Delusions of Grammar » Science!

Malcolm Gladwell Fumbles on the Goal line

Scott L. — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:53:12 +0000

Malcolm Gladwell’s article about football in the New Yorker is a thought-provoking piece – albeit one that had me throwing a couple orange flags.

The meat of the article is pretty solid – there’s an epidemic of dementia and other brain injuries among professional football players. The research that Gladwell is looking at shows that it isn’t the one-time hard hits that may be the most danger: it’s the constant knocks to the head that players take as part of the game.

But what could be a pretty straightforward article is sidelined by a misplaced hook. Gladwell likes a little sensationalism in his science. He asks that, with the dangers of football possibly inherent to the sport, how different is it from the damage done by dogfighting?

L.G. willingly submitted his dog to a contest that culminated in her suffering and destruction. And why? For the entertainment of an audience and the chance of a payday. In the nineteenth century, dogfighting was widely accepted by the American public. But we no longer find that kind of transaction morally acceptable in a sport. “I was not aware of dogfighting and the terrible things that happen around dogfighting,” Goodell said, explaining why he responded so sternly in the Vick case. One wonders whether, had he spent as much time talking to Kyle Turley as he did to Michael Vick, he’d start to have similar doubts about his own sport.

Consent, Malcolm.

Dogs don’t understand dogfighting. It’s cruel because they are animals – they are maimed and killed for entertainment value while having no ideas of the potential risks, nor do they have any alternative.

Gladwell really weakens his argument by trying to make the sensational connection between a violent and dangerous sport like football with a morally-repugnant one like dogfighting. And, for a very smart man (who I am a big fan of), he seems to miss the pretty obvious point.

When an person joins up as a linebacker in the NFL, they know that there is the chance to get injured. If they aren’t willing to accept that risk, they can say no. They can go off and become car salesmen, or airline pilots or anything else. Dogs don’t know the risks of dogfighting, nor do they have a choice to be fighting dogs or not. They are abused and forced into the ring with their owners.

Choice and consent. By ignoring those two variables, Gladwell might as well be arguing that two teenagers having sex is on par with bestiality.

It’s not. Because we all know that the average human can consent to sex with another human, while an animal can never fully give that consent.

It’s a shame, because other than that ridiculous bit of emotional nonsense, Gladwell brings up some good points. Gladwell argues players may not be sufficiently warned of the risk, or cared for by the league, and that more can be done to minimize those risks – all good points, all of which I strongly agree with.

But they’re overshadowed by this weak connection. Not to mention that he says football may be closer to dogfighting, where injury is inherent in the game, than it is to stock-car races, which are dangerous but can have that danger minimized – and then goes into how football has done the very same thing as racing by making the sport safer over the years.

But the main objection at the time was to a style of play—densely and dangerously packed offensive strategies—that, it turns out, could be largely corrected with rule changes, like the legalization of the forward pass and the doubling of the first-down distance from five yards to ten. Today, when we consider subtler and more insidious forms of injury, it’s far from clear whether the problem is the style of play or the play itself.

But there’s not much to back up that last thought – football equitment is forever being designed to be safer, and rules are always being changed to protect players. (The banning of horse collar tackles in recent years being one.) What makes Gladwell thing we’ve reached the limit of how safe the sport can be while innovations continue?

Gladwell has some good stuff here, stuff that’s worth wading through the dogfighting mess. Next time, he should really just take a timeout before gambling on sensationalism like this.

Our Science Minister’s Maladaptive Behaviour

Scott L. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:50:12 +0000

Just got back from the a delicious Breakfast War with Brittney, Adam, Kendrick and a newcomer – Chris LaBossiere, who was quite nice and fun to talk to, even if he did decide to stay neutral in our morning warfare.

Good times had by all. But, unfortunately, there was a dark cloud out in the horizon. It came in the form of this article in the Globe and Mail:

“Canada’s science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won’t say if he believes in evolution.”

Oh my.

Canada’s man in charge of public funding for scientific research won’t say if he believes in one of the most important theories of the modern age. Well, I’m sure he has a rational explanation for his…oh no, wait. Here it is.

“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here, Mr. Goodyear. When someone asks you: “Hey, evolution, yay or nay?” they are not asking you about your religious beliefs. They are asking you about your scientific ones. And seeing as you are the top guy when it comes to science and technology in our government, it’s it absolutely appropriate. It’s like asking Peter McKay if he believes in the battlefield usefulness of our shiny new helicopters, or is Bev Oda believes in the effectiveness of international trust exercises. (I have to assume that’s what takes up most of the time for the Minister for International Cooperation.)

The only thing that is inappropriate, Mr. Goodyear, is that you refuse to answer a simple question that directly speaks to your ability to do this important job that we’re paying you to do.

I really don’t care in your religious beliefs. Honestly, I’m not asking that we have an atheist as the Minister of Science and Tech. (Hell, atheism is as unscientific an approach as blind faith, in my books.)

All I want is for the guy holding the purse strings to actually believe in something that the overwhelming scientific community treats as fact. If you can’t do that, you’re not the right person for the job.

Instead, you hide behind religion, acting as if a belief in the scientific method and belief in a higher power are mutually-exclusive. Your faith doesn’t exempt you from having to be qualified for your job. Shame on you.

I was starting to be a little optimistic after the news that perhaps you were getting on track with this whole science thing, especially after your previous missteps. Perhaps I jumped the gun on that.

Update: Ross Prusakowski (@rprus) is a fellow who I don’t often agree with but always enjoy debating with. He brings a fair point to the table: there is no evidence that Goodyear’s beliefs have any impact on the funding choices he makes as minister. That’s true, we can’t say for sure that they have.

But even he is able to keep his personal ideas and his professional conduct completely compartmentalized in a way most people could only dream of, that only leaves us with only one adds another grim option: that Goodyear is allocating funding to research that he has does not think is without merit. If he doesn’t believe in evolution, and yet is still funding it, that’s also a problem. It means that he’s not governing based on good science, or even personal ideology – what else is there but a desire to prevent public outcry. And that’s a bad way of doing things.

So, even if you’re right Ross, I still think that means Goodyear is the wrong selection.

Update II: Wordpress seems to want to eat up all of my line breaks, making me re-enter the HTML every time I edit. Going to try and fix that – if anyone has had this problem before and knows how to fix it, let me know.

Why we still need Charles Darwin

Scott L. — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:37:44 +0000

Valentine’s Day is coming quickly approaching us. But before we celebrate a day that focuses around love, compassion and all those high ideals. But that is a few days away. Today is the day to remember a man who sought to remind us that we are little more than very smart animals.

It was 200 years ago today that Charles Darwin was born. Even through the man was born two centuries ago, almost everyone in the country knows his name. Hundreds of years later, people still know about the man and his theories.

We’ve come so far since Darwin’s day. We have come a long way since he first noted took a keen interest in bird beaks on the Gallipolis Islands. Still, after all this time, Darwin’s theories, and his legacy still remains extremely important.

Scientifically speaking, Darwin’s theories are still extremely important. While still think of genetics as primarily relating to biology, so many other advances have been made possible by Darwin’s work. Agriculture and ranching both use genetics and selective breeding to increase yields. The introduction of DNA typing has changed the face of criminal justice and investigation: not only can criminals be identified through genetic evidence, but the technology is used to put names to the victims of natural and man-made disasters.

Even computer programming and engineering work has built on the ideas of Darwin – programming and design done by a large group, with the most suitable product being plucked out of the pool. Survival of the fittest code. These are just a few examples of the scientific legacy left behind by Darwin.

But besides these disciplines, Charles Darwin continued in the tradition of Galileo and Copernicus: a rigorous dedication to their observations, even in the face of oppression. During his time, Darwin was vilified for his theories. The was accused of being the agent of the devil, and some sources say that he felt the need to keep his ideas locked away for many years to keep from offending his devout sister.

Darwin wasn’t the first, but he was a vital step towards the secularization of science. Before his time, most theories into the origins of creatures had religious overtones. There was no belief that the course of animal life could be a through a natural process. By all accounts a faithful man, he still had the courage to remain true to what he had observed – even if it made him a social pariah. When asked of his theories could relate to God, he simply responded that it changed nothing. God was still the same, and mans duty remained steady. He helped usher in an age of reason, where religion and science did not have to be seen as ancient enemies or entwined figures – rather as separate vehicles set out to answer very different questions.

The idea of science being divorced from religion or ideology is still important now. Now, where the debate over the environment and health of the planet has been drawn on political lines. Now, when bickering and ideological bent taint the science of economy and the logic of math. Now, when a vocal minority would call Darwin a liar and a villain because his observations do not jive with their faith.

Darwin is long dead to the world, but his legacy is strong. As is the need to uphold it

A turkey of an idea

Scott L. — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 04:05:32 +0000

Last summer saw a deadly listeriosis outbreak across Canada because of tainted meat from a Maple Leaf plant. And right now, everyone is freaking out every time they get anywhere near peanut butter. (Now I know how the 1% of Canadians feel.)

Now, given all that, you’d think it would be the time to step up and reaffirm the government’s dedication to food safety.

Of course, any astute observer of national politics knows that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the powers that be think instead it is the perfect time to continue pushing for LESS oversight into the Canadian food industry.

From the CBC:

“Under the proposed changes, called the “poultry rejection program,” slaughterhouse employees would be responsible for monitoring birds as they pass through the production lines, a task usually carried out by veterinarians working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The changes would also mean slaughterhouses wouldn’t have to make public the reasons why carcasses were rejected, say the veterinarians.”

Okay, I can understand the thinking behind privitazation of social services and regulation. I mean, I don’t agree with it at all – I think it’s a system that is just asking for corruption and abuse. But at the very least, I can understand how someone might (mistakenly) think that it would be more efficient and focused than public agencies.

But I don’t get how this can seem like a good idea. It’s more dangerous than privatizing regulation, and it’s more insulting than simply deregulating.

I know that we’re all living in this post-Obama world of hope and change and good feelings, but no one is so idealistic that this can seem like a good idea. We have food safety rules for a reason – because we think it is important that what we eat in this country meets a minimum standard. If we were confident that the food industry would meet this standard all the time, we wouldn’t need the rules. If we aren’t naive enough to think that the industry will follow this rules, why on earth would we trust them with enforcement of the rules?

The fact is that human beings are hard-wired to cut corners. It is basic evolutionary psychology: an individual that can get the same result using fewer resources is more likely to survive and thrive. That’s why we have regulations in the first place – so that there is a penalty to cutting corners, one that outweighs the benefits.

We leave very few things up to self-enforcement. We don’t trust students to mark their own tests- we have proctors for that.

We don’t trust accused criminals to determine their own guilty – we have judges.

And we shouldn’t be leave the decisions on whether a product is safe for sale to the companies that sell it. It’s not just wrong. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.

This isn’t a partisan issue – this poultry “modernization” (as independent oversight is some how a medieval notion) started under the federal Liberals. But Harper’s Conservatives have embraced the idea whole-heartedly. (Just like his shameful handling of the government probe into last year’s listeria outbreak.)

There is no way the government can be idealistic enough to actually think this will make Canadians safer. So, the only option left is that they are cynical enough to believe that consumers and voters won’t make much of a stink.

And that’s the only thing in this mess they might actually be right about.

Live Blogging the Federal Election

Scott L. — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:46:50 +0000

Final Standings – 76 LIB – 143 CON – 37 NDP – 0 GREEN - 50 BLOC - 2 OTHER

The Leaders: Harper Re-elected – Dion Re-elected – Layton Re-elected – May Defeated- Duceppe Re-elected

6:51 – The blog lives! And less than ten minutes before CBC’s election coverage starts. I think that shows the lack of preparation and forethought that will become the hallmark of this Internet adventure. Fitting.

And now, the search for themes begins.

6:59 – WE HAVE AN A ELECTION! Peter Mansbridge didn’t even get through his little introduction rhyme without making fun of Harper’s sweatervests. It sounded like Dr Seuss wrote it.

Also, Mansbridge’s head is like a shining beacon of democracy.

7:04 – 22 Minutes was interviewing Dion, and he was wearing aviators! He looked like professor fighter pilot! I would like to change my vote.

7:13 – I was elated when they said that George Stroumboulopoulos had the night off. They actually just meant that The Hour had it off, and old Stroumby is handing out “Darts and Laurels” to the individual candidates. It’s like thumbs up/thumbs down, but far more awkward to say. Still painful.

Although saying that Australia’s Prime Minister ripped off Harper’s speech three days before he made it. I’ll give you that one, Stroumboulopoulos.

7:19 – NEWSFLASH: Young people use Facebook and Twitter! Thanks CBC.

I need a drink.

7:20 – I got a drink.

7:23 – Airfarce takes the stage. Mike Otto :” Bring back Dave Broadfoot.” I concur.

7:30 – Results! Here it comes from Atlantic Canada!

17 LIB – 10 CON – 5 NDP – 1 BLOC – 1 OTHER

The Liberals were the big losers in Atlantic Canada, it looks like. Lost three seats, which left the Conservatives, the NDP and an Indy to pick up one more each over last year.

Elizabeth May didn’t even come close to kicking Peter McKay out. Not even a contest in Central Nova. Ouch.

7:37 – CBC’s commercial buffers are really dark, panning night shots with a very foreboding music. I think Christopher Nolan directed this election.

7:40 – Mike Kendrick: “McGarvey looks likes that guy from the Full Monty.”

7:42 – The CBC definitely wins the contest of the graphics. CTV’s Global’s vote total counter looks like it was designed for a freeware program.

7:47: Conservatives and Liberals are now in a dead heat. Predicted at 41 seats a piece.

7:48: That was out-of-date before I even saved it. Conservatives are ahead now.

7:49: Liberals down almost EIGHT points in Ontario. Jesus.

Thanks to the technology on loan from the CFL broadcasts, they can now draw on their charts with big, thick yellow lines.

Thanks Peter. Without those little yellow lines, I would have NO IDEA where the Liberal votes went. I know that the Cons, NDP and Green all gained, but no way I could make the connection.

7:55 – It’s an early poll, and therefore meaningless, but right now Edmonton – Leduc is leaning NDP with a slim lead. That’s surprising to say the least.

7:57 – Jim Prentice is coasting into an easy win in Calgary-North. Not at all surprising, but it is still disappointing.

8:00 – Polls closed in BC. Now comes the counting. The endless counting.

8:04 – The Edmonton – Leduc anomaly is fixed – solid Conservative win predicted. But right now, Con Jaffer and NDP Duncan are in a DEAD HEAT in my personal riding, Edmonton- Strathcona.

8:06 – CBC has officially predicted a Conservative minority. No surprise. Guest Reporter Brittany LeBlanc confirms the Canadian Press is saying the same thing. At this time of writing, Cons have 118 projected seats.

8:12: More from Brittany Brittney – Harper and Dion both re-elected.

8:27: Layton re-lected easily. Also, I’m quickly losing steaming.

8:28: Wendy Mesley just lost in on air when talking about the Bloc. She sounded like Micheal Geist for a bit there.

8:30: Fortier is owned by the Bloc. Looks like Harper will be sending him back to the Senate.

8:33: Fixed the name of this post. “Living Blogging the Election?” Good job, Scott. Good job.

8:34: Update on Edmonton-Strathcona: Con – 3945 NDP – 3180

Also, close, close race in Sherwood Park between Acceptable Right Wing Uppal – 1384 vs Crazy Right Wing Ford – 1410.

8:42: As the Conservatives gain more seats, I find that my drinks contain more rye and less Coke. Further study into this phenomenon is needed.

8:46: CBC is predicting a minority government for Harper. I’m predicting that Rick Mercer wears out his Blackberry keyboard before the game is done. He is intense into that shit.

8:52: Up until this point, CBC’s election coverage didn’t have close to enough shots of the back of Jim Flaherty’s neck. Thanks for rectifying that one, cameraman. I’m glad that my tax dollars paid for your on-the-job training.

8:59: Baird’s back. Idiot.

9:04: Strathcona update: Looks like it’s going to be Jaffer. He’s up 10,874 to Duncan’s 9,576. Le sigh.

9:10: CBC finally gets around to talking about the Uppal/Ford battle. Must have run out of ridings to discuss in Ontario.

9:12: I’ve decided to follow Dan Rather’s lead. Scott +4. Look it up.

9:13: CBC is talking about Twitter. An indepth analysis of TWITTER STATISTICS! This is intense. Also, best headline ever – “Tweets Dump on Dion.”

9:26- Results aren’t shifting too much, so updates are going to slow down a little bit. I’ve got a midterm tomorrow that I need to study for, and I’m already +5. Will update with any big developments, or if CBC tries to understand the Internet again.

9:31: Mike Otto is taking over as guest live blogger for a bit. He’s emotionally fragile, so be gentle with him.

9:33: Yes while Lilwall is “studying” I’ll keep you updated. By you I mean Brittney, because honestly who else is reading this. SHOUT OUT! Peter has a phone call. It’s for some senator. Also Linda Duncan is narrowing the gap and I remain optimistic.

9:35: Scott: I haven’t even closed the window, and I’m already regretting the Mike Otto Experiment.

9:39: Mike: Jaffer’s lead has been consistently narrowing. 1200, 1100, 1000, 900. Now down to 700. I’m at half mast.

9:41: Mike: Jaffer’s party is at the Ranch? What the hell? Who is this guy? Is he catering to the douchebag-motherfucker demographic?

9:43: Scott: Hope remains. Duncan is closing the gap in Edmonton- Strathcona, and she’s now within 550 votes. May the floors of The Ranch run slick with tears. (The Ranch, seriously?)

9:49: Mike: Quebec’s language is French? THATS UNPOSSIBLE. (Thanks Gilles)

9:53: Mike: CBC is pretty much ignoring the fact that the NDP is owning shit. I am told they had 29 seats last time around, +9 is an impressive gain.

10:01: Mike: The NDP speech cliché cache ’stache: ordinary families check, kitchen table check, boardroom table check, ordinary working families again, ordinary working canadians, real economy, blah blah mwah mwah. UN LEADER SOLIDE!

10:07: Mike: Okay we’re going to play Diplomacy and kill each other. Conclusion: Liberals shit pants, Conservatives/NDP pick up the slack. Green shift? More like blue/orange shift.

10:10: Mike: Super reportress Jen Huygen says Duncan and Jaffer are one vote apart. If she is lying we are no longer friends.

10:20: Mike: Elections Canada reports Duncan on top by 400. I am now fully erect.

11:10: Peter Mansbridge doesn’t understand melancholy?

11:12: Linda Duncan is now up after the Journal reports Jaffer giving his victory speech. Only three polls remain, she leads by 430. Thanks for mentioning it CBC.

Sober thoughts the morning after (Mike): In conclusion, Liberals fail, NDP/Conservatives succeed. Greens sadly still irrelevant. Linda Duncan defeats Jaffer by 442 votes. Congratulations Linda, you get the job of representing all the Liberals, Greens, and NDP folk in the province. CBC fails in spectacular fashion by calling a Jaffer victory, then completely ignoring the biggest upset in the election for a solid hour. Conservatives still have a minority, so thanks Harper, thanks for wasting our time. We’ll see you again in six months.