My Denver talk is up on youtube. I will be stunned if anyone manages to listen to it — the sound is a bit echoey, and I went on way too long.

Let’s make it a musical Sunday morning for the godless! Tristero, occasional commenter here and regular writer at Hullabaloo, is actually a professional composer in real life, and he has been busy.

I had wanted to do a piece with a scientific subject for a very long time. Many years ago, someone in the New Yorker- very likely Richard Dawkins – noted that while religion had its masterpieces like Bach’s St Matthew Passion, science had no comparable works. That struck me as an amusing, and exciting, challenge. I knew I could never write anything remotely approaching the St. Matthew, but the notion of setting to music a classic scientific text really stuck in my mind. The question was: which one? Galileo’s Starry Messenger? Newton’s Principia (which I had already used in a dance piece)? Einstein’s first paper on relativity?

A few years later, I had a big argument with a close and very smart friend, who argued that “intelligent design” creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes. I was so shocked that my friend had been bamboozled that it reawakened my interest in evolution and Darwin. I started to follow closely the social “controversy” – as you know, there is no controversy about the reality of evolution – and have posted many times about the issue.

So, he has written an opera-oratorio based on the life of Charles Darwin that will premier at SUNY Oswego for Darwin Day … and he’s made a few excerpts available right now! There are youtube clips from the introduction and a piece called “Annie’s Memorial”; the first one is illustrated with photographs of the Galápagos taken by my fellow traveler, Scott Hurst (I believe his photographs will also be shown in the performance).

It’s good stuff — you should also check out some of Tristero’s other music.

We have a little argument going on in one of the pointless poll threads. The question being asked is, “Do you believe in the Big Bang?” Some people are indignant (and correct!) and protesting that their views on scientific matters are not a matter of opinion, but of impartial assessment of the evidence; these views are independent of personal belief, and are also held provisionally, subject to revision in the face of better evidence.

These people are also being infuriatingly pedantic, and are expressing an attitude that interferes with the communication of ideas. Don’t sputter out a bunch of reservations and refuse to answer, state a general position and then drill down into the details and qualifications. Pound this into your heads, and stop boring people with irrelevant musings that only detract from the central point.

Here’s an example. Imagine you’re at a party with a bunch of normal people, not the kinds of nerds who hang out in Pharyngula comment threads. Ordinary people, drinking beer, talking about sports and the weather, and one of them has heard that you’re kind of an egghead, so they ask a simple question in terms that they understand (just like the phrasing in that poll), and they ask it in a tone that suggests they have doubts, but they’re willing to talk with you about it. They ask something like, “Do you believe evolution is true?”

How are you going to answer it? Remember, your goal is to engage this person in conversation and start a discussion about something other than the local football team.

Here’s what I would propose. Remember, the first sentence is important; if you’re too tedious they’re going to tune you out and start thinking about the hot neighbor standing back behind your shoulder.

Yes, I believe evolution is true.
I consider it the best explanation of the origin and diversity of life on earth,
and it is backed by an immense body of evidence. Strictly speaking,
it is not a matter of belief, but a recognition of the knowledge
of qualified experts and a familiarity with the research
that has been done in the field; I would also
add that science does not deal in absolute
truth, but strives for approximations,
and is always willing to discard old
ideas if better explanations
with better evidence
come along.
Do you have evidence for an alternative theory?

Notice: one paragraph with an unambiguous declaration. The essential reservations are in there because scientists tend to be cautious about this stuff, but you aren’t hiding it, you’re just answering the question plainly. You also open up the possibility for further discussion along lines that you would find acceptable — maybe they’ll ask about this intelligent design stuff they keep hearing about, and you can lead it to talk about whether there is actually evidence there.

That’s the way to do it.

Now, what do we get from the true pedants? Here’s a possibility.

Science does not deal in belief or truth.
I hold certain scientific principles to be provisionally valid because
I have extensive knowledge of the fields involved, but I am also
aware of the fine details that are subjects of controversy
and criticism. You should rephrase your question to
be more accommodating to serious scientific and
philosophical principles, because I simply
cannot answer it honestly. It is a bad
question. If you had asked
whether I accepted the
evidence for the
theory of
evolution,
then I would probably answer you in the affirmative.

Wait a minute, what? The question asked wasn’t answered, except in a very waffly way at the end of this irrelevant drone! You weren’t asked about the nature of “belief” or “truth”, you were asked about your stance on a scientific theory. You’ve lost your audience, unless this party happens to be stocked with faculty from the local university philosophy department.

If not, you’ve now left the indelible impression that scientists can’t give a straight answer, they don’t believe their own ideas are true, and that the subject of evolution is something scientists weasel away from.

So stop it. Straight talk first, nuance second. OK?

Giving a talk? Watch this.

(from TERRY TALKS)

Posted by LisaJ

I find it astounding in this day and age, with the many grand scientific discoveries and advances we’ve seen and in our increasingly technologically dependent world, that a large proportion of our population (at least in Canada and the US, with which I have more personal experience) seems uninterested in understanding and learning about science. We have a wealth of information available at our fingertips and an educational system with the potential to accommodate any type of scientific mind, but yet we science-minded individuals are not in the majority. We are a culture that largely breeds an aversion to science. Now I know that I’m generalizing here, and that some individuals living in North America aren’t able to access these opportunities so easily, but that of course is part of the problem.

Now I’m not saying that I think everyone should become a Scientist, I just think it’s sad that more people aren’t embracing the wonders of science into their daily lives. Science is everywhere. It has the power to explain anything you want to know about the world, and it opens our minds up to bigger and bigger possibilities everyday. Science is beautiful, and to embrace it is to enrich your life dramatically. But so many people aren’t doing this, and they are really missing out in life. I see it myself everyday with many of my friends and family members who choose to tune out whenever science is brought up or who quickly cut me off with the ‘oh, you’re so smart, that’s too hard for me’ line. And they’re entirely comfortable to just walk away, carry on, and not understand.

[Read more…]

Just for fun, contrast Nisbet’s latest wank-fest with the spat going on between Libby Purves and Richard Dawkins in the Times. (also see Libby’s rebuttal).

In her criticism of the Dawkins, Purves invokes a false dilemma akin to that of our domestic framing expert, but I note a conspicuous absence of vituperative smugness in her approach.

~Danio