Touched a raw nerve there, have I Col? Can't say I've ever used any of those epithets in conversation myself, but I've heard them all, and plenty more besides, from Australians, usually prefaced with "I'm not racist, but...", Actually, that's a fib; "nig nog" derives from the British sitcom Man About the House (but you seem to think that Australian=British, so I thought you wouldn't mind). Talk about ungrateful though, Col. I write a post agreeing with you, and all you can do is carp and criticize about my choice of words. Talk about political correctness gone mad!!

As for "you have, however, proved one of the awful truths about Australian society. – That half the population are below average intelligence." Such a judgement (coming from a mental giant like yourself) has shaken me to the core. And so clever of you to spot my cunningly disguised inferiority complex. Most of my (few) friends think I have the opposite problem.

What gutter did I spring from? Isn't it obvious for a man of your brilliance, Col?

Vasectomy? I can't believe you'd want all my "innovative British" genes going to waste.

Rhian, nothing I say is unintentional.The intent of Thomas Barlow's article was to be a barb in the thigh of our egotistical psyche.You don't ethically raise your own profile by the denegration of others.

There must always be a balance between ego and reality,however without ego and ambition nothing would be achieved,we would still be nomadic cave dwellers murdering each other over food and territory.

It is better to be a realistic positive egotist than a negative introverted detractor who seeks power through subtle equivocation.

Johnj - I actually thought you were Scandinavia, that is where "Trolls" come from

Have a nice day

There is a point of view that myth, in the particular sense of archetypal patterns of the unconscious mind, is an integral part of life. This was started by Carl Gustav Jung, and developed by followers such as Joseph Campbell (the consultant on mythology for “Star Wars”).

Jung said that a person should examine the myth that they are living, and if it is destructive, abandon it.

I like to think that he would also have said to examine the myth you are attacking, and if it is constructive, abort the attack.

A myth which is adopted gains its power from being a myth; its truth or falsity is irrelevant to its impetus.

The myths of, for example, “Stolen children” and “global warming” should not be examined for truth or falsity, but abandoned because they are destructive,

The myth of inventiveness and resourcefulness of Australians should not be attacked, on the basis that it may not be capable of verification, but should be supported regardless, because it is constructive.

The constant polarisation of every issue by the abstraction of nationality is tiresome!

The author is correct that Australians are no more or less resourceful than any other nationality - doubtless these creative thinkers have more noble aims in mind than perpetuating the self-congratulatory attitude of the nation, an attitude which many Australians promote too vocally, to the detriment of our overseas image, and our tolerance of diversity at home.

Of course the people who live in our immediate vicinity will have some degree of shared historical, geographical and cultural experience, and so we feel comforted in this collective identity, and proud of achievments made locally.

But to crow the superiority of "our" collective genius and bolster our national ego by comparison to other constructed groupings of nationality is redundant.

We should celebrate the adaptability and imagination of the human condition, regardless of an individual's (or research team's) citizenship status.

I am. You are. We are Australian? Bollocks. I am. You are. Full stop. Exagerating difference only exacerbates misunderstanding. Now get out there and invent something, to make life better for all of us, regardless of where we come from!

Arjay, there seemed to me an internal contradiction in your argument – that we prefer science for its mythic and inspiring qualities, not for any (scientific) basis of reason or evidence, still less standing cheerfully before the bar of falsifiability – so I assumed it was unintentional. Apologies, but you can see why I might think it contradictory.

That doesn’t make me morally better or worse than you. I hope I’d never “ethically raise my own profile by the denegration of others”. This isn’t a discussion of ethics, but of science. I still haven’t seen anyone defending the proposition that Australians are unusually talented at science with anything resembling scientific argument - logic, evidence, verifiable (or falsifiable) methods and sources.

The core of the discussion is perhaps Leo Lane’ assertions that: ” The myth of inventiveness and resourcefulness of Australians should not be attacked, on the basis that it may not be capable of verification, but should be supported regardless, because it is constructive.”

I vehemently disagree with this, because a) it is in fact capable of verification (or more pertinently, falsification) and b) any proposition that is asserted to be incapable of verification has no place in an affirmation the merits of science.