Forget the Star!

Every year at this time it happens: people start theorising on what the Star of Bethlehem was. These aren't religious nutters either: they are often astronomers, historians, and other credible people. But why do they bother? If you are going to try to explain the star then you have to take the Bible seriously. If you take it seriously you have to admit all sorts of supernatural events really happened. So why does there have to be a natural explanation of the star? And if you don't take the Bible seriously (and no one should) then why try to explain something that very likely never happened?

The whole exercise is pointless really but it's turned into a sort of game for some people. It's like they're saying: I'll take your mythology seriously enough to accept that an event happened but I'm not prepared to take it seriously enough to accept that an event happened with no natural explanation.

The fact is there is nothing to explain. The star is only mentioned in one gospel (Matthew). Why? Was it not an important and spectacular event? Surely it was worthy enough to be mentioned in the other three gospels the church arbitrarily chose to be its official doctrine (don't even get me started on the dozens of others it conveniently ignored). Obviously Matthew (or whoever wrote that book because no one actually knows) thought it sounded good so he just made it up.

But most of the Bible is just made up. What about the crazy stuff in John? That makes a star appearing unexpectedly look pretty normal in comparison. The Bible has some interesting stories and the occasional bit of positive philosophy but anyone who really takes it literally is crazy. No one who really looks at the subject honestly could ever do that. The people who do take it literally are being dishonest, mainly to themselves.

Maybe if credible people stopped speculating on made up fairy stories like the star instead of taking them seriously it might help fundamentalist Christians escape from the prison of lies they find themselves in. Actually that probably wouldn't happen. Like a prisoner who has been locked up for so long he can no longer function in the real world the fundamentalist Christian doesn't want to be free. The prison of his faith is so much more comfortable than reality.Forget the Star!

Merry Christmas?

There are various topics which the more conservative members of society like to spend time complaining about. Some of them are genuine issues and others are primarily invented issues which seem to be designed just to provide an excuse to cause trouble.

Around this time of year there is one which is almost certain to appear in conservative emails lists and discussion forums. It's the old issue of what the name of the celebration which occurs at this time should be. Traditionally it has been called Christmas, of course, and that is the name most people use, but the conservatives seem to be under the illusion that there is a conspiracy to remove Christmas from our modern vocabulary, presumably to deny the Christian element associated with it.

So there are stories circulating saying that the US president has demanded that traditional Christmas symbols should be banned from the White House (untrue) or that liberal politicians are working secretly to remove Christmas as an official holiday (untrue) or that various other seemingly outrageous acts are happening (all of which are untrue as far as I know).

And these same people seem to get extremely upset if other people use alternative greetings such as "happy holidays" instead of the traditional greeting "Merry Christmas". But I have never yet come across anyone with more liberal attitudes who really cares. For example, I use several different versions of the greeting and I accept them all from others without any problems. So it's only the conservatives who seem to be even making a fuss about this!

The fact is that the word Christmas has clear Christian connections but the actual event has lost that meaning in many places and for many people so that it has become a more generic holiday. Surveys have indicated that people see Christmas as a time to take a break from work, or to eat and drink a lot, or to spend time with friends and family, but far fewer think of it primarily in the religious sense.

And as I have pointed out on many occasions, the celebration of Christmas comes originally from solstice celebrations and the Christian meaning was just used in place of much older pagan ones. So whether this time of year represents a celebration of mid (southern) summer, or the end of the year, or of the alleged birth of some religious figure it doesn't really matter.

While I would prefer to use the term "solstice" instead of Christmas I understand that most people wouldn't know what I'm talking about and I am happy to continue using the traditional word instead because let's get real and admit that Christianity was a very important part of the history of western civilisation.

So use merry Christmas, or happy holidays, or sunny solstice or whatever. It's all fine with me. And to all of those grumpy old conservatives out there: get over it!

Classy Management

The true contempt with which I hold a lot of managers is no secret. I have made it clear on many occasions that I despise the majority of the managers I have ever met and I think the profession itself is probably the greatest threat to progress and wellbeing the world currently has. Maybe it's not the managers who are the problem - many of them are great people when they are out of their professional roles - it's more the way management itself, as a profession, works.

So it's not that the idea of a coordinator or administrator or even a leader of a group of people is necessarily a bad thing, it's more the place management finds itself in in the modern world. And I'm sure there are some good managers out there too. I have even met a few, at least some people who started off quite well until they were inevitably either ground down to the uniform mediocrity of their colleagues or who were moved out of the way through various devious antics by their seniors.

Let me give you a few examples of why I dislike management so much. The following three news stories were all in New Zealand papers over the last few days...

The government has cut jobs at the Inland Revenue Department in Greymouth. Just to add a real element of class to the process they have done it a week before Christmas and shortly after about 100 people lost their jobs because of the Pike River Mine disaster. To add insult to injury senior managers made it sound like they were doing the workers a favour because apparently the redundant workers wanted the changes to go ahead and wanted the certainty of knowing the future as soon as possible. Yeah sure, I can just imagine them pleading: "please make us redundant just before Christmas!"

Management at the North Island freezing works, Silver Fern Farms Te Aroha, cut the pay of their workers after they stopped work to observe a two minute silence for the men killed in the Pike River Mine disaster. The request for the silence had been made by the prime minister. Classy! That really has to be the meanest, most despicable behaviour I've heard of for a long time. Sure, the money involved was minimal and I wouldn't be surprised if processing the change didn't cost more than any money saved. What idiots!

The CEO of New Zealand's state owned rail company, KiwiRail, won't even let his own company take on the work of building new engines and other rolling stock for a new Auckland line. He prefers to let the work go to China instead. The man's got real class! If he looked at the big picture instead of just a single number he would be able to make a more reasonable decision on this which looks to the future of the company and the country. Instead he pursued this simple-minded, short-sighted strategy. What a genius!

It seems to me that most managers follow simple-minded rules when they make decisions. Despite what they say, they don't see the big picture. And sure, I know being a manager isn't easy, but most jobs I know of aren't easy.

My job isn't easy either: I have to keep up with the latest technology, juggle my time to do multiple tasks simultaneously, try to provide good service to my clients despite management decisions which make that difficult, and work in multiple areas of the fastest moving profession (IT) on the planet. And I don't even get paid the big salaries the managers do!

So don't give me the sad story about how hard management is. I've seen managers at work and I wouldn't mind taking on the challenge of being one. It would be a lot easier than what I'm doing now. Except of course, I couldn't do that, for two reasons: first, I have too much professional pride and moral sense to become a manager; and second, I would have to work with other managers and attend meetings with them. I can't imagine anything worse!

So I would encourage workers to reject the idea that management are their friends and that the best and most professional approach is to cooperate with them. Sure, give your managers a chance and if they play fair then they deserve your respect and cooperation but also be prepared to treat them as the enemy because in so many cases that's exactly what they are!

The World is Changing

The world is changing. Actually the world has always changed - it is said that the only constant is change - but it's the rate of change which has become more significant recently. One of the greatest areas of recent change is in the media: for example we constantly hear about how the conventional media are dying because of the internet.

That is true to an extent. There's no reason why conventional media (newspapers, magazines, music publishers, movie studios, etc) should die because the new distribution systems offered by the internet should make their work easier, not more difficult. But it's the same old story: the traditional business people who control the conventional media know they have got a good system going (good in terms of maximum profit for minimum effort) and they don't want that to change. Why would they?

When we look back in history at groups like the Luddites their actions now seem ridiculous. But many of the big news companies and movie studios are no better today and the final outcome is no less certain.

A few recent news items have emphasised these ongoing changes. The two major TV news networks here in New Zealand have both laid off senior investigative journalists. It has become obvious recently that there's very little real investigation going on anyway, but this will just make things worse.

Radio is almost as bad. Even National Radio (in New Zealand) - the only station I know of aimed at people with intelligence and maturity greater than a 10 year old - lost one of its best interviewers recently.

Newspapers and magazines are a bit more varied. There is still some moderately good material in them but there's a lot of inaccurate, over-simplified, and biased material too.

Of course I'm not saying that the "new media" sources such as blogs, podcasts, and web based news sites are any better. Blogs are notorious for being biased (believe it or not I make a greater effort than most to look at all sides of an argument and to base my thoughts on facts rather than pure opinion) so things are possibly even worse from that perspective.

But the big advantage of the internet is the pure amount of material and how easily accessible it is. It is possible to look at practically any subject to almost any degree of detail you want. It's also possible to look at all sides of most subjects. Unfortunately it's really up to the person to do that and it is just away too easy to look at a subject very superficially or (even worse) look at it in detail but from only one biased perspective.

So critics of the internet who say that it provides simplified, lightweight treatment of news or only provides a biased and unrealistic perspective aren't really right. It is possible for anyone to get deep and balanced information on any subject but it's up to the individual to do that. Anyone who wants only minimal detail or who only wants to be informed (or misinformed) from just one perspective can get that easily by choosing which blogs to read, which web sites to visit, and which news sources to use.

Another trend which has become very obvious is the process of leaking information on the internet. Wikileaks is the most obvious example but now that organisation is splitting and Openleaks has been formed. And I saw today a leaks site in Indonesia, IndoLeaks, also exists although it couldn't be contacted when I tried.

It looks like leaks sites are proliferating now and surely that is a good thing. As I have said in previous podcasts, I think distribution of information is important, and information that the power elite want to hide is far more important than the stuff they want to tell us about. Conventional media can't perform this role as easily or as completely as informal or unofficial web based systems can, so that's another big change thanks to the internet.

I recently saw a survey showing that few younger people get their news through newspapers, TV, or radio any more. Some will say they don't get news at all: I recently asked some teenagers about their attitude to Wikileaks and they had never heard of it! Whether that change in sources is good or bad isn't the point though: the important point is that it's happening.

I still get some news from radio and if there's a newspaper handy I will flick through it but I don't trust TV news any more and I am suspicious of most other sources. I prefer to use the internet but I always make sure I get opinions from all sides and check against multiple sources. it's actually not that hard to do but so many people don't (or refuse to) do it.

The big message of this blog entry is this: people who are getting biased, irrelevant or shallow information from the internet are getting that because they either aren't making the effort to look at enough sources or consciously want to look at only one perspective (this might be because of a political or religious bias for example). No matter how good the source of information is someone will find a way to misuse it!

Religion Just Sucks

I often defend other religions against the attacks of Christian zealots. I try to point out that there is good and bad in every religion, including those closely associated with terrorism, and that it's unfair to criticise them based on specific incidents. But that's not really true. Religion is just indefensible. Sure, Christianity sucks and is a major force for evil in the world, but Islam is at least as bad, and after doing a bit of research I have found that other religions, such as Hinduism, are also basically evil. So religion is just embarrassing, and evil, and stupid, and outdated, and... hey, religion just sucks!

Yeah sure, you can point out some of the good things associated with religion. Some charities have religious connections, many churches provide a useful social focus for their members, and religion provides a fascinating history and mythology that we all should appreciate. But how does that stack up against the bad? Does the good really overcome the religiously motived murder, suicide attacks, wars, child abuse, intolerance of alternative lifestyles, opposition to scientific progress, and really just the embarrassing stupidity of religious belief?

I don't think so. In fact, I don't think it even comes close. Pointing out a few good points in anything doesn't automatically overcome the inherent evil associated with that same phenomenon. I am going to succumb to the temptation and be guilty of fulfilling Godwin's Law here. Yes, I can find good points in Naziism. In fact many of them would be similar to the good points I listed for churches above: it certainly created a sense of community for example. Sure that was based on fear in many cases but are you going to tell me that fear isn't one major factor keeping people in their religions?

You might think I'm being a hypocrite here. I criticise religious people for being intolerant but I demonstrate intolerance of religion myself. Mea culpa? I love that phrase which originates in the Catholic church of course. It was originally part of the confession - that evil tradition of invoking guilt the church uses to enslave its members - but in reality it's the church itself which should be using it: mea maxima culpa!

But I think my intolerance of religion is different. I don't criticise religion just because it follows a different philosophy from mine. I don't condemn it because I feel threatened by its power. I criticise it because it has a track record covering thousands of years which is overwhelmingly evil. Notice that I keep using that word which the church prefers to use to describe its real and imaginary opponents but really applies more to itself than anyone else!

There are three main defences religion commonly uses to evade criticism such as mine. The first is that religious people do bad things but not because of their religion, in fact if they followed the religion properly they would specifically not have done that thing. The second is that the people doing the bad things aren't religious because if they were they wouldn't be doing those things. And the third is non-religious people do things which are as bad as (or worse than) what religious people do.

Let's look at these defences in detail. Are the bad things religious people do never related to their religion? Is killing your daughter because she has contradicted your holy book by having a boy friend not religiously motivated? Is flying a plane into a building because of your antipathy to the politico-religious community it represents not religiously motivated? Is sexually abusing little boys because your church protects you from the consequences not connected with religion? Is burning someone alive, or stoning someone, or imprisoning someone for years, just because they differed on some minor point of interpretation of a religious text not primarily a religious act?

There are usually other factors involved as well because nothing is ever caused by just one thing. There may be social or political or psychiatric issues as well as religious ones but religion is the primary cause of many of the atrocities we see today. Religion is evil.

The defence that the people who do bad things aren't really religious doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. As I have shown above these acts are specifically caused by the way these people interpret a religious text or a tradition or the instructions of a religious leader. If the religion is sufficiently unclear that it can be interpreted as condoning that sort of behaviour then it must be held to blame. Saying religion can't be evil because if an evil act is committed it isn't religious is just circular logic - the sort of logic the religious use in many circumstances!

The third defence: that non-religious people do evil things too is also very weak. Even if it was true (which it isn't) that would mean non-religious people are no better or worse than the religious. I would ask what is the advantage of religion then? But it's not true anyway. How many people have used the "teachings" of atheism to blow people up because they disagree with them? How many atheists have beheaded their wife because she has some small point of difference in her world view? How many murders are caused by atheist doctrine? None. I agree that some atrocities have been done by people with no (obvious) religion but there acts were motivated by politics or other beliefs not by lack of belief in a religion.

Finally there's the point I have made before: religion is just stupid. It's an embarrassment to the human race. If our planet was visited by an advanced alien race and they saw people performing primitive religious rituals how would any sensible person feel? Embarrassed! If that same alien race examined our knowledge of science and philosophy and religion what would they think? Would they think the religious thought was created by children, or an ignorant tribe, or by people with mental retardation? They should because most religion is no better than the random murmurings of an idiot.

I have often criticised the pathetically naive beliefs of Christians in the past but I now must extend that to Islam as well. I listened to an interview with a devout Muslim recently and he was saying that after pointing out the scientific evidence supporting Islam most atheists are convinced. I doubt it. I've looked at that evidence and it's pathetic. There is nothing supporting the truth of Islam that I have ever seen. The evidence just doesn't exist.

The logical conclusion is that religion makes no sense and has an overwhelmingly negative influence on the world. The senior Christian cleric who said that atheists are less than human was wrong. Totally wrong. Seeking the truth, being tolerant where tolerance is deserved, and avoiding being forced into doing evil because of a totalitarian regime isn't less than human. Christians (and others) should examine their conscience and see who is really the most human amongst us!

iDevice Update

I like to occasionally update the status of my iDevices. I use that word to mean Apple's iPod, iPhone, and iPad, in other words the devices which run the iOS. So what's the latest? Well, since last time I posted a major status update I have updated my phone to an iPhone 4, various operating system updates have appeared, and many new apps have been created. So things have changed quite significantly really.

I was initially a bit worried about the iPhone 4 because of the reports of signal loss and the possible problems with the glass back breaking or being scratched. The signal issue is confusing because the cell network is so bad here anyway that it's hard to tell where problems are Apple's fault and where they are Vodafone's. Judging by the issues I see on other phones it seems that I get about the same number of problems on the iPhone 4 as I would expect on any other device so I primarily blame Vodafone for any problems I do experience.

I am amazed at how resistant to damage the new phone is. It stays in my pocket with no protection and it has been dropped from a moderate height twice. Not only has nothing broken but there are not even any signs of scratches: it's practically as good as new. Whatever glass material Apple is using it is certainly very resilient although apparently it does shatter if it lands at the wrong angle when dropped on a hard surface.

The biggest recent bonus is multitasking on the iPad. The recent release of iOS 4.2 for the iPad has finally given us that ability which has been absent for so long. As well as that we get an integrated email inbox, wireless printing (although very few printers are currently supported), wireless music through Airports to stereo systems, folders, and a few other features. The update went fine for me: all my apps still run and the device doesn't seemed to have slowed down, so it's a very worthwhile upgrade.

So that's the new hardware and the new operating system out of the way. What about new apps? What are my current favorites? I run apps on the two devices designed specifically for them (with a few exceptions) so the pad and the phone tend to do slightly different things. The pad is more for presenting information, typing up short documents, surfing the internet, and handling email. The phone is my mobile communications system: it does GPS, Facebook and Twitter updates, podcasts, and photos. Of course, most functions are available on both and I have my phone with me everywhere so it's really my "do everything" device. Oh, and there's games too of course, which are better on the pad because of the bigger screen but are also common on the phone.

Now to get to the major purpose of this blog entry: which apps are actually useful? I have 7 pages of apps on each device classified as Apple, general, utilities, reference, news and books, games, and simulations. Each page also has a folder with extra apps of the appropriate type which I use less often.

The apple bundled apps I use are calendar, camera, phone, messages, Mail, and Safari. There's nothing too unusual there. On the iPad I also have the iLife apps but I only use Pages regularly although Keynote and Numbers are solid, useful programs too. The other Apple app I use more than any other but often forget about is iPod because I listen to hours of podcasts most days.

What about general purpose programs are useful? Well heaps actually. There's Evernote, Facebook, Genius Scan, GoodReader, Tom Tom, PriceMe, Solar Walk, Starmap, and Tweetie; plus PCalc and Friendly (an alternative to Facebook) on the iPad.

I've talked about Evernote before. I use it for storage of notes and photos (often of text from newspapers, etc) for later reference. If I see something on paper I want to refer to later (for example to comment on in my blog) I take a photo and have Evernote sync it to my computer and iPad.

Facebook, Friendly, and Tweetie allow me to interact with Social networks. I also have Sociable which adds Digg, Flickr, and Redit support as well as Facebook and Twitter. The Facebook app on the iPhone is particularly nice: it makes posting photos really quick and easy.

One of the reasons I use the iPad a lot is to avoid paper. I'm aiming for a paperless office so I need a way to get the occasional piece of paper I do receive into an electronic form by taking a photo of it. In the past I have used Evernote but I now use Genius Scan because it has better tools for cropping photos and correcting perspective errors. Of course this only works on the phone since the current iPad doesn't have a camera.

GoodReader is a very useful program for displaying documents of various types. I use it mainly to store documentation and the notes I use for work. Even 3000 page PDFs like the PHP manual are easy to browse and search in GoodReader.

I recently bought one of the more expensive programs on the app store: the Tom Tom GPS app. It works really well on the iPhone (and on the iPad although it is an iPhone app) but it uses the Tom Tom UI. As far as standalone GPS user interfaces are concerned the Tom Tom is good but a real iPhone UI would be better still. It is nice the way it multitasks though. I can leave it in the background and use the phone for other things (such as listening to podcasts) and the GPS voice just interrupts when it needs to give me the next instruction. It does use up the battery fairly quickly though. I can listen to podcasts and get directions from the GPS for 5 or 6 hours though, which is actually quite impressive.

The average person probably doesn't need many utilities but as an IT consultant and programmer I have a few I find useful. Dropbox would be one of the more useful ones for many users because it allows easy transfer of files between different devices. Basic amounts of storage is free and extra storage is fairly cheap. Obviously the Mac (or PC) version needs to be installed on the computer as well.

If you are a technical person there is one program which is really useful. That is iSSH. It provides both SSH and VNC access to computers. SSH gives access to the terminal command line on the target computer which is really useful for monitoring and configuring systems. VNC let's the iPad or iPhone take control the screen of the target computer. While that is a little bit awkward because of the difference between the UI on a computer and an iDevice it's really just so cool that you can do it at all!

I have only covered the first three screens of apps on my devices so far but I think I will have to leave the rest for another blog entry. One more thing: this entry (and many others) was written in Pages on my iPad!

Logic 101

I have recently realised what's wrong with many people and why their skills at establishing the truth and debating are so poor. It's the lack of knowledge of the laws of logic. I don't mean the technical laws covering formal logic and Boolean algebra. It's more the informal logical fallacies people should be aware of - so that they can recognise them in other people's arguments, and more importantly avoid using them themselves.

I have no formal training in this area. As a computer programmer I understand the more technical part of logic, like how to evaluate equations involving logical operators such as conjunction and negation, but I have only picked up the informal stuff through my more recent interest in skepticism.

So let's go through some of the more common logical fallacies people use in their arguments and, just to make it all very clear, I'll provide some real examples from recent discussions I have been involved with.

The first is "begging the question" and closely related errors such as "circular reasoning" and "special pleading". When people argue this way they seek to prove an argument by assuming that it's already self-evidently true, or by using a particular point to re-establish that same point, or to insist that certain subjects deserve special treatment (maybe a lower standard of proof) than others. So here's an example...

God must exist because he is the first cause of everything in the universe and because the universe exists it proves there must have been a creator: god. He cannot be studied by science because he is beyond the ability of science to explain.

How many questions are begged in that little argument then? Well first there is the assertion that everything must be created. We are asked to accept that without further proof even though there is good reason to believe that certain phenomena actually do happen without a cause. Then there is the idea that god is beyond the ability of science to explain. Is he? How do we know this? How would we know the difference between a god which we cannot study and explain and one that doesn't exist at all?

Claiming god cannot be explained by science is also a form of special pleading. If a scientist wanted the world to accept a new theory of gravitation he would have to provide scientific evidence and experimental proof of that theory. But the argument above claims that we don't need to do that for god because he is beyond science. Effectively we resort to a faith based approach meaning the standard of proof is not only less than that needed for other phenomena, it is effectively zero!

How do we know which subjects require a high standard of proof and which can be given the special privilege of not requiring such a standard? Are unicorns and fairies also beyond science's ability to explain? I guess they must be since science has failed to find any evidence of their existence!

Finally there is a circular argument there. How do we know god created everything? Because he is the ultimate creator. How do we know that? Just look around and you will see his creation everywhere. So god is the creator because of his creation and his creation exists because he's the creator. A magnificently fatuous argument, isn't it?

When people become trapped inside a belief system they do tend to take things for granted which means that begging the question is easy. They make certain assumptions but they never really question why and they cannot understand when other people don't accept the same assumptions as they do. But what's the best way to stop ourselves from using the same logical errors? It's actually quite easy...

To tell whether your belief system makes sense and whether you have unfortunately succumbed to the (all too easy) error of indulging in one of the fallacies I mentioned above just substitute a similar subject into the statement and make sure it's something you don't have a particular attachment to.

For example, if you use the fallacies mentioned above to support a belief in god then try something like the following: the Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist because his followers believe he is the first cause of everything and if he didn't exist then nothing would exist. Because he is supernatural and exists in a different dimension to ours the FSM is beyond what science can prove.

None of what I have said is internally inconsistent but it relies on the same logical fallacies that I used in the original argument. I don't think many people would take the argument about the FSM very seriously yet they take a basically identical argument about more traditional gods seriously. They shouldn't. If it's necessary to indulge in arguments which have been rejected for several thousand years by the best philosophers and logicians then there's clearly something wrong. Effectively these people are saying "we believe this just because we want to". But if that's the truth then why can't they just be honest enough to admit it?

More Mumbo Jumbo

A friend of mine has a few medical issues which cannot be easily improved except through surgery. Naturally she is quite enthusiastic to find a less invasive solution so who could blame her for trying a few different possible remedies? In fact, there are many people in similar situations and it's an area where the market naturally provides many alternatives.

Except, of course, it doesn't. As you will know if you read this blog much, I have little faith in the market and again it has failed. The person I mentioned above heard about a new product which uses medical grade silicone wristbands (or pendant necklaces) embedded with a "treated hologram". This is supposed to cure almost anything that's wrong with you: hip problems, back and neck pain, etc; as well as just generally increasing energy and performance in sport.

The radio advertisement and web site provide several testimonials from people who said they noticed real improvements and immediately felt less energy as soon as the bracelet was removed. So if people said it worked for them then it must really work, mustn't it? I mean, you're not allowed to lie in advertising, are you?

Well there's lies and then there's lies. By the strictest standards almost all advertising is a lie, I guess. And this is certainly no exception. Maybe some of these people really do think this product works. Maybe some of them actually got better as a result of using it. But I can be almost 100% certain that it doesn't really "work", at least no better than a random chunk of plastic which the user thinks is imbued with some sort of magical, remedial power.

There are a couple of interesting psychological effects at work here. First there is the well-know placebo effect where, for many problems, people will feel better if they think they should feel better (real scientific studies indicate placebo works in 30 to 60 percent of cases for certain ailments). Then there's good old cognitive dissonance. The more people spend on a useless hunk of plastic the more likely they are to think it works because they subconsciously don't want to admit they have been sucked into paying a lot for something with no real value.

There is absolutely no credible mode of action through which this device could work. Here's the explanation from the web site: "The bands help you maintain peak performance by keeping your energies in balance. The special hologram on the bracelet helps to balance your energies. The people at power balance claim that almost everything has an energy field and that you and I are no different. They say that the hologram on the bracelet interacts with your energy fields to harmonise your field and ensure that you can give your maximum. The hologram is from the same material that is used to keep static electricity from damaging electrical components and is embedded with a special frequency to balance your body."

What complete and total drivel. The whole paragraph means nothing. It's just a meaningless pseudo-scientific jumble of fancy sounding words. There's no doubt at all that none of what is described there has any relevance in the real world. It's pure nonsense.

But, that aside, is it worth using something which doesn't really work if it actually does provide some effect even if it is only through the placebo effect? I don't know. If it helps my friend I suppose I'll be happy but I think it's far more likely that she will have spent NZ$90 (yes 90 dollars for a hunk of plastic probably worth a dollar or two) for nothing.

But what about all the testimonials? Quite simply, they're useless. Why do real medical researchers spend millions on real scientific studies instead of just going out and asking people about their experiences? Because personal stories and anecdotes are worse than useless, they are actually misleading. I can find people who can give personal anecdotes supporting anything. Yes, absolutely anything, including: alien abductions, reincarnation, flat Earth, ghosts, goblins, leprechauns, the Loch Ness monster, the list could go on for pages and would include stuff which is even less likely than what I have mentioned here.

Whether the company making this device have deluded themselves into thinking it actually works or whether they are just totally dishonest and are prepared to exploit unfortunate people with medical problems I'm not sure. Maybe they know it doesn't work but think the placebo effect justifies its use.

The web site says this: "Many people claim its [sic] merely the Placebo [sic] affect [sic] at full force. In my opinion whether its [sic] placebo or they [sic] actually work anything that gives you the edge is worthwhile". By making the price $90 it makes the placebo stronger of course because if it was only $5 no one would take it seriously! It's a tricky moral situation.

So (like almost every alternative remedy) this doesn't work but it might help through placebo and other effects, it's dishonestly marketed, it's overpriced, and it's potentially hazardous if people reject real interventions in favour of this. But it might still be worth a try! It's a strange old world, isn't it?

Wikileaks Revisited

I'm sorry to have to continue on the same topic as my last post, but I feel I have to say more about Wikileaks. The latest leaks have been widely condemned by conservatives, senior members of the US and some other governments, and people who just don't understand what the internet is all about. To me, this is one of the most important attributes of the internet: the ability for information to be widely distributed irrespective of the wishes of the rich and powerful.

It's just too easy to make the following comment but I'm going to anyway: if conservatives, senior politicians, big business, and diplomats don't like it then it's probably a good thing for the rest of us! Yes, the fact that people like the Clintons have condemned the leaks, the fact that nutty conservatives want Julian Assange assassinated, the fact that the FBI have put Assange on some sort of "hit list", the fact that every day people in power are scared of what the next revelation will be, are all good signs that Wikileaks is doing the right thing.

This seems to be another issue which is creating a great split in opinion. A Pew poll showed about a 50/50 opinion for and against the idea that the Afghanistan leaks (from earlier this year) serve the public interest. In the "geek community" a poll showed overwhelming support for what Wikileaks is doing (only 4% wanted the leaks to stop), although some partly disagreed with the way it was being done. A conservative site showed significant condemnation of the leaks. A more liberal site showed the opposite.

As I have said in previous posts, it seems that the world is becoming more polarised. Some conservatives are becoming so conservative that they are verging on insanity. In some ways liberals are also becoming more extreme. Scientists are getting motivated about making the public aware of the facts on controversial issues such as climate change. The new atheists are attacking religious belief. No doubt the extreme reactions on each side are feeding the extreme reactions on the other.

Of course, I tend to support the liberals and I would say that the "extremists" on that side are only reacting to the outrageous lies the conservatives are indulging in. However, whatever the cause, the huge gulf between the irrational and rational groups in society is a problem.

Look at the issues: conservatives tend to reject scientific facts, like global warming, even though it's completely unjustifiable to do so (it's irrational not to act even though there is still some uncertainty). Conservatives believe their religion is the only one with any merit while liberals increasingly reject religion completely or accept them all equally. Conservatives think that interventionist and hard line military, economic, and political actions are justified while liberals tend to question these.

None of that is fundamentally different from what the world has always been like but I think the dichotomy of opinion is more extreme now and the consequences are more significant.

For example, if enough conservative nutters reject global warming and refuse to deal with it (as seems to be the case) then everyone will suffer. Unfortunately the moderates have to share the planet with the extremists. It seems unlikely that there is going to be anything done about climate change (although that's not just because of conservative nutters but also because of corporate and national greed and thoughtlessness.)

Here's another example: religious extremists hinder scientific advances (such as stem cell research) which means everyone suffers because of lack of new treatments. Why should they force their superstitions on society in general and cause everyone to suffer?

I've moved away from the Wikileaks issue now but I think these topics are connected. Irrational groups by definition can't be influenced by rational discussion (if they could they wouldn't be irrational to start with) but the majority of the population is in a sort of "undecided" category. If the facts can be made more visible to this group through sources such as Wikileaks then that has to be good in the long term.

The world has to change. We currently have a totally unsustainable system in place. The only way it will change is if the existing system's failures can be brought to the attention of the public. Wikileaks, and the internet in general, are the best hope we have of actually achieving this aim.

Wikileaks Strikes Again!

The latest release of confidential information from Wikileaks seems to have created a significant stir amongst certain American leaders and some other sectors in society. We are already seeing the demands to shut down Wikileaks and prosecute its staff, especially Julian Assange. And we have heard the usual tiresome claims that this will lead to the endangerment of innocent lives which is ironic when the death toll from official American foreign policy is taken into account! And the demands to make Wikileaks a terrorist organisation are just pathetic: telling the truth makes something a terrorist organization? Maybe we need more terrorists then!

Calling the leaks reckless and dangerous is partly true, but I think they are a lot less reckless and dangerous than the official government actions they describe. Also, not making these devious, behind the scenes deals public is perhaps even more reckless and dangerous.

Hillary Clinton has condemned the leaks but of course she would do that, no matter what the bigger moral factors might be. When the people in power get that uncomfortable it's not necessarily a bad thing. How can there be accountability of senior politician's actions if we don't know what they're doing?

In previous blog entries about Wikileaks I have said that I was ambivalent about my support for it. Freedom of information is important but, contrary to that, unrestrained distribution of sensitive material can lead to significant problems. Currently I think my support for Wikileaks is increasing because I think the claims of negative consequences of its actions have been shown to be exaggerated and the positive aspects of useful political information being made public outweigh the imagined or real problems.

But some people will say these are private discussions and they might point out how I have defended the right to privacy in the past. Am I being inconsistent or even (gasp) hypocritical?

I don't think so. The difference is we are talking about discussions carried out by government figures who are not only acting on behalf of the people of the countries they represent but are also ultimately paid by those same people. If the taxpayer is paying someone to negotiate the future safety and prosperity of the world then surely they have the right to know what's actually being discussed.

And I think it extends to citizens of countries outside the US as well. The US is the only world superpower currently and that position carries some responsibility, including the responsibility of openness and accountability to the world as a whole.

I would further extend this to the private sector. Large corporations also have a responsibility to make their actions transparent. Some large corporations have more influence on the world than small countries so I would also support the leaking of information on possible dirty deals they might be involved in. It's just too easy to claim "commercial sensitivity" as an excuse for not releasing information which is inconvenient. I think the safety of the world - whether that's political, environmental, or social - outweighs the company's right to privacy.

The actual contents of most of the leaked cables so far aren't that surprising. They just confirm what many people already suspected, although some messages are interesting, such as the Saudi's demand for the US to attack Iran which is rather alarming! And the US - our presumed ally - spying on our previous prime minister is also rather intriguing!

Edward Abbey said "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." If that's true (and surely it is) then Wikileaks is not a traitorous organisation, it's a patriotic one!

Intellectual Ghettos

Sometimes I become very depressed when I consider the way the modern world works. Yeah sure, I know that in many ways the world today is so much better than it was 50 or 100 years in the past, but in other ways I don't like the way it is heading. Listening to commentators who share this negative view (or even have a far more extreme form of negativity than me) makes things worse of course. But it's hard not to conclude that they have very valid points and that that there is no way to deny that they are essentially correct.

A recent podcast I listened to made some points related to the topic, some of which I agreed with and others which I thought went too far. But the overall conclusion was that the world (and the US and a lot of other western countries in particular) is heading in the wrong direction entirely. One phrase the presenter used particularly resonated with me: he said many groups in society are heading into "intellectual ghettos".

His main reason for this pessimism was the way people source their information. He claimed the mainstream media are all controlled by big business and this causes them to be both biased towards a business oriented worldview and to be primarily interested in creating popular lightweight stories instead of concentrating on the real news.

Of course today there are worthwhile alternatives to traditional media provided by the internet. But he claims that the internet provides even more biased information, although at least all views and philosophies are represented there, and that information from the 'net tends to be even more condensed and superficial than that from the mainstream.

That's where I partly disagree. I do agree that there are internet sources which will support any worldview and that by carefully selecting sources a person can make anything look authentic. But I think the internet is potentially the greatest source of both wide and deep information we have ever had.

By wide I mean it makes all subjects easily available. For example, I had no interest in philosophy and history before I started listening to some excellent podcasts on those subjects. Sure, I could have read books about those topics but I don't have time to read much and it's difficult to find the best source of traditional books as well. On the internet material is easy to source through discussion forums, recommendation systems, and ratings. So my knowledge, post internet, is much wider than it ever was before, and I can pursue subjects I consider most important to a greater depth as well.

I do fully agree that, because of the vast range of material, and because of the way communities tend to cluster around material with a particular perspective, it's easy to live in a world of total delusion thanks to the internet. I know people who only visit right wing political forums for example, or whose entire knowledge of "science" comes from creationist web sites. But that's the fault of the person, not the medium, and could also happen with traditional sources. For example, a friend of mine has an extensive library consisting of nothing but creationist propaganda, so he's just as deluded because of printed material as he is through electronic sources!

That was where the presenter used the words "intellectual ghetto". That's what he calls the worlds of religious, political, and social self delusion that many people create for themselves. And the world does seem to be becoming more polarised. Look at politics in the US for example. The conservative Christian right is very strong there, and the extreme conservative pseudo-libertarianism of the "Tea Party" has gained a lot of influence. And internationally extreme forms of religion, especially Islam, have become a real concern. These people all clearly live in intellectual ghettos.

There's an old saying in the skeptical movement which I think sums things up well. It's that you can't reason with a creationist (although that could also be applied to believers in any extreme view) because if they could be reasoned with they wouldn't be creationists! In other words, these people abandoned reason when they decided to live in the intellectual ghetto.

To identify someone living in these ghettos look at their attitude to intellectuals. Creationists think scientists are all intent on misleading the world to advance their own "religion" of "Darwinism". Global warming deniers think climate scientists are colluding on deceiving the world to protect their sources of funding. And the far right think any slight deviation from their extreme views is an act of "socialism" (and as we all know, socialism is the most evil thing ever!)

So all of these people are anti-intellectual. They would rather believe some nutcase with no knowledge or experience in climate science than the vast majority of experts in the field. They would rather believe that following the same right wing politics which caused the wars, economic depression, environmental crises, and other problems we now face, will solve our problems than following more moderate ideas will. And they would rather believe that the science which has given us almost everything of any worth we have today is wrong and that a few religiously motivated freaks are right.

There's no hope really, is there. If people can be so obviously wrong yet be so convinced they are right then what hope do we have? Democracy gives everyone the power to control the future of the world but that is no guarantee we will get a good outcome. When the majority of people in the US for example don't believe in one of the greatest theories science has, don't know whether the Earth orbits the Sun or not, and think any attempt to improve the obviously horrendous health system is tantamount to the introduction of communism then they really don't deserve the vote!

It's tempting just to let people live in the intellectual ghettos they create for themselves but it's not that easy. The rational world isn't completely isolated from the irrational one: the biggest idiot has the same power to vote as the best scientist; people who believe in pathetic religious dogma can embark on religiously motivated campaigns of violence; and cheap, populist political campaigns can have greater influence than less approachable but fact-based politics.

Yes, maybe it is hopeless.

Free Rein

I listen to a few podcasts, radio shows, and other media sources on the subject of the history of science. History has never been much of a priority for me but as I listen to more it has become quite interesting: not just the history of science but of everything else as well.

One of the best history podcasts is produced by the BBC and is called "A History of the World in 100 Objects". It uses objects from the British Museum to explain various periods from history and how the object relates to the politics, religion, science, art, and culture of the period. Another podcast which I have just started listening to is also from the BBC (most of the best podcasts do seem to come from them) and is called "A Brief History of Mathematics".

The second episode of this podcast dealt with the famous (actually legendary would be closer) mathematician Leonard Euler. He was a real mathematical genius and contributed to so many areas of maths that it's almost impossible to believe. I can remember when I did computer science we used Euler diagrams which were a method he created to solve a particular type of problem. But even this, which has become a really important technique in modern science, was just an amusement to him at the time: something he created to solve a popular puzzle at the time called the "Konigsberg Bridge Problem".

He moved to a university and changed departments without anyone really noticing. He worked on various theoretical problems without having to justify a practical outcome. He turned practical problems into theoretical, mathematical ones (not always successfully). In other words, he just followed whatever whim seemed appropriate to him at the time. There was no accountability. There was no guidance from management. There was no requirement to justify his own existence. And he created modern maths, the most useful tool the human race has ever invented.

I work in a university and I see the vast amount of meaningless bureaucracy, the unnecessary accounting requirements, and the worthless trivia that researchers have to cope with. I'm not saying that every researcher would turn into a genius and become another Euler if they were given free rein to pursue whatever type of research they wanted but I do believe that the repressive accountability is entirely counter-productive.

Accountants, managers, and lawyers seem to see things in entirely negative terms. They seem to be good at making things not happen, at finding reasons why something isn't possible (usually for administrative or financial reasons). If people like Euler had been held back by this inconsequential trivialities then the world would not have progressed in the way it has.

I'm not saying that all accountants, managers, and lawyers should be dispensed with (although a mass execution of that segment of society has some merit) but they should be kept away from people doing worthwhile things. Let them add up their meaningless numbers, have their silly meetings, or argue about their frivolous laws, but go and do it somewhere where it won't get in the way of those making real progress!

Worst Idea Ever

Honestly, originally I really did think that the current New Zealand government was OK and that it looked like the Prime Minister, John Key, was OK too. Look back in my blog when they first came into power and you will see cautious approval and optimism. But things have just been getting worse and worse ever since and now the PM has come up with the worst idea ever!

Johnny (Einstein) Key wants to create a financial services hub here in New Zealand! Really? Why not set up an international drug trade center or a weapons trading empire of some sort? I think those "industries" are more trustworthy and acceptable than financial trading at the moment! Of all the ridiculous, small minded, half witted ideas this government has dreamt up this has surely got to be the worst!

The unethical, incompetent scum in charge of various financial services around the world have already just about destroyed half the world's economy. Do we really want that sort of person setting up here? And what would be their motivation to come here anyway? Would it be that NZ is a great country that deserves their support, or would it be that we have great expertise here they want to encourage?

No, it would be that we're cheap. Rent is cheap here. Pay rates are low here. And the government would most likely offer various tax incentives to the last people in the world who need them. Didn't they learn after being sucked in by Warner Brothers over the filming of the Hobbit? Apparently not, because people who have no common sense and are primarily motived by ideology never learn.

I ranted about a similar subject in a blog entry titled "race to the bottom" a few weeks ago. When will this government learn that you can't improve services by cutting funding, you can't increase the standard of living by cutting wages, you can't stimulate the economy by not spending, you can't help the poor by increasing their expenses, and you can't create a balanced, fair, attractive economy by inviting the most immoral parasites on the planet to set up shop here.

The report hasn't been fully released yet so the details are unknown but there are some ideas which are just so stupid, so ridiculous, and just so corrupt, that they really shouldn't even be considered under any circumstances. This is surely one of them. I know it's your little pet project John but please just forget about this one, OK?

Unethical?

Are the huge salaries being paid to business leaders unethical? That question has arisen recently after it was revealed that the CEO of Westpac bank, George Frazis, is paid NZ$5.5 million per year. There is some debate around the composition of this payment but whatever the details many people seem to think it's excessive.

Clearly it really is excessive and it would be obscene under any circumstances, but in the current situation where most people are getting minimal pay increases, the economy is in a depressed state (thanks to incompetent and immoral actions of bank executives), and the government is refusing to give important sectors of the community (teachers and radiographers for example) a pay increase, it seems particularly inappropriate.

Of course I don't really blame Frazis himself, or even the board who authorised the payment. Clearly the problem is far more basic than that. The system which hands out vast amounts to senior executives and can't find enough to properly fund health, education, and research is what's really at fault so, like almost every problem the world faces, it really gets back to the failings of capitalism itself.

If this Frazis clown wants to "steal" vast amounts of money while providing a fairly mediocre service at no real risk (while receiving this salary his bank is underwritten by the New Zealand taxpayer - how corrupt is that!) then who can blame him?

Corrupt people have stolen money throughout history and we don't accuse them of being unethical... Hang on a minute, yes we do!

But I think the general population is starting to catch on to the immorality of modern corporate management too. Other immoral characters include highly paid executives like Telecom chief executive Paul Reynolds (an incompetent leader whose company has been a provider of very average, over-priced, and anti-competitive services for may years) and Fonterra boss Andrew Ferrier (a real scumbag who doesn't care about pollution back here in New Zealand as long as his company exploits the global market for milk). It almost seems that to be a successful CEO you must adhere to an immoral personal philosophy!

Again, I must emphasise that it's the system which is at fault. Capitalism encourages unethical, greedy cheats and liars to take charge so it should be no surprise that that's what we get. And unless a CEO does adopt these personal attributes he (or sometimes she because women are just as bad in these positions) cannot compete with those who do.

So people are beginning to see that unethical behaviour is unacceptable and if they also realise that the system is at fault they might see that the real response should be to change the system rather than criticise those who exploit it. Maybe there is hope that the power of corporations can be reduced. Maybe there is hope that money can be diverted into more meaningful areas. And maybe there is hope that the people who make real contributions to society, and not those who have developed the skill of extracting the maximum personal gain, are the ones we should be supporting.

Maybe I'm being unrealistic but at least I am being ethical!

Rational Morality

I recently listened to a discussion on the topic of whether science can be a source of morality. In fact it went beyond that to more general subjects involving science, religion and moral philosophy. The participants were impressive: no less than Lawrence Krauss (foundation professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration, a professor in the physics department, and director of the Origins Project in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University), Simon Blackburn (Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge's Faculty of Philosophy, and Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina), Sam Harris (neuroscientist, non-fiction writer, and CEO of Project Reason), and Steven Pinker (Harvard College Professor, and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University).

So yes, these people have a few clues on the subject and the discussion was really fascinating. Sam Harris, as expected, had the most extreme ideas which clearly went beyond what the others were prepared to say, but I think he had some good points and I agree with just about everything he said. Of course Harris and I share a dislike of religion and I think we both believe it has no real place in modern society.

There was a discussion of the embryonic stem cell issue in the USA. There was the suggestion that there are two sides: on one side scientific facts, and on the other morals. But the morals in question weren't really morals; they were religious dogma, superstition, and ignorance. So the argument isn't really about morality at all, it's really about facts versus superstition. If anything other than religion had been the basis of that so-called "morality" it would have immediately been discredited but, as is often the case, religion gets special treatment even though it clearly doesn't deserve any.

The next question was can science influence values? Clearly it can and it has done in the past and continues to do so. Values change with time (which is an interesting point for those who claim they are based on the wishes of a god) and science is the major force of change in our society (there is debate on that point but I think many people would agree). So obviously science influences values and what is morality except a higher and more fundamental form of values?

Here's a good old question which has been around a while: where does faith come in science? Does science rely on faith? Many believers seem to think so and even Harris says it requires the presumption that the world is accessible to experiment (in other words what we objectively experience is real). But that's not really faith. I prefer to use the word "confidence" in those situations. Science has confidence that its methodology works because it has been an outstanding success for hundreds of years. Religion has faith that its doctrines are true despite all the evidence to the contrary. There is a big difference and anyone who equates the two concepts is either being deliberately misleading or is confused about the distinction.

All reasonable people agree that religion has nothing really to say on matters of fact, apart from a few stories based on actual history, but that doesn't mean that it can't be an important source of morality, does it? Well I guess not but I would rate it at best as no better than many other sources: pop culture, fiction, and common sense, for example. And I would rate it greatly below more credible sources such as philosophy and science. After all, how can a belief system so obviously based on untrue myths be taken seriously on any topic?

Another discussion involved whether beliefs, opinions and attitudes can be changed by scientific facts. Many people would be rather pessimistic about this, especially when statistics indicate a large percentage of Americans believe in self evidently ridiculous ideas such as creationism. But it was pointed out that attitudes have changed greatly, especially since the Enlightenment. There was some discussion about whether this was because of science or because of new cultural and philosophical ideas such as empiricism but this is just an argument over definitions, especially since empiricism is such a fundamental component of science.

So change can and will happen but it will take time. It's often through new generations taking on new ideas rather than existing believers having their minds changed that major revisions in belief happen. That's why the creationists are so desperate to have their lies taught in schools, and why many scientific organisations are fighting it.

But despite the absurd and rather surprising level of belief in Christian mythology in the US those ideas are dying. However high the numbers of believers in the US today they aren't as great as they were in the past and in other countries religion is only a minority belief and most of the believers don't take fundamentalism seriously anyway (I do concede that the obvious rise in extreme Islamic fundamentalism is contrary to this trend).

Harris says that science impacts o religion because it demonstrates the way the world really works. Even the Vatican has been forced to accept the truth science has shown although it seems to be contrary to Catholic dogma. Of course they have just retreated to slightly less extreme forms of superstition instead: evolution is real but it is guided by God. If they really believe that they must think their god is a real idiot because his use of evolution (99% of species becoming extinct, extremely poor design of various organs, etc) sure looks arbitrary to me!

Harris denies that the opposite happens: that religion affects science. I don't know whether that is strictly true but it might as well be. Have a look back at the history of human knowledge: there have been a huge number of religious beliefs which have been replaced with scientific alternatives but has there been a single scientific theory which has been replaced with a religious dogma or belief? There have been none that I can think of, so religion doesn't affect science that way. Maybe more to the point, religion doesn't affect truth!

I do agree that religion does affect science through other means such as society, politics, and culture, but these are peripheral issues to the fundamental purpose of science which is to establish the objective truth.

So in summary I would say that science can, and does, affect morality. It's not the only source of moral information and religion has a clear role there too, but only because religion has subsumed some philosophy (such as the golden rule) and has established some rules through simple common sense. Unfortunately religion also contributes silly rules intended to maintain the power of the church. So if religion's input to morality disappeared we would be better off but I don't think we could say the same for science.

Whatever some people think about the morality of the current generation I think the facts speak for themselves: overall people do have better lives, most of them are more free from political and religious oppression, and generally people treat each other better now than in the past. As the world gets less religious it gets better. That must be more than a simple coincidence!

George and Bill

Two of the greatest villains of recent years for many people would be George Bush and Bill Gates: Bush because of his extreme political conservatism and because he started two wars, and Gates because he created a company which has held back the computer industry for years and which regularly uses dirty business tactics.

Of course there are many people who would disagree with these two appraisals but in the past I have never been much of a fan of either of those two famous figures. But now, although I still can't forgive either of them for their obvious and significant transgressions, I have a more moderate attitude to them.

I recently listened to some commentary and interviews about Bush's book which was recently released. His behaviour does seem to make sense when understood in the context of his own belief system and world view. So he really can't be accused of being evil, just misguided.

For example, he has a point that it might be justifiable to use torture to extract information which results in the prevention of terrorist activities which potentially lead to to the death of innocent civilians. Maybe the end does justify the means. Certainly Bush seems to think so in some cases although I don't know whether he would support the idea in general.

A similar idea applies to Gates. I personally have never seen a Microsoft product I like and I think, despite its propaganda to the contrary, Microsoft has had more to do with suppressing innovation rather than encouraging it, but I do have to admire Gates' attitude since he left Microsoft.

Bill and his wife Melinda were the subject of a TV current affairs program I watched last night and it showed them giving away billions. And he's not just throwing it at high profile or popular causes - he's really thinking about where the money will be most useful. I admit I am impressed. Again I have to temper this praise with the observation that he never really deserved the wealth he now has.

It's so easy to stereotype people and judge them based on one aspect of their personality or on one action with which you might or might not agree, but the world is always more complex than that and there is good and bad in everyone. So there's hope for every person and organisation - who knows, one day Microsoft might even make a good product!

Carl Sagan Day

The first message my computer calendar system presented to me this morning was that it's Carl Sagan Day. Sagan was a scientist who popularised science, especially through his TV series "Cosmos". Today is the 76th anniversary if his birth and it has been celebrated for the grand total of two years now, and mainly by science geeks. So yes, Sagan Day isn't exactly the most famous day on the calendar for most people but he has near legendary status amongst people with an interest in science.

I can remember watching the Cosmos series myself, many years ago, and how it affected me because of its great balance of hard science and near poetic commentary by Sagan. He really did have a great way of making science accessible while emphasising the grandeur and mystery of the universe.

Sagan had some very perceptive an clever quotes and I would like to mention a few of them here, and offer my commentary on them, of course!

Perhaps this one captures his sense of wonder best: "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." Yes, that one sums up the way all science enthusiasts really think. We find discoveries about the origin of the universe far more satisfying than petty gossip about the latest movie star, or the financial state of a company which makes soft drinks, or who won the latest game of rugby (well maybe that one does deserve some respect!) or most of the other nonsense the majority of people think is news. In a years time the origin of the universe will still be a source of wonder, but who will really care about the others?

Some Sagan quotes put human activities in a realistic perspective. For example: "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." Yes, as far as the universe is concerned the existence of humanity is irrelevant, contrary to the opinions of many religious people.

And there's this: "Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people." Again this is contrary to many religious views but as time goes by we seem to become less significant. First we found our star was just one in a vast galaxy, then that the galaxy was just one in a vast universe, now it looks like our entire universe might just be one in a vast (maybe infinite) multiverse.

But he recognised (as do all true skeptics and science devotees) that the truth was the only thing that really matters, not matter how much nicer fantasy is. This quote expresses that well: "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Judging by how many people deny evolution, global warming, and other inconvenient truths, many people prefer the fantasy.

As well as being a lover of science Sagan was a real skeptic (one of the reasons we do admire him so much). Here's a few quotes which show that aspect well: "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." But he recognised that simple adherence to facts and well recognised processes wasn't enough: "Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it we go nowhere."

Like many of us Sagan was concerned about the ignorance of many people towards the things that actually matter. He said: "Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works" and "We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."

Maybe he had seen the results of surveys showing extreme ignorance of the most basic scientific ideas. But he also encountered it himself: "I can find in my undergraduate classes, bright students who do not know that the stars rise and set at night, or even that the Sun is a star." But that might be because science education is so poor (especially in the US) that it's almost worse than nothing: "I am often amazed at how much more capability and enthusiasm for science there is among elementary school youngsters than among college students."

Sagan died 14 years ago and there has been some debate about whether there is anyone who could replace him today. There are a few scientists starting to achieve cult status around the world and many of them have a similar attitude encompassing both wonder and skepticism (Richard Dawkins would be an obvious example) but I don't think any of them would really claim to be in Sagan's league, especially because he was a populariser of science when that wasn't considered a worthwhile activity by many of his colleagues. Also the seeming lack of resolve to produce science programs today makes another "Cosmos" seem unlikely.

That's unfortunate, because as Sagan said: "When you make the finding yourself - even if you're the last person on Earth to see the light - you'll never forget it."

Perceptive Comments

One problem I have seen with people who have an extreme political view is that they see everything as very much black and white. My main political opponent just rules out any possibility at all that what he calls parties of the left (Labour and the Greens in the case of New Zealand) can have any validity or relevance at all. I take a more measured approach. I generally disagree with the right's overall approach by I do agree they have some good policies. Of course, my opponent uses that reasonable approach as a weakness and says something like: of couse the right have good policies, even you see that, but the left have none.

Of course, he's totally wrong. For a start the NZ Labour Party is centrist more than left oriented (although that is now changing) and to adhere to a simplistic idea that everything a party does is bad is just self-delusional (and that's usually the main problem my opponents have - they're just not really concerned with what's true).

That introduction was necessary because of what I'm going to say in the rest of this post. I want to make it clear that by agreeing with a party's ideas I don't necessarily fully support that party or intend to vote for them. The party in question is New Zealand First. They are primarily a populist party but despite that I have always seen some merit in their policies. There were a few in particular which I found appealing in a recent speech so I want to mention a few of them here...

NZ First's leader (he really is the party) criticised previous National and Labour governments for following the "same half-baked economic theories based on a discredited, free-market ideology". I totally agree. The free market has been a miserable failure. I'm not saying we should discourage markets and private companies where they are appropriate but they really can't be allowed into critical areas like infrastructure, energy, and transport.

I'm hoping they can be eradicated from communications as well because Telecom has just been appalling in its corrupt and incompetent mismanagement since its privatisation by the ideological driven 1984 Labour government when it was sold for far less than what what was worth.

He also commented on the debacle of the foreshore and seabed legislation which has turned into an ongoing source of resentment for many New Zealanders. On the other hand, I guess the fact that neither side of the issue likes the current solution might mean that at least it is fair because I have heard it said that the fairest solutions make everyone unhappy!

There was also mention of the "great Hobbit debacle". I have already mentioned how I think the government was fooled into giving the big movie corporation tens of millions of dollars worth of corporate welfare in a previous post and I have heard since then that overseas commentators never took the threat of making the movies anywhere else seriously and this reinforces my idea that the government has been totally played for a sucker on this issue.

Peters also noted something that has become obvious recently. That is that, in the past, Labour has drifted away from its left-oriented principles but is now heading back that way. In fact politics in general is heading towards the left which has got to be a good thing after so many years of the unsubstantiated assumption that the new right style of economics was the only option. He described it like this: "Now, in a blinding flash of illumination, Labour have decided they really are a workers' party after all. And they've done almost as much as National to grind ordinary people's faces into the mud of despair."

Yes, Peters can be very perceptive and although there are some things he says I which I totally disagree with that doesn't stop me recognising the good as well.

Inconspicuous

What's the best thing about the iPad? Some people would say it's that it's a cool, flashy device that owners want to show everyone, but I would say the opposite is true: the best thing about the iPad is how it blends into the background and how people often don't notice that it's there.

Some iPad users have reported taking them to meetings for reference and for taking notes (and maybe for entertainment purposes if the meeting got too boring) because they don't get in the way like a laptop does. I don't go to meetings so I cannot comment on this but it seems to make sense.

I was in a similar situation recently. It was at the end of year awards evening for my son and daughter's school. This is generally a tedious event which seems to go on forever (two and a half hours in this case) and any form of distraction is welcome. It would be seen as rather rude to pull out a laptop but the iPad was barely noticed by anyone else in the audience.

I posted a tweet, wrote a few blog comments, checked my Facebook status, and remembered some fun holidays by flicking through some photos. Then I fired up an astronomy app to check if there was anything good in the sky that night. As I said, it was easy and inconspicuous, especially because the iPad keyboard makes no sound while the user is typing. And even in that situation the iPad is just so easy and intuitive to use. Operating it is just second nature and barely requires any conscious thought after a while.

So the time went quite quickly and I got some useful things done in what would usually be unproductive time.

Often a new gadget enjoys an initial burst of intense use but that gradually fades as it becomes less of a novelty, but the iPad isn't just a cool toy, it's also a useful tool, so I still use it almost as much as I did when I first got it.

It's obviously permeating into general culture too because I see iPads on tv and other media being used with no commentary that there's anything unusual happening. Again it's just there getting things done. It stands out because it's inconspicuous!

Race to the Bottom

I'm getting pretty sick of the government we currently have here in New Zealand. When they were first elected I was actually fairly positive about them. I really was - check back through my blog and you will see it's true! But now they just seem to be getting worse and worse and indulging in more typical conservative right wing actions.

The latest, of course, is this shambles involving the making of the movie "The Hobbit". The prime minister personally negotiated with a team from the movie studio and finally managed to persuade them to make the movie here. But it's cost the country tens of millions, plus some sort of dodgy deal regarding employment law, and a clear signal that New Zealand is prepared to back down if enough money is involved.

It's disgusting. New Zealand has had a proud reputation of standing up to bullies in the past but now we seem to take orders from people like Warners and the hideous Peter Jackson. What happened to our brave stand against US arrogance when we refused to allow them to bring potentially nuclear powered ships into our ports? Back then we had some pride and morality. Now that seems to take secondary importance to making a few bucks.

In fact it doesn't even look like New Zealand will come out ahead on the deal anyway because the tax and marketing hand outs (and it is just corporate welfare) our government has agreed to will probably add up to more than any income coming back to the film industry.

But shouldn't the PM be applauded for making this deal which has brought work for the people in our film industry? Not really. First, there is the theory that Warners were always going to make the movie here and have just made the threat to leave so they could get better control of negotiations. It's hard to say whether that is true or not but it seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Second there is the morality of the situation. Should the leader of our country be making cheap deals like this anyway? It's really quite embarrassing, especially when he was obviously outwitted by the scumbags Warners sent over. And it doesn't do out country's reputation much good. Anyone seeing the movie will be reminded about how low New Zealand has sunk rather than what a great tourist destination it is.

Finally there is the message the deal sends. An employment lawyer interviewed on the topic put it rather well when he called it a "race to the bottom". Instead of New Zealand being a good place to make movies because of the expertise available here, or the scenery, or anything else, it's because we're cheap. Just like a third world or ex-Soviet country. Thanks a lot Mr Key. Just what we need!

OK, I agree the unions have made a mistake and have been out-maneuvered on all fronts during this debacle. But I think their rather ill-considered actions have just been used as an excuse by both the movie studio and the government to drive down already poor conditions here.

Sure we might have go the Hobbit movie but I think if we look at the big picture this will be just another ignorant and unimaginative move by a government with no real ideas at all.

Maori Hobbit Relationships

Today was another day where various interesting issues were being discussed around the country (New Zealand in my case). They ranged from the future of the Maori language, to whether we want to produce the movie "The Hobbit" here, to what sort of relationships are appropriate between university staff and students. So let's get started...

The Maori language has been a source of anguish for many years now. For those who support it the concern has originated from its diminishing use and lessening relevance and for many others the distress has originated from politically motivated attempts at making people use it more.

The leader of the Maori party is concerned that, despite the fact that there are numerous programs designed to encourage its use, the language is dying out as one which is used as an important means of communication and has become something which is used more by non-Maori as a source of short phases and the occasional word or two. In other words people are happy to learn "kia ora" as a greeting but often don't know much beyond that!

I'm not being critical of people who don't use it because I have no interest in it myself. In fact, often when people greet me with "kia ora" I reply with "bonjour"! There's nothing wrong with learning Maori but it's just not something I have the time or inclination to be involved with and I suspect a lot of other people who are forced into using Maori phrases by policy would agree.

So Maori is dying and successive governments putting it on "life support" isn't likely to change that. In my opinion we would be better to let nature take its course and allow a language with little relevance in the modern world to naturally merge into New Zealand English. I would like to see some Maori being a natural part of our local dialect of English and I think that if the stigma of political correctness was removed from it a lot more people would be happy to cooperate.

So what about The Hobbit? The Lord of the Rings was filmed in New Zealand of course, and it has done a lot for our local movie industry as well as increasing the country's profile overseas. So clearly filming quality, high budget movies here is a good thing in many ways.

But how far should we go to encourage huge foreign companies to work here? Should we be prepared to offer favourable work regulations for the big companies, should we offer them tax incentives, how far should we go to make them welcome?

Considering that incentives are generally disapproved of by so many people now, especially those of the political right, it's ironic that they are being so seriously considered in this case. Why should one industry or even one part of that industry get favourable treatment? Doesn't this create (gasp! oh the evil of it!) an uneven playing field?

And should a huge overseas company refuse to negotiate with local technicians and actors regarding pay and conditions? Of course not. Playing political games is totally inappropriate and Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself for treating his fellow New Zealanders this way. Maybe success and excessive exposure to Hollywood has made him forget about the traditional New Zealand attributes of fairness and tolerance.

It seems to me that the whole sorry situation is a deliberate ploy by the production company to get the best possible deal from New Zealand's workers and government (who are already talking about changing employment regulations). It's a pretty dirty way of working and the unions have unfortunately been rather cleverly manipulated into making themselves look like the bad guys.

Finally relationships between staff and students of universities. Although I work in a university that wasn't the motivation for writing this. It was more about the more general subject of what rights an employer should have to control its employees. Even if two people are both part of an organisation in different roles I can't see how that organisation has any right to say what they do in their own time.

The specific event which lead to this case was a relationship between a lecturer and a student but that wasn't the problem. The problem was that the lecturer was a homicidal lunatic and needed psychiatric help. The problem was also that his violent behaviour was ignored and he didn't get that help until the worst happened. Maybe the university should have a policy of not employing murderers instead!

If a company or other organisation employs someone and pays them for a specific job I can't see how they can claim the right to control what they do in their own time. The university's decision to officially disapprove of these relationships without trying to specifically ban them is surely the correct approach.

So yes, for a small country, we have lot's of interesting things going on here at the moment. There's always plenty of subject material to comment on, especially regarding the political machinations of society in general!

Management Fail

Why is modern management such a failure? Why do most large organisations produce such mediocre outcomes and why do so many smaller companies and organisations with atypical structures produce the real innovations?

These questions assume that organisations with modern management are more mediocre, and I haven't produced any real proof of that but I think there are some reasons to accept the idea. There are many anecdotal cases where bureaucracy as suppressed creativity and many new ideas arise in small organisations or from individuals and are often assimilated into bigger companies through acquisition.

So I just want to accept the idea that traditional hierarchies are inefficient and move on from there. The question is, why are they inefficient. In the past I have blamed management. My personal experience is that the vast majority of managers are mediocre and inadequate in every way. No doubt there are exceptions but I'm talking in generalities here. Up until now I have had no reason to believe this theory beyond my own observations and personal biases. But now I have...

You might have heard of the Nobel Prize. Of course you have. Everyone has heard of the Nobel Prize (or prizes because they are awarded in multiple categories). But have you heard of the Ig Nobel prize? This prize is run each year and highlights real research but that research must have a humorous or bizarre twist.

For example, this year the engineering prize was awarded to a team for perfecting a method to collect whale snot using a remote-control helicopter. The medicine prize was for discovering that symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller coaster ride. The peace prize was for confirming the widely held belief that swearing relieves pain. The public health prize was awarded for determining by experiment that microbes cling to bearded scientists. The biology prize was awarded for scientifically documenting fellatio in fruit bats.

And (the point of this whole blog entry) the management prize was awarded to Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for
demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.

Yes, if a an organisation promoted people randomly it would work better than choosing those to promote using the criteria which are used now. This means that exactly the wrong selection mechanism is currently used and this surely explains why we have such poor management.

It's easy to see why this happens. Many managers are promoted through the "Peter Principle". That is they rise to a position where they are no longer competent and stay there. These are the same people who make decisions on who to promote in future. Given that they are already incompetent, how likely is it that they will make sensible promotion decisions? That's right, either through pure incompetence or a conscious or subconscious wish to avoid other managers being more competent than they are, they will promote more incompetent people - possibly people even less competent than themselves. So it's almost certain that the whole mechanism is self-perpetuating.

So there's an explanation of why things in general today are such a mess. Don't ask me what the answer is. All I'll say is that I reject the whole idea of hierarchical management and the idea that to be promoted a person must move into management. But the first step is always to admit that the current system doesn't work. But one study can't really prove that - even if it did win the Ig Nobel prize!

Should I Give Up?

A recent theme of my posts seems to be surrender, or when to give up a belief. This time I am wondering when it's appropriate to give up a debate with someone who is clearly so dedicated to a particular ideology that the facts, no matter how clear, have no effect on him at all. Actually I'm thinking of two separate debates here but the more immediate one which lead to this entry was with a right wing nutter. Another long-term debate with a fundamentalist Christian nutter belongs in the same category I guess, but that has been inactive recently so the immediacy isn't there.

In reality debating with these people probably is a waste of time. Their debating technique is so poor that they have to look up the meaning of various logical fallacies before they even comment on them. If someone hasn't even heard of a straw man fallacy (for example) then how can they be aware of the fact that it isn't considered a valid way to make a point?

The other error these people often make is to ignore their opposition. The right winger constantly repeats conservative catch phrases which might be supported by others with the same general political opinions as him but just makes him look nutty to anyone who looks at his claims objectively.

Here's an example of the debate I'm involved with. He says: "the right makes the place tick economically - then the left comes along and blows everything". I counter by quoting statistics which show common economic indicators don't show any strong correlation with the type of government in power. He ignores my comment and changes the subject. And so his delusion is maintained. If someone wants to be ignorant and deliberately ignores the facts just to maintain his ideology then there really is no hope, is there?

So should I give up debating with this person? I suppose I really should but I still find it interesting and it does help me understand the ridiculous mindset the far right crazies actually follow.

In fact that reminds me of another part of this person's delusion. Although he constantly distributes right wing propaganda he claims that he's actually centrist. So I challenged him to take a political quiz to establish where he stands on the spectrum. He did that but then claimed (without giving me the results) that the survey was a childish and invalid way to decide anything. So I found another one which had some academic backing. He did it and came back saying he got a score of exactly center. But I asked him to answer some questions from that quiz and then plugged those in which lead to a result of him being extreme right! What's going on there? Is he lying to me or to himself? It's always so hard to tell with that sort of person.

So again I ask, should I give up on him? Probably. But what about the creationist...

Oddly enough the creationist in some ways is actually more convincing than the right winger (Although the creationist is also a conservative and I'm sure his political views are also crazy. But I haven't debated him on those much - except for global warming - but I really shouldn't start on that now!)

Creationists often use slightly different tactics than the political right do. Sure they share a lot of the standard logical fallacies: the ad hominem, the straw man, poisoning the well, all the old classics, but they do use one more often than the others. They find one small factoid amongst a mass of data and pretend that overrides the mass of data which disagrees with them. For example, they will find a quote from a scientist which seems to dismiss evolution but conveniently ignore thousands of quotes which support it. And as soon as you point out the mass of opposition to their ideas they resort to the classic strategy for all those who have crazy beliefs: the conspiracy theory!

Yes, the good old conspiracy theory is a hard one to argue against because the weaker the evidence is for the conspiracy the stronger the conspiracy gets. After all, the first thing the conspirators want to do is destroy all the evidence which reveals that the conspiracy exists. So the more that evidence is lacking the more successful the conspiracy has been! It's a brilliant strategy because it's totally impossible to refute (as long as you use the illogical arguments of the nutters and ignore common sense and the principles of reasoned debate established thousands of years ago).

So should I give up on the creationist as well? Of course I should, but I'm not going to because, although I know it's a debate I will never win, it's still sort of fun and you never know what sort of outrageous nonsense your opponents will come up with next. Sometimes they resort to techniques which are even more crazy than what I've seen before and that really makes the whole thing worthwhile!