The Power of Metaphor, or, Don't Blame Santa

Before I begin, I ought to warn you that there is no real conclusion or argument to be found in this entry; it is rather intended as a collection of musings hoped to inform but primarily provoke further thought. Most of what is contained herein is part of an ongoing internal discussion I'm holding with myself, and this forms something of an update as to the point that that debate has reached. So open your mind, and read on.

I have made mention before of my status as a pagan atheist. It's not just an incidental matter for me, either; while I don't believe the Gods or spirits are actual entities capable of any kind of interaction with this world, I believe they are powerful and practically useful metaphors for a great deal of human life. The Gods we choose for ourselves - if choose them we do - represent those principles which are most important to us. For this reason I tend more toward the Northern European pantheon, in particular the Norse Gods. If I had a Sabbath like the Christian Sunday or Jewish Friday, it would be Wednesday, named for Odin, a.k.a. Woden (Woden's Daeg -> Wednesday) - for he is the figure with whom I most identify.

He is the symbol for wisdom, courage, and honour - among many other things. He is also seen as the guardian of travellers, much as the Christian Saint Christopher. All of these themes are ones which ring true with me: I aspire to be wise, courageous and honourable above all else; I can think of no qualities I would rather possess. There is also an emphasis on respect and reverence for nature in the Northern European religions, which it won't surprise you to find has particular resonance with me.

So why, you might ask, don't I just identify with those qualities directly instead of expressing them through the language of mythology and religious faith? It is a good question, and one which I have asked myself on many an occasion. I think the answer, as far as I can fathom it, lies in what I refer to as the "power of metaphor"; that is, the linguistic and emotional force that can be expressed only in terms of phenomena that transcend the physical, evidential world. Humanity is known for being a fickle race, and a claimed devotion to an abstract concept such as justice seems to hold less force, somehow, than a claimed devotion to a deity personifying that concept. It is an appeal to the eternal nature of these ideals as opposed to the sometimes-fleeting nature of humanity's adherence to them.

Another example of this that I recently found out about (thanks to my friend the Nietzschean feminist) is Laveyan satanism, which again is essentially an atheist religion. The ideals it favours are individualism, a realistic approach to humanity's darker impulses and an acceptance of these drives as an inevitable an essential component of understanding what it is to be human. There is also a strong element of anarchism, a rebelliousness and hostility toward authority that is reflected in few other mythologies. But it is atheist - and specifically non-Christian, a claim which cannot be made by theistic Satanism - because it entails a commitment to these ideals only, not a belief in a literal Satan or lesser demons. There is much in LaVeyan Satanism which rings true with me and values which are shared by the pagan faith.

On a tangentally-related topic, I also want to address the topic of Santa Claus - not as a metaphor, but as a belief tantamount to religion but treated as a socially-acceptable falsehood. This line of thought comes from listening to my backlog of Point of Inquiry podcasts, specifically the interview with Todd C. Riniolo. He noted an objection to the widely-used argument in sceptical circles that it is little wonder that people are credulous in adulthood when they are raised to believe in Santa Claus as children. It is rarely used as a forceful argument, usually instead forming a arbitrary comment; but nonetheless is worth addressing. Riniolo's objection is that there is simply no proof that belief in Santa during childhood leads to credulity in adulthood. Indeed, he argues, the "debunking" of Santa constitutes many a child's first truly sceptical activity.

I thought this was a very interesting point, and it contributed to an ongoing internal debate I've been conducting with regards to how best to raise a child in the sceptical mindset. It hasn't helped me make up my mind on the subject, but has made a significant contribution to the complexity of the issue. Is it wrong to lie to one's children in this regard, or is it a valuable experience that teaches them that deception (harmless or otherwise) is everywhere and that nobody is to be trusted implicitly? On a personal note, I think I "grew out of" notions like God and spiritualism around the same time as I did the notion of Santa. I don't recall being annoyed at the deception, either; at some point it just became a childish absurdity and I scoffed at my parents for persisting in the charade.

So would it be better or worse to deny one's child this experience? Should we rather explain as best we can the lessons that would be learned through it, rather than perpetuate the white lies? At the very least, it seems that the lies do less harm than one might think.

Ignorance and Obfuscation

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds.

"More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory."

Right from the start, we have a misleading headline which suggests (not explicitly, but leaves open for misinterpretation) that half of Britons are creationists. In fact it's less than one quarter.

The real story here is that, to my mind at least, the creationist campaign - particularly that of intelligent design - has succeeded in blurring the issue. While I don't know that more people believe in creationism, I think more people are under the impression that there is doubt where no serious rational doubt exists. I can't seem to bring the previous figures to hand, though - so if you know what they were, please let me know - particularly if I've got it wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if this poll returned the exact same results as last time, actually. It wasn't that long ago. Also, let's not go over the many ways this data could be skewed - I'd at least want to know what questions were asked before trying to draw any sensible conclusions.

I'm all in favour of having these issues out in the open where they can be discussed, but that's not what we're dealing with here. Creationists are campaigning to get their rubbish accepted to the same degree as evidence-based theories, and disguising it under the banner of freedom of speech and open debate. Scientists are not blameless, either - more needs to be done to promote the public understanding of science, which would hopefully prevent a quarter of people from simply being "confused" by evolution. Those who bear the overwhelming burden of responsibility here, though, are the media; while there is a great deal of good science on the BBC and elsewhere (Attenborough being the absolute pinnacle), there is too much dumbing-down, and ignoring of science stories in favour of sensationalism and big headlines.

There is no easy solution, nor one single person or group to blame. What I do know is that 50% is too high a proportion of the population to be in any serious doubt about the theory of evolution.

Cows... with Magnets!

Now here's a headline to set off a healthy bit of scepticism:

"Cattle shown to align north-south"

I'm not going to rubbish that claim straight off the bat, but I'd definitely need a little more proof than a few anecdotes and images before thinking there was something to it. Why would they do that? I'm well aware that a sense of magnetic direction is seemingly quite a widespread phenomenon among Terran fauna, but I have a hard time understanding why this particular ability would be of any use to cattle.

Over eight and a half thousand images of cattle were examined, apparently. That's a pretty good sample size, I'd say; but nowhere do I see the numbers involved in working out the incidence of north-south alignment (if anyone can grab access to the actual article, I'd be grateful for a link).

A couple of other points stood out for me in the BBC report of this: firstly, that in Africa and South America, the scientists carrying out the study noted a north-east/south-west alignment rather than the north-south seen elsewhere; they explain this by pointing out that the magnetic field is weaker there. OK, granted. But why then are they still aligning along a different line? Without seeing the data itself, that sounds to me like whatever method they used to determine significant alignment might be a little too generous.

Secondly comes the speculation of reasons why this north-south alignment might be happening; the lead scientist is quoted as speculating that it could be anti-predatory behaviour.

I'm sorry, what?

Do most predators come from the north or south? Would it not be a more effective technique to have the herd facing in different directions if it's an alert system you're looking for? I can appreciate the use in having the herd facing the same direction - if the need to flee arises, it makes that safety-in-numbers thing much easier to manage. This would seem to be the most reasonable explanation for a herd facing in generally the same direction as each other. But if this is the case, why north-south? Perhaps they just like facing south; perhaps it feels like going downhill...

Basically this sounds like fluff reporting of a half-baked investigation. I'd like to see the numbers involved, but at the moment I remain unconvinced that there is a phenomenon to explain here; I'll agree that in general a herd will face in more or less the same direction. That much is hardly news. The north-south thing, though? Needs a little more work.

--------------------------

EDIT: The story has been taken up by Ed at Not Exactly Rocket Science, and it seems that he's read the article! Here's his take on it. Reading through, it seems like those numbers I was after do actually add up quite nicely; as for the reason behind it, the general notion seems to be that they have as much reason to line up in this way as a compass needle does. It's just what they do. Some intriguing ideas are being thrown around about physiological processes running smoother when aligned with the poles, but these are still at the hypothesis stage.

I wouldn't be much of a sceptic if I didn't change my tune when faced with the numbers. I still maintain my opinion of the original piece on the BBC, though. The quality of science reporting is, as I should have come to expect by now, somewhat south (haha) of optimal.

A momentous occasion indeed...

It is to Messers Darwin and Wallace that I dedicate this post, in honor of the event that is sadly no longer remembered, and in recognition of the impostors that aim to discredit and dismantle their great work. Tell me dear reader, do you know what day it is?*

150 years ago today, the idea of natural selection was presented for the first time to the public - beginning something so revolutionary that its impact can be neither estimated nor overestimated. Your task for today is to read this post from the Beagle Project, and tell someone about what you read therein. Just mention it in passing, if you like, that today marks 150 years since one of the most momentous events in the history of science. You don't need to bore your audience with the microscopic details if they're not interested - just get the word out. This is a day that should be marked with more than a mere ripple through the science blogging community.


* With apologies to the Wachowski brothers, and 18 Geek Points to anyone who got the reference

Two Quickies

The news spat out a couple of interesting items today (well, a few actually, but at least one deserves a bit more thought and planning before making it into a blog entry).

Firstly, this article at BBC News holds the important facts for all those who insist on an anthropocentric approach to life: if we keep killing off those other species which share this planet, we will be losing out on a lot of potential medical advances. I'd rather this wasn't the only reason people were out to reverse the worrying trend in species extinction, but if that's what it takes I'll make do.

Second, my heart sank in expectation of ridiculous levels of credulity when I read the heading to this article: "Satan" driver cleared over crash. A woman took two lives with reckless driving, and blamed Satan. She was cleared of the charges. Thankfully for my sanity, hers was found to be lacking - which was the reason she was cleared.

Cectic

If you don't already read the sceptical comic Cectic regularly, you should. If you need more convincing than my say-so, then take a look at this, latest, comic:

So one question remains - did the author read my mind, or my blog? I'm thinking the former is actually more likely.

An Oversight, I feel

The wonderful website "What's The Harm?" has been getting widespread acclaim from sceptical blogs for the last month or two, and rightly so. As I mentioned briefly in a previous post, it's an ongoing catalogue of the actual harm done by pseudoscience, bogus medical claims, religion and other delusions.

While I realise that that site is still in its infancy, it does seem to me to have a major flaw in being overly anthropocentric. Nowhere does it take into account the terrible toll that certain deluded practices have on the wildlife in the world - a toll which is still terribly heavy, particularly on tiger and rhinoceros.



The worst offender in this regard would almost certainly have to be the voodoo that is traditional Chinese medicine, which creates great demand for tiger and rhino carcasses to treat ailments which are just as treatable (in fact more so) with so-called "Western medicine". While information campaigns and the increasing cosmopolitanism of China has meant that these practices are on the decline, it's getting close to being too late for the tiger and rhino.

For some pretty shocking facts on man's effect on the world's animals, head over to this page from the always-superb David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation. The most relevant to oriental medicine is this one:

Tiger products are still widely and legally on sale in 6 out of 10 pharmacies and 'virility product' shops in Japan and the going rate for a tiger penis in Hong Kong is £110.

A complete tiger carcass is worth around $30,000. Granted I can understand people valuing an animal life slightly lower than they value the life of a human (though I don't share this view myself); but the life of an entire species? Do we really value the life of a species over the "financial cost" of pseudoscience (et al) to the gullible fools it dupes?

Of course, crazy beliefs about the powers of tiger parts is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to man's damage to the creatures with whom we share this Pale Blue Dot, but it's the area with the most relevance to scepticism. When we argue about the real cost of pseudoscience, we should at least include a nod in the direction of the destruction of some of the world's most precious resources.

Reframing the question

This semester, I'm going to be studying the philosophy of artificial intelligence, a field which is of great interest to me. To get me in the right frame of mind, I've been watching a fair bit of science fiction lately, particularly that dealing with the future of robotics/cybernetics/whatever. The one with the most philosophy behind it thus far has to be Bicentennial Man, the story of a robot with a "flaw" allowing him to be creative and develop his own character.

While it's hardly groundbreaking, it does give you a good idea of the sorts of issues that exist around the philosophy of artificial intelligence - the main one being, of course, when (if ever) is it a person? As soon as it demonstrates creativity? Or only when it becomes mortal?

Today I received a book I had ordered, called Imitation in Animals and Artifacts. Flicking through this, it occurred to me that a question I had never heard asked was, rather than "when is a robot to be considered a person?", "when is a robot to be considered equivalent to an animal?". Maybe this is a nonsense, or leads nowhere useful, but it's one I'd like to look into in more detail - if only to shed light on the personhood question. Perhaps I'll have the time to do so soon. For now, I'll just jot down some ideas:

If personhood is based on self-awareness, are there animals that we should consider to be persons? And how do we know when something is self-aware, if we have no way to explicitly communicate?

What would be the criteria for animalism?

Does the fact that AI is usually intended to simulate human intelligence mean that this is a pointless debate? Or is this the aim of AI because it has already reached or surpassed the intelligence level of animals?

Is a computer that can beat any human player at chess more intelligent than an animal who lives in a complex social system and adapts to its surroundings?

Maybe this will be my focus for my artificial intelligence module this coming semester.

Science in the media

It has come to my attention that there remains much to be desired in the field of science reporting in the mainstream media (for which I am using the example of BBC News Online). While I'm all in favour of promoting enthusiasm for science, particularly in the younger generations, I do wish they would avoid the sensationalist wording with which this area has seemingly become saturated. At the moment, I have two recent articles in mind which demonstrate this; the first was entitled "'Bizarre' new mammal discovered", and is found here.

Obviously, as soon as I saw this headline pop up in my RSS feed, I was intrigued. The article failed to deliver, however; at first it seems to be claiming that nothing like this has been seen before. But as you read on, it becomes clear that the truth is far more mundane (though certainly big news and very exciting in itself, particularly for the researcher making the discovery). The "bizarre new mammal" is the 16th species of elephant shrew to have been discovered to date; it is distinct from the others by being slightly larger, and of different colouring. That's it. Hardly as impressive as the headline tried to make out.

The second article was a little worse: "Giant palm tree puzzles botanists". I was, once more, intrigued from the start; but already sceptical due to the "puzzles botanists" bit. It turns out that the tree grows to great size, then expends all its energy in an impressive flowering/pollination display, thus earning it the over-the-top moniker "self-destructing palm". Though this fact is the main focus of the article, the "puzzling" part only comes in a discussion of how it came to be there - which is soon explained by a perfectly plausible theory. Certainly the botanists wouldn't be puzzled by the "self-destructing" nature of this plant - it's far from being unheard-of.

I do wish the mainstream media didn't feel the need to dress up truly interesting news with sensationalist language - the bare facts in these cases should be enough to elicit fascination in themselves. In fairness to the good BBC, and in illustration of my point, I give you "Big mammals key to tree-ant team", a truly interesting piece of news, with virtually no "sexing up" involved. This is how it should be done.

In the Blink of a Sceptical I

I've come up with an idea for a small featurette in this blog - occasional short, snappy posts blowing one widely-held belief or another out of the water by simple statement of the facts. In the blink of a sceptical eye, as it were.

Blink 1: Chameleons do not change colour to match their background. The colour change is instead a form of communication, often (but not exclusively) relating to mood. Recent research [via] has suggested that they can change colour for a mere millisecond - long enough to be understood by their fellows but not long enough to be spotted by predators.

A world without wonder

"For me, it is better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."
-- Carl Sagan

I've always been someone who wanted the truth. Something my friends learn early on is that if there's something bad going on, I want to know about it - don't lie to me to save my feelings or anything like that. I'd rather be miserable knowing the truth than blissfully ignorant. This is probably why I'm a sceptic and an agnostic rather than a believer in any non-evidence-based world view. Many of those who do choose a religious basis for their life (or have one thrust upon them, for that matter) see non-theism as an empty way of life, devoid of spirituality and any sense of wonder.

Now watch this:

All we need to do for a sense of wonder is look at the world and the universe around us - how can you fail to be amazed at the astounding things you can find there? Ask any atheist if their life is empty and meaningless because of their "lack of faith", and they'll tell you it most certainly is not. A great example is Phil Plait, an astronomer and writer who maintains a blog which is simply bursting with enthusiasm and wonder every time a new image is brought back from Mercury or some galaxies out in the Black are doing something wacky.

And you don't even need to look that far for wonders - right here on our Pale Blue Dot, we've got wonders aplenty. See if you can spot the octopus in this here picture:

Not quite sure? Watch this video. This octopus features at the end of the presentation, which is well worth watching. [hat-tip]

As for the claim that atheists lack any sort of spiritualism, I direct your attention to SpiritualAtheism.org, though to be fair it defines "spiritual atheism" in a different way to that which I would use. It seems to be describing more of a pantheism, a way of seeing "God" as a personification of the universe. A more helpful place to look for a definition of "spiritual atheism" as I understand it (a humanist or naturalist outlook) is this article from American Chronicle:

"...most theists are under the impression that atheism is an immoral doctrine that robs life of its meaning and purpose. Hopefully, someone will take up the challenge and eloquently refute this belief. In the meantime, it is my fervent hope that our children’s children inherent a world free from superstition, fear, guilt, arrogance and sin, and that we all learn to embrace a new, spiritual atheism that espouses love and tolerance toward each other, and awe and humility in the face of an endlessly wondrous, but godless, universe."

Getting the message straight...

All through my upbringing, I've had an interest in ecology: both of my parents worked at one point for Marwell Zoological Park in one admin capacity or another, which meant many trips in that direction. Their passion for this sort of thing inspired a similar one in myself, so perhaps it was only natural that I fell in love with someone whose interest in ecology is perhaps the central fact of her life. This has, in turn, enriched my knowledge of the subject no end, and revived my interest in all (well, most) things ecology.

Which brings me to the reason for this post: Green.TV, "a web TV channel dedicated to the environment". Awesome, and a great idea to increase education and awareness of these vitally important issues. The first video I watched (subscribing through the video podcast medium) was "How Far South For Winter Migrants?" which highlights the impact of climate change on birds migrating to the UK over the winter for the milder weather we enjoy (thanks to the North Atlantic Drift, or the Gulf Stream, or both - I forget). They come here to escape the harsh winter weather elsewhere, such as the Arctic and northern Europe.

Climate change is meaning wetter, milder winters, and many species of bird normally seen migrating to the UK for winter are apparently wintering in Germany or Holland (for example). They are adjusting to the change in climate, and "some things are going to lose out and some things are going to benefit ... we haven't identified the winners and losers because we're still involved in trying to understand climate change ourselves". The talk is being given at the London Wetlands Centre, and one point that is made is that the two hundred wigeon currently using the wetlands as winter quarters will likely no longer frequent their establishment.

Watch the video. Because it is at this point that we get what is known as a non sequitur (Latin - "does not follow"). The premise is that wigeon will likely stop frequenting the London Wetlands Centre during the winter months. The conclusion is "we've got to get a handle on it now; we've got to recycle, preserve ... everything that we can. We've just got to live a different lifestyle."

Um, no. Firstly, let me just say that I'm 100% behind the campaign for lifestyle change, recycling, sustainable forests, biofuel (but not the stuff that they're felling rain forests for) and all the rest. But what you have in this video is a very poorly put-together argument. So wigeon won't be wintering at the London Wetlands Centre... This is hardly the most compelling argument I've heard for making the public change the way they live their lives. Come to think of it, it's one of the least compelling arguments I've heard for anything. So the birds spend the winter somewhere else; they presumably had to do that before the London Wetlands were "created" anyway. There seems to be a hidden assumption here that because they're not spending the winter over here their very survival is threatened - but in the same video it states that the birds are adapting to the climate change by simply modifying their migrations. Just because they're not here, doesn't mean they're dead.

Furthermore, even if we see an overwhelming response to the call for a change in lifestyle, this won't change an awful lot. It is my understanding that doing so is far from futile, but at best will basically constitute damage limitation. The climate is changing (it would likely be doing so without our interference, but it is almost certain that we have exacerbated the situation), and we cannot reverse it. Damage limitation is the best we can hope for, but that is no reason not to try. What it does mean, however, is that his damned wigeon are not likely to return any time soon. Changing your lifestyle will not mean that in a few years' or decades' time, the world will be back to "normal". This point is rarely stressed enough, probably out of fear that people will fail to see the value of damage limitation.

Anyway, my basic point is that, by all means create these great resources for education on the intertubes, but please make them convincing to more than the most credulous of audiences. Anyone with half a brain who is opposed to the ideology can point to the multifarious flaws in these arguments and use them to say that the entire cause is flawed. Let's please not give them that opportunity. Let's start making educational material that contains logically coherent arguments.

If you're wondering where the political-themed post has disappeared to, I was fully intending to simply leave this blog alone for a while and work on my essays, and make notes on the political issue I'd found. But then I listened to the Russell Brand podcast and watched this green.tv video, and I just had to post about them. So much for my estimate of once a week being ambitious. I have 7 or so more of these green.tv videos yet to watch, so there may well be another which stirs me to post about that issue. The political post will hopefully be up within a week.

Until then.