The Atheist Thirteen

I saw this on jdc325’s blog. I dare say few of the bloggers that are participating will have heard of me, but I thought I’d make my own contribution.

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

I don’t like the word. It’s defined by theists, to imply an opposition to their own point of view, regarded as some kind of standard. My own lack of belief in any god or supernatural power is exactly the same as my lack of belief in fairies, tree-spirits, ghosts or interstellar teapots. What all these have in common (apart, perhaps, from the teapot) is that people have expressed a belief in them, without presenting any evidence at all. But I don’t call myself an ‘afairyist’ or ‘aghostist’.

I guess that, like most people, I could describe myself using various terms. I don’t believe any ontological claim without good evidence – that probably makes me a ‘sceptic’ (note that this is different from denying that something exists, either without evidence or disregarding good evidence). My positive views on morality are probably best described as ‘humanist’. My attitude to discovering what exists is both ‘popperian critical rationalist’ and ‘scientific’. To the (considerable) extent that religious people try to force their beliefs on others, I am a ‘secularist’, that is, someone who thinks that people should be entitled to their beliefs, but that no religion should be an organising principle for society.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

My parents sent their children to a Congregational Sunday school, but they never showed any evidence of religious belief and I think that was mainly to get us from under their feet on Sunday morning. (This was in the days when children could be trusted to walk a couple of miles by themselves.) And, conveniently, we could collect the ice cream for Sunday lunch from the sweetshop on the way home. I can remember very little of that experience that had anything to do with religion, although I enjoyed the social side of it (including quizzes led by our young teacher instead of bible lessons!) and discussions on all sorts of things, including psychic phenomena. I had a sort of kind of type of vague 60s view of a supernatural being until my late teens. And then it just went.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

ID stands for Intellectual Dishonesty (sorry, those are two words). There seem to be no more than maybe one or two dozen people actively promoting ID, and they do this through subverting education and the law and doing PR stunts. They do no science. The aim is just to present to the public the image of a scientific controversy, with the apparent ultimate goal of suppressing the real science. Most of them seem to know this. Behind it most of the people involved really seem to be creationists.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

I perhaps ought to say ‘chemistry’, as it was the field of my first degree and PhD, but I sometimes wish I’d been a geologist. I think the discovery of earth history is one of the most interesting topics in science. Philosophers of science seem to ignore it and have a distorted view of science through thinking of physics and science as more or less the same thing.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

For a short time I followed some of the groups that called themselves ‘Brights’ but I was very put off by their attitudes to others.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

I’d be very surprised. But what he does is his choice.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

All the arguments for the existence of God, whatever their merit, are really irrelevant to the real world. People do not practice ‘faith’ or believe in ‘God’ – they practice specific religions, which make very specific assertions about what their god is and what he wants from humans: he was crucified and rose again, he wants you to fast every year and to pray five times a day, or not to work on a Saturday. As far as I know, no theologian has ever been able to make that leap by argument from ‘God’ to any specific god that people really believe in. There is only one argument that really matters in religion, and that is ‘my revelation is better than your revelation’. It is at root the most stunningly self-centred attitude.

In organised religion, this is backed up by force and ultimately violence: ‘God’ threatens retribution if you don’t behave as he wishes, but since he unaccountably fails to do this, it must be enforced by old men, often with beards. And, if that doesn’t work, the young men will come and get you on their behalf.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

I don’t know.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

I have not read most of these. I’ve read most of Dawkins’s God Delusion, but the arguments have not really changed since I read Bertrand Russell on the same things as a youth. Where Dawkins scores is in being (mostly) right and writing it so well. (Dennett is still waiting to be read.)

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

I would like to think that one need not be concerned about convincing people to abandon their beliefs, only to convince them not to force the beliefs on other people. However, in view of my answer (7) above, I am not sure that is possible – because of the nature of theistic belief, anyone who believes something different, even another theistic doctrine, will always be a threat and a source of ‘offence’. So, in that case, convincing just one theist, any one, coul be regarded as an improvement in the human condition.

The other three items are to invite other bloggers to do the same. I don’t feel able to do that.

Word of the Week: Quantum

The word ‘quantum’ appears commonly in two kinds of writing. The first is in physics, where the word simply means a very small amount of energy, or a small change in energy, such as when a molecule absorbs light and changes to a different form.

The second use occurs in all kinds of writings on ‘complementary’, ‘alternative’, ‘holistic’ or ‘integrated’ medicine (CAM), where it means nothing at all. In fact, if in a CAM poster, leaflet, website or consultation the word ‘quantum’ appears, you can be 100% certain it is bullshit. You can also be certain that either the writer does not know what she or he is talking about, or that you are being targetted to pay good money for something of little or no value. In this article, I shall attempt to explain why.

Quantum theory is the most important theory in physics. It was developed through the 20th century to bring understanding to a lot of confusing phenomena, and it has been very successful. it has been well tested in countless numbers of experiments, and it has been used to develop a vast range of technology that we enjoy in our lives today.

Sometimes, the theory is referred to as ‘quantum mechanics’, which describes quite well what the theory is about. ‘Newtonian mechanics’ is the theory that describes how large objects like balls and motor cars move in the world that we see around us, and how they interact by exchanging energy with each other. ‘Quantum mechanics’ is the corresponding theory applied to very small objects such as atoms and molecules. What was surprising to physicists in the early 20th century is that these very small objects (an atom is about .00000002 centimetres in diameter) do not behave like small versions of the objects and waves that we can see, but obey different laws. Nevertheless, those laws can be described using mathematics, just as you can do the maths for colliding and falling bodies in the big world.

So why is the word ‘quantum’ so popular with CAM merchants? I think there may be several reasons.

Firstly, ‘quantum’ sounds modern and cutting edge. (Actually, the basic theory was worked out in the 1920s.)

More importantly, ‘quantum’ sounds mysterious. This is very useful if you are trying to give a feeling of mystery as well as cutting-edge research to a load of mumbo-jumbo. Because it takes skill that must be learned in order to understand quantum theory well (especially the mathematics), it is easy to suggest falsely that no-one really understands anything about it. Also, because the laws of motion for quantum particles are different from those of our familiar objects, it suggests (again falsely) knowledge beyond our understanding.

Unfortunately, some physicists who ought to know better have contributed to this by publishing ‘popular’ works of vague speculation about life, consciousness, the universe and everything that they would not dare submit to a serious scientific journal. But these ramblings are vastly outweighed by huge numbers of scientific papers over the last century applying quantum theory to understanding real problems, in fields as diverse as basic physics, chemical structure, electronics and biochemistry.

The third and most important reason, I think, why the word is used so much in woo-woo is that ‘quantum’ sounds vague. Again, because it is not obvious that the theory can be applied in very precise ways, woo-woo practitioners use the word to suggest that physicists are talking vaguely, and therefore that it is legitimate to engage in woolly talk and meaningless verbiage. This is enhanced by taking technical terms from quantum theory that the writers do not understand and using the concepts wrongly, for example, ‘uncertainty’ or ‘indeterminacy’, and ‘entanglement’.

It is true that the quantum theory tells us that it is impossible to know some information about the motions of very small particles and that often we have to settle for statistical information at this level. However, the information obtained using quantum-theoretical effects is often highly precise. Here are a few things that have been developed from quantum theory:

- Atomic clocks accurate to one thousand millionth of a second per day
- Accurately determining the structures of molecules and crystals, including the structure of the genetic material DNA which led to our modern knowledge of genetics
- Scanning the tissues of the body using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
- The electronic materials used in your computer and all the other electronics in your home and work

The list is potentially endless.

If someone tries to sell you a CAM treatment or diagnosis method supposedly based on ‘quantum effects’, ask them to show you precisely how it works. Try to get them to give you references to the basic theory. There are many people (including myself) who visit the blogs that discuss quackery and pseudoscience, and I am sure they will try to help get these sources validated by experts. (In most cases these sources will simply not exist.)

In contrast, for a legitimate technique like MRI there is no end of explanation available to show how the use of the technique depends on the real quantum effect involved. See, for example, Wikipedia.

If you have the interest and stamina to take this a bit further, I’d like to mention a couple of other uses of quantum mumbo-jumbo that you will find in CAM websites and publications. Both are used by homeopaths and their hangers-on.

One is ‘quantum entanglement’. This is a quantum phenomenon that occurs when two particles have interacted, and it is possible at a later time, when the particles are separated, for the state of one particle still to influence the state of the other. Using this idea, weird explanations have been put forward for supposed CAM treatments, involving the practitioner, the patient and the remedy.

But remember, quantum effects apply to very small entities. There is a principle in quantum theory called the ‘correspondence principle’, that says that when you scale up to the big world, quantum effects become the same as the laws that we observe in our world. So, when these claims are made, ask the one making them to show the research that purports to extrapolate this strange behaviour from the quantum world to the big one. I am sure you won’t get it.

The other quantum bamboozlement is called ‘memory of water’. Homeopathy was invented around 200 years ago before the modern atomic theory was established. The supposed principle of homeopathic remedies is incompatible with the most elementary ideas of chemistry, so, to try to get round this, homeopaths have invented this ‘memory’ idea. There was even a whole issue of a homeopathic journal devoted to the ‘memory of water’, but the actual discussion of the ‘memory’ was a bit thin, since there is not the slightest evidence for this ‘memory’, either experimental or theoretical.

However, if the ‘memory of water’ does exist, then it must be a quantum-mechanical effect. So again, there must be plenty of theoretical research to explain it. Right? Wrong.

There is a genuine structural effect in water, called the ‘hydrogen bond’. It is weak, but it is well understood through quantum theory. It also plays a vital and fascinating role in the processes of life. There is a beautiful video here (click on the image labelled ‘F₁-F₀ATPase’) of one of the vital chemical reactions in the cell, the one that converts a molecule called ADP into another molecule called ATP. The video shows the small but crucial step where the ADP molecule is held in place with hydrogen bonds. (To me, learning about this sort of thing brings home the richness of science compared with the dire intellectual poverty of CAM.)

So, I hope you can see how much information quantum theory has given us about a real phenomenon that sustains us all, in every cell. And if a CAM practitioner gives you guff about ‘quantum’ effects, ask them: Where’s your theory? Where’s your evidence?

To sum up: Quantum theory gives us precise and well-tested explanations of the physical universe, and enables us to build useful and accurate technology. ‘CAM’ practitioners borrow the word ‘quantum’, with its suggestion of cutting-edge science, and use it to mystify and waffle.

Ben Goldacre on teachers and Brain Gym

Although I usually admire Ben Goldacre’s treatment of bad science in the Guardian, I was dismayed at his use of words like ’stupid’ and ‘morons’ to describe teachers using Brain Gym. If the results described in the Weisberg paper that he cites are valid, then it seems probable that teachers are no more likely than the general public to fall for this kind of thing. After all, most teachers are not science teachers, let alone trained in either neuroscience or the interpretation of scientific evidence.

What’s more, most fads in schools, whether on or off the curriculum, are these days foisted on teachers by politicians, senior management remote from the classroom, administrators, ‘advisors’ and management consultants. Classroom teachers nowadays have very little discretion about what they do, and they spend a lot of time just trying to keep order of some kind. I understand that where Brain Gym is used, it is often appreciated because it provides a welcome opportunity for some physical activity (which I think even Ben has previously pointed out is a Good Thing), and is popular with the students. If you place yourself in the position of a classroom teacher, you too may welcome the opportunity for a short break doing something which has the wholehearted involvement of the class. Even if the supposed theory behind it is bunk.

Addressing teachers in this way is likely to put backs up when Ben should be recruiting the classroom teachers, especially the hard-pressed science staff, as allies in the war on pseudoscience and management-bollocks that is taking over school education as much as any other part of our intellectual life.

Word of the Week: Theory

A scientific theory is basically an explanation of observations. The observations may be made in the world around us, for example, the tides in the oceans or the different varieties of living things. They may be made with the aid of devices made for the purpose, for example, observing distant galaxies with a telescope or bacteria through a microscope. The observations we want to explain may also be the result of highly contrived experiments, for example, the collisions of particles in a particle accelerator or chemical reactions in glassware.

In ordinary life, we may look for explanations of single events, such as “who left the door open?”, “how did that batch get contaminated?” or “how did that person die?” We may even talk of having a theory about how something happened. Usually this means that we are not sure about the explanation. If we are sure, then we would describe the explanation as a fact. There is more to a scientific theory than that, though.

Scientists use the word “theory” in a very different way. A scientific theory does not try to explain one single observation. It attempts to generalise: to bring under one explanation all the different occurrences of an observation, and a large number of different kinds of observation that seem to have something in common. For example, the theory of gravitation successfully explains details of observations as diverse as objects falling to the ground, the tides, the motions of the planets and the structures of the galaxies. If you were looking at these different things without the benefit of a modern education you might not recognise that there was a single explanation linking these various phenomena. It took Newton’s genius to do that.

Observations are tests of theories. Most times when scientists build an apparatus to do an experiment, they have a theory in mind. If the observations that are made with an apparatus are not consistent with the theory, then of course the experimenter will check the design of the apparatus first, but if nothing can be found wrong with it, then the theory is refuted, and a new theory, or an improved version of the old theory, is required.

It is important to realise that, in science, the word ‘theory’ has no implication about how well understood a theory is, about how certain it is, or how many practising scientists in that field accept it*. A new theory must obviously go through a stage where most people regard it as provisional and not properly tested. This was the case with the theory of plate tectonics in the 1950s-1960s, although the theory had been around for a few decades before that. Nowadays, every practising geologist accepts plate tectonics, although there are always details that are in dispute. For example, we know that Iceland sits on a spreading ridge in the Atlantic, but there is currently disagreement over exactly what is happening under Iceland to make it such a prominent feature.

Similarly, there are no practising biologists, in fields related to evolution, who doubt that evolution by natural selection is correct, although there are always important details to be discovered and clarified. The important thing to remember is, that although we can never be 100% certain about a theory, there are many theories that we have no scientific reasons to doubt are fundamentally true. These include the theory of gravitation, which is used to make predictions of eclipses and other movements in the solar system accurate to fractions of a second. Well-established theories also include quantum theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection. The reason why these theories are accepted is that there is no other explanation in each case that fits the full range of obsrvations so well.

*Sometimes the word ‘hypothesis’ is used to describe a new theory that has not much observational support, but there is no consistency about this usage.

The Wem ghost: a tall tale develops

Over a decade ago (in the days before blogs) I wrote a short web page debunking the Wem ‘ghost’ photograph, which had been taken the previous year and had begun to appear on web sites.

This photograph is a very striking picture, apparently of a young girl standing at the top of the stairs leading into a burning building. However, it does not take much close investigation to see that the picture is not of a young girl, and therefore likely not a ghost.

The ‘head’ is in front of the railings, and there is no body apparent, but if there is one, it must be way back behind the railings and inside the doorway at the top of the steps. So the ‘ghost’, if it is one, is shaped something like the front end of a giraffe.

From time to time I amuse myself by googling to see how the ‘Wem ghost’ meme is spreading on the Web. It took a few years before it really began to spread beyond the personal home page that started it and a handful of specialist ‘ghost’ sites. But now the story is all over the place,although I notice that many of the sites simply rip off the text of others, just as they rip off the copyright photograph that started it. There are not many sites where the photograph is given any critical analysis at all.

What is interesting is that the legend is starting to grow whenever the story is retold.  The fire that destroyed the old timber houses of the town in 1677, was, according to legend, caused by a young girl’s carelessness with a candle. The bloggers have now created new details to enhance the photograph: now she supposedly died in the 1677 fire or haunted the Town hall before it burned (although she had no connection with the building, which was built two and a half centuries after her life). The modern technology of the blog is being used to spread tall tales of a most old-fashioned kind. 

What will an MP swallow?

This is a follow-up to my MP in in answer to his letter to me supporting homeopathy on the NHS.

Dear Mr Kawczynski,

Thank you for your reply of 31 August to my letter to you about the Early Day Motion on homeopathy. I would like to comment on your reply.

I wrote specifically about homeopathy. Other forms of ‘complementary medicine’ raise their own specific issues, but homeopathy is something that the NHS should certainly not support.

Studies show that homeopathy is no more effective than a placebo (an inert pill or water disguised as a treatment). This is not surprising, as homeopathic remedies contain absolutely no active ingredient – they are placebos. It is certainly untrue that homeopathy can treat conditions that science-based medicine cannot.

Most homeopaths treat only conditions that get better by themselves. In that sense they do no harm. But money spent on homeopathy is money that would be better spent on treating people with serious conditions using the best known treatments. And homeopaths become dangerous when (as some do) they make the false claim that they can treat or offer protection from serious diseases such as malaria or AIDS.

Homeopaths like to try to imply that their remedies are ‘natural’ or ‘herbal’ remedies, but they are not. They are inert tablets or solutions created with a ritual that is based on late 18th century magical thinking, long before science discovered bacteria and viruses and identified the organic and molecular bases of disease.

Homeopaths also like to try to suggest that their ‘treatments’ are somehow outside the scope of testing. This ignores the fact that techniques such as randomised double-blind trials were invented precisely because there is no other reliable way of knowing whether a treatment is effective or not.

If you would like to get an idea of the extent to which homeopaths are mocking reason and deluding the public, please have a look at the catalogue of Helios, a major supplier of homeopathic ‘remedies’. There you will find about 12 pages of supposed remedies supposedly based on just about everything including Excrementum caninum (dog excrement). This is reminiscent of the witches in Macbeth, except that there is no way you could in reality distinguish between any of the remedies on the list. The catalogue is at: https://www.helios.co.uk/download/Remedy_File.pdf.

If you would like to see a more detailed criticism of the assertions in the Early Day Motion, I strongly recommend the full explanation with references at: http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/homeopathic-motions/

I hope that this explains my concern. I am sorry to see that so many of our elected representatives are so badly informed about the matter. There seems to be a serious lack of understanding of science and medicine in the House of Commons. This is dangerous when so much of our society and economy depends on science and technology.

Yours sincerely,