Insanity and absurdity in Toronto

In a lot of ways, a protest is symbolic more than anything else. It is impossible for the general public to gather any specific details from a protest... only the the general issues that concern at least a segment of their fellow citizens. It is also impossible for policy change to be discussed between protesters and those with political power in such a setting.

That being said, the freedom of peaceful assembly is of great importance because it symbolizes the general health of a democracy, like a canary in a coal mine. It is only one of numerous rights and freedoms protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but it also happens to be one that often provides logistical headaches. How a government handles citizens' rights and freedoms during the most trying of times (from a governmental standpoint) is indicative of how much it respects its own written laws. (As Captain Benjamin Sisko once observed, "it's easy to be a saint in paradise"... a true saint would hold to his or her convictions in difficult times.)

So what has the canary in the coal mine... err, Toronto... told us? The initial signs have caused the canary vomit in revulsion, which then caused it to choke on its own vomit and die. (That was also before the canary had a chance to learn of the 5-metre rule made up by police.)

Right now they are just allegations, but as they say, where there is smoke, there is fire... The idea of detention cages in downtown Toronto should have been of concern before any of this happened (not that there was much time to react to the security plans, though).

Canadians (not just Torontonians) should be incredibly angry and concerned. The next election cannot come soon enough.

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

A couple of other points:

1) In a democracy, government serves the people.

The Canadian government decides to hold the G20 summit in downtown Toronto; however, due to "security risks", over $1 billion is necessary to convert downtown Toronto into a fortress.

So what does the Canadian populace gain from this exercise? Nothing, except for a bigger deficit. The G20's decision making process is inaccessible to the public, nor is it influenced by the public. Holding the summit in Toronto doesn't really show off Toronto as a tourist destination to other national leaders when "Fortress Toronto" is only a husk of its usual busy and colorful self. The only "benefit" is the "prestige" of holding the G20 summit, i.e. nothing tangible.

You know what would have been easier than turning an open city into a fortress? How about holding a summit in a remote location that is easily defended, like somewhere in Canada's majestic mountains. That would be less expensive, the number of protesters and troublemakers would be reduced, there would be fewer bystanders, and there would be less property for vandals to damage.

The converse is true. By actively choosing downtown Toronto, it was more expensive for taxpayers, more accessible for protesters and troublemakers, more bystanders who may be injured if things were go get out of hand, and more property for vandals to damage. I don't exactly sense a desire to serve the people.

2) Police defend citizens and property from criminals.

So what did over $1 billion worth of security provide?

Ignoring theories of police officers pretending to be vandals to discredit protesters, what basically happened was that dozens of masked vandals decided to smash windows and burn unoccupied and isolated police cars, which was not stopped by the police for at least half an hour.

The protection of property wasn't exactly carried out to perfection, to say the least.

After the initial rash of vandalism, later protests were peaceful. Unfortunately, as a result of the vandals, the police were either on edge or embarrassed after their earlier failure, so they cracked down hard... on the peaceful protesters. The treatment of people in the detention cages, as indicated previously, was also extremely poor. (Also getting a badge of shame would be the mainstream media, which could focus only on the vandalism for a long while.)

Numerous reports of violations of citizens' rights and freedoms (and that's not counting the freedom of peaceful assembly) doesn't exactly scream "successful defense of citizens".

In conclusion, the government made a bad decision that they knew would increase the likelihood of confrontation between police and protesters for the sake of political "prestige". (And yes, they knew... hence, the billion dollars of security.) The debacle that resulted should not have surprised anyone.

Peace and long life.

Aid "flotilla" boarded

A convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza was boarded by Israeli commandos in international waters. There are conflicting reports about what exactly happened, but in the end, the ships came under Israeli control.

The Israeli government released videos showing resistance from people armed with knives and broken glass bottles (and other random stuff), but seriously, that would be expected from the crew since they thought that they were under attack.

As for the boarding itself, one must wonder about the foreign policy goals that the Israeli government is trying to achieve from this action. Clearly, they were concerned about the ships, the crew, or the cargo approaching their blockade. If they were worried about the cargo, they could have simply said that they would pass on the aid after inspection. It's doubtful that the crew could have been any real threat, even if "terrorists" were on board, especially since Israel would not have lifted the blockade. The ships would not have been any military threat either, with the exception of ramming being an extremely improbable military use of the civilian ships (they would not survive getting close to real warships).

One possibility is that the Israeli government was expecting a confrontation eventually and decided to have it further away from their shores (even if it meant boarding the ships in international waters). The other possibility is that the Israeli government wanted to flaunt its military power and make an "example" of the convoy to discourage future attempts at getting past their blockade.

Regardless of the exact reasoning that led to the boarding, the other issue is the extreme that the Israeli government is willing to go to in the name of national security. The Israeli government has real security concerns, but it has gone too far with regards to the Palestinians. It doesn't yield land for the Palestinians to create their own nation state, but it doesn't consider Palestinians as citizens, nor does it respect Palestinians' human rights as people living "within" Israel's effective borders. Palestinians are trapped in tiny areas, and they are now denied aid from others.

Israel probably has lingering fears from their numerous historical conflicts with its neighbouring states, but it is not an excuse for their actions against the Palestinians. People (in general, and not just referring to Israel and this incident) need to try harder rise above their baser instincts (such as acting on fear and paranoia) and do the "right thing"... after all, isn't that supposed to be one of the redeeming characteristics of humanity?

Peace and long life.

EDIT: Fixed grammar.

Destroying is easier than creating

In my last post, I contemplated the difference between simple legislation that requires tolerance and government efforts to promote acceptance.

There are clues that the Conservative government finds certain progressive aspects of Canadian society displeasing to them; however, the Canadian public would not support an obvious attempt to legislate away people's existing rights. So how to circumvent the "obstacle" that is the Canadian electorate?

It's easy, actually. As I've noted before, there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Rights groups ultimately want acceptance of diversity, and they exist because not all of society is equitable (or even tolerant in the case of people with different sexual orientations). As such, the Conservatives are simply axing programs and cutting funding to reduce the effectiveness (or even eliminate) of rights groups. Unfortunately, money is necessary for anything to succeed in the long run.

Without effective rights groups, the elements of society that despise diversity will remain (and possibly grow in strength if they get funding). I suspect that the Conservatives hope that these elements would regress Canadian society slowly over time, benefiting their agenda (and themselves, due to more like-minded voters) in the long run.

The sick irony is the ability for the Conservatives to use the fact that Canada is reasonably progressive as a defense. Here is a hypothetical line of questioning and answering:

Status of Women? Cut the word "equality", and then axed. Why? Because with regards to gender equality, "mission accomplished".

The most staggering realization for the Canadian public (hopefully) is how much a government can accomplish if it really set its mind to achieving its goals outside the legislative branch. For the most part, not much damage has been done through legislative means (although Harper's multiple prorogation of Parliament and general defiance with regards to Afghan detainee documents have tested the limits of his executive power against the legislative branch). Much more damage has been done with money... how it has been spent, and how it has been denied.

Peace and long life.

Acceptance and tolerance: multiculturalism and beyond

In the opinion section of a student newspaper years ago, I once read that there was a difference between acceptance and tolerance. It's true. There is a difference in legislating laws against hate crimes and discrimination, which "impose" tolerance, and an official government policy that promotes diversity a part of the nation's identity.

That official government policy that I refer to is, of course, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism was an ingenious nuance that encouraged differences in people's cultural heritages as strengths rather than something to be tolerated. Now, implementing multiculturalism would not have affected people with entrenched viewpoints (for or against cultural diversity), but it would have had an influence on youth growing up. Canada was no longer a country of various groups tolerating each other, but a country of diverse groups that was part of a bigger group. Furthermore, government funding was available for cultural groups to hold events to help preserve Canada's multicultural landscape.

(Of course for all the talk of multiculturalism, Canada hasn't helped its original cultures, the First Nations, enough... but that sordid tale is for another day.)

Now with rose-coloured glasses off, I doubt that everyone happily accepts this diversity (although I suspect that a growing number of people do thanks to the newer and younger generations). Furthermore, there are legitimate challenges in trying to preserve cultural diversity, especially for newer generations of immigrants. The U.S. already is a major cultural exporter, and despite multiculturalism, Canada does have its own "overall culture" as well. Regardless, multiculturalism is a well-intentioned government policy that has borne fruit.

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

Cultural diversity is not the only kind of diversity in Canada. It can be expanded and encouraged.

For example, despite legislation protecting people of varying sexual orientation, I suspect that a fair number of Canadians tolerate the idea more than accept it (or sometimes, not even bother to tolerate, such in the cases where religion is a "reason"). Ontario's new sex education program that includes a discussion of homosexuality seems to be well-intentioned and a step in the right direction. It certainly won't happen with the Conservatives in power, but there may be a day where the federal government has a program that encourages acceptance of people with different sexual orientation.

It shouldn't end there either. Diversity of people, viewpoints, and ideas is what will keep Canada vibrant.

Peace and long life.

Fearmongering against vaccines

It's worrying, but the anti-vaccination movement has had a significant impact on vaccination rates in the U.S. I don't believe that herd immunity has been compromised yet, but it must be getting dangerously close to that point. Herd immunity is probably a major reason why people can get away with not vaccinating their children (and then possibly heralded as evidence that vaccinations don't help). Once that's compromised, though...

The main problem is that the risks of something bad happening as a result of a vaccination is not compared to the risk of something bad happening with contracting a preventable disease. Vaccines are released for consumption only after they meet the requirement that only 1 in 100000 people will suffer adverse effects. For example, a batch of faulty H1N1 vaccine was recalled when 1 in 20000 people suffered severe allergic reactions. The H1N1 influenza had a death rate of 3 in 10000 people (0.03%), so even the faulty vaccine was safer than being infected by H1N1.

Frankly, a disease that is roughly as harmless as a vaccine wouldn't strike enough fear into the public for anyone to bother with making a vaccine in the first place (with regards to the "profit as a motive for pushing vaccines").

Still, the image of some horrible allergic reaction or autism (despite follow-up studies failing to find any statistical correlation) is enough to make people fear one of the greatest (in terms of benefiting the health of the species as a whole) medical achievements in human history.

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...).