2016-01-25

A letter to my MP re Nicky Morgan's heroic attempts to prevent integration

Letter to my MP @NazShahBfd re @NickyMorgan01's latest bizarre moves sent using writetothem.com - please feel free to use as a template for a letter to your MP.

Dear Naseem Shah

You were recently reported in the Guardian as saying that the poor standard of English among many women in our constituency was a “huge barrier to integration”.

I agree.

David Cameron (whatever you think of his proposed solutions - and I don't think very much of them) has expressed similar views - suggesting that the Government too is in favour of better integration of our communities and that the Government also thinks that the failure of integration helps promote extremism.

In view of this it seems all the more bizarre that more and more school children are being segregated along religious lines in *state funded* "faith schools" and "schools with a religious ethos" (which are apparently not considered "faith schools"). Far from promoting integration, such schools promote division and discrimination (both against the children themselves and in the recruitment of staff) that would be illegal in any other walk of life.

Even worse, many (most?) such schools do not even fully stick to the limited laws and rules which are in place to try and mitigate the divisive effects of faith based admission criteria.

Against this already dismal background, I was particularly dismayed to learn that Nicky Morgan is going to further "protect" faith schools from campaigners against religious discrimination - who, as a minimum, want faith schools to be compelled to abide by the existing rules.

I realize you are a member of the Opposition not the Government, but you are (I understand) in a position to ask questions of the Government and expect an answer.

Please could you ask Nicky Morgan why integration of adults with different religious backgrounds is regarded as a good thing whereas the integration of children with different religious backgrounds is regarded as a bad thing?

Yours sincerely

Michael A Ward (Dr)

2015-12-14

Unicorns

Charles Arthur (@charlesarthur), reacting to a question from a ten year old, posted the following tweet:

Which turns out, like many “silly questions” to be a rather profound one … and one which I certainly struggled to answer (if you have any more answers or object to any of my reasoning or claimed facts, please comment below).

The initial pedantic responses to the question from various geeks like me (and indeed – in one case - from me) pointed out that rhinos don’t have true horns (their “horns” comprise matted hairs) and that they do usually have two horns (one behind the other). But neither of these observations (relevant though they are) do anything to diminish the force of Charles’s question.

As Charles responded to one claim that rhinos don’t have horns: “let’s impale you on one and see how that goes”.

Lots of creatures have horns, antlers, tusks, swords etc, which I shall generalize to: Pointy Things Sticking Out Of Their Heads (PTSOOTHs). Swordfish, walruses, elephants, deer, narwhals, rhinoceroses, and many others spring to mind in this context.

Ptsooths may be composed of bone, cartilage, hair, skin, or tooth enamel. Ptsooths start out, in evolutionary terms, as small bumps that confer some tiny advantage, and evolve from there. They may serve (or have served in different phases of evolution) various purposes which include: protection from predation, hunting weapons, digging tools, and sexual signalling devices.

The term “sexual signalling devices” covers a multitude of sins here. Huge antlers may signal “don’t mess with me” to rival males (and may be used to actually fight rival males) and “please mess with me” to females. In this kind of situation, runaway sexual selection often occurs and – as with the peacock’s tail – we can end up with ptsooths that are far too big for the purpose for which they originally evolved and that may actually be an encumbrance for the ptsoothholder – at least in its non-sexual life.

But to get back to the real topic here, all vertebrates have basic bilateral symmetry[1]. The symmetry is not absolute. Most men have unsymmetrical testicles and while we usually have two lungs and two kidneys, humans only have one spleen, one penis/clitoris, and (timelords aside) one heart. Our single heart does not, however, offend the basic symmetry of the body as much as many imagine:

[2]

The spleen does:

[2]

But these are soft tissues. Vertebrate skeletons are far more symmetrical and (save for the backbone itself and a few other bits) contain two of everything. In particular, the skull (or at least areas of the skull from which ptsooths grow or could grow) develops (embryologically speaking) from two symmetrical sets of bones that fuse together.

[3]

You can see the join!

Jaws (mandibles), foreheads (frontal bones), crowns (parietal bones) are all made from two symmetrical halves with a join (suture) down the middle. Even “single” skull bones – like the occipital bone at the back of the skull – are formed (earlier on in embryo development) from two (or four) initial symmetrically arranged sites.

So to really come to the point (pun intended) animals with ptsooths generally have two or four or six – ie even numbers of ptsooths – because they grow ptsooths from bits of bone that come in pairs and not from the joints between them.

So this could be why there are no unicorns …… but (to go back to Charles’s initial question) what about rhinos? (Let’s just consider the long front horn or consider Asian rhinos which do only have one horn it seems[4]).

Well because the rhino “horn” is essentially a modified tuft of hair, it was free to start evolving wherever on the skull it wished to. After all, many of us have tufts of hair between our eyebrows or on our noses (which many of us pluck out in order not to further enhance our rhino resemblances). Both single or double ptsooths could be useful and the rhino went for a tandem (or single) arrangement because it could[5].

It should be noted that both rhinos and deer still have bilateral symmetry – if Damien Hirst sawed either in half down the middle he’d end up with two pieces that were essentially mirror images of each other. (By the way, I wonder what he did with the other half of his shark?)

”But what about narwhals (the ‘unicorns’ of the sea)?” I hear you all cry.

Well this is where it starts to get really interesting! (So I hope you’ve persevered this far.)

The narwhal[6] “horn” is in fact a tooth – a left canine tooth to be precise. It grows very long and in a helical fashion. The socket for the tusk has migrated very close to the line of symmetry of the narwhal and grows straight forward – providing the unicorn-like appearance:

[7]

– but narwhals are actually slightly asymmetrical:

[8]

Very occasionally, narwhals grow two tusks, but they never grow a single right tusk or reverse the handedness of the helical twist of either tusk.

Unicorns also have a twisted horns and it is often claimed that depictions of unicorn horns were based on observations of narwhal horns.

[9]

Unicorns, however, twist both ways:

[10]

There again, so does DNA – in its depictions! In real life, DNA[11] only goes one way – the opposite way to the narwhal horn.

The ancestors of modern deer also had tusks[12]. Later they evolved horns and their tusks withered away as their horns grew. I see no reason – in principle – why deer or antelope (or other ungulates) could not have evolved to grow (say) only their left horns and why that single horn could not (with a slight asymmetrical deformation in skull development) have moved over towards the centre of the head. Such a “unicorn” would not be quite symmetrical but, given that they have helical horns, unicorns aren’t really symmetrical either.

In fact, thinking about it, I don’t really see why – if the horn were composed of two fused halves (like the swordfish “bill”) – we couldn’t have had a “unicorn” with a single symmetrical untwisted horn.

Moreover, if the frontal and parietal bones of the skull withered away and the occipital bone filled in for them (stranger things have happened in skull evolution) why couldn’t a single horn develop from the middle of that bone in roughly the right place for a unicorn style horn? I know not.

In conclusion then, I have no idea why there are no unicorns …… perhaps there are!



Postscript: Since writing the stuff above, Rab Austen (‏@RabAusten) has reminded me that the triceratops also had a (front) horn on the midline of its skull. This was a "real" (bony) horn and would - as Paolo Viscardi (‏@PaoloViscardi who has forgotten more about bones than I shall ever learn about them) kindly confirmed - have been formed from the fusing of two symmetrical elements - like the swordfish bill. I'm not sure whether a horn formed like this could then grow with a helical twist (though as Paolo also points out, stranger things happen at sea) but Rab's insight certainly lends support to the claim that there is no reason - in principle - why a horse-like creature could not have evolved a bony horn in the middle of its forehead.


  1. Invertebrates often have bilateral symmetry too. Even starfish - which superficially have radial symmetry - have a complicated and interesting way of forming that involves bilateral symmetry. Other invertebrates - snails and sponges spring to mind - break the "rule" in other ways.
  2. http://keckmedicine.adam.com
  3. http://http://fineartamerica.com
  4. Thank you to Steve Jones (‏@TheEulerID) for this information
  5. http://news.bbcimg.co.uk
  6. Please note that evolution does not work in the way I talk about it (metaphorically) in this post. Evolution has no plan, intent, or purpose. It's all natural (or sexual) selection acting on random mutations, It is, however, often easier to describe what happens in evolution using teleological language - as long as we don't forget that it's just a metaphor! OK?
  7. I'm getting all my information about narwhals from Chris McManus's excellent Right Hand, Left Hand which I urge you all to read.
  8. https://cdn-images-1.medium.com
  9. http://www.mermaidsrock.net
  10. http://http://kristell-ink.com
  11. OK I'm talking B-DNA not Z-DNA ... pedant!
  12. Deer Antlers: Regeneration, Function and Evolution by By Richard J. Goss esp p72 et seq


Also published at Pulling on the corkscrew of life

2015-11-13

Homeopathy: Can we believe what we hear?

Homeopathy: Can we believe what we hear?

The BBC Radio Four Today programme interviewed one Dr Peter Fisher (Clinical Director and Director of Research at the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine and a Fellow of the of the Faculty of Homeopathy) this morning (2015-11-13 beginning at 01:33:39).

When pressed on the scientific evidence for homeopathy (the subject of the interview) Dr Fisher had this to say:

"The most recent analysis of all clinical trials of homeopathy conducted by the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow came to a clearly positive result that was published last December."

I thought I might take a look at this paper, so I tweeted Dr Fisher:

Dr Fisher kindly got straight back to me:

I think if I were going on the wireless to cite a scientific paper I should have grabbed hold of a copy beforehand - just to be on the safe side. But perhaps Dr Fisher has a better memory than me. Let us see.

I am still waiting for Dr Fisher to dig out his copy of the paper and send me a link or a reference so I thought I might try and track it down myself.

First port of call The Robertson Centre for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow. No publications there at all concerning homeopathy - in 2014. So I checked 2015 and 2013 just to be on the safe side. No joy.

I tried another tack and googled "Robertson Centre for Biostatistics" Homeopathy. This led me to this page of the British Homeopathic Association which cites a "Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy". This page and my google search both pointed to the paper below - all roads lead to Rome it seems.

Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis Robert T Mathie1*, Suzanne M Lloyd2, Lynn A Legg3, Jürgen Clausen4, Sian Moss5, Jonathan RT Davidson6 and Ian Ford2

* Corresponding author: Robert T Mathie rmathie@britishhomeopathic.org

Author Affiliations

1 British Homeopathic Association, Luton, UK

2 Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

3 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

4 Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany

5 Homeopathy Research Institute, London, UK

6 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA

This paper is dated 2014 December and refers to the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, University of Glasgow and is a meta-analysis of homeopathy studies. I'm sticking my neck out and assuming this is the paper which Dr Fisher referred to ..... but just to be on the safe side I tried to double-check:

So far I have not been vouchsafed a reply. If I do hear from Dr Fisher I shall be more than happy to revisit what I say below - should this prove to be the wrong paper.

Assuming it is the right paper, let us list the claims made for it (each in turn):

  1. This paper analyses "all clinical trials of homeopathy".
  2. The analysis was "conducted by the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow".
  3. This paper "came to a clearly positive result".

Does this paper analyse all clinical trials of homeopathy?

No. It analyses some clinical trials of individualized homeopathy. In other words, it does not analyse clinical trials of the homeopathic remedies that the vast majority of people who avail themselves of this type of product consume. It analyses a small subset of trials which involve homeopathic prescriptions individually specified by dedicated homeopaths. We might note here that it is intrinsically more difficult to conduct large scale blinded randomized trials on groups of patients receiving individualized treatments than it is when all patients are receiving exactly the same treatment - especially when that treatment is in the form of tablets. But let's defer judgement on the trial itself. (please see note [1] below)

Was the analysis conducted by the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics at the University of Glasgow?

No. The paper is not listed by the Robertson Centre for Biostatistics as one of its publications. The paper has six authors, one of whom - Suzanne M Lloyd (a statistician) - works at the Centre. The copyright for the paper is actually held by Robert T Mathie of the British Homeopathic Association. Mathie is also the corresponding author.

Oh well, perhaps Dr Fisher just got his words a bit muddled. I probably would if I had to appear on the wireless first thing in the morning. Let us ask the most important question:

Did the paper come to a clearly positive result?

You be the judge:

Conclusions

  • There was a small, statistically significant, treatment effect of individualised homeopathic treatment that was robust to sensitivity analysis based on ‘reliable evidence’.
  • Findings are consistent with sub-group data [klaxon alert!] available in a previous ‘global’ systematic review of homeopathy RCTs.
  • The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.[my emphasis]
  • New RCT research of high quality on individualised homeopathy is required to enhance the totality of reliable evidence and thus enable clearer interpretation and a more informed scientific debate.

A "clearly positive result"? (Even before we analyse whether the evidence presented really supports even these highly tentative conclusions - something I'd like to do later if I get time.[1]) I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would probably conclude that this question deserves a resounding "no" too.

Over to you Dr Fisher!






PS If you listen to the clip you'll hear Dr Simon Singh (@SLSingh) putting the case for science (on behalf of The Good Thinking Society @GoodThinkingSoc) and I should urge anyone not familiar with the arguments surrounding so called "alternative medicine" to read the excellent "Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial" by him and Prof Edzard Ernst (@EdzardErnst).

[1] Alan (please see comment below) has drawn my attention to this discussion of the paper cited by Dr Fisher which is well worth a read and saves me having to fillet this particular fish myself. And this discussion is followed up with a more definitive analysis of flaws in the paper by Prof Edzard Ernst here: HOMEOPATHY: proof of concept or proof of misconduct?.

2015-09-24

Should we renationalize the railways?

Should we renationalize the railways?

(or The Mighty Diamonds and why this leftie didn’t vote for Corbyn [1])

Since everyone else (well Rod Liddle at least [2]) is using music, drugs, and East Germany to illustrate their views about Corbyn, I thought I’d do the same.

I’m not actually going to answer the question I pose – for reasons that will become clear. I simply wish to use trains as vehicles for subjecting Jeremy Corbyn’s views to a bit of scrutiny – pon the lef-hand side[3].

Scroll back to 1982 and, whether you were passing the Dutchie or (more likely) the Kouchie you would probably have (assuming you considered yourself “upon the left-hand side”) agreed that privatization of British Rail – which began in that year with the selling off of British Rail’s publicly owned catering and hotel businesses – was a “bad thing”.

Public ownership or “socialism” (at least on some definitions of the term) was, pon the other hand, a “good thing”.

But our notions of “good” and “bad” here are problematic – even before we analyse them in any detail. We are already potentially conflating what is (or is not) morally superior with what is functionally superior (whatever our definitions of “superior” in these contexts). Economists on both the right (see eg Friedrich Hayek) and the left (see eg Karl Marx) are guilty (in very different ways) of the same conflation.

Approaching from the right or the left, I think we have to concede that the system of economic organization which is best at generating the most wealth may or may not be best at generating the most happiness for the most people[4]. Of course left and right wingers will care differently about human wellbeing and wealth, but even left-wingers may have to concede that there may, even in a mythical “perfect world”, be a trade-off between what is fairest and what is best overall – a subject which has been analysed in probably the greatest depth by John Rawls[5].

When we do analyse, in more detail, whether socialism is better or worse than capitalism the issues become even harder to disentangle.

Most distinctions between socialism and capitalism can be placed into one of two categories: the ownership category and the control category.

Under capitalism, the means of production, distribution, and exchange are, as we erstwhile socialists all learned, under private ownership. But were they then, and are they now, and what does this even mean?

Some businesses – like the joinery firm I use - are owned by sole traders – as some were in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) or “East Germany” as it was more often known (a “socialist” economy which I happen to know something about). Some businesses – like the shopping chain John Lewis – are workers’ cooperatives – a form of ownership also found in the GDR. Some – like the Coop shopping chain and your local building society - are consumer cooperatives (owned by their members) – see again the Konsum chain in the GDR. Some – like your local Spar – are cooperatives of private businesses – see farming in the GDR. Many UK businesses (very few today) were, back in 1982, still state owned. British Rail for example. This was the rule rather than the exception in the GDR. At one stage British Petroleum (BP) was a wholly state owned enterprise and later (for a while), even after it had gone “public” (ie private), most of its shares were still owned by the UK government. These days, nearly all larger industries in the UK are privately owned, which is to say that they are owned by their shareholders. But who are the biggest shareholders? In many cases these are pension funds that invest in industry and which are, essentially, owned collectively by everyone who has a private or company pension.

So ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange is a rather complicated subject – even though I have hardly scratched the surface.

What about control?

During the War (which resulted in the division of Germany and Europe into “socialist” and “capitalist” halves) both sides planned and controlled almost every aspect of production, distribution, and exchange – even though many industries and businesses continued to be privately owned. Even today in the UK, the High Speed Rail link – if it goes ahead – will be centrally planned and controlled by bureaucrats and elected politicians but executed by private firms.

“Central planning” has a bad name, but clearly has a crucial role to play when it comes to a national rail network (and many other areas). What did for the GDR (and similar economies) was not so much the presence of planning but the absence of market forces. Right-wingers ascribe all sorts of magical powers and foresight to capitalists, but I strongly suspect that the main advantage of capitalism is that it employs market forces to control the economic system in an essentially Darwinian fashion and makes competing firms that make the “wrong” decisions at any time extinct. Those “decisions” might as well be – and probably often are – made entirely randomly[6]. As Marx pointed out, capitalism constantly revolutionizes the means of production. Socialism didn’t and was left behind.

So control is complex too and, to a surprising extent, independent of ownership. You could, in theory at least, have state capitalism[7] or, at the opposite extreme, market socialism.

So what’s the best way to run a railway?

I have no idea; nor, I suspect, has Jeremy Corbyn.

I do, however, suspect that Jeremy Corbyn and I both want the same outcomes: a reliable, thriving, efficient rail network that is responsive to social, commercial, and environmental requirements and which treats its own staff well and pays them good wages. I further suspect that many on the right could not give a shit about most of the items in this list.

It is the outcomes we wish to see (I submit) that really (or really ought to) divide left and right in today’s world rather than how we best achieve those outcomes.

Perhaps renationalization of the railways is the best way to achieve those outcomes. Perhaps it isn’t. But that is an empirical question rather than a moral or philosophical question and even if a nationalized railway were better than a private one, I rather doubt that the same would apply to, say, car manufacture or grocery distribution.

Nothing I say above is particularly novel or insightful but Jeremy Corbyn shows no signs whatsoever of having ever considered the issues I raise or having matured his political outlook at all in the years since 1982.

I do not say all this because I have abandoned my left-wing principles over the years. I want the same things that Jeremy wants and that I always wanted: a fairer and more prosperous world. I still don’t want a world where a few people are allowed to shovel money into their own pockets in return for contributing little or nothing to the general good. What I have abandoned is many of the beliefs I once held about how best to get there.

Sometimes you have to “pass the knowledge from the right-hand side”. [8]



  1. I am not a member of the Labour Party but had a vote through my Trades Union.
  2. You won't believe this story about my friend, Jeremy Corbyn and the owl The real disgust wasn’t about the pig’s head. It was about the awful band Supertramp
  3. Pass the Kouchie
  4. A vaguely Millsian statement of moral superiority. Other brands of moral superiority are available.
  5. A Theory of Justice
  6. A train of thought I explore here.
  7. In a true rather than an SWP sense.
  8. Pass the Knowledge

2015-03-01

Our notions of "race" and Wittgenstein on "family likenesses"

[Our] craving for generality is the resultant of a number of tendencies connected with particular philosophical confusions. There is- [....] The tendency to look for something in common to all entities which we commonly subsume under a general term.-We are inclined to think that there must be something in common to all games, say, and that this common property is the justification for applying the general term "game" to the various games; whereas games form a family the members of which have family likenesses. [....]

Ludwig Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, pp 17, 18.

There's an excellent piece from Dr Adam Rutherford in in today's Observer: "Why racism is not backed by science"

in it Adam writes:

We now know that the way we talk about race has no scientific validity. There is no genetic basis that corresponds with any particular group of people, no essentialist DNA for black people or white people or anyone. This is not a hippy ideal, it’s a fact. There are genetic characteristics that associate with certain populations, but none of these is exclusive, nor correspond uniquely with any one group that might fit a racial epithet.

Claims like this seem surprising and counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but the science tells us unequivocally that they are true.

As far as I am aware, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein never wrote directly about the biology of "race", but he did have a lot to say about our use of language and the kind of thinking that underlies our use of language. As ever, I make no claims to do justice to his legacy here, but one of his themes has always struck me as being particularly relevant to our confused notions of "race".

Wittgenstein argued that particular instances of things to which general terms - such as "game" - apply, do not necessarily possess any one feature in common but form a group in much the same way as members of an extended family do when considered with respect to their physical appearances - a shared chin shape here, a shared idiosyncrasy there.

[So here we're going to be using a biological metaphor to illustrate a sports metaphor in order to illustrate a general point about our use of language concerning an apparently biological phenomenon, but please bear with me :-)]

If Wittgenstein is right, then it might be possible (in principle at least) to quantify the extent to which "family likeness" is shared between different particular cases. If we were to label the various features of particular cases of a general term with letters of the alphabet we might come up with something like the following (this is my example not Ludwig's):

  1. ABCKL
  2. ABCDF
  3. ABCGE
  4. ABHDE
  5. ABCDE
  6. AICDE
  7. JBCDE
  8. ABMNE
  9. AOPDE

These nine entities form a group, from which (given no further information) we should almost certainly exclude an entity such as "VWXYZ", and yet these entities have no one feature in common. Entity number one shares three features with three other entities, two features with four other entities, and one feature with one other entity. Entity number three shares four features with one other entity, three features with six other entities, and two features with one other entity. By counting the number of other entities with whom a feature is shared, and adding these numbers together for each entity it would be possible to calculate a "coefficient of shared features" for each entity. In the example provided, the coefficients would be as follows:

  1. 18
  2. 23
  3. 24
  4. 24
  5. 29
  6. 23
  7. 22
  8. 19
  9. 18

It now becomes clear (as could probably have been guessed by simply looking at the example presented) that entity number five shares its features more widely than any other member of the group. If the entities in question were games, then number five might be cricket (which has most features we normally associate with games) and number one might be frisbee (which has players and equipment, but no formal rules, no competition, and no winning or losing*). Whether playing frisbee should be called a "true" game is the kind of issue over which we could imagine disputes. An activity such as cricket (some other examples would serve equally well) is not only secure from such controversy, it actually belongs to the very heart of the concept of game playing**. In the same way, entity number five enjoys a distinct centrality within the family of entities to which it belongs. (Conveniently, in the above presentation, entity number five is also centrally positioned). It is number five which we should choose if asked to pick one example from the above group to serve as a paradigm.

Analysing general terms in this way sheds light on why we have concepts of "racial groups" and think we can describe paradigm examples of members of those "groups" - a "typical negro", a "typical caucasian", or whatever - even though there are no genes which are unique to people we would tend to classify as "black" or "white" or "asian". Even the outward indicators of race: curly or straight hair, dark or light skin, eyes with or without epicanthic folds etc (let alone the complex genetics that underlie such traits) are spread across many different population groups that are often seen as distinct "races".

Let us give Wittgenstein the final word:

There is a tendency [....] to think that the man who has learnt to understand a general term, say the term "leaf", has thereby come to possess a kind of general picture of a leaf, as opposed to pictures of particular leaves. [....]

Instead of "craving for generality" I could have said "the contemptuous attitude towards the particular case".





* This may have changed of course, but it was true in my day :-)

** Even though I have no idea whatsoever what is going on when I watch a game of cricket.

2014-12-10

The Monstrous Secrets of Quantum Physics

My ramblings here were inspired by Professor Jim Al-Khalili’s wonderful (and wonder-full) new television series “The Secrets of Quantum Physics” which I urge you all to watch.

As a small child I visited Loch Ness with my parents and during our stay I remember visiting a small shop whose mission was clearly to sell piles of kitsch to passing English tourists. One item caught my eye and seized my attention – sparking trains of thought that have remained with me throughout my life. It was an “ornament” - or perhaps five ornaments – designed to represent the eponymous monster. Something like this:

picture source

Except the one I saw had three U sections and was rather more baroque in appearance – if not rococo. Even as a small child I could see that it was the last thing on earth my parents (who prided themselves on their good taste) would want on their mantelpiece.

But even more striking than the astonishing ugliness of the artefact I saw was the fact that, at first, I could see no sense in it. I had grown up fondly believing – on the basis, I suppose, of my dinosaur books – the Loch Ness monster was a Plesiosaur – stranded in the Loch since the late Triassic:

picture source

The five elements of the ornament I saw as a child were not arranged in a nice line (as in my first picture) but randomly scattered around on a display surface. This confused me still further.

Then I twigged.

The five sections were sections of a serpent-like creature and the implication was that there were four more sections hidden below the surface (which represented the surface of the loch) which connected the pieces I could see together and which made sense of what I could see. Except that those sections were not actually hidden, they did not exist at all – aside perhaps in the fertile imagination of a small child admiring the monstrous creation.

The confusion that I experienced before the moment I twigged is exactly what I feel when I consider the various experiments that have established modern quantum theory ….. except that, if anything, I am even more perplexed by quantum theory. Imagine that, instead of an ornamental monster, it had been a toy monster that moved around on the surface in the fashion of a real serpent but that not only (never having seen a real serpent) did I find myself unable to even imagine any kind of connection between the various parts, but that I had also been assured that there were no hidden parts or connections or strings or magnets involved. What I saw was all I got. This is not a bad analogy (though please remember it is only an analogy) for where we are with quantum theory – or at least where I am.

Jim Al-Khalili gave an excellent demonstration of the two slit experiment – which you should take a look at so I don’t have to explain it to you. This is an experiment that you could (just about) perform on your kitchen table - using photons produced by a table lamp.

It is weird enough that, as this experiment clearly shows (especially in its more sophisticated modern versions), that small things behave in some ways like waves and in some ways like particles – if you are not flabbergasted by this, please explain to me what a beach ball and a water-wave (not the water in which the wave occurs) have in common. But it gets weirder and weirder.

This experiment has been done with electrons and even bigger things like “bucky-balls” - which you can actually “see” as fairly discrete things using a scanning electron microscope. Such entities can be fired one at a time through the double slits (as Jim demonstrated) and they hit the screen behind just as single particle might be expected to but, over time, the hits build up into an interference pattern. So the trajectory of each individual particle seems to be influenced by what the other particles fired before and afterwards did or will do.

And it gets weirder still……

If you close off one of the slits, the particles start to behave exactly as you would expect them to do. So this implies that, in the two slit experiment when the particles are fired individually, each particle passing through one of the slits “knows” that the other silt is open and that it could have gone through that slit if it had “chosen” to.

Explain that then!

I find myself imagining that each electron (or whatever) has a semi-attached travelling companion – rather like the dæmons in Philip Pullman’s fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials. Pullman’s dæmons (which take animal forms) are physically separate from their human hosts but intrinsically bound to their hosts.

I also think (in this context) of my cat meeting me in our hall on my way to the kitchen. She will accompany me through the same door (if one door is open) or rush round through the other kitchen door (if both doors are open). Once inside the kitchen, my cat/dæmon will try (with varying degrees of success) to lead me in the direction of her food bowl.

Like many other analogies, this one works in some ways and fails in others. It certainly needs more work. But how reasonable is it – given the bat-shit craziness of what we are trying to explain – to come up with such bat-shit crazy thoughts?

One of the problems with the apparent craziness of quantum science is that all manner of fruit loops, charlatans, quacks, and mystics think it gives them licence to promote belief anything from extra-sensory communication with aliens to homeopathy ….. and perhaps dæmons and Loch-Ness monsters too.

It doesn’t!

The crucial thing that such crazy people overlook is that, in the end, science has to come up with the goods in terms of providing hard experimental (or, at least, observational) evidence. Whether it’s dark matter, multiverses, string-theory, the conditions that gave rise to the “big bang”, or hidden variables that explain what’s really going on in quantum theory, the apparently crazy speculations of scientists count for nothing unless they eventually yield proposals for real world tests that will yield real world results.

Like Jim Al-Khalili (though he didn’t put it like this himself) I yearn for some kind of Loch-Ness-monster-in-the-shop moment whereby the hidden (and testable) mysteries of the two-slit experiment and quantum theory are all revealed to me. Until that moment comes, Jim, and all of you, and I will just have to live with the fact that the theory works and makes highly accurate and testable predictions about what we see going on in the world but makes no sense whatsoever.

Your anguish at this realization may be lessened or increased (or both simultaneously) by watching Jim next Tuesday (2014-12-16) at 21:00 on BBC four.

2014-10-14

Talking More Bollocks about Cox

If you read my original Talking Bollocks About Cox and you go on to read what I have to say below, you may begin to suspect that I am just some kind of sycophantic fan-boy for the "ever-lovely Professor Brian Cox" (see below). Nothing could be further from the truth. As a Yorkshireman, my toes curl just as much as yours when he uses the Lancastrian word "sing-ging" in place of "singing" and I've even had cause to disagree with some things he has said (see eg The Science Delusion (in defence of philosophy) para 5). But when people write complete bollocks about a comrade-geek's splendid TV programmes, I simply can't restrain myself any longer.

So here's my "fisk" of an article that appeared today in the Grauniad (my bits all in blue):

Brian Cox's Human Universe presents a fatally flawed view of evolution

Humans do not stand at the top of a ladder of creation, above the apes and below the angels, superior to all other species
True(ish). It's not a ladder, it's a bush and there are no such things as angels or creation. As for "superior", that's a value judgement. Depends on your values. We are "on top" and "superior" and "above the apes" (most of us) if you measure cleverness. But have we said anything Brian would disagree with, or has misled us over, here?

In The Human Universe, Brian Cox speaks with awe and reverence of our uniqueness as a species. Photograph: BBC When I watched the first episode of Human Universe, a televisual emission on the BBC presented by the ever-lovely Professor Brian Cox, [there it is] I held my breath. I am usually allergic to tales of The Ascent of Man, but I thought – and hoped – that we’d outgrown the idea of evolution as a linear narrative leading from archaea to astronauts.

Yep. It's not "linear", it's more like a bush. But you can trace a line back from astronauts to archaea. Did he say "linear"?

So I exhaled markedly about halfway through when he lined up several skulls of antique varieties of human in order of increasing brain size, and then posited climate change as the driver for each observed increase in size. To be sure, Cox didn’t actually say that one skull was definitively ancestral to the next, but there was a definite sense of post-hoc-ery going on, as human beings adapted to each new environment by expanding their brains, rather than (say) expanding their livers, or going somewhere else, or becoming extinct.

Yep. "He didn’t actually say that one skull was definitively ancestral to the next". Yes, lots of alternative things could have happened. Yes, we didn't go extinct. We know that because we're here. What's your point?

As a child I watched the late Jacob Bronowski’s The Ascent of Man with appropriately reverential awe, and it’s clear that Cox is ploughing the same furrow. He can go further than Bronowski, though, by interposing scenic shots from the International Space Station and getting into the lives of astronauts. Fair dues, but here is the first of several too many eggs in the pudding.

He's "ploughing" a "furrow" and ending up with "too many eggs"? Yes but once he reached the top of the trees it was plain sailing from then on!

Cox talks about finding our place among the stars, when the ISS is hardly more than several solar-powered baked bean cans in low-earth orbit. Fewer than 20 people (all men) have set foot on any other body in the solar system – the moon – and none more recently than 1972. Plans to return people to the moon or go anywhere else are, to be charitable, at the pipe-dream stage. To talk of our place among the stars is at best premature, at worst hubristic.

Eh? "Several solar-powered baked bean cans"? Their contents perhaps served up with the surfeit of eggs? It takes a lot to impress you doesn't it? More seriously, Brian Cox is constantly moaning about the fact that we are not putting anything like enough effort into our space programmes, so to accuse him of hubris here is absurd.

But that’s just a quibble, an unsightly pimple on what is a greater problem. Cox speaks, with the prerequisite Bronowskian awe and reverence, of our uniqueness as a species, that we are the only species capable of doing the things we do, by virtue of attributes such as language and writing. Cox turns his boyishly unfocused gaze of general wonderment from the heavens to the depths of antiquity, the growth of societies and trade and how writing pulled this all together.

But we are "the only species capable of doing the things we do, by virtue of attributes such as language and writing". As for "an unsightly pimple on [..] a greater problem", let's not go there.

It’s this – the assertion of the uniqueness that makes us special – that really gets up my nose, because it’s a tautology and therefore meaningless. Giraffes are unique at doing what they do. So are bumble-bees, quokkas, binturongs, bougainvillea, begonias and bandicoots. Each species is unique by virtue of its own attributes – that’s rather the point of being a species – and human beings are just one species among many. To posit humans as something extra-special in some qualitative way is called human exceptionalism, and this is invariably coloured by subjectivity. Of course we think we’re special, because it’s we who are awarding the prizes.

No. Bumble-bees are not unique when it comes to (say) flying, because birds and bats and even some fish do that too - after a fashion. Humans are unique when it comes to our language and writing and technological achievement.

Science supposedly got out of this hubristic habit in the 1970s when a new philosophy of classification called “cladistics” was adopted, which sought to discover how species were related to one another without reference to the ancestry of any one species from any other one species. The reasoning is clear. Because it’s a fair assumption that all life descends through evolution from a common ancestor, one can safely assume that any species is a cousin in some degree of any other species, and that it’s possible to get a measure of the degree to which they are related.

Ah, "hubristic" again.

What you should never do, however, is line up a series of skulls (all of whom will be cousins) and say one was the ancestor of the other. Whereas it might be so, we could never test or falsify this assertion.

Yes. If you find a hominid skull buried in the ground, the chances are that it's not a direct human ancestor. It's almost certainly the descendent of a cousin of one of our ancestors. As has already been noted, evolution is a bush not a ladder. On the other hand, all the other homonids died out long ago, so any skull you find is likely to be much more similar to that of its (and our) shared ancestor than our skulls are to that shared ancestor. Oh and we can occasionally (admittedly very rarely) obtain DNA from ancient bones and make very testable assertions about ancestry .... though this excursion into Popperianism really isn't of any relevance here.

From this it is clear that human beings do not stand at the top of a ladder of creation, above the apes and below the angels, naturally superior to all other species. Instead, humans represent one twig in a very busy bush of twigs, each one representing one species, living or extinct.

Yep, it's a bush not a ladder. I think we know that. I think Brian knows that.

I wrote a book about all this recently – The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution – which, if I say so myself, is doing rather well, but it’s a source of frustration that Professor Cox is in a better position to get his message across: first, because he’s on TV; and, second, because he’s a lot better looking than I am. Jealous? Of course I am. But more concerned, really, than jealous, because Brian’s message (might I call him Brian? I can? Lovely!) is wrong.

Ah! You've written a book. How many culinary metaphors in there I wonder?

Do I perhaps protest too much?

Yes!

When I was discussing this on the social media, my friend, the science writer and fellow golden-retriever owner Brian Clegg (another Brian: once I get Brian May on board, I’ll have the set – note to self, write an article about the relevance of badgers to interstellar dust) commented: “Funnily, I have no problem with exceptionalism. If you really doubt human beings are exceptional, please feel free to live in a house built by a bower bird, using tools made by a crow and reading all the books/watching the TV written and made by, erm, remind me which animals write books and make films?”

I think Brian Clegg (no relation I trust) has a point.

Brian (qua Clegg), who has allowed me to quote him, has a good point, but it misses the point I was making, which is essentially this: the attributes of any given species are not transferrable, because they cannot be fully appreciated by members of another species. We humans might very well write books and make TV programmes, but these seem so much more superior to, say, the tools of crows, because they are made and consumed by us, not crows. From the point of view of a crow, a human-made TV programme makes no sense at all and therefore has no value.

There was a group of philosophers-of-science based in Edinburgh and sometimes called the "Edinburgh School" who used to talk like this - and probably still do. "Barmy relativism" my Professor used to call their ideas - rather dismissively - but he was right!

Here’s another example, and perhaps a better one. We all recognise that domestic dogs are highly intelligent, social creatures. However, we do not regard them as self-aware in the same way that (we think) we are, because they cannot recognise their reflection in a mirror as belonging to them. But this test – the so-called mirror self-recognition test – is biased towards creatures for which vision is the primary sensory modality. Dogs generally have very poor vision, but this is more than compensated for by their sense of smell, which exceeds ours in sensitivity at least a hundredfold. This means that dogs can identify scents much fainter than we can detect, and also distinguish between scents.

Barmy relativism.

So when my dogs sniff a lamp post, they do so with the intensity and concentration of a master of wine. It’s no stretch to imagine that, to a dog, the scent of another dog on a lamppost has meaning in every sense as representational as a road sign, a letter, or a message. Scents on lampposts are to dogs what social media are to us: I call it SniffBook. The dogs read and appreciate the status updates left by other dogs, and sometimes leave their comments. To us, these scents are as indistinguishable and as unintelligible as a television programme is to a dog.

Barmy relativism.

Dogs can presumably recognise their own scents and tell them apart from the scents of other dogs as readily as we’d recognise our reflection in a mirror. Would we humans pass for self-aware, based on scent alone? I think not. Neither, then, should we judge the abilities of other animals by own own, unique, species-specific standards.

So what are we left with?
The only valid point in this whole diatribe is that evolution is like a bush not like a ladder. But, as has been noted, Brian knows that and I think everyone else does too. After all, I don't just have humans in my house, I have cats too and rather a lot of spiders. I can see all sorts of birds out of the window, and some bushes, and a ladder too as it happens. It's fucking obvious that evolution is more like a bush than a ladder.
So to arrange hominid skulls in a non-branching line could (I concede) potentially be slightly misleading, but "slightly misleading" a very long way from a "fatal flaw". In any case, where were we actually misled?
We weren't
I too find most television programmes as indistinguishable and as unintelligible as my cats do (I haven't got a dog) but Brian's programme was a very welcome exception. This article, on the other hand, .............

2014-09-01

New Verse for "The Elements" song

Since Tom Lehrer composed his The Elements song, Lawrencium (mentioned by Tom Lehrer during the performance to which I link) and fifteen other new elements have been discovered.

I think a new verse is called for:


There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,
Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium
And gold, protactinium and indium and gallium
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.

There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium
And boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium
And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,
And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium.

There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium
And phosphorous and francium and fluorine and terbium
And manganese and mercury, molybdenum, magnesium,
Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and caesium
And lead, praseodymium, and platinum, plutonium,
Palladium, promethium, potassium, polonium, and
Tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium,
And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.

There's sulphur, californium and fermium, berkelium
And also mendelevium, einsteinium and nobelium
And argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodium
And chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper,
Tungsten, tin and sodium.

Proposed new verse:

Rutherfordium, Lawrencium, Seaborgium, Ununtrium
Livermorium, Darmstadtium, Flerovium, Meitnerium
Ununoctium and Hassium
Ununpentium and Bohrium
Ununseptium, Roentgenium, Copernicium, and Dubnium

These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,
And there may be many others, but they haven't been discovered.

This just about scans if you merge the first two syllables together each time. I am more than open to any suggestions for improvements from any scientists, musicians, or poets. The ones beginning "Unun" will get proper names in due course.

...in fact I think Brian Cox (who - thanks to his RT of @ElectroPig's original tweet - is responsible for my time-wasting efforts here) should waste some of his own time and try this out on his keyboard!



[1] Lyrics from Sing365 (I hope they don't mind my using them).
[2] New elements from Lenntech.
[3] Latest naming conventions from Wikipedia.

2014-08-13

The Day PZ Myers came to Hebden Bridge

My son Max and his friend Claire entered the ticket office at the train station in Bradford the other day. As they approached, the man behind the counter put down his newspaper and cast a baleful eye over Claire’s bright blue hair. “Hebden Bridge?” he asked. He was right first time.

A few days ago I saw that Paul Zachary "PZ" Myers associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris, Pharyngula blogger, and sworn enemy of creationist nut-jobbery in all its forms was coming to speak in Hebden. I had to do a double-take. Unfortunately, since I originally saw this, I’d been up to my eyeballs in work and miscellaneous other activities - mainly on behalf of others (as we say in Yorkshire: “A friend in need is a bloody nuisance”) and PZ’s visit had gone completely out of my head.

Then at about 7.30 this evening I saw the following tweet:

I remembered: “Doors 7.30pm – 8pm start”. Hebden Bridge is about 30 minutes away by car from my house. I found my keys, leapt into the car, forgetting my phone, and hit the road. Taking the empty back roads over the moors I somehow managed to get to the Trades Club with two minutes to spare. But there was nowhere to park at the venue and I had to park about half a mile away and run like Mo Farah (well, like Mo Farah would run if he were giving Eric Pickles a piggy back) back to the venue.

I pelted up the stairs (squeezing past a lady who was saying to her friend “eee we’ve got a professor in ‘ere tonight”), bought one of the few remaining tickets, and joined PZ’s talk – which had, I was assured, “only been going on for a couple of minutes”.

Later I asked a fellow local how on earth we’d managed to get the world famous PZ Myers (hot foot from the dreaming spires of Oxford) to come and speak at Hebden Bridge. “Well he’s on his way up to Edinburgh. I suppose it was on the way” he suggested.

Now don’t get me wrong, Hebden Bridge is a lovely place (it is, after all, in Yorkshire) and I urge you all to visit if you are ever up this way. But it is not normally on the beaten track of internationally renowned academics.

Anyway, PZ’s talk (on American creationists) was, of course, splendid and highly entertaining and much appreciated by the audience – who were clearly clued up on much of what PZ had come to speak about.

Though it quickly became clear – as PZ himself acknowledged – that he was “preaching to the choir” there was plenty of interesting material that I (and I expect many others there) were not particularly aware of. One thing PZ pointed out was what a recent phenomenon creationism (based on a literal interpretation of biblical texts) is. Another thing, which I certainly hadn’t really appreciated, was the origins of this ideology in the teachings of quite small numbers of people who, even by the standards of American god botherers, were a pretty wacky bunch. Disturbingly, the nonsense spread by such crazies (far more extreme even than the sort of arguments scientists were having to rebut in the days of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial) have now become part of mainstream thinking and are now embraced by about half the population of the USA.

Photo by kind permission of Chris Hassall @katatrepsis (who took it - as I say i forgot my phone)

Even more disturbingly, we learned, the creationist movement in the USA is astonishingly well funded. Its ludicrous, though well produced, propaganda is funded by rivers of cash from generous, though credulous, donors and income from theme parks - which, inter alia, present theropods from the late Cretaceous Period being herded onto a 4000 year old Ark.

PZ’s talk was followed by questions and discussion of how best to stop them ever coming here. PZ took “here” to mean “the UK”, but obviously they really meant “West Yorkshire”.

So a really excellent talk met by a really warm reception – a bit too warm …. especially after I had run all the way from the car park. We may have fewer religious zealots than the Yanks, but they do - it has to be said - have better air conditioning than we do.

I shook hands with PZ and thanked him before leaving and should like to take this opportunity to say how flattered we all were that he took time out to come and share an evening with us here in God’s own County.

(I was about to suggest they could try and get Prof Brian Cox next year but then I remembered that he's from Lancashire.)

2014-08-03

The riddle of Ridley

This piece was inspired by Nick Cohen’s piece (which I urge you to read) in the Observer today: Why do we still honour free-market intellectuals? (It's mystifying that the former chairman of Northern Rock is still garnering plaudits).

The author of our current misfortunes?

Matt Ridley (AKA The Right Hon Matthew, 5th Viscount Ridley) is famous (or perhaps infamous) for (let us put this as neutrally as possible) being “in charge” of Northern Rock when it went pear-shaped (to use a metaphor borrowed from biology) in 2007. This debacle was the first (at least the first that came to everyone’s attention) in a series of events that culminated in the virtual collapse of the UK banking system and the economic mess from which we are only just recovering (at least if the optimists are to be believed).

I, however, knew of Matt Ridley long before 2007, as the author of a series of books on evolutionary biology and genetics. While I should hesitate to recommend Dr Ridley’s financial advice to anyone (ditto his views on climate change – but that’s a story for another day), I should have no hesitation in recommending his excellent popular science books.

The only criticism I might make of those books is that Ridley is sometimes too ready to borrow metaphors from evolutionary biology and try and apply them in his thinking on how the economy works or (even more tendentiously) ought (in a moral sense) to work. You can often see this species of thinking lurking below his writing. Richard Dawkins (who writes in similar fields and has often worked alongside Ridley) is rather more keen to note (though I am paraphrasing Dawkins here) that just because nature is “red in tooth and claw” it does not follow that the best run economies are, or that (even if such economies were the most financially successful) they would be an ethical success.

But let us move on and look at some (evolutionary) science……..

First, some human psychology:

It is a puzzling fact about humans (revealed in a number of experiments) that when acting as an audience at (say) a random number guessing game, they will accord extra respect to those who guess the “correct” numbers (and less respect to those who guess the “incorrect” numbers) even though they know the game is entirely random. If popular films are an accurate portrayal of reality (I would not know as I have never entered a casino) winners at roulette accrue similarly inflated (and entirely undeserved) prestige.

Of course, winning at some gambling games – for example Black Jack – can be a sign of cleverness. If you can remember the sequence of cards and calculate the odds in your head as the game progresses you can stack the odds in your favour. But, usually, gambling involves pure chance. It is often claimed that some people are “expert” poker players, but the last time I read something on this subject, the author was suggesting that the statistics on this are by no means unequivocal. It is entirely possible (he opined) that “top” poker players are simply “lucky” poker players.

So why do we admire people who happen to make the right (entirely serendipitous) guesses? One answer I have seen put forward is that we (for evolutionary reasons) prefer to ascribe what happens in the world to agency rather than to random chance: the movement in the bushes might be a random effect of the wind, but those who assumed it might be a stalking lion were more likely to live long enough to become our ancestors.

Secondly, some evolutionary theory:

It was at one time thought - even sometimes by Darwin himself (despite what we often read and despite the fact that the modern non-Lamarckian theory is styled “Darwinian”) - that a significant element in evolution is the inheritance, by offspring, of characteristics acquired in life by parents. The example usually given of this sort of phenomenon is the ancestors of the giraffe having to stretch their necks to reach the leaves of tall trees and then passing on their elongated necks to future generations who then did the same and became taller still.

Microbiologists were among the last scientists to disabuse themselves of Lamarckian notions. The example of giraffe gymnastics is clearly far-fetched but, for a long time, it really did seem as though populations of bacteria could be "trained" to survive increasing concentrations of antibiotics in their growth media – like heroin addicts learning to tolerate increasing doses of their chosen drug I suppose – and could pass this learned ability on to their daughter cells. What actually happens is that a few “lucky” mutant bacteria just happen to survive each round of antibiotic treatment and go on to produce new generations with a similar genetic make-up (plus a few new mutants).

In other words, the successful bacteria do not owe their survival to any of their own achievements in life.

Perhaps you can already see where I am going with this ………..

Bankers

Certainly until the events of the last few years, I suppose that people naturally (and as we have seen for good evolutionary reasons) tended to assume that successful bankers were successful because they were highly talented people who owed their success to their talents. Successful bankers were awarded prestige and honours and, even though some people wondered aloud whether bankers really deserved to be paid salaries and bonuses hundreds or thousands of times greater than what (say) a university researcher discovering a new antibiotic might expect, most people accepted that successful bankers deserved high salaries.

But there’s an entirely plausible alternative hypothesis for what the mechanism at work here is – made all the more plausible since the events of 2007. What if bankers make entirely random decisions? The financial environment in which they make those random decisions, selects some to survive and prosper, and some to go bust; but the bankers themselves have no more special foresight than bacteria growing on media contaminated with varying concentrations of antibiotic.

What, in short, if banking (and perhaps commerce in general in a market economy) is Darwinian rather than Larmarckian?

What if successful bankers do not deserve any more reward in life than successful bacteria?

Given Mark Ridley’s fondness for drawing parallels (at least implicitly) between evolutionary biology and the financial world, I am surprised he has never given serious consideration to this hypothesis. And, even more to the point, subscription to such a hypothesis would entirely absolve Matt Ridley of any culpability for the plight of millions who have been far less fortunate in life than the Viscount and who now find themselves at the (lack of) mercy of events which were certainly beyond their control.