Non-Materialist Neuroscience

Spotted this on the New Scientist website earlier today. It seems the creationists have now declared war on common sense again with another set on non-sequitur arguments.

At least, as is pointed out in the article, this shouldn't have quite the same polluting impact as Intelligent Design. Especially in schools as neuroscience doesn't tend to be on the curriculum.

Scientists are perfectly willing to modify or even throw-away theories if they can be disproved or are superseded. In fact this is the very essence of the scientific method. But please, people, be rigorous in your proof and don't just try and squeeze the facts into your dogma-shaped hole.

Faith and Truth I Will Bear Unto You

Following Lord Goldsmith's report on British Citizenship there has been a lot of coverage in the press asking if, as suggested, school-leavers should swear the oath of allegiance to The Queen. I for one don't think this would necessarily help. I don't have a problem with school-leavers having the opportunity to take the oath, but they should not be compelled to. That would not be very British at all.

Certainly any ceremony of citizenship for foreign nationals or any voluntary citizenship ceremonies for British nationals (of any age) should contain the oath. The point here is that the monarch or The Crown is bigger as a concept than the person of one little old lady. Much has also be said in comparison with the US habit of swearing "allegiance to the flag of The United States of America and the republic for which it stands". In Britain, we don't have "the flag" as a symbol of the state in the same sense. In fact the flag is a relatively new addition to our symbol collection. Rather than investing this kind of symbolism in a piece of cloth, it is invested in the monarch.

I also think it is short-sighted to see the oath as a vindication of monarchy. Documents and all our coins may all say that The Queen is there "by the grace of God", but in truth she is there by the collective will of the people (through Parliament). Swearing an oath to The Queen's "heirs and successors according to law", does not preclude a successor outside of current convention if it is the will of Parliament to change the law accordingly. There is a tenet which has also appeared on coins in the past which says "The Love of the People is the Queen's Protection".

All Out

So the RMT have decided to have another of their teenage temper tantrums. Go fig!
This is despite the fact that no-one seems to understand why the strike happened or what changed to lead to the suspension of action late last night. But we've all been warned that this is not the end of this story. There is still a threat of action with the beginning of another 72-hour strike on Monday. Bob Crow has nailed his colours to the mast again in a statement to BBC News 24:

"Our view the deal we have got is the best possible but if these people from
Transport for London keep on going round and trying to rubbish us then it's
their fault if the strike takes place next week again."

Let me see if I understand what he's saying - another strike will not depend on particular terms and conditions but on whether Transport for London "rubbish" the union! If this isn't simply playground posturing then I don't know what is. Perhaps they'll threaten TfL with a beating from their older brother next week...

Petitioning

A little while ago I "signed" an electronic petition to request British copyright law be altered to reflect "fair use" now we live with digital technology as a regular and every-day experience:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to create a new exception to copyright law that gives individuals the right to create a private copy of copyrighted materials for their own personal use, including back-ups, archiving and shifting format.

Today, unexpectedly, "we the undersigned" received a response:

As you may be aware, in December 2005 the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, announced that there would be a review of the intellectual property framework in the UK, led by Andrew Gowers.

The findings of this review have now been published and recommend the introduction of a private copying exception for the purposes of format shifting. This would allow individuals to copy music which they have legally bought on compact disc onto an MP3 player without infringing copyright.

The Government welcomes this recommendation and is currently considering how such an exception should be created in UK law.

The full report can be found here.

All good news as long as the recommendations are implemented and the recording industry lobby doesn't cause HM Government to wibble and dilute the response.

In the summaries I've read, I've not seen any explicit mentioning of DRM and its crippling of the ability to move legally bought digital possessions between various playing devices. The CD-player given above is all very well as an illustration, but the law if and when implemented should outlaw the restrictive practice of tying a player to a download-method. I want to be able to take my music collection with me if I change player brand, or if I decide to play it through my PC, laptop, mobile phone or anything in between and all at the same time.

Another welcome recommendation in the summary:

Recommending that the European Commission does not change the status quo and retains the 50 year term of copyright protection for sound recordings and related performers' rights.

There needs to be a sensible expiration limit and I can see no reason to extend the current one despite the whingeing of some aging rockers. I do think it should apply to other media, however.

This petition came at the same time as several others once this facility opened up on the Number 10 website. I'm hoping that others get a similarly considered response - especially the one asking Mr Blair to juggle with jelly.

Polonium Kills

I love this kind of boob (as reported by BBC News):

Two adverts warning cigarette smoke contains the radioactive substance that killed Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko has been pulled from a health campaign.
The Department of Health said it was "inappropriate" to show the ad, which shows cigarettes contain polonium 210.

I would imagine that by pulling the plug the DoH has given this far more exposure than it may have gotten from a few beer mats and late-night TV ads.

It's NOT a Theory

This kind of thing leaves me exasperated.

Intelligent Design is not a theory - it just isn't. Accepted scientific theories are developed from empirical evidence and subjected to rigorous peer review. Darwin's theory has been subjected to that and come out the other side stronger. It's not fixed dogma, and I fully expect the theory to change (as it has in the past) as more and more empirical evidence comes to light.

Intelligent design is, to the best of my knowledge, based on a hunch by some that "something as complex as life cannot arise spontaneously". That's not based empirically, but on human intuition.

I don't have a problem with creationism or intelligent design being exhibited in schools as part of cultural studies, say. However, including it in the science curriculum lends it a credence which it does not deserve under the established scientific method.

Having it both ways

With the current security situation there is, understandably, a lot of analysis going on in the country's news studios. This morning's comments on BBC Breakfast by a representative of the insurance industry on travellers' rights are particularly noteworthy, I think.

He outlined how coverage would depend on the holiday insurance policy in question (duh!) and while most policies specifically have a clause excluding claims for terrorist activity, a few did allow this.

But here's the rub:

• Policies with a clause excluding claims related to terrorist activity would not cover claims made for compensation or refund due to the on-going heightened security situation.
• Policies with a clause covering terrorist activity would still not honour any claims as no terrorist atrocity has actually happened - it was prevented.

Phrases involving eating and having cake spring to mind.

Appropriate Travel

The irony of the title and message of this press release from TfL amuses me greatly:

Avoid the Motor Show traffic - Take a train

I can't decide what I'd want more - the petrol heads taking the advice and being pleasantly surprised, or instinctively (the car is king, natch) ignoring it and collectively ruining the event for each other.

I suspect the latter.

Bills of Rights

HM Leader of the Opposition (you can call him Dave) has been making headlines recently by proposing that the Human Rights Act be repealed in favour of a thoroughly British Bill of Rights, on the American model. Of course, as Mr Island so rightly points out, we already have a Bill of Rights written at the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1689, so ante dating the American one by nearly 100 years.

As I commented on Mr Island's blog, I think the current government should have taken a close look at our Bill of Rights before proposing the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, in particular the first clause:

• That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.

Of course, these days regal authority is exercised in the form of the Royal Prerogative by Ministers of the Crown rather than Her Maj. wielding her sceptre. Even so, the controversy over the Government's attempts to circumvent the approval of Parliament only died down when the act was heavily diluted. Mr Liadnan has much more on this.

Reading further down the list of clauses another one stood out:

• That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction, are illegal and void.

It's a perfectly sound statement and at first glace appears to be the kind of thing that has been upheld by all free and fair societies both before and since this kind of clause was first codified. That is until you consider that every parking fine, every penalty fare, every on-the-spot charge for littering or publicly urinating and every speeding ticket breaks this rule. Any fine which is handed out before conviction at trial is outlawed by this.

Of course I'm not proposing that these penalties are somehow not sound or reasonable, but I do vaguely remember someone who decided to put this to the test. As far as I remember, he was going to challenge a parking fine, with just this kind of reasoning. I'd really like to know how he got on, and assuming he got nowhere with his challenge, exactly how it was dismissed without devaluing the Bill of Rights.