Shaking Hands With Jonathan Ross

“Yes it’s him. Be cool. Relax. Don’t stare. He is just another human being. But it’s him … Jonathan Bloody Ross!”I became a real fan of Britain’s top TV interviewer and radio host when he took over from Barry Norman’s film review show. I thought no one could replace Barry but ‘Wossy’ surpassed the great Barry – or maybe not (inside Barry joke!).

So here I was in the green room at The Amazing Meeting event in London this weekend mixing with the speakers. Tracy King, the organizer had invited me to give a satellite talk but asked that I be on stand-by should the Skype link to James Randi not work. I jumped at the opportunity to do my thing to fill the slot. Luckily for everyone concerned the link to Randi went fine. All the speakers were superstars and I think a last minute entry would have looked just like that.

Anyway back to Jonathan Ross. I knew he was at the meeting but never thought that I would be mingling in this group. I was about to pick up the plate to self-serve the lunch laid on when Wossy entered the room. My heart skipped a beat. “Get a grip man! Reign those emotions in with reason” But then Wossy spots me and walks over, clamping an arm around my shoulder and forcing a handshake.“Great to see you, sorry I won’t be able to make your show tonight.”

I freeze like a rabbit caught in the headlights and transfixed by his famous smile. Is this a windup? An elaborate hoax to tease the poor professor? Have I been set up? I’m shaking Jonathan Bloody Ross’s hand. My mouth goes dry.

“I..I… think .. you may have mistaken me for someone else.” Still smiling, “Sorry I thought you were Robin Ince, I’m Jonathan.”  “Yes I know, I’m Bruce.”

A few more exchanges of small talk and we both proceed to fill our plates. But my hands are shaking and every time I try to balance a piece of quiche on the fork it drops pitifully. I quickly exit the serving table to seek refuge. I sit at one of the tables trying to look as nonchalant as possible but I know that I must look white, and I can feel the beads of sweat streaming down my face.

It took some time for my autonomic arousal system to return to some semblance of normality. How many famous hands have Wossy’s hands touched? What essences have exchanged in those handshakes. Connected by 7 degrees of separation just got shortened by miles.

Over the rest of the day we chatted again (about killer’s clothing and stigmatized houses). I am  sure I rambled but at least I didn’t look like a sweating ghost – I hope. His daughter later told me that “Dad’s vision isn’t so great,” but actually over the course of the weekend I would be mistaken again for Robin Ince another five times. One delegate actually got annoyed with me for not accepting his compliment! “If you are not Robin Ince, then who the hell are you?”

When I finally did meet Robin Ince, I went straight up to him and introduced myself, “Hi, I’m Robin Ince!”

You decide

Bruce Ince?

Robin Hood?

Zombie Movie in 1 Minute

You know how I like stories about zombies. I am incredibly busy at the moment but just had to post this brilliant video that I found over at Pod Black

I think that all movies should be made like this.

Chance, Romance & Lucky Pants

I am speaking at a satellite gathering tonight before this weekend’s The Amazing Meeting in London. I would have liked to have given a talk at the main event but there were no slots left. Anyway, after seeing me give a Skeptics in the Pub event back in June, über-organizer Tracy King suggested that I should talk about skeptics and dating – as if I am someone who knows alot about this. But it all came about after my answer to a question raised from the floor about why we still have irrational beliefs in today’s society. I said that relationships were especially dependent on having a degree of irrational thought because applying analytical thinking when considering your partner was, well unromantic. Couples thrive on the possibility of magic otherwise known as love. I am not sure how this idea will go down. I’ll let you know.

A Tragedy of Homeopathetic Ignorance

A tragic case of delusion

As you will know from reading this blog, I am not a great fan of homeopathy even though I understand why so many people buy into this quackery. And it is so easy to poke fun at this medieval nonsense  but no one should gloat when an innocent child suffers and dies in appalling circumstances that were entirely preventable. It was with true horror and sadness when I learned of a nine-month old infant, Gloria Sam who died because her father, a homeopathy therapist, had neglected to seek medical treatment and instead decided to treat her himself after she developed severe eczema.

The father of Gloria, Thomas Sam and her mother, Manju were both convicted of criminal negligence and jailed for a minimum of 6 years and 4 years respectively in a New South Wales court. The court heard that if Gloria had been given medical treatment just a week before her death she probably would have survived.

My eldest suffered from infantile eczema and to this day has to endure steriods, creams and light treatment. As an infant she had a terrible time and her case was comparatively mild to what can happen when eczema is untreated.

Thomas and Manju wept in court. I don’t think they were being deliberately cruel. It must have been heart-wrenching to listen to their daughter’s agony. I know as I have seen how babies suffer. I also think this case reveals that homeopath practitioners are not necessarily cynical charlatans peddling snake-oil for profit, but truly deluded individuals who believe that their cures and treatments really work. But sometimes, society has to step in and protect the weak and deluded. In this tragic case, I believe it was both the parents and child who needed intervention.

Thanks to Richard Saunders over at the Skeptic zone for bringing this to my attention.

Viva España

Bienvenidos a todos mis visitantes españoles. Espero que esté aquí debido a la reciente transmisión televisiva en España, cuando hablé con el inteligente Eduard Punset. Espero que usted compra el libro porque está lleno de historias mucho más interesantes.
Adiós
Bruce

Eduard Punset & me outside a Barcelona Romanesque Church

I really enjoyed my Barcelona visit and interview with Eduard which is broadcast on Spanish television tonight. I hope I don’t upset any Catalan visitors by showing the Spanish flag but I want as wide an audience as possible! BTW Spain is one country that has not yet bought the publishing rights for SuperSense – Come on Amigos… “Por favor compra el libro porque es muy bueno!”

Here is the broadcast link if you missed it!

Why Are Rocks Pointy?

Anyone with a young child in the back of the car on a long journey will be familiar with the incessant questions that they can ask. Sometimes it may just be, “Are we there yet?” but for many, a long road trip can be an ideal opportunity for intellectual torture. My youngest could grind you down into submission after a couple of minutes.. “Why are trees green and not blue? How heavy are clouds and why do they float if they weigh something?” On and on and on and on….after a while you give up the will… “BECAUSE THAT’S JUST THE WAY THEY ARE!!!!”

Don’t get me wrong. After all, I am a scientist who studies children but it is quite clear that children seemed compelled to ask questions and find solutions. Sometimes it can get exasperating. “Because that’s just the way they are” is not a satisfactory answer and if you get suckered into starting to give a causal chain of reasoning such as, “Well, trees are green because of the chlorophyll they use to convert sunlight into energy,” well you know what happens next… On and on and on and on

When we don’t give them answers, children generate their own explanations and from their perspective, everything is the way it is for some purpose. Rocks are pointy to stop animals sitting on them. Trees have leaves to provide shade. This is called teleology – giving a functional reason for things that just happen to be the way they are for non-purposeful reasons. In the natural world there are all manner of things that appear complex and designed for a purpose. But that’s not the way the natural world works. It has no purpose and that’s one reason people find it so difficult to understand evolution through natural selection. Adopting the teleological stance that things have been designed purposefully is the intuitive way to think about the world and that’s one reason why children may be so inclined to creationist stories. Most religions (I don’t know if all) have some creationist account about origins usually in the form of God.

This is the point that my colleague Deb Kelemen at Boston University has made in her research. In fact, she calls it “promiscuous teleology” to reflect the pervasive nature of this way of thinking. You might think that once children are provided with non-teleological explanations than education can eradicate these naïve notions. However, in a paper published earlier this year in the prestigious journal “Cognition” she reports how science-educated adults can revert back to giving teleological explanations when forced to answer questions under time pressure. Is this simply the easiest answer to give? It may well be but my hunch that I give in my book is that we never truly abandon childhood ways of interpreting the world and that we have to work to ignore them. And that takes effort which is why putting someone in the spotlight can get them to think like a child again.

BTW I am also blogging over at t5m. So drop over there if you have a spare moment.

May The Farce Be With You

The Guardian reported that Britain’s largest food chain, Tesco’s had been accused of religious discrimination following an incident where Daniel Jones, founder of the religion Jediism was ejected from a store in Bangor, North Wales for failing to remove his Jedi hood. The 23-year-old Jones who founded the religion based on the Star War movies said that he felt humilated and victimized and is considering legal action against Tesco’s.

He has a point. Over 400,000 people listed Jediism as their religion on the 2001 UK census making it more popular as a religion than Scientology. However, Tesco’s hit back saying that Jones, also known by his Jedi name, “Morda Hehol,” had not been banned and that “Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods…Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood…If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they’ll miss lots of special offers.”

I guess followers of alternative religion, Great Spaghetti Monster in the Sky, would also be directed to aisle 5 where there is currently a special offer on pasta.

UPDATE: As @kateweb has pointed out on Twitter, I may have to support Morda Hehol’s action against Tesco as the store did not specify which Hoods were banned.

Why There Is No GOD Gene

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I thought that I would make my point though the comic genius of others.

I would add that I don’t agree with everything John Cleese says, as he has made a number of errors about deterministic and probabilistic processes. But genes do build brains and ultimately cultures so the issue is graded rather than categorical. See my earlier blog about genes for language as opposed to genes for Shakespeare. But yes there is no gene for preferring Nicholas Cage movies or coconut ice-cream.

Imaginary Friends & the God Spot

Last week, Canon Lucy Winkett presented BBC Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day.” (For those of you non-Brits, this is a daily 5 minute dose of religion or God Spot that is broadcast on the UK’s largest radio show in the morning). You know that you are starting to make an impact if you get mentioned on this as it is usually an attempt to take some topical event and find religious connections or significance. So I was pleased I guess to get a mention. This is what she said,

Many children have imaginary friends. A little girl I know has a friend called Cilla and she sits at the meal table, goes swimming, is strapped into the back seat of the car and shadows every movement of her life. When I was a young child, I had two imaginary creature friends rather inexplicably called Packet and Beady who went with me everywhere too.

The fact that children often have imaginary friends is evidence for Professor Bruce Hood, a psychologist at Bristol university, of the hard wiring of intuitive belief in human beings. In a report published yesterday, his conclusions are that humans have evolved an instinct for religious belief as part of their strategy for survival. His argument is that children have what he calls a “natural intuitive way of reasoning” and that this intuition is overlaid later by more adult rational approaches. His conclusion is startling – that it’s more natural to believe than not to believe. Disbelief, says another anthropologist from the States, is generally the work of “deliberate effortful work against our natural dispositions”. In an age when scientific research and religious belief are often wrongly characterised as mutually exclusive, this is a fascinating proposition. The mistake would be to use this study as evidence either way of the truth of the existence of God, merely the receptiveness of human beings from birth, to believe in something or someone greater than themselves.

It is only a starting place for believers to know that this instinct to believe may be hard wired. Jews and Christians live by the commandment to love God with all our heart, soul and mind. As a Christian, I’m encouraged therefore to think about what I believe – and logic and reason play an important role. But there is one aspect of this research that is important in developing our understanding of religion – and that’s in the movement from belief to trust. For adults who have engaged their brain with their faith, which is a vital part of religious life, it is not enough to assent intellectually to the existence of God or not.

These are sterile arguments that can never be proved either way. It’s in combining our intellect with our instincts and emotions that will give us a view of life that’s holistic, that honours our humanity in all its complexity and beauty. And we express this not so much in belief but in trust. To live a life that trusts in God is to live a life that’s fulfilled in a way that unites heart, mind and soul. Our instincts are given concrete expression in a life that is whole, that will trust in the love of God and will choose to love others as we learn to love ourselves. This friendship with God is costly, deeply consoling – but, for me, anything but imaginary.

Once again people have used me as a soapbox to proclaim their interpretation and make up research findings that I have never produced. I have never worked on imaginary friends though I know of the work of Majorie Taylor  at the University of Oregon who has produced the best work in this area and a fine summary of the research in her book, “Imaginary Companions and the Children Who Create Them.” Canon Winkett has assumed that I have worked on imaginary friends and used this phenomena as evidence that children are predisposed to believe in God. Well I haven’t. More importantly, Taylor’s work shows that children are aware that their imaginary friends are make believe. But that information was conveniently ignored in Canon Winkett’s thought for the day. Maybe if people did a bit more research and less thinking for the day we would get a better message.

Should We Use the ‘C’ Word in a Science Class?

This week I was at the British Science Festival where I was interviewed by the BBC about the resignation of Prof Michael Reiss who was effectively forced out of his post as Education Director at the Royal Society. At the 2008 meeting last year, Prof Michael Reiss suggested that science teachers should be prepared to discuss creationist beliefs in the classroom if asked about them by pupils.

Many scientists think that it is simply unacceptable to use the “c” word in a science class. By even discussing creationism, teachers may be giving it an air of plausibility as an alternative to natural selection. I am not so sure. If anything, it may have been a missed opportunity to address the importance of discussing empirical evidence when evaluating what makes something scientific. This is especially important if the natural inclination in children is towards a creationist stance. Simply ignoring the issue doesn’t make the problem go away.

I would have thought that it must be better to see an argument demolished through reason and evidence than by testimony alone. Creationism is such an easy target that any science teacher could easily dismiss it. There again, people seem to have such a hard time accepting the truth of human evolution through natural selection, then maybe those class hours are better dedicated to fixing this problem. What do you think?

Here’s what I said. I am on 24 mins into the piece.

UPDATE: I spoke to Prof Reiss yesterday as we are on the same advisory panel for the @Bristol Science museum. He confirmed what I suspected, namely that his view has been totally distorted by the press. I thought he was very balanced and not evangelical in the slightest. We must be wary of witch-hunts.