Fighting on

February 24, 2017


Just finished watching Avengers: Age of Ultron (again). Caring for my sick daughter does have its compensations (though I shudder at the backlog piling up at work!) 

The powerful image in the end credits, of the main characters portrayed as classical heroes, in marble, made me reflect on Joss Whedon’s take on heroism. I think it is best captured in the closing words of Angel – with which the 12 seasons of the Buffy/Angel television saga came to an end:

SPIKE: In terms of a plan?

ANGEL: We fight.

SPIKE: Bit more specific.

ANGEL:

(steps forward)

Well, personally, I kind of want to slay the dragon. 

(the demon horde attacks)

Let’s go to work.

(swings his sword)

(Fade to black.)

Or beloved heroes do not die on screen, but we are left in doubt as to what will happen next. 

In the Whedon universe, heroes are not the guys who always win, but the ones who are always ready to put up a fight. This idea is not a Whedon invention, of course, but Whedon does come up with powerful ways to put it forward in the realm of pop culture.

As our world is increasingly crunched between the souless wills of haters and philistines it is good to remind ourselves that heroism is about fighting on, even when it feels like we’ll be crushed. 

Ultimately, heroism (or whatever lesser version of it we, mere mortals, may manage to muster) is not about winning, but just a better way of life. As in the opening lines of that other great piece of pop culture, the feature film Lorenzo’s Oil:

“Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat is in the hands of the Gods. So let us celebrate the struggle.” 

Advertisements

I Saw it There

October 6, 2015

My country was in flames and then
I saw it there: the British flag,
a friendly face.

It was the worst day of my life.

Huddled and cold we were.
The trip was long, the night was dark,
but a warm soup lit our hearts.

It was the worst week of my life.

Daily shopping, the school run,
read the papers, bask
in the warmest winter sun.

It was the worst month of my life.

Walking through the masses
my eye catches your eye.
A spark, an understanding,
a shared life – so many plans.

It was the worst year of my life.

Because it gave me hope it was the worst day of my life,
because I felt that warmth it was the worst week of my life,
because I was at home it was the worst month of my life,
because I became yours it was the worst year of my life.

Because I’m in despair, so cold,
unrooted and adrift in this barren land
in flames no more – just smouldering –
this land that they call mine.

“THE HOME SECRETARY, THERESA MAY, HAS ANNOUNCED AN OVERHAUL OF THE ASYLUM SYSTEM DURING A HARDLINE SPEECH ON IMMIGRATION. MRS MAY SAID THAT, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, ASYLUM SEEKERS WOULD BE ACCEPTED FROM TROUBLED REGIONS, RATHER THAN AT BRITISH BORDERS. SHE ALSO SAID REFUGEES COULD BE SENT HOME, ONCE THEIR COUNTRIES BECAME SAFER.”

Six O’Clock News, BBC Radio 4
Tuesday 6 October 2015


Eugenie Reich’s take on the Schön affair

June 19, 2009

Last month’s issue of Physics World contains an article by Eugenie Reich on the Schön affair. It is an edited excerpt of the book on the same topic that she has been working hard on for the last few years. I know that because she was already at it when I met her in Vienna in 2005.

Here is a quote that I guess sums up what the author has concluded about the celebrated self-correction properties of science:

The self-correcting process happened, but it was haphazard and disorganized, with a lot of self-doubt along the way. In comparison with the archetypal picture of scientists as an army of self-correctors marching in an organized way towards the truth, this was more of a guerrilla war.

I think Reich’s book will make compulsory reading for all physicists – particularly those involved in condensed matter research. After all, the unmasking of Hendrik Schön relied, according to the author, on the inspired actions of a few individuals who had to go, initially, against the mainstream. Our obligation
as researchers is not only not to commit fraud ourselves, but also to be vigilant about what our colleagues are doing – our collaborators and those whose works we cite in our own papers.

One interesting aspect of the Schön affair is that it happened, as Eugenie mentions, at a time when employees at Bell labs were subject to a lot of pressure. This brings to my mind the additional responsibilities of managers of research organisations to create the conditions under which honest, intelligent research thrives and ‘bullshitting’ opportunists have a hard time. This is particularly relevant to organizations like national or industrial laboratories that are outside of academia, as in them managers wield a lot more power than in universities. It seems that just the opposite was happening in Bell labs at the time of Hendrik Schön’s deceptions.

Greg Kochanski wrote a very interesting article on the way the performance review process worked at Bell labs. He emphasized how the positive effects of this management instrument could turn into the very opposite in times of difficulty – like those being experienced while Schön was working there. Coincidentally (or not?), Kochanski has a blog post on a closely related topic this month. He ventures that

There is a good argument to be made that it is the extreme level of competition in science that drives a lot of fraud and bad behaviour.  And it drives a lot of the self-delusion, too.  It’s much easier to, somehow, never get around to making those potentially embarassing checks of your results if you are in a hurry and under pressure.

Somehow it does not seem entirely improbable, but if so it is not devoid of irony. It would suggest that scientists lacking job security as well as moral fiber would be deliberately sloppy in their research in order to hang on to scientific careers whose meaning is completely lost once their publications can no longer be trusted. I guess it is possible: some people don’t know when to give up. On the other hand, Hendrik Schön seems to have been aiming much higher: he wanted not only to survive, but indeed to obtain the highest accolades… I guess there is only so much one can understand about the mind of scientists engaging in such behaviours.