Cruise Controlled?

After having to postpone last month BBC Journalist John Sweeney joined us at The White Horse for what turned out to be a devastating denunciation of Scientology mixed with a boozy swear word scripted pantomime.

 

John proved that his in-your-face style of reporting isn't just for the TV screen by telling the audience that Bedford felt like the North Korean capital Pyongyang in that "it has a sense of itself, but is not just quite right."

 

John made it clear that any views he expressed during the talk were his alone and nothing to do with the BBC or the Director General ("whoever that may be this week") and that to avoid any litigious 

Scientologist lawyers we should point and shout "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" at him.  This humble blogger did so and if you point and shout "Bigot!" at your screen whilst reading this entry then we should all be safe from any legal entanglements.

 

With audience members taking on the parts of, amongst others, John Travolta, Tom Cruise and L. Ron Hubbard and repeating some of their more seemingly outlandish statements on the subject of Scientology it would have been easy to feel that this was just an evening of easy ridicule.  However, John's central message is that Scientology is a dishonest money making scheme that divides families and displays all the characteristics of a cult rather than a legitimate religion.

 

He maintains that he defends people's right to believe in anything they wish. But, unlike established religions, Scientology isn't up front about the basic tenets of its 'faith'.  Whether you believe it or not Christianity is quite clear that they believe 

Jesus was the son of god who died for our sins, then rose again.  

Islam is clear that Muhammad is the last prophet of god and Allah is that god.  However, with Scientology you have to spend a great deal of time and money to actually discover that the basic belief of Scientology is that you are actually possessed by the spirits of dead aliens that were murdered with H-bombs by an evil intergalactic overlord.  

 

There were plenty of fans of John's work in the audience who were vocal in their appreciation his talk.  But also plenty of people who felt that they wanted more history of how Scientology came into being and how exactly any criticisms of these beliefs cannot be levelled equally at other religions.   However, the focus of John's talk wasn't about the weird belief system of Scientology but instead the way that it operates a regime of secrecy and intimidation.  

Hence, the title of the book that accompanies the talk - 'The Church of Fear'. 

Whatever your opinion of the talk, it was certainly a lively, combative night of robust conversation and debate.

 

NEXT TIME: No Skeptics In the Pub event in December.  But please join us again on Thursday 16th January when Stevyn Colgan (from the BBC show 'Q.I.') will be talking to us about  grass-roots skepticism and why we should be critical thinkers in every aspect of our lives.  Full details HERE.  

Pregnant Pause?

Our latest meeting saw the first birthday of Bedford Skeptics In the Pub. Something to be celebrated, no doubt. Skeptically, of course.

And births, or rather several billion of them, and the consequences of such procreation was the subject of our latest talk when John Davies of the charity Population Matters spoke to us.

Population Matters are convinced that unless we all address the issue of population growth then any other measures taken to alleviate environmental problems and global poverty will flounder.  John cited a 2011 YouGov poll which found that 80% of the public believed that both the global and UK population was too high.

Yet time and again, according to Population Matters, the discussion of what might be done to limit population is sidelined by a political elite not interested or too scared to confront the issue. Even when the matter does get raised within the debate on the future of the planet the subject of population is not given equal space on the agenda.  Subjects such as global warming dominate the conversation when, according to Population Matters, the amounts of greenhouses gases created by the vast human population are central to the problem in the first place.

John referred to statistics that showed £4-£6 invested in family planning can abate a tonne of carbon emissions.  According to this data this is almost four times more cost effective than tree planting, five times more than solar power and six times more than hybrid technology. Population Matters calls for a series of actions ranging from balanced migration flows (that is, no more in that out) to the end of state subsidies for large families (except in cases of proven need).  You can read all their goals HERE.

After the usual half time emptying of bladders and re-filling of glasses we screened a TED talk by Hans Rosling on whether some religions have a higher birth rate than others.  It's an excellent and enlightening talk and well worth 13 minutes of your time.

The discussion session after the film was a lively, some might say, sparky affair.  Many in the audience felt that population growth had slowed and that the scientific consensus pointed to a levelling off of human numbers. Furthermore, that population growth in developing countries is a symptom of poverty and inequality rather than its cause.  The debate seemed to return to the central idea that without a fairer distribution of wealth and resources the problems of population numbers will remain.

Whilst it wasn't mentioned overtly on the night was the idea of 'Contraction & Convergence' (see video above) which could provide a scientific formula for both reducing greenhouse gases to a sustainable level and lead to greater financial equality between nations.  A levelling out of global inequality would seem to offer the best route to solve so many of the interlinked issues of climate change, poverty and localised over population.  

To many the practical application of the 'Contraction & Convergence' approach is unacceptable and unworkable in the current social and political climate. But, in the end, we may have to make this choice whilst the choice is still ours to make.


NEXT MONTH: After an unavoidable postponement BBC Journalist John Sweeney will be explaining to us why he believes that Scientology is, in fact, a Church of Fear - 7pm Thursday November 21st at The White Horse. You are advised to get there early to nab a seat if the turn out for Robert Llewellyn was anything to go by.  Full details HERE

Battery Powered Cars: A Hard Cell?

About a year or so ago as the founders of Bedford Skeptics In The Pub were making plans for our first event we hoped that we might be able to attract 20 to 30 people on a regular basis. So it was with quiet satisfaction that 11 months on we found ourselves, and about 110 others, crammed in to The White Horse to hear what Robert Llywellyn had to say about electric vehicles and how how he feels they are inevitably the future of transport.

Robert talked us through a brief history of electric vehicles. As early as 1908 Manhattan had 600 electric taxis and Thomas Edison was a driving force, no pun intended, behind the technology.  However, as time went on and the invention of the starter motor made petrol cars less hazardous to get started, electric vehicles started to lose market share.  Electric vehicle sales peaked in the US in 1912.  Improved road infrastructure made longer journeys possible and electric cars did not have the required range.  They also suffered from lower top speeds making any journeys longer than petrol driven cars.  In addition to this, the discovery of large reserves of petroleum in Texas and California meant that fuel costs fell dramatically. Furthermore, as the mass production of petrol vehicles brought their prices down, the cost of buying electric vehicles was rising.

Electric vehicles were still around as anyone hearing the buzz of a local milk float on an early morning when the majority of milk was still home delivered can attest.  Fork lift trucks were also in most warehouses and factories and still are.  Plus there are three electric vehicles parked on the moon in the shape of the Lunar Rovers.  But the internal combustion engine was king.

Robert explained that the current interest in electric vehicles has its roots in the horrific air pollution suffered by Los Angeles in the 1970s and 80s.  The Californian Air Resources Board (CARB) created legislation which forced motor manufacturers to build zero emission vehicles.  Whilst the management of the car makers grudgingly did this to comply with the law the actual engineers working on the projects were excited by the concept and a new era of electric vehicle technology was born even if actual take up of the vehicles was still low.  In fact, Robert claimed that a possible new era of electric transportation was stymied by the motor vehicles manufacturers and 'Big Oil', he recommended the film 'Who Killed the Electric Car?' to us all.

But Robert's talk wasn't all doom and gloom. He had the audience in stitches with tales of the different approach taken by the US producers when his UK show 'Scrapheap Challenge' made its way across to the States with the new name 'Junkyard Wars'. He also testified to how painful it is to have a tomato shot at your buttock from an electric gun.

Robert addressed the common fears that people have about electric cars, such as low range and no engine noise.  Plus the fact that critics claim that whilst the vehicles are claimed to be emission free the emissions simply come from a power station chimney than the car's own exhaust pipe.

There were doubters in the audience, including a man who owned a Prius hybrid car who remarked that his experience of its fuel efficiency was less than spectacular.  That said, there were several committed electric car owners who waxed lyrical about both the financial and environmental benefits of the cars as well as the better driving experience.

During the intermission Robert showed the assembled crowd his Nissan Leaf parked outside which itself was charging via an extension cable into a plug by the side of the stage.  Whilst across the road cars pulled in to fill up at the local BP petrol station.

As well as the audience there were local journalists and TV crews there to record the evening so keep an eye out for any reports in the press, such as this from the Bedfordshire on Sunday Team.  Our friends at TV Bedfordshire should have a report on their site soon too.

Robert proved to be an engaging and energetic guest with a fabulous array of vocal sound effects and impressions with which he enlivened the evening. 

Speaking to Robert I hear that a nationwide tour is being planned so if you missed him here then you may get another chance soon.



NEXT MONTH: Another top-notch guest when BBC Journalist John Sweeney will be explaining to us why he believes that Scientology is, in fact, a Church of Fear - 7pm Thursday October 17th at The White Horse. You are advised to get there early to nab a seat if this month's turn out is anything to go by.  Full details HERE.

Apocalypse Not Quite Yet

Bedford Skeptics In The Pub (a.k.a. Bedford SITP) has been going for almost a year now.  We've examined many pressing issues such as climate change, the state of the education system, the legalisation of prostitution and global corruption amongst other things.  Now to the casual observer, given those subject matters, a night in the boozer with Bedford SITP might well seem a pretty doomed laden affair where pints are downed as a means of escape from the terrible awfulness of it all.

In fact, it is quite the opposite. Those attending Bedford SITP are actually keen to learn new things, hear others point of views and examine the evidence placed before them.  These hardly seem the character traits of people who have given up hoping for a better future and don't think that there's any chance of achieving it.

So it would seem that this month's guest, Mark Stevenson and Bedford SITP are natural bedfellows, in the figurative sense, that is.  Mark has seen the future and whilst it might not be 'so bright he's gotta wear shades' (to misquote the Timbuk 3 hit from 1986), he contends that it certainly isn't as awful as we have often been led to imagine.  He reached this conclusion after setting out on what he called a 'World Tour of the Future' examining how technological advances were changing the world around us right now, even though we might not be fully aware of it.  The surprising thing for Mark was the level of optimism that he found on his journey (especially in Spain and New Zealand, it would seem.)  One of the outcomes of his exploration of the future was the book 'An Optimist's Tour Of The Future'.

However, Mark explained that the term 'optimism' is often associated with wishful thinking and soft headed idiocy.  Especially, in a nation such as the UK where, at times, it would seem that we are hard-wired for cynicism.  Mark was keen to explain that the 'optimism' that he advocates is the 'optimism of ambition'. That is, that we should set our sights high and not give in to easy and comforting cynicism.  In fact, to Mark, cynicism is like smoking, "It might look good but but it harms you and those around you."

Mark showed us some truly amazing examples of technological advances which will change humanity, such as the plummeting price of human genome sequencing costs which will enable the development of highly effective diagnostic tools and treatments based on an individual's own genetic make-up.

There was also a discussion of 3D printers and the possible knock on effects to all our lives from being able to print out everything from toys for the kids to your own personalised drugs and even body parts.  As one of the pub-based audience commented, if this means being able to print a new liver it might not be a bad thing.

Mark also sees the growth of renewable energy as unstoppable despite the fossil fuel industries vested interests best attempts to thwart it.  With the availability of cheap, plentiful and sustainable energy comes a paradigm shift in global politics.

Speaking to audience members during and after the event, what came across from Mark, aside from all the technological advances he described, was the desire to instill hope for the future. But not just a nice, warm feeling but a stance of active optimist, that is, a belief in possibilities leading to real world actions.  Mark suggested that we "Be defined not by what we own but but what we create." Mark is one of the founders of The League Of Pragmatic Optimists (LOPO) which is attempting to do just that.

Mark is currently working on a new book on Democracy and we hope that he'll return to Bedford SITP to talk to us about the issues it raises. Indeed, we've already had several people asking for such an evening.

NEXT MONTH: Thursday 19th September - 7 for 7:30pm - The White Horse - Robert Llewellyn (a.k.a 'Kryten' from 'Red Dwarf') will be attempting to convince us that electric vehicles are the future of transport. We're hoping for another big turnout so if you want a good seat I would suggest you get to The White Horse a bit earlier than usual.  Why not treat yourself to dinner before the show starts? Full details HERE.

Physiognomy – A Mug’s Game?

This month we welcomed Kathryn Ford who had travelled all the way down from Liverpool to talk to us about Physiognomy.  Physiognomy is the practice of believing that you can judge someone's character traits from their appearance.  Kathryn explained that this idea goes right back to ancient Greece.  The term 'physiognomy' comes from the Greek 'physis' meaning 'nature' and 'gnomon' meaning 'judge' or 'interpreter'.  Over 2,500 years ago Greek thinkers such as Zopyrus and later Aristotle believed that appearance was a good judge of character.  Pythagoras actually rejected a prospective follower, Cylon, as he judged that his appearance pointed towards bad character traits.

By the Middle Ages, Physiognomy was well established, widely accepted and taught in universities until Henry VIII outlawed it in 1531. He also banned palm reading at the same time. Leonardo Da Vinci was sceptical of physiognomy writing that ''I do not concern myself with false physiognomy...there is no truth in them and this can be proven because these chimeras have no scientific foundation”. 

The practice seems to have gone into decline until the 1770s when Swiss pastor Johann Kaspar Lavater's essays were translated into English and French. The popularity of Physiognomy grew in the 18th and 19th centuries and English authors such as Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy and Charlotte Bronte used detailed physiognomic descriptions of their characters.  Kathryn focussed on Oscar Wilde's 'The Picture Of Dorian Gray' and how as the novel's anti-hero committed foul deeds his portrait was corrupted, it's hideous visage accurately reflecting Dorian's true character.

However, Physiognomy suffered by being linked with Phrenology - the idea that lumps and bumps on the head and skull could help to determine character and intelligence and both are now generally discredited and viewed, at best, a pseudo-science and, at worst, as outright quackery. However, some South Koreans certainly still believe in the validity of the physiognomy as you can see from the face map of North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Un that they’ve compiled.

Research in recent decades has focussed on our reactions to others features and what we feel those features might uncover about another person’s personality.  Kathryn talked us through numerous pieces of research that all pointed in various degrees to the conclusion that whether or not someone's facial features does or does not determine their character, we think it does and make snap decisions based on this.  Furthermore, these snap decisions can condition the response we get from the other person thus our idea of their character can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

These sorts of studies have been prompting a bout of fresh interest in the subject area with articles appearing in respected publications such as The Economist.  The Economist article describes a study that claims having sex with an attractive man provokes more orgasms and therefore a higher chance of getting pregnant. Therefore, it’s more likely that attractive DNA will be passed on to the next generation. 

Kathryn cited studies that showed that people deemed more ‘attractive’ receive less harsh sentences when convicted of certain crimes such as robbery.  However, ‘attractive’ people received tougher penalties for crimes where their good looks/charm were deemed to have been used as a weapon – such as for fraudsters and con-artists.

Indeed, the perceived good looks or fresh faced youth of the alleged Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have prompted some people to question whether be could be responsible for such a crime.

It would seem that although Justice is claimed to be blind the blindfold needs to be made of thicker material.

Kathryn also showed us how ‘Composite Faces’ can be created to aid research (or just for fun – try some here – www.faceresearch.org). 

So whilst it would seem that we do judge a person’s character by their looks is there actually any truth to it?   An article in New Scientist suggests there is.  It references studies that point to an evolutionary basis to our ‘snap judgements’ and that these judgements may contain a kernel of truth. Uncomfortable listening for those of us who like to believe we’re rational human beings. But the instinctive wiring of the ‘primitive’ brain still remains, it would seem.  Perhaps the best approach is to be aware of the ‘unconscious bias’ we carry around with us and do our best to inform ourselves and try to ensure that it is taken into account when decisions are being made.

Kathryn’s talk was very thought provoking and warmly received by the audience, many of whom stayed to talk with her at the end of the evening.  Bedford Skeptics highly recommend her to other groups. She’s already given 5 Skeptics talks this month and another 3 are lined up for August so if you missed her last night you can follow her on Twitter @KatLikesJam to see where she’s appearing next.

Next Month:  Sometimes it can seem that Skeptics In The Pub subject matter (climate change, corruption, dodgy belief systems etc.) is overly pessimistic. Well, fear not, next month Mark Stevenson will be at The White Horse explaining that it’s not all doom and gloom! He’ll be treating us to 'An Optimist's Tour Of The Future' on Thursday 15th August at 7pm. 

Full details HERE.

Hard Graft - The Battle Against Global Corruption

This month we welcomed Laurence Cockcroft, expert on global corruption, one of the founders of 'Transparency International' and author of the book 'Global Corruption: Money, Power & Ethics In The Modern World'   Laurence had addressed many august institutions across the world.  But we were delighted to hear that this was the very first time he'd ever given a talk in a pub.  So a Bedford Skeptics World 'Pub' Premiere, then!

The talk seemed particularly well timed in light of the recent lobbying scandal.  Despite David Cameron saying in 2010 that lobbying would be "the next big scandal waiting to happen" there is, in fact, a long history of them.

 

Laurence started but trying to define 'corruption' and the different strands of graft.  To him it is "the misuse of entrusted power for personal gain".  We are not simply talking here about senior figures in the world of business and politics offering and taking bribes.  There is also what's known as 'petty' corruption.  For example, when school teachers require money so that your child can enter school or get 'special treatment', or when medical staff expect a payout before treating a sick child.  Whilst these all fall under 'petty' corruption it doesn't feel so 'petty' if you are one of the impoverished people spending approx. 15% of their income in paying local bribes.

There is also the problem of the corrupt funding of political campaigns. Laurence told us that in India it is estimated that it costs ten million dollars to run as a Federal candidate. If you need that sort of money then you need big donations.  But given that India's political parties are refusing to declare where 80% of their donations come from the suspicion is that most of it is illicit (also known as 'black money' in India.)  Of course, the issue of dodgy political financing is not restricted to overseas.  Here in the UK there was the 2006-07 'Cash for Honours' scandal when it was alleged that, in order to circumvent the law which stated that that names of those making political donations had to be declared, loans were being made to the Labour Party in return for peerages. No charges were brought but the scandal forced the Labour Party to return the loans.

Organised crime is another key strand of corruption.  For example, there has long been a link between organised crime and politics in Italy. Giulio Andreotti was Italy's Prime Minister seven times.  In 1999 he was tried and found guilty of being the Mafia's protector in Rome until at least 1980, but escaped jail because too much time had elapsed. Prosecutors who have stood up to organised crime, such as Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, have been assassinated.

Lastly, there is the Multinationals strand.  Walmart has been accused of spending $156,000 in bribes to facilitate the opening of stores in Mexico.  Rolls Royce has faces allegations of bribery and corruption in China and Indonesia. 

Laurence went on to explain some of the reasons why corruption has proved so difficult to deal with.   Any transactions in the 'shadow economy' are hard to monitor.  In the UK this 'shadow' or 'black' economy is estimated to make up 10% of national income.  In developing countries this can amount to 40% of the economy.  Furthermore, offshore tax havens offer a useful tool for money launderers and tax evaders.  Many such tax havens are under nominal UK jurisdiction such as the Channel Islands, Gibraltar and the Cayman Islands.  Laurence praised the work that British Prime Minister David Cameron is doing to bring more transparency to such these shadowy practices.  Additionally, the shifting tectonic plates of Geopolitics have given corruption plenty of opportunity to thrive.  Both the break up of the Soviet Union and the disintergration of Yugoslavia were cited as key moments in recent history that led to new levels of corruption.  Also, allies of countries like Egypt and Tunisia felt that the high levels of corruption were the price that had to be paid to keep 'friendly' regimes in power. Ironically, it was popular outrage at the levels of corruption that led to the protests that unseated Mubarak and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.  Indeed, the first manifestation of the Arab Spring came when fruit seller Mohammed Bouazizi finally had enough of police corruption and set himself alight.

So how to deal with corruption?  Laurence felt that attitudes to corruption do change and thought that a good start would be to have ethics on school curriculums across the world.  But whilst individuals can make a difference Laurence feels it will never be enough without a much more systematic international approach. 

Perhaps we need to demonstrate to both the governments that allow bribes to be accepted and companies that see offering bribes as just part of their business model that such practices are not just ethically wrong but bad for their bottom line?  In a May 2012 article published in the 'American Business Law Journal', titled “The Business Case for Complying with Bribery Laws,” Philip M. Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton, stated that several scholars have “convincingly marshalled together research that demonstrates the impediment to economic growth, degradation of social and political institutions, misallocation of resources and skills, impoverishment and numerous other societal ills that corruption inflicts on polities and economies.” He adds that although there is a shortage of “firm-level empirical data on the consequences of paying bribes,” the existing research, combined with theoretical discussions and the realities of the regulatory environment, makes "a very strong business case ... for complying with the rules regarding bribery.”

If we can take the case for clean business and combine it with the argument that accepting corruption in society as a whole (be it political, petty or otherwise) leads to, as Transparency International put it, "popular anger that threatens to further destabilise societies and exacerbate violent conflicts.”  (Witness the million or so angry Brazilians currently taking to the streets.) Then, perhaps, both Multinationals and Governments can see the benefit in both designing, policing and abiding by strong anti corruption laws.  This then sets the example for ordinary people, (who feel "Why shouldn't I take my little bribe! The politicians and businessmen take thousands more!") to follow.  

Laurence's talk proved very informative and he is highly recommended to other Skeptics groups.

Next Month:  'A Mugs Game: Does Your Face Betray Your Personality?' with Kathryn Ford  Thursday July 18th - 7pm - The White Horse. Full details HERE.

Waste Of Space - Why Explore Beyond Earth?

Skeptics in the Pub Bedford maintained its high standards. About 40 Sceptics were privileged to listen to Adam Stevens a Planetary Scientist from the Open University. Adam had an obvious love for his subject and a refreshing honesty of what was currently possible in the field of solar system exploration.

He gave us some top secret information on the most important clothing taken into space. Socks! After our top level, security cleared briefing, we all agreed that these, were the most important aid to a cheerful space mission.  

Adam highlighted what was Science and Sci-Fi several times. We learnt of the effects of space travel on the human body and mind. Much has been learnt about physiology, muscle and bone wastage. Kidney stones are even worse in space!

Adam is particularly focused on Mars missions. Three organisations are currently planning Mars missions. Some are planning to use the natural resources of Mars to build a base. Experiments with bacteria which consume Martian earth and defecate into brick shaped containers, raised chuckles from the cheap seats [everyone]. 

A tear appeared in some eyes, when we learnt the first dog in space died from overheating. We suspected it happened because he couldn’t hang his head out of the window.

Funding and the US refusal to allow China within the International Space programme are the major restricting factors. Whereas Stephen Hawking believes being a single planet species, is the biggest risk to the survival of the Human Species. Personally I think my survival is threatened by staying too late chatting after SITP Bedford and having to dodge that rolling pin.

Until next month Skeptics, lets boldly go and remember the extra socks.

Next Month: Laurence Cockcroft will be speaking to us about the fight against global corruption - Thursday 20th June - 7 for 7:30pm - Full details HERE

New Status For 'Oldest Profession'?

This month Carrie and Laura from the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) visited us to discuss their work in protecting the rights of sex workers and pushing for the decriminalisation of prostitution in general.

The central theme of the meeting was if the UK were to update the legal status of prostitution, should we move in the direction of the Swedish model, where it is the purchase of  services that is criminalised, or the New Zealand one, where prostitution is entirely decriminalised?  There is currently a legislative push taking place in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to adopt the 'Nordic Model'.

The ECP are firmly against the Swedish approach which they argue does nothing to protect sex workers as it simply pushes prostitution more underground (and also to neighbouring countries) and makes it harder for sex workers to get protection from rape and other violence. Indeed, shifting the focus of the illegality from the supplier to the consumer would appear to be simply making it lawful to sell something that, bizarrely, is illegal to buy. 

They also claim that those pushing for the Swedish approach are an 'unholy alliance' of feminists and Christian fundamentalists who object to prostitution just as they object to gay marriage. Furthermore, the ECP cites evidence showing that discrimination and stigma against sex workers has increased, that sex workers have been put more at risk of attack and are less able to call on the protection of the police and the authorities.

From a rational point of view, the fact that some people find an activity distasteful does not constitute sufficient grounds for criminalising it.  This battle has been fought and won, in the case for example of homosexuality and blasphemy – in the west at least.  Recent attempts to tighten up the legal position of pr-stitution appear to reflect vestiges of religiously-driven Victorian puritan disapproval and have little to do with social harm or benefit.

The case of Claire Finch a couple of years ago clearly illustrated the paradox in the present arrangements whereby to operate legally (i.e. alone on the premises) is inherently dangerous, but to operate safely is illegal.  It is strongly suspected that it was this absurdity that led the jury to acquit, even though technically the presence of more than one ‘staff’ on the premises clearly rendered the operation illegal.

The ECP hold up the experience of New Zealand's 2003 decriminalisation as a good basis for the right way forward.  They claim that New Zealand's approach in removing pr-stitution from the criminal law, allowed people to work together collectively, and distinguishes between consenting sex and violence and exploitation. They also claim that the reforms have been shown to improve sex workers’ working conditions, while making it easier for those who want to get out, to do so.  

Carrie and Laura also spoke of how many s-x workers felt that decisions were being taken about their futures without any consultation with those most affected - the s-x workers themselves.  There seems to be a view point pushed by many organisations that s-x workers are unable to make any decisions for themselves and these 'fallen women' must be 'saved' not just from their clients but also from themselves.  However, the response from the s-x workers is increasingly "Save us from saviours" and a new Global group, The Red Umbrella Fund, has been set up to give workers more control over projects, funding and decisions that directly concern them.

It would certainly seems that, whatever your point of view, few people see the current legal standing of pr-stitution as workable or even logical. This educational and stimulating evening brought that debate into stark relief by hearing from an organisation in the front line of legislative and societal change.

As always you can add your comments on this issue or Bedford Skeptics in general by going to the bottom of this blog post and clicking on the 'Comment' link.  This will open up a window in which you can add your thoughts. 

Next month: On Thursday 16th May we blast off on a journey of solar system exploration with Adam Stevens of The Open University who'll be looking at the potential for humanity to spread beyond our own planet. Full details HERE.

Cloudy Thinking On Climate Change

Hard to believe that another month has passed by.  But it must have as another Bedford Skeptics In The Pub event has just taken place. Close to 40 people were in The White Horse to hear Dr Andy Russell talk about Climate Change and, more specifically, how 'bad science' and 'bad skepticism' form the basis for climate change denial.

There are plenty of websites and blogs on the web concerned with man-made climate change (aka Anthropogenic Global warming - AGW.)  From those that believe climate change is a reality we have to face, such as Skepticalscience.com to others who think quite the opposite such as Watt's Up With That.

This blog entry isn't going to run through all the various arguments.  So please feel free to dive on in and have a look at what they have to offer and make your own mind up as to their relative merits.    

Instead we'll outline Andy's thinking that the term 'Skeptic' is being used by many who, in fact, are not 'Skeptics' but simply 'Deniers'.  

Andy sees himself as a 'Scientific Skeptic' in that he will attempt to investigate claims, weighing up the relative validity of evidence on both sides of the argument, before forming a judgement on an issue.  Whilst some who claim to be equally 'skeptical' in their thinking do not do this.  In fact, it would seem that any evidence , however strong, that is put before them which challenges their position will not cause them to re-examine their belief, let alone actually change their stance. Surely, the correct position for a true 'Skeptic' to take would be to change/abandon their position when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary?  If not, then are they simply 'Deniers' and their belief is more akin to a faith that the scientific-rational thought process they claim to adhere to?

Andy cited various counter arguments to the beliefs of such 'Deniers'.  You can find a handy list of some of them at www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

More disturbingly, Andy went on to talk about how labelling yourself a 'Climate Change Skeptic' or indeed a 'Skeptic' in general can actually be used as a handy disguise by those who have an agenda to discredit those practicing good science and skepticism.  He cited the book 'Merchants Of Doubt' which examines how well respected scientists, funded by powerful lobby groups, purposely set about misleading the public and erroneously calling well evidenced and proven scientific knowledge on subjects such as smoking, acid rain and global warming into doubt.

Andy pointed to the work of Leo Hikman who is uncovering the financial interests that some of the UK's most prominent climate change deniers have in the oil industry.

All this must make it sound like this talk was pretty serious, grim and a bit depressing.  But quite the opposite. Andy was a lively, funny and informative speaker.  This was especially admirable considering he was suffering serious jet-lag.  I know the train journey from London to Bedford can be torturous at times. But I'd never seen it provoke jet-lag before!  

So, what can we take from this event?  Perhaps this, when someone claims to be a 'Skeptic' - delve a little deeper. What would it take for them to change their position on an issue?   Examine your own stances. Are your 'beliefs' arrived at by good science and skepticism?  

A reminder: You can add your thoughts, comments on this issue or Bedford Skeptics in general by going to the bottom of this blog post and clicking on the     'Comment' link.  This will open up a window in which you can add your thoughts. 

Next month: On Thursday 18th April we welcome a speaker from The English Collective Of Prostitutes who will be talking about the legalisation of prostitution and what form any such legalisation should take.  More details from the Bedford Skeptics In The Pub website.

The Unbelievable 'Truth'

Thursday this week saw our 4th event when over 50 people came along to The White Horse to see Stephen Law talk about why perfectly sane people can come to 'believe bullshit'.

Stephen contends that if we are not careful it is easy to get sucked into wacky belief systems, what he calls 'intellectual black holes', due to the mechanisms used by proponents of such nonsense.  At this talk Stephen chose to focus on the example of Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and the 'Because It Fits!' mechanism.

YEC believers claim that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old, all species were created in a few days, that the Noah's Ark story is true. They also believe that the theory of evolution is false and can be proved to be so.  Stephen quoted a survey that 46% of Americans believe in YEC and that 19% of UK students had been taught YEC as fact in schools. 

When confronted with the problem of the fossil record (dinosaurs and humans are not found together in the same geological layer and so cannot have lived at the same time) people like Ken Ham  claim, amongst other things, that the more stupid animals drown first and so were the first in the fossil record and the more intelligent animals were able to survive longer and so were laid down later in the fossil record. They also state that radiometric dating is unreliable. 

Stephen claims that it is possible to construct any 'theory' to fit the available evidence.  He showed this by constructing a 'theory' that dogs were spies from the planet Venus intend on invading Earth. The main message was that Science is not about constructing and endlessly gerrymandering your 'theory' so that it fits the evidence.  Just because your 'theory' fits the evidence does not mean that the theory has been confirmed.  Stephen explained the essential criteria for a proper theory.

Stephen pointed out that what followers of YEC think is it's strength: that it makes no firm predictions and is, therefore, hard to discredit - is actually it's greatest weakness. Real science takes risks, the risks of being proved wrong.

Stephen went on to explain that anyone who does not share the views of YEC is regarded as having a 'perceptual deficit'.  They are unable to see the truth due to sin.  However, the idea of 'perceptual deficit' applies equally to many other belief systems such as a believe in the ideas of Freud where those who don't believe cannot see the truth due to their unconscious and thus need Freudian therapy to cure them.  Equally, Stephen cited Marxism explaining that anyone who could not see the full truth of Marx's theory as obviously blinded by bourgeois thinking. 

So how to tackle such thinking? Stephen thinks that a 'head on attack' is fruitless. Anyone inhabiting a 'Black Hole' belief system will have constructed, or had constructed for them, answers that will justify those ideas to themselves.  The best approach is to get them to think about how they think.  If you can use the example of another belief system that you both hold to be false and then point out the similarities between that system and their own and ask "What's so different about the way you think?"

In closing, Stephen explained that it is also important that we look at our own beliefs, however rational and evidence based we may think they are, and ask if we have applied the same rigour in reaching them that we demand of others.

After a short break Stephen took questions.  One punter asked if the use of the phrase 'bullshit' was too flippant and played down the disastrous consequences following such ideas can have?  Stephen thought it wasn't and was well aware that some of this 'bullshit' could end the world. He cited President Reagan, a man with his finger on the nuclear button, consulting astrologers.  Another audience member asked if the term 'theory' was bandied about so much that just about anyone could claim to have a theory. But the true scientific definition of theory is lost on most of the general public. 

Stephen's talk only touched on a few aspects of the ideas expanded on in his book 'Believing Bullshit - How Not To Get Sucked Into An Intellectual Black Hole'.

Stephen's also has a blog and can be followed on Twitter - @stephenlaw60 

Want help spotting dodgy belief systems?  Here's Stephen's 'Field Guide To Bullshit' 

(Above) - Video of Stephen speaking about 'Bullshit' at the British Humanist Association Conference in 2011.

So another stimulating night drew to a close and our audience made their way home.

Please do join us again on Thursday 21st March - 7 for 7:30 at The White Horse when Dr.Andy Russell will be taking about Climate Change & Skepticism.