).
One thing that has been on my mind in the last few weeks has been the issue of climate change and global warming. In the UK we have had an extremely cold spell of weather which has caused heavy snowfalls, icy roads and travel chaos up and down the country. It’s rare, especially for those of us living in the south of England, to see such consistently cold weather and persistent snow on the ground. I have heard (or read on Facebook) several people making comments along the lines of “So this is global warming is it? I can’t see how the scientists can be telling us that the climate is warming when it’s been freezing cold and snowy for weeks”.
Perhaps this is quite a natural thing to think but I wanted to address it here because I believe that global warming is a huge problem and one that must be dealt with. It’s worth mentioning in advance that I am no scientific expert in this field, although I have studied some areas of climate change, and seen a great deal of robust scientific data, so I do feel able to discuss the topic.
What we should understand about climate change is that scientists look at average surface temperatures taken from monitoring stations in multitudes of locations across the globe. Each area provides data on the local mean (or average) surface temperature and all of these averages are then taken and collated to produce figures for the global mean surface temperature (GMST). I am not going to give references to all of those figures and sets of data here only to say that the measurements are reliable and accurate. Looking at the data it is certain that over the last century the temperature at the Earth’s surface has been warming (if not before).
The key thing to note here is that climate change is evaluated by looking at average (mean) temperatures going back over centuries of data. Isolated periods of unusually cold weather do certainly occur but that is of no direct impact to the question of whether the climate is warming. Furthermore, instances of cold weather in one region of the world may occur whilst other areas in the world see unusually hot weather; whilst people in the UK were shivering in the icy weather the residents of Melbourne in Australia were sweltering in a heat wave. During a year the weather fluctuates and we will see cold weather, hot weather, rainy weather, windy weather but none of these isolated occurrences tell us about the overall picture. That is why we need to look at the wider picture and the average temperatures globally compared to the averages in past years.
It is also very true that over the Earth’s long history the climate has experienced fluctuating high and low average temperatures. What scientists studying climate change do is to work out if the recent rises in GMST are to be expected (looking at the background of continuous climate change) or if the period of current warming is atypical. To do this they evaluate ancient temperature records which can be done through various methods (such as proportions of fossil pollen grains). The consensus is that the rate of warming we see across the globe today is unusually higher than seen in the past.
To go further into this I could now digress in to carbon dioxide levels but I was originally attempting to keep this blog relatively short - something which seems to be extremely difficult for me to achieve. As a budding biologist one of my main concerns regarding this level of warming, which is almost certainly thanks to anthropogenic activity, is the devastating environmental effects it is having. The Earth’s climate has always varied considerably due to natural causes and equally the extinction of species has always been a commonplace occurrence over the vastness of the Earth’s history. But events in recent times are not natural and since we can now understand the potential consequences it seems bizarre that we would choose not to act.
Those people who claim global warming is a huge conspiracy would do well to seek out and evaluate the scientific data for themselves. The scientific facts on this matter have no political or economical agenda; the data speaks for no organisation or pressure group but stands alone as pure factual data that we ignore at our peril. It may not be to the detriment of the current adult population if the trend of warming isn’t tackled but our children will surely suffer. What is more, the ecological and environmental consequences will not be easy to recover from and a great many species will be lost from this Earth never to evolve again.
As always, many thanks for reading.
Dominic (who, whilst writing this, realised that I too am not doing enough to make a small difference to the problems of global warming).
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Inherit the Wind
I recently saw a wonderful play at the Old Vic Theatre in London called Inherit the Wind. Taking in account the production, acting, subject matter and execution it was one of the very best plays I have ever seen.
Before I explain why I enjoyed the play so much I am also keen to give the background to the real life event which inspired the screenplay. By 1925 a Christian fundamentalist movement had made strong opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools and what they saw as a threat to the very moral structure that supported American society. A rough representation of their argument runs along these lines: evolution denies the literal truth of the Bible, denying the literal Biblical truth will lead to doubts about God, doubting God is abhorrent and will soon lead to pure atheism, atheism destroys morals and leads to the downfall of all that is good, our society will be destroyed and evil will prevail.
On the 23rd March 1925 the Butler Act was passed by the state in Tennessee; this act stated that:
“It shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal” (E.C.Scott, 2004).
It was therefore no longer legal for a science teacher to advance the theory of evolution. With much justification the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took it upon themselves to challenge a law that they felt was a denial of free speech and directly opposed to the First Amendment.
John T. Scopes was a science teacher in the small town of Dayton (Tennessee) and he agreed to a proposition by the ACLU that he would admit to teaching evolution in school so that it could be taken to trial; the ACLU wished to use the trial to generate publicity and highlight a law they felt was unjust. The Scopes trial did indeed receive much publicity; not least due to the involvement of William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defence. Bryan was a devout Christian with fundamentalist views (and an extreme distaste for evolutionary theory) whilst Darrow was a noted agnostic and an extremely famous defence attorney. A key stage of the trial was when Darrow called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible; hoping to preach to the non-believers Bryan accepted. Bryan was made to appear somewhat foolish due to his ignorance of many issues and a naïve explanation of certain Biblical stories, which he felt should be taken as written - word for word.
Scopes was convicted; mainly because the case was brought to trial focused on the sole issue of whether Scopes broke the law by violating the Butler act (which was never in question as he had admitted doing so). Eventually, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision due to a slight technical transgression and the case was thrown out. What mattered most was that it was a wonderful success for the ACLU in highlighting the issues to the popular press.
The trial, and the events both before and afterwards, is extremely fascinating and very important in understanding the battle that still rages today between Christian fundamentalists and the scientific community. Many of these issues were represented intelligently in Inherit the Wind.
The play takes certain dramatic license, as one would expect, and a large amount of it is based on a dramatization of the exchange between Darrow and Bryan (the characters have different names in the play). But the most important thing for me is that the central theme of the play is the advancement of free-thinking and the benefits to society when we encourage other to consider matters in depth - free from suppression. Even today the suppression of free-thought is a commonplace occurrence and frequently takes place under the banner of religious “teaching”. I place teaching in quotes because I feel that even though it is called teaching it lies more firmly in the realm of indoctrination.
If people consider the evidence for evolution carefully, read unbiased scientific literature and carefully consider all angles, and still reject it – I would have no issue (although I would be keen to discuss what conclusions such a person came to). However, to either suppress the knowledge of this rich and wonderful field of scientific knowledge, or greatly distort it, leaves me deeply saddened and frustrated. Laws such as the Butler Act no longer exist in the USA so the main Creationist groups have turned to the tactic of misrepresenting evolution, and more often presenting blatantly false information about it. Falsehood, out of context quotes, and bad science permeates the Creationist literature, and yet millions accept it on face value; a religious community tends to be structured in such a way that authority is trusted completely - those in charge often take full advantage of this fact when presenting misleading information.
The creationist movement in America tried for many years to get evolution banned in schools but time and time again their attempts were thwarted in court (where they are under oath to tell the truth). Today they focus on a movement advocating equal time in science class for Intelligent Design (the new name for Creation Science but equally vacuous on scientific grounds). I have no issue with Creationism being discussed in religious classes, or perhaps in history or other lessons where it may be appropriate to consider its impact. But Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design are simply not scientific theories and not suitable for science class. In school there is still some control over the broad range of subjects a child is allowed to explore; at home or in church there are no such rules. If science class is invaded by religious and personal views then it ceases to be science – will religious leaders give evolution equal time in Sunday school I wonder?
One final thought, I have written as though it is only in America that science is under attack and where religious groups seek to undermine education – however, many ripples have spread out from the epicentre in America. This can be seen by this article on the BBC website which details a recent survey in which 60% of those questioned in Britain felt creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons (perhaps indicating that bad information and misunderstanding clouds views on this matter) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8322781.stm
I think this is more than enough for now. I can only finish by highly recommending Inherit the Wind, it is still showing in London and it is a wonderful play. Kevin Spacey plays Henry Drummond (based upon Clarence Darrow) and was truly brilliant – but it is unfair to highlight only Spacey because each and every person on the stage put in a wonderful performance.
Before I explain why I enjoyed the play so much I am also keen to give the background to the real life event which inspired the screenplay. By 1925 a Christian fundamentalist movement had made strong opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools and what they saw as a threat to the very moral structure that supported American society. A rough representation of their argument runs along these lines: evolution denies the literal truth of the Bible, denying the literal Biblical truth will lead to doubts about God, doubting God is abhorrent and will soon lead to pure atheism, atheism destroys morals and leads to the downfall of all that is good, our society will be destroyed and evil will prevail.
On the 23rd March 1925 the Butler Act was passed by the state in Tennessee; this act stated that:
“It shall be unlawful for any teacher to teach any theory that denies the Story of Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animal” (E.C.Scott, 2004).
It was therefore no longer legal for a science teacher to advance the theory of evolution. With much justification the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took it upon themselves to challenge a law that they felt was a denial of free speech and directly opposed to the First Amendment.
John T. Scopes was a science teacher in the small town of Dayton (Tennessee) and he agreed to a proposition by the ACLU that he would admit to teaching evolution in school so that it could be taken to trial; the ACLU wished to use the trial to generate publicity and highlight a law they felt was unjust. The Scopes trial did indeed receive much publicity; not least due to the involvement of William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defence. Bryan was a devout Christian with fundamentalist views (and an extreme distaste for evolutionary theory) whilst Darrow was a noted agnostic and an extremely famous defence attorney. A key stage of the trial was when Darrow called Bryan to the stand as an expert witness on the Bible; hoping to preach to the non-believers Bryan accepted. Bryan was made to appear somewhat foolish due to his ignorance of many issues and a naïve explanation of certain Biblical stories, which he felt should be taken as written - word for word.
Scopes was convicted; mainly because the case was brought to trial focused on the sole issue of whether Scopes broke the law by violating the Butler act (which was never in question as he had admitted doing so). Eventually, however, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the decision due to a slight technical transgression and the case was thrown out. What mattered most was that it was a wonderful success for the ACLU in highlighting the issues to the popular press.
The trial, and the events both before and afterwards, is extremely fascinating and very important in understanding the battle that still rages today between Christian fundamentalists and the scientific community. Many of these issues were represented intelligently in Inherit the Wind.
The play takes certain dramatic license, as one would expect, and a large amount of it is based on a dramatization of the exchange between Darrow and Bryan (the characters have different names in the play). But the most important thing for me is that the central theme of the play is the advancement of free-thinking and the benefits to society when we encourage other to consider matters in depth - free from suppression. Even today the suppression of free-thought is a commonplace occurrence and frequently takes place under the banner of religious “teaching”. I place teaching in quotes because I feel that even though it is called teaching it lies more firmly in the realm of indoctrination.
If people consider the evidence for evolution carefully, read unbiased scientific literature and carefully consider all angles, and still reject it – I would have no issue (although I would be keen to discuss what conclusions such a person came to). However, to either suppress the knowledge of this rich and wonderful field of scientific knowledge, or greatly distort it, leaves me deeply saddened and frustrated. Laws such as the Butler Act no longer exist in the USA so the main Creationist groups have turned to the tactic of misrepresenting evolution, and more often presenting blatantly false information about it. Falsehood, out of context quotes, and bad science permeates the Creationist literature, and yet millions accept it on face value; a religious community tends to be structured in such a way that authority is trusted completely - those in charge often take full advantage of this fact when presenting misleading information.
The creationist movement in America tried for many years to get evolution banned in schools but time and time again their attempts were thwarted in court (where they are under oath to tell the truth). Today they focus on a movement advocating equal time in science class for Intelligent Design (the new name for Creation Science but equally vacuous on scientific grounds). I have no issue with Creationism being discussed in religious classes, or perhaps in history or other lessons where it may be appropriate to consider its impact. But Creationism, Creation Science or Intelligent Design are simply not scientific theories and not suitable for science class. In school there is still some control over the broad range of subjects a child is allowed to explore; at home or in church there are no such rules. If science class is invaded by religious and personal views then it ceases to be science – will religious leaders give evolution equal time in Sunday school I wonder?
One final thought, I have written as though it is only in America that science is under attack and where religious groups seek to undermine education – however, many ripples have spread out from the epicentre in America. This can be seen by this article on the BBC website which details a recent survey in which 60% of those questioned in Britain felt creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science lessons (perhaps indicating that bad information and misunderstanding clouds views on this matter) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8322781.stm
I think this is more than enough for now. I can only finish by highly recommending Inherit the Wind, it is still showing in London and it is a wonderful play. Kevin Spacey plays Henry Drummond (based upon Clarence Darrow) and was truly brilliant – but it is unfair to highlight only Spacey because each and every person on the stage put in a wonderful performance.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Welcome
Welcome to my blog.
I have recently been contributing to a blog that belongs to a friend of mine which is still online and can be found here:
http://apathyeveolved.blogspot.com/
However, the blog was set up for certain purposes and I began to worry that what I was writing may not reflect what all the authors wanted to say. Hence – this is my blog where I will post without fear of upsetting fellow authors (and hoping not to offend any readers – if there ever are any).
My main passion is the advancement of scientific understanding and trying to fight through the wealth of misinformation, superstition and bad science that seems to dominate a lot of the popular media. In particular, as could be seen by some of my posts in the apatheyevolved blog, I am a keen defender of evolutionary theory against those who attack it for religious, political and personal reasons. Evolution continues to create controversy – but never in the scientific community where its validity is not under debate. There are debates between scientists about the mechanisms of evolution and how each of them may contribute to evolutionary change – but that is the nature of science and does not indicate that evolution is somehow contentious.
Anyway, as soon as I start on evolution I get carried away (and why not, as I feel it’s a thoroughly fascinating and amazingly beautiful process). But, this is just my introduction.
I write best when inspired to do so by a certain book, article or documentary and I will often do that here. I will not constrain all I write about to scientific topics and I will try to comment on matters that interest me most. I also hope to raise awareness of the threat to biodiversity through anthropogenic activity, and perhaps advance understanding of climate change and the dynamic nature of our wonderful planet and its environmental and ecological systems.
I am not a particularly great writer and although I am studying to become a zoologist I am by no means a scientist yet – and certainly no expert. I encourage comments and feedback and I enjoy a good debate so if you disagree then let me know – but only in a constructive way please.
Well enough for now. Have a look at the blog (linked above) if you want to read some of my previous posts and comments.
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
I have recently been contributing to a blog that belongs to a friend of mine which is still online and can be found here:
http://apathyeveolved.blogspot.com/
However, the blog was set up for certain purposes and I began to worry that what I was writing may not reflect what all the authors wanted to say. Hence – this is my blog where I will post without fear of upsetting fellow authors (and hoping not to offend any readers – if there ever are any).
My main passion is the advancement of scientific understanding and trying to fight through the wealth of misinformation, superstition and bad science that seems to dominate a lot of the popular media. In particular, as could be seen by some of my posts in the apatheyevolved blog, I am a keen defender of evolutionary theory against those who attack it for religious, political and personal reasons. Evolution continues to create controversy – but never in the scientific community where its validity is not under debate. There are debates between scientists about the mechanisms of evolution and how each of them may contribute to evolutionary change – but that is the nature of science and does not indicate that evolution is somehow contentious.
Anyway, as soon as I start on evolution I get carried away (and why not, as I feel it’s a thoroughly fascinating and amazingly beautiful process). But, this is just my introduction.
I write best when inspired to do so by a certain book, article or documentary and I will often do that here. I will not constrain all I write about to scientific topics and I will try to comment on matters that interest me most. I also hope to raise awareness of the threat to biodiversity through anthropogenic activity, and perhaps advance understanding of climate change and the dynamic nature of our wonderful planet and its environmental and ecological systems.
I am not a particularly great writer and although I am studying to become a zoologist I am by no means a scientist yet – and certainly no expert. I encourage comments and feedback and I enjoy a good debate so if you disagree then let me know – but only in a constructive way please.
Well enough for now. Have a look at the blog (linked above) if you want to read some of my previous posts and comments.
Thanks for reading,
Dominic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)