Inspired by our festival theme, Belief, Hypocrisy and Reason, each debate addresses an unmapped topic on the frontiers of thought. From lab-grown babies to the impact of the Internet, economics post-Covid to the proof against the Big Bang the debates will challenge the very coordinates of what you know.
Many neuroscientists and philosophers argue that there is no such thing as fee will. They argue that free will is an illusion and point to experiments that have shown that the brain is preparing for what the body is going to do before we supposedly 'decide' to act. Yet the behaviour of the same scientists and philosophers seems to take for granted their own freedom - to adhere to their own theory for example.
Should we accept that free will is an illusion and cease to praise our children when they do well, and refrain from punishing murderers when they are caught? Or is the denial of free will simply driven by the desire to avoid a profound conflict with the scientific assumption that its laws alone govern the universe?
Groundbreaking philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, Cognitive Neuroscience specialist Patrick Haggard and author of A Metaphysics for Freedom Helen Steward deliberate over the existence of free will.
There is widespread support for the feminist claim that gender should have no role in social hierarchies, and many go further arguing that gender is a social construct that should be eradicated. Yet at the same time, many wish to assert pride in their sexuality, identifying positive female traits that they wish to promote.
Is it hypocritical to be proud of one's gender at the same time as claiming to want to get rid of the social distinction altogether? Must we choose between these two seemingly contradictory claims? Or can we retain gender identity while campaigning to get rid of it?
World-leading feminist critic Nancy Fraser, legendary poet Eileen Myles and Founder, President and Chief Executive of the Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation Bianca Jagger unravel the path to equality.
As every schoolchild knows, science is founded on repeatable experiment, separating its theories from religion and mere opinion. Yet that is not what happens in practice. A recent study found that 80% of scientific papers are never replicated, and a majority of them turn out to be false. And if counter evidence to one of the major theories of science is uncovered it is often ignored or explained away.
Can we clean up science and ensure that results are reliable and assume all will then be well? Or is the issue more profound and we need to recognise that science is not objective and instead is built on the theories and beliefs of the researcher and not purely on experimental fact?
Professor at the Stanford University School of Medicine, and author of the most downloaded paper in history Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John Ioannidis, theoretical physicist and winner of the 2020 Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists for her theory of massive gravity Claudia de Rham and sociologist of science and author of Are We All Scientific Experts Now Harry Collins discuss the importance of replicability and objectivity in science.
In our post truth age it seems that we can collect beliefs on a whim or a tribal fashion. And many are happy to hold contradictory views to suit their temporary desires.
Is this a dangerous approach that threatens not only the coherence of our own outlook but the stability and success of culture and society as whole? Do we need to apply reason to sort wild opinion from truth, eradicate our hypocrisies and build a better society? Or is the era of enlightenment reason over, and time to see its assertions as the prejudiced theories of a privileged class who used logic to promote a particular world view.
Distinguished philosophy professor Graham Harman, author of Oughts and Thoughts Anandi Hattiangadi and post-post-realist Hilary Lawson explore the difference between opinion and truth.
Grand political ideals seemed in the later stages of the 20th century to have been replaced by a pragmatic political culture of effective management. Now it seems idealism is back in full cry. Whether in the form of tribal nationalism, radical socialism, or environmental activism, the goals and ideals of politics are once again centre stage.
Should we reject this return to idealism as a vehicle for dangerous fantasies, and a warning sign of future turmoil, conflict and human misery? Or is idealism central and necessary to politics? And the shift back to idealism a sign of hope and a necessary antidote to a bland politics that served no one other than the ruling elite?
Leading public intellectual and author of The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good?, Michael Sandel, economist and voice of the left Grace Blakeley, and former Conservative leadership candidate Rory Stewart discuss the case for ideological politics.
Stressing the importance of heredity is something associated with the right. Focusing on environmental factors with the left. Yet many on the right care greatly about the environment when it comes to schooling for their children. While those on the left want to describe racists as evil and not excuse their behaviour on the basis of how they were brought up.
To avoid this hypocrisy should we excise politics from the nature nurture debate? Should we focus on the new data coming from twin studies that identifies the impact of heredity on outcomes we have traditionally thought environmental? Or is this a dangerous theory with such damaging consequences for society that it should not be given air time at all?
Hugely influential geneticist Robert Plomin, libertarian journalist and author of The Evolution of Everything Matt Ridley, and award-winning journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown debate the relevance of politics in the nature/nurture debate.
From the writings of Swift and Dickens to Goya's 'Third of May' and Picasso's 'Guernica', art and literature has often been interwoven with politics. But today in the wake of the global pandemic and black lives matter protests, many argue that art has no alternative and that a failure to recognise the political character of art makes the work worthless.
Should we see all creative work as playing a vital part in forming the culture of our time and so inherently political? Or is this to undermine the very nature of art itself which should be focused on creating works of aesthetic value and offering new ways of making sense of the world?
World-renowned sculptor Anish Kapoor, award-winning novelist Colm Toibin, Director of the Tate Modern Frances Morris and legendary poet Eileen Myles consider the importance of politics in art.
Only in Hollywood B movies and Uri Geller tricks, are people able to change the world with their minds. But no longer. A decade ago scientists enabled a monkey to control a robot on the other side of the world with its mind. Now the technique has been extended to enable paraplegics to move robotic arms with their thoughts, and Elon Musk claims to be launching mind control technology this year.
Is this the beginning of a new age in which humans control things around them with their mind alone? Will it enable us to understand the ancient philosophical puzzle of the will and how we are able to intervene in the world? Or does it also open up a dark future in which evil thoughts can cause immediate damage?
Author of The Science Delusion Rupert Sheldrake, chairman of Humanity+ Natasha Vita-More and philosopher of mind and AI specialist Susan Schneider debate the potential of mind-computer interface technology.
Absolute moral claims are making a resurgence along with demands for action in response. Yet at the same time many proclaim the value and importance of upholding diverse cultural outlooks with sometimes radically different moral codes.
To avoid this hypocrisy should we give up belief in a universal moral code, and see morality, as Nietzsche argued, as the product of a monotheistic culture which over the centuries has often led to violence and warfare? Or should we reassert confidence in our moral framework and deny alternative accounts? Is a 'universal moral code' a guise for the tyranny of western, Christian ethics, or is it the cornerstone of a fair and just society in any culture and at any time?
Infamous anarcho-capitalist David Friedman is joined by leading analytic philosopher Timothy Williamson and morality specialist Maria Baghramian to dig into the true nature of morality.
Most think we should reduce our carbon footprint and help the environment. Yet we happily order ever more personal deliveries to our door with mountains of packaging and huge energy costs involved. Is the truth that we only support environmental causes so long as the impact on ourselves is limited or preferably non-existent?
Should we wise up, recognise our hypocrisy and transform our lives to deliver on our professed belief? Or should we see our support for some environmental causes as a form of virtue signalling that we don't in fact endorse?
Environmentalist and one of Time magazine's top 100 most influential people Sunita Narain, influential economist Ashwini Deshpande and controversial Spiked journalist Ella Whelan take environmentalism to task.
We are familiar with the Hippocratic Oath's famous line: 'Do no harm'. Fewer know perhaps the more important line: 'Above all I must not play at God'. But with lifespans increasing long past the point the point of comfort, it is not unusual for treatments to cause more suffering then the disease itself. And with mental anguish commonly falling behind physical health, some argue that doctors have forgotten the promises they made at med school.
Should doctors recognise that they are sacrificing wellbeing in the name of longevity, and pledge to return to the original values of Do No Harm? Or is this a dangerous and misguided strategy that threatens life and the well being of us all?
Leading neurosurgeon and author of Do No Harm Henry Marsh, Chief Executive of Dignity in Dying Sarah Wootton, and Executive Director of Humanity+ Natasha Vita-More debate the role of the modern doctor in For Your Own Good.
From string theory to the big bang, black holes to dark matter, our big scientific theories are increasingly conveyed through metaphor. Yet from Newton to the latest theories, science is largely founded on mathematics.
Should we see scientific metaphors as real descriptions of an underlying universe or are they instead marketing vehicles for sets of mathematical equations? Could Newton have chosen to call forces 'spirits' and Einstein have called fields 'matrices'? And if so would our understanding of reality have been profoundly different?
Eminent Oxford chemist Peter Atkins, Francis Crick Institute researcher Güneş Taylor, author of The Science Delusion Rupert Sheldrake, and and post-post-realist philosopher Hilary Lawson debate the need for metaphor in science.
The notion that there is no self has won over philosophers and scientists since Hume argued that the self is "nothing but a bundle of perceptions.” But those very philosophers and scientists, along with the rest of us, seem to continue to act as if there very much is a self and that we own our actions and thoughts and are responsible for them.
Is our experience of a unified, continuous self merely illusory? If so, to avoid hypocrisy, do we need to re-configure our understanding of experience and responsibility? Or is the denial of the self, an implausible claim driven by a desire to uphold a purely material, scientific account of the world?
Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition VS Ramachandran, philosopher of psychology Lisa Bortolotti and author of Self and Other Dan Zahavi investigate whether the self is an illusion.
Many want their leaders to take a moral stance when it comes to foreign affairs. Yet at the same time we also expect them to act in the country's best interests. On the surface this looks an impossible combination. To avoid hypocrisy do we not have choose which strategy we really want?
Should we conclude that trade with China is vital to future prosperity and turn a blind eye to its repression of minorities? Or is the moral high ground in fact in our long term interests as it weakens China and challenges its aggression? Or then again, is all talk of morality just a cover for a US power play?
Former Under-Secretary General of the UN Shashi Tharoor, former president of the UN Security Council and author of The New Asian Hemisphere Kishore Mahbubani, and foreign leader writer for the Guardian Tania Branigan consider the future of trade with China.
Experts and specialists, scientists and philosophers frequently imagine that they are right and have understood how things really are. Yet at the same time they know this can't plausibly be the case. In the history of humankind there is no theory that has been shown to be definitive, no claim that cannot be disputed. Nor can we imagine a time when such dispute will come to an end.
Should we give up the very idea that it is possible to be definitively right? Would this usher in a new era of compromise? Or is the possibility of being right essential to progress and culture, without which we risk violence and conflict?
Author of Freedom in the Age of Alternative Facts Santiago Zabala, Robust Realist Corine Besson, and expert of Indian thought Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad clash over whether it is ever possible to be definitely right about anything.
We want to be safe, and in search of safety the countries of the world in the face of covid closed down much of the economy. Yet a Lancet study confirmed that global deaths from alcohol are 2.8 million annually - three times the current number of deaths caused by Covid. If we want to be safe and save lives all we have to do is stop drinking.
Is the reality that we pretend to want to be safe when someone else is responsible, but when left to our own devices and desires we frequently choose risk instead? Or do we want safety but just don't realise that routine activities are dangerous?
Oxford Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology Sunetra Gupta, anarcho-capitalist David D. Friedman and renowned human rights lawyer Indira Jaising debate whether human beings are capable of keeping themselves safe.
Six years ago we ran a debate, 'Bang Goes The Big Bang', which posed challenges to the idea that the universe began with the Big Bang. And the doubts are growing. In order to maintain the Big Bang theory cosmologists 'invented' dark matter and dark energy for which we have no direct evidence and supposedly make up 95% of the universe. New experimental data continues to add further challenges to the theory.
Can refinements retain the Big Bang theory? Should we look for radical alternatives? Or more fundamentally is cosmology itself in crisis and our account of ourselves and the universe a fantasy that we imagine to be the truth?
Astronomer, cosmologist and author, Chris Impey, theoretical physicist and creator of the influential Backreaction blog Sabine Hossenfelder and philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg explore the beginning of everything in Our Story of the Universe.
Once sex was strictly rule governed, now casual sex is a default option and even publications like Teen Vogue run features on bdsm and anal sex. Yet, large surveys in the UK and US have found actual sex in decline in all age groups and millennials twice as likely to be having no sex than their parents at the same age.
Is the decline in sex the disturbing outcome of our inability to form relationships in an internet age that has supposedly made it so simple? Or is this a positive sign that sex toys and porn are liberating us from unfulfilling sex? Might the future of sex even be outside of our primary relationships altogether?
Author of Why Sex Doesn't Matter Olivia Fane, founder of the polysexual arts magazine The Demented Goddess Soma Ghosh and social commentator Ella Whelan grapple with the future of sex.
We want to see the end of discrimination on the grounds of race. To this end, in 2018, France unanimously voted to remove the word 'race' from its constitution. Endorsing the view that race should play no part in any decision or action. Yet at the same time many want to assert their right to be proud of their heritage and see race as a defining part of their identity.
Should we be seeking to eradicate race from social judgments and must we as a result give up attachment to being part of any particular racial group? Or does ignoring race cover up historic injustices and disregard inherent differences in identity?
Award winning spoken-word artist George the Poet, economist and first black tenured professor of economics at Harvard Glenn Loury and UK Labour MP Dawn Butler debate the relevance of racial identity in the modern world.
From greetings and introductions, to loves and relationships, church services and dances, formality and ritual were once a central part of our lives. But form and ritual have been in retreat for more than a century. Many now see formality as outdated, an unnecessary sign of deference, and welcome a less constrained, more open culture.
Should we see formality and ritual as a power play that embeds hierarchy and prejudice and seek to eradicate it? Or might the abandonment of ritual be a contemporary mistake? Are social rules, as some in the Me Too movement have argued, a defence for the vulnerable? And can ritual lift us out of the mundane and everyday to higher and better goals?
Historian of ideas Hannah Dawson pulls no punches debating philosopher of religion Linda Woodhead and distinguished art critic Noel Carroll on the place of formality and ritual in the modern world.
From Henry VIII to Warren Beatty and Fidel Castro, men have often gained status by being seen to have many women. In contrast women have traditionally protected their virginity before marriage and monogamy after. Now a new generation of young women proudly proclaim their sexual appetites and conquests, while promiscuous men are labelled 'players', told to sanitize their locker room talk, and prove their respect for women through monogamy.
Is this the welcome reversal of millennia of male dominance, empowering women and giving them control over their personal lives? Or is it an illusion to imagine that the majority of women want to be sexually assertive and instead are attracted to men who are? And what is more likely to make women happy and relationships successful?
Multi-award winning comedian Shazia Mirza, founder of the sex-party company Killing Kittens Emma Sayle and writer, broadcaster and academic Myriam Francois clash over the role promiscuity plays in the fight for equality.
Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi ruled their nations tyrannically for many decades. But having removed their leaders Iraq’s democracy is now in crisis and the region in turmoil while Libya is locked in a complex civil war with no overall government. The Arab Spring has morphed into the Arab Nightmare.
Must we give up the idea of good and bad in international affairs, and along with it the post war Western notion that democracy is the right political solution? Is intervention typically an error? Or is it essential that we fight for democracy and Western values despite evidence of the chaos that can ensue and the lives lost?
Former leader of the Green Party Natalie Bennett and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense and chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, Joseph Nye, debate the role of morality in international relations.
Facts and reason are essential if we are to make progress and create a better world. At least that's how it used to be. But now it seems everyone has their own 'facts'. Trump and Putin have their 'alternative' facts, but so, it is also claimed, does the liberal elite and the mainstream media. Meanwhile, reason is derided by many as a typically male bludgeon to deny alternative views.
Should we welcome the challenge to facts and reason as a progressive move undermining the authority of traditional Western hierarchies founded on establishment prejudice? Or is the undermining of facts and reason singularly dangerous - threatening a belligerent world with no shared framework and no communication?
World-renowned author of On Truth Simon Blackburn, epistemology specialist Anandi Hattiangadi, and author of Ethics Beyond the Limits, Sophie-Grace Chappell clash over the nature and value of facts.
From Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes economists have argued for free trade, and the innovative power of capitalism, to improve living standards and prosperity. Many governments support the rhetoric. But it is not the reality. Almost all countries still impose widespread tariffs and some argue the very purpose of blocks like the EU is to maintain barriers and tariffs to those outside the free trade area.
Should we give up the rhetoric or change the reality? Are free trade and innovation not the capitalist panacea and do we need to limit change to protect the people? Or would global free trade enable developing economies to thrive, create higher living standards for everyone, and unleash the power of innovation for all to benefit?
Former Conservative party leader Michael Howard, environmental activist and author of Oneness vs the 1% Vandana Shiva, Johns Hopkins economist Pravin Krishna debate the importance of global free trade.
In the West, most claim to love animals. Worldwide, billions are kept as pets - approaching one per human. And hundreds of millions of dollars are given to animal charities each year. But most people are also happy to eat them, and we have created an 800 billion pound industry to deliver animals to our table.
Should we overcome our hypocrisy and accept that we don't in fact care about animals at all, and our aim is simply to use them for our pleasure? Or should we take radical steps to restructure our diet and our agri-business to end our attachment to eating animals?
In the mid twentieth century, from the model T Ford to the moon landings, from nylons and electric guitars to moving pictures and television, technology seemed to offer a faster, more exciting world providing us with a better life. But now, from resources to climate change, robots to internet distraction, tomorrow's technological world seems to many as much a threat as a solution.
Might technology be making us less happy, less fulfilled and less motivated? Should we be more sceptical of its value and seek instead to curtail its excesses? Or does technology remain a miracle of human inventiveness that is critical to global growth and the means to lift millions from poverty?
Outspoken Oxford transhumanist Anders Sandberg, inventor of groundbreaking green technology Priyadarshini Karve and Director of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo get to grips with the potential of technology.
Many think language makes us uniquely human. Yet bees communicate precisely how to reach a source of pollen from the hive. Birds warn of a predator. Dogs call to each other with their barks and understand our verbal commands. And new studies show that baboons' grunts align with human speech patterns and even plants send signals to each other through their roots.
Is human language just one type of communication, and have we wildly overestimated its importance? Are humans no different in principle from other animals and plants? Or is language profoundly different from all other forms of communication and the enabler of consciousness itself?
Bestselling author of The Genius of Birds Jennifer Ackerman, philosopher and cultural critic Ray Tallis, and author of A Field Guide to Reality and Zed Joanna Kavenna debate the uniqueness of human language.
From Newton to Darwin and Einstein, scientists have presented their theories as uncovering the true nature of the world. Yet one of the most central theories, quantum mechanics, seems to make this impossible. Its founding father, Heisenberg, concluded that science was not able to describe reality. Today in many different fields scientists refer to their theories as models rather than descriptions of reality. Yet many still promote the public image that they are uncovering as the ultimate truth.
Is it time to jettison the idea that science is uncovering the ultimate form of the universe? Or is it essential to the scientific project to maintain the dream of discovering the very nature of reality once and for all?
Award-winning theoretical physicist Claudia de Rham, Closure theorist Hilary Lawson and philosopher and author of Translating the World: Science and Language Sundar Sarukkai go head to head to investigate whether science can really uncover the secrets of the universe.
The tech giants are the global monopolies of our time, dwarfing other companies. As a result, many are calling for their break up. But now it seems it is not just their power and influence that should concern us. There is growing evidence that phones and social media are bad for our health. A host of new studies show social media use causes mental ill health, and is more addictive than cigarettes.
Should we conclude that the tech giants have made us clinically addicted to their products, and act to stop this just as we ban smoking? Can we overcome our obsessive behaviour and improve our health without outside help? Or are the studies misleading and we just need to relax and enjoy something we like using so much?
Royal College of Psychiatrists Member Bernadka Dubicka, co-founder of Big Brother Watch Silkie Carlo and co-founder of Humanity+ David Pearce plug into the dangerous and addictive qualities of tech.
From sexual preference to diversity and criticism of racial prejudice, we see ourselves as more open and progressive than previous eras. Yet, many proudly refuse to be friends with people they disagree with. 17% of Americans admit they have cut off a family member who voted for Trump. 20% of British relationship counsellors cited Brexit as a primary cause of relationship breakdown.
Are these understandable consequences of a deeply divided society? Are we right to be intolerant of views and political outlooks that we find repugnant? Or is tolerance an essential and vital part of a civilised culture and something we should retain at all costs?
Spectator journalist Toby Young and founder of WeNeedToTalkAboutWhiteness Myriam Francois pull no punches.
We all think lying is wrong. Yet we often lie to make ourselves look good, to avoid embarrassment, to avoid hurting others. In fact we lie routinely. A 2002 study found that 60% of us lie on average three times in a ten minute conversation.
Is it time to accept that lying has a central role in all social discourse? Should we stop pretending that it is inexcusable for politicians to lie, and accept that spin is part of their job? Might deceit even be the key to the success of our species? Or is the prevalence of lies a sign of a society in disrepair and decline, undermining trust and meaning, and should we do all we can to reverse this malign practice?
Journaist and author David Aaronovitch, author of Freedom In the Age of Alternative Facts Santiago Zabala, and philosophy of the mind specialist Åsa Wikforss lock horns over whether telling the truth still matters at all.
The left was the traditional home of the working class. But in the US and the UK, France and Italy, the working class are increasingly voting for the right, and traditional loyalties to the left are being abandoned. At the same time the powerbase of the left has shifted towards the professional middle class.
Should we celebrate the end of class based politics? Or has left and right itself changed with the left becoming a conservative defender of professional interest and the right a supporter of working class aspiration? Or are traditional class categories still important - it's just that voters have failed to identify their true class interests?
World-renowned political satirist PJ O'Rourke, leading British Conservative Party politician Jesse Norman, and Jeremy Corbyn ally Dawn Butler wrestle with the relevance of class. Executive editor of Politics at HuffPost UK, Paul Waugh, hosts.
Most of us want to be good and be seen to be good. But aren't these goals contradictory? Isn't the desire to be seen to good a means of placing ourselves higher than others and wishing to gain status and position as a result?
Should we conclude that the attempt to be seen to be good is immoral and call it out as hypocritical, including philanthropist donation, explicit piety on the part of the religious, and virtue signalling be it on campus or on social media? Or is being seen to be good vital to cement socially positive behaviour? And explicit public demonstration of morality the only morality worth having?
World-leading cultural theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of sociology and African Studies and international authority on race, Crystal Fleming, and founder of Prospect Magazine David Goodhart probe the moral maze of public morality.
Most of us, politicians and commentators included, are in favour of reducing levels of inequality. Yet this has little impact on the reality. The average person in the ten richest countries of the world spends in a single week more than those in the poorest ten earn in a year. And even in rapidly growing economies like India greater prosperity is allied with increasing inequality.
Should we conclude that we don't in fact believe in reducing inequality, but simply want to be attached to the moral intent without any serious plan to deliver it? Is there an economic solution that can enable greater prosperity but reduce inequality? Or must we urgently redouble our efforts to rectify the situation accepting radical changes in lifestyles?
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, New Statesman journalist and author of Financialisation Grace Blakeley, and influential UK Labour MP and leadership candidate Lisa Nandy examine our commitments to global equality.
A UK First. Back To Big Thinking
The Guardian
Press
