When the narrative is more important than facts we get a Cargo Cult World

cargo cult by buridan (cargo cult materials)
On the incivility of atheists: “Tom Johnson” and Exhibit A
[Via Why Evolution Is True]

If you’ve not heard of the “Tom Johnson” affair, or aren’t interested in it, you’ll want to skip this post, which I offer simply to bring some clarity to a confusing situation.

On October 22 of last year, Chris Mooney put up a post at The Intersection called “Counterproductive attacks on religion—exhibit A.” The “exhibit” was an excerpt from an earlier comment on that website by someone named “Tom Johnson.” Johnson claimed that he was a biologist who had gone to “conservation events” (that is, outreach meetings designed to educate people about conservation), and that atheists had behaved very badly at these events, yelling and screaming at religious people for their faith and thereby turning them off. Mooney elevated Johnson’s comment to a full post to buttress Mooney’s frequent assertion that “new atheists,” through their stridency, thoughtlessness, and lack of respect for others, were hurting their cause by driving people away from science.

“Tom Johnson” said he was a scientist working at a large, well-known research university. The fact that he would not fully identify himself, or reveal details about the “conservation event,” excited a good deal of speculation and rancor at various websites. The situation was further exacerbated when it turned out that “Tom Johnson” had also created an anonymous website called “You’re Not Helping,” which excoriated various atheist bloggers, including myself, for their counterproductive messages. “Johnson” was then caught engaging in “sock-puppetry” (making mutually supportive comments under a variety of names) on not only his own website, but on other blogs like The Intersection and even here. Chastened, he took down the You’re Not Helping website and confessed to sock-puppetry.

All of this led to an explosion of interest, acrimony, and accusation among several websites. One post, at The Buddha is Not Serious, is followed by 826 comments! Despite “Tom Johnson’s” confession and apology, questions remain. Who is he? Under how many names did he post, and who are these sock puppets? How much truth was there in his description of the “conservation event” that became Mooney’s “Exhibit A”?

[More]

This is a really good breakdown of the Tom Johnson incident which also demonstrates Ken Layne’s great comment We can fact-check your ass!

Part of the problem, as we also saw last week with the Sherrod blowup, is that many people do not want to check the facts. There is a narrative they want to push or to believe and they will take the story, facts be damned. Confirmation bias is the first refuge of the misguided and misled.

Many rationalists and scientists work very hard against this well-known form of bias. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman 1974

Feynman spoke those words at a commencement address in a speech called Cargo Cult Science. It discusses the sorts of magical thinking everyone wants to believe in but for which there is no evidence except our wishes.

In other words, they are lies. And he details how scientific integrity requires one to try and ignore the lies, to realize that as humans, all researchers are predisposed to believe something is true simply because they want it to be.

To get at the truth of Nature, scientists have to work hard to see through the lies in our own narratives. Science has produced a series of processes – from peer review to falsification – that help prevent the lies of our nature to corrupt the truth of Nature.

Feynman said:

We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven’t tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.

Many other human enterprises have no such ethic. They have no such integrity. In fact, lying seldom diminishes their reputation in the least.

Technology makes it easier to do the fact checking but also much easier to create the lies in order to strengthen an incorrect, misleading narrative. And a lot of people want to believe that incorrect, misleading narrative rather than the truth.

That is why denialism has so many practitioners. False narratives – lies and lullabies, bedtime sand just-so tories – provide the comfort that the real world does not.

They prefer a Cargo Cult World, one that is pushed by people and organizations with their own agenda. One where a simulacrum of reality is presented but where things are really all smoke and mirrors.

Lies still travel half way around the world before the truth even has its boots on (which is usually attributed to Mark Twain but was said by Charles Spurgeon in 1855 when, during a sermon he said “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” But, of course, the Mark Twain mistruth goes on because the narrative of Mark Twain makes more sense since few today have heard of Spurgeon.)

We can all fall prey to the seductive Siren call of a Cargo Cult World but some of us work very hard to recognize the falsehoods underlying it and strive to deal with the Real World.

I really hope that those of us focussed on the real world will not lose out to those who want to live in a world of fantasy and lies. Because, no matter how hard those people in the South Pacific tried the wooden airplanes they built never did fly. A Coke bottle is just a container for a liquid, not a boon from Above.

The real world wins in the end and we all need to recognize that.

Cleaning out my newsfeeds

I use NetNewswire to collect RSS newsfeeds for me to follow, which now number just a couple shy of 500.

There is no way I could follow all those websites by visiting manually. But using a great newsreader like NetNewswire allos me to rapidly examine thousands of posts and then to comment on a few of them for my own work.

Right now I have almost 28,000 posts that are unread. Almost half of those come from news sites, such as the Seattle Times (2600), BBC (2500), NYT (1600). I do not read them every day, as most of the articles I would find important also get filtered into some of my specific feeds, dealing with high tech, science, politics, climate, etc. I skim the main feeds about once a week to to see if anything fell through the cracks.

Many sites I read daily. Almost all get checked at least once a week. And every so often I have to clean house, deleting newsfeeds that are no longer being updated. I do that about once a quarter and today is the day.


It is now legal to break copyrightt-protection in a wide range of instances

New gov’t rules allow unapproved iPhone apps: Owners of the iPhone will be able to break electronic locks on their devices in order to download applications that have not been approved by Apple. The government is making that legal under new rules announced Monday.”

[Via MacSurfer's Apple]

Owners of the iPhone will be able to legally break electronic locks on their devices in order to download software applications that haven’t been approved by Apple Inc., according to new government rules announced Monday.

[More]

I did not really ever hear of anyone being charged with jailbreaking an iPhone. The story buries the lead. Here are the really important changes that can affect a ton of people:

• allow owners of used cell phones to break access controls on their phones in order to switch wireless carriers.

• allow people to break technical protections on video games to investigate or correct security flaws.

• allow college professors, film students and documentary filmmakers to break copy-protection measures on DVDs so they can embed clips for educational purposes, criticism, commentary and noncommercial videos.

• allow computer owners to bypass the need for external security devices called dongles if the dongle no longer works and cannot be replaced.

Using clips from DVDs that have been cracked is an important, non-enfringing use that we now have. Some interesting videos have been taken down from YouTube simply because the copyright-protection scheme had been broken.

And what about the first one? Does this mean that it would officially be okay to move the iPhone to Verizon? Or to move any phone to any other carrier rather than relying purely on the wireless carriers to provide the phone?

What about breaking security because the hardware no longer exists to play it? Video game simulators often rely on the old code from old games but getting that code has relied on breaking copyright.

I imagine there will be some interesting fallout from these new rules.

Big Name Authors Realize Their Old Contracts Don’t Cover eBooks; Route Around Old Publishers To Release New Versions

books by stephmcg

Big Name Authors Realize Their Old Contracts Don’t Cover eBooks; Route Around Old Publishers To Release New Versions
[Via Techdirt]

Late last year, we wrote about a legal fight, where Random House was fighting some of its authors who claimed that their old publishing contracts did not cover ebooks. Those authors wanted to go off and publish ebooks via other partners (or even directly themselves). Random House tried to claim that even though the contracts didn’t specifically cover ebooks, that it was more or less implied. The problem, of course, was that Random House had already lost a case about this very issue years back. So, this April, the company was forced to concede with the one author they were fighting — though it claimed this was an “exception.”

Except some other big name, old time authors know better. They’ve been realizing that they could be free to take their ebook versions elsewhere, and now they’re doing exactly that. A bunch of really well known authors, working via their agents, have decided to route around their publishers and offer some of the most popular books of all time as ebooks directly on Amazon’s Kindle, without going through a publishing house. Among the books released through this effort are works from Philip Roth, Martin Amis, Vladimir Nabokov, Hunter S Thompson, John Updike, William Burroughs and Saul Bellow along with many others. Basically, some of the biggest names in literature from the 20th century.

[More]

This only works for a subset of authors, those who gained popularity before the publishers realized digital books were a necessary part of any contract. These guys fell through the loophole but will be ble to serve as a nice demonstration of what is possible for an established author if they can go directly to their audience.

Another instance of how digital makes it easier for an artist to reach their audience, even as it makes it possible to create copies of the art. I think that it is likely that reaching a much wider audience will have positive effects over the negative effects of free copies. 7-% royalties vs 25% could do that.

We shall see.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 205 other followers