The Speaker upholds Parliamentary supremacy

Speaker Peter Milliken has ruled that the Conservative government has exceeded its privilege in withholding documents relating to the Afghan detainee transfer issue from Parliament. The government has two weeks to work out a compromise with the opposition to provide documents without compromising national security.

The good news is that this upholds the supremacy of Parliament, whose members are the representatives of the Canadian public.

The larger issue, though, is related to the "national security" statement. Will it give some room for the government to redact freely? With regards to the government's actions following this ruling, I think the correct phrase would be "hope for the best... expect the worst".

-------------------------------------------

On the general issue of "national security", it is used too often to stonewall investigations. I somehow doubt that the opposition would intentionally leak information that would threaten Canadian citizens overseas (including soldiers). To do so (even unintentionally) would leave a permanent black mark on any MP in the eyes of the electorate.

The implicit claim that opposition MPs are incapable of keeping sensitive information confidential unlike government MPs is, frankly, insulting. A person's competence doesn't magically increase because there are a larger number of people with the same political affiliation in Parliament. Done properly, there should be no need at all for any crucial information to be redacted when handed over to the opposition.

Ultimately, the public is interested in the procedure of transferring detainees and whether there are systematic problems. That shouldn't increase the danger to Canadians in Afghanistan. For the resistance/insurgents in Afghanistan, I'm sure that they already view NATO troops as their enemy... I doubt that revealing information about transfers will somehow anger the resistance/insurgents further or change their goal of forcing NATO out of Afghanistan.

Inherently, given that Canada is a democracy, the government is acting on behalf of all of us. Our representatives in Parliament should have a say with regards to foreign affairs and national security issues. That sometimes requires sensitive information to be given out by the government to Parliament when requested. Some people will argue that constitutes a potential weakness in military terms by increasing the number of people "in the know" (and increasing the possibility of a dangerous leak). However, the public should think hard about giving the government more power (potentially weakening our democracy) in order to deal with what should ultimately be a relatively short-term issue.

Peace and long life.

Information and misinformation glut: leading to a glut of problems

Introduction

I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.

Information glut

A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.

The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.

Misinformation glut

The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.

Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)

Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.

Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)

Misinformation about information

Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)

The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).

With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)

Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).

Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)

With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.

A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.

Putting misinformation on equal footing to information

Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.

The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".

Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.

(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)

The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.

In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.

One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.

Fighting misinformation: where we are at

Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.

The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)

Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.

Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".

Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.

-----------------------------------------

The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.

Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).

Allegations of intentional torture

The end result is the same: Canadian soldiers are ordered to transfer their Afghan detainees over to Afghan officials, with whom the detainees are tortured.

The issue so far has been only about whether the government reacted properly to reports and allegations of torture (and about the specifics of the prisoner transfer agreement). If the investigation finds that the government knew about the torture but did nothing to rectify the situation, one could argue that the government would have just been as guilty as if they were transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose.

Now, there are new allegations that the government actually was transferring prisoners to be tortured on purpose. According to the allegations, it was hoped that intelligence would be gathered from the tortured detainees (shades of the so-called "advanced interrogation techniques" employed by the U.S.?).

If these allegations are true, it casts a far worse light on the Conservatives' refusal to hand over the documents on the Afghan detainees to Parliament.

As I stated at the start, the end result is the same for the tortured detainees (which is why both situations would be considered war crimes). Somehow, though, if the intent was actually there, it just feels a lot worse.

We'll see how it goes from here...

Peace and long life.

Is being unable to connect emotionally with the general public a problem?

In "Star Trek: Generations", Captain Kirk is killed while helping Captain Picard save 400 million lives in the Veridian system, and many Star Trek fans are still upset at how "pathetically" (for lack of a better generalization) Kirk died. The reason appears to be twofold: Kirk died in a somewhat awkward manner (he was crushed by a falling bridge); and viewers never got to see any of the 400 million aliens and supposedly could not build any emotional connection with the aliens...

Rationally speaking, it was a heroic sacrifice on Kirk's part to save 400 million other individuals... but somehow, it did not connect emotionally with viewers. It's true in other films as well, such as in "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", where the destruction of Alderaan is an event in a sequence of events. The tragedy of the loss of an entire world and its people, civilization, places, and life is so beyond the experience of a normal person that Obi Wan Kenobi verbalizes the emotion in the film ("it was as if a million voices cried out and were suddenly silenced").

-----------------------------------------

What do movies have to do with real life? In one post, thwap wonders how much of an effect the anti-war movement has had on Canada's deployment in Afghanistan. It raises another interesting issue: how come certain issues rile up the public enough to affect government while other issues seem to get no attention?

Take the large anti-war protests in 2002 and 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. Much of the focus was on the lies about the supposed weapons of mass destruction or the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. People get angry when they are lied to. How much of the public sentiment was actually anti-war (as in against killing and destruction as a foreign policy tool except as a last resort)... as opposed to "anti-Gulf War II"?

Corruption and government misspending can bring down governments, such as Paul Martin's Liberals and the sponsorship scandal in the January 2006 election. People don't like feeling that their money is being wasted.

The current Conservative government has had its fair share of questionable behaviour, but its polling numbers had been fairly high prior to the Afghan detainee issue. It began to dip when the Afghan detainee issue flared up, probably due to the government's secretive behaviour (again, people hate being lied to). Polling numbers for the Conservatives have now really dropped due to Harper's prorogation of Parliament, as people are usually angered by an abuse of power. Again, it's something that many people can emotionally relate to (if they have ever had an overbearing boss or supervisor or parent, for example).

Other issues don't seem to have as much effect. For example, if one polled the public, the majority usually supports fighting climate change, yet when the government was obstructionist at Copenhagen, support for the government did not really drop. The only explanation, given public awareness, is that there is the lack of emotional connection that would give the issue the importance that it deserves. There is nothing in a person's existence that is similar enough for it to trigger an emotional response since change occurs so slowly and subtly. This is seen similarly with other environmental issues.

Now, if an alien armada suddenly entered orbit and began dumping mild toxins into the air and water while trying to melt the ice in Antarctica with the intent of destroying Earth's populous coastal regions with rising ocean levels within a century or so, would the response be different? Chances are that people would be more willing to fight the changes in this case... given the instinctive fight or flight response, with nowhere to run to. (And yes, I'm fully aware that it would be an odd way for an alien armada to attack, at least from a human perspective.)

This lack of emotional connection makes it easy for climate change deniers to fight using conspiracy theories. As mentioned before, people in general hate liars, but they also assume that other people will lie. Deniers make full use of this emotional appeal to people's inherent mistrust and suspicions.

I cannot think of a solution... in fact, this is just a random theory of mine that may have plenty of holes in it, making a solution irrelevant. "Framing" a message might help a little, but ultimately, promoting critical and rational thinking is probably of utmost importance.

Canada's sub-sphere of influence

Given the growing number of allegations from beyond Canada's borders, one can possibly argue that Canada has a sub-sphere of influence in Latin America within the larger U.S. sphere. Those who are "in the way" have come to regard Canada in the same light as the U.S. with regards to exploitation of resources and disregard for people.

Human rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One can only hope that everyone will remember that people who live outside of Canada's borders are humans with rights as well...

Peace and long life.

What's the point of banning political parties again?

An Iraqi court has ruled that candidates running for the Baath party (previously affiliated with Saddam Hussein) should not be banned from running in elections. This has prompted the Iraqi government to denounce the ruling as "illegal and unconstitutional", and there will be an emergency government meeting on Sunday.

This is not uncommon when governments are being propped up by external forces. Another example is Haiti, where Famni Lavalas was denied the right to run in Haiti's next election.

The problem with rationalizations of banning parties is the fact that in the grand scheme of things, the will of the people should prevail. Ideas that are truly on the radical fringe will invariably be ignored (except in times of prolonged crisis when increasing political polarization may occur if things are not seen as getting better... see Germany in the early 1930's). For example, Canada also has a Communist Party, and invariably a small fraction of the population votes for it every election. I think most Canadians aren't worried about the Communists suddenly taking over...

In the event where truly differing political views of different parties cannot be reconciled, and both parties hold similar power, then politicians should have to work together. The worries about violence are mostly unfounded. Giving a political party (even one with a sordid history like Baath under Hussein) a voice in a democratic government gives them an avenue other than violence to exert political pressure. Denying that voice only drives the Baathists more toward the fringe, and more likely to conduct extreme acts.

Let Iraq's populace, and not those already in power, decide how much political influence Baath deserves. Same with Haiti with regards to Famni Lavalas. Real, full democracy: it's the best way.

Peace and long life.

U.S. stops evacuating victims from Haiti over medical bills

It appears that some hospitals in Florida were reluctant to take patients from Haiti due to not knowing how the patients' medical bills would be paid. Once the federal government was asked to help pay for the bills by Florida's governor, the evacuations apparently stopped one day later on Wednesday.

This is a case of money being placed before the lives of people (almost as one would expect given the U.S. medical system). It is also an even stranger case of the U.S. being financially generous in some ways while being not helpful in other ways. Mountains of money mean nothing if the money can't be used to obtain goods (like food, which there is a shortage of in Haiti despite donations) or services (like medical care for the victims).

Peace and long life.

EDIT: And now the evacuations will resume.