Dublin #4
There was considerable discussion during and after the talks. What I found pleasing what that there was an added resource to those who had formed a community on RD.net - the partners (and in once case, daughter) of those who had met on-line. Particular mention has to go to Laurie's wife, who is an expert on language and it's development, and 'Epeeist's' wife, who may have significant political influence in improving and protecting rational education in the UK, but no disrespect to others. I particularly had great discussions with Helen, Tim, and Anna (they know who they are). There was discussion about what the point of the group was. In the end, I think Laurie's view won out - we are a 'Think Tank', and the main thing is that we should exchange and discuss ideas. The 'what next' will come later. I think the consensus for now is that we could all meet every couple of years or so, but there will be local meet-ups within continents and countries more frequently. There was discussion of construction of a website promoting discussion and as a resource, but neither 'decius' or I thought that was practical, as a website would have to be maintained, and would have to get some kind of internet presence. Perhaps a more effective approach is to persuade Richard that we can contribute permanent resources to his site.
Then, on to more Guinness (I have to confess that at this stage I was still mostly on the lagers. That changed). A long evening followed, including a great Iitalian-style meal. I did feel embarrassment at one stage, as I had both described a criticism of religion's attitude to women by Christopher Hitchens in perhaps inappropriately explicit terms in front of Oystein and his wife, and had also forgotten his nationality twice in a period of months (a fascinating, and necessary, history lesson about the political separation of Norway from Sweden followed). But, the meal was very good, and at some point (if I remember right) I seem to have agreed to co-author a book on the philosophy, biology and physics of the Fine Tuning of the universe.
It got late, and even with my hedonistic attitude, I decided to retire and not 'party on' with some friends. Yet again, 'Corylus' walked back with me to the hotel, and I crashed out...
Then, on to more Guinness (I have to confess that at this stage I was still mostly on the lagers. That changed). A long evening followed, including a great Iitalian-style meal. I did feel embarrassment at one stage, as I had both described a criticism of religion's attitude to women by Christopher Hitchens in perhaps inappropriately explicit terms in front of Oystein and his wife, and had also forgotten his nationality twice in a period of months (a fascinating, and necessary, history lesson about the political separation of Norway from Sweden followed). But, the meal was very good, and at some point (if I remember right) I seem to have agreed to co-author a book on the philosophy, biology and physics of the Fine Tuning of the universe.
It got late, and even with my hedonistic attitude, I decided to retire and not 'party on' with some friends. Yet again, 'Corylus' walked back with me to the hotel, and I crashed out...
Dublin #3
And so, I met up with the clique. My memories of who at the gathering and when are vague, simply because it was so overwhelming to meet so many people I admire so much. For that reason I won't try and list everyone. I will just say that it was an excellent evening, with a good meal out, that ended up with me wandering back to the hotel late with the wonderful 'Corylus', who was one of many who were staying there, and who seemed to have a good sense of direction. After some pleasant conversation in the hotel lounge over a G&T, I retired to bed.
Saturday was a big day. The Day of Talks. Several of us had taken the opportunity to speak in a relatively informal way to the others. 'Tyler Durden' - who did a fantastic job of helping to organise the weekend - managed to arrange a small classroom that was of convenient size.
As Laurie was a touch late, I volunteered to start. I have an informal talk about a favourite theme of mine: that the origin of life and its continual evolution is not some anomaly that has to be explained (as seems to me to be the implication of Dawkins' "Mount Improbable"), but some inevitable consequence of the kind of universe we live in, that is thermodynamically downhill, and so should be expected. I was rattled a bit by 'Epeeist's' wife pointing out what she thought was a serious flaw in my admittedly vague use of terms like 'complexity' and 'entropy', but I think this kind of language has to be very simplified for common consumption. Even so, it was a 'pick yourself up off the floor' situation. I struggled through to the end of the lecture, which I has titled "Killing the Watchmaker" - we should try and avoid all mention of intentionality and purpose in biology, even as metaphors, to help with clarity of thinking. I think the talk was pretty well received. However, next time, I will take up 'decius's' offer of him preparing my visual material.
Then, it was Laurie's turn. He gave an amazing talk, about how language and psychological development as a result of language can limit thinking. It was a real insight into how the minds of those who come to RD.net to preach and who ignore evidence actually work - they don't have the reasoning apparatus to deal with high-level challenges to their ideas. A discussion with Laurie's wife was less depressing - it is possible for people who aren't too far into middle age to expand their mental horizons so that they can reason beyond their initial capabilities.
Lunchtime. We were in a pub. 'Titania' was about to order. She said "I suppose it is too early to order a Guinness". A cute waiter with a strange goatee replied with a smile: "It's too early for stupid questions" (I love Ireland).
A short discussion about the evolution of the teabag by Philip was followed by a really professional lecture by Oystein. He had the misfortune of giving a talk after a Guinness-fueled lunch. Luckily he was guiness-fueled too. It was a first-rate high-level yet accessible talk about the origins of the universe; how we know what went on, and when things happened. There were two highlights for me. One was the figure showing the predicted as against actual black-body radiation spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. The fit was absolutely stunning. It shows that we really do have a very good idea of what happened such a short time after the Big Bang. The second was the high-resolution spectrum of that background radiation. I realised I had not understood that the spectrum was not an just an indication of the situation several hundred thousands years after the Big Bang, it was also a picture of what had happened to the microwaves as they traveled to Earth during nearly 14 billion years. It is a three-dimensional picture of the structure of reality. Amazing.
The final presentation was a message from Diacanu. Simply hilarious. Especially to hear such language coming out of the mouth of 'SharonMcT'.
Then... more Guinness...
Saturday was a big day. The Day of Talks. Several of us had taken the opportunity to speak in a relatively informal way to the others. 'Tyler Durden' - who did a fantastic job of helping to organise the weekend - managed to arrange a small classroom that was of convenient size.
As Laurie was a touch late, I volunteered to start. I have an informal talk about a favourite theme of mine: that the origin of life and its continual evolution is not some anomaly that has to be explained (as seems to me to be the implication of Dawkins' "Mount Improbable"), but some inevitable consequence of the kind of universe we live in, that is thermodynamically downhill, and so should be expected. I was rattled a bit by 'Epeeist's' wife pointing out what she thought was a serious flaw in my admittedly vague use of terms like 'complexity' and 'entropy', but I think this kind of language has to be very simplified for common consumption. Even so, it was a 'pick yourself up off the floor' situation. I struggled through to the end of the lecture, which I has titled "Killing the Watchmaker" - we should try and avoid all mention of intentionality and purpose in biology, even as metaphors, to help with clarity of thinking. I think the talk was pretty well received. However, next time, I will take up 'decius's' offer of him preparing my visual material.
Then, it was Laurie's turn. He gave an amazing talk, about how language and psychological development as a result of language can limit thinking. It was a real insight into how the minds of those who come to RD.net to preach and who ignore evidence actually work - they don't have the reasoning apparatus to deal with high-level challenges to their ideas. A discussion with Laurie's wife was less depressing - it is possible for people who aren't too far into middle age to expand their mental horizons so that they can reason beyond their initial capabilities.
Lunchtime. We were in a pub. 'Titania' was about to order. She said "I suppose it is too early to order a Guinness". A cute waiter with a strange goatee replied with a smile: "It's too early for stupid questions" (I love Ireland).
A short discussion about the evolution of the teabag by Philip was followed by a really professional lecture by Oystein. He had the misfortune of giving a talk after a Guinness-fueled lunch. Luckily he was guiness-fueled too. It was a first-rate high-level yet accessible talk about the origins of the universe; how we know what went on, and when things happened. There were two highlights for me. One was the figure showing the predicted as against actual black-body radiation spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. The fit was absolutely stunning. It shows that we really do have a very good idea of what happened such a short time after the Big Bang. The second was the high-resolution spectrum of that background radiation. I realised I had not understood that the spectrum was not an just an indication of the situation several hundred thousands years after the Big Bang, it was also a picture of what had happened to the microwaves as they traveled to Earth during nearly 14 billion years. It is a three-dimensional picture of the structure of reality. Amazing.
The final presentation was a message from Diacanu. Simply hilarious. Especially to hear such language coming out of the mouth of 'SharonMcT'.
Then... more Guinness...
To Dublin #2
The journey started badly. A late Virgin service (what a surprise!) at Coventry gave me 2 minutes to change trains at Birmingham International station. But from then on things went reasonably well. The final journey was a close-to-two-hour trip to Holyhead, which was really enjoyable. The North Wales coast is stunning. I checked in for the ferry, and had an unpleasant surprise. The single portable item of luggage I brought along had to be checked in, rather than hand luggage. I pointed out I had a computer in the bag - the baggage handler said "it should be OK", which was not that comforting. So, I had a couple of hours on the ferry nervous about my laptop. Turned out all was OK, and I walked out to the taxi rank in Dublin Ferry Port. There was one taxi. 20 mins or so later, there still had been one taxi. Apparently the port is not favoured by Dublin taxis. Someone tried to offer me a lift to Dublin for 20 Euros, but that seemed a bit odd. I discovered that a bus which had been waiting around was to the city centre, so I managed to get on just as it was setting off. There was a cheering and eccentric guide to the city before I was dropped off at the bus station. I found a taxi, and asked to be taken to the Dublin Alexander Hotel. There followed a series of conversations between me and two taxi drivers about who had any idea where this hotel was, and who wanted to take me. Moaning slightly, one of the drivers agreed, but did not manage to find the hotel for some time. Eventually we arrived, and having no change the driver generously charged me 2 Euro less than the (reasonable) fare. I like arriving at hotels, and unpacking. As I was doing that, I received a text message from Philip, indicating where Guinness was already being consumed. I set off... it took some time, as the pub was not quite on the road mentioned. But eventually, I met up with.. the clique!
Super-gene-ism
Decades ago, Richard Dawkins popularised the idea of the "Selfish Gene". What was the idea? That the primary target of natural selection is relatively small sequences of DNA, mostly at the level of what are called "genes". Why do this? Because it is usefully reductionist and encourages a rigorous, often mathematical, way of looking at selection. This was an important attack on discussions of evolution which were often very vague and even idealistic, with talk of group and species selection.
However, occasionally the ideas Dawkins popularised are attacked as dogmatic or constraining. An example is this article in New Scientist.
A good test for a weak rebuttal of an idea is few if any counter-arguments. Elsdon-Baker's article contains no mechanisms for how alternative methods of selection actually work. Nothing but a series of statements that there are other ideas. This is the just the sort of wooly discussion that the Selfish Gene idea was, I think, partly intended to protect us against.
This is why I used the title "supergeneism" - it reminds me of supernaturalism. It is the idea that there must be something more than gene-ish selection, but without usually stating clearly what this actually is and how it would work.
This is not to say that the Selfish Gene idea is perfect. Genes can mutate and have no effect on phenotype (the characteristics of an organism)... this indicates that what is actually almost always being directly selected are phenes - possibilities for individual characteristics. But this selection still contrains genes and is controlled by genes. The selection is really about some complex and slightly wobbly gene/phene combination. Some have argued that natural disasters can be a form of species selection, but that isn't really the case. Even when a certain broad characteristic is selected by a disaster (such as size), that won't select all members of a species. It is still broad gene/phene selection.
We need to stick with the Selfish Gene idea. It isn't dogma. It is a good constraint on initial thinking about evolution. It is an important reductionist base from which to start investigating a particular example of natural selection.
However, occasionally the ideas Dawkins popularised are attacked as dogmatic or constraining. An example is this article in New Scientist.
A good test for a weak rebuttal of an idea is few if any counter-arguments. Elsdon-Baker's article contains no mechanisms for how alternative methods of selection actually work. Nothing but a series of statements that there are other ideas. This is the just the sort of wooly discussion that the Selfish Gene idea was, I think, partly intended to protect us against.
This is why I used the title "supergeneism" - it reminds me of supernaturalism. It is the idea that there must be something more than gene-ish selection, but without usually stating clearly what this actually is and how it would work.
This is not to say that the Selfish Gene idea is perfect. Genes can mutate and have no effect on phenotype (the characteristics of an organism)... this indicates that what is actually almost always being directly selected are phenes - possibilities for individual characteristics. But this selection still contrains genes and is controlled by genes. The selection is really about some complex and slightly wobbly gene/phene combination. Some have argued that natural disasters can be a form of species selection, but that isn't really the case. Even when a certain broad characteristic is selected by a disaster (such as size), that won't select all members of a species. It is still broad gene/phene selection.
We need to stick with the Selfish Gene idea. It isn't dogma. It is a good constraint on initial thinking about evolution. It is an important reductionist base from which to start investigating a particular example of natural selection.