There’s been an increasing amount of interest over the years from the more religious parts of our society about celebrating the ‘real’ meaning of Christmas – celebrating the birth of the Christian messiah, Jesus. It’s not uncommon for non-Christians, wanting to partake in the festivities that surround this time of the year, to be confronted with the sentiment that, as non-Christians, it’s not really ‘proper’ for them to join in with the celebrations. But just how strong is the Christian claim to this festival? How much of what we perceive as ‘Christmas’ is overtly Christian in nature and how much is entirely unconnected to religion at all? As secularists, atheists or even Muslim or Hindus, do we have a right to take part or are the complaints by Christians a misguided attempt to claim this time of year for their own?
I wasn’t going to write a blog post until after our Christmas Special on the 18th of December (hint hint!) but I was trawling through the BBC website and got quite irritated by something that I’ve seen all media outlets do before, but something that I think the BBC especially should try to avoid.
Ada Lovelace day is this year (2013) celebrated on October the 15th. It’s a day to celebrate to contributions made to STEM fields by women because, let’s face it, men have done rather well in this patriarchal, misogynistic world so far and women have largely been ignored, despite their efforts. On this day, bloggers and writers all get together to write a post on a woman who inspires them in STEM fields, or to raise the profile of a single woman, or women in general, who they think deserves greater recognition. I’ll be contributing this year, mainly because some damn fool allowed me to write stuff on the internet, and also because I’m a feminist (yes, I know I’m a man) who thinks women get a crappy deal, especially in science history.
Apparently, self-classification as a scientist brings with it some kind of assumption that you know stuff. Despite the fact I’m about as credentialed as Dr Nick from the Simpsons (“Hi everybody!” “Hi Dr. Nick!”) and do as much cutting edge science on a daily basis as Dr Dino and convicted tax fraud, Kent Hovind, people expect you to have a knowledge about stuff beyond the ken of the ‘lay person’, whoever he is.
It’s not that I know things, or even that I do science (in the meaningful sense) on a regular basis. The distinction is that, even as someone who works on the fringes of science and research, it’s about attitude, an attitude towards learning and reading about new things beyond the headlines and sound bites, into the underlying principles. Then, and only then, can an opinion be formed safely.
This isn’t an attitude reserved for scientists though, before I suffer from delusions of grandeur. Anyone who cares about being rational and skeptical could (and should) examine the evidence for any position and at least make an attempt to rationalise their viewpoint before speaking out. On issues like badger culling, GMO’s, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia; there’s evidence to be read beyond the emotional appeal of fluffy animals, innocent babies and the dubious commercial practices of multi-national biochemical industries.
One issue lately that has become loaded with emotion instead of evidence, in the popular press anyway, is that of fracking. I’m a chemist, and not a very good one at that, not a geologist, so my understanding is limited. However, as a rationalist and skeptic, I felt obligated to read up on the mechanics behind it before formulating an opnion and I felt it only right to share that. Disagree if you want, but please do so after considering the evidence.
“Fluoride to again be added to west Cumbria’s water supply” says the headline on the website of the News and Star (09/09/13) bringing to the fore the issue both the specific issue of water fluoridation and the wider issue of widespread public medication. I’m not going to go into the issue of putting additives into our food or water supply for our own good because that’s an ethical issue and not the point I’m trying to make. What I want to discuss here is the science behind fluoridation, why it’s a good idea and why the anti-fluoridation brigade has it wrong and what they’re really opposed to and why.
Disclaimer: Not written by me; taken almost entirely word-for-word from here. Go read it in all it’s glory!
7 Reasons the World Looks Worse Than It Really Is
A billion people have been lifted out of poverty in just the last 20 years. Did you know that? Do you know how it happened? Do you sit around thinking about how wonderful that is? I don’t. I’m too angry that Comcast tried to charge me for a service call when the reason for the call was a defective Comcast modem. But I suppose that in the course of complaining about the state of the economy, politics, and shitty broadband Internet we should take a moment to notice that we’re living in the glorious golden age of civilization and that life is improving for the species at a dizzying rate not even hippies could have hoped for in their smelliest dreams. Why do we find it so hard to do that? Well …
There’s been a fair bit in the news in the past few years that shows an alarming tendency of those in power to ignore science when it comes to making policy, preferring instead to pander to illogical and irrational prejudices that they think will gain them votes.
We had the well respected Governmental scientific advisor, David Nutt, who was dismissed for daring to suggest that recreational drugs be classified according to their health risk.
Next we have noted pro-homeopath, Jeremy Hunt, being appointed Health Minister.
We have our heir to the throne, Prince Charles, lobbying government on behalf of his own flapdoodle products.
Now we have this:
So, in keeping with my personal quest to see the world enlightened, today’s post is about naturalism, what it is and why there’s an important distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. It’s fair to say that one is fairly well applied, even by those people who don’t realise it, whereas the other is really only applied by Big Thinkers. I’m not a philosopher, nor have I done any studies of those subjects that are even remotely connected to philosophy or epistemology (the study of where knowledge comes from) or anything like that. I’m a scientist, and I like to think I’ve fairly rational thought processes. In explaining all of this, in terms I understand, I’m hoping that other people will understand it better.
Hello again from your friendly skeptical scientist, attempting to enrich and enliven people’s lives by spreading the knowledge of Science™ and contributing to everyone’s Facts To Amaze People Down The Pub list.
Today I’m going to discuss placebos and the common misconceptions people have about them and how they’re so often abused, even by rational and scientifically minded people. There’s a subtle difference between a true placebo and a simple control, and this is my attempt to explain it.
It’s your friendly neighbourhood chemist here with another rabble-rousing post. Today I’m going to discuss the SI unit: the mole, and in doing so why homeopathy cannot work.