Skip to main content

A thank-you to the University of Buckingham - and thoughts on science and truth

On Friday, on a beautiful sunny day, I was delighted to be awarded an honorary Doctor of Science degree by the University of Buckingham.

The whole day could not have been better, from being given a chance to give to speak to graduands from the IT and Health faculties (see below) to the honour of receiving the degree, hearing about remarkable work done in those faculties, and the pleasure of meeting fascinating people, from Sir Magdi Yacoub to the University Chancellor Dame Mary Archer (who I'm pictured above alongside). Not to mention sharing this with family and Buckingham-based friends.

Here's an approximate version of what I said to the students.

This excellent establishment was not granted royal charter until well after I left education, but is a place I would have been proud to attend for its open-minded approach. Basing decisions on evidence, not bias, is is so important when it comes to dealing with truth - and truth is something it's essential to understand in my job as a science communicator. Science is often portrayed simply as a search for truth, but I think it's important the public understands that the reality is more nuanced than this.

Part of the problem we face in explaining science is that researchers hope to achieve the next big thing so they can secure funding. This often leads to university PR departments over-hyping findings. My favourite example of this occurred a few years ago when Fox News trumpeted

Star Wars lightsabers finally invented

I think it's fair to say that many would expect Fox to go a little over the top, so to balance this from the more sedate end of the media, the Guardian reported 

Scientists Finally Invent Real, Working Lightsabers

I just love the way they both say 'finally', as if to ask 'What have these scientists been doing all this time?' Intrigued, I took a look at the original paper that the press release was based on. It described how two photons - particles of light that usually ignore each other - briefly interacted in a special substance known as a Bose-Einstein condensate, cooled to near absolute zero. A lightsaber it was not.

This is an extreme example, but every day newspapers carry reports of the latest research findings - what this week's view is on the impact of red wine on your heart, for example. More often than not, these are preliminary findings that need further work to get anywhere near something that could be regarded as 'the truth.' Often there will never be certainty.

Most of the time science doesn't prove things. It's not really about absolute truth. Mathematicians can prove theorems because they control their environment. They define what the entities they work with mean - and the result is absolute mathematical truth. They don't have to deal with a messy, real world. Usually, though, the most we can say about science is that it gives us the best possible theory give current data - but we have to remember that this may change in the future.

For a science communicator this can be difficult to put across. People like things in black and white, with clear outcomes. But results often have to be interpreted statistically. In some fields, sample sizes are rarely big enough to have confidence in the outcomes. It's arguable too that some subjects that consider themselves sciences (dare I mention economics) may use the tools of science, but arguably aren't true sciences at all.

However, I don't say this to be negative about science. It has done a vast amount for us practically, as well as hugely expanding human knowledge, a joyful pursuit in its own right. The best possible theory given current data will always be far better than a random opinion on Tik Tok - scientific findings provide a wonderful resource as long as we understand what they are saying. And this is why I love being a science communicator. I'm not dispensing absolute words of wisdom and truth - that's more the remit of the clergy [the ceremony took place in Buckingham parish church]. I have the privilege of explaining these remarkable theories and why they provide the best understanding we have of the universe... unless new data changes our view.

I hope that with the open-minded and thoughtful approach the university has given to you, that you too can enjoy the fascination that arises from the scientific view of the world around us. By all means search for the truth - but make sure your truth is backed up by the best theory given current data. And if that's the case, you can't go far wrong.

Image by Peet Morris

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Comments

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 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...

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...

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...