Simon Singh should move on
Simon Singh is a good science writer. He has written popular books that have helped thousands enjoy the excitement of rational discovery, the adventure of the exploration of ideas.
But then he wandered into journalism, and wrote about Chiropractic. Then he got sued.
This has been a long and complicated case and what the case has been about has often changed.
But, a reasonably clear start and end to the case can be seen.
The start of the case was Singh's Guardian article in which he said:
"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
"Happily promotes bogus treatments" is surely the key phrase here. I think there is little doubt as to what that means. Whatever the truth of the case, surely the interpretation of this phrase is clear. Chiropracters are frauds, and happy about it.
The end of the case was an appeal court judge's ruling that Singh's views were not intended as statements of facts, but as statements of opinion, and as such, were not within the scope of the law.
But what a horrible mess there was in between these two ends of the case, with few people helping to make things clear.
The first bit of the mess is the campaign that this was about the rights of scientists to put forward scientific opinions. Supposedly, there has been pressure to stop scientists publishing scientific opinions. There was even a rather silly campaign to "Keep Libel Laws out of Science". I'm afraid I have not seen a single piece of solid evidence of libel laws interfering with science. All the cases I have seen have involved people presenting scientific evidence in order to claim that others have been fraudulent in their claims of the effectiveness of medical treatments and equipment. But that isn't science. That's journalism, not science. UK libel laws have stifled journalists for decades. I believe that all journalists should be less subject to the threat of libel than they are now, but I don't believe that those who are scientists should have any privilege. Why should a scientific journalist have any more legal protection in the presentation of their views than a journalist who is an accountant, or a lawyer?
And such is the mess that this bizarre case has led to.
So what happens now? Singh says, in a guest post on Jack of Kent's blog:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/05/guest-post-simon-singh-on-bca-and.html
"Of course, I publicly stated that I never intended to call the BCA dishonest, because it is completely obvious that the article makes no such allegation."
Oh come off it! The very phrasing of this statement ("completely") is defensive. it's surely reasonably clear to any reader that such an allegation is exactly what is being made.
I think there are some lessons to be learned from this.
Firstly, it's not wise to jump on legal bandwagons, even in cases where those you generally consider allies, even friends, are involved, especially based on what you think is a legal priority in this case when you aren't a lawyer. How many lawyers have said that this case is about the freedom of scientists to publish scientific opinions? Once things get into court, the nature of the discussion changes, as does what the case is about. Stand back and let the lawyers do their work.
Secondly, when you have won, shut up. Move on, don't look back. Unless you are a lawyer you can't predict the consequences of the case, or the consequences of your comments on it. That you won the case based upon the criteria chosen by the judge does not mean that you can re-write history about what people understandably read into your original article. To try and do so looks crass and undignified.
Singh should have shut up, and moved on. He messed up, and managed to get away with it. I hope he move on after after this, if only because I want to read more of his books.
But then he wandered into journalism, and wrote about Chiropractic. Then he got sued.
This has been a long and complicated case and what the case has been about has often changed.
But, a reasonably clear start and end to the case can be seen.
The start of the case was Singh's Guardian article in which he said:
"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."
"Happily promotes bogus treatments" is surely the key phrase here. I think there is little doubt as to what that means. Whatever the truth of the case, surely the interpretation of this phrase is clear. Chiropracters are frauds, and happy about it.
The end of the case was an appeal court judge's ruling that Singh's views were not intended as statements of facts, but as statements of opinion, and as such, were not within the scope of the law.
But what a horrible mess there was in between these two ends of the case, with few people helping to make things clear.
The first bit of the mess is the campaign that this was about the rights of scientists to put forward scientific opinions. Supposedly, there has been pressure to stop scientists publishing scientific opinions. There was even a rather silly campaign to "Keep Libel Laws out of Science". I'm afraid I have not seen a single piece of solid evidence of libel laws interfering with science. All the cases I have seen have involved people presenting scientific evidence in order to claim that others have been fraudulent in their claims of the effectiveness of medical treatments and equipment. But that isn't science. That's journalism, not science. UK libel laws have stifled journalists for decades. I believe that all journalists should be less subject to the threat of libel than they are now, but I don't believe that those who are scientists should have any privilege. Why should a scientific journalist have any more legal protection in the presentation of their views than a journalist who is an accountant, or a lawyer?
And such is the mess that this bizarre case has led to.
So what happens now? Singh says, in a guest post on Jack of Kent's blog:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/05/guest-post-simon-singh-on-bca-and.html
"Of course, I publicly stated that I never intended to call the BCA dishonest, because it is completely obvious that the article makes no such allegation."
Oh come off it! The very phrasing of this statement ("completely") is defensive. it's surely reasonably clear to any reader that such an allegation is exactly what is being made.
I think there are some lessons to be learned from this.
Firstly, it's not wise to jump on legal bandwagons, even in cases where those you generally consider allies, even friends, are involved, especially based on what you think is a legal priority in this case when you aren't a lawyer. How many lawyers have said that this case is about the freedom of scientists to publish scientific opinions? Once things get into court, the nature of the discussion changes, as does what the case is about. Stand back and let the lawyers do their work.
Secondly, when you have won, shut up. Move on, don't look back. Unless you are a lawyer you can't predict the consequences of the case, or the consequences of your comments on it. That you won the case based upon the criteria chosen by the judge does not mean that you can re-write history about what people understandably read into your original article. To try and do so looks crass and undignified.
Singh should have shut up, and moved on. He messed up, and managed to get away with it. I hope he move on after after this, if only because I want to read more of his books.
Consciousness - why Hoffman is wrong
After my last post on consciousness, a friend pointed me at this talk by the reasonably well known cognitive science researcher Donald Hoffman:
http://www.veronadesign.biz/hoffman.htm
These are my thoughts about Hoffman's talk, and his ideas in general. I think it is fair to say that I disagree with almost every word!
It isn't true to say that we don't have a scientific theory of consciousness. We have a very solid scientific theory about consciousness: we have the theory that our ideas about consciousness arise from the activity of neurons. No matter how little progress we may have in thinking about consciousness, it would be a strange claim indeed that if we fully understood how the brain works, we would not have a complete understanding of why we have thoughts about consciousness.
Another problem with his ideas is that consciousness in the way he sees it has no explanatory power. It provides no testable hypothesis. It is redundant because it provides no explanation of the world that we live in. It doesn't even assist with any understanding of our experiences.
However, supposed we assume Conscious Realism (that consciousness is fundamental to reality). How would we then approach trying to understand the world, and phenomena within the world? We would end up with the same approach as if as assumed Physicalism (that everything basically arises from physics). In terms of exploration of reality, Conscious Realism adds nothing.
Hoffman's idea of a "species specific user interface" meaning that there is more out there than we can perceive does not help us at all, because science has allowed us to go beyond what we perceive. And even more, science allows us to make testable predictions about what is beyond our perception. We can test the behaviour of quarks even though we can never see them directly with our senses.
"Pixelised" space time, that our observations through science are species specific makes no sense, because the way we are exploring is not species specific, because we didn't evolve to perceive quantum theory. Is Hoffman seriously claiming that aliens would not find the same value for Planck's constant?
I have some sympathy for his frustration at the lack of scientific understanding of why we believe in consciousness. But my believe is that neuroscience will, without doubt, eventually explain this. Because once you can explain in terms of neural processing why we have a belief, what is left to explain?
http://www.veronadesign.biz/hoffman.htm
These are my thoughts about Hoffman's talk, and his ideas in general. I think it is fair to say that I disagree with almost every word!
It isn't true to say that we don't have a scientific theory of consciousness. We have a very solid scientific theory about consciousness: we have the theory that our ideas about consciousness arise from the activity of neurons. No matter how little progress we may have in thinking about consciousness, it would be a strange claim indeed that if we fully understood how the brain works, we would not have a complete understanding of why we have thoughts about consciousness.
Another problem with his ideas is that consciousness in the way he sees it has no explanatory power. It provides no testable hypothesis. It is redundant because it provides no explanation of the world that we live in. It doesn't even assist with any understanding of our experiences.
However, supposed we assume Conscious Realism (that consciousness is fundamental to reality). How would we then approach trying to understand the world, and phenomena within the world? We would end up with the same approach as if as assumed Physicalism (that everything basically arises from physics). In terms of exploration of reality, Conscious Realism adds nothing.
Hoffman's idea of a "species specific user interface" meaning that there is more out there than we can perceive does not help us at all, because science has allowed us to go beyond what we perceive. And even more, science allows us to make testable predictions about what is beyond our perception. We can test the behaviour of quarks even though we can never see them directly with our senses.
"Pixelised" space time, that our observations through science are species specific makes no sense, because the way we are exploring is not species specific, because we didn't evolve to perceive quantum theory. Is Hoffman seriously claiming that aliens would not find the same value for Planck's constant?
I have some sympathy for his frustration at the lack of scientific understanding of why we believe in consciousness. But my believe is that neuroscience will, without doubt, eventually explain this. Because once you can explain in terms of neural processing why we have a belief, what is left to explain?
If no legal burqa ban, what to do about it?
A bit more about burqa wearing, as comments from my last post and from Russell Blackford's blog
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/05/steve-zara-on-banning-burka.html
have made me want to expand on some points, and clear up some possible misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that I am not putting forward any position about whether or not burqa wearing is a matter of religious doctrine. I am not qualified to discuss that. What I wanted to highlight was an inconsistency in some of the arguments from the pro-ban lobby. The argument that a ban is in support of secularism can't be put forward at the same time as the argument that there is no religious requirement to wear the burqa, as the latter argument tends to invalidate the former, or at least gives those who support burqa-wearing an argument against the secularism position.
Something I didn't cover was what action can be taken to try and eliminate burqa wearing? This can be possibly be handled in an effective yet sensitive way through conversation with individuals, combined with public information campaigns. How would those conversations go? The same way as if a group of people were walking around with offensive slogans on their clothing. Public spaces are supposed to be places of reasonable social comfort and conformity. It is not unreasonable for those in authority in a situation to ask those wearing clothing with offensive slogans to leave the public place as a matter of respect for the peace of others. That is not oppressive. People are free to wear whatever they like (or as little as they like) in their own homes, or in appropriate social gatherings, but not in public. Someone wearing a T-shirt with a "I blame the Jews" slogan would soon find out that this is not acceptable, and yet no law is necessary to help with this.
So, what should be done is to point out to burqa wearers and their families that the rest of society sees the burqa as an offensive slogan - "women should be imprisoned", and such a strong political statement is not socially acceptable in public spaces.
The problem with this approach is that it has to overcome the feeling that this would be trampling on the religions and/or cultures of others. It is this respect for religion and tradition that has to be overcome in order to deal with the burqa.
I believe that not having a law to ban the burqa is actually a positive step, as dealing with the burqa then requires discussion and negotiation with the wearers. This may help with mutual understanding and integration in a way that legal action almost certainly won't.
http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2010/05/steve-zara-on-banning-burka.html
have made me want to expand on some points, and clear up some possible misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that I am not putting forward any position about whether or not burqa wearing is a matter of religious doctrine. I am not qualified to discuss that. What I wanted to highlight was an inconsistency in some of the arguments from the pro-ban lobby. The argument that a ban is in support of secularism can't be put forward at the same time as the argument that there is no religious requirement to wear the burqa, as the latter argument tends to invalidate the former, or at least gives those who support burqa-wearing an argument against the secularism position.
Something I didn't cover was what action can be taken to try and eliminate burqa wearing? This can be possibly be handled in an effective yet sensitive way through conversation with individuals, combined with public information campaigns. How would those conversations go? The same way as if a group of people were walking around with offensive slogans on their clothing. Public spaces are supposed to be places of reasonable social comfort and conformity. It is not unreasonable for those in authority in a situation to ask those wearing clothing with offensive slogans to leave the public place as a matter of respect for the peace of others. That is not oppressive. People are free to wear whatever they like (or as little as they like) in their own homes, or in appropriate social gatherings, but not in public. Someone wearing a T-shirt with a "I blame the Jews" slogan would soon find out that this is not acceptable, and yet no law is necessary to help with this.
So, what should be done is to point out to burqa wearers and their families that the rest of society sees the burqa as an offensive slogan - "women should be imprisoned", and such a strong political statement is not socially acceptable in public spaces.
The problem with this approach is that it has to overcome the feeling that this would be trampling on the religions and/or cultures of others. It is this respect for religion and tradition that has to be overcome in order to deal with the burqa.
I believe that not having a law to ban the burqa is actually a positive step, as dealing with the burqa then requires discussion and negotiation with the wearers. This may help with mutual understanding and integration in a way that legal action almost certainly won't.