tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43045740863974043692024-03-13T17:25:48.047+00:00Further thoughts for the dayMy thoughts on this, that and the other: Atheism, Batman, Capoeira, Science and whatever else comes into my brain.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-7241330551414406012016-11-13T18:20:00.001+00:002016-11-13T18:20:13.664+00:00Why Donald Trump won<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Well, of course, I don't know. However, I know there's more to it than just blaming it on various flavours of bigot. <br />
<br />
As I see it, these are some of the other reasons for Trump getting in, and to an extent the rise of the right, Brexit and UKIP etc. This isn't an exhaustive list, but<a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/thoughts-on-terrorism.html" target="_blank"> if you want to tackle a problem, you need to know what the problem involves.</a><br />
<br />
Firstly, the regressive left is part of the problem, as laid out by Jonathan Pie:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GLG9g7BcjKs" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />The movement to "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36101423" target="_blank">no platform</a>" speakers is not helpful. Ignoring ideas you don't like makes you ignorant of them, and it doesn't make those ideas, or the people who hold them, go away,<br />
<br />
It also stops you engaging with and challenging those ideas, and to challenge those ideas in front of the people who turn up and might be swayed by them.<br />
<br />
It's also the opposite of free speech. It's really easy to defend speech you agree with. But if you truly are for free speech, it <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bbcradiocambridgeshire/videos/1194903030590574/?pnref=story" target="_blank">means sticking up for racists who want to hold a rally in a field</a> (so long as no laws were broken, they have every right to do so). Remember, no one has the right to not be offended:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HQ3VcbAfd4w" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
All this does is create a climate of "crimethink" leaving certain points of view to be seen seen as verboten. Certain subjects become taboo to such an extent that they cannot even be discussed, and so these ideas stay in the heads of the people who have them, and get expressed in a polling booth.<br />
<br />
This is related to another problem - <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles" target="_blank">The Filter Bubble</a>.The things you get in search engines and on social media are designed to be what algorithms think you will want to see. This has the same problem as no platforming, but unlike no platforming (and similar) where you have to actively avoid differing opinions, the Filter Bubble does it all for you. You can game it - because I actively seek out and read pseudoscience, religious apologetics and conspiracy theories, these get fed to me in Facebook for example, even though I am not their target audience (for example there's a Chiropractic Clinic that pops up regularly. When it does, I just leave "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/controversiesinscience-health" target="_blank">Beware the spinal trap</a>" in the comments).<br />
<br />
The majority of people don't do this, and so will likely get news and opinion from those similar to them. They will consequently mostly see stuff they agree with - be that Clinton/Trump; #Brexit/Remain. This makes it hard to stay informed. When one of the campaigns lies (as Trump did - here's<a href="http://fair.org/home/trumps-unhinged-lie-about-obama-doesnt-register-as-news-to-corporate-media/" target="_blank"> what he said about Obama vs what Obama actually said</a>, as one example) or misinforms you (as <a href="https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/leave-remain-the-facts-behind-the-claims.pdf" target="_blank">both leave and remain did</a>). This is a problem - with <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/" target="_blank">increasing numbers of people getting their news via social media.</a> If your source of news is <a href="http://www.thecanary.co/" target="_blank">The Canary</a> or <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/" target="_blank">Breitbart</a>, your picture of politics is going to be heavily distorted from reality.<br />
<br />
People who hadn't actively looked for news beyond their social media feeds may have been entirely unaware of Trump's deceit - and it's naive, but not unreasonable, to suppose that at a rally you will be told the truth by your prospective candidate.<br />
<br />
Of course, the main reason that Trump got in is that people voted for him. But again, to tar them all as bigots is stop yourself from understanding the wider social context they're in. <a href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/" target="_blank">This article from Cracked</a> sums it up well - it's written by someone from Trump country, who left for the big cities, and whilst he sees Trump as Bad Thing, it does help to get some empathy for where Trump supporters are coming from. As the author notes at the end "It feels good to dismiss people, to mock them, to write them off as deplorables. But you might as well take time to try to understand them, because I'm telling you, they'll still be around long after Trump is gone."<br />
<br />
Trump's election does rather lend support to Churchill's aphorism "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." But there are many reasons why we are here. I don't know what all those reasons are, but to fail to look beyond "it's racist voting" is to fail to understand how we've got to where we are. And to solve a problem, you have to understand it.<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-739546111923552082016-11-09T20:00:00.003+00:002016-11-10T07:39:49.822+00:00Some thoughts on Trump victory<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've seen this image do the rounds again:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKwWIKfbABQ-n_xiwnyaZVlwUyG97GZp8td9ogS7pp6l_T4I7cOYeki9WvOQxa-SiBqpaDds6tXNcXicUSAdlwl9uTtRJx3Xuru3q5tEi8X5jkGHIJ38ZAu_r-tjJ-BSBstaO5LC2wFDo/s1600/trump.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKwWIKfbABQ-n_xiwnyaZVlwUyG97GZp8td9ogS7pp6l_T4I7cOYeki9WvOQxa-SiBqpaDds6tXNcXicUSAdlwl9uTtRJx3Xuru3q5tEi8X5jkGHIJ38ZAu_r-tjJ-BSBstaO5LC2wFDo/s320/trump.jpg" width="317" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
It's a <a href="http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/" target="_blank">fake</a>. There are many <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2016/11/07/the-future-of-democratic-values/" target="_blank">flaws about Trump</a>, amongst many things for example, he is: a <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien#" target="_blank">serial liar</a>; <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/donald-trump-s-us-election-win-stuns-scientists-1.20952" target="_blank">anti-science</a> (he is anti-vaccine; denies climate change and has made negative comments about the NIH and NASA for example); misogynistic and has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/08/donald-trump-forced-into-apology-as-sex-boast-tape-horrifies-republicans" target="_blank">boasted about sexually assaulting women</a>; <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racism-history" target="_blank">racist</a> and "p<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all" target="_blank">athologically impulsive and self-centered</a>". It bugs me to see a fake criticism of something, or someone, that already has more than enough material for criticism to start with.<br />
<br />
It also bugs me because this is displaying exactly the kind of divisive ideology that Trump used to help him get where he is, by vilifying Republicans as the "dumbest group of voters in the country". We should be better than that.<br />
<br />
There is no need to invent falsehoods to criticise Trump, especially those that mirror his flaws.<br />
<br />
So what can we do? Well this is some nice advice that popped into my Facebook feed today:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="256" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheCartooningPsychologist%2Fposts%2F1255096427888887&width=500" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" width="500"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
It shares some sentiments with something Edmund Burke wrote in 1770:<br />
<br />
"Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."<br />
<i>Edmund Burke, Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents 82-83 (1770) in: Select Works of Edmund Burke, vol. 1, p. 146 (Liberty Fund ed. 1999).</i><br />
<br />
This was more pithily put as "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."<br />
<br />
So we have to do something. But what? Well, another famous quote:<br />
<br />
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.<br />
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.<br />
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.<br />
Pastor Martin Niemöller<br />
<br />
The power is in our hands to do some things, for example, <a href="http://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/hate-crime-incidents-reported-to-police-have-reduced-following-a-spike-after-the-eu-referendum" target="_blank">in the wake of Brexit there was spike in hate crimes</a>. It seems reasonable to suppose that American bigots will be emboldened. This was a cartoon to show how to offer support if you see someone being a victim of an Islamophobic abuse, but the advise works for other groups too - religious, racial, LGBTQ etc<br />
<br />
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="670" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fthemiddleeasternfeminist%2Fposts%2F1117370921672814%3A0&width=500" style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" width="500"></iframe>
<br />
You don't just have to wait for something to come to you. It may sound trite, but I think we really do need to be the change we want to see in the world. It seems there's a lot of us out there wanting things to change, but unless we get together and do something about, it won't.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-18497095028826426522016-06-28T19:37:00.004+01:002016-06-28T20:36:10.107+01:00Simon Bishop RIP<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I found out Simon Bishop died today. He was a kind and generous man, and I barely new him, save through Twitter and Facebook. In fact, I only got to meet him IRL three times.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I first noticed him as I watched the Atheist Bus JustGiving page get bigger and bigger, with his name frequently appearing, with very large donations - <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/atheistbus" target="_blank">if you visit the site now</a> you'll see his last donation on the front page.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
With all the atheist/humanist twitterers I already followed, his name popped up in my feed, and I followed him and thanked him for the his support of the BHA campaign. He was a vocal anti-theist, and I was much more vocal about atheism then, so we got on pretty quickly. That was 7 odd years ago, when his followers were few. That year I did a Three Peaks/55 Mile/Chicago Marathon challenge in 2009, which I naturally tweeted about. I was overwhelmed to receive ~£850 from Simon over the course of the year. Initially, he </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Such surprising generosity, as we had only ever interacted through twitter. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I saw via twitter (naturally) that we were both in London at the same time I arranged to meet him as I wanted to buy him a drink and say thank you. Of course, he bought the drinks, but it was great to have a chat and and to say thank you in person. At that point, he had donated £400.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The next time I met him was up in Leeds, again, we had coincidentally ended up in the same city at the same time. We both shared a mutual friend of a friend too, and all ended up having breakfast at the end of the weekend. Naturally he paid.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
He also bought my wife an iPad - he made an offer on twitter to buy people iPads, and with my wife's laptop having recently died, and it being a good distraction that helps with her depression, I jumped at the chance. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course there was much more to Simon than his material generosity. He said on Facebook "I have some very good friends who need help. Some need emotional help (which I'm crap at) and some need financial help (which I'm good at)." One only need look at the tributes on Twitter and Facebook to see that he was much better at the emotional help than he realised.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am glad that the last time I met Simon I was able to thank him for that in person too, and that we had a good long chat about life, the universe and everything. He really did enjoy hearing how he had helped.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The last thing he said to me was that it was really nice to get to know me a lot better and that he looked forward to more of it with his more frequent trips to Chichester. Sadly, that was two years ago. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I am sorry that I won't be able to tell him how my unborn bady likes to kick about to music played to her from the iPad he bought.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I didn't know him well, but he left a big impression on me. I can't imagine the grief for those who were much closer to him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The world is not as good as it was now that he has gone.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-10021201241459072322016-04-10T12:00:00.002+01:002016-04-12T21:47:24.626+01:00It's a bit more complicated than that - fat and sugar<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Ian Leslie has written an interesting long read for the Guardian: "<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin" target="_blank">The Sugar Conspiracy</a>".<br />
<br />
It's a good illustration of how science works. Science is a great idea and, I would argue, the best thing we have for finding out if something is true or not. I like Jerry Coyne's definition of science, broadly construed: "<a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-trouble-with-the-trouble-with-scientism/" target="_blank">as the use of reason, empirical observation, doubt, and testing as a way of acquiring knowledge.</a>" Unfortunately, like many great ideas, it's carried out by fallible humans, and so whilst in principle, and practice, science has given us great leaps forward, that progress is often constrained by the personalities and foibles of those involved in the debate at the time. Max Planck's remark neatly sums this up: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Leslie, referencing that same remark (and showing empirical support for it), shows how nutritional advice has followed this pattern. (To see another illustration of this in practice, you should read the excellent Big Bang by Simon Singh).<br />
<br />
However, I have a few problems with the article:<br />
<br />
The first is that it talks favourably about the Atkins diet, deriding those who questioned it. However, the Atkins diet is a fad diet, and not a very good one.<br />
<br />
For starters, Leslie rightly says "Controlled trials have repeatedly failed to show that people lose weight on low-fat or low-calorie diets, over the long-term.". The problem is, the Atkins diet is also a low calorie diet.<br />
<br />
The Atkins diet advocates high fat and protein, and virtually no carbohydrates. The diet results in people eating food that leaves them feeling full for longer. Consequently, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkinstrans.shtml" target="_blank">they have a reduced calorie diet because they don't eat as many calories.</a> Whilst patients may lose weight on the Atkins diet, the diet is not risk free - for example it may lead to damage to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1333.025/abstract" target="_blank">tissue and vascular damage</a>, and could lead to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Klaus_Lessnau/publication/7231488_A_life-threatening_complication_of_Atkins_diet/links/0046352794619697d4000000.pdf" target="_blank">life threatening complications</a>.<br />
<br />
The article also seemed a bit disingenuous to claim "Only in the last few years has it become acceptable to study the effects of Atkins-type diets." Atkins first book may have been published in 1972, but it was the 2002 book "Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution" that really saw the Atkins diet take off (see the Google ngram graph). It didn't take long for the scientific community to look at the efficacy and safety of low-carb diets, see "<a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)16986-9/abstract" target="_blank">Atkins and other low-carbohydrate diets: hoax or an effective tool for weight loss?</a>" from The Lancet in 2004 and "<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2005.00196.x/abstract" target="_blank">Safety of low-carbohydrate diets</a>" from 2005. These are both over a decade old - does that qualify as the "last few years"?<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="250" hspace="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="ngram_chart" scrolling="no" src="https://books.google.com/ngrams/interactive_chart?content=Atkins+diet&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1950&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CAtkins%20diet%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BAtkins%20diet%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAtkins%20Diet%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BATKINS%20DIET%3B%2Cc0" vspace="0" width="450"></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
The Atkins diet also restricts intake of fruit and vegetables - <a href="http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/vegetables-and-fruits/" target="_blank">diets high in fruit and veg lower the chances of a number of diseases</a>.<br />
<br />
On top of that, ideally the goal of a weight loss programme should be for the weight to stay off. A recent (albeit small) study showed the<a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7553/1309" target="_blank"> Atkins diet was no more effective</a> than other weight loss programmes, but that after the 6 month trial, the 12 month follow up showed that weight had been put back on.<br />
<br />
My second issue with the article is that it leaves one with the impression that fats are okay, and sugar is bad, and that reducing sugar is the key to resolving the obesity epidemic (and there is an epidemic - <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/9528/" target="_blank">some people will try and tell you that there isn't one</a>, but it has become harder to deny when there are <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/more-people-obese-than-underweight-1.19682" target="_blank">more obese people than underweight people in the world</a>) - but it's much more complicated than that. Cutting out carbohydrates is will not give a healthy, balanced diet, after all carbohydrates are the bodies preferred energy source - in fact the <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Documents/The-Eatwell-Guide-2016.pdf" target="_blank">NHS Eat Well guide</a> is a very good way of thinking about how much, and of what, you should be eating. However, following a diet plan can be useful, and there is also a guide on the <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/loseweight/Pages/top-10-most-popular-diets-review.aspx#5:2" target="_blank">pros and cons of a number of diets out there on the market.</a> Indeed cutting out carbohydrates will result in less fruit and veg being consumed - <a href="http://www.sugarscience.org/sugar-faq.html#.VwogMPkrLIU" target="_blank">something Robert Lustig does not recommend.</a><br />
<br />
This leads to another grumble - Leslie should have distinguished between refined carbohydrates ("sugar") and complex carbohydrates, like starch. The article is about the refined carbs - what people put in their tea, and yet when advocating low carb diets, this can include cutting out complex carbohydrates as well. It's a distinction that should have been made.<br />
<br />
Lastly, Taubes is lauded for his book, but he is not without his <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-cause-of-obesity/" target="_blank">critics</a> - some of those criticisms are the same that Leslie is making: conclusions being made with insufficient evidence, which Taubes is also guilty of when he concludes that low carb diets are the key.<br />
<br />
Diet is not the only factor when it comes to weight management. It is emerging that <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/06/human-gut-bacteria-linked-to-obesity/" target="_blank">the microbiome of the gut may play a part</a>, and of course, the other important factor absent is levels of exercise. The article makes it look like cutting out carbs will solve obesity, but his isn't the case.<br />
<br />
Whilst there are lots of factors involved in a person's weight, achieving or maintaining a healthy weight isn't complicated. You must expend more calories than you take in to lose weight. It's simple physics - whilst people may lose weight at a different rate, the body gets its energy from the food that is eaten. If more of that energy is being used than is being taken in, then weight will reduce. As Michael Pollen said "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants". I would add - move yourself often.<br />
<br />
The problem though is not informing people of these things, it's actually<a href="https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/sites/www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/files/documents/cam77.pdf" target="_blank"> changing people's behaviour</a> (see page 13 of this link) so that the information is taken on board - but if the information provided is misleading, as I feel that Ian Leslie's article is, then that won't help in that regard.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-70089209032863801462016-03-29T23:33:00.001+01:002016-03-29T23:33:40.174+01:00Thoughts on terrorism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A couple of memes have popped up quite frequently in my social media feeds regarding the recent atrocities. Both I feel I should share, but for different reasons.<br />
<br />
First we have this, which I take issue with:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi99jEhBbHXmfOOO67qKRR70_V4lgqYk9iDSOY-YS9YIK51tZwVPehaN7DHgBWBp40kK-B-Md-6oUOeru5ubHecXZA_w86qlQB_6w5KbHlfpGJvoFDF9Po93rOa1qu7oCn3WbiLWrnNOt0/s1600/terroist+attacks.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi99jEhBbHXmfOOO67qKRR70_V4lgqYk9iDSOY-YS9YIK51tZwVPehaN7DHgBWBp40kK-B-Md-6oUOeru5ubHecXZA_w86qlQB_6w5KbHlfpGJvoFDF9Po93rOa1qu7oCn3WbiLWrnNOt0/s320/terroist+attacks.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Here are the groups responsible for those attacks. I have gone for those attacks that most closely match the numbers of dead. Sadly, some of the above cities have been the victims of more than one attack.<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 379px;"><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 3437; mso-width-source: userset; width: 71pt;" width="94"></col><col style="mso-width-alt: 3401; mso-width-source: userset; width: 70pt;" width="93"></col><col style="mso-width-alt: 7021; mso-width-source: userset; width: 144pt;" width="192"></col></colgroup><tbody></tbody></table>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" dir="ltr" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: 1px solid #ccc; font-family: arial,sans,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; table-layout: fixed;"><colgroup><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col><col width="100"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Place"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Place</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Date"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Date</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Responsible"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Responsible</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Lahore"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Lahore</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42456]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">27/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistand"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Istanbul"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Istanbul</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42448]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">19/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"ISIS"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">ISIS</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Brussels"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Brussels</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42451]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">22/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"ISIS"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">ISIS</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Iskanderia"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Iskanderia</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42454]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">25/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"ISIS"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">ISIS</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Maiduguri"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Maiduguri</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42445]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">16/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Boko Haram"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Boko Haram</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Peshawar"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Peshawar</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42445]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">16/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Unknown"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Unknown</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Ankara"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Ankara</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42442]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">13/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Kurdistan Freedom Falcons"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Kurdistan Freedom Falcons</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 21px;"><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"Grand Bassam"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">Grand Bassam</td><td data-sheets-numberformat="[null,5]" data-sheets-value="[null,3,null,42442]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; text-align: right; vertical-align: bottom;">13/03/2016</td><td data-sheets-value="[null,2,"AQIM"]" style="font-family: Times New Roman; padding: 2px 3px 2px 3px; vertical-align: bottom;">AQIM</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Some terrorism may have no religion, but three of these groups are overtly religious, and do what they do in the name of their religion:<br />
<br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Boko Haram - founded with the goal of establishing an Islamic state, and now allied with ISIS.</li>
<li>ISIS - Specifically set up to have a world wide Islamic caliphate.</li>
<li>Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan - an umbrella group for various Sunni Islamist militants, one of their goals being the enforcement of their interpretation of Sharia law.</li>
</ul>
<br />
I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, but to say that terrorism as a whole has no religion is to deny part of the problem. Some terrorism has religious motivation. As <a href="https://twitter.com/SamHarrisOrg/status/713830551484891136" target="_blank">Sam Harris</a>* has said:<br />
<br />
"Many countries in Latin America have legitimate grievances against the U.S. Where are the Guatemalan suicide bombers? Where are the Cherokee suicide bombers, for that matter? If oppression were enough, the Tibetans should have been practicing suicidal terrorism against the Chinese for decades. Instead, they practice self-immolation, for reasons that are totally understandable within the context of their own religious beliefs. Again, specific beliefs matter, and we deny this at our peril. If the behavior of Muslim suicide bombers should tell us anything, it's that certain people really do believe in martyrdom. Let me be very clear about this: I'm not talking about all (or even most) Muslims - I'm talking about jihadists. But all jihadists are Muslim. If even one percent of the world's Muslims are potential jihadists, we have a terrible problem on our hands. I'm not sure how we deal with 16 million aspiring martyrs - but lying to ourselves about the nature of the problem doesn't seem like the best strategy."<br />
<br />
Sam Harris's 1% is not that far fetched - this is from a Pew poll "<a href="http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf" target="_blank">The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society</a>" that took a dispassionate look at the beliefs of Muslims around the world:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/picture-1.png?w=303&h=693" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/picture-1.png?w=303&h=693" width="139" /></a></div>
They may be in the minority, but many Muslims feel suicide bombing is often or sometimes justified.<br />
<br />
The second meme deals with the issue of understanding ISIS specifically:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOhou982XJH16j9k8h9aDZwUAE1ww6d6m6xm6iDMgExh4rkUgZjLXIZbbyxvcSPrqHZIMe5ESsaf_Jg0ixIVlTU91oUOoxkFesAlWEzTxWdO_4mU9D2AAprnRqtwvHx88E81S7kfoTjD0/s1600/terroist+attacks+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOhou982XJH16j9k8h9aDZwUAE1ww6d6m6xm6iDMgExh4rkUgZjLXIZbbyxvcSPrqHZIMe5ESsaf_Jg0ixIVlTU91oUOoxkFesAlWEzTxWdO_4mU9D2AAprnRqtwvHx88E81S7kfoTjD0/s320/terroist+attacks+2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Firstly, yes, the meme has a number of mistakes - some of the details aren't quite correct, in terms of locations, dates etc. Also, two of the attacks were not by ISIS - Ankara on March 15th, and San Diego (I'm guessing it means San Bernardino). I'm also not sure if the statement that ISIS is killing more Muslims than any other group is true.<br />
<br />
That said, the central point is important - our media is biased in its reporting. This is partly understandable, we feel more empathy to those closest to us. The Paris and Brussels attacks shook me far more than the other attacks mentioned in these memes, because I know people there, I've visited there. It resonates far more than places across the globe I've not visited, and don't know anyone that's from there. This in no way diminishes the grief, pain and sorrow of each of these attacks, but to feel equal empathy for all the world's ills is to leave one in such a well of pity and despair, I don't think there would be any way out.<br />
<br />
Whilst the West's disproportionate reporting of terrorism is understandable, a consequence is that it very much seems that ISIS is out to get us in the West specifically. But they're not - they want to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate under their interpretations of Islamic Law, whether you identify as Muslim or not.<br />
<br />
I haven't got the first clue how to bring world peace, but when it comes to dealing with terrorism, you have to identify the problem itself, and ignoring parts of it - in this case the motivations, and the atrocities occurring very far from our doorstep - we are prone to being duped by those who claim to offer solutions to our perceived problems, and not the actual issue at hand.<br />
<br />
*Sam Harris seems to provoke a lot of controversy around what he says. If you have issue with some of Sam Harris' other views, that's cool, but please let's just focus on the quote I have used and nothing more.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-9294783427066152892016-03-27T13:56:00.000+01:002016-03-27T13:56:09.818+01:00In defense of the BMI<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I've heard a few friends dissing the BMI recently, including being sent an article titled "<a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bmi-is-a-terrible-measure-of-health/" target="_blank">BMI is a terrible measure of health</a>", Katherine Hobson. I think the they are wrong to do so, and this is why.<br />
<br />
The BMI has it's limitations, but it is certainly not terrible, and I think it can be very useful for helping people lead a healthy lifestyle, so here is a defense of the BMI. If you don't know what the BMI is,<a href="http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/3215.aspx?CategoryID=51" target="_blank"> read this first</a>.<br />
<br />
One of the most common criticisms I hear is that the BMI will put athletic people into the overweight/obese categories because muscle is more dense than fat. BMI is very crude, and doesn't take these things into account. This seems a ridiculous limitation - if someone is athletic and sporty, are they actually in need of a metric to find out if they're a healthy weight? As Hobson says: "The goal of using any obesity indicator should be to
identify people with excess fat, since that fat has been associated with bad
health outcomes". I agree, and as such, it seems silly to use an obesity indicator on professional athletes.<br />
<br />
Hobson goes on to summarise some research: "A s<a href="http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ijo201617a.html" target="_blank">tudy by researchers at UCLA published this month</a> in the
International Journal of Obesity looked at 40,420 adults in the most recent
U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and assessed their health
as measured by six accepted metrics, including blood pressure, cholesterol and
C-reactive protein (a gauge of inflammation). It found that 47 percent of
people classified as overweight by BMI and 29 percent of those who qualified as
obese were healthy as measured by at least five of those other metrics.
Meanwhile, 31 percent of normal-weight people were unhealthy by two or more of
the same measures. Using BMI alone as a measure of health would misclassify
almost 75 million adults in the U.S., the authors concluded."<br />
<br />
However, given the population of the U.S. at the time of the study was 322 million, it means that over 75% of the population are correctly classified. The research is behind a pay wall, so it's a shame to not see the full paper (I also wonder how those other metrics compare with each other).<br />
<br />
On top of that, if the goal is to find people with excess fat, it is not fair to knock the BMI when it is being compared to tests with a different goal: to assess cardiometabolic health. BMI might not be the best indicator of cardiometabolic health, but then that's not its goal. That said, with over a 75% success rate, it doesn't seem to be too shabby!<br />
<br />
This study was commissioned because employers in the US wanted to penalise employees up to 30% of health insurance costs if they failed certain health metrics, including BMI. The study wanted to find out how BMI compared to six indicators of cardiometabolic health. If insurance companies, or employers, are misusing the BMI when it comes to health insurance payments, that's hardly the fault of the test, that's the fault of people not using it appropriately.<br />
<br />
A better criticism of the "athletes get measured overweight" is that BMI doesn't take into account bone, fat or muscle, it just lumps the entire body together as a single unit. As stated, we are looking for a measure of excess fat - and the fact that BMI doesn't look at fat directly is a legitimate criticism. So what happens when we compare BMI to a more direct measure of body fat, our stated goal for this metric?<br />
<br />
A <a href="http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2008/articles/1390.pdf" target="_blank">study</a> compared BMI to skin fold thickness (which is a more direct measure of body fat), to assess the BMI cut offs (for healthy weight, obesity etc) in different ethnicities. They found those who were obese by BMI were obese by skin fold thickness 50 - 80% of the time depending on ethnicity and gender); and those who were not obese by BMI were not obese by skin fold thickness 85% to 99% of the time.<br />
<br />
Clearly BMI is a crude, but useful, estimate of a person's body fat.<br />
<br />
The BMI began as an epidemiological tool for populations, and so will always be a problem when applied to an individual. It's similar to the lottery - if enough people play, someone will win, but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP58mP8Wchc">it won't be you</a>.<br />
<br />
In this case we're dealing with more realistic odds - if you're obese by BMI, it's not a certainty that you will get Type II diabetes for example, but it is much more likely. When looking at <a href="http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/sites/www.nhlbi.nih.gov/files/obesity-evidence-review.pdf">large populations, the effects of obesity can be seen</a>, and they are not good for health.<br />
<br />
So how does BMI compare when looking at other metrics for obesity? Is BMI a fair assessment of whether or not someone's weight is too high?<br />
<br />
Measuring someone's waist circumference can be used to assess whther they are obese. The BMI compares against a measure of waist circumference pretty well. A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21386/abstract" target="_blank">study</a> showed that 6% of people will have a healthy BMI, but an obese waist, and also, 6% of people will have an obese BMI, but a normal waist. The remaining 88% will have a waist circumference that matches their BMI.<br />
<br />
An even better metric than waist circumference and BMI is,the <a href="http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2468805" target="_blank">hip to waist ratio</a>, which takes into account where fat is stored in the body a little more - fat stored around the belly is associated with poorer health outcomes than fat stored elsewhere ("apples", those who store fat around the wait tend to do worse than "pears" who store more fat on the hips). The hip to waist ratio is a very good metric for assessing helath, and better than the BMI as far as I'm concerned. There is another metric that is better than BMI as well: the <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144639" target="_blank">Surface-based Body Shape Index, lead to a more accurate predictor of mortality</a>, compared to BMI.<br />
<br />
So why am I still defending the BMI when other metrics are available, that also look to be better indicators of health? Well it can be <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44583/1/9789241501491_eng.pdf" target="_blank">harder to do accurately</a> measure the hip to waist ratio, as there are different ways to do it. Likewise, the Surface-based Body Shape Index is again a little more complicated. BMI is very simple - you just need your weight and height, and if you're terrible at maths, it's very easy to <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx?Tag=">calculate online</a>.<br />
<br />
Why is this important? Well, being overweight and obese greatly increases your risks for a <a href="http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-topics/weight-control/health_risks_being_overweight/Pages/health-risks-being-overweight.aspx" target="_blank">number of diseases</a>. However, biology is complex, and the effects of excess fat are not fully understood - <a href="https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-obesity-paradox/" target="_blank">whilst being overweight and obese can increase your chances of various maladies, once you have those maladies, you may be less likely to die from them than someone of a healthy weight.</a><br />
<br />
Clearly, there is more to health than just measuring obesity - more than one metric should really be taken into account. However, obesity is still a significant risk to health. People severely underestimate the risks associated with lifestyle, and it's not a case of not knowing the risks. Simply knowing the risks isn't always enough. Let's take smoking, everyone knows it's a risk, however, not everyone fully appreciates this fact. <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_2/ii8.full.pdf+html">Knowledge of smoking risk comes in four levels</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Level 1: having heard that smoking increases health risks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Level 2: being aware that specific diseases are caused by
smoking.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Level 3: accurately appreciating the meaning, severity, and
probabilities of developing tobacco related diseases.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Level 4: personally accepting that the risks inherent in
levels 1–3 apply to one’s own risk of contracting such diseases.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's that level 4 - where you actually realise that the risks will apply, directly, to your own health, that many smokers seem not to get. I suspect that when it comes to other risk factors people don't have that fourth level of awareness.</div>
<br />
Sadly, the fantastic NHS tool "Atlas of Risk" is no longer running, however, it was based on a number of large data sets, and it would show you the leading causes of death in the UK, both nationally and locally, and would also show the biggest risks leading to those deaths. Thankfully, I got a screen grab of the tool for a lesson I taught. Here are the national risks, leading to death, in this country:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyxslVvoeBaiiNiaEXbLhR_7x6MhS7900AdKp9OhNWRzgr4Cn2erGsyd6PSsf3H2d0DC9N1oPuNbs4TePWfY6UaSwfEJJrFVfBBYhqSwtJRzyP8j63vNtxR7ipZ-4NjFp5UyL0_7_2vrA/s1600/risk.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="310" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyxslVvoeBaiiNiaEXbLhR_7x6MhS7900AdKp9OhNWRzgr4Cn2erGsyd6PSsf3H2d0DC9N1oPuNbs4TePWfY6UaSwfEJJrFVfBBYhqSwtJRzyP8j63vNtxR7ipZ-4NjFp5UyL0_7_2vrA/s320/risk.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Being obese, not eating enough fruit and veg, and not getting enough exercise are the 4th, 5th and 6th most risky things that you can do if you don't want to die earlier than you otherwise would, from natural causes. The 1st and 3rd leading risks are also associated with obesity.<br />
<br />
At the end of the day, the hardest bit about staying healthy is the effort you put in, because it's not that complex. You can ignore all those fad (and often expensive) diet plans - just follow the <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/the-eatwell-guide.aspx" target="_blank">NHS EatWell plate.</a> Get some regular exercise. It will make a difference.<br />
<br />
That said, we will all die eventually, and people are free to be obese, smoke and do other activities that negatively impact their health.<br />
<br />
But for those that want to improve or maintain their health, I don't think the BMI should be disregarded. Firstly, as we have seen, it's not perfect, but is still a useful indicator. However, secondly, and I think more importantly, it can help monitor your progress, in a way that the better waist to hip ratio may fails at.<br />
<br />
Most people <a href="http://www.yalescientific.org/2011/04/targeted-fat-loss-myth-or-reality/">tend to lose excess fat evenly</a>, they don't reduce fat in some areas and not others. Therefore, if people were using the hip to waist ratio, this would stay the same, even if significant changes to lifestyle were bringing about a reduction in over all excess fat. However, a person's BMI profile would improve in that time.<br />
<br />
The BMI was initially developed as a tool for epidemiological studies - it was always going to have flaws when applied to individuals. But if you recognise those limitations, there's no reason why it can't be there in the tool kit available to assess one's health.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-16025705884337143092016-03-26T23:20:00.002+00:002016-03-26T23:20:12.496+00:00Thoughts on Batman vs Superman<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I enjoyed Batman vs Superman. It was good, but not great. I think Ben Affleck as Batman was one of the highlights though.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here's why I think that, it will contain spoilers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Firstly, I thought Affleck was great as Batman. Things I liked about this Batman:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. Not once did I think about Affleck playing Batman whilst watching it, it just made me think of Batman.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. As well as Affleck's performance, it also look great - the costumes were spot on.<br />
<br />
3. Nice to see Batman doing a suitably bad ass looking work out. You don't get to be Batman without some hard graft in the gym.<br />
<br />
<div>
4. Batman doing some detective work. One criticism I read was "Why didn't Batman work out the White Portuguese was a boat?", which seems silly, because he did in the end.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
Some have taken issue with Batman killing people. Yes, that's not his way in the comic books, but Batman's been killing on the big screen since Michael Keaton (I'd argue not all of these are definitely kills, but the vast majority are):</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/psVIG7YvdjM" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
It's easier in comics when you're dealing with still frames to have non lethal fights.<br />
<br />
What I didn't like though were Batman's use of firearms, given this:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdKJyEbobVNVFHU6oFcVApXmIqttwO95LbA795YJ9Y1p_qzrtA8TsAafpbiLtlfndczcbF3nnqR7KJ3hUPDD_IFvt5TqUuukXboJmv96DvfdRkAhQoS_14BLvOxTwuyT5LGTpS30nlC44/s1600/darkseid.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdKJyEbobVNVFHU6oFcVApXmIqttwO95LbA795YJ9Y1p_qzrtA8TsAafpbiLtlfndczcbF3nnqR7KJ3hUPDD_IFvt5TqUuukXboJmv96DvfdRkAhQoS_14BLvOxTwuyT5LGTpS30nlC44/s320/darkseid.png" width="291" /></a></div>
<br />
<div>
Granted, he was using the guns dropped by others, but still. However, that was a minor gripe. It would have made the film better to see Batman only using the guns he picked up as clubs.<br />
<br />
I was more uncomfortable with seeing Batman break another man's neck - granted it was a Darkseid hinting dream sequence, but seeing Batman physically kill a man in that fashion seemed the most un-Batman like. This is not rational given the life ending injuries he has given, as shown in the video above.<br />
<br />
I've also heard that people didn't like the slightly more cruel take on Batman in the film, but Miller's Batman was clearly an influence, and whilst All Star Batman and Robin is seen as an else worlds story, Miller has said that Year One, All Star Batman and Robin, and the Dark Knight series are all in the same universe. One of the big criticisms of All Star was the sadistic take on Batman - so maybe they shouldn't have looked as much to Miller's take? Either way, I though it was a great take on Batman, and I look forward to more.<br />
<br />
The final fight with Superman and Batman was good - I've read of some complaining it wasn't, and that there should have been more intricate choreography, but I don't think so, their trading of blows was good - I guess with the hype people wanted more.<br />
<br />
I also liked Wonder Women - she kicked ass! That said, I've not really read much Wonder Woman, so no idea if she reflects her comic book alter ego so well or not.<br />
<br />
I like the hints of things from the past, eg:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9t-3eaT7yxFhhrOwFccb0qQpGvslz3jOfjgO9cwvx1BQu_liJbqP85oJ-iSMhyphenhyphenmUrmSHfu8bk5tdOxsdkPA6QIEfxt-OiqLZbfa1RpJIiU86RnTm43SJbWpG5AOQKtpj4-_CJh9CwDnk/s1600/robin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9t-3eaT7yxFhhrOwFccb0qQpGvslz3jOfjgO9cwvx1BQu_liJbqP85oJ-iSMhyphenhyphenmUrmSHfu8bk5tdOxsdkPA6QIEfxt-OiqLZbfa1RpJIiU86RnTm43SJbWpG5AOQKtpj4-_CJh9CwDnk/s320/robin.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Lastly, I liked the plot. It made sense to me - I know others struggled with it, but I think they've taken things a bit too seriously. Yeah, there are plot holes, but that's not uncommon, and if you just sit back for the ride, I don't think it's as terrible as some reviewers made out.<br />
<br />
Yes, there were missed opportunities to maybe deal with more serious topics like social problems, politics and xenophobia, but this is Batman vs Superman. I wasn't going there for a complex plot, I was going there for some fun, and to watch Batman and Superman slug it out. The plot is certainly where the film couldn't have been improved, but I don't feel it needs to receive the savaging it has.<br />
<br />
Whilst film critics can be useful and informative, this film was never going to contend for an Oscar, and I think the proof in the pudding will be the audience's response. I do hope they disagree with the critics, and that the critical panning doesn't jeopordise the DC Cinematic Universe plans - the film hints at lots more to come, and I want to see it all!<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-38230523040685370292016-02-14T22:19:00.001+00:002016-02-14T23:05:43.294+00:00How to predict the future with dreams<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There are two ways:<br />
<br />
Firstly: Make the prediction after the event has happened.<br />
<br />
Let's go over the first way, using an imaginary example of a dream from Richard Wiseman's excellent book <i>Paranormality </i>to illustrate the point:<br />
<br />
"At two o'clock in the morning you are right in the middle of a rather sinister dream in which you are driving along a dark country lane. Eric Chuggers, your all-time favourite rock star is sitting in the passenger seat, and the two of you are chatting easily. Suddenly a giant purple frog jumps out in front of the car, you swerve to avoid the frog but go off the road and hit a tree. However, tonight your cat feels a bit peckish and decides to pester you for food. As she jumps onto the bed you wake up from the dream with a vague memory of Eric Chuggers, a giant purple frog, a tree and impending death."<br />
<br />
In a couple of days time you wake to the news that Eric Chuggers was driving through the city, swerved to avoid a car, and hit a lamp post. You realise that your dream was a prediction of the future!<br />
<br />
However, this doesn't stack up on closer inspection. Firstly, in the dream, Eric is not driving, but in the passenger seat; it's a dark country lane, not the city; there is no purple frog; Eric slams into a lamppost and not a tree.<br />
<br />
However, the dream gets twisted as a prophecy, given that all of the incidents are broadly similar. Of course, the other dreams that you have had that week are forgotten. And so it is for most dreams - the majority go forgotten, as real life events don't trigger our memory of them.<br />
<br />
So it is with "true" tales of prophecy - it's not uncommon to see, after the fact, people coming forward with how they predicted a catastrophic event, because they had this or that dream that if you squint your eyes, kinda matches the real life events.<br />
<br />
I am unaware of any cases of a catastrophe being avoided because someone acted on their prophetic dream to stop the disaster occurring.<br />
<br />
The second way, which is essentially the same as the first: wait. It's a bit like the first, but in this case you have a dream in which you are convinced that a life altering situation is going to happen.<br />
<br />
Let's say you have a vivid dream of some life changing event happening when you are 32 years old. Maybe this will be a good thing - you will meet the partner of your dreams. Maybe it's a bad thing and you will die.<br />
<br />
You have this dream as a child, and you really remember it, you're convinced that you have had a prediction of the future. Your life carries on, and you hand to 32 as a special number. You've primed yourself already for spotting things that happen based around this number.<br />
<br />
<strike>Maybe you marry the partner of your dreams, but you're actually 29. However, you don't think any less of your premonition - it turns out you were spot on, because he lived at number 66 when you first me, which, is 32 x 3. You got married three years before you were 32, and that's a hit for your premonition!</strike><br />
<strike><br /></strike>
Maybe you marry the partner of your dreams, but you're actually 29. However, you don't think any less of your premonition - it turns out you were spot on, because if you add the day, month and year of when you get married it's 23, which is 32 backwards! Granted it's 3 years earlier than you thought, but 32 is there if you look closely enough.<br />
<br /></div>
Of course, maybe the prophecy was your death, and you are convinced that you will meet your end at 32. However, you're in the 32nd week of your pregnancy, it's not been going well, and now, the 32 years has become 32 weeks, and the impending doom has transferred from yourself to your unborn child. Harrowing stuff, and entirely understandable. However, had these issues arisen in the 34th week you may not have thought anything of it.<br />
<br />
It's a lot like the "27 club" - whereby famous and talented muscians die too soon, at the age of 27 - Amy Winehouse being a recent example, who joins the likes of Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, and Jim Morrison. Of course, this club becomes self selecting. Any musician who dies at 27 enters it.<br />
<br />
Nobody thought of the 27 club this year when we sadly lost David Bowie, Glenn Frey or the tragic deaths of Viola Beach reported today.<br />
<br />
As soon as you become fixated on a particular feature of a dream, it is bound to crop up at some point in your life. Of course, this is not because your dream was prophetic. The details of the dream have long been forgotten, and all that is left is a fixation on a particular feature or two.<br />
<br />
Again, from <i>Paranormality </i>Wiseman writes that sleep scientists are finding out that the majority of dreams tend to be unpleasant ones. This means that most "prophetic" dreams will involve something horrid.<br />
<br />
None of these dreams, of course, translates to the real world, unless you make them, after the event, and with a little tweaking along the way.<br />
<br />
If you're worried about your dreams, that's understandable, they can impact on how you feel.<br />
<br />
But dreams are no more prophetic than tea leaves - you'll only see what you want to see. This is why it's best to forget your prophetic dreams- after all, they're more likely to be horrid than not, and who wants to see that?<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-18078541845185230392016-02-05T22:11:00.000+00:002016-04-18T22:52:09.143+01:00There's no convincing a Moon Landing Hoaxer...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
There was a great talk at <a href="http://chichester.skepticsinthepub.org/Default.aspx/279/Past-Events" target="_blank">Chichester Skeptics in the Pub on Tuesday from Dan Parry</a>, author of <a href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/moonshot/dan-parry/9780091928377" target="_blank">Moon Shot.</a><br />
<br />
A gentleman came who did not believe that the Moon landings had happened, and was trying to persuade us of that "fact". His biggest issue was that, so he said, the door of the lunar lander was too small for the pressurised space suit of the astronauts to fit through. I hadn't heard this argument before. I explained to him (alas, I forget his name) that this seemed like a trivial issue to me, given the huge weight of evidence that shows they did get there. Whilst I couldn't explain exactly how they got through, based on the measurements he stated, I said that it's pretty easy to image things being squeezed through tight spots it happens all the time.<br />
<br />
I then added that photos now existed of the landing sites, and that, for me, to believe the moon landings were faked, I'd love to know how all the left over bits ended up on the Moon. He was unaware of these photos, and so I said I'd sign post him to them (this post will be shared via the <a href="https://twitter.com/chiskeptics" target="_blank">ChiSkeptics</a> twitter feed), here they are:<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html" target="_blank">Apollo 11:</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/628457main1_Apollo_11-670.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/628457main1_Apollo_11-670.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-12.html#.VrUbrvmLTIU" target="_blank">Apollo 12</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/628056main_M175428601RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="276" src="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/628056main_M175428601RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20110204-apollo.html" target="_blank">Apollo 14:</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/515419main1_020411a350.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/515419main1_020411a350.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html#.VrUcMfmLTIU" target="_blank"><br /></a>
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-15.html#.VrUcMfmLTIU" target="_blank">Apollo 15:</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/627885main1_M175252641LR_ap15-673.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/627885main1_M175252641LR_ap15-673.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-16.html" target="_blank">Apollo 16:</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/467389main_apollo16-20100708-570.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/467389main_apollo16-20100708-570.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc_20091028_apollo.html#.VrUdBfmLTIU" target="_blank">Apollo 17:</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/397620main_challenger_4x_350.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/397620main_challenger_4x_350.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I then asked him what it would take for him to accept the moon landings. He told me that the photos probably wouldn't be enough, and that he would always have his doubts, because a grain of truth can't be hidden with a mountain of lies.<br />
<br />
When debating those into conspiracy theories, alternative medicine or other pseudoscience, it can be quite useful to see if there could exist anything that would make the other change their mind. If there isn't, well, their mind can't be changed then there is no point in the debate, and you might just as well listen to their differing opinions.<br />
<br />
It's also a good question to ask yourself - what evidence would you need to change your mind about your beliefs?<br />
<br />
UPDATE: The guy in question at a subsequent Skeptics in the Pub told me these photos were rubbish, and as evidence used the resolution available on Google Street View as evidence. As the title says, there's no convincing a Moon Landing Hoaxer.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-46144355738791001732015-10-26T11:30:00.001+00:002015-10-26T11:30:05.960+00:00Pritt Sticks to Mars<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Some time ago I was at <a href="http://chichester.skepticsinthepub.org/" target="_blank">Chichester Skeptics in the Pub</a> to see James Ward talk about his book <i><a href="http://iamjamesward.com/2014/08/30/adventures-in-stationery/" target="_blank">Adventures in Stationary</a></i>. The talk was fantastic, and whilst I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, it's on my list of books to read (that list grows faster than the time available to read them). During the talk, James referenced a press release from Pritt Stick's makers celebrating their 40th anniversary, saying that the 2.5 billion Pritt sticks sold in their 40 year was history was "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29139536" target="_blank">Enough to leave a line of adhesive extending from the Earth, past our satellite the Moon, on to Mars and then all the way back again</a>"<br />
<br />
James Ward was unsure how they came about with such a statistic. I don't know how they did it either, but here's how I would do it:<br />
<br />
Firstly, what are we using for the distance? At it's maximum the Earth could be on one side of the Solar System, and Mars on the other, we would be as far from each other as possible. Or, the Sun, Earth and Mars could be in a perfectly straight line in that order, as close as we can be to each other currently. The ranges for these distances are:<br />
<br />
Smallest: 56 million km or 34 million miles.<br />
Furthest: 401 million km or 249 million miles.<br />
<br />
To see where on this range the current distance is, see <a href="http://www.physics.emory.edu/astronomy/events/mars/calc.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Consequently, we'll calculate two values, one for Mars at its closest, the other Mars at it's furthest.<br />
<br />
The next thing to consider is what is meant by a Pritt Stick, for they are not a standard unit. Pritt Sticks come in a range of sizes. Let's just go for the medium size, which has a stick of glue in it with a diameter of 2.0cm and a height of 5.1cm. This gives a volume of 16.02cm<sup>3</sup><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
The diameter of the Pritt Stick gives us the width of our glue trail to Mars - we'll assume it's smeared across our hypothetical surface that extends to Mars evenly. Volume = length x width x height, so some simple rearranging is need to get our height of Pritt stick smear, also remembering this smear is there and back.<br />
<br />
One medium Pritt stick would be able to leave a trail of glue to Mars and back, so long as it was only 7.2fm to 1fm thick. This is not possible, given that our largest estimate is smaller than the radius of a gold atom's nucleus, and our smallest is not much bigger than a proton. Pritt stick cannot get this small without splitting the atom.<br />
<br />
However, we're dealing with 2.5 billion Pritt sticks. This leaves us with a smear of Pritt stick some 17.9<span style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 115%;">μm</span> to 2.5<span style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 14.5667px;">μm</span> thick. This seems more realistic, though my experience of Pritt stick is a smear thicker than this. For comparison a single skin cell is about 35<span style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 14.5667px;">μm</span> across.<br />
<br />
Let's be more charitable and go for 2.5 billion large Pritt sticks. These have a diameter of 2.5cm and a height of 6.6cm, giving a volume of 32.4cm<sup>3</sup><br />
<br />
Using the same mathematics as above, this gives us a smear that ranges from 28.9<span style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 14.5667px;">μm</span> to 4.03<span style="background: rgb(249, 249, 249); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 9.5pt; font-weight: normal; line-height: 14.5667px;">μm</span> which still seems pretty thin.<br />
<br />
So, after all this, I'm with James here in not understanding how Pritt stick came up with their statistic either. If only they'd shown their working in a press release.<br />
<br />
Either way, we've been dealing with some very different units: femtometres, micrometres, centimetres and kilometres. That's quite a range - one kilometre is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 femtometres. Here's a lovely website to help you appreciate the scale of the universe, from the very big to the very small: <a href="http://htwins.net/scale2/" target="_blank">The Scale of the Universe</a>.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-83104959784263932322015-10-25T14:41:00.002+00:002015-10-25T14:57:28.772+00:00How many Ferrero Rocher do you need to build the Pyramids at Giza?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
My wife and I went to see Richard Harring's new show "Happy Now?" last night, and it was very funny. During the first half hour of the show though, Richard did a reprise of some of the highlights of his previous shows, as during August and September he performed them all again over 6 weeks.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.richardherring.com/warmingup/14/2/2011/index.html" target="_blank">This included his rather romantic gesture for the first Valentine's Day he and his now wife shared.</a> She had on her bucket list "Build a pyramid of Ferrero Rocher like that on the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs7gAxsfK5U" target="_blank">Ambassador's Reception</a> advert". So he bought her a single Ferrero Rocher, with a view to getting enough over the years to fulfill her lifetime ambition. The next Valentine's Day he bought her two, and on the third Valentine's Day he failed to realise the power of exponential growth and bought her 4. This year he bought her 128 Ferrero Rocher. He went on to joke about the implications of this, including how it wouldn't be long before there would be enough to build the Great Pyramid at Giza.<br />
<br />
Leaving the show, as well as the funny memories and ponderings on the nature of happiness, I wondered just how many Ferrero Rocher would be needed to build the Great Pyramids at Giza. As it's half term, I have found out.<br />
<br />
The average size of a Ferrero Rocher (sample size = 16) is 3.2cm x 3.2cm x 3.2cm. They are not a uniform shape, but we'll assume they are for this back of the envelope calculation. We'll also approximate them to perfect cubes*.<br />
<br />
Here are the results (click to enlarge):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcKqIJJ5AAUwvjIjOfKlg_VGhKcE1sRcpUvzssV3PnKNbm-c-or4IaWZOj0-Upk-ViBNDnwNjavvoJpioarzwVWFyHbsIoExHHUq_JulpKaWPHPG6_BY12NQJE0hV_5tKPc9e7JKWouI8/s1600/pyramid.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="50" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcKqIJJ5AAUwvjIjOfKlg_VGhKcE1sRcpUvzssV3PnKNbm-c-or4IaWZOj0-Upk-ViBNDnwNjavvoJpioarzwVWFyHbsIoExHHUq_JulpKaWPHPG6_BY12NQJE0hV_5tKPc9e7JKWouI8/s400/pyramid.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Fortunately, we have 23 years left before Richard Herring's romantic gesture is about the same as the current annual output of Ferrero Rocher.<br />
<br />
However, we can breath a sigh of relief, because the adverts pyramids range in size from 8 to 12 tiers, so fewer than 1,000 Ferrero Rocher chocolates will be needed. Of course it does mean that a new romantic gesture needs to be found in 3 Valentine's Days time...<br />
<br />
*If you've read this far and have the wit, by all means take into account that they don't tessellate, and there will be gaps in between, and that those Ferrero Rocher on the layer above will sit in these gaps. Also, I do not know how much weight a Ferrero Rocher can take, but it isn't more than 73.9 kg (sample size one). So something else that needs considering before filing for planning permission, as the actual number may be higher than those above.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4unCRqW4-sP6cO9__VYNRVm-srUtr1e4CA2XoNljPShAcD1LMLVSfFR6KtrQFA3cfT6qJ-WrWTKQVzhFZPnMGVo44t9vHcpTAe5VgWY5zNBEqZjTyKcvoUaxTyap7aDo0aLWxl2CKkaY/s1600/squash.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4unCRqW4-sP6cO9__VYNRVm-srUtr1e4CA2XoNljPShAcD1LMLVSfFR6KtrQFA3cfT6qJ-WrWTKQVzhFZPnMGVo44t9vHcpTAe5VgWY5zNBEqZjTyKcvoUaxTyap7aDo0aLWxl2CKkaY/s200/squash.jpg" width="150" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sample size of one</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Well, Richard Herring retweeted me, which was unexpected. Hello Richard Herring fans! You might also like this in relation to the "Give me head till I'm dead" t shirt skit: <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/traffic-light-label-for-semen.html" target="_blank">Traffic light food label for semen.</a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-61335237850247109582015-02-09T20:55:00.000+00:002015-07-28T14:47:00.193+01:00Scott Adams' Biggest Fail<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a recent blog post, titled "<a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/109880240641/sciences-biggest-fail" target="_blank">Science's Biggest Fail</a>", Scott Adams (of Dilbert cartoon fame) writes:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"What’s is science’s biggest fail of all time? I nominate<b><i> everything about diet and fitness.</i></b>"</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The problem is, he goes on:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The pattern science serves up, thanks to its winged monkeys
in the media, is something like this:<br />
<o:p> </o:p>Step One: We are totally sure the answer is X.<br />
<o:p> </o:p>Step Two: Oops. X is wrong. But Y is totally right. Trust us
this time."</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Here in lies one of Adams' problems - his understanding of science appears to come from the media, whom he views as science's winged monkeys. This is unfortunately not the case - the media don't do science at all well, as <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science?language=en" target="_blank">Ben Goldacre has so ably demonstrated</a> on <a href="http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/ben+goldacre/i+think+you27ll+find+it27s+a+bit+more+complicated+than+that/10049992/" target="_blank">many an occasion</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is a shame as he continues:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Science isn’t about being right every time, or even most of
the time. It is about being more right over time and fixing what it got wrong.
So how is a common citizen supposed to know when science is “done” and when it
is halfway to done which is the same as being wrong?<br />
<o:p> </o:p>You can’t tell. And if any scientist says you should be able
to tell when science is “done” on a topic, please show me the data indicating
that people have psychic powers."</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
He obviously sees science as a cumulative process, but digests it from sources that don't - the mainstream media. This is something Adams has form for - in 2007 he posted about his pretty <a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html" target="_blank">poor understanding of evolution </a>after reading a Newsweek article, and it appears <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/17/scott-adams-reads-newsweek-uho/" target="_blank">despite criticism</a> at the time, he has not learned from this. In this post, he references a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/01/chart-shows-how-science-public" target="_blank">MotherJones</a> article, and not the <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf" target="_blank">actual original research itself</a>, for example.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Adams asks "So how is a common citizen supposed to know when science is “done” and when it is halfway to done which is the same as being wrong?" (As an aside, half way to done is not the same as being wrong. Newton's work on gravity could be described as half way to done. It was incomplete, but it certainly wasn't wrong when it comes to describe the general mechanics of our day to day living). So how is a common citizen supposed to know when science is "done"? Well it's not hard, you just need to do a bit of digging. It's not always possible to get the original research, as much of academia is behind a pay wall, and even if you do have access to it, it may not be the easiest to understand, because science is confusing and counter intuitive at times, and it helps to have someone who can put the complexities into layman's terms. The <a href="http://www.cochranelibrary.com/" target="_blank">Cochrane Library</a> offer the best analysis of our current understanding of research into health. These reviews come with a plain language summary.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It's not just academic institutions though - we live in the information age. <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/news/Pages/NewsIndex.aspx" target="_blank">Behind the Headlines</a>, <a href="http://margaretmccartney.com/" target="_blank">Margaret McCartney</a>'s blog or <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/" target="_blank">Science Based Medicine</a> are just three examples of critical commentary that's freely available to help get the truth behind the often poor medical science reporting in the press. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Indeed, blog networks like <a href="http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/" target="_blank">Phenomena</a> from National Geographic, <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">Why Evolution Is True</a> or <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/" target="_blank">Sean Carroll's</a> are all places to find out good commentary on the science news of the day.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is to say nothing of the works of Professors <a href="http://www.alice-roberts.co.uk/" target="_blank">Alice Roberts</a>, <a href="http://www.jimal-khalili.com/" target="_blank">Jim Al-Khalili</a> or <a href="http://www.apolloschildren.com/" target="_blank">Brian Cox</a> in their works efforts to increase the public understanding of science.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
These references barely scratch the surface of the wealth of decent scientific information that's available to us if we're willing to look.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In 8 years he seems not to have learnt to base his views on science from what scientists actually say, but what they are reported to have said. I wonder if in the same time he still bases his ideas on his "bullshit filter":</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I’ve been trying for years to reconcile my
usually-excellent bullshit filter with
the idea that evolution is considered a scientific fact. Why does a well-established
scientific fact set off my usually-excellent bullshit filter like a five-alarm
fire?"</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The above was written in 2007 - The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins was published in 1976, and was followed up by The Extended Phenotype in 1982, and much more; Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C Dennet (the best book on evolution I've ever read) was written in the 1995 and in 2002 Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen released Evolving the Alien. All these wonderful books (and many more), just one book a decade since his twenties, could easily have defused the five-alarm bullshit filter, especially as he has been struggling with it for years. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The impression I get from Scott Adams is that he knows he's right, and that's enough. Of course, I could be wrong, but given his history of things like <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/04/19/scott_adams_sock_puppetry_scandal/" target="_blank">sock puppetry</a>, and his <a href="http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102881515756/planned-chaos" target="_blank">responses</a> to <a href="http://americanloons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/439-scott-adams.html?showComment=1361989913304#c3207983864724673800" target="_blank">it</a>, I think Adams' biggest fail is his arrogance, which in places looks a lot like the <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121" target="_blank">Dunning-Kruger</a> effect. <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/" target="_blank">David Dunning</a>, it's co-discoverer, describes it thus: “What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does
not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent
are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that
feels to them like knowledge.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Fortunately, Scott Adams can resolve this issue by doing a little research and educating himself beyond what he thinks he knows.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-14403917369133483842015-02-07T14:59:00.000+00:002015-02-07T14:59:09.022+00:00Apeocalypse now<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A friend posted this on Facebook:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPaPLGEr-qgj8z4hAjiG3yOG17CwF7CrWPS6s4cpMK0pypzaKjHjK2O_0zcZygMQig9VX3u-TpI6aWz73Y7SrzzwTPsMZLdQq1szclriHUXHHjgbbms4h_KPVyL3TTjBogF1Gg6Hjm2cw/s1600/apeocalypse.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPaPLGEr-qgj8z4hAjiG3yOG17CwF7CrWPS6s4cpMK0pypzaKjHjK2O_0zcZygMQig9VX3u-TpI6aWz73Y7SrzzwTPsMZLdQq1szclriHUXHHjgbbms4h_KPVyL3TTjBogF1Gg6Hjm2cw/s1600/apeocalypse.jpg" height="175" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
She asked "Can I make the "ape-ocalypse" pun and still be
scientifically accurate?" and tagged me, as I am her guru for this.<br />
<br />
Short answer: Yes.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
Long answer:<br />
<br />
Yes, but you must be talking about any combination of: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans (aka the Great Apes) or Gibbons (aka the Lesser Apes), for these are the apes. (You can see our extended family tree over at <a href="http://www.onezoom.org/" target="_blank">OneZoom</a>).<br />
<br /></div>
Colloquially ape can mean "any <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ape?s=t" target="_blank">primate except humans</a>", but as can be seen this is not accurate. For our primate cousins to be included we would need far less catchy alternatives such Primatocalypse (which would involve the primates: Lemurs, Tarsiers, Old World Monkeys, Apes and New World Monkeys) or Simianocalypse (which would be all the moneys and apes, simians being Old or New World Monkeys and Apes).<br />
<br />
People often don't realise that we <i>Homo sapiens </i>aren't just like apes, we *are* apes. A fantastic book to look at our ape heritage is <i>The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being </i>by Alice Roberts. Given that we are apes, one could argue for two reasons that we are, right now, in the middle of an apeocalypse:<br />
<br />
1) Originally apocalypse meant revelation, <a href="http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apocalypse" target="_blank">it comes from the Greek for uncover</a>, and is used in the context of uncovering knowledge. Whilst we (as a species) have a long way to go, we are currently in a position of having uncovered more information about how the universe works than at any point that's ever existed. For example, as Sean Carroll has (I think successfully) argued, <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood/" target="_blank">the laws underlying the physics of every day life are completely understood</a>. No, really, <a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/01/04/the-world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/" target="_blank">here's the equation</a>. It's an exciting time to be alive, and that is thankful, as science is the best way we have to resolve the second reason.<br />
<br />
2) These days (especially for those not in the Church), apocalypse more commonly means <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apocalypse?s=t" target="_blank">any universal or widespread destruction or disaster</a>. Now, if we're to look at how we as species are treating this planet overall, one could also argue we are in the middle of, or on the verge of, an apeocalypse: We are in the middle of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction" target="_blank">sixth mass extinction</a>, human caused climate change is <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how-to-talk-to-a-sceptic/" target="_blank">real and is happening</a> and to sustain the lifestyle that humans are on average living <a href="http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/" target="_blank">we would need 1.5 Earths</a>.<br />
<br />
It's Apecalypse Now, and for our sins, we've given ourselves quite a mission to put it right.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-71873581848286396702014-11-02T21:46:00.001+00:002014-11-02T21:50:42.703+00:00Does the Star Trek Odd/Even rule hold up to scrutiny?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
It's all well and good being a skeptic and going after homeopathy, conspiracy theories and religion. But what about the important stuff in life? Skeptics must question everything. This includes Star Trek. Does the oft cited Odd/Even rule hold up to scrutiny?<br />
<br />
Yes. Generally, an odd numbered Star Trek film is not as good as an even numbered Star Trek film. Out of 12 Star Trek films, only two fail to meet this rule.<br />
<br />
I used <a href="http://www.imdb.com/" target="_blank">IMDB</a>, <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/" target="_blank">Rotten Tomatoes</a> and <a href="http://www.metacritic.com/" target="_blank">Metacritic</a> to get the ratings for each film. All are in a similar format, being a rating out of 10, a percentage or a mark out of 100. As I started with IMDB I converted all to the same format.<br />
<br />
The average score for a Star Trek film is 6.7. Above avergae films are therefore "Good", average films are, well, "Average" (though none exist yet) and below average films are "Bad".<br />
<br />
I have included the recent re-boot, but the rule may need to be modified to just include the "original" run of films, as the two new ones rank 1 and 3 using this survey's methods.<br />
<br />
You can see the results below:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjrTEILnchK-vVU6ZoK3d4xuz4ciFZHK3aPB8kI3K1Jq_EF695zrc9d9WCibrYto6TY3b_Ox3Tk3OxkfLzvm1s_nMs1j0M1XHGAguprMZi1xGSiEEPFZxZImuLWeebscRFa7UZ6YuB4RU/s1600/star+trek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjrTEILnchK-vVU6ZoK3d4xuz4ciFZHK3aPB8kI3K1Jq_EF695zrc9d9WCibrYto6TY3b_Ox3Tk3OxkfLzvm1s_nMs1j0M1XHGAguprMZi1xGSiEEPFZxZImuLWeebscRFa7UZ6YuB4RU/s1600/star+trek.jpg" height="123" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Data accurate as of 02/11/2014</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-40562019767204308862014-10-13T22:40:00.001+01:002014-10-13T22:40:17.602+01:00Cats are still better than dogs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
A while back Jerry Coyne sought some input to help with a debate on Cats vs Dogs, which <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/why-cats-are-better-than-dogs.html" target="_blank">I duly helped with</a>. Jerry unfortunately reported that the debate was <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/the-new-yorker-event-cats-lost/" target="_blank">won by the dog lovers</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course, cats <i>are</i> better than dogs, so how to explain this outcome? Well quite clearly, there were no Sophisticated Theologians (TM) present:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
1.By definition, cats winning in the cats vs dogs debate is
a result than which none greater can be imagined.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2.A result that necessarily exists in reality is greater
than a result that does not necessarily exist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3.Thus, by definition, if a cats winning the debate result
exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then
we can imagine something that is greater than us simply imagining that cats
won.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than cats
winning the debate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5.Thus, if cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an
idea, then cats winning the debate necessarily exists in reality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
6. Cats winning the debate exists in the mind as an idea.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
7.Therefore, cats winning the debate necessarily exists in
reality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So, cats won the NY Times "Cats vs Dogs" debate!</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-21033435197715442612014-08-26T15:02:00.001+01:002014-08-26T17:30:35.014+01:00The history of the Ice Bucket Challenge<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Originally, the ice bucket challenge was not associated with ALS.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Before it all went viral, I saw a number of my capoeirista friends taking part, and the challenge was a little different, have two buckets of iced water poured on you, then pour the third one on yourself (here's my capoeira teacher, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=939857276039891" target="_blank">Mestrando Primo</a> taking part, just before it went viral). </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The idea for the challenge was to either take the challenge, or donate to charity (or both), and to pick a charity of your choice, and also nominate three more to take part. Now some would say this isn't the nicest of fundraising tactics, and that it amounts to bullying fundraising tactics, but I think it's not that bad (and certainly better than "trick or treat" at Hallowe'en which is essentially demanding money with menaces), Anyhow...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://mashable.com/2014/08/15/ice-bucket-challenge-not-als/" target="_blank">Facebook data indicates that the challenge started around June 8th, but it wasn't until August that it really went viral.</a> Golfer Chris Kennedy nominated the ALS foundation, and this is where the association with ALS (aka Motor Neuron Disease, or Lou Gehrig's disease).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As with many charity things, some people have been critical of how <a href="http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2014/08/questions-about-the-ice-bucket-challenge/" target="_blank">ALS Foundation spend their funds</a>, for example, they have $6.7 million in investments. What people often fail to realise is that charities need to have money in reserve - fundraising isn't always predictable, and if the fundraising dries up, you need to have your operating costs to carry on the services you provide. I've <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/defending-100k-charity-salaries.html" target="_blank">defended charity spending before</a>, but it bears repeating: charities don't get anything for free, and if you want to have a professional bunch of people working for you, you will have to pay them, as everyone has bills to pay and needs food to eat.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The <a href="http://www.alsa.org/about-us/financial-information.html" target="_blank">ALS Foundation are quite open about their spending</a>, and in the UK you can go to the <a href="http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/" target="_blank">charity commission</a> and look at the accounts of all charities. It is then up to you to see if you think a charity spends too much on its staff etc relative to how much the charity brings in. In the case of ALS, 21% being spend on fundraising and admin seems more than acceptable.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadXy0HqyOZcJ1AYvs5g-gcNfDIo8UyUN3NYEs0fSETS76M7KH-VMCsh7NYZZWm0tcB_tBzJRwtYR0eTDN3PBW8oYiDKHWbVojcKJiuGr4tCc90dgAQaU-UNX6JJzbMHJS70PjLJInKKU/s1600/als.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhadXy0HqyOZcJ1AYvs5g-gcNfDIo8UyUN3NYEs0fSETS76M7KH-VMCsh7NYZZWm0tcB_tBzJRwtYR0eTDN3PBW8oYiDKHWbVojcKJiuGr4tCc90dgAQaU-UNX6JJzbMHJS70PjLJInKKU/s1600/als.jpg" height="320" width="273" /></a></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Any how, <a href="http://youtu.be/iYEzLyV7A0o" target="_blank">here's my ice bucket challenge</a>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/iYEzLyV7A0o?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-38027375700306749002014-08-19T23:08:00.000+01:002014-08-19T23:13:06.542+01:00Being a spoil sport for breast cancer awareness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
A friend recently posted the Facebook status:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"It's confirmed, I'm going to be a daddy"<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Naturally, I liked it, and was then sent this message:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"Sorry,you should not have liked or commented!!!! Now
you have to pick from one of these below and post it to your status. This is
THE 2014 BREAST CANCER AWARENESS game. Don't be a spoil sport, pick your poison
from one of these and change your status, 1) Damn diarrhea 2) Just used my
boobs to get out of a speeding ticket 3) How do you get rid of foot fungus 4)
No toilet paper, goodbye socks. 5) I think I'm in love with someone, what
should I do? 6) I've decided to stop wearing underwear 7) it's confirmed, I'm
going to be a Mommy/Daddy! 8) Just won $900 on a scratch card 9) I've just found out I've been cheated on the
past 5 months. Post with no explanations. So sorry, I fell for it too. Looking
forward to your post."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
If this was just a status meme doing the rounds, I might
play as they can be fun. But it's not actually doing anything at all to raise
awareness of any aspect of breast cancer, and it bugs me to see a cause I've done quite a lot of fundraising for co-opted to spread a practical joke via Facebook. So I'm not playing the Facebook game, and instead have written this blog post.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Feel free to help breast cancer awareness by doing any of these if you have the time:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Donating to <a href="http://www.justgiving.com/spoilsport" target="_blank">www.justgiving.com/spoilsport</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Checking out information on breast cancer from <a href="http://www.breastcancercampaign.org/about-breast-cancer" target="_blank">Breast Cancer Campaign</a> or the NHS - in <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cancer-of-the-breast-female/Pages/Introduction.aspx" target="_blank">women</a>, and in <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cancer-of-the-breast-male/pages/introduction.aspx" target="_blank">men</a>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Looking at how you can <a href="http://www.breastcancercampaign.org/support-us" target="_blank">support Breast Cancer Campaign</a> or maybe sharing this blog on Facebook, Twitter and the like.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All these things will do lots more for breast cancer awareness than playing a joke on my friends.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Though if you could tell me how to get rid of foot fungus, that would be appreciated. For a friend.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-33681894781287501762014-07-29T23:53:00.001+01:002014-07-30T00:24:07.240+01:00Quantum Mechanics does not give us free will<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoNormal">
UPDATE: I should have looked at the You Tube comments after the video, as Derek deals with what I say here, you can follow<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE&google_comment_id=z131zzmalkehx3anx23iw3xbiyfuh1zpa04" target="_blank"> the link</a> to his comment, or see them reproduced at the end of this post.<br />
<br />
I love <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/1veritasium" target="_blank">Veritasium</a> (in fact,<a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/facebook-ads-not-worth-money-and.html" target="_blank"> I plugged the lovely Derek Muller's channel before</a>), but I have to take issue with the end of <a href="http://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE" target="_blank">his latest video</a> on randomness in which he says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMb00lz-IfE&feature=youtu.be&t=8m25s" target="_blank">...for us really to have free will we need the SecondLaw of Thermodynamics..</a>"<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"<a href="http://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?t=8m57s" target="_blank">So you and I could be such physical systems, chaoticsystems, and our free will could come from quantum events in our brains</a>."<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have to flat out say that this is wrong.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To explain why, I need to firstly define free will, and I
tend to side with Jerry Coyne's definition:<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne/131165/" target="_blank">"At the moment when you have to decide among alternatives, you have free will if you could have chosen otherwise. To put it more technically, if you could rerun the tape of your life up to the moment you make a choice, with every aspect of the universe configured identically, free will means that your choice could have been different."</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In that same article Jerry also explains why I
don't believe we have free will. Our brains are not exempt from the physical
laws of the universe. Jerry briefly mentions quantum mechanics there too: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
"(It's
possible, though improbable, that the indeterminacy of quantum physics may
tweak behavior a bit, but such random effects can't be part of free
will.) "<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would like to elaborate on that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In what sense does quantum mechanics give us free will? OK, so it appears that quantum mechanics appears truly random, entirely probabilistic. Given that randomness and unpredictability, maybe that could mean that if we reran the tape of your life and you could end up acting in a different way. But in what sense have you chosen to do this? How were you a free agent? If we are relying on utterly random and
unpredictable events to let us chose a different course of action if the tape
of our life was rewound, in what sense are we free to choose? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If it turns out
that quantum events have a significant influence on the firing of our neurons,
then they may indeed affect how we think and behave, but that does not make us masters
of our fate and captains of our soul. We are still slave to the
machinations of the universe, whatever they may be.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The idea that we don't have free will is counter intuitive,
as it very much feels that we do.Thinking about it does make my brain hurt (I
can't help it); but the facts speak for themselves. I've mentioned optical
illusions <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/stay-classy-deepak.html" target="_blank">before</a> a <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/are-atheists-mentally-ill.html" target="_blank">few</a> times at they are a great example of why our experiences
are not as reliable as we would like to think they are. And so it is with free
will, it seems like we experience it, but we don't. There seems no logical reason to think that we do.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
UPDATE: As mentioned above: ""To be clear, by "free will" I mean that your
decisions could not be predicted with certainty, even if someone knew
everything about all the particles that make up your body. I am not suggesting
you have conscious control over your decisions as even current research shows
we become conscious of choices after we make them.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I've given my view on the quantum measurement problem but
it's called a problem for a reason. No one has it fully worked out quite yet
(or maybe this is as fully as it can be worked out). I am not saying that
determinism is certainly false, but our scientific theories and observations as
they stand today imply that new information is being generated in the universe
and this makes it impossible to predict the future with certainty. Some day
this view may be overturned.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To me, for now, time looks like a zipper. Far in the future
the possibilities are wide open, but with every passing second time zips up
what might be into what actually happened."<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-88989942122550572822014-07-20T11:06:00.002+01:002014-07-20T11:06:51.701+01:00Interesting stuff about light<a href="https://www.facebook.com/liz.blake.773/posts/10152640061540649" target="_blank">This conversation happened on Facebook</a> and there is no point in adding to it, as communication has broken down. However, the last addition* is like an itch I can't scratch, and so instead of adding stuff there, I thought I'd write about light.<br />
<br />
A pro baseball player can throw a baseball at around 90 miles per hour (mph). If he were to do the same throw whilst standing on top of a vehicle moving at 60 mph, then the ball would be traveling at 150 mph. Now, if the baseball player where to stand still and use a torch, the light would leave the torch at 299,792,458 metres per second (m/s). If he then was on a vehicle moving at 542 m/s, and shone his torch, the light would not leave the torch at 299,793,000 m/s. It would leave at 299,792,458 m/s.<br />
<br />
299,792,458 m/s is the speed of light. Actually, it's the speed of light through a vacuum, light travels slightly slower through the air (and slower again through water, this explains the rainbow. The red end of the spectrum slows down more than the blue end of the spectrum when light enters water, and so this is why we can see rainbows).<br />
<br />
299,792,458 m/s is also the fastest anything can move in the universe. To achieve this speed, you must have no mass. The faster you want to throw a ball, the more effort (and therefore energy) you must put into throwing it. To move something with mass at the speed of light would require<a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/ftl.html" target="_blank"> infinite energy</a>. So far the photon (a particle of light) is the only known massless particle, though others are theorised such as the graviton.<br />
<br />
This all might sound theoretical at the moment, but it is used practically as well. Without our knowledge of the above, Sat Navs would not work. If you were to go and drive with a Sat Nav for an hour, the satellites that work out where you are would actually experience less than an hour. This is pretty counter intuitive.<br />
<br />
The best way that helped me understand it is like this: Imagine you're in a car going at 60 mph. If a car drove past you at 70 mph, from your point of view in the car it would like it was moving past you at 10 mph. Likewise, if you were level with another car travelling at 60 mph, from your point of view, they would look still (and this effect is used in action movies for our heroes or villains to jump from one vehicle to another whilst they move at high speed). If you then accelerated to 70 mph, it would like the car that was next to you was now moving behind you at 10 mph.<br />
<br />
Now if we think back to the second paragraph, light always travels at the speed of light. In all the cases above, whichever of the cars you are in, you will always see light travelling at the same speed. Speed is distance traveled over a period of time. If light always travels the same distance over a period of time, no matter how much distance you are travelling in that time, something has got to give, and this is relativity, as described by Einstein. It's called relativity because time is relative. The faster you move, the slower time passes for you relative to an external observer who is moving slower than you (or not moving at all).<br />
<br />
This effect is called Time Dilation, and was used in the plot for the original Planet of the Apes films - Charlton Heston et al travelled on a ship going at close to the speed of light, and were on it for 18 months, however, as the ship crashes onto an unknown planet, it's noted that the year is 3978 - a full 2006 years after the crew left Earth. The satellited servicing our Sat Navs also experience time dilation, and this must be taken into account when they calculate where exactly it is we are.<br />
<br />
Now, it's true that our understanding of relativity is incomplete, as it doesn't (yet) tie in with our understanding of gravity. But this does not mean that it is wrong. Newton's Laws of Motion do not take into account relativity (which was why they caused a headache when trying to predict the orbits of the planets), but they were not wrong when described objects moving on Earth. Working out the flight path of a plane, or the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, Newtonian mechanics are just fine. We know that Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity are good approximations of the truth, because without them, things like Sat Navs wouldn't work, and it also explains a great deal more about what we observe in the universe.<br />
<br />
If you've found this interesting, then I'd encourage you to check out the following books, as they go into great detail about the evidence for the above, and more besides:<br />
<br />
Big Bang by Simon Singh < Especially this one, which I think is the most accessible<br />
The Particle at the End of the Universe by Sean Carroll<br />
Why does <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%;">E =
mc</span><sup style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">2</sup>? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw<br />
<br />
*The last post in the conversation said "Particles are still physical, so in theory, like waving your
hand through the air, you would push those particles away from the point of
origin faster than their original speed"<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-5018627655879174162014-06-18T23:29:00.001+01:002014-06-18T23:29:17.572+01:00Stay classy Deepak<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So Deepak Chopra has issued (an insult laden, hence the title of this post) challenge, which he sees as a parallel to James Randi's Million Dollar Challenge. As <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/deepak-chopra-embarrasses-himself-by-offering-a-million-dollar-prize/" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne</a> has pointed out, it is not in parallel, as he is asking for an explanation of quite a complex problem (the <a href="http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-1,00.html" target="_blank">Hard Problem</a> of consciousness), whereas all Randi asks for is a demonstration with no explanation required (someone backing up their claim to paranormal abilities in a controlled environment). However, I thought I'd add it to the blog, as it gives me an excuse to highlight some pretty cool things.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Up6GqgBK5Qo" target="_blank">Chopra says</a>: "If I ask you to imagine a sunset on the ocean right now, and we have the experience somewhere then explain to me where that picture is, and don't just give me a neural correlate or NCC as it's called. Neural Correlates of Consciousness are well known. They are not a good enough explanation for how we experience the world, how we experience colour, taste, sound, form, any perception."<br />
<br />
Well, NCCs may not offer the actual solution for the Hard Problem of consciousness, but they certainly seem to point in the right direction. Consider this:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
"So do imagery and vision share space in the brain? The neuropsychologists Edoardo Bisiach and Claudio Luzzatti studied two Milanese patients with damage to their right parietal lobes that left them with visual neglect syndrome. Their eyes register the whole visual field, but they attend only to the right half: they ignore the cutlery to the left of the plate, draw a face with no left eye or nostril, and when describing a room, ignore large details - like a piano - on their left. Bisiach and Luzzatti asked the patients to imagine standing in the Piazza del Duomo in Milan facing the cathedral and to name the buildings in the piazza. The patients named only the buildings that would be visible on the right - neglecting the left half of <i>imaginary</i> space! Then the patients were asked to mentally walk across the square and stand on the cathedral steps facing the piazza and describe what was in it. They mentioned the buildings that they had left out the first time, and left out the buildings that they had mentioned. Each mental image depicted the scene from one vantage point, and the patients' lopsided window f attention examined the image exactly as it examined real visual inputs."<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: -webkit-center;">Pinker, S (1997). </span><i style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: -webkit-center;">How the Mind Works</i><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: -webkit-center;">. St Ives: Penguin Books. p288 - 289.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px; text-align: -webkit-center;"><br /></span>
Chopra asked where an imaginary picture sits, and it must obviously be within the brain. When certain neurons are damaged, even our mental imagery gets affected! So whilst we can't explain how the image got there, we can at least conclude it is in the brain.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT8paNdIpDI" target="_blank">Chopra's followed up his challenge with a second vide</a>o, in which he explains his idea of consciousness: that instead of consciousness being produced by the matter of the brain, it is instead top down, with consciousness being fundamental, and it is this that creates the material world we see.<br />
<br />
This idea is the same kind of problem that comes about when <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/scientific-evidence-for-soul.html" target="_blank">discussing the soul</a> - why is it that consciousness is so tied to the brain if it is fundamental? If it is consciousness itself that produces qualia in our brains, why do some of these get affected after brain damage, as we have just seen?<br />
<br />
In his second video Chopra also says that we (as skeptics): "Do not understand that we do not have access to reality but only to our perceptions, that whatever we experience as reality is the contents of our mind". We clearly do, and this also links into his comments about colour perception in the first video. Optical illusions demonstrate this:<br />
<br /></div>
I've posted this optical illusion <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/are-atheists-mentally-ill.html" target="_blank">before</a>:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/map4.jpg?w=620" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://richardwiseman.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/map4.jpg?w=620" height="197" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
The blue and green are the same colour. If you look closely, what does change is the lines in between the "blue" and "green", which are either pink or orange. Our perception of the colour is influenced by the colours around it. We cannot escape it, much like another favourite illusion:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/checker-shadow-illusion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/checker-shadow-illusion.jpg" height="248" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The square labelled A is the same colour as the square labelled B.<br />
<br />
We may not have sussed how qualia arise, but we do know what causes these illusions (the world map is explained<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/24/the-blue-and-the-green/#.U6ICLPldWSo" target="_blank"> here</a>, and the here, the <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/do-we-perceive-reality-the-checker-shadow-illusion/" target="_blank">checker board</a> illusion). All these optical illusions happened because they exploit short cuts our brains take as they have evolved to work out what the world around them is like.<br />
<br />
On top of that, colour is an illusion any way. Consider <a href="http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp" target="_blank">this from the Oatmeal</a> (and do go and read the whole strip, really do, I'll not be offended if you don't bother reading the rest of this post. Go):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://theoatmeal.com/comics/mantis_shrimp" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/mantis_shrimp/mantis_shrimp_2.png" height="320" width="78" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
We may be able to wax philosophical about whether my blue is the same as your blue, but the mantis shrimp can see the world in a glorious technicolour that we can't hope to imagine.<br />
<br />
The exploration of how we, and other organisms, perceive the world is still ongoing. The fact that science hasn't explained it all is not a problem!<br />
<br />
When Chopra said "[How we perceive] ..any perception. You can't explain it. Texture, solidity. You can't explain that." I was reminded of these two things:<br />
<br />
Bill O'Reilly's infamous "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fSlJaZrUhs" target="_blank">Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that</a>" and also the Insane Clown Posse's lyric - "f***ing magents, how do they work?" (you can see this wonderful <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0" target="_blank">Veritasium</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFAOXdXZ5TM" target="_blank">MinutePhysics</a> collaboration if you're curious). Now it's true that in Chopra's case he's picked up on something that, as yet, has not been fully explained. But this is a strength for science - saying "I don't know" is a perfectly respectable answer, especially when it's followed by "Let's try and find out".<br />
<br />
This challenge is just fluff (though it would be interesting to see how seriously Chopra takes it, is it possible to <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/even-more-amazng.html" target="_blank">see his bank statements proving the money's there for example?</a>). Whilst he may not have ring fenced this money, it is a shame that he has amassed so much from his pseudoscience and platitudes that<a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do/" target="_blank"> he himself does not always follow</a>. However, as Haldane said "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we <i>can</i> suppose", and quantum mechanics of the real sort do seem to back him up.<br />
<br />
It's ok that science hasn't explained "the normal" yet because scientists, and those like me that enjoying reading about the fruits of their labour, get a thrill from the sentiment of this not-actually-Carl-Sagan quote "<a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/18/incredible/" target="_blank">Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known</a>".<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-71215657905389029102014-06-01T16:51:00.000+01:002014-06-01T18:29:03.582+01:00Why cats are better than dogs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Over at <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/05/01/help-professor-ceiling-cat-defend-felids/" target="_blank">Why Evolution is True</a>, Jerry Coyne is looking for people to answer the following:<br />
<br />
"1. For those who love cats and dogs: what is it about cats that make them especially appealing or endearing to you?<br />
2. For those (like me) who favor cats over dogs? Why do you prefer the moggies over the doggies?"<br />
<br />
So, with tongue slightly in cheek...<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Cats are better than dogs. This is not a subjective opinion (though the subjective parts of my argument will come first), but an objective fact.<br />
<br />
I have been fortunate enough to have had pet cats around me all my life until I fled the nest, and the reason I have none now is that my landlord doesn't allow pets, and, I am not in a position to afford one (seriously, if you can't afford veterinary fees and such, don't get a pet). Would my personal preference have been different had I grown up with cats? Well, who knows, but this is probably a causative factor in my subjective preference to cats.<br />
<br />
I find cats more aesthetically pleasing. Sure, dogs can be cute, or handsome, or beautiful etc, but cats are more so. They look more graceful when they move, they look more elegant when they sleep, and basically are much more pleasing to my eyes. Whilst I'm not sure it's true that "The dog may be wonderful prose, but only the cat is poetry" is a French proverb (my only source is a fridge magnet I saw), the sentiment certainly is.<br />
<br />
Also, cats are just the right size, and feel more comfortable curled up on my lap than dogs have done. Dogs can be a bit too big, or a bit too small. Cats are just right.<br />
<br />
Wet cats: don't really smell. Wet dogs: a bad smell, so much so, it's used an expression of derision.<br />
<br />
Dogs are coprophages. I know we need things to break feces down, but from my perspective as a human being eating poop is yucky, especially when said dog also likes to lick you.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Purring - I love the sound of it, I love resting my hand on a purring cat and feeling it, and I find it very relaxing. There's a lot of nonsense online that purring can heal bones and similar dubious claims (hence why this is in the subjective part - if I found decent links to the benefits of purring it would be another objective claim, as only cats purr).<br />
<br />
In Star Trek, Data could have chosen any pet in the *entire* known universe, and opted for a cat.<br />
<br />
I like that cats are more independent - dogs are pack animals and behave as such, cats are their own boss.<br />
<br />
Despite all this subjectivity, a look at the evidence clearly shows that cats are best, objectively. So what about objective facts?<br />
<br />
Well, firstly let's start with a heavy hitter: Dogs kill more people than cats.<br />
<br />
Using google, I couldn't find anything on fatalities caused by pet cats. However, there were 2<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24299544" target="_blank">56 fatalities caused by dog bites in the USA between 2000 - 2009</a>. Indeed a google search for "pet dog kills" gives 69,200,000 results, but "pet cat kills" yields only 11,500,000 results. Wikipedia's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deaths_due_to_animal_attacks" target="_blank">Deaths due to animals</a>" doesn't even include cats. Given the scarcity of decent data on cat related deaths, but the wealth of decent (and poorer) sources for data on dog deaths, it seems safe to conclude that dogs kill more people than cats. And of course, I hope you've all seen "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6GQR3Ym5M8" target="_blank">Hero Cat" saving a child from an otherwise potentially fatal dog attack</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, some may point to cats indirectly affecting health through Toxoplasmosis (after all, isn't that what killed that guy in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp0h_qqBG-M" target="_blank">Trainspotting</a>?). Well yes, coming into contact with <a href="http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD006171/prenatal-education-for-congenital-toxoplasmosis" target="_blank">cat feces is a vector for Toxoplasmosis</a>, but then coming into contact with dog (and cat and fox) feces is a vector for <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Toxocariasis/Pages/Introduction.aspx" target="_blank">toxocariasis</a>. In both cases however, hand washing etc can avoid such things, as can providing a litter tray for your cat, and cleaning up after your dog. We are talking about the animals themselves, not the personal hygiene habits of their owners.<br />
<br />
Whilst we talk about hygiene - dogs and cats will both lick you, but I'd much rather be licked by a cat. There's considerably less slobber, and you can also be sure that a cat hasn't just eaten some feces. Cats of course lick you, as they are actually trying to do you a favour and groom you, much like they groom themselves. Because cats are cleaner than dogs in that regard.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1006892908532" target="_blank">Owning a dog or a cat has benefits to the owner's health</a>. Of course, owning a dog has potentially more benefits, as they need to be taken for walks (indeed, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2010.00933.x/abstract" target="_blank">obesity in dogs is unsurprisingly associated with obesity in their owners</a>). Now some might argue that these walks confer extra health advantages (over and above those from cats) to their owners, and this makes dogs better. They are half right. The walking is indeed a good health bonus for the dog owner, but cats are obviously better as they can exercise themselves. This also means that cat owners that want to exercise can do more than walk or run as dog owners are forced to do - like swimming perhaps. You might argue that dogs mean that their owners have to go out and exercise, and this too is true. But if a cat owner chooses not to exercise, the fault sits with them. We're talking about cats being better, not humans. But whilst we're on the subject of humans, surely the cat owner that regularly exercises for health is better at taking care of themselves than the dog owner who does it because they are forced to for the needs of their dog (much like those who do good things because they are good being more ethical than those who do good things because they will be rewarded, or to avoid punishment, but I digress...).<br />
<br />
Whilst we're talking about humans though, what will it cost you to own a cat or a dog? Pet Education gives a range of <a href="http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+2106&aid=1543" target="_blank">$4,242 to $38,905 (with the author's cost $12,468) for a dog over 14 years</a>, but <a href="http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=1+2137&aid=1542" target="_blank">$4,521 to $18,322 (with the author's cost $7,713) for a cat over 14 years</a>. Cats are clearly better in terms of value for money. Those this is obviously an epiphenomenon, as without humans, this value for money would not be known,<br />
<br />
Smart people clearly know that cats are better - <a href="http://www.carrollu.edu/programs/psychology/faculty_profile.asp?id=253E" target="_blank">Prof. Guastello</a> of Carroll University found that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/cat-people-dog-people-intelligence_n_5412245.html" target="_blank">cat people tended to be smarter than dog people</a>. Of course <a href="http://xkcd.com/552/" target="_blank">correlation does not imply causation</a> - but it's win win, either cats make people smarter, or it's just that smarter people choose cats.<br />
<br />
So there we have it, cats > dogs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-77389021526099317532014-05-17T11:35:00.002+01:002014-05-17T11:35:41.091+01:00Thanks JustGiving<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/outrage-after-justgiving-decide-against-waiving-stephen-sutton-180k-commission-9383426.html" target="_blank">JustGiving are yet again receiving criticism</a> for their charging of fees for their online fundraising service they provide to charities. Unfortunately, <a href="http://blog.justgiving.com/the-facts-about-justgivings-fees/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=WMGS-blog-twitter" target="_blank">the criticism is both untrue and unfair.</a><br />
<br />
When I worked for the Meningitis Trust, some people would also give similar criticism to me "Don't you feel bad taking money from the charity". My answer was "No", because much like everybody else I like to have money to buy food, pay rent, and all the rest. It would be lovely if everyone of independent means volunteered their time for the charity sector, but this isn't going to happen, and so there are expenses that need paying.<br />
<br />
Likewise, setting up a service like JustGiving costs - you need hardware like servers; people to produce the software itself; and then a team of people to deliver this service to the various charities. JustGiving are wonderfully transparent about the fees they charge, and another good thing about them is that their surplus is put right back into improving the service it provides.<br />
<br />
It's true that there are other, cheaper, online fundraising services, but they follow where JustGiving lead. JustGiving are the ones that invest in developing new services, like <a href="http://www.justgiving.com/en/justtextgiving" target="_blank">JustTextGiving</a>, that make it better for everyone, and provide things for the other service providers to imitate.<br />
<br />
Without JustGiving, <a href="https://www.justgiving.com/stephen-sutton-tct" target="_blank">Stephen Sutton </a>would not have been in a position to raise the fantastic sum that he did, and gather the publicity that he did.<br />
<br />
In my own time I've raised over £60,000 for various charities over the last 10ish years, not all of it online, but without JustGiving I wouldn't have made nearly as much. Case in point, over Easter I was in London for the Meningitis Research Foundation, shaking a bucket for loose change. JustGiving let me have a <a href="http://www.justgiving.com/VirtualBucket2014" target="_blank">virtual bucket</a> for those friends of mine that couldn't drop anything in to my real one, and that was an extra £161 for the charity. Charities raise more with JustGiving than they would without, and JustGiving are well worth their fees because of this.<br />
<br />
Full disclosure: I won, with my good friend Simon, the Most Innovative Fundraiser Award at the first Justgiving Awards in 2010, and have also had donations from Justgiving made to various fundraising pages I have had over the years. This only serves to back up my arguments - not only are they deeply passionate about helping the charities they serve, but they have a vested interest in the individual fundraisers too.<br />
<br />
*cough* <a href="http://www.justgiving.com/whatonlythree" target="_blank">http://www.justgiving.com/whatonlythree</a> *cough*</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-71774398118515495832014-04-28T06:38:00.000+01:002014-04-28T06:38:09.047+01:00Live Below the Line<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="MsoPlainText">
1.2 Billion people, that's a sixth of the world
population, have to get by on just £1 a day their most basic needs - food,
clean water, shelter, education, health, everything.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
Live Below the Line is challenging individuals and
communities to eat and drink on just £1 per day for 5 days, to bring to life
the experiences of the 1.2 billion people currently living in extreme poverty.
Think about that figure - 1.2 BILLION - that's nearly 20 times the population
of the UK - living every day in extreme poverty.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
Participants chose to take the challenge and fundraise
for one of our 35 charity partners whose work is vital to ending extreme
poverty. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
One such participant is my<a href="https://www.livebelowtheline.com/me/essexkate" target="_blank"> lovely friend Kate</a>, who is
says:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
"Last year I successfully managed to complete this
challenge, but it was a challenge. This year I am eating more food, drinking
more chocolate and I have less time to plan and prepare meals. I am genuinely
wondering how it is going to be possible to manage on £1 a day. </div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
I expect to be
grumpy and hungry, but at least I can make up for it at the weekend. The reason
this challenge is so important to me is becuase of the huge number of people
around the world and in the uk who have no choice but to watch every penny they
spend. As a mother it particularly hits me that there are parents who choose to
miss meals so they can feed their children, some of them within 5 miles of
where I work in London.</div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
If you aren't taking part in the challenge please think
about how much money you spend over the 5 days and the luxury you have of
eating foods you enjoy rather than what you can afford to survive. It would be
great if you could donate some money (my chosen charity is Save the Children),
but it's more important for me to raise awareness. "<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoPlainText">
Well, that's a bit more awareness raised, but long time
readers will know I'm big on the old fundraising, so if you can, why not
<a href="https://www.livebelowtheline.com/me/essexkate" target="_blank">pop by her page</a> (or one of the many others), and donate at least £1 - for 1.2
billion people, that would be all they could possibly give today.<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-89289248285538309322014-02-12T22:26:00.001+00:002014-02-12T22:26:59.020+00:00Facebook ads - not worth the money, and suggest fraud<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Facebook ads aren't worth it, and <a href="https://twitter.com/veritasium" target="_blank">Derek Muller</a> of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/veritasium" target="_blank">Veritasium</a> fame explains why:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/oVfHeWTKjag?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
(Derek has made an earlier video too, on the <a href="http://youtu.be/l9ZqXlHl65g" target="_blank">problems with facebook</a>).<br />
<br />
He's also had a response from Facebook, and had <a href="https://twitter.com/veritasium/status/433713958428495872" target="_blank">asked</a> that this response be mirrored. Given that he's a top block, who am I to say no. Here's the text of that<a href="https://www.facebook.com/veritasium/posts/604629056280134?stream_ref=5" target="_blank"> post</a> repeated in full:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">My response to Facebook’s response to me:</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">FB: I'd like to be clear that he intentionally created a low quality Page about something a lot of people like – cats.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Me: Correct - the goal here was to see if people would blindly like anything, including a page that clearly calls them an idiot if they like it. And they did. The implication is they never even looked at the page, and this is backed up by statistics on the page. To me this is not genuine behavior. I don't know anyone who would like a page without either knowing the brand or checking out the page first.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">FB: He spent $10 and got 150 people who liked cats to like the Page.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Me: Why can't they get the facts right? I spent $10 and got 39 likes (much faster than I expected and from only the US, Canada, Australia and the UK).</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">FB: They may also like a lot of other Pages which does not mean that they are not real people – lots of real people like lots of things.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Me: OK, here's the thing. The global average likes per person is 40. For most countries it looks like 20 and below:</span><a href="http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socialbakers.com%2Fblog%2F1561-cutting-through-the-crowds-on-facebook-news-feeds&h=fAQF6uZE6&enc=AZOKTkNLdamTQxBaiZz8jHlhyFBvY3F1U6ehBoGihVcHLw376o8I-8eAVDL9Okgj5OBunQRapID-IA_so3IHYAGNMT2f_DfN-GBS4YXJ6FJ_LoysS2_2nYpXyczXZk-swEphuWh9gJQ99DaCaARUxP7DgDZGJ9emvxvPxO1tFL_jOQ&s=1" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.socialbakers.com/blog/1561-cutting-through-the-crowds-on-facebook-news-feeds</a><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Virtually everyone who liked my page liked in excess of 900 things (I say virtually because I could only spot-check random profiles and then the number of likes is not easy to ascertain - you have to scroll for miles through their likes and then count using a query of the code). These are clearly not typical accounts.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Now the claim this "does not mean that they are not real people" might be valid. They may well be accounts made or controlled by an actual human (could be an employee at a clickfarm, could be someone who is paid to like pages, eg. via paid-to-like.com). However I think their likes are not genuine. So this is a distinction I imagine FB would not be keen to make. There may be 'fake' likes coming from 'real' profiles.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Then they might throw up their hands and say 'even if what he's saying is true, how could we ever deal with this kind of activity?' I would say if there is a page like that never results in engagement with the page, it is a bogus like and the like should be deleted, not necessarily the account, but certainly the like.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">FB: Also, his example for his own page from May 2012 is almost two years old, and as indicated above, we have significantly improved these systems over the past two years."</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Me: This is perhaps most worrying of all. In essence: in the old days, sure fake likes could happen, but not now. What troubles me most about this admission is they have done nothing to correct the problem. If they're aware those 80,000 likes are dead weight they should have eliminated them. And they have since benefited from those 80,000 likes when I paid to try to reach them. I hadn't dug into my demo data so I didn't know how bad the problem was and I paid to boost posts out to these useless likes. That is a problem!</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Reporter: Some of the people who were passing around your video this week cited as a reason to be skeptical of Facebook's market valuation. Of course, it is very difficult to know just how big a problem clickfraud is. Do you have any evidence that gaining likes actually helps you?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">Me: I was thinking about this a bit last night. In the past I have run Google Adwords campaigns and I never saw much suspicious click activity. But people have rightly made the point that some clicks in any campaign are bound not to be genuine.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;">But here is the big problem with fake likes on Facebook. Unlike a fraudulent click on Google these fakes stay with you forever (even two years later when Facebook's Fraud detection has moved on). They weigh on your engagement and edgerank because the accounts never intended to engage with you. And then you end up paying again to boost the post out to them - and they were never real in the first place!</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17.940000534057617px;"><a href="http://www.socialbakers.com/blog/1561-cutting-through-the-crowds-on-facebook-news-feeds" target="_blank">Cutting through the crowds on Facebook news feeds.</a></span><br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4304574086397404369.post-43606854256258099622014-02-06T21:43:00.002+00:002014-02-06T21:43:25.250+00:00More on the education award for the creationist zoo<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The other day I wrote about <a href="http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/creationist-zoo-gets-education-award.html" target="_blank">a creationist zoo being awarded for the quality of education provided there</a>, and, in the comments, you can see the letter I wrote to the awarding body. Here is their reply:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thank you for recent email, please find our official
statement below.<br /><br />The Learning Outside the Classroom (LOtC) Quality Badge is
the national accreditation for the provision of educational visits, which
recognises good quality educational provision where risk is effectively
managed. In order to be awarded the LOtC Quality Badge the provider must demonstrate
that they meet 6 quality criteria relevant to these aspects. The formal
education programme at Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm has been assessed and was found to
have met these criteria.<br /><br />Further information on the LOtC Quality Badge and the
criteria can be found at <a href="http://www.lotcqualitybadge.org.uk/" target="_blank">www.lotcqualitybadge.org.uk</a><br /><br />Kind regards,<br />The CLOtC Team</blockquote>
The <a href="http://lotcqualitybadge.org.uk/quality-indicators" target="_blank">criteria</a> mentioned are:<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<ol style="text-align: left;">
<li>The provider has a process in place to assist users to plan
the learning experience effectively;</li>
<li>The provider provides accurate information about its offer;</li>
<li>The provider provides activities or experiences which meet
learner needs;</li>
<li>The provider reviews the experience and acts upon feedback;</li>
<li>The provider meets the needs of users; and</li>
<li>The provider has safety management processes in place to
manage risk effectively. </li>
</ol>
<div>
However, under each of these, there are a number of <a href="http://lotcqualitybadge.org.uk/quality-indicators-in-detail" target="_blank">sub indicators</a>. Now, as far as I can see, of these sub indicators, none seem to actually mention the quality of the information taught - it largely seems geared towards good pedagogy. The closest to the quality of the information appear to be these two sub indicators for criteria 3:</div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
e) educational or instructional staff and volunteers are
competent; and<br />f) there is a process in place for monitoring and evaluating
the quality of teaching and instruction.</blockquote>
I would call into question the competence of creationists who attempt to teach science. Likewise, the someone may be very good at teaching, however, if what they're teaching is nonsense, I would call that poor quality education.<br />
<br />
These criteria imply that any old rubbish can be taught, so long as it is taught well, and that will count as quality education.<br />
<br />
To me, this entirely invalidates the LOtC Quality Badge. The best teachers in the world are of no use if they are teaching known falsehoods as fact. In fact, such teachers leave their students worse off.<br />
<br />
For me to have any trust in the LOtC Quality Badge, I would like a change to the criteria to take into account the quality of the material that is taught. Until then, the badge is meaningless, as the criteria are obviously not fit for purpose in assessing quality education.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0