Science, CERN and Art
I read an article written by the lovely Mike “Sizemore” Atherton today on the Creative Choices blog. It’s about Chris Morris, CERN, Science and the Arts.
I won’t go too much into what he wrote, because I’d like you to go there and read it, but he wrote about how he’s never really been interested in science, but enjoyed Chris’ article in the Guardian yesterday. Sizemore said:
Science needs the arts. It takes a satirical writer like Morris to reveal the absurdity and potential combined in something as jaw dropping as a God Particle emerging in a Compact Muon Solenoid. If this were not science it’d fit just as snugly on Brass Eye.
I wrote a reply and tried to post it on the blog, but all text formatting is lost entirely within the comments so it all came out as one, unreadable blob of text. I will post my reply here, link to it from there, and hopefully they’ll sort out the comments so i can post it in its entirety there. (below the fold)
Science doesn’t need Art. We don’t need ballet to prove gravity. We don’t need literature to make a laptop work. We don’t need rock bands to discover electricity.
Yes, I’m being facetious.
The Arts (and I include Religion in that) and Science are two sides of the same coin. A Poet may work to convey the emotions felt when looking at a sunset. An Astronomer may work to prove that the Sun isn’t actually travelling across the sky, but that the Earth is spinning on its axis whilst it travels around the Sun in a cosmic dance. A Musician may work to write symphonies which move us so greatly we think that playing them to our children will make them better people. A Scientist may work to find a way of using inaudible sound frequencies to create images of your unborn child. A Religious Writer may come up with a story about how the Universe was started by a supernatural being. Physicists at CERN are working to find out exactly what the Universe was like less than a billionth of a second after Time began. Both the Artist and the Scientist are looking to explain the human experience.
The role of the Artist is to seek out the profound and re-package it in a way that allows the rest of us to take a shortcut to ‘the answer’. Science, however, requires one to work just a little bit to see the profundity. Take one sentence from the paragraph you chose from Chris Morris’ article:
“We are making the coldest place in the universe.”
It’s actually EASY to reply, “Yea, whatever, that’s boring” to that. It takes a tiny bit of work to really think about what that sentence means, to realise the enormity of it. The diameter of the visible Universe is thought to be 92 billion light years across. There are 100 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion Stars. Some of those Stars are so much larger than our Sun that were they in the Sun’s position they would engulf all the planets up to and including Jupiter. And at CERN, we are making the 27km tunnel, which is located 100 metres underground, colder than the space between the Stars in our ridiculously enormous Universe.
WE are doing that. Not ‘the Scientists’, not ‘them’. WE. US. All of us. Just like WE went to the Moon, we are all a part of what is happening at CERN. To ignore it, to dismiss it or even to try and convince ones self that it’s ‘a waste of money’, ‘pointless’ or ‘elitist’ is, I think, to choose to deny yourself the chance to truly experience life.
It seems to be culturally acceptable to say, ‘I don’t understand science’ or ‘I think science is boring’ or ‘I don’t get what the big deal is about science’ in a way that one never hears about the arts. ‘I don’t understand music.’ ‘I think literature is boring.’ ‘I don’t get what the big deal is about art.’ Honestly, would you ever hear those latter sentences on something like The Late Review? Of course not. But I have heard people, supposed ‘intellectuals’, utter the former. They may be ‘good with words’, but in my eyes they are using ‘vocabulary’ to surf along the top of the true depths of the human experience.
The problem is, of course, that the vast majority of our politicians are Arts graduates. The vast majority of the people working in our Media, even within Science programming, are Arts graduates. Our celebrities and the famous for being famous are more often than not from the Arts. It is culturally acceptable, and I may even go so far as to say that it is encouraged within our culture, to be scientifically illiterate.
It’s seemingly easy for everyone to forget that the reason we are able to enjoy ‘Art’ is because of the scientific foundations on which it is built. From the ancient chemists experimenting to create pigments, paints and dyes from plants and animals around them, all the way to the last experiment at CERN that developed the World Wide Web, which allows people to watch last week’s Doctor Who on the iPlayer. The Arts has always needed Science. Maybe it’s time to give something back.
Science needs Artists. It needs people who have dedicated themselves to communicating emotions. People who may not have a science education, but who ‘get it’, even if they don’t really ‘understand’ it. People who take the tiniest amount of time to think about the remarkable discoveries being made and *feel* something (if you can watch this and not at least well up a little, then I can’t believe you are human!). People who see the awe and wonder in the real, physical Universe and want to share that with everyone else. People who understand that the discoveries being made really are for all mankind. People who are practised at recognising the profound and ‘re-packaging’ it for others to discover.
Scientists are not some other species. They are human beings. They fall in love. They fall out of love. They have parents. They have children. They have friends. They have favourite films, favourite books, favourite paintings, favourite songs. They are not disconnected from the world of Art and Emotion in the way that many Artists are disconnected from the world of Science.
Science cuts through cultural differences, it cuts through emotions, it cuts through interpretation and tries directly to answer the big questions. But after thousands of years of using the Arts as a filter through which we see someone else’s interpretation of what ‘the answer’ is, we have seemingly forgotten how to recognise the big questions.
How did we get here?
What are we made of?
Why do we exist at all?
I think this is what Science is all about- ‘the big questions’.
Very well said. I *knew* we’d agree eventually :-)
We agree? Wait. Don’t you think that atheists need to change in order to make religious people feel OK about themselves? Isn’t that what you think?! Heh.
Science explains the how.
Religion and faith explains the why.
1 + 1 = 2
Mathematics and logic does not care why the above equation is true. It only tells how 1 + 1 becomes 2.
If the “big” questions are How did we get here and What are we made of…yes, science is the correct tool.
However, for the last of the big questions…Why do we exist at all…well, I’m afraid that can not be answered by science.
Well said Gia! That article is frankly pathetic and offensive (to someone who has just been offered a science based PhD :-D -couldn’t resist dropping that one in here). Quote:
‘Often the people who are in the best position to raise awareness are really bad at it.’
Raise awareness for who exactly? I believe anyone with an actual interest in science will go out and forge their own way and there is plenty of material out there. I’d say Wikipedia is particularly successful here as it is written by people who simply want to share their knowledge, which also makes it accessible to most students. But for those who simply want to sound impressive at dinner parties, there are plenty of entertaining but informative popular science books out there, usually written by ‘actual’ scientists too.
This article has reminded me of another debate that I am always (always) moaning about, the
use of forensic evidence in courts. The facts are simple; science is hard and takes years to master. Yet, forensic experts are expected to reduce their very detailed and complicated research to such idiotic phrases as “there is a one in X chance that…” just so a ‘cross section’ of society can ‘understand’ the issues at hand. If a case relies on forensic evidence, then why not call a jury of scientific experts to decide upon the case? Similarly, why does Parliament consist largely of law and arts graduates? How the hell can a classics graduate be expected to contemplate the complex factors surrounding abortion, to refer to a recent example?
Perhaps there is a inherent problem with science; it’s so bleedin’ hard (and fascinating) that actual (quote) ‘white coated men and women’ have little time or patience to be dealing with party politics and/or the media. The result is simply that the media, businesses (management) and the governing bodies are bloated with arts graduates and the results, I won’t go into specific examples, are pretty clear to see. Harmless? Well not when you have politicians and the military exploiting scientific discovery for power gains or businesses exploiting medical advancements for cash returns; goals which are of little interest to scientists.
Artists make no attempts to explain their works, so why should scientists be expected to dumb down their achievements? In fact, where as a scientist seeks truth and elegance in their work, an artist pursues complexity and riddle, ‘what is the meaning behind this jumble of words that I have just artificially placed onto a piece of paper?’ Scientists need to be listened to more, but they should not need to seek an audience.
Re: We agree? Wait. Don’t you think that atheists need to change etc…
Not really, no. But I’ll be interested to see what you have to say to both Alex and James here…
Alex, I think you’re believing ‘religion’s’ PR spin a bit too much!
Religion doesn’t answer ‘Why do exist at all?’ with anything better than ‘To worship God.’
Religion answers ‘What shall we do while we are here?’ with things like ‘Pray.’ ‘Eat certain foods.’ ‘Wear certain clothes.’ ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.’
Religion answers ‘What is the point of Life?’ with ‘To get into Heaven after Death.’
These are deeply unsatisfactory answers.
To James’s comment, I’ve always hoped we get a scientist in high politics rather than people accustomed to bending the law. One who looks at the world more logically then what a 2000 year old book tells him to do.
I was recently in a debate philosophy class and all we did was battle these art (supernatural) vs. science questions. Usually ended with people saying science is “just theory” or “just a concensus”.
“Scientists need to be listened to more, but they should not need to seek an audience.”
Yes, of course, they need to seek an audience. When a rising percentage of the UK population believes in the Christian Creation myth over evolution, when only 18% of British graduates have a science or technology degree compared with 53% in China, when the government has cut funding for physics and astronomy research this year, but introduced (and funded) several ‘arts’ based educational schemes to encourage MORE people to do arts degrees, then, yes, I think Science does need to seek an audience in order to drag it to the forefront of our society.
Politicians specifically need to understand that our future depends on the achievements of Science far more than it depends on the efforts of the 30,000 Media Studies graduates our universities are churning out every year.
Science needs a PR job. Which is exactly why Brian and I invited Chris Morris (and others) to CERN. We wanted to reach people who wouldn’t normally be interested in science or CERN… and it has worked. People ARE interested in science… We just need to continue to reach out to them.
” We have been subject to a powerful charisma. Cern combines deeply mystical particle theory with a gorblimey cock-in-the-turbo Clarksonism. UPG pops up from under the table like a meerkat. “Hey – reckon I could get Modonna to fuck a proton?” To our pulverised minds all things are horribly possible. ”
I’ve always had a thing for Chris Morris but I think may have just fallen in love.
This sentence, ” the quantum vacuum is the nearest analogy to God in the physical world.” blows my mind more than a little. I’ll have to go away and think about that for a while.
yes Gia, I’ve also noticed the new celebrity scientist thing coming out. People like Brian Cox, Sergei Brin and Larry Page, …
Maksim, I actually think that’s because of what’s been happening in America. The kinds of people who 10 years ago would have spent their time at art gallery openings are now ‘science groupies’. I think the “educated middle classes” in the US have had enough of the religious right and have drifted towards science.
In the UK, we’ve not had religious fundamentalism take over the agenda quite as much, so are still happy doing nothing but watching Big Brother on the telly.
Calraigh, there’s a lot about Chris to fall in love with. :)
GIA…did you just call me religious???
“Alex, I think you’re believing ‘religion’s’ PR spin a bit too much!”
I guess I was too subtle in my post.
Yes, religion does teach that there are “good” and “evil” and that we should act to do “good” – so it does teach what we should do.
But in the deepest core of any religion is the “why”…the answers to why are we here and why does the sun come up? Is it a flaming chariot that the sun god rides across the sky? Why do we exist? – to worship the one god? What happens after we die? Heaven and Hell? Nirvana? Reincarnation?
The physics behind the nuclear bomb does not care if it kills.
The virus behind AIDS does not care it kills.
The chemistry behind antrax does not care it kills.
There is no “evil” particle or “good” particle – no matter now creative physicists try to be with naming subatomic particles.
Science is a tool we use to understand how nature works. It is the wrong tool to use in trying to understand “why we are here” because…that question cannot be answered.
THAT is why religion exists. It was created by man (and woman) to explain away the questions that cannot be answered using logic and reason.
So, no I don’t believe in the religion’s PR spin. To me, “why we are here” is an irrelevant question. It does not matter at all to me. All that matters is the fact that I AM here…for a limited time any way.
And I think science has a clear explanation of what happens after death….the neurons stop firing…brain stops…and there it is…your body reaches theromodynamic equilibrium (death). Your body becomes part of the ecosystem and is consumed by other living things. Think LEGO blocks being broken down to be used to build something else. Like them, the atoms (particles) in your body will become atoms (particles) of other things (probably something alive). In that sense, I think Buddhists have it partially correct – we do come back as something else.
To Makism: You could argue that a scientist has an unfair bias too, particuarly when it may come to their own morals. For example, how man scientists would be happy to build and test a space propulsion systems that utilised the explosion from a H-bomb? How many scientists would be willing to genetically modify human embryos for their research? Do such processes sit comfortably with you?
I suppose ultimately, any science vs art debate is a little simplistic. Where does sociology belong for example? But besides people hold many, many different identities outside of their degree background. I for one am absolutely committed to animal rights and would throw myself behind any potential PM who would be happy to destroy the meat industry. Equally, I would love to see the day that we dispose of our armed forces, and particuarly eliminate are nuclear stock piles. Are those artisitc or scientific beliefs?
To Gia: those statistics make for grim reading. Where did you get them from? Not sure that we need every other graduate to be a scientist though, perhaps more like 30%? Science is esentially a series of specialisms and job numbers are ultimately going to be limited in number.
I was speaking from more of a ‘moral’ high ground; scientists should not need to justify their research in the same way that, for example, the Royal Opera House doesn’t seemingly need to justify why it recieves £20+ million a year. Art, and particuarly high culture, is seemingly accepted as an essential celebration of humanity, so why not science? Then again, people are more than happy to throw money at cancer research.
I’m not so sure ‘science’ needs a ‘public’ relationships overall. Afterall, how often do the public vote on or understand the issues surrounding science funding? I believe we need more scientists in governing bodies, people who are there solely to ensure that some well meaning law graduate doesn’t miss the point and accidentally close down Jodrell Bank.
In fact, what your suggesting is ultimately to introducing celebrity status into science, which would just trivialise the issues to a contest of ego. Argh! The idea of celebrity endoursed science is actually, ACTUALLY, physically repulsive to me. ‘Hi, I’m Bono and I really think the work the lads are doing down at CERN is just tip-top. My ability to whine over a microphone really means that I can decide we should give more money to them.’ Yet another bloody ’cause’ some rockstar can use to boost their dying career.
Gia,
I think you are the one buying one particular religions PR a little too much.
The answers that you say “Religion gives” have nothing to do with my faith as a pagan. In fact most pagans would answer that the answer to all three questions of “Why are we here, what should we do while we are here, and what is the point of Life” is that we are here to LEARN. To explore this creation is our purpose.
This belief lead me to earn a degree in chemistry and spend my life as a scientist. To spend my days learning and discovering about this grand universe of ours.
Religion doesn’t answer ‘Why do exist at all?’ with anything better than ‘To worship God.’
Religion answers ‘What shall we do while we are here?’ with things like ‘Pray.’ ‘Eat certain foods.’ ‘Wear certain clothes.’ ‘Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.’
Religion answers ‘What is the point of Life?’ with ‘To get into Heaven after Death.’
These are deeply unsatisfactory answers.
You say that as if there is only one sect of one religion in all the world. This is not the case. Different religions provide different answers — and some do not provide answers at all, focusing rather on the search than the destination.
I am a Christian, and I do not feel that those are the answers my religion gives. Seriously. Ask a different Christian, and you may get a different answer, though.
Getting back to the point of the original article, which didn’t say a whole lot about religion at all, science most certainly does need art. Art is not some mystical mumbo-jumbo. Art is a vehicle for communication. This ranges from the very dry and unemotional art of a research paper (yes, there is art involved even there) to inspirational stuff like “Cosmos” to intriguing fictions such as “Contact” or “2001″. From simple stuff like the Subaru logo to grander things like the big mural at the MINOS project in northern Minnesota. It is not merely a matter of selling science, as Sizemore intimated, but a matter of communicating what we know, and of exploring the implications of what we have discovered. It is tempting to draw a line between “art” and “science”, but there is no line — just as there is really no dividing line between “religion” and “science”. They are not two sides of the same coin. They are simply different things.
To James: I am completley comfortable with cloning, stem cell research, growing embryos, and pretty much anything else that doesn’t hurt life. My morals are evolutionary based and such things as abortion or “playing God” are not an issue for me. I recently took a debate philosophy class and quickly found myself among the few who were scientifically minded and realized how most people’s morals are both inconsistent and biased toward a given moral order.
So James (and others), do you believe in a given moral order?
To Gia:
I remember in Russia the minimal requirement to graduate high school was calculus, electricity and magentism, and various chemistry classes. Furthermore, the boring physics stuff was taught in grades 6 or 7 so that by the time people were deciding on their majors they were studying the cool stuff.
I think that is the greatest problem is that we focus so much on liberal arts that we only begin studying science in the last years of high school, giving students the impression that it’s only calculating projections of soccer balls. I would love to have learned about Schrodinger’s Cat in high school or about space-time.
I’ve given up being subtle…so here goes.
Religions do not give ANSWERS.
Religions provide EXPLANATIONS to things that reason and logic does not yet or cannot provide.
With increasing amount of knowledge we gain from SCIENCE, we have discovered the ANSWERS to various questions that used to be EXPLAINED by religions.
If you belong to a religion that purports to give you ANSWERS, I feel sorry for you.
On another note…
James wrote:
“I’m not so sure ’science’ needs a ‘public’ relationships overall. Afterall, how often do the public vote on or understand the issues surrounding science funding?”
In a democratic (republican) society, the ‘public’ gets to elect the leaders. Thus, indirectly, the ‘public’ gets a vote on the issues surrounding science funding.
Further, at the local community levels, the ‘public’ decides which books to use in science education. If the ‘public’ are made up of religious fanatical idiots, then you get things like every mention of “evolution” being blacked out in biology books.
Therefore, I do think science needs NOT ONLY a public relationship, but a much better marketing department.
James also wrote:
“I believe we need more scientists in governing bodies, people who are there solely to ensure that some well meaning law graduate doesn’t miss the point and accidentally close down Jodrell Bank.”
Yes, I agree that more scientists should be involved in government. But most scientists who are doing “real” science are too busy to participate in government…which is sad in a way.
I would also like to point out that there are plenty of scientists who have law degrees (me for example – and I am just one of many).
James also wrote:
“In fact, what your suggesting is ultimately to introducing celebrity status into science, which would just trivialize [sic] the issues to a contest of ego.”
Clash of ego in science? You really have no idea at all do you? Ego and intelligence generally have a correlation (although it is debatable if there is a causation – as I know too many who have large egos but miniscule intellect). Like ANY human organization, the scientific community has its share of clashes of personality, ego, contradicting and contending theories, inter-university jealousies, inter-departmental politics, using graduate students as pawns, etc. See for example, Prof. Lauterbur, who won the Nobel Prize for his research in MRI. When the award was announced, Raymond Damadian took out full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times headlined “The Shameful Wrong That Must Be Righted” saying that the Nobel committee had failed to include him as a Prize winner. I would call THAT a clash of ego…wouldn’t you?
To Makism: My main belief system is that certain humans, scientists especially so, are capable of asounding levels of idiocy. There is some speculative evidence, for example, that the AIDS virus may in fact be man made. To me, it seems entirely likely that this is possible and some idiot somewhere allowed he virus to escape. Even worse, I can just imagine someone deliberately releasing the virus, possible through a hatred of gay and/or black communities.
Science is a wonderful thing. But it is also incredibly dangerous and I think your stand point is naive.
ALEX: “Science explains the how. Religion and faith explains the why.”
*yawn*
Here’s a “why” for you. Why do you (and others who repeat this broad assumption) assume that there has to be a “why”? And now, a “what”. What if the “how” is the whole truth?
I see nothing but wonder in a universe reacting to itself in ways determined by the laws that govern it, the systems that underpin it, and through no magical intervention by invisible beings that are always just behind you no matter which way you’re facing.
Awaken your mind from the archaic and wholly unnecessary cowardice of religion. It is not required in order to know beauty. It is not required in order for one to be beautiful. Do not allow yourself to reach the end of your life and find that you missed it because you were distracted by fantasy.
I don’t mean this to be offensive. I just feel sorry for those who need more than we all have around us to prove to them that life and the universe is amazing in and of itself.
To Alex: We do get to ‘democratically’ elect over here in the UK, but I can’t remember science funding being a general election deal breaker in my lifetime. As always, party politics prevents any real democracy form taking off.
‘Real’ scientists are not exactly glued the lab bench 24 hours a day are they? In fact, scientific research is an incredibly slow process, with many dry months. May I ask, is your law degree your primary degree? Do you currently practise law? What is your scientific background?
I think you missed my point on ego. Clearly there is rivalry within the scientific community, but I was suggesting that the introduction of celebrity to science would make it little more than a celebrity *contest*. Funding would be decided upon how famous a celebrity you could attract to promote your ‘product’.
PS-what is wrong with using the word ‘trivialize’?
The important bit in this, for me, is this bit:
“It seems to be culturally acceptable to say, ‘I don’t understand science’ or ‘I think science is boring’ or ‘I don’t get what the big deal is about science’ in a way that one never hears about the arts. ‘I don’t understand music.’ ‘I think literature is boring.’ ‘I don’t get what the big deal is about art.’ Honestly, would you ever hear those latter sentences on something like The Late Review?”
This is so true, and so depressing. It is seen by too many people as a badge of honour to profess a lack of understanding of/interest in science and technology. This attitude, in the media, business, and government, is pulling the UK down, resulting in shoddy science/tech reporting; businesses who are far behind their foreign counterparts and losing ground hand over fist because they are unwilling to embrace new tech and invest in R&D; and a government who does some really stupid thing with technology, like put all our details into big databases which they then lose and abuse.
Lack of understanding of science and tech is a fundamental problem that is buggering up the UK, well and truly. It causes bad decisions to be made by individual people unable to weigh the evidence because they can’t understand it. It makes business slow, ineffectual and uncompetitive. And government… dear god. If any of them could even spell ‘CERN’, that’d be a start.
Next question: What do we do about it? Getting Chris Morris to CERN is a good start but how do we keep it going?
EvilHuman makes a great point, one that is often missed because people ask a question assuming that an answer exists. When the question “why” is asked you must expect an objective asnwer rathern than a subjective answer, otherwise you’re doing nothing more than offering an ungrounded opinion.
To James:
I believe the latest i heard was the more people died in the name of Jesus than all the major wars of the 20th century combined. This would include the A-bomb bombing of Japan. Second of all, you’re using a computer and internet created by scientists. Thirdly, your belief system is nothing different than an opinion that can be taken to every profession, especially politicans who don’t know enough about science yet create laws to enforce them.
Evilhuman said “I just feel sorry for those who need more than we all have around us to prove to them that life and the universe is amazing in and of itself.”
That’s exactly what I think. The real universe is all so mind blowingly REMARKABLE that, honestly, the idea of trying to find ‘the profound’ in some old book written by people with far, far less understanding of the real world than my 11 year old son really just doesn’t do it for me. One look at the Cassini ‘Pale Blue Dot’ photo is worth 1,000 Bibles or Korans as far as I’m concerned.
Bah! The universe is boring.Human attempts to explain the universe I think show more beauty than the universe itself, if that makes sense. Just think, we’ve managed to condense down 99% of the universe to perhaps a books worth of equations, perhaps a pamphlets worth? That clarity of thought is almost God like in its grandure, and is certainly worth 10,000 bibles. Maybe only about 6000 korans though.
Also, I would say that technological advancement, the actual creative manipulation of the properties of the universe is even more beautiful again.
Suw asked “What do we do about it? Getting Chris Morris to CERN is a good start but how do we keep it going?”
We’ve brought other people to CERN, but Chris has captured the most press I suppose because he so rarely appears ‘in public’. That wasn’t the reason behind taking him there. I’ve known Chris since pre-Brass Eye days, so I don’t see him as a hidden, private person. He’s just genuinely interested in what’s going on at CERN, so we invited him over…:)
How do we keep it going? Keep plugging away, I guess. Engage with as many interested and interesting people that you can about science and technology. Evangelise. Make being clever desirable. Make ‘willful ignorance’ as socially unacceptable as smoking. Make girls (AND boys) realise that having a big brain is more important than having big boobs (though, yes, of course, it *is* possible to have both, but if you can only have one, brains, baby, all the way ;)… just more of the same old stuff we’ve always been doing, Suw! One day, they world will catch up. They always do.
“Bah! The universe is boring.Human attempts to explain the universe I think show more beauty than the universe itself, if that makes sense. Just think, we’ve managed to condense down 99% of the universe to perhaps a books worth of equations, perhaps a pamphlets worth? That clarity of thought is almost God like in its grandure, and is certainly worth 10,000 bibles. Maybe only about 6000 korans though.”
Good point. (Don’t don’t don’t want to get into this, but have you *read* the Koran?!!! If you had, I suspect you’d have chosen a different number)
Evilhuman:
“ALEX: “Science explains the how. Religion and faith explains the why.”
*yawn*
Here’s a “why” for you. Why do you (and others who repeat this broad assumption) assume that there has to be a “why”? And now, a “what”. What if the “how” is the whole truth?
I see nothing but wonder in a universe reacting to itself in ways determined by the laws that govern it, the systems that underpin it, and through no magical intervention by invisible beings that are always just behind you no matter which way you’re facing.
Awaken your mind from the archaic and wholly unnecessary cowardice of religion.”
Hmm…I think you missed my point.
I said above:
Religions do not give ANSWERS.
Religions provide EXPLANATIONS to things that reason and logic does not yet or cannot provide.
With increasing amount of knowledge we gain from SCIENCE, we have discovered the ANSWERS to various questions that used to be EXPLAINED by religions.
If you belong to a religion that purports to give you ANSWERS, I feel sorry for you.
To me, “why we are here” is an irrelevant question. It does not matter at all to me. All that matters is the fact that I AM here…for a limited time any way.
So I think we are on the same page. I don’t need to “awaken”
BUT
I try to understand OTHER people’s opinion on how THEY view the world…as long as they dont’ affect me. It may also be because I was raised Catholic.
So I think I understand WHY people keep asking WHY…because they have a bachelor in arts degree or something…they didn’t study science so they have no idea what a molecule is, what proteins are, what a neutrino oscilation is…
So they find comfort in the explanation that God gives them everything, or there are spirits in the earth, or if you do bad things you will shit fire.
James:
Universe is boring? Wow…
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.
And being an American…
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes (and wrong opinions).
FYI – I am a practicing lawyer…I have Physics, Chemistry (organic, theoretical (quantum)), and Biophysics & Computational Biology background – from synthesis of analogs, NMR, MD, QMD, etc. I’ve even build one of the first linux clusters for massive parallel computing at a research university…have taught chemistry and physiology at those universities. And have almost beaten Professor Cox on a deathmatch of Unreal Tournament once or twice (I want a rematch!).
James, you still didn’t answer whether you believe in a given moral order (aka an absolutle right and wrong independent of genetics and culture)
Hmm, an absolute right. Well, I’m an athiest (Buddhist) so I don’t see how there can be such a thing a thing as absolute evil-which is essentially what we are concerned with. But to then suggest that evil is a relative measure is…unsatisfactory. Surely there must be some base, fundamental moral code? Otherwise, everything would be justified and you would have no more right to tell me killing is wrong than I would have to to kil you.
What governs my own moral code is my sense of selfishness. I hate it when someone upsets my friends and family, so why should I upset others? But then again, I’m not too fussed if someone wants to try and punch me in the face; I guess I have
no major problem with fighting. Yet I would never kill, nor could I understand anyone ever who does kill. In that respect, I abhor war and am a vegan. Although I did join the TA.
Hmm, hate the sin love the sinner, does that count as a moral code? Not actually sure I have a moral code beyond ‘I hate selfishness’. I want to see a MUCH greater movement towards vegtarianism and veganism and an end to the concept of a ‘developing’ country. That is enough of a moral code for me right now.
Science + art + CERN are our three favorite things at The Particle Zoo.
Because we think Z bosons are cute and everyone should know that a proton contains two up quarks and a down quark. And everyone should know what a down quark is. And because no one should be afraid of a strange quark.
D’ya know what, Gia? I’m actually feeling quite perky about the whole ‘making science attractive’ thing. I mean, look at how some drama programmes now portray geeks.
In Numb3rs, genius mathematician Charlie is smart, sexy, articulate and, most importantly, a human being we can all relate to and who suffers the same dilemmas as everyone else, despite him having a brain the size of a planet. He’s portrayed as someone desirable, someone normal, even though he’s the ‘geek’ of the show. He has respect, a brain, and social skills. In short, he’s the perfect geek role model.
I wonder too, how many kids want to be forensic scientists after watching CSI? Science in CSI isn’t something someone else does, it’s something they all do. Again, the characters are smart, sexy, talented scientists who understand how the world works.
Then there’s Chuck, which annoyingly plays to geek stereotypes for the supporting characters, but which has created Chuck as the ‘geek who saves the world’ character. He’s sweet, attractive, smart, an accidental hero. If they hadn’t gone for the awful stereotypes for the other characters then I’d be much happier, but even so, it’s a step.
Weirdly, I suspect that these programmes, which make smart = sexy, are going to do a lot for kids’ interest in science and tech. Somehow, we need to find a way to capitalise on that, to reinforce that message.
Suw, actually, I’ve been told that Forensic Science degrees in UK universities are over-subscribed… all because of CSI!
Of course, not every single forensic science graduate is going to end up with a career in the police force… but the fact that they are taught to THINK, is far, far more important for society generally.
That is what increasing the percentage of graduates with science degrees will add to the world, an ability to think. Of course, there mightn’t be enough jobs within science for everyone, but at the moment only a relatively small percentage of physics grads for example actually stay in academia. Most go out ‘into the world’. Some people that Brian did his PhD with are now working as Parliamentary and government advisors and consultants… I’d much rather have Physics PhDs looking into social trends and advising Gordon, than someone who studied French Literature…
Aren’t we forgetting that Numb3rs and CSI (although an improvement) are a complete load of hosh? If we end up with a nation of science graduates who simply studied science for its ‘hollywood’ factor, i.e. people who clearly LACKED the ability to think in the first place, then I really don’t think we’re getting anywhere.
Besides, whilst Numb3rs and CSI may represent an improvement to American television (the pilot episode of Numb3rs based around a story of a Canadian PhD mathematician wasn’t it? *chuckles*), you still have incomprehensibly thick shows like Greek coming out.
PS-Suw, who said mathematicians weren’t smart and sexy anyway? They clearly haven’t met me.
“Aren’t we forgetting that Numb3rs and CSI (although an improvement) are a complete load of hosh?”
ABSOLUTELY – James you are SO right.
And there is an added problem to shows like them. The JURY in criminal cases now EXPECT the prosecution to have evidence like they do in CSI.
I’ve been present during autopsy procedures…I’ve handled dead bodies…and I can truly tell you that they are not performed in a dark room with blue light / black light. Not every freaken case needs DNA evidence.
But, unfortunately, these shows present fiction that seems real to the public…which taints their perception of how criminal investigations are done.
And that is impacting criminal cases and thus our society.
OK then. Let’s BAN all tv shows and films that aren’t 100% scientifically accurate. To protect society. First to be removed from our psyche: Star Trek. Sure, it has some good points, but warp drive? Please. People might actually believe that faster than the speed of light travel is possible and then what?
Anarchy. That’s what. Fucking anarchy.
The sonogram wasn’t invented by a scientist. It, like so many other boons of modern life, was created by an engineer. Scientists discover facts. Engineers invent things. Technicians build things.
LHC isn’t being built by scientists, any more than cars or highways are built by drivers. LHC is being built by engineers and technicians. Scientists will use it after it’s done. Mostly they’ll pursue wills o’th’wisp and consume prodigious amounts of electrical power and disk space. They might find something surprising, but the odds are stacked against it. Real science happens where people can noodle around without much supervision, and change what they’re doing based on what they find.
Of course we’re not saying we should ban all TV shows that aren’t scientifically accurate. But it is annyoing how misrepresentative TV shows can be; this is especially true if, like me, you’re from Liverpool.
And who said Star Trek was scientifically impossible? Part of the point of science fiction is to imagine that future civilisations will be able to achieve things we cannot even begin to scientifically comrephend right now. Maybe there is a way to warp space, just that we don’t know how to do it just yet. Why is that scientifically inaccurate?
Science fiction is a completely different ball game to shows that supposedly illustrate how acutal modern day crime investigations are carried out. On a similar not, would you say that Scrubs gives a fair representation of how hospitals work?
James, one of my friends, Tom Reynolds is an EMT. He’ll tell you that pretty much every depiction of ‘emergency healthcare’ on tv and in films is wrong and it irks him. But does Scrubs effect you, your understanding and expectation of what is possible when it comes to providing healthcare? Does it change how you think healthcare should be funded? Does it give you unrealistic expectations of what staying in a hospital is like? What about ER? Holby City? General Hospital? Do we blame those shows for the state of our healthcare?
Do the police think every portrayal of them on film or tv gives a completely accurate description of what their job is like? Think they feel that Harvey Keitel in ‘Bad Leutenant’ is a good representation of what ‘a policeman’ does on a day to day basis?
What do you think about religious people’s objections to the DaVinci Code? Think that film shouldn’t have been made because it doesn’t accurately represent their religion as they see it? What about when Christians in the UK protested at the BBC for showing ‘Jerry Springer The Opera’? Did they have a point? I mean in that Jesus was a nappy wearing sexual deviant who was ‘a little bit gay’. Think that show should n’t have been put on because it doesn’t accurately represent Jesus and religion generally and people’s opinion or understanding of them might be changed?
Do any of those ‘inaccurate representations’ have a serious or detrimental impact on our society? What if some people think doctors are fools, cops are corrupt, Jesus is a nappy-wearing sexual deviant…? Does EVERY representation of EVERY job or person HAVE to be 100% realistic?
Why would Science or scientists be any different?
Oooo, 4th of July. Do you still celebrate it Gia?
Oh dear.
It’s true that TV isn’t reality. And yes, some slower-witted people in our society haven’t quite grokked that yet, but they’d have problems regardless. But TV isn’t always entirely false either.
Not all of Numb3rs is tosh – some of it is real. Which bits are which is discussed nicely on a blog from a maths professor in the US. This entry in particular is interesting. http://is.gd/LVV
It starts, “At lot of people who have watched “Numb3rs” have expressed disbelief that Charlie could actually predict, say, the probable location of a bank robbery, just knowing where previous ones have taken place. In fact, some mathematicians I know (more acquainted, perhaps, with “pure” or highly abstract math) have expressed the same doubts. Well, in fact, the first two episodes of Numb3ers are actually based on real-life cases where mathematicians have done just that.”
But what interests me most about Numb3rs and CSI is that they have the capacity to stimulate curiosity and a sense of possibility in teens as they choose what to study next. If more people decide to study sciences at school and then go to uni to study science, then that’s a win. If, in the course of doing that, they realise that part of some Numb3rs episode they saw was tosh, are they really going to storm off in a huff and go become a fine arts grad?
And yes, of course there are execrable geek stereotypes used on TV, but stuff like CSI and Numb3rs provides positive images that I don’t think existed before in the mainstream. Even on Star Trek, the smart kid – Wesley Crusher – is played as an annoying, precocious git to start with, and an awkward geek later on. Hardly positive.
And finally, I have no patience at all with anyone who comes over all snobbish about their discipline. (Note, I’m not accusing anyone here of snobbishness.) Last year I was at a dinner with a bunch of people I didn’t know. We got to talking about TV and I mentioned how much I enjoyed Numb3rs, and they started deriding me, saying how even a child could see that Numb3rs was mathematically inept. A bit of a pile-on ensued, wherein the object of the exercise was to take the piss out of me for liking a show they found to be sub-standard.
That kind of snobbery is inexcusable. It’s also the kind of attitude that puts people off subjects that they would otherwise be fascinated by. Deeply unconstructive.
Suw: The problem I have with Numb3rs is that, contrary to what you believe, it actually portrays mathematicians in a very, VERY stereotypical way. For example, when something goes wrong in the second episode of the first series, Charlie he recluses into his garage where, being the ‘genius’ mathematician that he is, proceeds to right endless equations all over the place as he attempts to solve the P=NP problem. It’s as stereotypical as when a serial killer listens to classical music whilst butchering their victims. This is the argument I was making originally, and I don’t think that the show will do anything to improve the image of ‘the mathematician’.
However, maybe I have been a little unfair in completely deriding Numb3rs. Although it’s very idealised in their application, and the show contains much more action than anything else, at least it does make an attempt to present various mathematical theories to the wider public. Hmm, maybe I’d watch and enjoy the thing if I could get a decent Freeview signal. Might look into getting the DVDs actually, talking about the show has made me want to watch it, lolz.
*Does EVERY representation of EVERY job or person HAVE to be 100% realistic?*
This is not about getting everything 100% accurate, which is an unrealistic (haha) expectation, but misrepresentation, cultural stereotypes and plain ignorance.
*Do any of those ‘inaccurate representations’ have a serious or detrimental impact on our society? What if some people think doctors are fools, cops are corrupt, Jesus is a nappy-wearing sexual deviant…?*
Well, ‘the short answer is a no with a but, the long a yes with an if.’ You’ve listed a lot of very specific examples, yes there is a lot of variety and it’s wrong for me to focus on particular shows, but you can’t expect me to give a detailed critique of every single every produced. However, perhaps not surprisingly, I can say that of all of the shows you’ve listed play on stereotypes or simply fall down to the lowest common denominator with a view to achieving mass appeal (and thus more money).
Is Jerry Springer the Opera, taking that particular example, damaging to society? Well it seemingly has done nothing for the reputation of Christians and it possibly doesn’t reflect well on the wider state of current British beliefs and morals. But then this, as well as being perspective dependent, all depends on how much weight you place on a theatre show. For example, the excellent paedophile special of Brass Eye, Paedogeddon, had jump-on-the-bandwagon politicians slating the current state of the media but in the end, I think people saw it for what it was, FUNNY! Is the same true for Jerry Springer the Opera? Hmm maybe, although it’s not that funny. Both were unfairly written off simply because they tackled controversial subjects, but then the two are different from the perspective that one could only really served to piss paedophiles off, where as the other was unfair to Christians. Surely not even you Gia think that paedophiles and Christians are as bad as each other?
Mind, I’m biased by the fact I love anything Charlie Brooker is involved in. For example, on umm accidentally calling for the assassination of Bush he wrote, ‘My inbox overflowed with blood-curdling death threats, and it was all very unfunny indeed – a bit like recounting a rude joke at a dinner party, only to be told you hadn’t recounted a joke at all, but molested the host’s children, and suddenly everyone was punching you and you weren’t going to get any pudding.’ I believe in another article he ha stated that he has actually asked to leave from a dinner party for dropping a stinker of a joke. Gia, you’re lucky for knowing that man.
Anyway, the issue here is not so much mass media portrayals of certain professions, but whether we want a nation bloated with ill-informed graduates who base their career aspirations on telly shows. Pah.
“Surely not even you Gia think that paedophiles and Christians are as bad as each other?”
Nah, Christians only fuck with kids’ brains. But they’re not exactly alone in that.
There are people who believe what they see on TV shows like the “X-files” is real…that aliens visit the earth and mutilate cows and such.
There are people who believe in psychic abilities…ESP, telepathy, whatever…as shown on certain TV shows.
We can’t help what people choose to believe. If people want to believe that H2O can be turned into EtOH (which requires fission and fusion +/- large amounts of deadly nuclear radiation) in a jar to impress a Pharaoh just so he would let “my people go”…that staves can become snakes…and a man can walk on water (defying gravity and other laws of physics) just because he has certain amount of faith…yeah it’s starting to sound ridiculous…but so do the things about aliens and ESP.
The problem is SOMETIMES, TV shows illustrate caricatures of OTHER PEOPLE. It is then we may have issues. What if TV shows only had black people as criminals? What if TV shows only had British people as Doctors? What if TV shows depicted Asians only as kung fu masters? What if TV shows depicted that in order to find people guilty of a crime, they need DNA evidence (although they don’t even know what a DNA is)?
Another problem is that SOMETIMES, TV shows illustrate caricatures of reality. Although the shows are supposed to be for entertainment, they can mentally fuck with peoples understanding of the real world…much like religion, superstition, whatever.
Perhaps the problems are not with the TV shows…may be the problems exist in ourselves (humans)…or just those who are dumber than rocks.
WHAT?!! You mean Asians aren’t ALL kung fu masters? Whoa. You learn something new every day. ;)
Now tell me, is the LHC really Satan’s Stargate?!
(I think the issue is that some people are dumber than rocks.)
“Great spirits have always encountered violent oppostion from mediocre minds” – Albert Einstein
When the first “test tube” baby was to be “made,” various religious people opposed it saying that the child will be born without a soul and he/she would be the antichrist.
People believe Jesus rode on dinosaurs.
People fear what they do not know or understand.
FYI – I am Asian and I am not a kung fu master…I know Tae Kwon Do…not kung fu.
James, you should watch more episodes. Yes, they do show Charlie retreating into his garage in order to focus on a problem, but they show him collaborating with his colleagues far more often, and occasionally he has a moment of inspiration after seeing or hearing something very mundane. Often, they show that the answer comes after a lot of hard work and logical deduction.
But I doubt that most non-mathematicians will even notice that, because they are more involved in the character’s development, his relationships with his love interests and his family, his career, his happiness. Because those are the human things that people in general care about. From that point of view, Charlies is portrayed very well, he’s a human being, just like us. He’s not a freak of nature; he’s a sexy maths prof. That’s the most important thing.
Jesus! That Youtube video had me in stiches, is is!?! Maybe he’s just a comic genious. But God, it’s like his understanding of physics has come from the back of a packet of Rice Krispie Squares. Jeesh I’ve never seen someone looking so confused-and stressed, you see his bags?
Suw: Human beings breathe, so why not have a programme showing humans do that for an hour?