One thing jumped out at me, and caused an alarm bell to ring in my head:

“You know, and I know, there are more and more people out there in the world questioning the benefits of the enlightenment… that is actually under threat at the moment from all quarters… people are questioning the benefits of evidence-based knowledge.”

It is coming from all quarters, whether right-wing religious fundamentalism, or drippy new-age alternative therapy-sim, it’s almost as if ignorance is becoming celebrated – or worse a “right” – which must be protected by law.

And it’s the law which has brought together a powerful campaign by sceptics concerned at Simon Singh’s persecution through the libel courts by the British Chiropractic Association for criticising their promotion of bogus treatments. Concerned that fear of litigation would stifle scientific discourse, the sceptics have found a common voice and from this moment there seems to be a growing awareness and increased activity (if not activism).  Or maybe it’s just that I’ve noticed it more.

For example there are “Skeptics in the Pub” groups popping up in towns all over the country – I went to the second meeting of our Cardiff group last week – and the American (ie. wrong) spelling is deliberate.  It’s intended to indicate more that a willingness to question comfortable truths, as if there is a movement; and that very question “is there a movement?” was asked at the meeting (no agreement, some felt there was and others were…ahem…sceptical).  This is also the question David Allen Green asks in an excellent blog post, answering in the negative for three reasons: firstly that sceptics are naturally disputations (and often tactless), secondly an evidence base is not sufficient for making policy (and often is at odds with policy) and thirdly that scepticism is essentially negative in the sense that it is a check on woolly thinking.

While I am inclined to agree that skepticism is not a movement, it’s that third point, which is essentially about asking questions, which makes me thinking that sceptics (I’ll go back to the English spelling) do have something to unite around.  And that’s challenging ignorance.  Questions are perhaps the most powerful weapon for doing so.

I saw an interview with Ben Goldacre, the author of Bad Science and skeptic poster-boy, in which he said he wasn’t interested in whether the claims of homeopaths, “nutritionists” or other quacks were the most damaging, and though it sounds a bit callous I’m inclined to agree.  Freedom of choice, freedom of speech, these things are important too, and surely the last thing a sceptic would want to accept is being told what is right.  What interests Goldacre is the low level of understanding of evidence based medicine, despite the enormous interest the public and the media have in science and health stories.  While “Skeptics in the Pub” was a great evening’s entertainment, it was full of the naturally sceptical and so will have done little to further education or the improvement of scientific literacy.  Nor will going out that and “putting people right” when they demonstrate their ignorance make people more sceptical.  The chances are if you tell someone that there’s no evidence that homeopathic remedies themselves will cure anything, they’ve heard it before and dismissed it.  They will do so again.  The confrontation may be entertaining and satisfying but it’s probably not very productive.

But asking questions gives people an opportunity to explore their own knowledge, and in framing their answers perhaps to question its basis.  It may be that their decision to use a homeopathic remedy or to drink industrial bleach rests on blind faith, and therefore falls into the scope of theology rather than science, in which case argument is pointless anyway.  There is an overlap sometimes – I’m fascinated by scientists who believe literally in creation, and I’ve known a couple – as opposed to believing the creation myth contains truths in the sense a story can contain morals.  But I don’t believe religious faith and science are incompatible.  Where it gets interesting is in the disagreements over whether choices should be based on evidence based knowledge or faith based belief and in the end that’s where personal choice comes in.  In the meantime, by keeping asking those (often difficult and challenging) questions, we can make that choice as informed as possible and promote scientific literacy.  As Stephen Fry said to those graduates…

“It’s up to us, those of us who believe passionately in the idea truth and seeking for truth and being humble in the face of facts – which is my definition of science… must always go on question and asking questions and never claiming that they know.”

There are (quite rightly) PR opportunities to having an outward facing presence on the iTunes store, but the real work is centrally hosting all of the material and there are other benefits to providing and encouraging making learning material available to all (engagement, feedback, and if licensed openly too then all the OER jazz).  In the conversations that take place in the many meetings that will now follow, I hope that this is borne alongside the inevitable focus on the PR angle. There’s a worry that if we have lacklustre or out-of-date material showing, we deter potential students.  I wonder if that’s the case, or whether perhaps having nothing at all will be more of a deterrent (obviously up-to-date, professionally produced, cutting edge podcasts and video would be ideal).  If students really are shopping around by trialing resources, or more likely using University resources whilst studying at A-level, will institutions they don’t have this connection with them get less interest from them when it comes to filling in their UCAS form?  Is the best the enemy of the good here?

Obviously we must pay attention to the terms of licences and consent for the material we use, and we don’t want to get sued, but I wonder if we have too strict an approval process (rather than a devolved and lightweight scheme) we will stifle the creativity and immediacy that makes the material appealing.  After all, real learning material can have rough edges, and should change and evolve in response to student feedback and the lessons of experience.  I wonder if not only is it better to have something than nothing, but also if potential applicants are more sophisticated than we give them credit for, and are ready to divine the true value of learning materials that lack that PR polish.

Note that all registered users at Little Storping are registered at HCI-Blog.littlestorping.co.uk automatically.

Now I’m starting my masters (MAVE at Sussex) I find that it’s iPhone apps that are being pushed! Shamelessly, I might add. I like this.

95% of children are eating school meals in Hull and 24,000 pieces of fresh and veg are served up daily. The scheme is being phased out before the pilot stage is completed on the grounds of cost.

This is exactly what schools should be doing nationwide. Teachers have, unsurprisingly, remarked on the increase in concentration; also Hull has one of the highest rates of obesity in Britain. If the political will was there, this would be continuing, and reflected in other cities across the UK.

Yes, £3.8m is a lot of money, but can anyone think of something better to spend it than on putting fresh healthy food into our kids?

Steiner schools teach project blocks (“main lessons”) such as farming, building, or ancient Greece and to motivate learning geography, history, maths and English. Academic subjects are studied in the morning when the brain is most effective, and sports or crafts in the afternoon. State schools teach discrete subject content specified nationally in a document that makes little reference to developing the “whole child”, and would benefit from a more holistic approach. Too much emphasis on skills and tests and spoon fed content can marginalise the development of a desire for knowledge. Steiner schools, as the report says, could benefit from better management and teacher training.

Unfortunately Steiner schools have maintained a purist attitude to anthroposophy, the spiritual philosophy of Rudolf Steiner. Steiner was a prolific author with an interest in mysticism and the occult. He believed himself to be a psychic. So it’s often the anthroposophy that alienates people: many parents don’t want their children taught by teachers whose training includes reincarnation and karma. Yet where some of the ideas are sound, must they be shrouded in a cosmic mist? Anthroposophists do themselves little favour (and earn enemies) when they refuse to engage with those of a more sceptical bent.

There’s a new state funded Steiner City Academy being built in Gloucestershire. When I’ve talked to those involved in Steiner schools they’ve been concerned that the anthroposophical underpinning might be diluted. Perhaps a school which “compromises” on Steiner’s principles won’t be a Steiner school as far as they are concerned. For the rest of us, simply because some of Steiner’s ideas are unacceptable, we shouldn’t ignore this well developed alternative educational system. The result may be a distinct new school system. Good. The report is overdue.

Meanwhile the Hefce has reported there is no need to act to prevent declining numbers in maths and science leading to University departments closing.

Doing nothing is not an option. This crisis is not going away, it’s getting worse. Having a debate is all very well, but changes at secondary level will take years to affect universities. We already had the excellent Smith Report – now let’s have some action!