Rogue Stardust

Newsflash: Gays marry, life goes on as usual

2012-02-18T02:23:00.004Z

Some of you may remember me talking about Peter Saunders a while ago when I was exploring Nadine Dorries' motivations behind promoting various sexual health and reproduction policies against all the evidence. Well, it turns out he was the one peddling the pseudoscience to people with vested interests in the subject, such as the Lawyers Christian Fellowship - he also tried pulling a fast one by commenting on Dorries' Guardian article on the subject by posting a comment in support of the movement without telling anyone about his background or connections which puts a different slant on things when there's so much evident bias.

Well, unfortunately it turns out he's making another effort to limit people's freedoms through the use of dodgy lines of reasoning. This time he's trying to limit the freedoms of LGB people like me because he seems to think his religious beliefs are so special that everyone should be forced to follow them, not simply applying them to his own life and concentrating on saving his own soul.

Saunders opposes same-sex marriage on the grounds of his faith, providing citations from the Bible to back up his viewpoint. He does provide an interesting line of thought here though:

Marriage is also in this way illustrative of Christ’s own self-giving abandonment to his bride the church (Ephesians 5:31, 32) and points to a greater richness of human relationships beyond the grave of which the very best on earth are but a pale shadow.(1 Corinthians 2:9, 10).

So there you have it: necrophilia is more acceptable than homosexual relationships. Very strange, but at least we know how much we're reviled, eh?

The blog post details ten reasons why gay marriage should not be legalised in the UK, all full to the brim with fallacies and misleading information. The first point is the age-old argument of 'marriage has always been between one man and one woman, therefore it's the best option'. This argument is a classic example of the appeal to tradition fallacy and very symptomatic of someone who isn't keen on change - that's fine, nobody is forcing anyone to marry someone of the same sex (or opposite sex, for that matter), but using such a weak tactic to try and reduce the freedoms of others is hardly a sign of intellectual stength or integrity.

Speaking of a lack of integrity, Saunders also tries to mislead readers of his blog when he writes the following:

The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by one man and one woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’.

At no point does the UN Declaration of Human Rights state that a family is headed by one man and one woman, that's something Peter made up to try and lend his personal prejudices an air of legitimacy. Article 16 has a clause which says "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State" - there's no mention of an objective definition of what a family is, that's something which is open to interpretation. I'm hardly the arbiter of what the national definition of a family should be, but to me a family is made up of people who share strong bonds with each other - I'm a child of a single-parent family, does that mean we're not actually a family at all according to Peter Saunders? More than a bit cheeky if so.

The second point says that we've already got same-sex partnerships we should be happy with what we've been given. Sure, we've been given concessions, but that's still not equality since civil partnerships aren't allowed to contain any religious references. Saunders' arguments centre around his particular Christian beliefs, but other religious denominations such as the Quakers and Unitarians want to offer same-sex marriage ceremonies in accordance with their religious beliefs. Far from protecting religion and society, banning same-sex marriage entirely also prevents freedom of religion when allowing it would cause no harm.

Point three: 'redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic' also known as 'I know people who agree with me, so there'. Interestingly there is an indication that quite a lot of people support same-sex marriage, including 57% of Scottish Catholics and similar proportions have been found in other faiths. So, it seems like legalising same-sex marriage would actually be the democratic decision here - times have moved on, homophobia is no longer given a free pass in the UK.

The fourth argument is as follows: "equality does not mean uniformity". People should have equality of opportunity but that doesn't guarantee equality of outcome (and nor should it, with variety being the spice of life and all that jazz). Funnily enough the concept of 'separate but equal' was used in the US when racial segragation was in effect and is still being used to justify institutional sexism by certain religious officials - it was ridiculous back then and it's gained no respectability in the decades since. It's a famous refuge of the bigot, nobody with a strong and convincing argument would resort to this rubbish - give an eejit enough time to speak and they'll expose their own ignorance, really.

He also goes on to say that "same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life." And who sets these criteria? That would be the officials involved in each religious denomination. Again, the Quakers and Unitarians say that same-sex couples do meet the criteria and yet this man wants to prevent them from doing so because of his own personal disgust - hardly a democratic decision, is it?

[Update: ...Right, I had to take a break from reading all this ill-informed rubbish and went out shopping for a bit a few hours after Saunders had submitted this particular blog post. Interestingly it has since been taken down from the main blog, Christian Medical Comment, but it is still partially available from two sources, a different music and Anglican Mainstream.

I'd love to direct you to the original blog post in full, but the author has taken it down and left nary a trace - it's not on the Wayback Machine archives either unfortunately. Why? I don't know for sure, but I'm thinking it might have been out of shame or a bad case of internet flaming (entirely possible, given that the first and only comment as of 2pm today simply said "asshole" and nothing more). Still, let's crack on with the other six points as best we can, thanks to the good folks at 'a different music' (keep up the great work, friend!).]

The fifth point is one often used to demonise LGB people: "protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society". It's grim that I even have to spell this out but we're honestly not dangerous to children. The bisexual behind this keyboard has been teaching maths and physics to much-loved children in British society for a few years without incident or any mention of sexuality. Hell, I'd like to think I've contributed something valuable to others through that work. My sexuality is just one part of who I am among many - I won't morph into some massive horn-crested sex beast if I marry another woman in later years, I'll still be a hair dye-loving science geek who wants nothing more than equality and Half Life 2: Episode 3. Nothing sinister, Peter, but I'd love to know what damage you think it'd do to society - if you're reading please do fling me a message, I'm genuinely intrigued.

The sixth addition to our growing scrapbook of fallacies is "marriage is a unique biologically complimentary relationship". So is a quick knee-trembler behind the bins in an alleyway but I don't see any opponents of same-sex marriage mentioning that when it comes to this line of thought. As for 'biologically complimentary', that's basically code for 'vaginal sex' because the argument sounds less silly when you dress it up in fancy words. Fingers are also quite well shaped for penetration, they're a complimentary shape and everything - does that mean we're okay to marry as well then?

The next point our intrepid campaigner complains about is the expense involved in redefining marriage. That's funny, he didn't seem concerned about the costs concerned with his proposal to ban abortion in all cases including rape and incest. The financial of that policy would be very high indeed but that's not an issue to Peter because it's a plan he likes. Is anyone starting to see a pattern here?

Point eight returns to the 'think of the children' rhetoric, mentioning that schools will have to teach children the new definition of marriage and lamenting the idea that some children might not grow up to be homophobes like their parents. That would be a shame, having them see us as equals rather than subscribing to the idea that we're evil for no reason other than because a bitter and petty deity said so. If these parents are so set on raising their children to believe in their ~~prejudices~~ 'family values' then they could maybe, you know, actually teach them about it themselves rather than relying on other people to do it for them?

Number nine is a gem, plus it mentions bisexuals! Awesome. Let's take a look...

If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages.

Peter, dear, bisexuals don't want to marry two or more people, we're simply attracted to people of both sexes - getting such a basic term so very wrong is not doing your argument any favours whatsoever. Besides, how is this point even relevant when we're discussing the idea of two people getting married to each other rather than groups of people? The slippery slope argument at its finest, people, and sadly a very common distraction technique in this debate.

Finally, in point number ten Peter exposes his own hypocrisy: "redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination". As mentioned before, the Quakers and Unitarians are already being discriminated against because they're not allowed to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies in according with their faith. They're not causing anyone harm and they'd be creating a net gain in happiness for all involved, so where's the issue?

And there we have it - it's been a very long post but this sort of harmful prejudice needs investigating when it surfaces. Rest assured, if same-sex marriage is legalised then straight couples will still be perfectly capable of having full, loving relationships and the world will continue spinning on its axis as normal. Nothing will change and I'm perfectly willing to bet that opponents of gay marriage won't even know a ceremony is taking place.

Actually, Peter, do let me know if you detected a disturbance in the force or something when I went on a date with another girl a few years ago. The James Randi Educational Foundation has $1,000,000 to offer you if you can so it's not all bad news, eh?

A Call for Mercy

2012-01-26T23:30:00.002Z

I doubt there are many readers of The Sun on this blog, but today's Rod Liddle article has spread like wildfire over twitter. The article can simply be summed up as childishly misguided rebellion, but it does still add fuel to the Coaliton's scroungers and liars rhetoric which is currently being amplified by the media. And that, unfortunately, is why it can't simply be dismissed and cast aside as stupidity.

Take a look at these two choice quotes from the article in question:

"My New Year's resolution for 2012 was to become disabled. Nothing too serious, maybe just a bit of a bad back or one of those newly invented illnesses which make you a bit peaky for decades - fibromyalgia, or M.E.

....And being disabled is incredibly fashionable. The number of people who claim to be disabled has doubled in the past ten years."

'Fashionable', Rod? Please, if this was the case we'd see far more people with plaster casts and wheelchairs on the front of those celebrity magazines I'm supposed to be interested in. As it is we see a grand total of near zero. Either Liddle is a fashion guru ahead of his time or he's talking complete bullshit as usual - my money is firmly on the latter, especially as he's made no mention whatsoever of medical advances with regard to diagnosing illness in the past decade and clearly hasn't researched the symptoms of M.E or fibromyalgia.

Now, here's where things start getting a bit more sinister: a few hours ago an article by James Delingpole appeared on the Telegraph in response to the firestorm taking place on twitter about the Rod Liddle article. While the former reads like the rantings of someone in a pub during the wee hours of the morning, Delingpole is more articulate when trying to spin the same questionable arguments. There's an air of respectability surrounding the Telegraph and its output which doesn't tend to be shared by The Sun and that's all the more reason to tear into the flaws in its arguments. Starting with this:

"...Unlike Rod's Twitter critics I took the trouble to read the full article and I think Rod's point is well made. There really are far, far too many people sponging off the taxpayer right now with their fake or exaggerated disabilities and they're one of the reasons we're in the financial mess we're in."

A fallacy worthy of Andrew Lansley himself: 'you don't agree with me, so you must have misunderstood me'. No, the message was loud and clear, we just didn't agree with such a brazen attempt to put ill-informed rhetoric ahead of facts. But if the pair of you really disagree with the WHO's verdict that M.E and fibromyalgia are in fact real conditions then please do send them an email - don't go promoting your ignorance at the expense of others in ill-intentioned newspaper columns.

Finally, we're left with this:

"Every time the disability lobby squeals for more another few jobs are lost, another few basis points are lost from GDP growth. But these people don't care; they know better than that: the government owns a magic money tree and its ability to distribute the fruits thereof is boundless."

We do care, James. There are people who care enough to produce the Spartacus Report entirely off their own backs when they should be receiving dignified treatment and support from the state. Not one of these sinister money-draining groups funded by the government, it was a project supported by the very people who are affected by this issue. We're not campaigning just because we want to make a scene or bring down the economy, we're working to help people maintain a basic standard of living. What's wrong with that when there are clearly more fruitful targets to pursue here, such as taxing high-earners and closing the loopholes which are losing us billions in corporate tax avoidance?

This blog is often laced with sarcasm and informality but tonight I will be deadly serious for a moment. These articles have caused genuine distress to the people who are being talked about - I've heard several cases in the past few hours of people being reduced to tears by the prominence given to what is little more than personal opinion and cherry-picking of convenient statistics. It's easy to dehumanise a target as a monolithic block bent on the destruction of our country but these are individuals we're talking about, people who are feeling real distress and upset when they should be at least secure in the knowledge that they will be able to afford living costs. Please don't lose sight of that in this debate, whichever stance you take.

Not Disabled, Just Disgusted.

2012-01-22T22:44:00.008Z

Apologies for this being a bit late, everyone, but here is my analysis of the Martinez-Portillo debate on the recent episode of 'This Week'. There's a lot to be said about the five-ish minutes of material given, but let's tear a few chunks out of the transcript for now...

[Andrew Neil]: "... I'm interested that you say public attitudes are hardening towards disabled people because certainly in my lifetime I've seen a revolution in attitudes towards disabled people ..."

I've certainly seen a change in attitudes in my 19 years on this planet - we've gone from public opinion varying between concern and ambivalence to having alarming levels of bile trickling down from the tabloids to the people on the street (and from what I've directly witnessed, people on public transport in Southern England).

Obviously Andrew Neil is a tad older than I am, so he might remember a time when attitudes towards disabled people and those with long-term illness were even worse than they are now, but from my perspective things are definitely going downhill. The people who claim it isn't very often have no direct experience of long-term ill-health, seeing it as a weakness which needs to be overcome rather than a condition which should carry no more stigma than a broken arm does.

If you're reading this blog post then I suspect you already know a possible motive behind the tabloids' eagerness to stoke these fires. Andrew Neil provides viewers with these reasons in the form of a question:

"Do you think, Michael [Portillo] that, um, there-there's a hardening, that in tough times there's a crackdown on welfare that there's less sympathy?"

I can shorten this down to one word: money. Times are harsh for many people at the moment with loads of us having to economise to cope with rising prices, so it's understandable that people are angry about financial inequalities and waste. Now, as you well know we've got a lot of cheating going on here in the UK, ranging from fradulent benefit claims to MPs fiddling their expenses all the way up to huge corporations hoarding billions of pounds through tax avoidance. Those last two could be very awkward for, say, a high-profile member of the Conservative party. Cue smokescreen:

[Michael Portillo]: "No, no I haven't detected that change actually and I would've said the same as you, that I've seen a revolution in the attitude in a positive sense."

Well it wouldn't have done you any favours to disagree, would it, Michael - this is a big opportunity for publicity after all.

[Portillo]: "But-but what I think there is a problem for the public is that there are many people claiming benefits who are not really disabled, but that's probably the government's view as well."

Unfortunately Michael is right on target with this one: the government are very keen on using divide and rule tactics, creating distractions to disguise various elephants in the room. There's been a lot of talk about 'deserving' and 'undeserving' people when it comes to state-funded support and the Coalition have not been shy in targetting people with disabilities and the mentally ill.

'Not really disabled'? Regardless of what some ATOS assessors think, just because someone isn't in a wheelchair or confined to a hospital ward doesn't mean they're in perfect health or being workshy when they say they can't hold down a regular routine. Funnily enough a GP would be able to tell you that but the Coalition don't seem very keen to involve them in these assessments, preferring instead to go for people with targets to meet and a possible financial incentive. We don't need to wonder why.

[Portillo]: "I would've thought that disabled people would want to be very vigilant and they would want to be, you know, a-at least as concerned about that [fraud] as the government."

Disability Living Allowance claimants don't condone fraud any more than the general public do, but they're also not going to buy into the pointedly biased rhetoric going around just because a politician said so. No, instead the people who should be receiving dignified support from the Coalition have been working hard to produce the Spartacus Report and tearing down the harmful myths which are threatening their basic quality of living. It's amazing work, but it's an indictment against the people who should have been defending their basic rights. I can't blame you for wanting to hide, Michael, it's nothing but shameful.

[Portillo]: "... both parties over a long period of time have found it rather convenient to disguise unemployment as disability ... so, you know, many politicians have been complicit in this. But what I'm saying is that a lot of people who are receiving disability benefits are not, as you and I would understand it, disabled."

There was a shred of honesty there, but it was ruined by shoehorning in this outdated idea of 'undeserving' claimants. Healthcare is not a boxticking exercise, a computer system simply cannot take the variance of many conditions into account - one day can be fine, getting lots of stuff done and having a great time and the next could be extremely difficult to cope with for whatever reason. If a potential claimant wants to be thought of as being deserving to Portillo and his peers they're at the mercy of their condition being particularly noticeable on that day to an unsympathetic ATOS panel. How the hell did we get to the stage where people are hoping for the worst in order to claim help with maintaining basic care? There is nothing upstanding or respectable about this.

[Martinez]: "... These are astounding figures for a first-world country, erm, and they certainly don't reflect your view that 'oh, disabled people have it easy', but I've been researching..."

[Portillo, interrupting and shaking his head]: "But-but-but that wasn't my view." [Smiles smugly.]

Oh, come on - you'd have to be living under a rock not to notice the scare-stories about people faking mental illness to claim DLA and how claimants are just using the money to buy expensive high-end cars and the like. Has this man honestly not seen those posters encouraging people to report people they suspect of benefit fraud? The falsehood that disabled people are living it up on benefits alongside other claimants is very pervasive - in 2009/10 there were 253,708 cases of suspected fraud reported to the DWP hotline, over 700 calls per day. The reality is that over half of disabled adults live in poverty and DLA has a very low rate of fraud at 0.5%, as Francesca Martinez mentions in the debate. If Portillo really doesn't believe that disabled people aren't just scroungers looking for a quick buck then he really should be doing more to combat this common stereotype. He's either lazy or complicit in this campaign of harmful misinformation. Take your pick.

I'm not disabled myself but I'm appalled at the double-standards and sheer callousness of the Coalition towards DLA claimants. More needs to be done to show the public the truth of the situation, to make them question the tales of monstrous enemies of the state spun by the likes of the Express and the Daily Mail. This issue could affect anyone - the only thing standing between any of us and an ATOS panel is a bad fall or an incorrectly replicated cell, we would do well to create a system which is there to help us rather than treat us as guilty and dishonest before we've even started.

More importantly, during harsh economic times like this we should also be standing together in solidarity, not bickering among ourselves for the scraps of the well-to-do. The scare stories are trying to make us attack people who need a bit of extra financial support so that we don't notice people taking billions away from us to fund their excessive bonuses. We don't object to people like me receiving taxpayer money for helping out with health problems on the NHS, so why is there such vitriol over people receiving DLA payments for the same purpose? Come on people, we're way smarter than this - it's just a matter of convincing the media to follow the same logic. And that, my friends, is where the key issue lies...

"A voice as never before"

2012-01-20T03:04:00.001Z

Hello, everyone! Finally trying to get back into blogging, unfortunately my depression and anxiety have been getting very bad recently so I've spent most of my time trying to reduce the symptoms while I wait for CBT therapy. I know I've said this a few times after delays in posting but the past few days have been some of the lowest points I've been at for a while.

But I digress, this post was intended for important news. Lately we've had a lot of people speaking out against the Coalition's proposed welfare reforms which would seriously impair the quality of life of many claimants. Francesca Martinez was given the chance to speak on the BBC show 'This Week' to talk through some of the statistics and the effect the government's scroungers and liars rhetoric is having on disabled people living in the UK. The video can be found here, courtesy of LatentExistence, but here is a transcript I've typed up for anyone who can't get sound on their PC or anyone who wants to examine what was said in detail. I'm shattered and have college in a few hours, so I'll post my commentary on this tomorrow.

(And for anyone who thinks I'm adding Portillo's [smug smile] tag in out of bias, watch the video if you can. It's very ill-advised given the circumstances, I'm struggling not to call it slimy...)

________________

Andrew Neil: Now when Boy George Obsborne first claimed with a straight face that the chunk of inherited wealth tucked safely in his bank account that we are quote 'all in this together' we were surprised that he pinched the phrase from the song and dance routine in High School Musical (and we can thank Wikipedia for that fact [?]), but we did doubt the government's committment to squeeze benefits until the PIPsqueaked. But with the introduction of Personal Indepedence Payments, so called PIPs, and the scrapping of the Disability Living Allowance, that's exactly what many people now fear. So we turn to actress and comedienne Francesca Martinez and asked her to put society's attitude towards disabled people in this week's spotlight.

[SPOTLIGHT]

Francesca Martinez: I've got cerebal palsy, but I call myself wobbly because that seems like a more positive name for the condition. Like, instead of 'schizophrenic' why don't we just say 'I'm building a magical world' [?]. And 'mentally retarded'? Hmm. 'Jeremy Clarkson'.

As a wobble person, I'm very worried about the planned benefit reforms, and disable people everywhere are feeling the fear. Thing is their benefits, which go towards basic health, will soon be taken away.

The government claim it's always about making the system work better for those in need, but they also claim that they have to cut their budget by 20%, revealing their true motive: taking half a million people off benefits.

All of this talk about us being a drain on society confirms the stereotype that we're simply a burden. And public attitudes are hardening, with disability hate crimes up 75%. And it's not a coincidence.

Anyone can become disabled and that's why we all need to fight these reforms. Because if the government continue to target the most vulnerable, to more people like me, we will take a stand (even if it is a wobbly one).

[Return to studio]

Andrew Neil: And Francesca Martinez joins us now, welcome to This Week!

Francesca Martinez: Thank you!

Andrew Neil: Uh, I'm interested that you say public attitudes are hardening towards disabled people because certainly in my lifetime I've seen a revolution in attitudes towards disabled people, um, a-and not just in what has been provided and new rights conferred that they should've had but they have a voice as never before too.

Francesca Martinez: Well, they're still largely invisible in the media, um, and also those hard-won rights that you're speaking about are much appreciated, but that's why we're here: because we're worried that our rights are being taken away by this government.

Neil: Do you think, Michael [Portillo] that, um, there-there's a hardening, that in tough times there's a crackdown on welfare that there's less sympathy?

Michael Portillo: No, no I haven't detected that change actually and I would've said the same as you, that I've seen a revolution in the attitude in a positive sense. But-but what I think there is a problem for the public is that there are many people claiming benefits who are not really disabled, but that's probably the government's view as well. I would've thought that disabled people would want to be very vigilant and they would want to be, you know, a-at least as concerned about that* as the government.

*[Jacqui Smith, interrupting]: Well...

Martinez: Well, I'd like to contest those points. The first point is disability hate crime is up by 75% which really backs up the notion that attitudes are hardening. Also, erm, fraudulent claims of disability benefits are 0.5% which is the smallest out of all the benefits* so really that-that puts your assertion that there are people claiming this who don't need it in, um, really puts that into the negative.

*[Portillo attempts to interrupt]

Portillo: Saying fraudulent claims is putting it very strongly, but what I hope Jacqui might agree with me is that both parties over a long period of time have found it rather convenient to disguise unemployment as disability, in other words people they think are long-term unemployed they kind of, you know, steer towards disability benefits because th-they're n-not in the unemployment count, so, you know, many politicians have been complicit in this. But what I'm saying is that a lot of people who are receiving disability benefits are not, as you and I would understand it, disabled.

Martinez: Well, um, again I-I really dispute that and even now with the benefits in place, nearly half of all disabled people live in poverty, one in four- er, four in then disabled children live in poverty. These are astounding figures for a first-world country, erm, and they certainly don't reflect your view that 'oh, disabled people have it easy', but I've been researching...

[Portillo, interrupting and shaking his head]: But-but-but that wasn't my view. [Smiles smugly.]

Neil [looking at Matrinez]: But he didn't say that.

Martinez: W-Well you're certainly making the claim that there are lots of people out there who are claiming disability benefits who don't need them, uh, in my experience people use DLA to cover the most basic costs, you know, we're talking about getting around, feeding themselves, cleaning themselves, hiring care. You know, they're not in Marbeya [?] on the beach sunbathing.

Neil: Let me ask Jacqui, where are you on this?

Smith: Well in my experience the only way in which you overcome a discrimination against you is for those people who are discriminated against to have a voice and to speak up against it, and that I think is why progress has, and I agree, progress has been made on, ah, rights for disabled people. What has been very interesting about the campaign in the last couple of weeks is that the youth social media has enabled disabled people to bring their voices together and to campaign in a way that I certainly haven't seen for some time, and that I think impacted on the House of Lords, that's part of the reason why there have been four defeats inflicted on the government over the Welfare, um, Reform Bill, and it's only [emphasis] by people having the sort of voice that we're seeing -that-that change happens and...

[Martinez, interrupting]: And social media has allowed that to happen.

[Smith]: Exactly.

[Martinez]: Because many disabled people can't and stage a public debate very easily.

[Neil]: So it's a huge asset?

[Martinez]: Yes! The people behind the Spartacus Report, erm, have done incredibly well, but I think it's a real sad indictment that people who are sick and who are carers are having to put so much time and energy into defending their basic human rights. And I'm picking up on what you said before*, just basically, you know, that this financial crisis we're in was caused by a very elite few at the top and once again the vulnerable in society are being made to pay for t-the greed of the top, so I think realy the government is morally disabled.

*[Neil]: Just quickly, because we're almost at the end.

[Neil]: Alright, we're gonna leave it there, thank you for coming along tonight, Francesca.

Geek, Gamer and Possible Creative Genius

2011-11-05T22:53:00.001Z

Alright everyone, I've got some shocking news for you all. You may want to take a seat.

*pulls up a chair and sighs heavily, clasping her hands and looking over her spectacles in a very serious manner*

Video games might not actually be the root of all evil as the media had first imagined. In fact, they might actually be beneficial to children through boosting their creativity. Do you realise what this means? It means tabloids will have to find other scapegoats for riots and crime - they might even have to engage with multiple issues and contributing factors, ranging from inequality to abuse. We're taking a scary leap into the unknown here, people. Brace yourselves.

To be honest with you though I'm actually quite happy with this news. The study was carried out by Michigan State University and investigated the technology habits of 500 children, eventually reaching the conclusion that children who played more video games were more creative than those who didn't. They also found that girls tended to play more games which were based around interaction and boys favoured games centred around combat and violence. I apologise in advance to the majority of sensible readers who are reading this post, but unfortunately I have to clarify something for any sexists who have wandered onto this blog: this finding does not give you license to pressure people into archaic gender roles and nor does it support the idea that one gender is somehow superior to the other.

In actual fact the results showed no difference in creativity between children of either gender and also no disparities between children of different race. Interestingly children who used technology frequently but didn't play videogames did not display this increase in creativity, so it must be at least partially due to the problem-solving skills and reactions required by a program which actively requires the user's attention.

Although this finding is flattering to us gamers, there are a few issues which remain unresolved from the limited freely available information. Firstly, the test which the study used to determine creativity is subjective - although this is an inevitable consequence of measuring something unquantifiable it is still subject to some bias. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, it remains unclear whether videogames attract creatively-minded children or if it is actually playing games which contributes to an active imagination. A study of a large sample group over several points in time would help to resolve this ambiguity and I'd love to see a study which took these questions into account.

The full study is available in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour but unfortunately I need to pay to access it. If anyone can provide me with further details of the methodology or datasets I'd be very grateful, I still have a lot of unanswered questions about this flattering finding. Still, it's given me the perfect excuse to play more World of Warcraft and Left 4 Dead and provided further justification for buying a beast of a gaming machine a few weeks ago. It helps me with my writing, honest, guv'nor.

Earth's Lazy Sun (and the return of a lazy blogger)

2011-10-16T22:56:00.001+01:00

It's often said up here in Scotland that we're one of the few countries where you can see all four seasons in one day. Today in this quiet town we've had a spell of gently warming sunshine shortly followed by traditional Autumn winds and spitting rain, making a mockery of any plans I had in place to dress sensibly for the weather.

To complicate matters further we've now had forecasts for possible snowfall over the next week or so, just in time for my carefully constructed rail travel plans. Hopefully it won't get as bad as last year's blizzards and howling gales - you must remember them, how can you forget the year Christmas was cancelled? It was in the Metro newspaper and everything.

There are certain deeply rooted traditions in the UK alongside our quaint Scottish sayings and the media creating scaremongering articles about winter weather is one of the more unpleasant ones. Normally it can be found grumbling about low salt supplies and spouting ill-informed outrage about Winterval festivals but this year the famously well-respected science journal the Daily Mail has gone a few steps further and predicted a "modern day little ice-age", even claming in another article that "a sharp decrease" in global warming might take place as a result of the solar minimum.

As usual this news can be taken with a large pinch of salt (which you'd be wise to stock up on this year just in case - you'll need it for the weather and the sheer volume of winter-themed nonsense from the tabloids in the coming months). The Daily Mail and its core readership have a strong hatred for all things bureaucratic with its arch-nemesis being the European Union and all things associated with it, including global warming. It should come as no surprise that they're taking this opportunity to crow triumphantly about their convictions, taking any decrease in temperature as evidence that global warming is some mad leftist scam rather than a phenomenon backed up by a wealth of scientific data.

This time they're trying to fight fire with fire by presenting us with fancy diagrams, charts and sciencey-sounding terms such as magnetic fields and jet stream (bread and butter stuff to physicists but can be used to try and pull the wool over the eyes of those less scientifically-minded). Bless their little cotton socks for trying, but they've forgotten the key fact that correlation does not automatically mean there is a causal link between two variables.

(Note that they conveniently miss out the term 'global' in their thinking, usually citing UK weather changes and ignoring the fact that global surface temperatures have been on the increase according to multiple sources. There's a hell of a character study to be had here if someone could only find the time to carry one out.)

In short: winter will be cold this year and it's probably because the EU was distracted by Jeremy Clarkson taking his eyes out with conkers in a fit of common-sense. Wear your scarf.

Burning Up Time

2011-09-18T18:17:00.005+01:00

Apologies for not posting much, I've been trying to weather the storm of a particularly nasty depressive episode recently. I won't go into too many details but frankly I've felt like crap over the past week or so. I've been burning a fair few incense sticks while listening to some 80s punk and modern electronica to try and improve my mood, mostly because I like the smell of the different scents I've bought and the music brings back some pleasant memories for me. Okay, so they make my room smell odd and the music is obscure and dated, but I like them all the same.

Like most other alternative remedies and rituals there are also a wealth of bizarre claims going around burning incense sticks. An often seen passage on sites promoting incense as a health benefit is the Ten Virtues of Incense, as written by an anonymous sixth-century monk. Let's dissect a few of these claims...

1. Incense brings communication and the transcendent.
2. It purifies mind and body.
3. It removes uncleanliness.

I won't go into claim one too much because the criteria for 'transcendent' is far too vague, as I'm sure you well know. I don't know about you but I don't tend to experience any superhuman abilities or talents whenever I'm burning a stick of eastern dragon or witchdoctor - relaxation and calm, sure, but nothing out of the ordinary. Who knows, maybe the laws of physics could be easily broken 1500 years ago and people could cast firebolts from their fingertips at will through the fragrant haze...

The second claim also relies on very vague criteria, since we don't know what purification actually entails. If we're talking about removing toxins and other potentially harmful chemicals then incense actually does the opposite - according to a study reported by New Scientist 10 years ago burning incense releases some highly carcinogenic chemicals into the air but it isn't known how much of a risk this poses to health. This also throws claim three about removing uncleanliness into question - there's a lot of ash to clear away, but I suspect they meant an amorphous concept about uncleanliness of the soul or something equally implausible.

Incidentally, the report says that levels of benzopyrene, a highly carcinogenic chemical, were 45 times higher in a badly ventilated temple which burned incense non-stop than in homes where the residents smoke tobacco. This is a startlingly poor comparison - for one thing we've got no idea whether the people in the house are chain-smoking non-stop or how the number of cigarettes being burnt compares to the number of incense sticks being burnt. Secondly, we also have no idea how many people were in this category and how well-ventilated their homes were when they smoked. These conditions were unlikely to have remained constant as they should be in a scientific study of this nature. There may well be harmful carcinogens in incense sticks, but they should be taken in moderation like everything else in life.

In other words the benefits from burning incense are likely to be pure placebo effect. But hey, at least it's less likely to get me drunk than Dr Bach's floral remedies and a damn sight cheaper too.

'Skin so luminous it's highly flammable'

2011-09-04T21:06:00.003+01:00

According to Liz Jones you shouldn't trust me. Why? Because I don't like plastering my face with truckloads of foundation and blusher and I rarely wear lipstick (never sensible colours). She also called me "arrogant, lazy and deluded" for not improving my allegedly hideous natural skin but I think I'll get over that one.

I'm quite happy to spend time creating an interesting look with eyeliner and eyeshadow (steampunk rust colours or demonic red are particular favourites) but I just don't see the point in spending huge amounts of money on making myself look like every other woman following the current trend. I have nothing against the women who do like this style of makeup but I do take exception to people strongly hinting that I'm somehow ugly or inferior by not trowelling the latest magic cream all over my face at £30 a tub.

I could rant on about my objections to the shallow attitudes of the beauty and cosmetics industry but to be honest I'm more peeved about their flashy displays of meaningless science. Adverts for facial creams and other skin products are full of complex terms in an attempt to blind the viewer with science and making use of the famous charlatan tactic of intellectual shaming. Scratch the surface and you'll see through this act for what it really is: bullshit.

Our first offender is L'Oréal Paris and their rather expensive collection of goods. Their products often have fancy names such as Hydrafresh, Youth Code and Derma Genesis to make them sound highly advanced and cutting-edge, but I'm sure you knew that anyway. Let's start off with the oddly named L'Oréal Youth Code Pot, which has the following description:

Mature skin and young skin behave differently when exposed to external aggressions. As you age, skin takes longer to recover and responds more slowly. The complexion loses luminosity, facial features appear tired and wrinkles deepen.
Youth Code Rejuvenating Anti-Wrinkle Day Cream leaves your skin hydrated, smoother and more radiant. Skin behaves more youthfully: luminosity is improved and facial features appear rested.

As an astrophysics geek I understand the term luminosity as the amount of electromagnetic energy radiated by a celestial body in a fixed unit of time. Unless your face normally generates temperatures of, say, 6000K (about 5726°C) I wouldn't worry about fading luminosity - as a human you don't tend to absorb all types of electromagnetic radiation very well and you mostly emit EM radiation at the infrared area of the spectrum. Even if you were a black body radiator like a star your luminosity value would be negligible at 37°C, as shown by the formula L = 4pR²s T⁴(explained here).

It would be interesting to see a cream which did increase facial luminosity, mind you. You'd emit a hell of a lot more radiation than usual, emitting a lot of light and creating quite a show in the process. (Just be careful not to stand near anything flamable or you'll create some potentially very nasty situations for the rest of us.) You'll be incinerated in a matter of seconds after applying the cream but on the plus side Liz Jones can't accuse you of being arrogant or lazy for not attempting to improve your skin (but she could still call you deluded). Swings and roundabouts, eh?

In less exciting news, we're not told exactly in what way your skin is supposed to behave "more youthfully" or how the cream achieves this. Awfully convenient, don't you think?

I'll be back to abuse chemistry and biology tomorrow. I wonder what other dangerous and amusing concoctions I'll find?

Freedom through Restriction

2011-09-02T14:37:00.003+01:00

I'm aware I've been talking about Nadine Dorries and her new proposals a lot lately but we've had some interesting developments in this story since my last post. The Guardian reported that Downing Street has opposed the new policies, with a source for the story providing the following information:

"The prime minister believes that women should have a choice, a proper choice, not any one selective group of organisations," ...

If this is true then hopefully the proposed amendments won't get very far. To my knowledge the source hasn't been named (but I'll update this if I do find anything) but Dorries sourly claims in a blog post that Evan "abortion and assisted death zealot" Harris is behind the story. The blog post also contained this little gem:

I am quite sure that the office of the DPM would like to have a little more information about what the public thinks before it tried to apply pressure on No10 to put the brakes on an amendment which has such huge support amongst women. When I say women, I don’t include those who write for the Guardian, obviously.

So apparently Dorries doesn't want you listening to women like me who wantonly go defending their rights in the Guardian. Notice she doesn't actually provide any sources or evidence to support her claim of wide support, she just resorts to a massive ad-hom attack on certain women who don't agree with her views. I have to admit, I'm more than a little concerned when this is the level of maturity displayed by an MP - throwing a strop in the same way as a spoilt child is not what I would expect of someone who is supposed to be helping run the country. Disagreement backed up by reasoned argument is perfectly acceptable, but temper tantrums are not what I would expect from someone at this level.

Interestingly we can now see the poll results for these proposals in full, as provided by ComRes. One of Dorries' subsequent blog posts claims that 92% of MPs support a woman's right to have impartial counselling about abortion from a source which has no financial interest in her decision. However, this does not translate into 92% of MPs supporting the new proposals banning BPAS and Marie Stopes from providing counselling themselves - the right to impartial counselling from other organisations already exists, something which Nadine continues to ignore for some reason. At no point were the MPs asked whether they supported banning BPAS or Marie Stopes from providing counselling, which is odd considering this is the key aim of this campaign. I'm quite willing to bet that the level of support would be less than 92% for this question.

We also see a Daily Mail article presented to us as evidence of the evils of abortion, a source only marginally more reliable than hearing about what your friend's mate said down the pub last week. The article refrences a study by Priscilla Coleman which claims that women who had an abortion were twice as likely to suffer mental health problems as a result but it doesn't cite any comparisons to women who continued with an unwanted pregnancy. Doubts have been raised over the methodology of Coleman's studies, with others finding difficulty in replicating her results.

There are a lot of things to discuss about the events of the past few days, but the one question which I would like answered by Nadine Dorries is this: how can someone's freedom be increased by limiting their choices? It makes no logical sense.

404 - Logic not Found

2011-08-30T14:46:00.001+01:00

On Saturday we received news from the Telegraph's website about impending changes to UK abortion laws. Nadine Dorries' proposal that women should be offered independent counselling is to be announced by the Department of Health in the near future, with organisations which provide abortions being banned from providing abortion counselling.

Although the MP in question is so eager to present herself as a champion of womens' rights, she continuously, almost studiously, ignores the two huge elephants in the room: firstly, women are free to seek counselling from whoever they like, we are not limited to BPAS and Marie Stopes. Secondly, claiming to promote freedom of choice while banning options you don't like is sheer lunacy. I'm aware that rhetoric is often prized over rational thought in politics but such a clear example of logical disconnect is frightening - you know we're in trouble when we have a government which claims to increase freedom through imposing further restrictions to suit their ideology.

Another point which perplexes me in all of this is Dorries' eagerness to portray herself as a protector of the vulnerable, but only when it comes to interfering in matters of female sexuality. It seems very odd that she's willing to be a nuisance disguised as morality when it comes to sex education and abortion but she's content to let issues such as ATOS assessments and the Coalition's demonisation of the disabled go unquestioned. Actually the very opposite is the case - our heroic champion of the people actually encouraged her blog readers to report any disabled people who tweeted over 50 times per day for benefit fraud, even going as far as asking "how can anyone live a normal life who can do that?". A breathtaking lack of compassion and understanding about the vast range of disabilities there, blindingly obvious to anyone who has even the slightest experience with this type of situation.

The cognitive dissonance on display here would be laughable if it wasn't being taken so seriously by the people in power. As things stand we currently have a woman who is intent on infantilising other women by banning options she doesn't approve of and insisting that we don't know what we're talking about. This is no time for anyone to be complacent - a lot of ideologically convenient targets are under attack from various members of the Coalition, we would do well to call out hypocrisy and misinformation wherever we see it being promoted.

I now leave you all with a final thought from Dorries's blog:

"I wonder why someone would provide a quote to a national newspaper when they obviously have no idea what they are talking about?"

Indeed, Nadine. I think a lot of us are asking exactly the same question.

Homeopathy and the Watery Apocalypse

2011-08-27T21:33:00.004+01:00

I could quite easily rail on for ages about homeopathy and its faults but I suspect most readers of this blog will know the traditional skeptic's arguments by now. So today let's go for a different approach and outline how things would change if homeopathic principles were actually correct. Far be it from me to condone the casual vandalism of science, but I think it would be a good exercise in highlighting the absurdity of this form of pseudoscience.

The most commonly known thing about homeopathy is the idea that water can 'remember' other substances it's been in contact with, ranging anywhere from cobalt to arsenic. As you were no doubt taught in your first few science lessons water is made up of three atoms bonded covalently, two hydrogen and one oxygen. This relatively simple molecule is overcomplicated and mystified beyond belief by homeopaths who attempt to make all sorts of ridiculous claims about it. Consider this little gem written by a doctor for the Lifecare Advanced Homeo Clinic:

H2O is a particularly interesting molecule in the sense that it makes up the only substance on the planet that can exist in three states – solid, liquid and gas. Water has the highest surface tension of all liquids, it’s the most powerful solvent on Earth and has the remarkable ability to rise up through the trunks of massive trees, defying gravity and immense atmospheric pressure in the process.

Normally I'd be banging my head against the desk in futile rage but this time I'm delighted - we've got some very interesting changes in physics to apply to our little thought experiment. First of all, the only substance which can change into all three states is water - no more solid or liquid xenon for use in research at Fermilab or relatively easily produced solid nitrogen in our new universe. Since water is now the loosely defined 'most powerful solvent on Earth' it will remove spots, thin paint and strip nail polish more effectively than our currently used alternatives.

Even more bizarrely we've now got water molecules which defy gravity - like all other molecules water will move upwards if the magnitude of a force in this direction exceeds the force exerted downwards by its weight. But for now let's go with the wording of the extract and say that water now defies gravity. Which begs the question, just how much would it resist the force of its own weight? It would either drift off into space leaving a barren ball of rock in its wake or the rising seas and oceans would leave a constant mist or mass of water around us. If this progressed into becoming constant cloud cover we might run into serious problems providing plants with enough photons to photosynthesise as they should do - a decrease in the amount of crops we can grow could have a disasterous impact on food supplies in an already overpopulated world. This is before we've even considered the climate changes which would occur if the oceans and their currents ceased to exist in their current form.

As for the immense atmospheric pressure it's supposed to resist I can give you the choice of two options: we're either living under a huge amount of atmospheric pressure exceeding our current pressure or hardly anywhere else exceeds the atmospheric pressure on our planet. The first option would lead to us being crushed flat under the pressure or developing an extraordinarily tough skeletal structure (which would be difficult to maintain with the decrease of solar radiation we mentioned earlier - less vitamin D). The second option would mean that stars lacked enough pressure to ignite nuclear fusion, leaving our solar system and countless others without enough electromagnetic radiation to sustain any life. The universe would be a dark and completely desolate wasteland full of debris, no life to be seen.

From this small selection of errors we've managed to make previously benign quackery turn into the possible death of life all on Earth. Pseudoscience is great fun, isn't it?

For the sake of our health and physics as we know it, I'm extremely thankful homeopathy is a complete sham. I get the idea that homeopaths haven't fully considered the possible consequences of their flights of fancy - we've already gone into why it would signal impending doom, but we'd also have many objects remembering pathogens and poisonous substances which may or may not cause serious illnesses depending on your mood. They're well-meaning, I'm sure, but ultimately fraudulent and potentially dangerous.

Expect more entries on the universe according to pseudoscience in the near future - I'm having a lot of fun playing around with reality and ignoring scientific evidence.

Better to Light a Candle than Curse the Darkness

2011-08-23T11:26:00.002+01:00

As you no doubt already know, I am one of the estimated 200,000 students to have missed out on a place at university this year. Even with mitigating circumstances taken into account by the exam boards my results fell three grades short of the offers made by both of my chosen universities. With clearing being ruled out due to a lack of Scottish university places and a chaotic finance situation, university for now remains an aspiration rather than an achievement. So much for trying, eh?

I don't expect my difficult circumstances to instantly remove all obstacles between my and my chosen university course, but I do think my results were crippled by an inability to seek treatment for depression which has affected me for several years. Even if A-levels are becoming easier as per the traditional sour claims there is only so much studying a sufferer can take in when their thoughts are almost constantly wandering into dark, shadowy places and eclipsing any traces of hope or motivation.

One of the worst effects of depression is its ability to overpower rational thought with a sense of dread and resignation about even the most trivial events. This has the unfortunate consequence of making some compassionate souls dismiss the anxiety as attention seeking, perhaps because it can be difficult to empathise with such a strong reaction to mundane tasks. While most people would simply brush off the disappointment of getting a bad grade in a mock exam to me it would seem like the end of my academic career and a damning lack of intellect. During my more lucid moments I can see this is clearly an overreaction but depression has a nasty habit of removing all context from a negative situation, making these harsh judgments seem perfectly rational instead of overly critical.

Another reason why depression is sometimes dismissed as a weakness of character is its lack of visibility - like many other mental illnesses, there are barely any immediately noticeable indications of the condition, no arms in slings or rasping coughs to provide objective confirmation of any illness or trauma. 'Get over yourself' is a blunt piece of advice occasionally offered to people with depression by others who don't fully understand the nature of the condition. I can guarantee almost everyone who has suffered with it has been subject to some variant of this dismissive statement by someone who is under the impression that depression is nothing more than a bad mood.

Although I can understand why people could find it difficult to truly empathise with someone who is depressed, these statements are at best unhelpful and at worst can deepen the cycle of guilt and negativity - 'I must be worthless if I can't even make myself be happy' is a line of thought which is not unfamiliar to me and it has caused me distress for days after I've had this careless advice. After all, if snapping out of such an insidious mindset was that easy I'd bet you any sum that we wouldn't see around 1 in 10 people suffering from depression at any given time.

It's not all bad news though. There are people out there who provide a fantastic amount of support and patience during depressive episodes even though they haven't suffered from depression themselves - they know it's not something we can switch off at will or a sign of laziness, it's an exhausting condition for us too. These people go through a hell of a lot simply trying to maintain as much normality in our lives as possible and they are very special to us indeed. Hats off to you all - you know who you are.

Rise From the Ashes

2011-08-21T16:01:00.004+01:00

I've been busy dealing with exam results and university admissions over the past few days and the powers that be have finally reached a decision about my application: I'm not university material this year. Not unexpected but still galling news all the same.

Despite being unable to seek treatment for major depressive disorder over the past few years and difficult life circumstances I managed to achieve an A in classics, a C in physics and a D in maths. My university made me an offer of ABB for the physics course I wanted so I was three grades down with hardly any chance of being accepted. My second choice had given me an offer of BBB - they refused me as well but at least they had the decency to make a quick decision rather than leave me in academic limbo for several days.

Yes, I was upset about the refusals but after reflecting on it over the weekend I'm starting to think taking a year out might be quite beneficial to me. I can finally seek treatment for depression to lift the weight off my shoulders and I'm now living with supportive family members who do are willing to help me with this. To be honest I don't think I would've got the most out of university in my current state: very reserved and often tearful even when I'm not being subject to any stress. I'm not sure whether I would've coped with the social side of university very well as things stand, getting my health sorted out before I go is the wiser option here.

Rather than go through clearing I've applied for three Scottish higher qualifications at college which I'll be attending on a part-time basis to ease myself back into studying. My chosen subjects are maths, physics and philosophy which are fairly similar to my A-level choices.

The dream of physics 2011 might be dead but physics 2012 is another matter entirely. Bring it on!

ATrOciouS

2011-08-14T13:50:00.002+01:00

Good news for anyone relying on ATOS assessments for disability benefit claims - twelve doctors may be struck off by the General Medical Council if they've put other considerations ahead of their patients' wellbeing during Work Capability Assessments. I know it might sound crass that I'm calling the possible end of these medical careers 'good news', so let me explain the situation for anyone who is unaware of this shambles of a system. Acronyms ahoy...

WCAs have been under close scrutiny for some time since their introduction in 2008, with many tales of suspected incompetence and insensitivity from the people running the assessment. As I've said before, the plural of anecdote is not data, so I've got a statistic for you to back up these suspicions: 40% of appeals against the assessment outcome being successful according to the Department for Work and Pensions. It's certainly a far higher figure than I'd expect to see for such a key benefit claim.

Certain newspapers have been very keen to use those in need of Disability Living Allowance as scapegoats for benefit fraud, painting the majority of claimants as scroungers on the basis of questionable claims. DLA claimants are in fact the lowest priority group to target when considering benefit fraud, since only 0.5% of the claims made are fraudulent - hell, the DWP themselves give away more cash in official error at 0.8%, shouldn't George Osbourne be attacking them instead? Yes, but the claimants make a far better scapegoat than a department since they can be stereotyped as lazy freeloaders - once again it's the fault of the person who is ill, not the wonderful government we've found ourselves with.

People who promote the stereotype of the lazy scrounger claiming DLA would do well to remember that the only thing standing between them and the ATOS board is pure chance - any one of us could be badly injured by an unforseen accident or illness, regardless of political views or status. It's in everyone's best interests to ensure a fair and reliable system, not to create resentment and misinformation.

The government may not change its tune about DLA claimants and ATOS for some time, but hopefully the enquiry into the behaviours of these doctors by the General Medical Council will be the start of more thorough investigations into ATOS assessments. The system is either corrupt or incompetent - rumours of financial incentives for getting claimants off benefits have been circulating for some time although ATOS claims that these have no impact on the medical assessment. If this is true then what are we doing employing medics who are deemed to have made an incorrect judgement in 40% of appeals? Highly disconcerting whichever option you pick.

Can someone clear all the bile off this soapbox please?

2011-08-13T21:13:00.005+01:00

The news story of the week, without a shadow of a doubt, has been the recent outbreak of riots in several areas of the UK. The damage done has been terrible - people losing their homes and small businesses looted, even three deaths in Birmingham as a result of the violence. Things were so bad that we had to drag certain members of the government back from their holidays in the sun after they had previously refused. Nice to see we're being well looked after, eh?

Anyway, reluctant politicians aside, a lot of people have been analysing the effects of the past few days' events and trying to figure out what the riots are symptomatic of. Unfortunately some people are labelled as apologists for the violence when they offer a possible explanation for may have contributed to the events, but few have taken as strong a stance as Melanie Phillips who, erm, 'bravely' takes on the new-fangled idea that single parents are not the root of all evil.

The whole article is awash with straw men and ill-founded generalisations, none of which are backed up by linked references or studies (although this is nothing new, with hyperbole taken to ridiculous levels on previous articles as well). For example, I've never heard anyone on either side of the political fence say that mainstream teaching is "an attack upon a child’s autonomy and self-esteem" as opposed to a place where children pick up valuable skills in essential subjects. The welfare state also receives a pasting but we see no solution given for the problem of how people are going to survive when they're in unfortunate circumstances. Yes, the system is subject to some fraud, but I'd rather see a few people fraudulently being fed and sheltered than a lot of people starving and struggling to find somewhere to stay warm. Contempt for welfare payouts is usually lacking in empathy and awareness of the fact that they too many one day have to rely on this system.

Phillips argues that the riots were a result of "moral collapse" caused by the sinister-sounding "liberal intelligentsia" who are presumably lurking in the country's shadows beside the gay mafia. The absence of stigmatising single-parent families and biblical morality are apparently things which contributed to the riots - you know, the ones where 2000 people started looting and millions of others remained in their houses not doing anything illegal, a fact that Melanie fails to acknowledge anywhere in her spiel.

I'm not sure Melanie has fully thought through the implications of bringing back a shame-based society shaped by Christian mythology. People have always made ill-informed descisions about family life, marriage was never a cure-all for social problems even back in the good old days this article harks back to - divorce still took place in the 1950s when social values were far more conservative than today. Yes, the rates of divorce have risen in recent decades but this is likely to be a result of lessening stigma and a sign of greater honesty within our society. In socially conservative times people would have endured a lot of unhappiness and possibly even abuse rather than consider a divorce because of the shame attached to it. And who does that benefit other than the self-appointed morality police? Nobody - an unhappy marriage creates an unpleasant atmosphere in the household and an unhealthy amount of tension, which affects both adults and children. Wanting to inflict this on people out of moral smugness is nothing more than selfishness.

As for the biblical morality Melanie prescribes for the UK, I would thoroughly advise against it. The Bible is an extremely questionable source for obtaining morality about family life given that it promotes sexual violence, incest and blatant misogyny as well as several other distasteful events. Rather than trying to appease an unstable and childish deity who may not even exist it would be a far better idea to promote human compassion and empathy - nobody is treated as being inferior for who they are and we can see tangible benefits from our works. Much better plan.

If you're reading, Mel, I should probably tell you that the author of this blog one of these allegedly feral leftie daughters living in a single-parent household. I'd just like to reassure you that I'm not hellbent on destruction or planning to smoke a spliff in your presence, I'm simply a geek who goes out stargazing from time to time and enjoys blogging about stuff. Not the dumb animal you make me out to be.

Nadine Dorries sends in the Failboat

2011-08-08T11:11:00.002+01:00

Eagle-eyed viewers of this blog will know I've already blogged about Nadine Dorries' suspect motives on sex education and abortion before, but this morning she has surpassed herself in her use of bad science: attempting to re-launch a campaign of pure emotive rhetoric, citing a Daily Mail article as evidence.

In this post Dorries commits the cardinal sin of using anecdote as data - the article she references is centred around a child who was born prematurely at 23 weeks and is now leading a normal lifestyle in a happy family at five years old. The child's twin brother died at 11 days old and the surviving child required extensive medical treatment in early life, including making use of oxygen for two years and heart surgery.

There are several glaring errors in citing this article as evidence for lowering the UK abortion limit to 20 weeks. Firstly, this situation is very rare - unfortunately the majority of babies who are born very prematurely do not survive for very long afterwards, even with medical intervention. Secondly, almost all late-term abortions take place because because of severe foetal abnormalities or potentially fatal health risks which could not be detected earlier, not for shits and giggles as Dorries would have you believe.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly of all, this child was wanted by its parents. Forcing someone to care for a child who may require intensive medical care if they don't feel they can cope is putting ideology before compassion and logic. The Coalition is currently mounting an offensive against disabled people as it is by cutting benefits and hiring the questionable ATOS to carry out examinations (more on this later). Dorries seems intent on sticking people between a rock and a hard place on this one for nothing more than her own personal satistfaction.

The Power of Arrogance

2011-08-07T20:47:00.000+01:00

Apologies if this is rather forward of me, dear viewer, but I'd like to offer you a personality reading tailored to you and you alone. You've got a keen look in your eyes, I can see you're an interesting one.

[Lights incense and puts on glasses]

Let's see... You're quite the extrovert at social gatherings but I sense there is also a need for solitude - you need to recharge your batteries from time to time. You boldly stick to your principles when challenged but you're open to reasoning when there's a need for it. Friends mean the world to you but you won't let them take advantage or belittle your skills. I'm also getting the impression that your imagination can run wild and needs taming at times but you've got a very down-to-earth approach in the eyes of others.

So, how did I do? Fairly accurate? Yes, I thought so. Don't worry if any of it is unclear, you'll understand it in due time, friend.

[Removes glasses]

Right, now that we're back here in the real world I'll stop being an arrogant arse and start being honest with you. Remember that old joke about you being unique like everyone else? That's essentially what the concept is here - clairvoyants and fortune tellers often make use of the Forer effect, where someone is presented with a statement which could apply to a large number of people (after all, who doesn't need to 'recharge their batteries' once in a while?).

They also rely on a skill called cold reading, where they make use of very broad statements and focus on their correct answers while dismissing their incorrect guesses. Rather than using the power of the paranormal, psychics use the power of arrogance to shift the responsibility onto their clients - it's not their fault for guessing incorrectly, it's your fault for not making the connections quickly enough. This is why they often claim that things will become clear in time - rather than admitting an error, the psychic is relying on their client's confirmation bias to link their vague statements to events which will occur later in time.

If you do genuinely believe in aura reading and powers of prediction I've got good news for you: there's $1,000,000 USD being offered to anyone who can display paranormal abilities under laboratory conditions, courtesy of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I'd be extremely impressed with anyone who passed this test - being a skeptic doesn't mean we'll deny everything unknown, we'll reconsider our stance on a particular subject when we're presented with reliable evidence. Remember, the plural of anecdote is not data.

Thank You, Fellow Atheists!

2011-07-15T02:49:00.002+01:00

I've only just noticed that I've been added to the Out Campaign's blogroll list during my absence. The scarlet A logo at the side of my page is linked to the site, which aims to deconstruct stereotypes about atheism and to encourage others who may feel isolated in other countries that they are not alone in unbelief. As Richard Dawkins puts it "Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins", we're not that scary. He was even charitable enough to re-tweet my blog alongside other recent additions to the blogroll which I'm very grateful for.

So, a warm welcome to anyone who is visiting from the Out Campaign's blogroll page - thank you very much for taking the time to read the blog, it is greatly appreciated. I always grin a bit when I see a spike in pageviews, I hope I can teach at least a few people an interesting bit of science or two. Please let me know if there's anything you want me to cover at all, you can contact me here with any suggestions. I intend to write more about atheism and my views on The God Delusion as I continue reading it.

Onwards and upwards! But I think I'll go to bed first before I start any of that...

Nadine Dorries and the Time Travel Machine

2011-07-15T02:10:00.003+01:00

Firstly I'd like to apologise for my lack of updates recently - we've moved house and I was busy sorting out which bits of my life I could carry in my hold luggage. I've also been feeling under the weather after taking my first few antidepressants but I've been told normality should return in a few weeks. Illness also got in the way of me going to the Pride march so unfortunately I have nothing to write about that this year. I'll make an effort to show up in 2012, assuming it still goes ahead.

I've also discovered my new favourite toy on the internet during my travels as well: the Wayback Machine. Basically it lets you see what a website looked like at a certain date and displays a calendar of when changes were made, even giving you an exact image of what the page looked like at the time. As well as reliving pointless nostalgia this little time machine is also great for tripping up incompetent figures of authority.

This week's target has been Nadine Dorries and her unsettling love for dishonesty when it comes to women's naughty bits. Basically our sexuality is something shameful rather than a completely normal part of our day-to-day lives which we should be given impartial information on. Normally hilarity would ensue but this particular advocate of bullshit has influence and power - crude attempts at emotional and intellectual shaming are rife in her writing but I've yet to see any reliable evidence in her arguments.

Yesterday we had the dubious honour of an article from Nadine Dorries on The Guardian's Comment is Free section, where she attempted to provide her proposed changes to abortion law and sex education with an air of respectability. Did she use reliable studies and sound evidence to back her arguments up? No, of course not - it was bluster and emotive rhetoric without substance as usual. Any doubts you may have about this assertion will soon be dispelled by a look at even the first page of comments on her article. Here's my (relatively) quick summary for any of you who haven't explored the shady past history of Dorries' previous anti-choice campaigns and actions:

Madame Dorries... I appreciate that you might want to come on here portraying yourself as pursuing the middle ground on this issue, but we have reason to believe that your motives on this subject are suspect.

You claim you want to see "unbiased information", as most of us would. Let's start by looking back over a past campaign.

Do you remember that 'Alive and Kicking' campaign you ran back in 2007? You pulled the plug on the website for it back in 2009 in an attempt to cover your tracks over the controversy of which information was and wasn't in the public domain. Using the wonders of the internet we've managed to uncover the entire past history of this campaign.

The findings were somewhat sinister. You and your associate, Peter Saunders', aims on banning abortion even in cases of rape, severe disability and danger to the mother's health were nowhere to be seen. And yet they appeared in his presentation on the campaign's aims to the Lawyers Christian Fellowship. I should also add that the studies you both used to try and justify these measures with were completely bogus and of dubious value.

The technology available to us is great, isn't it? We can still see the evidence of your dishonesty even though you and your associates have gone nuclear and closed the site down.

You criticise the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of acting in a "cloak and dagger manner" when reviewing the guidelines for women seeking a procured abortion. Your record on honesty is far from perfect, as we've already seen above. And the worst part of it all is that we don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. There's a huge map of your connections with known anti-choice advocates.

Suzanne Moore wasn't 'fantasising about your intentions', she was bang on the money voicing her concern about your extremely shady credentials and past history in this topic. I'm really beginning to wonder what bothers you so much about other women having autonomy over their own bodies. I don't control your genetalia, please get your ideology away from mine.

I will not take you seriously on this matter until you start revealing your own motives and intentions honestly as you are asking of others. Care to enlighten us? I'd love to know what knives you're hiding behind your back with this one.

If Dorries did not have any access to power of have any influence over such matters she could be safely dismissed as someone blindly following their ideology in spite of the evidence at hand. However, she has already been known to display a remarkable resistance to evidence which doesn't fit in with her views - she'll ignore the rational and logical arguments of Ben Goldacre (and even throw a hissy fit about it sometimes) while promoting known hoaxes with her eagle-eyed medical observations:

"My second point is look at the tear in the uterus. See how jiggered it is just above the hand; and yet the rest of the surgically incised openings are controlled and neat. This is, in all likelihood, because the hand unexpectedly thrust out. It would be a poor surgeon who allowed the uterine tear to be so messy, and this is no ‘poor’ surgeon."

Ben Goldacre provides us with an explanation for this:

My recollection, from assisting in many Caesarean deliveries in my earlier years, is that instead of making a big clean cut into the uterus (not a good idea for obvious reasons ie there’s a baby in there) you make repeated shallow superficial incisions into the uterus, between which you spread the tissues by hand with your fingers, until it eventually (and satisfyingly, surgery’s great fun) opens up.

Not that Nadine Dorries will pay much attention to any rational explanation, of course. Who the hell keeps voting for this woman?

A Nice Chat with the Family Research Council about Homosexuality

2011-06-30T13:14:00.001+01:00

In an earlier blog post I talked about a conversation I was having with a correspondant from the Family Research Council about homosexuality. That reponse raised more than a few questions for me, so I sent another query to them:

Dear Kathy,

Thank you for your earlier reply. There are a few things I would like to clarify with you about the options you've presented to me.

1. What are the "truths" which would discourage someone from becoming homosexual? How do you know that sexuality is something that a person can be scared away from? I would also be interested to know if it's theoretically possible to scare someone away from being heterosexual as well.

2. What exactly is this homosexual lifestyle which I would be leaving? What does it involve?

3. Which empirical data states that homosexuality is harmful to all who engage in it? Does that apply to men and women and does homosexuality affect someone negatively even if they abstain from sex for a time?

Again, looking forward to your response and appreciating your feedback.

Thanks in advance,
Emily

Well, the reply I got back to that amounted to nothing more than the FRC shrugging their shoulders and waving their hands around trying to distract me rather than giving me any direct answers:

Dear Emily,

Thank you for responding to my email. You ask some very important questions.

The truth about homosexual behavior is that it is biologically unnatural and that it leads to many, severe health and psychological problems. Please refer to our brochure "The Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality" for detailed information: http://www.frc.org/brochure/the-top-ten-myths-of-homosexuality. You will also read information in that brochure about those who have had unwanted homosexual attractions being able to get rid of those attractions.

Emily, I believe the brochure that I mentioned will answer all of the questions that you asked in your email. For further information, we highly recommend contacting any of the following organizations:

Exodus International
www.exodusinternational.org

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays
www.pfox.org

National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
www.narth.com

I hope we have been helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to email us if you have any further questions or would like to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely,

Kathy Athearn
FRC Correspondence

These sites are filled with flawed case studies, baseless emotive rhetoric and countless logical fallacies. So no, Kathy, you haven't been very helpful to me here. I sent another email to try and seek a clearer response:

Dear Kathy Athearn,

RE: message 1669070, I noticed you haven't answered any of my questions and neither did any of the links you kindly offered me. Since you obviously work in a demanding role for the Family Research Council, you can offer me an expert analysis of the questions I've asked rather than trying to overload me with information about my illness. For ease of communication here are my questions:

1. What are the "truths" which would discourage someone from becoming homosexual? How do you know that sexuality is something that a person can be scared away from? I would also be interested to know if it's theoretically possible to scare someone away from being heterosexual as well.

2. What exactly is this homosexual lifestyle which I would be leaving? What does it involve?

3. Which empirical data states that homosexuality is harmful to all who engage in it? Does that apply to men and women and does homosexuality affect someone negatively even if they abstain from sex for a time?

Lastly, Kathy, I'd like to hear why you feel justified to inflict distress to the point of self-injury and even suicide on young people who did not choose their sexuality. I don't want you to try and distract me with questionable case-studies - I want to hear what you think directly.

I will take any silence or refusal to answer as confirmation of this organisation's values of superiority and ultimately an attitude of hatred. Rest assured that I will not be slow in communicating this information to various blogs and media networks across several subjects which will not reflect positively on the FRC. If you can provide direct and reasonable answers for my questions perhaps their stance will be more positive.

Patiently awaiting your response,
Emily

I eagerly await their response to this. It would certainly be interesting to hear how they will find a way to weasel out of this reply too if nothing else.

"All Hail Dawkins!"

2011-06-27T18:53:00.001+01:00

This morning I finally finished my exams for the year - I'm glad to say the paper went quite well, I think I've managed to get the 70% I need to balance my grades out in physics.

So, what have I got planned for the summer? A huge pile of books, as it happens. We atheists are often accused of being Dawkins worshippers by people who can't think of a better argument about the subject at hand. I've never actually read any of his books so I thought I'd make a start on them this summer and see what all the fuss is about. 'The God Delusion' is sitting on my desk right now at the top of the pile, right above 'Alex's Adventures in Numberland' and my replacement copy of 'Bad Science' (the first one was nicked by an aspiring med student who can't remember where it is).

Aside from that I'm also planning to go outside more this summer, armed with SPF 50+ sunscreen. I'll be moving up to Scotland permanently in a matter of days and I want to get some pictures of the scenery, both urban and rural. Some detailed photographs of bugs and other creepy-crawlies would be a bonus, they make great inspirations for sketches and idle doodles - expect to be bored to death in future weeks about any artwork I misguidedly want to blow my own trumpet about.

But before any of that I've got the Pride festival to go to on Saturday with a few friends, both straight and not-so-straight. I'm not entirely sure what to expect but I'll be certain to write a blog entry about what I find. I'll let you know if it's naked flag-burning orgies outside The Early Learning Centre like some people would have you believe.

Lunar Eclipse

2011-06-15T20:53:00.005+01:00

Tonight we'll have the good fortune to see a beautiful crimson moon in the sky thanks to the lunar eclipse which is taking place. Depending on the amount of light scattering it could look something like this:

I can't help thinking of fruit when I see this picture. It looks delicious.

In solar eclipses the moon appears to block the Sun for a few minutes to an observer on Earth. During a lunar eclipse the order is changed around a bit - the Earth blocks the Sun from the view of an observer on the moon. This means that the light from the Sun has to travel through Earth's atmosphere to reach the moon for a few hours with some interesting effects.

The red colour is caused by a scattering of light travelling at smaller wavelengths, exactly the same effect as you see in a good sunset. Here's a chart about electromagnetic radiation for anyone who is a bit rusty on their physics:

Basically all you need to know is that blue light travels with a higher frequency than red light and it will be scattered at a greater angle than red light, like you see in prisms or on certain Pink Floyd album covers. This means that red light will converge at a point behind the Earth like this:

And it also explains how the moon can appear a lovely pastel blue colour sometimes. Our solar system is certainly a picturesque example of a chance accident if nothing else.

The solar eclipse happening this evening will definitely be one to watch - the amount of refraction the light undergoes depends on the amount of dust in our planet's atmosphere. We've had one or two notable volcanic eruptions recently so the ash clouds from those will intensify the colour seen. If you're in an area affected by the eruptions of Chilean and Icelandic volcanoes or a sandy desert area you may have noticed an intense red appearing in recent sunsets. By the same principle we can expect to see a deep vermillion hue to the moon tonight because of the increased amount of dust in our atmosphere.

Beautiful. I hope these damn rainclouds clear away soon so I can see it too.

(In other less science-y news, I managed to complete a calculus practise paper without completely freaking out today. Maybe things will improve this week after all.)

Not quite as isolated now

2011-06-13T18:19:00.002+01:00

I know I said I wouldn't be contributing much yesterday but I've read an excellent comment during a discussion about homophobia describing the experience of growing up bisexual. The comment was posted on The Guardian's CiF section by ThePaladin, a user who has also helped to teach me one or two things about quantum physics in past discussions (we're a very varied bunch on there). Here is his response to the idea that being anything except heterosexual is unnatural:

"The word unnatural has been abused for far too long.

I wish I could put into words just how confusing the entire situation is to people who don't genuinely understand it.

Imagine if for most of your life, you have been bombarded since birth with this one word - girlfriend. It's a mystery to you for the first ten years of your life. You look at them as just the long haired other people. A bit more giggly than you, perhaps, but not anything really different. You hit twelve or thirteen, and sure enough, something stirs.

Yet it doesn't stir in quite the right way. The bombardment continues. Guys pick off girlfriends, girls pick off boyfriends and floating around on the outside is you. Awkward. Unable to really understand what it is is going on.

Then one day a boy catches your eye and you don't expect it. It stirs something. It goes against everything you've ever been told to expect. The media tells you time and time again how things are supposed to happen. You're supposed to get older, fall in love (an imperfect concept if there ever was one) and spawn 2.4 children. Thing is, no matter what you do, you cannot take your eye off them. You try and rationalise it. He looks girly, maybe. Mine had this lovely blonde hair that actually makes me shiver to think about it now, and he grew up into someone very, very handsome.

You kiss a guy. You kiss a girl. They feel the same. Porn and media and even family attachments secretly desire you to want women - you even get used to the objectification of women in a totally different way than you do men, but occasionally something slices straight through that. Most recently for me it was Pep Guardiola - who wouldn't want a man like him? Look at him. He's got the most delightful eyes, a wonderful shaven hair cut and just lips and a body to die for.

Yet I still like women. I can't explain it.

It is very simple when you have a gender and sexual identity you can conform to. Let's say you were straight and your Alex never happened to you. There is no doubt in your mind. You love women. That's great for you. Same with gay men. Sure their route is much harder, but eventually you settle down and realize that, while you have a smaller pool to choose from, you are comfortable with that.

Bisexuals never have that luxury. We have the stigma of being wrongly blamed for spreading AIDs between continents, people, and communities (where most people believe it's a gay disease and don't understand why). We are disgusting. We are fence sitting indecisives that can't make a choice in a society that loves firm, ill informed choices. I also don't know if this is true of most bisexuals, but I think most people are actually less attractive to me than they are to most people.

What I can't do is tell you why I like men. I really don't know. I can perhaps point at some overlap between the guys I like and the girls. Maybe I have an appreciation for human beauty in all its forms. I can't put my fingers on a type of person I like. I couldn't even tell you what it is about people that attracts me.

All I can tell you is that the next person to call it unnatural is getting planted on the floor."

That's pretty much an accurate summary of our situation. It's a welcome change seeing someone I can relate to, given that most people on these discussions (and indeed society) are straight or gay/lesbian. It's quite an achievement to feel like a minority in a Guardian topic about sexuality, I can tell you that much.

Thank you very much, you're brightened my day with this one.

Taking a break

2011-06-12T21:32:00.005+01:00

I'll be taking a break from this blog for a while, it won't be updated as frequently until I've finished my A-level exams. I've been having panic attacks during revision over the past few days and I'm starting to feel very ill with stress, I think I'm taking too much on at the moment. I feel like I'm seeing my future ambitions shatter before me, I know I've screwed up the exams I've taken. University? A mere pipe dream by the looks of things at the moment.

Somehow I don't think the Dr Bach site would accept my negative experience of their bottles of placebo effect - 'Patient A took a spray of the floral remedy and soon afterwards started becoming very distressed and tearful. She later repeated her doubts about the science behind this remedy, saying it was no better at relieving stress than covering your arm in horseshoes. Will not be hiring Patient A as a test subject again.'

But hey, we already know they're far from neutral and not concerned about evidence anyway. They're trying to sell a product after all.

My last exam is on the 27th: Physics unit 5, Creation to Collapse. I may post one or two updates in between now and then but it won't be nearly as frequent as usual. Hope to see you all again after that.

Faith Meets Science (again)

2011-06-09T23:58:00.002+01:00

I've often wondered why people claim that atheists have faith in science, with faith being defined as the following according to Oxford dictionary website:

1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something: this restores one's faith in politicians
2 strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

This oft-repeated claim has recently surfaced in an article about the search for the God particle at CERN - I'm sure you can see the author's intended connections and semantic argument for yourself. But surely a system based on rational thought and observation would be the very opposite of faith? We can believe that acceleration due to gravity near the Earth's surface happens at a rate of 6.1113 ms(^-2) but that won't make it true and taking it to the dogmatic levels seen in certain religions could see any questioning stifled.

To be fair to the author she does place a higher value on "faith in science" than in gods when it comes to explaining the origins and behaviour of our universe. (That and the author has written some cracking pieces on feminism on the Comment is Free section too.) But this claim that science is based on faith is a questionable one - having faith in an idea would (semantically) imply that you may be reluctant to test it and are unlikely to change your mind in the face of any contradictory results. I'm not entirely sure this link would've been suggested if we'd been searching for the Cthulhu or Odin particle - this argument appears to have been sparked by the name God particle more than anything else.

It's an interesting thought, albeit one which is heavily subject to semantics. But who knows, maybe Doctor Bach is right and we scientists simply aren't getting enough diluted gorse in our lives.

I'd like to thank the homeopaths, the astrologers, the Daily Mail, the FRC...

2011-06-07T20:28:00.004+01:00

Today I'd like to start off with a quick thank you to the people who contributed to the 1000 views this blog has had. Thank you very much for taking the time to look through this, it's much appreciated.

And now to the news. I've been talking with the Family Research Council about Peter Sprigg's views on suppressing sexuality (specifically homo and bi varieties), sending off an email about a week ago to raise some questions about it. I didn't keep a copy of my sent email unfortunately but I asked them exactly how their idea of preventing youth self-identifying as LGB was going to help matters. I also asked why being homosexual was wrong and something to be prevented. Here is the email I received in reply:

Dear Emily,

Thank you for your email to Family Research Council. We appreciate you taking the time to email us, seeking clarification on our thoughts about teen suicides.

Every suicide by a teenager is a tragedy. And there are not two sides to the issue of bullying--we are all agreed that no one deserves to be bullied and that bullies should be punished. But there most certainly are two sides to the claims that orthodox theology and pro-family public policies are to blame for such bullying and such suicides, and the media has an obligation to air both sides, not just attacks by gay lobbyists. In their definition of tolerance, the truth that would prevent a young person entering into homosexuality, or that change is possible for those seeking to leave the homosexual lifestyle, must be silenced.

FRC unequivocally condemns the behavior of anyone who would physically or verbally abuse another person--especially a child--because of his/her sexuality, religious beliefs or any other reason. This is a complete violation of Jesus' commandment to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. But Christian compassion is not shown by embracing homosexual behavior, which the empirical data shows is harmful to those who engage in it. True compassion is demonstrated by speaking the truth in love--warning of the dangers of homosexual conduct while offering the message that change is possible for those struggling with same-sex attractions.

Bullying, and the resulting consequences, are indeed a tragic event in any child's life, whether the child is gay or not. Our friends at Focus on the Family have developed many informative and helpful tools relating to bullying and the effects it has on children. They would be happy to provide further insight into the question you posed. You can reach Focus on the Family at http://www.focusonthefamily.com/.

In addition, you may find answers from the following article posted on their website: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/schooling/bullying/the_wounded_spirit.aspx. Numerous other bullying resources can be found at http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/schooling/bullying.aspx.

Emily, please don't hesitate to email us again if you would like to discuss this crucial issue further.

Sincerely,

Kathy Athearn
FRC Correspondence

It's good that the FRC condemn the bullying and abuse but it's worrying that they continue to advocate this idea that homosexuality is something people can be scared away from with "the truth". This approach is just as effective as trying to scare me away from having brown eyes - it won't change this fact but it will make me feel ashamed and distressed about a trait I did not choose.

I'll continue this conversation when I have the chance. It could take a while given their slow response rate.

Mind your Language

2011-06-06T00:42:00.001+01:00

I've had the privilege of writing an article for the Guardian's Comment is Free section in the past few days. But with weekends being what they are I was too late in trying to correct an acronym to the correct term - yes, I should've submitted the correct one in the first place, but there's only so many times you can read what you've written before the words start to blur into each other and your mind begins to wander. Needless to say the CiF community were very quick at picking me up on this oversight.

Two valuable lessons learnt here: take a close look at which version of an edit you're submitting and check your acronyms.

Lovely Nuclear Fusion

2011-06-03T23:47:00.003+01:00

I've been enjoying my visit to Scotland over the past few days, searching out some good wines and basking in the mild sunshine we've been having. Today we were out taking pictures of some local scenery and a nice sunset.

Here's a nice rural sort of picture you'd expect to see from the untamed wilds of Scotland:

Aaaah, smell the scents of the country and feel the breeze running wildly through your hair. And all with a lovely ball of scorching plasma in the background.

But you might want to take a look at the full landscape first...

Mmm, healthy. It's not quite as appealing now we've added that dirty fossil fuel-burning power plant into the scenery. Still, until we can master nuclear fusion here on Earth we'll just have to make do. That power isn't going to generate itself after all.

I should make it very clear that I'm not talking about cold fusion, however - the results obtained from experiments where this has been attempted were no more significant than energy changes found in control groups (ie. equipment left at room temperature without altering the temperature of there area where the reactions are taking place). If you want a laugh here's a summary of all the straw men which can be presented on this subject - obviously your ideas can't be invalid, they must be incorrect because of "politically-motivated assassination". Some people are incapable of admitting that the evidence doesn't support them with certain things. Cold fusion is definitely one of them.

(Hot) Nuclear fusion: cleaner and more photogenic than combustion of fossil fuels. You know it makes sense.

Become One with the Airport

2011-06-01T18:39:00.002+01:00

I've been waiting around for my flight for some time now - transferring to an earlier flight was going to cost me £71 and I don't tend to have that sort of money lying around spare in my account. I wanted to account for any delays while traveling to the airport by coach (I can't drive) but I didn't expect to be this early.

So I've been amusing myself by playing around with some ideas in the excellent 'Paranormality' book by Richard Wiseman. One of the experiments has the aim of making your brain believe that you are in many places at once, to the point of being able to feel physical sensations in these areas as well.

The experiment is simple - you have two mirrors which create a 'corridor' of reflections so you can see many, many images of yourself. You then create a physical sensation on your body somewhere (your face, your arm or anything else that floats your boat). Your mind reaches the bizarre conclusion that you are actually all of the entities in the mirror and you can feel everything which happens to them.

I probably looked very strange trying it out in the airport wherever I found this setup. But when you've got several hours to pass, a blend of madness and psychology doesn't go amiss. Maybe if I'm waiting with a friend next time we can try and make ourselves believe we're a part of the metal framework or our boarding cards. I'm interested to see how far I can take this experiment.

Blame the Victim

2011-05-29T23:31:00.001+01:00

Apologies for the quick second post, but I've been reading LifeSiteNews again and I've stumbled across another huge non-sequitur on one of their articles. The LGBT articles are swamped with straw men of varying shapes and sizes and I think I've found a particularly nasty one courtesy of Peter Sprigg.

The article itself addresses the sad reality that LGBT teenagers are far more likely than our straight peers to commit suicide. The trouble is that the site is highly homophobic and eager to present homosexuality and bisexuality as illnesses or sinful defiance rather than neutral variations of sexuality. Even so you'd think the author in question would show more compassion towards those affected - all the article contains is selective quotations from psychologists who seem to refuse to take social pressures into account. And believe me, there are many.

The first study notes that LGBT teenagers are 20% more likely to commit suicide in an unsupportive environment than in a supportive one. But the fact remains that we are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than straight teenagers. What solution does Sprigg offer? Discourage teens from self-identifying as gay, lesbian or bisexual and don't bother creating a supportive environment.

Not only is this attitude victim-blaming, it also flies in the face of the evidence given - the earlier study mentioned that the rate of suicide was reduced by a supportive environment, why does the article fail to comment on this with regards to Sprigg's final recommendations? Support has already been shown to help, I'm not sure why this man is opposed to pursuing that and happier blaming the victim.

Actually, I do know the reason. Peter Sprigg works for the Family Research Council, a Christian group with a penchant for homophobia and sexual repression in general. If you want a laugh here's Peter being skewered by his mild-mannered opponent (and the newsreader) in a debate about homosexuality and the military. He eventually reveals that he wants all "homosexual behaviour" banned and illegal in the US - I might warn him that handcuffs are likely to turn us on, being deviants and everything. I wonder how he'd react?

I'm aware the plural of anecdote is not data, but from my personal point of view I can confidently say that it was not my attraction to both genders which caused me to despair. It was being violently threatened by bullies in a sustained campaign of abuse for an extended period of time.

So I ask you this, Peter: if a group of people threatened to throw you down a stairwell or stab you between the eyes, would we be justified in blaming your reaction on your sexuality? Likewise, would my reaction to these threats be as a result of my attractions? Of course not - this line of argument is nonsense on stilts.

Homophobia causes this increased rate of suicide, not homosexuality. The sooner people like Sprigg and the LifeSiteNews crew begin to realise that, the sooner we can begin to reduce this dreadful statistic. Shame on you all.

'Female bisexual, 18, seeks to destroy society'

2011-05-29T21:50:00.003+01:00

Certain journalists are fond of polarising hot issues when writing comment pieces, but I don't think I've ever come across an article as unbalanced as this choice piece from Matthew Cullinan Hoffman of LifeSiteNews.com, published on Friday. If you skim the article you'll probably come away with the idea that homosexuals are all militant perverts dressed up in kevlar and trying to hold families at ransom.

I can assure you this isn't true though - I'm wearing a simple tshirt and some ill-fitting trousers while lounging around on a sofa as I type this. Just in case you were worried or looking over your shoulder.

Anyway, back to the monsters we hear being described in this charming article. The Brazilian government was planning to launch a "Schools without Homophobia" campaign, which featured a video about the subject deemed suitable for the target audience by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Seems harmless enough, right? Wrong, according to Mr Hoffman. Rather than trying to seek equality and a life free from intimidation we're actually trying to mount "immoral assaults" on families and children. I've heard this baseless accusation many times before but I'm intrigued to know how homosexual relationships destroy families or corrupt children.

If a child is going to grow up to be lesbian, gay, bi or transsexual there's not much that can be done to change that. You can't persuade someone to have a different sexuality any more than you can encourage them to have a different eye colour - yes, you could get them to wear coloured contact lenses but that original colour would still remain with them. Same goes for sexuality - the outward signs can be feigned but the original attractions will still be present.

But I can offer a word of comfort to any homophobes who have stumbled across this cuddly liberal-minded blog - your child is not going to be corrupted with the LGBT virus in some way. If they are going to grow up to be straight, you can't convince them to be any other sexuality. So it's nowhere near as sinister a project as you might think, it's simply a campaign for acceptance and equality.

The article also criticises normalising homosexuality. Quite why our friend Matt is so opposed to this is never explained beyond baseless nonsense about being anti-family. But the prize for most hysterical non-sequitur goes to an unnamed congressional ally of the Brazilian president, who claims that this campaign for equality will be "the end of the world". Why? Again, no explanation but maybe certain obssessives will be unable to think about anything other than same-sex relationships. And that wouldn't do, would it? We'd have to tell them to get over themselves!

So there you have it. We're not simply showing our love for someone who happens to have the same gentials as us, we're harbingers of doom trying to ruin the lives of easily-angered homophobes. Who knew?

Be Nice to Nettles

2011-05-28T21:35:00.001+01:00

Hope you've all had a good Be Nice to Nettles week!

I thought this was a joke until I researched it - I get told all sorts of things by the people I work with, it's always worth double-checking what they claim before using it in other conversations. But no, this one is genuine! I was delighted, there's something quite cute about the title of this event. The Natural History Museum even had a Nettle Day yesterday, with lots of themed activites and gifts being sold.

It turns out that nettles are actually very useful wee plants. They provide safe nests for certain species of butterflies to lay their eggs, they provide a home for ladybirds, they apparently help Cornish Yarg cheese to ripen and they make a delicious tea when brewed. It's even claimed that they delay mould growth when used as packaging for fruit - I think I'll carry out an experiment on this one, I'd be very interested to see how well it performs.

I've found an unlikely love in nettles this week. They're a lot more useful than I'd first thought, not the horrible things which I considered to be the wasps of the plant world some years ago. The week ends tomorrow, go out and appreciate them a bit - wave at them for a while if you're not very self-conscious.

Come back, nettles! All is forgiven!

Hypocrite

2011-05-24T09:48:00.002+01:00

I've been getting very stressed out about exams lately. Not the usual slightly panicky stress, but full-blown nausea and splitting headaches type of stress.

One kind soul was good enough to offer me something called Rescue Remedy, part of Dr. Bach's flower remedy range. I looked at the ingredients in the spray and noticed '5X dilution of...' written on the side. Alarm bells started ringing, so I decided to explore how this remedy is supposed to work.

The site features all the hallmarks of typical homeopathy pages: anecdotal evidence, personally-tailored remedies and an overpriced shop. I ventured into a page explaning how the rememdies were supposed to work and it's almost a carbon-copy of the rubbish spewed by homeopaths on their sites:

There are many theories about the mechanism the remedies use to achieve this. Most believe the active ingredient in the remedies is a kind of energy or vibration that is transferred from the living flower to the water during the process of making the mother tinctures. Some believe the energy forms a pattern in the water; others talk of quantum mechanics and spiritual vibrations. Attempts to capture this energy have produced beautiful Kirlian photographs showing distinct patterns and colours for different remedies - but little hard research has been done. Any firm conclusions are just speculation.

Those mysterious and conveniently untestable energies have returned! I don't think I'll ever be able to read a paragraph about mysterious energies without sighing, it's becoming very unoriginal these days.

This 'explanation' was one of many objectionable points made on this page. Here's one to annoy fellow physicists and science-fans:

There are only three basic colours (red, blue yellow), yet every visible colour can be produced when they are combined. In the same way there are 38 basic states of mind. Combining them gives hundreds of millions of variations.

If these people don't understand the basic idea that colour is made up of green, blue and red I have a lot of worries about their understanding of more complex ideas in physics. Their analogy still works, but it's not scientifically accurate. I won't even go into that part about 38 states of mind, you know as well as I do that's rubbish.

They also have the best excuse I've ever seen for avoiding clinical trials:

We don't see it as our role to 'prove' that the remedies work, then - instead we simply demonstrate how to use them and let people prove the effect on themselves.

Simply breathtaking. Absolutely no mention of regression to the mean or the placebo effect, funnily enough.

The remedy does taste a lot like Baileys though, which is a huge plus. The science behind it might be complete bullshit but I'm happy enough taking advantage of the placebo effect for a month or so - I can't take a kitten into the exam room with me so this will have to do. It'll be worth it when I get those grades.

Have towel, will travel

2011-05-23T22:33:00.001+01:00

May 25th should be an important day for skeptics of various stripes. Why? Because it's Towel Day, a tribute to the wonderful Douglas Adams. People (and cats) all around the world will be wearing towels upon their person all through Wednesday, possibly one of the most powerful psychological tools known to mankind (and the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal).

No idea what I'm on about? Please do yourself a favour and order The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, I promise you won't regret it. A rare work which genuinely makes you laugh and think at the same time - it's filled with bizarre logic and yet it somehow all makes rational sense. Read it for yourself, I'm no wordsmith - you're best experiencing it for yourself than reading me making a hash of reviewing it.

Gargleblasters at the ready, froods. And remember, DON'T PANIC.

Warning: Contagious sexualities ahead

2011-05-22T00:26:00.002+01:00

The internet is generally accepted to be made up of 87% bile and flaming, but even after years of surfing some of it still leaves me taken aback from time to time. Today it's been flagrant homophobia - as well as finding out I'm slowly committing suicide by being attracted to women, I've found out I'm also infecting other people with this ~~harmless~~ evil affliction. Stay away from me, I might be contagious!

Martin Mawyer, president of Christian Action Network, has made an incredibly ill-informed report about homosexuals and lesbians attending Gay Days at Disney World. Normally I'd simply brush the insults off, but the accusations made in a certain article of his are too offensive to be ignored. Allow me to introduce you to the gallery of straw men...

Straw man number one: gay children for gay parents.

You might cringe at the thought that kids as young as 4 or 5 will be at this meeting, but they surely will be. You can count on it. Their homosexual parents WILL take their little kids and parade them around as Gay and Lesbian Tykes.

Children do not inevitably inherit their parent's sexuality. We didn't magically spring out of the ground or fall from the stork's beak one day - we're by and large the children of straight parents. Likewise, the children of lesbian or gay couples often turn out to be straight themselves. All part of life's rich tapestry and nothing to be ashamed of.

Straw man number two - sexuality is the same as sexual activity.

How does a 13 or 14-year-old know he or she is homosexual?

Same way as you figured out you were straight, Martin. Through our emotions and responses to other people, not through sex alone. Unless you want to admit you could equally have been a homosexual before you first had sex with a woman?

Straw man number three - an outbreak of gayness:

Take the little tykes into a seabed of 100,000 homosexuals, introduced them into the raucous sex that is all around them, show them other little children who are homosexual, and maybe they can force their homosexuality on their kids.

You can't force or persuade someone to be a different sexuality on demand. Yes, sexuality is fluid but it can't be controlled at the whim of others or even by the conscious mind - it's a part of your personality and nothing to be ashamed of. Being LGB doesn't make you unable to control your sexual urges either, contrary to what Mawyer heavily implies throughout this article. It's not an infection, it's a variation no more evil than having brown hair or green eyes.

Straw man number four: homosexuals are sexual predators.

There’s only one way to know for sure. And that means these parents are allowing them to engage in sex.

This myth is by far the most damaging to lesbians, gays and bisexuals in society - it's not so much a straw man, more of a straw golem. As mentioned above, being gay doesn't mean we'll become inflamed with lust at the sight of anything with a pulse, it simply means we're attracted to people of a different gender to straight people. The idea that we're all fine with sexual abuse is hugely offensive and wildly inaccurate - we're just as opposed to sexual abuse as anyone else. Same-sex couples can make great parents, someone's sexuality does not dictate how much they'll love their children or how much they'll care for them.

In summary: Martin Mawyer is a dickhead. Don't tell him that though, he'll think I'm trying to convert him or something.

Mythical Equality

2011-05-11T00:39:00.001+01:00

I'm not the greatest fan of Catholicism, but I feel quite sorry for the Australian bishop who was dismissed recently. Why? Because he questioned the Vatican's approach about ordaining female clergy.

It's quite revealing that Pope Benedict XVI wasn't willing to discuss the matter at all. Religious belief is not very rational even when it's being inoffensive but refusing to talk about an issue this huge is intellectual cowardice.

I'm often told that I've misunderstood what the Catholic church teaches, but from what I can tell the Pope is this god's representative on Earth. You'd need to have contact with someone to represent them effectively, so it's not unreasonable to assume that god should be giving answers to his spokesman about an issue which bothers him so much.

So, with all that being the case why won't the Pope enter any discussion about it? I'd expect something like this from someone so sure of their convictions:

Opponent: "So why shouldn't we have female clergy given that they're equally capable of defending their faith?"
Benedict: "I know it seems unfair, but it's because [insert perfectly rational and sensible reason which nobody could object to here]."
Opponent: "Oh, I see. Fair enough then."

From this we can draw one of two conclusions:
1. The Pope and the Vatican aren't confident that they could defend their convictions.
2. The Pope isn't actually getting much advice from this god and he's continuing with his own prejudices.

Either way it doesn't give them much credibility. I might not believe in any of the church's teachings or mythology but women should have equal opportunity to participate if they want to. Sexism isn't a good look for anyone, male or female.

An elaborate and extended suicide

2011-05-02T15:19:00.001+01:00

Dear reader,

I'm writing to you today with some unpleasant news. I've just found out I'm committing an extended suicide by loving the 'wrong' people.

I'll give you a minute to think about that. I wasn't expecting it either, but according to evangelical Christian Jake MacMillan that's exactly what I'm doing. He even compares allowing same-sex attraction to someone allowing someone to hold a gun to their head and fire - absurd, but don't let logic get in the way of a good homophobic rant.

Worse still, I'm also guilty of destroying life through these attractions. How? I don't know, he never explained. I'm very confused about it - am I fine when I'm in a relationship with a man but satanic when I'm in love with another woman? Is it a permanent thing or does it only apply when I'm thinking about it? Seems an awful lot like complete bullshit to me.

So I bid you farewell, viewer, for I may only have 70 more years to live! If only I'd been in love with men alone rather than both genders, then I might have another, um, 70 more years to live!

I don't ask for your help or assistance during this difficult time - I'm actually feeling perfectly normal and happy about it.

Shock! Drama! Lemsip!

2011-04-28T11:18:00.002+01:00

I mentioned in my previous post that I went for my third and final HPV jab yesterday evening. Well, the muscle aches have worsened and pretty much put my left arm out of action, so I'm not typing as fast as I usually do. I'm also having to put up with sickness and abdominal pain - turns out I'm one of the unlucky 10% or so who experience these side-effects. I'm taking it easy and staying at home today to try and sleep it off.

Maybe I should sell my story to the Daily Mail? I can see the headlines now: 'Talented sixth-former in sickness hell after taking risky HPV vaccine!'. We'll need to tell them all about my good qualities so they can exaggerate them of course. And what scare story would be complete without pictures of me next to stony-faced family members? We'll need a comparison shot of me grinning when I was about six years old too.

Just don't tell them that I only missed out on one lesson or that I'll recover in a few days, yeah? It'll ruin the drama.

The MMR Monster

2011-04-27T22:35:00.001+01:00

I have a confession to make. As much as I might promote the health benefits of vaccines and try to take a rational approach to their risks I will do anything to avoid them myself. I have quite a bad fear of needles after a tooth extraction involving a clumsy dentist and I feel very uneasy even looking at a picture of a syringe.

I ended up not going to my last HPV jab appointment because I was too scared to go through with it (wimpy, I know). So I went along to have it finished today and brought my partner along for moral support. I might have looked quite stupid clinging onto him when I was having the injection but I'm happy I've finished the course of treatment now (and I didn't make nearly as much of a scene as I did last time). The muscle pain and headaches are annoying but I guess you have to accept there will be some minor side-effects.

I thought I was in the clear after that but then the nurse told me that I have to have a second MMR jab which it turns out I never had. My first thought in reaction to this was wondering if I might develop autism from it.

Even though I've done a lot of research into this particular false claim that was still my first reaction, and I'm kind of ashamed to admit that. I'm guessing that this association of MMR vaccines with autism is going to persist for some time and unfortunately some people will continue to place their children in danger because of this irrational fear.

A lot of the blame for this lies with mainstream media, especially tabloid newspapers who will load a story with emotive language and manipulate its audience into a certain response. Going back to my favourite bad science rag, the Daily Mail, they ran shoddy articles claiming that GCSE pupils are being 'brainwashed' into accepting that Wakefield's initial report was bad science. They do this while, um, indoctrinating their readership into accepting their own viewpoint. Lost irony is such a pity sometimes.

Then again, who am I to talk about being rational? I'm scared of treatments which could potentially save my life too.

Vexing the Anti-vaxxers

2011-04-24T15:50:00.002+01:00

As soon as one scare story has been quietly debunked the media will soon latch onto a new one to fill its place. The MMR-autism scare story persisted for years and has helped to encourage a fear of any vaccine. The idea that you were filling your body with poison has been around right from the start of vaccinations but an increasing number of people are persistently clinging to this belief while ignoring the facts.

The latest scare is related to the relaively new swine-flu vaccine, Pandemrix. There are concerns that there may be a link between having the vaccination and developing narcolepsy, but this has been taken by some as further confirmation that all vaccines are inherently dangerous.

To put things into perspective, over 30.8 million of these vaccines have been administered within the EU. 167 people have been diagnosed with narcolepsy possibly associated with Pandemrix in these countries. This means that the side effect, while highly unpleasant, is very rare - only 0.00054% of people were affected, or just over one in 200,000. You have a higher chance of getting a chest infection from taking aspirin than you do of geting narcolepsy from this vaccine.

The Daily Mail, displaying its usual level-headedness and calm, has published another anecdotal article about Pandemrix. Here we see the key hallmark of the irrational: emotional blackmail. By putting the story in the context of a distressed mother and her child, any criticism or mention of scaremongering will be met with disapproval. Pseudoscientists and charlatans are very adept at this sort of manipulation.

I know a lot of us don't the Daily Mail as a reliable source of evidence but the comments on the page speak volumes. Many people believe that vaccines are toxic and unnecessary and they genuinely think they are doing the right thing for their children by avoiding them. The following two comments highlight a lack of understanding about the subject and illustrate the hysteria surrounding it:

"she couldn't have researched it that well because there were more than enough warnings going around the web about it including on the DM. What do parents expect to happen when we keep filling our childrens little bodies with jab after jab of toxins?"

"This kind of thing has been happening for years in the US. The are many people who don't let the state give their kids vaccinations any more because of shit like this! They are drugging the population with crap in the vaccines!"

Normally I would find these kinds of comments and hyperbole amusing, but this kind of attitude can put people at serious risk and even kill them. A lot more needs to be done to educate people about the science behind vaccines and a measured view of the associated risks - these health scare stories shift papers but they do nothing to improve public health.

In light of scare stories like these I have decided to create a project for my own personal amusement. Benedict Price from Affpuddle, Lancashire will be stalking these articles posting huge straw men whenever he can - his latest contribution (still pending) on the vaccines article will compare the Pandemrix vaccine to being injected with dishwasher and portray scientists as money-hungry boffins. I'm interested to see the reaction to these kinds of comments - it will be part of my ongoing research into the public understanding of science. Rational argument works well on the Guardian pages but it's worth measuring opinion in other sources as well.

Is it still trolling if you're doing it for a good reason?

Evil Atheist Ants

2011-04-02T22:11:00.001+01:00

We've recently had a comment likening atheists to ants rudely gobbling up all the sugar in a bowl without saying thank you to the great Sugar Daddy. This was leapt upon by another poster (who should be credited for the prelude) and an epic tale begins...

Prelude:

Ants in a sugar bowl who laugh and giggle at the Thoughtful Ants who say things like " I reckon there's a lot more where this came from"
" Where's your evidence" sneer the Adamant Atheist Ants, " I suppose you think there's a giant Hand somewhere holding a big bag of these eternal sweet white pebbles. Ha Ha Ha!"

Suddenly a giant ray of light came down form the heavens and incinerated one of these ants, one who praised the great Sugar Daddy and the bringer of sweet things.

'Why did this happen?' asked the chief ant in the funny hat. 'He always made sure to thank the Sugar Daddy and he obeyed all the commands he set out on this foil wrapper he sent us. He always stored his sugar in a cool, dry place like we were asked - why has he been punished so?'

'Well,' said another ant in a slightly smaller hat, 'our bringer of sweet things moves in mysterious ways. Perhaps this is all part of his plan and a punishment for that time he ate some bread - the foil wrapper says 'GLUTEN FREE' on it, so our lord must be angry.'

In other sugar bowls, many ants less fortunate than this group ate from one solitary sugar cube. The bringer of sweet things had not been so kind to them, but nobody knows why. Some ants in larger sugar bowls think this is a wonderful construct made by a divine hand, but they have not yet answered why these barren bowls exist.

Other ants, however, bring sugar to these other less fortunate ants - both in the name of the Sugar Daddy and from their own kindness. Both groups deserve to be praised and others should follow their example, unlike the crueler ones who insist these circumstances are a divine judgment.

Here endeth the first lesson.

Blind Faith, meet Science.

2011-03-24T21:35:00.002Z

The science department at my school was celebrating Science and Engineering week recently. We even had an assembly detailing all sorts of activities which had taken place and warning people against the dangers of charlatan scientists (which would've sat very well with me if they didn't get some of their key facts wrong...).

Drawing attention to rational thought for a while was great - science can be a great force for good and we should be celebrating scientific advances. Unfortunately we then decided to go for the polar opposite of rationalism and praise an invisible creature for all these (human) endeavours:

God of concrete, God of steel,
God of piston and of wheel,
God of pylon, God of steam,
God of girder and of beam,
God of atom, God of mine:
all the world of power is thine.

Lord of cable, Lord of rail,
Lord of freeway and of mail,
Lord of rocket and of flight,
Lord of soaring satellite,
Lord of lightning’s flashing line:
all the world of speed is thine.

Lord of science, Lord of art,
Lord of map and graph and chart,
Lord of physics and research,
Word of Bible, Faith of church,
Lord of sequence and design:
all the world of truth is thine.

God whose glory fills the earth,
gave the universe its birth,
loosed the Christ with Easter’s might,
saves the world from evil’s blight,
claims us all by grace divine:
all the world of love is thine.

I'm genuinely confused about this being included in an assembly which was supposedly about rational thought. Why have we decided to praise a being who is highly unlikely to exist for the work of human scientists? Science is about empiricism and rational thought - celebrating irrational belief in spite of the evidence is extremely odd when we've just condemned the homeopaths for doing the same thing. Are some irrational beliefs more acceptable than others?

Praising the invisible friend of some for the achievements of others is a very odd idea indeed. The mind boggles.

Brian, can I have some of that money back please?

2011-03-23T20:33:00.001Z

I've been watching Brian Cox's new show, Wonders of the Universe, over the past few days and there is something bothering me about it. Why does he fly to all the corners of the globe to illustrate some points about scientific concepts?

I'm all for educating people about physics but why did he have to go all the way out to Nairobi to build a sandcastle demonstrating the concept of entropy? Was Margate not good enough for that for some reason? I know it doesn't look as grand and majestic as the desert, but we could always green-screen him into somewhere more becoming of a famous scientist. Hell, we could edit him into the deserts of Mars given the technology on show here.

There are a lot of shots of him staring up at the sky wistfully gazing into the distance. I like your eyes, Professor Cox, but I was expecting a show which was mostly about the distant universe rather than a nice shade of hazel? I'd quite like a share in that huge holiday of yours considering I helped pay for it and all that.

Still, maybe it'll pick up in episode four. I'm still recovering from being told for 10 minutes that everything ever will die for all time in episode one, that was a bit of a downer.

Astrologers and 'Imaginative' Logic

2011-03-23T19:45:00.001Z

While atheists are no strangers to being called unimaginative and dull, the accusation of narrow-mindedness is occasionally offered up by pseudoscientists when they are questioned on discrepancies in their technique or treatment. In a recent blog post on the Guardian’s website, Dr Rebekah Higgitt of Greenwich National Maritime Museum and Royal Observatory proposed that we should ‘debunk astrologers more respectfully’. Many questions were asked about astrology and indiscrepancies queried, but certain allegedly well-regarded supporters of astrology seemed content to exclude any evidence which they perceived to be part of a ‘debunking agenda’. Considering that this highly-regarded astrologer, Deborah Houlding, is so quick to criticise attitudes of close-mindedness in those who don’t believe in astrology this approach seems very hypocritical indeed.

Another tactic used on occasion by practitioners of alternative sciences and medicines is to paint themselves as the unjustly oppressed party and heroes fighting for their perceived truths. This tactic is often seen in discussions about alternative medicines and sciences when practitioners are questioned about certain aspects of their respective arts. While debates about alternative sciences can become very heated on both sides, the astrologers are often seen to portray themselves as the party without fault – in a follow-up to the article by Dr Higgitt on the Guardian’s science pages, Houlding accuses the skeptics of ‘rudeness, crude 'noise', accusation, and evasion of the relevant points’ while failing to acknowledge instances of utilising these tactics herself throughout her posts (see earlier references).

In this case Houlding even goes as far as accusing those opposing the idea of astrology as having ‘clearly-defined tactics’ and using ‘debunker manuals' – quite a claim considering that the ‘enemies of pseudoscience’ were in fact amateur skeptics with no personal connection commenting on an obscure science thread on the Guardian’s science website. This idea of being the victim of an organised scheme is similar to the paranoia expressed by homeopaths about Big Pharma corporations fixing results of clinical trials to try and discredit their medicine for financial gain. Rather than accept the results after thorough explanation, the practitioners of the method in question will try to paint supporters of the opposing view as charlatans mindlessly pursuing their own agenda.

When considering a scientific theory the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion, largely due to the difficulty of proving a negative result. This is one of the key mistakes which people make about the scientific validity of a hypothesis – failing to prove a negative is occasionally taken to mean that there must be a positive result. Using the example of astrology, the astrologers assert that the positions of the planets in relation to the Earth (and in other systems in relation to our Sun) has an impact on a person’s personality and at times even their financial dealings. The following information was given by an astrologer on the Higgitt article in defence of astrology:

‘I can prove it works because my husband and I bought lotto tickets based on planetary information each week and managed to win a million dollars in 2001. I know astrology works on a personal basis and I couldn't give a hoot what anyone thinks - you won't change what I have observed in my lifetime - you can't give statistics for all the little, everyday occurrences that build up a picture of one's life over time.’

This extract is a very good example of confirmation bias mistakenly presented as proof of an effective method. The author of the comment claims that astrology helped them win the lottery because they won $1 million after predicting the outcome using planetary information. This is a very fortunate turn of events, but the author also fails to admit that they never won on any of their other lotto tickets which were also influenced by planetary information. Although the astrologer was questioned numerous times about how they used planetary information to determine which numbers would be selected at random from the number generator, they never provided this information.

Skeptics were offered an image of the winning ticket and the cheque (which could be easily forged for the sake of the argument) but they were also challenged to prove that it wasn’t astrology which helped the lucky astrologer to win the $1 million prize. The argument that it is impossible to frequently predict a sequence of randomly selected numbers to a high degree of accuracy could be made but it is impossible to effectively refute this claim when nothing about the planetary information used is supplied. The difficulty in refuting this claim is often taken in place of a positive result as proof of an effective tool of prediction or alternative medicine and unfortunately many people are taken in by this broken logic.

Breaking News: Apples will kill you

2011-03-21T21:34:00.003Z

In my introduction I mentioned that I had written a huge long essay for a project on pseudoscience. I'll be posting modified extracts from the project every now and again but unfortunately nobody comes out particularly well from it - homeopaths are accused of being paranoid, astrologers accused of intellectual shaming and my shoddy writing style is exposed for what it is.

That said, let's crack on with it anyway...

My first survey was created with the aim of mimicking the health scare stories often seen in the media, in particular in tabloid newspapers such as The Daily Mail. These stories often contain a lot of scientific terms such as full names for chemicals and are short on explanations into how the experiment supplying the data was carried out. The aim of these articles is to sell as many newspapers as possible and this often comes at the price of scientific accuracy. While creating as much drama out of a news story as possible makes commercial sense, it can have far-reaching and potentially harmful consequences as seen during the MMR-autism link scandal. The survey which was intended to create a similar level of fear compared to these news stories read as follows:

‘A substance which is freely available to the general public has been found to reduce the chances of developing colon cancer, prostate cancer and lung cancer and reduce cholesterol levels. It can be beneficial when taken in specified amounts; however, the side effects include stomach upsets and (in some forms of the substance) severe tooth decay.

The substance also contains a poisonous chemical called amygdalin, which is potentially dangerous to humans and is considered to be too poisonous a chemical to be used for cancer treatment.’

The 64 participants were then given four options: ban the substance, regulate it, keep it free or undecided. They were also given space to ask any questions about the substance in question, which gave rise to some very interesting ideas. Many of the questions received asked about the severity of the side-effects but out of the 64 people who replied only 12 of them actually asked what the substance was called - I was expecting far more people to ask about that.

Worryingly, 25% of participants were willing to take the article at face value and asked no questions while choosing to regulate the substance. It was interesting that almost everyone who took the survey reacted with disbelief or said they felt stupid when the name of the substance in the survey was revealed: the humble apple.

So why were 57 people so quick to regulate or ban apples after reading the article? If I had asked the participants if they wanted to regulate apples in plain English even after describing their benefits and drawbacks I would’ve been laughed at, but I’ve somehow managed to manipulate this response from the majority of the people who took the survey. It’s likely that people weren’t familiar with the chemical amygdalin and were fearful of the potentially lethal side effects despite the fact that it’s only found in small concentrations in apple pips. This is an example of obscuring key facts about case studies as some health scare stories have been guilty of.

Even though it's a small sample size, the results are still very interesting. 89% of people asked were fine with banning or regulating apples and the remaining 11% were undecided. Remaining undecided on the issue was probably the best answer, given the risks and hazards described in the article but I would've expected at least one person to want to leave it free.

Try not to remember any of that information next time you look at your fruit bowl, by the way.

An Introduction

2011-03-21T17:13:00.000Z

Good afternoon!

So you've managed to stumble across this insignificant little blog page on your travels. Thank you for taking the time to look, a lot of blog pages go mostly unread and I don't expect this one to be much of an exception.

The main aim of the blog is to draw at least some attention to the wonders of pseudoscience and its charlatans. I'll have some other posts on the subject up relatively soon but the bulk of my current ideas are trapped in a 5000 word formal project at the moment. I want to make them sound a bit less grandiose than they currently are, being in the context of an academic essay (honestly, I'm not that posh).

Ta much for your time, fair traveller of the internet.