William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Author: Briggs (page 2 of 423)

Global Warming’s Shark Jumping Moment



Travel day today, so something light and airy—and incomplete.

President Obama, presumably sacrificing a tee time, went to keyboard and typed these words:

This is a big moment in the fight against climate change—stick it to climate change deniers by adding your name: http://t.co/fkCzkiMhFw

Now you may think the problem lies in the words stick it to climate change deniers, but you would be wrong. Mr Obama is a politician and stick it is political language, and typical language at that. It is the weak man who allows himself to be offended easily. Add to that that it probably wasn’t our dear leader but some staffer or other hack who wrote the tweet, then there is nothing unusual with stick it.

No. The shark jump is in adding your name. Add your name to what? A petition.

Climate science by petition! While global warming has always had a thick dressing of ideology, this converts the matter completely from science to pure politics. What we have here is the triumph of pragmatism and democracy, the disastrous idea that truth can be had by vote, finally applied to science. Here’s the petition pleading:

Deniers and deep-pocketed polluters make it pretty hard to get anything done on climate change—but here’s one meaningful way you can fight them: The EPA is collecting comments on President Obama’s climate plan, and it’s our chance to show public support.

This is one of the decisive moments in the fight against climate change. Collecting comments gives the EPA a chance to see what ordinary people have to say about this important issue. (Don’t worry—they hear from the special interests on every day that ends in Y.)

What ordinary people have to say about global warming is, as far the EPA goes, meaningless. What value is it to collect the opinions of those unaware of fluid physics about the value of that physics? Of course, it is of some use to ask people how potential regulations might affect them, but about the science behind the regulations there is none.

Yet BarackObama.com says

The other side thinks they can win this fight simply by shouting the loudest, and they have a lot of money to back it up. What they don’t have is a whole lot of people—genuine voices standing up for what’s right. And we’ve proved time and again that, when we raise our voices together, we can take on even the most powerful interests.

Forget the canard about money (I’m still waiting for my check from Big Oil), and forget the idea that the people currently in power need to fight “powerful interests”. What is the point of “voices”? Will these voices fix model parameterizations? Will crowd wisdom tell us the proper role of cloud feedback? Should we turn to social media to guess proxy temperature reconstructions?

I’m writing in a hurry and can’t develop the idea, but somehow I’m put in mind of those early sci-fi movies, where groups of concerned scientists and government officials would gather around a table to discuss the alien giant bug crisis. Sleeves were rolled up. Uniforms worn. Discussions ranged. But never once was there the idea of putting ideas to a vote among the populace.

Incidentally, if you add your email (I made one up) to the Science Petition, you are asked to give money to Mr Obama to “help defeat the dirty special interests”. Sheesh.

That Curious Synod Relatio

The officiala seala.

The officiala seala.

The extraordinary Synod released into the wild Monday its draft relatio which caused a lot of emotions to soar. The Left cheered, “This is the beginning!”, while the Right said, “This is the end!” (Both could be correct, of course.) Look for a spike in both champagne and whiskey sales as giddiness takes over.

One paragraph (#50) in particular captured the imagination of the world:

Pedophiles have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

No, wait. Something wrong with the keyboard. My bad. It actually read:

Adulterers have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community…accepting and valuing their sexual orientation…

Darn it. This new WordPress dynamic editor kills me. Try again:

Murderers have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community…accepting and valuing their furious raging temptations…

That’s not it either. Never mind. Since I can’t seem to get the editor to work, meanwhile you can link over the original, uncorrupted text.

Anyway, I don’t see why all the steam. Of course pedophiles, adulterers, and murderers are people, too! So are tax cheats, arsonists, and members of Congress. Listen, sisters and brothers, we’re all sinners needing the Grace of God, a grace we should beg with fear and trembling. That’s all the paragraph is trying to say.

This is no earthquake. There really isn’t anything to see here. Move along.

Does seem a bit unfair to all the other sinners to highlight the “gifts and qualities” of just one group, though. People are going to feel left out. Right now some little old lady is sitting in the back of the pews thinking, “All I do is gossip about my family members, which I know is sinful and hurtful, and I don’t even get one lousy paragraph?” The only answer we can give her is: Whoever said life was fair?

Just a moment. I think I have it…yes. The editor is fully functional again. Here’s #21.

The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.

Reactionary groups charged that the bishops cribbed this from the inside of a “Just Because” greeting card bought at a ₤100 store back in 1999, and reportedly found earlier this week between the seat cushions of a couch in Cardinal Wuerl’s hotel room. In answer to these serious allegations, Catholic blog watchdog Team Patheos said, “Reactionaries are poopy heads.”

I frankly don’t see it as a big deal. These bishops are busy guys and they only had a day, day-and-a-half to complete the relatio. They were thus in a position of a college student coming off a Thursday night with a term paper due next morning, and there sits before him Wikipedia in all its tempting glory. Besides, it’s the thought that counts, not the source, right?

The greeting-card crib may not have been the only skullduggery. A highly placed anonymous Source and self-described Zed-Head was able to tell your intrepid reporter that he suspects portions of the relatio were inserted by Chinese hackers who broke into the Vatican computers.

“How else do you explain phrases like paragraph nine’s ‘a greater need is encountered among individuals to take care of themselves, to know their inner being, and to live in greater harmony with their emotions and sentiments, seeking a relational quality in emotional life’ and thirteen’s ‘interpreting the nuptial covenant in terms of continuity and novelty’?” he asked.

“What have these to do with Catholic teaching and the salvation of souls? There is no way any faithful, conscientious bishop would have written these things. It must be from hackers.”

Truth, Knowledge, Belief, & Gettier Problems

"Hey, you never know."

“Hey, you never know.”

Proof Isn’t All That

The first section can be skipped for those who know what necessary versus conditional truth is.

I recall an anecdote about John von Neumann which had a fellow asking von Neumann for the proof of some mathematical proposition. Von Neumann asked the fellow which of other several theorems the fellow might already know, and he mentioned two, whereupon von Neumann proved the proposition twice, along the two different paths. Implicit in the story is that he could have proven it upon the other paths as well.

We don’t know what this proposition was, so call it X. Since X is necessarily true, we can have knowledge of it, where knowledge, as some philosopher define it, is “justified true belief.” They’d say the justification comes from the proof and the belief comes from us as an act of our intellect.

But does truth come from the proof? Von Neumann showed there were many different ways of knowing a proposition was true, but the multiplicity did not add to the truth of X. X was just true, and always was, regardless whether anybody knew it or believed it. So there is a difference between the truth of some thing and our knowing it; or rather, there seems to be a difference in the justification of our belief the thing is true and its truth.

Let’s clarify. Take our old standby argument with premises E = “All Martians wear hats and George is a Martian” relative to the proposition Y = “George wears a hat.” Y given E is true; that is to say, we know that Y given E is true, that it follows. We may therefore believe Y given E, as a sort of joint proposition, say, Y-given-E. But Y by itself, sans E, is not a necessary truth. Neither is E by itself a necessary truth. But Y-given-E is. Y therefore is a conditional truth, given or accepting or believing or having faith that E.

A necessary truth is one which is true no matter what. Take non-contradiction. It cannot be true that Z = “X is true and so simultaneously is not-X true”. In other (and confusing words), not-Z is true. There isn’t any way to think that Z (except, as many do, by changing it so that Z is no longer Z, and then forgetting they made changes). Why is Z false? Who knows? God made it that way. Why is it true that W = “For every natural number r, r = r”? I have no idea. God made it that way. What is our justification for believing W? Faith? Or is it that we’re too light in gray matter to discover a proof—or, worse, a counter proof?

Actually, we do have reasons for believing not-Z and W. That we cannot think of how Z is true is a dandy reason for thinking it false, and all experience is that for every natural number r, r does indeed equal r. Induction supplies the rest. From our senses to the truth!

All this is just a sketch, which we needed for the real meat which follows.

Get Gettier

A man hears his wife say she bought him a lottery ticket and he thinks to himself, R = “I now have a chance to win”. Unbeknownst to him, his wife was teasing. We know this, his wife knows this, but the man does not. The man accepts his wife’s word, conditional on which he believes R. R given the premise “Wife bought ticket” is thus a conditional truth. A believable truth, too, given he accepts (unconditionally) his wife’s word. R is not necessarily true, however, as is obvious.

Now Edmund Gettier famously claimed there were situations in which a person has a justified true belief, yet that belief did not meet the test of knowledge. Our lottery situation isn’t quite what he had in mind, because everybody would agree that R is a conditional but not necessary truth. To make this a “Gettier problem”, let’s add the premise “The man’s mother bought him a ticket for the same drawing but told nobody”. It is clear that R is now true, say Gettier followers, and the man is should believe it, but his claim doesn’t rise to the level of knowledge because his accepting R is based on his believing something which is false in fact (his wife’s joke).

But R is still a conditional truth to us and to the mother, who know of her actions. R, being contingent, can never be a necessary truth.

Gettier “problems”, I think, are based on forgetfulness. We forget who knows what and we forget what question is being asked of the evidence. To the man, R is conditionally true based on one set of premises, and to us it is conditionally false based on one set of evidence (just the wife’s statement) true based on another set (adding the mother’s). R is never true is the necessary sense. Plus, there are any number of premises which can exist, and which can be believed, that make it conditionally true. Even conditioned on the premise, D= “I, the man in this example, bought my own ticket” R is still only conditionally and not necessarily true.

In short, Gettier “problems” aren’t. This, incidentally, is one of the few cases where symbolic logic helps; I mean, being able to write the story down in symbols makes it much easier to see what goes where and who knows what, so that it is less easy to slip up.


I’m taking this example from Wikipedia, which (yes) does a good job explaining the set up.

The [justified true belief] account of knowledge is the claim that knowledge can be conceptually analyzed as justified true belief — which is to say that the meaning of sentences such as “Smith knows that it rained today” can be given with the following set of necessary and sufficient conditions:

A subject S knows that a proposition P is true if and only if:

  1. P is true, and
  2. S believes that P is true, and
  3. S is justified in believing that P is true

Recall von Neumann’s example and that X being true and anybody knowing X and the proof or belief of X are not the same thing. And also note that this definition mistakenly forgets to emphasize whether P is a conditional or necessary truth.

Here is a Gettier problem (also Wikipedia):

Smith has applied for a job, but, it is claimed, has a justified belief that “Jones will get the job”. He also has a justified belief that “Jones has 10 coins in his pocket”. Smith therefore (justifiably) concludes (by the rule of the transitivity of identity) that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket”.

In fact, Jones does not get the job. Instead, Smith does. However, as it happens, Smith (unknowingly and by sheer chance) also had 10 coins in his pocket. So his belief that “the man who will get the job has 10 coins in his pocket” was justified and true. But it does not appear to be knowledge.

What has gone wrong?

Don’t Say “Natural Variability”


Word that the climate of doom we were promised (repeatedly) has not obtained has begun leaking out. Climatologists have known this for quite some time, but now even environmental activists are beginning to realize the horrible truth that their worst fears have not been realized.

The excuses have thus begun.

We have already learned “Don’t say ‘Hiatus'” because that is to speak nonsensically. Saying there is a “pause” or “hiatus” assumes the models which predicted the doom which did not happen were somehow right after all, and that it is Reality itself that is error.

It cannot be in the models we currently possess, because these models did not foresee what actually happened. The incontrovertible evidence is that these models are wrong. That they should not, in their current state, be trusted. That whatever they say is subject to extreme reasonable rational doubt. That decisions should not be made based upon their predictions (except the decision to produce better models).

To say there is a “pause” is to say that the models were right after all, even though Reality differed from the models. To say there is a “hiatus” is to say Theory is better than Reality. This is to commit the Deadly Sin of Reification.

One of the excuses is that the models were right after all, but the missing high temperature they predicted is actually in hiding. Sort of like in those movies where the Leader sneaks out of his palace or house and mixes with the ordinary people, and thus he learns What’s Really Important. That is, Global Warming has realized that people are important, too, and has given up its nefarious plans. Or something.

Anyway, the “in hiding” excuse can’t be right, not exactly, because the models already swore they took into account all the sources of heat, including the oceans. Obviously the models were wrong and they didn’t take some thing or things into account. What’s wrong, though, is anybody’s guess. Because some thing or things are wrong, however, it does not mean the thing you guess was wrong was the thing that was wrong. To prove it, you’ll have to redo the models and reforecast the future. Then we wait and see. In the meantime, keep quiet.

One thing we know with certainty is that the thing (in error) cannot be natural variability.

Natural variability, sisters and brothers, is what the models said they could predict skillfully. The models did not skillfully predict natural variability. Natural variability just is, in this sense, what the temperature does.

There is another sense of the phrase, though, a kind of enviro-religious sense that people might be using, which is, “What the temperature would do in absence of humans”. Now that is a valid thing to study. Only trouble is, it’s counterfactual. We can produce answers by the grant-load, but we’ll never know, or that is, we can never verify, whether any of them are true.

Because why? Because, of course, we humans are here and have been here. There is no way to remove our influence (or the influence of any species), so there is no way to know with certainty what the climate would be like without us. Of course, we might make reasonable guesses about what a never-were-humans climate would look like. But we would know those guesses are reasonable only after we can create models that can skillfully predict what the climate will look with us. Yet, as said, we’d never be able to verify those guesses because, of course, here we are.

Humans—and ants, aardvarks, and antelopes—are in integral part of the climate. All creatures influence the climate to some degree (get it? get it?). We are thus part of nature, thus part of real natural variability.

It was never a question whether humans influenced climate, for the answer was always yes; instead, the real science lay in understanding how we effect it. And how everything else effects it. And we’ll know we’ve done a good job with those questions—with understanding “natural variability”, that is—one we can produce good forecasts.


The Imposing-Their-Beliefs Fallacy

Perry trying to impose a curious view.

Perry trying to impose a curious view.

Here is an example of the Imposing-Their-Beliefs Fallacy (ITBF), taken from the New Republic article “The Straight, White, Middle-Class Man Needs to Be Dethroned” by Grayson Perry, a self-labeled “artist” (the trick these days is to discover who is not an “artist”):

They dominate the upper echelons of our society, imposing, unconsciously or otherwise, their values and preferences on the rest of the population. With their colourful textile phalluses hanging round their necks, they make up an overwhelming majority in government, in boardrooms, and also in the media.

Incidentally, it was only after reading up on Perry’s background and noting his obsession with the sexual, that I figured out that “colourful textile phalluses” meant ties. Skip it.

The fallacy does not lie in the statement itself, because, of course, it is possible, and even common, to impose one’s beliefs, values, and preferences on another. Indeed, it is even necessary that imposing occur. That fallacy thus lies in stating that it should not or could not.

Since some form of imposition is necessary, the presence of the fallacy, then, is always an attempt to impose beliefs, values, and preferences other than the ones being railed against. First a proof of the necessity, then proof that the fallacy wielder really just wants his own way.

Newborn and infants must have beliefs, values, and preferences imposed upon them, or else they will die. Children, too. The State imposes the belief that killing for fun and profit (of those human beings who managed to escape the womb, at any rate) is wrong, and it further imposes its value that those who kill will be punished; and it expresses preferences for the kinds of punishment. You can dispute that the State should do this, but even insisting on anarchy is to impose beliefs, values, and preferences.

If you say to another man, “Do not steal from me” or “Do not slit my daughter’s throat” you have imposed or are seeking to impose. If you ever say “should” or “ought” you are imposing, and the same is true if you use synonyms of these words like “judgmental” and “hateful” and so on.

It doesn’t even matter if, as Hume insisted, there really is a distinction between “is” and “ought” (and that is disputable), any time you approve or disapprove of another’s actions, you have imposed or are seeking to. The only slim possibility of non-imposition is if you are utterly indifferent to not only your own self, but to all others. That indifference includes the absence of love or hate or any other emotion.

Now evidence that the fallacy is always inverted.

At Truth-Out.org, in the article “Meet the Right-Wing Christian Companies Trying to Impose Their Values on Their Workers“, the author echoes the common complaint that employees not being given (government-mandated) free things because they are employees is an imposition. Which, of course, it is. The employees instead want to impose their belief that they should be given whatever it is they want and to not be required to give anything in return for it. Strangely, and in an indication of how far gone our culture is, the ITBF was convincing to Government.

Think Progress carried the article “Catholic Bishops: ‘Religious Liberty’ Includes Right To Discriminate Against Gay People, Impose Values“, which is seeped in the Imposing-Their-Beliefs Fallacy. Many today have forgotten the (what used to be) obvious fact that imposing beliefs is what religions do, and so to complain about this is a marker of insanity, stupidly, or political Machiavellianism. The Think Progress folks instead want to impose their values in the expected way.

These examples can be multiplied indefinitely, so it is easy to lose the wonder you should feel whenever you encounter the fallacy. But do try to be vigilant.

Now this Grayson Perry who supplied our first example of the fallacy goes on to say that straight, middle-class white men is a “group that punches far, far above its weight.” A curious claim given the list of accomplishments by this “tribe” (to include the computer on which Perry wrote his fallacy and the internet which served it up to his readers).

But it is clear which beliefs, values, and preferences Perry wishes to impose on us (for I can reveal Yours Truly is a member of this suspect group). I wonder if he’ll get away with it.

Older posts Newer posts

© 2014 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑