Trust Me, I'm a Scientist

Science and the telly is a very heady mixture. Programmes about, or referring to, science are surprisingly popular. The general viewing public has about as much understanding of the scientific method as a lawyer has about the truth. Science-related programmes are commissioned and produced by people who aren't scientists. They're put together by the flakiest folk of all; television producers.

A television producer is mostly concerned with viewing statistics and maximum audiences. When it comes to science they think that it has to be displayed in a way that is relevant to the 'average viewer'. The average viewer is a mythical figure whose attention span and intellectual capacity is assumed to be roughly equivalent to that of a two-year-old rabbit.

Scientists (in broadcasting applications) are usually 'Professors' of something, or other, who are on the payroll of a university that is desperate for cash. These scientists have to justify their existence to the institutions that employ them by attracting funding from either commercial companies or politicians.

On a typical programme about astronomical matters, such as 'Gamma-Ray Bursts', or the 'Death of Our Sun', we are always treated to the spectacle of a 'Scientist' talking about the implications for 'Us' (meaning the survival of mankind). When we consider gamma-ray bursts, we are told that they all occur over ten billion light years away. Non have been detected in our galaxy, probably because they stopped occurring about ten billion years ago. We are not going to be wiped out by a gamma-ray burst, but we are told by a Professor (who knows better), that such an event (if close enough) would wipe us out. When we consider the death of the sun, we are told that this will happen in about 4.5 billion years' time, and we might survive by 'moving to Mars'. Mankind has been on this planet for (at most) half a million years. Life on this planet is about 3 billion years old. We know that evolution shows that our species will probably not be around (or, at least, recognisable as 'Us') in less then another half a million years. In fact, the way we are going, our survival beyond the next few hundred years is highly doubtful. Talk about us 'escaping to Mars' in billions of years' time is just rubbish. The scientists are talking utter bollocks, They must know that they're talking utter bollocks, but they do it anyway. Could that be because there's a pay-check involved?

We also often hear scientists saying that they 'believe' this or that theory. A scientist should never 'believe' anything. It is their role to always question any hypothesis. The scientific method is to suggest an 'Hypothesis' (which is only ever a 'best guess') and then to test and explore that hypothesis in an attempt to prove or disprove that guess. No proper scientist should ever assume an outcome of such enquiry, or be committed to one outcome over another. The facts are the facts and that's all a scientist should be interested in. In the field of physics, so many 'beliefs' have been exploded in the last few decades, and doubtless that process will continue. The history of science shows, time and time again, how 'established' science has rejected and vilified those who challenge that establishment. Time and time again, the 'established view' has been overthrown, only after an ugly and un-edifying public battle in which egos and 'reputations' made sure that the truth always took a back-seat to individual belief and ambition.

Scientists are like any other group of people, but they lay claim to something others groups do not lay claim to: Scientific Objectivity. Rarely do we see this in public practice.

Trust the scientists?

Why Did The Good Samaritan Cross The Road?

About a year ago, feeling the need to re-charge my batteries, I spent a few very enjoyable days at a Buddhist centre on the other side of the county. It must have been well over thirty years since I had been in an 'Ashram' or monastic institution. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, just as Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism. My monastic background was in the Kashmiri Shavite tradition of Hinduism, but the way the whole place was set up and run, and the disciplines observed, were instantly familiar. Here was a group of bright people from a wide variety of backgrounds, covering a wide age-range and of both genders. They were all, in a determined and disciplined way, in pursuit of spiritual fulfilment and enlightenment.

I never was one to do well in, or around, institutions of any type. So my visit was never going to be more than a few days in a conducive environment, to do some meditation and to connect with the spiritual pursuits of others. I took the opportunity to read some of the literature on offer. There was the usual explanation of the nature of the self, and the usual claim that this particular Buddhist path is the only path that will get you to your spiritual goal. One thing I learned a long time ago is that nobody has a monopoly in this arena.

It was also instructive to see that this community (with its rather privileged lifestyle), in a fantastic huge property in wonderful surroundings, was seeking to justify it's monastic isolation. The argument was that by leaving society and concentrating on achieving their own enlightenment, they were enriching the spiritual capital of the world and, thereby, helping the rest of mankind. That seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch and to display a naive fear of appearing to be selfish.

All spiritual pursuits are, by their very nature, selfish. We follow these paths and practices to make sense of our own lives and to find internal peace for ourselves. There is no need to pretend that we do this for the benefit of others, even though others may end up benefiting from our efforts. We seek spiritual peace out of self-interest.

There are two kinds of self interest. Greed and disregard for others characterise one kind. Care and loving for others (because it aids our own well being) characterise the other. This second kind of self interest is Enlightened Self Interest.

The Good Samaritan crossed the road because, if he had passed by on the other side, he would have felt terrible. He crossed the road because it made him feel better and contributed to his happiness by helping his fellow man.

Keeping So'ham Simple

I've been getting a bit of feedback from people saying they're 'struggling' with meditation. I'm a bit surprised, but then perhaps, I shouldn't be. I do think that many folk are simply expecting too much, too soon, of what essentially is a very simple mental exercise.

Learning how to ride a bike is extremely difficult at first. Once you've learned, it takes no obvious skill, you just let your body get on with it. Meditation is a bit like that. The more you do it, the easier it gets. Except that learning to ride a bike is much harder than learning to meditate.

There are so many traditions and disciplines that employ meditation and promote no end of varied and contradictory methods and practices. Most of them claiming to be the only true path to enlightenment. Meditation gets built up into this massive spiritual 'big deal' that only accomplished Yogis and Buddhist Monks can get to grips with.

The point about 'So'ham' or 'breathing' meditation, (see: Friday 18th December 2009 'Meditation De-Mystified') is that it doesn't need any special time, place, discipline or method to be of use. You can sit down in a special place set aside for meditation, at a set time, in a very disciplined way, and if that's your bag, you'll get a lot of benefit from it. But all of that is so unnecessary.

Listening to you breath can be done in any situation, place or time. I find that it works really well when I'm driving or doing some repetitive task. I've often done it in a bored moment at a party, when observing the goings on from the edges of things, or even in a meeting when things have got tedious. So'ham simply helps to flip from being fully immersed in the goings on around you, to being just one step detached from things, going from being an actor in the play to being a member of the audience. There is nothing more to it than that.

It's especially handy when someone, or some situation, is doing it's very best to piss you off.

I recommend starting by not making a big, disciplinary epic of the whole thing. Just try a bit of 'So'ham' when you're driving, travelling on the bus, waiting in the queue at the bank...

Where observation leads sometimes may be tedious and obvious, sometimes full of insight and, very occasionally, deeply spiritual. There is no point approaching the act of observation with expectations- the two aren't compatible - what you observe is what it is and no more.

Why do it at all?

That only becomes obvious when you notice that you simply feel better for doing it.

Bang On

David and I were watching an article on the local news television.

An old guy from Rushden (where we live!) who, at eighty-odd years old, is retiring from running Working Mens' Clubs. He's talking about life and society:

"When people were poor, we were much better off."

Touche.

HOW WE LOVE A GOOD DISASTER

Nothing gets us going like a good disaster, does it? Let me see, the Boxing Day Tsunami, The Pakistan Earthquake, The Turkish Earthquakes and now poor little Haiti.

The news coverage never varies. There's the initial shock and horror, followed by the much criticised Relief Effort which is always (according to the media) disorganised and much too slow. Then there are the few dozen people rescued from the rubble, days after the event, followed by the 'miracle' of babies being born, followed by the whole thing disappearing from the news as soon as our multi-millionaire celebreties get finished with their record releases and telethons.

We weren't in the least interested in helping the poor and desperate populations of these places before the disaster, and we won't be interested in their plight when the dramatic footage disappears from our television screens.

Mugabe can carry on making life unbearable in Zimbabwe, the poor and starving aids-ridden children of Africa, will go on suffering, while we return to our self-indulgent 'way of life'.

Are we going to be opening our doors to all these poor human beings? Are we going to start seriously spreading the wealth around the planet? Of course not.

Thousands of children live desperate and impoverished lives right here in the UK, but a 'plane crashing somewhere in Northern Mongolia makes much better news. The good thing about disasters is that they go away almost as quickly as they happen. The reality of suffering on a global scale doesn't make good news and certainly is not something we should consider disturbing our comfort levels for, in order to make a real difference.

Haiti was a disaster for many decades before the earthquake. It will continue to be a disaster for the foreseeable future.

Me? Disaster fatigue!!

My Day At The Show

Yesterday David and I went to the Autosport Show, on one of it's 'Trade Days'. As engineers and designers, we are most interested in the Engineering section of the show. That's where we can pick up on ideas, see the latest components and meet people who can be useful to our projects.

A three-page article, about our rocket powered car 'laffin-gas', had just appeared in 'Racecar Engineering' magazine, so we decided to attend in full team uniform to get maximum attention. David and I, at times, went separate ways in order to investigate as many things as possible for our new car. In previous years I had always attended in anonymous 'civvies' usually a suit with a skirt. I had found that, dressed like that, it was difficult to get the men on the stands to take me seriously or even bother to break off from talking bollocks with their mates to attend to my enquires. This time, in team overalls, and with a much higher profile, I expected things to be different. No chance!!

On one stand, that was promoting it's excellent shock absorbers, I wanted to let them know that the ones we had bought from them for our present car had worked out very well. I also wanted to explore the possibilities for shock absorbers for our new, 400 mph car. There were two men, in company shirts, sitting at a small round table chatting with each other. I went up to them and stood plainly in their line of sight. I was the only other person on their stand. They carried on talking. I waited. They looked at me and carried on talking. I waited a little longer. They carried on talking. At that point I said, in a voice loud enough to be heard over their conversation, "Bollocks to you then". They gave me a quick glance and carried on talking. Needless to say, we won't be using their shock-absorbers on the new car. Would they have done this if I'd been a bloke? I doubt it.

On quite a few stands, that were displaying things of interest to me, I struggled to get attention, and then my enquiries were constantly interrupted by comments like 'What you mean is...' and 'What makes you think this is what you want?'... So I took to having a copy of Racecar Engineering in my hand, open at the article on our car, just to get through the initial barriers and assumptions. In some cases that really helped. In others, the man on the stand would glance at it, not read a single word and start to tell me what kind of a car I was involved with. ' Ah a Top-Fueller' or 'Oh, a Jet-Car' or some other utterly erroneous assumption. Even when I said 'No it's a rocket' they'd tell me it wasn't a rocket and was something else. Me - rocket engineer (and driver) responsible for the only fast rocket powered car presently running anywhere on the planet, him - working for wages on the company stand. Not every man there treated me like an idiot. But most of them did.

As I walked around the engineering part of the show, I noticed almost no women on any of the stands. Oh - except for the numerous eighteen year-old dolly-birds in hot-pants. Where, I wondered, was the beef-cake in hot pants? I'm amazed that an engineering show in the 21st century, should still consider that the only proper role for females is to parade around mostly naked for the gratification of its customers.

I'm no rabid feminist, but this all really got me rather pissed off. No wonder I can't get sponsorship or be taken seriously by industry and government sponsored motorsport organisations. The motorsport industry is utterly and overtly chauvinist. The very fact that there is a need for a 'British Women Racing Drivers Association' proves the matter.

Here am I, responsible for the most radical and innovative vehicle to be produced in years, developing entirely new technology and being utterly ignored by most of the thousands of blokes in grey suits.

I'm sure that, when presented with this little diatribe, the powers-that-be in all the Motorsport Associations will deny these claims vigourously, point at the odd token woman, and say that they go out of their way to be inclusive. That reminds me of the Met denying the charge of 'Institutional Racism' following the death of Stephen Lawrence. Discrimination against women is utterly endemic throughout motorsport. It is so deeply ingrained that it the sport is not even conscious of this fact.

Wake up guys- there are more females than males getting engineering degrees these days. Of, course, the women will still struggle to be taken seriously by this male dominated industry, but in another generation, you guys may actually have to be good at what you do in order to keep your jobs.

Time for the DDT?

If we were travelling around this corner of the galaxy with the local Galactic Quadrant Public Health Inspectors, we would possibly spot a badly infested planet. One of those cases where things are so out of hand, that the exterminators have to be called in. As with any good exterminator, their methods would probably be quite well targeted and specific for the species that is causing the damage. Some special agent, or disease organism that only kills the problem species.

The control tool of choice would probably be an extremely virulent disease that kills only the species in question, leaving all the other species intact and giving them a chance to recover. On the other hand, it may be deemed expedient to simply sterilise the place altogether as the risk of allowing the infestation to spread throughout the galaxy may be just too horrific to consider.

The infestation we may have spotted is on a pretty blue planet called Earth, and the organism that has reproduced out of control, is a particularly nasty one: 'Homo Sapiens'. Let it get off the planet, and there's no telling how much damage it could do to the rest of the galaxy.

When I was a teenager, there was plenty of international debate and calls for action on 'Population Control'. The increasing population was already being seen as unsustainable. Now we worry about 'Climate Change' and 'Deforestation'. The sad fact is that both these phenomena are driven by population pressure. There are too many people on this planet. That is an inescapable fact, and a fact that is at the root of all our other global problems.

Any debate about other global matters that does not address population growth is an exercise in verbal masturbation.

Nature has a way of dealing with imbalances. Perhaps the Galactic Pest Controller will not have to act. Perhaps Mother Nature will come up with a solution of her own. Whatever - the correction will not be a pleasant experience.

One thing is as sure as eggs: Mankind is utterly incapable of coming up with an answer before something cataclysmic kicks off.