Bias Vs. Accuracy

If there is a glass of water on the table that can hold one liter, and there is only half a liter of water in it, is it half empty or half full? 

We all know the distinction between being an optimist and being a pessimist, and I am sure we have all heard the glass of water example.  The fact is that there is half a liter in a glass that can hold a whole liter.  If we say that the glass is full, we are not being accurate, we are claiming that the glass has a whole liter of water in it when it does not.  The same would be true if we claimed that it is mostly full.  It is not mostly full if it only has ½ of a liter in it; it would have to have more than ½ a liter to be mostly full.  Of course, the same is true for the opposite: empty and mostly empty. 

Of course we also have the crazy opinion that we could talk about it being half full of air, or half empty of air.  We could even talk of it being full because it is half filled with water and half filled with air.  But, those are beyond what I want to address here and beyond what most people would consider normal. 

If we can agree on the facts, in this case the quantified volume of the water in the glass and the total capacity that the glass has, then we can agree on what is accurate and what is not.  Once we agree on ‘the numbers,’ then we can venture in to bias.  If we can’t agree on what is accurate, then there is no bias that we can agree to disagree about.  If we can’t agree on what it means to be accurate, we are condemned to argue about the interpretation of things that we have not defined. 

After all, bias is a label for interpretations that you don’t understand or agree with.  We can’t call a person an optimist when they say the glass is half full if we don’t know (or can’t agree) that the glass has half the amount of water in it that is can hold.  A person that would call a glass that is 65% full, half full is not an optimist or a pessimist but a conservative.  If they called it mostly full they would be something else, a person of a different bias.  If they called it full, they would simply be wrong. 

It is often the case that debates and arguments skip over the question of accuracy and go right to matters of bias; this is a sure way to end up with a story full of sound and fury that means (and accomplishes) nothing.  If you can’t agree on what it is that you are talking about in a fundamental way (which these days often boils down to agreeing on data, or facts) then when you disagree, you can never be sure it is because you view it differently, or because you are talking about a different it.  That is not just a waste of time of your goal is to accomplish something, but it is a sure way to create and intensify divisions between people.

Note: I see this as part of a larger thought project I am working on that deals with the rehabilitation of the concept of opinion.  In a rough way, the word ’bias’ could be replaces here with ‘opinion.’  

Neil Postman's Ecological Change

“Technological change is neither additive nor subtractive.  It is ecological.  I mean ‘ecological’ in the same sense as the word is used by environmental scientists.  One significant change generates total change.  If you remove the caterpillars from a given habitat, you are not left with the same environment minus caterpillars: you have a new environment, and you have reconstituted the conditions of survival; the same is true if you add caterpillars to an environment that has had none.  This is how ecology of media works as well.  A new technology does not add or subtract something.  It changes everything.”

-- Neil Postman from Technopoly

The world is not linear. We often explore and analyze the world as if it were, but that is just an approach that makes it easier to understand. We think in linear ways; however, the world is more complex than that.

The principle of ceteris paribus, or ‘other things being equal,’ is behind most (if not all) formulas and theories we use to explain the world in the sciences, social sciences and even the humanities. We isolate two variables and look at the relation between them, forgetting that they are not isolated at all. What this forgets is that in any living system, things do not remain the same when other things around them change. In other words: when one variable changes, all other things are not equal. Things—a lot of things— adjust, react, counteract, etc.

Back in college I wrote in one of my journals that when we dissect things we distort them. The organs of an animal are not the same shape and size when they are taken out and laid on a lab table. They are not functioning either. As soon as we cut the skin, we distort. I shared that thought with a few friends, and it didn’t seem to impress anyone. I wasn’t very familiar with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at that point or Schroder’s cat. I couldn’t relate it to physical science; I think that made a difference. I felt my insight was dead on arrival.

Later, I talked about things in terms of weight and balance, especially changes in tradition and society. When one thing moves or changes, other things have to adapt by either moving their weight or changing their weight: their influence or importance. When people are given more freedom, when the government relinquishes some of its power, people need to take up more responsibility. Freedom is not a pure positive, it needs a counter balance to maintain order.

For example, the liberation of Iraq and Libya from dictatorships. With the freedom that the people gained they needed to be tolerant and cooperate with one another. In both cases, they did not take up those responsibilities and the groups and factions in the country fought with each other plunging the country into chaos. Freedom did not result in progress or the betterment of society.

A little over a year ago when I read Postman’s book Technopoly, the quote above hit a chord with me. It is not just dissection that causes distortion; it is not just Heisenberg’s observer that disturbs the thing he/she is observing; it is not just about weight and balance. It is also not just ecological change, but that is a very accessible way to talk about it. When one thing changes, everything must compensate. That is why no change, however minor it may seem on the face of things, can be taken for granted. Change is change, and the effects of that change cannot be know fully until the system as a whole has adjusted itself.  

Goodbye John Stewart

Last week marked the end of an era in American television.  Thank God!

It is not that I didn’t like John Stewart.  It is not that I didn’t think he was funny.  I like him very much and thought he was very funny, as well as smart and well informed.  Even when I disagreed with his politics (which was rather often) I still thought he was funny, intelligent and well informed.  Yet, somewhere along the line I wasn’t able to enjoy watching the Daily Show.  It made me uncomfortable and not because of what was on the show. 

The problem was not with John Stewart; the problem was with the audience.  Several years ago I started to realize that people were taking the Daily Show more seriously that I was.  I am glad that I didn’t hear it back in 2007 when people started to talk about him as the most trusted man in America.  That was what I felt when I watched the show with others or talked to them about it. He was more than just a comedian; he was important.

He is a smart man, and he wants to do good.  But he was not a news man, and he was not a politician.  He was a comedian.  His method of pointing out stupidity and hypocrisy was entertaining and even sometimes enlightening.  That however should not be mistaken for a serious contribution to political or social debate.  His jokes were sound bites, one liners.  No matter how clever or truthful they are, they simply spread and even magnify the superficiality and lack of thought and reflection that characterizes public debate in the US.

He can point out people’s faults, and that is useful.  He even did so in an entertaining way, but there is so much more that needs to be done.  In addition to calling people out for hypocrisy and stupidity, we need to analyze what the roots of the problems are.  We need to think deeply and carefully about the issues and the faults in the way that the politicians and other public personas deal with (or simply talk about) them. 

Exposing what someone did or said that was wrong or stupid is only a first step.  Then the hard work of finding explanations needs to start, after that new ideas and new plans need to be developed.  Yet, most of Stewart’s audience made the assumption that because someone was called out as stupid or a hypocrite that meant that the opposition must be right, must be better.  That in itself is stupid.  But when your discourse is based on entertainment and sound bites; that is the assumption that is made.

Granted, Stewart was not much worse than most of the news media in these respects.  News in general has become a form of entertainment: fast paces, thoughtless, superficial, filled with sound bites and fury.  This is something that Neil Postman talked about already more than two decades ago:

“But what I am claiming here is not that television is entertaining but that it has made entertainment itself the natural format for the representation of all experience…. The problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining…”  --  Neil Postman from Amusing Ourselves To Death

Before I ever read Neil Postman, I saw in the world what Postman was talking about.  It is not that Stewart is an entertainer, it is that everything is becoming entertainment and that the audience is embracing that as something of value.  Stewart was more entertaining than regular news, therefore it must be more important and trustworthy.  

"Things Happen" and "A Gay Priest"

Jeb Bush is in the hot seat.  Again, I am not trying to defend him necessarily, I just like to point out how public debate and media are so shallow and counter-productive these days.  The fact that people are focusing on the phrase 'stuff happens' and not listening to anything else that he said or meant is sad.  It seems to show that people are almost looking to be offended, and once they are they become blind to everything else and see only what offends them. 

The main point of his statement was that laws may not fix this problem; it is more about people, and "we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else." That can be broken down into two parts: 1) laws are not the answer and 2) we need to reconnect with the people around us on a personal and everyday level.  These can be agreed with or disagreed with and debated.  And that is a discussion than can have meaning and depth.  That can do good even if we can't agree in the end.  Harping on 'stuff happens' and being offended does no good.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/jeb-bush-donald-trump-stuff-happens/index.html

The other media issue that is being distorted this weekend is the 'gay priest at the Vatican.'  This should not be news, but it is because it is being handled in a way that makes it news.  The origin of that is the priest himself, who wants to use his story to influence the synod that opened today.  Next is the way that the media has been covering it.

That he wants to use his personal story to influence the synod is not in itself bad.  However, he shouldn’t make it a public issue and a media circus.  He should know better than to think that the Vatican will easily be swayed by outside opinion or pressure.  I think he could have a much bigger impact (especially with this Pope) by participating in the synod.  Change in the Catholic Church come more often from inside than from out. 

The media if focusing on the fact that he is homosexual than on the other things that he announced: that he was in a relationship and as such is breaking his vow of celibacy.  Gay or straight, announcing that you are in a relationship is grounds to be stripped of a post in the Vatican.  Yet, this is a fact that most media outlets has buried deep in their articles, even leaving it out from the first ones I saw.  If people have an issue with celibacy that is one thing, but making it look like the Vatican punished him just because he was gay is misrepresenting the story.

As far a being a gay priest in the Vatican, there should be no surprise that there are.  And that the policy is a sort of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach shouldn’t be a surprise either.  If you have vowed to be celibate, what should it matter what your orientation is? 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/03/world/gay-vatican-priest-krzystof-charamsa-feat/index.html

Gun Control

Oregon College Shooting

Maybe it is time for very strict gun control laws in the US.  Maybe it is even time to scrap the second amendment.  This is not something I say lightly; it is something I say as a sad sort of resignation.Too many people are unable to handle weapons responsibly and connected to that: too many people are unable to handle stress well; too many people are unable to handle their emotions; too many people have such little respect for other’s lives. In addition to that, most people seem resigned to those facts because far more time and energy is spent on debating gun control than talking about those other issues.  The approach is to use laws to fix problems, not to look to issues in families, communities and individuals. There are mental health issues in the US (and I don’t mean mental illness, which is more severe.)  There are family issues in the US (and I don’t mean ‘family values’ issues.)  There are community issues (and I mean real communities, not online communities.)  There are issues with values and respect in the US. 
But it is more important to talk about… actually argue about gun control. Maybe if we ban guns, people will move on and pay attention to these other issues. Maybe…

Carson and a Muslim President

Ben Carson is not the most well spoken person, but he is a thoughtful person. When he says that he would not advocate a Muslim president in the US we need to stop and listen and think, not just take that little sound bite and run off to ridicule.

First, I want to look at the relevance of the question and the statement. What is the point of this question? And why does Carson’s answer matter? The question has no relevance to the current election. His opinion on this issue is also completely irrelevant because even if he were president, he would have no power over whether a Muslim is elected or not. This question, and any answer he gives to it, are just a side show. But since it is there, why not carry on with is and make some use of it?

Second, he seems to have based his opinion on two points. If we take this apart and look at it carefully, it seems to be thoughtful and logical. The first is this:

“If it’s inconsistent with the values of America, then of course it should matter,” he said. “But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”

I hope this makes perfect sense to most people; it really should. If someone has values that are inconsistent with those of the legal framework of the US, then they should not be president.
The second thing he bases his opinion on is that sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution and American values. If you put these two together, then his statement is perfectly logical and justifiable. If this, then that. But, is that second point true?

The debate on whether or not sharia law is compatible with democracy is far from finished. Part of this has to do with the fact that the debate on what exactly sharia law means from a Muslim perspective is not clear either. (Christians and secular Europeans should think about the relationship between the Ten Commandments and secular law, between the Old Testament and the New. These are related and to say they aren’t is to be ignorant of history, tradition and culture. What exactly that relationship is needs to constantly be evaluated and revised. Now think of how difficult that debate was for Christians 200 years ago, and you get an idea of what Muslims are struggling with.)

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that sharia law is not compatible with democracy. This seems to be based on the interpretation of sharia that takes sharia as a law that is higher than any human or secular law and that over-rules any human/secular laws, legal system or political system. In short: Sharia law is spuriour to everything else: laws, constitutions, courts, etc. If that is your interpretation of sharia law, then it is incompatible with democracy, and is incompatible with American values. From this perspective, Carson is totally right. So why all the fuss?

The problem with Carson saying that believing in sharia law is incompatible with being president of the US is that most moderate Muslim don’t agree with this strict interpretation of sharia law. So, Carson’s opinion on this matter should be qualified even further: If someone thinks that sharia law is a higher law than secular law, then they are not fit to be the president. Here the statment makes perfect sense, and I am quite certain that he (and most other people) would whole heartedly agree with it.

I am wondering how many people have gotten this far in this post, likely not many. Carson bothered to explain why he thought a Muslim couldn’t be president. His reason was sharia law. It was good that he has thought through his opinion that far. However, once we look at it, we see that it should be pushed a bit further. Yet, we don’t engage in that discussion and come to a better understanding of the issue and the concerns (even fears) at hand. Just as few people have made it to the end of this post, very few read more than the headline that screamed: “Carson Says Muslim Shouldn’t Be President.”

This is a perfect example of why I am so convinced that the current media culture of buzzwords, sound bites, sharing, and liking is very harmful to society and democracy. We should not stop at the inflammatory statement or headline; we need to push beyond them into a discussion that can create a deeper understanding.



http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/254296-carson-a-muslim-shouldnt-be-president


http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/254330-carson-doubles-down-on-no-muslims-in-the-white-house

Poisoning The Soil

Advertising has little to do with the actual characteristics of products and more to do with the insecurities of the customers.  Ads largely target or even create insecurities in consumers and present the product as the fix.  This is based almost solely on emotion and disregards logic.  That is a problem for capitalism since the smooth functioning of capitalism is based on people making rational and well informed choices. 

Public debate is based on sound bites and buzz words.  These cut every idea down to the lowest common denominator and then pit them against one another as binary opposites.  This makes debating and choosing sides easy; your side is the one that you agree with as a kneejerk reaction and the other side is wrong and even evil.  That is a problem for democracy since it is based on people making thoughtful decisions and being open to compromise and cooperation. 

Education is aimed more and more at grades and standardized tests.  It is the grade that matters and not the process of learning or the development of the person.  It is the standardized test that evaluates how well you have learned and not what you actually do or think on a daily basis.  Students are graduating without skills, habits and wisdom that they can use in the real world every day.  That is a problem for free societies that need to be filled with responsible, independent and community minded people in order to function.

The progressive saying “question authority” has been turned into the belligerent “defy authority.” This rules out any meaningful conversation with authority which means that authority and tradition will not evolve.  In this environment they will both be tossed aside as irrelevant.  That is a problem when our concept of history is based on progress that grows out of accomplishments and wisdom of the past. 

We are poisoning the soil that our concepts of history, economics, government and civil society need to grow and flourish.  I hate to be pessimistic.  I am not being pessimistic here.  I know this can be changed.  So what do we do now?  

Claims of Hypocrisy

Attacking someone for being hypocritical is often just a way to whine and complain that opinion is not going your way.  (Unfortunately, this is what we often do these days instead of trying to actually gather up support/evidence for our side and make a real and detailed argument.)  But there are two ways in which it can go beyond just whining and be a real attack.

The first is to bring the persons credibility into question.  This can be effective and relevant, but only if the person is relying mostly on their own authority to support their case.  But if the opinions and positions that are being attacked are supported by something besides the authority of the person being attacked, this is really just a way to avoid the issue, the real arguments.  It is an ad hominem fallacy: that if the person is not credible then the position they hold must be false.  Even if the person is not credible, if they offer verifiable facts or evidence to support their position their own credibility is of minor importance.  Only someone that wants to avoid the arguments and evidence will be pulled into this, duped by it.

The second is to put into question the legitimacy of the rule being broken, usually a moral claim of some sort.  Here the real claim (if it is not just a way to whine and complain and there is any logic behind it) is that because one person didn’t follow the rule no one should have to. In the end, this is an avoidance of the real arguments and issues as well.  Instead of talking about if the rule is valid at all or in what context it may or may not be, they just try to sweep the whole rule aside.  (This is also often done on the back of a false analogy, when a claim is made that one situation is exactly the same as another and don’t bother to argue or acknowledge any nuance or difference.)

In both cases the claim to hypocrisy is used to avoid real issues and a serious debate about the issue at hand.  That is why it should always be ignored as the ranting of an idiot full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

The Internet of Things

This term ‘The Internet of Things’ has been thrown around a lot lately.  It is silly.  I didn’t get it; I still don’t think I do.  But then I turned, as I always seem to, to Heidegger.  Yes, from the silly to the…  Nah, I won’t say sublime. 

So what if ‘The Internet of Things’ is really just a new interpretation of the ‘Being of beings?’  For Heidegger (and this is really watering it down, but…) the ‘Being of beings’ is Being; it is the center of the network that gives everything meaning and purpose.  However, we can never get at Being, really.  We can get at beings and the essence of a being—we can know things and what makes a thing that specific thing.  And often that is enough if we ever get that far.

So Being is this unknown thing that gives itself to beings and helps shape what they are as things.  OK.  OK?  So what if the internet is Being and the things are beings…  or things.  This gets messy, but I think we can learn something from following this path away.  

The internet has all sorts of stuff in it.  That stuff is information.  The things in the phrase in question are devices that get that information.  Our things, or devices, get emails, Facebook notifications and weather.  The mirror that shows us our stocks and the weather forecast as it shows us ourselves all are made useful by that information that they get from the internet.  They are nothing without that information.  It is the internet that makes the things useful.  The internet is the Being that gives meaning and significance to the beings, devices. 

In that sense the phrase Internet of Things is actually quite ingenuous.  Thought I am sure that it was not created with that in mind.  But we can take it that way, or at least I will.  That way gives it some substance.  And really that is a rather true way of looking at it.  We often see ourselves in terms of the internet these days: we are what we listen to, watch, (maybe even read!) on the internet.   We are what we post on the internet to an even greater extent.

Yet, if we stop at that—that the internet brings us information via our devices and we are what we consume or what we disseminate over it—then we miss something.  We miss depth or real substance of any kind.  After all, the information on the internet is not substantial at all; it has almost no physical weight or force to it.  We cannot stop at the internet and what it gives us unless we want to become only electrical impulses, only thoughts. 

Here is where the connection to Heidegger’s ‘Being of beings’ and ‘The Internet of Things’ both falls apart and is very telling.  It falls apart because Heidegger says we can never get at Being, especially not through beings.  We can get hints at it, but we need to move beyond them to get at Being…  and even then Being always slips away.  However, we can always get at the internet via our devices—provided that the connection is decent.  The analogy falls apart there.  But that does not mean that we need to discard the analogy and give up the path.  No, this is where we MUST push it further.  We must push beyond this messiness, this rocky patch where the path seems to end. 

Past this apparent impasse we find the truth in the phrase ‘The Internet of Things’ and the wisdom in Heidegger’s ‘Being of beings.’  If we push just a bit further we must ask this question: Where does the internet get its information from?  All of the information on the internet is from a world.  Maybe it does not come from the world in terms of the physical rocks, flesh and water of the world.  Much of it comes from there, but some comes from the personal worlds of others.  It comes from the minds of flesh and blood people, and what is in their minds is a world too. 

Regardless of whether is comes from the physical world or the world in other minds, the information on the internet does not come from the internet.   What we need to learn from this analysis of the term ‘The Internet of Things’ is that a world exists out there aside from the internet.  There is a world that has given rise to the internet, and that is the real world.  The internet can make that world smaller by seeming to collapse the time and distance in the real world, but that real world and those distances still exist.  We need to resist getting lost in that collapse and keep from getting distanced from what is near.  We need to not lose the world as we gain the internet.  We need to use the internet and its things to enhance the world.  (But not in the sense of Google Glasses.) We need to always be connected to the world around us.  And more importantly the people in that world.