1. Comment #293934 by flying goose on November 30, 2008 at 11:22 am

Just to share something a little lighter with all these dreadful things going on.

I believe in the Tooth fairy.

Why?

Well as the father of a six year old that time has come;

I am the Tooth fairy.

I always knew the tooth fairy existed I just didn't realise it would be me one day.

Edit
And my six year old's reaction?

'It was you Daddy wasn't it?'

Other Comments by flying goose

2. Comment #293936 by Layla Nasreddin on November 30, 2008 at 11:22 am

Hm, interesting. I suppose change is good, especially if it can encourage more people to find that mathematics is not just a bunch of boring number-crunching.

Incidentally, regarding Du Sautoy's religious leanings, or lack of same, the website for the Jewish Chronicle has a mini-piece about him entitled "How Jewish is Marcus du Sautoy?") Answer: he isn't, not even in an ethnic sense, and is a confirmed atheist (and his "real religion" is the Arsenal football club!), but his Israeli wife is Jewish, and apparently his children are being raised Jewish (? -- would like to see some evidence for that!).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

3. Comment #293947 by True Unbeliever on November 30, 2008 at 11:47 am

What about a social networking site that poses simple scientific problems for users to collaborate and solve. Some supporting material could be provided withthe problem and people could work it out. The solutions that they eventually find would explain certain scientific concepts and those that succeed could move on to the next level and so on. Just thinking out loud

Other Comments by True Unbeliever

4. Comment #293956 by Nails on November 30, 2008 at 12:17 pm

3. Comment #293947 by True Unbeliever on November 30, 2008 at 11:47 am

What about a social networking site that poses simple scientific problems for users to collaborate and solve. Some supporting material could be provided withthe problem and people could work it out. The solutions that they eventually find would explain certain scientific concepts and those that succeed could move on to the next level and so on. Just thinking out loud

There are many such forums, on here and on faith-based forums.
What you tend to find is scientists or those of science-based knowledge provide evidence and citations to support their arguments, and theists just wave their hands and post scripture.
Shame, it's a great idea but I can't see it working. Too many mindless cretins will swamp it with irrelevant and outdated dogma.

Other Comments by Nails

5. Comment #293958 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I hate monarchy, or any other ..archy, but if mathematics is the Queen of Sciences, then long live du Sautoy. As for the retiring emperor, long live King Richard!

I look forward to many a joust with the enemies of reason.

Is the square root of -1 as difficult to understand as evolution? Evolution is dead easy for me.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

6. Comment #293987 by Osmano on November 30, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Communicating the role mathematics plays in science should be easy. Don't most people find it amazing that the universe came in it's own language? That with a pen and paper on earth you can accurately describe the cosmos?

Other Comments by Osmano

7. Comment #294001 by tvictor on November 30, 2008 at 1:32 pm

"For me there are so many things to talk about in science: why it's exciting, entertaining and how it impacts on society."

Too bad 90% of the world population couldn't care less about science.

The Dawkins era sure will be missed

Other Comments by tvictor

8. Comment #294007 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm

The Dawkins era sure will be missed

Hang on mate! It ain't finished yet!

"There's probably no God, Enjoy your life!"

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

9. Comment #294010 by Steve Zara on November 30, 2008 at 1:47 pm

I have so far been deeply unimpressed by du Sautoy's statements. If he is going to promote the public understanding of science, he has to confront the daily challenges of religion to rationality.

I feel he is a poor choice for this position. What matters both publically and politically these days is public understanding of the natural sciences, not mathematics. I will be happy to be proved wrong, but I am not optimistic.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #294020 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2008 at 2:02 pm

but I am not optimistic.

Come on Steve, what did the Simonyi Chair ever do for us that Richard Dawkins couldn't?

References to central heating, roads, education and the like will be ignored.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

11. Comment #294022 by True Unbeliever on November 30, 2008 at 2:05 pm

[quote]There are many such forums, on here and on faith-based forums.
What you tend to find is scientists or those of science-based knowledge provide evidence and citations to support their arguments, and theists just wave their hands and post scripture.
Shame, it's a great idea but I can't see it working. Too many mindless cretins will swamp it with irrelevant and outdated dogma. [/quote]

A web forum isn't quite what I had in mind. I was thinking something like a download through which certain experiments could be simulated collaboratively online. You could have the basic ones for young folk and so forth and graduate from there. I'm not talking quantum physics now but simple experiments that would get regular people interested and talking science. It doesn't have to involve anything about religion

Other Comments by True Unbeliever

12. Comment #294062 by gazzaofbath on November 30, 2008 at 2:51 pm

I don't mind whether du Sautoy pushes an atheist line in his role or not.

The important thing is to keep a high atheist profile in the media. Richard Dawkins has been excellent at that and he's still around. I'm sure he will continue his high profile against religion whether in that post or not.

The problem is to have enough other high profile atheists in the media too. The young comedian who set up the atheist bus campaign is a nice addition - they don't all need to be academic heavyweights - indeed it would be nice to have variety of spokespeople for the atheist viewpoint.

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

13. Comment #294079 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2008 at 3:17 pm

On a lighter note, I'm so happy he's an Arsenal FC fan.

de Sautoy may support Arsenal, but God guides Man Utd.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

14. Comment #294096 by KRKBAB on November 30, 2008 at 3:43 pm

I agree with Steve Zara. Also, de Sautoy's comments seem to be aimed at diluting his predecessor's work. He seems like someone who loves what he does, but doesn't appreciate the big picture. I guess the good thing is that Prof. Dawkins is still alive and well and continuing with his passions.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

15. Comment #294108 by phil rimmer on November 30, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Said de Sautoy contrasting his approach to Dawkins's

I see it more as an ambassadorial role rather than creating controversy for controversy's sake.

What a dismal analysis of Dawkins! I predict the nice Professor De Sautoy will sink without trace

Other Comments by phil rimmer

16. Comment #294112 by AfraidToDie on November 30, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I believe atheism is a logical progression (or regression) directly related to biology and specifically evolution. It would be more difficult for an evolutionary theorist to disregard religion than a mathematician. Math is a fantastic tool to aid the other sciences, but in and of itself, does not directly need to confront religion (other than being logical makes it difficult to believe in the supernatural, and who should be more logical than a mathematician?).

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

17. Comment #294120 by Roger Stanyard on November 30, 2008 at 4:16 pm

So, er, how is he gonna address the really big problem that science is under attack by the extreme elements of religion, the fundamentalists and the creationists? Ignore it?

Like it or not the creationists are out to destroy the public understanding of science.

On that he can't be neutral.

Because he is a self-proclaimed atheist, they will use everyu trick in the book to undermine and smear him.

I've seen it happen to me in defending science. See BCSE Revealed.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

18. Comment #294122 by Jiten on November 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm

Will you be as confrontational as he is?

What a leading question! Du Sautoy, being a mathematician and thus knowing something about logical fallacies should have refused to answer this stupid question.

Other Comments by Jiten

19. Comment #294182 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Yes, technically it's a leading question, and I wish journalists wouldn't ask them. Leave it to cross-examining barristers who know how to do it properly and appropriately.

But I don't see it as a great problem in this case. Richard does confront irrationalism head on, and that's a good thing.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

20. Comment #294219 by Poncita on November 30, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Just because he's not going to specifically confront religion, doesn't mean that he's going to let creationists swamp him. There are plenty of pseudosciences out there. There's no reason to specifically go against creationists, and not, for example, the anti-vaccination crowd, who are having a more immediate and tangible effect on public well-being.

The important thing is to keep critical thinking and respect for evidence at the forefront. I don't think there's anything wrong with a mathematician having this position. We may not have as much specific knowledge about the natural sciences, but we understand what science is about, and have a logical approach to things.

Other Comments by Poncita

21. Comment #294279 by lbq on November 30, 2008 at 10:58 pm

If there was a case for changing the emphasis (slightly) it was for telling people what science is, how it works and how it differs from revealed religion in believing in evidence.

And a mathematician is singularly inappropriate for this job. Math is not a science. It is a highly formalised language for making statements about quantity. It does not consider evidence, it seeks formal proof. It is an appropriate tool of sciences capable of quantification (and a tool of pseudo-science in those that are not). But it is not the Queen of Sciences, just as microscopy is not.

Other Comments by lbq

22. Comment #294284 by Poncita on November 30, 2008 at 11:13 pm

It depends what you consider evidence to be. The more time I spend in mathematics the more I find similarities between the techniques I use to approach a problem and the techniques I see other scientists using. Evidence is, in maths, finding a pattern in a system. Formulating a theory is trying to find out why that pattern exists. Testing the theory against the evidence is making sure that the pattern is satisfied by the newly formulated theory. Proof is simply an added bonus, which can't always be applied.

The fact that it doesn't deal with things in reality doesn't mean that it doesn't follow the basic tenets of science. And it is definitely more than just a tool for other sciences.

Anyway, it's hardly the point. A physicist may know nothing about biology, but does that make him/her incapable of fighting for the cause of public understanding of science? No, because the understanding of what science is about is still there. It's the same for a mathematician.

Other Comments by Poncita

23. Comment #294296 by rod-the-farmer on December 1, 2008 at 12:01 am

2 plus 2 = 4. See the evidence of design here ! Therefore dog exists.

(Calling Dr. de Sautoy !)

Like it or not, he cannot help being dragged into the religion versus rationalism battle.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

24. Comment #294304 by omphaloskeptic on December 1, 2008 at 12:33 am

Tonight we have a rare occurence, a smiley of the sliver of a moon, a jupiter and a venus together (:)). I do not know that this will happen again in my lifetime but we we know in advance that this is about to happen tonight. Mathematics and physics and chemistry and science as we know it. They told me so............

Other Comments by omphaloskeptic

25. Comment #294337 by gazzaofbath on December 1, 2008 at 1:42 am

I guess the one thing that worries me about du Sautoy's appointment to this post, now I think about it, is that he is not a Life Science specialist.

I speak as a dyed in the wool physicist - the science that turns me on more than others. But I'm not under any illusion that the life sciences is the field of our era, the area where the most developments are taking place that will directly affect us. The field of which most lay people have some fear - almost a Frankenstein type fear. Genetic engineering - I could go on.

As this is the field where science communication undoubtedly has the most challenges it would surely have been better to have had a Life Science specialist of some form in this post. Maths just don't have those issues, to say the least!!

Other Comments by gazzaofbath

26. Comment #294399 by beeline on December 1, 2008 at 3:30 am

Marcus du Sautoy writes:

We have to make decisions about important scientific issues, and unless members of society are informed about them they'll be unable to get involved in that debate.

I applaud this approach, although it is early days, and therefore optimism still reigns. However, what's the number one cause (alright, number two after apathy) of people being led astray and abandoning rationalism and critical thinking of the kind that works in debate? Which organisations encourage you to turn your back on empirical evidence and try to undermine your political establishments so that they can usher in the Big Brother theocracy that they so dearly want?

I think it's unavoidable that Marcus will have to address religion at some point fairly soon. But very good luck to him!

Other Comments by beeline

27. Comment #294414 by decius on December 1, 2008 at 3:44 am

Comment #294108 by phil rimmer

I agree.

This isn't the first instance of fuckwittery that he displays, either.

Other Comments by decius

28. Comment #294420 by Laurie Fraser on December 1, 2008 at 3:52 am

I'm trying to keep an open mind on du Sautoy for the time being. After Richard's sterling work, it would be a difficult task for anyone to follow. I don't mind if he concentrates his efforts on "the public understanding of science" without getting too involved in belting up religious 'tards; however, I'll be looking askance if he deliberately avoids the fight when it's put to him.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

29. Comment #294422 by decius on December 1, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #294420 by Laurie Fraser

Yeah, that's fair.

Other Comments by decius

30. Comment #294875 by splink on December 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm

I am radically dyslexic, especially in math. I need it explained to me as if one were giving directions to a little baby. If this guy can do that for me and make me understand it, he could believe that my brother is his sister and my semen makes him clairvoyant if applied the bridge of his nose, for all I care.

Other Comments by splink

31. Comment #295002 by polestar on December 1, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Comment #294296 by rod-the-farmer
"Like it or not, he cannot help being dragged into the religion versus rationalism battle."

Indeed. He doesn't seem to realise that they will bring the battle to him and he will have to respond - but it is a pity he seems to be trying appeasement by tarnishing Dawkins with "creating controversy for controversy's sake.

I don't know enough of Dawkins's early trajectory but isn't that pretty much what happened to him, in that he simply had to refute silly ideas when they were presented rather than originally setting out to disprove religion overall? It's a genuine question.

Other Comments by polestar

32. Comment #295006 by Steve Zara on December 1, 2008 at 4:48 pm

Comment #295002 by polestar

Indeed. If he is up to the job, he will have to respond. And it seems unwise to show your opponents your hand - that won't be confrontational - before they have started the game.

It would have been better to have said nothing, or to have been non-committal.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #295012 by Peacebeuponme on December 1, 2008 at 4:52 pm

New Scientist has come up with a crass title for an article.

I'm sure the younger readers will be delighted to be seen to be part of a generation of no-attention, superficial, TV junkies.

I'm sure also that there are plenty of people who can enjoy "low-brow" art and also be intelligent and passionate about science.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #295089 by Layla Nasreddin on December 1, 2008 at 7:03 pm

I find it a bit strange that I have yet to see any comments on this appointment by the previous holder of the Charles Simonyi chair. I haven't even seen a boilerplate acknowledgement along the lines of "I wish the new Simonyi professor success in his endeavours" or anything like that, as one might expect. Then again, perhaps such remarks have simply not been publicized, or I just haven't found them.

Admittedly, if it is true that Mrs du Sautoy is religious or at least observes some Jewish holidays, I would hardly expect her spouse to publicly denounce religion the way that Dawkins does. Tricky thing, a difference of religious opinion between spouses (think Darwin and his religious wife).

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

35. Comment #295373 by PERSON on December 2, 2008 at 5:57 am

"I'm so happy he's an Arsenal FC fan."
I suspect football culture of weakening the rationality of its participants, making them more susceptible to invasion by alien pods. Um, I mean infection by radical religious memes. It's at least as much of a gateway as liberal Christianity and marijuana.

Other Comments by PERSON

36. Comment #295640 by VeritasLiberabitVos on December 2, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I think we should remember that this is the Charles Simonyi chair, and it is his intentions in setting it up that matter rather than what we might like it to be. His 'manifesto' for the chair includes the following:

Understanding’ in this instance should be taken a little poetically as well as literally. The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all. Those in the audience who reach the understanding sufficient to reveal the order and beauty in science will also gain greater insight into the connectedness of science and their everyday life.
Finally, ‘science’ here means not only the natural and mathematical sciences but also the history of science and the philosophy of science as well. However, preference should be given to specialties which express or achieve their results mainly by symbolic manipulation, such as Particle physics, Molecular biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Computer science, Linguistics, Brain research, and, of course Mathematics. The reason for this is more than a personal predilection. Symbolic expression enables the highest degree of abstraction and thence the utilization of powerful mathematical and data processing tools ensure tremendous progress. At the same time the very means of success tends to isolate the scientists from the lay audience and prevents the communication of the results. Considering the profoundly vital interdependence between the society at large and the scientific world, the dearth of effective information flow is positively dangerous.

So (although I may be a little biased!) I don't see anything inappropriate in the appointment of a mathematician. I look forward to seeing how Marcus du Sautoy develops the chair, in his own way, and I wish him well in that task.

Other Comments by VeritasLiberabitVos

37. Comment #295679 by njwong on December 2, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I am very surprised at the negative comments about du Sautoy taking over of the Simonyi chair. It would appear that just because du Sautoy does not seem to be as vocal about his atheism as RD, or that he is not from the life sciences, he is not an "appropriate" choice for the chair.

First of all, I have to remark that I have NEVER heard of the Simonyi chair until I learnt more about RD after my reading of "The God Delusion". Although the Simonyi chair may be prestigious, I think the stature of RD, and especially after the success of TGD, far exceeds the renown of the Simonyi chair. I believe RD will continue to champion the rationality cause even after his retirement from the chair.

Secondly, Charles Simonyi earned his fortune from Information Technology. And I think it is very appropriate that du Sautoy, a Professor of Mathematics, is now appointed to the Simonyi chair.

Thirdly, the chair's raison d'etre is to promote the "Public Understanding of Science". What is needed here is a good communicator, regardless of the person's scientific background. Why should a mathematics background be considered inferior to a life sciences background when that is not the criterion for this chair?

Besides, it is early days yet. Think of it. RD took the Simonyi chair in 1995. But he elevated the importance of the chair only in 2006 with his global success with TGD, and that really is a topic of "Religion", not so much on "Science" (which is what the Simonyi chair is about). I believe there should be no qualms about du Sautoy using his appointment to focus more on the "Science" aspect and less on the "Religion".

I have not seen any of du Sautoy's works, but I think he must have that something special to win the appointment from other competitors. Let's not be so harsh as to diss du Sautoy outright just because he does not fit into RD's mould.

Finally, I like to congratulate Marcus du Sautoy on his appointment to the Simonyi chair. I hope he will be as aggressive as RD in promoting Science and Rationality over Superstition and Religion in the years to come.

Other Comments by njwong

38. Comment #295942 by Degsy on December 3, 2008 at 4:40 am

The appointment of Marcus to the Simonyi chair is a welcome one. The fact that he is a mathematician should cause no concern. As he says, discovering new scientific ideas and communicating them to other people is his passion. Just how effective he will be in communicating these ideas to the public remains to be seen. My only problem is that there is still a gulf between scientific and public domains with regard to basic life sciences- take evolution for example. How such a gap will be closed with regard to the public understanding of modern math and all it entails will prove more extremely more difficult, I imagine. As I said, the fact Marcus is a mathematician should dissuade no one from supporting him in his new role. But surely, if this his bread and butter, maths will be his remit. Not sure the public will be that interested. That said, I wish him well as the new chair and hope his relationship with the public (in whatever form it takes), is a fruitful one.

Other Comments by Degsy

39. Comment #296303 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Steve

I have so far been deeply unimpressed by du Sautoy's statements. If he is going to promote the public understanding of science, he has to confront the daily challenges of religion to rationality.

Come on Steve. The role of the Chair of "public understanding of science" is, well, to promote science.

Richard has done a great job of this (thinking of some of his great tv appearances), and he also brought his own "Dawkinsness" to the role. This was in part due to his parellel work of writing TGD. It time now for Du Sautoy to do the same, except with his own "DuSautoyness" added.

I think, in order to satisfy the demands of the Chair, Du Sautoy feels he needs to get the religious, as well as the irreligious, interested, and therefore does not want to alienate them. His public statements have therefore been appropriately measured.

I don't think there is any doubt that he will call unscientific propositions related to relgion when he has to. Let's face it, calling religion is an unavoidable by-product of promoting science. However, it is not the primary aim of the Chair.

Let's be thankful of the work Richard is now doing: setting up this site, the Foundation, the Conversations etc. Du Sautoy should not feel obliged to marry himself to this campaign.

Phil Rimmer

What a dismal analysis of Dawkins! I predict the nice Professor De Sautoy will sink without trace.

Let's give the chap the benefit of the doubt before rushing to such knee-jerk vitriol.

He was asked a terrible question, and to my mind showed great naivety. He is just not all that media-savvy yet, unlike someone like Richard, who has been famous for more than 30 years. Was he accussing Richard of "courting controversy for controversy's sake", or was he just saying that he did not want to do so? I don't think either of us can say one way or the other, and in that case I would give him the benefit, given that respected professors do not generally trash their predecessors the minute they take up a post.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

40. Comment #296307 by Steve Zara on December 3, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Peace-

His public statements have therefore been appropriately measured.

I am not so sure. It seems to me like he has already shown his hand.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #296326 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Degsy

But surely, if this his bread and butter, maths will be his remit. Not sure the public will be that interested.

This has come up before, and irks me a little, though I have no particular affiliation with maths.

Do we all agree that maths is a science? If the ansswer is "yes", then there is no point to make. The Chair is about promoting all science, and even though Richard's specialism was biology, his task was not just to talk evolution the whole time, but to get the public interested in science and its benefits. Richard might have been lucky to be an expert in the one scientific field that, by its relation to lions, elephants and fluffy cute things, captures the public imagination so much better.

In fact, maths is a good choice precisely because of this situation. Biology does not need much promotion, comparatively. The importance of maths, and physics and the rest is in dire need of communication. Think about all those who leave school at 16 and wonder why they learned quadratic equations, because they have no application in the "real world". Someone like Du Sautoy needs to tell them that they surely do.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

42. Comment #296329 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Steve

It seems to me like he has already shown his hand.

In a certain sense he has, but this is not the meaning of my comment. I mean't that he has been careful not to alienate the religious.

I don't know, Steve, you may be right, but I see Du Sautoy's approach as well-intentioned, and worth trying. Being a Dawkins-clone is not the answer. Its up to each Chair holder to promote science in the way they think best, and I can see the logic in his early methodology.

In a few years time, you may be able to say I told you so. I don't know whether there is a time limit on the Chair, but, since Richard served 13 years, there is plenty of time for us to find out!

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

43. Comment #296332 by Steve Zara on December 3, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #296326 by Peacebeuponme

In fact, maths is a good choice precisely because of this situation.

I think maths is a bad choice, for reasons mentioned by Aubrey Manning in video in the "Richard Dawkins talks to Aubrey Manning" article. Mathematics is not one of the sciences that changes how people feel about themselves.

Mathematics isn't directly in the face of the religious, like evolution and cosmology can be. There is no threat to the teaching of mathematics by the religious.

The threat to the quality of science understanding from religion is real, and growing. My view is that they should have chosen someone who was clearly position to directly address that challenge.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #296333 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Steve

You are confusing the aims of the Chair with your own personal aims, the aims of this site and us here.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

45. Comment #296336 by Steve Zara on December 3, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Comment #296333 by Peacebeuponme

Not really, no. I do know what the aims of the chair are.
To quote Simonyi:

"The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all."

That is surely threatened by the views of creationists, who do not have empathy for evolutionary scientists, or cosmologists, and they do not appreciate the order of the natural world.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #296344 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Steve

It would be very easy for each of us to pluck out specific bits of Simonyi's words, or the Manifesto to support our position. For example:

By ‘public’ we mean the largest possible audience, provided, however, that people who have the power and ability to propagate or oppose the ideas (especially scholars in other sciences and in humanities, engineers, journalists, politicians, professionals, and artists) are not lost in the process. Here it is useful to distinguish between the roles of scholars and popularisers. The university chair is intended for accomplished scholars who have made original contributions to their field, and who are able to grasp the subject, when necessary, at the highest levels of abstraction.

Oh, well, it seems that Simonyi, by wanting to reach out to the largest possible audience, may appreciate Du Sautoy's methods. It also makes clear that popularism is not the order of the day (much to the chagrin of those who find maths "boring", it seems).

However, that's all a little worthless. These are all just nuances against the important states aim of the chair, which is:

The aim of the Simonyi Professorship is to contribute to the understanding of science by the public. The chair is intended to be filled by a scientist of distinction in their field of expertise, and the Simonyi Professor may hold the post while also pursuing their scientific work. Just as important as scientific accolade is that he or she has a talent and interest in communicating science to a wide audience.

I don't see anything their about religion, or "changing how people feel about themselves". The Manifesto includes not a single reference to religion.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

47. Comment #296348 by Steve Zara on December 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #296344 by Peacebeuponme

The Manifesto does not need to include a reference to religion. Creationism is actively anti the understanding of science and how it works, and is a growing problem.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #296359 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Steve

Creationism is actively anti the understanding of science and how it works, and is a growing problem.

Du Sautoy has a wide-ranging brief: the promotion of science (and by extension the oppoistion to non-science). There are many many aspects of science that need promoting, and many, many non-scientific issues (homeopathy, MMR opposition, organ donation, to name just a few major public interest issues) that should be opposed. I just can't see how you can read the Manifesto and reduce it to merely "anti-creationism".

I agree its anti-science.

I agree its a growing problem.

I'm glad Richard it doing something about it, and that so many people like me and you come here and tell us that they feel the same.

I just don't agree that Charles Simonyi had specificlly anti-creationism in mind when he set up the Chair.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

49. Comment #296368 by Steve Zara on December 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #296359 by Peacebeuponme

I just can't see how you can read the Manifesto and reduce it to merely "anti-creationism".

I didn't. All I am saying is that creationism is an urgent problem. It is clearly something that someone in the Chair is going to come up against.

To say that you are "absolutely not" going to launch and assault on religion is a mistake, I think. Anyone who has followed Richard's encounters with religious people knows that even the mildest criticisms are considered an "assault". Therefore, I have no doubts that as soon as du Sautoy has to deal with creationism, he will be accused of hypocrisy.

I think he should have said nothing, or... "I am just starting the job. Come talk to me about strategy in a year or so".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #296381 by Peacebeuponme on December 3, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Steve

Anyone who has followed Richard's encounters with religious people knows that even the mildest criticisms are considered an "assault".

That seems like wily arguing to me, if I may.

We must take his words at face value, and apply meaning in the common sense, and not what red-faced, bruise-cruising theists read into them.

If he says he wants to concentrate on science and not religion, and then he does that, and still gets face from theist idiots (which he will remember: whatever he says, he will be dealing with them), any accusations for hypocrisy will be unfounded. We have to accept unfounded accusations will exist, just like Richard being "shrill".

I think he should have said nothing, or... "I am just starting the job. Come talk to me about strategy in a year or so".

I accused him of not being media-savvy, but that suggestion takes the biscuit, Steve. A response like that would both be a lie (because he would surely not have got the gig without outlining his strategy), and show a devastating lack of confidence right at the outset.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme