Skip to main content

Hands off our science

I get a little thrill whenever I see the word 'science' in a place of entertainment - I'm always happy to see new ways of communicating science, and when a science gig reaches a mainstream theatre, for example, that's brilliant.

But when I saw the entry below in my local theatre's events programme, my reaction was not excitement, but concern.


As you can see, the S word is prominent. Now, one of the performers is the spirit medium Derek Acorah - hence, presumably the 'psychic' bit - but the other is Richard Felix, described in the programme as a 'Ghost and Scientific Historian'. I assume that means that he studies the history of ghosts and of science, rather than that he is a ghost who also happens to be a scientific historian.

As a science writer I get to communicate with a lot of historians of science, but I'd never come across his name, so I looked up his profile on his website. Confusingly, this only describes him as a historian - the word 'science' does not appear at all. And, if his Wikipedia entry is accurate, he left school at 15 and had no further opportunity for science or history of science training. Of course, this doesn't stop him being self-trained, but if he was, you'd think there'd be a mention of it somewhere.

So what's this all about? I emailed his website asking for details, but they haven't replied. I also contacted the theatre, where their marketing and sales manager replied:
...we are advertising [...] a show that is touring the UK discussing paranormal investigations.  The event is chaired by a sceptic and features theories about ghosts and mediumship.  Regarding the background of Mr Felix, he has studied this area for more than three decades and so will be sharing the history of the scientific theories of the paranormal as part of the evening.
When I queried the term 'scientific historian', she came back:
As the venue who are hosting the show we have booked the performance in good faith and will forward your e-mail to the production company who will be in the best position to answer you.
As yet they have not done so.

Although I wrote the book Extra Sensory on paranormal abilities, I explicitly left out ghosts and spirit mediums, so I checked with Hayley Stevens, someone with wide experience in the field, and was told that the only reason she could think the S word was being used was because Mr Felix is an enthusiast for ghost hunting technology - the mostly electronic equipment favoured by some ghost hunters, which sadly lacks any verified scientific basis. But even if it were 100% acceptable as genuine science-based equipment, this misses the point.

Everyone uses electronic equipment these days. A plumber does. The bloke who delivers parcels from Amazon does. However, this doesn't give them the right to describe what they do as science or to append the word 'scientific' to their role. A historian of science (I've never come across the term 'scientific historian') is someone with expertise in, you guessed it - the history of science, not a historian who uses gadgets. It's hard not to see this as marketing that strains credibility to its very limits.

Comments

  1. Somestimes its hard to believe what comes along as 'science'...and there are more "mystery science"-TV programs than serious ones. But its the same in Germany! One should vote against this.
    And, by the way, Britons should have voted agains Brexit. World's problems are so manifold and entangled that we (scientists) need to stand together.
    Thx for commenting this, Brian

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope