William M. Briggs

September 1, 2012

Steve Jobs unveils the Apple TV, a device which allows “consumers” to relieve themselves of the burden of owning movies and television shows.

Previously, if people wanted to possess a movie or a television series, they would be forced buy a video cassette or DVD version, or they would have to suffer the inconvenience of recording these events on a tape or digital video recorder. Once either version was in hand, then, via direct playback or by running the recording, consumers could then watch these programs as many times as desired.

The Apple TV changes everything. In what industry insiders are calling “iTunes for Television,” the Apple TV lets people rent movies and TV shows, and allows them to pay for each time they view a program. Mr Jobs explained, “Why buy when you can rent?”

Never trust a man who hasn’t learned to shave

Jeff Blake, President of Sony Pictures, a company which had previously offered a rival service, hailed the Apple innovation. “The movie and television industry applauds Apple’s amazing new technology. Never before have consumers been offered such an excitingly wide range of methods of paying for content. Sony is right there with them.”

Gizomodo’s Kat Hannaford said, “While it’s true Apple has taken over the video delivery market, a lot of people aren’t seeing that they have done so much more. Up until now, consumers were forced to go to ABC, Hulu, or Fox TV’s websites to watch programs. Worse, there was no way for those consumers to contribute a fee. Apple’s genius lay in discovering a way to get that fee.”

A spokesman for Netflix, another company in the pay-per-view space, said that CEO Reed Hastings was unavailable for comment, because he was out shopping for black t-shirts.

June 8, 2012

Jobs announces the Apple Bowdler, an iPad “app” which will electronically—and quite seamlessly—allow all text documents, such as books, stored on the iPad to be remotely improved.

Through the iPad’s Bookshelf, consumers were relieved of the terrible affliction of owning books. Apple’s book-reading license, present on every Bookshelf, freed consumers from the physicality of paper, and gave them the ability to agree to terms Apple set for reading texts. And now those texts can be endlessly refined with the Bowdler app.

David Spark, host of the popular technology show The Spark Minute, described to reporters how this app works. “It’s really simple. Suppose a publisher has an improvement they need to make to a text. In the days before the Bowdler app, there was just no way they could do it.

“Now, all it takes is a ‘genius’ at Apple headquarters to issue a command like ‘times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted obama rectify’ and for example the number of casualties noted in the text document History of the Iraq War ascribed to Barack Obama will be reduced to reflect the reality that should have been. It’s just amazing.”

Jobs, clad in traditional black outfit, demonstrated the app at his Keynote address by removing the Nixon presidency from not just every iPad bookshelf, but from all libraries that had subscribed to Apple’s ebook service.

Apple fanboy blogs were ablaze after the event. One blogger wrote how he “Couldn’t stop crying” after witnessing Jobs’ feat. “Apple is so so so amazing. Just so amazing.”

Jeff Bezos, in a tone which some are indicating as hurt feelings, put out a press release, in which he said, “Amazon is always innovating, and has had technology like the Apple Bowdler app in the Kindle device since day one. Users who buy the Kindle even have a non-ownership book-reading license, just like Apple.”

Industry insiders are ascribing the success of the iPad Bookshelf over the Kindle to two reasons: Apple’s perceived “cool factor” among hipsters, and because the iPad unlike the Kindle allows consumers to effortlessly switch from reading books to surfing the web or to play games.

December 7, 2012

The success of the Bowdler app was so great that Apple introduces the sister app, the Lucasator, available for the iPhone, iPad, and naturally integrating with Apple TV. This powerful software, designed in conjunction with Hollywood movie directors, does for video what the Bowdler did for text.

February 28, 2013

Apple unveils its Psyops content regulator app. Working with FDA and other government agencies, Apple has produced what many are calling a “miracle app”, and still others are naming the “Eye in the sky.”

The iDecide app uses the latest scientifically proven methods that automatically chooses content, both in text and video form, that are proven to be optimal for viewer enjoyment and edification.

Jobs said, “Working with the Master Database lets us ensure that all content is bias free. But even better is that the horrendous, and often harmful, stress consumers felt because there were too many choices to make has been removed once and for all time. The iDecide is a major entertainment and public health event.”

You’ll have heard that the InterAcademy Council had a look-see at the inner workings of the IPCC (more on that below). This council, previously unknown to civilization, is, as the IPCC was supposed to be, an independent conglomeration of scientists and other large-brained individuals, spread the world over.

Now, whether the IAC is sufficiently qualified to dress down the IPCC down is debatable. But dress them down they have. In a brutal report, the IAC found that the IPCC leadership was “less agile and responsive than it needs to be” in answering it many criticisms.

The strongest recommendation was that the fellows at the top of the IPCC should only serve for limited terms. Many are interpreting this as suggesting that sex novelist Rajendra Pachauri should bow out tout de suite. But there’s no need to be coy: of course this is what the IAC is suggesting!

However, when Pachauri departs to retire to a life of penning bodice rippers, it will be no kind of political victory for climate doomsday skeptics. Pachauri was originally chosen to be the boss only because of his unquestioning loyalty to the cause and because he possessed a, let us call it, internationality that Americans or Brits do not.

Pachauri’s appointment would have been fine, but he made the mistake of assuming it was based on merit. This delusion caused all the usual symptoms, such as his holding forth idiotically on all sorts of matters of which he had not a clue.

In one recherche episode, Pachauri called another man’s work “voodoo science” because that man’s careful observations on the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers was not consonant with the rate quoted in the IPCC report. But it turned out that the IPCC’s source for the melting rate was culled from an environmentalist propaganda brochure written by a pal of Pachauri.

So he will resign. But I repeat, this will be no victory because the UN is unlikely to make the same mistake twice. They’ll still appoint a True Believer as boss, but whoever it is will almost certainly be a scientist. The net effect will be a lessening in the comedic output of the IPCC, but that’s about it.

Beyond a shift of nameplates in the bureaucracy , it’s anybody’s guess whether the other IAC recommendations will be adopted. The IAC’s juiciest admonitions are in an appendix. Here’s one after our own hearts:

[The IPCC should] give greater attention to assessing uncertainties and confidence in [key findings]. Avoid trivializing statements just to increase their confidence…Determine the areas in your chapter where a range of views may need to be described…to form a collective view on uncertainty or confidence.

If you’re not used to reading peer reviews, I can tell you that this appendix is hot stuff. Rarely have I seen so strong a rebuke. The IAC felt it necessary to lapse into pedantry. For example, they include a table of “A simple typology of uncertainties” because they believed that the IPCC was unaware of what the word “uncertainty” meant. To illustrate “Unpredictability”, they list, “Projections of human behaviour not easily amenable to prediction (e.g. evolution of political systems). Chaotic components of complex systems.”

For examples of “Structural uncertainty”, they say, “Inadequate models, incomplete or competing conceptual frameworks, lack of agreement on model structure, ambiguous system boundaries or definitions, significant processes or relationships wrongly specified or not considered.”

Finally, “Value uncertainty: Missing, inaccurate or non-representative data, inappropriate spatial or temporal resolution, poorly known or changing model parameters.”

The IAC had to tell the IPCC that their pronouncements should not be spoken in the same tone Moses used when descending Sinai; they reminded the IPCC that “probabilistic approaches are available” and that they should consider reporting “ranges of outcomes and their associated likelihoods”. To make this complete, there’s a sarcastic lesson on rhetoric: “A 10% chance of dying is interpreted more negatively than a 90% chance of surviving.”

Folks, this is elementary! But school wasn’t over. There’s a hilarious table in which various wordings of uncertainties are mapped to numerical measures, e.g. “Very low confidence” maps to “Less than 1 out of 10 chance.” This is so basic it is like reminding a physicist that the speed of light is constant. IPCC members must be furious to be spoken to in this manner!

But the IAC wasn’t finished. The knife was already in and had already cut the vital organs, but they gave it a twist anyway, by stating, “[The IPCC should] be aware of a tendency for a group to converge on an expressed view and become overconfident in it”. About this quip Bertie Wooster would have said, “And they meant it to sting!”

Movie maker James Cameron has called people who don’t believe as strongly as he does that the end is nigh “boneheads”, which, as insults go, isn’t particularly inventive. You would have expected a guy who thought up the Terminator would have devised a slur better than one considered hackneyed on elementary school playgrounds.

But of course, Hollywood directors rarely write their own material, and instead rely on the talent of others. Here’s the full quote (which is now a few months old, but I only heard it on its echo):

I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads. Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.

Well, Jimmy, I can hear you and I’m willing if you are. Since you are the challenger, and I am the challenged, by tradition I have the right of choice of weapon. Smith and Wesson Model 29. It’s a six-and-a-half inch nickel-barreled .44 mag revolver, a gun obviously appropriate under the circumstance. If you like, we could do holsters, but I’m fine with drawing from the belt.

I suppose, though, that when Cameron made this threat, he was full of the same kind of material typically produced by his industry. So I don’t think any skeptical climate scientist need lose sleep fretting that the next time they open their door they will find a bespurred James Cameron playing with his shiny pistol.

Anyway, point is, Cameron thought it would be a good idea to debate some people about climate change. Have a shoot out off the lip on stage instead of in the street with real weapons, that is. The folks set to debate Jimmy got excited. But at the last moment, Cameron changed his mind and decided to remain hidden in a room on the second floor of the saloon. Somehow, his timidity made the press and blogs and was judged significant.

It is not. James Cameron debating anybody on the physics of climate change would be of the same informational value as if your muffler repair man tried out his forensic skills. It is true that both the muffler man and the cameraman have the same right to debate, but it is also so that both have the same level of expertise.

Suppose Cameron were not a coward and attended his debate. The most likely outcome would have been that he would have been exposed as a know-nothing. But so what? This was already obvious from the prior evidence. For example, this is a man who in public has claimed that carbon dioxide will “cause the destruction of 50 percent of all species on this planet by the end of the century.” Even Greenpeace isn’t that loony.

And does anybody believe that his supporters, after hearing his fantastical, fanatical statements, would have Seen The Light and changed their minds? The question is answered in its asking.

The only reason that this sad episode is worth commenting on is that there are some on the skeptical side—more than a few—who are crowing over the “victory” of Cameron canceling the debate. It is as if his action has proved that the worse fears of global warming are false.

This is ridiculous. And his canceling is no sort of victory at all. It is a defeat.

For the “debate” never should have been agreed to in the first place. That is was shows that some climate skeptics are just as celebrity addled as the Chicken Littles. “Wow! We get to debate a Hollywood director! I wonder if Tom Cruise will show up?”

Even acknowledging the request for a debate is to give the man and his lunatic views a certain legitimacy. Taking him up on his offer of a shootout is one thing, because his threat was personal, and his refusal to back up his words with actions shows Jimmy to be the coward that he is.

But agreeing to argue with him over the proper roll of feedback in cloud parameterizations in GCMs is asinine. If climate skeptics want a real debate, they should ask my pal Gavin. Best him and then you have something to crow about. But beat up Jimmy Cameron and your top claim can only be that you shot a fish in a barrel. It is pathetic.

This is the first of many conversations I’ll be having with myself this semester on this subject.

William Say, Matt. I heard you were teaching this semester. Where?

Matt At a place Russell Kirk would have called “Behemoth U.” A good school with a fine reputation.

William Lot of students, eh?

Matt More than you can shake a diploma at.

William What are you teaching?

Matt Statistics, of course, a mid-level Calculus section, and a class that can best be described as Math For Those Who Cannot Do Math.

William What’s that?

Matt Everybody has to have a math credit to graduate, and this is one of the courses designed to give that credit. Everybody is supposed to be able to solve algebraic equations before enrolling.

William Can they?

Matt They cannot. First day of class, I gave them this one for fun (all answers were anonymous):

    (3x – 7)/4 = x + 4.

William How’d they do?

Matt About 15% figured it out. Most wrong answers were, let us say, curious. But mostly they just didn’t attempt it.

William College is about learning, you know. No doubt, they’ll refresh their memories as the semester continues. Not everybody can remember high school algebra on command.

Matt I also asked them, “What is one-third of one-half?”

William They must have done better on that one.

Matt Sure. About 20% got it. The wrong answers were confusing. Some said 1/7, a few said, 1/8, 1/4, 1/16. One said “1.3333″. But most didn’t answer.

William I don’t like your tone. This is the first day math class for people who just aren’t good at math. Some people aren’t, you know.

Matt Yes, some people aren’t. But you know, I also asked these questions to the other classes, and those had stronger mathematical prerequisites. More knew the answers, but only in the calculus class did a majority do well.

William See? There’s hope!

Matt Yeah, but all of the students in the calculus class should have answered correctly, not just most.

William I still think you’re being too harsh. This was the first day.

Matt I also asked them the year the American Civil War started.

William You asked math students that? That’s obviously not fair.

Matt Are you telling me that college students shouldn’t know the answer?

William Well, not quite. But not everybody will remember the exact year.

Matt One student said 1954.

William Obviously a typo.

Matt Didn’t look like one. Others said 1701, 1740, “1770s”, 1779, 1846, 1887, 1945. Most just didn’t answer, but a few jotted down “who cares?”, or something like “This is statistics?”

William Well, it isn’t statistics you know. Students wouldn’t think to come prepared to class to answer questions on history.

Matt Only a handful knew the exact date; about 10% knew it plus or minus 10 years.

William Come on. They just weren’t ready.

Matt Want me to tell you the answers they gave me to, “In what year did the French Revolution begin?”

William I think we can skip it.

Matt Good thing, because I had the idea from the answers that they had never heard of the event.

William It’s the fault of the high schools. They were probably never taught.

Matt I can’t disagree with you, but don’t you think that college students should know the answer, even just to name the proper century?

William They’ll probably learn as they go along.

Matt I was happiest with the answer to, “Who wrote the play King Lear?” More than half, spelling aside, knew.

William So it’s not all bad news.

Matt But almost nobody knew who wrote Paradise Lost.

William High school again. They almost never teach poetry.

Matt They did better with naming a composer who worked in the eighteenth century. Those who knew, about two thirds, said either Mozart or Beethoven.

William That must have pleased you.

Matt Not one person—not one in all the classes—knew who Thucydides was. Some guessed, “Greek mathematician.”

William Obviously, then, these are clever kids. They knew that you were a mathematician and were thus likely to ask about other famous ones.

Matt But, of course, I didn’t.

William I suppose not. It is a hard question, though.

Matt Only if you don’t know the answer.

William Oh, that makes a lot of sense.

Matt I asked them what was the last book they read, which wasn’t assigned to them. About half gave answers. My Bookie Wook (which is a real book), Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Harry Potter series, Quiet Strength, many in the Twilight series, I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, and similar others.

William At least they’re reading.

Matt One wrote, “I don’t like reading.”

William Well…

Matt This is the same statistics student who answered 16.6 for the multiplying fractions question.

William Like I said, not everybody…

Matt And for the algebra question this student said, “I don’t do algebra.”

William Maybe he was having a bad day.

Matt Maybe.

There is a certain way that philosophers talk that make them sound, to outsiders, like they’re spouting nonsense. Take David Miller, for example. He writes on the subject of equality in Philosophy and Politics:

Complex equality…recognizes a number of relevant dimensions along which individuals may be scored, but it does not insist that scores be equalized along any dimension in particular. Instead it claims that overall equality can be achieved by counterbalancing among the different dimensions. If the dimensions are independent, in the sense that there is no connections between how a person performs on one and how he performs on others, then relative gains in one direction can be set against relative losses in another.

A professional philosopher will know that Miller is merely summarizing the learned literature on “equality theory.” But a lay or uninformed reader will presuppose that the man has lost his mind. Do philosophers really say that equality—the sublimest of all goals—can be had if only we could look into each heart and weigh or score each dimension of desire, awarding to each what he wants in proportion to how these rewards fit in with what each other persons’ desires?

They do say so, but you must understand that in philosophy we often discuss situations that might happen, that are theoretically possible, no matter how unlikely they might be. For example, we can imagine a Star Trek-like transporter device, and then ask questions about what happens if such a machine existed, all the while acknowledging that building such a device is next to impossible. So Miller might be talking theoretically and therefore might not be as nuts as he sounds.

Could we then imagine a device—never mind if we could actually build the thing—that at each and every moment, looks into each person’s heart, weighs all his desires and fears, and then looks into the world to see what resources are available, computes the means of manipulating those resources to turn them into “products”, and then, for each person and across all people simultaneously, metes out both the work required to manipulate those resources and to then to deliver the “products” before, of course, each person’s fears and desires changed?

Don’t get caught up in the improbability of the thing—it is clearly only a fantasy. But fantasies drive actions, so it’s important to understand it for at least that reason. It’s also necessary to ask whether such a thing could be done “in theory”, because if it can, then we can figure how close to the ideal we can get.

So is Miller’s equality of fulfillment possible? I think the answer is no, it is not. And the reasons are simple.

Suppose everybody got it into their head that they wanted to live in a certain spot and that living in that spot would fulfill their deepest desire. It doesn’t matter whether this situation is probable either, but clearly it is possible. Thus, by a kind of people-Pauli exclusion principle, equality is impossible because not all people could live in one spot, even if the “spot” is generously defined as a rather large plot of land.

Now, this spot could be on the surface of the sun (we can imagine building a shelter to weather the heat) or it could be on a beach in Hawaii. But no matter where it is, everybody can’t fit there.

Suppose next that my soul’s desire is to have X, where X can be an object like a certain baseball card, say, or X could be a state of affairs such as my enemy put six feet under, or, human nature being what it is, X could be a certain amorous relationship. Although somewhat loosely defined, X is unique. That is, there are some Xs which no two people can possess simultaneously. Somebody is going to go wanting.

These are two of the theoretical reasons why equality of fulfillment is impossible. Not just unlikely, but impossible. Of course, there are a host of reasons why it is impractical: no man can fully articulate his desires nor anticipate perfectly his needs, there would never be universal agreement on the desire-duty weighting algorithm, resources could never be manipulated into products and delivered quickly enough to satisfy that algorithm, and on and on. Even stronger, any scheme of equality always fails at least on age and sex: that is, everybody isn’t the same age and sex, and nothing can be done about that.

Equality of fulfillment isn’t the only definition of “equality”, but we will find (as we examine this subject over a series of articles) that of all the common definitions, none are possible, even in theory.

Its proposed location isn’t precisely “ground zero” and it isn’t exactly a mosque. Its meant to be a few blocks away and is designated a “cultural center.”

Sharif El-Gamal wants to tear down a building that was permanently damaged in the in-the-name-of-Islam mass-murder attack of 9/11, and on the site he wants to build a not-quite-a-mosque center for Muslims to, we can suppose, culturally and peacefully associate.

The equivalent to this would be if evangelist Pat Robertson were to trudge into Iraq—following in Mr Obama’s now victorious footsteps—and propose building a Christian church just around the corner from Saddam’s Baghdad palace.

Now, all lefty readers, a show of hands, please. All who would vociferously support Mr Robertson’s right to build a Christian church in Iraq, all those, that is, who would scream “Ignorant Bigots!” at any slobbish yokels who oppose the church, please raise your hands?

Anybody?

Oh wait, I forgot to add that proviso that, just like El-Gamal is doing, Robertson would seek to pay for a substantial portion of the church using tax-payer funds.

Anybody yet?

No hands. Well, let’s ask an easier question. How many would say that Robertson’s plan was “insensitive” (always a favorite words), or that it was at least in bad taste?

Only one hand. Yes, Michael?

“It’s a bad question. You can’t just go around building churches in Iraq.”

Why not? People can just go around building not-quite-a-mosques here, can they not?

“You don’t get it. Iraq doesn’t have freedom of religion. It’s a Muslim country and they can ban Christian churches if they want.”

Some of you in the back didn’t hear Michael’s answer. I’ll repeat it. Michael, you say that my question doesn’t have an answer because it is flawed. Since Iraq, a predominately Muslim country, has restrictions on building non-Muslim religious centers, a Christian church might be illegal, and thus my question is moot. Is that a fair summary?

“It is.”

Because the Iraqis are intolerant of other religions, they do not have to tolerate Christianity?

“I wouldn’t say it that way.”

Is my way wrong?

“I just don’t like that word.”

Intolerant? It’s meaning is well enough here. It says that they will not allow—that they will, if need be, forcibly ban—non-Muslim religious encroachment. So, would you say that those here in the States that argue the not-quite-a mosque should relocate, or that it is at least “insensitive”, are intolerant?

“They are.”

Intolerant in the same way? Notice that nobody here is arguing that the not-quite-a-mosque cannot be built, just that it should be built in a different location, one removed from the site of murderous attack committed in the name of Islam.

“Those who argue against the mosque are religious bigots. They’re just saying that their religion is right and everybody’s else’s is wrong.”

Since you didn’t answer, I can only assume that all levels of “intolerance” are equivalent to you. Pleas for good taste and civil accommodation by New York City residents are equivalent to their arguing for outright bans of Islam.

Then let me ask you this: are the Iraqis also bigots in banning a Christian church? Their religion preaches intolerance of all other religions. Should we tolerate that?

“You’re just trying to stir things up to get publicity and trying to polarize people to get some votes.”

In the same manner as Mr Obama when he stepped into the debate? Besides, you forget that I’m not running for any office, nor am I selling anything. Nor am I—and here you might want to take a note—proselytizing for any religion.

“Look. It’s simple. Building the mosque is a life-or-death test of religious freedom.”

By that you can only mean—because again, nobody is calling for a ban on building not-quite-a-mosques—that building the center in that precise location is a “life-or-death test”. Why is this precise location important in your labeling critics bigots and calling them intolerant?

“The location has nothing to do with it.”

If that’s so, then why not agree to move it?

“I’m not saying that. I’m saying you can’t have the government dictating where it should be located.”

You mean, our government should not act like the Iraqi government—a government whose actions you just said you support—and say where religious institutions can be built? But of course, nobody is asking the government to ban the not-quite-a-mosque. Private citizens are asking El-Gamal to consider his actions and the feelings of those in the community and move it on his own.

“It’s the same thing.”

Then your argument can be summarized thus: that governments should not tolerate that which you, Michael, do not like, and that government should not only allow but be complicit in obtaining anything that you, Michael, do like. Finally, that anybody who agrees with you, Michael, is tolerant, but that anybody who disagrees with you, Michael, is intolerant.

“Exactly.”

The Onion reports on a shocking new statistical study. Warning: some foul language. If the stream doesn’t work, click the link below the video window.

In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don’t Care?

I am in a position to verify these results. Of those students who took my classes, those who didn’t care—e.g. those who skip and then ask, “Did I miss anything?”, or those who sit in the back with dazed looks and answer “What?” to questions put to them—did far worse than those who did care. I won’t show the distributions of grades for both groups, but can tell you that those who care far more often earn passing marks.

Is it time to arrest this shocking disparity? Should we modify the way we assess student knowledge as the lady in the video says? “It’s time to test these kids on what they know, not what we want them to know.”

But, for those who don’t care, perhaps it’s not entirely their fault. Could it be that the conversion of higher education into a factory has something to do with student attitudes?

A factory, of course, is a place in which raw material is stamped and molded by machine to produce identical products. Inferior material input into the process results in substandard output. Lower quality materials are used typically because of the desire to increase output: quality suffers for quantity.

Naturally, if the desire for quantity is great enough, less reliable machinery is also put to use, machinery which is apt to increase the rate of faulty product coming off the line.

The factory foremen, line managers, and owners know this must be true, yet they are often willing to sacrifice reputation by releasing inferior product simply for short term profit.

At Cornell, for example, the Dean of Arts & Sciences thought it would be a good idea to whack “four of its seven assistant professor positions” in the math department. And now:

In past years, Math 1710, Math 1910 and Math 1920 were each spread across multiple lectures that rarely exceeded 30 students. This year, with 35 lectures in the Math department eliminated, Math 1710 nearly tripled in size; Math 1910 swelled to one 94-student lecture; and Math 1920 was coalesced into a 138-student classroom.

Math 1910 is Calculus for Engineers; Math 1920 is Multivariable Calculus for Engineers. The only reason somebody would think that 138—or even 94—kids in a room could learn advanced calculus is if they thought this subject trivial, one that can be compressed into easily digestible bullet points.

He would have to believe that teaching this subject requires no feedback from the students to the professor. For example, if every kid in that class tried to ask but one question, time would expire long before everybody could ask something.

He would believe that any student could learn it: just cram them all in and they will get it.

Is it a wonder that some students cease caring in an environment like that?

I wrote what follows for an editor who, lucky fellow that he is, has moved on to better things. So, in order not to waste these precious pearls (and to save me having to think up something new this morning), I give them to you.

The blurb describes my reaction on being named to the Enemies of Science List, ludicrously compiled and published by the National Academies of Science. In times historical, the NAS was an organization to which it was a great honor to be named a fellow. But much of the prestige has drained away as its members have ossified into orthodoxy.

Yet even while this degradation is occurring, it appears, does it not?, that the political climate of global warming is cooling off. It is not yet cold; far from it. But there has been a noticeable lessening in interest. Perhaps—just perhaps—it is because one too many activist has warned that the sky has already fallen. How many times can you hear “It’s worse than we thought!” before it no longer has any force?

It is difficult to maintain a fever pitched frenzy, especially when not much can be done about the problem (if indeed there is a problem). True, a few will always have the manic energy to run around in circles bleating about “Environmental injustice!” or whatever. But the audience for these performances always dwindles in time.

Congratulations are in order, I think. Normally, I’m not one to brag, but after what happened, I might be allowed a little gloating.

The closest I came to this kind of honor before was in 1982, when the female members of the high school band voted to place me on the No Dating list. But today’s bestowment—presaged, perhaps, so long ago—far surpasses any approbation I’ve ever received.

For this is the first time I ever made a Worldwide Political Enemies List! True, it’s an odd sort of list from an unexpected corner—who knew the National Academy of Sciences employed spin squads?—but it’s genuine and I’m on it, dammit. All my painstaking and, yes, painful efforts to demonstrate the astonishing overconfidence of climate scientists have paid off!

Now, I’m know what you’re thinking. Nearly 500 Enemies of Science are marked with scarlet letters, and I only made number number 264. But before you start snickering, let me ask you this: is your name on the list? Well, is it, Mr Smarty Pants?

Thus far, nobody has contacted me, nor have I received any indication of what accoutrement are to accompany my distinction. Presumably, since I’m the sole person listed as an expert in “forecast accuracy”, and climate models are forecasts, I will come in for something pretty special.

I haven’t yet noticed any paparazzi trailing after me, nor men in trench coats. But I am ready. I carry everywhere prepared quotes of sound-bite length. And I’ve been careful to never venture out-of-doors unless well groomed.

I can only explain the absence of media scrutiny as my coming in at the middle. It takes a while to work through all the names. At least, I hope that’s it.

It just can’t be that reporters have confused entry into such a list as evidence that the entrant’s arguments have been refuted.

There’s a Latin name for that fallacy which I’ve forgotten, and I don’t have time to look it up. I have to go get a hair cut, just in case.

A reader has asked for my answer to The Big Question. This isn’t it; but it’s a start.

In his Mind, Language, and Society, John Searle tells of a dinner he attended at which Bertrand Russell spoke.

Periodically, every two years or so, the Voltaire Society, a society of intellectually inclined undergraduates at Oxford held a banquet with Bertrand Russell—the official patron of the society. One the occasion in question, we all went up to London and had dinner with Russell at a restaurant. He was thing in his mideighties [sic], and had a reputation as a famous atheist. To many of us, the question seemed pressing as to what sort of prospects for immortality Russell entertained, and we put it to him: Suppose you have been wrong about the existence of God. Suppose that the whole story were true, and that you arrived at the Pearly Gates to be admitted by Saint Peter. Having denied God’s existence all your life, what you say to…Him? Russell answered with a moment’s hesitation. “Well, I would go up to Him, and I would say, ‘You didn’t give us enough evidence!’”

Searle is, of course, one of the most well known living philosophers, and a man whose views closely parallel my own. The book is Searle’s attempt at answering the other big questions, the ones that come right after the biggest: is there a real world, do we have direct access to that world, is language a reasonable description of the world, are our statements true or false just in case they do or not correspond to how things are, and is cause and effect the way things work?

He defends what he calls the “default” position on these items (yes to all). But he offers nothing on the biggie, except to say that when writing books of this sort,

Nowadays, nobody bothers, and it is considered in slightly bad taste to even raise the questions of God’s existence. Matters of religion are like matters of sexual preference: they are not to be discussed in public, and even the abstract questions are discussed only by bores.

He then offers the Russell anecdote to explain his take on the Big Question. It is mine, too. But my interpretation of Russell’s “You didn’t give us enough evidence!” is quite different. I think that the lack of evidence is either necessarily true or that it is no bar to belief because there are plenty of things we know without evidence.

Understand, it is not that we do not have enough evidence, it is that we have no (external) evidence. This lack is replaced by faith, and necessarily so. All mathematical axioms fit this description: these are statements which we accept as true based on no evidence except that offered by our intuitions. All a priori knowledge fits this description, whether theological or no.

Of course, it doesn’t immediately follow that belief in God must be one of these a priori beliefs. And that is as far as I will take the Big Question today.

Except to say that because our, usually university-based, intellectuals find the question embarrassing, our education on this topic is all-too-often self directed; which is another way to say that it is stunted, limited, often wrong, and usually ill informed.

Our situation is not novel: John Henry Newman was complaining of this lack of theological education over 150 years ago in The Idea Of A University. He commented on the, even then, prevailing mindset of intellectuals:

Religious faith is a sentiment, a feeling, not an intellectual act, with truth for its object and with knowledge for its result. Religion is based, not on argument, but on taste and sentiment: nothing is objective, everything subjective in divine doctrine. It is as unreasonable then to demand a professional chair for religion as a chair for maternal affection…

Knowledge as regards the creature is regarded as illimitable; but impossible and hopeless as regards the being, attribute and marks of a Creator.

Faith is “not an act of the intellect, but a feeling, an emotion, an appetency; and, as this view of Faith obtained, so was the connexion of Faith with Truth and Knowledge more and more either forgotten or denied.”

The view of religion as solely a matter for sentiment is now pervasive, shared by atheists, agnostics, and theists alike. It explains the embarrassment of intellectuals is discussing the matter. It is why theists are either uncomfortable talking about their belief—”It’s a personal decision”—or why they are not uncomfortable enough: “It’s obvious, you blockhead!” And it is why atheists condemn or dismiss theism: “They’re letting their emotions substitute for reason!”

There is more to a reasoned discussion of the Big Question than yet another dry-as-dust rehashing of the ontological argument. The subject, as Cardinal Newman suggested, is like any other, and is amendable to cool, dispassionate intellect.

It’s time to play everybody’s favorite game: Spot The Logical Fallacy! Each week (or whenever we get round to it), we pull quotations from news reports from around the world which contain logical fallacies. It is your job to spot them. You could win valuable prizes!

The more egregious and obvious to spot a fallacy is, the fewer the points that will be awarded to its unveiler. Likewise, the more subtle and complex the fallacy, the more it’s worth. Only the first person to correctly identify the fallacy gets the points, so be sure your entries are in early.

No points are taken away for incorrect entries. Points will be cumulative.¹ Occasional style points will be awarded for properly giving the Latin name for the fallacy: these are at the discretion of the MC.

All judgments of the MC are final and are considered to be, for the purposes of this game, infallible.

Send examples of fallacies to matt@wmbriggs.com.

1. 5 points Hot Air linked to a 1979 interview with convicted child rapist, movie star, and film director Roman Polanski, in which he said in the way of self-exculpation:
   

   If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But…f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!

   Hint First take the empirical statement “Everyone wants to f— young girls!” is false; and then assume it is true. This is to show that even if you are Woody Allen and playing this game, you will come to the same conclusion.

2. 3 point follow-up The French Film association SACD commenting on Polanski’s recent arrest issued a statement which read in part:
   

   By their extraterritorial nature, film festivals the world over have always permitted works to be shown and for filmmakers to present them freely and safely, even when certain States opposed this.

   The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

   Amplification Even though each fallacy in this statement is not stated at the same level of complexity, they are each worth 3 points.

   Bonus 2 points Is there a way to read SACD’s argument so that it does not include a logical fallacy?

3. 3 points Eric Spitznagel, a writer seemingly unable to pen a profanity-free paragraph, contributed an article to Vanity Fair, the magazine of idiotic but glossy celebrity tittle tattle for those who like to pretend they are uninterested in salacious, IQ-draining gossip. He asked of magician Penn Jillette:
   

   It is just a coincidence that we have a black president and now [the Tea Partiers are] fed up with big government? Taxing us for an expensive and pointless war in Iraq is fine, but don’t you dare use my taxes to pay for universal health care!

   Amplification Each fallacy is worth 3 points.

————————————————————————————

¹ Contestants are responsible for keeping track of their own scores because your MC is too lazy.