And now here’s the punchline, you nasty little man: she’s a humanities graduate. Sooner or later you will have to eat that sentence.

I for my part am a somewhat dropped-out ex enzymologist now working as a technical translator.

Oha and there’s one other thing I noticed in your book. You said there was no such thing as a medical textbook on “Detoxification”. Well, strictly speaking you would be right: perhaps not a MEDICAL textbook. But if you ever strayed into the field of biochemical toxicology, you would find the word in chapter or section titles, probybly whole books as well. P450s? alcohol DHs? urea? GSTs? Ring a bell?

Actually, if Richard ever reads this forum, I ought to ask him why he backed Andrew Wakefield in the BMJ !

Richard Smith and I often had long running debates on the BMJ. One such debate had Richard Smith degrading the use of the internet . That was in 2001. Times have changed of course and Richard now gives speeches to the MJA about how useful the internet:).

The BMJ though these days supports concept of flouride in water being the reason for health teeth in the Midlands. This junk theory was propagated by Prof Rod Griffiths [ Tooth and Nail BMJ 2007]. The Guardian subsequently reported it http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/05/health.politics. It potrayed Griffiths as follows “In a comment piece in the journal, Rod Griffiths, regional director of public health for the West Midlands, credits 40 years of fluoridation for the excellent teeth of the people of Birmingham, in spite of their poor record on obesity and heart disease”

1. Rod Griffiths retired from that position long nefore 2007
2. Griffiths makes these rash statements but actually there is no evidence either way.
3. Despite misleading the public, not only in the above case but in the issues during the now discreited Griffiths Review. Griffiths remains untouchable.

In documents related to me, Griffiths admitted that the
” cardiac arrest team should have a drip set”. He essentially stated there was no requirement for any ward in the NHS to carry drip sets. The Trust FOI requests stated that it was “expected” that each ward carried drip sets.

Griffiths has made bizarre statements that have no basis in science. He still continues in high positions within the DOH.

Dr Rita Pal
http://www.ward87.blogspot.com

Declared Conflict.
Formal Complaint to the GMC regarding Professor Griffiths. Despite admissions by the GMC that Griffiths had misguided an audit report into the care on Ward 87, the complaint was screened out. It is though currently being reconsidered. http://www.nhsexposed.com/healthworkers/doctors/gmc/gmc-in-the-dock.shtml

Yes, of course but have you ever noticed how many (classic/ canon) novels have scientist heroes?
How many have journalists/writers/artists?

I can think of the French lieutenant’s woman whose hero is a geologist.

I think Ben is exactly right – there are people in positions where they decide what is printed/ broadcast and what not who are ignorant of basic science and not ashamed of it, and do wear it as a kind of badge. And there is an asymmetry because the equivalent people on the science qualified side are open to & in my acquaintances usually active in the arts.

In my case I am a science graduate, I also studied statistics and have written poetry since my teens. I have published and run writing groups, helped organize literary festivals…

An incredible illustration of this to me was a poem which oi wrote which had the the word transfusion in it. It was ridiculed for being a cold, scientific word out of place for a love poem.

It is a long way to go to get this problem fixed…

But we really need to do it.

DaveG

I wonder if this sentence is code for the idea that there are [more than] two sides to every issue, each more or less of the same merit, and the idea that ‘balance’ requires considering all points of view as equally valid?

The concept of balance works in opinion based assessments, like interpreting literature or appreciating art, but the geek view is that it does not work as well when it confronts evidence based on reproducible measurement. It really is as if there are two cultures that are separated by a common tounge.

[Arthur Smith Sings Leonard Cohen] has Arthur mentioning his brother – joining the dots here makes it difficult not to tread on one of Arthur’s jokes by doing so – but he says at the end on the BBC recording that the show is “all lies” up to and including Barry Cryer being an actual person.

It’s a pretty good show and probably will be repeated on BBC 7 a lot more times, usually by [The Comedy Controller] of the week or equivalent Saturday slot-filler of three hours, this being one hour.

In fact, if I may be so bold, this is exactly where many science graduates go wrong. They find it very easy to see things in black-and-white rather than in their full complexity. In my experience, anyway…

That seems to me like a view of a view of a view. A misunderstanding or generalisation of what view scientists are likely to take based on a misunderstanding of what science is. In fact I’d say, on the contrary, I’d be surprised if it’s the view of many scientists at all in reality.
Basically there are some (many) aspects of the physical world that just can’t be understood or appreciated without some knowledge of science. Feynman claimed that it was impossible to understand the physical world other than very superficially without a deep knowledge mathematics.
He also said there is a beauty to be appreciated at levels smaller than 1 centimetre.
The fundamental point of these two assertions was that while he, as a scientist, could appreciate the beauty observed by an artist at the larger level, he could also appreciate the beauty to be found in the structures of things at the microscopic level and smaller. This is quite contrary to the humanities’ or arts’ view that scientists only see things in black and white. In fact I would go further and say that the beauty available to scientists for appreciation is denied to those who scorn the sciences. And it goes some way to explaining why most science journalism is so ridiculous and crappy.

It is also, incidentally, a very good way of understanding techniques of persuasion – how a writer uses a particular technique to make you think about something in a certain light. The ability to understand this use of language is particularly helpful in enabling you to think critically about things like adverts, newspaper articles and politicians’ speeches.

I think the greatest benefit is that it makes you realise that your own experiences and views are necessarily partial, and coloured by the time and place you live in. In fact, if I may be so bold, this is exactly where many science graduates go wrong. They find it very easy to see things in black-and-white rather than in their full complexity. In my experience, anyway…

My personal target is English Literature, which seems like a pointless subject (at the time of writing, feel free to object in my blog – http://peterd102.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/eng-lit/
).

Added to which, there is a roll of shame of TV doctors who effectively front for companies whose products they endorse even when this undermines the public understanding of science – are they secretly humanities graduates?

gadgeezer don’t you think that’s a bit beside the point? There are crooks and charlatans from all walks of life, and some of them might volunteer for a bit of tv exposure to promote their particular scam. But the people who choose who goes on mainstream tv or radio, who get’s interviewed, who gets a show and who doesn’t… these are exclusively the folks who commission the programmes, who are in thrall to audience ratings and who decide what goes out every day as entertainment, news or whatever. It’s a very arrogant, narrow-minded business, with no interest in anything other than bums on seats and ratings. Certainly no interest in science, never mind any knowledge of it, except insofar as sciency “clothes” (dialogue, terminology etc) are useful (like science fiction) to entertain or scare the viewer. Honesty and unbiased information are never on the agenda when it comes to the promotion of quackery.
The media industry just so happens to run and largely populated by humanities graduates, and I think it’s just little disingenuous to insist that it has no bearing on the matter.

OK, if you’re new to Ben’s writing that may not come across – but he’s a bit of a geek, and geeks like in-jokes. It goes with the territory.

As it happens, I’m another humanities graduate myself – and having been raised in pretty thoroughly anti-science background, I once fit the description pretty well. I was never in a position of influence, thank the gods, but I can certainly recognize the truth that lies at the heart of the jibe.

We know that you can find humanities or arts graduates who don’t fulfil Ben’s stereotype but that is after interpretation and ignoring some of what he wrote.

Are you saying that Davies is mistaken about the power of advertisers?

Could it be that some people are being faux-naif about abrasiveness as a badge of honour?

In defence of Ben, I think it is pretty obvious that he isn’t talking about all arts graduates but just those who not only wear their ignorance as a badge of honour, but also insist on foisting bad science on the public.

I don’t think it is that clear; in the book it is sometimes used in an unqualified and unnuanced way that is both sneering and unattractive and, from the number of time it comes up in discussion now the book is published, it distracts from the main message.

Toenex wrote:

Humanities graduates aren’t the problem. It’s the disproportionate number of them who end up feeding information to the public that is.

After Nick Davies’ arguments in Flat Earth News, I’m not clear that the responsibility does lie wholly with ‘humanities graduates who run the media’ unless that is code for ‘people who run industries that employ successful advertising and PR companies to promote their message and they do this via mainstream media all the while undermining interest in anything but soundbite journalism so readers, TV viewers etc. are indifferent to the quality of science or health journalism’. Added to which, there is a roll of shame of TV doctors who effectively front for companies whose products they endorse even when this undermines the public understanding of science – are they secretly humanities graduates?

I actually _have_ read Middlemarch, but for some reason I didn’t seem to “get it”. I just couldn’t see why it was considered interesting or important or one of the most significant novels in English literary history. I’m not sure if that makes me one of the illiterati or not.

I must also agree with Dok that there is “trend amongst science graduates for aggressively narrow cultural boundaries”. In fact I’d go a bit further. The audit culture has encouraged a breed of scientists who not only have never read Middlemarch, but who can be pretty cavalier about science itself -never mind the understanding the maths, just work the system and publish lots of papers. That is what happens when you have a system that rewards triviality and headline-seeking.

Dam.