I recently came across a review paper that shows a considerable amount, of progress in the last decade or so, in the understanding of the structure of liquids. That paper “The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy” constitutes a comprehensive review of work in the field. The authors, Rustum Roy, W.A. Tiller, Iris Bell and M.R. Hoover, are not lightweights in the science field, though many mainstreamers are likely to find fault, not least because the thrust of the paper and the evidence contained, referred to, therein, is diametrically opposite to what the mainstream wish to hear.
As the authors point out, the term structure is used in the materials science sense, to designate the three dimensional arrangement of atoms, or molecules, not the structure of s single molecule, or oligomer, as used in chemistry.
The structure of water is due not to just the well known hydrogen bonds but van der Waals bonds between and among the various oligomeric (cluster) structural units.
X-ray diffraction (XRD) is extremely useful for crystal structures but of no use for liquids. Currently, the only effective investigative tool for non-crystalline solids, such as glass structures, directly but only partially, is transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and this cannot be used easily, directly, on liquid structures. These difficulties have lead many scientists to hold the naïve view that all liquids, like most crystalline matter, are, broadly, completely homogenous structures down to the unit cell, atomic, or crystalline level and that they exhibit structural characteristics in line with the random network model, one of the two models developed in the 1930s for glasses.
Zachariasen’s 1932 model for the structure of glass was arrived at by model fitting to X-ray scattering but is based on no direct data from other methods. Even so it has dominated thinking in physics and chemistry ever since. I recall such diagrams from the time of my Master of Technology Degree, in Non-Metallic Materials, at Brunel University during the 1970s.
Opposed to Zachariasen’s model of a homogonous structure, was the early “crystallite” theory, which also brings back memories. That model posited that small 5-50 Ao fragments of various crystalline structures floated in a “monomeric sea”.
Between the 1930 and 1980s the concept of a homogeneous (random-network), or heterogeneous (crystallite) structure for glass (frozen liquids) was reconsidered at various times. Transition electron microscopy (TEM) rather than X-ray diffraction (XRD) produced definitive relevant data in common boro- and alumino-silicate glasses, which showed a heterogeneous nano-structure of very many transparent glasses which have even 2 or 4 separate phases; a phase is defined as a region of characteristic structure, or composition separated by a surface.
The whole of the glass-ceramic industry depends on this incipient nanoheterogeneity, or actual phase separation in glass, for its existence. The existence and the high probability of nano-heterogeneity in most strongly bonded glass and liquid structures are now established as the “standard model”.
After surveying experimental data and the resulting thinking about glass and liquid structures over the last several deacedes, Roy, et al, conclude that the actual expereiental data on the structrue of many glasses and liquids can be summarised as follows:
a) The ubiquity of nanoscale heterogeneity in the structure of many covalently bonded liquids
b) That such heterogeneity on the nanometer scale is the rule rather than the exception for the structure of all strongly bonded liquids (i.e. principally excepting ionic and metallic melts)
The Structure of Water
Roy, et al, wrote their paper in the “language” of materials science. However, they found that, via some 17 million hits on Google for “structure of water”, materials scientists have rarely studied what is an extremely common material. The vast majority of papers on the “structure of water”, in the chemical and biomedical literature, started and, most often, ended with statements and claims about what molecules exist in water on the basis of particular, increasingly specialised tools, with the prominence of hydrogen bonding in the molecules rarely being commented on.
Roy, et al, cite a prodigious work, a website by Martin Chaplin of South Bank University, London. As they say, it is an enormous, complex and well organised review of the entire field of water structure and related fields, like homeopathy, the treatment of the latter being unusual in that it is scientific, balanced and fair minded. The ambiguity in the chemical literature on the structure of water is well illustrated by the collected illustrations of that structure, as conceived, proposed, deduced.
What comes out of all of this is that water, along with other liquids, has a structure, in the materials science sense, that can store information and have information impressed in it by means of epitaxy (shape), pressure generation, electrically, magnetically, etc., and that information can be retained.
In their conclusion, Roy, et al, point out the key role of the nano-heterogeneity of liquid water and the resulting ease of change of structure. They go on to say that the understanding and mental images of the structure of water have been radically distorted in the minds of most scientists and, thence, the medical community. Liquid water (OH2) like its remarkably similar analogue SiO2, is not a homogenous structure at the molecular level. It is a dynamic equilibrium among changing percentages of assemblages of different oligomers. The structure, architecture, and these assemblages, or units, themselves are dependent on temperature, hence it’s many anomalous property temperature relationships, as well as on pressure and on composition. As a result the structure is more responsive to composition of low level solutes, to magnetic fields and to “subtle energies”.
There is an extreme structural flexibility that predisposes the water to change by both epitaxy and succussion, the latter introducing the possibility of a stable nano-air bubble colloid.
The latter factors provide a theoretical feasibility for, as the authors put it, “the robust outcomes data of dozens of researchers in the homeopathic field, who have reached more or less similar conclusion by other routes”.
To quote the following paragraph directly:
“The connection of the imprinting, via succussion and possible epitaxy, of the different specific homeopathic remedies on the structure of water eliminates the primitive criticism of homeopathy being untenable due to the absence of any remnant of the molecules. Structures change properties vastly more easily and dramatically than chemistry changes them. Beyond the homeopathic field, such an enormous structural pliability also provides a plausible framework for the claims of the most reliable workers in the field of “subtle energies” to be able to change the structure and properties of water.”
Also, in the words of the paper, relating to homeopathy, with which I have to agree:
“The central thrust of this paper, which has presented an argument which nullifies the simpleminded argument of ‘zero concentration of solute, hence no possible effect,’ is that it is structure NOT composition which ahs the effect.”
As Roy, et al, say, their paper outlines testable hypotheses about the ability to alter the structure of water in the ultra-dilute regime, though epitaxy, coupled with succussion (vigorous shaking) generating pressure and nano-bubbles leading to properties markedly different than those of untreated water.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Business Link Hampshire – Prediction Confirmed, Business Assistance and Advice Limited and Difficult to Obtain
Just before going out I ‘phoned Sarah at Business Link Hampshire about my appointment, with Jenny Oakley, at 10.45 a.m. on Tuesday 23rd February at the Emsworth Pastoral Centre, as I had not received an E-mail giving the location of the Pastoral centre, as promised, or confirming the appointment, though I had already realised, discovered, that the Pastoral Centre was at a church in the Centre of Emsworth. Someone by the name of Mark answered and said that Sarah had just picked up the ‘phone to speak to someone else.
I used the opportunity to double check on surnames, partly in order to have a closer look at my E-mails to see if I had missed anything. Mark advised me that Sarah’s surname was Anderson and it transpired that his was Bartlett. I asked if he was any relation, meaning to David Bartlett, Business director of Business Link Hampshire, but Mark said he was not any relation, though commented that “everybody asks that”, which was not really surprising..
I had known David Bartlett since the late 1990s, when he was at many meetings I attended, in Hampshire, while setting up my Technology Diversification Centre project as well as many meetings to do with the project, to which he was invited, also a member of the Board of Havant Borough Partnership to which my project was given, only for Havant Borough partnership to wreck it and the cover-up to ensue; the people of Havant are still unaware of having had their money (up to £1m at today’s prices, quite possibly more) used to pay back the money defrauded from Europe via the Government Office, though that was not just my project that was used to do that, as confirmed by the Well-Wisher, the former senior Havant Borough Council Officer, after retirement, though I had been aware of for other reasons, including “non-charge invoices”, to claims for matched funding, being requested at meetings, by the people to whom my project was given.
In the early 2000s I was “blanked” by Business Link Hampshire; it was as a Business Banker who used the term, though at the same meeting conceded that my non engineering interest were definitely viable as a business, a view which was later confirmed by others but never received any support from Business Link Hampshire. In 2004 I approached Business Link Sussex for help and they agreed my non-engineering interest were worth a very great deal, more than my engineering career. While Business Link Sussex were being very helpful, David Bartlett contacted me to suggest that I come back to Hampshire. I made the mistake of doing so; it saved me a great deal of travelling but my time and resources were simply wasted; I was only allowed to meet with David Bartlett, none of the more knowledgeable, appropriate, people with whom I requested to have discussions, ostensibly because his time was free and other peoples’ time would be expensive, and I progressed absolutely nowhere. So it remained for many years.
Just before I was due to leave for my appointment, the ‘phone rang; it was Sarah Anderson, of Business Link Hampshire, calling me back after my conversation with Mark Bartlett.
Sarah told me that my appointment with Jenney Oakley at Emsworth Pastoral Centre on 23rd February had been cancelled. They had, obviously, caught up with the fact that I had met Jenny Oakley before, in 2008 and, it seems, that I had problems with Business Link Hampshire before. According to my contemporaneous notes, which I usually try to make during such telephone conversations, it was said, had been said, that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley, which incensed me, somewhat, as it was totally untrue, though someone with Business Link Hampshire seems to have been putting several untruths about in relation to myself and Business Link Hampshire, in relation to other matters, so why not a supposed, manufactured, complaint as well.
Apparently, Jenny Oakley had said our previous meeting did not go well. That is entirely true, it amounted to a wasted one and a half hours. I had been invited to a one-to-one meeting and had accepted, primarily out of curiosity.
While I was at a networking meeting, arranged by Southern Entrepreneurs, some time before the meeting with Jenny Oakley, I mentioned the coming meeting to an experienced Hampshire businesswoman, who I had previously met. Her reaction was simply to look downwards and shake her head. That had nothing to do with Jenny Oakley, simply the appalling reputation that Business Link Hampshire had at the time, as well as for many years previously and, as yet, it does not seem to have improved. I had expected the meeting to be a waste of time, as someone within Business Link Hampshire has been working against me for years, though is far to cowardly to come out into the open. I fully expected the meeting to be a complete waste of time, as it was, though also recognised that Jenny Oakley was in a totally invidious position and that, left to her own devices, the outcome would have been different, quite possibly very different. I have more than enough experience of the machinations within industry and business not to be aware of such circumstances.
The 2008 meeting “not going well” was no reason, or excuse, for Jenny Oakley not to get back to me, in some form at least, though, as I have written, I fully recognise the difficulty of her position; hence my reaction to the suggestion that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley. As the underlying situation was none of her doing that would have been totally unfair. Similarly, the “block” and machinations being at a higher level than her would also have made it unfair. Besides, I made a formal complaint against Business Link Hampshire back in the early 2000s, probably during the years it was known as Business Link Wessex, as I recall. (I may have time to check and come back to edit this later.)
The complaint, against Business Link Hampshire/Wessex, was to Glen Atherfold, then of the Small Business Service. That was when I learned that a formal investigation into a Business Link amounts to, essentially, approaching the Business Link concerned on the basis, “Have you done anything wrong?”, “No?”, “Good, that’s all right then,” investigation over, case closed. Like other Public Bodies and Publically funded bodies, including Local Government, Business Links are a law unto themselves, though, probably, not, unlike at least some Local Government, above the law.
In the event, I told Sarah that I would like to see the complaint that I was supposed to have made against Jenny Oakley. I mentioned the letter I had received from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, principally about moving information to SEEDA, the South east England Development Agency, under which the local business Links now come, and, in passing, mentioning my request never to be contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, something I had never done and something clearly generated within Business Link Hampshire itself.
As far as the latest foray is concerned, I came across the Business Link people, Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting, as described in my previous Blog entry (Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction) and on the January 2010 page of my Journal Web Site. That is also why I was so careful to spend time talking to them, ask questions and make notes of exactly what I was entitled to receive in terms of business advice and support from Business Link Hampshire. The intention was to go along with it as far as the person near the top controlling these matters would allow, once they, or someone close to them, found out and to chronicle developments and my experiences on the Internet. What I had intended to do was to write the detail of the encounters in, more or less, inverse proportion to the how positive my encounters with Business Link Hampshire turned out to be and the amount of help received. If it developed well, what I wrote would be in generalities, if it went poorly, there would be more detail. In part that would be because, if it went well, I would be more occupied in following up Business Link Hampshire’s leads, as well as seeing no great sense in publicising details for those involved with the cover up and trying to prevent me getting into the public domain to come across.
At some stage Sarah Anderson suggested that I might like to talk to Debra Wyatt, who, when I asked about her position within Business Link Hampshire, was advised that she occupied the position of Director of Operations. It is strange that I am never directed to the person pulling the negative strings, the coward hiding in the background.
Sarah said it had been decided that a telephone consultation would be better; never mind what the customer wants, though this is a publicly funded organisation after all, the raison d’être is the customer in theory, though not in practice.
I decided I would go along with the suggestion and see what happened, though, having already discussed the Business Link Hampshire block on me, discrimination against me at Borough Councillor and County Councillor level, as well as with Business Link South East (outside Hampshire) and others, I would be letting them know how I was getting on, as well as blogging events.
The conversation with Sarah Anderson made me a little late for an appointment, though I arrived to find out that it had been cancelled anyway, due to illness, though no-one had called me to say so. As a result, I returned home, earlier than expected and, soon afterwards, went through my E-mails trying to find the E-mail Sarah said she sent me on 4th February. I could find nothing under Business Link Hampshire, either in the main folder, the Business Link Hampshire folder, the old Business Link Wessex folder, or the Junk E-mail folder, under either “Business Link”, “Sarah”, or “Anderson”.
As with many other organisations, I have no doubt that the majority of people at Business Link Hampshire are decent, helpful, capable people; the problem, as ever, comes when there is a senior person, or two, or three, or, very occasionally, more, with their own agenda.
That does not detract from the fact that Business Link Hampshire have contributed mightily to preventing me bringing tens of millions of Pounds worth of engineering business to Hampshire as well as tens to hundreds of millions of Pounds worth of tourism business to Hampshire, Sussex, Essex, etc. I am quite prepared to discuss that in even more public venus than this Blog; the person hiding within Business Link Hampshire would not be so prepared, though that person is not alone.
On Tuesday 23rd February, I am due to receive a ‘phone call from Nick Keogh, of Business Link Hampshire. We shall just have to see holding my breath. That has nothing to do with Nick Keogh, though has everything to do with the person manipulating matters behind the scenes.
I used the opportunity to double check on surnames, partly in order to have a closer look at my E-mails to see if I had missed anything. Mark advised me that Sarah’s surname was Anderson and it transpired that his was Bartlett. I asked if he was any relation, meaning to David Bartlett, Business director of Business Link Hampshire, but Mark said he was not any relation, though commented that “everybody asks that”, which was not really surprising..
I had known David Bartlett since the late 1990s, when he was at many meetings I attended, in Hampshire, while setting up my Technology Diversification Centre project as well as many meetings to do with the project, to which he was invited, also a member of the Board of Havant Borough Partnership to which my project was given, only for Havant Borough partnership to wreck it and the cover-up to ensue; the people of Havant are still unaware of having had their money (up to £1m at today’s prices, quite possibly more) used to pay back the money defrauded from Europe via the Government Office, though that was not just my project that was used to do that, as confirmed by the Well-Wisher, the former senior Havant Borough Council Officer, after retirement, though I had been aware of for other reasons, including “non-charge invoices”, to claims for matched funding, being requested at meetings, by the people to whom my project was given.
In the early 2000s I was “blanked” by Business Link Hampshire; it was as a Business Banker who used the term, though at the same meeting conceded that my non engineering interest were definitely viable as a business, a view which was later confirmed by others but never received any support from Business Link Hampshire. In 2004 I approached Business Link Sussex for help and they agreed my non-engineering interest were worth a very great deal, more than my engineering career. While Business Link Sussex were being very helpful, David Bartlett contacted me to suggest that I come back to Hampshire. I made the mistake of doing so; it saved me a great deal of travelling but my time and resources were simply wasted; I was only allowed to meet with David Bartlett, none of the more knowledgeable, appropriate, people with whom I requested to have discussions, ostensibly because his time was free and other peoples’ time would be expensive, and I progressed absolutely nowhere. So it remained for many years.
Just before I was due to leave for my appointment, the ‘phone rang; it was Sarah Anderson, of Business Link Hampshire, calling me back after my conversation with Mark Bartlett.
Sarah told me that my appointment with Jenney Oakley at Emsworth Pastoral Centre on 23rd February had been cancelled. They had, obviously, caught up with the fact that I had met Jenny Oakley before, in 2008 and, it seems, that I had problems with Business Link Hampshire before. According to my contemporaneous notes, which I usually try to make during such telephone conversations, it was said, had been said, that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley, which incensed me, somewhat, as it was totally untrue, though someone with Business Link Hampshire seems to have been putting several untruths about in relation to myself and Business Link Hampshire, in relation to other matters, so why not a supposed, manufactured, complaint as well.
Apparently, Jenny Oakley had said our previous meeting did not go well. That is entirely true, it amounted to a wasted one and a half hours. I had been invited to a one-to-one meeting and had accepted, primarily out of curiosity.
While I was at a networking meeting, arranged by Southern Entrepreneurs, some time before the meeting with Jenny Oakley, I mentioned the coming meeting to an experienced Hampshire businesswoman, who I had previously met. Her reaction was simply to look downwards and shake her head. That had nothing to do with Jenny Oakley, simply the appalling reputation that Business Link Hampshire had at the time, as well as for many years previously and, as yet, it does not seem to have improved. I had expected the meeting to be a waste of time, as someone within Business Link Hampshire has been working against me for years, though is far to cowardly to come out into the open. I fully expected the meeting to be a complete waste of time, as it was, though also recognised that Jenny Oakley was in a totally invidious position and that, left to her own devices, the outcome would have been different, quite possibly very different. I have more than enough experience of the machinations within industry and business not to be aware of such circumstances.
The 2008 meeting “not going well” was no reason, or excuse, for Jenny Oakley not to get back to me, in some form at least, though, as I have written, I fully recognise the difficulty of her position; hence my reaction to the suggestion that I had made a formal complaint against Jenny Oakley. As the underlying situation was none of her doing that would have been totally unfair. Similarly, the “block” and machinations being at a higher level than her would also have made it unfair. Besides, I made a formal complaint against Business Link Hampshire back in the early 2000s, probably during the years it was known as Business Link Wessex, as I recall. (I may have time to check and come back to edit this later.)
The complaint, against Business Link Hampshire/Wessex, was to Glen Atherfold, then of the Small Business Service. That was when I learned that a formal investigation into a Business Link amounts to, essentially, approaching the Business Link concerned on the basis, “Have you done anything wrong?”, “No?”, “Good, that’s all right then,” investigation over, case closed. Like other Public Bodies and Publically funded bodies, including Local Government, Business Links are a law unto themselves, though, probably, not, unlike at least some Local Government, above the law.
In the event, I told Sarah that I would like to see the complaint that I was supposed to have made against Jenny Oakley. I mentioned the letter I had received from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, principally about moving information to SEEDA, the South east England Development Agency, under which the local business Links now come, and, in passing, mentioning my request never to be contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, something I had never done and something clearly generated within Business Link Hampshire itself.
As far as the latest foray is concerned, I came across the Business Link people, Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting, as described in my previous Blog entry (Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction) and on the January 2010 page of my Journal Web Site. That is also why I was so careful to spend time talking to them, ask questions and make notes of exactly what I was entitled to receive in terms of business advice and support from Business Link Hampshire. The intention was to go along with it as far as the person near the top controlling these matters would allow, once they, or someone close to them, found out and to chronicle developments and my experiences on the Internet. What I had intended to do was to write the detail of the encounters in, more or less, inverse proportion to the how positive my encounters with Business Link Hampshire turned out to be and the amount of help received. If it developed well, what I wrote would be in generalities, if it went poorly, there would be more detail. In part that would be because, if it went well, I would be more occupied in following up Business Link Hampshire’s leads, as well as seeing no great sense in publicising details for those involved with the cover up and trying to prevent me getting into the public domain to come across.
At some stage Sarah Anderson suggested that I might like to talk to Debra Wyatt, who, when I asked about her position within Business Link Hampshire, was advised that she occupied the position of Director of Operations. It is strange that I am never directed to the person pulling the negative strings, the coward hiding in the background.
Sarah said it had been decided that a telephone consultation would be better; never mind what the customer wants, though this is a publicly funded organisation after all, the raison d’être is the customer in theory, though not in practice.
I decided I would go along with the suggestion and see what happened, though, having already discussed the Business Link Hampshire block on me, discrimination against me at Borough Councillor and County Councillor level, as well as with Business Link South East (outside Hampshire) and others, I would be letting them know how I was getting on, as well as blogging events.
The conversation with Sarah Anderson made me a little late for an appointment, though I arrived to find out that it had been cancelled anyway, due to illness, though no-one had called me to say so. As a result, I returned home, earlier than expected and, soon afterwards, went through my E-mails trying to find the E-mail Sarah said she sent me on 4th February. I could find nothing under Business Link Hampshire, either in the main folder, the Business Link Hampshire folder, the old Business Link Wessex folder, or the Junk E-mail folder, under either “Business Link”, “Sarah”, or “Anderson”.
As with many other organisations, I have no doubt that the majority of people at Business Link Hampshire are decent, helpful, capable people; the problem, as ever, comes when there is a senior person, or two, or three, or, very occasionally, more, with their own agenda.
That does not detract from the fact that Business Link Hampshire have contributed mightily to preventing me bringing tens of millions of Pounds worth of engineering business to Hampshire as well as tens to hundreds of millions of Pounds worth of tourism business to Hampshire, Sussex, Essex, etc. I am quite prepared to discuss that in even more public venus than this Blog; the person hiding within Business Link Hampshire would not be so prepared, though that person is not alone.
On Tuesday 23rd February, I am due to receive a ‘phone call from Nick Keogh, of Business Link Hampshire. We shall just have to see holding my breath. That has nothing to do with Nick Keogh, though has everything to do with the person manipulating matters behind the scenes.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Business Link Hampshire – A Prediction
On Tuesday 24th January 2010, I attended the Chamber of Commerce Meeting at 1000 Lakeside, North Harbour, Portsmouth, the former IBM Building, happening to arrive, in the car park, at about the same time as Maureen Frost, Chief Executive of Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce.
The Meeting was on one of the upper floors of the building and well attended, as usual, plus numerous people and organisations with stands.
One of the stands was, inevitably, occupied by Business Link Hampshire Stand. The two representatives of Business Link Hampshire, to whom I spoke were Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, though, principally, principally Susan Obbard. I had met Susan Obbard before, during a similar Chamber of Commerce meeting held at Fratton Park, home of Portsmouth Football Club. On that occasion I had asked for business assistance and gave Susan Obbard my business card but heard nothing thereafter. I wondered if she would remember, half thought of using another name, but then decided to go ahead, using my own name, see what happened, then chronicle everything on the Internet as well as advising others I had spoken to at Business Link South East (outside Hampshire), County Councillors and others.
It was during that conversation that Madeleine Morton said she thought she had met me before, at a Business Breakfast at Cams hall Golf Club. That had been a long time before, though I also remembered Madeleine from an East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce meeting at the east Hampshire Council Offices in Petersfield.
What I learned from Susan Obbard was what I had always thought about Business links and the helped that they should offer.
Like anyone else, I was entitled to on-to-one business counselling and support, up to four meetings per year, each of one hour to an hour and a half duration.
At such a meeting, certainly the first one, the topics that would be gone over were:
Strategy
Customers
Operations
People and skills
Finance
Information Technology
There would be telephone support and support on the Business Link website.
There would be one-to-one support with advisors.
Susan Obbard said that Jenny Oakley was very good at her job.
I asked Susan Obbard if there should be feedback from each of the on-to-one meetings and she confirmed that was the case. Similar, I checked my understanding, from what she had said and what I had understood from other sources
When I asked her how long it might be before I heard from them she said that Business Link Hampshire’s turnaround time was within twenty-four hours and that I should hear from them on the following day, Wednesday.
The above is what I understood Business Links should provide in terms of help. Watch these pages and my Blogs to see if it transpires, this time. My easy prediction is that it will not and business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me and that will be at the behest of a senior manager without he courage to come out in the open,
I did not hear from Business Link Hampshire on the Wednesday but that would have been a ratherrapid reaction, so left ti to see what would transpire.
On Friday 27th January I had a dental appointment early in the morning, in Havant. Everything turned out to be alright and no treatment was needed.
When I arrived home I learned there had been a ‘phone call for me from Sarah at Business Link Hampshire.
I ‘phoned Sarah back, at 12.34 p.m., at Business Link Hampshire, before leaving for my afternoon business appointed. Sarah thanked me for calling back and set about arranging an appointment for me to see the Business Link Advisor, Jenny Oakley.
There were possible appointments on Monday 15th January in Havant, or Tuesday 23rd January in Emsworth, with a third possibility being on Tuesday 9th February at Brambles Farm Business Centre, Waterlooville. Some of the available times clashed with my already arranged appointments.
The appointment in Havant would have been at the Civic Offices in Havant, Havant Borough Council Offices, where I had met Jenny Oakley in June 2008 and got absolutely nowhere; I gained nothing from the meeting and never heard from her again, let alone being provided with another three meetings over the following twelve months, all with assistance to develop my business, etc. I had no doubt, then, that Jenny Oakley was under instruction not to help me and that is what transpired; hence asking detailed questions of Susan Obbard at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting to make doubly sure that I was entirely correct in what I understood business Link assistance should actually be.
Of course, I mentioned none of the foregoing to Sarah, during our telephone conversation, simply making the appointment to see what would happen, though, this time, intending to follow through and put everything on the Internet.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing of the letter from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, which, in passing, alluded to my supposed request, never to contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, a request I had never made, having only asked them for assistance, many times, over several years but never received any.
In the end, the appointment was made for a meeting with Jenny Oakley at 10.45 a.m. at the Pastoral Centre, Emsworth (http://www.findachurch.co.uk/churches/su/su70/emsworthmc/). I told Sarah that I was not sure where the Pastoral Centre was, not being able to place it at the time. Sarah said that she would provide details of the location of the Pastoral Centre in the E-mail she would send me. I wondered I that would happen, or whether someone would catch up with my request for the meeting and block it, the E-mail from Sarah not then being sent; that was later to transpire, the E-mail never arrived.
The prediction, based on previous experience, is, of course, that Business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me. Developments, in whatever direction, will be published on the Internet, as will reactions from other people I contact, including County Councillors, Borough Councillors, people I have spoken to within Business Link South East, though outside of Hampshire, etc., though not necessarily with their names.
The Meeting was on one of the upper floors of the building and well attended, as usual, plus numerous people and organisations with stands.
One of the stands was, inevitably, occupied by Business Link Hampshire Stand. The two representatives of Business Link Hampshire, to whom I spoke were Susan Obbard and Madeleine Morton, though, principally, principally Susan Obbard. I had met Susan Obbard before, during a similar Chamber of Commerce meeting held at Fratton Park, home of Portsmouth Football Club. On that occasion I had asked for business assistance and gave Susan Obbard my business card but heard nothing thereafter. I wondered if she would remember, half thought of using another name, but then decided to go ahead, using my own name, see what happened, then chronicle everything on the Internet as well as advising others I had spoken to at Business Link South East (outside Hampshire), County Councillors and others.
It was during that conversation that Madeleine Morton said she thought she had met me before, at a Business Breakfast at Cams hall Golf Club. That had been a long time before, though I also remembered Madeleine from an East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce meeting at the east Hampshire Council Offices in Petersfield.
What I learned from Susan Obbard was what I had always thought about Business links and the helped that they should offer.
Like anyone else, I was entitled to on-to-one business counselling and support, up to four meetings per year, each of one hour to an hour and a half duration.
At such a meeting, certainly the first one, the topics that would be gone over were:
Strategy
Customers
Operations
People and skills
Finance
Information Technology
There would be telephone support and support on the Business Link website.
There would be one-to-one support with advisors.
Susan Obbard said that Jenny Oakley was very good at her job.
I asked Susan Obbard if there should be feedback from each of the on-to-one meetings and she confirmed that was the case. Similar, I checked my understanding, from what she had said and what I had understood from other sources
When I asked her how long it might be before I heard from them she said that Business Link Hampshire’s turnaround time was within twenty-four hours and that I should hear from them on the following day, Wednesday.
The above is what I understood Business Links should provide in terms of help. Watch these pages and my Blogs to see if it transpires, this time. My easy prediction is that it will not and business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me and that will be at the behest of a senior manager without he courage to come out in the open,
I did not hear from Business Link Hampshire on the Wednesday but that would have been a ratherrapid reaction, so left ti to see what would transpire.
On Friday 27th January I had a dental appointment early in the morning, in Havant. Everything turned out to be alright and no treatment was needed.
When I arrived home I learned there had been a ‘phone call for me from Sarah at Business Link Hampshire.
I ‘phoned Sarah back, at 12.34 p.m., at Business Link Hampshire, before leaving for my afternoon business appointed. Sarah thanked me for calling back and set about arranging an appointment for me to see the Business Link Advisor, Jenny Oakley.
There were possible appointments on Monday 15th January in Havant, or Tuesday 23rd January in Emsworth, with a third possibility being on Tuesday 9th February at Brambles Farm Business Centre, Waterlooville. Some of the available times clashed with my already arranged appointments.
The appointment in Havant would have been at the Civic Offices in Havant, Havant Borough Council Offices, where I had met Jenny Oakley in June 2008 and got absolutely nowhere; I gained nothing from the meeting and never heard from her again, let alone being provided with another three meetings over the following twelve months, all with assistance to develop my business, etc. I had no doubt, then, that Jenny Oakley was under instruction not to help me and that is what transpired; hence asking detailed questions of Susan Obbard at the Chamber of Commerce Meeting to make doubly sure that I was entirely correct in what I understood business Link assistance should actually be.
Of course, I mentioned none of the foregoing to Sarah, during our telephone conversation, simply making the appointment to see what would happen, though, this time, intending to follow through and put everything on the Internet.
Similarly, I mentioned nothing of the letter from Jonathan Morris, the Chief Executive of Business Link Hampshire, which, in passing, alluded to my supposed request, never to contacted by Business Link Hampshire again, a request I had never made, having only asked them for assistance, many times, over several years but never received any.
In the end, the appointment was made for a meeting with Jenny Oakley at 10.45 a.m. at the Pastoral Centre, Emsworth (http://www.findachurch.co.uk/churches/su/su70/emsworthmc/). I told Sarah that I was not sure where the Pastoral Centre was, not being able to place it at the time. Sarah said that she would provide details of the location of the Pastoral Centre in the E-mail she would send me. I wondered I that would happen, or whether someone would catch up with my request for the meeting and block it, the E-mail from Sarah not then being sent; that was later to transpire, the E-mail never arrived.
The prediction, based on previous experience, is, of course, that Business Link Hampshire will continue to discriminate against me. Developments, in whatever direction, will be published on the Internet, as will reactions from other people I contact, including County Councillors, Borough Councillors, people I have spoken to within Business Link South East, though outside of Hampshire, etc., though not necessarily with their names.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Recently, I came across an article in “The Times”, “Why non-scientists are a pain in the arts” by Ben Miller, presumably the physicist turned comedian, going back to his science roots, which explains a lot. The title of the piece derives from an art graduate who thinks the moon landings were a fake.
After berating the media for being arts dominated Miller goes on to write:
“This is how we end up in the ludicrous situation we find ourselves in with the Large Hadron Collider. Ten thousand of the world’s top scientists spend 20 years building the ultimate in particle accelerators at a cost of £4.4 billion and the only story that makes the headlines is the one about some nutter in Hawaii who thinks it’s going to cause a black hole that devours the Universe. This is somehow conflated into a story that when the machine gets switched on, scientists believe we are all toast. And when the ruddy thing was finally powered up, everyone shakes their heads in bemusement at the endless folly of scientists. Haven’t they got any common sense? Can’t they see that turning that thing on was never going to herald the Apocalypse? And E=mc2 or not, what kind of barmcake doesn’t wear socks?”
That, of course, is totally wrong. The large Hadron Collider was built by engineers. Wanting something, wishing for something, is one thing, realizing it is quite another. I doubt if scientists would know were to begin, after all, science is only a small part of engineering, less than 20%, so scientists would well short of the required knowledge, let alone expertise and judgment; besides, engineering requires art, among many others things, as well as science, when appropriate.
Miller later writes:
“The problem is, of course, that success in the arts depends on having — how can I put this charitably? — interesting opinions, whereas success in the sciences depends on one thing alone: maths.”
Mathematics, like science, is only a tool, useful at times, though not always. Besides, I would rather listen to interesting arts opinions than the overbearing arrogance that pervades much of science these days, as well as it being full of errors that many scientists and their acolytes are too blind to see.
Success depends on maths?
There was a time when bridges were safe, according to the mathematics; just one problem, at least until other problems came along, the mathematics of aerodynamics, or lack of it. So, before the aerodynamics came in, there was a large element of over design; following the Tay Bridge disaster, when it was brought down by a storm, came, on a never again, like the Tay Bridge, basis, the Forth Bridge; massively over designed but safe, still standing after 130 years and a magnificent piece of art as well.
Then there was the situation of aircraft being safe, according to the mathematics, apart from a small matter of stress fracture, as in the Comet aircraft of the 1950s.
One of the many examples on a personal experience level was during my time in the aircraft industry, specifically the early 1980s when I was responsible for the stress analysis and some of the design of the fuselage tanks and floor structure of the VC10 air-to-air refueling tankers and still in service, it seems. For peculiar reasons it was specified that the tanks had to be flat ended, despite being required to take internal and external pressure, and had to be mounted on the seat rails, rather than a special purpose raft, an extra structure. In the crash case, according to the structural analysis and the mathematics, the tanks would go through the aircraft floor. Ron Boxer, the Deputy Chief Stressman, with whom I was working, suggested recalculating assuming the floor beams nearest the tank supports deformed plastically but the tanks still went through the floor; try the next two as well, still structural failure; try the next two as well, reserve factor of 1.01. After a few seconds thought Ron decided that would do. The mathematics, combined with structural theory, took us only so far; thereafter it was down to engineering judgement based on over thirty years experience of aircraft structures.
Mathematics is useful but there is no substitute for experience and judgment, especially engineering experience and judgement in practical situations; the same applies to science.
Mathematics provided no proof in the case of the black hole scare story, connected with the Large Hadron Collider, being wrong, it was, still is, only a tool for assisting in an assessment.
Overall, Ben Miller’s writing and reasoning reads more like a script for the Armstrong and Miller Show, which I have found very occasionally amusing, never particularly funny.
Ben Miller’s piece is subtitled, “Were the moon landings faked? Yes or know, I for one would never trust the irrational opinion of a mere arts graduate.”
Well, apart from accepting that the moon landings were real, after all it was we engineers who made it possible, I for one, would never trust the often, arrogant, not always entirely rational, opinion of a mere science graduate; I know more than enough about science, as well as other matters, to be quite capable of making up my own mind.
After berating the media for being arts dominated Miller goes on to write:
“This is how we end up in the ludicrous situation we find ourselves in with the Large Hadron Collider. Ten thousand of the world’s top scientists spend 20 years building the ultimate in particle accelerators at a cost of £4.4 billion and the only story that makes the headlines is the one about some nutter in Hawaii who thinks it’s going to cause a black hole that devours the Universe. This is somehow conflated into a story that when the machine gets switched on, scientists believe we are all toast. And when the ruddy thing was finally powered up, everyone shakes their heads in bemusement at the endless folly of scientists. Haven’t they got any common sense? Can’t they see that turning that thing on was never going to herald the Apocalypse? And E=mc2 or not, what kind of barmcake doesn’t wear socks?”
That, of course, is totally wrong. The large Hadron Collider was built by engineers. Wanting something, wishing for something, is one thing, realizing it is quite another. I doubt if scientists would know were to begin, after all, science is only a small part of engineering, less than 20%, so scientists would well short of the required knowledge, let alone expertise and judgment; besides, engineering requires art, among many others things, as well as science, when appropriate.
Miller later writes:
“The problem is, of course, that success in the arts depends on having — how can I put this charitably? — interesting opinions, whereas success in the sciences depends on one thing alone: maths.”
Mathematics, like science, is only a tool, useful at times, though not always. Besides, I would rather listen to interesting arts opinions than the overbearing arrogance that pervades much of science these days, as well as it being full of errors that many scientists and their acolytes are too blind to see.
Success depends on maths?
There was a time when bridges were safe, according to the mathematics; just one problem, at least until other problems came along, the mathematics of aerodynamics, or lack of it. So, before the aerodynamics came in, there was a large element of over design; following the Tay Bridge disaster, when it was brought down by a storm, came, on a never again, like the Tay Bridge, basis, the Forth Bridge; massively over designed but safe, still standing after 130 years and a magnificent piece of art as well.
Then there was the situation of aircraft being safe, according to the mathematics, apart from a small matter of stress fracture, as in the Comet aircraft of the 1950s.
One of the many examples on a personal experience level was during my time in the aircraft industry, specifically the early 1980s when I was responsible for the stress analysis and some of the design of the fuselage tanks and floor structure of the VC10 air-to-air refueling tankers and still in service, it seems. For peculiar reasons it was specified that the tanks had to be flat ended, despite being required to take internal and external pressure, and had to be mounted on the seat rails, rather than a special purpose raft, an extra structure. In the crash case, according to the structural analysis and the mathematics, the tanks would go through the aircraft floor. Ron Boxer, the Deputy Chief Stressman, with whom I was working, suggested recalculating assuming the floor beams nearest the tank supports deformed plastically but the tanks still went through the floor; try the next two as well, still structural failure; try the next two as well, reserve factor of 1.01. After a few seconds thought Ron decided that would do. The mathematics, combined with structural theory, took us only so far; thereafter it was down to engineering judgement based on over thirty years experience of aircraft structures.
Mathematics is useful but there is no substitute for experience and judgment, especially engineering experience and judgement in practical situations; the same applies to science.
Mathematics provided no proof in the case of the black hole scare story, connected with the Large Hadron Collider, being wrong, it was, still is, only a tool for assisting in an assessment.
Overall, Ben Miller’s writing and reasoning reads more like a script for the Armstrong and Miller Show, which I have found very occasionally amusing, never particularly funny.
Ben Miller’s piece is subtitled, “Were the moon landings faked? Yes or know, I for one would never trust the irrational opinion of a mere arts graduate.”
Well, apart from accepting that the moon landings were real, after all it was we engineers who made it possible, I for one, would never trust the often, arrogant, not always entirely rational, opinion of a mere science graduate; I know more than enough about science, as well as other matters, to be quite capable of making up my own mind.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
Mainstream Science and Medicine, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Legal Action and Double Standards from the Mainstream
In the 16th May Issue of New Scientist David Allen Green, otherwise known as Blogger Jack of Kent, wrote a piece entitled “Don't criticise or we'll sue” New Scientist 6th May 2009, page 24. Until the the British Chiropractors Association legal action against Simon Singh, I had not heard of much by way of legal action by Complementary and Alternative therapy practitioners, against any mainstream scientists, or anyone else, or vice versa. Even in the situation between the chiropractors and Simon Singh, the chiropractors gave an opportunity for the offending comments to be withdrawn, though that was declined, even though it would have made little difference to the thrust of the argument.
Everyone I know in the CAM field is somewhat bemused and, to some degree, amused by the general attitude of the mainstream people, both scientists and their “hangers on”. Their arrogance is, admittedly, an irritation, though the immaturity of their absolute certainty in themselves and their ways, as well as their juvenile language is, usually, met by indulgent smiles, gently shaking heads and wondering how long it will take them to grow up.
In the current issue of New Scientist (6th June 2009, page 26) there is a letter from Dr George Lewith, who also writes that, until the chiropractors' action against Simon Singh, he was unaware of any CAM people taking legal action against critics. On the other hand he has been on the receiving end of legal action from anti-CAM people. The was of no great surprise to me as the ant-CAM brigade, as George Lewith refers to them, as well as a vast swathes of mainstream scientists and their supporters are consistent in very few ways, though one of those ways is inconsistency. Another way is the obvious juvenility; I deliberately hold back from using the word “childish” for the simple reason that to so characterise the behaviour and attitudes of very many of the anti-CAM brigade and many other of the mainstream types, would be an insult to children. There is a similarity with children in the “running to mummy” syndrome that rapidly develops. While they are deriding and “bad mouthing” others everything is fine; as soon as someone hits back, “Wah!, That's not fair.” I think we have a long wait before they grow up.
I have reproduced George Lewith's letter below:
George Lewith,
Complementary and Integrative Medicine Research Unit
University of Southampton, U.K.
David Allen Green suggests that there is an increasing trend towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners threatening libel action against those who criticise them (16 May, p 24). I am unaware of anybody prior to the chiropractors he describes taking this course of action in the U.K.
Furthermore, as a medically qualified researcher of CAM, I have experienced two prominent members of the “anti-CAM brigade” attempting to take legal action against me, which I had to defend. It should be noted that the article you published on this matter is from a prominent member of the anti-CAM brigade.
Everyone I know in the CAM field is somewhat bemused and, to some degree, amused by the general attitude of the mainstream people, both scientists and their “hangers on”. Their arrogance is, admittedly, an irritation, though the immaturity of their absolute certainty in themselves and their ways, as well as their juvenile language is, usually, met by indulgent smiles, gently shaking heads and wondering how long it will take them to grow up.
In the current issue of New Scientist (6th June 2009, page 26) there is a letter from Dr George Lewith, who also writes that, until the chiropractors' action against Simon Singh, he was unaware of any CAM people taking legal action against critics. On the other hand he has been on the receiving end of legal action from anti-CAM people. The was of no great surprise to me as the ant-CAM brigade, as George Lewith refers to them, as well as a vast swathes of mainstream scientists and their supporters are consistent in very few ways, though one of those ways is inconsistency. Another way is the obvious juvenility; I deliberately hold back from using the word “childish” for the simple reason that to so characterise the behaviour and attitudes of very many of the anti-CAM brigade and many other of the mainstream types, would be an insult to children. There is a similarity with children in the “running to mummy” syndrome that rapidly develops. While they are deriding and “bad mouthing” others everything is fine; as soon as someone hits back, “Wah!, That's not fair.” I think we have a long wait before they grow up.
I have reproduced George Lewith's letter below:
George Lewith,
Complementary and Integrative Medicine Research Unit
University of Southampton, U.K.
David Allen Green suggests that there is an increasing trend towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners threatening libel action against those who criticise them (16 May, p 24). I am unaware of anybody prior to the chiropractors he describes taking this course of action in the U.K.
Furthermore, as a medically qualified researcher of CAM, I have experienced two prominent members of the “anti-CAM brigade” attempting to take legal action against me, which I had to defend. It should be noted that the article you published on this matter is from a prominent member of the anti-CAM brigade.
Science, Knowledge and Noblesse Oblige
The matter of Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association rumbles on.
For some strange reason there are many who still try to characterise the situation as a freedom of speech issue. If there was absolute freedom anyone would be able to say what they wished to anyone else, do what they wished to anyone else, a complete free for all. It would also deny people freedom from unnecessary and undue harassment and harm. Usually, there is a balance with everyone being able to say and do as they wish, up to a point.
Simon Singh could easily have made his points on chiropractic procedures without using the word “bogus”. You do not have to be more than an average “word smith” to achieve that.
However, there is also a problem which many have overlooked. Just because someone is a scientist that does not make them sufficiently knowledgeable, generally able, or qualified to move into areas outside their own.
The first sentences of the Preface of “What is Life” by Erwin Schrödinger (Cambridge University Press Edition, page 1) reads as follows:
“A scientist is supposed to have a complete and thorough knowledge, at first hand, of some subjects and, therefore, is usually expected not to write on any topic of which he is not a master. This is regarded as a matter of noblesse oblige.”
Noblesse Oblige:
Literally “the obligation of honourable, generous, and responsible behaviour associated with high rank or birth “
Merriam Webster Dictionary
In practice the implication is that those who have inherited, or attained, a position with which comes wealth, power and prestige, also comes social responsibilities including a moral obligation to act with honour, kindliness and generosity.”
In this context and similar, a scientist should keep to the subject, or subjects, that he has mastered, tread very carefully if he ventures outside them and moderate his behaviour towards others.
A physicists going well outside his area or making strident assertions without proving those assertions hardly fits with those requirements on any count; not just the chiropractic matter but the repeated use of the word “lies” in the book “Trick or Treatment”, co-authored with Edzard Ernst.
Admittedly with Edzard Ernst it could be argued that he is not outside his area of expertise, or at least supposed expertise. However, his ways of delivering judgements tends to wards the strident, seeming to have become more unpleasant, and he is co-responsible for the repeated use of “lies” in the book. However, since he, along with Simon Singh does not know the definition of Spiritual Healing, or any idea of the “mechanism” and he carried out experiments on the subject that failed to rule out an obvious variable, one wonders how competent he is. To spend fifteen years as a Professor of Complementary Medicine and not know the definition of a major topic in the field, let alone make such basic errors in experiments, is a major achievement, albeit a perverse one.
Admittedly, Schrödinger goes on to write:
“For the present purpose I beg to renounce the noblesse, if any, and to be freed of the ensuing obligation. My excuse is as follows:”
… which I will leave any interested reader to follow up.
However, the point is that Schrödinger was well aware of his limitations and the dangers of stepping outside his field of knowledge and expertise. Not only that, when he did so Schrödinger progressed with extreme care, a tightly argued and carefully structured approach, and always conscious of his limitations.
Contrast that with the approach of Simon Singh and, is his own particular way, Edzard Ernst; neither of them are remotely in the same league as Schrödinger. Their approach to science and evidence, let alone analysis is nowhere near that level.
For some strange reason there are many who still try to characterise the situation as a freedom of speech issue. If there was absolute freedom anyone would be able to say what they wished to anyone else, do what they wished to anyone else, a complete free for all. It would also deny people freedom from unnecessary and undue harassment and harm. Usually, there is a balance with everyone being able to say and do as they wish, up to a point.
Simon Singh could easily have made his points on chiropractic procedures without using the word “bogus”. You do not have to be more than an average “word smith” to achieve that.
However, there is also a problem which many have overlooked. Just because someone is a scientist that does not make them sufficiently knowledgeable, generally able, or qualified to move into areas outside their own.
The first sentences of the Preface of “What is Life” by Erwin Schrödinger (Cambridge University Press Edition, page 1) reads as follows:
“A scientist is supposed to have a complete and thorough knowledge, at first hand, of some subjects and, therefore, is usually expected not to write on any topic of which he is not a master. This is regarded as a matter of noblesse oblige.”
Noblesse Oblige:
Literally “the obligation of honourable, generous, and responsible behaviour associated with high rank or birth “
Merriam Webster Dictionary
In practice the implication is that those who have inherited, or attained, a position with which comes wealth, power and prestige, also comes social responsibilities including a moral obligation to act with honour, kindliness and generosity.”
In this context and similar, a scientist should keep to the subject, or subjects, that he has mastered, tread very carefully if he ventures outside them and moderate his behaviour towards others.
A physicists going well outside his area or making strident assertions without proving those assertions hardly fits with those requirements on any count; not just the chiropractic matter but the repeated use of the word “lies” in the book “Trick or Treatment”, co-authored with Edzard Ernst.
Admittedly with Edzard Ernst it could be argued that he is not outside his area of expertise, or at least supposed expertise. However, his ways of delivering judgements tends to wards the strident, seeming to have become more unpleasant, and he is co-responsible for the repeated use of “lies” in the book. However, since he, along with Simon Singh does not know the definition of Spiritual Healing, or any idea of the “mechanism” and he carried out experiments on the subject that failed to rule out an obvious variable, one wonders how competent he is. To spend fifteen years as a Professor of Complementary Medicine and not know the definition of a major topic in the field, let alone make such basic errors in experiments, is a major achievement, albeit a perverse one.
Admittedly, Schrödinger goes on to write:
“For the present purpose I beg to renounce the noblesse, if any, and to be freed of the ensuing obligation. My excuse is as follows:”
… which I will leave any interested reader to follow up.
However, the point is that Schrödinger was well aware of his limitations and the dangers of stepping outside his field of knowledge and expertise. Not only that, when he did so Schrödinger progressed with extreme care, a tightly argued and carefully structured approach, and always conscious of his limitations.
Contrast that with the approach of Simon Singh and, is his own particular way, Edzard Ernst; neither of them are remotely in the same league as Schrödinger. Their approach to science and evidence, let alone analysis is nowhere near that level.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Simon Singh, the British Chiropractic Association and the High Court Ruling by Sir David Eady
Over the last day or two, reports have appeared on the Internet about the High Court Ruling on the legal action taken against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association by the Judge, Sir David Eady.
As usual, one of the most comprehensive descriptions and assessments in on Jack of Kent's Blog.
The passage in Singh's original article which caused most difficulty is:
“The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
The judgement revolved around ruling whether the passage was a “comment” or “statement of fact”, Singh's lawyers arguing the former and the BCA's lawyers arguing the latter.
The Judge ruled that, although the passage in Singh's article was a comment piece and published on a comment page, it was a statement of fact.
Jack of Kent writes that this ruling did not even refer to the fact that Singh's use of the word bogus is actually set out in the following paragraph in the original article:
“I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects he examined the evidence of 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.”
That is fair enough, if it is fully substantiated, though would still be better couched in less emotional terms, science is supposed to be objective after all. However, not finding evidence that chiropractors could treat such conditions is not proof of anything other than that inability to find evidence; it might suggest something else, it may be possible to tentatively infer something else, but it is not proof of anything else. It is certainly not proof of the treatments being bogus; they may be, they may not be but no evidence was brought to bear to prove that they were bogus.
In any case, I have read and wrote a review of Singh and Ernst's book, “Trick or Treatment” and it is certainly not a good science book; a populist book but not science book, certainly not in the textbook sense. Although, of course, many of Singh and Ernst's supporters laud it as science as it confirms their prejudices. “Trick or Treatment” contains no references and an extremely limited bibliography, while I would expect a book of science to have at least references, preferably references and bibliography; science is about providing evidence, after all, or at least it is supposed to be. “Trick or Treatment” is peppered with the word “lies”, in the “untruths”, “falsehoods” sense of the word, though I did not come across any proof that anyone was telling lies. The book has only one page on the knowledge, area, of “Spiritual Healing” and makes numerous errors in just a few hundred words, displaying a complete lack of understanding of the subject, wrongly describing the procedures involved and failing to give an accurate definitions of Spiritual Healing, quite an achievement for supposedly competent sceintists, let alone Ernst who has specialised as a Professor in a field that includes Spiritual Healing for fifteen years. I reviewed the Spiritual Healing section of “Trick or Treatment” separately as I practice it and, clearly, know more about it that either Ernst or Singh.
Then there is the matter of definitions. Although, as Jack of Kent wrote, the ruling did not refer to Singh's use of the word bogus being set out in another paragraph of his article, there seems no pressing reason that it should need to do so. Surely an intelligent man and experienced writer like Simon Singh is aware of language and tat it is wise to check definitions. There seems little point in having a language and dictionaries if anyone who wishes to can simply come up with their own definition. I am probably too pedantic but I tend to write on my word processor with dictionaries to hand, both usual and technical, with several browser windows open to check definitions, references, etc. No-one is perfect but it does reduce errors somewhat.
Bogus: counterfeit, not genuine, spurious
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary
Bogus:
1. An apparatus for counterfeit coining
2. adj. Counterfeit, spurious, sham 1852
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
The statement made by Simon Singh seemed fairly definitive and the way I was brought up to learn and practice science, along with engineering, which uses science at times, as well as life in general, if you make a definitive statement you provide the evidence to back it up, or have the evidence to hand if asked for it. If there is not enough evidence to make a definitive statement, you make a qualified statement commensurate with the strength, weight and reliability of the evidence.
It is a matter of thoroughness, completeness and precision which seems to have gone out of science in recent years, decades, even to be replaced by a juvenile howling down and name calling. Never mind the quality of the evidence, if any at all for their positions, feel the juvenile bile and weight of numbers.
“Trick or Treatment” comes over as very much in that vein. So, recent utterings and writings by both Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst being even stronger in that sense have come as no great surprise.
It is not just the language that is juvenile, much, most, of the so-called science brought to bear is of a similar level.
As usual, one of the most comprehensive descriptions and assessments in on Jack of Kent's Blog.
The passage in Singh's original article which caused most difficulty is:
“The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”
The judgement revolved around ruling whether the passage was a “comment” or “statement of fact”, Singh's lawyers arguing the former and the BCA's lawyers arguing the latter.
The Judge ruled that, although the passage in Singh's article was a comment piece and published on a comment page, it was a statement of fact.
Jack of Kent writes that this ruling did not even refer to the fact that Singh's use of the word bogus is actually set out in the following paragraph in the original article:
“I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects he examined the evidence of 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.”
That is fair enough, if it is fully substantiated, though would still be better couched in less emotional terms, science is supposed to be objective after all. However, not finding evidence that chiropractors could treat such conditions is not proof of anything other than that inability to find evidence; it might suggest something else, it may be possible to tentatively infer something else, but it is not proof of anything else. It is certainly not proof of the treatments being bogus; they may be, they may not be but no evidence was brought to bear to prove that they were bogus.
In any case, I have read and wrote a review of Singh and Ernst's book, “Trick or Treatment” and it is certainly not a good science book; a populist book but not science book, certainly not in the textbook sense. Although, of course, many of Singh and Ernst's supporters laud it as science as it confirms their prejudices. “Trick or Treatment” contains no references and an extremely limited bibliography, while I would expect a book of science to have at least references, preferably references and bibliography; science is about providing evidence, after all, or at least it is supposed to be. “Trick or Treatment” is peppered with the word “lies”, in the “untruths”, “falsehoods” sense of the word, though I did not come across any proof that anyone was telling lies. The book has only one page on the knowledge, area, of “Spiritual Healing” and makes numerous errors in just a few hundred words, displaying a complete lack of understanding of the subject, wrongly describing the procedures involved and failing to give an accurate definitions of Spiritual Healing, quite an achievement for supposedly competent sceintists, let alone Ernst who has specialised as a Professor in a field that includes Spiritual Healing for fifteen years. I reviewed the Spiritual Healing section of “Trick or Treatment” separately as I practice it and, clearly, know more about it that either Ernst or Singh.
Then there is the matter of definitions. Although, as Jack of Kent wrote, the ruling did not refer to Singh's use of the word bogus being set out in another paragraph of his article, there seems no pressing reason that it should need to do so. Surely an intelligent man and experienced writer like Simon Singh is aware of language and tat it is wise to check definitions. There seems little point in having a language and dictionaries if anyone who wishes to can simply come up with their own definition. I am probably too pedantic but I tend to write on my word processor with dictionaries to hand, both usual and technical, with several browser windows open to check definitions, references, etc. No-one is perfect but it does reduce errors somewhat.
Bogus: counterfeit, not genuine, spurious
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary
Bogus:
1. An apparatus for counterfeit coining
2. adj. Counterfeit, spurious, sham 1852
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary
The statement made by Simon Singh seemed fairly definitive and the way I was brought up to learn and practice science, along with engineering, which uses science at times, as well as life in general, if you make a definitive statement you provide the evidence to back it up, or have the evidence to hand if asked for it. If there is not enough evidence to make a definitive statement, you make a qualified statement commensurate with the strength, weight and reliability of the evidence.
It is a matter of thoroughness, completeness and precision which seems to have gone out of science in recent years, decades, even to be replaced by a juvenile howling down and name calling. Never mind the quality of the evidence, if any at all for their positions, feel the juvenile bile and weight of numbers.
“Trick or Treatment” comes over as very much in that vein. So, recent utterings and writings by both Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst being even stronger in that sense have come as no great surprise.
It is not just the language that is juvenile, much, most, of the so-called science brought to bear is of a similar level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
