Link source: Sense in Science
Chris Street edits in bold (partly) reposted from: Sense about Science - download pdf
"I don't know what to believe" - an article on Peer Review
SUMMARY
•Science has a system for assessing the quality of research before
it is published. This system is called peer review.
•Peer review means that other scientific experts in the field
check research papers for validity, significance and originality –
and for clarity.
•Editors of scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable
experts to scrutinise papers before deciding whether to publish
them.
•Many of the research claims you read in newspapers and
magazines, find on the internet, or hear on television and the
radio are not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
•Some of this research may turn out to be good but much of it is
flawed or incomplete. Many reported findings, such as claims
about “wonder cures” and “new dangers”, never come to anything.
•Unpublished research is no help to anyone. Scientists can’t repeat
or use it and as a society we can’t base decisions about our public
safety – or our family’s health for example – on work that has a
high chance of being flawed.
•So, no matter how exciting or compelling new scientific or medical
research is, you must always ask…
Is it peer reviewed? If not, why not?
If it is peer reviewed, you can look for more information on what
other scientists say about it, the size and approach of the study and
whether it is part of a body of evidence pointing towards the same
conclusions.
HOW SHOULD YOU MAKE SENSE OF SCIENCE STORIES?
Peer review can help you make sense of science stories as it tells you that the
research has passed the scrutiny of other scientists and is considered valid,
significant and original.
Peer review means that statements made by scientists in scientific journals are
critically different from other kinds of statements or claims, such as those made by
politicians, newspaper columnists or campaign groups. Science is therefore more than
just another opinion.
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF PEER REVIEW
When a researcher, or team of researchers, finishes a stage of work, they usually write
a paper presenting their methods, findings and conclusions. They then send the paper
to a scientific journal to be considered for publication.
If the journal’s editor thinks it is suitable for their journal they send the paper
to other scientists who research and publish in the same field asking them to:
• Comment on its validity – are the research results credible;
are the design and methodology appropriate?
• Judge the significance - is it an important finding?
• Determine its originality - are the results new?
Does the paper refer properly to work done by others?
• Give an opinion as to whether the paper should be published,
improved or rejected (usually to be submitted elsewhere).
This process is called peer review. The scientists (peers)
assessing the papers are called referees or reviewers.
Scientists never draw firm conclusions from just one paper or set of results.
They consider the contribution it makes in the context of other work and their
own experience. It usually takes more than one research paper for results to be
seen as good evidence or accepted as a public truth.
THE SCIENCE PUBLISHING SCENE
For scientific knowledge to progress scientists need to share their research findings
with other scientists. The main way they do this is by publishing their research in
scientific journals – periodical publications intended to further the development of
science by reporting new research.
Journal editors receive many more papers than they can publish, so they use a twostep
selection process. First, they consider whether the paper is a ‘fit’ for their
journals. For example, some journals only publish research papers that are
groundbreaking; others only publish research in a specific area, such as microbiology.
If a journal editor decides that a paper is right for their journal, they send it for peer
review to check whether the research findings are valid, significant and original.
Did you know? There are around 21,000 scholarly and scientific journals that use the peer-review system. A high proportion of these are scientific, technical or medical journals, publishing over 1 million research papers each year.
You are most likely to hear about
new research from the daily news
media, where there is not space or
interest in full references. Good
journalists usually indicate whether
research has been published and
mention the name of the journal.
The more we ask, ‘is it peer
reviewed?’ the more obliged
reporters will be to include this
information.
There is no definitive list of peer reviewed
journals but you can look
up the names of selected peer reviewed
journals online at the
science news service EurekAlert!
SO SCIENTISTS USE PEER
REVIEW, SO WHAT?
When research findings have been peer
reviewed and published in a scientific
journal, this indicates that they are
sufficiently valid, significant and original
to merit the attention of other scientists.
Peer review is an essential dividing line
for judging what is scientific and what is
speculation and opinion. Most scientists
make a careful distinction between their
peer-reviewed findings and their more
general opinions.
Sounds good, but what happens
next?
Publication of a peer-reviewed paper is
just the first step: findings, and theories
about them, must go on to be re-tested
and judged against other work in the
same area. Some papers’ conclusions will
be disputed or further research will show
that they need to be revised as more data
are gathered.
SOURCES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Sense About Science: To find out more about peer review you can visit the Sense About Science website where there is a section dedicated to it.
Association of Medical Research Charities: The AMRC has a page, for medical research charities, on the peer review of research grant applications:
Committee on Publication Ethics: COPE provides a sounding board for journal editors struggling with how to deal with breaches in research and publication ethics:
The National Electronic Library for Health: The NELH has a ‘Hitting the Headlines’ archive,
which looks at medical news stories and provides the research evidence on which they are
based
The Science Media Centre: The SMC has published a leaflet, Peer Review in a Nutshell, a guide for scientists preparing for a news interview.
“Is it peer reviewed?” is what Sense About Science is encouraging everyone to ask about science stories. Our short guide, written with input from patients, pharmacists and medical practitioners, among others, lets the public in on the arbiter of scientific quality: the peer review process.
Download the guide (pdf)
Order a copy
During the development of the guide we held workshops for people on the front line of dealing with public concerns, such as doctors and patient groups, and found that they are frustrated by the damage and public anxiety that result from the promotion of poor or unpublished science. Time is increasingly spent trying correct misleading claims found by members of the public on the Internet and elsewhere.
“I don’t know what to believe...” aims to change this by making more sectors of society familiar with what they should ask about research that worries or interests them. It equips people to inquire whether research has passed the scrutiny of other scientists and is considered valid, significant and original.
The guide is being distributed through a campaign involving healthcare providers, Internet sites, helplines and local bodies, based on the ways that people pursue their concerns and interest in particular scientific developments.
“Rarely a week passes without a ‘miracle heart drug’ or ‘heart scare’ headline appearing in the national media. This can sometimes offer false hope or be very frightening for vulnerable heart patients. We welcome resources like this leaflet, which can help people to read between the lines of newspaper print.”
Jane Shepley, British Heart Foundation
“Whenever there is a story about Alzheimer’s disease in the news the Alzheimer’s Society’s helpline receives calls from people concerned about what they have read. We support anything that helps the general public to understand the health messages they see everyday and encourages people to question the headlines that they read in the popular press. As there is currently no cure for dementia it is disconcerting and disturbing for people with dementia and their families when the results of research are overplayed in the media.”
Joe Crosbie, Alzheimer’s Society
“We encourage initiatives that help the public reach informed judgements about the medical research stories they see and hear in the media. People suffering disease and disability want hope, but not false hope. Action Medical Research aims to have all its work peer reviewed, as a means of ensuring the findings are reported as fully and accurately as possible.”
Andrew Proctor, Action Medical Research
“Pharmacists are often consulted for their knowledge about medicines and diseases. In their daily work, they often have concerned people asking them about health issues and the latest “miracle cures” featured in the media. This leaflet is a really valuable tool to help pharmacists set these claims into context and explain the role of sound science in making advances in health care.”
John Clements, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Scientists should be more open about peer review
“Peer review is fundamental to scientific and scholarly communication. But it is also its best-kept secret: outside the scientific community, very few people know what it means or how it works. Sense About Science’s initiative is important because, for the first time, it will help the public to understand the unique character of the scientific process, to ask the right questions of scientists and to engage them with confidence.”
Michael Mabe, Elsevier
“Sense About Science’s leaflet, ‘I don’t know what to believe …’, will go a long way towards helping the public understand how scientific research is evaluated, and the important role peer review plays in this. By increasing awareness of peer review it will help people decide which scientific stories to take seriously and which to view with caution. When confronted with contradictory or far-reaching claims that may impact their own lives, they will know the questions they need to ask to sift out what is fact from what is just opinion or speculation.”
Dr Irene Hames, Managing Editor of The Plant Journal and author of Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals
“The MRC is pleased to support this guide which is an interesting and useful addition to communicating about medical research.”
Elizabeth Mitchell, MRC
Click here for more comments on the guide and about peer review in general.
Download the guide (pdf, 221 kb)
Order a copy
There is no scientific evidence indicating that God exists. We all know that. For example:
If you think about it as a rational person, this lack of evidence is startling. There is not one bit of empirical evidence indicating that today's "God", nor any other contemporary god, nor any god of the past, exists. In addition we know that:
The most common rationalization for the lack of scientific evidence is the "God must remain hidden" argument. See this proof for details.
Many believers try to rationalize God's existence by saying something like this: "The existence of the universe proves God's existence. Something had to create the universe. Science has no explanation for the universe's creation. Therefore, God created it."
The way to understand that this is a rationalization is to look back in history. Ancient people, before they had science, explained many things that they did not understand with "gods." There have been sun gods, thunder gods, fertility gods, rain gods, etc.
The Bible works the same way. It tries to explain many things that its ancient authors did not understand by attributing them in God. For example, if you read Genesis 9:12-13 you will find this:
In the same way, Genesis chapter 1 contains the Bible's creation myth. The creation of the universe and life is attributed to God. We already know that God had nothing to do with the creation of life (click here), but religious people still try to attribute the creation of the universe to God.
The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe, in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing. Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet. While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out. When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being.
reposted from Godisimaginary.com
Notice what happens when anyone is "miraculously cured". A person is sick, the person prays (or a prayer circle prays for the person) and the person is cured. A religious person looks at it and says, "God performed a miracle because of prayer!" That is the end of it.
A scientist looks at it in a very different way. A scientist looks at it and says, "Prayer had nothing to do with it - there is a natural cause for what we see here. If we understand the natural cause, then we can heal many more people suffering from the same condition."
In other words, it is only by assuming that God is imaginary that science can proceed.
You can see a direct example of science at work in this article:
Some mold was growing on one of the dishes... not too unusual, but all around the mold, the staph bacteria had been killed... very unusual. He took a sample of the mold. He found that it was from the penicillium family, later specified as Penicillium notatum. Fleming presented his findings in 1929, but they raised little interest. He published a report on penicillin and its potential uses in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology.
Fleming worked with the mold for some time, but refining and growing it was a difficult process better suited to a chemist. The work was taken over by a team of chemists and mold specialists, but was cut short when several of them died or relocated.
In 1935, Australian Howard Florey was appointed professor of pathology at Oxford University where he headed up a laboratory. This was a daunting task in an economically depressed time, and seeking funding for the researchers and work he hoped to do took much of his time. One researcher he hired soon after his arrival was Ernst Chain. Chain was paid to do cancer research, and work that spilled over into Florey's own interest and work on lysozyme. Chain became quite enthusiastic about the search for antibacterial chemicals. In looking back at old articles written about lysozyme, including those by Fleming in the 1920s, he happened across Fleming's paper on penicillin. "I had come across this paper early in 1938 and on reading it I immediately became interested," he wrote.
The Oxford team, as Florey's researchers have become known, began experimenting with the penicillin mold. They took it one step further than Fleming did: they did not just try it topically or in a petri dish, but injected it in live mice. With controlled experimentation, they found it cured mice with bacterial infections. They went on to try it on a few human subjects and saw amazing results. By now it was 1941, and England was at war. As Fleming first foresaw, the wartime need for an antibacterial was great, but resources were tight and penicillin still very experimental. Florey had connections at the Rockefeller Foundation in the United States, however, and it funded further research.
All of science works in this way. Only by assuming that God is imaginary and prayer is meaningless can science proceed.
The reason why scientists must assume that God is imaginary in order for the scientific method to work is because God is imaginary.
reposted from GodisImaginary.com
How will we change the world, so that it becomes rational rather than religious? It is fascinating to think about how the transition will occur. Here are two things to consider:
The answer is that those two processes had to start somewhere. There had to come a point where some group of people in the minority said, "this is wrong, and we need to fix it." They began openly talking about the problem. Then other people in the minority agreed. Then, eventually, the minority began to influence those on the outer edges of the majority. Once that process started and gained sufficient momentum, the majority (e.g. smokers) became the minority. And now we all understand that smokers have a problem. Smokers were unfortunate to become dependent on a highly addictive drug as teenagers, at a time when their rational brains were not fully developed. As a society, we now do our best to discourage teens from getting hooked and to help those who are already addicted.
Here is a simple question: Can we have the same sort of effect on religions like Christianity? Can we change Christianity from a "majority" activity into a fringe activity, and in the process replace it with something much, much better?
The idea of unseating something as strong as Christianity sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But then, when women first started talking about gaining the right to vote, that sounded ridiculous too. We have to start somewhere.
This web site represents a starting point.
 Watch the video |
Whenever anyone says "God," we should reply, "God is imaginary."
 Watch the video |
link from RichardDawkins.net
Billions of people attend millions of churches around the world to worship God.
Yet the God they worship is completely imaginary. Their belief represents a delusion.
It is easy to prove that God is imaginary. Start at the beginning with Proof #1, or try these five all-time favorites:
Sense About Science is an independent charitable trust.
We respond to the misrepresentation of science and scientific evidence on issues that matter to society, from scares about plastic bottles, fluoride and the MMR vaccine to controversies about genetic modification, stem cell research and radiation. Our recent and current priorities include alternative medicine, MRI, detox, nuclear power, evidence in public health advice, weather patterns and an educational resource on peer review.
 Campaigners says celebrities need to check facts before going public |
Some celebrity-backed campaigns have done more harm than good, such as linking the MMR jab to autism, says the charity Sense about Science.
The group has listed statements made by stars on topics such as organic food, pesticides and ways to avoid cancer.
It adds scientists' views on whether the claims are misleading.
The list is contained in a pamphlet which is being distributed to VIP clubs and restaurants across the UK, as well as management agencies and publishers.
It offers advice such as "if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is", and lists a phone number for concerned celebrities to call if they want to discuss anything with experts.
Tracey Brown, Sense About Science's director, explained the thinking behind the leaflet.
"All year long, people send us frustrating examples of celebrities promoting something that makes no sense," she said. "Once it's done, it's really difficult to undo."
Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation 
Illusionist Derren Brown
"We are producing this leaflet to show those in the public eye just how easy it is now to get help from scientists," Ms Brown added.
"We know some people are not interested in good science or evidence [but] we are equally sure some will be glad to talk through claims they are asked to front."
One celebrity who is backing the campaign is illusionist Derren Brown. He said: "We are more than aware that the media prefer a shocking story over delicate fact.
"In areas like food, environment and medicine, this can have serious results," he added.
"Scientists, traditionally a quiet bunch, are now trying to redress the balance and finding ways of promoting fact over misinformation."
In November, Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, called on the scientific community to become more involved in public debates about their research.
He added that there was a tendency for minority "strident" views to get exaggerated, leading to an unbalanced debate.
reposted from godisimaginary.com
God is Imaginary - Proof #7
- Understanding religious delusion
 Watch the video |
But let's say that I am an adult, and I am your friend, and I reveal to you that I believe that this story is true. I believe it with all my heart. And I try to talk about it with you and convert you to believe it as I do.
What would you think of me? You would think that I am delusional, and rightly so.
Why do you think that I am delusional? It is because you know that Santa is imaginary. The story is a total fairy tale. No matter how much I talk to you about Santa, you are not going to believe that Santa is real. Flying reindeer, for example, are make-believe. The dictionary defines delusion as, "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." That definition fits perfectly.
Since you are my friend, you might try to help me realize that my belief in Santa is a delusion. The way that you would try to do that is by asking me some questions. For example, you might say to me:
Why didn't my answers satisfy you? Why do you still know that I am delusional? It is because my answers have done nothing but confirm your assessment. My answers are ridiculous. In order to answer your questions, I invented, completely out of thin air, a magical sleigh, a magical self-cleaning suit, magical chimneys, "timelessness" and magical invisibility. You don't believe my answers because you know that I am making this stuff up. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.
Now let me show you another example...
Another Example
Imagine that I tell you the following story:
You would ask some obvious questions. For example, at the very simplest level, you might ask, "Where are the ruins and artifacts from this Jewish civilization in America?" The book transcribed from the plates talks about millions of Jewish people doing all kinds of things in America. They have horses and oxen and chariots and armor and large cities. What happened to all of this? I answer simply: it is all out there, but we have not found it yet. "Not one city? Not one chariot wheel? Not one helmet?" you ask. No, we haven't found a single bit of evidence, but it is out there somewhere. You ask me dozens of questions like this, and I have answers for them all.
Most people would assume that I am delusional if I told them this story. They would assume that there were no plates and no angel, and that I had written the book myself. Most people would ignore the attestations -- having people attest to it means nothing, really. I could have paid the attesters off, or I could have fabricated them. Most people would reject my story without question.
What's interesting is that there are millions of people who actually do believe this story of the angel and the plates and the book and the Jewish people living in North America 2,000 years ago. Those millions of people are members of the Mormon Church, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. The person who told this incredible story was a man named Joseph Smith, and he lived in the United States in the early 1800s. He told his story, and recorded what he "translated from the plates", in the Book of Mormon.
If you meet a Mormon and ask them about this story, they can spend hours talking to you about it. They can answer every question you have. Yet the 5.99 billion of us who are not Mormons can see with total clarity that the Mormons are delusional. It is as simple as that. You and I both know with 100% certainty that the Mormon story is no different from the story of Santa. And we are correct in our assessment. The invalidating evidence is voluminous.
Another example
Imagine that I tell you this story:
But you need to be careful. This story is the foundation of the Muslim religion, practiced by more than a billion people around the world. The man is named Mohammed, and the book is the Koran (also spelled Qur'an or Qur'aan). This is the sacred story of the Koran's creation and the revelation of Allah to mankind.
Despite the fact that a billion Muslims profess some level of belief in this story, people outside the Muslim faith consider the story to be imaginary. No one believes this story because this story is a fairy tale. They consider the Koran to be a book written by a man and nothing more. A winged horse that flew to heaven? That is imaginary -- as imaginary as flying reindeer.
If you are a Christian, please take a moment right now to look back at the Mormon and Muslim stories. Why is it so easy for you to look at these stories and see that they are imaginary fairy tales? How do you know, with complete certainty, that Mormons and Muslims are delusional? You know these things for the same reason you know that Santa is imaginary. There is no evidence for any of it. The stories involve magical things like angels and winged horses, hallucinations, dreams. Horses cannot fly -- we all know that. And even if they could, where would the horse fly to? The vacuum of space? Or is the horse somehow "dematerialized" and then "rematerialized" in heaven? If so, those processes are made up too. Every bit of it is imaginary. We all know that.
An unbiased observer can see how imaginary these three stories are. In addition, Muslims can see that Mormons are delusional, Mormons can see that Muslims are delusional, and Christians can see that both Mormons and Muslims are delusional.
One final example
Now let me tell you one final story:
Here is the thing that I would like to help you understand: The four billion people who are not Christians look at the Christian story in exactly the same way that you look at the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. In other words, there are four billion people who stand outside of the Christian bubble, and they can see reality clearly. The fact is, the Christian story is completely imaginary.
How do the four billion non-Christians know, with complete certainty, that the Christian story is imaginary? Because the Christian story is just like the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story. There is the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on. People outside the Christian faith look at the Christian story and note these facts:
Now, look at what is happening inside your mind at this moment. I am using solid, verifiable evidence to show you that the Christian story is imaginary. Your rational mind can see the evidence. Four billion non-Christians would be happy to confirm for you that the Christian story is imaginary. However, if you are a practicing Christian, you can probably feel your "religious mind" overriding both your rational mind and your common sense as we speak. Why? Why were you able to use your common sense to so easily reject the Santa story, the Mormon story and the Muslim story, but when it comes to the Christian story, which is just as imaginary, you are not?
Try, just for a moment, to look at Christianity with the same amount of healthy skepticism that you used when approaching the stories of Santa, Joseph Smith and Mohammed. Use your common sense to ask some very simple questions of yourself:
Therefore, the question I would ask you to consider right now is simple: Why is it that human beings can detect fairy tales with complete certainty when those fairy tales come from other faiths, but they cannot detect the fairy tales that underpin their own faith? Why do they believe their chosen fairy tale with unrelenting passion and reject the others as nonsense? For example:
A simple experiment
If you are a Christian who believes in the power of prayer, here is a very simple experiment that will show you something very interesting about your faith.
Take a coin out of your pocket. Now pray sincerely to Ra:
What does this mean? Most people would look at this data and conclude that Ra is imaginary. We prayed to Ra, and Ra did nothing. We can prove that Ra is imaginary (at least in the sense of prayer-answering ability) by using statistical analysis. If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Ra each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. Ra has absolutely no effect on the coin no matter how much we pray. Even if we find a thousand of Ra's most faithful believers and ask them to do the praying/flipping, the results will be the same. Therefore, as rational people, we conclude that Ra is imaginary. We look at Ra in the same way that we look at Leprechauns, Mermaids, Santa and so on. We know that people who believe in Ra are delusional.
Now I want you to try the experiment again, but this time I want you to pray to Jesus Christ instead of Ra. Pray sincerely to Jesus like this:
If we flip the coin thousands of times, praying to Jesus each time, we will find that the coin lands heads or tails in exact correlation with the normal laws of probability. It is not like there are two laws of probability -- one for Christians who pray and the other for non-Christians. There is only one law of probability because prayers have zero effect. Jesus has no effect on our planet no matter how much we pray. We can prove that conclusively using statitical analysis.
If you believe in God, watch what is happening inside your mind right now. The data is absolutely identical in both experiments. With Ra you looked at the data rationally and concluded that Ra is imaginary. But with Jesus... something else will happen. In your mind, you are already coming up with a thousand rationalizations to explain why Jesus did not answer your prayers:
You are an expert at creating rationalizations for Jesus. The reason you are an expert is because Jesus does not answer any of your prayers (see this proof). The reason why Jesus does not answer any of your prayers is because Jesus and God are imaginary.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/ : Sue Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol. She has a degree in psychology and physiology from Oxford University (1973) and a PhD in parapsychology from the University of Surrey (1980). Her research interests include memes, evolutionary theory, consciousness, and meditation.
http://edge.org/ : The mandate of Edge Foundation is to promote inquiry into and discussion of intellectual, philosophical, artistic, and literary issues, as well as to work for the intellectual and social achievement of society.
http://godisimaginary.com : It is easy to prove to yourself that God is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/ : Norm Jensen's great blog on politics, science, atheism, religion, chess and more. He posts clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report just about every day. Do I need to say any more?
http://samharris.org : The official website for Sam Harris, author of the New York Times bestsellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/ : This is an excellent resource for anyone facing the inane arguments presented by Creationists.
http://www.churchhopping.com/ten-verses-never-preached-on/ : Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV - "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord." How's that for an example!?
http://www.atheist-top-sites.com/cgi-bin/best/topsites.cgi?click=1163796009 : Browse the top Atheism sites on the Web.
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/ : This should tell you everything you need to know about God.
http://www.secularsites.freeuk.com/ : This is a directory of web-sites that offer a range of opinion from some of the many individual atheist thinkers, writers and activists currently working towards the full establishment of rationalist, humanist, secularist, non-sectarian conduct of human affairs.
Never before has it been possible to read and spread these ideas free of the traditional censorship of the religious themselves or the politicians and media that are too craven to break their suppression of atheism.
For them to be effective and for religion to be relegated to its only rightful place, as a private activity for consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and places of worship, we must grasp this new medium of communication and promote the widest possible range of atheist views .
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com : Is God real, or is he imaginary? It is one of the most important questions in America today, because this question lies at the heart of the American culture wars.
See video at RichardDawkins.net
Chris Street edits in bold
I have just visited my local branch of Britain’s biggest bookshop chain (WHSmith?), and this is what I found: six books on astronomy and nineteen books on astrology. The real science is outnumbered three to one by the pseudoscience. There were twenty books on angels, which means that angels and astrology together (39) outnumber the totality of books on all the sciences (33). When you add in the books on fairies, crystal healing, fortune telling, faith healing, Nostradamus, psychics and dream interpretation, it is no contest. Pseudoscience outnumbers science by at least three to one, and I didn’t even begin to count the far larger number of books on religion. This is not, of course, an academic bookshop. Oxford is well supplied with those, and they’d show a very different result. I made my counts in a popular bookshop, presumably typical of the nationwide chain of which it is a part – indeed, the chain’s buying policy is centralized in London, and we may be sure that strenuous and expensive efforts are made to reflect popular taste. As a statistical generalization, the general public, as opposed to an academic readership, prefers irrational books over books that reflect what we know about the real world.
A recent Gallup poll concluded that nearly 50% of the American public believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Nearly half the population, in other words, believes that the entire universe, the sun and solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, the Andromeda galaxy, and all the billions of other galaxies, all began after the domestication of the dog. They believe this because they rate a particular bronze age origin myth more highly than all the scientific evidence in the world. It is only one of literally thousands of such myths from around the world, but it happened, by a series of historical accidents, to become enshrined in a book – Genesis – which, by another series of historical accidents, has been translated and disseminated to almost every home in the land plus – infuriatingly – every hotel room. Even before science told us the true story of the origin of the world and the evolution of life, there was no reason to believe the Jewish origin myth any more than the origin myths of the Yoruba or the Kikuyu, the Yanomamo or the Maori, the Dogon or the Cherokee. Now, in the 21st century as we approach Darwin’s bicentenary, the fact that half of Americans take Genesis literally is nothing less than an educational scandal.
The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition.
Of course, excellent organizations already exist for raising funds and deploying them in the service of reason, science and enlightenment values. In Britain there are the British Humanist Association, the National Secular Society and the Rationalist Press Association, to mention a few. In America there are the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and many others. But the money that these organizations can raise is dwarfed by the huge resources of religious foundations such as the Templeton Foundation, not to mention the tithe-bloated, tax-exempt churches.
Over the years, I have given what I could to various secular and rationalist organizations, especially in America where the need is greatest. Unfortunately, however, it is hard for a British citizen to do this in a tax-efficient way. Charities in Britain and America are seldom recognized by the tax authorities on the other side of the Atlantic. Even when they are, the tax systems are different enough in the two countries to make major difficulties. For example, in America it is the donor who reclaims the tax, while in Britain it is the charity that reclaims the donor’s tax for itself.
I started to feel the need for an Anglo-American charity which would cut through these difficulties and facilitate the movement of funds to wherever they are most needed. At the same time it has been increasingly suggested to me that I personally might have some value as a fund raiser, because my books sell well in both countries. Many of my readers are enthusiastic and passionate about science and reason – and some have been kind enough to attribute their enthusiasm and passion to reading my books. Some of these enthusiasts are generous and eager to give, yet some of them might not necessarily think of giving to one of the existing secularist or rationalist charities. Did I not have a duty to set up my own charitable foundation?
My Trustees and I have set up the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science – RDFRS, or RDF. It is actually two sister foundations of the same name, one legally constituted in Britain and the other legally incorporated in the United States. It has an American trustee based in America (Karen Owens), an American trustee based in Britain (Claire Enders) and a British trustee based in Britain (me). At present, both organizations are companies, with applications for charitable recognition pending in their two countries.
Here is an example of how it might work (written version only):
When the charitable status has been granted, it will work like this. A British donor who wishes to give, say, £1000 to an American rationalist cause (either RDF itself or another charity) will give approximately £820 to the British RDF. RDF will then claim approximately £180 as a tax refund, making up the £1000, give it in dollars to the American RDFRS which will, if requested, pass it on to another American charity specified by the donor. Conversely, an American donor wishing to give, say, $1000 to a British (or Commonwealth) good cause will give it to the American RDF. The American RDF will send it to the British RDF with instructions to pass it on to the cause specified by the original donor. Meanwhile, the original donor claims the tax refund from the IRS, according to American charity law.
In these calculations, for the sake of argument, I have allowed for the possibility that the donor is specifying some other good cause as the ultimate beneficiary. But of course RDF itself, on both sides of the Atlantic, will have its own vigorous program of activities which will be well worth supporting in their own right. These will no doubt grow, as the years go by, but we initially visualize the following.
1. Research. We intend to sponsor research into the psychological basis of unreason. What is it about human psychology that predisposes people to find astrology more appealing than astronomy? At what age are young people most vulnerable to unreason? What are the correlations between religiosity and superstition on the one hand, and intelligence, educational level, type of education etc. on the other? Research of this kind would be supported in the form of grants to universities in America and Britain or wherever the best research can be done.
2. Education. Within the limits on political activity imposed by the charity laws of the respective countries, we would seek to support rational and scientific education at all ages, and to oppose the subversion of scientific education, for example by the well-financed efforts to teach creationism in science classes. Depending on how much money we raise, we would hope to subsidize the publication of books, pamphlets, DVDs and other educational materials.
3. Website. We shall maintain a high quality website (RichardDawkins.net/foundation), offering scientific, rationalist and humanist information and materials. This document is on that website, which is designed and maintained by Josh Timonen, a highly talented and expert web site designer (see Upper Branch Design). Please explore the website to see the range of stuff that is already there. And please volunteer suggestions and contributions to web.master@rdfrs.org.
4. Database of lecturers. We intend to keep a list, organized by regions in both America and Britain, of people, in universities and elsewhere, who might be willing to receive invitations to lecture. I receive a large number of such invitations myself. I accept as many as I can, but I can’t accept all of them. It would be extremely helpful to have, at my disposal, a list of younger people who might be less well known at this stage of their career, but who would probably give a much better lecture than I ever could. The database would be arranged on a region by region basis so that travel times to lecturing venues can be minimized.
5. Merchandise. Within the legal limits imposed on non-profit organizations in the two countries, we intend to supply, either free or at nominal prices, DVDs, tapes, podcasts, booklets etc. These will initially include such of my own television documentaries etc. as I am allowed to provide. For example, I am negotiating to acquire the rights to my 1991 Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for Children, entitled Growing Up in the Universe and originally broadcast by the BBC.
6. Publication. My own books are published by commercial publishers in Britain and America, but there are many excellent books on rationalism, humanism, secularism and atheism that are published only in one country. RDFRS, with its ‘dual nationality’, is well placed to arrange the publication of American books (videos, DVDs etc.) in Britain, and vice versa. At some time in the future, we might embark on some original publishing of our own.
7. Charitable giving by secularists to humanitarian good causes. Major disasters like earthquakes or tornados prompt a desire by decent people of all persuasions to help. I, for one, am always anxious that my money should go to help the disaster victims but should not fall into the hands of missionaries or other church-based organizations. Even if these organizations do eventually pass it on to the victims, they often do so with strings attached. Some of us are keen that no proportion of our donations should fall into the hands of missionaries. RDFRS will hope to maintain a list of charities, worldwide, which are certified free of missionary or church contamination.
8. Consciousness-raising. Feminists and homosexuals have taught us the value of consciousness-raising. A phrase like “One man one vote” either causes you to flinch, or is uttered with intent to make you flinch. It is nowadays almost impossible to hear the phrase with its original innocent meaning of “One adult person one vote.” Some atheists and freethinkers try to raise consciousness about, for example, the phrase ‘under God’ in the US Pledge of Allegiance. I am more interested in raising consciousness about something else: the habit, practised not only by religious people, of labeling children by the religion of their parents. This is a Catholic child. That is a Muslim child. I want everybody to flinch when they hear such a phrase, just as they would if they heard, That is a Marxist child. It is immoral to brand young children with the religion of their parents. At present, hardly anybody’s consciousness is raised to this. I would welcome suggestions, perhaps from those with experience of the feminist and gay campaigns, for the most effective ways to raise consciousness. I would like such consciousness-raising to be a particular project of this foundation.
