Dumbing down

I work as a museum where we are constantly trying to improve our science communication to get scientific principles across in an accessible and concise yet accurate way. It is not easy.

Science is complicated – as is the world that science attempts to describe and interpret. This makes it difficult to package science in a sound-bite-sized chunk that the lay person can quickly grasp. We end up having to trim away much of the reasoning, context and alternative interpretations of what we try to report, leaving a core of information that comes across as authoritarian and dogmatic. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. Continue reading →

Creationist rules of engagement

It appears that my post on Creationist trolls was quite prophetic. Not only was my derision of journalistic missing-linkism validated days later by the over-hyped reporting of the Darwinius masillae specimen (fantastic and informative as it may be), but I was also immediately harangued by a Creationist who went on to fulfil all of my expectations. Thanks TFYOW. Continue reading →

Starkey’s manuscript malarkey

We just had our first taste of the ego that is David Starkey. My wife and I are museum professionals – we just watched Starkey’s series on Henry VIII and are both still reeling from the experience. The content relied on the normal soap-operatics one has come to expect from TV programmes featuring historical figures – in many ways it was actually pretty good, but the whole effect was somewhat spoiled by Starkey’s ham-fisted attempts at theatrics and his utter disregard for the historical evidence he insisted on over-handling – and by that we mean physically handling with the same ham-fistedness as demonstrated in his theatrics. Continue reading →

Science comment and creationist trolls

It has only been in the last year or so that I have paid much attention to the comments sections at the bottom of online science articles. It strikes me that everyone feels the need to comment, regardless of whether they understood the article or not – in fact, those who have not understood it tend to be the ones who comment most vociferously. Unsurprisingly perhaps, this tends to include a substantial proportion of creationists. Every article that touches upon my fields of interest (biology and palaeontology) seems to be followed by an irritating and distracting cloud of creationist comments, akin to the swarms of biting flies that pester large mammals. Here’s an example. Continue reading →

The unbroken chain of life

Having spent years studying the bones of animals long dead, I have been fortunate enough to see – on a daily basis – evidence of the relationship between humans and other animals. For me, our kinship with the rest of life on Earth is a vivid reality. Evolution is change and that change is the result of an ongoing struggle for life – where those that are best suited for the struggle are rewarded by the continuation of their lineage. This means that we are each an end link in an unbroken chain of life, stretching back over two billion years. For all that time, each one of our ancestors must have been amongst the best of their kind. In the words of Charles Darwin, “There is grandeur in this view of life”. Continue reading →

Morality and God

The concept of ethics and morality being equated with a god is not unfamiliar and it actually ties in very well with some thoughts on the origin of gods, rather than the origin of ethics and morality. I consider gods to be just one of a number of cultural constructs used to reinforce behavioural guidelines and rules that are a requirement of any structured society. Continue reading →

Science – a powerful tool based on what’s real

Science communication is something I consider to be important, because I consider science to be important.

Our understanding of reality may be shaped by many things, but to me there seems to be no justification in basing our understanding on something that is not observably and demonstrably real. Science provides a framework within which we can test ideas of reality against one another and, more importantly against real evidence, to find which ideas are the most robust.

I work at the Horniman Museum in South East London, where we are dedicated to providing the public with access to objects that provide evidence to inform their understanding of the world in which they live. Part of my role as a curator is to provide interpretation of what we can be learned from natural history objects.

I never really thought about my role in this light until Alom Shaha asked me to answer the question “Why is science important?”. My answer can be seen below (apologies for the low volume).