Why people go anti-science

Mark Hoofnagle at Denialism Blog hits the hail on the head:

In fact, if there is a unifying theme of denialism, it is that any extreme of ideological thinking leads to the necessary denial of fact. When one considers the causes of denialist worldviews, one sees again and again some form of fundamentalist belief. Fundamentalist religion leads to the rejection of evolution. Free-market fundamentalists are the leading source of anti-global warming denialism. On the liberal side, a mixture of technophobia and neo-luddism leads to paranoid suspicions about everything from GM crops causing non-existent illnesses to fear of harmless radio technology such as wifi to the fear of vaccines and medicine innovations exemplified by the HuffPo cranks and the evidence-based medicine/HIV/AIDS denialists like Mike Adams and Gary Null.

Any dogma that gets any followers is likely to be (a) simple and (b) emotionality satisfying, at least to some people. In fact any belief system must be simpler than reality, since reality is vast and probably not fully comprehensible to the human mind anyway. Once people become adherents of a dogma, they are likely to hold tight to it, since it’s their intellectual comfort blanket. And when reality proves that their dogma is at least partly wrong — as all dogmas must be, even though they are probably partly right, too — then the adherent is drawn into conflict with reality, and resolves that conflict by simply pretending that the uncomfortable truth isn’t there. And then the more serious of the adherents erect whole intellectual edifices, founded on bullshit and wish-fulfillment fantasy, as to why reality isn’t real.

What’s the cure for this? Simply to realise that any simple, pat, belief system isn’t going to be the whole truth, even if it does have good points. Put simply, no belief system about how the human world works is entirely correct, or is any widely-held belief system likely to be entirely nonsense. For example:

Religion: God may not exist, but nevertheless it is still bad for people to murder or steal from each other.

Free markets: are an efficient way of allocating scarce resources, under many circumstances, but they are not the solution to all human-organisation problems.

Medicine: some medicines have genuinely harmed patients, but most do good, and by spreading panic about vaccines etc one is almost certainly doing more harm than good.

Technology: most technology leads to humans living longer, more fulfilled lives; but some technologies have lead to a diminution of human happiness (e.g. telemarketers and spammers)

Why a music download tax is a bad idea

From Techdirt:

the biggest reason [...] is the second you do this, plenty of other industries will come out of the woodwork demanding a special fee get applied to internet connections as well. Newspapers that think Google and Craigslist are “stealing” from them will demand a special “news tax.” And then think of all those other industries who claim they’re being impacted by the internet. You’ll have a special auto-mechanic’s tax, to pay for mechanics who are upset about the DIY info found online. The “knitting tax” for all the free knitting patterns online. I understand that AAA may be upset about Google maps. Travel agents want that “travel tax” to pay for all that business that Expedia has cost them. Where does it stop?

Indeed. Everyone will want to be insulated from the cold wind of change that the Internet brings to some business models.

Free will versus science

Quaequam blog has as thoughtful post up about how modern science is dissolving commonly-held notions about free will:

I’m becoming increasingly conscious of the fact that science and our notions about free will are increasingly coming into conflict. On one level that tension does not, and never will be particularly meaningful. Science is unlikely to ever become so adept at understanding our genes, brains, bodies and environment to such an extent that it can predict exactly what anyone is likely to do at any given moment. But on another level, it is likely to throw up all sorts of inconvenient truths such as levels of intelligence and modes of behaviour which have fundamentally chemical bases and can thus be altered in a similar way. We’ve created distinctions between “disorders” and personality traits which are looking increasingly unsustainable. Surely there needs to be some kind of distinction between a negative thing that we should seek to cure or otherwise discourage, and a neutral thing that we should tolerate in a pluralistic society? But that line seems to be becoming increasingly blurred and just as we are having to seriously consider reclassifying some things from the former to the latter, so we may have to consider others going the other way. Or is it to be anything goes?

One point is that the “we” who are going to have to decide how to deal with these issues doesn’t jusdt include the West, it includes societies like China, which might be described as paternalistically authoritarian and will probably have less reluctance to change human brain chemistry if they thing society will benefit from it.

How it will eventually turn out probably depends on what is the most efficient, so that if one society alters human brain chemistry in a way that makes them vastly more efficient than their competitors (e.g. by making people cleverer and harder-working, or less likely to commit crimes) then other societies will have to match them or they will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Patio Heaters

Some MEPs want to ban patio heaters:

The EU parliament is expected to back a resolution requiring the use of appliances with low energy efficiency to be phased out. Patio heaters are specifically targeted in the motion, which calls on the EU to act urgently and introduce minimum standards for energy efficiency on such appliances as air-conditioning, television “decoder” boxes and light bulbs.

Patio heaters are used for two purposes: by pubs wanting to allow customers to sit outside and still be warm, and by people using them in their gardens. The first use has been greatly increased in the UK by the smoking bans introduced in the UK, and the correct response would be to allow pubs to have an indoor area where smokers could smoke. Because it’s unreasonable to expect employees to have to endanger their health in the course of their work, this area probably wouldn’t be cleaned except after the pub closes at night, but I doubt if people who deliberately inhale smoke and ash would be all that bothered.

People using patio heaters at home are not really a problem, because the proportion of carbon emissions caused by that use is miniscule. Home patio heaters are a stupid idea — there’s already a perfectly good technology for staying warm when it is cold outside, called “buildings” — and people who use them are idiots who I disapprove of on aesthetic grounds. But that doesn’t mean they should be made illegal; if people want to waste their money (including paying a tax to pay for the negative externalities they cause), that’s up to them.

If the EU want to reduce carbon emissions, there are two things they must do. Firstly, they must tax activities that emit carbon, ideally according to the amount of CO₂-equivalent they emit. And secondly they must persuade outside countries to do the same — China and the USA each produce more emissions than the EU, and China’s emissions in particular are growing quickly. Because most countries do a large proportion of their trade with the EU, the EU can use tariffs as a lever with which to influence these countries.

There are other policies that it might also be useful for the EU to pursue — for example, encouraging research on solar energy — but unless they do the two things I’ve stated above, they might as well not bother doing anything at all, because other policies will not on their own be effective.

Norwegian state broadcaster puts show on BitTorrent

From Boing Boing:

NRK, the Norwegian state broadcaster, just made one of their most popular TV shows available for free through bittorrent. Without any DRM or restrictions. Free for the planet to watch. Because this is a completely legal download people seems to seed it happily. Making the bittorrent technology work exceptionally well, giving the audience very high download speeds. The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation will keep on with experiments like these and try to make more content available through this technology in addition to the more traditional channels of streaming, podcasts and DVD sales.

Now why can’t the BBC do that? (The short answer is: because the government won’t let them).

Open source and utopia

Is open source software a utopia? If so, what kind:

“Open Source Software: There are days when I can’t figure out whether I’m living in a Socialist utopia or a Libertarian one.” — Alex Future Bokov

Bug Labs

Bug labs seems (potentially, at least) to be very interesting and useful. Think of it as lego for electronic gadgets. Their software is all open source (not sure about their hardware — but I’ve emailed them a query).

They have a store open.

Connect this with fabricators (such as RepRap or Fab Lab) and you have the engine of growth for the 21st century.

40% of bikers don’t pay road tax

The BBC is reporting that 4 in 10 motorcyclists are evading road tax:

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency risks becoming “a complete laughing stock” after it emerged nearly 40% of motorbikes were untaxed, MPs have said.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee urged the DVLA and Department for Transport to “strongly consider” tougher measures to tackle evasion. Chairman Edward Leigh said the DVLA’s efforts to deal with it were “poor”. His committee said the agency should consider impounding untaxed motorbikes and imposing penalty points on tax-dodgers.

The BBC quoted Commons Public Accounts Committee Charman Edward Leigh as saying: “Motorcyclists who refuse to pay road tax are stealing from law-abiding taxpayers”.

This is not true. Road Tax for motorbikes is between £15 and £64 a year. However, since the amount of damage a vehicle does to the road is proportional to the fourth power of the wheel loading, bikes do very little damage to the road — most is done by lorries and cars. So bikes are subsidising larger vehicles. Bikes also do not cause congestion, because they can be ridden between traffic lanes. So every person who goes from being a car driver to a motorcyclist is actually helping other road users, by reducing congestion and therefore the other road users average journey times. Because motorbikes use little fuel, they also help to reduce carbon emissions and other forms of pollution.

So bikers are good for congestion, good for the environment, good for reducing the UK’s dependence on imported fuel, good for reducing pollution, and are subsidising the cost of repearing the wear and tear other road users do to the roads. There are not “stealing” from other road users, in fact quite the opposite they are making them better off.

Since bike use benefits society in so many ways it ought to be encouraged. One good start would be abolishing road tax for bikes.

Intellectual property law jumps the shark (again)

You’d think that if you take photographs of your own property with your own camera and then put those photos on tee shirts, mouse mats, etc, that you wouldn’t be breaking the law. Well, you might think that, but you’d be wrong, as a Ford owners club found out:

The folks at BMC (Black Mustang Club) automotive forum wanted to put together a calendar featuring members’ cars, and print it through CafePress. Photos were submitted, the layout was set, and… CafePress notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be printed. Not just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car -as a whole- is a Ford trademark and its image can’t be reproduced without permission. So even though Ford has a lineup of enthusiasts who want to show off their Ford cars, the company is bent on alienating them. ‘Them’ being some of the most loyal owners and future buyers that they have. Or rather, that they had, because many have decided that they will not be doing business with Ford again if this matter isn’t resolved.

If that’s the law, then the law is an ass. I sometimes wonder whether the whole of intellectual property law in its entirety shouldn’t be scrapped; on the whole, probably not, though every abuse like this makes the system harder to justify.

UPDATE 2008-Jan-25: Ford say it was a misunderstanding, and BMC can print the calendar after all.

The decline of the recording industry

The Economist has a good article up about the decline of the recording industry: The music industry from major to minor.

It won’t tell you anything you don’t already know ifyou’ve been following this sage, but it is a good summary.
(Note that I call it the “recording industry” rather than the “music industry” because there are lots of economic activities about music: for example manufacturing, distributing and selling musical instruments, teaching people to play musical instruments, playing music in front of live audiences, being a venue for the above, making and selling clothing with images of bands on it, etc. These industries are not, as far as I am aware, in decline the way the recording indsutry is. Maybe that’s because these industries are based on making something people want whereas the rcording industry is based on rent-seeking.)