By @malangela; @johnhutchuk; thanks to @willsimm for the set up of yourtwapperkeeper that gave us the tweets

The Battle of Ideas 2011 in #3 bites

#1 Essentials
What: A two-day high-level thought-provoking public debate organised by the Institute of Ideas When & Where: 29 & 30 October, Royal College of Art, London. Numbers: 75 sessions, 350 speakers, 2250 attendees Web: http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/ Twitter: @instofideas; #battleofideas;

#2 The #battleofideas in Tweets*

1,503 tweets 220 unique Twitter users Tweets per user: Max 153 min 1 Top 10 users posted 73% of all tweets Top 20 users posted 83% of all tweets (Power Law 80/20...) The #battleofideas tweets were collected from 1pm 29 Oct. to 1pm 31 Oct. using yourTwapperKeeper

Figure 1 Tweets timeline

Figure 2 Tweets per users (ranked)

By @malangela; @johnhutchuk; thanks to @willsimm for the set up of yourtwapperkeeper that gave us the tweets

Top 10 Words

debate audience history society

, , ,

Lang, Panel, tolerance, social, individualism.

The top 10 words are extracted using WMatrix and by comparing the word frequencies of the Twitter corpus with spoken English (British National Corpus spoken - BNC). The results are ranked by log-likelihood (LL) which is reflected in the font size. To put it simply, LL tells the significance of the differences between the BNC and the tweets word frequencies. Top 10 Topics

Politics Personal names,

,

Speech
a group,

Acts

People

Belonging

to

Speech:Communicative, Education, Mental Object: Conceptual

Object, Interested/excited/Energetic, Sports.
The top 10 words are also extracted using WMatrix and by assigning semantic tags (or topics) to each part of speech.

#3 Sessions Attended
1. Welcome Address
With: Claire Fox, The Institute of the Idea Director; Paul Thompson, Rector and Vice-Provost, Royal College of Art; Jamie Walls, Vice President, UK Communication, Shell; Ann Furedi, CEO British Pregnancy Advisory Service; Mike Wright, Executive Director, Jaguar Land Rover.

Fox opens a broad but sharp session with cutting glances at the UK Riots, spiritual/ethical poverty, Truth and self indulgent-activism. She is followed by Thompsons welcome, host of the Battle and long-time ally. Walls then drills into the depths of climate change managing to extract the word profitable without causing any major commotion. In Brief: Powered by Petrol, Cars, the Arts and Sex (edited version of Furedis remark) Good for: setting up the context Not so good for: breathing (no air, packed venue) More: http://bit.ly/pLkSBl 2. Censoring science: have scientists become the new inquisitors?
With: Conrad Lichtenstein, Chief Scientific Officer, Population Genetics Technologies; Mark Maslin, Professor of Palaeoclimatology, University College London/ Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Scholar; David Perks Head of Physics, Graveney School; Brian Wynne, Research Director, Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, University of Lancaster/ Associate Director, ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics; Chair: Tony Gilland, Science and Society Director, Institute of Ideas, Director, Debating Matters Competition.

Perks discusses the trust/mistrust of science in the political sphere and calls for the cull of homeopathy; Maslin warns that there is no such thing as a balanced view for hard facts (e.g. climate change) and that the media should stop looking for it when faced by robust scientific evidence. He then argues that science is not a system 2

By @malangela; @johnhutchuk; thanks to @willsimm for the set up of yourtwapperkeeper that gave us the tweets

of beliefs but a self-correcting path of reproducible results driven by egos and competition. Wynne swiftly reminds Maslin of the function of Dogma in science and its ability to promote orthodoxy rather than the unexpected. He also argues that there must be a distinction between research science which is competitive and individualistic and advisory science which is collaborative and tasked with informing policy makers. Lichtenstein concludes by calling everybody a quack: we may have deep knowledge in some areas, but we all rely on beliefs for most. In brief: The Good, the Pervert and the Not-So-Ugly of Science. Good for: listening to different perspectives in a respectful and inquisitive environment. Not so good for: perspiration (lack of ventilation + small venue = unbearable heat) More: http://bit.ly/qbjoEH 3. Seduced By Stats?
With: Timandra Harkness, Journalist and Writer; Co-writer and Performer, Edinburgh Festival Fringe: Your Days Are Numbered: the Maths of Death; Bryan Joseph Actuarial Partner, London, PwC; Chris Snowdon, Author: Velvet Glove, Iron Fist and the Spirit Level Delusion. Chair: Hilary Salt, Founder, First Actuarial plc.

After a thought-provoking start (stats are un-falsifiable but un-provable) Snowdons presentation is tainted by claims of lack of peer-review from the floor. Timandra entertains the audience with her performance that mixes stats, maths and mental illusions. Seduced by stats? Entertained, duped, comforted, reassured and threatened to death. In brief: Hamsters and pregnancies are correlated Good for: sharpening the mind with Maths tricks Not so good for: the elephant in the room (lung-cancer) in the smoking debate. More: http://bit.ly/nLwvIU 4. Remaking citizens for the Big Society
With: Stuart Derbyshire, Reader in Psychology, University of Birmingham; Tiger de Souza, Knowledge and Innovation Manager, V, The National Young Volunteers' Service; Steve Reed Leader, Lambeth Council councillor, Labour Party, Brixton Hill Ward; Liz Richardson, Research Fellow, University of Manchester, Co-author, Nudge Nudge Think Think: Using Experiments to Change Civic Behaviour; Chair: Kathryn Ecclestone professor, education and social inclusion, University of Birmingham/ Contributing Author, When Tomorrow Comes: the future of local public services

Chaired by the brilliant Eccleston, this session opens with Richardsons defence of the legitimacy of the nudge. The differences between the nudging and the thinking techniques are presented and a call for bottom-up nudging practices is made: can communities nudge decision makers into what they want? Derbyshire makes his point by questioning the banality of nudging as built on the presumption that nudgers knows best. Sadly he gets stuck in a rather pointless hotel towels debate. Souza also but swiftly - questions the legitimacy of influencing and discusses his experience of working with young voluntary volunteers in V . By describing the vcashpoint project, Souzas also highlights the need to make bidding for small funds easier for young people. Reed then stresses the differences between volunteering & civic participation and self-interest & pure altruism. As an example, he introduces the story of a young mother from Lambeth: concerned about her own sons involvement with local gangs and repeatedly ignored by social services, she manages to raise 15K to set up a thriving youth service trust. In brief: We need to talk about towels Good for: a varied range of perspectives from academics, local politicians, volunteers and the general public. Not so good for: the environment (hotel towels) More: http://bit.ly/ttWzES 5. What Innovation is Good for
With: Matt Johnson co-founder, Bare Conductive/ Associate, BREAD/ Graduate Tutor, Royal College of Art; Dr Norman Lewis, Consultant on Innovation, PwC/ Co-author, Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation; Carl Pickering Head of Electrical Research, Jaguar Land Rover; William Webb Visiting Professor, University of Surrey and DeMontfort University/ CTO, Neul/ Fellow, Royal Academy of Engineering; Chair: Martyn Perks Director, Thinking Apart/ Co-author Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation

By @malangela; @johnhutchuk; thanks to @willsimm for the set up of yourtwapperkeeper that gave us the tweets

Perks opens the debate suggesting that innovation is not about Apple: since when innovation is about creating new needs? Jobs was good but no God. Pickering adds that innovation is key to competitiveness but that it should be playful and fun. Webb suggests that innovation is about making life better referring to GPS, the Internet and so forth. At last Lewis gives the panel a good shake airing his surprise at such a low horizon of views. We (the audience) agree: where are the BIG answers to the BIG questions? Innovation is not (solely) about product development! Where are the ideas of the future? With profit & accounting as the only motive, short-termism has infected both industry and government. And if the solutions were to come from China would we still want them?!? In brief: iNovation or Innovation? Good for: combining sponsorships with a smart audience CAN be a good thing. Not so good for: broad vision More: http://bit.ly/pOXwcC 6. Has Tolerance Gone too far?
With: Christopher Caldwell senior editor, Weekly Standard/ Columnist, Financial Times; Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology, University of Kent, Canterbury; Professor Anna Elisabetta Galeotti Chair of Political Philosophy, University of Piemonte Orienatale in Vercelli; GM Tams Visiting Professor, Central European University; President, Green Left; Chair: Angus Kennedy head of external relations, Institute of Ideas; Chair, IoI Economy Forum.

Tamas tells us that tolerance historically implies a power that tolerates deviation from the Truth. But when tolerance is enshrined in the constitution of a country, the removal of the power can lead to sedition and the undermining of law. Caldwell then takes the audience back to the 80s with a young Eddie Murphy looking for faggots in the audience: can our gay-tolerating society still tolerate such a question? Galeotti provides an introduction to the geometry of tolerance (in a nutshell: politics are on the vertical dimension, ethics we think are on the horizontal line and power is asymmetric) and advances that tolerance is the suspension of the power to intervene. Furedi is more straightforward by arguing that (1) there should be no limits to tolerance, (2) tolerance is about belief and (3) we all have the right to have a voice. But can Holocaust denial be tolerated? Hardly so, there must be a limit in modern society, a line which must not be crossed.* In Brief: I can just tolerate your views on tolerance. And they are wrong. Good for: Academic argument and political dissidence meet geometry. Not So Good For: aerobic creatures (lack of air) and plain language. More: http://bit.ly/oStT1p *food for thought: may be tolerance is simply the measure of hurt (or pain or offence) that a society or an individual can bear before silencing the un-tolerable (hence zero-tolerance is for the unbearable). 7. Fracking and Fukushima
With: Gordon MacKerron, Director of Science and Technology Policy Research, School of Business, Management and Economics, University of Sussex; Tanya Morrison, Government Relations Manager, Climate Changes, Shell; James Woudhuysen, Professor of Forecasting and Innovation, De Montfort University/ Co-author, Energise! A Future for Energy Innovation; Chair: Tony Gilland science and society director, Institute of Ideas; Director, Debating Matters Competition.

Woudhuysen opens by suggesting that there is no energy security issue: most problems could be solved by improvements in planning and infrastructure. Also, if Blackpool is going to disappear because of an earthquake caused by fracking, it might have happened anyway. A lot of what follows is a bit limp: concerns about lights going out are based on fear and every energy source has its anti-campaigners. A member from the audience suggests that a thorium-fuelled nuclear-powered merchant fleet would be a good thing. Another suggests geothermal. A slightly depressing lack of variety follows until somebody suggests that China, aka the growing problem consumer, might lead the way with new technologies. A few final remarks about the irrelevance of the power of one sums it all up: energy-saving at home is both futile and unnecessary (as we would be spending all the savings on patio-heaters anyway) 4

By @malangela; @johnhutchuk; thanks to @willsimm for the set up of yourtwapperkeeper that gave us the tweets

In brief: Sponsored by Shell Good for: civil engineers: they will secure UK energy for the foreseeable. Not so good for: debate. More: http://bit.ly/w3HVrL 8. Life off Earth: are the aliens out there?
With: Dr John Elliott Reader in Intelligence Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University/ Member, International Academy of Astronautics SETI Permanent Study Group and Post Detection Task Force; Richard Swan Writer and Teacher; Mark Vernon Journalist/ Author, How To Be An Agnostic and The Meaning of Friendship. Chair: Sandy Starr Communications Officer, Progress Educational Trust/ Webmaster, BioNews

Elliott kicks off with a description of the SETI approach: if there is aliens communication, its likely to be similar to ours. Great quote via Sagan if were the only intelligent life in 10 21 possible planets, it would be an awful waste of space. Vernon points out that scale does matter and that a universal communication can be found in ethics, beauty, love, and etc. Swan drops the Neanderthal bomb: they are the aliens! Anthropocentricity as we know it concerns Homo Sapiens not the rest of the human family tree. Fair point! Finally, the Fermi paradox ignites a very cold war. In brief: We are not alone. Good for: extending your family tree Not so good for: certainties More: http://bit.ly/n1D4sX

#00 Final remarks

To bring at home - aka the School of Computing and Communications, Lancaster University: 1) the panel/audience debate model with no PPT and (mostly) succinct Q&A; 2) opening the floor to non academic, businesses and debate-loving members of the public; 3) there can be a debate with sponsors.