The Genius

Because my life isn't all photography, here's a rant about something else entirely.

Some folk at the BBC clearly have a love of the word 'genius' - a word bandied around far too often these days too describe people/things far from deserving.

A couple of years ago they did a programme called "The Genius of Photography". I can't remember Gerry Badger's argument, but I can't remember being swayed by it. But then this is the guy who wrote in praise of these photos so he has gone down in my estimation.

I've just finished watching "The Genius of Charles Darwin" presented by Richard Dawkins. I could say it was in preparation for Dawkins's forthcoming arrival in Wellington but well I was watching it cos I'm interested in stuff like that.

My guess is that it was a politer, (slightly) less polemic, (maybe) more focussed version of his "The God Delusion", but not having read that book I can't say for sure. It is certainly a good programme in which he explains Darwin's theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection (or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life), and how these ideas have been corrupted by other people in order to push their own agenda whether it's social darwinism, eugenics, creation theory, or what have you.

But interestingly, I think Dawkins was far too intent on proving (as with TGD) that those who believe in God are misguided, than actually demonstrating the 'truth' of Darwin's work. Consequently we get him using methods of creationism/intelligent design proponents, whereby he tells us what the evidence is or shows, without actually presenting the 'evidence' in any way which would allow us to a) weigh up it's value, b) make sense of it.

So we twice get Dawkins at one of Craig Venter's lab in the US, telling us that these guys have shown categorically through DNA sequencing that all species on Earth can be shown to be related, yet he never presents any of the data (statistical or otherwise) to back up this claim - not even the oft cited human-chimp comparison. That is not the way to change people's views.

Equally when one of the ID lobby says that nobody has seen evolution so you have no right to claim it exists, Dawkins argument is that I haven't seen Napoleon yet I'm able to accept his existence. My argument would have been, "well did you see God create the Universe and every (living) thing in it?" But then I've always been a simpleton.

I do think it's funny that we live in a time where some folk feel the need to deny things based primarily on belief rather than knowledge, and especially Biblical Literalism, when those who hold this view see no reason to literally believe any other book - religious text or not. The Bible was written in the same way as every other book on this planet and yet for some it has an authority they don't afford any other volume, not even other volumes concerning the same God. But then I guess logic and rationality aren't strong arguments to use on them.

Within science there are two main battles at the moment - evolution and climate change. Generally the deniers are people without the any training in the area they are now claiming expertise. That's not necessarily a bad thing - after all Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel Prizes, worked in areas outside of those he trained in - but when those people can not, or do not, understand the data, or often deliberately misrepresent the data, then I feel that they should not be taken as seriously as many do take them.

Here we have our own denier of practically everything. Having read enough of his stuff to get really, really infuriated, I've noticed that his argument, like many of his ilk, is based on "this is where their argument falls down, therefore my proposition must be correct". He offers nothing to back up his argument. He ignores where his proposition falls down (because, using his logic, it would make the opposing proposition correct). He doesn't allow that just because some information is missing or in conflict that the larger hypothesis can still be correct. Nor does he even explain why it is an us-versus-them debate, and that there is potential for a third, as yet unknown, explanation.

A few weeks ago, this film finally made it's way (briefly) to NZ. Even before I read the rebuttals from Scientific American I had read enough to know that I would sit in the movie theatre and get angrier and angrier and that I didn't need to hand over $15 for the privilege. Complete and utter misrepresentation. Yes, Michael Moore does the same thing, but I believe that the misrepresentation here is a lot more dangerous. At least Moore's misrepresentation is generally to liven up the story, and/or simplify his argument (one could argue artistic license), not to knowingly tell out and out lies.

I'm also intrigued that these great debates only seem to happen around issues of science. There don't seem to be the same debates around history for example. Certainly within academia there is debate and disagreement, but these issues only rarely seem to involve people outside of the field, and generally those with wildly differing views are presented by the media as being nutjobs rather than being afforded equal time the way those who disagree with what is overwhelmingly believed within (and without of) the scientific community do.

But then, that's why the scientific community has set up groups like the Science Media Centre. And the fabulous Royal Society are doing their best to "promote excellence in science and technology".

So what's the upshot of all this ranting? I'm really looking forward to seeing Richard Dawkins in a few weeks (hoping my ticket is in the mail).

And Simon Schama. And maybe Neil Gaiman. And Dean Wareham.

Anyway, next up on my viewing list is "Martin Scorsese presents The Blues" which will no doubt probably be less rant inducing.

And, as it's vaguely related, I've just been listening to a chat with two wonderful men of science - George Gibbs and Hamish Campbell - in which they discuss their "competing theories of separation and isolation". Yes, scientists are known to disagree on things, but, Mr. Wishart, that doesn't mean that you are right. Ever!

Oh and the two photos mean absolutely nothing, but are there cos I thought they made a nice duo, and you may wish to relate them to the text should you so desire, but mainly I would hate for you to feel cheated.

So they're there just for you. Cos you're special.