This is a response to a post on the blog Reasonably Aaron regarding tactics when dealing with creationists, titled oddly enough Fallacies against Creationists. It's a pretty decent assessment of the problem that creationism poses and the degree of difficulty it will take to overcome the threat. It also made some good suggestions of practical ways of going about things. Though I disagree that I'm not seeing the bigger picture (of course I would disagree that), and of the role that mockery plays.
A comical absurdity
Hypothetically, think of a scenario involving a discussion on the holocaust. On one side, there is a world war 2 historian with decades of research into the field. On the other, there is a holocaust denier who has never even picked up a history book. Now the debate starts and the historian lays out all the evidence for the holocaust, dispels the myths that are around, and generally gives a convincing historical analysis of what happened. Now the denier stands up and says "If the holocaust happened, why don't we see the ghosts of dead Jews haunting children of Nazis?"
This sounds absolutely absurd and the holocaust denier would be laughed out of the debate hall. But this is exactly the kind of arguments we see from professional creationists. The difference is that why the Crockduck is an absurdity on the order of Jewish ghosts haunting Nazi captors requires at least some scientific understanding of what a transitional form is. To the scientifically illiterate, it can seem like a legitimate problem for evolutionary theory.
Kirk Cameron has been talking for years against evolution, and still the Crocoduck example comes up. Either he's still oblivious to the fact that Crocoduck is an absurdity of the highest order, or he continues to use it despite knowing it's an evolutionary absurdity. Yet these are the kinds of arguments that are all too common in creationists circles, and they are being legitimised by a 'moderate' perception that this is merely a difference of opinion.
As far as ridicule goes, it may simply put those being ridiculed further into their shells and feed their persecution complex. When a person can't separate themselves from the beliefs they hold, then attacking those beliefs is going to seem to them a personal attack. This is unavoidable. But on a whole, ridiculing these beliefs may play a part in stemming the spread of the memes. Without such ridicule, those beliefs are legitimised under a guise of tolerance. Anyone holding the opinion of a flat earth now is ridiculed because it's known to be a ridiculous belief to hold, the same with geocentrism. The evidence for evolution is on a par with heliocentric orbit, yet doesn't enjoy the same level of support in the community.
Science has that unfortunate quality that it takes effort to understand, ridicule without explanation would leave most people bemused. Pointing out the ridiculous nature of creationism with the evidence that's available makes for a far more convincing case. It could simply be as Aaron points out that most people don't understand the type and magnitude of the evidence, even those who believe evolution to be true. It's so vital that the evidence is known and that's been the focus of my posts. Ridiculing their position is not a logical fallacy if done right. It's important to distinguish between a reductio ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule. Showing an argument to be ridiculous and calling an argument ridiculous are two very different things, and while there might be the same adverse reaction to both, it's not a logical fallacy.
The problem of faith
One point that Aaron excellently pointed out is the eventual appeal to the holy books. That even if all the evidence in the world points away from the biblical stories, those stories were handed down by God so they must be true and the scientists mistaken. For those kinds of arguments, while it brings up tough theological questions about the nature of God, the people who base their beliefs on that book will not be swayed no matter what. If they truly have faith they are right, we can't touch them no matter what. But the arguments against evolution are almost never argued by faith, the arguments are pseudo-scientific.
It's the same kind of arguments over and over: evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution can't account for the complexity of the eye, evolution cannot account for morality, evolution cannot account for love, there are irreducibly complex structures in nature, it looks designed so it must have a designer, DNA is a language, evolution is not predictive so it doesn't count as science, there are no transitional fossils, etc. So while faith may be the justification of their position, the arguments are on a scientific front and need to be addressed as such.
Arguing against creationism is like fighting the Hydra, every time you cut off one head, two more grow back in it's place. Aaron is right that simply lopping the heads off won't achieve anything, in order to defeat the beast you must figure out the way to stop those heads growing back. In Greek mythology, Heracles did this by burning the flesh so nothing could grow back. To parallel this with creationism, refuting the arguments is cutting the heads off and bringing up the positive evidence for evolution is searing the flesh so it won't grow back. That final head that's impervious to any weapon is faith, the ultimate defence that will keep the beast alive, albeit in a crippled form.
Over time, the scientific establishment has made great inroads into gaining popular opinion about reality. It was less than 500 years ago when Copernicus wrote of heliocentrism and less than 400 since Galileo was imprisoned for heresy for daring to publish scientific findings that supported heliocentric orbit. Few will argue for a flat earth of geocentric universe any more, the ideas still exist but in severely crippled forms and only held by a few. Over time, provided we can maintain society, the same will hopefully be able to be said of evolution which so far has only had 150 years of awareness. Figures over the last century are encouraging, and through awareness of evidence it's possible to imagine a world where a non-contentious scientific issue is non-contentious in the general population as well.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
Friday, 5 December 2008
The Idiocy Of Creationism (part 2)
This is a continuation of a refutation of Harun Yahya's problems with evolution. Part 1 can be found here.
(7) Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds...
It's very well established in the scientific literature that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is considered an intermediate form because it contains both avian and saurian features. Archaeopteryx was not the first creature with feathers either, there are at present 20 different species of feathered dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx also had a reptilian tail - not seen in modern birds, a mouth full of sharp teeth, and three fingers with claws. There are several other transitional forms between dinosaur and bird including the Microraptor. Not to mention that flight has evolved several times independently including in mammals, insects, and other reptiles like pterosaurs which were not dinosaurs and were not ancestors of modern birds.
(8) Fish did not move onto the land...
This is another outright denial of evidence. Perhaps Mr. Yahya hasn't heard of Tiktaalik. Now this is possibly one of the best evidences for evolution ever found, it shows the predictive nature. In the fossil record there no amphibians until around 370MYA and lobed finned fish before then so palaeontologists knew to look in 375 million year old rock of the right type in order to find this intermediate form. It was predicted to be there, it was found to be there and it had the right morphology just as predicted.
As for coelacanth, it being a living fossil doesn't invalidate evolution. It doesn't matter when a species leaves the fossil record, but when it enters it. If the coelacanth was around in Precambrian rocks or early Cambrian long before any other vertebrates had developed, then it would be a problem. Instead it's place in the fossil record comes in after the vertebrates and after fish have developed. The coelacanth is exactly where it should be in the fossil record, and it's stasis in morphology in the fossil record is no objection to evolution. Indeed if it's an adapted form for it's environment, it would be odd to see macroscopic mutations that are more advantageous.
(9) Mutations cannot form new species...
The premise for this is all wrong, mutations naturally occur in all of us. They are simply copying errors in code. On average there are about 128 mutations in each of us, most of which are neutral and have no affect on our overall fitness. There are harmful mutations too, but harmful mutations tend to be deleterious and don't survive into subsequent generations. Then there are the occasional advantageous mutations, these increase the fitness of the organism and make it more likely to survive. In our own species we can trace back certain features to single mutations, like the mutation that allowed for blue eyes.
If mutation couldn't produce anything advantageous then there would be no need for the other 16 points of contention. Throw out heritable adaptation and natural selection and there is no Darwinian evolution; that's it, that's 150 years of science simply being wrong. But there are mutations that give an increased fitness, there are mutations that help the survival of an individual. It's important to remember that evolution works on a species level and not an individual, that mutations on an individual alone will not bring about a new species. Rather it is an accumulation of mutations over many generations.
(10) Natural selection cannot lead to evolution...Natural selection works with mutation in order to get evolution. Mutations happen, natural selection weeds out any of the bad mutations. It alone cannot lead to speciation, but it's a non-random selector of successful heritable traits. In the example of a zebra, if the fastest runner is so because of a mutation making it's legs better suited to running, then that trait will get passed down in it's offspring. Those without the mutation will be more prone to being targeted by predators so over time the zebras with the mutation will find itself in more and more of the population. But of course the predators also have the potential for mutations so faster or stronger predators would also be more suited to survival. This brings an evolutionary arms race, a driving factor in evolution.
As for the zebra is still a zebra remark, of course it is. Just as any offspring we have will be human, or any offspring a cat has will be a cat. The difference is that if two populations of cats are left for enough time and there is enough mutations of the right type then those populations will not be able to interbreed. Once you hit the species line, genetic differences really can't be shared and thus mutations will accumulate on each side and eventually there will be visible difference.
As stated earlier, if evolution could not act on natural selection or mutation then it would be game over. That's all the paper would have to show: that advantageous mutations are impossible and that natural selection is insufficient to weed out those bad mutations. Instead it's focusing on mute points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
(11) Human beings did not evolve, but were created as human beings...
There's just so much evidence that we did evolve. Humans have 46 chromosomes while the other primates have 48. So there are three options: the other primates all had chromosomes split, humans had chromosomes fused or we are wrong about common ancestry. Since we are the odd ones out, it should be us that has the fused chimpanzee chromosome. So when scientists mapped the human genome and the chimpanzee genome, we were able to look for this fused chromosome. And we found it. Now why would a fused chimpanzee chromosome be in our DNA if we were created as human beings? It comes down to the creator putting it there to trick us.
Of course there is going to be some overlap in the fossil record, again it doesn't matter where a species finishes in the fossil record, only where it enters. What's important is that Australopithecus come before homo habilis, which comes before homo erectus, which comes before both neanderthal and homo sapien. Dogs came from a single pack of wolves about 100,000 years ago, it would be fallacious to say that because there are still wolves that dogs didn't descend from wolves. Just as it would be fallacious to say that because there are still Africans that Europeans didn't have an African origin.
For the record:
(12) All the fossil skulls proposed for the supposed evolution of man are false...
Again, more lies. There skulls have intermediate characteristics including the size of the brain case, and the size and type of the jaw. For the distinction between apes and humans, all skulls are ape skulls. But to the point, it's interesting that homo habilis is classified as ape while homo erectus is classified as human because initially some scientists wanted to put homo habilis skulls in the same category as homo erectus. The skulls found show intermediate steps between older fossils and modern fossils, they show the gradual path to humanity. In fact there are so many skulls from different types of intermediate forms that scientists have to work out which ones are more likely candidates for our ancestry and which ones probably aren't. The problem for theists is that not a single one of these skulls should even exist.
(7) Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds...
It's very well established in the scientific literature that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is considered an intermediate form because it contains both avian and saurian features. Archaeopteryx was not the first creature with feathers either, there are at present 20 different species of feathered dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx also had a reptilian tail - not seen in modern birds, a mouth full of sharp teeth, and three fingers with claws. There are several other transitional forms between dinosaur and bird including the Microraptor. Not to mention that flight has evolved several times independently including in mammals, insects, and other reptiles like pterosaurs which were not dinosaurs and were not ancestors of modern birds.
(8) Fish did not move onto the land...
This is another outright denial of evidence. Perhaps Mr. Yahya hasn't heard of Tiktaalik. Now this is possibly one of the best evidences for evolution ever found, it shows the predictive nature. In the fossil record there no amphibians until around 370MYA and lobed finned fish before then so palaeontologists knew to look in 375 million year old rock of the right type in order to find this intermediate form. It was predicted to be there, it was found to be there and it had the right morphology just as predicted.
As for coelacanth, it being a living fossil doesn't invalidate evolution. It doesn't matter when a species leaves the fossil record, but when it enters it. If the coelacanth was around in Precambrian rocks or early Cambrian long before any other vertebrates had developed, then it would be a problem. Instead it's place in the fossil record comes in after the vertebrates and after fish have developed. The coelacanth is exactly where it should be in the fossil record, and it's stasis in morphology in the fossil record is no objection to evolution. Indeed if it's an adapted form for it's environment, it would be odd to see macroscopic mutations that are more advantageous.
(9) Mutations cannot form new species...
The premise for this is all wrong, mutations naturally occur in all of us. They are simply copying errors in code. On average there are about 128 mutations in each of us, most of which are neutral and have no affect on our overall fitness. There are harmful mutations too, but harmful mutations tend to be deleterious and don't survive into subsequent generations. Then there are the occasional advantageous mutations, these increase the fitness of the organism and make it more likely to survive. In our own species we can trace back certain features to single mutations, like the mutation that allowed for blue eyes.
If mutation couldn't produce anything advantageous then there would be no need for the other 16 points of contention. Throw out heritable adaptation and natural selection and there is no Darwinian evolution; that's it, that's 150 years of science simply being wrong. But there are mutations that give an increased fitness, there are mutations that help the survival of an individual. It's important to remember that evolution works on a species level and not an individual, that mutations on an individual alone will not bring about a new species. Rather it is an accumulation of mutations over many generations.
(10) Natural selection cannot lead to evolution...Natural selection works with mutation in order to get evolution. Mutations happen, natural selection weeds out any of the bad mutations. It alone cannot lead to speciation, but it's a non-random selector of successful heritable traits. In the example of a zebra, if the fastest runner is so because of a mutation making it's legs better suited to running, then that trait will get passed down in it's offspring. Those without the mutation will be more prone to being targeted by predators so over time the zebras with the mutation will find itself in more and more of the population. But of course the predators also have the potential for mutations so faster or stronger predators would also be more suited to survival. This brings an evolutionary arms race, a driving factor in evolution.
As for the zebra is still a zebra remark, of course it is. Just as any offspring we have will be human, or any offspring a cat has will be a cat. The difference is that if two populations of cats are left for enough time and there is enough mutations of the right type then those populations will not be able to interbreed. Once you hit the species line, genetic differences really can't be shared and thus mutations will accumulate on each side and eventually there will be visible difference.
As stated earlier, if evolution could not act on natural selection or mutation then it would be game over. That's all the paper would have to show: that advantageous mutations are impossible and that natural selection is insufficient to weed out those bad mutations. Instead it's focusing on mute points that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
(11) Human beings did not evolve, but were created as human beings...
There's just so much evidence that we did evolve. Humans have 46 chromosomes while the other primates have 48. So there are three options: the other primates all had chromosomes split, humans had chromosomes fused or we are wrong about common ancestry. Since we are the odd ones out, it should be us that has the fused chimpanzee chromosome. So when scientists mapped the human genome and the chimpanzee genome, we were able to look for this fused chromosome. And we found it. Now why would a fused chimpanzee chromosome be in our DNA if we were created as human beings? It comes down to the creator putting it there to trick us.
Of course there is going to be some overlap in the fossil record, again it doesn't matter where a species finishes in the fossil record, only where it enters. What's important is that Australopithecus come before homo habilis, which comes before homo erectus, which comes before both neanderthal and homo sapien. Dogs came from a single pack of wolves about 100,000 years ago, it would be fallacious to say that because there are still wolves that dogs didn't descend from wolves. Just as it would be fallacious to say that because there are still Africans that Europeans didn't have an African origin.
For the record:
- Australopithecus (in various forms) - 4.2MYA to 1.1MYA
- Homo Habilis - 2.4MYA - 1.5MYA
- Homo Erectus - 1.8MYA - 0.3MYA
- Homo Sapien - 0.5 MYA - present
(12) All the fossil skulls proposed for the supposed evolution of man are false...
Again, more lies. There skulls have intermediate characteristics including the size of the brain case, and the size and type of the jaw. For the distinction between apes and humans, all skulls are ape skulls. But to the point, it's interesting that homo habilis is classified as ape while homo erectus is classified as human because initially some scientists wanted to put homo habilis skulls in the same category as homo erectus. The skulls found show intermediate steps between older fossils and modern fossils, they show the gradual path to humanity. In fact there are so many skulls from different types of intermediate forms that scientists have to work out which ones are more likely candidates for our ancestry and which ones probably aren't. The problem for theists is that not a single one of these skulls should even exist.
Thursday, 4 December 2008
The Scientifically Illiterate
Being ignorant is not something to be ashamed of, there's just so much to learn in the pool of accumulated knowledge that it's impossible to know everything. Though when it comes to science, there is not only gross ignorance in the understanding of science but a pride attached to that ignorance. Yet it's these people who take pride in not understanding who present the greatest attacks on scientific theory. They reject what not only they don't understand but proudly misunderstand, then feel the need to coerce others into their cone of wilful ignorance.
Rudimentary knowledge
Is it really too much to ask that people at least understand the basics before opening their mouth on a subject? There's a reason I don't talk about 19th century English Literature or the Meiji period in Japanese history - I don't know the first thing about them. Sure I've had to read some Jane Austen in high school, and I've seen some anime dealing with that era of Japanese history, but that by no means makes me even slightly qualified to talk about those. If I wanted to write something about Meiji era Japan, I would spend a long time researching it. And even at that point, all I could do is echo what the experts say. I'm not in a position to rewrite history.
That rewriting science is precisely what creationists are trying to do, instead of learning about evolution from the scientific establishment, they seek the voices of those who aren't part of that establishment. As a result the same tired arguments are recycled so I'm willing to bet that in 50 years time we'll still hear how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that a global flood made the grand canyon. Indeed the funniest comment I heard from a creationist was being asked "If there was no global flood, how do mountains and canyons form?" Grade A ignorance on display, and these are the people who aren't willing to break that ignorance.
Some people simply don't know better and they are a product of poor teaching by their peers. But it boggles my mind that the likes of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort can preach their nonsense after decades of arguing the topic. Kirk Cameron still parades his Crocoduck around, despite it being a complete misrepresentation of what a transitional form is; indeed if we found a Crocoduck that would really be the end for evolution. Yet it's hard to imagine that in the years he's been using that straw man he's not once actually looked up what transitional forms really are, or been corrected by people who do know what transitional forms are. As for Ray Comfort, a padded cell may be needed.
It takes not only a propensity to find information, but a knowledge of where to find information to be able to form a solid understanding of the concepts. For an understanding of evolutionary theory it's best to ask scientists about it. There are plenty of books on the subject, with a substantial amount of pop science literature to explain it to the layman. There's that old saying, "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one", but this doesn't mean that opinions are of equal worth. Ideas with evidence behind them trump ideas without evidence, or are contrary to evidence. Sure the Crocoduck could exist, but it's not a 50/50 chance of it being so. It's only in the context of all other evidence that we can consider whether it should be in the fossil record. The way evolution has been deduced from evidence is that no Crocoduck should exist anywhere in the fossil record - it would be an anomaly. Kirk Cameron's objection to evolution is quite simply false and it's a perfect example of the importance of understanding a topic before speaking out on it.
Having an open mind
Creationists are now using the insults that were once levelled at them: evolution is a religion, evolutionists have faith, evolutionists are intolerant, evolutionists are closed minded. It's that last point I want to address. As mentioned above, ideas are not of equal worth for so many reasons. The reason why creationism is rejected is that it contracts the facts of science. A young earth creationist rejects: cosmology and the age of the universe, astronomy and both the age and distance of stars, it rejects nuclear physics and the radiometric decay of unstable isotopes, geology both in the age of our earth and the formation of the planet, plate tectonics, the fossil record, dendrochronology, ice core dating, the spread of life on this planet, and everything that has been observed in biology over the last 150 years including mutation, natural selection and speciation. It's a total rejection of science and scientific evidence so evolution and creation are not on equal footing.
So it's quite well established that one idea is not as good as another, so the source of the information and it's context both need consideration. In effect, everything is evidence and each one of us applies a filter to that evidence in order to form a worldview. All evidence comes to us either through our own observations, or vicariously through the storytelling of others. Each book or article we read, each show we watch or radio podcast we listen to, they are all summations of evidence and we are at best a 2nd hand receiver of the information. A news article on the BBC website would not be written by the one who did the experiments, they would be a 2nd hand source and we would be consumers of 2nd hand information.
This leaves us as vicarious observers of reality in a perilous position, all we have is one person's word over another. Why should the layman trust Ken Miller over Michael Behe when it comes to evolution? Or an even more extreme example, why trust Richard Dawkins over Ken Ham? Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron manage to keep in business despite not knowing the first thing about the topic at hand. It all comes down to trust. So why should we trust Dawkins' word over Ham's? Because of the type of evidence backing Dawkins.
It's not to say that appealing to Dawkins over Ham on evolution will mean that Dawkins is always right and Ham is always wrong, that would be an appeal to authority. It's that Dawkins' books and lectures have 150 years of scientific backing, something of which Ken Ham spends most of his time trying to destroy. Dawkins could be wrong on a lot of things, indeed many scientists feel he is wrong on certain aspects of evolution and many others feel he is wrong on matters of theology. He isn't the authority on reality, rather he's an expert in the field of natural science. Ultimately he's considered an expert because of the time and dedication to study the evidence that's available and even make his own contributions to the field.
Keeping an open mind is being open to evidence, it's being able to understand what types of evidence are accurate and being able to tie multiple lines of evidence together. It's not taking ideas on face value, that would simply be being gullible. The type of evidence, how it was derived, and how it fits in with the rest of the evidence all need consideration. No process is perfect and especially not our own experiences, so it's important to keep in mind that there can be fallibility in any information. It takes critical thinking skills to understand the processes on which the information was derived, there are basic tests of parsimony that can be used with a strong degree of certainty. Taking some humility with the uncertainty no matter how small is vital, but inferring that uncertainty means that any idea has a 50/50 chance is quite simply absurd.
Rudimentary knowledge
Is it really too much to ask that people at least understand the basics before opening their mouth on a subject? There's a reason I don't talk about 19th century English Literature or the Meiji period in Japanese history - I don't know the first thing about them. Sure I've had to read some Jane Austen in high school, and I've seen some anime dealing with that era of Japanese history, but that by no means makes me even slightly qualified to talk about those. If I wanted to write something about Meiji era Japan, I would spend a long time researching it. And even at that point, all I could do is echo what the experts say. I'm not in a position to rewrite history.
That rewriting science is precisely what creationists are trying to do, instead of learning about evolution from the scientific establishment, they seek the voices of those who aren't part of that establishment. As a result the same tired arguments are recycled so I'm willing to bet that in 50 years time we'll still hear how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that a global flood made the grand canyon. Indeed the funniest comment I heard from a creationist was being asked "If there was no global flood, how do mountains and canyons form?" Grade A ignorance on display, and these are the people who aren't willing to break that ignorance.
Some people simply don't know better and they are a product of poor teaching by their peers. But it boggles my mind that the likes of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort can preach their nonsense after decades of arguing the topic. Kirk Cameron still parades his Crocoduck around, despite it being a complete misrepresentation of what a transitional form is; indeed if we found a Crocoduck that would really be the end for evolution. Yet it's hard to imagine that in the years he's been using that straw man he's not once actually looked up what transitional forms really are, or been corrected by people who do know what transitional forms are. As for Ray Comfort, a padded cell may be needed.
It takes not only a propensity to find information, but a knowledge of where to find information to be able to form a solid understanding of the concepts. For an understanding of evolutionary theory it's best to ask scientists about it. There are plenty of books on the subject, with a substantial amount of pop science literature to explain it to the layman. There's that old saying, "opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one", but this doesn't mean that opinions are of equal worth. Ideas with evidence behind them trump ideas without evidence, or are contrary to evidence. Sure the Crocoduck could exist, but it's not a 50/50 chance of it being so. It's only in the context of all other evidence that we can consider whether it should be in the fossil record. The way evolution has been deduced from evidence is that no Crocoduck should exist anywhere in the fossil record - it would be an anomaly. Kirk Cameron's objection to evolution is quite simply false and it's a perfect example of the importance of understanding a topic before speaking out on it.
Having an open mind
Creationists are now using the insults that were once levelled at them: evolution is a religion, evolutionists have faith, evolutionists are intolerant, evolutionists are closed minded. It's that last point I want to address. As mentioned above, ideas are not of equal worth for so many reasons. The reason why creationism is rejected is that it contracts the facts of science. A young earth creationist rejects: cosmology and the age of the universe, astronomy and both the age and distance of stars, it rejects nuclear physics and the radiometric decay of unstable isotopes, geology both in the age of our earth and the formation of the planet, plate tectonics, the fossil record, dendrochronology, ice core dating, the spread of life on this planet, and everything that has been observed in biology over the last 150 years including mutation, natural selection and speciation. It's a total rejection of science and scientific evidence so evolution and creation are not on equal footing.
So it's quite well established that one idea is not as good as another, so the source of the information and it's context both need consideration. In effect, everything is evidence and each one of us applies a filter to that evidence in order to form a worldview. All evidence comes to us either through our own observations, or vicariously through the storytelling of others. Each book or article we read, each show we watch or radio podcast we listen to, they are all summations of evidence and we are at best a 2nd hand receiver of the information. A news article on the BBC website would not be written by the one who did the experiments, they would be a 2nd hand source and we would be consumers of 2nd hand information.
This leaves us as vicarious observers of reality in a perilous position, all we have is one person's word over another. Why should the layman trust Ken Miller over Michael Behe when it comes to evolution? Or an even more extreme example, why trust Richard Dawkins over Ken Ham? Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron manage to keep in business despite not knowing the first thing about the topic at hand. It all comes down to trust. So why should we trust Dawkins' word over Ham's? Because of the type of evidence backing Dawkins.
It's not to say that appealing to Dawkins over Ham on evolution will mean that Dawkins is always right and Ham is always wrong, that would be an appeal to authority. It's that Dawkins' books and lectures have 150 years of scientific backing, something of which Ken Ham spends most of his time trying to destroy. Dawkins could be wrong on a lot of things, indeed many scientists feel he is wrong on certain aspects of evolution and many others feel he is wrong on matters of theology. He isn't the authority on reality, rather he's an expert in the field of natural science. Ultimately he's considered an expert because of the time and dedication to study the evidence that's available and even make his own contributions to the field.
Keeping an open mind is being open to evidence, it's being able to understand what types of evidence are accurate and being able to tie multiple lines of evidence together. It's not taking ideas on face value, that would simply be being gullible. The type of evidence, how it was derived, and how it fits in with the rest of the evidence all need consideration. No process is perfect and especially not our own experiences, so it's important to keep in mind that there can be fallibility in any information. It takes critical thinking skills to understand the processes on which the information was derived, there are basic tests of parsimony that can be used with a strong degree of certainty. Taking some humility with the uncertainty no matter how small is vital, but inferring that uncertainty means that any idea has a 50/50 chance is quite simply absurd.
Monday, 1 December 2008
Internet Censorship
Australia is going down the path of China, well sort of. It's not enough that Australia is bedfellows with such an oppressive regime, it now seems we are going down the path of the great firewall. Okay, I'm being a little extreme here. It's not going to be that bad, though the argument that those opposed to the censorship are enabling child pornography is a far worse slander. Clive Hamilton recently weighed in with his opinion, blasting the libertarian mantra on the issue. Here's a non-libertarian reply.
Won't someone please think of the children?
The may Dr Hamilton has constructed his argument makes for a sound rebuttal of the absolute libertarian position. That notion of absolute individualism is at odds with society and the restrictions we have when we play in it. But I can't help here to think his argument is a straw man, that by equating the libertarian argument to the protection of children he's making the same fallacy as anti-drug advocates do. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who would be against a voluntary filter, it's that it's mandatory where the problem lies.
Herein lies the false dichotomy presented by Dr Hamilton, it's either everything is permissible to everyone or the government should be allowed to censor for everyone. In writing his condemnation of the selfish individualists who are vehemently opposed to censorship, he's neglected the most fundamental principle of a liberal democracy: choice. There is a big difference between a voluntary and a mandatory system, and a voluntary system gives choice to those presented. It allows the government to help out the parents who need help, not everyone has the technical ability to censor their own system. But not everyone is a parent, not everyone needs to have their internet censored to protect children.
In Australia's film and literature classification system, we have grades depending on the content. There are certain films that are adults only and as a consequence only adults can view them. Arguing that the internet needs to be censored for all is like arguing that adult films shouldn't be allowed because children could watch them. The same argument too is against the R rating for computer games, the double standard in our society is explicit. There are plenty of exceptions that are made for adults, adults can drink, smoke tobacco, and they can gamble. They can read and view material that children can't. It's important to remember that even the opt-out option will still block material that's available to buy in certain stores.
Having the government help out having parents make informed choices should be part of a liberal democracy. Hamilton is right to rebuke those who argue that paternal responsibility doesn't have some social responsibility. This to me sums up his argument in a nutshell:
Technical feasibility
There are several factors to take into account: how many false positives there are, how many false negatives there are, the overall loss in bandwidth, and how easy it is to bypass the filter. Is having a browser based filter a better overall solution than a ISP-based filter? How can one objectively measure such claims? To me, if even a single legitimate page is censored then the filter is not doing it's job. But others would think differently and see that if a recipe containing chicken breast being blocked so a child doesn't see an exposed breast then the sacrifice was worth it. There's no way to objectively measure the effects of technology without appealing to some idealism. Freedom of speech and expression have been long touted as examples of Australia's freedom, so surely as an ideal it needs to play some role in being a base on which to make an objective measure.
Other technologies to consider are the different protocols that will not be affected at all by the filter. Peer-to-peer networks, cryptographic networks such as Freenet. There are plenty of cryptographic technologies and mechanisms to hide one's online identity. To push more users into these kinds of technologies will make a mockery of any filter - for not only will people have access to otherwise restricted content, there will be no way of having any enforcement. The open system allows for the catching of those who do view dangerous material like child pornography.
The internet is a global communications network, and Australia is but one hub on the network. Our laws can't control what is put on elsewhere in the world, but it's still accessible. Like companies that take advantage of tax breaks in other countries, the laws of one country can be bypassed by setting up shop in another. I wonder how politicians would feel about preventing the practice by banning any company from trade that goes offshore for tax breaks. I'm betting the take-up would be quite low. After all money talks. The point is that we operate on a global network every day including with unfavourable nations and business practices. China buys our iron ore and we turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses there, again money talks.
In the end, it all comes down to on an ethical level the best way to serve the interests of the vast majority of the population. The compromise between freedom and security is at the heart of this issue, how much freedom do we need to trade in to protect us from ourselves? More so, how much freedom do we need to sacrifice of ourselves for the security of others? How many people are on internet connections that do not need such protection? How many people do need protection and to what extent does that need to be there? Here it seems to be that mandatory censorship is problematic, it seeks to bypass asking those questions by giving a blanket effect on the ban. And if that mandatory filtering is going to have a false positive rate of 3% and reduce speeds by at least 11%, is it the best way for society to go for those who don't need such a ban?
The Infocalypse is nigh
Former Intel engineer and crypto-anarchist Timothy C. May talked of the Four Horsemen Of The Infocalypse: terrorists, paedophiles, drug dealers and money launderers. These horsemen are demons in our society that can be used to gain public support. In this debate, Stephen Conroy has invoked the horsemen "paedophiles". The tactic for using these horsemen is as follows.
All I'm hearing when I read through Clive Hamilton's prose was Mrs. Lovejoy off The Simpsons screeching "won't someone please think of the children?"
Won't someone please think of the children?
The may Dr Hamilton has constructed his argument makes for a sound rebuttal of the absolute libertarian position. That notion of absolute individualism is at odds with society and the restrictions we have when we play in it. But I can't help here to think his argument is a straw man, that by equating the libertarian argument to the protection of children he's making the same fallacy as anti-drug advocates do. You'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who would be against a voluntary filter, it's that it's mandatory where the problem lies.
Herein lies the false dichotomy presented by Dr Hamilton, it's either everything is permissible to everyone or the government should be allowed to censor for everyone. In writing his condemnation of the selfish individualists who are vehemently opposed to censorship, he's neglected the most fundamental principle of a liberal democracy: choice. There is a big difference between a voluntary and a mandatory system, and a voluntary system gives choice to those presented. It allows the government to help out the parents who need help, not everyone has the technical ability to censor their own system. But not everyone is a parent, not everyone needs to have their internet censored to protect children.
In Australia's film and literature classification system, we have grades depending on the content. There are certain films that are adults only and as a consequence only adults can view them. Arguing that the internet needs to be censored for all is like arguing that adult films shouldn't be allowed because children could watch them. The same argument too is against the R rating for computer games, the double standard in our society is explicit. There are plenty of exceptions that are made for adults, adults can drink, smoke tobacco, and they can gamble. They can read and view material that children can't. It's important to remember that even the opt-out option will still block material that's available to buy in certain stores.
Having the government help out having parents make informed choices should be part of a liberal democracy. Hamilton is right to rebuke those who argue that paternal responsibility doesn't have some social responsibility. This to me sums up his argument in a nutshell:
This argument for mandatory internet filters is in principle the same as the argument for the film censorship system. In the libertarian world where individual rights overrule social responsibilities we would have no film censor and kids could go to the cinema to watch whatever they liked. The film censorship system is pretty good at balancing the variety of viewpoints in the community.It's possible to be in favour of the ratings system and still want to be able to see R-rated films. The argument he is giving is that adults should not be able to see R-rated films because children can't either. By censoring the internet, you are taking away an adults ability to go and see an R-rated film. Parents can still buy or rent R-rated DVDs, and children could still watch them if they are unsupervised. What's to stop a child from watching an R-rated film that their parents have a copy of? It does come down to parenting in the end, and while the government can assist in choice, ultimately whether a child watches an unsuitable film is an element they can't control.
"The whole principle is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." - Robert Heinlein on censorship
Technical feasibility
We need a community debate on the question of whether we should do it before we consider the question of whether we can do it because too many internet libertarians and industry spokespeople cover up their refusal to countenance any sort of regulation by insisting that it won't work.From an ethical perspective, maybe this idea has some validity. From a pragmatic perspective, it's a pointless discussion if it can't be done. Prohibition of alcohol is pointless because of how easy it is to make your own (I have some brewing right now.) To me the discussion is tied to the practicality of the measures, there's no point in talking about building an electricity grid on the assumption of superconductivity if there are no room temperature superconductors. So in that any argument for or against censorship on a practical level can only be done in the boundaries of what is possible.
There are several factors to take into account: how many false positives there are, how many false negatives there are, the overall loss in bandwidth, and how easy it is to bypass the filter. Is having a browser based filter a better overall solution than a ISP-based filter? How can one objectively measure such claims? To me, if even a single legitimate page is censored then the filter is not doing it's job. But others would think differently and see that if a recipe containing chicken breast being blocked so a child doesn't see an exposed breast then the sacrifice was worth it. There's no way to objectively measure the effects of technology without appealing to some idealism. Freedom of speech and expression have been long touted as examples of Australia's freedom, so surely as an ideal it needs to play some role in being a base on which to make an objective measure.
Other technologies to consider are the different protocols that will not be affected at all by the filter. Peer-to-peer networks, cryptographic networks such as Freenet. There are plenty of cryptographic technologies and mechanisms to hide one's online identity. To push more users into these kinds of technologies will make a mockery of any filter - for not only will people have access to otherwise restricted content, there will be no way of having any enforcement. The open system allows for the catching of those who do view dangerous material like child pornography.
The internet is a global communications network, and Australia is but one hub on the network. Our laws can't control what is put on elsewhere in the world, but it's still accessible. Like companies that take advantage of tax breaks in other countries, the laws of one country can be bypassed by setting up shop in another. I wonder how politicians would feel about preventing the practice by banning any company from trade that goes offshore for tax breaks. I'm betting the take-up would be quite low. After all money talks. The point is that we operate on a global network every day including with unfavourable nations and business practices. China buys our iron ore and we turn a blind eye to the human rights abuses there, again money talks.
In the end, it all comes down to on an ethical level the best way to serve the interests of the vast majority of the population. The compromise between freedom and security is at the heart of this issue, how much freedom do we need to trade in to protect us from ourselves? More so, how much freedom do we need to sacrifice of ourselves for the security of others? How many people are on internet connections that do not need such protection? How many people do need protection and to what extent does that need to be there? Here it seems to be that mandatory censorship is problematic, it seeks to bypass asking those questions by giving a blanket effect on the ban. And if that mandatory filtering is going to have a false positive rate of 3% and reduce speeds by at least 11%, is it the best way for society to go for those who don't need such a ban?
The Infocalypse is nigh
Former Intel engineer and crypto-anarchist Timothy C. May talked of the Four Horsemen Of The Infocalypse: terrorists, paedophiles, drug dealers and money launderers. These horsemen are demons in our society that can be used to gain public support. In this debate, Stephen Conroy has invoked the horsemen "paedophiles". The tactic for using these horsemen is as follows.
How to get what you want in 4 easy stages:
1. Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so?
2. Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers.
3. Scream loudly to the media that "thing" is being used by perpetrators. (Don't worry if this is true, or common to all other things, or less common with "thing" than with other long established systems - payphones, paper mail, private hotel rooms, lack of bugs in all houses etc)
4. Say that the only way to stop perpetrators is to close down "thing", or to regulate it to death, or to have laws forcing en-mass tapability of all private communications on "thing". Don't worry if communicating on "thing" is a constitutionally protected right, if you have done a good job in choosing and publicising the horsemen in 2, no one will notice, they will be too busy clamouring for you to save them from the supposed evils.All I'm hearing when I read through Clive Hamilton's prose was Mrs. Lovejoy off The Simpsons screeching "won't someone please think of the children?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
