http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19801666
It seems that the majority of our MPs don't know the probability of getting two heads in a row when flipping a coin. At first glance this may seem a flippant thing to worry about, but it is actually very serious. It is very basic statistical maths and is essential for properly understanding any use of statistics, of which there are a lot when it comes to deciding policy. And maths is also essential when it comes to understanding budgets.
Unfortunately however it seems the only qualifications you need to be a candidate these days is the ability to look good in the media and total devotion to a party line. Then again, to achieve the latter, maybe not having the skillis to be able to independently judge the merits of party policy is a good thing.
You may argue that in a democracy representation should be open to all, but that really makes very little sense. It makes being an MP one of the few, if not the only job, where you don't need to have the requisite skills to actually do the job you are elected to do, just the skills to get the job in the first place (which is a different skill set altogether). And that is a problem because it means the person representing you will then either be attempting to do a job themselves, which they are manifestly incapable of doing, or relying on other unelected people, without the capability to critically judge the advice they are receiving from them.
I think it is necessary to enable those elected to be capable of representing us the electorate properly, and for that it requires that our representatives can show at least basic numeracy skills via at least a decent maths qualification. Otherwise we get what we deserve when MPs can't understand the data they are basing policy on and seem incapable of balancing budgets.
Friday, 2 November 2012
Friday, 21 September 2012
Republicans - The Christian Right in the USA
Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
These days I'm an athiest, but I was brought up in a Christian environment at a Christian school and know the Bible pretty well. When I look at the Republican Party in the USA, especially the groups on the far right fringes, which supposedly adhere to Christian values, I don't recognise the Christianity that I read in the Bible. I no longer see the Bible as the word of God and hence as having any particular moral authority, but it does seem to me that this section of society who claim to follow Jesus have lost their way. I do occasionally watch the God Channel and its compatriots to see the way the wind is blowing, and one thing that has struck me most about the preaching is that there seems to be a focus on how to use Christianity to help yourself. For example, one common theme, is giving, not to help others (although that is a benefit, often for the channel or preacher mind) but to gain back more, by the will of God, than you gave in the first place, often accompanied by anecdotal testimony.
The impression I get, and this is not something I have studied or seen studies about, is that there is more an attempt to fit the creed to a philosophy than living by a philosophy derived from a creed. This isn't unique and can be seen throughout history in multiple religions to support whatever the prevailing opinion seems to be. But it does seem to me that those following these far right preachers would do well to bear in mind the following warnings also given in the New Testament:
Matthew
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
These days I'm an athiest, but I was brought up in a Christian environment at a Christian school and know the Bible pretty well. When I look at the Republican Party in the USA, especially the groups on the far right fringes, which supposedly adhere to Christian values, I don't recognise the Christianity that I read in the Bible. I no longer see the Bible as the word of God and hence as having any particular moral authority, but it does seem to me that this section of society who claim to follow Jesus have lost their way. I do occasionally watch the God Channel and its compatriots to see the way the wind is blowing, and one thing that has struck me most about the preaching is that there seems to be a focus on how to use Christianity to help yourself. For example, one common theme, is giving, not to help others (although that is a benefit, often for the channel or preacher mind) but to gain back more, by the will of God, than you gave in the first place, often accompanied by anecdotal testimony.
The impression I get, and this is not something I have studied or seen studies about, is that there is more an attempt to fit the creed to a philosophy than living by a philosophy derived from a creed. This isn't unique and can be seen throughout history in multiple religions to support whatever the prevailing opinion seems to be. But it does seem to me that those following these far right preachers would do well to bear in mind the following warnings also given in the New Testament:
Matthew
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Acts 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Friday, 24 August 2012
Privacy, Press Freedom and Self Regulation
Privacy and press freedom are mutually antagonistic goals, and indeed it would be bad for society if either were absolute. Press freedom is necessary to uncover corruption, hypocrisy and other issues which affect the rest of Society. Privacy is necessary to allow everyone to be able to do as they wish in the comfort of their own homes where that doesn't impact on others.
This discussion has of course been prompted by the naked pictures of Prince Harry, who has been doing what any number of youngsters get up to at one time or another. As such pictures of such incidents regularly arrive on the internet to embarrass participants and they duly did for the Prince. But normally that it is where it would end: they wouldn't wind up in the press.
So should the Prince expect privacy in this case? In the internet sense, probably not. He did after all invite strangers with cameras back to his room: it's unlikely even for the general public that such things would remain just in the room. So how about press privacy. Here I think the answer should be that he should expect privacy. His actions were in a private hotel room with other consensual adults, nor were they illegal. The press, especially The Sun, is making a big issue of public interest, but it is hard to see any interest, above the merely gossip based, in a group of people, of whatever station in life, stripping off in private. I can only see a public interest where a person involved publically espouses a completely different behaviour, espcially where other political or finiancial interests may be tied in. Prince Harry to my knowledge has never made any such statements.
There are two clear motivations for The Sun in publishing the pictures, and neither involve the public interest. As the paper itself says, they are easily available on the internet: they claim this as no reason to prevent publication. In as far as it goes, that is probably true, but only if one takes the argument in isolation. The same fact of wide internet access could easily be used the other way, that as they are openly accessible anyway, what possible reason is there to bother republishing them again, especially in a paper which likes to take the moral high ground (regardless of what it actually publishes elsewhere in its pages).
The first obvious motivation is financial. The pictures will almost certainly lead to high sales, and at the end of the day the paper is a business. Unfortunately this kind of story plugs right in to what appears to be the evolved need for humans to keep track of the social hierarchy in their group so financially they are probably on to a winner.
The second motivations seems to be to thumb their noses at press self-regulation. As other papers have stated these pictures would appear to violate the code of conduct for the press, and which is self regulated. It would appear that some people associated with The Sun think that they should have a near absolute right to publish whatever they wish because they are "the press" and are using this as a cause celebre with the Press Complaints Commission and the Leveson Inquiry in their sights. More expert opinion than my own would appear to indicate, that regardless of what you may think of the current rules, The Sun has without a doubt broken them. So now it comes down to how they will be punished, if at all. Which brings us to self regulation.
The Leveson Inquiry has shown that the press is as corruptible as any other institution and needs checks and balances. However, for such balances to be effective it is clear that they must be independent: self regulation continually fails. It may well be that all The Sun achieves is to demonstrate how toothless self regulation is and prompt the one thing I doubt it actually wants, which is a legally independent oversight of the UK press.
This discussion has of course been prompted by the naked pictures of Prince Harry, who has been doing what any number of youngsters get up to at one time or another. As such pictures of such incidents regularly arrive on the internet to embarrass participants and they duly did for the Prince. But normally that it is where it would end: they wouldn't wind up in the press.
So should the Prince expect privacy in this case? In the internet sense, probably not. He did after all invite strangers with cameras back to his room: it's unlikely even for the general public that such things would remain just in the room. So how about press privacy. Here I think the answer should be that he should expect privacy. His actions were in a private hotel room with other consensual adults, nor were they illegal. The press, especially The Sun, is making a big issue of public interest, but it is hard to see any interest, above the merely gossip based, in a group of people, of whatever station in life, stripping off in private. I can only see a public interest where a person involved publically espouses a completely different behaviour, espcially where other political or finiancial interests may be tied in. Prince Harry to my knowledge has never made any such statements.
There are two clear motivations for The Sun in publishing the pictures, and neither involve the public interest. As the paper itself says, they are easily available on the internet: they claim this as no reason to prevent publication. In as far as it goes, that is probably true, but only if one takes the argument in isolation. The same fact of wide internet access could easily be used the other way, that as they are openly accessible anyway, what possible reason is there to bother republishing them again, especially in a paper which likes to take the moral high ground (regardless of what it actually publishes elsewhere in its pages).
The first obvious motivation is financial. The pictures will almost certainly lead to high sales, and at the end of the day the paper is a business. Unfortunately this kind of story plugs right in to what appears to be the evolved need for humans to keep track of the social hierarchy in their group so financially they are probably on to a winner.
The second motivations seems to be to thumb their noses at press self-regulation. As other papers have stated these pictures would appear to violate the code of conduct for the press, and which is self regulated. It would appear that some people associated with The Sun think that they should have a near absolute right to publish whatever they wish because they are "the press" and are using this as a cause celebre with the Press Complaints Commission and the Leveson Inquiry in their sights. More expert opinion than my own would appear to indicate, that regardless of what you may think of the current rules, The Sun has without a doubt broken them. So now it comes down to how they will be punished, if at all. Which brings us to self regulation.
The Leveson Inquiry has shown that the press is as corruptible as any other institution and needs checks and balances. However, for such balances to be effective it is clear that they must be independent: self regulation continually fails. It may well be that all The Sun achieves is to demonstrate how toothless self regulation is and prompt the one thing I doubt it actually wants, which is a legally independent oversight of the UK press.
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Basic Principles
The difficult issue: deciding what a society and government should and shouldn't legislate and involve themselves with. I think there are a few basic principles that can be outlined, although as always the devil is in the detail.
1) The law should apply in the same way to everybody. There should be no special dispensations based on rank, class, gender, religion, ethnicity and so on and so forth.
2) At the legal level there should be no restrictions on the individual except where the individual's actions adversely affect the ability of others to live as they wish.
3) For adults, it is not the business of the state to get involved in any private, consensual activities. This covers anything from sexual fetishes to extreme sports provided that the state is not expected to be financially involved (such as by the provision of rescue or health services).
These are broad principles and leave a lot of room for setting the exact boundaries. For example do the above cover state provision of a health service such as the NHS? I would argue that it does, but maybe not to the full extent of the current NHS. But that's not a discussion for this post, which is just intended to provide a basic set of the principles to base the rest of the blog upon.
1) The law should apply in the same way to everybody. There should be no special dispensations based on rank, class, gender, religion, ethnicity and so on and so forth.
2) At the legal level there should be no restrictions on the individual except where the individual's actions adversely affect the ability of others to live as they wish.
3) For adults, it is not the business of the state to get involved in any private, consensual activities. This covers anything from sexual fetishes to extreme sports provided that the state is not expected to be financially involved (such as by the provision of rescue or health services).
These are broad principles and leave a lot of room for setting the exact boundaries. For example do the above cover state provision of a health service such as the NHS? I would argue that it does, but maybe not to the full extent of the current NHS. But that's not a discussion for this post, which is just intended to provide a basic set of the principles to base the rest of the blog upon.
Tuesday, 12 June 2012
Should We Play God?
This is one of the most emotive and simulaneously useless questions that is constantly asked, or often turned into the statement "We should not play at being God." The latter statement takes the view that it is axiomic that playing at being God is bad. Reading the Old Testament seems to me to be ample evidence (if we grant just for a sentence that God exists) that God is no more moral than humanity and indeed the main criteria for deciding whether people should live or die seems to depend not on their actions but whether they choose to indulge His whims. So in the first instance I would argue that the assumption that we are inherently worse at doing Godlike things is flawed.
The assumption behind the question is also flawed from a logical perspective. For an action to be of God it is inherently supernatural and hence we are unable to accomplish it by definition. If we can do something, it is natural by definition and is accomplished by science and technology at whatever level of knowledge is required. There is nothing supernatural about the fusion bomb or genetics, for example.
And that brings me to the important point, which is not how valid the question is, but the effect that asking it has. The use of it is an attempt to frame an argument in religious and emotive terms with the concurrent assumption that if you are playing at God (in a usually ill-defrined way) then what you are doing must be therefore inherently wrong and should be stopped. It may well be, and often is, true that the action in question should certainly be reviewed and discussed with regard to ethics, but based on the evidence and risks involved. The playing God argument attempts to sidestep this in an attempt to impose a certain world view based purely on a certain interpretation of a religious text. Unfortunately, despite all its flaws, it is not an argument that can ever be ignored and one that must be actively countered as its emotive content, and its short cut to a cultural reference, will and does short circuit critical thinking in many people.
The assumption behind the question is also flawed from a logical perspective. For an action to be of God it is inherently supernatural and hence we are unable to accomplish it by definition. If we can do something, it is natural by definition and is accomplished by science and technology at whatever level of knowledge is required. There is nothing supernatural about the fusion bomb or genetics, for example.
And that brings me to the important point, which is not how valid the question is, but the effect that asking it has. The use of it is an attempt to frame an argument in religious and emotive terms with the concurrent assumption that if you are playing at God (in a usually ill-defrined way) then what you are doing must be therefore inherently wrong and should be stopped. It may well be, and often is, true that the action in question should certainly be reviewed and discussed with regard to ethics, but based on the evidence and risks involved. The playing God argument attempts to sidestep this in an attempt to impose a certain world view based purely on a certain interpretation of a religious text. Unfortunately, despite all its flaws, it is not an argument that can ever be ignored and one that must be actively countered as its emotive content, and its short cut to a cultural reference, will and does short circuit critical thinking in many people.
Friday, 1 June 2012
Equality
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." United States of America Declaration of Independence
There are two concepts which are often confised:
1) Everyone is equal, ie: the same.
2) Everyone should be treated in the same way.
The first is obvious nonsense, but has given rise to some attempts to achieve it, usually by trying to remove competition, whether directly or by having no measures for comparing. The net effect of this is that the general level of achievement can only be at the level of the worst individual in the group. Quite clearly we are not equal in this sense, not least because half of us are men and half are women. Then there are differences in height, build, eyesight, hearing, intelligence and other factors all influenced by our genes and upbringing, and in later life our own decisions. Perhaps this aspect of non-equality can be best illustrated in the person of Stephen Hawking who is simultaneously one of the most intellectually brilliant people of his generation and also one of the most physically disabled due to MS.
Where a society should strive for equality therefore, is not in the individuals, but in the opportunities given to those individuals. The key word here is strive, because equality would in fact be easy to achieve by providing no access to any assistance of any kind. Equality should not be achieved by blocking opportunities but by attempting to give everyone access to as many opportunities as possible. In practice this is unlikely to be possible purely down to budgetry constraints on governments and other publically funded institutions, such as charities, and those with personal resources will always therefore be better placed. That is not an argument however for restricting the latter, but for finding ways to enable the rest.
Concurrent with equal opportunity needs to be equality under the law. This means that everyone, regardless of wealth or status, has the same access and accountability to the law. Again money talks: the wealthier tend to be able to afford better lawyers. That this makes such a difference probably points more to the fact that the law has become overly complicated and could do with simplifying than any other factor.
Even under an ideal system, we will still have rich and poor, winners and losers, because at the end of day a person's drive and the things that they consider most important will decide how their life unfolds. Some will want wealth, some power, some family, some to help others, etc., etc., etc. One person's achievement will be another's waste of time, and in that it would be a much more boring world if we were individually equal.
There are two concepts which are often confised:
1) Everyone is equal, ie: the same.
2) Everyone should be treated in the same way.
The first is obvious nonsense, but has given rise to some attempts to achieve it, usually by trying to remove competition, whether directly or by having no measures for comparing. The net effect of this is that the general level of achievement can only be at the level of the worst individual in the group. Quite clearly we are not equal in this sense, not least because half of us are men and half are women. Then there are differences in height, build, eyesight, hearing, intelligence and other factors all influenced by our genes and upbringing, and in later life our own decisions. Perhaps this aspect of non-equality can be best illustrated in the person of Stephen Hawking who is simultaneously one of the most intellectually brilliant people of his generation and also one of the most physically disabled due to MS.
Where a society should strive for equality therefore, is not in the individuals, but in the opportunities given to those individuals. The key word here is strive, because equality would in fact be easy to achieve by providing no access to any assistance of any kind. Equality should not be achieved by blocking opportunities but by attempting to give everyone access to as many opportunities as possible. In practice this is unlikely to be possible purely down to budgetry constraints on governments and other publically funded institutions, such as charities, and those with personal resources will always therefore be better placed. That is not an argument however for restricting the latter, but for finding ways to enable the rest.
Concurrent with equal opportunity needs to be equality under the law. This means that everyone, regardless of wealth or status, has the same access and accountability to the law. Again money talks: the wealthier tend to be able to afford better lawyers. That this makes such a difference probably points more to the fact that the law has become overly complicated and could do with simplifying than any other factor.
Even under an ideal system, we will still have rich and poor, winners and losers, because at the end of day a person's drive and the things that they consider most important will decide how their life unfolds. Some will want wealth, some power, some family, some to help others, etc., etc., etc. One person's achievement will be another's waste of time, and in that it would be a much more boring world if we were individually equal.
Wednesday, 30 May 2012
Inalienable Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." United States of America Declaration of Independence
The concept of an inalienable right, whatever the ultimate source, seems to be one of wishful thinking rather based in reality. It is quite easy to see from some current societies and most from history that there is nothing absolute about any given right, even one such as the right to life. The rights which we enjoy, to whatever extent around the globe, are constructs of the societies we live in, maintained and hopefully enforced by the legal system of those societies. Should for some reason those societies degrade or completely collapse, then those rights will also disappear.
I've quoted probably the most famous declaration regarding rights, which goes to show that even the most boldly stated intentions can be no more than words, being put in place by a nation that had legal slavery for almost a century after the words were written. It is a demonstration that rights have to be more than just stated, they have to be enforced. There is nothing automatic about them. Rights are a balance to those who would seek to accrue power, whether accidentally or more likely intentionally. Therefore the citizens of any society must also watch that they are not eroded, however noble or well meaning the original intention may be.
And that is not as easy as it may seem. After all some rights can directly compete: take for example the right to life and the right to freedom. Which should be paramount? The first curtails the freedom to kill, the second makes it easier for criminals to operate. It is not just a matter of absolute inalienable rights, but forging the right balance between them, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole so that it may continue to function to protect the very rights it wishes to implement. The danger comes when assertions are made that rights eminate from some apparently absolute source. No right is fundamentally absolute and there is no right which cannot ultimately be removed. And indeed there is heated argument in some cases as to just how far rights should extend.
I have no real conclusion, as the whole concept of rights is so mutable. I suppose this is just a warning against reliance on the concept of absolute and inalienable rights as a guarantee of any way of life.
The concept of an inalienable right, whatever the ultimate source, seems to be one of wishful thinking rather based in reality. It is quite easy to see from some current societies and most from history that there is nothing absolute about any given right, even one such as the right to life. The rights which we enjoy, to whatever extent around the globe, are constructs of the societies we live in, maintained and hopefully enforced by the legal system of those societies. Should for some reason those societies degrade or completely collapse, then those rights will also disappear.
I've quoted probably the most famous declaration regarding rights, which goes to show that even the most boldly stated intentions can be no more than words, being put in place by a nation that had legal slavery for almost a century after the words were written. It is a demonstration that rights have to be more than just stated, they have to be enforced. There is nothing automatic about them. Rights are a balance to those who would seek to accrue power, whether accidentally or more likely intentionally. Therefore the citizens of any society must also watch that they are not eroded, however noble or well meaning the original intention may be.
And that is not as easy as it may seem. After all some rights can directly compete: take for example the right to life and the right to freedom. Which should be paramount? The first curtails the freedom to kill, the second makes it easier for criminals to operate. It is not just a matter of absolute inalienable rights, but forging the right balance between them, not just for individuals, but for society as a whole so that it may continue to function to protect the very rights it wishes to implement. The danger comes when assertions are made that rights eminate from some apparently absolute source. No right is fundamentally absolute and there is no right which cannot ultimately be removed. And indeed there is heated argument in some cases as to just how far rights should extend.
I have no real conclusion, as the whole concept of rights is so mutable. I suppose this is just a warning against reliance on the concept of absolute and inalienable rights as a guarantee of any way of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)