 |
 |
That's very interesting and I think that it's a great idea to look for opportunities to hear ideas that you don't necessarily agree with. It's a very good way to keep our rational faculties highly tuned - to listen to ideas that are different and to analyse their logic, so that if we disagree with them, we can pinpoint the precise parts of their thinking where the division between us and them lies. And then we can seek for an experiment that can distinguish between our view and theirs, to enable us to come down with an answer one way or the other. With best wishes, Howie [log in to unmask] writes: >Well here at St Andrews we tend to alternate "mainstream science" >discussion initiators with more "fringe" stuff. Thus we have had a >speaker >pro "creation science", a skeptical magician, "when fringe science >becomes >pseudoscience" plus a trip to "What the Bleep do we know" (which I >thought >was "bleeping rubbish" but anyway). Must admit I thought that this would >be >the norm for most CSs but reading other schedules it seems people do go >for >safer fair. We like our discussion here. > > > >Charles > > > >At 14:40 12/12/2005 +0000, you wrote: >>Good to be in contact, Duncan, and many thanks for the information about >>Ad Lagendijk. He sounds fascinating and I'd be most interested to hear >how >>the session with him goes. In fact, if there's any online material I can >>access about him, I'd be most grateful for the details, as the essay in >>Nature sounds most interesting. >> >>This whole question about the nature of science is so important that I'm >>coming to think of it as a core issue, so important that if it could be >>resolved we could open up many more possibilities for the application of >>science for the good of society. >> >>One of the best answers to the question as to whether science is a >process >>of ceaseless questioning of established beliefs or the application of the >>authority of dogma comes from a school pupil in England who was one of >>those asked for their views on the school curriculum in a survey by the >>Science Museum as part of Science Year: >> >>"I don't really care how you work out how fast a ball falls if it weighs >>10 kg and is falling 4 metres, it's not stimulating and I'm never going >to >>use that information again." >> >>What's encouraging for the Cafe Scientifique approach in particular is >>that the most useful and effective way of learning science came out from >>the survey as 'having a discussion/debate in class'. 45% put it at the >top >>of their list, just ahead of 'taking notes from the teacher', with 'doing >>a science experiment in class' coming in to third place. And no less than >>57% said that the introduction of discussions about philosophy and ethics >>(with animal testing quoted as an example) would make GCSE Science more >>attractive as a subject. >> >>With best wishes, Howie >> >> >>[log in to unmask] writes: >> >Many thanks, Howie, for raising such an important issue. I certainly >think >> >that the Cafes should be discussing not just current scientific ideas >and >> >issues, but also listening to critiques and theories from the history >and >> >philosophy of science, and I would be interested to hear of good, >> >opinionated speakers. >> > >> >We have just invited Ad Lagendijk to speak at Leeds. He wrote an >> >interesting >> >essay in Nature a couple of weeks ago exposing the male battles for >power >> >within the modern physics community, and suggesting a change in norms >and >> >values in physics. (Incidentally we can invite him because he can get >from >> >Amsterdam to Leeds return for £25! - that changes the economics of >> >speakers >> >if you are near an airport with low-cost carriers.) >> > >> >Duncan Dallas >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Orkney Science Festival" <[log in to unmask]> >> >To: <[log in to unmask]> >> >Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 11:21 PM >> >Subject: Re: ben goldacre >> > >> > >> >> I hope you don't mind me coming in to comment, but I think that >there is >> >> an interesting general issue that might be worth opening up. >> >> >> >> I think that Dr Goldacre would be a very entertaining speaker for an >> >> evening and might stir up some discussion. But as I understand it, he >> >is a >> >> GP who writes mainly about medical treatment which he disagrees with, >> >and >> >> it might be more reasonable to call the column 'Bad Medicine'. >> >> >> >> I do think that there is a need for a serious debate about the >nature of >> >> science but it needs to be led by someone of appropriate scientific >> >> stature who's not committed to any particular interest-group, for >> >instance >> >> someone at Nobel level. People like David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine >have >> >> expressed some very profound ideas, but they are no longer alive, >and we >> >> need people to follow up and build on their work. >> >> >> >> I think that it would be very interesting to explore questions about >the >> >> nature of science itself. For instance, has it become a church of >> >science >> >> where orthodox dogma rules, or has it managed to retain the spirit of >> >> Descartes and Galileo and continually expose every one of its >cherished >> >> beliefs to question and doubt and testing? >> >> >> >> I hope I haven't offended anyone by these comments, but I do believe >> >that >> >> the issue is a very important one. I'd be most interested in hearing >> >from >> >> anyone who'd like to open up this type of discussion. >> >> >> >> With best wishes, Howie >> >> >> >> >> >> [log in to unmask] writes: >> >> >Have a look at www.lablit.com - Jenny Rohn (the editor) has >interviewed >> >> >him. >> >> >LabLit's a great site, too! >> >> >Ann >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >From: Discussion list for cafe scientifique network on behalf of Ann >> >Grand >> >> >Sent: Tue 29/11/2005 19:08 >> >> >To: [log in to unmask] >> >> >Subject: Request from Brighton cafe >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >Hi, >> >> > >> >> >Jim Grozier from the Brighton cafe is trying to find contact details >> >for >> >> >Ben >> >> >Goldacre - he's had several requests but draws a blank on a google >> >search. >> >> >Can anyone help? >> >> > >> >> >Thanks >> >> > >> >> >Ann >> >> >> > >> > > >Dr. Charles Paxton >Research Unit for Wildlife Population Assessment >Centre for Research into Ecological and Environmental Modelling >University of St Andrews >The Observatory >Buchanan Gardens >St Andrews >Fife KY16 9LZ >Scotland >Tel: +44 (0) 1334 461811 >Fax: +44 (0) 1334 461800 >email: [log in to unmask] > >