451. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166462 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:00 am

110. Comment #166368 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

Steve (btw, what's the new avatar?), we talk past each other.

Lawson has been saying all kinds of stuff about global warming since. I heard him on radio 4 last year talking about the possible influence of the Sun and it perhaps not being due to CO2.

That is fundamentally irrelevant to the major point, which is the question of how to respond to global warming. Lawson's basic point is that even accepting the IPCC's projections, the economics of the proposed response of cutting carbon emissions are at best questionable. Grumbles about water vapour and the like are no more relevant to the question of economics than his view on the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

What characterises the general response to Lawson has been the failure to engage with the central, economic, argument. Given the way the carbon debate has been conducted, that is hardly surprising. But it is disappointing, and it does point up what I was originally talking about, which is the silencing of debate.

We don't need to cut back on the education or heathcare budgets at all. Just consider the amount spend on the Iraq war.

That's your argument?

Why is this a scientific question at all?

Because pumping CO2 into the atmosphere increases global warming. Not pumping so much into the atmosphere is not an extreme position.

Just because we aren't sure what is ahead, that is no reason not to slow down. It is a good reason to slow down.

That may be a valid point of view, but my point is that it is not a scientific one. "Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere increases global warming" is a scientific statement. As soon as you start talking about "extreme positions" and "reasons to slow down", you are not taking scientific positions but political ones. You are arguing about the best allocation of resources. I am not saying that at this point scientists should shut up. Of course they are entitled to an opinion. But it must be understood that it is an opinion and not a scientific deduction. In other words, everyone else is entitled to an opinion on that question too.

This is not how the debate is being conducted, and we all know it.

111. Comment #166371 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

Another factor to consider is that when one of these falsehoods is shown to be such, it reflects badly on the message as a whole.

Precisely.

I'm banging on about global warming because it's high up the political agenda. In fact, the Irish government put a leaflet through my door today telling me that it's the major issue we have to face, and that I should therefore support the Lisbon Treaty. So it must be true. But my complaints could equally be applied to lots of other subjects.

In an earlier post, Steve mentioned MMR. Now it may be a scientific fact that the MMR jab is safe. But the government's response to the suggested autism link bordered on the hysterical. Scientists were shoved in front of the camera to state, on the basis of no evidence because they hadn't studied it, that there was absolutely nothing to worry about. At best, this was misleading: the matter clearly merited further investigation at that stage. Couple that with the routine bullying the govt gets involved in on the subject of vaccines, and the fact that Tony Blair refused to disclose whether it had been given to his son, and what picture does it paint? Coercion, hypocrisy, cover up. You expect that from politicians, but the tool was science, and scientists, and it leaves a bad taste.

If science wants to be taken seriously by the general public, it needs to stop allowing itself to be used in this way.

452. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166365 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 am

104. Comment #166350 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:25 am

Firstly, Lord Lawson.

Yes, he made an inaccurate comment about global warming since 2000. For that he has been jumped on. But, from the very article you cite:

Lord Lawson accepts the IPCC's conclusion that we can expect to see a warming of between 3.2ºF (1.8ºC) and 7.2ºF (4ºC) by the end of this century.

It's a fairly odd sort of climate change denier who accepts the basic premiss of climate change.

Lord Lawson is a good example of the dangers of those who aren't experts in a subject making public comments about it.

He was speaking about the economic consequences. That is his area of expertise. I would rather trust his opinion on economic consequences than that of, say, an atmospheric scientist.

We really don't know what we will have to deal with. Short-term changes in climate have been happening faster than the worst predictions of climate models.

And yet, we are prepared to accept that it is worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars, which can therefore not be spent on education or healthcare, to mitigate effects that we don't even understand. What we do understand is that even if implemented to the last "i" and "t", Kyoto will have a negligible effect. Best guess: we delay the whole shooting match by around six years over the next fifty.

Why not spend it on research into fusion, or geothermal?

Why is this a scientific question at all?

It isn't, and by pretending that it is and tolerating no dissent from the accepted wisdom, we push people into extreme positions. Much as when the main parties decline to discuss immigration, the BNP increases its vote.

[Edit: will have to plead no. 10 for now, but I'll check in later.]

453. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166344 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 7:16 am

99. Comment #166338 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

But what do we do until the point at which the public is educated about the scientific method?
I haven't a clue.

For one thing we could cut out the spinning of science and the attempt to foreclose debate.

Climate change, for example, is a serious issue which needs to be addressed. But to listen to the way in which the issues are generally presented, there is only one possible solution and it must be implemented yesterday.

This is bollocks, and anyone with half a brain can spot it, even if they can't identify precisely what is wrong with it.

One strategy is to reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels. We almost never hear about the second obvious alternative, which is to try to manage the way we cope with climate change. Since the first strategy is politically impossible and we're left with a fudge which will achieve almost nothing, it just might be sensible to consider trying to do the second, if nothing else in tandem with the first. The problem being that it doesn't give you a reasonable excuse to increase taxes.

Lord Lawson recently advocated the second strategy. And guess what? He's called a "climate change denier" (even though he isn't). Voices of reason are shouted down, and pretty soon the only ones you hear are the green lobby on one side, and the oil lobby on the other.

You don't have to accept anthropogenic climate change to realise that pulling hundreds of millions of years worth of oil deposits out of the ground, and burning it in a matter of decades, is not the smartest of ideas. If the debate were not so polarised, we might be able to have a sensible discussion about this, whether or not the scientific method is understood.

454. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166337 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 6:48 am

92. Comment #166322 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 6:20 am

I think I am trying to understand why a typical member of the public seems to feel that their opinion has weight in areas of science. Perhaps it is because science is a such a foreign way of thinking that they don't understand the thought processes that they should go through to weigh things up.

One of the problems is that people masquerading as "scientists" keep trying to tell us what to do. And that proper scientific research is co-opted by politicians who use it for their own ends.

Steve refers to global warming. It's an excellent example. The science is that there can be little doubt that (a) the world is warming up, and (b) humans are at least contributing to this.

But self-appointed representatives of "science" won't stop there. They present data selectively (ever wondered why the baseline is always 1970?), pretend that future projections are set in stone when they are not, and, most importantly, tell us all that we must take drastic countermeasures by noon next Tuesday or face the apocalypse.

The application of science in a society is not, or at least not solely, a scientific question. Indeed, proper science expressly disclaims any notion that it is intended to prescribe any particular behaviour. It is a political question.

When you tell people in a democracy that science says they must behave in a particular way, for example by giving up their cars, you must expect a reaction. Rationally, it should focus on the weak points, namely the right of "scientists" to tell the rest of us what to do. This is particularly so when it turns out that some of the principal advocates have a vested interest, such as Al Gore's interest in a carbon credits corporation, and when it is perfectly obvious that Kyoto will make no meaningful difference other than costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But as a practical matter, resistance will hit anything where it thinks it might score a hit. It is polarisation.

Example: does the sun have anything to do with global warming? Scientific answer: possibly, but we're not sure. Political answer: science says global warming is caused by humans, la la la can't hear you. Response: er, we are being fibbed to here. Response after several translations: science says that the sun is responsible.

I have sympathy with epeeist's view that ignorance is lauded and that teaching is at fault. But I would also suggest that while governments insist on treating citizens like children who cannot be trusted with important decisions, this sort of thing will continue.

And I won't be drawn into a discussion about the Iraq dossier. I won't.

455. Gods and earthlings

Comment #166275 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 4:35 am

coolwainy - You've missed the point.

If things are designed, then the statistical probability is that the designer is more complex than the designed. If humans are designed, then their designer (aka God) is more complex than them. But this leaves you with the problem of who designed God. Saying that God is the ultimate cause doesn't actually answer any questions, it's just a linguistic attempt to say "I don't know but I'll pretend that I do".

On the other hand, if complexity arises spontaneously from (certain kinds of) simplicity, then you don't need a designer. You just need something simple to get the whole thing going. Since this is demonstrably the case, it makes a creator-god very unlikely, and Dawkins has been very careful not to say "certainly non-existent".

456. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165792 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 10:34 am

What's the problem with time zones anyway? They're quite simple:

London - noon
Paris - 1pm
New York - 7am
Los Angeles - 4am
Mecca - 8th century

457. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165707 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 4:28 am

45. Comment #165697 by AdrianT on April 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

We already have a practically atheist church in the UK - the Church of England. Aren't such services, for the few who actually go there, about showing off the new hat / keeping up appearances etc?

Well I haven't been in a number of years, but I used to be a server. This involved turning up at pretty much all the services, from the relatively popular to those with single-digit attendances. The lowest I remember was 4, and bear in mind this was in a pleasant Cheshire village with a real community nominally based around the church. You can imagine how bad things are for the CofE in other areas.

The really big ticket services - Midnight Mass and Christmas morning, possibly Easter - used to pack the church, standing room only. Most people seemed to be there purely out of a sense of tradition, and it's noticeable that over the last couple of years they can't even fill the building then. The majority of services were attended only by a few faithful. It's possible that they were there to show themselves to each other, but they seemed to be taking it seriously. And why in the world would you turn up at 8am on a Sunday when there are perfectly good services at ten to ten and 11?

Ten to ten was geared to, and relatively well attended by, families. On the whole, these also seemed to be people passing on a tradition. That left services like the twice monthly Communion. That's the only one where I got a distinct impression of fakery and false piety. Apart from the couples who realised they had to do this for a couple of months if they wanted to get married there, and would then never be seen again until their first child's christening, were a few Sunday besters, self-appointed pillars of the community and those who wanted to be. They'd number maybe a couple of dozen. Not particularly significant in the scale of things.

This is an n=1 sample, and years out of date, so should be taken with a pinch of salt, though I haven't seen much to convince me that it was unrepresentative.

Since I've moved to Ireland, I've seen a remarkably different pattern, at least outside the cities. Mass is very much part of people's lives. My (still Catholic) wife describes them as a "fashion parade" and refuses to go. (Her conversations with the invisible man take place in private, and the belief system is a la carte. I suspect she'll become a Buddhist eventually. But I digress.) It is noted and gossiped about if you don't turn up at least once a week. More particularly, it is a venue for people to meet and interact regularly. The only other remaining outlet in much of rural Ireland is the pub, and they are closing at a rate of around 5 a week.

It's easy to underestimate that factor when you live in Dublin, especially when you're the sort of person who never got anything out of the community aspect anyway. The article rather skirts around this issue, but it matters. If we want to remove the power of the church, we have to understand what people get out of it. And then somehow address it.

458. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165688 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 3:36 am

31. Comment #165666 by Corylus on April 22, 2008 at 2:33 am

No-one ever mentions the fact that church is a place you can go to and check out the local talent, and, bonus, not look obvious while you are doing it.

Also, you get to use the line "Would you like to kneel on my hassock?"

459. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165667 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 2:34 am

Philip - Did they not give you the Atheist Handbook when you came over to the dark side? That is most remiss.

460. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165297 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 10:00 am

David Robertson - Perhaps you could read Hume before posting such tripe. He was a great Scotsman. You'll like him.

Oh no, that's right, you won't. Silly me.

461. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165259 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 9:12 am

This stuff with the imam and the moon is decidedly odd.

A few years ago I was in Manchester around Ramadan, which was in November. As everyone who has lived there knows, it's pretty difficult to assess when sunrise and sunset are during a Mancunian November. There's a sort of transition from dark grey-orange murk to light grey-orange murk. Some days you don't even really get that, and it's a proper Lights On At Lunchtime day.

So, I wondered to a Muslim colleague, which do you go on?

Er, you have an idea when it is supposed to be and go on that.

But surely the point of the end of Ramadan is the observation of the crescent moon by one bloke with a beard?

Yes, but that's in Mecca or Medina (I forget which). And they tell us.

(Elephant's brain starts to hurt.)

How did they tell you in the days when it took 3 months to travel from Medina? And why, if you base the start and end of what happens in Medina, would you base your routine on the days in between on what happens in Manchester?

There was an awkward silence, followed by a discussion of United's prospects the next Saturday.

Most of my conversations with theists seem to go much the same way. Maybe it's me.

462. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165204 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 7:54 am

14. Comment #165194 by al-rawandi on April 21, 2008 at 7:45 am

Where did you hear about the sperm and spine deal?

I ... er ... read it on the internet.

Can't remember the source now, except that it was from someone I'd usually find reliable. It was in the context of some loony claiming that the existence of stem cells in the spine "proved" that Mo was right all along.

I haven't yet actually raised the energy to read the Quran.

463. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165186 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 7:31 am

On the bright side, the light has finally dawned on me that Mike Batt's epic The Myths And Legends Of King Merton Womble And His Journey To The Centre Of The Earth is not some children's whimsy, but is in fact an Islamophobic piece about a crusade to Mecca.

http://www.mikebatt.com/wombles_lyrics1.html

I feel much better about that, thanks for asking.

464. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165182 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 7:25 am

Five more words.

Sperm. Originates. In. The. Spine.

One more word. Irate, if you please ...

465. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165169 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 7:02 am

71. Comment #165157 by Incredulous on April 21, 2008 at 6:22 am

I think there's a problem even before you get to the other problems you mention.

wooter simply cannot get his head around the idea that humans fit the world rather than the world fitting humans. He fondly believes that the Creator made chickens in order to provide humans with eggs and meat and appears blissfully ignorant that before its domestication, the chicken was originally native only to South Asia, perched in trees and laid maybe 20 eggs a year.

It's a wonderfully anthrocentric, even egocentric, view of the world, and saves you having to do any real ethical thinking. You can just rely on the magic book. Personally, I prefer to turn the telescope the right way round, but part of me completely understands the need for this comfort. Combating it in the world at large perhaps requires the gentle touch of the likes of David Attenborough.

What baffles me is that wooter can go on so long with people who clearly aren't buying a single word of it.

I once suggested to him that to understand the true nature of the prey/predator relationship, he pop into the tiger enclosure at his nearest zoo and report back. I didn't get an answer to that.

466. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165114 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 4:45 am

Fair point - duly chastised and edited.

467. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165094 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 3:56 am

174. Comment #165091 by V'Ger on April 21, 2008 at 3:52 am

... do those morons really think we should hide away from scientific fact because it might be harmful?

Yes.

In particular, because it would harm their fantasy world with magic trees and talking snakes.

468. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #165092 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 3:53 am

172. Comment #165074 by irate_atheist on April 21, 2008 at 3:11 am

164. Comment #165057 by Steve Zara -

who has been going around telling some people that scientists want to have anything to do with controlling the future of mankind?

I blame the Daily Mail.

So do I, in part (even though this was may or may not have been intended to be a flippant response).

I would bet that not one person in 100 could give you a reasonable explanation of the scientific method. The general public associates science, and scientists not with discovery and enquiry, but with telling them what to do with their lives. For every story the Daily Mail publishes about bionic eyes and missions to Mars (and let's face it, how many people give a toss about missions to Mars?), there are at least three telling them that "scientists" say they must give up chocolate, cancel their foreign holiday, convert to woodchips by next Tuesday and stop binge drinking, by which they mean two pints of Heineken.

But then, I blame schools more for turning out people who buy this garbage.

[Edited after 179]

469. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #165079 by hungarianelephant on April 21, 2008 at 3:34 am

5. Comment #164982 by room101 on April 20, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Jebus f'n kryst - do people just make up any ole s*** they want to and publish it nowadays?!?!?!?

Yes.

Welcome to the internet.

470. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162574 by hungarianelephant on April 17, 2008 at 4:54 am

109. Comment #162462 by epeeist on April 17, 2008 at 2:24 am

[Rep. of Ireland] is (was?) essentially Catholic and there would have been less emphasis on the bible.

That's a fair point, though you'd think that there would at least be reference to it when teaching the poem.

It's a great approach, isn't it? "Here's our holy book. It contains ultimate truth, but we don't encourage you to read it, because it's a bit dangerous for your little brain. So just leave it to us to tell you what it means, ok?" And to tie in with the discussion on the Lying For Jesus thread, this seems to be a selling point for many Catholics as it saves them having to think.

The decline in priest numbers was discussed in this article. I don't buy into the celibacy connection, myself. The priests have lost most of their status, ergo, the only people who want to become priests are those who actually fancy the job itself, rather than the trappings.

471. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162192 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 9:51 am

Back on topic, the cynical part of me wonders whether this isn't what certain sandal-wearing teachers would call an "elitist" view.

Recently the Irish public voted as their favourite poem WB Yeats' The Lake Isle of Innisfree

I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean rows will I have there, a hive for the honey bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight's all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet's wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements gray,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.

The poem doesn't make nearly as much sense if you don't get the allusion in the opening words to the parable of the Prodigal Son.

Presumably, it's taught in Irish schools. (I'm a foreigner and have no first hand knowledge of this, but it would be strange if a poem became a favourite without being taught.) And the bible is, er, an important factor in Irish society. Yet I have never once seen the slightest hint that the reference has been understood, or even noticed. And everyone I've ever put it to has said "Uh?"

Perhaps the bible's literary importance has waned these last few generations.

472. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162179 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 9:26 am

53. Comment #162135 by mixmastergaz on April 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

Well said, & bang on the money.

473. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162174 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 9:13 am

1914. Comment #162163 by epeeist on April 16, 2008 at 8:56 am

My ears are burning for some reason.

That would be my fault. But in a nice way.

I am not sure intellectual laziness completely explains the boundedness in the understanding of many of the theists we get here. Intellectual laziness would surely mean they were aware of say, the works of Spinoza, but couldn't be arsed to get around to reading them.

I agree with what Sargeist said in 162167.

That said, in my experience, most theists aren't the sort we get on here. The overwhelming majority have only the vaguest notion of what it is that they are supposed to believe in, haven't read their holy book, don't intend to, and only take seriously what the guy in black says when it happens to agree with their personal prejudices. I have heard people seriously assert - I will not use the word argue - that the church is the arbiter of ultimate truth but should update its beliefs to be more relevant to the modern world, a position which makes my brain hurt trying to fathom.

Lazy is one word. Incurious is another. I don't get it, and probably never will.

474. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162119 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 7:34 am

1879. Comment #162112 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 7:13 am

I suppose I would then wonder why such a voice-hearer, who willingly engages in 'rational conflict resolution' to mediate the voice, would not simply seek to cut out the middle-man (so to speak!) altogether.

Because it provides you with a starting point in the absence of a conflict. Inner voices often prove more reliable guides than rational deduction. We may not be able to explain why, but that doesn't rule out a satisfactory explanation in principle.

We build models of the world we find ourselves in, and we rely on shorthands, rules of thumb, delusions and, most importantly for present purposes, what we call intuition. It's certainly not unusual behaviour to hear internal answers articulated in a language we can understand. It would be unusual to attribute that voice to Jesus or Bugs Bunny. The point I was making was that as long as the rules for external action remain intact, that's effectively a personal matter.

The voice clearly serves no purpose in being identified as that of any god or cartoon character

Agreed

and would surely rather be an issue of mental health, and hence a problem.

Are you saying that the voice is a mental health issue, or the attribution of an identification?

475. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #162104 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 6:53 am

27. Comment #161754 by CraigB on April 15, 2008 at 4:02 pm

I believe the Pope has said he wants to stop paedophiles from becoming priests. Shouldn't he be more concerned about stopping priests from becoming paedophiles?

Actually I think the Pope's right on this.

One of the disturbing things that came out of the Ferns Enquiry (in Wexford, Ireland), was that a number of people had opted for the priesthood precisely because they were paedophiles and it was a good way of getting trusted access to children.

Of course, you or I might conclude that the problem was with "trusted access" rather than the selection procedure.

476. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162092 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 6:39 am

1849. Comment #162071 by Styrer- on April 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

By insisting that an internal voice belonging to the Easter, or Bugs, Bunny is guiding you, you are potentially abdicating and denying your personal responsibility for the outcomes of your actions in heeding that voice.

Sure, potentially. But if you've already agreed, as Kardshovel has, that this is subject to rational conflict resolution with others, where is the problem? Conversely, if I am convinced that my inner voice is internal but won't submit to rational conflict resolution, then there's still a problem, whether I take personal responsibility or not.

477. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162072 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 5:47 am

1843. Comment #162061 by Steve Zara on April 16, 2008 at 5:14 am

It does illustrate a point some rationalist campaigners make: what support or community do you provide if you take away religion from someone's life?

I wonder if there isn't a second issue. As epeeist once wisely told me, "Thinking is hard. That's why we pay other people to do it." Much better put than Sartre, I thought.

478. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162068 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 5:37 am

Well I've heard voices in my head too. I don't think I'm mad - though of course dogs are too stupid to realise how stupid they are.

It's the proper treatment of those voices that matters, surely?

Kardshovel doesn't seem too unhinged to me. He's agreed that the voices are not entitled to special treatment just because they seem to be the Holy Spirit, that they don't form a basis for government, and that we have to use laws and discuss ethics. That being so, does it matter whether you think the Easter Bunny is talking to you?

479. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #162059 by hungarianelephant on April 16, 2008 at 5:05 am

I will have to plead no. 10 on the debate between Teratornis and Steve.

I'm sorry, Teratornis, but as enjoyable as your optimism is, your descriptions of technology don't match anything I have seen. Take this:

I'm not sure what computers you are used to, but modern ones use windowing operating systems which make it simple to view several parts of a document at once.

Yes, it's possible to do that. But it is not a pleasant or effective interface. Does anyone here use multiple windows to read several comments together? I doubt many will. Flicking back and forth, irritating as it is, is still more effective.

It's possible that I am guilty of "user stupidity". If that's the case, as the most computer-literate and techno-amenable person in an (admittedly technophobic legal) business, then we're screwed. I tried for several years to provide comments on first drafts without printing them out. It's possible, and with practice you get better at it, but ultimately it just doesn't cut the mustard.

As I posted earlier, we could probably cut paper consumption by half without really noticing. But to achieve the sort of results you're looking for, we would need to stop trying to force our current technology on our current way of working. Certainly, changing the way we work is part of the equation, but we also have to stop the cycle of "bigger" technology and start addressing it to how we really work.

Take operating systems. I don't want to know about them. I don't. What I want to do is:
(a) switch my computer on
(b) work
(c) if time permits, do a bit of interaction on sites like this.

I don't want to wait while it loads two hundred drivers and other pieces of crap I don't understand. I don't need a background picture, monochrome or otherwise. I don't want to think about viruses, spyware, critical patches and defragmentation. All this is superfluous.

For a while I used Palm OS. Most people, even people who had a Palm, have never heard of Palm OS. This is for the simple reason that it just did what it was supposed to. I remember it crashing precisely once. It just switched on and picked up where it left off in less than a second. We don't want technology. We want stuff that works.

People don't notice books, newspapers or printed documents, because they just work. With, of course, the exceptions of storage space and disposal, which become a serious problem. People notice computers because as good a tool as they can potentially be, they cause trouble. They can't even be trusted with storage, which is why we worry about backups. I have never backed up a book, and I don't expect I ever will. I won't repeat 161184 here (other reasons why paper is a superior technology) - what I will say is that your answers in 161788 seem to be trying too hard to force a particular solution on me. Others will judge whether it's realistic to wiki a legal contract ...

I would not characterise any of these problems as insurmountable, but they do need to be surmounted. Doing that might take some radical thought, and we certainly need to think beyond the box/screen/keyboard/mouse/OS/application/document paradigm to do so. Telling people to stay at home and use a wiki is not going to work.

480. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #161426 by hungarianelephant on April 15, 2008 at 9:32 am

Dr Scandrett said he did have some sympathy for gay students who wished to take their partners to the coming-of-age function but people knew the position of Anglican schools on homosexuality when they enrolled.

... at the age of 11.

Is this a serious argument?

481. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161424 by hungarianelephant on April 15, 2008 at 9:29 am

Kardshovel - Thanks for your answers. You make a nice change from some of the theists we get around here - I see there are a few loonies here today.

I also had an experience with a distinct inner voice. It was clear, it knew all about my life, and told me in about 20 words how to get out of the bad patch I was going through.

Funny thing is, I was utterly convinced that the voice was not external. Far from feeling like the love of God, I knew (note the choice of word) that this was something which had been within me all the time - perhaps some primal survival instinct that found a way through to my conscious brain when it most needed to.

As surely as it came, it left again. That was quite distressing for a while. I had to make all my own decisions again without the help of the inner voice.

What I'm interested in is why you concluded that it was external. Mother Theresa came to the same conclusion about her inner voices. Their absence for the next 40 years tortured her. Do you still hear them, and why do you think it is the Holy Spirit?

482. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161305 by hungarianelephant on April 15, 2008 at 6:28 am

Kardshovel - I know you're swamped, but if you have time to answer my question in 160178 (link below) I'd be very interested to read what you have to say.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page29#160678

& I'll be storing the "ignorance is bliss" retort for future use, thank you.

483. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161184 by hungarianelephant on April 15, 2008 at 2:32 am

28. Comment #160850 by Teratornis on April 14, 2008 at 1:28 pm

To call paper "zero energy" one has to deliberately overlook the manufacture, distribution, and care of paper. Paper is one of the most energy-consuming industries we have.

Not only does paper burn vast energies to come into being, once we surround ourselves with a blizzard of paper, we must then organize the great heaping masses of it in large centralized office buildings, which workers must then physically commute to every day.

This is a valuable point, but books are a trivial, perhaps even neutral part of the equation.

Most of us have worked in offices and know that the amount of actual useful information per gram of paper is minimal. We insist on churning out vast quantities of printing on pristine bleached paper, most of which will never even be read. By contrast, books will generally be read in toto, often more than once. Many are printed on recycled paper, and when they finally reach the end of their life, decades on, they will degrade harmlessly. It would take a lot to convince me that a few hundred books are more wasteful than a book reader which will be thrown away in 3-5 years' time.

All the talk of Moore's law and paperless offices obscures one important fact - that employees waste paper because there is no obvious consequence of them doing so. The first way to combat it is not to engage management consultants to devise a paperless strategy, but simply to ration paper.

I saw this done by my father back in the 1980s. Employees were limited to one ream per week, and that also had to serve their 15-20 trainees. If they ran out, they bought it themselves. Needless to say, no employee ever bought paper. In fact, they rarely used their full quota. Faced with the consequences of having a few quid less in their pockets, they actually gave some thought to whether they needed to print at all. This cut paper consumption by more than half and saved thousands of pounds.

Why print anything?

Because paper remains a superior technology for some purposes. Say I have to review a 20 page agreement for the first time. My printed version:
- is very portable, doesn't mind being folded, roughly treated or shoved in my bag
- boots instantly
- is easily balanced without the need of a lap or table
- can be quickly annotated by hand
- requires no power, except possibly artificial light if I am working in the evening
- is viewable from any angle, so I can keep it away from prying eyes on the train
- allows me fast, random access
- by the same token, allows an ergonomic way of reviewing several parts at the same time, so that for example I can easily cross-check definitions against operative clauses
- never crashes or needs system updates

The electronic version has none of these things. It does have some other advantages, which make it more useful for the second & subsequent review, at least by my way of working.

Point is, chip density is not the sole measure of technology. The user interface is extremely important, and if we're looking to eliminate paper, then realistically we have to be offered a comparable technology. There's more than an emotional attachment to books and paper.

484. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160678 by hungarianelephant on April 14, 2008 at 9:16 am

1389. Comment #160645 by Kardashovel on April 14, 2008 at 8:53 am

If the advice concerns me, I should listen to my voice; if it concerns you, listen to your voice. If it is a source of conflict, then discuss and justify based on laws, conventions, and ethics...

So what you're basically espousing is almost a traditional liberal (in its original meaning) secular position.

Presumably, based on your earlier posts, you think there is a difference between someone who takes a position because of deeply felt conscience, and someone who does something just because he feels like it. Assuming you can properly distinguish between the two [sidenote - Tony Blair?], and assuming that there is a conflict with someone else, do you think the conscience-position should carry any particular weight? If so, why and if not, why not?

485. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160647 by hungarianelephant on April 14, 2008 at 8:54 am

1382. Comment #160636 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 8:48 am

A better question might be what happens when our still, small, inner voices tell us to kill someone.

I know, I'll get to that.

I think we're at risk of being unfair to Kardshovel. Most of the actual formulation sounds like twaddle, but there's an important point at the core of this, which is as to how far we ought to go in response to our inner voice. I'd like to hear what s/he has to say on that first.

486. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160628 by hungarianelephant on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 am

Kardashovel - OK, let's agree for a moment that our still, small, inner voices have something important to tell us.

What happens when they contradict what someone else's still, small, inner voice says?

487. Richard Dawkins' secular army must be stopped. God is behind some of our greatest art

Comment #160326 by hungarianelephant on April 14, 2008 at 12:33 am

The Christian legacy in art ... are we talking about Cliff Richard here?

488. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159159 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 2:09 pm

73. Comment #159148 by Madphatcat on April 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

To all those who say "She apologized, the end":

She insulted an ENTIRE CLASS of people. Did she apologize to atheists generally? Did she disavow her comments? No, she did not.

So what? Are we really so thin-skinned that we can't take that, and just vote against her at the next election? I thought that was just Muslims.

489. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159015 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

Not to condone Monique Davis' behaviour, but isn't it up to Rob Sherman to determine whether her apology was "inadequate", "late" and with a "grossly inadequate excuse"? And telling CBS seems an odd way of doing something in private.

490. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #158985 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 9:32 am

I don't get it.

For the sake of argument, let's accept that:

(1) the numbers of Jewish dead are difficult to ascertain and may have been exaggerated;
(2) some of the eyewitness accounts are unreliable;
(3) there was an amount of exaggeration in the contemporaneous documents, since the people creating them had a motive to suggest that large numbers of Jews were dead;
(4) one of the prime roles of Auschwitz was as a centre for onward transportation, and most of the people who arrived there left alive;
(5) Stalinists systematically tortured Nazis and got hold of unreliable confessions;
(6) parts of the camps were rebuilt after the war for the purposes of education;
(7) gas canisters, hair and shoes don't necessarily imply deaths.

You're still left with overwhelming evidence that the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jewish population, did in fact round them up and move them around, and then large numbers ended up dead.

No amount of ink or cut-and-paste HTML will get over that.

491. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158212 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 8:13 am

irate - Indeed. It's just that you do that with such gusto and eloquence. Could you blame people for focussing on that talent?

492. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158192 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 7:36 am

46. Comment #158159 by j.mills on April 10, 2008 at 6:48 am

Well, plus, ya know, call me a pedant, but ain't prostitution still illegal in the UK?

No. Never has been. Shagging a rent boy was illegal until 1967, but it wasn't the payment that was the issue. Soliciting is illegal, as is "keeping a disorderly house" (aka running a brothel) and so is "living off immoral earnings" (aka pimping). But there's no suggestion that what Oaten was up to was actually illegal.

The reason I mention it was because you can cast the episode as showing poor judgment, or a deceptive character. In truth, neither of these seem to cut much ice, not when the majority of married people will also have extra-marital nookie at some point. It was about the boys-together thing, wasn't it? And I can't really see what that has to do with the price of fish on a Wednesday. Unless, as irate says, the rent boys were telling him how to vote.

493. Commentary: Democrats finally getting religion on religion

Comment #158124 by hungarianelephant on April 10, 2008 at 5:16 am

Hmm. How far do you want to take that? Do we have a right to know about Mark Oaten's activities with rent boys?

[Edit - that comment related to 39-41, not YGern's]

494. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #157603 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

144. Comment #157568 by MPhil on April 9, 2008 at 9:20 am

But at least the denazification worked, German society and politics is as aware of the dangers of nationalism, unquestioning, rallying-round-the-flag patriotism, and militarism as can be... and we (or at least I) will always point the finger at any person, group or nation that is moving in that direction.

I wonder how much the rest of us have learned.

One of the great difficulties with the Holocaust and its aftermath is that it's difficult to have much of a discussion without tempers becoming quickly frayed. It's illegal in much of Europe to question the official line and, Cartomancer's observations notwithstanding, pretty much impossible to hold a high profile debate elsewhere. David Irving's attendances at the Oxford Union and University College Cork were recently cancelled on the grounds of "public order", which increasingly appears to be a police tool to suppress any activity of which they personally disapprove (and if you don't believe me, watch Night Cops on Sky One. I'm just saying.) This is madness. It plays into the hands of people who are proven liars by allowing them to paint themselves as brave voices of dissent.

It does not stop there. Take the standard assertion that "six million Jews were exterminated". Is this actually true? The final death tally is unclear. The Benz study put the number somewhere between 5.3 and 6.2 million. Would the Holocaust be less horrific if "only" 5.3 million Jews died? Of course not.

"Exterminated" is also a loaded term. It is clear that a very large number were rounded up and deliberately killed. Another large number were rounded up and worked to death or left to rot. We know this. The most famous victim of all, Anne Frank, was not gassed or shot. She died of typhoid, most likely caused by the unsanitary conditions in the camps.

Is this morally preferable to deliberate killing? I would suggest not.

What you get by insisting on specific formulations is enquiring minds wondering why it is necessary to formulate it in a particular way, and - more disturbing - whether some of it might not be as it appears to be presented.

Most worrying is the question of who ordered the whole thing. The discussion, to the extent that it takes place at all, usually centres around what Hitler said and what Hitler knew. The assumption seems to be that there is a binary choice between blaming Hitler and exonerating Hitler. What troubles me is that this ignores the evidence that a lot of local commanders were acting on their own initiative. Essentially, they appear to have been told to deal with the "problem", and left to fill in the details for themselves. Half of the camp deaths were in just seven camps. This ought to lead us to question the capacity of lots of people to do, for want of a better word, evil. We'd all like to blame it on the top guy, but that choice may not be appropriate.

This was well understood at the Nuremburg trials. Whatever the legal merit of those proceedings - a discussion for another day - and whether or not it was realistic to expect soldiers to defy orders and be shot, a clear moral decision was taken that individuals had to bear some responsibility for their own part in what happened.

No doubt that is painful for everyone involved. The Nazis were not solely Germans. They were drawn from every one of the occupied countries. Had the invasion of Britain succeeded, it's reasonable to assume that there would have been a Vichy-style government based somewhere like York or Durham, and that Brits would have volunteered for the SS - so no moral highground for us either.

By oversimplifying the issues, we deny ourselves the possibility of actually dealing with the Holocaust. We may also leave people with the view that this discussion is finished, and we should all move on. Germany knows that this is not so. Do the rest of us?

495. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157430 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:50 am

Grand. Sex, religion and politics it is.

Oh, wait ...

496. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157425 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:43 am

Naivete about business and money is another of my bugbears about what currently passes for education. Surely these are essential survival skills in the modern world? I'd create time by getting rid of the utterly pointless "collective act of worship". Mumbling "Praise My Soul The King Of Heaven" and then being told not to run in the playground doesn't seem quite as useful as understanding the concept of gross margin, somehow.

497. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157423 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 4:36 am

It's certainly true that most "new" drugs are reformulated old ones. FDA approved just 17 new molecules in 2006, 19 in 2007 including 2 biologics.

There are good reasons for that, which probably have nothing to do with creationism in schools. If we're still talking about that.

498. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157402 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:50 am

370. Comment #157394 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2008 at 3:28 am

Er, no, not completely sure. My understanding was that most of that work goes on in theoretical models. That only gets you so far, because pharmaceuticals have an unnerving habit of exhibiting different behaviour in organisms. Even chimp studies are not a reliable guide to the effect on humans.

What I can say with absolute certainty is that any such research (and indeed all other research, including primary drug discovery) is dwarfed by spending on development of specific drugs in human trials.

499. The books that inspire me

Comment #157397 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:34 am

I can't seem to get the links to work. However, I must say that I am disappointed by the omission of Mike Inkpen's classic work, Where, O Where, Is Kipper's Bear. A whimsical tour of the natural world and beyond ... the inherent urge to be with our loved ones ... and the finale reconciling these with technology, all in delicate and lilting verse, with not a word wasted. What better parable could there be for our times?

500. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #157389 by hungarianelephant on April 9, 2008 at 3:21 am

362. Comment #157177 by Bonzai on April 8, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Is Chinese medicine "science"? I think that is a good paradigm for technologies that "work",--in some sense,-- but you don't necessarily know what are the scientific basis of why they work. This also applies to a substantial part of modern drug industry. With double blind testings and what not they have refined the method of trial and error so they can say perhaps with more confidence that drug A would cause effect B, but they don't always know why that is the case.

Absolutely. Nor, indeed, does our regulatory system care why drugs work. Its only concern is that they do. The label for the vast majority of drugs, and nearly all new ones, states that "the mechanism of action is unknown".

The scientists working on the drugs typically have a pretty good hunch as to how and why it works. They may also have an idea of the sort of side effects that might be seen. This expertise is crucial to the design of clinical studies. At $1bn per drug development costs, you want to be getting this right pretty often, and this is where the top pharma scientists earn their corn.

There's no money in finding out why drug X works, so this research doesn't generally get done. The downside of which is that you have less data from which to work on drug X2.

Pure science doesn't really come into it.