Apathy Sketchpad

This was mere days away from winning Crackpot of the Month. I mean, really.

Could someone in America watch TV and let me know if this is for real?

Surely it has to be an elaborate hoax?

(Images are both links to the files; also remember you can hide the sidebars now with the link in the top-left.)

Comments?

I just read on Chicken Girl’s blog that, thanks to the Arbitration Act 1996, if both parties agree to it in advance then the judgements of a Sharia court can be legally binding in Britain. This only applies to civil cases. According to The Times,

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

I’m not certain when domestic violence became a civil offence. It seems to me that beating someone up is a criminal act whether or not they were dumb enough to marry you first. I understand that in these situations what tends to happen is that the Sharia court gives a non-binding ruling and the woman drops her criminal case. This is, of course, fine, as long as both parties are happy with the outcome. That’s the same as the idea behind arbitration: no point invoking big, clumsy, expensive laws when the parties can agree on something cheaper and simpler. The problem… well, it’s pretty clear but let’s leave it for now.

It also strikes me that divorce, financial disputes and cases involving domestic violence are the worst possible cases to apply Sharia law to (with the exception of apostasy, although it’s hard to see a non-Muslim agreeing to a Sharia hearing and I’m pretty sure arbitrators aren’t allowed to sanction executions) because as bad as the brutal punishments Sharia metes out are, they are at least even-handed, whereas Sharia is so preposterously misogynistic that you know in advance how the court will rule in all three of those cases…

The judges on the panel gave the sons [in a divorce case] twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

How exactly this is sqaured with the Arbitration Act, I’m not sure, because the Act says

The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly-

(a) the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense; …

Hard to see by what reasonable measure a system where a woman is considered to be worth half a man can possibly be considered ‘impartial’ in a case of domestic violence or a divorce settlement. That sounds to me like a very clear bias. I do wonder if that would make the courts’ rulings invalid. My internationally renowned legal expertese, alas, does not exist, but apparently I shouldn’t let that stop me making pronouncements based on what it tells me so I have decided that they are. That said, the act also says

An arbitrator is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as arbitrator unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.

Bad faith, you say..?

The Sun has shown impressive restraint; the Mail reports it and manages (I think) to get a factual error into the first paragraph; the Mirror says

The Muslim tribunals are exploiting a loophole in the Arbitration Act 1996 which allows sharia courts to be classified as arbitration courts - with their rulings binding in law.

which I think is unfair: this isn’t a loophole; this is the whole idea. If you’re going to grant people the power to make binding judgements then you have to check them. After all, there’s no reason they should call it Sharia. They could hand out all the same rulings in a secular court. Would that be a loophole?

This is the problem: the whole idea of arbitration hangs on the ability of both parties to give voluntary consent to abide by its findings. The hoops a scientist has to jump through before an ethics committee will accept such consent are so small and high up that there are loads of scientific papers just about collecting it, so I doubt very much that we can ever be properly sure that a woman has given uncoerced consent to be judged by such ‘law’. I’m forced to agree with shadow home secretary Dominic Grieve, who said

If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.

That said, this appears to have been reported in only one newspaper whose average reader understands the difference between ‘imply’ and ‘infer’, so I’m not really sure how much credence to give it. (Certainly the fact that an MP has commented on it shouldn’t be taken as evidence even that the story is partially true.) The Independent and the Guardian both, as far as I can see, entirely ignored this story.

Apart from anything else, as far as I can see the problem here isn’t really all that different from the one we had before they got wise to the Arbitration Act: if people agree to be oppressed, what are you going to do? The problem is in the subcultures that allow — indeed encourage — women to be treated as property and men to kill them if they won’t. I don’t mean to imply that this is the majority (or even a large minority) of muslims, but it happens. I don’t think there is a solution, but a good start would be to expose all muslims to other faiths by banning any and all faith-based school selection or home-schooling, and providing anyone who thinks they are at risk of such oppression to  go to the police and have their concerns treated very seriously and discretely investigated. I guess people have to remain free to join cults or give up freedoms for dumb reasons. But if we help them recruit or hold onto members then we’re complicit, and the present system just doesn’t give anyone adequate chance to escape.

Most of the comments on the Times piece are tripe from people who haven’t understood the situation, but I did like this one, with its utter failure to use almost any word correctly:

Adolf Hitler never succeeded in his attempts tosubmit UK to german nazi law . Muslims have managed to do what Hitler failed to obtain : Having a foreign fascist law , sharia , ruling british citizens .
I’m french , so I don’t have to tell British citizens what they should do , but …

docdory, Rouen, France

Is it wrong that my first thought was “surrender?”?

I realise this blog isn’t well designed for users of narrow skins. Therefore I have added a ‘hide sidebars’ link to the top-left corner. This expands the main central area to fill the window. It’s also handy for printing. I’ve tested it in IE, Firefox, Opera and Chrome, and it works in everything but IE.

IE users should switch to Chrome (not because it is better than Opera or Firefox but because it will be less of a culture shock). IE users on a computer network that forbids the installation of alternate browsers should invest in a pen drive and switch to Firefox Portable, and then petition their IT department to fire the morons that put that policy in place.

If someone wants to write an IE-compatible version I will use it, but I don’t think IE users would know what to do with that level of functionality. I can see them not pressing it in case other people on other computers want to use the sidebars, or rebooting to get them back.

For people who use the site a lot, the link seems to work as a bookmarklet.

I just read a brilliant article on the Times’ website:

That the world was created by an invisible deity, that He later impregnated a virgin who then bore a son who was His own father, that we have immortal souls and will live for ever in Heaven if we are good and love Jesus - how can anyone who has even attended high school believe such things? … It defies belief. … And if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it. That is my position. I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. … The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it. The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test.

I’m not convinced I buy the argument (nor that the author does) — applying logic to the actions of idiots rarely has much predictive value — but it’s certainly worth raising for discussion. As with everything written about religion or atheism on high-traffic websites, though, the actual discussion that follows is moronic. The very first comment is this:

The liberals’ belief in man-made ‘global warming’ is just as ‘irrational’ as the traditional religious beliefs that the author decries. There is the same lack of evidence, the high priests like Al Gore, faith over science, proselytization, tithing, scorn of non-believers, etc.

Kevin Finnerty, Atlanta, USA

Relevance is a sin.

I’m a Catholic. My election vote always goes to the candidate most likely to vote for policies that will save unborn lives. Issues such as health care, education and housing are of little significance if the right to life is not accorded to all human beings at all stages of development.

Julia, Manchester, UK

I would say you have issues, but that would be to miscount.

First, just because someone calls themself a Christian, does not mean that they are in fact a Christian…

John, USA,

That’s not a counter-argument; that’s paraphrasing. Those are the first three comments. I find myself wanting to just post all of them. That would take ages, so trust me that the ones I’m ignoring are also great. I mean — just look for Paul from Dallas and also London… For reference, Pauls’ logic seems to go like this: assuming A and B leads to a contradcition, therefore the contradiction is true.

But it’s not just Christians who don’t follow through. Determinists continue to talk as if they were “free” to judge the validity of an argument. And atheists aren’t always the self-interested hedonists one might expect from believers in a meaningless universe with only a darwinian moral compass!

JS, Glasgow, UK

JS has failed to get drunk and start a fight, so I’m forced to conclude that he hasn’t followed through on his claim to be from Glasgow. And one might argue that it’s wrong to mock the determinists, because they don’t have a choice but to behave that way.

Fundamentalism and political correctness are pretty much the same thing, dressed up from the same wardrobe as the emperor’s new clothes.

Rick Hepner, Salt Lake City, USA

I have literally no idea what this is supposed to mean.

… Would Mr Whyte still hold to his argument if state and church rejoined and gave him ‘heavenly’ policies with ‘heavenly’ consequences? I doubt it.

Ali, Colchester, Essex

How amazing is that? “Yes, but would you think so if the evidence pointed the other way? Ha, then you can’t really believe it!”. That’s about the most Religion idea I’ve ever heard.

I don’t believe many atheists really believe what they claim to believe. …

Paul, Nottingham,

I wasn’t aware we claimed to believe anything. I thought that was the point.

Surely this line of argument applies just as surely to atheists. What about the weight of living without a God? Your line of reasoning exposes you as one who does not believe either

David , London,

Oh crap, he’s right. I don’t go to church or recklessly shag prostitutes, so I guess I neither believe in God nor not believe in God. Great, now I’m in an existential quandary. Thanks a lot.

I’m curious - Mr Whyte - what would be your position on all the atheists and agnostics who celebrate Christmas… send cards, give presents, and put up Xmas trees? Are they self-delusional too? Or just cheerfully hypocritical?

Jay, Aberystwyth, Wales

Yeah, and what about the infidels who watch soaps but don’t write to the characters? Hypocrites!

What we truly believe can be politically inexpedient, personally challenging, socially isolating, painfulful or even meaningless, and we are free to ignore it when convenient and profess it when advantageous. And we do. It depends on who we are, where we are and when and who with.

Lars Torders, lowestoft, 

“The truth can be inconvenient, so it’s okay to just ignore it.” Do you work for the McCain campaign?

This country has struggled for many years with the issue of Tolerance. We’ve moved slowly and painfully towards racial, sexual and cultural tolerance; Because we are an increasingly multicultural society. Yet this article is filled with religious intolerance. Embrace love, not hate. Jesus is love.
Chris, Coventry,

Ooh, you almost had it there, but you just had to blow it at the last minute…

Mr. Whyte, your “arguments” seem to me like a poor copy of Richard Dawkins’. The question to ask is not … ”do foetuses have an ‘immortal soul’ since conception?” … but … ’if a foetus is a ‘project’ of human person, do we have the right to dispose of it as though it was a mere ‘thing’?”

Miguel de Servet, Villanueva de Sijena, Spain

These issues are always easier when you phrase them so they don’t make sense.

And as for “if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it,” - well that’s patently ludicrous. If Scientists failed to believe what begin as abstract theories how would it progress? …

Matt, Birmingham, UK

We prove things, you moron. After we’ve done that it’s okay to believe them. “If we didn’t just make shit up, how would we ever progress?”

It’s sad isn’t it.I agree, surely if Christians lived by the Bible,a book promoting peace&hating wrong-doing, then this world would be a very different place.Christians are failures,I think most, including me, would admit that. That’s why Jesus came on the scene…please investigate his life!

Amy, West Bromwich,

We have done and it’s made up. Also, you have clearly never read the Bible.

“The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do”. This applies to atheists just as much as to religious believers and the new atheists, clinging to the morality of the Sermon on the Mount , and not the morality of the survival of the fittest , abysmally fail the test.

Jamie, London, UK

You know who I hate? It’s those hypocrite mathematicians who don’t base their morality on set theory. Them and Abraham Fleury, San Diego, USA, who can’t tell the word ‘ludicrous’ from the rapper Ludacris.

What “lack of evidence for the central tenets of Christianity”? The conversion of untold numbers of previous “avowed atheists” to Christianity is pretty good evidence. …

Mike T., Roseville, CA, USA

I used to be Catholic. Discuss.

I don’t believe that atheists such as Jamie Whyte really are atheists. He doesn’t live acccording to his beliefs as an atheist. If he did he would not live as if there is right and wrong or that he loves his family or friends or delights in beauty or that his reasoning has any validity.

Kenneth Brownell, London,

I’ve heard “God = Morality” before, and “Jesus = Love”, but I’ve never heard “God = Valid Reasoning”.

Jesus and God are real. Of this I have no doubt. Look at the universe.Look at the trees. Look at the insects. Look at DNA. My word to believe that all of this could possibly spring up from nothing and on its own takes way more faith to believe than believing in God. Search your hearts. God is real.

Buddy, Springfield, United States

I had my DNA sequenced. It went like this: “GTACACAGATTACAGTCTHEREISNOGODTTGACTA”. Personally, I think it’s a message from aliens.

That article truly breaks my heart! how can someone say these things so bluntly, and as if the were all true! Looking into a true Christians heart, you would find SO many wonderful things: love, joy, passion, authenticity, respect, honor. I just do not understand why you would disclaim that!

Allison, Oklahoma City, USA

As an atheist, my heart is just a muscley pump and I am forced to keep that stuff in my brain.

This month, I am awarding Crackpot to the Italian government prosecutors, who have really managed to pull it out of the bag by simultaneously being wrong and stupid. Not a good combination when you’re in a position of any kind of power.

Apparently, they have decided to prosecute a comedian called Sabrina Guzzanti. Her crime, such as they think it is, was this: she said in her act that within twenty years Italian schoolteachers would be vetted by the Vatican,

But then, within 20 years the Pope will be where he ought to be — in Hell, tormented by great big poofter devils, and very active ones, not passive ones.

The wording seems to vary between reports. I assume they are different translations. This one is from the Times. Other reports are in the Guardian (and their opinion), Chortle (where I first found the story), and loads of others, including Zimbio, whose article has this to say:

Ratzinger does a lot of pontificating…

That’s true. I also hear he’s Catholic.

They think it’s okay to punish people for mocking a bigot in a frock. Perhaps more worryingly, they also think it’s okay to punish people for mocking their President — that must make politics a risky game. It is no surprise that this law was signed by His Excellency Benito Mussolini, Head of Government, Duce of Fascism, and Founder of the Empire (really, that’s what he called himself).

So that’s why they’re wrong. You just wait until you hear why they’re stupid…

The July rally [at which Guzzanti made the offending joke] was called to protest against alleged interference by the Vatican and the Catholic Church in Italian affairs, from abortion to gay rights, but also to attack the Prime Minister for passing “ad personam” laws to protect his own interests and avoid prosecution on corruption allegations.

So your plan is to arrest anyone who points it out under “ad hominem” laws? That will work.

Three years ago Ms Guzzanti released a widely praised film, Viva Zapatero!, about the suppression in 2003 of her late night show RAIot in which she had satirised the Italian Prime Minister. At the 2005 Venice International Film Festival Viva Zapatero! was given an ovation.

Just you watch how well that works.

Recently, I have been reading Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science. The book, predictably, covers much of the same ground as his Guardian column of the same name, but deeper, and in logical order: chapter one covers very simple claims made by cranks, and shows the curious reader how to test them at home. This is very much a play-along-at-home kind of a book (for doubters, or readers who just like that sort of thing). The following chapters each (mostly) examine the claims, methods and tactics of another form of deception or pseudoscience, each a bit more subtle than the last, and gives the reader the mental tools to examine them at every stage. It builds into a good understanding of trial design — by the end of the book you should be spotting some things before they’re flagged in the text. (That’s a good feeling. I like books that make me feel smart.)

I can’t personally vouch for this teaching: I had much of it drummed into me when I started my PhD (because it’s important), but it’s clearly expressed and illustrated with a range of examples somewhere between lavish and obsessive. The examples also show how universal the methods are: the chapter on Homeopathy also explains about good experimental methods, overuse of antibiotics, superstition, detox programmes, acupuncture, and meta-analysis and its role in assessing the effectiveness of steroids. It’s a structure I like a lot: interestingly varied without seeming like a collection of unconnented anecdotes, and with a strong theme to each chapter and a sense of progression through the book.

The book features chapters themed around the ideas used by Gillian McKeith and Patrick Holford, which discusses their own various publications. McKeith’s, he says,

have an air of ‘referenciness’, with nice little superscript numbers … but when you follow the numbers, and check the references, it’s shocking how often they aren’t what she claimed them to be in the main body of the text

and of Holford’s,

If Professor Patrick Holford is a man of science, and an academic, then we should treat him as one, with a scrupulously straight bat.

I heartily agree. I think that is, in part, why Goldacre’s book, as well as telling you things, shows you experiments and references you can use to check it all yourself (although the references are ferreted away in an appendix where they belong, rather than gaudily paraded in the body text, looking authoritative but basically just getting in the way). I think this is also because the book strongly agrues against the depiction of science as “didactic truth statements from… arbitrary, unelected authority figures”, and that would look pretty silly if presented with no evidence. (Although Goldacre makes a point of never claiming any authority: he doesn’t put “Dr” on the front cover — he doesn’t even have a capital ‘G’.) Transparency is the key to good science, a topic touched upon every time a quack mentioned in the book refuses to publish their research methods.

Holford’s book is also of interest, because Goldacre picks apart his reference list in great detail. Not out of malice or to make fun of him, but because as we know,

If Professor Patrick Holford is a man of science, and an academic, then we should treat him as one, with a scrupulously straight bat.

Okay. Let’s do that.

Goldacre’s book has fourteen pages of notes and references (at least the first edition does). I selected one from each page at random, and checked that it said what he says it said: 2 I couldn’t read, 1 was a note only, the other 11 checked out ane way or another, so that’s basically a 100% hit rate. I didn’t critique the referenced articles, mostly because I don’t have the time or inclination, but none of the research says anything very controversial anyway. Anyone who has read chapter 12 will realise that I am biased here, but that’s why I’m being transparent so you can check up on me too if you like: I’ve put the list of references I looked up, and a brief verdict on each, after the fold.

The other main theme of the book is the problems with ‘dumbing-down’ (a depressingly autological phrase) of the world of science and health: miracle cures, medicalised syndromes for everything, reports of conclusions rather than evidence, and so on. I think this was my favourite passage on that theme:

Nobody dumbs down the finance pages. I can barely understand most of the sports section. In the literature pull-out, there are five-page-long essays which I find completely impenetrable, where the more Russian novelists you can rope in the cleverer everybody thinks you are. I do not complain about this: I envy it.

I’d love to hear what someone with no scientific training thought of this book. But I expect they would learn a lot about the nature of evidence and the mental traps that make it so, acquire a lot of useless trivia about the proponents of pseudoscientific bullshit, learn to spot future nonsense, and have a good laugh along the way. I rate that as worth the price — not least because if you pay attention then the book will pay for itself the first time you don’t buy a pack of useless pills.

Since we’re talking transparency, the author declares that he received his copy of Bad Science free from the publishers and that, not being what you’d call a professional critic, the novelty of this kind of thing hasn’t worn off even a bit.

Read the rest of this entry »

I just saw this on Wikipedia:

Because of the complexity and cost of building a telescope of this unprecedented size, ESO has elected to focus on the less ambitious 42 meter diameter European Extremely Large Telescope instead.

This was on the entry for the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope.

Three things occur to me about this naming system.

1. The South African Large Telescope is 10m across. The Large Hadron Collider is 5 miles across. What size will the Overwhelmingly Large Hadron Collider be?
2. At some point, scientists will run out of easily ranked adverbs. This could halt all scientific process.
3. At that point I hope that someone like Brian Cox, recently quoted as saying “anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat”, is on hand to introduce profanity. Science could be saved by names like “The Seriously Fucking Huge Telescope”.