Ancient is not the same as sensible

There are times when I despair at the ability of human beings to assume that just because we've done things a certain way for a long time it must be correct. Thanks to Michael Brooks (right) for pointing out a very sad case of an MP who has demonstrated all too well that he shouldn't have anything to do with running the country.

The man's name is David Tredinnick (left), who is the Conservative MP for Bosworth in Leicestershire. This was a man whose parliamentary expenses included the purchase of some astrology software. Hmm. According to the Leicester Mercury, Mr Tredinnick had this to say in response to David Brooks (who is standing against Tredinnick as an independent candidate):

There is a danger that so-called scientists are so set in their ways that they are unable to consider alternative viewpoints. Systems of healthcare in India and China have linked medicine and astronomy for centuries. Are we really just dismissing their views?

It's difficult to know where to start with what's wrong with this statement. Part of the difficulty is hauling yourself off the floor after collapsing there in laughter. But really the response should be horror rather than humour that an elected representative of the people could say this.

First of all, why 'so-called scientists'? Is Mr Tredinnick suggesting that scientists who disagree with him (i.e. pretty well all scientists) are scientists in name only because of this? Is Mr Tredinnick a 'so-called member of parliament'? This is just silly.

Next comes the 'scientists are unable to consider alternatives' defence. This just doesn't hold water (not even homeopathic water). Scientists spend all their time coming up with alternatives. They are much more open to alternatives than (say) MPs, who consider changing your mind to be always wrong. ('You turn if you want to, the lady is not for turning!')

Then the killer. 'Systems of healthcare in India and China have linked medicine and astronomy for centuries. Are we really just dismissing their views?' The simple answer is 'We certainly are.' For hundreds of years, systems of healthcare in this country managed to do more harm than good. Now we know better. All ancient medicine is based on incorrect models of how the body works. Any good it does is accidental. But most of it doesn't do any good.

Let's be very clear. Just because something has been considered true for centuries does not make it correct. In fact, it makes it less likely to be correct, because it has to be based on an incorrect understanding of how the world works. Almost all the scientific ideas of the ancient Greeks were wrong, but they were typically held for over 1500 years before being dismissed. This is no sense anti-Chinese or anti-Indian. Traditional Western medicine was also considered true for centuries, and was also wrong, based as it was on humours, miasmas and 'cures' like bleeding.

Crowning it all is the implication that 'linking medicine and astronomy' can benefit anything. Again, the whole of astrology and astrologically related medicine is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the solar system. There is no basis, there is no evidence. Please, Mr Tredinnick, think again.

Photo of Michael Brooks from www.popularscience.co.uk
Photo of David Tredinnick from www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk

P.S. I ought to say, given the date that this is not an April fool's joke. I wish it were.

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog