Mr Credulous














original artwork by India Jago

Mr Credulous has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the marvellous Mr Men series of children's books created by Roger Hargreaves


On the Origin of the Modern Science Map

The origin of the Map of Modern Science is not as noble as I would wish.

Flushed with the success of my Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense, I started to consider what other iconic image I could bastardise in order to promote my pro-reason agenda. The London Underground Map was the obvious candidate. After a quick Google to check no one had already commandeered this eminent image for the nefarious purposes of rationalist propaganda, I set about the task myself.

My initial concept was not in fact to restrict the map to modern science, but to show the ideas of the enlightenment and how they evolved out of the age of reason. I therefore embarked on the project with the grandiose idea of including politicians, authors, philosophers, scientists and indeed all the great thinkers (maybe even the odd theologian at a push), who have helped shape our modern understanding of the world.

It became clear from very early on that with the limitation of a single page map, (even a very large single page map and a tiny font); I could not delve into the level of detail I wanted and maintain such a wide remit. I therefore initially sketched out just 4 lines for 16th century Philosophy, Natural Philosophy, Astronomy and Natural History.

Philosophy remained on the map for a number of revisions, until it grew so large that I was forced to cull the entire line, and place it in my pending folder as a potential project for another time.

Having now in effect restricted myself to modern science, I thought it wise to define a clear boundary so that I wouldn’t end up discarding another major chunk of nugatory work. Having performed some rudimentary research on the major scientific disciplines I once again came to the conclusion that the topic was still too wide and narrowed my scope again to cover just the natural sciences.

With a more achievable purpose now defined I attempted to complete the one line I felt most comfortable with, Evolutionary Biology. This line seemed to work quite well, it had an obvious scientist at its root; I had a good idea of the major contributors and I had some ideas on where it would intersect with other disciplines such as palaeontology and genetics.

Other lines were more problematical; the London Underground Map is far from a perfect analogy for the history of modern science and as such I was forced to make a number of compromises.

Reality is not as clear-cut as my oversimplified map. In most cases the origins of a discipline cannot be wholly attributed to one scientist, as required by my selected format. Consequently I made a number of uncomfortable decisions on where best to split the lines, which disciplines to merge together for map clarity and which lines to place certain scientists on. These decisions are of course wholly subjective and the price I had to pay for a nice flowing single page map.

At this point I acknowledge the argument that ramming the square peg of scientists into the round hole of the London Underground Map renders the whole exercise fairly pointless. However, even if the result is too crude for serious science historians, I still hope the output retains enough honesty to make it a useful starting point for the exploration of the history of science to the interested layperson or intermediate geek.

Having progressed thus far, I paused to further research the scientists in the other disciplines that I needed to complete the map. I trawled the Internet for the major contributors in each discipline and compiled a large spreadsheet of well over a thousand names. I then worked my way through the list whittling it down to those scientists I felt had made the biggest advancements in their field.

As I have commented before, it seems rather perverse that I should wield the power of decision on who to include. Ruthlessly casting aside numerous great minds that I simply didn’t have the space to accommodate.

Having reviewed the list and assigned the lucky remaining scientists to the most suitable lines, the actual task of drawing the map was relatively straightforward. Although of course I habitually encountered the problem of not having a certain scientists near enough to a converging line, forcing me to continually reroute the lines.

Despite now restricting myself to the natural sciences, I found that many of the early scientists I had listed had crucial intersections with mathematics. Having linked these together I was then compelled to follow the mathematics line through to the present day thus extending my carefully constrained scope into one of the formal sciences.

The Mathematics line was therefore the last to be added. It is also the line for which I have received the most comments and suggestions for improvements; perhaps pointing to an area I should read up on a little more.

A number of key modern mathematicians I found myself including where in fact primarily computer scientists, forcing me to re-label the line to Mathematics and Computing. Although now that I look at the map again, I think that perhaps there is a need to split computing off onto its own line.

Other lines contain similar problems; Palaeontology and Geology would benefit from a split, Microbiology has inadvertently become a messy catch-all for all other biological scientists I wanted to include and my split of chemistry is probably not as logical as it could be. These are all potential improvements for a future version.

Another area of consideration was what to do with the more controversial scientists. Prominent Russian scientist Trofim Lysenko for example undoubtedly had an immense influence on society through his exalted position that enabled him to promote what can now been seen as pseudoscientific policies. After consideration I opted to simply leave him off the map.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck on the other hand, despite being primarily remembered for the now discredited theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics as the mechanism for evolution, was nonetheless an early visionary and influential figure in the development of evolution biology. It is perhaps therefore a little disingenuous to shove him at the terminus of a dead-end line.

Looking at the completed map, it’s probably quite clear that I am a mere consumer of popular science rather than a proper scientist with a lab coat, safety goggles and an impressive flask collection. As a consumer of popular science I am therefore easily swayed by the great science communicators.

This opened me up to a criticism that I fully expected to receive. In anticipation of being derided for the inclusion science celebrities at the possible expense of omitting higher contributing but lesser-known scientists, I added a brief justification to the blurb on the side of the map. However to answer the criticism more fully, I do intend to include the worthy lesser-known scientists that my ignorance may have initially overlooked, that’s why I have invited your comments. However, I refuse to demote the science communicators I have already listed. Without the passion, enthusiasm and precious skill-set of science communicators like Carl Sagan, many of the scientists who will make the next breakthroughs may never have been inspired on that path in the first place.

So finally, as of version 1.1 there are a total of 477 scientists on my map, perhaps and arbitrary cap of 500 scientists in 500 years would be a reasonable limit to keep things readable.

Many thanks to everyone who suggested improvements to the map, I’m still working my way through them with the intention of a further update to the map later, but not before normal service of scathing skepdickery has been resumed.

Modern Science Map

500 Years of Science, Reason & Critical Thinking via the medium of gross over simplification, dodgy demarcation, glaring omission and a very tiny font.

The map of modern science was created to celebrate the achievements of the scientific method through the age of reason, the enlightenment and modernity.
Despite many of the scientific disciplines mapped having more ancient origins, I have restricted the map to modern science starting from the 16th century scientific revolution.

The map primarily includes modern scientists who have made significant advances to our understanding of the world, however I have also included many present day scientists who fuel a passion for, and advances in, science through communication and science popularisation.

Click the image below to open Version 1.0 of my html Science Map, you will then be able to pan around the map and click on the scientists for more information.



Postscript (4th Sept 2010):


As I mentioned in the comments field myself, many thanks for all the comments and suggestions for improvements.

I must confess it is a little perverse that a jumped up IT consultant should wield the casting vote on which scientists get on my map. So whilst I have endeavoured to make it the best and most relevant list I can, it is still however my personal, and admittedly rather arbitrary selection.

I have now up issued the map to version 1.0 as I am now reasonably confident I have included most of the key scientists of this period. I do however accept that I could make further improvements. For example I'm considering splitting computing from mathematics and I have had some sensible suggestion for reorganising and splitting the chemistry and micro-biology lines.

In the mean time, thanks for all the comments, tweets and links, and if you could link back to this original post rather than just posting a static snapshot that will go out of date, that would be most appreciated.

Thanks
Crispian

Dumbass Chimpanzees




Skeptic Trumps: Vicki Hyde


Click Here for the full deck of cards
Get your own personalised caricature by Neil Davies


The scientific formula for the perfect nonsense scientific formula

We’re all familiar with the pseudo scientific formulas beloved of the media when attempting to add an air of scientific credibility to a crackpot idea or marketing campaign.

These crimes against logic are not peculiar to the Daily Mail either, I’ve seen formulas for the perfect handshake, the perfect penalty kick, the perfect hourglass figure, how to make the perfect cup of tea, the most depressing day of the year and even how to park your car perfectly touted by numerous main stream media sources.

So I thought I’d help them out by writing a scientific formula for creating the perfect nonsense scientific formula.

Here you go:
Where:

Ce = Celebrity (Wherever possible ensure your formula is either relevant to or endorsed by a celebrity

l = Celebrity Status (Obviously your formula is more potent with an A-List celebrity, but take whatever you can get)

tp = Topicality (publish your formula to coincide with a relevant time of year, prominent event, associated news item, disaster or holiday season)

cr = Credibility of the scientist you can cajole into knocking up your nonsense formula

bs = associated nonsense


Skeptic Trumps: Benjamin Radford


Click Here for the full deck of cards
Get your own personalised caricature by Neil Davies


comparetheideology.com

My world-view is up for renewal next month.

As an open minded skeptic I thought that rather than just blindly re-subscribing to rationalism for another 12 months, I’d use one of those newfangled world-view comparison websites, just to make sure I couldn’t get a better deal on my ideology.

Here are the results:

Simples.



Skeptic Trumps: Neil deGrasse Tyson


Click Here for the full deck of cards
Get your own personalised caricature by Neil Davies


Reflections on the Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense

As the unofficial jester to the court of skepticism, I generally play to a restricted audience. This blog is therefore primarily read by members of the skeptical community and a small subset of people who actively profess a rational approach to the understanding of the universe including Jack of Kent, a couple of nice witches and my mum. *waves*

It’s therefore most gratifying when a post escapes the confines of the skeptical community and tries to make its way in the wider world. This will inevitably generate feedback and comments from a more diverse and therefore less accepting audience.

I don’t plan on being goaded into replying to all the comments received, in that direction madness surely lies, but this post will hopefully address three of the common points raised.


The criticism that I perhaps have the most sympathy with is that making churlish and derogatory remarks does not necessarily advance the cause of skeptisim. We in the skeptical community are quick to spot logical fallacies and cry “Ad hominem” or “Argument from Authority” at the weak reason of the credulous, and I’m not blind to these shortcomings in many of my own posts.

Indeed the primary rebuttal for irrational claims should be made by those equipped with the scientific skills to empirically and logically refute such nonsense (if indeed non bias investigation proves it to be so).

Nonetheless, we must play to our individual strengths and I flatter myself to believe that ridicule (nothing to be proud of), is mine. Although it lacks the rationalism of the scientific method, ridicule can often highlight the hidden laughable aspects of irrational beliefs to the previously disinterested and hopefully enthuse them to seek more reliable evidence.

A perfect example of this is the Mitchell & Webb homeopathy sketch. I’m also rather fond of this quote from Thomas Jefferson’s on the subject:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."


People also suggested many other irrational nonsensical beliefs that would have been quite at home on my table. There were also many other pieces of nonsense in my original draft that failed to make the cut, which admittedly defeats the whole notion of using a periodic table supposedly containing a definitive taxonomy of items, but that quite clearly, wasn’t the point.

In the end, the items that made the table were merely an arbitrary personal selection of nonsense that I find particularly irksome, had good comic value or I simply wanted to draw attention to.

Religions were always planned for inclusion in the table as part of the idea of the post was to show socially accepted beliefs on a par with the truly ludicrous in order to deliberately highlight that their prevalence and demanded respect, acquire them no more integrity.

The actual religions used in the table were therefore primarily selected by simply choosing the most popular ones (by number of claimed followers). Although I did ponder for a while with Shinto and Buddhism, which may be seen more as cultural philosophies than religions.

I see nothing nonsensical in celebrating culture and tradition, however I opted to include Buddhism because although it thankfully lacks the supernatural origins of the monotheistic religions, it nonetheless contains enough unscientific concepts, such as rebirth and reincarnation, to afford it a place in the table.

Shinto on the other hand was missed out primarily because of my ignorance of it. I am however an equal opportunities ridiculer and am more than happy to poke a shitty stick at Shinto if suitably armed with evidence of its irrationality.

BTW, I’m thoroughly enjoying the #StupidScientology hashtag currently trending on Twitter. Great fun, and easily the most preposterous of the “religions”.


However, by far the most enjoyable comments were the ones received from people who seemed to find the humour and absurdity in the table right up to the point that they stumbled upon their own sacred cow. To these people, I make no apology; it’s all in there for a reason.