Deserted Vastness

A new arrival!

2010-07-15T16:04:00.000+01:00

A short post to formally announce the birth of my adorable son Alexander Owen Douglas Treadway on 5 July 2010 at 18:08 weighing an eye-watering 9lbs 9oz. After a short stay in hospital, he and mum are back home and doing very well.

I don't plan to blog much if at all about being a parent, but I did at least want to mark the occasion, if only because a number of people have asked whether we have named him after the Buffy the Vampire character (as we intend to call him Xander) or Douglas Adams.

The first is a nice coincidence, the latter entirely deliberate. My wife liked my original suggestion of 'Douglas Adams Treadway' until she realised why it sounded so eerily familiar. However, she likes 'Douglas' as a name and we have a fantastic friend with the name, so from there on in it was plain sailing. (As far as the others go, Owen is a common name in Stef's family, and we just both really liked 'Alexander').

And that's all, except to say a further thanks to Mr Adams because it turns out that an affinity to his writing is extremely useful for the new father, as the following points should highlight:

Don't panic
Share & enjoy the experience
Time is an illusion (nighttime doubly so)
Babies think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. However, they also think that everything else is a pretty neat idea - so much so that they will listen in rapt attention to my dad's golf stories for hours on end.
A towel IS the most massively useful thing you can have. Partly it has great practical value, more importantly, a towel has immense psychological value as it can be of use in any emergency you will face. Any man who can rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with
Being at the birth of your child is, for the father, the closest equivalent to being plugged into the Total Perspective Vortex I can imagine. You are given just a momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it a tiny little mark, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says both "You are here". You also realise that you have absolutely no concept of what pain actually feels like"
I have observed that, as with Bistromathics, where "numbers are not absolute, but depend on the observer's movement in restaurants", so numbers surrounding the birth of a child are also relative, or non-absolute. The basic non-absolute numbers are the given time of the baby's arrival and it's expected weight. The more complex non-absolute numbers of visitors who say they are coming to see the baby and the time they actually arrive (which will bear no relation to the number of people who actually turn up and when they turn up). And the final non-absolute (and entirely imaginary) number is the total of cost of the baby, which can however be reliably estimated by multiplying by itself your initial expectation of what that cost would be.

Oh, and I just have to post the best, most lovely photo ever taken anywhere.

"Big Pharma is all around you" - Celebrating WHAW

2010-06-14T23:35:00.002+01:00

[To celebrate World Homeopathy Awareness Week, here is a world first - the full transcript of a secret meeting at the Society of Homoepaths at which a new recruit, Neo, is being inducted. He is taken to meet the organisation's most prestigious supporter.]

STRANGE MAN: At last. Welcome.

He waits for Neo to cross the room and then greets him.

STRANGE MAN: As you no doubt have guessed, I am Dr Nancy Malik.

NEO: It's an honor.

NANCY: Please. Come. Spend money.

They sit across from one another in cracked, burgundy leather chairs.

NANCY: I imagine, right now, you must be feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole?

NEO: You could say that.

NANCY: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he is told because he has no regard for science and evidence.

A smile, razor-thin, curls the corner of his lips.

NANCY: Ironically, this is far from the truth. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Can you tell me, Neo, why are you here?

NEO: You're Nancy Malik, you're a legend. Most quacks would die to meet you.

NANCY: Yes. Thank you. But I think we both know there's more to it than that. Do you believe in evidence, Neo?

NEO: No.

NANCY: Why not?

NEO: Because I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my life.

NANCY: I know exactly what you mean.

Again, that smile that could cut glass.

NANCY: There is another reason, though. Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you are sick.

NEO: I’m sick?

NANCY: I can help you, Neo, using water, but not as a drink. We use it like it was part of you. What you can do inside water is not normal. I know. I've seen it. What we do is quantum entanglement. Maybe.

Neo shrugs.

NEO: It's magic?

NANCY: Yes it is, Neo. Yes it is. There is no other way to describe what will happen to you.

He leans forward.

NANCY: Homeopaths are trained to reject everything that is rational and logical.

Neo shakes his head.

NANCY: As children, we do not separate the possible from the impossible which is why the younger a mind is the easier it is to free while a mind like yours can be very difficult.

NEO: Free from what?

NANCY: From Big Pharma.

Neo looks at his eyes but only sees a reflection of himself.

NANCY: Do you want to know what it is, Neo?

Neo swallows and nods his head.

NANCY: It's that feeling you have had all your life. Big Pharma is everything that’s wrong with the world. I can’t prove that it does, but, like a splinter in your mind, paying off everyone and driving you to me. But what is it?

The leather creaks as he leans back.

NANCY: Big Pharma is everywhere, it's all around us, here even in this room. You can see its work in the 10:23 campaign and Sense About Science. You feel it when you go to work, or go to church or pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

NEO: What truth?

NANCY: That you are a slave, Neo. That you, like everyone else, was born into bondage... ...that evidence based medicine is a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch. A prison for your mind.

Outside, the wind batters a loose pane of glass.

NANCY: Unfortunately, we cannot prove how bad Big Pharma is, so you have to choose our remedies yourself.

NEO: How?

NANCY: Hold out your hands.

In Neo's right hand, Nancy drops a red pill.

NANCY: This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back.

In his left hand, a blue pill.

NANCY: You take the blue pill and you will see a gradual improvement in your condition in accordance with the well established progress of pathogens as demonstrated by evidence from randomly controlled clinical trials.

The pills in his open hands are reflected in the glasses.

NANCY: You take the red pill and absolutely nothing will happen whatsoever, although if you feel better I will be able to claim it worked.

Neo feels the smooth skin of the capsules, with the moisture growing in his palms.

NANCY: Remember that all I am offering is to make you completely ignorant of the truth. Nothing more.

Neo opens his mouth and swallows the red pill. The Cheshire smile returns.

NANCY: Follow me.

They exit. The sound of ringing cash registers can be heard in the distance.

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

Written with the highly estimable Martyn Norris, with more than a little tip-o'-the-hat to Crispian Jago.

If anyone knows where I can link to the video, please let me know!

TAM London 2010 - Who I'd like to see

2010-04-09T23:53:00.007+01:00

A small bird is twittering that this year's TAM London may take place on the third weekend in October.

I didn't make it last year, and I really, really want to go so I'm waiting expectantly for more details. So much so, that I've found myself fantasising about who might speak.

This is partly because it's only just over 6 months away, partly because I've been enjoying Crispian Jago's Skeptic Top Trumps, and also partly because I went to see the monstrously good Ghost Stories at the Lyric Hammersmith.

Last year's speakers suggest four broad categories of speakers, although there was a strong weighting to the Brits:

JREF Reps - Phil Plait (Randi was sadly too ill to fly)
UK based skeptics - Richard Wiseman, Ben Goldacre, Jon Ronson, Ariane Sherine, Tim Minchin, Brian Cox, Simon Singh, Robin Ince (Richard Dawkins was also scheduled to speak but couldn't make it)
US based skeptics - Adam Savage, George Hrab
Speakers from left field - Glenn Hill

Entirely selfishly, I'd like to see the balance shift this year.

I've seen or heard all of the British skeptics speak at some point over the last 12 months, and they already get a decent and increasing amount of exposure in mainstream media. Given TAM's profile, I'd like to see some slightly less familiar names given a bigger platform than they might otherwise get.

I'd also like the chance to see more big names from the US, since there aren't many opportunities to do so.

And, most of all, I'd love to see some people who might not yet call themselves skeptics. The only name on last year's list who wasn't a well-known, card-carrying member of the movement was Glenn Hill, son of Elsie Wright who produced the 'Cottingley Fairies' photographs.

To my mind, that made him the most intriguing speaker.

TAM is a great opportunity to bring in those whose expertise lies slightly outside traditional skeptical fields, but who are natural bedfellows for the movement. The last 18 months have, I would argue, seen skepticism in the UK emerge blinking into the light, having an impact in wider areas than before, and I'd like to see speakers at TAM who reflect that.

In what I think was my best post to date, I wrote in January about 'The Skeptics Who Never Were' because the movement came to late for them. And so here, using the same categories as above, is my fantasy list of speakers for TAM London 2010.

1) JREF Reps

James Randi - Every skeptics' favorite uncle, Randi has just come out at the incredible age of 81 and was too ill to make it last year. He has to be first on the list.
DJ Grothe - As the new President, DJ is pretty much now the leader of the free-thinking world. He has had some very interesting stuff to say recently about 'kneejerk skepticism' and the importance of the grass roots. And, when I spoke to him a while back for the Pod Delusion, he said he'd break bread with me.

2) UK based skeptics

Andy Lewis from Quackometer. I was fortunate enough to see him at CFI's Alt Med on Trial, and he was sensationally good. Very insightful and very funny, I suspect he would completely own the event.
Bruce Hood - Author of Supersense and baiter of ADE651 proponents, he has atypical views on homeopathy on the NHS and how & when skeptics should engage. Would challenge more preconceptions than other speakers.
Richard Wilson - Not the aging actor who can't believe it, but the trouble-making journalist and author of Don't Get Fooled Again. It would be great to hear Wilson's take on the Climategate emails and tactics of the deniers, since he's an expert on the methods the tobacco industry used in the 60s and 70s.
Josie Long - Co-presenter of Robin Ince's much-missed Utter Shambles, Long is a stand up comedienne full of wit, eccentricity and sense of wonder at the world. Kind of like a female, funnier-but-less-well-qualified, whimsical English version of Carl Sagan.

3) US based skeptics

Jennifer Michael Hecht - Another one to challenge and stretch the standard skeptical outlook, she argues that there is truth to be found in the arts. A poet & historian, she wrote The Happiness Myth and Doubt: A History as well as the gorgeous Dear Fonzie blog. She is the most erudite speaker on my list, and I can't imagine we'll see her in the UK unless it's at TAM. My absolute first choice
Michael Shermer - Presumably everyone knows who he is? Runs The Skeptic magazine among other things, if you aren't sure, and (again) someone who we don't get to see in the UK so often.
PZ Myers - Just because he'll make me laugh harder than anyone else and, if we ask him nicely, he might come over a month early and help to irritate the Pope.
Eugenie Scott - From her position as executive director of the National Centre for Science Education, Scott is the doyenne and heroine of the movement to preserve the teaching of evolution in the US education. The faith schools agenda suggests we may need her expertise in the UK sooner rather than later.

4) Speakers from left field

Nancy Cartwright - Important to note that I'm talking about this lady, the LSE-based philosopher of science and economics, not the voice of Bart Simpson. Cartwright would really help widen the boundaries and scope of UK skepticism. She would go a long way to ensuring philosophy wasn't a dirty word for skeptics, and would also have important things to say about the role of critical thinking in policy making.
Becky Hogge - Hogge is best known as writer a on technology, editor of openDemocracy and was previously executive director of the Open Rights Group. Seeing as Web 2.0 played such a crucial role in the explosion of skepticism, who better to talk at TAM in a year when the traumatically awful Digital Economy bill has been passed? She has also worked for Little Atoms and Index On Censorship, perennial friends of skepticism.
Andy Nyman - There are nowhere near as many magicians associated with skepticism in the UK as there are in the States, and while Derren Brown might be the obvious choice, Nyman is the man behind the curtain, as co-creator and co-writer of all of Brown's shows. He is also responsible for the incredible Ghost Stories, and I'd love to hear his thoughts on things that go bump in the night.
Jasper Fforde - We missed Douglas Adams by a good few years, and for some reason I don't think Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman would fit in. But Fforde is a author who understands science, and he is a worthy heir to Adams' manthle. The Thursday Next books are full of science-based humour and illogical flourishes, and The Fourth Bear features a degree in pseudoscience alongside all sorts of technological nonsense. If you haven't given Fforde a go, do so as quickly as you can.
Armando Iannucci - Quite simply, no one has made a more persuasive argument for evidence-based policy in the last year than Iannucci and co did with In The Loop.
Alan Rusbridger - Finally the current editor of the Guardian. While the temptation must be to ask Simon Singh to speak again, or his fellow libel sufferers like Peter Wilmshurst, I'd be intrigued to hear Rusbrider's take on libel-reform, as well as the role of science in politics, and where blogs, newspapers and other media go next.

So there you go.

I realise it's an improbable, lenghty and entirely selfish line-up, but to hell with that.

I know TAM will be a fascinating event whoever is speaking, and I'll be intruiged to see if any of my names overlap with the real list.

Hope to see you all there.

On Douglas Adams

2010-03-10T22:19:00.003Z

Have I mentioned that there is a Douglas Adams memorial lecture this week in aid of Save the Rhino?

I did a Pod Delusion interview last week with this year's speaker, Marcus du Sautoy, to publicise it - if you are interested, here is a slightly longer version.

Given it is now nine years since his incredibly sad and early death, and that I wasn't a close personal friend, it would be odd for me to write a keening lament of the kind Richard Dawkins wrote the day after he died.

However, now that I have a blog, it would feel odd not to write something on what would have been his 58th birthday.

I've said before that I think Adams would have found much in common with the burgeoning skeptical movement, something borne out by Bob Novella from the SGU when I spoke to him (again, this is a longer version of last week's Pod Delusion interview).

However, his legacy means far more to me than just its link to skepticism, and Adams' death was one of only two occasions where I was deeply affected by the loss of a public figure (the other being John Peel).

His writing has been an ever present feature in my life. I devoured all of it during my geeky teenage years, revealuted it during my geeky twenties and, now, in my thirties (which are contuingly and disappointingly geeky), I return to the books like familiar old friends.

So, if you take one thing away from this post, let it be that there is far more to Adams than simply a few jokes about robots.

Most people I know have read at least the first couple of Hitchhiker books, and the reasons for Adams' popularity are obvious - the endless cascade of ideas, the warm absurdity so unique to Adams' writing, and the dual understanding of science and literature on display throughout

But few people have heard the original the radio series. I listened to until my cassettes literally broke. It still sounds unique to day - at the time it was revolutionary. It will give you an insight into what a good writer Adams was, and provides new insights into why the books are so easy to read - they were written with the spoken word in mind.

Then, there are the later Hitchhiker books, which to my mind are better novels. They retain all the good points of the early books, but Adams had run out of radio scripts to adapt, and so turned his hand to constructing a novel from scratch.

Mostly Harmless may be less popular among fans because it is so dark in tone, but its a masterclass in structure and pace.

The two Dirk Gently novels continue this trend, and Adams never bettered their central character or intricacy of plot. Try Chapter 6 of Holistic Detective Agency or Chapter 9 of The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul to see what I mean.

And finally, if you think there is a reason you won't enjoy his novels, such as you don't like science fiction or laughing out loud, there are the non-fiction books Last Chance To See and Salmon of Doubt, which was published posthumously. These reveal the passion and humanity of Adams, something reflected by everyone who knew him. He was an extraordinarily nice man and you begin to realise how much of himself he put into his novels.

The nearest I ever came to meeting Adams in person was a fleeting glance of his gargantuan frame at was a book signing during the mid-90s

My father and I turned up in glorious naivety expecting to buy tickets on the night, only to find it had sold out weeks before. We watched forlornly as Adams arrived in a car and disappeared inside, although I later received a signed copy of Mostly Harmless for a guilty father.

The awesome memorial lectures have provided some consolation over the years. I remember Robert Swan and Mark Carwardine with particular fondness, and in 2005, at the charity auction, I bought two tickets to the premiere of the long-delayed Hitchhikers film (which was disappointing but is hugely underrated - Mos Def is a wonderful Ford Prefect).

I understand you will be able to listen to the Marcus du Sautoy lecture after the event, and I will link to it as and when I can. If any of you are there, let me know, as some fellow PodDelights and I are going for a drink afterwards.

Until then it only remains to say Happy Birthday and thank you to Douglas Adams, a hoopy frood if ever there was one. You are fondly remembered, and sorely missed.

Weekend Wound-up - 27 February 2010

2010-02-27T18:57:00.000Z

Briefly, some points of frustration as Saturday rolls on:

Lawyers
Here is a short summary of the last week of my life.

Monday: Attended Westminster Skeptics in the Pub special on libel reform, with 7 speeches on the need for changes to English law. Talked to this lawyer, listened to a speech by this lawyer, heard jokes from Simon Singh's lawyer, and listened to banter between all three of them.

Tuesday: Blessedly free of lawyers, but spent all day following Simon Singh in court via Twitter.

Wednesday: Two-hour meeting to discuss contract and related instructions for lawyers. Meeting with lawyer to pass on said instructions.

Thursday: Meeting with 2 different lawyers and late night phone call to a third.

Friday: Meeting with 3 lawyers (again all different) to get advice from legal counsel over the phone.

Now, don't get me wrong - I have nothing against lawyers, some of my best friends are lawyers, lawyers are people just like us, if we cut lawyers they do bleed, etc, etc. I just prefer them in smaller doses.

And speaking of small doses...

Homeopaths
I hadn't met many homeopaths before, but this week I spoke to several of them. They were all very friendly and interested in talking , and quite happy to explain why they believe what they believe. Sadly, as with other proponents of woo, it's hard to find sufficient common ground to have a decent argument. We disagreed on pretty much everything - including how many of them there were. 250 my bottom.

Blogger

I'm quite enjoying the whole blogging experience, but it drives me literally insane that Blogger randomly puts double spacing between some paragraphs for absolutely no reason. Can anyone fix this?

Richard Dawkins
While I applaud him for his quick dig at homeopaths this week, Dawkins has also reacted to abuse directed at those who run his website. The cause was the sudden disappearance of the site's forum without apparent regard for the community that had built it, and the deletion of people's accounts without consultation. This has attracted some press coverage - here and here.

Although there isn't really anything wrong with the points Dawkins makes, it's disappointing he didn't engage with the more measured points being made. These are folks who used to administer the forum, and so added to the richness and variety of the site that bears Dawkins name without being paid for it. I think they deserve a little bit more than he offers in his article. He doesn't really acknowledge them, and that's a shame given the importance he places on debate in other areas.

And for a someone who makes so light of the abuse he receives, shouldn't Dawkins encourage his employees to grow thicker skins? Abuse from trolls is a part of life with web 2.o (I can't wait until I'm famous enough to get some), especially for someone of Dawkins' stature. It's better to ignore them than to ban or delete them.

Anyway, that's your lot for now. Possibly some more later if I don't go to the pub.

The anti-10:23 protest

2010-02-24T18:06:00.000Z

There are two mainbenefits of working in Westminster.

One is the newly founded and quite brilliant Westminster Skeptics in the Pub,of which more another time.

The other is that I’m veryclose to the Houses of Parliament, which is a lovely place to go and eat lunch.

Occasionally, there areprotests in Parliament Squareto entertain you while you eat.

Brian Haw is always there,and recently there were the huge Tamil rallies, although my personal favouritewas when a few hundred beekeepers popped up in full regalia.

Today, though, was theturn of the homeopaths, who had arranged to protest in advance of Monday's Select Committee report.

I was alerted to theplanned protest by Gimpy, and as an ardent 10:23 supporter, I thought I’d popdown and see what happened.*

It’s fair to say that theprotest wasn’t well attended (there were far more beekeepers last November). I’m no good at estimating the size of crowds, butthere were probably only around 50 people. There were certainly less than atthe London 10:23 event, and definitely less than 10^23 homeopaths to the one of me.

It’s also fair to pointout that the messages on banners were not about evidence. It’s obviouslyunfair to expect homemade signs to outline detailed criticism of RCTs, but thepoints made on them were familiar, tired arguments – you can see ‘My healthcare, Mychoice’ and ‘Homeopathy worked for me!’ in my photos.

I took a couple ofphotographs and then engaged a couple of protesters in discussion, hoping tospeak to a press spokesman or one of the leaders for the Pod Delusion.

It quickly became clearthat there was no organisation to speak of. The parliamentary authorities hadagreed to allow up to 100 people into the building, but there were nowhere nearthat number of people.

I introduced myself assomeone involved in 10:23 demonstration and who was interested in seeing what theprotestors were saying.

We had quite a jolly chat aboutwhat my beef was, why I didn’t support choice in healthcare and their assertionthat there was good evidence forhomeopathy and other complementary treatments.

There was then a lovelymoment when another woman came over and said she that as I was obviously a veryarticulate young man, would I like to speak on their behalf when they met someMPs?

Her two co-protestors quickly explained I was from the ‘other side’ and wecontinued talking.

The exchange became a bitmore detailed, although no less good-natured, when we were joined by Tim Lloydfrom the College of Practical Homeopathy (asopposed to the Theoretical kind?). He was able to quote studies and moresophisticated arguments, and so our discussion quickly ranged wider.

I’ll try to summarise the discussion here.

Bear inmind that while most points were made by Tim Lloyd, not all were. And althoughI did think their points were quite weak and easy to rebut, I’m also documentingthe whole thing from memory, so there may be some confirmation bias involved…

They said that money waswasted on all sorts of things in the NHS, and £4m in the scale of the totalbudget was tiny, so why was this a big concern? Why did I want homeopathybanned?

I explained that I didn’twant homeopathy banned, but simply not funded on the NHS because there was noevidence it worked.

They made a number ofpoints in response to this.

Apparently, 80% of peoplewho used homeopathy paid for it privately anyway, but wasn’t discriminatingagainst people who could not afford to pay for it? Here I reiterated theevidence point.

They also claimed there isgood evidence for homeopathy. I questioned whether that was in the form ofdouble blind trials, to which they said variously:

Yes it is
You can only establish whether healthcare measures work over a long period of time, once you can see the full side effects. Homeopathy has been tested over a period of time and the data is there, while modern medicine hasn’t been
They said that all good high quality, double blinded, randomly controlled trials on Arnica show that it works on bruises. I’m not an expert on the literature, but I disputed that there were any such trials.
The 1918 wartime trial on Spanish flu showed homeopathy worked. (I know Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst had dismissed in Alternative Medicine on Trial, but couldn’t remember why.)
There are massive trials going on at the moment in Swaziland (not double blinded) and Cuba (double blinded) which showed homeopathy worked. I agreed that, if they trials were as described, the Cuban one would be very interesting.

They suggested that meta-analysesshowing homeopathy doesn’t work are not a reasonable measure of efficacybecause they exclude the trials where homeopathy has fared well, and includethe trials where it has fared badly.

I suggested that thoseconducting the analyses would characterise things differently, as they includedhigh and excluded low quality trials, and that this is what led to poor resultsfor homeopathy. Their response was ‘They would say that!’

They agreed that it wouldbe wrong to just include trials where homeopathy was successful, but that one shouldlook at all of the trials, and that showed positive results.

We discussed the argumentthat homeopathy is hard to test because of the vast number of remedies and becausepeople don’t react in the same way to remedies. This was, they explained, whythe individualised consultation is important. 50% of homeopathy is apparentlythe consultation.

I asked whether that meantBoots remedies didn’t work, since they weren’t individualised but purchasedfrom a shop. They said no, in general, mass produced remedies didn’t work aswell as individualised ones, but that for ‘simpler’ remedies they worked justas well.

I asked whether they wouldsupport Big Pharma selling drugs that had not been shown to work viadouble-blind trials, or shown not to work via double blind trials.

They responded that BigPharma drugs didn’t work but they hid the results. I said I agreed this was aproblem, and that all research should be funded, but that it was irrelevant tothe question of whether they would support the sale of those drugs.

They agreed that thereshould not be one rule for all and that they would not be happy for Big Pharmato sell drugs under those conditions.

I also asked whether all homeopathssuccuss remedies the same number of times. They assured me they did, and thatthey knew it was the right amount because there have hundreds of years of experience to go on, although no tests they could tell me about.

And there I had to leaveit because my lunch break was over, and the protestors were being called into theCommons.

I’m not sure what happenedinside, but if I can find any details or anyone knows, I’ll updatethe post.

Overall, it wasn’t a veryimpressive show of force. If this is the ‘notinconsiderable influence within the homeopathic community’ Lionel Milgrom has beenboasting of, Evan Harris will be fine.

Tim Lloyd said he was happyto continue the debate if I wanted.

I have no great desire to, although Ienjoyed the back and forth and he and his colleagues were very pleasant.

It’s just a shame they areso horribly, horribly wrong.

NBThanks to those who suggested helpful questions for me to ask, which included:

- There's not many people here today, do you think that you're stronger inmore diluted numbers?

- Isn't this a placebo protest? You're probably not going to have anyactual effect, but it'll make you feel a lot better?

- If a spoon-full of sugar helps the medicine go down, what does a sugarpill on its own help go down?

- As like cures like, shouldn't you be advocating a ban on homeopathy?

Ashorter version of this report will appear on the Pod Delusion on Friday. I may usesome of this superb material there.

*At one stage I thoughtabout doing a one-man overdose, but was undone by my inherent dislike ofconfrontation and my inability to sort out the forms required to stage aprotest in Parliament Square.

The Tonge lashing - the Lib Dems & problems with evidence

2010-02-18T13:29:00.000Z

And so farewell to Baroness Jenny Tonge, formerlyLib Dem spokesperson on health, who was sacrificed by Nick Clegg becauseshe made commentsthat he considered ‘wrong,distasteful and provocative’.

I have no great desireto wade into the Israli / Palestine conflict, the topic on which Tonge hasrepeatedly made and continues to make comment unpalatable to Israel and hersupporters, but I do think it’s interesting to try and look at what she saidfrom the objective perspective, particularly as her comments hinges on when to call for more evidence.

She was asked by the Jewish Chronicle to comment onallegations that members of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) working on therelief effort in Haiti had been harvesting organs.

These allegations were originally posted in a videoon Youtube and then picked up by the Palestine Telegraph, a newspaper of whichTonge is a patron. Both the article and the video present little or no evidencefor the allegations, and contain far more detail about older allegations aboutorgan harvesting from Palestinians.

Jenny Tongue said the IDF was ‘to be commended fortheir fantastic response to the Haitian earthquake’ and then continued:

“To prevent allegationssuch as these – which have already been posted on YouTube – going any further,the IDF and the Israeli Medical Association should establish an independentinquiry immediately to clear the names of the team in Haiti.”

While on one level the comments seemuncontroversial, there are several aspects about them that are problematic.

First, Tonge has subsequently described theallegations as ‘ludicrous’ and making no sense (what use would organs be inHaiti?). In this case, what could further investigation have achieved? What newinformation was required if she already accepts the allegations are unfounded?

It surely isn’t true that the investigation couldprevent the allegations going any further. Zionist and Israeli plots arestandard fare in for conspiracy theorists, and no amount of investigation isgoing to prevent them from spreading these allegations. This is especially trueif the investigation is sponsored by the IDF, which will give the theorists anextra reason to reject them.

Third, although she suggests an independentinvestigation, I think Tonge places the burden of proof in the wrong place. Ifthe allegations in question are ‘ludicrous’, the appropriate response is tocall for the Palestine Telegraph to provide further evidence or apologise.

Suggesting the IDF sponsor an investigation toclear their name is quite close to asking them to prove a negative, and veryclose to asking the accused to prove their innocence.

However, it isn’t clear to me that she should havebeen sacked or be accused of anti-Semitism simply on the basis of these commentsalone.

The only conclusions I would feel comfortabledrawing from what has been reported are that a politician made someoff-the-cuff comments to a newspaper that misjudged the appropriate role ofevidence in the situation. And lord knows that happens often enough.

Ironically, all of this happened in the same weekthat a campaign began to remove Evan Harris as the party’s spokesperson onscience.

He has attracted vitriol from homeopaths inresponse to his comments at the Select Committee hearing and 10:23 overdose –Gimpy covers the campaign in detail and features Lionel Milgrom’s letter toNick Clegg.

I am less cautious about wading into the debate onhomeopathy, but I have little to add here, beyond expressing my support forEvan Harris. He is a shining and rare example of a politician who understandsand respects the role of science and evidence in policy making, something dearto my heart. It was this understanding that makes him such a devastating critic of alternative medicine, as he demonstrated at the Select Committee meeting.

Evidence plays a miniscule role in the letter, and the main case against Harris seems to be he hasn’t treated homeopaths nicely enough.

Perhaps Lionel Milgrom felt it unnecessary to directly quote any of the ‘growing clinical and scientific evidence’ because the BHA had already done such a bang up job at the actual Select Committee hearing?

If you aren’t sure what I'm referring to, pop over to the Lay Science blog, where MartinRobbins goes into great detail as he did in his excellent London Skeptics in the Pubearlier in the week.

Stunningly, Nick Clegg has yet to act against Harris and shows no sign of doing so. This will force homeopaths to fall back on plan B – to unseat him as MP for Oxford West and Abingdon at the next election. Although Milgrom’s chilling statement about his ‘not inconsiderable influence within the homeopathic community’ is unlikely to have Harris quaking in his boots, his re-election campaign may provide a future rallying point for 10:23 supporters.

The next stage in that particular battle will come next Wednesday with the Select Committee publish their report. While its focus will be on the government's position on NHS funding for homeopathy, I am willing to bet it will not make pleasant reading for homeopaths. We shall see.

Happy Birthday, Pod Delusion - The 21st Edition

2010-02-14T20:17:00.000Z

Yesterday saw the release of the 21st proper episode of what is now firmly established as everyone's favorite newsy, political, skeptical, liberal weekly podcast with ska theme tune and numerous contributors.

So, it is time for a warm and heartfelt happy birthday to the Pod Delusion.

If you missed it, here's an embed for the new edition.

I know the dangers of confirmation bias, but I think The Pod Delusion is developing into something quite special. In 6 months, it's regular listenership is at levels other podcasts have taken 2 or 3 years to reach.

I'm not quite sure what James had in mind when he started out, but a neat balance is evolving between very focused and broader reports, ranging from straight out polemic to more sober analysis. Sometimes the focus is the views and expertise of the contributor, sometimes the contributor does an interview with someone else (although a few pieces probably fall somewhere in the middle).

The range of interviewees (Ariane Sherine, DJ Grothe, Robin Ince, David Nutt, Dave Gorman, Evan Harris, Richard fricking Dawkins, etc) in it's first 21 shows is stunning and not a bad measure of the early impact.

Everyone will have favorite reports. Mine include Liz Lutgendorf on Darwin's Detractors (Ep13), Salim Fadhley's original report on the dodgy bomb detector (Ep15), Martin Norris's Quote of the Year (Ep15) and Misty's rant about education policy (Ep 5), as well as her love affair with Douglas Adams (Ep 17), a subject close to my own heart.

My favorite contribution, though, remains the one that persuaded me to get involved in the first place - Crispian Jago's spoof of the opening of the Natural History Museum's new Darwin Centre.

Here's an embed of Episode 1 in which it featured - you can hear it around the 21:40 mark. Have a listen before going any further.

Generally, I think the quality of the episodes has improved with time, as people get more practice and better equipment. I know, personally, I'm much happier with my later contributions than my early ones. Compare my interview with Evan Harris (10:23 special) with my now painful review of The Men Who Stare at Goats (Ep 9).

Finally, before writing this, I went and read the reviews people have left on iTunes.

Most reviews are very good, but I actually found the less favorable ones more interesting. They highlighted things I had thought myself when recording and listening, and that I want to bear in mind when doing future contributions.

Briefly, I think these are as follows. If any of the other contributors are reading, I'd be fascinated to hear whether you feel the same.

- Topicality - Part of the success to date is the format - it's weekly and the work of multiple people. This means the Pod Delusion can produce detailed commentary on up-to-the-minute issues more easily than other podcasts. This doesn't mean there's no room for me to something on my personal interests or bugbears, but that these come across better when I can link them to current affairs.

- It's not just a skeptical podcast - The Pod Delusion has broader ambitions than me. I would be content to cover skeptical topics until the cows come home, but the remit is wider than that. Correspondingly, I have to be careful not to make my reports too niche.

- People aren't interested in me - This will come as a surprise to those of you that know me, but I quite like the sound of my own voice. As such, when I stumble on a nice turn of phrase or have something I really want to say, it can feel like I'm losing a limb if it obviously doesn't fit in the final edit.

- Length - I have trouble writing short sentences and paragraphs, let alone blog entries. As such, it isn't a surprise that I have to work hard to get my contributions down. I'm now working on the principle that anything over 7 minutes doesn't cut it, simply because that's about the length of my own attention span when listening.

- The quality of the show is only as good as the worst contribution - Here, I'm talking both about sound quality and how good the report is. James is getting contribution offers from ever more people, and the level of expertise, delivery and sound quality can be almost professional - witness Dr*T in Ep 19 on Homeopathic Labelling. I know I have to improve my game to keep up, which both scary and exciting.

- It's James's bag, baby - Finally, it's vital to remember that at it's heart, the Pod Delusion is about James O'Malley. It was his idea, he puts the work in every single week, and he is (I think) the biggest factor in the success so far. The acerbic wit of his links is the glue that holds the whole thing together. A couple of times, I've had ambitious ideas that were either wildly unfeasible or just didn't fit the show. James, in his very kind way, has always heard me out before pointing out the flaws in my plans and rejecting them. This has to be right. What he says goes, and further success will depend on the coherence that his ownership and editorship provide.

That's about it, except to say once again: Congratulations & happy 21st, Pod Delusion. It has been a joy to be part of the ride so far, and I can't wait to see what will happen next.*

*I do actually know some of what will happen next, and I hope it will leave your appetites whetted. Look out for an official link-up with Westminster Skeptics in the Pub & an interview with Professor Marcus du Sautoy about his Douglas Adams memorial lecture.

Oh, Reverend...

2010-02-13T23:42:00.001Z

(alternatively titled 'Women! Know Your Limits!')

Some days, it takes a great deal of reasoned argument to explain my doubts about organised religion.
And then some days, someone steps up to the plate and does it for me in glorious technicolour.

Rector Angus MacLeay of St Nicholas Church Sevenoaks in Kent has issued a leaflet entitled 'The Role of Women in the Local Church' and the Reverend Mark Oden has given a sermon at the same church called 'Marriage and Women'. Both call for greater submission and obedience from women to cure social ills, citing various Biblical passages in support.

Amazingly, these views have attracted stinging criticism! The following two comments from the congregation are quoted in almost all of the press coverage:

"What kind of medieval sermon is that? We are not in the 15th Century. I have already cancelled my direct debit to the church."

“How can they talk that way in the 21st century? No wonder the Church is losing touch if this is the kind of gobbledegook they want us to believe it. I will not be going back to that church and will have to seriously consider my faith if this is the nonsense they are spouting now."

The Reverend has adopted a robust position. As he puts it 'I did not set out to unnecessarily offend people, but I stand by what God has said in his word, the Bible.'

He is employed to preach the word of God and he takes this duty very seriously. He proclaims a strict and literal interpretation of what the Lord has written, which includes passages on the role of women which are unpleasant to modern ears.

It's right there in black and white, dotted throughout the Bible. Women shall be silent, submissive, obediant and raped (although to be fair, that last one is quite specific to the situation in question).

Some people will claim that in the pamphlet and the sermon, the Reverend and his curate are merely expressing their own prejudices couched in Biblical authority.

But not me. I am prepared to take them at their word and give them the benefit of the doubt.

As such, I look forward to hearing them instruct the congregation on the eating of one's own shit and the punishment of adultery by death. I am also keen to hear them advocate the burning of one's own daughters for fornication, although merely eating them should suffice.

Where the members of the congregation are concerned, one can only congratulate the second speaker on her use of the word gobbledegook (General Melchett would be proud) but respond that this is exactly the same sort of 'nonsense' they have been spouting for nigh on two thousand years. Why should it suddenly be wrong now in the 21st century?

The parishioners may argue that God's word (as expressed in the Bible) has been filtered through Man and interpreted by him, and so certain passages can be rejected as out-of-date, or contrary to modern moral thinking. Or they may subscribe to the common view that some Bible passages cannot be taken literally and should be read allegorically.

Either way, why should we judge their interpretation is correct and not the Reverend's? How do they know it is acceptable to reject the passages of the Bible that he cites?

The Bible cannot help, because if we accept it is not the infallible word of God, any chapter or book we look to for guidance might be one of the passages to be rejected.

At some point, it must come down to the conscience of the individual as affected by their own experiences, and a faith that they are interpreting God's will correctly.

But what happened to God as an objective source of morality? Surely a benevolent and omnipotent entity would never permit such confusion ? Surely such a being would make it crystal clear what was right and wrong, and then step back and let human free will take it's course?

And, if the parishioners have stopped believing in God as such an entity, I think they are probably so near to atheism or humanism that it's not worth the effort of the argument.

As I say, some days it's easier than others.

(If only because this week I have seen a misinterpretation lead to James O'Malley from The Pod Delusion being labelled 'only a complete racist moron', let me make absolutely clear that I think the Reverend's views are ludicrous and unpleasant. I wouldn't wish to ban him from expressing them, but I would equally hate to see him get a high profile platform from which to preach them).

Evidence & Policy

2010-02-08T18:05:00.000Z

One of theattractions of blogging is that it allows an immediacy that other mediacan't provide.

Sometimes,though, it takes a while to digest things, and it's only now, after about amonth of cogitation, that I am writing some thoughts on Jack of Kent's (JoK) January postson policy making. You can read them here and here.My thoughts have been influenced by various comments David Nutt has beenmaking, as well as the Chilcott inquiry and the repsonse to the Guardian's surprisingly vitriolic coverage of 'Climategate’.

As ever, Iagree with the broad scope of JoK's aruments - political decisions should betaken after considering evidence; policy and evidence are distinct; clarity ofpurpose from politicians is to be applauded, as are transparency and realismabout what is achievable.

However, JoK's beginshis first article by asking about the importance of defining what policy is. To quote;

'...whatwe mean by the word policy is curiously difficult to define. Doesit matter?

Well,given the emphasis which is (in my view, correctly) placed on"evidence-based policy-making" in areas such as drugs policy,regulation of prostitution, public health, climate change, etc, it is importantto be clear not only what the evidence is, but what it means for a policy to be"based" on the evidence.'

This plays intoa slight apprehension I have with the increasing focus on evidence-basedpolicy.

Let me try andexplain.

JoKgoes on to adopt a definition of policy as 'a course of action' andstates that 'evidence should provide its basis' with policybeing 'the link between the evidence and the range of means ultimatelyadopted; but it is distinct from both'.

Theposts make a further distinction- 'Libertarianism or socialismare principles or ideologies, rather than a policy'.

This suggests something like the followingmodel.

JoKuses 'to end fox hunting' as an example of policy.

The ideology would then be something like the League of Cruel Sports’governing principle: ‘That it isiniquitous to inflict suffering, either directly or indirectly, upon sentientanimals for the purpose of Sport.’

Thelegal prohibition of fox-hunting would be one means through which the policy isenacted.

Evidence-basedpolicy in this case would therefore be a decision by a politician who supportsthe League of Cruel Sports principle to seek an end to fox hunting, because thereis evidence that suggests it inflicts suffering.

I happilychampion evidence-based policy of this sort, and the way JoK sets it out is certainlya useful way of setting out aspects of policy making for discussion and campaigning.

Theconcern I have, though, is that the debate can become too narrow when skeptics focus on policy as defined in this way. Specifically, I would raise thefollowing points:

There is a vital role for evidence to play when choosingthe means to enact a policy. To return to fox-hunting, there appears to begood evidence that the legal prohibition on fox-hunting has not and will notachieve the desired policy of an end to fox-hunting. In such situations, apolitician could respond by changing the means being used to achieve the policyor abandoning the policy, and either of these might be reasonable. I think onlyone of them would constitute evidence-based policy according to the above model.

I think that evidence can and does play a role in theformation of principles and ideologies, although in less tangible and obviousways. Certainly, my own principles and ideologies have been shaped as I havebeen more exposed to science. Many people profess that they have abandoned acommitment to communism or market principles when exposed to certain evidence.

Underpinning these two points, I suspect, is that there isno crisp distinction to be made between principles, policies and means. TheLeague of Cruel Sports principle is quite general, but one could easily see itas a policy being pursued in pursuit of an even more general principle.Equally, policies look suspiciously like the means used to enact principles orideology. It makes more sense to talk of a spectrum, with the most generalprinciples and ideologies at one end, and the most specific and tangible meansof enacting policy at the other.

Idon’t think it matters that we have no a hard and fast definition of policy,providing we are content to see evidence-based policy (as JoK sets it out) asjust one aspect of a wider set of concerns about the use of evidence bypoliticians and policy makers, and their attitude towards it. I would set out awish list for politicians and policy-makers as follows:

They should have regard to evidence when formulatingpolicy (evidence-based policy), and the means through which they enact policy
They should set out clearly and precisely what they hopeto achieve from a particular policy
They should have an understanding of what constitutes highquality evidence.
They should have an awareness of the limitations andbiases to which all human beings are susceptible
They should have a working understanding of the scientificmethod
They should understand the role consensus and peer reviewplay in science, and the dangers of relying on one expert alone
They should be open to criticism for the choices theymake, and should take steps to facilitate an openness and transparency

(Muchof this echoes JoK’s list of the features of good policy, although I’m takingcare to frame it in a different way.)

I fear that if skepticsfocus on evidence-based policy alone the debate will become bogged down on whatpolicy is, not the way in which evidence is used. I also fear thatpoliticians hearing the phrase'evidence-based policy' will think it is sufficient to back policydecisions with any old evidence, nomatter how poor or ill-conceived it is.

I’ve heard the term science-based policyused (perhaps drawing on Steve Novella’s Science-based medicine site)and I think it’s quite a good general term for what I’m trying to outline.

It doesn’t quite capture all the points, although it getsmost of them. It is useful for current purposes as the role evidence plays inscience is well understood, and so evidence-based policy is in some way asubset of it.

This also leads me toone final and significant point I would add:

Politicians and policy-makers should be free to advocatepolicies for which there is not a clear evidence base, or which even gocompletely against existing evidence.

Forme, problems do not necessarily arise when politicians try to adopt policies forwhich there is poor evidence. Without freedom to experiment or try newthings, science would not progress. The political climate is far tooprohibitive of new approaches and innovative policies, and more pilot studiesand policy experiments should be encouraged. They will themselves constitute evidence when future policies are considered.

Problemsarise when politicians are dishonest about the evidence base, or where the cost offailure is given insufficient weight when considering which way to proceed. We should hold ourpoliticians to account for these failings, not because they wish to trysomething unorthodox.

Itrailed this post on Twitter and here by saying I trying to write a post which showedJoK was (in a narrow and specific sense) wrong. That's not really the case. Evidence-based policy is important, it's just that I think skeptics must look beyond it if they are to achieve everything the aspire to.

Thishas turned out to be a long post, and I am aware that there is still much to besaid and nuances I have not drawn out. I think it likely I will return to thesetopics in due course, and certainly when I write a response to Lucifee's detailed and thought-provoking analysis of the Libel reform campaign.

Weekend Wound-up 5 Feb 2010

2010-02-05T18:29:00.001Z

It's been a fairly crazy two weeks. This is partly because I've written some long blogs, but also because someone very close to me was admitted to hospital for 4 days, the whole PodDelusion / Bruce Hood / 1023 was great but took up significant chunks of time, and, on the side, I also have a proper job.

It was never quite my intention to start a skeptical blog, although I knew I'd write some posts on skeptical topics.

However, that's what I've written most often and I'm really gratified with the reception so far. I'm going to stick with it, write more frequently and see where it takes me. There will continue to be entries about various cultural stuff I want to talk about, but they will be more occasional.

I've decided to resurrect the Weekend Wound-up which I tried twice in the early days. It was a way of letting off steam about issues which I didn't have time to write about in full, in the vague hope I wouldn't then gnash my teeth about them at the weekend. This week I would draw your attention to:

Cherie Booth/Blair whose decided to suspend the sentence of a man in her court, and then made the following statement: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour." There has been a complaint from the National Secular Society which is now being investigated. Legal bloggers Lucifee and JackofKent (more on them later) have pointed out that this is perfectly reasonable comment for a judge and that there is no evidence of discrimination against atheists here. Fair comment, but it remains the case that, had she indicated any of the man's other attributes in that sentence, it would have been very weird (ie remove 'religious' and substitute in 'asian', 'short', 'chubby', etc) and people would have wondered quite what she meant. Quite why religious belief should be seen as better evidence of good character than these other attributes remains a valid question, and I support the NSS in asking it, especially given the prominence the Blairs attach to their faith in the public arena.
The relative silence on what happens next with 10:23, but this is my lack of patience rather than the fault of the campaign. I completely understand that the organisers put their all into last week and that they have proper jobs, but it was a monstrous success and I was hungry for more. However, I suspect Martin Robbins in the Guardian tomorrow and the Select Committee report next week may spark further news.
And finally, this news from the Valleys, which I am only cross about because it should have attracted more coverage. Imagine people having to use torches. The scandal.

That's all except some teasers for blog entries I'm planning:

Homeopathy on the NHS - How does it work?
Evidence, Policy & Law - where @Lucifee and @JackofKent are wrong (albeit only in a narrow and very specific sense)
The Locksbottom Clinic - For alternative medicine and child psychology
Lost - The Final Season
Robert Wyatt's lovely song about Humanism

And whatever else pops into my fragile little mind. I hope you stay tuned, and enjoy your weekends.

The fuzzy grey line - Freedom of choice, safety & efficacy

2010-02-03T22:00:00.001Z

I invite you to consider the curious case of Dr X.

Dr X is a proponent of1023 Juice – a therapy which he believes can cure disease Y.

Dr X can demonstrate(through whatever mechanism you care to choose) that 1023 juice is completelysafe – by which I mean it causes no harm to those who take it.

There is currently no evidence that 1023 Juicecan treat does cure Y, although Dr X articulates a mechanism through which heclaims it works.

The question arises - should Dr X be allowedto sell 1023 Juice to the public?

This is not the most subtle thought experiment,but it is useful to illustrate problems with arguments commonly used byproponents of alternative medicine,

Anyone following the #ten23 hashtag will know a number ofhomeopaths have characterised the campaign in terms of freedom of choice - see here fora short, representative example which I’ve blogged about before. There areseveral quotes in the article about freedom of choice and democracy, such as:

A democratic society is based upon the premiseof freedom of expression and equality. The UK is a democratic society and seeksto allow its citizens the freedom and choice, one of the most of which concernsour healthcare.

I don’t think this line of reasoning getshomeopaths very far. Let me try to explain why.

I presume no one except fanatical libertariansbelieve there should be absolute freedom of choice in healthcare. By this Imean no restriction of any kind on the healthcare people can choose forthemselves or their families.

Extreme examples serve to demonstrate why (andplease note I am not comparing these to homeopathy, merely using them toillustrate the absurdity of the absolute position).

Without any restrictions, the mentally illcould choose bloodletting to relieve their symptoms. Those brainwashed byreligious cults could advocate the choice of ritual beating or physical abuseof children to cure all manner of conditions.

And, to choose a less extreme example but oneI think most homeopaths would agree demonstrates the need for some restrictionson freedom of choice, ‘Big Pharma’ could sell whatever drugs it liked towhomsoever it liked without restriction, under the banner it was providing‘what customers want’.

If one rejects the absolute position, then itfollows that there some restrictions of on people’s freedom to choose healthcareare justified.

So, what might these restrictions be?

Safety of the therapy involved is probably theleast controversial option. That is, people should be free to choose treatmentswhich are not harmful to them. The extreme examples above are notable for theharmful effects they have to the individual involved without demonstrablebenefit.

I hope homeopaths and proponents of alt medwill be comfortable with this, and I think they may favour a more stringentsafety restriction of this kind than many advocates of mainstream medicine. Thesafety of alternative remedies is a major argument deployed in their favour,since it is claimed they lack the harmful side effects caused by ‘Big Pharma’with their mainstream medicines and drugs.

The other obvious candidate is efficacy – thatis, proof that the therapy does what it claims it to do.

And, I think from the arguments I have read,proponents of alternative and mainstream medicine will give different answersto the question ‘Should there be restrictions on freedom of healthcare choiceon the basis of efficacy?’

The response of the latter will be complex –some may say efficacy of treatment should be shown before people can choose it.Or, adopting a softer position, the efficacy of treatment should be wellunderstood and advertised before the choice is offered.

In some cases, proponents of mainstreammedicine will allow proof of efficacy to trump the safety restriction. If thebenefits of a therapy are well-established and significant enough, some harmfuleffects can be permitted, as with chemotherapy.

From what I have read and heard, the responseof the alternative medicine proponents is likely to be different – whereefficacy is not proven and providing the treatment causes no harm, its saleshould be permitted. Freedom of choice is more important.

And this is where I think Dr X is so useful. Iask again – should he be allowed to sell 1023 Juice?

Safety, that is the absence of harmful effectsto the patient, is clearly proven. Yet, I think it becomes clear that thisdefinition of safety will not do.

If people are allowed to choose Dr X’s therapybefore its efficacy is proven, there is a high chance that they will believethemselves cured.

This will not directly cause harmful effectsin the patient, but it may prevent them seeking other treatments whose efficacyis established. If Y were cancer or malaria, the harmful effect would besignificant. Moreover, if the disease in question were Aids, there is asignificant chance that others will be infected, thus causing major harm toothers who have no opportunity to exercise a choice.

The line between safety and efficacy is not athick black one – it is a fuzzy, grey one because ineffective treatments causeharm in less obvious or measurable ways.

Homeopaths who resort to freedom of choicearguments are hiding this complexity, and it is absolutely vital they arecalled on it.

The 1023campaign is trying to raiseawareness, promote clearer labelling and highlight the contorted position Bootshas got into selling such remedies. It is not trying to ban homeopathy, despitewilful characterisations to the contrary.

However, I leave you with one final questionto puzzle over. Boots muchquoted response states thatthey supported calls for more scientific research into the efficacy ofhomeopathic medicines, adding: "This would help our patients and customersmake informed choices about using homeopathic medicines."

My question is this – would you be comfortableif Dr X continued to sell 1023 Juice while further research were carried out’?

Alternative Medicine on Trial & Sharing a platform

2010-02-02T23:15:00.001Z

Well, wasn't that fun?

I am of course talking about the 10:23 overdose.

I attended the London event and if you haven't yet, catch up with the whole thing on the Pod Delusion special It's virtually all James O's work, although I did get to speak to the hyper-enthusiastic Carmen (were they caffeine pills she took?) and the estimable Dr Evan Harris MP.

However, I wanted to write briefly about a very good friend of mine. I invited him along to watch the 'overdose' and then to Alternative Medicine on Trial, the CFI London event that most of the London ODers went on to. This consisted of three lectures by Simon Singh, Andy Lewis from Quackometer and Professor John Garrow from Health Watch.

You don't need to know who my friend was for the purposes of this post, so let's call him Hob Royle to keep it anonymous.

Unfortunately, Hob didn't want to come, but the reason he gave was interesting so I thought it worth recording.

Sure, Hob thought the topics under discussion were interesting and, sure, he'd heard of Simon Singh and wouldn't have minded hearing him speak.

But Hob didn't want to come because he thought the event was unbalanced. That is, it was unfair that no one from the Alt Med field was invited to speak. Hob felt he would have got more from an event that was unbiased and allowed both sides to put their sides of the debate across.

Hob is, of course, free to come to this conclusion, and I understand why he might do so. On one level, it does seem odd that an event called Alt Med ON TRIAL would not feature anyone for the defence, as it were.

I found it really hard to make the convince him otherwise at the time. There are several counter arguments to make, but in trying to articulate them I ended up sounding like some anti-CAM obsessive with a massive chip on my shoulder. That balanced Carl Sagan tone, conciliatory but firm is really hard to achieve.

So, because its easier to do it this way, I thought I'd write them down here for him...

- On trial: First and foremost, this wasn't about a trial in the legal sense. It was about looking at the evidence for alternative and complementary therapies, and that evidence is most reliable when done in the form of random controlled trials. It was a good title for the day, but I understand why it might have put Hob off.

- What constitutes balance? 1: I think Hob has a common misconception about the skeptical point of view. 'Fairness' in the sense Hob outlines it would really consist of people who believed unquestionably in the efficacy of alternative medicine debating with those who believed it was completely useless.

From their talks, it was clear that the three speakers fall into neither of these categories. They focused on the evidence base for Alt Med and presented both sides where there are two sides to present. Simon Singh, for example, set out very clearly where cases where there is unequivocal positive evidence for complementary or alternative therapies (the use of St John's Wort for depression sticks in my mind, but there were others). That the evidence heavily favours one side or the other is irrelevant to the question of balance in this sense.

- What constitutes balance? 2: There is a related but distinct point which is familiar to those who read media coverage of science issues. Balance does not necessarily mean giving equal space or time to those who disagree with each other. This is best illustrated with extreme examples such as Flat Earthers, where it is recognised that one side of the 'debate' is propounded by a small minority who are well outside of the mainstream. In the coverage of Obama's cancellation of the moon mission, no one was giving equal column inches to those who believe the moon landings were a hoax. No one criticised them for a lack of balance, either.

It's important to note that I'm not (here) linking proponents of Alt Med to Flat Earthers or Richard Hoagland. Its enough to show that aiming for 'balance' doesn't necessarily mean there are two equal sides to a debate.

- Wrong forum 1: This was a series of lectures, not a debate. Simon Singh and Andy Lewis are well known for engaging Alt Med proponents head on, as are other well-known skeptics, and there are plenty of forums in which to get that kind of experience. This was a chance to hear them go into more depth on their areas of expertise, and there are plenty similar opportunities to hear proponents of alternative medicine.

- Wrong forum 2: Debates are often a very bad format in which to give both sides of an issue equal hearing. Experience from the creationism vs evolution argument in the US shows debates can be counter-productive. The forum can make it a contest of rhetorical skills rather than evidence and plausibility. It can also allow people to throw out masses of false statements that sound convincing but cannot all be corrected due to time pressures.

- Freedom to ask attend and ask questions: The series of lectures was open, and there were ample opportunities to ask questions at the end of the talks. The speakers were also open to one on one debate and generous with their time.

- Give us a chance Finally, I think this is the wrong time to feature Alt Med proponents at this kind of event. Skepticism is just finding its feet in the UK, and as one of the leading organisations in the field, CFI is quite entitled to host an event with speakers who identify with its own mission. I'm quite certain that there is more balance and nuance in the talks at skeptical events than those run by Alt Med proponents. One good piece of evidence for this belief is the ease with which one can comment and engage in debate on skeptical blogs and sites. Compare that to any homeopathic blog or site you care to name...

So, Hob - that's it. That's why it wasn't unfair to only have skeptics on the bill.

For any passing skeptics, please add any other thoughts in the comments.

Hob's a bright guy - he is (whisper it) significantly brighter than I am, although he holds back more. His academic background in theology, and retains an intellectual curiosity for matters religious, scientific and political. On the negative side, and in order to provide some balance, he is prone to putting both feet in his mouth, is prematurely bald and he bears more than a passing resemblance to Montgomery Burns

In short, Hob's exactly the kind of person who would get a kick out Alt Med on Trial and that 10:23 is aimed at. I want to get him along to Skeptics in the Pub some time, and I'd welcome any help you can give me.

Brandon Sanderson, I salute you

2010-01-31T21:20:00.000Z

When I discovered the Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan 9 books had already been published.

It follows a core cast of characters from a small village and, over successive novels, exposes them to the world Jordan created & their crucial roles in it. It deliberately evokes The Lord of the Rings and has become enormously popular, mainly because of Jordan's writing and the scope of what he tried to do.

I devoured the first 6 novels, marvelling at the scale of ambition, the adrenaline fuelled action sequences and the jolting plot twists and mysteries that the author handled with ease.

So far so good, but, for me, things went downhill from there with each successive book. Jordan seemed allergic to resolving plot strands, and addicted to introducing new, obscure characters at the expense of his core cast. There were less 'big' moments and more focus on the intricacies and mundanities of the world Jordan had created. It felt like a stronger, more focused editor was needed, and that Jordan could have finished the series much quicker, had he so chosen.

I stuck with it because my affection for the characters and early books was so great, and I was desperate to see the plot to its resolution. But by books 10 and11 the plot was so complex and unwieldy that I had to re-read thewhole series to remember what had happened. This simply reminded me how good the writing had been, and how much of a trawl it had become. After Book 12, I reluctantly decided to give up.

Robert Jordan died last year, something that saddened me greatly. He passed away after a long fight against illness with immense dignity and strength. He was very generous to his community of readers and was a man of great vision and talent and, whatever my frustrations with his later writing, he deserved the outpouring of grief from family and fans that he received.

And then, at Christmas, my parents gave me this:

Brandon Sanderson is another successful fantasy writer and Jordan's wife and publishers asked him to complete the series from Jordan's notes.

I was completely blown away.

It is absolutely brilliant, a stunning return to form and a joy to read.

The Gathering Storm has real energy throughout, and brings back the pace and sparkle of the earlier books. Sanderson writes in a style evocative of Jordan, but unmistakably his own. He very skillfully resolves a number of minor plot lines that had dragged on for several books - some within the first few pages, others throughout the novel. He handles the Verin Sedai sub-plot with aplomb, layering it through several chapters and using it to close two or three other long running sequences.

One of the main reasons for the book's success is that Sanderson chooses to keep his focus on just two main narrative voices - Egwene al'Vere and Rand al'Thor. This means that he can deliver real plot and character development, culminating in a lovely juxtaposition in the final chapter. Rand is the heart of the series who had been sadly absent from recent novels, and his journey in the books is incredibly satisfying.

I've read some criticism of Sanderson treats Mat Cauthon, the fans' favourite character. It is true that the narrative voice in the Mat chapters is less like Jordan's than other parts, and the wryness of Mat's sense of humour is diluted.

But the Mat chapters are good fun, and there are relatively few of them, so Sanderson doesn't get the extensive run at them of the kind he has had with Rand. We know from Jordan's extensive foreshadowing that huge events are heading Mat's way, and I now await them with bated breath.

So, to conclude - Brandon Sanderson, thank you. You have given me back my love for the series and I can't wait to see where you take us next. The Gathering Storm is a worthy addition to Robert Jordan's legacy and (whisper it) is probably a much better book for your involvement.

Homeopaths - What will happen at the 10:23 Overdose?

2010-01-19T13:37:00.001Z

On Saturday 30 January at 10:23am, 300 skeptics will simultaneously taking an overdose of homeopathic pills as part of the 10:23 campaign.

The aim is to raise awareness that the pills have nothing in them and that to put pressure on Boots to stop selling treatments.

The spectacle has prompted much back and forth between the two camps, which is interesting and entertaining. There have been challenges to both sides to put up or shut up about the evidence they are citing, as well as quite technical claims from both corners.

I’ve signed up to be one of the skeptics at the London event and while I’m pleased to be part of it, I thought it worth recording that (curiously) I am quite nervous as a significant part of me is wondering what might happen.

I have seen nothing to make me believe the claims of homeopathy - I find it implausible given our current scientific knowledge, and have seen no evidence that it has any effect above and beyond what a pleasant individual handing out sugar pills can achieve.

That said, there are certain indisputable facts that provoke a mild apprehension in me.

Homeopaths certainly believe they have a good understanding of what their remedies achieve, and that those remedies are based on a well-developed set of theories. And millions of people swear that homeopathic remedies have worked for them.

So, in the spirit of open enquiry, I have some questions for any passing homeopaths. These are intended in a genuinely non-aggressive way. There are other places for the more heated, meta-level debates (for example, see @DrNancyMalik or @marshall19838 on Twitter for some of it). Here I’m interested in what you think may happen and getting a better understanding of why you think that.

I don’t think it’s been decided yet what kind of remedies will be taken, but supposing I were to swallow an entire bottle of 30C sleeping pills

-    What effect do you think this would have?
-    Can you explain why you think it would have this effect?
-    Will the effect differ from person to person?
-    Do you believe there is any danger in taking such a dosage?
-    I regularly have trouble sleeping. Is this likely to change if I take the tablets in this way?

It will be very interesting to compare any answers I get to what actually happens on the day.

The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman

2010-01-14T17:37:00.002Z

I have just had the pleasure of reading Neil Gaiman's latest children's novel - The Graveyard Book.

Certainly, it draws heavily on The Jungle Book, a debt Gaiman acknowledges in his epilogue. It isn't as narratively complex as his adult books, such as American Gods, nor does it have the scale or grandeur of the Sandman graphic novels.

It is though, enormously satisfying. Its plot is so precise and its characters so well-rounded that at times I forgot I was reading. Gaiman is now so good at his craft that it feels effortless to the reader, a quality he shares with Terry Pratchett on the evidence of the Tiffany Aching novels. I'm certain that this isn't the case - with writing this undramatic, blood and sweat goes into every word used and every word left out.

The plot ends where you expect it to, but with some lovely twists that Gaiman is confident enough not to fully spell out, and without the Disneyfied, saccharine resolutions that other authors feel compelled to give.

Overall, it is richly deserving of the praise and awards it has attracted, and achieves what I had thought impossible, by offering a worthy follow up to Coraline.

Denialism, Homeopathy & 10:23

2010-01-14T16:55:00.004Z

This week I signed up properly to the 10:23 campaign. It seeks to raise awareness of exactly what homeopathy is. You can contribute in a number of ways - sign a petition, get yourself a Twitter Twibbon as I have, or simply outline basic facts about homeopathy in a humorous way - although beware others have already done this very well indeed.

So, I planned to put up a quick post to register my support, and leave it at that. But then I saw this via MJ Robbins, and it got me cross enough to write something in more depth.

I've written a couple of things recently about climate change denial and the need and duty for skeptics to be careful whenever using the label. I think the word "denialist" retains it's usefulness, but only in cases where:

a) there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence on one side of an argument

b) an individual in question repeatedly demonstrates their unwillingness to view that evidence impartially

I think these are uncontroversial conditions, and while there will be disagreement over exactly when they apply because they are subjective, but that just highlights the need for caution. When in doubt, skeptics should hold back on dropping the denialist bombshell.

There are several reasons for insisting on such precision. The first is the simple need for sensitivity when drawing analogies with those who question the Holocaust. A second is that when the label is used without precision, it bundles those who just don't know up with those who seek to ignore and undermine evidence. This was at the heart of my worries when James Randi caught it in the neck.

And then there is Jack of Kent's point about public engagement failure. The more the phrase "denialist" is used without due caution i, the more it will cause the wider public to switch off from the debate, thus missing the finer details about why one side is wrong.

And so, to the Safe Medicine blog.

First, I didn't like the tone of the whole piece. It presents the 10:23 campaign as trying to ban homeopathy, which isn't true. The campaign seeks to raise awareness and present facts about how homeopathy is supposed to work and what is in homepathic remedies.

Also, much of the substance of the letter focuses on freedom of choice and democracy, as if popularity of a product alone constitutes sufficient justification for its sale. I don't think this is an important factor when talking about medicine; I'm not sure it's even a relevant one. The blog in question is called "Safe Medicine", and the safety of products is clearly more important than popularity, as efficacy and scientific plausibility should be.

But the thing I wanted to draw out was the use of the term "Homeopathic denialist". It is used to apply to everyone on the 10:23 campaign, as well as being applied to Sense About Science and others in separate blogposts.

Here are two direct quotes from the blogger's letter to Boots:

"It is a treatment that has been proven to work for over 200 years in the treatment of disease, and there are much scientific research that now confirms that it is more effective than placebo."

"Although homeopathy has been observed many times to have a strong therapeutic effect, the way it works is not completely understood by science."

Both sentences suggest that there is research supporting homeopathy - but no one is in denial about this. The contention made by people like Ben Goldacre and Quackwatch is that there is other research, which is frequently more comprehensive and of better methodological quality, that shows no positive effect. I have found nothing on the blog that disputes that this is the case.

The other main point in these quotes is that science does not understand how homeopathy works. Yet, science absorbs and uses other phenomena that it can't fully explain at the time - electricity is one obvious example, general anesthetics is another one. Science learns to manipulate the phenomenon and seeks the explanation for how it works along the way. This has certainly not happened with homeopathy, as it remains resolutely outside mainstream science. And "over 200 years" is an extraordinarily long time in which not to find an explanation that accords with existing scientific knowledge.

So I would contend that the contents of the blog itself suggest there are no grounds for calling someone a "homeopathic denialist". There exist genuine questions over the efficacy and value of homeopathic treatment, and I don't believe applying such a dramatic label to those who disagree with him will help the writer of the blog appeal to those who want more information.

And the very existence of the phrase "homeopathic denialism" should serve as a warning bell to skeptics that they should always think twice before using similar labels themselves.

Now go and enjoy Crispian drinking his own piss.

DJ Grothe on the Pod Delusion

2010-01-08T13:42:00.003Z

It may be hard to believe, but I do have a life outside the Pod Delusion. However, today’s episode is the most exciting for me so far, as it contains a world exclusive interview I did yesterday with DJ Grothe, in his first week as President of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF).

He was previously at the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and I first came across him via their podcast, Point of Inquiry, which he has hosted for around 4 years. It was my first route into skepticism, an increasingly major part of who I am and what I do. For those reasons, the interview was an absolute joy for me to do.

Here’s the episode

But I’d encourage you to listen to the full interview which is around 20mins long. It has a lot more on the Randi & global warming issue, as well as DJ’s background as a magician, the announcement of the next TAM London, his experience of Rebecca Watson’s drinking ability and the Million dollar challenge.

I wanted to offer some reflections on the experience, and also some of the things DJ said.

- DJ is an absolute delight to talk to. He rightly attracts praise for the intelligence and subtlety of Point of Inquiry, and it comes across when he is the interviewee as well. He was willing to talk about any topic, and generous to a fault. I can’t think of many other figures with his profile who’d give 5 exclusives* to a small but upcoming podcast

- His comments on Randi and global warming were, to me, spot on, as I blogged a few of weeks ago. He rightly takes skeptics to task for fanning the flames and playing into the real deniers hands, but also states that it would have been better if Randi had done some research before his first post (this bit is in the longer interview, so make sure you listen to it).

- The Randi section and DJ’s general comments on the future of the JREF are fascinating. They show that DJ has enormous respect for Randi and understands what the JREF’s role and mission have been, but that he has his own ideas and priorities. It is his first interview since taking the job less than a week ago, yet he disagrees with his new boss, and has clear ideas about how the organisation will expand and connect with the wider skeptical community. This is not a man who wants to bask in the glory of the JREF’s founder. This is a man with a vision, who will be one of the leading voices in skepticism over the next 20 years.

- DJ talks about CFI, the JREF and their roles in skepticism, something he spoke about at length on the SGU in July. Taking both interviews together, I sense frustration about the direction that CFI has taken over the last few years. Clearly, DJ has advocated they take a less controlling, top down attitude, and this is something the JREF is more comfortable with and better placed to action.

- Given this, it will be fascinating to see how the big players in skepticism develop over the next couple of years, particularly as both are doing more work in the UK now (last year saw both the first TAM London but also the launch of CFI London). There are a number of middle sized organisations in the UK who work in skepticism or closely aligned areas, and it’s my hope they can work in their own fields to complement one another, rather than entering into competition. As it goes, I think the signs are excellent – witness the libel reform campaign, where Sense About Science has joined forces with English PEN and Index On Censorship. I hope to blog about this in more detail next week.

And now some more personal comments:

- Interviewing is bloody hard, especially when it’s someone you agree with. In the original recording I kept commenting “Yep” on everything DJ said, which made me sound like a very positive idiot. The main problem is the things we didn’t have time to ask, but will have to get to next time:

o who were his favourite interviews over those 4 years?**

o will he be at TAM

Australia

o what were his thoughts on the controversy about CFI’s blasphemy day?

o what will be the main differences between him and Phil Plait at the JREF?

o can he really outdrink PZ Myers?

o what does DJ stand for?

- However, editing is even harder. I say “er” an awful lot, and so to get the time down, had to do a million little cuts. The interview took 30 mins to record, and 4 hours to edit, and even now I wish the quality was better and that I’d edited the shorter version differently.

- All this, of course, just adds to my respect for DJ’s work on Point Of Inquiry, but also Thomas Donnelly whose work on editing is completely invisible and therefore exceptional.

- I will be at TAM London 2010 if I have to claw the ticket from Richard Wiseman’s cold dead fingers (sorry, Richard. - yours was just the first name I thought of). I desperately hope Randi is well enough to make it over this time.

That’s all really except to say: please do check out the full interview if you can - it’s well worth it.

Finally, my enormous thanks to DJ for agreeing and being so generous with his time, and to Bart Farkas at the JREF for his perseverance and humour in helping to set it up. Also to James O’Malley and Salim Fadhley for their technical help and patience.

* I counted as follows: TAM London 2010, his comments on Randi & AGW, the future of Point of Inquiry, his new podcast For Good Reason, the future of the Million dollar challenge.

** Out of interest, mine were Jennifer Michael Hecht whose books should be much better known, Michael Behe from the Discovery Institute and Eugenie Scott just after the Dover trial.

The Skeptics Who Never Were

2010-01-05T23:11:00.002Z

First, a midweek plug for the Pod Delusion review of 2009. Again some cracking stuff - Salim Fahdley's report on dodgy bomb detectors is superb, as are Martyn Norris's piece on quotes, and the Gaming Twat and Douchebag of the Year respectively.

There's also Crispian Jago's lovely piece on the top 10 bloggers of the year. He highlights a number of slightly lower profile but rising skeptical bloggers, all of whom are worth checking out, and it has resulted in at least three posts of hearty backslapping, some analysis of what makes a good blogger and much deserved praise back in the other direction.

My contribution this time round was a review of those we lost in 2009, and while such a report is never going to garner much thanks from those featured, doing the research did get me thinking about those who might have been skeptics, but are sadly no longer with us.

2009 feels like the year when skepticism came of age in the UK. Perhaps this is just a personal impression, but people like Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh and Tim Minchin are popping up far more frequently, and on higher profile programmes like Any Questions and Jonathan Ross. 2009 saw the 10 year anniversary of London Skeptics in the Pub, the launch of both TAM London and CFI London, and the emergence of significant new players like Sense About Science and (ahem) The Pod Delusion. And those on Crispian's list are just the tip of the internet iceberg.

And while this is wonderful, it does mean that the movement arrived too late for some individuals who might have been its biggest champions.

And so, taking a pretty broad definition of skepticism (choose your own from this list), here is a companion piece to the Pod Delusion report - a rundown of 5 UK skeptics who never were.

Karl Popper - Popper was possibly the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived. Bertrand Russell or David Hume may be more quotable, but Popper's doctrine of falsifiability resonates with many working scientists, and much of his work was aimed at finding a clear demarcation between science and pseudoscience. In addition, he died in 1994, only two years before Carl Sagan, and was based at LSE about 300 yards from The Penderel's Oak where London Skeptics in the Pub meet.

Nicolas Walter - Walter was an anarchist, a secularist and rationalist. During his insanely full life he edited the New Humanist magazine, was vice-president of the National Secular Society and director of the Rationalist Press Association, wrote books about blasphemy, atheism and humanism, and formed The Committee Against Blasphemy Law in response to Salman Rushdie's fatwa. And, if this is not enough to convince you he would have been a skeptic, he also had a reputation as a massive pedant*.

Peter Killworth - Peter Killworth is well known in scientific circles as a prodigious researcher and author, mainly in oceanography and social networks. However, while there are plenty of dead scientists one might include on any list of lost skeptics, Killworth stands out like a beacon because he was also a magician and software developer of note, thus ensuring all bases are covered.

JG Crowther - Crowther was the first Guardian science correspondent during the 1920s and he went on to lead the Science department of the British Council. From this post, he helped enshrine science in UNESCO, and promoted science's ability to transcend international and class divides, helping German and Austrian scientists escape the Nazis. Makes you wonder what Singh and Goldacre are going to go onto achieve.

Douglas Adams - The most obvious name on the list - frankly, where do you start? Hitchhikers is full of gentle digs at illogical thinking and science jokes; Dirk Gently is at least as good an evocation of skepticism as Sherlock Holmes ever was; Last Chance To See is full of joy at the wonder of science and nature. And if you haven't read The Salmon of Doubt, you are missing articles on atheism, the internet age and the thoughts of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry on Adams himself.

I can imagine Adams making his way down from Islington to do Skeptics in the Pub once in a while, appearing on Little Atoms and being the star attraction at TAM London.

This may give you some idea what it would have been like.

*Although, rather beautifully, he thought this was wrong and set out to correct it.

The Greatest Christmas Song You've Never Heard - Lifetime Achievement Award

2009-12-25T11:07:00.001Z

The Albion Christmas Band

I almost forgot to put this up. There is one band whose raison d'etre is to record traditional folk Christmas music, or Christmas music using folk arrangements. Be warned - you probably won't like it if you don't like traditional English folk music, but if you do, this is the best Christmas present you'll ever get.

The Albion Christmas Band have been going for 4 years. They formed (or perhaps more precisely mutated) from the Albion Band, a folk collective whose membership has ebbed and flowed over the last 25 years, and exist purely to play traditional seasonal music, albeit with a few modern and original tracks thrown in.

The band have toured four years running and recorded a Christmas album in each of the last three years. These are on repeat play on my iPhone from mid-November to early January, and in our flat for a week across Christmas (any longer and I would be evicted by my wife).

The band don't figure my the run down of 7 tracks because it would make the list fairly redundant, and I can't identify my favourite 7. I would highly, highly recommend that you get hold of any and all of the albums.

NB I've just discovered a 4th album as I post this. I am now even more excited than I was - have a lovely Christmas.

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #1

2009-12-25T10:49:00.000Z

#1 - It's Clichéd to be Cynical at Christmas by Half Man Half Biscuit

And so to the finish, with John Peel's favourite band helping us over the line. Half Man Half Biscuit are muicians in the folk tradition, in that their songs tell stories, but you can expect a more sound more familiar to Peel listeners than to wassailers and folkies.

The Trouble over Bridgwater album has some absolute gems on it, and you may well have heard 24 Hour Garage People in your travels. However, buried in the middle of the album is this wonderful Christmas track.

It's the perfect and undisputed number one because it manages to sound Christmassy without being schmaltzy, the lead vocal is just world weary enough for the lyric, and because of the choir on the segue into I Saw Three Ships at the end of the track. The sentiment of the song also captures my feelings on the season exactly.

Take 5 minutes today to listen to it over a glass of fizz and a mince pie - and have a lovely Christmas, and a happy New Year.

My next blog post will be on Ear Candling in Locksbottom - I'm sure you can't wait.

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #2

2009-12-21T15:41:00.002Z

#2 - Maybe at Christmastime by Drugstore

Penultimate entry, and i'm forced to ask: Drugstore... what happened to them? They are best known for their 1998 hit "El President", which is best known because it features vocals by Thom Yorke.

This track comes from the Xfm Charity album "It's a Cool, Cool, Christmas" which is, like all such efforts, a hit and miss affair. Honourable mentions are due to The Eels, Calexico, Snow Patrol, and Belle and Sebastian - each of their tracks were recorded before the bands hit the peak of their fame, and are now interesting curios of what was to come from.

But Drugstore never hit the same heights again, although each of their releases attracted it's fair share of praise. They gave an original track to the Xfm project. (as far as I can tell) and it's a lovely, laconic song. It plays on the traditional themes of homesickness and "Why can't it be Christmas everyday?", offering a chance for redemption and leaving behind the past, without being too sentimental or trite.

As with all of Drugstore's stuff, the best thing about it is Isabel Monteiro sultry vocals. The instrumentation is virtually non-existent compared to the Spankers at #3, but it suits the song and is exactly as accomplished as it needs to be.

Well worth 3 minutes of your time between now and Friday.

One left, then - it will be up by Christmas Eve.

O Large Hadron Collider

2009-12-19T10:29:00.001Z

Here is the one that got away before the Pod Delusion went live - via the magic of Ipadio.

We didn't put it in because it's a dodgy-ish recording and needed James's genius to polish up the lyrics and guitar work, but I hope you enjoy it anyway.

Floundering in denial

2009-12-18T23:29:00.003Z

This has been a long, strange week, centring around the words denialist, and various signficant figures in the little bit of my world that is web based.

I've heard and read a great deal, but I don't know enough about the science to want to go into it in detail. The only conclusions I want to draw are that no one has covered themselves in glory, and that the only people who have gained are those with a vested interest in seeing the talks at Copenhagen fail.

First up, Johnny Ball went a bit Pete Tong and outstayed his welcome at the 9 Carols for Godless People at the Bloomsbury Theatre, having a good rant about global warming. I should say right out that I didn't see it, but Salim Fadhley did and has covered it in detail for this week's Pod Delusion.

What struck me was what the complete lack of grace in his actions. Had he used the time to question how much people really know about the science, caution against arrogance and illustrate the topic with his undoubted charm and ability, I genuinely think he could have sparked a debate, and he might have made his audience pause for thought.

I went last year, and they are really joyous events, full of science and wonder, and Ball is absolutely associatied with those things in the British psyche. Presumably that's why Robin Ince asked him to do the shows. Instead, it sounds like the audience got a short whimsical routine followed by anger and incoherence, which the organisers graciously put up with. And, as Robin Ince has tweeted, the outcome? Johnny Ball will be a poster boy for those who actively seek to deny AGW.

But that's only a bit of the story, because next up was James Randi. And, if we are honest, while Johnny Ball has a certain profile, he is only about a twentieth as famous as every skeptic's favourite uncle.

Randi has written two articles this week, and they are much more nuanced than what Ball is reported to have said, full of qualifications and statements about his own lack of knowledge, but still hugely problematic. I'd invite you to read the first four paragraphs here and tell me that they don't remind you of the kind of arguments we hear from creationists when talking about the teaching of evolution.

Randi is something of a hero of mine, and I found these articles hard to read because they feel so clumsy . To my mind he places a great deal of weight on his own (understandable) distrust of academia, when the weight of consensus among climate scientists is so overwhelming. I don't see how this is different to evolution, where I assume Randi would come to the opposite conclusion? He also then cites the number of PhDs scientists in the Petition Project as a positive indication, and he can't have it both ways.

Randi goes into more detail in the second article, where some points have been corrected through conversations with Phil Plait or others. Here, I can only say I would expect Randi to do more research before writing . By adopting such a reasonable, superficially skeptical tone but compounding it with errors, Randi opens the door to climate change deniers to count him as one of their own, piggy-backing on his reputation. Skeptics are right to call him on it - it's an error of judgement.

But does that make Randi a denialist?

Well, no I don't think it does, and it achieves nothing to call him one.

JackofKent has been questioning whether we should ever use the word, arguing that it represents a failure of public engagement. I understand where he is coming from, but I think the word retains its usefulness, but only if we reserve for extreme cases. It allows useful comparisons of people's behaviour accross such diverse subjects as Aids, the Holocaust, climate change and evolution.

When that word is used well, it captures the sense that someone is 'in denial' - that they are actively and aggressively taking steps to avoid accepting reality, either subconsciously or cynically for personal gain. There's no meaningful way in which one can accuse Randi of it, given that all he has done is write two questioning articles, no matter how misconceived, the second of which clarifies his position substantially.

And by labelling him a denialist, as PZ Myers and others have done, I think they compound his error. The article allows those who are really do seek to undermine AGW to tie themselves to Randi. Now, they can also laugh off accusations that they are denialists, by pointing out how freely such a label is attached to people with Randi's impeccable credentials.

As I write, I see from the news that there is some kind of agreement in Copenhagen. What kind I don't know yet, but one can only hope it is more uplifting.

And finally, PZ Myers really did get it spot on when he linked to this today.

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #3

2009-12-18T15:00:00.002Z

#3 - You’re A Mean One, Mr Grinch by The Asylum Street Spankers

Getting close to the end of the countdown, now, at which point I resolve to get back to some more skeptical topics.
Speaking of which, everyone go out and buy this. It's skeptical, beautiful and half the proceeds go to Autism research. And, it'll make you cry.

Back to the countdown

This is the hardest choice of the 7, I think, because it comes from my favourite Christmas album of all - A Christmas Spanking - on which there are at least 6 tracks I could have included. However, I'm artificially limiting myself to one per band, as otherwise it would have just been the Spankers and... well, I'm getting ahead of myself.

The Asylum Street Spankers are a Texan band with a changeable line-up. A "Spanker" is someone who is very proficient with an instrument, and the musicality on the album will tell you where that came from.

The highlights? Definitely Blue Christmas rearranged and on a ukelele works wonderfully. A version of Silent Night stripped of all ostentation and played (as far as I can tell) on a saw. Linus and Lucy is a lovely lounge track which I don't recognise but is from A Charlie Brown Christmas, so Americans will recognise it instantly. Mele Kalikimaka is a Hawaiian ditty that'll irritate you all day, and their version of Baby It's Cold Outside has a sleazy quality that fits the lyrics of the song.

But I've chosen You're A Mean One, Mr Grinch because it's more fun than the others, shows off the band's talents in a way that's almost profligate, and because the lyrics are such so unseasonal when compared to other songs I've chosen.

If you download anything off the back of this countdown, make it this album, because I guarantee there's something for everyone on it.

Winterval Carols - unedited

2009-12-18T11:27:00.002Z

Just got the embed link for the carols - enjoy our dulcet tones!

Pod Delusion Episode 14 - Winterval Special

2009-12-18T10:53:00.005Z

Ho Ho Ho - it's the Winterval special of the Pod Delusion, including a call to arms by James O'Malley, a stunning and seasonal obituary by George Poles, and some festive carols dotted throughout the show by yours truly and a certain Mr James Taylor.

The embed for the show is below, and if you go here you can listen to the full unedited version of the carols. I'll try and make it available later as a download..

Pod Delusion - Episode 13

2009-12-14T13:51:00.000Z

Much great content in this week's Pod Delusion - absolutely none of which was delivered by me.

The whole things is worth listening to - but I'd highly recommend Gareth Buxton's excellent Phone Geek piece, James O'Malley's own bit about NATO, and the estimable Martyn Norris on colds.

One thing though - I will pay good money to anyone who can explain to me what the reference to #1023 at the end of the show is. There's clearly something quite exciting coming - see here and here - and I hate being out of the loop...

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #4

2009-12-14T13:39:00.003Z

#4 - Donna & Blitzen by Badly Drawn Boy

This is the only entry on my list not from a dedicated Christmas album. It’s also probably the most mainstream of the tracks, as it features in the very good soundtrack to the better-than-average film adaptation of the better-than-average Nick Hornby book About A Boy. (I have a soft spot for Love Actually which I curse myself for on a regular basis, but About A Boy is basically a better version with tolerable levels of sentimentality.)

For a while in the early 1980s, Badly Drawn Boy was the most celebrated British artists, feted a sort of twee Beck because of his complex arrangements and multi-instrumentation. He did concept albums that didn’t massively suck, and so a film soundtrack was a good avenue for him to show off his talents. And because the film covers a year in the life of a boy, a Christmas song was always likely.

I love the track in question for several reasons – the string intro is sparse then nicely layered into the track; the lyrics aren’t overly Christmassy, but still have a festive feel; the melody is maddeningly catchy, and Badly Drawn Boy’s vocals are always appropriately ramshackle compared to his songs.

The best bit, however, is the kettle drum accompaniment which kicks in after about a minute – it’s unexpected and appeals to the attention-seeking 10 year old boy in me, who would still love to batter out a rhythm in exactly this fashion.

Halfway now - only 3 more to go. Any guesses?

Libel reform campaign #libelreform

2009-12-10T21:29:00.001Z

Earlier in the year, it was my absolute pleasure to go to a London Skeptics in the Pub campaign meeting in support of Simon Singh. Simon has been sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. The nature of English libel laws meant that he faced ruin over an article he wrote. This has been covered in enormous detail by jackofkent and you can read the basics here at the Guardian, so I won't overdo the details here.

As I said at the meeting, I am not a scientist, nor have I ever played one - I'm an accountant who works in arts funding. But I wanted to help Simon and prevent future injustices of the kind he was facing - I just didn't know how.

However, yesterday, Sense About Science, Index On Censorship and English PEN joined forces to launch the Libel Reform Campaign, and I can only urge anyone who reads this to:

- Sign the petition
- Tweet about #libelreform, blog about it, write about on Facebook and do anything else you can to spread the campaign
- Write to your MP to ask them to support libel reform

I'll do all of the above, and anything else that I can.

There aren't many things I get off my arse to campaign for, but this is one of them.

This and the Guardian.

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #5

2009-12-08T13:41:00.001Z

#5 - The First Noel by Bright Eyes

When we got engaged, I bought my wife a beautiful ring with an unusual marquise cut diamond. She bought me a pair of trousers and Cassadaga by Bright Eyes.

While they were a bloody nice pair of trousers, it was the album which made me think I’d got the best end of the deal. There have been a spate of “Best album of the decade” polls recently, and I’ve yet to see Cassadaga appear in any of them, but for my money it’s very very close to being top of any list.

So, you can imagine my delight when I found out Bright Eyes had recorded a charity Christmas album back in 2002. It’s a sparse, haunting affair on the whole, without the lush, sweeping songscapes you find on Cassadaga. I’m particularly fond of God Rest You Merry Gentlemen, which you don’t hear recorded very often, and Blue Christmas, which is a very simple and quite sweet affair but still manages to capture song’s bitterness.

However, I’ve gone for The First Noel, partly because it’s another one you don’t hear so often, but also because it is the best display of the album’s virtues. I think there’s a slight delay on the female vocal, which gives me the creeps, and there is precious little instrumentation. It’s just lovely.

50 for 10 - support the Guardian

2009-12-04T14:40:00.002Z

This is a transcript* of my report from Episode 12 of the Pod Delusion, itself based on a very early blog entry of mine. I’m very proud, as James O’Malley says in his introduction to the piece, to be “almost literally, personally kicking Richard Desmond in the face".

On Monday 30 November, The Guardian ran a story covering a speech given by its own journalist, Nick Davies. In it Davies attacked the Press Complaints Commission for being, in his words, “structurally corrupt”. He claimed that "the logic of commercialism has taken over from the logic of journalism" because various sensational stories were recycled whether they were true or not, and if you talk to journalists, again his words, them saying they believe in a free press is “in current circumstances…like a rapist saying he believes in free love”.

This follows on from stories run in the Guardian written by Davies earlier in the year looking at The News of the World’s investigative techniques, where they had allegedly obtaining illegal recordings of various celebrities through phone hacking. Now Davies claims probably warrant an episode of the Pod Delusion of their own – but if you step back for a second, there’s something lovely about the fact that, at a time when the rest of the newspaper industry is necessarily worried about where its next profits are coming from, the Guardian is giving prominence to a campaign for tighter regulation. It’s analagous to turkeys voting for Christmas or, heaven forbid, homeopaths demanding proof of efficacy before Boots stock their products.

I use the phrase ‘rest of the newspaper industry’ for obvious reasons, because the evidence of the impact of the recession and changing consumer behaviour is there to see in other newspapers. The Evening Standard has just gone free, The Independent is constantly on the verge of being sold just to keep it in business, and if you read the Guardian’s own charging for content section, you’ll see daily updates on Rupert Murdoch’s proposal to do exactly that.

But there’s also evidence that the Guardian has been facing exactly the same troubles as the rest of the industry. Many of you will know that the paper has indicated a round of redundancies are likely, in July the paper’s parent body the Guardian Media Group announced a £90m loss and announced that such trends could only been sustained until 2011, at which point the organisation would have to radically restructure.

And tracking its cover price shows that while there was no rise between 2004 and 2006, it’s gone up from 70p in 2006 to £1 in 2009 with two 10p rises this year alone.

Now if you talk to people of a liberal bias (and I do) and ask them if they are worried about the state of the Guardian, they will often say one of two things.

The first one is “Don’t worry, it’ll survive.” This is well-founded, because the Guardian and its sister papers are unique in being owned by the Scott Trust. It was set up to guarantee the independence and liberal tone of the paper in perpetuity.

The second thing they say is: “Perhaps the paper is under threat, but that doesn’t really affect me, because I get all of my news online”. Of course, everyone under the age of about 35 does this, through Google searches, Google news alerts, Google reader and various other products sponsored by Google (which is why Rupert Murdoch is so upset with them).

The Guardian seems doubly damned. Not only does it have a core readership which is naturally attracted to new technologies which promote freedom of expression and open communication, but its constitution (while providing editorial protection for the Guardian from, say, a Russian oligarch with his own agenda) produces complacency about the paper’s future in that core readership.

Because I am a massive geek, this kind of attitude reminds me of Douglas Adams and Australia. Adams lo0vced the country but he’d only visited once when he wrote about it, and so his affection was necessarily one of long distance. It was a remote reassurance of Australia’s continued presence somewhere on the other side of the world, a place he could return any time he liked. Yet, when he discussed the country with its ex-pats, Adams found himself unsettled when they would smile wryly at him and say “Ah, well, it’s the last place left now, isn’t it?”.

If you listen to the Pod Delusion, the chances are you are a lover of science and evidence-based policy; that you promote freedom of expression and information, and that there are several words ending in –al that you associate yourself with. You are liberal, rational, you are skeptical. In short, there’s a word for you – you are probably a Guardianista, and this short piece is my wry smile to you, to remind you that the Guardian is probably the last place left.

It’s certainly the last place left that you’ll get a major promotion of tighter regulation of the press. It’s also the last place left (or the last major place left) that you’ll get, for example, in depth coverage of David Nutt’s sacking, live streaming of parliamentary hearings on homeopathy, very strong science coverage, the home of the atheist bus campaign, widespread acceptance of climate change and the 10 for 10 campaign, A Reader’s Editor, Comment is free, and columnists as wide ranging as Charlie Brooker, Ariane Sherine, Ben Goldacre and George Monbiot.

While we might be at the dawn of a brave new era in the media industry driven by the internet, right now bloggers and amateur journalists are not sufficient to protect freedom of expression in a healthy democracy. The clout and profile of large media institutions are still necessary.

Witness in October the super-injunction placed on the Guardian by Carter-Ruck representing the energy company Trafigura. It may have been the explosion in the blogosphere and thousands of tweets that eventually led to the injunction being lifted, but it was the heavy-pockets of the Guardian paying for their lawyers that fought the case in the first place and allowed the story to come to light.

For Guardianistas and the things that they value, it is not enough that the paper’s constitution virtually guarantees its survival. It needs to be financially healthy in order to do the things that we value it for.

So, I propose a campaign.

The Guardian media group says it can only sustain current losses until 2011. So in 2010, if you see yourself as being within the Guardian’s core readership, someone who upholds liberal and rational values, pledge to buy 50 more copies of the Guardian or the Observer than you normally would. If you buy the paper every day, bully for you! Buy 50 more copies, 1 per week, and give them away. If you don’t buy them at the moment, because you get your news online, well bully for you too! But you should buy 50 copies as well, 1 per week, in order to demonstrate that the paper still holds value for you.

It’s called the 50 for 10 campaign, cheekily named after the 10 for 10 campaign aimed at reducing carbon footprints which was launched in the Guardian earlier this year. There’s a facebook group in which you can register your support, but also suggest other ways in which people can financially support the paper, should they be so inclined.

This is only a temporary measure – the Guardian will have to adapt to whatever changes there are in the newspaper industry if it wants to remain financially healthy in the long term.

But in the meantime? We should do what we can to preserve what we’ve got, because, like Douglas Adams with Australia, we would certainly miss it, if it were gone.

*NB There's some minor amendments for tone, clarity and accuracy, and I've added links. To the Guardian, where possible.

Pod Delusion - Episode 12

2009-12-04T10:52:00.001Z

Support the ~~Grauniad~~ ~~Groan~~ ~~Liberal pornsheet~~ Observer and its sister papers

The 7 Greatest Christmas Songs You've Never Heard - #6

2009-12-04T10:46:00.001Z

#6 - Sweet Bells by Kate Rusby

Number six on the Greatest Christmas Songs You’ve Never Heard is Sweet Bells, and it's a risky choice, since more people will have heard it than the others in the countdown. However, I have my reasons for including it, and they’re good enough for me.

First, this is taken from the album of the same name by The Barnsley Nightingale herself, the enchanting Kate Rusby.

Rusby was the original poster girl for the wave of folk singer songwriters who have broken through this decade, although she’s now a more mature presence in the company of whippersnappers such as Rachel and Becky Unthank, Laura Marling and Beth Rowley. It’s by no means Rusby’s best album, and she sorely misses the production from her earlier albums provided by ex-husband John McCusker – without him, the songs lack the variety and spark that complemented her voice so well. Check out her version of Our Town, and you'll see what I mean. But it’s still an unalloyed joy to hear her taking on various standard English Christmas tunes.

And that’s a second reason to include it – Sweet Bells is actually a variant of While Shepherds Watched Their Flocks, for which there are at least 7 different tunes. This is not the very Anglican dirge that you sung in school carol services - but a more animated tune with a chorus you’ll be humming well past Epiphany. I think it’s from West Yorkshire, which is why Rusby chose it, but I could be wrong.

The 7 Greatest Christmas songs you’ve never heard

2009-12-01T13:46:00.002Z

It being the 1st of December, the lights and tree are going up in the Treadway household tonight. Truth be told, I’ve been eating mince pies since late October and had various seasonal tracks on my iPod since we left Bonfire night behind us. This is very much my favourite time of year.

I thought I’d take the opportunity to spread the word about some of the more unusual Christmas tracks I’ve come across. I’ve been a bit of a connoisseur of the Christmas song ever since my days as DJ Formaggio at the sadly-missed Pop Ceilidh Christmas events, and I’ve come across some slightly obscure gems. So, every three days or so between now and the big day, I’ll be posting a recommendation.

Just before I begin, though, a quick review of the new Bob Dylan album “Christmas In The Heart”.

If he wasn’t releasing it as a single, I’d have included his version of “Must Be Santa” on my list, because it’s a lovely, rollicking little treat.

On the album as a whole, though, I’ll say this. I read another review which said “This album is one for real Dylan completists only”. I’d extend that and say: “This album is one for real Dylan & Christmas album completists only”. Bob doesn’t do much but growl these days, and the 15 tracks here are only for the fainthearted.

That’s that then – onto the list!

The 7 Greatest Christmas songs you’ve never heard

#7 - Together All Alone by Robin & Linda Williams

This is taken from a very gentle album full of Christmas songs – full of very sweet, overtly religious country tracks. The harmonies are well judged, the production and guitar work in particular entirely sympathetic to the songs. I’ve chosen this track because it contains the best single line I’ve come across in any Christmas track:

“The wind is howling like Miles Davis gone insane; pounding on the tin roof and the window panes”

A better evocation of the weekend’s weather I’ve yet to come across.

More of this on Friday.

Everything it's cracked up to be

2009-11-28T18:26:00.001Z

As someone who frequently cracks their knuckles and gets told off for it, this is the best news story I've heard all year.

Not only does it show the lengths that men will go to prove the women in their lives are wrong, it also captures the dedication, patience and sheer eccentricity of some scientists. I love the way the article takes it seriously enough to talk about repeatability and potential for blinding.

I have also heard a lovely quote attributed to Unger, who is reputed to have said: "I suppose it does sound a bit strange now I come to tell someone about it."

Genius, and well worth the Ig Nobel.

Irreligion - a blogger reviews the book

2009-11-27T23:44:00.002Z

If asked to name a 'New Atheist', most people would think of Richard Dawkins.

If asked to name more than one, most people in the UK could then pluck out some high profile names like Stephen Fry, Derren Brown, Russell T Davies or Ricky Gervais.

A good chunk could also come up with one of the other horsemen - Messers Dennett, Harris and Hitchens - but if you hear the names PZ Myers, Jennifer Michael Hecht or Hemant Metha then, chances are, you are delaling with someone who takes their non-theism pretty seriously.*

I personally don't know anyone who would include John Allen Paulos in their list, but his book Irreligion sold a decent number of copies in the States, so perhaps he should spring to mind more readily.

I've just finished the book, and the first thing to say is that the full title is revealing - Irreligion - A mathematician explains why the arguments for God just don't add up. This should be compared to his 2007 book A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market and his 1995 work A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper. A pattern emerges.

One gets the feeling religion is just one of a number of topics where Paulos has just enough interesting thoughts to write a book on the subject. I don't mean to suggest he is insincere, and his writing is convincing and typically lucid throughout , but there's definitely a sense that he is not as aroused by this topic as the other names listed above.

Each chapter deals with a different argument, but many of them are overlapping and cover such similar ground that the book is repetitive and tough to read in one sitting. I found that I enjoyed the 5 chapters where Paulos makes personal asides much more enjoyable, because they were freed from the rigidity of the rest of the book's structure, and he allowed his mind free reign. This fits with my previous experience of his writing from Mathematics & Humor, which is brilliant and where the range and accuracy of his insights is staggering.

I also found the way Paulos categorised the arguments to be lacking in detail. For example, in the chapter on The Argument from Subjectivity, he gives the following logical form:

1. People feel in the pit of their stomach that there is a God
2. They sometimes dress up this feeling with any number of unrelated, irrelevant and unfalsifiable banalities and make a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" to conclude that God exists.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Most arguments from subjectivity are longer and more complex than this, although I agree that this is all they boil down to. The trouble is, Paulos simply presents this as if it were the full extent of the argument, and in so doing he can only succeed in preaching to the choir. Those who are persuaded of God's existence by a version of the argument from subjectivity won't recognise their experience here. His case would be stronger if he presented more classic examples and then reduced them to his very simple version.

Overall, then, a nice addition to the canon, but you can see why other writers have been more successful on the topic. Dawkins and Harris are more passionate and Dennett more philosophically ruthless; Hitchens is more devastating and Hecht more comprehensive. Start there, and then move on to Paulos if you get a taste for it.

*Ariane Sherine is becoming more famous by the day. However, if she is the first atheist someone can name, more than anything else, this still reveals they need a cold shower.

Scandanavian adventures

2009-11-27T13:12:00.000Z

I should also say hello to whoever visits this site from Sweden! Say hi and let me know who you are, and if you can do it in the style of the chef from the muppets, you will make my weekend!

Weekend wound-up - 2

2009-11-27T13:09:00.002Z

The first thing that has annoyed me this week is me. I have been both this and like this, meaning I have posted precisely zero times. That's ok, but it means two successive posts of things that are irritating me, and I am reluctant to become just a serial blogger of miserable crap, if only because I don't want to end up like this.

Ho hum. Onto other stuff.

The Taxpayers Alliance who campaign for tax changes and represent that nebulous group - 'ordinary taxpayers'. They are always happy to trumpet their own news coverage, unless it is stories like which are less favourable. Fortunately, it appears they're not the most competent bunch. They forgot to register the org domain, and a different group is now using that site to highlight the other, darker side of organisation. Huzzah!
Not so much something that has annoyed me, but something I've watched with growing sadness in anticipation of the car crash that is to come - the Belgian story of the coma patient. There are real suggestions that it isn't what it seems, but actually a case of facilitated communication. This is a technique which seems to work but doesn't, with often tragic consequences. Steve Novella covers it in great detail and with appropriate sensitivity, but none of the mainstream media seem to have picked it up yet. They're still running it as a miracle, but as soon as someone tries it with a non-Flemish speaking carer, this is going to be awful.
Twitter, because the people over at Little Atoms and the Pod Delusion (new episode out today!!! with Ariane Sherine, pin-up of choice for rationalists everywhere!!!) read what I said last week and got me lots of new followers - 15 of them, to be precise. And I now feel a great pressure to say interesting and exciting things to them. On the plus side, Sid Rodrigues did ask me to be on his pub quiz team, so I shouldn't be too downbeat.
Finally, I had to turn down tickets to see the lovely and wonderful Lisa Hannigan on Tuesday, and apparently it was wonderful. I read one review that said she was too twee, but that is exactly why I love her! It left me green with envy.

That's all for now, but I will post again over the weekend. Otherwise, follow me on twitter here, or Facebook here.

Weekend wound-up

2009-11-20T12:40:00.008Z

You will see that my biog to the right says that I spend my time in South London finding out new stuff and getting excited and cross about it. Most of my blog posts so far have been about the former, and I imagine that tend will continue.
However, there is plenty of the latter too, and in a hopeless attempt to try and be more zen at weekends, and as an excuse to make an awful, awful pun, I’m going to start doing a Friday digest of stuff that’s wound me up this week.

The PCC’s hamfisted, unnecessary and probably-doomed-to-failure attempts at extending their reach to cover blogging. You can read about it here on the Liberal conspiracy blog. It now looks like their response was a bit disproportionate as the PCC have backed off a bit, but the substance of their points on the ethics of the print media are correct and the PCC have failed to engage any of them. I signed at number 145, and you should too, especially if you blog yourself.

Twitter. I’ve joined. I’ve posted a couple of times. I’m following Stef, James from the Pod Delusion (new episode out today – download it!) and Rebecca Watson from Skepchick. Everyone tells me this is the place to attract more readers and engage with the wider liberal and skeptical community. I just don’t get how or why that’s the case. I clearly have more work to do.

Two more years of Oprah? Really? Damnation. I guess she figured there were too many quacks and charlatans out there for her to quit just yet.

Thierry Henry. Smug, lanky and more of a bastard than we all thought he was. I didn’t hear him interviewed after the game, but I’m willing to believe that, when asked if he was ashamed of what he’d done, he melodramatically shrugged his shoulders and went ‘bof’. At least he’s not as good as he used to be.

This very sad story from the Czech Republic. There were snow leopards in Port Lympne zoo very near where I grew up, and I had a huge poster of one on my wall for about 5 years. This is about a white tiger, but the strange melancholy of the leopards colouring was what I loved about them, and I can only assume that’s why I was disproportionately sad when I read the story this morning.

OK – that’s the lot this week.
I only want to add that I’ve had over 50 unique visitors over the last week since I told people about the blog, so hello! All of them have been in the UK, and mostly in London, with the exception of Oxford, Braintree and Rickmansworth. Let me know who you are, and leave me some comments.
And finally, I bought an iPhone last week, and so I promise to post as often as I can, although you’ll have to forgive me the odd spelling mistake.
*NB Note that they highlight the Guardian as the gold-standard for engaging with readers. Another reason to join the campaign to save them! I’ll be writing more on this in the next couple of weeks.

There's a cold snap coming - be careful out there

2009-11-18T09:38:00.000Z

NSFW

Snowqueen

Diddley Bo

2009-11-17T23:59:00.001Z

I just spent twenty pounds and two and a half hours of my life listening to a 70-year-old tattooed man from the Deep South growl at me while stamping his foot on the floor.

He was fabulous, as was Amy Lavere in support.

Pod Delusion inspires delusions of Godhood

2009-11-17T14:33:00.005Z

A belated plug on here for the excellent Pod Delusion, which is up to its 9th episode and rapidly climbing up the iTunes listings (peaked at #73, people!) It's run by the extremely busy James O'Malley who has a blog and several projects, including the new Skeptical Voter website. That will be a fantastic tool that gathers momentum in the run up to the next election.

It's a podcast about interesting things, so is right up my avenue - so much so, that I've contributed a review of "The Men Who Stare At Goats", a film of the Jon Ronson book, to the latest episode.

Such is the reach of this wonderful podcast, that I am informed Jon Ronson has listened and tweeted about the review - he says it is "very funny and interesting and kind". I was far too excited about this for my own health.

If you have listened to the podcast, please, please, please can you leave a review on iTunes for us? It really helps us gain traffic and move us up the rankings, where others will see us.

For those who haven't yet listened here's a summary of my review.

The film's good and very funny (especially Clooney), but it isn't very skeptical. It doesn't claim to be 'based on' the book but 'inspired by' it. As such, the two have only a limited amount in common, and the book is far funnier, has a more satisfying narrative flow, and is skeptical but in the genial, very open-minded way that Ronson does so brilliantly. It even does the anti-war stance (where the film focuses its attention) much better.

So, by all means go and see it, but make sure you buy the book as well!

PS A quick error correction - two or three times in the review on the podcast I refer to Jon Ronson's 'novel'. The important and most worrying thing about the events covered by the book (unlike the film) is that they are all true, so I should have said 'book', not 'novel'. Apologies Mr Ronson, should you ever read this!

Acceptable in the 80s

2009-11-16T17:16:00.006Z

Sunday afternoon was spent in the lovely surrounds of Dulwich college at the Mid-century.Modern design show. It has been going for 5 years or so, and has an enormous range of styles, both vintage and current. I'm not a design expert in any sense, but there are some gorgeous pieces and the list of testimonials on there website suggests I'm not the only one who was impressed.

Dulwich is yummymummyville at the best of times, but having a design show there sent everything critical, sucking in overly-thin, well-groomed women in their late 30s / early 40s from all over the place. I imagine places like Blackheath and Wandsworth Town were completely drained, and I have heard reports of shortages as far away as Whitstable.

They were accompanied by a disproportionately high number of French men, many of whom wore preposterous hats and impressive moustaches, although the most impressive moustache was reserved for Paul K, who we met there, and is contributing to Movember. It's a worthy cause, and it makes him look like a Dutch pornstar. You can donate here, and if you do, tell him you followed the link. If we can send enough traffic, perhaps Paul will let me put up a picture of the full effort before he's forced to shave it off.

I spent the hour and a half we were there in the last throws of a massive caffeine high and the early stages of a crashing withdrawal, so my ability to recall is mixed. I remember being very impressed by this piece, thinking it would be a lovely and important motivational message to see as I left the house every morning, and arrived home every night.

We took some people's cards away though, so I'll do an edit later and try to link to some of the pieces. That'll only happen if I can work out how to embed images, though, because editing hyperlinks can only be interesting for so long...

We made precisely zero purchases, being frequently scuppered by the fact Stef and I have wildly differing taste, and when we did agree either the price was too high or we didn't need the item in question.

The final thing to note was how well the setting worked. Dulwich College is a wonderful building (for those that know my old school, it's like KC but attractive and without the unpleasant memories) but the best thing was how incongruous the setting was for a show of this kind. They held it in the main entry hall, a couple of classrooms and a couple of corridors, and, rather brilliantly, the dining hall, often using the schools dining tables, and being set up in front of entrances to the kitchen.

An excellent show - highly recommended when the next one comes in six month's time.

Last House for the Left

2009-11-09T16:35:00.006Z

There is a risk that this blog will become nothing but an excuse to quote Douglas Adams, and I will resist that temptation manfully, but it is hard to do when he wrote so widely and so well.

However...when composing this entry, I found myself thinking about his 1998 article "Riding the Rays".

You can find it here, and it merits half an hour of your time on its own, but the relevant bit comes in the second paragraph where he quotes the unsettling remarks of an Australian who refers to his home country is "the last place left". Adams discomfort comes from an intuitive fear that this might be true, and this neatly captures I feel about the Guardian.

I always resisted reading the paper for fear of being labelled a Guardianista with all that entails (although living and adoring South London as I do, I probably never had too much to worry about) but around 18 months ago a lot of things began to change for me. I bought an iPod and discovered podcasts, and this led to Point of Inquiry, Little Atoms and the SGU. I made some tentative visits to London Skeptics in the Pub and 9 Carols for Godless People, read The Demon Haunted World and a had a realisation that, contrary to my previous self-image, there were an awful lot of things I passionately believed in (notably freedom of expression, rationalism, and the scientific method - all of them enlightenment ideals).

Around the same time, I stopped buying the Independent following its umpteenth cost saving relaunch, which had led to much less genuine content at the expense of more colour pictures and irritating columnists, as well as the increasingly tedious front page photos and large headlines. Like everyone else, I started to get my news straight from blogs and multiple outlets via Google alerts and Reader. This is how I came across the Grauniad (to adopt its Private Eye moniker).

It fitted in with the other changes in my life and gave me what I wanted - better science coverage, better sports coverage, and an editorial line and tone that better fitted my newfound beliefs. I've also found occasions where I thought I was adopting a liberal, pro-science stance on an issue, but where the line taken by a columnist has convinced me the opposite position better embodies those beliefs. Witness last week's piece by Myles Allen on whether people's views on climate change should be afforded the same protection as religious ones. (there are superb reasons why they shouldn't, although my natural reaction was simply "Yay! Science!")

The other thing I loved was that I could get the whole paper online, as well as extra content like the science and football podcasts, and myriad blogs and articles I wouldn't have read otherwise. And better than all of that, it was free. Here is an example of freedom of expression and information being lived out by a major international media brand, and I and all the other Guardianistas could get our news without the daily hassle of buying the newspaper and getting ink on our fingers.

So, as with Adams who didn't visit Australia very often but knew he loved it, I feel better for knowing the Grauniad exists somewhere out there, relatively unspoiled, and I can look at it any time I like, as the last major bastion of left-leaning journalism.

However, it's a position I've been forced to rethink because there are good reasons to think its existence is under threat.

It's no secret that the bottom is falling out of print media, mainly because of the march of technology and the fall in advertising revenues. In the last week alone the Indie is on the verge of being sold to keep it open, and there is a further series of articles about the head-in-the-sand plan by Murdoch to charge (see charging for content). More worryingly, the Grauniad itself had to make redundancies last month, and there have been rumours about the Observer vanishing for a while. It is a distinct possibility that, unless things change, the Grauniad could cease to exist.

This fills me with dread, and not just because I've found something I love and I'm frightened of change. There are at least two good reasons why skeptics and rationalists can't afford to lose them.

First, is the heavy lifting argument put forward by Nick Davies to articulate why bloggers and amateur journalists will never be sufficient to protect freedom of expression in a healthy democracy. In the recent Carter-Ruck super-injunction contretemps, it was undoubtedly the Twitter campaign that won the day. But it was the Grauniad that found the story, it was the Grauniad that funded the legal action, and it was the cleverly crafted Grauniad front page that alerted everyone's attention to the issue. Individuals writing 140 characters about a topic of interest and amateur bloggers play a role, but to protect freedom of speech and hold governments to account, you need resources, profile and clout.

Secondly, and most chillingly, suppose Murdoch's grand gamble pays off. Suppose he finds a business model that works, that he finds a way of charging for online content that people sign up to. I admit this is unlikely, and I have no idea how it might work, but the old dog has found new tricks before, and he certainly has the wherewithal and pockets to give it a good go again. The Grauniad would face the unthinkable dilemma - move with the times and abandon its pioneering free web presence, or risk obsolescence in a changed world.

Then there's no place left, and that's why I'm worried.

So, I propose a campaign for Guardianistas to start buying the paper again. Not necessarily every day, and not necessarily for ever. Just for as long as it takes to find a model that secures the financial future of the institution while keeping content free.

I don't know how it will work or quite how to give it legs, but I'm hoping that the very medium that threatens our print media could see a viral campaign to save its most important institution.

All I need now is some readers who can pick it up and run with it.

First up

2009-11-06T23:10:00.003Z

I have resolved (again) to start a blog, and after 20 minutes messing about instead of sleeping or watching Armstrong and Miller, I settled on Deserted Vastness as a name.

It comes from Nights on the Circus by Angela Carter.

"Outside the window, there slides past that unimaginable and deserted vastness where night is coming on, the sun declining in ghastly blood-streaked splendour like a public execution across, it would seem, half a continent, where live only bears and shooting stars and the wolves who lap congealing ice from water that holds within it the entire sky."

If you've never read Angela Carter, do so at the first chance you get. But start with Wise Children and work up from there.

The quote fits the kind of thing I hope I end up writing. It's beautifully macabre, and captures a sense of reverance and awe at the scale of the world and the things we don't know about in it.
It's also just pretentious enough for people to take the piss out of me for it.

Calling it Jon Treadway's blog wasn't really an option, as someone else got there first. And, while I wish my namesake every success with his endeavours, you should know that this is NOT my website.

http://www.jtreadway.com/