Archive for the ‘Throwing Out the Trash’ Category

Slings And Arrows of Science

Monday, December 20th, 2010

Oh, this is going up on blogs, bulletin boards, office doors, and hospital bed stands all over the world, damn betcha. This is one of the great classics.

At least, with p < 0.05 confidence

Transcript, because this is important:

Hat Guy: So, has this sickness opened you up to looking for answers beyond science?

Other Guy: …No, not really.

We’ve groped for comfort before the slings and arrows of fortune for millenia, and I begrudge nobody their sources of solace.

But science provides tools.

$100 Billion a year in scientific studies and medical R&D has bought us some pretty damn powerful slings and arrows of our own.

This world is amazing, and I’m going to live to experience more of it thanks to people who refused to gracefully accept the ineffability of reality.

I find my courage where I can, but I take my weapons from science.

Because they work, bitches.

May the Powers bless and keep you, Randall Munroe. That is something that desperately needs to be said and remembered.

Harry Potter and the Methods of Democracy

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

I have mentioned before Eliezer S. Yudkowsky’s mind-expanding Harry Potter fanfic, The Methods of Rationality.

I’ll note first of all that I recently tried to read Prisoner of Azkaban, and could not get past the first few pages.

Part of it was that I just completed rereading some of Terry Pratchett’s best work recently. Pratchett is not only one of the twentieth century’s best writers in any genre, but he understands myth, fantasy, and SF inside and out, so it’s not surprising that J.K. Rowling, who is essentially telling an extended joke for children, does not measure up.

But a good deal of my problem is that nearly every sentence that Rowling wrote referred to something that Yudkowsky had done much better. What is to Rowling a children’s joke is to Yudkowsky a tool for understanding how to think. Methods is nowhere near as well written as PTerry’s work, being more than a little preachy and educational, but Yudkowsky is far the better thinker.

Yudkowsky has just completed a long sequence set in the Azkaban Prison. Harry and his mentor, Quirinus Quirrell, instructor in defense against the Dark Arts, wanted to rescue…well, a prisoner from the magical prison of Azkaban. Harry is appalled at the, literally, soul-destroying punishment of Azkaban, which is not merely a place of incarceration, but deliberately causes extreme emotional distress in its inmates.

On his return, Harry awakes from an exhausted sleep:

Twelve terrible voids floating down a metal corridor, tarnishing the metal around them, light dimmed and temperature falling as the emptiness tried to suck all life out of the world -

Chalk-white skin, stretched just above the bone that had remained after fat and muscle faded -

A metal door -

A woman’s voice -

No, I didn’t mean it, please don’t die -

I can’t remember my children’s names any more -

Don’t go, don’t take it away, don’t don’t don’t -

“What was that place?” Harry said hoarsely, in a voice pushed out of his throat like water forced through a too-thin pipe, in the darkness it sounded almost as shattered as Bellatrix Black’s voice had been. “What was that place? That wasn’t a prison, that was HELL!”

“Hell?” said the calm voice of the Defense Professor. “You mean the Christian punishment fantasy? I suppose there is a similarity.”

“How -” Harry’s voice was blocking, there was something huge lodged in his throat. “How – how could they -” People had built that place, someone had made Azkaban, they’d made it on purpose, they’d done it deliberately, that woman, she’d had children, children she wouldn’t remember, some judge had decided for that to happen to her, someone had needed to drag her into that cell and lock its door while she screamed, someone fed her every day and walked away without letting her out -

“HOW COULD PEOPLE DO THAT?”

“Why shouldn’t they?” said the Defense Professor. A pale blue light lit the warehouse, then, showing a high, cavernous concrete ceiling, and a dusty concrete floor; and Professor Quirrell sitting some distance away from Harry, leaning his back against a painted wall; the pale blue light turned the walls to glacier surfaces, the dust on the floor to speckled snow, and the man himself had become an ice sculpture, shrouded in darkness where his black robes lay over him. “What use are the prisoners of Azkaban to them?”

Harry’s mouth opened in a croak. No words exited.

A faint smile twitched on the Defense Professor’s lips. “You know, Mr. Potter, if He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named had come to rule over magical Britain, and built such a place as Azkaban, he would have built it because he enjoyed seeing his enemies suffer. And if instead he began to find their suffering distasteful, why, he would order Azkaban torn down the next day. As for those who did make Azkaban, and those who do not tear it down, while preaching lofty sermons and imagining themselves not to be villains… well, Mr. Potter, I think if I had my choice of taking tea with them, or taking tea with You-Know-Who, I should find my sensibilities less offended by the Dark Lord.”

“I don’t understand,” Harry said, his voice was shaking, he’d read about the classic experiment on the psychology of prisons, the ordinary college students who had turned sadistic as soon as they were assigned the role of prison guards; only now he realized that the experiment hadn’t examined the right question, the one most important question, they hadn’t looked at the key people, not the prison guards but everyone else, “I really don’t understand, Professor Quirrell, how can people just stand by and let this happen, why is the country of magical Britain doing this -” Harry’s voice stopped.

The Defense Professor’s eyes appeared to be the same color as always, in the pale blue light, for that light was the same color as Quirinus Quirrell’s irises, those never-thawing chips of ice. “Welcome, Mr. Potter, to your first encounter with the realities of politics. What do the wretched creatures in Azkaban have to offer any faction? Who would benefit from aiding them? A politician who openly sided with them would associate themselves with criminals, with weakness, with distasteful things that people would rather not think about. Alternatively, the politician could demonstrate their might and cruelty by calling for longer sentences; to make a display of strength requires a victim to crush beneath you, after all. And the populace applauds, for it is their instinct to back the winner.” A coldly amused laugh. “You see, Mr. Potter, no one ever quite believes that they will go to Azkaban, so they see no harm in it for themselves. As for what they inflict on others… I suppose you were once told that people care about that sort of thing? It is a lie, Mr. Potter, people don’t care in the slightest, and if you had not led a vastly sheltered childhood you would have noticed that long ago. Console yourself with this: those now prisoner in Azkaban voted for the same Ministers of Magic who pledged to move their cells closer to the Dementors. I admit, Mr. Potter, that I see little hope for democracy as an effective form of government, but I admire the poetry of how it makes its victims complicit in their own destruction.”

Harry’s recently cohered self was threatening to shatter into fragments again, the words falling like hammerstrikes on his consciousness, driving him back, step by step, over the precipice where lurked some vast abyss; and he was trying to find something to save himself, some clever retort that would refute the words, but it did not come.

The Defense Professor watched Harry, the gaze reflecting more curiosity than command. “It is very simple, Mr. Potter, to understand how Azkaban was built, and how it continues to be. Men care for what they, themselves, expect to suffer or gain; and so long as they do not expect it to redound upon themselves, their cruelty and carelessness is without limit. All the other wizards of this country are no different within than he who sought to rule over them, You-Know-Who; they only lack his power and his… frankness.”

The boy’s hands were clenched into fists so tightly that the nails cut into his palm, if his fingers were white or his face was pale you couldn’t have seen that, for the dim blue light cast all into ice or shadow. “You once offered to support me if my ambition were to be the next Dark Lord. Is that why, Professor?”

The Defense Professor inclined his head, a thin smile on his lips. “Learn all that I have to teach you, Mr. Potter, and you will rule this country in time. Then you may tear down the prison that democracy made, if you find that Azkaban still offends your sensibilities. Like it or not, Mr. Potter, you have seen this day that your own will conflicts with the will of this country’s populace, and that you do not bow your head and submit to their decision when that occurs. So to them, whether or not they know it, and whether or not you acknowledge it, you are their next Dark Lord.”

And that bold is exactly, precisely, why folks such as tea-partiers, libertarians, Three-Percenters, and Billy Beck are so hated and reviled — despite the fact that they do not desire to be anyone’s Lord. It is enough that they will not bow to democracy, but insist on living to their own consciences, and demand only to be left alone.

On Rationality

Saturday, November 27th, 2010

The best existing philosophical treatise on rationality is a blog.

“But why is it not an ancient philosophical manuscript written by a single Very Special Person with no access to the massive knowledge the human race has accumulated over the last 100 years?”

Besides the obvious? Three reasons: idea selection, critical mass, and helpful standards for collaboration and debate.

LessWrong itself is an update patch for philosophy to fix compatibility issues with science and render it more useful. That it would exist now rather than much earlier is no coincidence: right now, it’s the gold at the bottom of the pan, because it’s taking the idea filtering process to a whole new level.

To get off the ground, a critical mass of very good ideas was needed: the LessWrong Sequences. Eliezer Yudkowsky spent several years posting a lot of extremely sane writing on OvercomingBias.com, and then founded LessWrong.com, attracting the attention of other people who were annoyed at the lower density of good ideas in older literature.

Relatively Easy Climate Quote of the Day

Friday, November 19th, 2010

Watts Up With That, Again:

On the tropopause, which is often identified by a constant potential vorticity (PV) surface of 2-PV units, one can plot the potential temperature (?) to identify upper-level synoptic phenomena such as the jet stream, Rossby-wave breaking, anticyclones, and cut-off lows. From these so-called “dynamic-tropopause” maps, it is relatively easy to see what’s going on.

[My bold.]
….Uh…OK? I guess?

Extreme cold expected during the next week.

Ah. I see.

This is going to be very interesting.

Let me note something: There’s a specific prediction here, with a fairly narrow set of conditions. It will either turn out that way, or not. That’s the difference between science and fortune telling.

Airbender

Thursday, November 18th, 2010

Here’s my mini-review of The Last Airbender:

At the end of the movie, everyone bows down to the Airbender, the kid who is the Avatar, the latest incarnation of the one person who can “Bend” all four elements.

And I killed the movie, right there. That’s all I needed to see. I understand he bows back, but I do not care.

We’re Americans, and in America, we do not bow down. We do not prostrate ourselves. We do not kow-tow.

Fuck you very much, Airbender. We don’t need your help.

I give you instead, Juuni Kokki, a.k.a. 12 Kingdoms. You have to struggle through 39 episodes of bitter angst and prideful cruelty, but finally you get to this moment:

I have many quarrels with this show, it’s interminable length not the least, but it’s worth watching to get to this moment and appreciate it fully.

And it’s got a wonderful end theme, “Getsumei-Fuuei”, sung by Mika Arisaka.

I just love the way Arisaka drops her voice to her lowest registers. So many Japanese singers have high-pitched, even childish voices. Not hers, though; I love its robustness.

SciAm Returns To The Fold

Saturday, October 23rd, 2010

That is, Scientific American showing signs of once again being about science, including the crucial aspect of skepticism.

I just received the issue for November 2010 and I almost fell off my chair at two of their articles. They now admit for the first time the sceptics might be right and they invite discussion on their website.

The first article, page 8 entitled “Fudge Factor” tells of a scientist who always found the results which fitted theory when they did not, how this sort of thing happens all too frequently and includes a sentence questioning whether proxy temperatures measured from tree rings are not an example..

The second article, page 58 has a full page photograph of Judith Curry, Climate Heretic who has been consorting with the likes of Chris Landsea, Roger Pielke Sr, Steven McIntyre and Pat Michaels, who has doubts about the entire IPCC process. I had noticed her intelligent letters on the various blogs.

There is a diagram showing how ridiculous the Hockey Stick becomes when you put in the uncertainties.

I’ve pretty much quoted the meat of Vincent Gray’s email, which is short but too significant to pass over. Excellent, excellent news.

Excerpt from Michael D. Lemonick’s article on Elizabeth Curry.

For most of her career, Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has been known for her work on hurricanes, Arctic ice dynamics and other climate-related topics. But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black­board. Along the way, she has come to question how climatologists react to those who question the science, no matter how well established it is. Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty. “Yes, there’s a lot of crankology out there,” Curry says. “But not all of it is. If only 1 percent of it or 10 percent of what the skeptics say is right, that is time well spent because we have just been too encumbered by groupthink.”

She reserves her harshest criticism for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). For most climate scientists the major reports issued by the United Nations–sponsored body every five years or so constitute the consensus on climate science. Few scientists would claim the IPCC is perfect, but Curry thinks it needs thoroughgoing reform. She accuses it of “corruption.” “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC,” she says, “because I think I don’t have confidence in the process.”

See, here’s what originally raised my alarm bells: when I first began hearing serious talk about Anthropomorphic Global Warming, the science was already settled, and skeptical voices were harshly and publicly silenced. I didn’t get to watch the rough and tumble of skeptics on all sides actually, you know, settling the science. It just appeared, full blown, in the public press, and no one was allowed to question it.

Horrible, horrible mistake. If AGW actually turns out to be right, then we’ve just wasted about twenty years of supporting research and model refinement. We’re not that much closer to understanding what’s actually going on, settling on the underlying mechanisms.

That’s changing, now that the skeptics are once again finding voice. Data will be collected. Models will be refined. Hypotheses will be tested. Science will be done.

And it’s down to real scientists like Curry, who, along with the Anonymous hacker who spilled the CRUtape emails, will eventually go down in the history of science as great heroes.

I’ll be buying the current SciAm issue next time I’m at the newsstand.

Alternative Science

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

You know, like :”alternative medicine”?
Not to be confused with 'making money selling this stuff to OTHER people who think it works', which corporate accountants and actuaries have zero problems with.

Yes, yes, yet another blatantly obvious truth unnecessarily promulgated by xkcd.

“Uneccesarily”, except that so few people seem to understand it.

“Indistinguishable from Malice”

Monday, October 4th, 2010

Eric S. Raymond nails supporters of and apologists for the 10:10 Global Warming video to the wall, and shines a big bright light on them so everyone can see them for what they are:

I believe it was the historian Robert Conquest who said that every organization eventually behaves as though it is run by a secret cabal of its enemies. I have seldom seen any more convincing evidence of this than the “No Pressure” video released by the anti-global-warming activist campaign 10:10.

The reaction from AGW skeptics was no surprise; many fulminated that the mask had slipped, and this video is the agenda of environmental fascism writ large. Thoughtcrime brings death! Conform! Obey! Or die…and the survivors get pieces of their friends spattered all over them as a warning.

Yeah, that would be me. I lack ESR’s clarity of thought.

I think we open a more interesting inquiry by taking the 10:10 campaign at their word. They thought they were being funny.

The question this video really poses is: what kind of person thinks it’s funny to show schoolchildren being blown into bloody gobbets for any reason at all, let alone for merely disagreeing with a teacher’s chirpy sermonizing? And another, which I haven’t seen anyone else articulate: what kind of idiot could fail to foresee what a gift this bit of grand guignol would be to 10:10’s opponents?

There’s a mind-boggling disconnect from the feelings of ordinary human beings implied here, a kind of moral and emotional incompetence. It’s as though the 10:10 campaigners were so anesthetized by the secretions of their own zealotry that they became incapable of understanding how anyone not living deep inside their reality-tunnel would react.

There’s an adage known in some circles as Clark’s Law that reads “Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.” There is no interpretation hinging on either malice or incompetence under which the 10:10 campaign is, after this, qualified to tell anyone how to live. It has self-destructed any moral authority it ever pretended to.

From now on, this video should be Exhibit A whenever the global-warming alarmists pretend to moral or intellectual superiority over the rest of us. All we have to say to them is this: Your kind thought this was funny.

I’ve quoted most of it, I’m afraid. ESR doesn’t waste too many words.

But this is the takeaway from the whole 10:10 mess. This needs to be the automatic, default response to AGW politics.

Unsettled Science

Sunday, September 26th, 2010

At Watts Up With That, “Where Consensus Fails – The Science Cannot Be Called ‘Settled’”, Guest Contributor Thomas Fuller writes:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch have just published the findings of a survey conducted with practicing climate scientists. The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes and dealt with their confidence in models, the IPCC and a variety of other topics. The survey findings are here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf .

there are areas of climate science that some people want to claim is settled, but where scientists don’t agree.

Only 12% agree or strongly agree that data availability for climate change analysis is adequate. More than 21% disagree or strongly disagree.

Only 25% agree or strongly agree that “Data collection efforts are currently adequate,” while 16% disagree or strongly disagree.

Perhaps most importantly, only 17.75% agree or strongly agree with the statement, “The state of theoretical understanding of climate change phenomena is adequate.” And equal percentage disagreed or strongly disagreed.

As Judith Curry has been noting over at her weblog, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the building blocks of climate science. The scientists know this. The politicians, propagandists and the converted acolytes haven’t gotten the message. If this survey does not educate them, nothing will.

I have excerpted only a tiny sample of the survey’s findings.

Overall gist: No, we can’t prove that AGW is wrong.

But we can demand much better data, and much better models, before imposing drastic changes on society to head off an unproven disaster.

And most important, skeptics of AGW are not cranks.

As I’ve said before, the warmists are making an extraordinary claim, and demanding an extraordinary remedy. Neither their claim nor remedy are well supported by the state of the science so far.

It Cools, Anyway

Friday, September 24th, 2010

In light (heh heh) of my last post, comes this news via Ace:

IPCC: ummm, ahhhh, yea maybe the Sun does have something to do with climate

The 2013 IPCC report will now include solar effects in their “models”.

…Over the famous 11-year solar cycle, the sun’s brightness varies by just 0.1 per cent. This was seen as too small a change to impinge on the global climate system, so solar effects have generally been left out of climate models. However, the latest research has changed this view, and the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due in 2013, will include solar effects in its models…

The Sun just emailed me and requested I relay this message to the IPCC:

“How’s my ass taste now bitches?” – The Sun

Ass munching bonus round – The arctic sea ice strikes back:

…Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years…

Real scientists make mistakes. Propagandists lie.

My response in Ace’s comments:

History will record the Anthropogenic Global Warming debacle as one of the great triumphs of the scientific method, right up there with Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church.

In fact, AGW is even better, because the warmists did their level best to use the surface methods of science (although not the Scientific Method): collecting data in a wide variety of disciplines with sophisticated instruments, analyzing it with high-end math, presenting plausible models of potential mechanisms, displaying their results with computer generated charts and animated projections of temperature, sea ice coverage, and all the rest of the modern scientific publishing Panoplia Propheticus…. They really went all out.

The scientific establishment itself, a majority of real, acknowledged experts in the field, and many other scientists in other disciplines, supported the claims of AGW (and indeed, still do.)

The AGW models comported with popular opinion, and generated a huge groundswell of avid support.

Warmists also suppressed countering views, both professionally and in the popular press. They had powerful support from the political establishment, and access to funding and propaganda outlets beyond the wildest dreams of the Renaissance Church. About the only thing they couldn’t do was put their critics under house arrest.

And still, somehow, skepticism, the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, finally won out. (Ironically, the skeptical “extraordinary claims” mantra was long a favorite of evolutionary biologists against the unscientific creationism movement; many of those same biologists also supported AGW.)

Someday, the person who released the CRU email archive will be recognized as the great hero of science he is; we may even learn his name, although frankly, I love the fact that he remains anonymous. Although the archive was not itself dispositive, it was the breach in the dike that proved the dike even existed, something that had itself been hotly denied up to that point.

Once again, we humans turn out not to be the center of the universe.

“It cools, anyway. And warms, and goes up and down and all around, and there’s not much we can do to stop it.”

I’ve been looking for an excuse to say that for awhile now.

[edit: add link to Ace, distinguish between "methods of science" and "scientific method", and make a couple of additional minor clarifications.]