I’ve been thinking about magic beans. I’m a sceptic and a rational thinker, and not so much a fan of things like homoeopathy and other “magic beans”. That’s a phrase that rational, sceptic writers tend to use a lot to describe some wonderful, scientifically dubious item that people will buy into to solve their problems or improve their life. It’s used as a derogatory term, because after all, everyone knows Jack was a bit of a fool for accepting magic beans in lieu of payment.

Except that story didn’t really play out that way, did it? I seem to recall Jack ended up rich and happy beyond his wildest dreams.

For many obvious reasons, Jack and the Beanstalk is a pretty dubious children’s story to start with, given that Jack steals from—and in some versions murders—a man who is treated as a villain purely on account of being a giant and trying to defend his home from an intruder. But beyond that, it can be read as a piece of anti-sceptic propaganda that every child knows by heart: the message is “don’t worry about those people telling you you’re an idiot, they’re wrong and you’ll find fortune with your stupid investment”.

It’s an odd message to teach kids, don’t you think?

EDIT: Coming back to this a few days later, I think I might have been a bit too harsh on Jack. It doesn’t take too much effort to think of a few entrepreneurs with stupid investments who really did find their golden goose…

irrationality · magic beans

Arthur C. Clarke has died, and it’s a sad day for science-fiction and science in general. I’ve never been a big fan of ‘hard’ sci-fi, but I still enjoyed a handful of his books (even if they were all frustratingly open-ended).

Outside of his contributions to fiction, I think we can all agree that satellites were a pretty neat invention, and some of his other predictions were downright spooky. Which one will be next?

Why are free pens always blue? Is blue ink somehow cheaper, easier to produce, or more sustainable than black ink? I often find blue ink is easier on the eyes, but you need black pens to fill out official forms with.

While I was (briefly, procrastinatorily and unsuccessfully) researching this issue, I came across reviews for the Bic biro on Amazon, which are well worth a read.

I should also note that it was not my intention to write two successive posts about stationary. It was an accident.

I’ve just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and I had a few thoughts. First of all, I have a great deal of respect for Dawkins for championing the atheist cause, particularly in countries such as the US where (if the stories in his book are to be believed), he could come away significantly worse off for his troubles. I think everyone should read the book: atheists can read it, nodding along at how clever we are; religious types I challenge to read it and dispute it if they can; and those who can’t make up their mind might just find they have by the end.

I do have a few issues though.

Everything Dawkins ever writes or says is basically right, but the thing is he clearly knows that, and comes across to me as just a little bit smug about it. In particular, I don’t agree that we should be completely intolerant of religion and insensitive to those who believe in it. If religion really is a delusion, shouldn’t we treat its sufferers like we do other forms of delusion, with patience and dignity? I’ll happily dispute religion in private conversation, or if it’s pushed down my throat. I’m just waiting for one of those nutters who hang around Lancaster on Saturdays with signs telling me Jesus died for my sins (rather him than me!) to try pushing something in my face. But until then, I’ll keep my thoughts to myself, because I was brought up polite.

(I should point out that in every interview and discussion I’ve seen or heard about, Dawkins is painfully polite, but his writing often seems to espouse a different approach.)

My second problem is his blanket rejection of faith. For me, atheism is a faith. I haven’t seen the evidence for the Big Bang. I haven’t seen the fossils or DNA that support evolution. I have faith that science can prove these things for me, and I believe in those who claim to have proof. I have a belief system, it’s just a healthy one which can adjust itself based on new information.

Finally, while I was reading the book, Dawkins had a pair of documentaries on Channel 4 called Enemies of Reason, in which he tried to ruin everything magical about the world for everybody by repeatedly banging on about “rigorous, scientific evidence”. Again, I agree with him completely, but if he really wants to turn the masses away from superstition, he’d be much better off pushing the natural beauty of the universe (and he did, but only very briefly) rather than stripping everything down to unappealing scientific fact.