You're viewing an archive page. To see the current content on wickens.ca, please go to the main page.

30 December 2003  

Philosophy's Real-World Effects

David Aaronovitch (in the Guardian, of all places) wonders why earthquakes of the same magnitudes in California and Iran had such different effects.

True, the Californians are much richer than the Iranians. But if you believed everything you read in the works of M Moore and others, you would anticipate a culture of corporate greed in which safety and regulation came way behind the desire to turn the quick buck. Instead you discover a society in which the protection of citizens from falling masonry seems to be regarded as enormously important.

What, I wonder, has Arundhati Roy to say now about the superiority of traditional building methods over globalised ones? Some Iranians might think that it's a shame there wasn't a McDonald's in Bam. It would have been the safest place in town.

10:25 AM |

Born in the Wrong Country

Kathy Shaidle and I disagree on a lot of topics, as Catholics and Objectivists are wont to do. But our feelings on being Canadian Amerophiles are much the same. As shown in this Dallas Morning News op-ed (registration required), she just expresses herself better and more wittily than I do. (One of my pictures of last April's Toronto demonstration in support of the US may have been used to illustrate the print version of the article, but I'm not sure. Can any Dallas-area readers confirm or deny?)

10:03 AM |

29 December 2003  

Spiacente

It seems I have offended the WalkyDog people with my post praising their delightfully unorthodox English translation.

06:58 PM |

wickens.ca Index

Days between a finding that Bjørn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist was a work of "scientific dishonesty" and a 500-word Guardian column gloating over the ruling: 2.

Days it has taken for the Guardian to mention the overturning of that ruling: 12. And counting.

(But yesterday's New York Post had a nice editorial on Lomborg's vindication.)

01:50 PM |

20 December 2003  

Argument ad Pantus Flamius

Here's a column from someone on the opposite side of the global warming debate from Lomborg expressing an admirable sentiment:

My colleagues on the Post-Intelligencer's Editorial Board have concerns about the consequences of global climate change. We recently wrote, for example, "The scientific consensus is that human activity is fueling the change. So it makes sense for Americans to look at more ways to reduce emissions in carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases."

We reached this conclusion after reading scientific evidence -- as well as listening to scientists who have taken the time to meet with the Editorial Board....

We stated an opinion, but we also understand that all readers do not share it. This newspaper is a forum for the exchange of comments and we provide space for letters or essays (called op-eds) that raise objections to what we write.

This is how discourse is supposed to work.... However, a few reject the very notion of discourse. They see a different opinion as a "lie." ...

Last year a group of scientists, acting as the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, reviewed Lomborg's work line by line, cite by cite and fact by fact....

In the specialized language of science, the committee said, liar, liar, pants on fire.

I disagree with much of Lomborg's work. OK, most of it. But I like reading ideas that confront my views because it requires me to rethink the "why" of a conclusion. This, it would seem to me, ought to be as true for science as it is for ideas.

09:52 PM |

18 December 2003  

Lomborg Roundup

Philip Stott has more on the vindication of "our doughty viking warrior," including a link to a good Financial Times editorial (they report the news here, too) and a pointer to a most unfortunately-timed Guardian jab at Lomborg.

In other news, Stephen Schneider has promptly responded to an email I wrote about his web page modification. He says he has completely removed the reference to the DCSD finding until its basis can be "ferreted out." He suspects the latest ruling "is a political body response."

[W]ith this new thing it is best to just delete it all until we find out who this new panel is, what political involvement they represent etc. That will take quite a while to find out--but will emerge to be sure. When we have a full story--which we did for the first aspect--it had been around for months--we will revisit adding it all together.

Update: The Economist weighs in:

Among a long list of telling criticisms, the ministry says this: “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and...the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why.”

Quite so. What kind of panel is it that purports to be concerned with scientific dishonesty, but needs somebody else to point this out?

Update II: Bjørn Lomborg's site has been updated with materials related to yesterday's findings of the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Included are links to a 5-page English summary (Word format) of the full report and a timeline of the whole affair (Word format), tracing its roots back to 1997.

10:13 AM |

17 December 2003  

Rewriting History

This is interesting. Stephen Schneider, a proponent of the global warming theory and Lomborg detractor has very quickly updated a web page on which he had trumpeted the DCSD finding of scientific dishonesty. After an enumeration of Lomborg's supposed defficiencies and a recounting of his own and others' public "debunking" of him in Scientific American and elsewhere, Schneider had written this:

Rebuttals then flew back and forth (see, for example, Lomborg's rebuttal of our rebuttal in Scientific American and Rennie's reply and John Holdren's response to Lomborg's rebuttal), but in the end, the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) reviewed our rebuttal of The Skeptical Environmentalist and agreed with us that Lomborg's book was full of inaccuracies, ruling on January 7, 2003, that it fell within the purview of scientific dishonesty. (See the report of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty regarding Lomborg's book, and a Reuters article, "Panel: Danish Environmentalist Work 'Unscientific'" pertaining to a similar report performed by a panel of Scandinavian scientists.) (Emphasis mine.)

(I suppose it's possible Schneider's deletion is a temporary measure while he rewrites the section to include the recent developments. I'll keep my eye out for an updated account of the DCSD ruling.)

10:25 PM |

Lomborg Vindicated

Wow, this is great:

The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has today repudiated findings by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) that Bjørn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

(For more go here and here.)

09:25 PM |

13 December 2003  

No, This Post is not a Hint

If you're still struggling to find that perfect Christmas gift for the Ayn Rand fan who has everything, here's something you might be interested in. Being auctioned at Christie's on 18 December are galley proofs for her March 1964 interview with Playboy. From the lot description:

Typed draft for the interview, EACH PAGE AND A FEW CORRECTIONS INITIAL-SIGNED BY RAND, together 39 pages, 4to. -- Another typed draft of the interview with Rand's initials at some places. -- 4-page typescript for the introduction to the interview, heavily amended by Playboy editors. -- 4-page typescript of Rand cutlines for the interview with editorial markings. -- Galley proof sheet containing three cutlines with one in Rand's hand (see above quote), the others intitial-signed by her, and with note and signature from Murray Fisher. -- Typed letter signed ("Ayn Rand") to Associate Editor Murray Fisher. 1 page, 4to. Rand writes Fisher about the photographs and consent agreement for the interview (the three referenced and initial-signed photographs, and carbon of consent agreement are included in this lot). -- And a typed letter signed from Toffler to Fisher regarding the interview: "...I shall be in telephonic communication with you one instant after the moment that I have her celestial highness' official revisions. Bonzai!"

... the real bird of paradise [Alvin] Toffler captured for Playboy in 1964 was Ayn Rand, the first female intellect given voice in the magazine. Miss Rand did not disappoint. She dominated the interview with sharply phrased opinions that rode over Toffler's questions like the charge of Czarist cavalry. And nowhere did the firmness of her views emerge more rigidly than on sex. It was, she said, an expression 'of a man's self-esteem, of his own self-value,' and 'must not be anything other than response to values.'... But most startling was Miss Rand's crisp espousal of feminism some years before it became a popular cause. 'I believe women are human beings,' she replied to a question about women working, and 'what is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do and I would not attempt it in regard to women.'... For a magazine that spent years struggling with its own ambivalence about the role of women in society, this was a radical opinion, and yet another illustration of a willingness to stick its neck out - and into controversy, even if it ran counter to what editors perceived as the magazine's own interests.

Now, if the $10,000-15,000 price tag on that lot is too much for you, don't despair. On the same day, Christie's is also auctioning the manuscript for one of Rand's Los Angeles Times columns. The estimate on this is a mere $4,000-6,000.

09:09 PM |

8 December 2003  

Where's Wickens?

Sorry for the post paucity. Friday was the term final exam for my Ancient Greek class, for which I'd been studying for the last two weeks. If I haven't mentioned this before, Ancient Greek is hard! I have a print-out of the conjugation of one measly verb that fills a page in 8-pt eye-strain type, and that's just the tenses/moods we've learned so far. Oy. Then, with one day to breathe and clean up my life from the work/study/work/study routine, I flew out of town for work on Sunday. They do have high-speed internet at my hotel, so further posting from here is possible, albeit unlikely. I'm back Wednesday night. In the meantime, here's a puzzle: who can guess where I am given these clues:

1. The picture below was taken at my destination airport.
2. I'm not in the same state as the airport, but took only a 30 min. cab ride.
3. I'm in the largest city in the state.

Update: (11 Dec 12:13 AM) Sporkadelic correctly surmised that I was in Wilmington, Delaware. On the way back, I just spent seven hours in the Philadelphia airport after having my flight cancelled and being shuffled to another flight. Still didn't climb into one of those rocking chairs.

06:51 PM |

2 December 2003  

And They Accuse Objectivists of Being Coldhearted

Philip Greenspun:

A friend criticized me for being unsympathetic regarding a concern of hers that I thought was irrational. She believed that a friend ought to care simply because another human being is apprehensive, even if that apprehension is not justified. During this exchange it occurred to me that there is actually no reason for the layperson to be sympathetic or emphathetic in any modern situation....

Today anyone who wishes to get symphathy for his or her troubles can simply buy it from one of the hundreds of thousands of trained professionals in the therapy industry.

Friendship isn't obsolete of course. Psychotherapists aren't very entertaining so we might still rely on friends for amusement. But why bother pretending to care about another person's troubles when there are so many psychotherapists out there who actually do care, truly, deeply, professionally?

Update: Apparently (Scroll down to the 12/2/03; 5:11:35 PM comment), he was not being completely serious. Objectivists can now breathe a sigh of relief that we still retain the coveted "most coldhearted" status.

11:31 AM |

1 December 2003  

Is Theocracy OK If It's Christian Theocracy?

More controversy in Damian's comments section. This time the topic is religion as the basis of law.

01:45 PM |