Oxford Think Week starts this Monday
I promised to mention the upcoming Oxford Think Week, which looks pretty entertaining. It starts this Monday, and runs through next Sunday. There are lots of speakers and events, but some of my highlights:
Stephen Law is a philosopher and author of The Philosophy Gym (philosophical questions ostensibly for children, but just as interesting for adults) and The War for Children's Minds (one of my favourite atheist books, but sometimes difficult to get hold of). His God of Eth argument - that the non-existence of an omnipotent, benevolent god is actually obvious - takes a while to explain, but is neatly compelling.
Peter Atkins wrote Galileo's Finger, a poetic guide to modern science that goes a stage beyond the usual concepts, particularly regarding the elegant and subtle role of symmetry. Also generally entertaining in religious debates - when theologian Richard Swinburne said the holocaust gave Jews a wonderful opportunity be courageous and noble, Atkins replied with 'may you rot in hell'.
Paul Pettinger is the BHA's anti faith-school campaigner, which puts him at the forefront of the major education battles in the UK. Knows his stuff, and has been a key player in the BHA's recent victories in these areas. I'm annoyed I can't be at his talk, as I'm sure it'll be fascinating - especially given the sex ed. furore of the last couple of days.
Andrew Copson is the BHA's new chief executive, and a force for good. One of atheism's clearest and most eloquent public speakers, I've yet to see him wrong-footed in a debate (see Newsnight's exchange over Jewish schools). Also one of the nicest men in humanism.
Julian Baggini is a philosopher and prolific author. He's particularly good at explaining philosophy very clearly, and in a way that makes you feel clever. Occasionally controversial in skeptical circles for criticising the 'new atheists', he's very much on the side of good, and you wouldn't want to argue against him. Another entirely decent guy, too.
Samantha Stein ran the UK Camp Quest, which caused a stir in the tabloids for supposedly teaching atheism - which it obviously didn't. Tough gig, but it was a worthy success.
The BHA Choir are cool. They sing secular anthems such as Imagine and The Flaming Lips' Do You Realize(!), and are just great. I love the idea of a humanist choir, and hopefully they'll go from strength to strength.
Evan Harris is the model secular MP - we wish they were all like him. He got the blasphemy law abolished last year, and regularly speaks out on skeptical topics such as homeopathy on the NHS. Understands all the issues, and is actually in a position to get stuff done. As Ben Goldacre once tweeted, vote Lib Dem this election and Evan Harris could be Science Minister in some odd coalition thingy. Also once said hello to me, seeming genuinely interested in the photos I was taking, despite there being Properly Interesting People in the vicinity.
I'll be taking photos at some of the above. Come say hi if you're there!
Eastenders at 25
Dear Eastenders: how did you do that? How did you hide a character in plain sight like that? She had a colossal motive, yet never even crossed my mind. Some excellent misdirection, there. Nicely played.
And your live episode was classy. I assumed there'd be plenty of protracted dialogue between two characters in a room, but instead it was all fast cuts, parties, actors hustling between different places, impressive lighting, tricky emotional scenes - and obviously the huge final stunt. Kudos for challenging yourselves.
I lived and died with it, too. Admittedly Bradley must have had some kind of breakdown in the last five minutes, because I'm not sure jumping from the building made much sense ok, I take it back - watching it again, he fell; I'm not sure why he was up there in the first place, but that makes much more sense than jumping. But despite this and the pre-show announcer dropping unsubtle hints, it was surprisingly affecting. I even felt sorry for Max. Max! Yes, that dick. Well done.
With this and your genuinely upsetting Shakespearean tragedy last year, you're putting the lie to the clichés about soaps. I think soaps are unfairly derided, as they have a unique storytelling potential - no other media can build characters and storylines on a daily basis, taking their time to make me genuinely care about a group of people. I like sharing these characters' highs and lows - it's nice, and something very difficult to pull off in other media. Tonight's show was the culmination of some very hard work, and a great story resulted. It entertained me greatly. Thank you.
One request, though: please don't get rid of Stacey. In a show with plenty of great actors she lights up the screen, and has done for years. If this could turn out to be a red herring, and the actual culprit be Dotty, that'd be swell. Ta.
Dawkins at Darwin Day
I took a photo last week that's quickly become one of my favourites:
Bit niche, but I like it. From the 2010 Darwin Day lecture.
Antivenn
I may have mentioned that the theory side of my degree leaves something to be desired. Here's a diagram we were shown last week:
They're not even trying any more, are they?
To be fair, Andrew pointed out that it all makes sense if you assume the 'being' and 'meaning' labels refer to the areas outside the opposite circle.
Winter in Transylvania
This is something new:
They're from a remarkably atmospheric series called Winter in Transylvania. The processing is interesting - I don't know what they've done, but the saturation is definitely quirky, and the overall effect is lovely. Great to see such work under a Creative Commons license, too.
Via Photojojo ♥s Tumblr.
Video results
My uni results came in this evening, and my video project did spectacularly badly. The video itself got 37%, which is quite the achievement - I don't know of anyone who's managed a lower score. The how-i-made-it documentation pulled the overall mark up to 40%, which is the lowest possible mark to still get a third.
They had two major problems with it: the lack of research, which I hold my hands up to, and the concept, which was 'inconceivable' and totally unrealistic. I don't want to whine, but it seems reasonable to mention this is from the teachers who, when I pitched a previous idea about a party political broadcast that focussed on under-appreciated issues, told me it would be better if I made up all the issues, as this would be surreal.
I don't know - maybe a non-realistic Childline theme was a tasteless thing to do. I knew it wasn't a completely believable situation, but I thought the metaphors were clear and had a strong enough message to justify the liberties. Maybe this is just wishful thinking.
They also said my technical skills were weak, which hurts. If there's one area I thought I was fine, it was the technical side.
So I'm a bit down about the whole thing. The low mark doesn't actually affect anything important, due to the weird averaging-out system of marking, but it's not nice being told that something you worked very hard at is rubbish. I'll get over it, though.
Other than that, my essay got 63%, which is my lowest essay score, but still a 2:1. I'm fine with that. The lecturer crossed out all the don'ts, can'ts, won'ts, etc. on the basis that contractions are 'not appropriate for an academic text'. This is the first I've heard of it - all my essays have used contractions - and I suspect I got a (ridiculously) old-fashioned dude. Who are these academics who can't understand contractions? Luck of the draw, I guess.
We don’t need no vanishing points
For this year's Sport Relief, seven celebrities will be cycling from John O'Groats to Land's End. This is a Worthy Thing, and good for them. The advert made me laugh, though:
To be fair, there are areas just north of Manchester which exist outside of Euclidean space, so it might be fine. Otherwise, the perspective seems...missing. Which might be ok - you could argue it's a particular style, and I've seen worse Photoshop jobs - but then you notice David Walliams' head. And arms. And hands.
Caution over Cherie Blair’s religious ruling
Cherie Blair/Booth apparently gave someone a lenient sentence because they were religious:
I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before. You caused a mild fracture to the jaw of a member of the public standing in a queue at Lloyds Bank. You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.
Admittedly, "based on the fact that" seems damning. But I think it's worth waiting for the full transcripts to become available, as this has the feel of something that could be explained. Maybe there were unreported circumstances, or maybe this is the kind of thing judges say to get through to supposedly religious people. While it's possible she crossed a line, I'm skeptical it's this clear-cut.
The National Secular Society have made an official complaint, so hopefully they have all the facts of the case. But they do, um, take a hard line sometimes, and I'd like to see more evidence before jumping the gun.
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often dance around humanism, photography and general wonderments, but there's dabblage aplenty.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- Kris Ratcliffe: Thanks for this, I recently got an Email read out on 6 Music and had to cut it out. The BBC servers are super-fast!
on How to download iPlayer radio shows on Vista. - Simon: Wooo, well done!
on Happy Humanists Exhibition. - Andrew: My work here is done.
on Concrete jungle. - Lil: Damn you =P
on Concrete jungle. - PE: remember ladies and Gentleman-the true Magic is in your mind-Derren is a consumate card magician/performer/mentalist/b ullpooher...
on Derren Brown – Mind Reader: The Evening of Wonders.
