…and this is a 
I'm holed up in a hotel room, writing, writing, and writing some more, only emerging sporadically to see a little Australian sun and get a little exercise, and also to exercise my brain a bit. A few things are going on here in Melbourne.
I wish I could attend this panel discussion on the "Science and God: Incompatible?", just because it's stacked with Christian apologists who will no doubt be annoyingly superficial, and because it was the topic of my lecture at the GAC (my answer: yes. Incompatible, irreconcilable, and dear sweet baby Jebus, keep your superstitions away from the grownups). It's at the St James Conference Centre, 12 Batman St, West Melbourne, tonight at 8.
I'm skipping it, though, because I'd rather attend a lecture by Craig Venter tonight, at 6 in the Melbourne Convention Center. Evidence-based reasoning always wins over old farts exercising in wishful thinking in a church.
And tomorrow afternoon, Thursday, I'm going to try and drop in on the University of Melbourne Secular Society's dissection of creationism and specifically of Ray Comfort's bad introduction to the Origin. That's at 1:00 in Theatre 4, the Alan Gilbert Building.
I'm spending my weekend in Canberra, and I will be giving a talk to Skeptics in the Pub at 12:00 on Saturday, in King O'Malley's Irish Pub, 131 City Walk. I haven't quite decided what I'll be talking about yet, though — I'll probably sort that out on the plane on Friday.
Comments
Posted by: ginckgo
|
March 16, 2010 6:27 PM
The offer to see the Solnhofen squid still stands, PZ. Plus, I may let you hold our Darwin holotype :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 16, 2010 6:33 PM
Keep this up, and you will be like Asimov. Give you five minutes, and you have a new speech. You'll just have to make do without organized slides.Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 16, 2010 6:34 PM
See, you're just plain prejudiced against "faith."
Sure, there's just a chance that it's a prejudice born of experience, but you know it can just be grouped with all of the irrational ones--via irrational prejudice.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 16, 2010 6:43 PM
Nerd,
Asimov was prolific, allright — but he wasn't much for air travel...
Posted by: mcrotk
|
March 16, 2010 6:44 PM
Glad to hear that you can make Venter's talk, though if the dean sees me talking to you, my career here is over.
Posted by: marcus
|
March 16, 2010 6:46 PM
Batman Street? They have a Batman Street? Sweet, holy, fragrant, tasty, vagemite! And they're talking about Jebus? They should be talking about Batman. He really is coming back. And boy is he pissed (off, not drunk). At least Batman is reality based.(Adapted from Zorro).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 16, 2010 6:49 PM
I know, I've read his autobiographies. But on short notice, he could change the topic of his speeches, even coming up with a new one if need be. All with cheerful self appreciation...Posted by: echidna
|
March 16, 2010 6:52 PM
http://www.whitehat.com.au/Melbourne/People/Batman.aspPosted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
March 16, 2010 6:54 PM
Sorry to disappoint, but it's named for John Batman, a settler involved in the founding of the city. Although some of the city does look a bit Gothamesque...
Sweet. If I manage to say hi tonight I will have seen PZ more often than my family this week.
Posted by: Newfie
|
March 16, 2010 7:03 PM
Batsman St. for the cricket fans.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
March 16, 2010 7:05 PM
And 'Batman' isn't pronounced bat-man anyway; the second 'a' is unstressed so it's more like bat-mun - or ˈbætmən for those who're phonetically inclined.
Posted by: marcus
|
March 16, 2010 7:13 PM
Yeah, reality-based like I said. (Probably not coming back though.) :[
Posted by: tbfoster
|
March 16, 2010 7:24 PM
Yay you're coming out to Melb Uni on Thursday! :D See you there!
I wonder if I can still make it in to the Venter talk tonight even though I haven't registered yet. Worth a try!
Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
March 16, 2010 7:25 PM
That's good advice in general for the Australian accent. Destress as many vowels as possible. Thus, Melbourne sound more like Mel-bun than Mel-born. Remember, the more often you open your mouth, the more chance the flies have of getting in.
Posted by: tbfoster
|
March 16, 2010 7:37 PM
There's also a Batman park and the entrance looks like the gates at the front of Wayne manor. I always expect the playground equipment in the middle to slide aside whenever I drive past and see some form of batmobile come flying out.
So we have a suburb of Batman. What about the suburb called Balaclava? :P
Posted by: drizzt_rocks
|
March 16, 2010 7:37 PM
Hah see you at uni tomorrow then.
Posted by: detrange
|
March 16, 2010 7:42 PM
I, for one, welcome our cephalopodan overlord. May death come quickly to his enemies.
Posted by: ginckgo
|
March 16, 2010 7:51 PM
We also have a suburb called Sunshine. As a friend put it: "if you want to destroy your soul, move to Sunshine"
Posted by: Trevor Murray
|
March 16, 2010 8:00 PM
Awesome
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 16, 2010 8:35 PM
Looking forward to the Skeptics In The Pub on Saturday, it should be great fun - and from what I can gather very well attended.
OTOH, still uncomfortable about Australians embracing the k-ness in scepticism. There should always be the 'c' in sceptic. (that would have worked better phonetically)
Posted by: Brian English
|
March 16, 2010 9:43 PM
My remaining plans to conquer Australia
I for one welcome our beer swilling, bearded, cephalopod loving overlord.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 16, 2010 9:46 PM
Another deep rift...Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
March 16, 2010 9:52 PM
Atheists can't agree on anything! God must exist!!1!
Posted by: dreadpiratemick
|
March 16, 2010 10:06 PM
Yay. Looking forward to Pharyngulating King O'Malley's. From the responses on Facebook alone, this'll be a well attended event.
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 16, 2010 10:22 PM
Might see you at the Venter talk, PZ! I'm going, my boyfriend is going and my PhD supervisor is going. I don't like anyone's chances of getting in if they haven't registered, though.
And I live in the electorate of Batman. I get promotional material from our local MP talking about all the great things he does to support Batman, and representing Batman in federal parliament.
Posted by: Stephen, Lord of the flies
|
March 16, 2010 10:22 PM
This is an example of the incoherent positions that are problematic for the movement. Can't we just get PZ to issue an edict declaring the absolute, unquestionable truth of the matter? Who wants all that debate and critical thought anyway?
Posted by: bobingersoll#a3d48
|
March 16, 2010 10:25 PM
Does anyone know if Venters talk will be recorded and viewable on the web anytime soon? The website wasn't helpful.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ApgYM35kosgVrOBgCvh6p6FnpgLVF9jlnZoqq87ASRZrqsMPrR4-#267d5
|
March 16, 2010 10:42 PM
Skeptics In The Pub in Canberra sounds great. I am suffering from post-Atheist-Convention-withdrawal-symptoms.
Perfect way to spend Saturday arvo: Enjoying rational, reasoned conversations and debates with new Pharyngula phriends, whilst downing a glass of Jebus blood. Or wheat beer.
Should I go ahead and book those plane tix?...
Posted by: tbfoster
|
March 16, 2010 10:48 PM
@Phasic #25
I just registered online a couple of hours ago, it seemed to accept my registration and didn't tell me to go hump-a-duck off, hopefully if I show up early enough I'll get in...
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 16, 2010 10:55 PM
What other reason is there to visit Canberra? Hells yes!Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 16, 2010 11:04 PM
Well, if he doesn't do anything, we will talk it to death over a few hundred posts, all feeding the Trophy Daughter Tuition Fund™. Guess what his action will be?Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 16, 2010 11:18 PM
pfft, the problem exists because American skeptics think that they have the right to police the spelling of the world...(Actually in this case, I think it makes a lot more sense to spell it with a 'k'. But firefox keeps reminding me that sceptic is the only true way to spell sceptic and does so by negative reinforcement through the use of a squiggly red line. You just can't compete with that level of brainwashing.)
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
March 16, 2010 11:18 PM
Batman is pretty good, but by far the coolest thing is the fact that we have a city named Darwin.
PZ, I was surprised that you found yourself at a loose end last night. If you find yourself bored or at a loss for something to do over the next few days, drop me a line at ambulocetus1 at gmail.com. I live near the city and can be at Chloe's Bar on 20 minutes' notice.
One thing that sh*ts me about Young & Jacksons is the way they've idiotically painted their windowsills corrosion-lime-green to match the corrosion on the dome on Flinders St Station. Once a decade or so the station people get around to polishing the dome and it looks a nice burnished brown. Sigh.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 16, 2010 11:27 PM
Mine is the reverse, with the sceptic having a red underline. Mac vs. PC? American vs. English/Aussie/NZ/Canadian spellcheckers?Posted by: Daks
|
March 16, 2010 11:27 PM
So Brisbane gets shunned again, nobody ever wants to come here, why did I have to be born in a state full of hillbillies.
Love your work P.Z.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
March 16, 2010 11:33 PM
Is the Friday 5pm at the Wig & Pen still on?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
March 16, 2010 11:48 PM
Friday at the Wig & Pen? Yes, somewhere in my email there's something about that. A gang of us, including Chris Nedin, Jim Foley, Ian Musgrave, and John Wilkins are gathering in Canberra, and we have to go somewhere for our bee-ah, and I think that was the destination selected.
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 17, 2010 12:08 AM
The Wig and Pen do excellent beer. Brewed on the premises. Good choice.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlK_RgWb3UF8EHFLqWt61fxhzOWZ6fYhDA
|
March 17, 2010 12:11 AM
I fondly remember the Wig & Pen. Particularly their Imperial Stout.
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 17, 2010 12:32 AM
I bought a keg of their Irish Red for my 19th birthday party (or was it my 20th? anyway...) back when I lived in Canberra. Good stuff, and I'm not even really a beer drinker.
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 17, 2010 12:35 AM
I'd also just like to add that if the NHMRC grant application server doesn't stop crashing soon, I'm going to cry. I mean, it's only the future of my career and all....
Perhaps I need a beer.
Posted by: abb3w
|
March 17, 2010 1:22 AM
PZ: dear sweet baby Jebus
Sweet? Cooked how?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
March 17, 2010 2:05 AM
Hmmm ... might ride my bike over to the pub if I finish moving house before then. No booze for me though; booze and bikes just don't go together.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
March 17, 2010 2:28 AM
1) Right-click on "skeptic".
2) Select "Add to Dictionary"
3) Drink a pint in memory of the Σκεπτικοί
Posted by: spunmunkey
|
March 17, 2010 2:35 AM
One happy 'munkey
And looking forward to meeting some of you on the weekend...
Mine will be the pint of cider...
:)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
March 17, 2010 2:45 AM
abb3w, perhaps honey glazed BBQ?
Posted by: mick.carroll
|
March 17, 2010 2:52 AM
If you are in Canberra, and like the odd bit of paint on canvas (including Gauguin’s Tahitian women) the National Gallery is hosting an exhibition from the Musée d’Orsay of some of the great Impressionist works.
Tickets hard to get though!
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
March 17, 2010 3:03 AM
Good strategy. Everyone knows if you want to conquer the world, you first get Australia. Easy to defend and you get two additional armies every turn.
Posted by: bastardsheep.com
|
March 17, 2010 4:44 AM
Alright, booked in to drive the 300km's down from Sydney. Shall be bringing the amasing Dr Rachie with me as well. :D
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
March 17, 2010 5:07 AM
Places with names like Balaclava date simply date the naming of them. For eg around here there are lots of places named after Camperdown, which is a corruption of the Dutch and commemorates Admiral Lord Duncan's (local lad made good) victory over the Dutch in 1797. There's a bronze of him fiddling with his telescope in the city centre, but he can't see the sea or even the Tay from where he is . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Camperdown
Though I noticed a bit sadly that when you type 'Battle of' into Wikipedia it suggests 'Battle of the Boyne' quickly and almost alone.
Posted by: bignose.whitetree.org
|
March 17, 2010 8:16 AM
Your powers of prediction are uncanny. I don't know if any other Pharyngulites attended, but I was there (wearing a science joke t-shirt) to show the flag and ask questions.
In summary: there are many people who simultaneously have religious beliefs and do science; scientists use a form of faith when they trust other scientists's credentials, or when they put lots of effort into a pet hypothesis; scientists act today as a secular priesthood; scientists are dogmatic in trying to apply science to claims of religion.
For an event with "God" prominently in the title, I don't think the panelists discussed the sky father at all, besides quotations from the scriptures.
One highlight was physics professor John Pilbrow noting that the scientific method was waning in the public consciousness, and that it's important for them as scientists to reassert that validity of the scientific method. There were general murmurs of approval, without a hint of irony.
Some choice moments:
Alan Gijsbers trotted out the old "fundamentalist atheists" canard.
He also told a story of his children asking "what will you do when you get to heaven and find out the muslims are right?" This gained much polite laughter, but Alan seemed to think it fit to leave the tale there; no answer was ever provided.
Denise Cooper-Clarke seemed content to narrate the slide show and moderate the discussion, raising few points herself. She did ask one good question of the panel: "Does it make sense to speak of belief in science the same way one speaks of belief in god?" Unfortunately, this wasn't addressed very memorably by any of the panelists.
Murray Hogg got science so very wrong ("secular priesthood", "science works by trust") that even his other panelists had to interrupt him sometimes to point out his misrepresentations.
He then raised some balderdash about Einstein contradicting the Michelson–Morley experiment and then having the scientific priesthood accept Einstein's theory, which he claimed demonstrates that scientists ignore evidence too.
Oh, and: A.C. Grayling has joined Richard Dawkins on their approved list of meanies who criticise religion, being quoted at least a dozen times; but they still think Dawkins is the biggest meanie. (Sorry, P.Z., you just didn't rate a mention, despite your talk addressing exactly what they were there to discuss.)
Posted by: bignose.whitetree.org
|
March 17, 2010 8:31 AM
(continuing from the above comment)
I waited for a few other people's questions to see if anyone was going to call them on their lies, but eventually had to step up myself.
I used Alan's "fundamentalist atheists" jab to ask what exactly it means to be a fundamentalist in the atmosphere of eager criticism, peer review, and constant testing of details that characterises science.
I got my money's worth on that one; to their credit, all four of the panelists gave me serious answers and allowed me to rebut points they raised.
They danced around it by pooh-poohing my notion of scientists vigorously questioning each other's claims; Alan told me that he'd even been rejected from presenting a paper at a conference by the cabal of consensus science.
They also resorted to re-defining fundamentalism, by saying that Dawkins (everyone kept raising his name like a sorcery, though I never mentioned any particular scientist once) is a fundamentalist in that he "asserts that the knowledge he has of evolutionary biology necessarily applies everywhere". I'd already used more than my share of time, so I had to let it slide at that point.
I found much more receptive ears in the audience afterwards, which was very pleasing. A lot of the twenty-somethings thanked me for challenging the claim of fundamentalism, and I got a fair way along showing them how they compartmentalise their faith beliefs from critical enquiry.
Hopefully I've helped amplify the cognitive dissonance that Ayaan Hirsi Ali recommends we use to help these people see the incompatibilities in their thinking. It was an audience of about fifty; if some of those see the light enough that they stop indoctrinating their kids, that might be all I can hope for.
All in all, they were quite polite and welcoming of my questions, and I can hope that not all of that was just because they insulated their core beliefs from scrutiny.
Ben Finney
Melbourne, Australia
Posted by: Bad Earl
|
March 17, 2010 10:28 AM
WE NEED A NEW WORD!
The ABC coverage included the priest who said that "atheism" is a negative belief system. If the anti-choice abortion opponents can brand themselves as "pro-life", why can't we come up with a word that means "pro-reality" or "pro-reason"? After all, we aren't just "a-god", we're also "a-angel", "a-demons", "a-leprechauns" (happy St. Patricks Day!), etc.
Any of you smart people out there have a suggestion?
Posted by: Youngie
|
March 17, 2010 11:18 AM
Frankly, I'm more concerned that there is an Alan Gilbert building at Uni of Melb. I remember getting arrested during a protest against his policies. Naming a building after him seems a little macabre.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
March 17, 2010 5:23 PM
I'm having a good week (healthwise) this week, so, hopefully, I shall be there.
Friday evening? Dressed as a pirate…
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 17, 2010 6:09 PM
Bad Earl:
I'd go with secularist. Easily defensable, politically actionable, and quite a few of various people of various faith traditions will help you with the various specific battles. Secularism protects everyone from everyone else.
I frankly don't care if someone privately believes in the big pancake in the sky, or the Lord of Peace or whatever. Go right ahead. It's the actions in the public, legislative, educational sphere that are the problem.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
March 17, 2010 7:24 PM
Longtime lurker, first time poster and delighted to discover that there are fellow Canberra Pharyngulites. I'm going to Sceptics in the Pub on Saturday and my local is generally the Wig on Friday - it it okay if this shy Pharygulite seeks to join the table on Friday evening? I am willing to wear a pink carnation for ID purposes if required.
Warning: I may fan-girl PZ.
I am hoping work lets me post this, as Telstra has killed my phone line and I have no home access to the interwebs...
A
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
March 17, 2010 7:31 PM
AmandaS wrote:
He should be used to it by now. Just walk toward him slowly, with the hand holding the beer outstretched. That seems to have a calming effect.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 17, 2010 7:44 PM
Another one, awesome!Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
March 17, 2010 8:19 PM
AmandaS wrote:
Going with the pink theme, is it OK if I wear my pink pirate hat?
Not many pink pirate grannies in Canberra as far as I know.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
March 17, 2010 8:35 PM
I could even go with the more appropriate Jimmy Buffett theme and wear a white sports coat and a pink crustacean :)
Except I haven't got a white sports coat...
If it's not too hot, I'll try for some combination of scientific atheist Goth wench. If it's warmish, I might leave out the Goth bit.
A
Posted by: Coran
|
March 17, 2010 9:50 PM
We are legion. Well, a platoon, maybe.
Posted by: Phasic
|
March 17, 2010 9:58 PM
AmandaS: He seems to be very tolerant of fan-girling. I think the beer helps.
Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com
|
March 17, 2010 10:06 PM
I was so busy trying not to be a fangirl over the weekend, that I barely said more than 'hi' to PZ. I'll have to make up for it at The Wig & Pen or O'Malley's.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 18, 2010 7:29 PM
Looking forward to tonight.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
March 19, 2010 12:58 AM
Just about time to leave work and head to the city. Good times to be had today and tomorrow.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
March 19, 2010 7:33 AM
I really enjoyed the evening! It was great to meet you PZ, plus neon-elf, Cath the Canberra Cook, Kel, AmandaS and others.
Looking forward to tomorrow…
Posted by: Murray Hogg
|
October 15, 2010 8:40 PM
Dear Ben Finney,
If I might make a response to your comments regarding my contribution to "Science and God: Incompatible?"
In respects of Einstein and the Michelson-Morley experiments you have omitted to mention that I was citing Michael Polanyi, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974. pp.9-15. The claim that scientists ignore evidence is, therefore, Polanyi's and it is a claim which he documents with reference to the work of D.C. Miller over the period 1902-26 - see ibid, pp.12-13.
My comment about "trust in science" needs to be set in context. It is true that the other panelists objected to this, but you omit to mention my subsequent clarification. The reality is that it is often too impracticable or too costly to replicate experiments and so we normally proceed on trust. There is a paper here which makes the same point with reference to primate research. As you might remember, I took for my example the Large Hadron Collider - it should be apparent that the experiments from that facility might be replicated without construction of a like piece of equipment.
My comments regarding a "secular priesthood" need clarification. The strongest remark I have made on this point is to suggest that for some people (usually the scientifically illiterate) science is invoked "as if" they are the secular priesthood. I think this is, again, relatively uncontroversial.
Thanks for your attendance on the evening - I was rather worried that it would be an "in house" affair and it was good to find some attendees who were prepared to put some difficult questions.
Kindest Regards,
Murray Hogg
Melbourne, Australia
Posted by: Murray Hogg
|
October 15, 2010 8:43 PM
Rolls eyes...
"it should be apparent that the experiments from that facility might be replicated without construction of a like piece of equipment."
Should, of course, contain a negative;
"it should be apparent that the experiments from that facility might NOT be replicated without construction of a like piece of equipment."