bad science
A few days old but still a top class rant from the Guardian about Science in the Media.
Entries Tagged as 'science'
BBC skips Skype
Correction: upon re-reading, the article does mention Skype. Can’t think how I missed it the first time but mea culpa anyway. This post stays to remind me to triple check before I start slagging off in future.
The BBC reports that Microsoft is planning to introduce VoIP to phone services, rather like SkypeOut. Except that it doesn’t mention Skype *jaw drops to floor*.
I’ve picked at the BBC’s SciTech reporting before (here and here) but this is just plain negligent. No matter that it smacks of a press release and skimps on analysis. Like, isn’t this just backward compatibility? What about cost?
If the BBC SciTech column were a blog it would have a google ranking of about 2. It is not their strong point.
Science dull and hard
I realise I shouldn’t post when I’m hot and bothered but apparently science is dull and hard, according to pupils, according to the scientifically lightweight BBC.
Boys and girls, thinking is hard! You might be able to avoid it but if you have an insatiable curiosity about life, the universe and everything then science has all the trump cards. I can sadly believe that school teaching of science wrings the interest out of it, reducing it to formulae, laws and names. This is depressing and I can only suggest good popular-science reading as a remedy.
Many of the comments bemoan a relatively lowly salary for professional scientists. They suggest picking a more well-paid career, perhaps law. Here’s another tip: If you freely select an occupation based solely on the money then you will be unhappy. You will also probably fail to achieve your capabilities. It implies you find all options as dull as each other with none sparking any kind of interest. If you don’t have any interests that could be related to some occupation (even as general as dealing with people or computers) then I’d suggest you are not a very interesting person, or maybe you are lacking imagination.
This comment stands out:
Are the happiest societies in the world the ones that are most scientifically advanced? I doubt it… The things that bring joy to me personally are the subtleties of a great novel, the intricacies of a masterful musical composition, or the imagination behind an inspired work of art. It’s appreciation of these things that I would rather see focused on in our schools - I applaud the 16% of our kids that would choose not to do any science!
It would be easy to slip into a false counter-argument that technology keeps us alive, informed and entertained. No technology, no media reproduction, wealth, etc.
However, this not the central point. Science is not technology, and it is science that is being devalued here. Science is neither a necessary evil nor a dry examination of the universal machinery. Choosing to be ignorant of science is choosing to close your eyes to the elegance of the natural world at so many levels. It is choosing the warm, fug of mystery over the dazzling light of explanation. Science does not strip away wonder; It widens the scope beyond the appreciative minds of aethestes to the full diversity of nature. It challenges our capacity to imagine whilst simultaneously stretching our ability to reason to its limits.
I find the notion that the only wonder to be found in a grey, dull universe is in the works of a few talented humans to be profoundly depressing. I also find it utterly unsupportable. The issue is not whether nature is worth knowing but how much of its beauty our limited minds are capable of appreciating.
stale futurology
The Observer lets itself down today with some futurist filler from ‘Britain’s leading thinker on the future’, Ian Pearson of BT’s Futurology Unit.
It leads with the old chestnut of ‘downloading your mind into a computer’. This is not a new idea. In fact, it’s rather past its use-by date. Any ‘expert’ still spouting this really needs to step away from their computer and go and read some neuroscience. Repeat after me: the brain is not a computer. You are no more able to download it than you could download a bowl of fruit. In principle, of course, you can simulate any physical system with a computer; fruit, brain and the Amazonian rainforest. Doesn’t mean it’s feasible though, especially when You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know (YDKWYDK) as it is with the brain. It’s not just a matter of cranking up processor speeds. Pearson doubles-up on his error by wading into Consciousness. Moving swiftly on…
To show he’s not a crank Pearson forsees:
We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it’s possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.
Fantastic. Small-talk with dairy products. What are you going to natter about? How’s life on the third shelf? Who’s going off this week? Have you tried me with muesli? This reminds me of the articulate Talkie Toaster from Red Dwarf, whose entire existence revolved around toasted bread products.
The predictions stray near the mark with talk of simplifying ambient computers but for the most part the predictions show a depressing lack of imagination and insight. The theme is: more of the same but with computers which, despite spilling into the world with more complexity, will actually not break-down, confuse or be used to exploit people. This is the classic engineer’s fallacy, believing that because something is theoretically possible that it is realistic and desirable once non-engineers are involved.
It’s very easy to criticise of course. I started thinking of a few of my own predictions, off the top of my head, for people to knee-cap but found they were centered very much around rich online presence and communities. This really deserves an entry of its own. There is plenty of speculative activity around this already on the web. Just sniff around del.icio.us, etc.
-
Hosting
