Science and its discontents

I've written about the silliest story of the week. This post is about the most important one. After 30 years of planning, the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva will be switched on next week. It will allow physicists to smash subatomic particles together at a fraction less than the speed of light, recreating the conditions of the first billionth of a second after the Big Bang.

My colleague Mark Henderson has an illuminating piece on the significance of this experiment:

"The mountains of data produced will shed light on some of the toughest questions in physics. The origin of mass, the workings of gravity, the existence of extra dimensions and the nature of the 95 per cent of the Universe that cannot be seen will all be examined. Perhaps the biggest prize of all is the “God particle” – the Higgs boson. This was first proposed in 1964 by Peter Higgs, of Edinburgh University, as an explanation for why matter has mass, and can thus coalesce to form stars, planets and people. Previous atom-smashers, however, have failed to find it, but because the LHC is so much more powerful, scientists are confident that it will succeed."

Inevitably, science breeds its own discontents. Fresh from their triumphant prognoses of the millennium bug that would send us back to the dark ages, these elements now predict apocalypse. The Telegraph reports today that "scientists working on the world's biggest machine are being besieged by phone calls and emails from people who fear the world will end next Wednesday, when the gigantic atom smasher starts up". It quotes the reasoned response of one academic that: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat." And Mark has a Thunderer column in today's Times making the same essential point:

"The claim [of Doomsday] is utterly ridiculous. It is true that the LHC might generate black holes, but these would be minuscule and would decay immediately. As the physicist Michio Kaku has said, the LHC has as much chance of ending the world as it does of producing fire-breathing dragons.

"This isn't a story that's worthy of serious discussion, even as kooky fun. It might sound harmless, but it feeds stereotypes of crazy and reckless boffins who know everything about nothing and nothing about everything, and encourages the contemptible but widespread view that scientists are not to be trusted. It is of a piece with other media-led panics in which expert opinion has been ignored, from the MMR vaccine to GM crops. In short, it's demeaning to science, and insulting to scientists."

It is indeed of a piece with other scares; and it is indeed demeaning. I've mentioned the media hype over the MMR vaccine. It's worth noting that there is now definitive evidence that Andrew Wakefield's theory about the vaccine, which so impressed impressionable journalists, is wrong. Anthony Cox of Aston University has the story. 

And speaking of Bad Science, I was marginally surprised at the reader response to my post earlier this week on the "Intelligent Design" scam. Whereas I'd thought it uncontentious that ID is biblical Creationism in (bad) disguise, and that it has no place in science education, more than fifty readers posted comments, most of them critical.

I don't propose to take issue with the Creationist claims there advanced. There are plenty of resources on the Web that do this expertly and cogently. Here, for example, is Scientific American's "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense". I do want to respond to this point advanced by a reader, though: "For a free speech absolutist (passim ad nauseam), you seem terrified of free speech."

I am close to being a free speech absolutist, but the classroom is not the public square: it is, by definition, where instruction takes place. I select a deliberately offensive but accurate analogy. I have opposed, in print, the laws criminalising Holocaust denial in Germany (a country I'm close to and whose political culture I admire). But Holocaust denial is not a legitimate historical thesis; it can be propounded consistently only by ignoring or faking the evidence. Anyone expounding Holocaust denial has no place teaching history. (Indeed, I take a harder line than that. I believe a Holocaust denier ought not to be teaching any subject in the academy, regardless of whether that subject is directly relevant to modern German history. I explained my reasoning here.)

Creationism and ID are no more legitimate science than Holocaust denial is history. They operate by similar techniques. The time that should be devoted to Creationism and ID in science education is nil. I'm not sure why this should be a controversial observation.

The issue of ID in science classes is definitively covered in a celebrated legal judgement (the Kitzmiller vs Dover School District case). Judge Jones's decision is an eloquent and thorough treatment of the (in his phrase) breathtaking inanity of introducing ID into a science curriculum. In his conclusion, the judge noted:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Amen to that; so to speak.

Comments

[James]

Two tangental points.

We have, I believe, at Oxford a well-known Professor for the Public Understanding of Science with access to the airwaves and the columns of newspapers. That he has not made any attempt to help the public understand the LHC, MMR or genetic modified crops (the last two of which are surely loosely related to his own specialty) shows just how useless he is at his job. The sooner he retires, the better.

Secondly, while I agree with Mr Kamm on ID and its lack of a place in the classroom, I feel he should show more sympathy towards people who reject scientific findings for ideological reasons. For instance, behavourial genetics has shown beyond reasonable doubt that upbringing has very little effect on character or intelligence. However, because this conflicts with the liberal view of human improvement it is little known and even less accepted. It is also rather more relevant to every day life than general evolution.

Best wishes

James

http://jameshannam.com

[Tony Francis]

The US tried building a superconducting supercollider several years ago. It turned into a multi-billion dollar flop. It was reliant upon funding from the federal government. Since so much money was going to a small place in Texas, it proved to be politically untenable. After a few years, the supercollider was abandoned. This project occurred simultaneously with the human genome project. This was politically viable because the money went to universities across the country, and wasn't concentrated in one place.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Supercollider
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project
It is doubtful that any supercollider would be a doomsday machine. The Higgs boson is an interesting particle. But we must conclude it can't answer metaphysical questions. "God created the universe" is a metaphysical assertion. Science tells us "two 11-dimensional membranes called D-branes, floating in 13-dimensional Hilbert space crashed into each other and caused Big Bang." That isn't really science. It is metaphysics, as well.

[Michael B]

I thought the LHC had been turned on several weeks ago. Perhaps there was a preliminary trial run, but I'm certain I read that in a reputable report - I believe it was a periodical devoted to physics - a month or two ago.

[Michael B]

As to evolution/creationism and Palin, rhetorically forceful, Mr. Kamm, but on a more conscientiously cogent and rational scale, barely comprehendible. Palin is a politician, if of a particular kind that is eminently down to earth and refreshing (cf. Biden and Obama both) in addition to being savvy and articulate, hence it's difficult to say what she is suggesting with the following:

"'I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.'

"She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum."

[...]

"'I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism,' Palin said."

All of which serves as relevant context to the otherwise decontextualized "teach both" excerpt.

Otoh, as a governor, as an executive (and as such, an obvious advocate before the Alaskan state legislature) we can judge her by her actions more definitively, with far less ambiguity. In that vein and in keeping with her prior statements, she has done (quite literally) nothing in the manner suggested by your assertions. Hence there was no guile or duplicity in her earlier clarifications - to the contrary.

Perhaps I'm wrong, I have not researched very thoroughly at all her track record as governor and advocate before the state legislature, but I strongly suspect that if I'm wrong it would have been reported by now.

[Gerald Chandler]

Oliver Kamm has drawn the wrong conclusion about Inteligent Desigin (ID) and the Kitzmiller vs Dover School District case. Yes, reasonable scientists think ID wrong (except there are scientists -- and good scientists -- in other fields than biologiy, e.g. Computer Science and nuclear physics, who think ID is correct) but the right conclusion is that publicly elected school boards shouldn't be forcing their views on parents, either for or against ID. The conclusion Kamm should have drawn is that the government should not run schools and that the customers of the schools (e.g. parents with vouchers) should decide if they want a school where ID is taught. Although governments nominally run universities this problem is finessed in public universites by the existence of academic freedom -- freedom for professors to teach nonsense.

[elixelx]

"...close to being a free speech absolutist..."
Does this make you "almost pregnant" or "nearly virgin" Ms. Kamm?

Perhaps Free Speech for you is what you consider factual and logical, rather than what I believe is truthful and intuitive. Soon you will ban G-d because He is not factual (although He is logical!)

Finally, a question. Why would a man plant wheat if he didn't have "bread" on his mind?

[Neil Ferguson]

The scientists seem very confident that they will observe the Higgs Boson. I wish them well and hope they do. But then does it not follow that if the particle is not to be found, that is evidence that scientific understanding of nuclear physics is seriously in doubt? And is it not a corollary that their confidence in the safety of the collider would not have been entirely justified?

I suggest that the academic culture of arrogance, malice, and bile (Dawkins) generates as much public skepticism as does the long history of scientific establishment dead-ends and missteps (ITER).

[peter]

Although I am not a supporter of ID theory (so-called), I believe your argument against its teaching in school overlooks something very important. It is true that part of why we send children to school is to fill their heads with facts about the world. But we also send them to school in order to train them to think for themselves. I support the teaching of ID as part of critical thinking courses, so that that students can learn WHY scientists mostly reject ID, and learn HOW to examine evidence rationally and to reach objective conclusions based on that evidence. One outcome from such an education would be the conclusion, for instance, that ID is not a theory in any scientific sense, since it has no possibility of being contested or overturned (unlike evolutionary theory).

[Tom]

ELIXELX, "...close to being a free speech absolutist..."
Does this make you "almost pregnant" or "nearly virgin" Ms. Kamm?"

What the hell kind of argument is that? Seems to me you've tried to come up with a Richard Dawkins-esque analogy and failed miserably.

Of course you can be close to being a free speech absolutist, just as you can champion capitalism but recognise its flaws. I'm close to being a free speech absolutist myself but wouldn't give a holocaust denier (how they can even do that I don't know, I might as well deny the Napoleonic Wars ever happened because I wasn't there) the light of day.

Virginity and pregnancy though, there's no spectrum or scale or anything, you're either pregnant or you're not.

And why would a man plant wheat if he didn't have "bread" on his mind? To sell it to McVities.

[TDK]

elixelx:

"Finally, a question. Why would a man plant wheat if he didn't have "bread" on his mind?"

I think in terms of chickens and eggs, it's a fairly safe bet that wild wheat came before bread.

Having answered that question I have to say that there seems to me to be a Daily Mail style panic over the issue of ID amongst intelligent adults. When Darwin published his book everyone (more or less) was a Creationist. The theory managed to convince people in an era when orthodoxy was against it. Not surprisingly everyone wasn't "converted" overnight. I find it hard to understand why today when the vast majority of people are convinced, we suddenly think that ID is a real threat.

[ortega]

I think you may enjoy:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

[woodchopper]

@Gerald

The problem with your argument - that the parents should decide what the children are taught - is that children have rights and interests independent of their parents.

A child taught ID at school would inevitably fail any science based examinations in biology. A child taught creationism would also fail examinations in history, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc

That would inevitably harm the child's chances of both finding employment and of developing its character through education.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Woodchopper: Should the state be the parent of the child?
Please show us some evidence that knowledge of creationism has any bearing on passing tests in chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, history, geology, etc.
I have knowledge of creationism, and always scored quite well on tests in all those subjects.

[Tony Francis]

Dear Woodchopper: Do you have knowledge of ID? If you don't, how are you qualified to comment on it?
If you do, did you pass your exams in geology, physics, biology, etc.?

[Tom]

Please tell me you're kidding when you suggest parents should be able to choose what their children are taught? I have very little faith in many British parents around the country, I'm sure if it was up to the electorate the only thing that would be taught in history is Princess Diana.

It's bad enough religious parents brainwash their children into believing what they believe, but please keep it out schools where children should be taught independence, how to think for themselves and make up their own ideas. I'm sure given equal exposure to the various ideas, most (if not all) children would choose to believe in evolution. Evolution by natural selection is supported by mountains of evidence, whereas creationism contradicts the evidence and is only backed by some ancient scribblings.

[elixelx]

For TDK...
So, you see nothing almost unique about being a nearly absolutist?
Your brain must be an oxymoronic-free zone, you bitter-sweetie you!
Now let's get to the important stuff, like wheat and bread.
If you look at bread could you conceive that it comes from wheat?
If you look at the Universe could you conceive that it comes from chance?
Oh! you don't credit analogy? then credit this!
We Jews maintain that there is an "Active Intelligence" at work in the Universe. Always has been, always will be.
We have no dispute with continuous Evolution, just a different concept of how it started!
The Evolutionist believes that "wild" wheat was thrown into the air and came down as bread.
We believe that there was Bread in the mind of the Creator before he created Wheat!
Read "A Guide for the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonedes for a Higher Education!

[elixelx]

Tom!
"...It's bad enough when parents brainwash their children into believing what they believe..."
Whose parents brainwashed you into believing this?
As the comics say "methinks you've said too much!"
Tom, I'm a teacher! I recently went to a refresher course at a self-named "cutting edge" TT college in Greenwich, London, which shall be nameless!
The first day we experienced teachers, me with 28 years, were asked "What is the function of Education?"
Oh! We all had ideas, I'm sure you do!
And then came the answer from the "facilitator" which, the next few weeks would prove, MUST NOT BE ARGUED WITH!
"The function of Education," said our would be leader, "is TO CHANGE BEHAVIOUR!"
Tell me, Tom, would you rather "brainwash" your children or let them be brainwashed by the "little Stalins" who instruct our teachers who teach your children!.

[Tom]

By brainwashing I refer specifically to religion, and how parents thrust their own religious beliefs upon their children.

As Dawkins says, the children of religious parents shouldn't be labelled as "Christians" (or whatever religion is in question) but "Christian Children", showing that these children haven't yet made a fully informed and independent choice.

Strange that people don't pick up on this, whereas if it were to do with political views there would be uproar. If a communist couple were to convince their child communism is an unquestionable truth I'm sure numerous people would intervene stating the child should be free to make their own choice. At least, however, this belief in communism would be based on some sort of evidence and theory rather than religious belief which is based on faith, a process of non-thinking that discourages independent thought. Compare this to science, a discipline of investigation and constructive doubt, using logic, evidence and reason to draw conclusions. Faith demands a positive suspension of critical faculties.

If people are brought up from childhood to think that there’s something good about faith, something good about believing because you’ve been told to believe, rather than believing because you’ve looked at the evidence, we’re screwed.

[Tony Francis]

The state is supposed to set standards for education. No reasonable person can suggest that Creationism or ID be taught as either science or history. But on the other hand, what are you so afraid of? If a child has knowledge of Creationism, they won't be able to come to a reasonable judgement about it? Do you think by suppressing this information, it will just go away? Do you think a child taught about Communism will automatically become a Communist? You act like you are afraid of Creationism and ID.

[Tom]

Well if you'll read my previous posts you'll see I stated that given equal exposure to creationism and ID and evolution, I'm almost 100% certain most (if not all) the children will see evolution is undeniable fact.

But you have to realise that biologically children are inclined to believe what their parents tell them from a young age. For example, don't walk off that cliff Jimmy, you'll die. The child can't test this for themselves, they have to take their parents word for it, as they do with religion. Don't do that, you'll go to hell. Yes mum!

Still, teaching creationism at school is a waste of time, the only reason people/wimps/pussies propose to do it is so as not to offend religious types. Give me a bloody break, if something is undeniable fact and it offends somebody's beliefs, tough, get the hell over it. To quote Dawkins:

“The religious can publicly talk against gay people, atheists and those of other religions. But the moment someone believes in something other than creationism, they are fiercely attacked. The word hypocrites comes to mind.”

[Tony Francis]

Tom: You write as if you are extremely angry. I know of no parents who tell their children "don't do that you will go to hell." Are you projecting your own prejudices? I would say that very few religious "attack" atheists or homosexuals. Are you proposing making it illegal for parents to teach religion in the home? I would agree with you that teaching Creationism in public schools is a waste of time. In the US, it can be taught in religious schools. Are you suggesting this be outlawed as well?

[elixelx]

Tom, why do you quote dawkins and quote dawkins and quote dawkins.
Worse than being an atheist dawkins wants everybody else in the whole world to be an atheist too. It's as if the mere mention of G-d is a threat and an affront to his "undeniable fact" that there is no god!
Get over it, prissy. People are going to read the Bible and the Psalms and enjoy the peace of mind that comes in KNOWING that there is an Active Intelligence guiding the affairs of man, who will be here after you and me and that scoundrel Dawkins are gone!
See you in the afterlife!

[Tom]

Yeah, my Dawkins quoting is probably a bit OTT and my nose now smells of his ass, but I can't be arsed to find any other quotes, it's easier to quote the most well known atheist who summarises it all pretty simply.

To Tony, I would say you're twisting my words a bit and constantly using what I say in the most extreme sense, but I still stand by my statement that it's wrong for parents to impose their religious beliefs on their children. In these instances what a child believes in isn't determined by their independent choice or what they believe is true but where they grow up. Of course it shouldn't be illegal, free speech is boshty, and my analogies probably do refer mainly to the right-wing Christians of the USA, but I suppose my anger stems from my huge frustration of seeing these people literally brainwash thousands of people into a life of ignornace that does no good for the world (but let's not get started on the whole "Can people be good without religion" debate.)

And Elixelx, "...KNOWING that there is an Active Intelligence guiding the affairs of man", how the hell do they KNOW that? An old book, a bunch of ceremonies and a game of Chinese whispers? You mean they reassure and kid themselves it's true because it makes them feel better? It's still possible to have peace of mind without believing in a man on a cloud. To quote (NOT DAWKINS!) but Douglas Adams:
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful withou having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
(Cited in the God Delusion by.... Dawkins. Sorry)

Anywho Elixelx, which afterlife you refer to I don't know, religion has devised millions of explanations of this to win people over. I suppose I should probably take my anger to Valhalla and prepare for the battles of Ragnarok.

[Tony Francis]

Tom: Until you are ready to make it illegal for parents to teach religion, then your opinions are just that: an opinion. And a particularly worthless one at that. You know, who cares what you or Dawkins think about anything? I don't. You still haven't answered the question: Is the state the primary parent to the child? If you think it is, then your are delusional. If you think the parents should be given the primary responsibility for raising their children, then be quiet. Raise your children as atheists. No one cares. Trust me, we don't.

[elixelx]

England, Fair Albion, green and pleasant land, new jerusalem...
Tom, I don't care what you call your afterlife; but thanks for admitting there is one, something that that butt end of days and ways, the favourite home of your nose, Dawkins, never would!
PS There are fairies at the bottom of my garden; their names are Fiction, Fantasy and Imagination. Should I go down there and kill them off because YOU and your screwball mentor, don't want them to exist!
YOU (not WE!) are worse than screwed! I hope your parents didn't brainwash you to love it!