The culture of science fetishism

The New York Times belatedly discovers that sciencebloggers don’t actually give a damn about science qua science.

Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?

Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for contemplation, pummeling its enemies in absentia: ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd. Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.

There is the salient bit: “rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science”.” That is exactly the same point about the fraudulent bait-and-switch so often utilized by scientists upon which I have been hammering for several years now. It is interesting that an increasingly broad spectrum of people are now beginning to notice that just as not all that glitters is gold, not all that identifies itself with science is actually scientific. Writing about science isn’t science. Bitching about the Catholic church isn’t science. Molesting food with malicious intent isn’t science. Even teaching about science isn’t science. These things may be important, they may be necessary, they may be entertaining, but they are not science. This is precisely why I have always identified PZ Myers and others like him as charlatans; they claim to be scientists on the basis of their academic credentials rather than because they are actually doing any science.

By which logic I note that I am not only an economist, but East Asian to boot. If studying Japan doesn’t make you Japanese, studying science cannot make you a scientist.

The downward spiral

Sasquatch writes: I sincerely hope you can write a blog entry about this. I can’t properly put into words how much rage I feel for those who’ve tried to destroy this man’s life. He was falsely accused of molesting a neighbor’s child and he’s put together the entire journey in detailed fashion. It touches on so many of the issues you write about – abuses of the Department of Social Services, misuse of police powers, herd mentality, churchianity, and the pressure on a traditional nuclear family.

In November of 2006, I was accused by a family whom we considered our friends, of inappropriately touching their 4 year old daughter during a party out my home.  The accusation was ridiculous, as in our house at the time were more than 15 adults.  Regardless, I was arrested, placed in jail, released, lost my job, removed from my home for a year, lost all but our closest of friends, and shunned by our neighbors.  For the first time in all of my years of living in the US, I have a criminal record.  What makes all of this so shocking is I did nothing.  There was no evidence beyond the word of a 4-year old girl.

Follow the money and notice that the “victim’s” family actually made a couple of thousand dollars off the accusing process. And note that it is ALWAYS a mistake to speak to the police in America without a lawyer present. Be pleasant and be polite, but do not ever offer information or cooperate in any way, shape or form. They will take even the smallest shred of barely relevant information and use it to spin a fictional narrative; their job is to find a perpetrator and feed him into the machine, not to divine the truth. Unless you wish to become a part of that narrative, you must keep your mouth shut. Furthermore, keep in mind that their assurances to you are worthless; courts have repeatedly confirmed that the police are permitted to lie to witnesses and suspected perpetrators alike.

Now, perhaps I’ve been living in Italy too long, but it seems to me that the man would likely have been better off spending the thirty thousand on MS-13 instead of lawyers and court fees if he wanted to get the charges dropped. These miscarriages of justice are exactly why people have historically turned to godfathers and gangleaders instead of being willing to let the machinery of the system run its course.

Of course, the primary lesson is to absolutely refuse all physical contact with children who are not your own. I’m not the touchy-feely type, so this is not at all a problem for me, but men of an avuncular inclination should take note. If you never touch other children, much less permit them to sit on your lap, your denials of any potential false accusation will be all the more credible.

The Writer’s Lottery, part II

Vrye Denker expresses a certain degree of incredulity: The successful writing career of Katie Price? As in Jordan?

Yes. Exactly. In fact, the woman is topping the bestseller lists even as we contemplate the matter:

July 29, 2010 – One time glamour model Katie Price looks set to reach the number one spot of the Sunday Times Bestseller list with the publication of her lastest book in the Angel trilogy entitled Paradise. Katie known also as Jordan will see her novel go straight to the fiction top spot for hardbacks as her Random House publishers revealed that the book is outselling its nearest rival by two to one.

In other words, she is presently outselling the best-selling Harry Potter novel and the bestselling Twilight novel combined.  And that would be why I don’t worry about how well my books sell or equate book sales with literary quality. No doubt Katie Price will, like JK Rowling before her, have an entire generation of children – girls anyway – reading too. Having written numerous bestsellers, she is obviously a literary giant and an example to be much-imitated by ambitious young writers of the future.

The face of modern literature

WND column

You Were Warned

The ECRI’s Weekly Leading Indicators has now fallen eight consecutive weeks and has been below -10 for two consecutive weeks. … [T]here has never been a WLI plunge in history of this depth and duration, nor any dip at all below -10 that has not been associated with a recession.
– Mike Shedlock, ECRI WLI in Negative Territory, July 31, 2010

The percent change from the preceding year in real GDP was revised down for all 3 years: from 2.1 percent to 1.9 percent for 2007, from an increase of 0.4 percent to 0.0 percent for 2008, and from a decrease of 2.4 percent to a decrease of 2.6 percent for 2009.
– Bureau of Economic Analysis, Revised Estimates: 2007 through First Quarter 2010, July 30, 2010

As the government statisticians revise their statistics downward and the leading indicators suggest that the so-called recovery is nothing more than an artifact of massive federal borrowing and spending, I thought it would be useful to revisit the scenario that I considered to be the most likely when I finished writing “The Return of the Great Depression” thirteen months ago. Given the advantage of one year of hindsight, I see absolutely no reason to change my conclusion regarding the ongoing global economic contraction. “It is not over. It has only begun.”

Mailvox: interpretive fails

Dawo appears to have a wildly inaccurate understanding of how the literary world works:

I think the present blog is not designed to encourage actual debate, and it is likewise not designed to encourage echo-chamber-style mutual affirmation. If I had to guess, I would guess that this blog is designed to maximize the writing career of the writer who blogs here.

He’s correct in that the comments are just there to let people comment if they wish; I added them in response to numerous requests. But I don’t think alienating pretty much every editor in both the SF/F and CBA publishing worlds with one’s exotic socio-political views is generally considered to be the optimal way to maximize one’s writing career. I have had no less than three negotiated book contracts canceled simply because a female member of the pub board took offense to something I wrote in a column or on this blog. One of them was even signed, so I ended up getting paid to NOT write the books. This is why Media Whores and the UK translation of The Irrational Atheist do not exist. Needless to say, this experience has completely caused me to rethink my position on female fascism and women’s tolerance for opinions that diverge from their own.

In short, I don’t give a damn about my writing career. In fact, I seem to recall posting about how the very concept of the professional writing career is dying out not all that long ago. By which I mean scroll down one post!

Meanwhile, Joe theorizes about my interest in Game:

Why women overrate themselves … or why Vox sublimates himself. Man Vox, dont you have better things to think about? Your titular observations may be interesting to the ilk but boy, you likewise lower your value in your vocational pursuit for no apparent reason except for your amusing titalation of the ilk. I surmize you have unsettled issues with some so-so looker that beat you in arm wrestling one night on the bowery, correct?

Well, I’m not terribly concerned about DLV’ing. A picture being worth a thousand words and all, the following one may at least partially explain why I do not, in fact, have any unsettled issues with anyone, so-so looks or otherwise. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with so-so looks, it’s just that they may as well be invisible to me.

The Writer’s Lottery

Forget ebooks and technology. The main reason you have to be stupid – not just misguided, ill-informed, or stubborn, but downright stupid – in order to pursue writing as a primary career is a structural market reality explained by a man whose career as a writer is nearing an end:

Here’s how it works. Barnes and Noble and Borders, the major bookstore chains, control the lion’s share of retail book sales. They order centrally for all their outlets together, for instance there is a single buyer for all science fiction, all mysteries, etc. How, you may well ask, can these buyers read and pass judgement on, for example, the over 1000 SF titles published in a year?

Of course the answer is they can’t. Instead, an equation makes the buys of most of the books on the racks or blackballs the ones that don’t make it that far. It’s called “order to net.”

Let’s say that some chain has ordered 10,000 copies of a novel, sold 8000 copies, and returned 2000, a really excellent sell-through of 80%. So they order to net on the author’s next novel, meaning 8000 copies. And let’s even say they still have an 80% sell-through of 6400 books, so they order 6400 copies of the next book, and sell 5120….

You see where this mathematical regression is going, don’t you? Sooner or later right down the willy-hole to an unpublishablity that has nothing at all to do with the literary quality of a writer’s work, or the loyalty of a reasonable body of would-be readers, or even the passionate support of an editor below the very top of the corporate pyramid.

And there’s a further wrinkle to it because what significant independent bookstores that still survive and the non-speciality outlets like WalMart subscribe to BookScan and have access to the Death Spiral numbers too and act accordingly. If there’s a book to order at all, because in many cases if the chains’ order to net equation zeros out and they don’t order at all, the book in question doesn’t get published. Back in the day, I knew of novels that were commissioned, accepted, and paid for but never published because the chains didn’t order. Today BookScan prevents such expensive mistakes from happening by aborting them at the acquisition stage.

Voila, the Death Spiral. And I too am in it.

One should never start writing with the idea that it will be one’s primary career. Ironically, I think the quality of books being published is going to improve with the end of the professional writing career. I am deeply and increasingly unimpressed with what the publisher-as-gatekeeper model produces these days. As the success of JK Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, and Katie Price have demonstrated, the best way to sell a lot of books is to produce cliched literary trash that will appeal to the lowest common denominator, and furthermore, it is entirely possible to do it as a sideline. So there’s no rational reason to attempt to pursue writing as a primary career unless one finds the idea of literary penury to be romantic. But if you are foolish enough to decide to play the Writer’s Lottery anyway, keep in mind that you’re going to be increasingly competing with people like me who write for pleasure, don’t expect to make money off it, and price their books accordingly.

RGD, for example, usually bounces between a rank as Amazon’s 2,000 and 5,000 best-selling paid Kindle book when priced at one-fifth the normal Kindle rate, but between its 50,000 and 100,000 best-selling book at the normal hardcover price. It’s exactly the same text, so that tells us that the price elasticity of books will permit free and low-priced books to increasingly dominate the market as the market continues to move towards easily produced electronic books and the power of the gatekeepers is increasingly diminished.

Dorito Night must-see

I have to admit I am a little surprised at the backbone of the BBC. But Withrow is right and the orientationally-challenged of the world will have to learn that if they want to be celebrities in the public eye, they have to accept being mocked just like everybody else:

Gill sparked the row with his comments in a review of her new show ‘Britain by Bike’ in the Sunday Times last weekend.

He wrote: ‘Some time ago, I made a cheap and frankly unnecessary joke about Clare Balding looking like a big lesbian. And afterwards somebody tugged my sleeve to point out that she is a big lesbian, and I felt foolish and guilty.

‘So I’d like to take this opportunity to apologise. Sorry. Now back to the dyke on a bike, puffing up the nooks and crannies at the bottom end of the nation….

Balding was so incensed at the critic’s dig about her sexuality that she raised it with his editor, John Witherow of the Sunday Times.

But she was astonished when Mr Witherow told her she should accept occasionally being made the butt of jokes. His reply stated: ‘In my view, some members of the gay community need to stop regarding themselves as having a special victim status and behave like any other sensible group that is accepted by society.

‘Jeremy Clarkson, perhaps the epitome of the heterosexual male, is constantly jeered at for his dress sense (lack of), adolescent mindset and hairstyle. He puts up with it as a presenter’s lot and in this context I hardly think that AA Gill’s remarks were particularly cruel, especially as he ended by so warmly endorsing you as a presenter.’

Besides, who is dumb enough to put a fat lesbian on any form of two-wheeled apparatus and NOT expect someone to make a crack about “dykes on bikes”.

Mailvox: responding to a liberal

CG asks for help in responding to this, but I think he is probably looking in the wrong place by coming here:

Conservatives have no clue about business. They think that business can sell MORE AND MORE to people who have jobs paying less money, with a collapsing middle class. Who is going to buy stuff after we get through gutting the system and eliminating the buying power of workers in this country? What fuels consumption now that the borrowing binge we’ve been on for thirty years is over. Can consumers borrow their way to prosperity, along with our economy. How do you pay for the $10s of trillions in private debt that has masked a collapsing real economy which used to be fueled by savings and investment?

40 years ago we had a third of the private work force unionized, tariffs to protect domestic industry, 70% marginal rates on income over about 3 million, and were the most prosperous country on earth, the exporter and lender to the world. Now that Reaganomics has worked it’s magic for 30 years, China owns us.

Not sure how you think us running 30-40 billion per month trade and current account deficits will work out long term. Love to hear the theory of how we import our way to prosperity, trading jobs that produce wealth, transform raw materials into valuable to valuable goods, for “service” jobs that add no wealth and don’t sustain any economy that I’ve known of in all of recorded history. How long can we keep sending the rest of the world paper, and they send us oil and TVs and cars, and clothes and electronics, etc. Seem unsustainable to me, but I don’t understand how business works.

This demonstrates why the Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative poles simply don’t apply to the present economic situation very well. CG’s liberal interlocutor is correct in diagnosing the problem as debt and “free trade”, but he is incorrect in thinking that Reaganomics is to blame for either of them and he is deeply mistaken to think that high marginal tax rates helped produce societal wealth. One doesn’t increase savings and investment through taxation, after all, and while it is absolutely true that consumers can’t borrow their way to prosperity, governments can’t tax-and-spend their way there either, Keynesian arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.

The reason we were the most prosperous country on Earth 40 years ago was very simple and easily proved. The USA was about the only major economy on Earth that had not had its industrial infrastructure completely destroyed by World War II and American industry made an absurd amount of money selling both consumer and capital goods into European and Asian markets that had to rebuild their industrial base. This was the source of our post-1940s economic growth and concomitant wealth. Now that all of our former competitors have rebuilt their economies and numerous other countries have succeeded in developing theirs, it has naturally become much more difficult to maintain our economic primacy vis-a-vis the rest of the world. As I have previously stated, but have yet to conclusively prove, the Ricardian concept of comparative advantage has turned out to be incorrect and therefore American wealth should be expected to decline in both a relative and absolute sense as other countries grow at the expense of American industry and workers in a free trade environment.

It’s not that conservatives have no clue about business, they have no clue about economics. But neither do liberals; the fact that one party is incorrect does not automatically make the other right. The fact that conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike supported TARP, the banking bailouts, and the automotive bailouts demonstrates that the intrinsic problem is superpolitical and therefore will not be solved regardless of which political faction ends up temporarily on top.

Why women overrate themselves

Veronica: Why do you have to be such a mega-bitch?
Heather #1: Because I can be.

Most men understand it when the most attractive women consider themselves too good for the average joe. Because, in short, they are, and few men have much of a problem with that. Where men get confused and irritated is when a woman who is manifestly NOT too good for them by any reasonable objective metric acts as if she genuinely believes that she is. The reason is exactly as Occam’s Razor suggests. She does. And here’s why.

Women have a strong preference to date and mate up. Men, on the other hand, are much more inclined to date broad-spectrum and mate down. And while most men understand that the definition of “up” varies according to sex – men placing extra value on looks and sexual history, women placing emphasis on social status and wealth – they don’t understand the logical consequences of women dating up and men dating down. And these consequences are further exacerbated by men generally being the pursuers and women the pursued.

Look at it this way. A woman who manages to attract the passing attention of a higher-status man, even if she does so through taking the role of the pursuer, is quite reasonably, if incorrectly, inclined to consider herself worthy of the attentions of higher status men in the future despite the declining marginal utility of her youth and sexual history. This is why a woman will always identify her status by the football star, the surgeon, or the singer in the band with whom she once spent a few hours rather than by the nondescript fellow who was her boyfriend for several years, regardless of how long ago it was. Roissy had an amusing post about a woman who had dated Anthony Kiedis a long time ago and actually carried around pictures of them in order to show them to people she had just met.

This creates an essentially Austrian problem of false signals leading to malinvestment. Because women do not distinguish between the quantity of male attention and the quality, the conflation encourages them to a) overrate their own attractiveness, and, b) invest their time and attention in men who are not likely to have any interest in them beyond the immediate term. So, the female 6 considers herself an 8 by virtue of the times that a male 9 decided that she was the best available at the moment, and quite logically feels insulted when she is approached by a male 5 or 6. Meanwhile, the male 6 is standing there in astonishment, staring at what he believes is quite clearly an appropriate counterpart and wondering who in the world she thinks she is.

What this means is that thanks to modern hook-up culture, the average woman now tends to consider herself a 7 or 8 rather than a 5, which is one of the many social factors that make it hard for her to eventually “settle”.

What makes a statement “scientific”?

Dan Gezelter of Open Science contemplates the question:

Popper concluded that it is impossible to know that a theory is true based on observations (O); science can tell us only that the theory is false (or that it has yet to be refuted). He concluded that meaningful scientific statements are falsifiable.

A more realistic picture of scientific theories isn’t this simple. We often base our theories on a set of auxiliary assumptions which we take as postulates for our theories. For example, a theory for liquid dynamics might depend on the whole of classical mechanics being taken as a postulate, or a theory of viral genetics might depend on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. In these cases, classical mechanics (or the Hardy-Wienberg equilibrium) are the auxiliary assumptions for our specific theories.

These auxiliary assumptions can help show that science is often not a deductively valid exercise…. Falsifying a theory requires that auxiliary assumption (AA) be demonstrably true. Auxiliary assumptions are often highly theoretical — remember, auxiliary assumptions might be statements like the entirety of classical mechanics is correct or the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is valid! It is important to note, that if we can’t verify AA, we will not be able to falsify T by using the valid argument above. Contrary to Popper, there really is no asymmetry between falsification and verification. If we cannot verify theoretical statements, then we cannot falsify them either.

Since verifying a theoretical statement is nearly impossible, and falsification often requires verification of assumptions, where does that leave scientific theories? What is required of a statement to make it scientific?

In light of the increasing tendency of scientists to gravitate towards credentialism, authoritarianism, and hiding behind fictional concepts of property, I find the development of the Open Science movement to be both significant and encouraging. There is nothing that will hinder, if not outright prevent, the transformation of science from a method open to anyone into a technocratic ideologically-driven priesthood more effectively than forcing scientific papers and pronouncements to stand publicly on their own merits.

Open Source Software has transformed the world of software development; at least one-third of the programs I now use on a daily basis are OSS. I suspect Open Science has the potential to have an even more significant and even more necessary impact on the increasingly corrupt and politicized field of science. But just as the developers of proprietary software continue to fight the rising tide of open source software, one can expect the practitioners of closed science to bitterly resist open science. I, for one, anticipate hearing the convoluted arguments they will present for keeping science safely locked away behind credentialed doors.

Many things have changed in the past 46 years, but Richard Feynman’s definition of science is even more applicable today than it was when he first articulated it: “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”