Scientists are people too...

Apologies for the lengthy absence, work schedule has ramped up a fair bit, and sadly internet has been sporadic while I am on the road. Add to that the fact that I have been putting together a few job applications and therefore exhausting all my creative writing ability, its really no surprise, at least to me, that I haven't taken the time to write anything. The upside of all this internet free time has been that I have had the opportunity to do a lot more reading, (about $300 worth of books from the book depository and a decent swathe of journal articles to be precise). I'm kind of drifting through a nostalgic phase lately, having re-read "The picture of Dorian Grey" and perennial favourite "The Great Gatsby" before picking through a few of my favourite Shakespeare works. On the new reading front, I have picked up Masha Gessen's "The man without a face - The unlikely rise of Vladimir Putin", which I've only just started, but I'm enjoying so far.

Also on the new reading front, I have just finished Ben Goldacre's fantastic "Bad Science". It's one of those books that I wish I had read earlier, and needless to say I'm a rapid convert to his blog. His book touched on an issue that I, as a working scientist have come across a bit in my day to day. 


Scientists are people too.

I'll grant you, this seems like an obvious statement, but I've seen a lot of rhetoric being flung around in news and online opinion that seems to suggest that this is an oft forgotten fact in the community at large. As a group, we are not above making a mistake, we are not above coercion and sadly, as history has shown, we are not above corruption, dishonesty and manipulation.
Scandal! Science is meant to be about the noble pursuit of truth and therefore scientists should be held up to that same ideal!

I'm sorry to shock you world, but scientists are not saints. They are people, flawed animals just like the rest of us. Now don't get me wrong, our world has known a great many scientists that have done marvellous and wondrous things to expand our knowledge, but this does not mean that they are infallible. For every paragon of truth and knowledge in the scientific community, there are bound to be a handful of those who are willing to sell their integrity to the highest bidder, but this isn't as much of a problem as it sounds. 


The truth of the matter is it is not the scientists that make science a powerful tool in the search for truth. It is the field itself. It champions the scientific method and peer review, collaboration and experimentation. This is why obviously fraudulent claims, cooked data or manipulations eventually come to light. The discipline is designed to be transparent, allowing all claims to be checked, reproduced, tested and verified by groups all around the world.  The process ensures that bad science will be exposed, whether it has been precipitated by poor method, honest mistake or something more sinister. It is important to allow this process to run its course. It is when this process is subverted that things begin to get more convoluted. 


As Goldacre touches on in his book, all that is required to give a media puff piece or shock story a hint of credibility is to pepper the article with phrases such as "Scientists say" or "research indicates" without providing adequate attribution to exactly which scientists have said anything, or what the scope and terms of the research that was conducted was. Sure, it is easy to blame the media for this, but they should not be alone in shouldering the blame. We as a society have allowed the national (and international) discourse on science to degrade to this level. I know, that I spend a good deal of my time correcting and discussing the misapprehensions of people, caused in part by poor scientific literacy, media hand waving and some general confusion about the key issues. 


The 'controversy' surrounding the MMR vaccine is discussed at length in Bad Science, Climate change 'skepticism' is another arena in which this opinion plays a significant role. One of my pet issues is the rejection of evolution in favour of "Intelligent design" or "Creation science". Opponents feel that by discrediting the scientists in their respective fields, dredging up accusations of the science not being settled, and claiming that they are in the pocket of big-something. If that is true, their data can be readily discredited. If evolution is so provably false, then do it! Much of the scientific community will welcome you with open arms if you elect to legitimately critique their work. What we are not so happy about however, is being ceaselessly forced to defend our claims against ad hominem, unscientific or fallacious attacks designed to further a particular political agenda. The thing that really steams me, is that the movements most comfortable with utilising this kind of attack are winning by publicising and grandstanding their attacks. Slowly but surely people are starting to think that there are deep divisions and unrest in fields of science where there are none.

So what is the solution? I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't know. I can think of a few things that may help though. I'd love to improve scientific literacy in general for everyone. That could just be because I'm a scientist and I love to toot my own horn, (someone has to). but I genuinely believe that improving scientific literacy and critical thinking skills, starting in schools, would lead to an overall improvement in the national scientific discourse. People should not be taking tabloid media stories at face value without asking for evidence to back up their claims. With, to paraphrase Sagan, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.

Another question that I have to ask, and I'm not trying to attack the media here, is why do so many news articles make no attempt to source or reference their claims? Print media is one thing, but we live in a world of virtually unlimited online space. Surely the major outlets can make the time to ensure that interested readers can read on? If you want to claim "Scientists say" tell me which scientists and where they said it. Have they been published? If not, why not? and then why are you reporting on it? Would it really be so hard to stick the links to appropriate studies and data at the base of a news article to allow those of us who are inclined to check the working to do so?

I really don't know. I'm often sad to see the way that scientific discourse is trending, but that's just how I am. I'm passionate about science, and I want to share that passion with the world, but when I do so, I want to do it responsibly


The good news is that I heard earlier in the week that I have been accepted into a post-graduate study programme (Master of Applied Science) to commence mid-year. So it looks like I will be doing a whole lot more work to further the cause.

Watch this space. Until then, be good to each other.    

Concessions I can make regarding the state of atheism...

Fresh back from the Global Atheist Convention 2012 in Melbourne. I have to say, I had a blast, the calibre of speakers was excellent, and the company and collaboration was even better.

I have a lot of ideas whizzing round my head at the moment, I’m wanting to get some of these thoughts out before I lose the thrust of the message. I may come back and revise these thoughts as they develop over the coming days and weeks, and as always, I am more than happy to hear other opinions and criticisms.

I’ve learned a lot this weekend, and after this weekend, I feel that there are a few issues that I think I should address for both sides of the raging debate. I think that some atheists may be uncomfortable reading some of the admissions that I am going to make, but I am hoping that they will recognise them as truthful.

We need to recognise our and embrace our differences. Being an atheist does not make you more intelligent, better or of higher value than anyone else, nor does being a theist grant these boons by default. The moral high ground in this debate is wholly unoccupied, no matter what either side may deign to think.

Intelligence is something that is earned. It doesn’t matter what side of the proverbial fence you are on. Taking a particular ideological standpoint is no excuse to become complacent or lazy in your thought.  I know a great many theists who are more developed critical thinkers than many atheists. I know some atheists who I find to be tedious bores, because they believe that the single cogent thought that they had about turning from theism was the last thought that they were required to have, and that they can operate safe in the knowledge that they are intellectuals from then on.  

We butt heads with each side trying to bring enlightenment to the other. On one side, most theists act out of genuine concern for atheists, believing them to have lost their way, and merely need a spiritual awakening to be led back to god and be blessed with the redemption of their mortal soul. Atheists want to bring information to the theists, hoping to liberate them from the shackles and forced servitude of their tyrannical and imaginary oppressor. At times it is easy to get tangled in our own rhetoric, without taking the time to try to fully understand the other side of the debate. I know that I have had long and interesting discussions with theists, many of whom hadn’t the foggiest idea about what being an atheist actually meant, other than the fact that it was supposedly ‘bad’ and had a whole host of misconceptions to support that hypothesis.

I believe that part of this attitude, whether by accident or design, was demonstrated very clearly by Paul Henry’s interview with Jason Ball on the Channel 10 Breakfast show. I don’t think that it is a stretch to suggest Mr. Henry’s attitude was unnecessarily combative and reasonably unfriendly while being mostly dismissive. He obviously holds a pre-conceived notion about what atheists are, and had calibrated his interview at a level he deemed appropriate. Again, I’m not familiar with any of Mr. Henry’s work, but I can’t help but feel that his comments demonstrated a critical lack of respect for both Jason, and atheists in general.  I cannot commend Jason highly enough for his cool headed management of what must have been a very difficult and confronting situation.

Every movement has its fringe elements. For every, fundamentalist, book thumping, theistic figure threatening all within earshot with eternal damnation unless they repent immediately, there is an equally tedious invective spewing atheist who thinks the height of witty repartee involves a quip about the Prophet Muhammad’s bride, a barb (or three) about pederast priests “tending to their flock” before dusting off their hands and considering the job done.  The majority of us in between these two extremes need to take greater care to avoid judging an entire subgroup by the notions of their loudest members. Don’t get me wrong, I throw in with the atheists for the most part, but there are times I have pulled people from both sides up once things start getting off topic or personal.

This also links in to the ever present morality debate. We can bicker back and forth until we are blue in the face, but it would be more effective to set aside our tools for a minute and recognise that in broad strokes, most people are moral and ethical people, no matter what their theistic or philosophical bent. When I say in broad strokes, I mean we don’t have rampant murder, havoc and mayhem, and most of the time, we humans are pretty good about getting on with each other in polite society.  It is when you get down to the smaller frame that things start getting finicky. Atheists find the treatment of women, homosexuals and non-believers by religions to be abhorrent, most religions find homosexuals, abortion, and non-believers to be abhorrent. These things could be better managed if we all stepped back a little and got out of each other’s grills. We as a society should be moving towards unifying as a human race, rather than pockets of nationalities or religions.  That is going to mean a little tolerance and a little give and take. I recognise that the Catholic Church is not accepting of homosexuality, and I don’t believe that we should legislate to force the church to perform homosexual marriages. However, I do believe that they are entitled to that marriage beyond the church if they so choose.

I’d like to explore an idea taken from a blog post relating to atheism (Atheism in the Dock – Uthman Badar)

There is a patent inanity in defining oneself in negation of an idea, as opposed to defining oneself in affirmation of an idea. Imagine being an ‘acommunist’ or ‘asocialist’, instead of being a capitalist, or being an ‘aliberal’ instead of being a conservative. Sound silly? Well it is.

There’s not much that I disagree with in that statement, I agree that the notion of having to identify as an atheist is as absurd as being nominating as asocialist or acommunist, because this is a part of the problem. In our society, you aren’t assumed to hold any particular political view, or indeed, any view at all until you espouse it. In fact, for the most part you are considered to be happily apolitical until you choose to ally yourself with a particular cause. How I wish the same were true about the nature of belief! The reason that I have to identify as an atheist is because if I don’t, it is assumed that I must be a good old fashioned theist, and I will be treated as such. Can you imagine living day-to-day with everyone you meet assuming that you are a good ol’ Liberal, because to even consider anything else would make you somehow sub-human?

Is it truly the act of a thinking man to assume that a belief is held with no evidence or support?

No. The way I now behave in my day-to-day is to assume no affiliation, be it religious or political, until such a time as I have evidence to suggest otherwise. I wish we could convince wider society to follow suit.

I’d strongly advise you to take the time to read the article. Though I disagreed with the bulk of it, I did find it to be quite enjoyably written. Call me a masochist, but I do love reading opinion from the other side.

I’d like to quote again from Mr. Badar’s post to lead me to my next point;

So if the universe is not eternal and could not have come from nothing, the atheist is left with naught but to acknowledge that he or she is without explanation, but not without the faith in science and its ability to possibly provide an explanation at some point in the future. Fine. But is not a reasonable explanation, even if not absolutely conclusive in your mind, better than no explanation?

We don’t have all the answers, but neither do you.

Atheists are frequently accused of being arrogant. I’d be lying if I said I can’t see where the comparison comes from, after all, as stated above, we do have our fair share of pompous, pseudo-know –it-all’s who like to wander round beating their chests and decrying religion in all its forms. After all, from the flip side of the coin, we are claiming to have answers to issues that until now were considered the dabbling of the divine.

Here’s the rub. We don’t know everything. Those of us who have really thought about it know that we don’t know everything. That same group of people also know that we probably never will know everything. There will never be a day where all of the mysteries of the universe are laid bare before humanity. It is just not going to happen. But that’s great! If we don’t have all the answers, there is more work to be done! And scientists like me love to do that work. Lawrence Krauss made a similar admission during his presentation. Knowing that we will never solve all the puzzles of the universe means that there will always be a place for gods within the minds of those who choose to accept it. I have no doubt that we could explain away all but the smallest of mysteries, and it would be in those mysteries that gods take refuge.

That leads us to an uncomfortable realisation for many atheists, and that is that we must recognise that we too base much of our outlook on a variant of faith. This is qualified faith however. One of the first things that you learn in analytical chemistry is to never say 100%, never say 0%. There is always a detection limit. That means that I must say, honestly as an (agnostic) atheist, No, I am not 100% sure that there isn’t a god. If there is one, I am 99.99% sure it is not the literal god of any other holy text that you care to name. The literal claims in all of these books have been shown to be demonstrably false time and time again. To suggest that there is a literal god behind any of them is folly, and a truly thinking person could not claim to do so with absolute certainty.

This is where I take umbrage with the comments above; I am not going to willingly accept a tenuous explanation as a stop gap solution just to duck the honest answer of saying “I don’t know.” There is no shame in not knowing something. To my mind, there is more shame in intentionally utilising a faulty premise, or one in which you are not convinced, in order to prevent yourself from having to say that you don’t know. If Mr. Badar has a reasonable explanation with which he would like to furnish me, I would be more than glad to listen.

When I say qualified faith, I mean an observable and supported faith. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise again tomorrow. Why? Because I have been kicking round on this planet to see close to 10,000 sunrises with my own eyes. I have the anecdotal evidence of friends, family, other observers to support my belief, and I have the science of cosmology and astronomy to support this. It is a belief supported by evidence, but fundamentally based on faith nonetheless. Say I am wrong, and there is a god who changes the rules and prevents the sun from rising tomorrow. I would be proven incorrect, but would still stand by my conclusions up until that point. All observable evidence pointed to one series of events, I accepted that as the conclusion as demonstrated until the evidence suggested that my premise was faulty.  I do it professionally in the lab every day, assuming that the fundamental rules of chemistry have not being turned on their head overnight, and therefore that my results are as reliable as the day before.

Is this the behaviour of a rational mind? I would say yes.

The problem that I have never seemed to be able to adequately communicate to theists is that if there is an omniscient, omnipresent and all powerful interventionist god that directs all nature at his whim, that would render the discipline of science mostly irrelevant and useless. Science is fundamentally built on the notion of testing, observation and analysis of data. We look for patterns, we look for conditions that can replicate those patterns, and we consider causes that can initiate those patterns. If you have gods that can pop in and tinker with the rules whenever they deem fit, then we can hardly observe well enough to make solid conclusions. Science gives us a lot of neat stuff, all spawned from the rigorous application of the scientific method. It’s stood up so far.

All that doesn’t change the mission statement though. We still strive to understand the truths about our existence. It is a fight that has shown no signs of abating for thousands of years, and one that will continue for centuries to come. It is natural to be curious about our world, beyond the stars and the human condition. While some are happy to allow gods to move in mysterious ways, some of us just have to peek behind the curtain.

With that in mind, that doesn’t mean we are completely naive to the goings on of the world. Great inroads have been made in understanding since mankind’s inception. Science as a discipline has been steadily working to improve our knowledge and quality of life, with the torch being passed from generation to generation. By all means, if you believe a particular scientific theory, practice or tenet to be mistaken, misguided or misapplied and worthy of review and criticism, bring it on! Scientists love talking science, thinking science, and are always ready to rethink the way that we do things. Just if you are going to do it, do it properly. Level scientific challenges, don’t try and sneak doctrine that can’t pass peer-review into schools by legal back-roads. Don’t cherry pick data in support of an aim while ignoring anything to the contrary. The reason that science works so well is that it has a robust fact checking process. I promise, there is no conspiracy amongst elite scientists to champion particular causes while suppressing others. If you have a theory, data or information that can challenge the current paradigm, there will be no supressing it.  It will come out eventually.

The reason that some theistic based ‘scientific’ ideas are held up for mockery is because they are demonstrably and provably false. Evolution is the easiest example to reach for. Despite what may have been said, rumours that may have been circulated; there is no divide in the scientific community about evolution. The theory of evolution is accepted. It isn’t accepted because we like it the best. It isn’t accepted because it allows us to chip away at theism. It is accepted because it serves to best explain the data that we have.
I’ll admit this is a pet subject of mine, because I love science. I am particularly besotted with the theory of evolution. The theory did not just explain the data available in Darwin’s time, it also predicted and supported discoveries that have been made in the intervening years. That doesn’t mean it isn’t capable of being proven false. If there is evidence, (and I mean evidence; supported data that can be peer reviewed and stands up to the process), then the theory of evolution will be abandoned.

Theists, if you are ID proponents, read that sentence again. It is possible for the theory of evolution to be relegated to the history books. It is not an unstoppable juggernaut that is immune to harm because it is the most ‘atheistic’ theory, or the most hostile to religion, or even the most liked, it is an unstoppable juggernaut because it has so clearly demonstrated its usefulness and value over the years. If you can damage that with evidence, you can bring the juggernaut down. But it is going to require good, solid, scientific supported studies.

Atheism is not fundamentally hostile to personal belief. It is hostile to the imposition of that belief.

It was roundly stated all weekend. Ben Elton made a point of it, Leslie Cannold touched on it as well. If we took religion out of government, ceased special treatment of religions, and safely ensconced the separation of church and state in our constitution, I would be willing to bet that most atheists would be pretty happy to let most other things slide. Many of the atheists I know, and indeed, myself included, couldn’t care less about what individuals believe to get them through the day. Frankly, it is none of my business. Faith, religion and god are deeply personal issues, unique to every separate believer so it is not my place to tell you what to do or believe.

Where a lot of the ire comes from, is secular groups having to constantly fight to maintain the status quo, and safeguarding the right to a secular government for all Australians, in order to prevent minority religions and other groups from being steamrolled come election time.  A bit more respect from both sides would go a long way. Atheists should be able to debate theists on public policy without being labelled immoral and unethical monsters. Theists should be entitled to the same without being labelled myopic and deluded sky-fairy lovers. Let’s separate the issues from the people, and talk about it like adults.  If we could achieve that, we might find that we spend less time on the name calling and petty bickering, and more time strengthening and unifying our nation.

And isn’t that a lovely thought.

I think I’ve burned myself out for tonight. This may be edited once I read it again in the cold harsh light of day. I suspect there will be much more musing in the days ahead.
Questions? Comments? Hit me up -  aussieheathen@gmail.com

Until then, be good to each other. 

Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say at an Atheist Convention

You all have my humblest apologies for the extended radio silence. I’ve been spending my off hours writing job applications for the past few weeks and as such, I have used all my words. All of them. What little creative writing juice I have has been squeezed into answering the several hundred different yet standard pro-forma “Why should we hire you?” questions that all job applications ask.

At this moment, we find your humble servant safely sequestered in a Melbourne hotel room, having safely returned from the official opening of the Global Atheist Convention 2012. I’d love to be out kicking it with my heathen homies, but I’m afraid I’m just too darn tired.
Day one saw us confronted with books, drinks and canapés including several tables of oysters that was far and away beyond the level of catering that I was expecting. I’ll admit the whole thing made me a little giddy. I don’t know whether it was being in a room with so many people which share a common viewpoint, the fact that I was so close to some of my intellectual heroes that a handful of them would have turned around if I had yelled a random obscenity, or that I was struggling to breathe around face-fulls of delicious appetisers. Whatever the case may be, let’s go on record saying that I thought it was all good, and I am thoroughly looking forward to the scheduled panels for tomorrow.

Which brings me to my midnight(ish) Melbourne musing (I’m being awfully alliterative this evening) - Let’s talk about another subject that is near and dear to my heart (I mean besides atheism and canapés).

Entertainment for the first night of the programme was made up of a handful of local and imported comedians, who, besides being a fantastic cross promote for the fact that the Melbourne Comedy Festival is still underway, made for a decent tie-loosener to kick us out of the working week and into the programme. MC’s for the weekend Kylie Sturgess and Lawrence Leung were joined on stage by Friday night host and Good News Week laureate Mikey Robbins, who in turn brought out Ben Elton, Stella Young and Jim Jefferies to round out the order.

Allow me to start, by offering only facts. Each of the comedic acts made me laugh. Yes I am counting all named above, including Mikey Robbins as a comedic act, because I found his Bogan hieroglyphics line hilarious. All comics also said something that made me feel slightly uncomfortable, but that’s okay too, because for the most part I was laughing (except for one of Robbins’ gags that failed to muster even a titter).  I hold these facts to be self-evident.

At the close of proceedings, I turn to Twitter (still can’t bring myself to tweet while people are speaking) to find that the entertainment has been widely criticised. Elton has been described as ‘unfunny’ ‘dated’ and ‘irrelevant’, Jefferies derided as ‘misogynistic’ and ‘insensitive’.

And I’m torn. Sure, I can see what people are talking about, Elton slipped in a bit of material that I suspect was written around the time the internet had training wheels, and drifted off on a few tangents completely unrelated to belief religion or atheism, but he still got a laugh out of (most) of the crowd. He also had a number of well-crafted quips which I took some measure in delight in. Having said that, this was the first time that I have seen him live or indeed, perform stand-up. He could easily have been working from older material that people have seen before.

Jefferies seems to have been the most divisive. He got a few laughs, a few groans and a few sharp uncomfortable intakes of breath for some of his material. Again, for the most part I found him funny, but I can see that some people may have been offended. I don’t know the man personally, but based on his routine (and it is a routine remember) I don’t believe that he is a misogynist. He did use some old standbys that are bound to divide an audience, such as dead baby humour (which is more than a little oxymoronic). He was also the only comic whose act was mostly religion/faith/belief based, and he gets credit from me for taking a jab at Muslims, Buddhists as well as Christians. I will also mention that I noticed a high profile guest leaving before Jefferies took the stage. I also noticed one high profile guest absolutely cacking themselves at some of the edgiest material. Read into that what you will.

I can only imagine that this event was a nightmare to book. What you have is a room full of people who have one attribute in common, but wildly different opinions on almost everything else. Given a choice, I probably wouldn’t have bought a ticket to see Ben Elton do stand-up. Others in the room might have. With such a diverse group of people in attendance of course not everyone was going to find the funny in every aspect of the material, especially if you are relying on a reasonably diverse mix of comedians. How are you going to find one medium of expression that is going to be accessible to all? The answer is, you probably aren’t. Book less edgy acts, some will find the entertainment bland and boring. Book edgy acts, some are going to take offense. The middle ground here is a very fine line, and if I’m honest, I don’t blame the organisers for missing the mark with some segments of the audience. It was bound to happen.
However, at the end of the day, we aren’t all gathered to sit in a room and laugh it up all weekend. Nobody looked at the programme and bought a ticket because they were going to see Ben Elton perform (I hope).

It does make me think however, on a question that I have been musing about lately. I’ve watched a LOT of comedy in my time. I’ve watched the Comedy Festival Gala for as long as I can remember. I have whole routines by my favourite comics committed to memory.

The question that I find myself constantly asking is “Is there humour in everything?”

It sounds like a simple question. I know a lot of people whose answer is an emphatic “No”. There are collections of people out there who believe that serious issues need to be treated with reverence, and that only trivia should be treated humorously. I know a guy who refuses to watch “Family Guy” because he believes that playing the relationship between teenaged Chris and implied pederast Herbert for laughs inappropriate. That is a decision that he is made, he has removed himself from the media he finds objectionable, and life goes on. While I don’t agree with his particular viewpoint, I commend his management of the situation. He has identified something that he deems objectionable, he has excised said material from his life, and he has a clear and cogent argument for why he holds that particular ideology.

I know a lot of other people who answer the same question with an equally emphatic “absolutely”.

For my part, at this stage of my life, my answer is yes. I believe that there can be humour in everything. I have seen comics’ present edgy material on topics that are not traditionally used for comedy. I also have to say, that I am yet to hear any bit of stand-up that has caused me offense. This doesn’t mean that I think everyone is obligated to find everything funny. If you boil it down, there is the potential that anyone can take offense at anything, and there are people in this world who will look, and look hard to find something to take offense to. I doubt animal cruelty gags are played for laughs at a PETA conference, in the same way I strongly doubt that Jim Jefferies would be booked at a feminist conference.
It is a matter of reading the audience and addressing their needs, which I gather in tonight’s case was particularly hard to do.

I certainly know of people who have been offended by comedy, such as in the case tonight. But everybody has to make their own decisions about these things. It is a rare situation indeed that forces someone to be exposed to objectionable media. (Save for a Clockwork Orange style headpiece, I don’t know how it could be done.) If tonight’s material was really so objectionable, then an attendee could easily have walked out (just as one high profile guest may or may not have done).

I don’t know guys. We people are fickle folk, and there is a lot of big wide world out there to get in our way.

What do you think? Tweet it at me. 

Mass Effect 3 Review : Bio-Shocked!

I've been in bed with Bioware ever since I picked up a copy of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic on the original Xbox. This was the Star Wars game that I had always wanted to play. We had genuinely likable characters, an absorbing narrative and involving and immersive game play packaged into a universe that we were all already familiar with, yet somehow supplying a fresh spin on it at the same time. It was a remarkable piece of work, and since first playing that game I have held the belief that Bioware are the makers of some of the finest adventure RPGs of recent years. I don't think this is overstating it.


This opinion has only been strengthened by the high quality of games that they have released in the past few years. Their latest effort, Mass Effect 3, which forms the conclusion to the long running Mass Effect series does nothing to diminish this opinion. 


The latest instalment picks up more or less where Mass Effect 2 left off, with Shepherd relieved of his command after the events of the previous game. Long term antagonists, the Reapers mount an offensive on Earth, leaving Shepherd tasked with rallying allies and uniting the different alien races against the Reapers. Recommissioned and with the crew of his trusty ship, the Normandy, behind him, he must unite the galaxy and unify them against the Reapers before it is too late for Earth. 


Long term players being able to import their ME2 character to continue the adventure, with the decisions and choices that they have made in the previous two instalments having tangible effects on the way the events will unfold.


Small but noticeable improvements abound. The cover system has been modified, leaving the entire combat experience smoother. On a personal note, I've never been the biggest fan of cover-to-cover third person shooters. I abandoned the Gears of War franchise one level in to Gears 2 due to my frustrations with the style. Not saying they can't be good games, I just tend to get bored with the gameplay faster than most. Not my cup of tea. With this in mind, I did find myself frustrated with sections of ME2 due to the combat dynamics, but persisted due to the narrative. I had no such problem in ME3. The combat was mostly smooth and fluid, with only a few jags here and there. 


The dangerously uninteresting planet scanning mini-game has been overhauled and is thankfully a shadow of its previous time-wasting, incessant probe-launching predecessor. ME3 has you scanning star systems for war assets from the map screen, with each successive scan increasing the odds of attracting Reaper attention. Scan too much, and you have to evade the Reapers and flee the system until things calm down. If a war asset is found, all that is required is a quick scan of the planet to locate it, before taking it on to its rightful home. 


Now, it might be the fact I have notoriously bad eyesight, or that I'm of the vintage where a ten by ten block of multicoloured pixels passed for a player character, but I've been accused of being to forgiving regarding graphics with some games. I loved the graphics of this game. At stages, I did catch myself stopping and looking around, purely because of how good the environments look. The planets and environments you move through are diverse and impressive, and they truly add to the atmosphere and immersiveness of the game. I didn't notice anything that I could feasibly pick on as a downside visually. Even the characters manage to look realistic and believable while skirting the uncanny valley. On characters, the voice acting is really second to none. Big names Seth Green, Martin Sheen and Keith David reprise their roles as Joker, The Illusive man and Anderson respectively, and I still can't bring myself to trust EDI, (voiced by Tricia Helfer, who also played Burn Notice's Season 2 antagonist, Carla). The closest to a downside that I could draw is the fact that Male Shepherd's delivery is a little wooden at times, but this is hardly a problem. 


The vocal acting and characterisation of the Mass Effect supporting cast has been a distinct strong point of the series, with fans deeply invested in their evolving stories. ME3 plays from start to finish like the resolution of a series. From the very beginning, old scores are settled, old rivalries rear their ugly heads, old friends reappear to help out. It is a truly rich and involved experience, and feels for the most part like a worthy conclusion to the trilogy. The true genius and diversity of the Mass Effect experience was really driven home the most when I started talking with other players about their experiences and realised that they had had a completely different gameplay experience to me. Kaiden Alenko (who I mercilessly left for dead on Virmire five years ago during the events of Mass Effect 1) was still a key member of other players crews, and their Mass Effect experience. A character that I discarded two games ago still has the potential of a rich and full storyline for other players. That fact blew my mind, and I feel that it is a plot device that has been used impressively by BioWare. 


However, the other instalments have not been perfect, and I have a few points to make. This, again is probably an odd quirk based on my vintage, but I am noticing a trend towards not including an instruction booklet with games, and instead filing the instructional material somewhere in the games menus. I'm against it. Since time immemorial, games have come with instructions booklets nestled in their cases, and in my mind, this is the way it should be. Why? Because if I have a physical booklet, I will read it. Once that game is in my system, I am not pausing and ferreting around menus to read the instructions. I want to play dammit! 
Now, if your game is wholly and completely explained via tutorials in-game, no harm, no foul. If there are elements that aren't explained, other than some corner of some menu somewhere, I'd call it a problem. 


I bring this up because it leads me to a bigger problem with my experience with ME3. A big part of the game is collecting war assets for the war against the Reapers. The assets that you have collected appear in a list in the war room on the Normandy. All good so far. But as an extension of this asset list there is a "Galaxy at war" map, which shows areas of the galaxy and how 'prepared' they are for the oncoming battle. No matter what I did in game, these ratings sat at 50%, leaving my scratching my head as to how to upgrade them. It was only once I had completed the single player mode that I discovered that multiplayer mode was the key to increasing this readiness rating. 


Now, in my opinion this is bullshit. Sadly, they have only compounded their sins by linking the success of single player to completing objectives in this multi-player mode. See, you can only get the best ending by mobilising a certain number of assets to the final battle, and doing this requires attaining a certain readiness rating. Although the media associated with the game says otherwise, the most effective way of reaching that rating is via multi-player play.


This comes across as nothing but a cash grab, particularly as your MP character starts at a low level, with the worst equipment with better equipment, characters and weapon mods obtained through the MP store, where for $2ish a pop, you can buy a pack of randomised equipment, which, much like the collector cards of our youth, is randomised so the best equipment is rare and therefore hard to come by. 


Amazingly poor form. Renegade decision Bioware.


Now, having said that. I played the multiplayer for a bit, and it was a pretty good time. Your team of four faces off against increasingly difficult waves of enemies, with the occasional objective thrown in. It was not the worst MP mode I have ever played, and I had a fair bit of fun with it. I just would have enjoyed it more if I was able to come across it organically, rather than having it forced upon me in the interests of furthering the single player story. 




But on to the big one, I'm going to state outright, I try and avoid pre-release hype when it comes to games these days. I'd rather wait until the game is in my hands and play it and judge its own merits on my own terms, rather than based on expectations which have been artificially elevated by lofty claims from games developers (Yes Peter Molyneux, I am looking at you). 
As a rule, developers are second only to used car salesmen in over promising and under-delivering (Duke Nukem Forever or Daikatana anyone?)


I'm going to relate my personal experience, and then delve into some further analysis of it. Needless to say, spoiler, ending and plot details follow. Abandon this post here if you aren't done playing yet.




My Shepherd united the galaxy. I ran all the side missions and optional objectives that I could. I made peace between the Salarians and the Krogans, the Quarians and the Geth. Every fighting force that I could muster was ready and on the front lines for the Earth Reaper offensive. Save for the fact that I lost effective strength because I hadn't yet cracked that I needed to play multiplayer to get that up and running. I assaulted Earth, made my peace with my crew, fought my way to the Citadel with friends dying along the way. I witnessed and avenged Anderson's murder at the hands of the Illusive man. I spoke to the conduit and elected to take the Synthesis ending, allowing my Shepherd to make the one last final sacrifice to unite the galaxy and ensure the continuation of all the troops and races that had made the offensive possible. I witnessed Joker and EDI crash on a lush but uninhabited planet, and step from the Normandy out into a brave new world, the romance that I had carefully fostered between them cementing their place as the Adam and Eve of a new race of Synthetic/Organic humanoids. The ending culminating on the same planet, generations later with a grandfather relating the legend of "The Shepherd" to his grandson. 


The game ended, and I was satisfied. Not blown away. Not scandalised. But satisfied. I felt that I had accomplished what I had come to do. My Shepherd had sacrificed himself for the good of the Galaxy, as has been the theme over the trilogy, and all was right with the world. 


That in mind, I reloaded a previous save, and took one of the other options, this time, "control" to see how it compared. 


This is about the point that I started to feel a little betrayed. I saw the same damn ending, only this time with minor changes and an palette swap. This time the ending didn't make as much sense to me, as Liara (my love interest) emerged the Normandy alongside Joker, despite the fact that she was by my side when my squad was taken down by the Reapers. 


So I finally turned to the internet for answers, and by god, have these endings hit the fan. Opinion is pretty universal that BioWare has well and truly shat the bed. Now, because I had avoided the hype, I wasn't aware that 16 different endings had been promised. As I said, I was satisfied with the first of the endings that I received, I felt that it made sense considering the circumstances, and while it didn't tie everything neatly up in a nice little bow, I felt that it satisfactorily concluded the story for my Shepherd. People more into the mythos and background of the games have posted various analyses of all the endings that show that there are some very distinct questions about them, questions that they feel deserve answers. 
Do I think that taking the case before the FTC is taking it a bit far? I do. 98% of the franchise has been fantastic, and although the ending is a disappointment, the high quality of the rest of the series speaks for itself.

Where did it all go wrong? I think they raised the expectations of the fan base so high with the previous instalment, it would have been very very difficult to deliver. The ending of Mass Effect 2, is for me, one of the most perfect and memorable game endings of all time. The multi-path narrative was sublime, with the ability of the player to direct the deployment of their team, with the choices that had been made throughout the game having real concrete consequences if you hadn't taken the time to learn about or bond with your team. I agonised over some of those decisions. I really did. The ending of the game was skilfully crafted, masterfully executed and both refreshing and a genuine pleasure to play To anyone who doubts that video games can attain the level of art, I would recommend that you play through Mass Effect 2.
Sadly, that is what is at the core of the problem. Fans connected so deeply with the ending of the second game, that they expected that lighting would strike again for the sequel. Bioware left themselves big shoes to fill, and sadly, fell short.


Sadly, I can't help but feel that where we have been really let down is the resources diverted to implementing a multi-player mode and integrating it with the story. I'm all for multi-player and online play. If properly done, it is hours of fun for all concerned. What I am against is the crowbarring of multi-player modes into games that are ill-suited to support it , particularly if the single player experience suffers (Bioshock 2 is another example). People don't come to BioWare RPG/Adventure games because of their fantastic multiplayer capabilities. They come for the story and the emotional connection that they make with the characters. The multi-player aspect was wholly unessential to the overall experience. I wasn't expecting a multi-player experience out of ME3, although I enjoyed it, I could have done without it. 


I have to ask, were people really baying for a competitive Mass Effect multi-player mode?  I suspect most long-time fans would have preferred they redirect some of the assets used on developing multi-player to the endings of the single player campaign. 


So what now? Well, different opinions abound. Check out the BioWare forums if you are keen to have your eyes opened (or clawed out). Yesterday, Dr Ray Muzyka came out to address some of the criticism and ensure that gamers knew that BioWare is listening. 


But really what are they going to do? You only get one chance to make a first impression, and the first impression is that the endings that the game shipped with suck. They don't live up to the promises that the devs made pre-release and this has left a lot of people with a sour taste in their mouth. If I'm honest about things, I don't really think the damage can be undone. Any further fix or DLC that they throw together to tie the trilogy off to the satisfaction of the hardcore fans will require a decent slab of work, including fresh dialogue, which is going to be no easy feat to accomplish. 


It's a complicated and interesting little situation, and one that I will be interested to see resolved. 


I'll wrap this post up with what I feel are a few unalterable truths; 


The Mass Effect trilogy is one of the best game trilogies I have played through. If you separate the levels of enjoyment by time, the trilogy contains around 80 hours of amazing game play, with maybe 5 hours that are a let down (I'm counting the Mako sequences in 1, planet scanning in 2 and the endings in 3).The bulk of the narrative, the characters, the mythology and the game world are absorbing and engrossing. The games themselves are well made, and there is a clearly defined trend of improvement across the trilogy that has been directed by Bioware actively listening to their fans. 


I rate Bioware as one of the gold standard producers of RPG/Adventure games in today's market. 


Mass Effect 3 is one of the most enjoyable, visually impressive and well put together games I have played in the last few months.


No matter what happens, some people are going to be unhappy. That's just the way life goes. I hope that BioWare are able to redeem themselves, but I guess we will see.

Be good to each other.

Peeking behind the curtain...

I’ve been struggling with my own form of writer’s block for the past little while. It’s incredibly frustrating, because whenever I am in a situation where I am unable to write, like at work, my mind is full of wit and wonder. As soon as I get the opportunity to write and point myself at a blank page, all that vanishes off into the ether, and I wind up staring at a blinking cursor, frustratedly bash out a few woeful sentences before damning it all to hell and turning off the computer to look at photos of dogs doing stupid things on the internet.

So forgive me if the next few posts seem to lack a bit of polish and refinement. In order to try and break myself of the habit, I’m going to point myself at a blank page and write what is mostly stream of consciousness, just to get some words out on the page and see if that is capable of breaking down the barriers that spring up to stifle my creativity whenever I see a blinking cursor in a sea of white.

I suppose that enough time may have passed now since I started this blog to more directly address the nature of my own personal belief, how it came to be and how I have come to redefine it as I have grown and learned over the years.

I’ll state right now, I was from a Christian family, so when I reach for religious arguments, symbolism or examples I will generally come up with examples from the bible and the Christian mythology by default. That is not to say that I only reject Christianity and the Christian god. I have considered and rejected many other gods as well. It is just the Christian mythology is the one that I am most familiar with.

First, allow me to pigeonhole myself for you. When asked what my religion is, 90% of the time I will answer “agnostic atheist” the other 10% I will say something like “Secular Humanist.”  While I am aware that the terms are not mutually exclusive, sometimes I find that secular humanism is less likely to be misunderstood by most people.

Either that; or they don’t know what it is, assume it is a cult and stop asking about my religion.

My use of definitions means that the 90% of the time I call myself an agnostic atheist, the immediate retort is “Don’t you have to be one or the other?”

Not so I feel; Agnosticism deals with knowledge and atheism with belief.

An agnostic claims not to know one way or another if there is a deity or isn’t - which on its surface is an entirely reasonable view to hold. For all their supposed infallibility, facts and knowledge are notoriously fluid, and quite often subject to change. Therefore I feel that it serves one in good stead to refrain from making absolute statements if it can be avoided. Something I learned from Analytical chemistry, never claim 100%, never claim 0%. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

However I feel that to identify yourself as only an agnostic, but to not state one way or another which side your bread is buttered belies a weakness of character in failing to state your conviction. Sure, you can admit that you don’t know, but how do you choose to live your life? I think that to be stalwartly planted on the fence would be a paralysing way to try to live. I don’t want to deride the agnostics out there, but in my experience, agnosticism seems to be a transitional stage one way or the other. Most agnostics I know (and I am speaking anecdotally here), define themselves as such before eventually slipping one way or the other.


I’m not saying that I believe that one day we will have concrete proof for the existence or non-existence of a god. I’m just saying that given the current evidence, I just plain don’t know.

This is where the atheist part comes in. Atheism deals with belief. Although I am willing to admit that I don’t know if there is a god one way or another, based on the evidence available to us, I believe that the presence of an omniscient and omnipresent deity is so unlikely that it is scarcely worth affording the possibility consideration. Further to this, I find the existence of the literal god of the Bible to be even more unlikely than the possibility of some other, less interested deity.

I do not come to my decisions lightly. I have thought long and hard about religion. I have thought about the nature of belief and faith. I have researched into why we as people do what we do and believe what we believe. No matter how much I was told that to follow god was the right path, I could never find any evidence that this was the right choice, nor any evidence to reassure me that my faith would be well placed.

The story of my evolving beliefs begins when I was about nine or ten. As I mentioned previously, I was born into a Christian family, not hard-core or fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but my father went to Church weekly, and both my sister and I were baptised into the faith and included in this weekly endeavour. As I also mentioned, I had developed a passion for science from an early age, initially spawned by an interest in dinosaurs and palaeontology, I was a voracious reader and actively devoured as much scientific literature that I could understand. As such, I was gifted a membership into the CSIRO’s fantastic Double Helix magazine too, which stood me in good stead until I graduated to New Scientist and Scientific American.

It was about this time that I had started to ask questions about god and religion. I had worked by this stage that most of the other childhood myths were false through constant enquiry. (How DOES Santa go around the world so fast? How can one bunny carry ALL the eggs that were hidden in the yard? And the like.)

It is also around this time, that kids further their progression through the church, with their confession and moving onto their first communion. For me, this meant that every Wednesday after school, I was dropped off at Church and spent two hours of religious instruction in what were called “Christian Living” classes. At first, I thought this was great! I’d been taught that church and god were good things, and I was excited to learn more about the subject. So I asked questions. Lots of questions. When I didn’t get the answers I was hoping for, I asked more questions. When I couldn’t get a straight answer out of the priests and nuns at the church, I asked my parents. When they couldn’t give me answers, I started to doubt. Obviously, at some stage, my voicing of dissent raised a red flag, and the church spoke to my parents about it. The outcome of this meeting was I was singled out for a one on one meeting with the most senior nun. So, one Thursday after school, I was taken down to an empty church for a discussion with a nun. I don’t remember all of what was said, I recall asking why fossil evidence contradicted the teachings of the bible, and asking exactly where heaven and hell were and how they could possibly function. The long and the short of it was, she argued with me for maybe two hours, but it was ultimately a futile endeavour. The only responses that she had were that we just had to “trust in god’s plan”, “god movies in mysterious ways” and the perennial “You just have to have faith.” 

I left the church that day as an atheist. I didn’t know that that was what it was called at the time. But that was the day that I decided that I no longer believed in god.

Since that day, I have continued to be fascinated by the nature of belief. I have read two different versions of the Bible (KJV and NIV) and undertook five years’ worth compulsory religious  education classes as I went through a religious high-school.  I have read sections of the Bhagavad gita, the Qu’ran and a seemingly endless stream of online articles and opinion on the nature of faith. I am yet to find anything to convince me, but I am always happy to sit down and have a discussion on the topic.

As far as personal politics goes, while I know that religion has served as the inspiration for some terrible atrocities, it has also given us an abundance of art, poetry, writing and music that we would be poorer without. People do feel better with god. There is evidence that the religious live longer. Some people need to believe. I cannot in good conscience support the outright abolishment of religion.

What I do support, is the reduction of religious influence at the various levels of government. We live in a brave new world, there is no need for us to continue to allow select and powerful special interest groups to pull the strings to create laws and legislation that govern how the rest of the country, and indeed the world lives. In that regard, I don’t much care what people believe, provided they are willing to extend the same courtesy to the rest of society. You can believe whatever you want, provided that it doesn’t hurt anyone or infringe on anyone’s liberty or freedoms.  

I think that is something a lot of people can get behind.

As always, if there is something that I have said that you want clarification on, or to debate me on, hit me up on the email aussieheathen@gmail.com or tweet at me.

Be good to each other. 

The Rise of Global Slacktivisim...

These days there is a clearly defined path of escalation by which causes (both charitable and non) operate. First, a fledgling cause is raised and released on its shaky legs into the wide scary world of the Internet. If it is lucky, the cause is set upon from all sides, maybe a few celebrities jump on board and the thing goes viral. It will be blogged and tweeted about ad nauseam, calls to action will resonate from one side of the Internet to the other. People will sign petitions, donate money and spread the word before patting themselves on the back for doing their part in saving the world. 


I hate to piss on the bonfire. I really do. If people are able to do any small amount of good to make the world a better place, whether that be by donating money, time or merely just raising awareness (more on that later), more power to them. Galvanising people into action is one of the hidden and unexpected benefits of social media. Who am I to try and take that away from people?

The problem is, it is so much harder to tell if you are actually doing any real good. This has been most evident over the past few days with the viral treatment of Invisible Children's KONY 2012 campaign. I'm not going to post the link to the video here. Chances are you are one of the several million people who have already seen it. I know that my Twitter feed and Facebook wall exploded just like everyone else's. I watched the video. I thought about it. I did some further reading, and I find that I cannot in good conscience support the campaign.


My biggest problem with it is this; IC appear to be sanctioning and encouraging (demanding if you believe the video) US military action on foreign soil, to bring to justice a man with an army of child soldiers. Are the expecting that he is just going to surrender peacefully? Do they really think that they are going to get out of this without killing some of the children that they are wanting to save? 


I started in two different minds about this. On the one hand, the video is a finely crafted piece of communication (and I thought long and hard about putting the word "Propaganda" in there,) that has clearly accomplished the goal it set out to achieve. There is no disputing that they have gotten results and galvanised people into action. That in itself is a victory that they should be proud of, as it isn't an easy thing to do. I'll admit, until a few days ago, I was unaware that Kony existed. I was however aware that these things go on in certain unstable nations around the world. Joseph Kony is not the first warlord and will not be the last. He is not the first one to use children as instruments of war. As horrifying as it is, it has been done before, and I wager it will be done again. While his crimes are horrific, they are sadly not unique. 


On the other hand, I am always more than a little bit wary about "awareness raising" campaigns. Properly implemented, an awareness campaign should inspire an emotional connection with a cause, leading people to engage in further research and study before finding actual, useful and effective methods that can help to resolve it.

Poorly implemented, they are big and loud. They burn brightly and they burn fast. They are capable of  convincing people that an issue that is, by its nature, intricate and complex, can be solved by changing their Facebook photo, tweeting about it, or throwing money at it and hoping it will go away while they congratulate themselves on a job well done.Realistically, this sort of approach can do more harm than good, as it diverts funds, time and resources away from what could be a more reasoned and intelligent approach. 


Take the pink ribbon campaign as an example. What started out as a breast cancer awareness campaign rapidly transitioned into a marketing tool. The marketplace became saturated with pink products proudly claiming to fund research into breast cancer, but with no regulation as to what percentage, if any, of the profits had to be donated to actually doing something about helping those with breast cancer. The system left the symbol open to abuse, and it was without doubt abused by some. So in the worst case, people walk away with arm loads of pink products thinking they have made a meaningful contribution to a worthy cause, when realistically, they would have been better off directly donating to a known institution, with some level of transparency and accountability that is actually doing something to solve the problem other than raising awareness. (Very interesting article on the pink ribbon campaign specifically, here)


They were slow to start, but the inevitable criticisms of the Invisible Children's KONY 2012 have begun to come to light. Information showing that less than a third of donations to Invisible Children go to direct aid, that they are manipulating facts to suit their own ends and that their indelicate foray into international affairs may be inflaming tensions that could do more harm than good.  


Are you donating your hard-earned dollars to a charity that is going to do have a measurable beneficial effect on the world? Or are they going to paying charity staff and administrators, with a paltry percentage of your contribution finally filtering through to do work on the real problem? Is what little of your money that finally gets to the problem actually doing good, or could it be working against you?

These aren't questions that I can answer for you. I can't tell you how to spend your money, time and resources. All I can ask, is that when a new video goes viral or you see a trending topic about the new cause célèbre that you think before you link. Do your research first. Read a few opposing points of view. If at the end of it, you are satisfied that your charity dollars (or time, effort and resources) will be used for good, then I will emphatically support your decision.

Just go in with your eyes open, and you won't ever be disappointed.

That's one way of looking at it...

Just caught a great image on the back of a van while I was out and about...


Big sticker that said;


"What do Newton, Kepler and Galileo have in common? They all worshipped God" 
Plus a bible verse that I couldn't get close enough to read. 


Never mind that certain segments of the Church denounced both Galileo and Kepler for their work, but these men also lived in a time where to not worship god was tantamount to heresy and could result in punishment. 


But hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Especially if you can use it to proselytise with bitchin' stickers on your bitchin' van. 


Stay classy.