Post by Teddy Bear on Sept 11, 2008 17:53:00 GMT
Personally, I haven't followed BBC coverage of the recent 'Large Hadron Collider' experiment, but somebody at the Daily Mail did, and had these observations, which I can well imagine are accurate and founded in truth.
God, taxpayers' money and the day a barmy BBC went into orbit
Last updated at 12:17 AM on 11th September 2008
Were you uneasy at 8.30 yesterday morning? I was a bit. Not much, but a bit. I gave my wife a fond look, on the basis that it might be the last, and imagined what it would be like to be sucked into a black hole.
This, you may remember, is what a few scientists said might happen when the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva was switched on, or at any rate cranked into action.
Nothing occurred - or hasn't yet. We may not be out of the woods.
Conceivably you may be reading this in a black hole, though in that case you presumably won't be reading it at all.
In the view of some, the end of the world may be deferred for two months. One doesn't want to be a bore, but one wonders why scientists should have been allowed to put us at risk even if there is only one in a trillion trillion trillion chance of things going awry.
I suppose some sub-committee of the European Union approved it all on our behalf.
What can be said with absolute certainty is that not one person in a hundred is likely to understand what is taking place.
And that includes nearly all the journalists who have reported on it. I venture to suggest that numbered among this multitude is the BBC's Andrew Marr, who was on the spot for Radio 4's Today programme, breathlessly informing us, without being able to explain why, that what was about to happen was of momentous importance.
Of course, not being a scientist, like Mr Marr in fact, I include myself among those who can't properly grasp what is taking place 100 metres below ground on the shores of Lake Geneva.
And that means that I am in no position to judge the importance of a venture that has cost countless billions of pounds. Maybe it will turn out to be pretty worthless.
Perhaps it will be of only marginal significance. Or conceivably, like the discovery that the world is not flat, and that it moves around the sun rather than the other way around, the experiment will have a profound impact on the human psyche.
We are told it may throw light on what happened after the Big Bang created our universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Some say we may discover that we live in only one of several universes, or even an infinite number of them. Maybe we will learn that another universe preceded our own. Or that our universe is round. Or that time is circular. I don't know.
Though epic claims are made for the experiment - that it will unlock the meaning of life or provide a theory of everything - its cheerleaders are never at all specific.
In fact, whatever discoveries may be made, we may be reasonably sure that the Large Hadron Collider will not live up to the reverential billing it has enjoyed in some quarters, most notably the BBC.
Newsreaders and reporters by the dozen suggest that we may discover 'the secrets behind the creation of the universe'.
This is utterly preposterous, and evinces an exaggerated - and misplaced - confidence in the role of science.
Science tells us the how rather than the why. The Collider may illuminate the nature of the Big Bang and the nature of the universe. It is not going to tell us why the universe came into existence, or for what purpose - if, indeed, there is any purpose.
It is not going to tell us whether or not there is a God, and, if there is, what He had in mind when He put this mind-boggling show on the road.
These, of course, are the really interesting questions, and they are not amenable in the tiniest degree to elucidation by particle physics scientists with their massive Collider.
Instead, they are the province of philosophers and theologians, although ultimately they, too, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor tell us anything definitive about His purposes, or lack of them.
In the end, belief (like disbelief) is a personal leap. Science can only aspire to describe how the universe came into existence. It will never tell us why.
The BBC, which has gone barmy over the Collider, devoting hours of coverage to it yesterday, has therefore been peddling a false prospectus.
Perhaps this is what happens when non-scientists, who comprise the great majority of the BBC's editorial staff, attempt to assess the importance of complex scientific experiments.
But I think there is more to it than that. The BBC represents a materialist, mechanistic consensus which has rejected God, and deludes itself that science is capable of providing a complete explanation of existence.
Hence the ludicrously inflated claims that are being made of what is going on near Geneva.
In the mouths of such people, belief in science as a tool that can unlock total understanding is as blind and unquestioning as, before the 18th-century Enlightenment, belief in religion often was.
A proper sceptic - and shouldn't journalists by definition be sceptical? - would not present the Large Hadron Collider as the key that is bound to unlock the greatest mysteries of life.
He, or she, would weigh the evidence, and show a degree of caution. When have you heard such restraint on the BBC over the past few days?
One might, as a reasonable sceptic, question whether the billions of pounds spent on the Collider (17 per cent of which has been supplied by the British taxpayer) is likely to be money well spent.
It would be useful in this connection to have a definition of what might constitute value for money.
Instead, we have endured coverage that is generally as uncritical as it is credulous.
Scientists are scarcely ever put on the spot as to the potential usefulness of their experiments.
It it automatically assumed that what they are doing is of incalculable importance, and certain to benefit mankind.
There is an intellectual tyranny at work here - the tyranny of mediocre journalism, perhaps, of the godless, certainly - but no less dangerous for that.
One sees it in a different, but no less harmful, guise in the BBC's coverage of climate change.
Plainly, temperatures have been rising, but the assertions of climate change scientists are unquestionably accepted as fact, and the inevitable transformation of our lifestyle and economy is an article of faith.
Perhaps the doom-mongers are correct, but shouldn't they be subjected to a greater degree of scepticism?
Scientists are not gods, even though those near Geneva seemingly don't mind taking the infinitesimally small risk of losing us all in a black hole.
Humanity should seek greater knowledge about our world and universe. If the experiment really does enlarge the sum of human understanding, the Large Hadron Collider may be judged a sound investment.
But most of us, including the almost hysterical BBC, haven't the faintest idea whether it will.
And, whatever happens, no amount of scientific experiments will ever begin to answer the most interesting question of all - why, in God's name, were we ever put on this earth in the first place?
Last updated at 12:17 AM on 11th September 2008
Were you uneasy at 8.30 yesterday morning? I was a bit. Not much, but a bit. I gave my wife a fond look, on the basis that it might be the last, and imagined what it would be like to be sucked into a black hole.
This, you may remember, is what a few scientists said might happen when the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva was switched on, or at any rate cranked into action.
Nothing occurred - or hasn't yet. We may not be out of the woods.
Conceivably you may be reading this in a black hole, though in that case you presumably won't be reading it at all.
In the view of some, the end of the world may be deferred for two months. One doesn't want to be a bore, but one wonders why scientists should have been allowed to put us at risk even if there is only one in a trillion trillion trillion chance of things going awry.
I suppose some sub-committee of the European Union approved it all on our behalf.
What can be said with absolute certainty is that not one person in a hundred is likely to understand what is taking place.
And that includes nearly all the journalists who have reported on it. I venture to suggest that numbered among this multitude is the BBC's Andrew Marr, who was on the spot for Radio 4's Today programme, breathlessly informing us, without being able to explain why, that what was about to happen was of momentous importance.
Of course, not being a scientist, like Mr Marr in fact, I include myself among those who can't properly grasp what is taking place 100 metres below ground on the shores of Lake Geneva.
And that means that I am in no position to judge the importance of a venture that has cost countless billions of pounds. Maybe it will turn out to be pretty worthless.
Perhaps it will be of only marginal significance. Or conceivably, like the discovery that the world is not flat, and that it moves around the sun rather than the other way around, the experiment will have a profound impact on the human psyche.
We are told it may throw light on what happened after the Big Bang created our universe 13.7 billion years ago.
Some say we may discover that we live in only one of several universes, or even an infinite number of them. Maybe we will learn that another universe preceded our own. Or that our universe is round. Or that time is circular. I don't know.
Though epic claims are made for the experiment - that it will unlock the meaning of life or provide a theory of everything - its cheerleaders are never at all specific.
In fact, whatever discoveries may be made, we may be reasonably sure that the Large Hadron Collider will not live up to the reverential billing it has enjoyed in some quarters, most notably the BBC.
Newsreaders and reporters by the dozen suggest that we may discover 'the secrets behind the creation of the universe'.
This is utterly preposterous, and evinces an exaggerated - and misplaced - confidence in the role of science.
Science tells us the how rather than the why. The Collider may illuminate the nature of the Big Bang and the nature of the universe. It is not going to tell us why the universe came into existence, or for what purpose - if, indeed, there is any purpose.
It is not going to tell us whether or not there is a God, and, if there is, what He had in mind when He put this mind-boggling show on the road.
These, of course, are the really interesting questions, and they are not amenable in the tiniest degree to elucidation by particle physics scientists with their massive Collider.
Instead, they are the province of philosophers and theologians, although ultimately they, too, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, nor tell us anything definitive about His purposes, or lack of them.
In the end, belief (like disbelief) is a personal leap. Science can only aspire to describe how the universe came into existence. It will never tell us why.
The BBC, which has gone barmy over the Collider, devoting hours of coverage to it yesterday, has therefore been peddling a false prospectus.
Perhaps this is what happens when non-scientists, who comprise the great majority of the BBC's editorial staff, attempt to assess the importance of complex scientific experiments.
But I think there is more to it than that. The BBC represents a materialist, mechanistic consensus which has rejected God, and deludes itself that science is capable of providing a complete explanation of existence.
Hence the ludicrously inflated claims that are being made of what is going on near Geneva.
In the mouths of such people, belief in science as a tool that can unlock total understanding is as blind and unquestioning as, before the 18th-century Enlightenment, belief in religion often was.
A proper sceptic - and shouldn't journalists by definition be sceptical? - would not present the Large Hadron Collider as the key that is bound to unlock the greatest mysteries of life.
He, or she, would weigh the evidence, and show a degree of caution. When have you heard such restraint on the BBC over the past few days?
One might, as a reasonable sceptic, question whether the billions of pounds spent on the Collider (17 per cent of which has been supplied by the British taxpayer) is likely to be money well spent.
It would be useful in this connection to have a definition of what might constitute value for money.
Instead, we have endured coverage that is generally as uncritical as it is credulous.
Scientists are scarcely ever put on the spot as to the potential usefulness of their experiments.
It it automatically assumed that what they are doing is of incalculable importance, and certain to benefit mankind.
There is an intellectual tyranny at work here - the tyranny of mediocre journalism, perhaps, of the godless, certainly - but no less dangerous for that.
One sees it in a different, but no less harmful, guise in the BBC's coverage of climate change.
Plainly, temperatures have been rising, but the assertions of climate change scientists are unquestionably accepted as fact, and the inevitable transformation of our lifestyle and economy is an article of faith.
Perhaps the doom-mongers are correct, but shouldn't they be subjected to a greater degree of scepticism?
Scientists are not gods, even though those near Geneva seemingly don't mind taking the infinitesimally small risk of losing us all in a black hole.
Humanity should seek greater knowledge about our world and universe. If the experiment really does enlarge the sum of human understanding, the Large Hadron Collider may be judged a sound investment.
But most of us, including the almost hysterical BBC, haven't the faintest idea whether it will.
And, whatever happens, no amount of scientific experiments will ever begin to answer the most interesting question of all - why, in God's name, were we ever put on this earth in the first place?