Author Archives: Paul Braterman

“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct”, and other gems from Taylor and Francis

“It is also factually incorrect to associate the anatomical penis with male reproductivity.” (Cogent Social Sciences (2017), 3: 1330439, https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1330439

I have asked my University librarian why we carry the journal that published this nonsense, and how much it is costing us.

The journal that accepted this paper, after peer review, is available through Glasgow University Library, and is published by Taylor and Francis. This in turn is owned by the conglomerate Informa, which has swallowed a number of thoroughly reputable publishing houses. Among them, CRC (who produce a valuable science data reference resource, known for historical reasons as “the Rubber Bible” (though perhaps I should explain in the present context that the vulgar US meaning of “rubber” has nothing to do with it), Routledge, and Gordon and Breach. Wikipedia credits Taylor and Francis with revenue of £490 million in 2016, or over a quarter of a million per employee. Informa is incorporated in Jersey but tax resident in Switzerland.

Go to https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf (or if that link disappears, as it well may, to the authors’ archived link, here,  and you will see an article by Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle, of Southeast Independent Social Research Group. There you will be told, at the outset, that

The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial.

But do not be deceived by this social consensus. To quote the paper’s Public Interest Statement,

As a result of our research into the essential concept of the penis and its exchanges with the social and material world, we conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations. … and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change. Read the rest of this entry

An Ammonite Fossil Leaves A Trail of Evidence of a Tranquil Jurassic Seafloor

Catastrophist creationism gracefully refuted (again); this time by skid marks of drifting ammonite. Free download of paper at Lomax DR., Falkingham PL., Schweigert G., and Jiménez AP. 2017. An 8.5 m long ammonite drag mark from the Upper Jurassic Solnhofen Lithographic Limestones, Germany. PLOS ONE

Naturalis Historia

View original post 901 more words

Creationist nonsense on geology; the odd case of Prof McIntosh D.Sc.

Image result for andy mcintoshCatastrophism versus gradualism; this controversy was laid to rest by TH Huxley in his 1869 Address to the Geological Society, but UK Young Earth Creationists persist in parading the corpse as if it presented a living challenge to current thinking. Perhaps it appeals to their absolutist binary mindset.

McIntosh himself is a member of the group mendaciously mislabelled Truth in Science, which distributed the equally mendacious neo-creationist tract Exploring Evolution to UK schools some years ago, and is an author of the error-saturated Origins, Examining the Evidence, published by that group. BCSE has published a detailed review of Exploring Evolution here.

This piece by my friend, the geologist historian Anglican priest Michael Roberts, will tell you more about McIntosh’s writing than you wish to know, but will convey a wealth of fascinating geological and historical information in the process.

Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin

THE GEOLOGY OF GENESIS FOR TODAY

Image result for andy mcintosh

One of the best selling British creationist books is Genesis for Today by Andy McIntosh, which is now in its 5th edition. https://www.dayone.co.uk/products/genesis-for-today

Most of the book is a popular exposition of Genesis 1 to 11 – and some of it I agree with, but not his insistence that it is literal history.

In Genesis for Today McIntosh gives three scientific appendices, which are much the same in the 1st and 5th editions.  I could either go through and nit-pick his geological errors or consider them under main headings. I have chosen the latter.

Image result

Most would think that a professor in a scientific discipline at a leading university (with a first-rate geology department) would be able to make a reasonable showing on geology.Many amateurs and non-geologists I’ve met in geological societies have a clear grasp.

From the whole of his book, other writings and…

View original post 2,117 more words

If, how, and why to vote in June 8 UK general election

“My vote won’t make the difference.” Of course it won’t. But you are part of a community of like-minded people with shared interests. Collectively, such communities make all the difference in the world. So you can do your bit, or you can let your friends do all the work without you. Up to you.

First, make sure you’re registered. This cannot be taken for granted, especially if you have moved in the past couple of years, and even if you had been automatically registered before that. The Cameron Government changed the rules, in a way a highly unfavourable to students and others who change addresses. I wonder why.

It takes less than 5 minutes. Go to https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote?gclid=COaV5_HL7NMCFawp0wod-ykCSw and follow instructions. You will generally need your National Insurance number. You must be 18 or over, a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. And you can’t vote if you’re in the House of Lords, or in jail. You will also find instructions for armed service or overseas voting, and for postal voting.

How to vote? The UK system is First past the post. You only get to vote for one candidate. So

  • If your most preferred (or lease unpreferred) candidate has a real chance of winning in your constituency, vote for them
  • Otherwise, vote for your choice, however reluctant, between the candidates who do have a chance of winning there.
  • If your top priority is to stop one particular party from being elected, vote for whoever is most likely to defeat them in your constituency. For many (not all) of my friends, this will mean voting for whoever is most likely to defeat the Tory. You can find guidance on that here, and although I have not checked the site’s credentials, I have looked at a number of its recommendations and they seem reasonable.

Finally, if you have not yet decided your preference, I have a very old-fashioned solution. Look at the record of this Government, what it has to offer, and compare it with the alternatives. For example, if you think that the railways are better under private ownership, that Brexit negotiations are being conducted with skill and competence, that the NHS in England is well supported, that Government finances are under control, and that poverty and homelessness are no longer real problems in Britain, you should definitely vote Tory.

Church nominees on Education Committees; Petitions Committee writes to Scottish Government (for 3rd time)

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any better for our Petition to remove unelected Church nominees from Scottish Local Authority Education Committees, things got better.

nov24_0

Spencer Fildes and Paul Braterman testifying to Public Petitions Committee

The Scottish Secular Society is petitioning the Scottish Parliament for the removal of the theocratic anomaly, according to which every Local Authority Education Committee in Scotland must include three representatives of religious bodies. These church nominees are not answerable to the electorate, nor to the elected Councillors, and do not even have to declare an interest.

The Public Petitions Committee has now discuss the matter at three separate meetings. At its November 24 meeting last year, it took evidence from Spencer Fildes, who is advancing the Petition on behalf of the Society, with minor contributions from me, and agreed to write to interested parties, including of course the Scottish Government. So far, so predictable. On February 2 of this year, it reviewed the responses, declared itself unsatisfied with the governmental response regarding the equalities duty as it applies here, and wrote to them again. This was a highly significant development. The Committee agrees, as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission itself has agreed since the matter was first raised in 2013, that there are equalities issues here that invite discussion in terms of Scotland’s 1998 Human Rights Act and 2010 Equality Act. What is relevant is the duty of any public body, including the Government itself, to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity, and of course the privileged position of religious communities on the Education Committees is discrimination and inequality of opportunity, since it creates positions of political power for which only those holding certain religious beliefs are eligible.

In reply to the Committee’s letter, sent February 3, the Scottish Government stated that it will

seek to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment on any policy proposals emerging from the Education Governance Review. It is our intention that once this process has been undertaken we will then consider any of the Scottish Secular Society’s proposals that are not addressed through any changes made by the Education Governance Review.

We were happy, at least for the moment, with this reply. The Committee was not. At its most recent meeting (April 27), the Committee agreed to write to the Government yet again, asking for clarification of the timescale of its planned response to the Education Governance Review, whether it was committed to carrying out an equality impact assessment, and whether the final sentence of its letter referred to the Petition, or to the Society’s submission to the Review.

JohannLamontMSPgreenjacket.jpg

Johann Lamont (CC via Wikipedia)

Most significantly, the Convener (the redoubtable Johann Lamont) further commented

I was quite interested in the idea that the public sector equality duty does not apply to legislation that we have already passed—I was quite intrigued by that. That seemed to me to be saying, “Well, that was before we thought about the equality question, so we don’t have to include it.” I suppose that the question for the Scottish Government concerns the point at which it looks at things that have been done in the past to see whether they match up, and whether the governance review affords the Government the opportunity to consider that issue.

it seems clear that she, for one, will not be happy if the Government evades our arguments on the legalistic grounds that the legislation imposing the Religious Representatives requirement predates the equalities legislation.

The Committee formally agreed to keep the petition open pending the Government’s reply, with one member saying that they could then ”decide how to take the petition further”, and the Convener thanked us for our ongoing interest.

Three years ago, in response to a very similar petition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission expressed its concerns at the present situation, to no avail. The then Petitions Committee forwarded that petition to the Education and Skills Committee, who allowed it to run into the sand because of procedural complexities. So what has changed? In my judgement, several things. Firstly, the Public Petitions Committee is adopting a much more assertive role, rather than merely acting as a gatekeeper. Its convener, Johann Lamont, is an experienced and formidable politician, and former leader of the Scottish Labour Party, a position from which she resigned in 2014, giving as reason interference by the Westminster Labour leadership. She has said of herself

I have been a committee convener, proud of building consensus where possible, to test legislation and to challenge the government of the day.

Secondly, we have the steady drift away from the Churches. This has two effects. It adds weight to the argument that the present arrangement is unjust, because those excluded from the privileged position of Religious Representative are now an actual majority among younger Scots. And as a corollary, it reduces the electoral cost of opposing the Churches. It is the duty of elected Members to consider such things, not only out of self-interest, but because of their duty to represent their constituents.

It will be some time before the fate of our Petition becomes clearer, but, whatever happens next, the issue will not go away. The Public Petitions Committee has shown that it will not be fobbed off with mere generalisations. We have, with the help of our MSP friends, succeeded in framing the discussion in terms of equality, rather than in terms of religion, and I am increasingly convinced that the reforms we seek are now only a matter of time.

To support the Scottish Secular Society click on “Donate” button. The  Scottish Secular society exists to promote freedom of, and freedom from, religious belief, and holds meetings on subjects of interest approximately once a month.

Appendix: relevant documents

Full documentation is on the Scottish Government website, here. The most recent documents are shown below:

Scottish Government submission of 3 March 2017:

Thank you for your letter of 3 February in respect of Petition PE1623 from the Scottish Secular Society calling for changes to the current practices under Section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 which requires that local authority education committees must include members nominated by various churches.

Following your meeting on 2 February you requested the Scottish Government’s timescale for publishing the Education Governance Review findings and whether an assessment of the position of unelected church appointees had been undertaken in respect of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

As you are aware, the Education Governance Review was launched by the Deputy First Minister on 13 September 2016 and ended on 6 January 2017. The purpose of the Education Governance Review was to ask consultees about the role that every part of our education system plays to deliver education in Scotland and how this could be improved. The consultation asked 17 questions, covering 5 key areas:

  1. Empowering teachers, practitioners, parents, schools and communities
  2. Strengthening ‘the middle’ – how teachers, practitioners, schools and other local and regional partners work together to deliver education – including through encouraging school clusters and the establishment of new educational regions
  3. A clear national framework and building capacity in education
  4. Fair funding – learner-centred funding
  5. Accountability

The Scottish Government received over 1100 responses to the consultation, including a response from the Scottish Secular Society, in addition to this over 700 people attended the public engagement sessions. The consultation responses, where permission was given, were published on the Scottish Government’s consultation hub on 3 February. The Scottish Government is now taking time to consider these responses, and wider evidence, and will publish their findings in due course.

In relation to the issues of an EQIA, in 1996, section 124 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 was substituted into that Act by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. As this predates the Equalities Act 2010 there was no requirement to carry out an assessment of this provision in terms of the public sector equality duty at the time it was instructed.

The Public Sector Equality Duty in the Equality Act 2010 has three main elements. It requires public authorities to have ‘due regard’ to the need to:

(a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act

(b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

(c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

Please be assured that we will seek to undertake an Equality Impact Assessment on any policy proposals emerging from the Education Governance Review. It is our intention that once this process has been undertaken we will then consider any of the Scottish Secular Society’s proposals that are not addressed through any changes made by the Education Governance Review.

Official report of April 27 meeting: Local Authority Education Committees (Church Appointees) (PE1623)

The Convener:   (Johann Lamont, Labour, Glasgow)

The next petition is PE1623, on unelected church appointees on local authority education committees. It was lodged by Spencer Fildes on behalf of the Scottish Secular Society. Submissions by the Scottish Government and the petitioner have been circulated to members, along with a note by the clerk.

The Scottish Government identifies the number of responses that it received on its education governance review and says that it will publish its findings in due course. In response to our question on any assessment it had undertaken in respect of the public sector equality duty, the Scottish Government advises that such an assessment was not a requirement at the time that the legislation was instructed, but that is something that it will seek to undertake on any policy proposals that arise from its governance review. The Government adds that it intends to consider any of the petitioners’ proposals that are not addressed through the governance review.

The petitioners broadly welcome the Scottish Government’s response but contend that it will not be possible to establish whether any proposals that emerge from the governance review address the issues that have been raised until they have been assessed.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action to take?

Maurice Corry:    (C, West Scotland)

First, I think that we should seek from the Scottish Government an update on its anticipated timescale for the publication of its findings from its education governance review, which will apply to the local authorities as well. Subsequently, we should have clarification on whether the Government will carry out any equality impact assessment on policy proposals from that review. Thirdly, we should have clarification on whether the Government’s reference to the Scottish Secular Society’s proposals relate to what is called for in the petition or to the society’s response to the consultation. It is also important that we refer the matter to COSLA for its views.

The Convener:

Okay. We got some information from COSLA in response to our initial search for evidence.

Do members agree that we write to the Scottish Government as suggested? I was quite interested in the idea that the public sector equality duty does not apply to legislation that we have already passed—I was quite intrigued by that. That seemed to me to be saying, “Well, that was before we thought about the equality question, so we don’t have to include it.” I suppose that the question for the Scottish Government concerns the point at which it looks at things that have been done in the past to see whether they match up, and whether the governance review affords the Government the opportunity to consider that issue.

Rona Mackay:   (SNP, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I agree. We need clarification on the points that Maurice Corry raised. After we get a response, we can decide how to take the petition further.

The Convener:

Okay. Are we agreed on the action to take?

Members indicated agreement.

The Convener:

Again, we thank the petitioners for their on-going interest in the question.

Glasgow local elections; my preferences based on secularism issues

Written for Glasgow, but relevant throughout Scotland. Life goes on at local level, and I urge you to cast your local vote on local issues. Here, for me,* the order of preference is clear, based on my educational and secularist concerns:

Greens > SNP ~ Labour > LibDem >> Conservative

Marble staircase, Glasgow City Chambers (click to enlarge)

My reasons are apparent below.

Under the system used, it is important to list all your preferences (or as pedants point out, all but the last of your preferences) in order

I asked all parties a series of questions saying I would publicise their response or lack of it. SNP replied with specific answers. The Greens referred me to their manifesto. Other parties did not reply at all. I give below SNP replies, and such information regarding the other parties as I could gather from manifestoes and other sources (note that this introduces sampling errors); direct quotations from party sources in red:

Your attitude toward suggestions that Free Schools be set up in Scotland, as they have been in England

SNP response: No. Greens, Labour: No seems to me implicit in support for role of Local Authorities in education. LibDems manifesto: Decentralise more powers to schools, working with parents, to take decisions over the mix of staff, ethos and local priorities  … support the continued role of local authorities to set standards and strategy, and provide supporting services. The word “ethos”, in this context, concerns me.

Conservatives via manifesto: We recognise and celebrate the many achievements of Scotland’s schools, including the very dedicated commitment from teachers. However, reform is needed and we will continue to make the case for an educational system based on diversity in schools, autonomy for school leaders and a focus on basic literacy and numeracy. We remain supportive of introducing a range of schools run outside of council control, where there is demand, but also want to see powers devolved to school leaders in the existing model. If there are state schools which wish to be autonomous in controlling budgets, recruitment policies or school management, they should be permitted to do so. [Emphasis in original] Read the rest of this entry

Socrates is still mortal, but fallacies aren’t fallacious

Updated repost of The Fallacy Fork and the Limits of Logic, at 3 Quarks Daily

No quiet moment; Theresa May calls snap UK election (BBC)

I had been waiting for a quiet moment to write about this, but there isn’t going to be a quiet moment, so now will have to do. [Update: these words went up on 3 Quarks Daily last Monday. On the Tuesday, Theresa May called a snap UK General election]

Debaters regularly accuse their opponents of using fallacies. These can be formal fallacies, such as simple errors of logic, or informal fallacies, such as appeal to authority, ad hominem and strawman arguments, among others. If a piece of reasoning depends on any of these fallacies, so it is claimed, the conclusion does not really follow from the premises, and while it might still be true we have not been given any good reason to believe it.1 And so books that discuss logic, and science-promoting blogs (including one I follow), regularly include descriptions of informal fallacies, with stern instructions to avoid committing them.

Sagan warns us against fallacies. But is exposing fallacies enough to shield us from the demons?

In an article entitled The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life, Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri and Massimo Pigliucci (henceforth BPP) challenge this view. BPP is written for the perusal of trained philosophers, which I am not, but I use it here as a jumping off point, while mixing in further content of my own.

BPP apply what they call the fallacy fork test to accusations of informal fallacy; either the reasoning is obviously erroneous, in which case no one would really use it, or else it is not obviously erroneous in context, and we still have all the work to do. In the first case, formal analysis is redundant; in the second, the facts of the matter need further consideration. Read the rest of this entry

Science matters because it works (but it’s not quite that simple)

Reblogged from The Logic of Science, but with this comment: No one would disagree with these claims on behalf of science, and and that’s the problem.

The climate change denialists, like the smoking science denialists before them, pretend that the science is unsettled. The creationists prattle of “creation science” and “flood geology”. The extremely able and intelligent US Vice President, pandering to his creationist base, did not claim to be anti-science. On the contrary, he used the very fact of a major scientific discovery (Sahelanthropus, evolution, and the word “theory”; what Mike Pence really said) to blur the distinction between the established core and the fast-changing frontiers. And if we are to effectively defend science, we need to understand the emotional appeal of the ideology that leads to the rejection of vaccination, medicines, and GMOs, and to the prejudging of complex arguments in such cases as fracking and nuclear power.*

We need to think very carefully about tactics. If we seem to be saying anything like “Science is a good thing, therefore you should trust the scientists”, we are playing into the hands of our enemies. We are right to demonstrate and protest when science is denied, or ignored,  or muzzled.  And yet people (that’s all of us) believe what they want to believe.  The task  then is, how to persuade people to want to believe  in the evidence?

*This last comment cuts both ways, of course

The Logic of Science

Why should you support science? Because it works! It’s crazy to me that I even have to say that, but this is where we are as a society. Various forms and degrees of science denial are running rampant throughout our culture, and attacks on science are being disseminated from the highest levels. Indeed, it has gotten to the point that hundreds of thousands of scientists and science enthusiasts like myself feel compelled to take to the streets to march for science and remind everyone of the fundamental fact that science works and is unparalleled in its ability to inform us about reality and improve our world.

Image via the CDC

Just look around you. Everything that you see was brought to you by science. The batteries that power your electronic devices are a result of scientific advances in chemistry, as are the plastics that make up seemingly everything in our…

View original post 1,903 more words

The Woman Who Studied the Sun

File:Cecilia Helena Payne Gaposchkin (1900-1979) (3).jpg

Cecilia Payne-Gaposhkin at work; Smithsonian Institute Archives via Wikipedia

I just came across this piece by John Gribbin, interesting for many reasons.
Glasgow University started awarding degrees to women in 1892; contrast Cambridge University’s 1948.
Auguste Comte, 1835: “We will never be able to determine the chemical composition of the stars”.
1802, Wollaston observes Fraunhofer lines
1814, Fraunhofer independently observes Fraunhofer lines. Perhaps a reader can tell me why they are named after Fraunhofer, not Wollaston
1859, Kirchhoff (of circuit laws fame) and, independently, Bunsen (of Bunsen burner fame) match Fraunhofer lines to atomic spectra, infer chemical composition of stars
1868, Lockyer correctly identifies third solar Fraunhofer line in “sodium yellow” region as due to a new element, names it “helium”
1892, Glasgow University starts awarding degrees to women
~1923 (see below), Cecilia Payne (later Payne-Gaposhkin) completes studies at Cambridge, but cannot formally graduate because she is a woman
1925, Cecilia Payne gains Ph.D. from Radcliffe; unravels highly complex (see below) Fraunhofer lines of stars; shows that, contrary to all then current expectation, stellar composition is dominated by hydrogen and helium
1948, Cambridge University starts awarding degrees to women

johngribbinscience

Posting this in response to a question I was asked.  It is essentially an extract from my book 13.8

Cecilia Payne won a scholarship to Newnham College, Cambridge (the only way she could have afforded a university education) in 1919. She studied botany, physics and chemistry, but also attended a talk by Arthur Eddington about the eclipse expedition on which he had famously “proved Einstein right” by measuring the way light from distant stars was bent by the Sun. This fired her interest in astronomy, and she visited the university’s observatory on an open night, plying the staff with so many questions that Eddington took an interest, and offered her the run of the observatory library, where she read about the latest developments in the astronomical journals.

After completing her studies (as a woman, she was allowed to complete a degree course, but could not be awarded a degree; Cambridge…

View original post 1,085 more words

Express science reporter: “proof dinosaurs lived with HUMANS?”

“Is this proof dinosaurs lived with HUMANS? Creationist claims REAL truth COVERED UP”

The Express, an ostensibly serious right wing UK newspaper, reports under “SCIENCE”.

dinosaur

Express caption” “Did dinosaurs co-exist with humans?”

The evidence? A display at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. Ham is quoted as saying that the standard scientific evidence is a coverup, as his own dinosaur fossils show, for some unstated but presumably non-standard reason:

“Ken Ham, founder of Creation Museum in Kentucky, United States, has put the supposed evidence on display at his centre. Standard scientific evidence shows dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago … and the anatomically modern man did not emerge until around 200,000 years ago. But Mr Ham believes this is a cover-up … the dinosaur fossils were found in Colorado about a decade ago and seem to represent a tyrannosaurus rex [sic].”

jurassic park

Express caption: Scenes might have been similar to Jurassic Park

(Fuller quotations supplied by the Sensuous Curmudgeon, here)

Ham complains that evolutionists “use dinosaurs … to promote their worldview”. How dare they! But do not accuse the Express of bias. It does refer to what it calls “the  standard scientific evidence”, and they do quote two sentences from Bill Nye, before showing the image on the right:

And compared with the image below, the paper’s front page in the runup to the Brexit referendum, the dinosaur story is factually balanced reporting reporting; fake news is not the invention of the Trump campaign.

@hendopolis: SUNDAY EXPRESS: 12m Turks say they’ll come to UK #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers https://t.co/ArvI3hlgc2

The Express group is wholly-owned by Richard Desmond, a UK billionaire and former publisher of such informative periodicals as Penthouse and Asian Babes. circulation is close to 400,000, in addition to online readership. In 2002, Desmond made a £100,000 donation to Blair’s Labour Party, but in 2004 switched allegiance to the Conservatives.

The lead story of this post would seem to be based on the February 4 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, which did so much to restore the former’s finances. Why it should have resurfaced now in the Express, I have no idea. But it does concern me. Desmond does not make a habit of backing longterm losers.

%d bloggers like this: