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.

Vital Statistics

New year, new venue and a fair few new faces too.  After a break for Christmas we held our third event on Thursday.  There were worries that the cold weather and the two month break between meetings might mean a lower than usual turnout.  We need not have fretted.  Local Skeptics did us proud as nearly 40 turned up to The White Horse to hear Dr. Kevin McConway talk about the use and misuse of Statistics in the media.

Kevin explained that, whilst some may yawn when they hear the word 'statistics', in reality everyone is interested in them.  To prove his point he showed us a variety of newspaper reports all reliant on stats.  But whilst evidence based reports ought to be better than those with no evidence at all we must examine exactly who is supplying the data and their motivations for doing so.  This is especially important when such data is everywhere but the skills to analyse it are not so abundant.

For example, Kevin showed a newspaper report highlighting the increasing threat of expensive baby buggies being stolen.  However, the company commissioning such research was the PR representative of an insurance firm launching cover for expensive buggies. Of course, this isn't to say the report wasn't true.  But being aware of the reasons for the commissioning of the study in the first place adds valuable context.

In another example, Kevin showed a report under the headline 'Careless Pork Costs Lives' that claimed eating bacon increased the chances of getting cancer by 20%.  In fact, the bare stats are that the chances go from 5% to 6%  - yes, a rise of 20% but a risk level that many fry-up aficionados may consider acceptable.

The overall message from Kevin is that we should enjoy the use of statistics in the media as often such reports can be very informative.  In fact, Kevin thought that the tabloid press was better at getting messages across than the more upmarket papers. But we should always ask -

• "Who is producing these statistics?"
• "What is their agenda?"
• "What is the sample size?"
• "Is it a single study?"   
• "Is it just observing or is it experimental?"

Kevin works with journalists (including the BBC programme 'More Or Less') and stressed that the vast majority of journalists hate to get their facts wrong and that in recent years their use of statistical data has improved greatly. Yet journalists and statisticians have an equally low opinion of each other which is a shame as working together would be mutually beneficial.

After a break to refresh our glasses (20p off a pint of ale for CAMRA members, by the way!) Chris fielded various questions on different types of statistical analysis and political opinions polls. Luckily, Bedford's own local 'Stats Celeb' Mike Smithson (of the UK's most read political blog politicalbetting.com) was on hand to add his expert opinion on, well, opinion! Since Mike backed Obama at 50-1 a whole three years before his 2008 Presidential victory then he clearly knows his stuff. And so another stimulating evening drew to a close.

How about some useful links should you want to know more stats stuff?

• Straight Statistics
• Sense About Science
• NHS Choices - Behind The Headlines
• GetStats.org.uk
• Understanding Uncertainty

Our next event is on Thursday 21st February when Stephen Law, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, will be telling us how to avoid 'Believing Bullshit'.  It certainly isn't bull to advise you to get there in good time, for good company, good food, good ale, good debate and....er...a seat!

University Challenged

A wet, wind blown Wednesday of this week saw our 2nd gathering when we hosted Prof. Chris Rhodes. 

Chris's theme was 'How to Ruin the Best University System in the World.'  He started with a summary of how the UK's university system developed from the 'Ancients' - Oxford & Cambridge - through the Mediaevals in Scotland & Ireland, the 'Redbricks' & the London colleges around 1900.  Up to 1960, the proportion of school leavers who went on to university did not exceed 5%.  But then came the explosion with the 'Plateglass' campuses of the '60's, followed by the homogenisation of the tertiary (post school) sector which finished in 1992, by which time all tertiary colleges had been rebranded as universities, what whatever their origins - Colleges of Advanced Technology (CATs), polytechnics or teacher training colleges. In 1997 Tony Blair announced his aspiration that 50% of school leavers would go to university.

Chris's contention was that the re-badging of all tertiary institutions as 'universities' and all their qualifications as 'degrees', and the cascade of appointments to 'Professor' of people without a publication to their name, devalued the currency and undermined the prestige of the sector.  As part of an earlier government's austerity drive, universities were ranked (and funded) according to the quality of their research.  Thus, the unspoken rank order, that roughly corresponded to the age of the institutions, was reinforced - with the polytechnics sitting firmly at the bottom.  They had gained little from the rebadging, and lost much, including to a great extent their links with local industry.

The proportion of people attending university has now reached 47%, but to what benefit?  The vast preponderance of new degree course places has been in vocational subjects, and may thus be better regarding as training than education.  But, sadly, this has coincided with a slump in graduate recruitment, with a result that 35% of recent graduates who are in employment are in lower-skilled occupations.  In addition, as a result of the failure to match intake with funding, the average graduate will emerge with debts of up to £50,000. Are they being sold a pup?

Chris gave the example of Reading College, which became a new university and which has now reverted to its former identity as a college.  He praised it for doing so.  Why get a degree with the associated debt and be unemployed?  When instead you could go to college, learn a trade, and earn more from a position of little debt?

Chris also has an interest in Climate Change and energy use and he linked this to the university situation. He said that 'peak oil', the point at which cheap oil becomes a thing of the past, will be a game changer.  We have arguably already passed this point, and all the talk of 'fracking' is the start of spending more and more effort getting less and less energy, as supplies deplete. What will happen, as energy becomes more expensive, is that it will not be economic to make use of low-wage economies overseas; we'll have to bring manufacturing back here.  Having nearly 50% of the population with degrees will not be any use.  What we will need is technicians and craftspeople, the very people our polytechnics and colleges of higher education used to turn out.

Clearly something has got seriously out of shape, and the discussion that followed was most an attempt to define exactly what, where it was all heading, and what to do about it.  Is it elitist to value traditional academic subjects over vocational ones - astrophysics over golf course management?  Is a degree course better regarded as education or training?  Is a target of 50% university attendance simply too high?  Should we revert to a more traditional distinction between degrees, diplomas and certificates?  What will be the effect on the world standing of higher education in the UK that makes it so attractive to foreign students?  Can we afford do without them? Is the German or Swiss technical education really so much better than the UK's, or is this a myth?

More questions than answers, but I don't think anybody came away unstimulated by a lively presentation and discussion.  As always, feel free to add any comments below.

Chris's book 'University Shambles' is available from his website.

We take a break in December. But are back on Thursday 17th January at our new venue, The White Horse, 84 Newham Avenue, Bedford, MK41 9PX.  Kevin McConway of  The Open University will be talking about the use of statistics in the media.  Full details HERE.

Lift Off For Bedford Skeptics In The Pub!

After goodness knows how much discussion over the past year, and goodness knows how many pints consumed over those discussions, it has happened. And you know what?  There does seem to be an appetite for skeptical discussion in Bedford. The advertising was extensive.  We were uncertain how many we'd reach with posters here, there and everywhere, advertising on The Pod Delusion podcast, getting on the radio, press releases to newspapers, and our Twitter account (over 150,000 retweets!) and, of course, this humble blog.  But we were fairly confident that someone would turn up.

Mind you, driving to the pub on the night, the traffic was appalling.  Were all of this cars bringing 150,000 Twitterati to our meeting? Well...er...not quite.  In the end we got about 40 people.  Which is entirely creditable for a first meeting.

Our speaker Alom Shaha, arrived on time.  He proved an entertaining and able speaker, a must for any other Skeptic groups seeking a guest.  He talked about how he'd come to write the book, and about the difficulty with self-censorship among publishers in thinking they'd be firebombed or worse for publishing it.  In the event the worst that happened was a letter regretting his book and hoping that he'd return to the path of Allah.  He dealt with his education at school and at the mosque, and how he'd become a rational person and gone into teaching, and into teaching science.  Then there was more abstract discussion, with questions from the audience triggering new avenues of exploration.  Any worries that this meeting might just be a group of people smugly agreeing with each other about the validity of their opinions were soon dismissed.  Some people didn't agree with Alom's non-confrontational approach to those of faith. Indeed, one gentleman felt that he couldn't stay as he felt he wasn't getting the answers he wanted regarding Alom's concept of 'god'.  This was a shame but certainly showed that opinions were diverse.  There were also people of religious faith in the audience which was gratifying to see.

Alom said that he identifies as an atheist for practical purposes, but actually he is a humanist, and a fully paid up member of the British Humanist Association.  He did Humanism proud in praising it as the way to be, atheism with a conscience.  He said that humanists need to be more vocal and to do more charitable work in the context of humanism.  He deplored the low memberships of the secular and humanists organisations in the UK, and there was some more discussion as to why this might be.

We had a break to recharge our glasses. The Golden Hen had already run dry, so we were forced to move on to other ales.  The publican was delighted.  The bar in the meeting room was open, but some went downstairs to spread the load.  Besides consuming beer in unanticipated quantities, we were making the bar look busy and so casual custom was dropping in just because of that.  All that makes it sound very macho and boozy.  But almost half the attendees were female, and other beverages were not only on offer but were being consumed.  All ages were present, although largely white and I would guess well educated and mostly middle class.

Alom left at 9pm to return to the station. He is a working teacher and needed to be fresh for the next day as he was starting a two day recording session in Bath creating the audiobook version of his 'Young Atheist's Handbook'.  Most people were impressed and thought it well worth coming.

Attendees were happy.  We were happy.  The publican was happy and made it clear that he wanted us back.  And we made more than it cost to put on, so this profit will feed into organising the next event 'University Shambles' on Thursday 21st November at The Fox & Hounds - 7 for 7:30pm.

So what was your take on the event?  Feel free to add a comment below.