Vivat Libertas

It is fashionable, particularly in pseudointellectual circles, to lament the decline of society (perhaps the decline of your country's society, or the decline of society in general). This is usually tied up with much weeping and gnashing of teeth over how stupid people these days are. I've got to say that this kind of lamentation doesn't exactly make you look smart. It mostly makes you look like an elitist asshole with a superiority complex, and while some  intelligent people are like that a lot of them have better things to do than sit around complaining - I'll get onto this later. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't go through an elitist pseud phase, but I'd like to think that I grew out of it. I realised that I was an absolutely insufferable prick and that nobody really wanted to be around me except other insufferable pricks, which is not really a brilliant track record, but more to the point I realised that complaining doesn't actually get anythin...

One of the reasons I really, really like doing physics is because it gives you an amazing bullshit filter, if you let it. All of a sudden the world becomes clear and sharp and deep, described by the beautiful and powerful language that is mathematics. Hopefully you learn the tools to tell the plausible from the just plain nonsense and try to base things on evidence. Because physics is shiny and wonderful and leaves people speechless, the awe of physics is popular and widely publicised. By and large, this is a good thing; I believe that everyone deserves the opportunity to learn not just for utility but for pleasure, and to learn whatever the hell they please. Unfortunately, because most people are averse to maths (this is an utter travesty; numbers aren't scary), most popular science books gloss over or ignore the mathematical foundation of physics, giving people misconceptions. Now add that to the wave of stupid people promoting things like quantum woo and what do you get? A bun...

Yep, I said it, and people aren't going to like it: learning makes you free. Now, there are a lot of objections to this, and I understand them. In our capitalist society education, like everything else, has a price. Particularly with higher education, it happens to be a very hefty price that will leave you thousands of pounds in debt. There's also the objection that formal education (for example, going to school) either does nothing or actively turns you into an obedient drone. Those three are generally the main overt objections - there is a nastier and more covert one, but I'll discuss it later. I'm going to let them pass. I'm going to accept them as true. Education up to 18, if not post-18, is mostly about "teaching" students to pass exams and be obedient, and even after having come out with a degree in something or other a lot of people are still  incredibly stupid and ignorant. Not to mention paying for that degree will enslave you to your debt. ...

Why learn? Because learning teaches you about the fucking Solar System, that's why. Okay, that wasn't actually my answer, but that picture does actually have a purpose...Well, sort of...Well, it'll explain itself in a bit. Doing A-levels I get a bit more of a challenge than I did at GCSE, and having Latin lessons that half consist of a long chat about the way Ancient Greece and Rome have influenced the Western world gets me thinking about education and what it means to us. You start your edumacation - so we say over here - when you're three and you end it when you get your degree in your early twenties, unless you're some kind of freak who wants to do a Master's or a PhD. Reading is a scary uncool thing and only nerds do it for fun, which is why we bully them. Still, you've got to have some kind of edumacation if you want to be successful  (read: make lots and lots of money) in this world, and if you don't want to be successful  you're a frea...

As I have previously mentioned before, I'm quite big on secularism , less because I want to force my beliefs on everyone else and more because I don't want religious oppression (the kind of religious people who ignore secularism are the kind who would gladly take away the freedom of belief of anyone who doesn't think like them). Following on from this, I oppose all state religions (obvious attempt to mix church and state is obvious) and all faith schools. Most people seem to be quite confused about why a state religion is a bad thing, particularly here where the Church of England is still something that's largely just there  and doesn't do very much in the way of obvious religious oppression (I am very thankful to live in a country where, although we have our unfair share of religious nutjobs, we still don't have as many as the Americans). I think I've already tackled that in my massive rant on secularism (already linked). What people don't seem to und...

I don't really talk about this much. I probably should do, since it's quite interesting. I came across this tweet from Alom Shaha , talking about how having female role models doesn't make a difference to girls' appreciation of physics. Now, this is a massive problem - the ratio of men to women in physics is still quite skewed, but I'm getting off topic. He asked for thoughts, and since I have a big mouth and fairly good typing skills here's what I came up with . It sparked off a little bit of commenting, particularly when I mentioned the role of the media in telling girls to "shut up & look nice" . Two women, @RedRubia and @Queen_Claire , told me that nobody had ever told them they couldn't do maths and that they were very proud of being presentable lady geeks who had never thought that they should shut up, in which case, more power to them. @Original_Cindy  then claimed I was wrong (but hasn't actually put any evidence forth for th...

Well, I've complained about this so much, I think I need to put it on the internet and save my friends and parents from having to hear any more of my rants. For those of you who don't know about the English education system, we have something known as a GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Education), which is exactly what it says on the tin: a very generalised and simplistic "qualification" taken by most people in years 10-11, although they can be done earlier. Most people take around 10 or 11, although you can take more and you can take them earlier. However, there are a set of subjects which you must take, which normally includes English (both language and literature), Maths, and the sciences. What's the problem with this, you ask? I have a lot of moaning to do about the idea of compulsory GCSEs anyway, since people should be allowed to do what they're good at - and if that means some people take 2 and some take 20, that's what it means. Better th...