Demon haunted world

I have just started reading this book (sub-title : science as a candle in the dark). All I can say is if you have ever wondered why science works, read this. It does not pretend that science has all the answers, but it does explain why it is our best option for reasoned enlightenment.

Why Carl Sagan never became more highly regarded outside the world of science is beyond my comprehension.


As an aside to this point I am doing my bit for charity by joining the mobro initiative, whereby you grow a mo (moustache) during November and use it to raise funds.

This year

I know that we are not at the end of the year yet but I'd like to share one of my highlights.

It was seeing Kristine Opolais playing the role of ciao ciao san in the Royal Opera rendition of Madame Butterfly in July. Although the whole opera was good but not great, Kristine's performance was spell binding and I feel privileged to have seen it. In fact it's something that will probably stay with me for life.

In case you are not familiar have a listen to this

Books of note

Just a quick mention of two books I really want to get:

The Demon-haunted World:Science As a candle in the Dark

Pale Blue Dot: a Vision of the Human Future in Space

Both are by Carl Sagan

Carl Sagan, the Cosmos and what's wrong with us.

Before I really get into this topic I must point out that I have discussed some of these topics before.

Over the last few weeks I have watched the wonderful “COSMOS’ series, something I remember seeing in 1980/1981. The series has brought to my mind several issues relating to the series, my own personal thoughts and to other issues from Carl Sagan from various sources. Here I've included a link to youtube showing part of the series, where Carl explains the 4th dimension

First up there’s the wonder of all the beauty of the cosmos, especially the pictures of the  night-sky. I don’t understand how people cannot be moved when they see images of the stars and galaxies, or why people are not intrigued to know what lies out there. One of my first memories is watching the first moon landing and ever since I have always looked at the moon and wondered what it would be like to stand on another world. That moment in human history inspires me and makes me believe that if humanity really wanted, we could leave our Earth behind.

Something that ties in with the wonder and beauty is a video based on time lapsed photography taken from a mountain top in Spain. I really cannot find the words to express how this makes me feel, instead all I can suggest is that you take a look yourself here ...

One of the views that comes over in the Cosmos and was something Carl was especially pleased to promote was the need to examine concepts using scientific principles with a sceptical mind. (see earlier blog entries). It seems that Carl believed in the power of testing ideas and following the evidence, where-ever that may lead. 

One of the things I picked up was how many scientific concepts and ideas were around many thousands of years ago but were lost or suppressed by religion and mysticism. Just think if some of these ideas were allowed to flourish all those years ago we as a species may have been out in the stars long ago. Why is it that humans cling strongly to superstition and religious doctrine when there’s no evidence for these things and common sense suggests they are ridiculous. The problem is that many of these things are still prevalent in many nations of the world - an example of this is a recent survey which suggests that the majority of nations have given up fighting anthropogenic climate change (many believing humanity is not responsible because they distrust science), instead preferring to let climate change happen and deal with the consequences.

Another concept that came through often was “if mankind survives”. When looking at the probability of life other than on earth, one think that is discussed is that on many worlds life may have arisen and even reached a state of high technology, but that it is likely that few technologically advanced life forms avoid destroying themselves (could this be us). I often have doubts that we as a species will avoid this pitfall as I see very little in my daily life that fills me with confidence (based on human greed and the me culture that has developed). Carl however seemed to believe that humanity could, given the right motivation, reach out and become more than we are now - what potential. Is there anything as disappointing as potential unfulfilled, this is why the tragic death of any child is so much more disturbing (for me).

I thought I had written about this before but it seems not. Recently while lying on my back in the grass in Northumberland I was looking up at the sky and dreaming of a flight to new worlds. Slowly my mind wandered to life other than on Earth and I began to think about how tragic it would be if humans are the only “intelligent” life in this Universe, especially if we do manage to destroy ourselves and this planet.

Finally you really need to watch this video from Carl Sagan reading part of his book “little blue dot”. Any body who watches this and doesn’t believe that we, as humans, are all in it together and need to sort out our differences, are probably part of the problem. Loosing our religion and superstitions would probably help - in my view.

On a purely personal note this video  shows why Andy Irons surfed. (For those who do not know Andy died this year) It also resonates with me because I have to say that I feel exactly the same as I am always a better person when I have surfed, and it brings me peace, helping me with my own personal demons

Alone, Us?

The New scientist of 7th May 2011 had several interesting articles ranging from a guide to humanities search for alien life to how light can effect our health and a consideration of the limits of knowledge.

The search for alien life looked at the methods we use to find planets that have the potential to support life, but the thing I found most interesting followed the detail and was covered by the headline “Are we Unique?” The question was considered by Caleb Scharf (Director of Columbia Astrobiology centre in New York). The stand out thought here was that although it may seem inevitable, it could be that we are an extreme rarity “a Goldilocks event in time, space and the roulette wheel of evolutionary history”.

Personally I believe that although the odds of life existing elsewhere are fairly high (see details page of blog for more on this), we are in fact that extreme rarity. Now although that’s my belief, I also believe that the discovery of life elsewhere  could be the “kick up the backside” mankind needs to make us realise we are one species not many disparate groups. It could be what we need to really see the best of mankind. There should be a deal more about this to follow when I get onto Carl Sagan.

The limits of knowledge article is worth a read if you can get access to the New Scientist, putting forward several interesting points. 

The article that really caught my eye was how light can have a major impact on our lives, especially sleep patterns and health. As some-one who suffers from sleep problems it gave an interesting insight into how we require different intensities of light during the day and light of different wave lengths at night. It seems that all our light pollution can be having serious effects for us all. There were also some useful tips about light and achieving a good nights sleep (see details page).

Change of Use

Here’s something interesting from The New scientist 4th June 2011 written by MacGregor Campbell that shows how some ideas in one field of science can be adapted and used by others. 

It looks at how ideas related to the creation of invisibility cloaks has been applied to the more practical use of shielding coastlines from destructive waves. The idea for wave protection has come from semiconductor physics and meta-materials, the technology behind the invisibility cloaks. The application could lead to a zone in front of vulnerable coastlines where waves of certain frequencies will not be able to reach, with the added bonus of energy production.

The system works by using an array of offshore tubes. By adjusting the size of the cylinders, the size of slits within each cylinder and the spaces between them water can be made to flow in and out of the columns at a frequency to stop incoming waves. By using hollow cylinders and a float inside the peaks and troughs of each passing wave could be used to generate electricity.

True words

Sometimes I get worried thinking about what each new day will bring, all the world is hassled, hurt or hurried, there’s never time to ease the painful things, never time to think on where your going or where you’ve been.

You can tell them I,m going home or that I,m working late at night, no point writing letters or using the telephone, tell them anything that you might, be sure and tell them I’ll be alright.

You can tell them I’m living in the country or that I’ve given up the fight, no point in saying how well you knew me before, no point in giving reasons of last night, be sure and tell them I’ll be alright.

And when love comes whispering softly with all the sweetness she can bring that’s when I’m real and mostly that’s the time I feel no need to give out anything, that is when I just want to sing.

You can tell them I’m living in the islands, somewhere where  the day is always bright, no need to visit England, Germany or Spain, you won’t find me where things are tight.

Just be sure and tell them I’ll be alright, I’m going back, I’ll be alright, going home to the sea and I’ll be alright.

Please be aware these are not my words, they are from a song by Terry Hannigan. I've never heard the song but like the sentiment expressed in the words.

Energy

One of the Nat Geo articles that I found to be stimulating was looking at how we as humans gain, store and move our energy requirements, with a particular focus on electricity. There was an idea introduced that we should improve our Grid systems so that we waste less energy on the movement of electricity. This wastage can in some cases lead to blackouts and mask the need for repair or maintenance of the grid. The article suggested a smarter grid system with real-time feed-backs allowing self regulation of the grid.

The requirements for the new grid being: Improved transmission lines for movement of electricity over larger areas i.e. taking account of energy generation by green sources in remote locations. Improved large scale energy storage systems. On a local level using smart monitoring systems to deliver energy at levels and times when most required. Use of locally produced renewable energy to be stored and used locally. At home further use of smart metering and small scale energy production such as solar panels and small wind turbines.. I haven’t studied the ideas in enough detail to make a critical judgement, but on a gut instinct level it seems all very interesting and it sounds good, but will it happen. I do like the idea of local communities being responsible for their 

I

Maybe I do exist

Just in case you have read all this and now think you would like to become a denier, here's the final part, giving details about how you go about denying.

How do you become a denier? Martin McKee In The New Scientist suggests that all denialist movements employ six tactics.

Allege a conspiracy i.e scientific consensus has arisen by collusion rather than accumulation of evidence.

Fake experts to support the story - this creates a facade of credibility. The experts may be genuine but consider who’s paying them.

Cherry-pick evidence - highlight anything that supports your idea and ignore or rubbish the rest. Even if your evidence is discredited continue to use it.

Make the standards of evidence required by your opponents impossibly high by claiming existing evidence is not good enough. If more evidence is produced, then move the goal-post again.

Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus.

Use doubt by portraying scientists as so divided that their advice cannot be relied upon.

So there you have it (although in a some what shortened version). You can now go on to be a denier or, a sceptic you can become, and at least be willing to change should evidence dictate.

It's up to you now. I found these thoughts very interesting and having read them you'll be amazed how many people that you meet in your daily life will be deniers. The more you question them, the more you realise that most people are fixed in their beliefs and ideas, or maybe just scared to admit the truth.

How about you?????????????

I deny that I exist

Following on from the thread of earlier postings about deniers and sceptics here's the next instalment of the piece written in the New Scientist.

A lie can be an important tool in the arsenal of a denial group, especially when considering that we believe that which we can perceive, something which I will talk about another day. A prime example of this can be shown by the story of a quote given by John Houghton, a former chair of the IPCC;

“Unless we announce disaster no one will listen”

This quote was published by an Australian journalist as evidence that climate change warnings were deliberately exaggerated. Before taking this any further consider that the journalist is a conservative who disbelieves climate science.

On face value the quote seems pretty damning, especially considering its source. 

This quote then went on to be used the following year by a Canadian journalist and again at a later date in an article by a scholar at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Slowly the quote has gone on to be used in several books, on blog postings (and here’s yet another one) and many web sites, eventually becoming cited as prime evidence by climate change deniers. Great you may say, what’s the problem. Well I suppose the real problem is that John Houghton never said or wrote those words.

This lie became prominent because it had a degree of believability about it to those who first used it i.e. people hostile to climate change are always likely to believe that Scientists are trying to bully them with extreme ideas. Once taken up as genuine by these few it is then easy enough in today’s technology/information age for the masses to come into contact with the statement, taking what was once a lie and for many making it true.

The moral of this being that you should always check your sources and question the motives of those providing the information. So, what’s my angle?

A long time coming

It's been over six months since I have found the time and enthusiasm to write and to be honest I've lost a lot of the threads from previous discussions. As a result I have decided to post any outstanding issues relating to previous threads and then to start afresh.

The fresh start also means that the bibliography will not be updated for previous thoughts, but will be maintained from this point forward. It will be a case of putting all the information up for consideration, or not bothering.

More to come very soon